Feb. 22, 2010 issue
Debate with a measure of grace
Goshen (Ind.) College’s decision to play the national anthem at some sporting events has generated a flurry of discussion on Mennonite Weekly Review’s Web site. By Feb. 11, readers had posted more than 50 comments on a news story and an editorial.
The response shows that issues of patriotism and pacifism stir emotions strong enough to fuel vigorous debate.
But more than that, the discussion’s generally constructive and respectful tone models the grace-filled discernment Mennonites need to exercise on issues that spark conflict.
The majority who’ve joined the conversation online object to Goshen’s decision. Yet their comments reflect enough diversity to test a commitment to civility. Most of the writers are passing the test, avoiding the haughty attitudes and distortions of opponents’ views that too often poison public discourse today.
A key to civil dialogue is acknowledging the validity of another’s position. An example from the comments: “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 it’s a two-sided coin.”
Finding parts of the truth on more than one side of an issue, the writer rejects the culture of rhetorical warfare.
Rather than attacking with words as if facing an enemy, Christian civility calls for conducting a conversation with humility. This includes seeing shades of gray between the poles of black and white. This is more complicated than picking one side and shouting the other down. But it is essential to the Christian calling to love those with whom we disagree.
Sadly, American Christians bear part of the responsibility for declining civility. Christians stoked the culture wars, and now the polarization they created divides the church. That worries Ervin Stutzman, the new executive director of Mennonite Church USA. Speaking Feb. 7 at Bethel College Mennonite Church in North Newton, Kan., Stutzman lamented that Christian unity crumbles under the weight of clashing worldviews shaped by the media. Church members choose National Public Radio or conservative talk radio, he said, and “then we go to church and reflect these deep divides.”
A church of professed peacemakers can do better. Stutzman said he longs deeply for better ways to discuss divisive issues. In that hope, he speaks for many who have grown weary of endless conflict and would rather seek solutions than win verbal battles.
For Christians, a rebirth of civility might begin with these words of Scripture: “Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen” (Eph. 4:29).
Wholesome talk doesn’t guarantee agreement or promise to end conflict. It opens the way for productive conversation that enables Christians to be reconcilers of a fragmented society, beginning with how we talk to each other.
Comments
-
Unfortunately, if you were to call Goshen College, the PR department will tell you that the conversations have already happened and what is done is done. They would prefer it to go away, for everybody to act "civil" and to just allow things to take their course. They no longer want "conversation" but acceptance.
This decision is obviously about more than Goshen College. It is about a church that has declined in its ability to hold members accountable at all. This is about a decline in church discipleship amongst Mennonites.
-
I have found that some of those who clamored the loudest about "civility" in my profession (I'm a California lawyer) were those who exercised the power and/or represented the clients with the most power and wealth, and who sought to marginalize and inundate their adversaries. I think Jesus is the best model here, and if you think he was always "civil" with those who he believed had breached or betrayed God's will, then I will also be glad to be civil in his model. Nonviolence is not passivity and there is something to be said for a little shock value from time to time, especially for a complacent bunch.
-
Bruce, who do you see as the power brokers in this?
I don't think Paul Schrag has any stake in it. I'm a Mennonite who feels a little bit offended by the lack of civility exercised by the opposition. I don't have any power or any stake in it, I just have a nuanced opinion on the matter. I don't think that non-Mennonite Goshen athletes have much power over their school. Brenneman has nothing to gain personally from this decision.
I seriously doubt that the thousand signers to the Jesus Radical's petition are a persecuted minority in the vein of the early Christian movement, the Anabaptist reformers, or the modern-day marginalized in California.
I feel like there's a false sense of persecution felt by the opposition to this decision, along with an illogical application true non-violent freedom movement models, fueled by a false belief that not playing the anthem was some kind of daring, radical witness against militarism.
This is not to say that I don't affirm the position of being against playing the anthem at Goshen. But I don't approve of the protest approach I'm seeing or the way the issue is being framed in terms of the righteous versus the greedy.
-
Q. WHO ARE YOU? A. I am Amber. Q. No, that is your name. Who are you? A. I am an accountant. Q. No, that is your occupation. Who are you? A. I am an American. Q. No, that is where you live. Who are you? A. I am a Mennonite? Q. No, that is where you go to church. That is your belief system. Who are you? A. Who am I?
I am a Christian, a follower of Christ. I love God first and above all other other aspects of my life. As a Christ follower, I can have no other gods in my life. The gods I must deny are not made of gold & silver. The Holy Spirit has shown me that gods I have held on to in the past have had more to do with SELF than metal or glass. The god of my religious traditions. I once held them even above scripture. I looked for ( & found) verses to validate my religious traditions, all the while overlooking even some of the most basic commandments of Christ to his disciples. The god of SELF-righteousness. I thought I had the right to judge other people and weigh them on my " belief scale". If they believed like me, my church & my interpretation of the Bible & aligned themselves with Pacifism, they were "Christian". If they did not, they were either ignorant, wrong, or at best, 2nd rate believers. The Lord told me I was proud & presumptuous. I was SHOCKED! Because I put even my traditions above my love for my neighbor, I was a clanging bell; noise...a tinkling cymbal.
WHAT? The 2nd commandment is not proclaiming & defending the Anabaptist, non-violent tradition? You mean I have to love those who are in the military as much as those who conscientiously oppose war? Love my neighbor as myself. God showed me that as a PEACE loving, anti-war protester MY heart was wrong because my motive was to promote a cause, in my mind a just & right cause, instead of taking the GOSPEL of the KINGDOM to the lost. When a brother in full military uniform confronted me, I am ashamed to say I did not even know what the BIBLE records as Christ's great commission to his disciples. I was so disturbed by the fact that he was in the army, I had a hard time listening as I kept raising my god of non-resistance in his face. It was his pure love for God that disarmed me. I say god of non resistance, because I had put it even above the Lordship of Christ! Jesus was his Lord and had led him into the military. My Mennonite saturated mind could not comprehend that possibility!
I am a Christian. A Christ follower. I am also non-resistant in my dealings with other humans. But Pacifism is no longer my god or a standard I use to judge other believers with. There is only 1 God & I am not Him. Mennonite doctrine & interpretation of scripture is not God either. If my love for my brother is not greater than the truth I am holding out to him, I am wrong even if I am right.
As a Christ follower, my integrity must take me to a higher level. I must be more than civil. A self righteous, critical, rebellious, religious, proud heart can put on good manners. What is in my heart?
My beloved, let us ask the Holy Spirit to expose our hearts to ourselves and as one of our other "commenters" said, work on our own splinters & logs instead of throwing everyone who see's things differently out of the camp.
I am very happy that the President's Council voted to play the National Anthem. It has absolutely nothing to do with one's salvation or lack thereof. All my life I have heard about the proverbial slippery slope... " If we let them wear skirts & blouses, next thing will be bikinis"..."If we let them go to movies or have radios, before long they will be sneaking that devil-vision in the basement!"...."if we let them cut their hair, they will soon be wearing lipstick!" ... " if we play the National Anthem, next thing they will be going to vote...or war..."
That slippery slope scared me into & out of a lot of things. But an intimate relationship with JESUS as the lover of my soul keeps me from sin in my inward man first, and is what helps me to look at my brother through God's eyes & not my inborn knowledge of GOOD & evil.
I do not see playing the NA as compromise. I see it as actually creating a platform or arena in which we can share more openly our convictions with other schools with other interpretations of faith. Remember, we are not talking about sin here; immorality, idolatry (false gods & religions), adultery, drunkenness, evil behavior etc. We are not worshiping the flag or war. Just showing respect for the symbol of FREEDOM. I would dare say, watching the fans at the games, including myself ( I can jump & scream with the best of you), there is more worship expressed when a player is running with the ball or scoring a point than has ever happened while the NA is played as an opening moment of respect.
Step back, breathe deep... lets stop being so violent about things that aren't all that important and pray for a discerning heart about what is eternal.
Just one more thought... When we stand before Christ answering for our life responses, do you actually think He will ask," Did you sing that national anthem at the games??" I think there are many other things we should be, as my Amish grandma would say, "iefrich" about.
Thank you for your courage President's Council & President Breneman! I stand behind you & support your wisdom in making this decision. God bless!
-
BTW, Joseph P- You presented a very good "reality check". Thank you!
-
The more I think about the issue, the more I can see the persecution involved. For many, it probably seems like the National Anthem became an issue for Goshen College when conservative Mike Galligher chose to bully the school for not playing it on his radio show. Now that Goshen has changed its stance a short time later, it might seem that Goshen has given in to Galligher's pressure. Yes, the timeline is different, but perception tends to override facts in these issues. If Galligher raises the issue again on his show, it will likely be to gloat. Shows like his thrive on stirring controversy and stoking fears. If that is not power broking, I do not know what is.
The sad thing is that some of the critics of Goshen's decision, who rightly feel oppressed, do not have it in them to discern between their fellow Mennonites and blowhards like Galligher. We might differ in opinion on the National Anthem, but with few exceptions (I cannot speak for everyone), no one is gloating about Goshen's decision and most recognize the weight of the issues involved. So in the end, yes, civility is absolutely called for. We should not allow a matter such as this to splinter us.
-
JPR, so you accuse Mike Galligher of being a bully on the National Anthem issue? Then you proceed to accuse him of being a blowhard. Please, you reveal yourself by attacking the person and not the issue. What it sounds like to me is that Goshen College authorities concluded that perhaps Galligher and like minded people have a point. Galligher did not threaten Goshen College nor have I heard him mention anything since it first came up in his broadcast two years ago or so.
AMBER, I appreciate how well your comments addressed this issue. I applaude you and your courage to share the way you did. You wrote with deep Biblical insight. As a fellow retired accountant, I hope you write some more.
-
First just a short reply to Amber. Do you not see the irony in your slippery slope examples, that indeed all those initial decisions did in fact lead to the predicted outcomes? So if you follow the examples given, I guess playing the National Anthem could lead to participating in war. I'm certainly not saying it would, but your examples give credence to those who say it will.
Secondly, we all have choices to make in our giving. I choose to give to those causes and institutions that make a clear statement in regards to their allegiances and their devotion to promoting peace and justice. Goshen College has just muddied their statement. There are plenty of others who remain very clear in their stance. Goshen plans to "re-visit" the subject in the spring of 2011. I don't think conversation will go far in changing their minds. I think a decline in donations to the college will do much to "clarify" their vision. Vote with your giving.
-
Amber-
Wow. Thank you for taking the time to write this. Your post goes well beyond almost anything written on this topic so far.
I don't agree with everything you said and Rex does make a valid point about the slippery slope paragraph, but the main crux of your message remains convicting.
"If my love for my brother is not greater than the truth I am holding out to him, I am wrong even if I am right."
This line hits it dead on.
I too have made the philosophical transition from "pacifist warrior" to "lover of humanity." The difference is subtle. Opposing violence in all its forms is still critical but my first priority is to see God in EVERYONE.
This anthem issue highlights complex paradoxes of the pacifist identity. And I don't think there is only one right solution. In affirming Goshen's decision I hope to not back down from my belief that violence is wrong. But my pacifism (as a philosophy of life) is rooted in the conviction that I do not have full access to God's truth and that every person I meet (no matter how much they make me cringe) is created in God's image and has something to teach me. This does not preclude people who would use violence against their enemies.
I take it as basic to humanity that we want to have a cause to stand behind and struggle for. We have to believe in SOMETHING!!! To stand for that "something" is to feel human. Yet our stands must be tempered by an uncompromising love and respect for the humanity in all God's people.
I don't mean to say this all adds up to supporting Goshen playing the anthem. It does mean recognizing playing the anthem as one possible faithful action if done in the right spirit.
Thank you again Amber for a beautifully composed comment.
-
It seems that few seem to know the background of what prompted Francis Scott Keys to write this anthem. Nor how peace was the objective of Keys, but surrender of the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave, meant that lives were lost in the DEFENSE. I'll offer that story by video to anyone who requests it by emailing me at aulfranz@cox.net, as I have already responded to some requests.
-
Dale, I stand by my remarks about Mr. Galligher. Yes, I single out Galligher, but then again, he chose to attack Goshen for not playing the national anthem before home games.
He chose to frame the issue not as a matter of difference of conviction, but a matter of American identity. I have little use for those who would frame the issue in an either-or fashion, and my previous comments bear out my position more than sufficiently. (Check under Jim or JPR on this and related forums.)
-
Joseph P, whoa, I was trying to make a single point -- that "civility" sounds great but it may not be the way to conviction or conversion, just as it wasn't necessarily representative of Jesus' approach to issues of loyalty to God. There is a time and a place for being civil, but there is a time and place for ruffling feathers. Regarding your specific comments, I do think the president of Goshen College has to be considered a power broker in this context, and I do not accept that he has no stake in the question of playing the national anthem, but those recognitions are really secondary to my concern, which arose from Paul Schrag's editorial response to the debate. Let us be careful when we urge "civility" that we do not stifle the Spirit, and the prophetic voices among us, already easily suppressed; and that we don't forget that being brotherly sometimes involves admonition. That is the unsentimental "reality check" I would offer.
-
Bruce, yes, I think I do hear you correctly.
And I fully agree that "there is a time and a place for being civil, but there is a time and place for ruffling feathers."
But I don't quite see how anyone could argue that a conversation among brothers and sisters within the Mennonite church family regarding a decision of one of its colleges doesn't call for civility.
I thought that Schrag's lauding of civility in this context was very appropriate.
So yes, let's not urge civility at the expense of stifling prophetic voices, but let's also not assume we know who the true prophets are among us.
-
Well, here again I think that Jesus entrusted us with the determination of true and false prophets among us. And we were admonished to beware of wolves in sheep's clothing. Today's Mennonites have become so assimilated and so infected by popular culture -- which refuses to make decisions between right or wrong, but advocates "tolerance" over all -- that we can't even see that capitulation at a church college to the welcoming gods of the Patrie is an issue of morality, of right and wrong -- not to say that this is the first instance where our church oollegss have been more than ready to play the tune of the Adversary.
-
Good discussion, Joseph and Bruce! I would like to add one thing that perhaps has not been discussed. It strikes me that the flag issue is one that we can surely disagree on in love? It simply does not seem like an essential.
If a school's sole statement against Nationalist Militarism is found in its refusal to fly the flag, If the school does nothing to build international understanding and love for the global human family--beyond common nation, race, or faith, If it does nothing to instill stewardship for our world and our environment, If it does nothing to bring power and comfort to the least of these, If it does nothing to challenge those in power and make them cringe. Were this the case, a school would have much deeper problems to address that its not playing the national anthem could not cover.
If, by contrast, a school does all of these things, but flies the flag and plays the anthem, does the flag obscure all of the work that the school has done in its faith? Such a school would also be at odds with its neighbors, but its students would be advocates for real, Christ-centered social change.
Goshen has always been deeply involved in all of these things, and there is little indication that these fundamentals will change with the playing of the National Anthem. May our Mennonite schools long continue to challenge their neighbors!
-
So Bruce, what happens when you and I disagree on who the true and false prophets are? Since we're both entrusted by Jesus to determine between them do we both have license to reject civility?
JPR, I agree that we ought to beable to disagree in love on this issue and that the important things are the positive factors you mentioned.
-
None of us have been given a license to reject civility, which should be the norm. And when we disagree about true and false prophecy (not a very useful term because of its lack of currency -- perhaps a better term might be anallysis or critique, although something is lost in that translation as well), we are left only with Christ's model of exhortation and persuasion. Certainly we must disagree in love, Joseph, but love will not always express itself in civility, and we see that in our Lord.
My concern about our colleges' emphasis on international understanding is that we are TOO satisfied with that. One, we are so focused overseas that we ignore the problems in our own back yards, and two, we are content with cross-cultural people-to-people ministry and reconciliation when we need also (not instead) to be challenging the power brokers and decision-makers right here at home, in the despotic nerve center of the Global Plantation. Refusing to dance (play ball) to the tune of the Empire is an important symbol of that commitment, but of course, once the substance is lost, the symbol is also lost and seems insignificant.
-
Just to be clear, I was not emphasizing international understanding at the expense of other things. Work for social justice, nonviolence, and bringing power and comfort to the least of these are all important domestic priorities, too, and ones that our schools definitely work for.
Comment on the article Debate with a measure of grace
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
Download a free PDF showing the populations of
Mennonite groups and other Anabaptists.
