DownloadFeb. 1 issue
Goshen to begin playing national anthem before athletic events
By Jodi H. Beyeler Goshen CollegePage:
- 1
- 2
GOSHEN, Ind. — Goshen College announced Jan. 22 it will play an instrumental version of the national anthem before select sports events on campus, followed by prayer.
The decision will take effect in March, at the start of the spring sports season, and was made after discussion and deliberation over the past year. Providing a more hospitable atmosphere for athletic events was a primary reason for the recommendation and ultimately for the decision.
“One of the greatest U.S. freedoms is that we can express our faith and love of country in different ways, and we recognize that Christians differ in how to do that,” President Jim Brenneman said. “We believe this is the right decision for the college at this time. Playing the anthem offers a welcoming gesture to many visiting our athletic events, rather than an immediate barrier to further opportunities for getting to know one another.”
In the past, the college has shown national loyalty in other ways: flying a flag on campus, praying for all men and women serving the country, welcoming military veterans as students and employees, annually celebrating the U.S. Constitution and encouraging voting.
The college had been discussing the practice of not playing the national anthem for many years, but the conversation was delayed because of regional and national media attention in fall 2008.
The President’s Council formed a National Anthem Task Force made up of faculty and students in spring 2009 to develop a proposal for a college policy. The task force made its recommendation in September and then gathered several campus sessions to hear varied opinions from students, faculty and staff. The President’s Council made the decision in January to accept the task force’s recommendation.
One concern that many Mennonites have had with playing the national anthem has been that it places love for country above love for God.
Brenneman doesn’t see it that way, he said.
“We believe playing the anthem in no way displaces any higher allegiances, including to the expansive understanding of Jesus — the ultimate peacemaker — loving all people of the world,” he said.
Finally, the decision was made with the belief that “playing the anthem opens up new possibilities for members of the Goshen College community to publicly offer prophetic critique — if need be — as citizens in the loyal opposition on issues of deepest moral conviction, such as war, racism and human rights abuses,” according to the statement by the President’s Council announcing the decision.
Page:
- 1
- 2
Comments
-
Brenneman has used the tired old arguments about the tension between "prophetic critique" and "civic engagement" to justify playing what amounts to an idolatrous song that glorifies war at a peace church institution. Make no mistake. This is not about "hospitality." It is about fear of losing support and money. That is what bureaucrats and "ad cabinets" who make these decisions are concerned with. Not souls. Not virtue. Not integrity. Not following Christ!
He couched this sell-out act in peacemaking terms. But real peacemakers do not avoid conflict in this way. They do not just try and sweep it under the rug. Ironically, Brenneman has conformed to the worst of Mennonite stereotypes in his response by avoiding conflict.
Goshen College, I believe, should be boycotted in terms of people refusing to donate money or attending their college until they repeal this "lukewarm" decision (Rev. 3:16).
-
I wonder if Andy is aware that for many years, Goshen College has flown the flags of the United Nations and United States? If flying these flags is OK, from a Mennonite perspective, what is so sinful about playing the instrumental version of the national anthem at certain sporting events? If Andy has such strong feelings on this issue, I would expect he refuses to attend any sporting events where the national anthem is sung or played. Does he turn off his TV when he watches any event that is televised where the national anthem is sung?
Perhaps Andy should put this on the agenda of the next annual meeting of the Mennonite Church USA.
-
I am aware of the flag and I am against it. I also think it is disingenuous for people to use that as an excuse to play the National Anthem. What this shows is that the original decision to fly that flag just leads down a slippery slope. In another few decades, some president of Goshen will be talking about how they will "host" ROTC as an act of dialogue and peacemaking.
Hospitality has been reduced to the most mundane and ridiculous in this argument.
-
I'm not sure about this "slippery slope." Having attended Bethel College, an apologetically Mennonite, pacifist institution that has flown the American flag and played the national anthem before sporting events since its inception, I can assure you that this will not lead to ROTC on campus. It has not led to support for American militarism. It has only led to greater ownership and work toward the highest ideals our country has to offer, those of justice and equality. It has removed an entirely superficial barrier for others to attend the college. Of those that attend Bethel, few are left untouched by its values of peace and social justice.
It has served as a reminder in times of conflict that the voice for pacifism and the protest against war and unjust policies are also American. Perhaps Ralph Nader put it best, though he drew the quotation from elsewhere. "Let no one make you stand in line and wave your flag, but let no one take your flag away."
-
Jim, it is not "my flag". Neither should it be your's. No one, therefore, can take it away. It is not Goshen's, it is not the Mennonites'. The church has no aspiration to define or redefine a national flag or a national anthem, no matter if it is a war song or a fuzzy cuddly anthem. We have no claim to it, we have no way of using it as a symbol in any kind, not even a symbol of "hospitality".
Brennemann's argument is couched in pseudo-theological terms of "tension" that belie any real engagement with whether or not a church college should display any hints of ecclesiology. As a fairly new and recent Mennonite, and someone not an American citizen, I am dissapointed about this turn of events. Andy's suggestion of boycott is to be commeneded. I think though, as he himself suggested, that those with larger wallets are going to be mostly happy about GC's new kind of "hospitality"... so that outweighs us disgruntled youngsters.
-
Phillip, as you have stated, you are not American. Therefore it is not your flag. I am confused by what logic or right you say it should not be mine.
Since I was born in the United States, attended American schools, pay American taxes, vote in American elections and drive on American roads every day, I am American and am happy to claim American citizenship. I support the ideals of liberty, equality, and justice as espoused in the American constitution. Why should I not claim the American flag as my own?
Does this mean that I support American militarism or imperialism (beyond my obligation of paying taxes)? Does this mean that I think all other nations must ascribe to American ideals to be legitimate? Does this mean that I subscribe to the idea that the United States is the only nation in the world to offer liberty, justice, and equality? No on all counts!
By flying the flag and singing the anthem, a person or an institution does not jump in line with every bone-headed idea the United States ever has. It does not redefine the flag or the national anthem. These are mere symbols.
Yet in many ways, they are also key to forming the grounds for dialogue with those for whom these symbols are important. Again, if flying the flag makes the surrounding community more receptive to ideas of peace and social justice, and the gospel, then what are we waiting for and what are we resisting?
-
Jim, I was not referring to your citizenship, but rather to your use of the (individualistically) possessive pronoun. I would never use it in relation to the flag of my country of origin, nor should any Christian, the world over.
The flying flag may make the surrounding community receptive to all kinds of ideas. If any of them is contained in the 4 gospels, that I have strong doubts about. It does not take much courage these days to be an American who loves peace and justice. Those words are easily said. It takes much more courage to live lives of singular loyalty as Christians who happen to live in America (or any other country, to clarify that).
The decision is unnecessary, borders on cowardice and was argued in a more than strangeand unhelpful way.
-
Phillip, I can only answer that if you keep drawing artificial lines of distinction, you will never know if people will be more receptive. The fact is, the line does not lie on the flag or the national anthem. These are not matters of substance and we should not make them to be.
Flying the flag in one's disagreement with national policy by no means "borders on cowardice." Tell that to protesters at Fort Bennings, GA, who were arrested while marching with the American flag. Tell that to the students of Bethel College, who woke up one morning in the early 1970s to find the administration building splashed with buckets of yellow paint. Say it to the Bethel students who marched through a relatively hostile environment to protest the pending war in Iraq in 2003. Tell me that it does not take courage to own the errors of one's nation and to work against the grain toward their correction.
Tell me that some sort of refusal to own the errors of the United States is not involved in the refusal to sing the national anthem. This is delusional. We all pay taxes. We are all involved. Whether they be the crimes of the United States, Canada, Paraguay, Uruguay, Mexico, or wherever else Mennonites find themselves in a democratic nation with religious freedoms.
-
I am amazed that playing the national anthem before sporting events has become a big issue. I think that for most Americans, playing the national anthem is just a customary part of sporting events, like teams wearing uniforms.
Sure, everybody knows the words, but nobody thinks about them. We sing the song, and it reminds us of what we have in common (being in the United States or, probably, United States citizenship) before we divide into our respective camps for the game. Trust me; nobody is thinking about how the anthem glorifies battles or violence. They're thinking instead about how they can’t wait for the game to start.
Thus, because people do not consider the national anthem's words, they're not going to consider the possible peace witness of a group that does not play the anthem. Not playing the anthem thus becomes a petty and arbitrary break with custom. When Goshen College received national attention because it did not play the anthem, the masses did not stop to dialog with the college on its views, it just thought it was weird because it didn't play it. In that instance, not playing the anthem probably knocked Goshen College off of some kids’ lists of potential colleges. That’s a pretty harsh consequence!
I'm not saying that the popular perception is right or wrong. I'm merely trying to reinforce that it's a point of relative insignificance. Thus, I think it's silly to second-guess the college on this decision. Let's pick our battles. Wasting our energy on a minor issue is counter-productive.
-
I have an article by a major-city sportswriter in which he recommends dispensing with the national anthem and flag at sports events. His reason is that their presence provides an opportunity for people who are upset by US policy to express that displeasure (for example, by turning their backs or refusing to stand). He goes on to say "What place do they [anthem and flag] really have at our games?...Save the anthem and the flags for Memorial Day, Fourth of July and Veterans Day parades."
Obviously, displaying the flag and playing the anthem is about showing your patriotic fervor and honoring the US military. At least that is the the way it is perceived and percepetion is the issue here. Is this what Goshen college should be about? I don't think so.
I believe institutions of higher learning, and especially Anabaptist ones, should encourage a culture of dissent, of critical, thought-provoking examination of the status quo. I’m deeply disappointed to see Jim Brenneman moving Goshen College to a culture of accommodation and acculturation, “positive engagement” in his words. I believe the motivation is to appeal to local money and students, and to minimize criticism of the college. It’s not based on what has made GC distinctive and attractive to many of us.
I am a graduate of Goshen College, as are all my children. But I will be encouraging potential students to explore Eastern Mennonite University instead.
-
Goshen class of 1991 and Mennonite pastor here.
I am strongly against the change.
Not playing the anthem (or having flags in our churches) is a sign that we recognize that loyalty to Christ's ways and loyalty to the nation do often conflict.
It's not the end of the world, but a step in the wrong direction.
-
Jim and Ron Meyer,
I think you are both hugely underestimating the power of ritual and celebration. No one needs to know what the words or the tune mean - but joining in them is an act of marching to a certain drum (even if you don't know where that drum is leading you). Rituals don't have to be fully understood, in fact, they probably shouldn't, in order to have significance that is deep and lasting. Or will anyone of you tell me that when we observe the Lord's Supper we fully understand its meaning towards each other and towards God? The singing of a national anthem is a sacred ritual in every decent nation state. To deny that by singing it is not "of substance" or "just a song" is to grossly underestimate how human beings think and feel.
Jim: all the examples you named - are they contigent on the flag? Or might they just as well have happened without it? Are the bethel students somewhat more martyrs because the yellow paint ended up on a campus that ahd the flag up vs. one that didn't? I don't quite get it. Unless your point is to prove that you can be patriotic and dissenting - which I have never denied. Both are secondary values to the church, anyways.
-
Philipp:
I apologize for not being clear in what I wrote.
I do believe that joining in the common practice of playing the national anthem and displaying the flag at Goshen College sports events sends a strong message, one of patriotism and support for the military. That's what the sportswriter was saying as he recommended these rituals for use on Memorial Day, Fourth of July and Veterans Day.
I do not think Goshen College should be sending this message. I am disappointed that the college has changed its policy and I'm afraid it indicates a change of culture at the institution.
-- Ron Meyer
-
Philipp, Mine are examples of using patriotism as a ticket to the table of discussion. Once again, Bethel College is an undeniable precedent for the fact that an institution that has played--even from time to time sung--the national anthem since its founding, can still retain an unapologetic, uncompromising Mennonite identity. Cowardice had nothing to do with these developments, as you have asserted in previous comments. Curious that both you and those who have persecuted Mennonites for their refusal of military service would choose the same term.
The fact is, the presence of the flag is not wholly irrelevant in any of these events. For some, it is a very important tool to deny opponents' arguments that one is either in full ascent with the policies of the government or one is un-American. This sort of either-or argument is quite pervasive in society.
You, Philipp, perpetuate this polarization when you insist that only evil can come of playing the national anthem. I do not insist that Goshen play the National Anthem, merely that it is neither the end of Goshen's Mennonite identity, nor necessarily a step in the wrong direction, both of which you assert in advocating people withhold financial contributions to the institution.
From the experiences of Bethel College, there are certain opportunities opened. On occasion, use of the flag has brought people into dialogue with us when they see that we are not acting out of disloyalty to our country, but from greater loyalty to our faith and our God. While we may not have seen eye to eye, it has certainly fostered more civil discussion.
Lest we misunderstand each other, I am against the idea of having flags in church, patriotic songs in the hymnal, or playing the national anthem, largely for the same reasons you list. I simply do not see a church-affiliated institution as having the same mission as a church itself.
-
Jim, I have appreciated your comments very much. Having been one of the student organizers of the Iraq war protest, I appreciated you mentioning it. If we were seen as cowards at that moment (as in the yellow paint incident) it was for our refusal to fight, not for our playing of the anthem at sporting events.
But let's be clear about the point of bringing Bethel into the conversation: Bethel is proof that a Mennonite school can allow the anthem to be played at sporting events and still maintain a strong Mennonite identity that is unapologetic in its witness against US militarism. The point is not to say that Goshen should or shouldn't also play the anthem (I think Jim made that clear).
I found it helpful to learn recently that Bethel and Bluffton originated as corporations of the towns they were in (with representation on their boards of both local business people and Mennonites) whereas the former MC colleges were direct institutions of the church. This explains the historic difference regarding flag and anthem.
Philipp, you make good points regarding the significance of symbols. I basically agree with you. Perhaps the question is in whether one interprets the playing of the anthem as a direct outgrowth of the values of the institution or not. My feeling is that Mennonite schools already are intrinsically connected to the USA in a plethora of ways. Everything that happens on a Mennonite campus is not symbolic of the Church's values. For individual followers of Christ I think there is value in making hospitable space in our institutions for people whose first allegiance is to their country. But then again there is also value to sticking fast to foundational principles of nonviolence...so its a two-sided coin.
One more point: when the anthem is played in any setting, it is there as an opportunity for people to feel and/or express solidarity in their hearts with the USA. It does not force anyone to feel that, nor does it necessarily encourage that. Furthermore, it creates an opportunity for any individual to express dissent. Here, for example, are four ways we can react to the playing of the anthem: 1. Solidarity (or perhaps "reverence"): standing, removing one's cap and placing one's hand on the heart. 2. Respectfulness (or perhaps "polite neutrality"): standing and removing one's cap but refusing to place the hand on the heart. 3. Rejection: refusing to stand or remove one's cap. 4. Opposition: attempting to disturb or distract from the anthem.
Those are my 2-cents. Again, I don't intend to discourage the Goshen community from challenging the college's decision. You all make very valid points. But as a Bethel grad I do feel the need to express that the two options here are not necessarily between faithfulness and blasphemy.
-
The writers seem to agree that the USA flag is a symbol of the country.
Is the prayer after the playing of the national anthem a symbol of the Christian Church?
How do we keep our Christian commitments up front and central to our lives and witness?
My brother opposes the flag in a church building because the USA flag legally takes precedence and top position over the Christian flag. His reasoning kept the flag out of his church house which is not a Mennonite congregation.
-
Joe-Good to hear from you! We have to catch up at some point.
Les-At issue here is not so much the role of the flag in a church. I think we are fairly united that the flag has no place in a Mennonite church or as part of Mennonite worship. The question is the role of the flag in a Mennonite institution of higher education and how it affects that institution's relationship with the community and its expression of Anabaptist identity.
-
Jim, sorry that i confused you by using the illustration of a congregation. The point was that legally the USA flag trumps all else. That does not feel biblical. I have not heard that Bethel has increased its enrollment greatly lately. But if people are becoming more devoted to Jesus because of the discussion, may the Lord bless them and keep the focus on Jesus! I agree fully with Ruth Stotzfus Jost.
-
Ron, thanks for the clarification, I went back and read the initial entry. I can see where you are coming from, truly sorry for any misunderstandings.
Jim, you wrote: "You, Philipp, perpetuate this polarization when you insist that only evil can come of playing the national anthem." What in the world? Please keep in mind that I never used the language of evil and good, never ever. But I did use terms like "other", "church" and "world" and I firmly believe that to be entirely appropriate. Also, if I need the national anthem as a 'ticket" to enter a certain conversation, and prove my street cred by being fine with national allegiance, I'm not sure if I want to enter that conversation...
-
p.s.: can one love the flag and be a pacifist? Sure! But can one love the flag and be a nonconformist in the old-fashioned way? Sure not.
Perhaps we need to rethink our much-celebrated shift in terminologies over the last decades... Not that that has very much to do with the anthem, but it came up above.
-
Phillipp, how is urging people not to donate to a fine institution such as Goshen not polarizing? How is referring to singing the national anthem and carrying the flag as cowardice not polarizing? How is laying the litmus test of nonconformity on the flag and national anthem not polarizing? I must thoroughly disagree with your "old-fashioned" definition of non-conformity. True, one can be non-conformist without the flag, but one can be non-conformist with the flag.
Les-No problem with confusion. Just wanted to make sure my position on the flag in church was clear. I do not believe, however, that a church and a church-affiliated school are the same thing. I know the debate has not really been framed in this way, but ultimately, this is what the debate ought to be about.
It is simply not my experience that playing the national anthem before sporting events is detrimental to putting God first. Granted, I do not remember Bethel College praying before sporting events either. Joseph can correct me if I am wrong. However, given the competitive nature of a sporting event, I would not confuse it for worship. I am not certain what one would pray for at a sporting event, for that matter. Would one pray for national peace, prosperity, and wisdom? Cliché. Victory? Selfish.
I am aware of no point in the past that Bethel has played the National Anthem outside of sporting events. The flag makes no appearance in chapel, I am pretty sure there is no appearance at commencement. It is certainly not the point of ultimate loyalty.
But this does not mean it cannot have a lesser place of loyalty. Can one be loyal to one's neighbors, one's community, one's church, and still reserve ultimate loyalty for God? Absolutely.
-
Jim, just to remind you of Jesus two commandments. Maybe we need to give further thought to what Jesus said and meant. Unfortunately at some sporting events, including basketball, the fanatics have become evilly unruly.
-
Les, I know of the commandments, assuming you are referring to the two commandments to love the lord your god with all your heart, mind, soul and strength, and to love one's neighbor as one's self. Loving one's neighbor as oneself is what good sportsmanship is all about, but I fail to see what even the most sportsmanlike competition has to do with worship. I am not sure that that is a bad thing, so long that one does not do something while playing to violate one's love of God. Most violations of one's love of God tend to also be violations of one's neighbors anyway.
Now, the question of the national anthem comes up. While I would not join those who would criticize an institution for its choice not to play the National Anthem for reasons of conscience. I firmly reject the idea that an institution or individual's choice to play the National Anthem somehow makes them less faithful to God or to their neighbors.
I have illustrated previously how one can use flag and anthem as methods to build ties with neighbors--in some cases to remind neighbors that such ties even exist. I have also shown earlier how flag and anthem are methods of holding one's nation accountable to a higher standard, and as a reminder that as a citizen of a democracy such as ours, we stand to shape the course of the nation in some small manner.
-
Jim, it depends upon how your interpret loving "the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength." Mark 12:30, NIV. Would not all of our love and loyalties need to be evaluated under that command? I don't recall who wrote, as I remember, placing your hand over your heart as we face the flag. Since Christ gave his life for me, I want to give my all for Christ. That does not mean that I do nothing but worship, but I want to live in a way that my actions, devotion, and behavior are loving Christ as quoted above.
-
Les--I'm not quite sure I get your point here. Could you clarify a bit more? If we are to love the lord our God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength, then does that mean there is no room left for anything else? How are we to love our neighbor as ourself? Is a nation a collection of neighbors? (Granted, our "neighborhood" extends to the global community, but I do not think love of one's nation precludes love of everyone else in the world.)
To me, the first command sets the ultimate authority but is not a preclusion of loyalty and love elsewhere, so long that one's other loyalties do not contradict the primary one. That is to say, we can love our nation, work for its success, but ought not kill for it. We can lay down our lives for our nation (whoever does for the least of these does it for Me), but not in a manner that contributes to the suffering of our other neighbors in the global community.
I suppose I would have a couple of questions from Christ's examples here. He was pretty clear about giving to Caesar what is Caesar's. It seems like Jesus also called upon his followers to go the extra mile when asked to carry a Roman soldier's armor. Though Jesus was no fan of Rome, surely these two incidents would illustrate acknowledgment of Roman authority. I would think that the national anthem would fall in a similar category.
-
Jesus is hard to understand, isn't he? Human reasoning does not match the action of Christ. Jesus kept his focus on His Father in heaven, not on the nation. A national anthem is far below Jesus' mission. Where is it for us? I sense you are uneasy in your position and you are trying to prove your point. I don't need to prove my point. Christ is our Head. I am at peace with my position. John Maxwell in "Make Today Count", writes "He gave his followers a vision of something greater than themselves. He consistently reminded them of the long term effects of their work." p. 85
-
Les, the point is a position such as mine is not easy; the argument that something is more complex than either-or rarely is. Look, the thing is, I am at peace with my position. Believe it or not, I am also quite at ease with the position of some Mennonites who cannot of good conscience have anything to do with flag or anthem. For me, the major issue is if one chooses to be the "still of the land," as has oft been a Mennonite habit that has led to withdrawal from the world, or if one engages the world beyond the faith community to build a more just, peace-loving society. Some people have similar goals to ours, yet embrace a much stronger sense of patriotism. If the flag and anthem--as symbols of national loyalty--help one to work with one's neighbors toward these ends, which come of faith, not of nation, then why not use them? If flag and anthem would violate one's conscience, then he or she should steer clear of that aspect of community engagement.
What one ought never do--and this was a vibe that I sensed from Philipp and from Andy--is call to question the legitimacy of one's faith in such an argument. I have not gotten such a vibe from you, Les. I would hope I have not sent one myself.
-
Interesting conversation.
More and more I feel like the two sides are just coming from totally different places and that we need to agree to disagree.
What surprises me, however, is that the critics of playing the anthem seem to allow no grace for those schools that have made that choice. Here, for example, Jim fully affirms the choice to abstain from the anthem, but Les, Philipp and Andy all seem to say that Jim's position is nothing short of heresy. Does "peacemaking" not entail a higher degree of listening, understanding, and respecting?
Jim- We should catch up, however I'm afraid I have no idea who you are. I took a stab at it and emailed the great Jim Juhnke, but alas you are not him.
-
"What one ought never do--and this was a vibe that I sensed from Philipp and from Andy--is call to question the legitimacy of one's faith in such an argument. I have not gotten such a vibe from you, Les. I would hope I have not sent one myself."
Well it does seem like they would call into question the faithfulness of a person who does such a thing. That is different than calling into question their "faith" is it not?
On this Andy posted a long, hot-under-the-collar post on another site about this.
http://www.jesusradicals.com/goshen-college-hurts-the-church/
-
No, there is no difference between questioning the faithfulness of a person and questioning their faith.
Based on Andy's blog entry, there is little reason to believe that continued dialogue with him would be fruitful. It rarely is if the other person thinks they have all the answers and sees only enemies.
-
Oh please... have you heard of rhetoric and grains of salt before? Anyone? Don't just blame the other side to be "totalitarian" just because they have the starker rhetoric. WHich, in this case, they probably need to have. After all, they (we) are in the position of weird, monk-like antiassimilationists.
-
Philipp, rhetoric is what these discussions are all about. If the rhetoric condemns and attacks rather than questions and criticizes, it is not ripe for dialogue. I could ramp up my rhetoric, too, but what would be the point? Would that foster discussion? I fail to see what "the position of weird, monk-like antiassimilationists" has to do with justifying tacky rhetoric.
By the way, the term "totalitarian" is not in my arguments. It is your projection. As a historian, "totalitarian" is not a word I bandy about. That you feel labeled as such only further convinces me that continued dialogue will not be fruitful. Best wishes and good day.
-
If my son were to approach defending his position as a conscientious objector in the same way that Brennemen approaches rationalizing this choice to play the national anthem, it would never work.
I'm sad to say that although I'd been hoping for quite a few years that my son would seriously consider attending Goshen College, at this point (and because of this particular decision to play the national anthem) I'd rather he choose to attend a secular college and find a local church where he can be supported by strong consistent Anabaptist values.
-
Drawing the line of being a conscientious objector at playing the national anthem and choosing not to worship with brothers that do play the national anthem but then continuing to pay taxes to the govt and worshipping with those that pay taxes is mighty convenient...if not hypocritical in my reasoning. The reason Jesus didn't specifically mention the national anthem when he alluded giving to Caesar that which is Caesar's (paying taxes) is probably because they didn't have a national anthem. If they had a national anthem - Jesus didn't mention it...wonder why? Hopefully the next generation will realize that some of the things lumped under the mantle of conscientious objection is simply misguided objection for the apparent self serving thrill of objecting to something. A might Pharisaical?
RD
-
Ouch, Rosey! Are you saying we are picking splinters out of each others eyes when we may have a log in our own?! Unfortunately I think we Mennonites (me included) are pretty good at that, hence all the church and denomination splits. I just pray that we are not so arrogant (in a Mennonite humble sort of way, of course!)that we think Mennonites will be the only ones in heaven. Or that Christians who serve in the military or pledge allegiance to the flag are somehow second rate Christians. Perhaps the solution to all this is to start yet another Mennonite college/university that would admit ONLY 4th or 5th generation (pure)Mennonites, and be taught only by Mennonite professors who all believe the same thing; then all of this bothersome inclusion/diversity stuff would be eliminated and we could live in peace together. :)
-
Lucille, thank you so much for your response. It deserves to be framed. It puts this issue in a clear and proper perspective.
I am not a strong supporter of Goshen College, but on this issue they have done the right thing.
-
Although I would favor the national anthem being played before games, I must protest that some of the sarcasm in recent comments diminishes the weight of the issue.
As a Mennonite institution, Goshen has a dual mission: to educate in the sciences and the arts, and to provide witness to the Mennonite faith tradition. This includes espousing the values of peace, social justice, and humility, all of which flow from a higher authority than that of the United States. Goshen also has the duty to make its students think critically, to challenge and enrich them in their faith and knowledge. Though Goshen ought to welcome everyone with full hospitality, it is essential that it remain true to its principles.
The big question is if playing the Star Spangled Banner would compromise Goshen's mission as a Mennonite institution. Does the national anthem even symbolically place loyalty to the United States above loyalty to God? Does it glorify militarism? Imperialism? If one reaches the conclusion that playing the national anthem does these things, then he or she has every reason to object to this decision as contrary to Goshen's Mennonite mission. I have posted often enough that where I stand is no mystery, but I must respect the weight of the argument.
-
We have the unique opportunity to help people understand things important to ritual, worship, discipleship, etc... It makes sense to me that the strongest teaching on these things would come from our colleges. Come on, Goshen! Work harder on this one (thank you for keeping the dialogue going, btw). What's at stake in this? While this doesn't have ultimate salvation implications, we still need to use opportunities to teach in the right direction - toward salvation, in other words, the best way you know how to understand God's plan for people. I think your best teaching will come out of that framework, which is why I think this latest stuff could be better.
-
This is not about "traditional" 4th and 5th generation Mennonites holding a line, but not holding it. I cannot tell you how many converts to the Mennonite church have joined not because you are assimilating, but because there is a distinctiveness to the church. Indeed, John Howard Yoder's work has done more for the Mennonite church amongst non-Mennonites than any other Mennonite, ever. I converted myself with 5 other people. I am the only one left. The other 4 came to believe that the church was not much different than other churches in their areas: commuters who don't know one another well, and are not willing or able to be discipling one another in any deep way.
Fact is they are not teaching"hospitality" openness or diversity in this decision. It is not hospitality for a Christian to go to a Muslim home with a gift of pork. The language or hospitality is here being used, as it so often is, to belittle those who would do the right thing. In the name of "hospitality" you have to give up core convictions. What sort of host would demand that somebody give up their faith to be hospitable?
In the search to be "relevant" these folks are making us all irrelevant and just plain embarrassing.
-
Andy, I am sorry that the Mennonite church has not been everything you hoped for, but I do not know what to tell you about your expectations. The fact is, there are all sorts of Mennonites, and none of them can provide the paradise you and your friends seem to be seeking, since all are human. I agree that a church must foster communities of fellowship and mutual accountability. Many Mennonite congregations do this, even as others fall short. However, we must use discipline with great care as it can rapidly become a disease that rends congregations and even families.
I would tend to agree with the premise that one ought not compromise principle in extending hospitality. (I think it would be more a matter of a Muslim or Jew serving pork to a Christian to be hospitable if we are to get our metaphors straight, since Goshen would be accommodating guests by playing the anthem.)
I wish that Mr. Brenneman would have chosen less opaque language in announcing Goshen’s decision, and that he would have left the moniker “hospitality” out of it altogether.
However, I would strongly disagree with Andy’s underlying premise that there is only one way to interpret the national anthem. Were these the only interpretations of the issue, there would be no discussion. There would certainly not have been so many Mennonites, myself included, who were scratching their heads, surprised that playing the national anthem was an issue at all when it first arose.
-
I've only recently become a Mennonite, so maybe my opinion isn't worth much here, but here goes.
The American flag is an idol to many. They put allegiance to the flag “and to the republic for which it stands” above the teachings of our Lord to do onto others as we would have others to onto us and to love our enemies. The national anthem, "The Star spangled Banner," is a hymn to the flag. If is is sung with meaning, that seems like blatant idolatry to me. Maybe for most at Goshen the flag is not an idol. But consider the Scripture:
1Co 8:7 However, not all possess this knowledge. But some, through being hitherto accustomed to idols, eat food as really offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled….10 For if any one sees you, a man of knowledge, at table in an idol‘s temple, might he not be encouraged, if his conscience is weak, to eat food offered to idols?
This directly applies. A hymn to the flag is even worse than just displaying it.
-
This is a direct attack on Mennonite beliefs, and at what point do hosts allow guests to disrespect them in their own homes?
Playing the anthem at sporting events is forced nationalism in my mind, and considering this is a college, where students pay to attend, I do not feel nationalist indoctrination should have any place in the school.
Its sad that the word "hospitality" is used to describe what the inclusion of the anthem means, but whats not being addressed is the INTOLERANCE of the surrounding community who REFUSE to allow people freedom of religion.
Catholics are allowed to have their schools, and until one of those schools hosts a "Planned Parenthood" event, I do not feel any other school should be forced to tolerate the obvious erasing of values that contradicts the very foundation of the school.
-
The Anabaptists were beheaded for not conforming to the militant state church and now they are trying to minimize even being criticized. It's time to put a flag on the cross, change your name to Methodist, join the army and call it a day. This is very sad. The world needs pacifist’s ideals and always will. A while back I wrote an article No Longer a Christian where I took the militant church/state trend to task. (it went viral with over 10,000 responses world wide and can still be found on line) It looks like I will soon have to also write No Longer a Mennonite. After all what does it mean anymore?
As for what we owe to Caesar: I remember reading that it was against Jewish law to hold coins with a graven image on them. When Jesus asked them to inspect their coins it was a way of saying in effect- you seek to catch me breaking Jewish law but you are breaking Jewish law by carrying and serving the graven image of Caesar you hold in your hand. "Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and give unto God that which is God’s." Don't we all know in our hearts that everything is God’s. I will not pledge my allegiance to a nation (especially one that drops bombs and kills children) nor will I ever celebrate the glory of "bombs bursting in air."
As for walking with a Roman soldier two miles when forced to go one- That again was an act of revolt because it was only lawful at that time to force some one to go one mile. So the suggestion of going two miles was a way to having the soldier arrested, fined or imprisoned. It was a protest against empire. Maybe Goshen College wants some of Caesar’s Federal Dollars but those come at a high price- the identity of our soul. (Way over priced in my opinion. ) It’s also ironic that the most Liberal Mennonite college is becoming politically the most conservative. I don’t think this is the Upside Down Kingdom we were talking about. Jesus was a radical living at a time of empire. Are we?
-
To not play the anthem, play the anthem, stand in respect or not is a choice that freedom gives us. As stated in the post above our Anabaptists forefathers “were beheaded for not conforming to the state church” that mandated state church membership, infant baptism, “offerings”, and more. Quite different is our situation…first we do not have a state church and second our government is neither mandating worship nor playing the anthem, nor that we stand in respect when it is played. We can choose not play it and to not stand in disrespect when it is played – it is our freedom. To misalign and then hype the facts of history for effect is in my opinion not Anabaptist, Christian or moral…and that is what is truly sad. Also sad is that some interpret going the second mile as a revolt of some sort and an attempt to get the one asking arrested or imprisoned and in doing so misses the truth of blessing in having a giving servant spirit…. I wonder what they may be thinking when washing another’s feet? Amazing appalling…but not surprising the mean spirited baseless accusations that Goshen’s decision being to receive federal funding? Not reflecting salty light in my opinion.
An unrelated topic - 10,000 responses is not considered “going viral” in today’s www environment.
-
Rosey so if we take your line of reasoning we can go ahead and ignore the entire bible? Babylon the great fell a long time ago, but that does not mean that the message changes. Christ was clear on his expectations and its really sad that some supposed followers would stand ready to misconstrue his words in order to shame those who would defend his words.
So go ahead and stand with the popular crowd who would rather turn their backs on Christ rather than stand up for his message. Enjoy that national anthem rosey, you're paying alot for it!
-
Gladiola, you said, and I quote: "Christ was clear on his expectations and its really sad that some supposed followers would stand ready to misconstrue his words in order to shame those who would defend his words.
So go ahead and stand with the popular crowd who would rather turn their backs on Christ rather than stand up for his message. Enjoy that national anthem rosey, you're paying alot for it!"
...Could you please give me the chapter & verse that you are referring to about where Christ was clear about singing the National Anthem? And how singing the National Anthem causes one to turn their back on Christ rather than stand up for HIS message? Such a violent accusation should be accompanied by the exact scripture reference. Thank you.
Also, I was very saddened by your judgement that because one does not agree with your opinion, her very salvation experience is suspect. Again, could you give me the scripture you base that on? Thank you.
-
Gladiola, Der Frieden und die Liebe Gottes für Sie lieber Englisch Schwester!
-
Amber what part of "no part of the world", do you not get? You are not supposed to show allegiance with any Nation. Its a form of idolatry, you are supposed to remain neutral.
Oh and dont shoot the messenger Amber, your guilty conscience is not MY problem!
-
Rosey nicht sagen, Dinge, die Sie nicht bedeuten, verbilligt Sie es sogar noch weiter. Aber ich würde nicht erwarten, etwas weniger von jemandem, der Christus Missachtung würde.
-
Gladiola, haben Sie vielleicht das richtige Absatz verlegt? Sie machen das gleiche Anspruch, aber es gibt noch keine Absatz vom Bibel. Ich finde es toll, dass Sie so Stark im Glauben sind. Die Fragen von dem Nationalhymn und Staatsangehörigkeit sind doch sehr wichtig! In der Wahrheit, ich finde es gibt keine klare Antwort zu dieser, auch in das Bibel. Einerseits kann man bestimmt so weit gehen dass es zum gewaltigen Nationalismus kommt, wo mann findet dass Gott mit seinem Land und Volk steht. Dadurch wird Gott efektiv eine Puppe des Landes. Andererseits kann man auch soweit gehen, dass er ganz und gar vergisst was die Nächstenliebe heißt, weill alle Menschen abgefallen sind, und es gibt weder Dorf noch Stadt noch Land wozu mann wirklich gehörren kann. Auf die beide Extreme liegen ernsthafte Sünde. Doch ein bisschen Tolerenz hilft uns solche Fehlern zu vermeiden. Und jetzt, für die die kein deutsch verstehen:
Gladiola, have you misplaced the passage? You make the same assertion, but still no Bible passage. I think it is great that you are so strong in your faith, and the questions of national anthem and national belonging are important ones to explore. In truth, though, there is no clear answer to the question, even in the Bible. On the one hand, one can of course go so far that it becomes violent nationalism, in which one finds that God always is with one's country, effectively making God the state's puppet. On the other side, one can go so far that he completely forgets how to love his neighbors, since all people are so fallen, and there is neither village nor city nor contry where a person can really belong. In both extremes are serious sins. A little tolerance goes a long way to avoiding these errors.
-
JPR the scripture is John 18:36, and it is clear so long as you arent the sort of person LOOKING to make EXCUSES for certain conduct.
Rosey unjustly attacked another poster for making a valid point about government funds, and to attack the woman was ridiculous as if the very thought was pure evil.
Then when I suggest Rosey is a sellout, (for lack of a more appropriate word), Amber comes out of nowhere and either pretends or is completely ignorant of Christianity as a whole and needs verification of her own supposed beliefs.
2 Peter 3:3 would apply nicely to Amber and Rosey who seem to feel that it is their right to preach false doctrine.
The National Anthem is indoctrination, to remind everyone where they owe their allegiance. This little "compromise" thats being made is no better then humming the tune to a nasty rap song and saying "its okay because we arent actually saying the words", well that doesnt stop you from repeating them to yourself.
Rosey should not make light of the past suffering of others or imagine that its over, and that mankind is some how more tolerant. On the contrary these days things seep into our lives in less noticeable ways, and you should always be on the lookout for pitfalls.
Now don't get me wrong I am not a bible basher in the least, but im tired of "Nu Age" beliefs seeping their way into our homes in the way of "innocent fun", or "compromise".
Too many people have jumped on board the "patriot" wagon post 9/11, and it seems everywhere we turn this new patriotism is being rammed down our throats. People trying to demonize you for not supporting the troops when you dont support bloodshed, and making you out to be an enemy of the state as a result.
So I do not see why an anabaptist would want to support the forced indoctrination, unless they were actively involved in the military or had family members involved. I feel its a guilty conscience looking for justification by forcing it on everyone else. I just dont support that at all.
-
Gladiola- I see your points, and in fact agree with many of them. Regardless of the laws of this country, tolerance is not what it ought to be. Nevertheless, I think a bit of calm and restraint is called for.
Rosey was not attacking Karen (I assume that this is the post you are referencing). He was countering some problematic arguments in her posting. She makes the claim that carrying a soldier’s armor two miles was an effort to get the soldier in trouble. I cannot accept this any more than some of the arguments I have encountered about turning the other cheek as a way to force respect, rather than to offer nonresistance. True, one gains control of the situation, but it is not about causing the other person trouble or forcing them. One carries the armor the extra mile because one gives something voluntarily something that would otherwise be taken forcibly. One turns the other cheek in choosing not to engage in a fight. One gives the shirt off his back because a thief cannot steal what is freely given.
Karen makes the claim that the early Anabaptists suffered because of their refusal to conform to the militant state church. Again, not unproblematic. Anabaptists were certainly radical, but they were all over the spectrum. Surely those Anabaptists that participated in the Peasant’s Rebellion and those who declared an Anabaptist state and Münster were on the authorities’ minds at the height of their persecution of Anabaptists. Some of the participants who survived Münster later joined Menno Simons’ Anabaptist movement. I cannot put words in Rosey’s mouth, but my point would be that there were a variety of Anabaptists who were persecuted for a variety of reasons. Perhaps we should not use them as a bludgeon in our arguments today. Then as now, Anabaptists are defined by their action on the issues of their day, according to their best interpretation of scripture. A little grace is in order.
Rosey did take a shot at Karen’s claims of going viral. I suppose this would be the personal attack, if there were any. It was probably not necessary to his points.
We all know how easy it is to lump and hate groups of people. The persecuting authorities did it to the early Anabaptists, some of the people who would ram patriotism “down our throats” do it now. It is our imperative to make sure that we are not the ones doing the lumping and hating. We must hold ourselves to a higher standard, since it is precisely this sort of rigid application of law that Jesus spent his life working against.
As for Anabaptists supporting forced indoctrination, I simply do not see any on this forum, though there I would certainly perceive a rigidity and lack of grace from some of the opponents to Goshen’s decision.
I do not find national anthem, flag, or citizenship objectionable. None of these things, from my understanding, would preclude God or Christ’s ultimate authority. There are those who would see it this way, however, and they ought not feel pressured to act against their conscience. Much of the non-gospel New Testament argues for the supremacy of faith, conscience and grace in one’s walk with Christ. If Goshen’s constituency would find the national anthem acceptable, there is no reason Goshen should not play it. But if the constituency finds it objectionable, then Goshen’s administration should not feel obligated to play it. Goshen is no less “American,” no less “patriotic,” and its students are no less worthy of federal financial aid. Legally, the same First Amendment that protects blowhard bullies on national radio talk shows protects Goshen in its stance.
-
Oh, can't we all just get along? I just ran through this conversation and it's verging on just plain silly.
I've never sung the anthem, nor have I saluted the flag, and I have no intention of beginning now. End of story.
-
Thought you might enjoy this perspective from a GC graduate, now Senior Policy Advisor for Sojourners. (Blooms Taxonomy - 6th level)
blog.sojo.net/2010/03/03/peace-is-patriotic-anabaptists-and-the-national-anthem/
Real Peace in Jesus.
Comment on the article Goshen to begin playing national anthem before athletic events
The purpose of comments is to engage in dialogue. We expect commenters to treat authors and each other as each would want to be treated. Respectful criticism is welcomed; offensive comments or parts of comments will be removed by the site administrator. Name and comment will be posted; email address is for follow-up only and will not be made public.
Download a free PDF showing the populations of
Mennonite groups and other Anabaptists.
