“Romans 13 supports pacifism!” and other recent reflections

Leave a reply

For my blog writing on May 8 at ThinkingPacifism.net, I addressed the issue of how Romans 13 actually might be read as supporting pacifism—instead of serving as the main anti-pacifism prooftext.

I faced Easter this year with a questioning spirit, I’m afraid. So I wrote a blog post about it: “Resurrection ‘Faith’?” I posted that piece at ThinkingPacifism.net.

The previous week I wrote on some issues related to the role of the American military in “peacebuilding” activities—and whether “military peacebuilding” might not actually be an oxymoron. The post is called “Can the Military Do Peace?”

On April 10, I rekindled my long-standing interest in the Book of Revelation, an interest that does not seem to be diminishing. Like all great literature, Revelation yields new insights the more it is read and considered. I have just posted reflections on Revelation under the title, “The Book of Revelation and the End of Christianity.”

These are some other recent posts: April 3, 2011— “What’s really at stake in the debate about universalism?” I argue that the most important issue is not about whether everyone goes to heaven after they die (or not), but is actually something else.

Please note that it is very easy to start an email subscription to the blog posts—just use the email subscription link on the top right of any Thinking Pacifism page.

The two prior blog posts were: “Why did Jesus die?” (March 28) and “What do you do with those who ask what to do about a bully?” (March 20).

My March 13 blog was called “Pacifism and the Civil Rights Movement.” On March 6, I put up another post outlining an article I hope to write where I  critique the “just war theory” in light of World War II. My previous entry was an essay on Dietrich Bonhoeffer as interpreted by Mark Thiessen Nation.

My February 20 blog entry reflects on World War II’s moral legacy. In my post, “World War II and America’s Soul: Christian Reflections,” I respond to a pro-World War II editorial in The Christian Century. I argue ultimately that if we place our priority on the preciousness of life we will recognize why we can’t affirm that war. On January 21, I posted “How Should a Pacifist View World War II?”, where I reflect on the ways that just war reasoning can be helpful even for pacifists in thinking about the War.

Peace Theology continues to serve as a repository of my more formal writing.

A case study in the “gay issue” and Mennonite “church discipline”

2 Replies

Even though Mennonite communities in North America have been engaged in debates and controversies over the “gay issue” for decades, little careful historical writing has yet been done on these controversies. I am sure there are writings I am not aware of, but most of what has been published so far has been limited to first person accounts (as collected in Roberta Krieder’s excellent books), more generalized sociological and/or rhetorical studies (such as works by Michael King and Gerald Mast), and a few short historical overviews (such as Lin Garber’s article in the book edited by Norman Kraus, To Continue the Dialogue).

We now have a very specific but quite illuminating, carefully researched and clearly written study of one case of conference discipline of a dissident pastor. Kelly Miller, a 2011 graduate in history from Goshen College, has written her senior thesis on Kathleen Temple, the former pastor of Shalom Mennonite Congregation in Harrisonburg, Virginia. [Full disclosure: Kathleen is my wife; I figure tangentially in the story Kelly tells.]

Miller’s paper is called, “Behind Mennonite Same-Sex Sexuality Debates: Kathleen Temple and Virginia Mennonite Conference, 1998-2002.” It may be read here.

Certainly, Miller’s lengthy paper (it’s 53-pages printed out) is of great interest for those of us directly involved in the events that ended with Temple’s loss of ministerial credentials. However, it’s importance also lies in providing a careful look at how “church discipline” worked in this one case and the problematic consequences of the actions taken by Virginia Conference. Miller quite helpfully provides us with concrete, on-the-ground, information that can contribute to growth in our understanding of how these controversies have worked out in actual history with actual people.

Finding hope in the story of Jesus’ execution

Leave a reply

I reflect on Jesus’ crucifixion and how this death stands for life in my March 27, 2011 sermon—the thirteenth in my series on Luke’s Gospel.

One of the big and challenging questions for Christians is the simple question: why did Jesus die? One way to approach this question is to look at the big story the Bible tells. In the story, right away with Abel we learn that sometimes being faithful to God might actually be the reason a person dies. The Old Testament later on sets out two types of conflict as central in the struggle for faithfulness among God’s people—the external conflict between the faith community and the empires of the world and the internal conflict between oppressive leaders inside the community and the prophetic voices of dissent.

The gospels then place Jesus right in the middle of this big story—and recount how his life involves the same two types of conflict as he bumps up against both the religious institutions and the political institutions of his day. Jesus got into trouble because of his double commitment to challenge oppressors and to welcome the oppressed. And he does so nonviolently.

The sermon may be found here: it’s called “Life in Death.” The other sermons in the series may be found here.

A critique of the Mennonite Church USA’s “teaching position” on homosexuality

Leave a reply

North American Mennonites are typical of Christian denominations in struggling with whether and how to be welcoming of gay and lesbian Christians in their midst. This struggle promises to be on the table at the Mennonite Church USA’s General Assembly in Pittsburgh this summer.

The citing of MC USA’s stated “teaching position” on this issue, especially by denominational leaders, both reflects the history of this struggle over the past several decades and plays an important role in present dynamics. But what exactly is this “teaching position”? Where did it come from and what is it based on?

I have an article, “The Logic of the Mennonite Church USA ‘Teaching Position’ on Homosexuality,” that was be published Spring 2011 in Brethren Life and Thought (volume 55.1-2, dated Winter/Spring 2010) and attempts to respond to these questions about the “teaching position.”

I argue that this “official stance” is based on shaky premises (for example, one key element is an assertion that the Mennonite Confession of Faith takes a restrictive position regarding homosexuality, an assertion I show to be unfounded). This “teaching position” is all too often used to stifle conversation on these issues. I conclude that the only way through for MC USA as a denomination and for MC USA congregations and other organizations is to welcome open discussion and decentralized, congregation-centered discernment.

Along the way, I also discuss the significance of how many restrictive advocates use the term “homosexual practice” (singular) rather than “homosexual practices” (plural). This usage then has the effect of actually reducing the important of the actual content of biblical materials that relate to the broader issues related to homosexuality in the community of faith. I also reflect on the role that “natural law” seems to play in this discussion, even for self-affirming biblicists.

New blog post on Bonhoeffer

Leave a reply

“What do we make of Dietrich Bonhoeffer” is an essay I just posted on my Thinking Pacifism blog. I report on new work on the Bonhoeffer story by my colleague Mark Thiessen Nation that argues for a consistently pacifist reading of Bonhoeffer’s life. That is, Mark suggests that Bonhoeffer never did repudiate his pacifism—contrary to the standard account of the story.

The Moral Legacy of World War II

Leave a reply

[I am posting rough drafts of the chapters from a book I am writing about World War II and its moral legacy. My hope in posting these chapters is that I might receive helpful counsel. So, please, read the chapters and let me know what you think. All comments, questions, and challenges are welcome and will be most useful as I revise the chapters this winter and spring. The first nine chapters are now up—February 25, 2011.]

THE LONG SHADOW: WORLD WAR II’S MORAL LEGACY

1. Introduction

2. Jus Ad Bellum: The Reasons for the War

3. Jus In Bello: The Conduct of the War

4. What the War Cost

5. Pax Americana

6. The Cold War

7. Full Spectrum Dominance

8. No to the War

9. Social Transformation

10. Servanthood

11. The Moral Legacy of World War II—And What We Might Do With It

The Last Supper and Discipleship

Leave a reply

I reflect on Jesus’ last supper and its meaning for discipleship in my February 13, 2011 sermon—the twelfth in my series on Luke’s Gospel.

The story of Jesus is not simply a case of bad things happening to a good person. It’s bad things happening to a good person because he’s a good person. Jesus’ life raises the issue of how it is that the “good news” leads directly to bad news. The other big question in relation to Jesus is whether the bad news he faces is something that he deals with so his followers won’t have to (kind of the substitutionary atonement motif), or if his facing bad news is a kind of model for Jesus’ disciples.

The account of the Jesus’ last supper with his friends makes a clear and strong point of emphasizing the modeling aspect. Luke, alone of the gospels, inserts the debate among the disciples about who would be “greatest” into the last supper conversation. Jesus’ exclaims: “Not so among you! The greatest must be servants.” Here he makes it clear he expects his followers to follow the same good news leading to bad news path that he follows—with the promise of God’s ultimate vindication.

Also, by placing the last supper in the context of the Passover celebration, Luke reiterates that the good news –> bad news –> vindication dynamic that was central in the exodus story links it with the story of Jesus.

The sermon may be found here: it’s called “When the ‘Good News’ is Bad News.” The other sermons in the series may be found here.

Pacifism in our (Post)modern World

Leave a reply

In 1998, I wrote a paper that brought together many of my thoughts about pacifism. When I was in college back in the 1970s, right at the end of America’s war in Vietnam, I had come to strong convictions that war was always wrong and that I could never participate in warfare or even support it. In the years since, this conviction had only only deepened.

The occasion for writing this paper was a conference at Bluffton University on Anabaptism and Postmodernity. The paper, “A Pacifist Way of Knowing: Postmodern Sensibilities and Peace Theology,” was published in Mennonite Life in 2001. I am finally getting around to making it available here on Peace Theology.

 

The rich man and Lazarus: Why did Jesus tell this story?

Leave a reply

I reflect on Jesus’ well known story of the fate, after death, of a rich man and the beggar, Lazarus, in my January 23, 2011 sermon—the eleventh in my series on Luke’s Gospel.

Why did Jesus tell this story? I suggest that his purpose has to do with exhorting his listeners to generosity. He heightens the tensions between himself and the religious leaders by likening them to the calloused rich man who finds himself after death across an unbridgeable chasm from “father Abraham.”

However, when we read this story together with the Prodigal Son story, located just one chapter earlier in Luke, we will see that Jesus seriously presents those who would identify with the rich man and his brothers with a way to healing. Simply return to the message of Moses and the prophets.

What is that message? Love God and neighbor. Jesus illustrates his words from the Sermon on the Plain in chapter six where he warns of coming woes to those who are rich now—in contrast to the blessings promised the poor. However, his overall intent is to exhort to generosity with the hope that healing is possible—not to assert people are locked into condemnation.

The sermon may be found here: it’s called “Listen to Moses.” The other sermons in the series may be found here.

The Military Industrial Complex and the Moral Legacy of World War II

2 Replies

Ted Grimsrud—1/14/11

[Presented at the Military Industrial Complex at 50 Conference—Guilford College, Greensboro, NC—adapted from earlier lectures at Eastern Mennonite University and Goshen College]

Dwight Eisenhower was, I think, an unlikely, and not altogether believable, prophet against militarism. Nonetheless, if we pay attention to a few of his words (in contrast to a long career of actions), we will find some powerful insights.

Most notably, almost exactly fifty years ago, on his way out of the presidency, Eisenhower critiqued what he so incisively called the “military-industrial complex.” Tragically, the past fifty years only underscore both the prescience of Eisenhower’s warning and regret that he did not do more to curb militarism when he had a chance.

In a typically perceptive article called “The Tyranny of Defense, Inc.,” in The Atlantic’s January 2011 issue, Andrew Bacevich writes in appreciation of Eisenhower’s speech. But Bacevich also points out that Eisenhower’s farewell speech came as a kind of bookend, paired with a speech from near the beginning of his presidency in 1953.

That first speech reflected on the dangers of militarism in the United States. Eisenhower stressed the problems of high military spending with these forceful words: “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. [When a nation spends so much on warfare] it is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.” Continue reading →