Beginning with the September, 2010, issue, Purpose: Stories of Faith and Promise, which is a monthly devotional magazine published by Faith and Life Resources of the Mennonite Publishing Network, will carry a regular column by me on peace themes. The column is called “Pursue Peace,” and will engage the various themes that each issue of the magazine is focused on.
Here are links to the columns that have been published so far:
September 2010—”Rehearsals for retirement.”
Ted Grimsrud (January 2010)
As a young adult in the 1970s, I found a strong sense of clarity to realize that I could never participate in war. Then I discovered Mennonites—Christian pacifists with a strong tradition to back them up. Then, I discovered surprising ambivalence about pacifism among Mennonites, even to the point where some Mennonites have charged that the church has made pacifism an idol.
What is in mind in this linking of pacifism with idolatry? I think at least some of the following points may be present. Pacifism could be seen to be an ideology, a human-centered, rigid philosophy similar to, say, Marxism or Libertarianism—and as such actually in competition with God as the center.
Or pacifism could be understood to be at best something we add to the core message of the gospel, perhaps valid in an optional kind of way but a problem when it is seen as too central. When pacifism becomes too central it almost certainly will distract us from the main concerns of the gospel such as personal evangelism and the call to holiness.
Or pacifism could be seen to have become a badge of Mennonite identity, something that separates us from and elevates us over other Christians, an occasion for pride.
Or, finally, pacifism could be seen as making a human philosophy the basis for limiting God’s sovereignty. With pacifism we may be telling God what God may or may not ask us to do.
I believe, though, that properly understood, Christian pacifism can never be an idol. Continue reading
Welcoming But Not Affirming: The Logic of MC USA’s “Teaching Position” on Homosexuality
Ted Grimsrud—July 2010
[Author’s note: This essay was drafted shortly after I taught my Introduction to Theology class, which included a unit on homosexuality. I wanted to get some of my thoughts onto paper while they were fresh. I have not yet been able to develop the argument in this essay as thoroughly as I hope to. However, due to other commitments it may be some time before I can return to fleshing out my thoughts. Especially, the paper’s final section needs significant expansion. In the meantime, I am posting the essay here on Peace Theology in hopes that some may find it helpful—and that I may receive constructive criticism that will help me when I return to the essay. For a pdf version of this paper go here: Mennonites and Homosexuality. A slightly revised version of this article was published as “The Logic of the Mennonite Church USA Teaching Position on Homosexuality” in Brethren Life and Thought 55.1-2 (Winter 2010), 10-23.]
Numerous times over the past twenty-five years I have entered into conversations concerning issues related to our churches’ response to the presence in our midst of gay[1] Christians. These conversations remain as challenging and seemingly unresolvable as ever. But they also remain as interesting as ever. And I keep learning as I engage in such conversations—about my own views and deep-seated values, about the dynamics of the conversation, and about the perspectives of my conversation partners (especially those with whom I disagree).
Certainly the conversations are complex and viewpoints are almost infinitely varied. We all bring a mixture of motivations, ethical resources, political agendas, social locations, levels of education, personal experiences, and so much more. However, as a trained ethicist, my tendencies run toward trying to provide some kind of conceptual order in analyzing these conversations. This leads me to suggest various ordering categories—not (heaven forbid!) as stable slots into which to fit various actors (so I will avoid the word “type” and instead use terms such as “tendency,” “way of arguing,” and “inclination”)—as aids for growing in understanding (the proverbial “heuristic devices” as artificial categories that have educational value but must be held lightly).
The first set of categories I will use is meant to give us reasonably neutral terms for the two sides in the debate, focusing on issues centered in the churches. These terms are “inclusive” and “restrictive.” These two terms focus on the specific question of whether a church participant’s “gayness” per se should play a role in the level of involvement this participant will be allowed.
The term “inclusive” conveys an approach that would not limit the involvement due to whether the people are gay or not (this view could easily hold that the church should restrict the involvement of all people who are involved in sinful relationships, heterosexual or homosexual—the point being, though, that heterosexual couples and homosexual couples are held to the same standards).
The term “restrictive” conveys an approach that would limit the involvement of people who are presently in intimate same-sex relationships (or perhaps also those who are open to entering into such relationships). The degree of restrictiveness might vary greatly among different churches, but in all cases the basis for restriction is the gayness of the participants. Continue reading
Here’s a list of books I have recently reviewed, linked to the reviews.
Tim Weiner. Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA. (July 4, 2010)
Joseph Loconte, ed. The End of Illusions: Religious Leaders Confront Hitler’s Gathering Storm (June 24, 2010)
Patrick J. Buchanan. Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World (June 16, 2010)
Richard Wrightman Fox. Reinhold Niebuhr: A Biography (May 8, 2010)
Harry S. Stout. Upon the Altar of the Nation: A Moral History of the Civil War (May 3, 2010)
Theron F. Schlabach. War, Peace, and Social Conscience: Guy F. Hershberger and Mennonite Ethics (March 15, 2010)
Joseph Kip Kosek. Acts of Conscience: Christian Nonviolence and Modern American Democracy (March 8, 2010)
Tim Weiner. Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA
This is both an illuminating and frustrating book. Tim Weiner is a long-time reporter for the New York Times whose beat has been the American intelligence community. This book won numerous rewards, is engagingly written, and draws on a remarkable selection of sources—including direct interviews with many involved in intelligence work and wide-ranging examination of archival materials.
Weiner probably is uniquely qualified to write this book. To his credit, he names names, cites his sources, lays the materials openly on the table. I think we should, to a large extend at least, believe the tales he tells. And hair-raising tales they are. Weiner shows us that, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the Central Intelligence Agency has from its beginning in the aftermath of World War II been a force for incredible evil in the world.
At the same time as we learn of the CIA’s mostly uninhibited zeal for murder and mayhem, generally in the context of the denial of self-determination for innumerable peoples around the world, we also learn of the extraordinary failures of the Agency. Most notably, the CIA utterly failed to gain understanding of the Soviet Union throughout the Cold War. In the first couple of decades, the CIA left the American government pretty much completely in the dark concerning Soviet activities and intentions. It’s amazing and extremely distressing to realize that the entire first generation of American cold warriors, who shaped our nation in tragic ways toward domination by militarism, beat the drums of warning against the Soviet threat with absolutely no knowledge whatsoever of what was actually going on with the Soviets. It truly boggles the mind.
Then, at the end of the Cold War, with the CIA continuing to feed its political masters the analyses that were desired to sustain the Cold War that had become so profitable for the American Military-Industrial Complex, our “intelligence” service complete missed the signs of the impending collapse of the Soviet system. Continue reading
Joseph Loconte, ed. The End of Illusions: Religious Leaders Confront Hitler’s Gathering Storm.
“Even though you meant it for evil, God intended it for good.” These words, a paraphrase of Joseph’s finals words to his brothers in Genesis 50:20, came to mind as I read this book that Joseph Loconte, a scholar on the staff of the Heritage Foundation, put together. Loconte meant for this book to serve the rhetorical campaign American militarists are waging to garner and sustain support for the “war on terrorism.” Though these purposes are highly problematic, the book (excepting Loconte’s introduction) is actually fascinating and important—though not for the purposes indended.
Loconte has gathered an extensive collection of writings from prominent American Protestant leaders (plus one Jewish writer) who engaged in a passionate debate in 1939-41 about the role the United States should play in relation to the war being waged in Europe between the Nazis and British. The first half of the book includes pieces from those who opposed military intervention, generally on pacifist grounds; the second half gathers materials from those who supported taking sides with the British and offering material aid for the Allied cause (though, since the materials all were published before Pearl Harbor in December 1941, even these latter writings do not overtly advocate American direct military engagement).
So, we have an important resource here that sheds light on Christian perspectives during what was a momentous time in American history. Despite his present day agenda, to Loconte’s great credit the introductions to the various writings are models of objective description that do a nice job of putting the articles in historical perspective.
Patrick J. Buchanan. Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War”: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World
This is a surprising book, at least to me. I’ve not read much of Pat Buchanan’s stuff. I know him mainly by reputation—a speechwriter for Richard Nixon, self-labeled paleo-conservative, critic of empire, quasi-isolationist, third party presidential candidate in 2000 whose candidacy would have cost George Bush the election had the votes in Florida been accurately counted. And, now, a sharp critic of America and British involvement in World War II.
Buchanan surely is not a pacifist, but there is little here that wouldn’t give the reader the impression that he leans in that direction. He does not come across as a Nazi sympathizer. He greatly dislikes Winston Churchill (with good reason) and Joseph Stalin (also with good reason). One does sense a somewhat extreme hatred of Soviet communism, but this antipathy does not come directly to the surface very often.
Buchanan is not a professional historian—a fact that probably works more in his favor than against him. It’s just that the reader must recognize that what this book gives us is a somewhat speculative essay on what didn’t have to be with numerous historical illustrations (not an exercise in careful archival research tested with professional historian peers). However, the strength of the book is the clarity of its argument which is not overly burdened with qualifications, or with careful delineation of minute arguments, or with “on the one hand/on the other hand” summaries. Certainly, Buchanan’s points need to be viewed cautiously and should stimulate further efforts on the interested reader’s part to test them against the evidence and other opinions. But that’s all to the good.
In a nutshell, Buchanan suggests that Great Britain should not have gone to war against Nazi Germany—which would have meant that the United States would not have gone to war with Germany either. If this had happened (or, rather, not happened), Germany and the Soviets would basically have ground each other to dust, the British Empire would not have disintegrated so quickly, and—probably most important for Buchanan’s purposes—the United States would not have succumbed to the hubris of striving to be the world’s one superpower and followed its current path to self-destruction.
Buchanan’s agenda is surely different than mine. As a Christian pacifist, I am pretty suspicious of Buchanan’s style of American-first patriotism. However, I am willing to walk quite a ways down the path he articulates in this book outlining the hugely problematic dynamics of the American and British participation in World War II and the disastrous consequences (for American democracy and the well-being of millions of victims of American imperialism in the past 65 years) of the aftermath of that war.
So, I am grateful to Buchanan for this stimulating and mostly well-written book. I recommend it, only now I have to figure out if I dare cite it when I try to articulate some of my critical views about World War II and its consequences.
The process of applying the basic convictions of the Anabaptist tradition continues to engage (as it should) present day heirs of the Radical Reformation. Several years ago I was involved in an on-line conversation that resulted in the formulation of a set of “theses” meant to stimulate reflection and conversation for contemporary Anabaptists. This set of theses may be found here, entitled “An Anabaptist Vision for the 21st Century—Some Propositions.”
These ideas were circulated to a number of attendees at the 2005 Mennonite Church General Assembly, and then essentially disappeared. I just recently remembered them and decided to dust them off. In the days to come, I will be thinking about how to pursue further conversation about these theses.
Comments on this website are welcome.
Though the book of Revelation often is presented—by both those who like it and those who don’t—as a book that underwrites violence and judgment from God. There is a vigorous and growing body of scholarship and more popular exposition, though, that presents Revelation as a book that presents a basis for peacemaking and compassion. In a short article, I give a quick summary of how Revelation’s content actually points towards peace.
This article, “Victory over the powers of death and evil,” was first published in 2001. It presents a sketch for a reading strategy that counters the Revelation-underwriting-violence approaches.
I continued my sermon series this morning on why we pay attention to Jesus, based on the story told in the Gospel of Luke. This sermon (the seventh out of thirteen), called “Jesus’ Identity—And Ours” (and posted here), focused on Luke 7:18-23.
Jesus began his ministry by gaining wide renown as a miracle worker and powerful teacher. He drew crowds, and as this text shows, strong, respectful interest from John the Baptist (as well as a Roman centurion and Pharisee). Luke raises the question of Jesus’ identity in the context of telling of this interest. As John’s disciples asked him, “Are you the One to come.”
Jesus does not answer the question with a straightforward “yes” but rather answers in the affirmative by reciting the things he’s been doing, summarized with the series’ final clause: “bringing good news to the poor.” In doing so, Jesus points ahead to the big “fork in the road” at which he will arrive—where the choice is ministry by acclaim and success or ministry resistance and suffering.
Jesus, in taking the path of resistance provides a model for all his followers. We find our identity linking ourselves with God’s “preferential option for the vulnerable.”
Peace Theology 