"After all, we are all displaced Germans, at least ethnically , and because we haven't had a true home for four hundred years, we subconciously long for one." Pg. 27
Back in 1978 when I entered Christopher Dock Mennonite High School as a freshman my adviser rather “strongly” encouraged me to take German instead of Spanish as my foreign language elective. It is obvious to me today that as an African American living in the city of Philadelphia (now and back then) it would seem common sense that Spanish language would be more beneficial to me in the long run. Even though at the time it seemed odd to me to take German as a language, I wasn’t able to articulate any reasonable objection to my adult guidance counselor. It wasn’t until reading Rudy Wiebe book “Peace Shall Destroy Many” that it really hit me in full measure the significance of the German language to the Germanic ethnic Mennonite in the early 1980’s. Though I have been part of the Mennonite Church for almost 25 yrs and have been well versed in the German heritage connection to our denomination – it wasn’t until reading Wiebe that the cultural value and identity of what it “means” to be Mennonite connected with a specific language. Ironically it gave me a greater appreciation for why my guidance counselor sought to direct me into his namesake Germany. Obviously I can never be confused as German!
Yet I find it also ironic that for four years of my young life I sat and was passionately taught by a ethnic German (Mr. Reinford), in a classroom filled with the majority of ethnic Germanic Mennonite peers who willingly opened up a new world to me through the language, the traditions/history, surnames and food, of which I even grew to appreciate. Yet as I reflect on that time in my life and recall the pride in which I was introduced to German ethnicity and their willingness to share that heritage with me, rarely if ever do I recall passion, freedom, openness, and concern for my well being as it related to my Christian faith and being invited into the Mennonite faith understandings.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
The Anabaptist Vision - Harold S. Bender
“All the evangelical scriptures teach us that the church of Christ was and is, in doctrine, life and worship, a people separated from the world.”
(From Menno Simmons pg. 27 of “The Anabaptist Vision”)
The quote utilized by Harold S. Benner in his influential booklet “The Anabaptist Vision” is from the namesake of our Mennonite church Menno Simmons. In the context of his booklet, it seemed to me that Benner was directing his audience to a modern understanding of Anabaptistism where “Absonderung” is considered the focus and norm. Under the guise of separatism modern Anabaptism understood holiness and our faithfulness to God to be accomplished only in isolation from the world. Quite understandably, persecuted Anabaptist and then their off spring (2nd, 3rd etc) gravitated to this understanding of separatism (“quiet in the land”) from the years of severe persecution and martyrdom!
However I question the appropriate use by Benner of Menno Simmons quote. Obviously without having the full context in which Benner drew the quote from Menno Simmons it is difficult for me to exegete his original intent. However, a more familiar quote from Menno would seem to contradict the one above:
True evangelical faith cannot lie doormat, it clothes the naked, it feeds the hungry, it comforts the sorrowful, it shelters the destitute, it serves those that harm it, it binds up that which is wounded, it has become all things to people.”
Which one is it? Will the true Menno Simmons please stand up! Somewhat supspringly I believe Menno is standing up in both statement. In the first statement I believe a more accurate understanding of what Menno is stating is less to do with our modern Anabaptism and closer to the Anabaptism of the Reformation. In this understanding Menno is seeking to declare that true people of faith we will indeed become alien (separated) to the world. Yet as aliens in our world, we will belong to a community that isn’t limited by man mad borders, language, economics, ethnicities and this beloved community is called the church. However, where I differ from Benner and his use of Menno Simmons is that our alien status of belonging to Christ will compel us to behave in the spirit of “True Evangelical Faith” inside the church and outside its walls – even unto to death.
(From Menno Simmons pg. 27 of “The Anabaptist Vision”)
The quote utilized by Harold S. Benner in his influential booklet “The Anabaptist Vision” is from the namesake of our Mennonite church Menno Simmons. In the context of his booklet, it seemed to me that Benner was directing his audience to a modern understanding of Anabaptistism where “Absonderung” is considered the focus and norm. Under the guise of separatism modern Anabaptism understood holiness and our faithfulness to God to be accomplished only in isolation from the world. Quite understandably, persecuted Anabaptist and then their off spring (2nd, 3rd etc) gravitated to this understanding of separatism (“quiet in the land”) from the years of severe persecution and martyrdom!
However I question the appropriate use by Benner of Menno Simmons quote. Obviously without having the full context in which Benner drew the quote from Menno Simmons it is difficult for me to exegete his original intent. However, a more familiar quote from Menno would seem to contradict the one above:
True evangelical faith cannot lie doormat, it clothes the naked, it feeds the hungry, it comforts the sorrowful, it shelters the destitute, it serves those that harm it, it binds up that which is wounded, it has become all things to people.”
Which one is it? Will the true Menno Simmons please stand up! Somewhat supspringly I believe Menno is standing up in both statement. In the first statement I believe a more accurate understanding of what Menno is stating is less to do with our modern Anabaptism and closer to the Anabaptism of the Reformation. In this understanding Menno is seeking to declare that true people of faith we will indeed become alien (separated) to the world. Yet as aliens in our world, we will belong to a community that isn’t limited by man mad borders, language, economics, ethnicities and this beloved community is called the church. However, where I differ from Benner and his use of Menno Simmons is that our alien status of belonging to Christ will compel us to behave in the spirit of “True Evangelical Faith” inside the church and outside its walls – even unto to death.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Anabaptist Theology in Face of Postmodernity - Quote Summary from the Politics of Jesus
“It (The Early church) chose not to challenge the subjugation of woman or the institution of slavery. Thereby it prepared itself gradually to become the religion of the established class, a development that culminated in the age of Constantine three centuries later.” (pg. 168-169 “The Politics of Jesus”)
Yoder’s statement above is quite powerful. According to Yoder less than one generation removed from the death and resurrection of Jesus, the early church that would have consisted of disciples who sat at the feet of the master had already softened the cutting edge of the gospel message. His observation is quite troubling and comforting to think about.
According to Yoder, the Apostle Paul (and other writers) liberally borrowed from the popular Haustafeln or “Household Rules” of his day to discern the Biblical subordination understanding to the broader church on the issue of women, slavery and child rearing. The criticism therefore is that consciously or unconsciously, Paul along with others limited the radical message of Jesus by conforming to the world around him. Instead of perhaps being a thermostat for the culture, Paul and other writers of the New Testament were mere barometers on sensitive issues such of subordination during a time were patriarchy was the norm. In other words, according to Yoder the Jesus of the Gospels would have “radically” framed the issue of subordination differently as he had done on the issue of divorce, lust, violence, etc. The logical conclusion therefore that Yoder’s argument would lead is to question the sovereignty of scriptures along with questioning how (mind vs. heart) God through the Holy Spirit inspired the writers of scripture. All of which leads me to the troubling fact that Christianity as we know could have been dramatically shaped differently.
This leads to my second observation on Yoder. His willingness to put the possibility that the early church lost a portion of its moral compass, though admittedly troubling, is also important to note it is also freeing. Yoder’s names what many in the church refuse to grasp about scripture that still impacts us yet today. We all are influenced, shaped, and therefore fashioned by our environment. Simply put, we do not live in a bubble that remains stagnant and free from outside influence. As a result it shouldn’t be a surprise that the authors of the both Testaments of our scripture were both inspirited by God in the spiritual yet were also impacted by what they saw and experienced in the natural. Is this not according to Yoder our call today as well? Yoder is clear – we are to remove all the (cultural, ethnic, etc) barriers that would impede us from Jesus being our normative way of life.
Yoder’s statement above is quite powerful. According to Yoder less than one generation removed from the death and resurrection of Jesus, the early church that would have consisted of disciples who sat at the feet of the master had already softened the cutting edge of the gospel message. His observation is quite troubling and comforting to think about.
According to Yoder, the Apostle Paul (and other writers) liberally borrowed from the popular Haustafeln or “Household Rules” of his day to discern the Biblical subordination understanding to the broader church on the issue of women, slavery and child rearing. The criticism therefore is that consciously or unconsciously, Paul along with others limited the radical message of Jesus by conforming to the world around him. Instead of perhaps being a thermostat for the culture, Paul and other writers of the New Testament were mere barometers on sensitive issues such of subordination during a time were patriarchy was the norm. In other words, according to Yoder the Jesus of the Gospels would have “radically” framed the issue of subordination differently as he had done on the issue of divorce, lust, violence, etc. The logical conclusion therefore that Yoder’s argument would lead is to question the sovereignty of scriptures along with questioning how (mind vs. heart) God through the Holy Spirit inspired the writers of scripture. All of which leads me to the troubling fact that Christianity as we know could have been dramatically shaped differently.
This leads to my second observation on Yoder. His willingness to put the possibility that the early church lost a portion of its moral compass, though admittedly troubling, is also important to note it is also freeing. Yoder’s names what many in the church refuse to grasp about scripture that still impacts us yet today. We all are influenced, shaped, and therefore fashioned by our environment. Simply put, we do not live in a bubble that remains stagnant and free from outside influence. As a result it shouldn’t be a surprise that the authors of the both Testaments of our scripture were both inspirited by God in the spiritual yet were also impacted by what they saw and experienced in the natural. Is this not according to Yoder our call today as well? Yoder is clear – we are to remove all the (cultural, ethnic, etc) barriers that would impede us from Jesus being our normative way of life.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Body Politics - quote summary
“In Sum: To be human is to be in conflict, to offend and to be offended. To be human in the light of the gospel is to face conflict is redemptive dialogue. When we do that, it is God who does it. When we do that, we demonstrate that to process conflict is not merely a palliative strategy for tolerable survival or psychic hygiene, but a mode of truth-finding and community building. That is true in the gospel it is also true, mutatis mutandis ("things being changed that have to be changed”), in the world.” (pg. 13 Body Politics)
Author John Howard Yoder’s concludes the first chapter of Body Politics (“Binding and Loosing”) with a wonderful summary statement that is obvious to me after 10 years of church ministry, yet is a wonderful reminder. The timely reminder simply states that as people of faith we will disagree or have conflict with one another. Yoder’s statement has a lot of credence when we look at the early church and its various faith/social disagreements that occurred with regularity. Much of the New Testament – Gospels, Acts, Epistles -are dealing with conflict between people of faith. In addition, a broader view of scripture including the Old & New Testament it is easy to see the continual conflict between God and humankind as well as continual conflict between the people of God amongst themselves along with its enemies.
In addition to scripture, our church history is also a witness to conflict – The Great Schism 1054, 16th Century Reformation, 17th Century Age of Reason/Enlightenment and today's Postmodernism to name a few. This isn’t meant to imply that all denominational or congregational disagreements are of the same merit, some disagreements are indeed frivolous. But the fact remains as Yoder indicates, conflict amongst the people belonging to God is to be expected and seen as a complimentary necessity in maturing and growing the body (and individually) into becoming more like our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Our Lord speaks clearly of the model in Mathew 18.
One could argue that if people of faith within the church are predominately “agreeing” amongst one another (or in our church relationships) we are most likely avoiding mature conversations of substances in the name of so called “peace”. In his famous Letter from a Birmingham Jail, Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. embraced a two-tiered definition of peace, arguing that negative peace is the false assumption that where there is no outright conflict, struggle or war that there is peace and unity. However Dr. King correctly noted that having no war doesn’t mean you’re not a prisoner of fear or a prisoner of hate. Such tension or unspoken secrets remain though silenced (often with the threat of force). Far too often this is how we function in church and in this life. Dr. King challenged that our goal or our desire should be towards positive peace that constitutes justice, truthfulness and honesty that will result in conflict but over time will produce true unity as Jesus prayed in John 17 within the brotherhood and sisterhood of Christ.
Author John Howard Yoder’s concludes the first chapter of Body Politics (“Binding and Loosing”) with a wonderful summary statement that is obvious to me after 10 years of church ministry, yet is a wonderful reminder. The timely reminder simply states that as people of faith we will disagree or have conflict with one another. Yoder’s statement has a lot of credence when we look at the early church and its various faith/social disagreements that occurred with regularity. Much of the New Testament – Gospels, Acts, Epistles -are dealing with conflict between people of faith. In addition, a broader view of scripture including the Old & New Testament it is easy to see the continual conflict between God and humankind as well as continual conflict between the people of God amongst themselves along with its enemies.
In addition to scripture, our church history is also a witness to conflict – The Great Schism 1054, 16th Century Reformation, 17th Century Age of Reason/Enlightenment and today's Postmodernism to name a few. This isn’t meant to imply that all denominational or congregational disagreements are of the same merit, some disagreements are indeed frivolous. But the fact remains as Yoder indicates, conflict amongst the people belonging to God is to be expected and seen as a complimentary necessity in maturing and growing the body (and individually) into becoming more like our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Our Lord speaks clearly of the model in Mathew 18.
One could argue that if people of faith within the church are predominately “agreeing” amongst one another (or in our church relationships) we are most likely avoiding mature conversations of substances in the name of so called “peace”. In his famous Letter from a Birmingham Jail, Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. embraced a two-tiered definition of peace, arguing that negative peace is the false assumption that where there is no outright conflict, struggle or war that there is peace and unity. However Dr. King correctly noted that having no war doesn’t mean you’re not a prisoner of fear or a prisoner of hate. Such tension or unspoken secrets remain though silenced (often with the threat of force). Far too often this is how we function in church and in this life. Dr. King challenged that our goal or our desire should be towards positive peace that constitutes justice, truthfulness and honesty that will result in conflict but over time will produce true unity as Jesus prayed in John 17 within the brotherhood and sisterhood of Christ.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Anabaptist Theology in Face of Postmodernity - Quote Summary
Much of the theology of Western Christendom has accommodated violence and war, and has done so in such a presumed universal fashion that even peace churches barely recognize it. ("Anabaptist Theology In Face Of Postmodernity" pg. 68)
From my perspective as an Anabaptist who affirms peace as part of the full Gospel message of Jesus, Weavers book and specifically these words at first glance are easy to affirm. Indeed, a quick historical look one would be hard pressed to disagree with Weaver’s assessment that the Christian Church is a place that “accommodates violence and war”. According to Weaver it is because of this misunderstanding of the Gospel of Jesus Christ that that we who represent the historic peace churches are in desperate need of a fresh theological starting point beyond those articulated by the Constantine influence Reformers. All of whom it is important to note, according to Weaver have misappropriated the Gospel message of peace. As a result, we who value the peace understanding must be “set apart” in search of a purer theology that organically originates from the soil of peace.
However a second glance of Weavers book, I admit I am somewhat troubled by his overall message. The first reason is that he segments the message of Jesus only to be understood in the light of the New Testament and more specifically the Gospels. It is almost as if the rest scripture, specifically the Old Testament is null and void (this has been tried before in history). It is obvious to me as to why he doesn’t speak into the Old Testament. It is in the OT that we find God along with violence and war, all of which for us Anabaptist is a challenge to reconcile. In no way am I implying that our peace understanding cannot be resolved within the OT, it surely can, but his lack of reflection into the OT and to a lesser extent the Epistles is major oversight on his part. Secondly, portions of his book is spent suggesting that the early founders of Anabaptist as well as modern Anabaptist theologians co-opted a ”theology in general” approach which has left us today with a tainted or weaken gospel of peace. I would suggest his that his “purity logic” in rejecting the “theology in general” when applied to Jesus himself is invalid. Jesus Christ said himself said that:
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” Matthew 5:17 (NIV)
Here we find Jesus just prior in the Beatitude’s speaking words of peace, reconciliation, restoration, etc in the midst of religious leaders who deemed violence as the norm and says in essence that I am not bringing you something “new” rather I am “fulfilling” or perhaps “clarifying” what you misunderstood. Jesus didn’t throw away the “theology” that came before his earthly dwelling; rather he built upon it and redefined it for the entire world to see. Neither did Jesus limit his earthly ministry to peace, his ministry include amongst other things healing, discipleship, prayer and service. Weaver in my estimation dares to “violently” throw away those theologians who have come before him all in the name of peace. I find it rather ironic that the “Prince of Peace” chooses to hold onto the Law and the Prophets (or fulfill), some of whom were outright violent and war mongers, yet Weaver deems this approach as “ecclesiological ambiguity.” Do we do away with the OT as easily as Weaver suggests that we do away the Protestant Reformers?
Thirdly I would suggest that the name in which we now self-identify ourselves is also helpful in this discussion – Anabaptist. Our name given to our forebears was given in criticism of what our accusers recognized or feared the most in the “radicals”. As “re-baptizers” the early Anabaptist understood that the whole Bible was the norm and applicable to everyday living, including baptism. I concur with Weaver that a classic Anabaptist understanding would also include that though the whole Bible is normative, we find in Jesus the perfect application of God’s desires in this life. My point is this. Weaver revisionist assertions as it relates to Anabaptist position on peace fails to recognize that our (though derogatory) namesake speaks volumes into what was the primary emphasis of the early Mennonites; re-baptism not peace. The peace position obviously came out of a people faithful reflecting on the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, but we cannot ignore the obvious emphasis on baptism compared to peace at the very beginning of this Radical Movement.
Lastly I would suggest that Weaver’s assertions throughout the book regarding the Atonement under the guise of Postmodernity are borderline heresy. In my estimation Weaver struggles with the wonderful possibility that Anabaptist and non-peace theologians can come to common ground or agree to disagree on areas of theology. For Weaver, the concept that we can agree on one area of theology yet deviate on the issue of peace is beyond his grasp of appreciation. For Weaver peace is the first and final measurement of faithfulness in the people of God. I affirm that peace is a fruit, but it isn’t the only fruit of the spirit given to us by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit.
From my perspective as an Anabaptist who affirms peace as part of the full Gospel message of Jesus, Weavers book and specifically these words at first glance are easy to affirm. Indeed, a quick historical look one would be hard pressed to disagree with Weaver’s assessment that the Christian Church is a place that “accommodates violence and war”. According to Weaver it is because of this misunderstanding of the Gospel of Jesus Christ that that we who represent the historic peace churches are in desperate need of a fresh theological starting point beyond those articulated by the Constantine influence Reformers. All of whom it is important to note, according to Weaver have misappropriated the Gospel message of peace. As a result, we who value the peace understanding must be “set apart” in search of a purer theology that organically originates from the soil of peace.
However a second glance of Weavers book, I admit I am somewhat troubled by his overall message. The first reason is that he segments the message of Jesus only to be understood in the light of the New Testament and more specifically the Gospels. It is almost as if the rest scripture, specifically the Old Testament is null and void (this has been tried before in history). It is obvious to me as to why he doesn’t speak into the Old Testament. It is in the OT that we find God along with violence and war, all of which for us Anabaptist is a challenge to reconcile. In no way am I implying that our peace understanding cannot be resolved within the OT, it surely can, but his lack of reflection into the OT and to a lesser extent the Epistles is major oversight on his part. Secondly, portions of his book is spent suggesting that the early founders of Anabaptist as well as modern Anabaptist theologians co-opted a ”theology in general” approach which has left us today with a tainted or weaken gospel of peace. I would suggest his that his “purity logic” in rejecting the “theology in general” when applied to Jesus himself is invalid. Jesus Christ said himself said that:
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” Matthew 5:17 (NIV)
Here we find Jesus just prior in the Beatitude’s speaking words of peace, reconciliation, restoration, etc in the midst of religious leaders who deemed violence as the norm and says in essence that I am not bringing you something “new” rather I am “fulfilling” or perhaps “clarifying” what you misunderstood. Jesus didn’t throw away the “theology” that came before his earthly dwelling; rather he built upon it and redefined it for the entire world to see. Neither did Jesus limit his earthly ministry to peace, his ministry include amongst other things healing, discipleship, prayer and service. Weaver in my estimation dares to “violently” throw away those theologians who have come before him all in the name of peace. I find it rather ironic that the “Prince of Peace” chooses to hold onto the Law and the Prophets (or fulfill), some of whom were outright violent and war mongers, yet Weaver deems this approach as “ecclesiological ambiguity.” Do we do away with the OT as easily as Weaver suggests that we do away the Protestant Reformers?
Thirdly I would suggest that the name in which we now self-identify ourselves is also helpful in this discussion – Anabaptist. Our name given to our forebears was given in criticism of what our accusers recognized or feared the most in the “radicals”. As “re-baptizers” the early Anabaptist understood that the whole Bible was the norm and applicable to everyday living, including baptism. I concur with Weaver that a classic Anabaptist understanding would also include that though the whole Bible is normative, we find in Jesus the perfect application of God’s desires in this life. My point is this. Weaver revisionist assertions as it relates to Anabaptist position on peace fails to recognize that our (though derogatory) namesake speaks volumes into what was the primary emphasis of the early Mennonites; re-baptism not peace. The peace position obviously came out of a people faithful reflecting on the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, but we cannot ignore the obvious emphasis on baptism compared to peace at the very beginning of this Radical Movement.
Lastly I would suggest that Weaver’s assertions throughout the book regarding the Atonement under the guise of Postmodernity are borderline heresy. In my estimation Weaver struggles with the wonderful possibility that Anabaptist and non-peace theologians can come to common ground or agree to disagree on areas of theology. For Weaver, the concept that we can agree on one area of theology yet deviate on the issue of peace is beyond his grasp of appreciation. For Weaver peace is the first and final measurement of faithfulness in the people of God. I affirm that peace is a fruit, but it isn’t the only fruit of the spirit given to us by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
