Unlike some moderate and progressive Brethren, I have always held the older generation of Brethren Revival Fellowship leadership in high regard (even though I haven’t always agreed with them). Their loyalty to the denomination has been unswerving, their focus has been consistent, and it has departed from mainstream culture — even the evangelical mainstream — in important ways.
Their grounding in an “uncritical” reading of scripture, particularly the New Testament, has led them to take positions over the years that are upsetting not only to Brethren progressives — such as their unwavering opposition to acceptance of homosexuality — but also to evangelical conservatives — such as their sponsorship of an Insight Session on nonresistance (with David Rittenhouse as speaker) in the immediate aftermath of 9/11/2001, and Harold Martin’s thoughtful 2005 article, the “New Testament Doctrine of Nonresistance.”
In the words of Jim Myer, BRF leader and former Annual Conference Moderator, the BRF has intentionally sought to respond to “the spirit of nationalism and military response [that] has been running high in some parts of the denomination.” As prophets of peace, one could argue, the older BRF leadership has been as influential (if not more so) than many Brethren moderates and progressives who have struggled to find ways to speak clearly on such matters. This older leadership also understood that “loyal concern” within the denomination meant the coupling of persistance and organization with a willingness to listen and the manifestation of a gentle spirit, a spirit different than the spirit of stridency and aggressive opposition that plays out in politics and in the larger culture.
But a new breed of Brethren conservatives has emerged, one that falls increasingly silent on the “spirit of nationalism and military response” within the church. Unfortunately, the passing of the baton to this new generation of BRF leaders may be bringing the “loyal concern movement” to a tipping point — away from “Brethren,” away from balance, away from a gentleness of spirit, and toward the very culture that the BRF has historically sought to avoid. Although this (thankfully) is not so evident on the BRF website, one has only to turn to the Dunker Journal website of the BRF Chairman to witness the storm clouds of a different brand of conservatism within the denomination.
Here are some examples:
1. Brethren who, out of their understanding of Christian love, conscientiously support allowing gays to be gay within the church are told online by the BRF Chairman that their religion is “nothing more than an emotion-driven sham.”
2. The BRF Chairman, in his “Dunker Journal” often associates his presentation of the “Brethren part of the Church of the Brethren” with the larger cultural polarization in the United States. Implicit in many of his posts is the idea that “Christian” lies not beyond both the “red” and “blue” of popular culture — as the older generation of BRF leaders might have contended — but on one side of this polarity, the red side. Recently, for example, we find him disseminating a ranking of “freedom in the 50 states,” in which the US mapping of “more free” versus “less free” states essentially parallels the maps we’ve all seen of red versus blue. The map, of course, is not the work of the BRF Chair, but its dissemination to Brethren is.
3. Relatedly, the BRF chairman aligns “the Brethren part of the Church of the Brethren” with antagonism toward the environmental movement. In one recent post, concern about climate change is termed “simply madness,” a bogeyman. The “Dunker” Journal suggests that our environment is cleaner than at any time since industrialization, “not because we live simply, but because we pursued economic growth and accumulated the wealth and expertise to mend our problems.”
4. The gentle, Brethren style of being in constructive dialogue on the issues that divide us is reflected in the BRF Chair’s posting that “Sodomite marriage has been defeated in Maine.”
5. The BRF chair finds the national influence of Jim Wallis of the Christian Sojourners community “disturbing.” He also informs us that the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer is “a politically correct mash-up.”
6. The BRF chairman falls prey to the mainstream conservative rhetoric of “Obamacare,” calling it one of the biggest anti-choice schemes around.
Enough examples. My point is not that the BRF chairman should hold or espouse different political convictions; each of us has the right to formulate our own views on such matters. Nor is it my intent to revive the Old Brethren view of politics, which was to maintain the detached attitude of a pilgrim vis-a-vis political matters. My point is that it is imprudent to present conservative Christian politics of the mainstream American variety as a “Dunker Journal” from “the Brethren part of the Church of the Brethren,” when many blog postings reflect the spirit of political battle more than the spirit of the Brethren faith. Many old-time Dunkers that I have read, studied, and known personally would be appalled.
To be fair, the Dunker Journal also posts notices of revivals, news about mission activities, statements about Brethren heritage and conviction, and other things more in line with its billing as a “Dunker Journal.” But still there is evidence of a tipping away from a Brethren approach to being a New Testament faith community, and toward something much more reflective of the popular culture.
This shift is tone is doubly grievous because it is influential. Other Brethren conservatives pick up on it, becoming even more strident in their politization of church issues. They speak of “swelling the ranks” of the truly Biblical at Annual Conference, provide counsel on how to respond to liberal “talking points,” suggest strategies for dealing with the “gay agenda,” distribute e-petitions, call for silencing discussion on homosexuality after the 2011 Annual Conference, contemplate legal moves that ensure the independence and insulation of their local congregations from Annual Conference actions should they lose, and note, of all things, that “gay activists” demonstrate their true stripes by “attacking Chick-Fil-A’s.” (A fair number of progressives too strategize, calculate, jockey for position, and make plans for “if things don’t go their way” at Annual Conference, but here I am focused upon conservatives.)
My point in all of this is to engage in the time-honored Brethren practice of admonishment, admonishing Brethren conservatives in this case to be Brethren conservatives. And admonishing coming generations of BRF leadership not to abandon the B, leaving only the RF. I’d hate to see the remnants of the BRF a decade from now standing out in Right Field, having forgotten both their New Testament anchor and Brethren moorings, buffeted by American cultural-political winds that overpower their gentle witness to nonresistance, yieldedness, a pilgrim attitude, nonconformity to the (both liberal and conservative) world, and thereby losing the power of their distinctive witness.
I would also love to see the BRF Chairman’s Dunker Journal blog sharpen its New Testiment testimony against what Jim Myer has called the “spirit of nationalism and military response” and abandon the political posturing on Obamacare and “freedom states,” which have nothing to do with the “Brethren Part of the Church of the Brethren,” as proclaimed in the blog’s masthead. Of course another option would be to drop the “Dunker journal” and “Brethren part of…” rhetoric altogether, presenting the forum transparently as a religiously interested political blog of the American conservative variety.
During the 1980s, I asked a well known BRF minister how his congregation dealt with members who enlisted in the military. Smiling, he said, “We don’t tell them they’re going to hell; we just tell them to go to the church down the street.” It was that type of consistent, Biblically-motivated binding and loosing — distinct from progressive/conservative alignments of the larger culture — that lent them my respect even when I disagreed on particular issues.
The younger generation of conservative leadership, by comparison, seem both less consistent and less Brethren. Above all, the Gospel of sexuality seems sometimes to trump the Gospel of peace. And the ancient virtues of waiting, patience, listening, yielding, and taking care not to offend — all are waiting patiently to be summoned from the sidelines.
Respectfully submitted for your consideration,
Carl Bowman
I appreciated this post, Carl. I am a Church of the Brethren young adult moderate who appreciates many perspectives. I stumbled across the “Dunker Journal” a few months ago and was very confused. I too saw that what was truly “Brethren” was there too often presented as political conservatism and mainstream to calvinist evangelical. This does not seem to be the understanding of biblical interpretation, engagement with culture, and theological underpinnings that drove older generations of conservative Brethren. I was SO glad to read your post pointing out that my moment of confusion was well-founded. I only hope other readers who stumble across “Dunker Journal” can be aware of the diversity amongst conservative Brethren and not blanket the term on all; same for the liberal/progressive end.
Carl, your article highlights a methodology in the “new” RF that is quite reminiscent of the methods of the “Concerns for the Grassroots” movement of the 1990s. I wonder if there is an overlap of personnel.
I think this is an interesting observation, Rob. I’ve always distinguished between conservatism of a more Brethren flavor and Southern Baptism in Brethren clothing. The difference, I believe, is whether they actively preach nonresistance and against the “spirit of nationalism.”
With respect, Carl:
I’d suggest that your idealized, romanticized version of Brethren history does not exist. The Brethren engaged in rough-and-tumble discussions, disagreements, and church fights. I have witnessed this in countless Council meetings, District Conferences, Annual Conferences, etc., and I have read accounts of the same throughout Brethren history, from the first division in 1713, through various schisms of the eighteenth through twentieth centuries A.D., to current debates. Your “virtues of waiting, patience, listening, yielding, and taking care not to offend” (while admirable) are more imagination than reality among the Brethren of any age. They are trotted out–in just about every Christian denomination–when a favored perspective or position is in danger of failure.
My teenaged daughter attended a Pennsylvania Church of the Brethren congregation a few weeks ago (Memorial Day Sunday). She was quite taken aback when the veterans of the congregation were called on to stand and be recognized for their service to the United States. She remarked to me, “Just a little too patriotic for my blood.” I wonder where she got that? Our family does not pledge allegiance to the flag, or sing the National Anthem, though we do show respect when those acts are performed.
Having regularly preached on the Brethren Card, I do hold to nonresistance, though not the pacifism as espoused by the institutional Church of the Brethren.
Where do you come out in another Brethren bedrock perspective, that of being opposed to divorce and remarriage? What makes that position any less core to being Brethren than that of relationship to the state?
Nonresistance was as much about a spirit of peacefulness that Brethren understood to be the spirit of Christ as it was about a relationship to the state.
And marriage should always be considered sacred. Whether they should kick people like me out who messed it up is for the Brethren to decide. I certainly think that a body of believers has the right to do that. And I also believe they should preach/teach the sacredness of marriage and marital convenant. But then you have the messiness of the world — the people like me — to deal with.
Anyway, I think these traditional teachings are important — including patience, humility, and the like.
We all live East of Eden, all of us, together in this blessed broken world. The unfallen man is an ape, not a man, and because of God’s reckless grace, we can indeed fall into a deeper consciousness of love and longing and loss. There is a crack in everything, there’s a crack in everything, there’s a crack in everything, that’s how the light gets in. Grateful Carl, for the lovely light of your life. — Scott
And to add a little, the peace teaching distinguished Brethren from the Christian world around them while the opposition to divorce and remarriage did not. Both were “Brethren” but one was more distinctly Brethren than the other.
The comments about your daughter are helpful. Without being taught explicitly, I also had a sense that the pledge of allegiance and national anthem were to be respected but not participated in.
I do think you could reconsider some of the politization of the “Dunker” journal. You can probably guess that I have pretty defined political leanings as well, but you won’t find me drawing attention to Bush, Obama, government policies or things of that nature on this blog about the Brethren Landscape. I also try to create a conversational milieu that welcomes different perspectives, though it is not an easy task. I don’t really know which “perspectives or positions are in danger of failure” in the Church of the Brethren, Craig Alan, but it has little to do with my interest in preserving a Brethren tone, which is something I believe is a time-honored ideal that has permeated Brethren history, albeit if only as an “ideal” — even when Brethren reality was “scrappier.” If you genuinely believe that such ideals constitute a romanticized version of Brethren history that “does not exist” — rather than a vision that Brethren strove to embody — then Dunker reality really has changed in the last quarter century…. perhaps more than my blog posting would suggest.
I thank you for the conversation and for your candid response.
Craig, I don’t know you personally, only by reputation, an occasional reading of Dunker Journal, and this here post, so forgive me if I’m misunderstood your intentions. It seems to me that you have taken a dig, a jab at Carl for his divorce and remarriage, instead of holding care and consideration that this experience for him (and I don’t know Carl, so I could be wrong) was likely painful, perhaps even shameful. Your post seems hurtful, and lacks grace, understanding and forgiveness of the complexity and messiness of our lives. If you ask me, your response models precisely the rhetorical strategy and hurtful approach that Dunker Journal takes in addressing real concerns in the church, with real humanity behind each concern.
[shared with Carl's permission]
Carl, This is an insightful, even prophetic, post on what some of us have called the difference between older orders styles of Brethren traditionalism and a new “National Review,” “Weekly Standard” style of Brethren conservatism. As a card carrying member of the Brethren Heritage Center in Brookville, Ohio, which serves a large constituency of traditional and Old Order Brethren, I am struck by the sharp differences in these two styles of conservatism. Yet the webmaster of the Dunker Journal knows that should we ever meet up in Pittsburgh, we will likely not debate either theology or politics but instead together cheer on the Steelers to yet another hard hitting victory, for we both value the game. Now, after the game, that’s another matter. I think we see from the voices on both “The Dunker Journal” and the “Brethren Cultural Landscape” that both conservatives and progressives (myself included!) know how to hit damn hard. Go Steelers!
I received some small grief for putting the Steeler logo on DJ, and was told that some Brethren root for some other “Biblical” teams such as the “Eagles,” and the “Ravens.”
Well, of course they do, Craig Allen. For them, I think you and I can practice forbearance because there can be a legitimate conflict of interpretations. However, on this one we can together shout, “Are you ready for some football?!” We will see if they follow our passionate lead to the best team. If not, perhaps we can still extend those queer Ravens and Eagles fans some grace.
Clearly those who have strayed from the truth….post Ravens logos on their webpages!
I don’t think I have presented my views as being the “only” conservative Brethren perspective. There are many to my “right,” to use a term. I’m just one small voice.
I see the chairman of the BRF as something more significant than “just one small voice.”
It justifies your overly polititicized mode of discourse to dismiss such historic teachings, which have been well documented by Brethren historians.
Of course the Brethren engaged in rough-and-tumble discussions, disagreements, and church fights, but I was speaking of old normative ideals (that can easily be documented), which always differ to a certain extent from the messiness of living in the world. The differences between James Quinter, a venerated leader of Brethren “conservatives,” and Henry Holsinger (who was disfellowshipped) were largely ones of style of engaging the faith community, not matters of substance on particular issues.
Hi All,
In a vaguely coherent moment I can agree that the church, more often than the local congregation, can be “politicized.” FYI-I do find myself on the center right on most of those issues, but try to separate them from congregational life when possible. I am wondering if some of the resistance to the BRF Chairman’s words is due to many Brethren aligning themselves on the more “blue” side of the aisle, which would create an underlying angst toward anything seen as an opposing view.
I wonder if it is really such an egregious act to recognize veterans, as long as there is an appropriate mention of heirarchy from God to State to Citizens. Don’t progressive leaders also promote their own cultural agenda within the Church? Am I off base there?
I also wonder if those who hold more progressive views toward Brethren uniqueness are actually more conservative in their political views. Ie-those like me who see the obvious and long standing trend away from a more closed society can only mean we become more like the more general society. That may be where a lot of our confusion comes from.
I don’t know, I just try to use the scripture and be open to new light, and wonder if the CoB will continue a slide in membership as we struggle to embrace both our heritage and our future. I would rather our Church be seen as a leader for Christ, than a leader for social causes, and that shapes my response to the many and varied other issues like marriage, peace and combining religion/politics as both having meaning on some level.
I’m open to being molded.
Yes, Cole. James Hunter’s recent book To Change the World presents an interesting examination of the politicization of American religion (including Hauerwas, Yoder, and what he calls the “Neo-Anabaptists”). Chief Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks has also written some interesting things about the mis-application of political logics and forms of debate to the church.
I would hope that my reactions to Dunker Journal would have been the same had the political postings been pro-Obama with a flavor of “right-wing bashing.” One of the things I like about Hunter’s book is that it critiques such discourse by religious leaders whether it comes from the right or the left. I have no similar reaction to the BRF website, which focuses upon religious questions and issues — and speaks clearly about them — without becoming combative or commenting on purely political matters. As I made clear earlier, many “Dunker Journal” postings are better suited to a blog that isn’t billed as a “Dunker” journal representing “the Brethren part of the Church of the Brethren.” And I would submit that the blog’s author is much more than “one small voice;” he is an important leader in the denomination, the Chair of an important group of Brethren. All of that said, I cannot honestly say whether my degree of “angst,” as you put it would have been the same. It is something for me to consider.
The problem with the efforts of some to jettison all notions of a Brethren normative tradition is that everything comes to represent little more than, as you put it, someone’s “cultural agenda.” But in response to your question, my sense is that that stance is unhelpful because it muffles the voice of the larger church. The Church of the Brethren position, while respecting individual conscience, is that “all war is sin” and it is not the way of Jesus to participate in it. That is a very old position among Brethren, one that used to be a criterion of membership for everyone, no matter how progressive or conservative. Such histories mean that certain conceptions of faithfulness are more a part of the Brethren faith inheritance than others. … i.e. they are not all equally just part of a “cultural agenda” offered by groups of partisans to the church.
A century ago, Brethren said clearly that they tried to teach “all the doctrines of Christ, peace, love, unity, both faith and works.” If they had it right at all (and I think this is an amazing short statement), then being a “leader for Christ” rather than “for social causes,” as you say, would mean lifting up what Brethren consider central to the gospel of Christ. In that light, it is morally and symbolically confusing to honor the service of veterans during worship when the church has said that military service falls short of the Christian ideal. This doesn’t mean that those persons shouldn’t be honored as individuals, or that their consciences shouldn’t be respected following our church teachings, but that their military service itself has less than honored status within our faith community, as some of the things that I’ve done have less than honored status. My local church has tried to bridge this by taking Memorial Day, an American military remembrance, and broadening it so that our Memorial Day services honor all who have gone before, without reference to military service. This enables those who have had loved ones lost to wars to focus upon those losses, receiving comfort, but doesn’t lift up the military nature of the losses. It also builds a bond with all in the congregation who have lost loved ones.
Enough for now… Thanks for contributing.
I’m open to being molded too, Cole. You have raised penetrating questions. I wonder how some others will respond??
If we follow the sociological reasonings of earlier posts “on culture,” it which it was argued that we cannot escape culture, for even the word “God” is a cultural-linguistic construction, then neither can we escape the political. The question is which politic or whose politic? Even John Howard Yoder suggested that the politics of Jesus were in many ways closest to the Zealot party, yet unlike the Zealots, Jesus finally refused to affirm that “might makes right.” There is no pure Christian or churchly politic outside of some sociological analogical imagination, thus Craig Allen sometimes quotes The Weekly Standard and I sometimes cite The New Republic. I’m not convinced that those who don’t read The National Review or The Nation but instead stick only to the Bible or to some romantic rendering of the Brethren heritage are any less free from the category and the necessary contamination of “the political.”
I’m now firing up the Subaru to head out to my spouse’s family reunion near Goshen, Indiana. Pray for me out there among all those Mennonites.
The fact that we cannot escape “the political,” Scott, does not lead to the conclusion that all discourse is equally politicized. That borders on asserting that all communities of discourse have the same discursive norms and habits. A better question than, “Which politic or whose politic?” is, “Which discursive habits do we want to embrace in this community, and how does that differ from those operative in others?” Most basically, the goal in the body politic is to compete and win, so that one’s own policy priorities can be implemented. The goal, in the body of Christ, I would argue should be different. Your comment that “we cannot escape the political” frames the issue in a way that glosses over such differences in discursive modality.
And regarding “romantic renderings,” however much Brethren fell short of their espoused ideals, they identified humility and self-denial (sometimes using other terms) as Dunker ideals from the days of the Macks at least until the 1920s-30s. Durnbaugh has amply recorded this, Dale Stoffer traces it in his theological history, Mallott, Holsinger, and others (including myself) have abundantly documented the point.
Durnbaugh depicted Sander Mack’s eighteenth century concern about disagreements over details of the Love Feast in these terms: He [Mack] was especially concerned that the love and unity of the church not be lost. He reminded his readers that Jesus Christ did not say that his disciples would be recognized by the manner of footwashing or breaking of bread, but rather that all “shall know that you are my disciples, that you have love for one another.” Inasmuch as they are to be so minded to submit to each other in “love and peace and humility, it would be scandalous if a service of humility should lead to hard feelings…
How romantic of Durnbaugh to say that Mack believed members of the body should submit to each other in love and peace and humility! How romantic to report that the Love Feast was considered a “service of humility!” Pardon the sarcasm, but I’m still a historian who believes not in objective history, but in something called the weight of historical evidence. I don’t believe that scholars (or at least historians) should simply pick through history, choosing the snippets and tidbits that are to their liking. To point to a history of fights, disagreements, and dissent no more makes the case against a historical ethic of humility than pointing to a history of fornication makes the case against an ethic of the sacredness of marriage. Again, I think your commendable reminder that all scholars have biases and no history is purely objective, which is valid, doesn’t lead logically to the conclusion that all historical narratives are equally ideological, romantic, politicized, or distorted. Maybe you don’t mean to go that far, but your casual dismissal of certain historical observations as “romantic,” without considering the weight of evidence, borders on that. (Your implication that all discourse is equally politicized is just as problematic.)
Even if I am “romantic” in some sense, I am not simply romantic about the ideals of patience, humility, gentleness, etc. in my original post. That they were indeed Dunker ideals can be amply documented. That they were incompletely realized in Dunker life can as easily be documented. But the latter doesn’t invalidate the former. To dismiss such ideals as romantic is fine (I guess), but it leaves us in a position where we cannot invoke and draw upon whatever wisdom our spiritual ancestors may have discerned. For anything they may have committed to — peace, community, humility, gentleness, nonconformity, service to neighbor, rejection of slavery, the equality of believers, even seeking Christ — can all be dismissed rather than seriously engaged. That the Brethren ever committed to any of them then becomes little more than someone’s personal opinion and thus a curiosity. And all historical narratives — like your recent highlighting of “no force in religion” — become equally fiction, the representation of the speaker’s/author’s romantic longings. Had I viewed historiography and historical research in that fashion, I certainly wouldn’t have invested decades studying it. What a waste of time.
I prefer to think that we can be inspired by, and learn from, history precisely because it is different than we are — reflecting echoes of another time and place that might take us beyond our particular agendas, romantic longings, cultural locations, and political posturing. It would be nice to know whether we share any historiographical and epistemological common ground here. Or do you instead embrace the hot-air-balloon view of historical narrative — one in which the weight of historical evidence is increasingly tossed overboard, sending the balloon sailing farther and farther from the ground, off into whatever direction the wind blows? Since the balloon is not on the ground anyway, what difference does it make?
(Please give me credit for the metaphor; it should be in a book if it isn’t already.)
Holy Mack! What a fierce response!
Although Dale Brown and I each have some of Professor Mallott’s library, my mentor was his son, the psychiarist, Floyd Mallott, Jr., a passionate Steelers fan and great COB churchman. I’m guessing if he looked in on this “Admonition” page of exchanges he would declare, “Enough!” He would counsel that we all play some football together to spend some of this pent-up aggressive energy that comes from too much Brethren humility and earnestness.
I’m guessing Craig Allen could gather some of the BRF lads and I’ll call the Progressives. This will not be touch nor flag football. Hell no. We will play sandlot tackle football. It’s a good cure for too much Brethren virtue.
From a truck stop in Lima, Ohio in route to Goshen. — Scott
I’m sorry if it seemed fierce; it was in the same spirit as many of our other “sparring matches” over the past year.
I’m trying to raise serious issues on this thread. In all honesty, the retreat to sports has felt like a mechanism for setting them aside. I don’t know who has too much virtue, but we have important questions to engage, my friend. I will look forward to your response to points in the “fierce response” when you get the time and if you are so inclined.
And afterward, the football game wouldn’t do me much good. I’m getting old, you know? I can think of better ways to let down with you, Craig Allen, or my gathered remnant of romantic, uber-Brethren holy-ones. How about frisbee with dogs on the river bank?
…I hope it seems like the best of academic sparring rather than an expression of pent-up aggressive energy.
…..
…..
Sigh.
I don’t think it was fierce- just well argued.
And since I am about throwing observational questions in the mix—-
What does it look like to be passionate yet not belligerent, humble yet not passive aggressive?
I will respond to your question about sacrament vs sacred….but for now, AC plans pull me away.
Good questions, Josh. After some tractor time followed by horse time and dog time, I might have some thoughts on the matter.
Carl & Josh,
Far from meaning to be a mere distraction from these weighty conversations, my psychological references to the physicality of sports were meant as serious, if also playful, critiques for us to ponder, we band of talking heads! As I said, I’m at a family reunion and thus won’t be responding this weekend…more later, although, come on, really, you both know how I will respond to these questions and concerns. — Scott
There’s always room to listen and grow, Scott…
There is indeed always room to listen and grow, Carl. I chose to respond to our most recent round of intense, dare I again say fierce, exchanges with some lightness of being because sometimes you and I can write like we are the last Brethren on earth. : )
That sounds like a great name for a song!
“Writing like we are the last Brethren on earth”
Someone should compose that for AC next week. Scott, you’re on the lyrics.
Ah, Brain, I could be the guy. I just bought a new Breedlove guitar. Bowman and I share the same tastes in folk music when he’s not humming 18th century Brethren tunes and I’m not playing John Cage to prove my Derridian postmodernism.
But alas, I will not be at Grand Rapids. I’m representing the COB to the Mennonite General Assembly in my hometown of Pittsburgh.
I really like the words of Brother Cole: “I would rather our Church be seen as a leader for Christ, than a leader for social causes.” In my own simple mind, I see the interpretation of Christ’s articulated position on peace and forgiveness as very clear and straightforward and have seen the conversations this year around the issue of openness to homosexuality as (what I hope is) the church’s attempt to invoke the Spirit to move us toward a community of shared Christian ideals. I participated in those conversations with some openness to being molded, but had expected that many others were coming to “protest” that we were engaging in this process and imagined that I would feel marginalized as a “bleeding heart liberal”. What I experienced was genuine, heartfelt communication of many individuals’ interpretation of scripture, and respectful listening, questioning, and counterpoint. People in community struggling to find some shared space. I listened to people whose families have been Brethren for many generations talk about angst over loved ones who chose to fight in the military and how they have been included in the community as parallel to the issue of gays. People finding their own interpretations and understandings of Christ’s message and offering those to the group seeking feedback and counsel.
With so much of Christ’s words and actions devoted to issues of social justice and inclusion, it’s really challenging to tease out what it means to be “a leader for Christ” from what it means to be a leader for social justice. I appreciate the voices of the participants in this conversation to help interpret the boundaries of religion, politics, and popular culture. They grow less clear to me every day.
There is a lot of really good information here, although sometimes I feel like I need Noah Webster himself to sit with me while I am reading. I don’t mind the back and forth of opposing views, actually I value that as it forces me to be more informed about topics and where I stand on each issue. I have found over time that people that always stand in exactly the same point on the continuum on each separate (I was going to write “disparate” but that was too much of a dictionary word) issue haven’t really thought it all through, because we are all molded by our own experiences and background and therefore unable to be in exactly the same place at exactly the same time. Yet in politics and religion we somehow expect this homogenized version to be the norm, and take great offense with our neighbors when that is not the case. Isn’t that where the true “peace” position should start…with our neighbors?
I will say, however, that I have written a lot on related subjects and have yet to be published in anything like The Messenger or even have a recent book title (Blue) listed on the Brethren Press website. That feels a little wrong when we are supposed to be open to new light as a group. I guess I need to use bigger words and try to soften my “often wrong, but never in doubt” views…:).
Maybe the current BRF Chairman felt the same underlying resistance to his point of view over time as well, and had to resort to a more outrageous and powerful message just to be heard at all? Just one, humble voice…
Cole,
I hear your concern… and received a similar comment some time back in a discussion about where our Brethren theologians are. I share your dismay that the voices in print are often repeated- even my own. In Congregational Life Ministries of the Church of the Brethren we have a small journal called Basin and Towel. Each of us on staff seek out writers or write ourselves. One thing I try very hard at is finding writers other than myself to contribute.
There is an element of clarity and quality we look for in writers for any project, but I would say its not about big words. The more I run in denominational circles the more I realize its about networks and who you know. We each interact with a limited number of people, or have only a few circles we run in, so that limits the people we have to choose from. That’s why I really appreciate Carl’s blog. The spectrum of people who interact and comment here is much larger than the voices who comment on say my blog or I talk with on a frequent basis.
Honestly, I am of the opinion that social media and blogs present us all in the CoB with a great opportunity to talk outside our circles. I appreciate your reflections here, and would love to read some of what you have written. The big words here among persons like Carl, Scott, and maybe myself are more a product of our work than our personality. Needless to say “big-wordies” need not apply! Keep commenting and challenging us all!
Josh
Having been silent on this forum for a long time, I offer a hesitant thought while reading this blog late into the night in my hotel room in Michigan on the night before Annual Conference. Carl confessed in one of the posts above that the “retreat” to sports struck him as a mechanism for setting the “serious issues” aside. Before I read that, I was appreciating that brief moment of light-hearted banter where the Steelers straddled the lines that divide us.
My confession is that as I have been preparing for Conference, I have all the while wanted to retreat from the “serious issues”. What I really want to do with my brethren is to play. Football, frisbee, or Candyland…I would be game. My wondering on this night is this: which would do more to bring us together as Brethren at Annual Conference over the next week? Debates about “serious issues” or some retreat time together for recreation?
I honestly wonder. I dare say that I would come away from a game of football with my brethren of differing opinions with more love and sense of common humanity than I would from just about anything we do at Annual Conference…
It’s good to hear from you, Chris. I hope you are well in your ministry and in your life.
Carl is right; I was citing Professor Mallott the psychiatrist on sports, rather than Professor Mallott the former Bethany scholar on Brethren doctrine (the psychiatrist’s father), as a way to probe, with some lightness of being, the complicated question of how we find common ground, connect with a common humanity, recognize an evolving Dunker heritage, and come to a common table of faith seeking unity in diversity.
If my nod to Craig Allen on football confused some blog readers, more serious Brethren scholars will know that both he and I can reveal which members of the Pittsburgh Steelers have Anabaptist family or faith roots. Seriously.
Thanks for the “wondering,” Chris. I realized after a while that Scott’s purpose was more than a digression. (I’m a little slow.)
A word this morning from my perspective as a public theologian and ordained minister in communion with the Church of the Brethren.
I’ve been taking detours on my way to the Mennonite General Assembly in Pittsburgh. Last night it was the Carolina Chocolate Drops concert in Dayton. This morning I was at the Yellow Springs, Ohio Farmers’ Market. Within the span of 45 minutes, I had lovely conversations with a German Baptist Brethren family selling breads and organic meats, a gay couple selling handcrafted bath soaps, some old hippie farmers selling various greens and a studly looking landscaper selling bushes and trees. The market offered an inviting, hospitable, peaceful space.
Could it be that we should be thinking more about how to participate in a vibrant Farmers’ Market than how preserve and perpetuate a small, quarreling German sect?
Indeed, in our Church of the Brethren peace work in Africa we learned this lesson. In Kenya, we American Brethren and the Nigerian EYN delegates learned that a pressing question around human flourishing was, “How can we together have a productive and pleasant sokoni?” Sokoni is the Kiswahili word for the village market where Christians, Muslims, animists and atheists must gather in community and commerce for the common good of all. The viability and vitality of daily life is very dependent upon seeking the peace and welfare of this sokoni space and recognizing that one’s personal convictions and creeds must seek a more public shalom, a just peace for all. It was in fact the Prophet Jeremiah who reminded the faithful that it was only when they dared seek the peace of the whole city, which was Babylon in the Prophet’s context, that they, the gathered people of God, could hope to find their own personal, familial, communal and spiritual peace. After all, we must finally ask, isn’t the church in the world for the world?