“None of us is promised tomorrow, which makes me wonder if maybe we all shouldn’t be living as if we’re on our final journey home… Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well-preserved body but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out and loudly proclaiming, ‘Wow. What a ride!’ - Barbara Baumgardner in My Fantastic Final Journey

I came across this quote this morning while I was reading an article by Joan Hershberger in the latest issue of the Mennonite. It made my laugh out load and think of Gene. It was such a life he lived. And he died on the first warm day of the year, enthusiastically pedaling his bike to town, back home, and beyond.

Godspeed, brother. Godspeed.

As February wore on, it became clear in that we could no longer simply operate in emergency mode. We had to set up a sustainable campaign that could continue as long as our friends were held. In between spurts of media attention with the release of new videos, we needed to give reporters a reason to write about our friends and remind their captors that Tom, Harmeet, Norman and Jim were being kept from important work for peace they had been doing back home. As the Network of Christian Peace Organisations met, we had to figure out how to handle accounts since Norman was the treasurer. We tried to focus on this angle when talking with media..

March 5^th was the 100^th day of captivity for our friends, so 100 supporters gathered in Trafalgar Square with white doves. Two days later, another video was released showing Harmeet, Norman and Jim but not Tom. The three asked their respective governments to negotiate for their release. At the time, I rationalised Tom’s absence as simply reflecting the possibility that the group did not want to negotiate with the U.S. government. I was quite hopeful because this video didn’t include any threats against our friends. But on the following Saturday I heard the horrible news that Tom’s body had been found. The following days were very difficult. Although I had never met Tom, I felt like I had gotten to know him through working for his release. I can’t imagine how difficult it was for the Iraq team and for Tom’s family. My hope ebbed to its lowest point.

On this plane, right beside Tom’s coffin, was the coffin of an Iraqi detainee. So Tom accompanied an Iraqi detainee in death, just as he had done so often in life.

At Tom’s departure, Pyles read out from the Gospel of John, "The light shines in the darkness and the darkness did not overcome it" (1:5). In honour of Tom’s Iraqi companion, she spoke the words called out repeatedly from the mosques of Baghdad during the Shock and Awe bombing campaign in March 2003, "allah akhbar" (God is greater). She concluded the sending with words from the Jewish scriptures, "The LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD" (Job 1:21).

Dawn broke. The contingent of Puerto Rican soldiers nearby saluted. The plane taxied away. Venus, the morning star, shone brightly overhead as the night faded away.

Godspeed you, Tom, on your final journey home to your family and friends

Even now as I reread these lines, I feel myself reacting to the words. Tom’s witness and his spirit are still with us.

Experiencing the Lenten season in Palestine is unique. It carries with it incredible feelings of closeness and concreteness as one visits sites such as the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in the Old City of Jerusalem — the site where Christians believe Jesus Christ was crucified, buried and resurrected. Yet, those feelings of closeness are easily swallowed up by a sense of separation and forsakenness as one considers the current situation.

In the recently released Kairos Palestine Document, Palestinian Christians take this situation as their starting point in challenging theological interpretations of those “who use the Bible to threaten our existence as Christian and Muslim Palestinians,” trying to “attach a biblical and theological legitimacy to the infringement of our rights.”

Though Easter and its celebration of resurrection and new life defines Christianity, in a place like Palestine the season of Lent always seems more appropriate. Lent is a time of preparation in expectation for Easter. It is a time marked by fasting and other acts of penance with the practices of prayer, fasting and almsgiving signifying the pursuit of justice toward God, oneself and one’s neighbour.

With restrictions on movement and the denial of freedom of religion, this sense of Easter celebration delayed and Lenten season prolonged characterises much of life in the ‘Holy Land.’ Indeed, as Palestinians remember more than 40 years of occupation and more than 60 years of Nakba (catastrophe), the ongoing experiences of dispossession and justice delayed are all too real.

Palestinian livelihoods continue to be devastated as more land is being expropriated for the construction of a 430-mile or 700-kilometre barrier that has little to do with security and terrorism, built not on the ‘Green Line’ but instead on Palestinian land. As it cuts deeply into the West Bank, the Wall forms the borders of what some call ‘reservations’, isolated islands of land on roughly 40 to 50 per cent of the West Bank where Palestinians are confined.

Do not be afraid; for see—I am bringing you good news of great joy for all the people. (Luke 2.10)

For Christians, the words from Luke’s gospel hold the core of our faith: that God so loved the world that God came into the world in Christ to be born in our midst to embody hope and new life. During this sombre time of Lent, we look to Jerusalem and wait with eager anticipation for signs of new life.

Yet, even as we wait, do we listen to the voices of the children of Jerusalem today who still wait: for justice, for peace, for basic human rights, for a sign that the world hears them, trapped behind concrete walls and locked into tiny enclaves? When they hear the words of the angels: “Do not be afraid; for see — I am bringing you good news of great joy for all the people,” they wonder when this promise might include them, too.

What does it mean for us to proclaim this “good news?”

(see the rest of the article here, if you wish)

In January, Boa Sr died. At 85 years old, she was the last speaker of Aka-Bo. Until the 1850’s those who spoke Aka-Bo were one of 10 Great Andamanese tribes living their traditional life ways in the Andaman islands. Today, there are only 52 members of the remaining Great Andamanese tribes still living.

While the extinction of animal species receives considerable attention, the extinction of human cultures often goes unnoticed. Yet the loss of a people group and their cultural life ways is just as definitive as the loss of a species.

This is a tragic loss for the human family at many levels. Survival International has this haunting recording of Boa Sr singing:

What happened to the Aka-Bo? Hegemonizing civilization happened. It did its best to co-opt, pacify and manipulate the Great Andamanese after the British arrived on the island in the 1850s. When “pacification” of the indigenous people didn’t work, the British killed them by the hundreds and disease killed many more. The civilizing project was wildly successful. Within 50 years, the number of Great Andamanese went from 5,000 to 600. By 1961, there were only 19 indigenous Great Andamanese left. (Sources: Wikipedia and Survival International)

It would be nice to imagine that this cultural arrogance is a thing of the imperial past, relegated to material for the plot lines of Hollywood blockbusters. But the expansion of Western civilization continues at a breakneck pace. Here’s a story from just last year about a resort that is threatening the survival of another Adaman tribe, the Jarawa.

I’m reminded of this quote from Wade Davis:

We don’t think of ourselves as a culture in the West. We think that we somehow exist outside of time and culture. We’re the real world moving inexorably forward: Get with it or lose the train…

… we think that this economic system of ours exists out of culture, out of time, and is the inexorable wave of history when, by definition, it is simply the product of a certain set of human beings: our lineage.

With the death of Boa Sr, another people group died under the train of that lineage.

P.S. If you were looking for a review of Avatar or confused about why its mentioned in the headline, go read this excellent analysis by Nekeisha Alexis-Baker.

Like Folknotions, I didn’t leave YAR because I thought YAR was a bad place or because anyone had angered me. Rather…

1. I’m not Mennonite anymore, even though Anabaptism still influences my thinking and theology.
I started attending a Mennonite church with my family when I was 12. I left that church a little over a year ago, at 25, because of some undesirable circumstances that culminated and made clear to me in an instant that it wasn’t the church for me anymore. I haven’t set foot in that building for anything church-y since, and have had only limited contact with its members since. (My family still goes there, though, and I have lots of contact with them.)

When I left initially, I took a few weeks off from faith communities. I decided to check out a United Church of Christ congregation in the small town where I was living at the time. My dad’s side of the family is all UCC, so I felt a little more comfortable checking out a UCC church than the Methodist church next door, to which I had no pre-existing connection. I felt a need to participate in a faith community, but my finances had become such that I needed a church to which I could walk. Since I was planning on moving from that small town, I knew from the start that this congregation would be a transitional church for me.

It was a relatively “safe” place for me to be at that time in my life. I had broken off an engagement to someone I loved very much, and he was still making me miserable through stalking me and some other measures. In contrast to the Mennonite church I’d left, where there was an insanely high percentage of twentysomethings, this UCC church was highly concentrated with people above 70 years of age. It had the “new and different” appeal to me of being a fairly liturgical church and following a more formalized pattern of rituals than the Mennonite congregation. I know it’s backwards to most people for anyone to “discover” liturgy as something “new and different,” but I guess you’ll get that when every church you’ve regularly attended your entire life has eschewed any connection to the lectionary.

I moved a month and a half ago. I’m back in the city where I grew up, but I’m experiencing it in quite different ways than I had before. I’m working at a credit union with a very urban (read: black and poor) membership, and I’ve started attending another UCC church. This one isn’t so white-haired, and it’s allegedly the only “progressive” church in a four-county area. Maybe that’s just considering UCC churches, I don’t know. Anyway, this faith community is all about “accepting and affirming” people of all sexual orientations, gender identities, ages, ethnicities, native languages, ability levels, income levels, etc. And, they’ve most impressively affirmed me as a vegetarian, which tends to weird-out people in church settings. I’ve only been there a short time, but I’ve felt more welcomed and encouraged to flourish than I have anywhere else. Time will tell if their actions back up their words, of course, but it’s incredible even to have the words.

I’m still a pacifist, I still look askance at infant baptism (don’t ask me about the Catholic baptism-of-a-two-year-old I participated in as the godmother in Bolivia, long story), I still love multi-function practicality of spaces, and yes, I still love playing Dutch Blitz. I didn’t learn much four-part harmony in any Mennonite settings, so that association for me is null. I have yet to veganize whoopie pies, but someday I might. I don’t have a “Mennonite last name” and likely never will since I have no intentions of changing my name if/when I get married. But, then, well over half the people in my former Mennonite congregation didn’t, either.

2. I was losing interest in YAR.
This was happening before I left the specific Mennonite congregation where I spent 13 years. If I remember right, a lot of the active conversations were just too high-intellectual and high-theology for me to feel like I really had anything to contribute, and I reached my saturation point with reading them, too. While YAR was fresh and interesting to me when I first discovered it as a happy accident in the course of doing my job as a local news reporter, a few years later… eh, I could take it or leave it.

If that makes me sound shallow or as if I prefer participating in chit-chat than in talking about deep stuff, I wouldn’t know about that. :-p Seemingly-menial conversations also have a place in cementing a well-rounded community, on or off the Internet. I honestly don’t know what specifically I’d change about YAR or what it would look like. A chatroom might be fun, though. I am not a teenager, really.

I think it’s only fair, and correct, and in the interest of maintaining the fellowship here, that I step out from YAR. But, an explanation rather than a self-righteous “screw you guys, I’m going home!” is in order since explanations are so lacking in the blogosphere (and in my comments the last few months - Sorry Tim but I’ll send you an e-mail if I think I can answer your question about Marxism).

There are a number of things that led me in that direction, several of which I will enumerate here:

1) I’m not really a Mennonite anymore. Like, not even a little.

- The Mennonite church that shepherded me when I came to faith in 2006 closed its doors on Easter Sunday 2009. So I don’t attend there.

- I found that I don’t really have a “pacifist” position, in that if God were to order me to kill Amalekites, I would kill Amalekites (I say that knowing that I’ve said it quite bluntly, but believe me it’s not like I haven’t thought this over thoroughly).

- I don’t have a Mennonite last name (mine is Italian, and there aren’t many Italian Mennos out there). So I have no ties to Mennonite heritage.

- Mennonites tend to hold an Arminian soteriology, and I don’t. I’ve found that I’m much more Calvinist these days and becoming more so as the days go on.

- I don’t believe in that “pure church” stuff.

- I am becoming more paedobaptist than credobaptist. So that also takes me out of the Anabaptist category.

2) I have a much different political understanding than I did back in 2007.

- I don’t have a “non-violence” position.

- I don’t agree with the LGBTQ position taken by many here - though my objections are primarily theological and related to church matters.

3) I don’t have the same interests that many YAR folks have.

- The “emergent conversation” mostly bores me.

- various articulations of radical/re-defined Christianity do not interest me.

- Mennonite church issues do not interest me.

Some might think “oh boy, the fundies got to him!” or something like that. To do so would only demonstrate how little you know of me and my Christian walk thus far.

Some may want to ask questions about why I believe/don’t believe such and such. I understand wanting to do so, but I’m not interested in faceless conversations about my formative beliefs across the interweb, particularly with those who have never met me (despite what you may think, I don’t have an obligation to you).

So with all that said, I won’t be contributing to YAR anymore. Thank you to those who have welcomed me here and for the discussions we’ve had. I pray that fruitfulness comes of future discussions on this blog and that many are enriched by it.

“True evangelical faith is of such a nature that it cannot lie dormant, but manifests itself in all righteousness and works of love; it dies unto the flesh and blood; it destroys all forbidden lusts and desires; it seeks and serves and fears God; it clothes the naked; it feeds the hungry; it comforts the sorrowful; it shelters the destitute; it aids and consoles the sad; it returns good for evil; it serves those that harm it; it prays for those that persecute it; [it] teaches, admonishes, and reproves with the Word of the Lord; it seeks that which is lost; it binds us that which is wounded; it heals that which is diseased and it saves that which is sound; it has become all things to all men. The persecution, suffering, and anguish which befalls it for the sake of the truth of the Lord is to it a glorious joy and consolation.”

But let’s preface some of the particulars of where I come from and where I’m going with a much more fun sense of who I am.  I’m a very vocal, people oriented person. I love good conversation and do most of my best thinking vocally while in dialogue with others. Which unfortunately means I’m not a very good writer (hello, text ridden blog world), so part of what excites me about YAR here is a chance to engage in dialogue with intelligent people in a new medium, I think I’ll find that stretching. I like to laugh, I like to smile and I’ll hug just about anyone (though  I’m now getting better at recognizing appropriate hug settings :P). I enjoy good beer, fine wine, nerdy boardgames and plenty of other geeky activities (especially those involving other people).

I’m a Mennonite and was raised as such. I spent about six years in the Mennonite education system graduating from Goshen with a degree in Bible/Religion. And I’m going back in the fall for an MDiv from AMBS. I just can’t escape.

I spent last year in Vail, CO recovering from college. I worked as a Rental Tech for a small owner operated ski shop in the Village and spent a lot of time hitting the slopes. Got fairly good at it too. However a season in the service sector in such a rich/white/luxury spot in Vail combined with a very real lack of good friends and a local Menno church drove me to, and provided me the energy for, tackling a year of service with MVS.

So since last June I’ve been with the MVS house in DC working as a Policy Advocate at the National Coalition for the Homeless. I viewed the year in two parts, both actually doing something for awhile that wasn’t me focused (as opposed to schoolin and ridin) and as a last check to see if there was something outside of the church world that interested me. Turns out, I’m headin back to seminary. Working at NCH has begun to give me an understanding of some of the issues (in a very broad sense) and given me an interest in pursuing the end of homelessness from within the church.

Things currently on my mind include: whiteness, cultural appropriation, what I want to do with my life, how I’ll pay for AMBS and the appropriate level of information to respond with to queries about Mennoniteness.

If you got this far, thanks. If you didn’t I can’t say I blame you. I look forward to many fruitful dialogues here.

The end.

But I’m not here to talk about that. I’m here to talk about Avatar.

I understand that some feel that there is some racism in Avatar, and I can see their point, but it would be deeply embedded and certainly not obvious to the masses throughout the world watching it. However, I believe that part of the reason that Avatar is so popular is because of the open Anawim-like theology involved. There is a general morality throughout the world that the underdog should be supported and that God is on the side of the oppressed. Avatar not only supports this, but has a pretty strong morality/spirituality. As I sat and watched it a couple times, I wrote the following principles down that I think describes Avatar’s basic support of Anawim theology:

There is a empire, ruling the world, and its focus is to increase the wealth of a limited few, even if that hurts others. Everyone within the empire is a part of this system of greed, even if they superficially attempt to oppose it.

There is an alternative system which focuses on relationships, community and spiritual power.

The secret of the spiritual community is empathy. It is the sign that one is a part of the spiritual community, the unifying principle as well as the power. One has empathy with all life. Even if one must kill to survive, empathy requires that one feels the death of the other, and give it the respect that one would demand. The minimal amount of empathy is treating other’s life as one would be treated.

All empathy begins with understanding, with listening. Eventually, one can “see” another, deeply understanding the other, placing them as an equal in importance to oneself. Those who do not have the ability to understand, to empathize, are insane and cannot exist in the spiritual community.

But some relationships have deeper empathy, a full bond. In those relationships, two share their minds, their lives, their souls. And once bonded, the bond cannot be broken except through death. This is love.

The opposite to empathy, to bonding, is fear. To fear the other is to separate from the other. To listen to the other, one must receive the other; to accept the other, one must trust; to bond with the other one must unite.

Those of the empire cannot empathize. Yes, they can understand intellectually the other different from oneself, but they cannot truly see them as equals to themselves. They are so caught up in building their own empire for those like themselves, that they cannot see the other. So they outcast those who truly empathize, because the desires of empathy is opposite to the greed of the empire.

The evil empire wants the resources of the spiritual community and will ignore all the concerns of the spiritual community to get it. On the surface, the evil empire is more powerful than the spiritual community, and the spiritual community is in threat of extinction.

For the spiritual community to survive, there must be a mediator—one who knows what it is to be spiritual and one who has lived amidst the empire. He or she must be born of both worlds, but the Mediator does not straddle the fence. The Mediator must be on the side of the spiritual community, the weak, the oppressed, if they are to survive.

In the end, there will be conflict—disasterous conflict—between the empire and the spiritual community. And although the empire seems to have the greater power, the fact is that the spiritual community has a source that is at the core of all life. The only way to connect to that Source is through prayer. Thus, though the Mediator may use many different resources, the true power is found in prayer. Prayer is what changes the course for the spiritual community.

One must recognize, however, that the Source does not take sides between the empire and the spiritual community. The Source is on the side of all life, of order and balance. However, as long as the spiritual community is on the side of the Source, then the Source will act for them. And this action is more powerful than anything else they might conceive themselves.

Eventually, the spiritual community of empathy will rule the world and force the empire out. But this will only happen when the truly are united in Empathy. Only then will many in the Empire become united with the Source of all life, and seek balance.

What do you think?

Blest with vict’ry and peace, may the heav’n-rescued land
Praise the Pow’r that hath made and preserv’d us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause is just,
And this be our motto: “In God is our trust”
- Francis Scott Key, Start Spangled Banner, 1814

Last week my alma mater, Goshen College, announced that it would begin playing the Star Spangled Banner at sporting events. Their press release frames the decision as an exciting new theological and socio-political adventure for the college. Make sure to read the press release especially the quotes from GC president James Breneman and the GC Presidential Council.

I should say up front that this issue is fairly new to me. I wasn’t much of an athlete, so the playing of the national anthem was not an issue for me growing up. For a thoughtful perspective on GC’s decision from someone who has thought about this all their life, read a Open Letter to GC from Britt Kaufmann, longtime Mennonite athlete, coach and GC alum.

I’m mainly interested in this decision because of the way it was rolled out as part of a broader vision emerging from GC President James Brenneman. See his recent sermon Brenneman calls for new ’school of thought’ at Goshen of positive engagement in the world.

What right has one to prophesy, without accepting responsibility for decision-making, management and accountability? - J. Lawrence Burkholder as quoted by James Brenneman

Based on the GC press release, the message seems to be, through the text and accompanying photos, that Brenneman hopes to take GC in the path inspired by ethicist and former GC president J. Lawrence Burkholder. That is the Mennonite tradition of institution building and a focus on working from within the system. In the anthem release, Brenneman calls this approach that of the "loyal oppostion".

Wikipedia defines "Loyal opposition" as dissent "while maintaining loyalty to the source of the government’s power." In the UK, where the term was coined, that meant the Queen. When Brenneman uses this term, what source of the US governmet’s power is he pledging loyalty to? The largest military in the world? It’s economic hegemony?

To understand where Brenneman is headed requires a closer look at J. Lawrence Burkholder. Burkholder’s vision flows out of a focus on the "sea of moral ambiguity" as Perry Bush describes it in his article "The Political Education of Vietnam Christian Service, 1954-1975". Bush references the story I often heard Burkholder tell of the time while working in China when he forced frantic refugees off a plane while the pilot held a gun to their heads so that the plane could take off. For Burkholder, this story was the starting point for an Anabaptist ethical framework based on political compromise and accomodation rather then sectarian idealism.

I respect Burkholder’s critique of idealism and his recognition of the need to engage with moral ambiguity. Unfortunately, there seems to be a pattern of leaders of Mennonite institutions citing Burkholder’s work as they move their organizations towards the mainstream and away from distintive Anabaptist ways of being. In a chapter in Building Communities of Compassion: Mennonite Mutual Aid in Theory and Practice, GC Professor Keith Graber Miller writes about how former Mennonite Mutual Aid (MMA) president Howard Brenneman met regularly with Burkholder for breakfast as he gradual took MMA from being a mutual aid organization to being just another insurance and investment firm with Mennonites as a target market. For more on this see Peacewashing MMA.

Brenneman’s distinctive take on the Burkholderian path is to compromise and accomodate while in the name of prophetic critique. The Goshen College press release quotes the President’s council saying that play them anthem will "opens up new possibilities for members of the Goshen College community to publicly offer prophetic critique". That’s some serious Mennonite doublespeak, unless the GC administration has in mind some sort of court prophet role along the lines of Jim Wallis. Aside from Nathan, there aren’t a whole lot of positive biblical models for this. In fairness to Brenneman he does mention the need for "dissent standing outside the systems of the world" but he uses the loaded term "naysayers" to describe this school of thought.

Rather then trying to frame this decision as a new socio-theological adventure, I think they would be better off if they just acknowledged that this decision reflects the increasing number of non-Mennonite students at the college and specifically the fact that the athletic teams (aside from soccer) are mostly non-Mennonite. Simply saying that a majority of athletes want this change and that this decision reflects their wishes (as I have heard may be the case) would be a much less disturbing approach.

P.S. This article in the Record, the GC campus newspaper, offers a few student perspectives from the GC campus.

Rather then trying to invent and defend a new Mennonite socio-theological concept of “loyal oppostion”, I think GC would be better off if they just acknowledged that this decision reflects the increasing number of non-Mennonite students at the college and specifically the fact that the athletic teams (aside from soccer) are mostly non-Mennonite. Simply saying that a majority of athletes want this change and that this decision reflects there wishes (as I have heard is the case) would be a much less disturbing approach.

1/27/2010 Edit: removed “follow the path boldly forged by Mennonite schools like Bluffton University and Bethel College” from first sentence after concerns were raised by AlanS (see below).

2/15/2010 Update: There is now a on-line petition where you can express your opposition to Goshen College’s choice to play the anthem and a Facebook group opposing Goshen’s decision.

2/22/2010 Update: The Associated Press covers the the decision by Goshen College and the New York Times and Washington Post ran the story on Saturday, along with many other outlets (link to Google News search).

So I’ve recently run across the Catholic Rosary.  While I’m drawn to it’s structure and it’s ability to help people pray, as a good Anabaptist, I take issue with some of it’s theology.  So here is my initial thoughts and proposal for an Anabaptist Rosary.

First- An orientation to the actual Rosary.

How to pray the Rosary
1. Make the Sign of the Cross and say the “Apostles Creed.”
2. Say the “Our Father.”
3. Say three “Hail Marys.”
4. Say the “Glory be to the Father.”
5. Announce the First Mystery; then say
the “Our Father.”
6. Say ten “Hail Marys,” while meditating on the Mystery.
7. Say the “Glory be to the Father.”
8. Announce the Second Mystery: then say the “Our Father.” Repeat 6 and 7 and continue with the Third, Fourth, and Fifth Mysteries in the same manner.
9. Say the ‘Hail, Holy Queen’ on the medal after the five decades are completed.
As a general rule, depending on the season, the Joyful Mysteries are said on Monday and Saturday; the Sorrowful Mysteries on Tuesday and Friday; the Glorious Mysteries on Wednesday and Sunday; and the Luminous Mysteries on Thursday.

Prayers of the Rosary

THE SIGN OF THE CROSS

In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

THE APOSTLES’ CREED

I believe in God, the Father almighty, Creator of heaven and earth. I believe in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, and born of the Virgin Mary. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended to the dead. On the third day He rose again. He ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.

OUR FATHER

Our Father, who art in heaven; hallowed be Thy name; Thy kingdom come; Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread; and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us, and lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil. Amen.

HAIL MARY

Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

GLORY BE TO THE FATHER

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.

HAIL, HOLY QUEEN

Hail, Holy Queen, Mother of Mercy, our life, our sweetness and our hope, to thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve; to thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this vale of tears; turn, then, most gracious Advocate, thine eyes of mercy towards us, and after this, our exile, show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus. 0 clement, 0 loving, 0 sweet Virgin Mary!

Pray for us, 0 holy Mother of God, that we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.

The Mysteries (These are basically events from the life of Christ, or Mary, for the purpose of meditation)

I won’t type out all of the mysteries here.  For a complete list of the 4 sets of mysteries, click here.

—————————————————————–

The Anabaptist Rosary

Physical changes to the Rosary itself.

1) Change the Crucifix to a plain cross.  This points to the resurrection as well as the death.

2) The medallion that typically has an image of Mary would be changed to the symbol of a lamb caught in thorns.  It’s a symbol of persecution, specifically used to refer to the Early Anabaptists.

Changes to the Prayer

1) Replace all “Haily Marys” with “Our Father”

2) Replace all “Our Fathers” with the “Beatitudes” (see below for text)

3) Replace the “Hail, Holy Queen” with the “Commission”

4) For the Apostles Creed include Willard Swartleys additions about the life and ministry of Jesus. (see below)

Instructions for praying the new Rosary
1. Make the Sign of the Cross and say the “Apostles Creed.”
2. Say the “Beatitudes.”
3. Say three “Our Fathers.”
4. Say the “Glory be to the Father.”
5. Announce the First Mystery; then say
the “Beatitudes.”
6. Say ten “Our Fathers,” while meditating on the Mystery.
7. Say the “Glory be to the Father.”
8. Announce the Second Mystery: then say the “Beatitudes.” Repeat 6 and 7 and continue with the Third, Fourth, and Fifth Mysteries in the same manner.
9. Say the ‘Commission’ on the medal after the five decades are completed.

Prayers of the Rosary

THE SIGN OF THE CROSS

In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

THE APOSTLES’ CREED – (Willard Swartley’s version from Covenant of Peace)

I believe in God, the Father almighty, Creator of heaven and earth. I believe in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, and born of the Virgin Mary.  Lived obediently to his Abba.  Lived and taught love, peace, and forgiveness.  Healed the sick, cast out demons, forgave sins, raised the dead, confounded the powers. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended to the dead. On the third day He rose again. Triumphing over the powers, he ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.

OUR FATHER

Our Father, who art in heaven; hallowed be Thy name; Thy kingdom come; Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread; and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us, and lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil. Amen.

BEATITUDES

Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted. Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.  Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled. Blessed are the merciful, for they will receive mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.  Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God. Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falselyon my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

GLORY BE TO THE FATHER

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.

COMMISSION (Matt 28:19-20)

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.

A set of Anabaptist Mysteries (to be used in addition with the other mysteries)

Beginning of his ministry - Luke 4:16-30

Calling the disciples – Mark 1:16-20

Sermon on the Mount – Matt 5,6,7, specifically 7:28-29

Persecution – John 15:18-27

Pentecost – Acts 1:6-11, 2:2-4

————————————————————-

So, thoughts anyone?  Am I completely out in left-field? Is it right on?  Complete sacrilege?

Last evening I sat around our living room with 22 other Living Water Community Church folks and had a frank conversation about racism. The conversation was passionate and open. It ranged from personal stories to talk of definitions of racism and even touched on the practical. It was a new conversation to have with so many people in our congregation. My hope is that our sharing together will the start of a serious process that will include our whole church and not just a one Sunday event in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

As most of you well know, the vision of Martin Luther King was not simply dreams of black and white children playing together. It was not just about sitting down and being friends. Some of us have heard of his radical critique of the triple evils of poverty, racism and war. But in Malcolm & Martin & America: a Dream or a Nightmare?, James Cone goes far beyond the quotes and the sound bites to look at the grain of King’s life and shows how his life path and vision was and is inextricably linked with that of Malcolm X.

I highly recommend Malcolm & Martin & America for Christian who recognizes that the problem of racism in the United States did not go away with the election of Barack Obama. It is a surprisingly readable history that tells the story of both men in the context of the history of black nationalism and integration struggles. I’m not qualified to write an overall review of the book, but I will share a few quotes from the book that stood out for me along with a few of my own thoughts.

One of the themes in the responses to my recent piece on peace and justice theology was the complaint that the term "peace and justice" has become associated with "left wing politics." Dr. King was hounded by similar allegations all his life. Any theology that challenges the power structures is often dismissed using similar arguments. Malcolm & Martin & America serves as a warning that theology divorced from sociopolitical realities of the Christians it serves can become a tool of domination (Cone’s expounds on this in a recent article on The Religious Cancer or Racism).

Those of us with economic and social privilege like to focus on the Christian values of service, charity and mission. These ideals allow us to reach down from a place of privilege and feel good about helping the less privileged without examining the structures that maintain the difference. When focused on to the exclusion of peace and justice values, they lead to the sort of Christian theology that Malcolm X so thoroughly ane effectively critiqued. His family was harassed and torn apart by white Christians. He spent some of his teenage years with a Christian couple who likely saw themselves as practicing Christian charity, yet consistency referred to him with degrading racial terms. Is it surprising that he embraced a black Muslim theology centered on justice and self-love for black people and righteous anger at white people and everything they represented? Cone says:

Malcolm remembered his parents and other black Christians singing "Wash me and I’ll be whiter than snow." With Christian church and their theologians and preachers defining everything bad in this world and the next as black, how was it possible for that religion to bestow self-worth upon the black person hood of a prisoner like Malcolm? It seems that, in Malcolm’s case, it was not possible. Only a black religion, a black God, could "resurrect" a person like Malcolm from the "dead," from the "grave of ignorance and shame," and stand him on his feet as a human being, prepared to die in the defense of the humanity of his people. [emphasis in the orginal] (p. 156)

But for Malcolm the problem with Christian theology was not just personal. He recognized the ways that Christian theology had been used to dominate people of color around the world. This was why it was so important for him to talk about a black God:

[Malcolm X] was making a theological statement about God which is commonly found among peoples of the world whose religions portray God as being more then a mere extension of the ideology of the ruling class. In a society where blacks have been enslaved and segregated for nearly four centuries by whites because of their color and where evil has been portrayed as "black" and good as "white" in religious and cultural values, the idea that "God is black" is not only theologically defensible, but it is a necessary corrective against the powers of domination. A just and loving God cannot be identified with the values of evil people. Indeed, a case could be made that white people created a God of "cheap grace" (to use Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s well-known phrase) so that they would not be punished for the enormous crimes they have committed against the colored people of the world. (p. 160)

Cone goes on to name the the way these problems flow out of Europeans discussing peace, theology, and history as if other culture’s perspective don’t exist or at least aren’t important. (p. 294) Throughout the book, Cone isn’t afraid to critique either of these leaders. He talks clearly about the way Dr. King was influenced by his white financial backers, a problem that Malcolm X pointed out over and over again. Cone also names the problems with a dream of integration that relies on black people becoming white:

[King] often communicated the idea that unless Negroes are in the same schools with whites and socialize with them, they cannot be free or equal to whites. But by becoming integrated with whites, a few (and only a few) blacks acquired middle-class income, status, and values which separated them from the black masses, especially their religion. For integration, by its very definition, alienated backs from their cultural history and thereby from those religious values that empowered them to fight for freedom. To be "free" meant to become white, and to be white in America has always mean the opposite of being black… In fact, the success of black persons in the mainstream of America is primarily dependent upon their willingness to deny their African identity and become just an American. [emphasis in the original] (p. 149)

As we honor King today, Cone’s book is a critical reminder that these issues are not just part of our history as a country and a planet, but also part of our present and our future. As Anabaptists we must work to build, not leave behind, the connections between the biblical vision of shalom and concrete work for racial justice.

Psalm 36:5-6

Today is the annual Blessing of the Animals. This holiday has taken on many forms and is incorporated throughout many traditions, but it was started by St. Francis of Assisi, who had a deep connection with the wild and with non-human animals. For those unfamiliar, St. Francis was the son of a wealthy Catholic family in Assisi. He was sent to war, yet quit and returned home early with a drastically different outlook on life. He refused to kill and began questioning everything. He spent time living in the wild with the animals and swore that they taught him things. He publicly renounced all material possessions. The rest of his life would be dominated by feral, simplistic solidarity with the peasants and animals- the human and non-human ‘beasts’ of Assisi.

There is not a lot of space for ritual within our culture, and since most religious traditions are products of our culture, there doesn’t seem to be lot of room for ritual within our churches either. Catholics and Episcopals still celebrate the Blessing of the Animals, yet the Protestant denial of the material has led most Christian churches to stay away from valuing the ‘things of this world.’ Most Protestant churches, especially evangelical ones, tend to be stripped of statues, art, candles, incense, or anything else material. ‘Scripture only’ and ‘faith alone’ doctrines have led to a rejection of anything that might aid the process of spiritual development for fear that it would do the opposite and become an idol or a replacement for that which only God can be. Yet this radicalism has led to a spiritual philosophy void of meaning, where the advice of pastors become, “Just leave it to God,” or “Just read your bible.” Ritual was central to the Jewish tradition. Jesus did not challenge ritual, but the attempt of the religious authorities to strip ritual of it’s proper meaning. When he turned the water into wine, he was doing something very profound. The water at a Jewish wedding was most likely used to wash, which was not primarily a sanitary concern, but a purity ritual. It’s my belief that Jesus intentionally took the water away and turned it into wine to challenge the religious leader’s idea of purity. He turned it instead into a wine, which is a drink commonly shared with friends and families during celebrations, bringing life and spirit to the occasion.

Why are we so afraid of ritual? Much of the Christian movement was forwarded by Paul, who was very obviously influenced by the Platonic philosophy of his day. The denial of the material in favor of the existential can be traced back to Plato. According to his philosophy, the material was only an abstraction of the Real. This was also the birth of the myth of progress. The present is simply a step in the process of reaching a higher goal. The real and the present is denied, and eventually feared. Ideas of heaven and hell stem from this Platonic view in which the future is valued above the present, the goal is what matters, the prize lies ahead. Yet this type of thinking has devastating effects on both the human psyche and the earth. It leaves room for the popular evangelical notion that soul-saving is more important that physical well-being. We are afraid to focus on the present and to value the material because we are taught to believe that such things are less important than what they theoretically ‘represent’. Being told to not say the rosary and being told to ‘invest in your future’ both stem from the same destructive philosophies.

We have to look critically at how this philosophy unconsciously effects our worldview. It is my hope that we can move from a place of fear to one of freedom in regards to the material world. By ‘material world’ I don’t mean the accumulation of ’stuff’ that plagues capitalist society, but a valuing of the real, tangible things around us that inspire us to live and to love. The sunset, the smell of lavender, the tranquility if trees, the flow of rivers, the wild animals that teach us lessons just as they did St. Francis- these are very spiritual things, very real things that are our brothers and sisters and our allies in connecting with the divine.

But now ask the animals and let them teach you;
the birds of the air, and let them tell you.
Or speak to the earth and let it teach you.

Job 12:7-8

We at Mennonite Publishing Network need your help in creating resources that nurture spirituality among 20- and 30-somethings. Our traditional existing medium is Rejoice! magazine, which offers daily meditations on Bible texts, along with denominational prayer requests. Rejoice! is relatively successful among middle and older adults, but it is attracting only a small segment of younger adults to its readership.

We’re talking about repackaging Rejoice! in some way, or else coming up with a new resource altogether, in order to serve younger adults broadly and effectively. Please be part of the conversation on how to do that. Email or call editor Byron Rempel-Burkholder at byronrb@mpn.net, 204 488-0610, and use the following questions as a basis for your proposal, rant, or further questions:

• What tools (paper, audio, web-based, etc.) are you finding these days to help you live contemplatively—prayerfully, grounded in the Bible, connected to peers of similar faith affinity?
• What tools do you wish for that you aren’t seeing? Think outside the box, in terms of content, style, and format.
• Would you be open to tossing around some ideas in the interests of creating something new?

I returned to work to work today to find an email about the complete destruction of my friend Jason Barr’s home over the holidays. Jason and his wife Gretchen didn’t have insurance, so their depending on good old Anabaptist mutual aid to recover from a loss of just about everything they owned in the fire (that’s their apartment burning in the photo above). If you can give them a few dollars to help them rent a new place and replace their stuff, it would be much appreciated:

For those of you who don’t know Jason personally, he has been involved in Anabaptist circles for a number of years thinking and sharing about Christ-archy. He and his wife moved to South Bend this past summer so Jason could attend Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminary (AMBS). Jason is a self-identified lurker here on YAR and has left a few comments over the years.

If you live in Northern Indiana, here are some physical items that they could use:

• men’s size XL shirts
• women’s size 14-16 clothes
• theological books
• working computers (desktop, laptop)
• yarn (Gretchen makes knitted and crocheted items for income), a yarn swift, and knitting needles
• percussion instruments, electric guitar, saxophones

These items can be dropped off at the campus pastor’s office at AMBS.

Do you have any spiritual practices (sometimes called spiritual disciplines or spiritual exercises) that you hope to pursue this next year or the next decade?

I’m thinking about the ones that I hope to do this year (or at least for the next little while) and my challenge is also to “not pick too many”.

For the last few weeks, I’ve been wrestling with how to respond to Levi Miller’s column on "peacenjustice". My first reaction was one of anger and frustration. No wonder the Mennonite church has had such a hard time integrating peace and justice into our whole denomination! The director of our publishing house mocks it as a buzzword and sees it as a product of "cultural chatterers." Miller seems to see shalom (the bible’s word for peace and justice) as a little more then a worn out fad. It was much loved by the Sandinistas and Sojourners in the ’70s, but it is time to grow up and move on.

Over the weeks, I wrote several paragraphs expounding on my outrage at an old white guy maligning a theology of liberation that challenges the unjust status quo. But then I realized that some day I too will be an old white guy, so I’d best not be too hasty. I was also forgetting what I’ve spent the last 6 years learning, first in the UK and then in Chicago: peace and justice and personal redemption belong together, not on opposite sides of an angry debate.

Through 17 years of U.S. Mennonite education I bought into Miller’s dichotomy. I could either be a peace and justice Christian or I could be an evangelical. It was until I encountered the Anabaptist movement in England that I realized what a disservice I had been doing to myself. I discovered a charismatic vision of shalom that centered on God’s vision for the redemption of all of creation, not just the soul and not just society. I befriended trade justice campaigners who sang classic praise songs. They talked about repentance for personal and social sin as they knelt in prayer outside the government arms trade offices. I heard a lot about God’s heart for justice and shalom. I realized that we in the United States were missing out. Big time.

And so rather than throwing another log on the fire in the Mennonite culture wars, I’d like to suggest that our witness to the world will be stronger when we recognize that peace and justice is at the center of the gospel, right along side "Christian conversion, community, discipleship and hope in the resurrection." Jesus’ invitation to redemption was for all of creation, not just individual souls, but whole communities, whole ecosystems. If we ignore structural sin of the powers and principalities to focus on personal bondage and sin, we do no more justice to God’s invitation to wholeness than when we make the opposite mistake.

Miller is not the only Mennonite leader who sees discussion of peace and justice through the lens of their own experience in the ’60s and ’70s as a flower child. At the Mennonite convention in San Jose in 2007, I sat in on a panel discussion with young Mennonite leaders like Nekeisha Alexis-Baker, Hugo Saucedo and Immanuel Sila. I was sitting near the back and watched two senior leaders in Mennonite Mission Network whispering and giggling to each other through much of the presentation. When I asked them about it afterwards, they said that they’d heard it all before in the ’70s, this talk of egalitarianism and justice. It isn’t practical. It doesn’t work in the real word.

So why doesn’t shalom work? Miller has it all figured out:

However optimistic we peace and justice flower children were as youth, we lost our liberality on babies. The conservatives remained more hopeful, fruitful and multiplied—and eventually those trends influence the church membership and Sunday school attendance.

So basically conservatives "win" because they have hope and productive sex. On the first point, I realize I have to agree with him. Too often a theology overfocused on peace and justice can end up strident and triumphalist. We will shape the future! We will not be silent! We forget that it is God, not us who will save the world. Each time our attempts to shape the future fail or even backfire miserably, we grow a little more brittle and a little more cynical. Its no wonder that after 40 odd years of this cycle, Miller starts calling it "peacenjustice." But conservatives had hope. On this, I’ll turn to Andrew Sullivan, a well-known conservative commentator. In a recent column he says:

Hope is not optimism. We have little reason for optimism given the first decade of the twenty-first century. Hope is a choice (emphasis in the original) As much a choice as faith and love.

Hope grounded in resurrection and Jesus triumph over death will not be so easily swayed by the latest political failures. It recognizes our need for personal liberation is as great as society’s need for redemption. I have learned a lot about this from friends who depend on the redemptive power of Jesus in their lives on a daily basis. I think many Mennonite liberals could do well to learn this too.

Miller’s second claim for the basis of conservative triumph is flawed in a number of ways. Reproduction rather then conversion as the basis of a faith community is the model of the old testament, not Jesus. It may have worked for Mennonites for 400 years, but you don’t have to look much farther then the rapidly rising age of Mennonites to realize it won’t work for the next 400.

So what about conversion? We often associate conversion with personal redemption and those first joining the Christian church, but new Mennonites may also come from other Christian backgrounds. In the ’70s a whole new wave of converts came knocking on the Mennonites’ doors. These are the people Miller derisively calls "Anabaptist camp followers." If this is the attitude of someone who was sympathetic at the time, how much more hostile were older, more traditional communities? Miller blames the new converts for unrealistic expectations. They shouldn’t have expected so much from "home-grown" (in other words, white Swiss-German) Mennonites. I wonder if perhaps the problem wasn’t instead leaders more concerned with envelope licking rather then envelope pushing (thanks, Joe). They were (and are?) more interested in keeping everyone inside the envelope happy than engaging with challenging ideas and people.

Today, we are seeing a new wave of "Anabaptist camp followers". As with the earlier wave, many of them come from evangelical backgrounds looking for the missing peace and justice. I’ve heard many first and second hand stories of young evangelicals walking into Mennonite churches longing for the whole gospel only to find a church doing its best to blend in with all the other Christian churches in town. Will we once again blame them as naive idealists and turn our back on them as we focus on keeping those inside the fold happy? Will the the ecumenical Anabaptist movement and the Mennonite church join, cross-pollinate and thrive together or will merely mingle and then go our separate ways? The choice is ours.

P.S. Inspired by Ben_Jammin, I want to have more photos and illustrations with blog posts here on YAR. If you’ve writing a piece and would be up for including a photo or illustration to publish with it, drop me an email and I’ll help you find something.

The Holy Spirit: Lord and Life-Giver
Ivan Satyavrata
InterVaristy Press
April 2009
ISBN: 978-0-8308-3307-8
IVP
Amazon

It’s a bit of a low blow to poorly review a literary/artistic work when you are charging it with not being what you expected it to be.  For example, when I was 8, my art teacher asked us to draw and color…I think it was a landscape. Now I have never really been a great artist, mostly because I’ve been colorblind since birth (though I did have a brief phase during my adolescence in which I won a prize from a local art gallery for my pencil and black ink rendering of some shadowy, comic book-esque superhero). So when it came time for me to draw a landscape, and I spent the time grabbing any color I felt like and making scribbles all over the place, when our work was done my teacher kicked me out of class, called my mother, and had a conference that afternoon. She told my mother that my work was unbecoming of an eight-year old. My mother blinked at her and said “what’s becoming of an eight year old in art class?”

The story is not directly equivalent, but the meaning shines through ( I hope): it’s not fair for me to set expectations for Satyavrata’s book- that he had no intent of keeping - and then criticize him for not doing so. However, the marketing of this book has made it particularly difficult not to.

This book is part of an IV Press series called “Christian Doctrine in Global Perspective”, with John Stott as the consulting editor. I was excited about his role as consulting editor, given that I tend to agree with the sizable chunks of the theologies of the evangelical Anglican types (like J.I. Packer, Stott, NT Wright most notably).

Satyavrata is an Assemblies of God (AoG) pastor in India and president of Buntain Thoelogical College. AoG is a pentecostal denomination, and it is my current denomination, though I am not a pentecostal. They are kind of enough to keep me around.

So anyway, given the above, I expected that this would explain a bit about pneumatology (the doctrine of the Spirit) with a particular eye toward the Indian view of it. I expected this view to be a bit post-colonial - not sounding particularly Western in its orientation. And I expected it to be grounded in orthodoxy, given that Stott affixes his name to it.

While I can safely say that it is within the bounds of orthodoxy, I did not get a particularly “global perspective” with this book. What I mean in this: I didn’t really learn much about how the Indian church, or the southeast Asian church with whom Satyavrata is in dialogue, orients itself toward the Holy Spirit. In the few instances that Satyavrata does interact with the “third world-view” (if you’ll pardon my expression as such), it is to correct errors in it. This is helpful, since too often those who try to be sympathetic to the global church just agree wholesale with their interpretations of faith and worship. However, Satyavrata does not articulate a position that is particularly Eastern, global, or post-colonial. This could just as easily be written by an Anglo-American theologian.

What I Like about this Book

I’ll end on some thoughts about what I like about this book. I think if you are oriented toward a more “via media” (middle way) of looking at things (I use this in the place of ecumenical, since that can be too loaded), a sort of C.S. Lewis orthodoxy of “what basics can we all agree on?”, then this book is a fantastic introduction if you want to learn more about the Holy Spirit. Satyavrata is anything but sectarian. In fact, one of the most useful chapters is a historical overview of the view of the Holy Spirit since the beginning of the church. This was massively helpful for me. It might be too general for some, but I think it is a good introduction for someone like me who generally does not have a lot of pneumatology under his belt.

Here’s what he has to say about Anabaptists:

…the Anabaptists believed in an imminent age of the Spirit and also denied that baptism was a means of grace. Menno Simons, their most influential leader, regarded Christ alone as the preeminent sign of grace, and baptism as more a pledge of obedience than a rite of conversion. Water baptism must be administered only to those who have turned to Christ already and been baptized with the Holy Spirit. This marks the beginning of a life guided and empowered by the Holy Spirit, who then reproduces the nature of Christ in the life of the believer. Simons ephasized the Spirit’s anointing, through which Christians are bestowed with spiritual gifts. He also taught that the Spirit enables God’s will to be expressed through the consensus of the believing community…

…In addition to the baptism of the Spirit and by water, the Anabaptists also believed in a baptism of fire and blood. Strong emphasis began to be placed on the baptism of blood, generally referring to martyrdom and outward suffering in the world This was also sometimes applied corporately to the believing community as a whole rather than the individual, the basis of an important emphasis on the suffering of the righteous remnant.

…the various Anabaptists sects were more open to [spiritual gifts]. They witnessed many occurences similar to those observed in the Pentecostal movement today, including healings, prophecy, tongues, and dancing in the Spirit. However, despite some of these similarities with contemporary Pentecostals, there are marked differences. Most significantly, for Anabaptists, the baptism of the Spirit is primarily associated with salvation and involves suffereing; for Pentecostals, Spirit baptism is an endowment of power for ministry, a joyful experience rather than endurance under trial.

Any thoughts on that?

Satyavrata also deals with the doctrine of the “baptism of the Holy Spirit” charitably.For those unfamiliar with this concept, here’s my pathetic attempt at a definition: the baptism of the Holy Spirit is anevent, subsequent to regeneration, justification, and conversion (in whatever order you put these), in which the believer receives a greater outpouring of/blessing by the Holy Spirit. It is believed that this baptism is accompanied by spiritual gifts and tongues.

Some charismatics/pentecostals believe that one is not saved without the Baptism of the Holy Spirit (an error), others believe that the Holy Spirit is not active in you unless you have this particular baptism (an error), others believe it is simply a greater and deeper experience of the Spirit (closer to truth). While the baptism of the Holy Spirit is an individual experience (in that each believer is individually gifted), it can occur corporately since it is an event. This is why missionaries in some countries tend to be more “charismatic”, since (from their perspective) they have experienced events where thousands of believers at once are baptized with the Holy Spirit in a very Pentecost-like way. Satyavrata likens this Pentecostal distinctive to other historical understandings of the work of the Holy Spirit, such as the Roman Catholic notion of “confirmation” and the Puritan notion of the “sealing of the spirit”.

Rather than looking at the content of the book, as I am, and saying “this doesn’t seem particularly global”, one could say that an introductory text devoted entirely to the Holy Spirit is in and of itself a testimony to the global mark upon Christendom. It is no secret that the third world is more open to a charismatic understanding of the Holy Spirit than the West, even if the third world can sometimes stray toward Unitarianism of the Holy Spirit. Traditionally, Protestant theologies have tended to give more space to christology, soteriology, and theology (doctrine of God proper) than pneumatology. There are of course significant outliers to that assertion (John Owen’s work on communion with the Holy Spirit being one that comes to mind immediately). As such, one could benefit greatly from having this book on your shelf next to the Western systematics, christologies, etc. that tend to crowd the bookshelves of doctrine geeks.

But that’s actually not what I wanted to write about. Augsburg was also a major Anabaptist center in the 16th century. That’s why the local reformator Urbanus Rhegius wrote a pamphlet “against the new baptist order” in which he claims that the Anabaptists are actually just a “new monkery”, an argument made in many writings against the Anabaptists. The claim is that they only make the same things as the monastic orders did, just with families.

I don’t know too much about the New Monasticism movement, I read Shane’s first book, but I guess the name wasn’t knowingly a reminiscence on the Anabaptists.

To me, this shows a fundamental flaw in democracy as good as it maybe: Democracy does not mean the rule of people, it means rule of the majority and if the majority should decide not to tolerate the minority -like the case with Switzerland - so be it. Ok, in order to correct this there are things like independent judges and not directly elected secretaries, but that is exactly what the SVP, the “Swiss People’s Party”, wants to change next. Democracy is not an absolute value.

But how is the Anabaptist view on this, is there one at all? In the beginning, Anabaptists didn’t gather in fancy churches, they met in houses or caves in the forest to prevent being sent to prison. The only time one would find them in the usual churches was to storm the pulpit and preach the gospel. When Anabaptists were allowed to settle in Southern Germany after the 30 years war they weren’t allowed to build church towers.

The bells in church towers have often been melted in times of war to make swords and guns, a reversion of Micah 4,1-4 so to say.

During the campaigning for the ban on minarets the initiators always claimed not to be anti-Islamic, but that they were only against radical Islamists and that Islam didn’t need minarets, therefore a  minaret was a political extremist statement and it’s ban would not interfere with the right to religious freedom.

Let’s look at Christianity then, I did find one story in my Bible, where people wanted to build a tower. But after God “came down to see the city and the tower that the men were building” Gen.11,5 he didn’t like it too much and confused their languages.

In the New Testament there is not a single reference of towers… So, are towers needed in Christianity? Shouldn’t the Swiss people perhaps also ban church towers?

Or maybe Swiss Mennonites and Mennonites in general should build “mennorates” in solidarity with the Swiss Muslims?