Blog love where needed...

Brother Maynard has come up with the interesting suggestion of circulating a list of under-rated, under-appreciated, or under-valued emerging/missional blogs to help promote them in the wider blogosphere.

His list:

• Emerging Grace


• Robbymac


• Lily a.k.a. Erin


• Nathan Colquhoun


• John Smulo

My (short but important) list:

• Barry Falke
  

• Trevor Debenning
  
  

To participate, copy this list into a new post on your own blog, and add the names you have to the bottom of the list, and encourage others to do the same. They should be people with under 150 links so we can truly skew the Technorati rankings. When you’ve done that, leave a comment at Brother Maynard’s blog so he can keep track of who ends up participating.

Prez Swartzendruber part Deux: or, "you Mennonites are among the few in the whole country making sense right now"

As promised, here is the second part of EMU President Loren Swartzendruber's excellent article. And in case as you read this you're tempted to click away because Swartzendruber's context (Mennonites) is different than yours, I think he's making some serious points about cultural nonconformity for the sake of Christ that can be applied to all Christian traditions. It's not as if the "historic peace churches" are the only ones given the command to be peacemakers; or Lutherans are the only ones to emphasize justification at God's initiative, to be seized by faith; or Methodists are the only ones who should pursue sanctification. Denominational distinctives are not meant to be exclusive, and thus Swartzendruber's words (though spoken within a distinctive context) are deeply prophetic to all Christians. What is our witness in our different cultural realities?

And I'll put in a pre-emptive p.s. for you here. I'm not Mennonite...I do consider myself deeply influenced by Anabaptism, but I'm not just toeing denominational lines here by quoting Loren. He's got something to say to all of us. And so he continues;

"My observation is that many of us who grew up Mennonite have struggled to come to peace with our past experiences. We remember the days when we were, in fact, very different culturally. It was embarrassing to stand out in the crowd. It is so much easier psychologically to 'fit in' with the multitude. And, now, particularly in the U.S. context, we fear the possibility of being ostracized by our neighbors if we dare to challenge prevailing assumptions.

What does this have to do with EMU and Mennonite education? I've devoted most of my adult life to this mission for one simple reason: I believe Mennonite Anabaptists have had (and still have) a unique theological perspective- and practice- that is needed in our world. I am disappointed with the headlong rush to "be like everyone else" as though our theological forebears were badly mistaken. Frankly, I think the burden of proof is on those who have embraced the majority culture. Again, the New Testament hardly promises that the followers of Jesus will enjoy majority status.

I've frequently said that I am 'proud' to be a Mennonite, though I always add with a smile, 'I'm proud in a humble sort of way.' That's not because I value being Mennonite above being a follower of Christ. I do believe, however, that it's not possible to be a generic Christian. We are all part of theological streams with historical wellsprings, whether we are charismatic, Pentecostal, Lutheran, or Anabaptist- and whether we realize it or not.

If EMU and our sister Mennonite schools and colleges are not unique and thoroughly committed to being Anabaptists as followers of Jesus, there is little reason for them- for us at EMU- to exist. There are hundreds of good, academically strong institutions that do a great job of educating young adults.

I am astounded at the number of parents around the church who aren't aware of this simple fact: We're different from other colleges. Even other educational and denominational leaders recognize we represent something unique. One university president from South Dakota, himself a Baptist, told me recently, 'You Mennonites are among the few in the whole country who are making any sense right now.'

Jennifer Jag Jivan, a member of the Church of Pakistan (a merger of four Protestant denominations) and a recent MA graduate, described the difference this way in a recent letter:

'I feel richly blessed that my life crossed the Mennonites. Like all people, of course, they experience their ups and downs, church conflicts, and others, but they are a people whose commitment to walk in the love of God in humility renews one's spirit in the goodness of humanity. My deep appreciation for all the Mennonites, whether meeting them in the cafeteria, bookstore, or classroom- their culture of helping others and meeting others where they are, and spreading this culture of love and peace- is breath-taking indeed! But what is more, this environment is so catching that it enables others to embrace this spirit and be the miracle of this love-sharing life. This is unique and very special to EMU.'

These statements are not reasons to become prideful, but they do show that others see something distinctive, a difference worth preserving. It may seem strange for a university president to say that he doesn't really care is his institution exists in the year 2006, 20 years from now. And I don't, not for the sake of the university itself. But, I do care, with all my heart and soul, that the church's witness is strong in the year 2026. I'm convinced it will only be so if a substantial number of our youth receive a Mennonite education.

To those who have stuck with me to this point in my 'sermon' and who are surprised at my audacity and passion, I made a similar speech to the EMU Parents' Council one morning last spring. I made it totally off the cuff, after I had forgotten I was to join them, and then I apologized for my passion. I reflected that perhaps I'm getting old, and that I no longer feel as if I have much to lose. They were slightly stunned, I think, and then said, 'Put it in writing. You're preaching to the choir.'

My life would be blessed if the 'choir' would carry the message and deliver their young adults in large numbers to EMU and all of our Mennonite schools- and most blessed when those graduates have become the faithful members and leaders of the church tomorrow.

To those from other theological traditions reading this, I am grateful for your recognition of and appreciation for EMU's unique role in this world. I am grateful, too, for the insights you bring to us and to this role."

Ok, ok, these are radically different, but...

First things first, click on the following link here to see one of Peyton Manning's skits from hosting SNL: hilarious at times, over the line others, but all in all it'll get a chuckle out of you. Here's the link.

Second, I'm going to post a great article in two parts (with the first part here) written by the President of Eastern Mennonite University where I'm going to seminary. It's a tremendous article, perceptive as well as in-your-face. Among other things, a college president having the brass ones to say that he doesn't care if the institution of EMU exists 20 years from now should grab a little of your attention (maybe the industry of cancer research that often seeks to treat symptoms rather than angle in on the cure for the sake of the perpetuation of the industry could take a lesson here).

President Loren Swartzendruber asks: "Liberal or Conservative?"

"'Are you a conservative or a liberal?' This appears to be a simple, straightforward question, yet my answer is never simple. It is: 'I don't know. I am both, and I am neither. It depends on the issue. It depends on the person or group to which I'm being compared.

I'm a pacifist because that's how I understand the meaning of following Jesus, but that is a very liberal position to some of my friends. I support certain lifestyles and am disheartened by other lifestyles- ones which I believe EMU should actively discourage- so some call me and EMU conservative. If you really want to know what I believe, you'd be safe to read the "Confession of Faith in a Mennonite Perspective" (link here). Not that I agree with every last detail, but I do trust the discernment process of my church body. When I was baptized I committed myself to this: to follow Jesus and to 'give and receive counsel.'

I was surprised when EMU was lauded in a 2006 college guide book, All-American Colleges: Top Schools for Conservatives, Old-Fashioned Liberals, and People of Faith. Many, though not all, of the other 49 colleges in the guide book are 'conservative' in that they have a direct connection to orthodox conservative causes, such as educating and preparing students to serve in the U.S. military. Yet the profile on EMU is largely accurate.

The title of the guide underscores the dilemma that an institution like EMU faces in explaining itself to prospective student, donors, church people, and community members. How do we define ourselves within a cultural context that wants to reduce complex realities to simplistic cliches? Sometimes I receive calls from community folks who seem to know exactly how a Mennonite institution should conduct itself. These calls bemuse me since those of us committed to this expression of the church rarely possess such certainty, despite our heartfelt prayers for guidance.

Since my ordination in 1975, I have preached in more than 230 congregations, most Mennonite, but some other traditions. Frequently I have engaged folks in Christian education conversations and interacted with members and leaders over a meal. Though I am optimistic by nature, I have detected a trend that concerns me: I am troubled by the loss of identity among many who call themselves Anabaptist.

I am not referring to such simplistic identity labels as conservative and liberal. Do these really matter? I meet church members who eagerly embrace one in opposition to the other, as though it is really possible to be consistent across the spectrum, whether theologically or politically. As one of my Anabaptist mentors used to say rather frequently, 'On some issues I am rather liberal...because I take the Bible very seriously. Which is a conservative position.'

I have a deep concern that Anabaptist Mennonites have been derailed theologically by the influence of so-called Christian radio and TV. I grieve that we are increasingly unable to stand up for the Jesus of the New Testament who called us to another way. We are also subject to liberal theology that downplays the significance of Jesus' invitation to salvation.

The problem with drinking from other theological wells is that we are subtly lulled into thinking that all Christians share similar perspectives. Yet all do not read the Bible the same way. Many believers have a 'flat book' view of the Scriptures. The logical result is that Old Testament perspectives are put on the same level as the New Testament. Jesus himself demonstrated a different approach: 'You have heard it has been said...but I say...'

My Anabaptist theological ancestors interpreted the Old Testament through the eyes of Jesus and through the lens of unfolding revelation in the New Testament. Unfortunately, that's a perspective not heard from most speakers in the popular Christian media. Either my Anabaptist forebears were deluded, or they were right. I'm throwing my lot with them. They believed the example and words of Jesus must be our guide, and so do I.

What practical differences does this make? Some years ago I was guest preacher for several days just prior to a U.S. presidential election. One individual told me, in all seriousness, that she would not vote for a particular candidate because he ' would take away all our Bibles.' The same person appeared surprised when I responded that Jimmy Carter may well have been the most 'Christian' president of my lifetime. At least he attended church regularly, openly confessed his faith, and has been a life-long Sunday school teacher.

I wish I could report that her concerns were unusual. I've heard the wild-claims of what might happen 'if so-and-so were elected' all too often. Never mind that I doubt any U.S. political leader would denigrate the Bible, I have to ask the obvious question from a New Testament perspective: 'What difference would that make?' I've always understood that the strength of the church, and the faith-based stances of its believers, are not subject to the 'state.'

What kind of faith is demonstrated if we insist on being legitimized by government? Our friends in Ethiopia saw people flock to the church during a time of prolonged persecution. They didn't need governmental support for the church to flourish, even as they would certainly appreciate, as we do, the freedom to worship in peace."

Oh snap!

"The New York Daily News is reporting that youthful Giants quarterback Eli Manning got engaged Tuesday night. Eli needed to move fast while there were still women available who hadn't been impregnated by Tom Brady."

From the SI article by Pete McEntegart here.

Oh no you didn't!

A personal intellectual hero...

Richard Hays is an awesome, awesome guy. A quotation I love from his thought:

"One reason that the world finds the NT’s message of peacemaking and love of enemies incredible is that the church is so massively faithless. On the question of violence, the church is deeply compromised and committed to nationalism, violence, and idolatry. This indictment applies alike to liberation theologies that justify violence against oppressors and to establishment Christianity that continues to play chaplain to the military-industrial complex, citing just war theory and advocating the defense of a particular nation as though that were somehow a Christian value. Only when the church renounces the way of violence will people see what the Gospel means, because then they will see the way of Jesus reenacted in the church."[1]

---

[1] Hays The Moral Vision of the New Testament, 343.

Apostles Creed in TRUE evolutionary nationalized form

Since the nation is obviously more important than the church in God's design, I propose a new creed to replace the Apostle's Creed so often affirmed by many of our churches that knuckle under to nationalism.

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of the United States,
and giver of the Constitution, the second most heavenly document (though most practically
relevant one for daily life) on earth,
which provides an unparalleled moral code in its original form
that is only properly interpreted by fundamentalist "Christians":

America was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of mercantilism and colonization,
suffered under King George,
shed the shackles of British imperialism,
brought the land and its native inhabitants to their respective knees,
and became the pure city on a hill,
spreading the message of enlightenment and democracy to the uneducated masses,
and is worthy of the sacrifice of my life for its vision and ensuring of present status as top dog.

America has descended into the hands of liberals.
But through an emphasis on proper moral values,
the appointment of proper judges that know the aforementioned values,
and proper legislation that reflects those values,
will recover again.

America will retain its moral and physical position on top of the heap
and continue to sit at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
in continuing objectivity judging the living and the dead.

I believe in the American Spirit,
the holy rite of citizenship,
the message of freedom,
the beauty of materialism and individualism,
the sacrifice of my life for national and cultural goals
and life everlasting in submission to these goals regardless of my commitment to Christ.

Amen.

P.s. Feel free to amend this Creed to your individual nation-state as well...as long as you recognize that subjective creed is subordinate to (and derivative from) the objective American Creed. After all, Jesus came to fragment the world into a series of groupings of those in his church that are committed to the interests of their individual nations first and foremost. America is simply on top of the heap by providence

Poverty is more complex than you think...

I've been reading Jonathan Kozol's book Amazing Grace: The Lives of Children and the Conscience of a Nation here recently, and I have been blindsided by the daily reality of poverty as well as the complexity of the problem. As a middle-class white male, I often find myself seeking to give easy answers for poverty like "if they worked harder, they wouldn't be poor," and "the system of welfare only perpetuates the cycle of poverty" or some other disconnected theoretical BS. Kozol refuses to allow me to stay in that coolly disconnected state. Here's an excerpt...a real story of poverty that just may wake you up like it has me.


"'If poor people behaved rationally,' says Lawrence Mead, a professor of political science at NYU, ' they would seldom be poor for long in the first place.' Many social scientists today appear to hold this point of view and argue that the largest portion of the suffering poor people undergo has to be blamed upon their own 'behaviors,' a word they tend to pluralize.

Alice Washington was born in 1944 in New York City. She grew up in Harlem and the Bronx and went to segregated public schools, not something of her choosing, nor that of her mother and her father. She finished high school, studied bookkeeping at a secretarial college, and went to work, beginning at 19. When she married, at the age of 25, she had to choose her husband from that segregated 'marriage pool' to which our social scientists sometimes quite icily refer of frequently unemployable black men, some of whom have been involved in drugs or spent some time in prison. From her husband, after many years of what she thought to be monogamous matrimony, she contracted the AIDS virus.

She left her husband shortly after he began to beat her. Cancer of her fallopian tubes was detected at this time, then cancer of her uterus. She had three operations. Too frail to keep on with the second of two jobs that she had held, in all, for nearly 20 years, she was forced to turn for mercy to the City of New York.

In 1983, at the age of 39, she landed with her children in a homeless shelter two blocks from Times Square, an old hotel in which the plumbing did not work and from which she and David and his sister had to carry buckets to a bar across the street in order to get water. After spending close to four years in three shelters in Manhattan, she was moved by the city to the neighborhood where she now lives in the South Bronx. It was at this time that she learned she carried the AIDS virus. Since the time that I met Mrs. Washington, I have spent hundreds of hours talking with her in her kitchen. I have yet to figure out what she has done that was irrational."
(from pages 21-22 of Kozol's book)




Now don't be deceived. In posting this excerpt of reality, I'm not seeking to occupy the opposite extreme of my cool detached classism and racism where every person in poverty is a helpless victim of the system, because that is just as false as saying the poor "just need to work harder." The reality in this mess is a need for both individual and systemic accountability for action. But I did post it for this reason.

The situation is complex, and if we are to speak of the poor and pursue concrete solutions to poverty, we must embrace the complexity, we must hear the stories from across the spectrum, and we must prepare ourselves to seek the truth in the tension erected between the poles of individual and system responsibility.

At this point in history, we have to deal with the reality, in my view, that the system should carry a heavy disproportionate weight of responsibility to provide help for the poverty-stricken, especially because urban poverty is often minority-heavy, and for over 80% of the existence of the United States of America, the purported "land of the free," African-Americans were considered (socially and by law) to be second-class citizens...sub-human. We're fooling ourselves to suggest that the last forty years has erased this disgusting reality.

The power of suggestion and twisted religion.

I fear for Benny Hinn's soul, and I'm not joking.