Pittsburgh Part II

Since Tuesday the days have passed relatively uneventfully. As the end of convention approaches, so does discussion of the issues that have remained in plain sight and hidden all week.

Wednesday night was the session in the conversation room about sexual orientation and the church. 300+ people participated in a Samoan Circle process to help facilitate respectful discussion. Reviews of the session have been predictably mixed. Many acknowledged, including the room leaders, that this particular model for discussion (Samoan Circle) may not have be the best to use ultimately and did not allow for a safe space for some.  Many people spoke openly about their own thoughts around LGBTQ inclusion. There was a lot of pain and some crying too. Much like opening an infected would so the diseased tissue can be removed. Appreciation was expressed for the forum even with its shortcomings, perhaps with some relief that the discussion had begun. But it may have also indicated that much dead tissue remains to be cut away, dead tissue of hate, fear, and ignorance.

The delegate sessions also finally heated up Friday afternoon with the discussion of priorities that were proposed for the next two years. Some of the issues discussed included whether the denomination should be a resourcer or a regulator, whether conference boundaries should block inter-congregational cooperation, and several other dichotomous choices. Overall, much dissatisfaction was expressed at the either/or language, as if you chose one you had to reject the other. It seemed many of the suggestions, while supported in general, also created particular concerns. The general sense was, "this looks good, but it needs tweeking".  Promises were made that as changes are made to the plan taking into account comments they would be communicated over the next two years for feedback.

Overall, my sense is that the convention has been successful on a number of fronts. Most importantly, it has hopefully been a first tentative step forward in beginning discussions around issues that we differ on as well as our common faith which should hold us together.

Pittsburgh 2011, Part I

So Pittsburgh 2011 is officially underway. As expected, there are both good and bad things going on thus far.

Delegate sessions have been predictably tame. Perhaps one of the most meaningful moments thus far was a visit on Day 1 from the Michael Reid Trice who woks with ecumenical relationships for ELCA. He greeted us as expected but then moved to the recently act of reconciliation between Anabaptists and ELCA for past persecution during the Radical Reformation. He spoke eloquently and authentically about Lutherans owning their own history which includes killing many Anabaptist leaders in the 16th Century.  It was an impressive gesture of repentance. Perhaps more moving was the response from the delegate body which gave him an enthusiastic standing ovations, as if to say "you are forgiven, our brothers and sisters." An important if not historic moment.

Another moving experience was the opening worship service put on by Pinkmenno/Open Letter/Mennoneighbors/BMC, etc.This was held in an historic UCC church. The sanctuary was packed and voices were raised in harmony as one. More than a few tears were shed as we prayed for unity and for healing. I imagine this will end up being the best worship experience of the week.

As I interact with other delegates at my table, old friends I meet, and LGBT activists I find that I am a bit in the middle. I do not see my goal as a Pink menno and delegate from HMC as one of changing minds or hearts. I am not here to debate the science or theology of sexual orientation. For me, this is even periphery to the core issue of hospitality, welcome, and love. Shane Phipps challenged everyone, pink or not, about what should happen in the church when we disagree. While referencing the Ministry of Reconciliation, he argued that the issue was not necessarily whether homosexuality is a sin, or women should wear coverings for an example from a previous generation. Rather, it was whether we could rise above difference and embrace this ministry, our common faith, and not allow the issues of the day divide us.

This was an inspiring word and a perfect message to begin the week. During the convention we have space to try and work at finding this commonness in Christ. There are no resolutions to argue over. So no pressure to figure out what team you are on. Hopefully this openness (dubbed the Pittsburgh Experiment) will turn down the intensity and pressure and allow space for listening.

Thus far, there has been only a little of this. The discussion of Intercultural Transformation (formerly Anti-Racism) engendered some discussion which illuminated the confusion and importance of language when discussing issues of race. I got the sense (maybe wrong) that some in the African American community viewed this change as a de-empasizing of white-black race issues in preference for dealing with immigration issues and relations with Latinos, especially in advance of Phoenix 2013. This focus is no doubt understandable, Mennonites must make a coordinated witness in Phoenix if the convention occurs there. But part of me wonders is some of this is just a distraction from doing the perhaps more difficult work of white-black reconciliation. African Americans and racism are unique because of slavery. This history fundamentally alters white Mennos mindsets I think. There may be a reluctance to acknowledge where we fell short during the 1800s up to the 21st century in speaking out against slavery in a public way. This special and horrific history deserves special attention.

Throwing race relations under one catch all of "Intercultural Transformation" is dangerous. Yes it does many good things, but parallel to this needs to be deliberate intentional efforts at relating to each community individually. We need to acknowledge our own transgressions in relation to each and seek forgiveness from each as well.

We'll see what happens next. One thing is for sure, this is only step one of an incredibly long journey that is ahead of us.

About Face on Anthem: GC Reverses Course

Goshen College reversed its decision to play the national anthem this month. Following a year of intense discussion and listening, the board of directors decided to end the practice, asking GC President Jim Brenneman to "find an alternative" to the national anthem.

The decision is a good one. While I personally wasn't too put out by the original decision, given the option I would rather GC not play the anthem. Just because something is a tradition in the larger culture doesn't mean we have to do it. The community of Goshen around the college and its "culture" belongs as much to the college as it does to those who live around the college. Indeed GC shapes that culture positively by providing an alternative example. We are not in a foreign country where respect for culture we find there would be more important.

What the alternative might be, who knows. I think the entire act of recognizing once connection to homeland prior to playing a game seems inane. Fine, play your America the Beautiful or whatever at parades or other patriotic celebrations. A baseball game is just that, a game. I don't think playing marshall music before a game makes a person or a country any more patriotic. It is just a hold over from WWII when it held more immediate meaning. I would hope the alternative would be to just do nothing like before. Play some AC/DC instead to get me pumped up for the game!

Of course, the right responded to the decision as an affront to decency, predictably suggesting that GC should move to Cuba or Canada or Iran. City councilmen (and I mean men) used the decision as an opportunity to have a patriotic pissing contest, each one saying something more outrageous than the other. The funny thing is GC used to send students to Cuba, has Canadian students, and probably would love to have an SST unit to Iran. So such trips would do much to convince them that they should play the anthem, it would probably do the opposite.

The wackjobs at Fox News and Fox Radio of course got in on the feeding frenzy. Conservative bloggers, radio hosts, and general know it alls whipped out phrases like  "Mennonite College Bans Anthem" and "Goshen College Declares War on National Anthem". Completely ludicrous to say the least.Even mainstream media, while perhaps not as vehement, still seemed incredulous when reporting the story. The fact it was a story at all is telling.

But strangely this craziness feel comfortable. I feel better with these people mad at me rather than progressive types who I agree with on most everything. Indeed, it perhaps is more meaningful now to have made a concrete decision to not play the anthem rather than just have the practice continue as always. If nothing else, perhaps that was the good that came out of this fiasco. A chance to make a choice and witness to our commitment to peacemaking and being disciples of Christ.

Self Haunting Mennos

A recent editorial by Everett Thomas of The Mennonite has sparked conversation, some of it even healthy, around the role of non-violence to change structures within the church. In the editorial, Thomas quotes MCUSA ED Ervin Stutzman as saying that teaching nonviolence has come back to haunt MCUSA as evidenced by the actions of PinkMenno at the Columbus convention. Thomas's editorial, rather than commenting on the state of dialogue within MCUSA around LGBTQ inclusion, then moves inexplicably to a discussion of conventions themselves (why youth groups don't come as much, ideas for delinking adult and youth conventions, etc). This is like caging a wolverine, poking him with a stick, and then letting him out in a crowded shopping mall. You can't just lob a water balloon like that and not expect to get wet. Thomas' incompetence aside (and I could go one in regards to just this one editorial!), let's get to the core issue. At the heart of this problem is the continuing desire of MCUSA leadership to limit or silence anything resembling honest dialogue around a position that a significant part of the church has a problem with.


MCUSA does indeed have a problem with the corrosive effect of culture upon the church but it isn't doctrines of nonviolence, it is rather haunted by the fear and paranoia in our culture that so many have bought into. But if dialogue were to occur, leadership would then learn that the goals of activists are indeed modest. Allowing LGBTQ persons to worship and become members in our congregations should not threaten our identity in any way.

In spite of the continued intransigence of leadership, I have been encouraged to see some of the dialogue that has happened online. There seems to be some who truly do disagree with one another but truly do want to listen and learn from one another as well. I hope that these shoots of discussion continue to grow and outshine the goal of "unity at any/all costs" approach of MCUSA leadership.

A Prayer for Memorial Day

On Sunday I will be leading worship. As part of the service, we light a peace lamp and have a reading or prayer to go reflect on. Below is what I will be using.


In 1950, the U.S. Congress approved a resolution asking the President to declare Memorial Day as a national day of prayer for permanent peace. This year marks the 61^st Memorial Day that this declaration has been made. We as Christians and Mennonites may embrace this sentiment, but quickly note that throughout our nation these prayers turn into a glorification of the violence and death that war brings rather than a time for repentance and remembrance of those who have suffered the evils of war and violent death. But we must not fall into the seductive trap of demonization of those who perpetrate war. They are human, like us. War’s victims know no allegiances. Suffering is not limited by ideology or ethnicity. All who are touched by war are victims in some way. Today as we light the peace lamp, we remember the millions of innocents killed, maimed, and violated by marauding armies marching in service of greed, hatred, and good intentions gone horribly wrong. We pray that such evils may be expunged from the earth and commit ourselves to work for justice and peace, for a world free from the fear and destruction of war. We also remember those who have been horrifically scarred by war and violence, by the death delivered by their own hands, and those who have been sacrificed upon the altar of battle. We pray that God may be present with them, that the peace of Christ’s light may shine in their lives, and that God may soften our hearts to show compassion and respect to the suffering of the families who grieve the loss and suffering of a loved one.

GC Anthem Debate and the Culture of Assent

At the end of January Goshen College sponsored a local event for DC area Alumni to discuss the recent decision by GC to play the national anthem prior to select sporting events. In addition to the anthem, spectators also recite the Prayer of St. Francis of Assisi (make me an instrument of your peace. . .). GC President Jim Brenneman was personally present at the discussion as well as two other GC reps.

The discussion didn't really begin until there was only 30 minutes left in the scheduled event. Much of the first 1 1/2 hours was spent discussing vision and mission without even mention of the anthem debate. Once it began, however, it was clear how most in the room felt about the decision. While a couple of the 30 or so alumni gathered were supportive, sentiment was overwhelmingly critical. Those who spoke critically cited a host of reasons, most glaringly that playing the anthem gives the impression that GC is glorifying country and warfare, which runs counter to what Goshen espouses and what Anabaptism and Mennonites believe. When questioned what kind of feedback he had gotten from alumni so far, Brenneman said that is was overwhelmingly against the decision and that most of the passion was from those who are against the anthem.

When the idea of playing the national anthem first came up, it was around the time that Brenneman, celebrating the service of Mennonite visionary J. Lawrence Burkholder, was extolling the virtues of engaging the culture around us, something that Burkholder advocated for during the 50s and 60s and as he lead Goshen College as its president during the 1970 and early 80s. It was under Burkholder that GC's widely acclaimed SST (Study Service Term) program, begun during the term of previous president Paul Mininger, grew to become an integral to the identity of GC. Brenneman spoke of the need to move from a culture of dissent, which Mennonites have embraced historically, to a culture of assent, one that embraced Burkholder's call to "engage in the civil, business, political and institutional establishments of the world."

While arguing that both dissent and assent were needed, Brenneman went on to argue that a lot more emphasis was needed on assent. It is with this backdrop that the decision to begin playing the anthem was made. Perhaps it was seen as analogous to the decision to begin flying the U.S. flag on campus (along side the U.N. flag), a decision made 35 years earlier by Burkholder during the height of the Vietnam War.

While I agree at a basic level that just saying no isn't enough, saying yes isn't necessarily the only other option. The purpose of liberal arts education is to engage and question the world and its assumptions. This is not the same as saying no. Indeed, with the wise leadership of Burkholder and others, Goshen College moved beyond saying no decades ago and modeled what faithful engagement should look like. Learning to become a critical thinker is essential, especially as students emerge and enter the world as professionals, Christians, and Anabaptists. Liberal arts education, Christianity, and Anabaptism are inheirently subversive - they require the believer and the student to constantly question the world around them and to lift up the lost and forgotten.

Anabaptism is growing and changing, emerging slowly from its separatist tendencies. It is shedding its fearful persecution complex that led to withdrawal and boldly moving outward. It must address the messiness in the world, honestly and faithfully engaging the gray shadows that lurk around every corner. But this progress is anything but even. On one side, Mennonite Church USA continues to embrace the clannish and ethnocentric models of doing church of the past. On the other end, a variety of activists and places like Goshen College are pushing Mennonites to shed the past and dive head long into the world around them. Again, where we need to be is likely somewhere in between. Goshen needs to continue to push the envelope and drag MCUSA, kicking and screaming if necessary, into the 21st century. But Goshen needs to not just push for the sake of pushing. It needs to carefully consider and value its own history and role. Rather than playing the anthem or embracing other dubious cultural practices, why not embrace its own unique history and for example provide large scholarships for those who refuse to register for the draft? It is important, indeed vital and essential, to engage the world around us, to enter deeply into relationships with those around us who are different, not only for reasons of educational importance but to remain faithful to our calling as Christians. But the language and posture of assent goes a step too far in embracing that which may run counter to who we are called to be.

So how does this fit into the anthem debate? Personally, while I appreciate the process and care that was taken, the decision was wrong. The addition of the prayer was a good touch, but it is as out of place in the setting of a sporting event as the national anthem is. I hope when the issue is revisited that the anthem will no longer be played. It is a cultural tradition that has nothing to do with sports, GC, or what GC aspires to be. There are other ways and venues for expression of appreciation for the genius of the American ideal of freedom and the reality of the benefits we enjoy by living in the U.S. That said, if GC does continue to play the anthem and recite the prayer, I won't stop extolling the virtues of GC. Goshen won't suddenly become some kind of crazy flag waving patriot party spot that abandons everything. When Burkholder brought the flag on campus in the 70s, a hated symbol of oppression and violence as well as the ideal of freedom around the world, GC didn't suddenly abandon pacifism. I don't doubt that Goshen College will continue to embrace its motto of "Culture for Service" and remain that cherished spot in Indiana, where the leafy maple grows. . .

Penny Wise, Pound Foolish: MCUSA Defies IHM, Will Hold 2013 Convention in Phoenix as Planned

Proving yet again that it just doesn't get it, MCUSA's Executive Board decided over the weekend to reaffirm its intention to hold the 2013 Churchwide Convention in Phoenix. This goes against the gracious but strong objections of Iglesia Menonita Hispana (IMH) outlined in a letter to MCUSA in December. Instead of actually listening to the Hispanic church, MCUSA decided instead to continue its practice of issuing well meaning and carefully worded statements pledging support and dialogue but no real change.

This decision in fact goes completely against one of MCUSA's stated purposes, to become an anti-racist church. It shows that institutional racism remains a problem within MCUSA. How else can you describe the deliberate exclusion of an entire group of people? This decision further hampers MCUSA's ability to speak with integrity to racial/ethnic congregations and calls into question its true commitment to anti-racism. Divisions are laid bare. Entire conferences may not be present at Phoenix. For example, several months ago Illinois Conference pastors expressed there desire to follow whatever the recommendation of IMH was. Now that MCUSA has decided against IMH, Illinois Conference must make the real decision whether it will participate at Phoenix.

How to respond is now the question before us (those disgusted by the decision), and more specifically me. I have watched on numerous email listservs, chat rooms, and blogs the ruminations of many people as they try to sort out how to respond to such an awful decision. My initial reaction was one of outrage and cry for boycott. After having looked at what has been coming out of the activist corners of MCUSA, I have stepped back a bit from the edge to try and be more thoughtful in my decision. The options, at least as they appear now, are to attend, boycott, or go to the "satellite" location that MCUSA is exploring. Or perhaps there is some other unknown option

The first option, to attend Phoenix 2013, would no doubt have to have a lot of intentionality. I would not be able to just go and do the usual convention stuff and leave it at that. I would have to be part of whatever vocal and visible group may be present to show that even though Mennonites came to Arizona, we are not happy and we will stand with our Latino brothers and sisters. Indeed this may have to become the main reason I go, and I think would have to be a primary focus of the convention. This means no dumb and boring pre packaged agency reports, no stilted delegate sessions, none of the usual stuff that goes on. In that setting, we would have to be a prophetic witness to the people of Arizona. The other problem is Arizona's tax coffers will still get my hotel taxes, convention taxes, sales taxes, etc. Hitting them in the pocketbook is often the best way to get change.

The second option, boycott, is appealing then. Obviously saving the $1000 it would take to fly there and attend the convention and stay in a hotel would be really nice. My church could use the money they would have spent on me going to convention on some worthwhile local service effort. Boycott also has a nice clean feel to it as well. No ambiguity, just non-cooperation.Indeed I think a vocal boycott (not just not showing up) would send a loud message that MCUSA has a serious problem on its hands. But what do you do with the disappointment of those in the Southwest who are eager to host us? Struggles over immigration issues are a part of their context, and shouldn't we experience that context with them and walk with them? But the strongest argument for boycott is that IMH specifically requested MCUSA to move the convention. While it is not a monolith, IMH is the largest of Hispanic Mennos that you can identify. Sure not everyone who is Hispanic agrees with IMH's position. But a whole bunch sure do.

A third option is the satellite location. This may be the most untenable of all the solutions. It is a compromise that satisfies no one except MCUSA leadership who want to pacify the hoards at the gates. It sets up a second class status for those who choose this option, patting them on the head in hopes that they are not too mad about being excluded from the main gathering. I know for me this will not be an option I will likely choose.

Is there some other option out there? 2013 is still a long ways away, and there may yet be other decisions made that affect this convention. What may be most important in the coming months is the 2011 convention in Pittsburgh. At this gathering, there will be the opportunity to vocally and visibly speak directly to MCUSA leadership. What happens at Pittsburgh likely will be what tips me to a particular decision. But whatever happens, I continue to grow less hopeful that MCUSA will be able to change with the times and respond to the Spirit's calling in today's world.