I fully affirm nonviolent interpretations of the Atonement. My comment about “blood sacrifice” did not have a ton of integrity. I acknowledge that Jesus’ blood sacrifice is quite different than say an American soldier’s blood sacrifice. But many Christians believe in the “substitutionary” theory of the atonement, in which an angry God, in response to our sinfulness, demands a violent sacrifice to be appeased. While this is still something different than American civil religion, it opens up many potential justifications for violence and is enough for me to throw up caution before lauding Christianity over civil relgion.

Saying “Jesus is Lord” is one thing; saying “my belief system is right and yours is wrong” is quite another. Over and over again I hear people refer to the “idolatry” of the national anthem, or I hear people decry civil religion as if it’s self-explanatory why civil religion is evil and Christianity is good. I’ve seen enough good in my non-religious neighbors and enough sinfulness in my Christian brothers and sisters to get fed up with the kind of talk that presumes Christian superiority.

Perhaps we demonstrate our allegiance to Christ best when we are quick to acknowledge the log in our own eye.

Jason seems to draw on similar sources to this Stanley Hauerwas piece:

http://www.plowsharesproject.org/journal/php/article.php?issu_list_id=8&article_list_id=11

Yes, of course, Christianity is based in part on blood sacrifice–the blood of Jesus and of the martyrs. Hauerwas explains why the sacrifice encompassed in the cross is incompatible with the sacrifices of war and of American civil religion.

Christians affirm that Jesus is Lord. It is not clear to me that simply making a truth claim is hypocritical. Hauerwas and Alexis-Baker are not arguing that worship or sacrifice are bad–they are arguing against worshiping or sacrificing to unworthy idols.

He explains that federal law dictates proper etiquette for observing the anthem (standing, removing headwear, putting your hand to your heart, etc). To the best of my knowledge, no law says that any institution has to play the anthem at any time.

Therefore, Goshen College’s old policy of not playing the anthem was a simple choice of preference: they preferred not to play the anthem (for reasons of theology and conscience) and so they didn’t. Now, with the anthem playing, every individual in attendance has the opportunity to essentially perform an act of civil disobedience by ignoring or defying the etiquette spelled out in law.

Conclusion: individual protest is more radical than institutional protest.

I doubt that it was Andy’s intention (since I know he’s one of the key protesters to Goshen’s decision) but his piece seems to support my logic that the real test will be in whether we see Brenneman, Roth, Leichty, and others observing the anthem according to protocol or not.

I am unsure about his dramatic claims of the anthem’s ritualistic hold on our psyche; I will have to do some soul-searching on that one but for now I feel like the concern is overblown.

By the way, is it not interesting that Andy’s piece refers to American patriotism as a “civil religion of blood sacrifice?” Isn’t “blood sacrifice” at the heart of most people’s understanding of Christianity?

The more heretical I become in my Christian faith, the more hypocrisy I see in the deriding of civil religion. The Christian God can easily become an “idol” just blinding as the American flag. I can’t help but hear a sense of self-righteous superiority in the claim that our worship of “God” is better than their worship of the flag. I do have my own faith and belief in a power (a “God”) much higher than the American flag, however, that faith does not lead me to belittle the rituals of American patriots anymore more than it would have me belittle the rituals of any “bonafide” religion.

—————-

Tim, yes, you already stated your objections to the Burkholder school of thought. My point was that I heard Brenneman saying he wants the Burkholder emphases to stand side-by-side (or in tension) with the Bender/Hershberger/Yoder emphases, not for one to take over the other.

I’m sure there are other better ways to make non-Mennonite students at GC feel welcome and valued. One of those ways is to make explicit who the Mennonites are before we take their money so that folks know what they’re getting into. But one way is to let non-Mennonites live out their faith in ways authentic to who they are, not who we are.

Any supposed divisions caused by this anthem decision should not be put on those non-Mennonites who want the anthem played. They feel like they’re being attacked because they are. Read through the comments on that petition:

“The national anthem is a slap in the face for everything the Gospel stands for.”

“I’m ashamed of this decision and the responsible parties.”

“…As GC continues to sell its soul to the devil, might I suggest they consider the benefits of ROTC. And, I’m sure there might be some payoff on having recruiters on-site as students file into chapel each morning–at least 30 pieces of silver.”

Or we could look to Andy Alexis-Baker in his piece on the anthem where the playing the anthem and other engagement with the world makes us “toadies and sycophants for the establishment.” (http://www.jesusradicals.com/goshen-college-hurts-the-church/)

I guess I can’t get my head around the idea that we’re expecting an institution to be pure (especially an academic institution).

As for your response about JB and JLB, I’m sorry if you thought I was attributing those to you. I was responding to Matthew Keiser, sorry if I was unclear.

Anyways, thanks for responding Tim. I have appreciated your article and the discussion here because it has avoided attacking GC over the issue. Well played, Tim.

I identify with your flexibility in worship style. I’ve found it’s important to be able to get past that to focus on whether the relationships in the community nurture you or not.

I think Andy Alexis-Baker does a good job responding to your claims that the Anthem ritual is innocuous here:

http://www.jesusradicals.com/totem-rituals-and-the-star-spangled-banner/

As far as the Brenneman/Burkholder “loyal opposition” position goes, I’ve already clearly explained above why find the “loyal” aspect of this very problematic.

More importantly, we can already see the fruit of school of thought in organizations like Mennonite Mutual Aid. Their president Brenneman appropriate Burkholder’s ethical framework to justify institutional isomorphism. That is, when institutions move to become more like other institutions at the expense of their mission and vision. Mennonite Mutual Aid is much farther along this path then Goshen College…

CharlesB,

I agree that its very important to make non-Mennonite students feel welcome at GC, but seeing the anthem as a solution to this suggests a deep lack of imagination. It treats a symptom without doing anything to address the underlying relationship issues. More then likely, it will exacerbate the divisions, because non-Mennonite students will see opposition to the anthem as an attack on them.

I wouldn’t call Burkholder and Brenneman despicable. I also don’t think that Bender, Hershberger and Yoder are the totality of Anabaptism. There’s a whole new generation of theologian/activists (Andy and Nekeisha Alexis-Baker for example) that are exploring the ways that Anabaptists can engage with the government and society in authentic ways that make it clear where our allegiance lies.

At the very beginning of Anabaptism, it was a movement of radical evangelical social change activists. I’m hopeful that a new generation of Anabaptists are reviving those roots. But I’m deeply skeptical that a philosophy of “loyal opposition” that puts accommodation and compromise at the center will lead the way.

They weren’t necessarily open to changing their old ways of doing things, but since those ways felt new to me, it worked out. Having a specific music style or way of organizing the Sunday service doesn’t matter to me. I’m one of what feels like very few people who enjoys both serious organ hymns and loud rocking-it-out choruses. All one or the other feels a little lacking, but I’m flexible.

Thanks for sharing about your journey to the UCC. It’s especially interesting to hear how you enjoyed not having people your age at the church.

I hope that getting to know a different part of the community where you grew up will be a fruitful and eye opening experience.

Thanks for the times you helped out with admin here on the blog. We’ll miss your contribution.

Sincerely,
Tim

To me allowing the anthem to be played seems like a very small, sensible compromise for Mennonites to make in order to demonstrate to other students that they are equally valued on campus.

I don’t know what it’s like at Goshen but I know that when I was at Bethel (KS) the non-Mennonite voice felt at least a little bit marginalized, even though Mennonites made up only 40% of the student body (much less than at Goshen).

People talk about the anthem as if it waters down, compromises, even makes hypocrisy of everything else Goshen does in the name of Mennonite identity and peacemaking. I simply cannot understand this logic. Maybe if Jim Brenneman, John Roth, Joe Leichty, and others all faced the flag with their hands on their hearts, mouthing the words as the anthem played, then I would sense that Goshen’s peace witness is being compromised. Until then I foresee non-Mennonite Goshen athletes feeling more at home there and more receptive to the Mennonite-based teachings of Roth, Leichty, and others. Perhaps one of these students will eventually even think twice before putting their hand to their heart as the instrumental anthem plays over the land of the Mapleleaf.

Also, I don’t see Brenneman rejecting Bender, Hershberger, and Yoder. His speech fully affirms their approach. He says he desires a “synthesis” between the culture of dissent and the culture of engagement. I don’t get why people think he’s going off the deep end in one direction. TimN says he uses the “loaded term ‘naysayers’” to describe the B/H/Y school of thought. He also uses the terms “prophets” and “non-conformists.” He says we need naysayers to “proclaim the radical “NO” to injustice.” That seems pretty affirming to me.

Thank you for your response.

Goshen does claim to be a Mennonite college (thank you for pointing me to that) but as a recent alum I’m not entirely sure that gets to the root of who GC is or who they are becoming. Goshen was started by the Mennonite church as a place of higher learning for Mennonites and Goshen is still supported by and affiliated with the Mennonite church.

However, Mennonites have not been attending Goshen (or any Mennonite college, I believe) in sustainable rates for quite some time. Mennonites, while a major constituency of Goshen College, are no longer the only one. To call non-Mennonites “a sizable minority” sounds dismissive to me, after all there are more non-Mennonites than men on campus (http://www.goshen.edu/aboutgc/diversity/). I do not believe that Goshen College can claim a pure Mennonite identity anymore nor do I believe that it should.

That is not to say that Goshen is in no way Mennonite, that is certainly going too far and I’m sorry if it was overstated in my last post. I value the Mennonite voice of Goshen College, and I would mourn the loss of that identity. However that identity is not the sum of Goshen College nor the only thing of value there.

The Goshen College I know was (and I believe still is) trying negotiate this complex identity balancing Mennonite heritage/identity/theology with the reality of an increasingly diverse student body. Goshen’s mission has expanded beyond the education of Mennonite youth to encompass those outside the Mennonite tradition as well. While this decision to play the national anthem before some sporting events does not reflect my faith, it does reflect someone’s. And I’m not entirely convinced that the decision is not opening up room for dialogue in ways that refraining hadn’t.

Your concern of Goshen losing its Mennonite heritage is valid and something I share but your characterization of dialogue leaves much to be desired. First let me say that a major problem for non-Mennonites at Goshen is feeling like outsiders. Many leave because they feel excluded by insider Mennonite language, cultural references and theology. Too often Mennonite concerns and ideas dominate the discourse on campus to the exclusion of others.

In playing the anthem before some sporting events the Goshen administration legitimizes (some) of these non-Mennonite folks’ presence and experience at the college. In addition this decision shows humility and the recognition of a view other than our own. Much of how you talked about dialogue sounded more like a persuasive speech, its one way with us “[seeking] to win over the non-Mennoniite dissenters.” However as all on this blog realize dialogue is two way and we must also open ourselves up to learning and change for dialogue to truly take place.

So again I ask how can Goshen “find a way to honor its Mennonite heritage without silencing the rich and diverse opinions within the community?” Perhaps they can distance the decision to play then anthem from the college’s teaching position by placing the decision and implementation to play the anthem with the athletes. It’s a tricky question, but an important one that I think Goshen has been struggling with and should be made more explicit.

As for the Brenneman/Burkholder philosophy, perhaps I did “swallow whole” their idea of engagement. Certainly I should real more Burkholder before I can speak intelligently about his thought. However I think Brenneman and Burkholder should be shown more respect than you gave them in the calling their ideas “despicable and intellectually shallow.” I also take issue with the idea that Anabaptist thought is found in its totality in Bender, Hershberger and Yoder.

Finally, in my own experience working in DC as a policy advocate, I find that engagement with the government is important not because it gives me power, but because it empowers people to help others. Many of my organizations constituents would cease to provide services for those in need without government funding. I engage not for myself but for others. Engagement is important and I hope that with its new school of thought Goshen will help students explore creative and faithful ways for Christians to engage the world.

I’d suggest that Menno’s summary is also great if you’re looking for a holistic description of Christian faith. What the folks in Ghana seem to be interested in is what makes Mennonite faith distinctive among Christian traditions - particularly as understood by the founders.

In order to get at this I think you can do no better than to look at the pre-Menno Schleitheim Confession in which a number of the founders came to consensus about Anabaptist distinctives.

One attempt to translate those distinctives looks like this:

The Schleitheim Consensus of 1527 is the first broadly recognized document of Anabaptist sentiment. In this time of crisis, a number of Anabaptist leaders converged in Schleitheim, Switzerland to clarify the beliefs about which they were risking their lives. Many of those gathered would become martyrs within years. The consensus emphasizes that the life of following Jesus must be a voluntary one self-determined by the individual.

Article I. Being a disciple of Jesus involves a self-determined voluntary commitment to the Christian faith (therefore baptizing children was inappropriate).

Article II. Being a disciple of Jesus involves a self-determined voluntary commitment to the peacemaking Rule of Christ (Matthew 18:15-20 – promotes reconciliation and serves as discipline rather than appeal to coercive authorities).

Article III. Being a disciple of Jesus involves an ongoing self-determined voluntary commitment to faithful discipleship (the Lord’s supper is to be shared only with those who continue to be responsive to the teachings of the Jesus and reconciled to one another [see article II]. The presence of Jesus is not in the memorial bread and wine but in the gathered, reconciled, body of believers.)

Article IV. Being a disciple of Jesus involves a self-determined voluntary commitment to holiness (requiring a separation from worldly ungodliness).

Article V. Disciples of Jesus self-determine who will serve as their pastors (rather than the appointment of church leaders by the State church elite).

Article VI. Being a disciple of Jesus involves a self-determined voluntary refusal to use violence (Church discipline was enforced only by notification that an repeatedly unrepentant individual could no longer be “on the team” [the ban] and not by violence; Christians should not serve as judges or magistrates in positions of power requiring the threat of force; [there is little reason to believe they would have endorsed voting as a means to encourage others to be responsible for taking actions the voter finds abhorrent]).

Article VII. Being a disciple of Jesus involves a self-determined voluntary commitment to humility and allegiance only to God (commitments are made with a simple “yes” or “no” in recognition of how finite humans are and therefore the uncertainty of human promises – this in contrast to those who make bold oaths, guarantees, and pledge ultimate allegiance to anything other than God.)

In context of a state/church monopoly directing how people lived their lives the Anabaptist movement is rightly understood as a human, or civil, rights movement. The founders insisted that the God-given dignities (or “rights”), particularly the dignities of self-determination in matters of faith, not be subject to coercion by others.

I have to take exception to just about everything you wrote. I’m not quite sure why you think that Goshen is “not just a Mennonite institution” any longer. Certainly there is a sizable minority of non-Mennonites on GC’s campus but Goshen’s own website specifically refers to itself as a “Mennonite College”:

http://www.goshen.edu/aboutgc/mennonites/

More importantly it is in fact a manifestation of the church; founded by the (old) Mennonite Church, built on and guided by Mennonite/Anabaptist principles, supported by and directly affilaited with MCUSA:

http://www.mennoniteeducation.org/MEAPortal/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=283

and with a majority student population that either are Mennonite/Anabaptist or are drawn to the Mennonite distinctives of the college. How is it then that Goshen has essentially outgrown its Mennoniteness?

If then it is a Mennonite institution what kind of logic is it to essentially deny their Mennonite distinctives, water-down their theology and witness to the world in order to give voice to a minority non-Mennonite population that may or may not feel silenced or to try and seek to engage with a world that plays by a different set of rules? Not that giving voice to dissent or culural engagement isn’t a good thing; it’s vital and necessary but wouldn’t it make more sense for Goshen to maintain their solidly Anabaptist identity, find ways to facilitate greater open dialogue and dissent and dare I say it…seek to win over the non-Mennoniite dissenters both on the campus and in the world with their counter-cultural ideas, their distinctive way of life and being church and their committment to Christ? How exactly does capitulation to the culture-at-large or a shedding and shredding of their Mennonite theology gain them respect and engagement with the world or with the non-Mennonites on their campus? What will be left to engage with? Once they’ve become like every other “Christian Liberal Arts College” what makes you think that anyone will want to engage with them at all? What differences, what unique ideas, what deep tradition will they bring to the table that will make the world curious, that will spark dialogue?

As for Mr. Brenneman’s twisted “2 Schools of Thought” philospohy. While you don’t like the packaging of it you seem to swallow whole this dispicable and intellectually shallow idea of compromising values and doctrine in order to gain credibility, power and traction in the larger culture. The Brenneman/Burkholder philosophy is a direct repudiation of Bender, Hershberger, Yoder and Anabaptism in general. Moreover their “new” school of thought while perhaps novel for Goshen Mennonites is not exactly new, it’s simply a tired reiteration of the brothers Niebhur with the obligitory “Mennonitey” veneer that keeps them from being dismissed out-of-hand.

One last thought, while the work of Bender, Hershberger and Yoder were obviously infuenced heavily by the Mennonite world in which they lived and moved and breathed; their work, especially that of Yoder, was Christocentric. We are this way, we believe this way, we live this way because we are essentially and primarily followers of Christ. Can the same be said for the Brenneman/Burkholder break? Is it Cristocentric, is it even bibliocentric? Except for some weak appeal to the Old Testament prophets it relies mainly on appeals to logic, expediency and some sense of “civic duty” that again comes less from Christ and more from Reinhold and Richard Niebhur.

http://www.themennonite.org/issues/12-13/articles/True_Evangelical_faith

(As a side note, I’m pretty sure that the reference to a Maroon T-Shirt was to my website - Mennoshirts.com. For the record, I was never asked to comment on that or engaged in any dialogue on it.)

http://mennoshirts.com/Shirts/True_Evangelical_Faith.html