No Roached Hair?

Over at Brethren Cultural Landscapes Carl Bowman posted notes from an 1880's Annual Meeting of the Brethren. Same-sex marriage was not yet on the list of unbiblical and forbidden activities:

It is a dangerous and alarming evil for members to conform to this world, in fashionable dressing, building and ornamenting houses in the style of those high in the world, and ought not to be among the humble followers of the lowly Jesus. And to specify more fully what is regarded as fashionable, the following is named:

wearing of gold or jewelry of any kind,
female hats, hoops,
vain superfluities,
ruffled and costly garments,
and brethren should not get costly and fine burial cases,
and expensive tombstones,
carriages and harness of fancy styles,
and the use of sleigh-bells, except circumstances require them,
neither should brethren wear a fashionable beard or mustache only,
and it is not granted to members to have their likenesses taken,
nor to get and use musical instruments,
nor to teach instrumental music.
Neither should members attend places of amusement, such as…
State and county fairs, celebrations, shows, mass meetings, and political meetings, etc.
And members who will indulge in any of the above named things, and thus cause offense, and who will not be admonished to put them away, must be held as disturbing the peace of the church, and be dealt with as not hearing the church, according to Matt. 18.
And brethren are admonished, and urged to wear our time-honored round breast coat with standing collar,
the hair plainly, not fashionable, or roached,
and in case a brother is conscientious in wearing a full beard, others should bear with him.
And according to 1 Cor. 11: 10-13, sisters should wear as the covering there recommended, a plain cap, whether married or unmarried, in the time of worship, and should likewise wear plain and suitable dresses- See 1 Tim. 2:9. 1 Pet. 3:3,4.
And elders, ministers and lay members should cultivate a conformity with the recognized forms and usages of the church as the best method of guarding against the temptation and danger of being drawn into the everchanging fashions of the world.

No roached hair?

Disgrace Speech

Our denomination's resident sociologist of religion Carl Bowman has recently suggested that he desires to see an end to "disgrace speech" in our denomination Disgrace speech is speech that summarily dismisses those we disagree with as somehow being less that worthy. Two of three examples he gives are:

1. “Homophobe.” Some progressives can’t conceive that a tradition-derived ordering of things might be central to the sacred understandings of others, so they reduce conservative commitments to psychological pathology, calling them “homophobes.” The label, and all references to homophobia, should be stricken from Brethren discourse. Even if cases exist where homophobia might be clinically diagnosed, those who invoke the label are rarely clinicians; instead they are progressive partisans who use the term casually and dismissively. The outcome is typically to reduce conservative convictions to irrational pathology. It disgraces them in this fashion.

2. “Biblical morality.” On the issue of homosexuality, conservatives typically invoke this term as an oblique counterpoint to its opposite, which is either “un-Biblical morality,” or “Biblical immorality.” Either way, applauding oneself for one’s “Biblical morality” transparently classifies as “un-Christian” the opposing view. Even if one believes deeply that the progressive view on an issue is indeed un-Christian, furthering one’s position publicly by trumpeting one’s “Biblical morality” has the primary consequence of disgracing others whose convictions and reading of the Bible are different. “Bibical morality” should be the substance of small group study and discussion, not a weapon to be brandished against others.

I agree. While I think that some of the conservative opposition to homosexuality stems from fear some of it also stems from sharp disagreement about biblical interpretation. I think they are wrong, but I don't think it is fair or helpful to just dismiss opposition as homophobic. In fact I am tempted to suggest that many conservatives are more guilty of un-Biblical morality than homophobia. I think they read the Bible far too selectively as they define what is moral or immoral. But in either case I agree that dismissive labeling isn't helpful.

On the Letter of Deepest Concern

Folks at Open Circle are sometimes surprised to learn that a) we are out of step with our denomination on some of its official positions and b) that we are tolerated nonetheless. The good news here, at least from our perspective, is that we are not so hierarchically oriented that someone from the denomination can lower the boom on us in some way. And we have been through the wars in our Northern Plains District and the district has come around to at least tolerating the presence of congregations that are open and affirming on the "homosexual issue" as it is often referred to. In fact it is fair to say in our district that for the most part we are now fully welcomed.

But the denominational story is different. The denomination has taken a decidedly rightward turn over the last several decades. Many congregations and members have been heavily influenced by the evangelical backlash and by the Rush Limbaughs and Glenn Becks that their members tune into on a daily basis.

Below is a copy of a letter sent by standing committee delegates of the Southern Pennsylvania District in response to the recent Annual Conference held at Pittsburgh, PA. The letter was approved by their District Board so it is fair to say it represent the sentiment of a majority of their district.

I have been advocating for some time among the progressive COB community that we stop attempting to win over the other side or even that elusive middle made up of congregations that are themselves divided over these issues. Instead of trying to change minds I think it would be more productive to make the case of freedom of conscience and a big tent denomination (admittedly something of an oxymoron in a denomination with membership rapidly declining to the size of some mega-churches)where congregation are free to follow their own consciences on matters that divide us while we work together on issue where we find agreement. The tone of this letter would seem to suggest that at least some of our conservative brothers and sisters don't see this as an option.

What I read in this letter is fear. In a healthy community having a child handed a rainbow scarf, which represent a different perspective, is a teaching moment not a cause for alarm. The same is true for listening to a sermon that you don't agree with. Over the years I have listened to lots of them at Annual Conference. It is what I would expect in a denomination that has a diversity of opinion.

I must say that I laughed out loud when I read the sentence that said "When I questioned Moderator Shawn about the message he said that Earle didn’t deliver the message that Shawn had asked him to." He didn't deliver the message that Shawn asked him to? What are we? North Korea? We are not, of course, or Earle who delivered the message would now be toiling away at a hard labor prison. But the idea that the moderator 'asks' a speaker to deliver a certain message or that a speaker is not free to preach what is on his or her heart and mind is completely antithetical to what the COB stands for. Or once stood for.

As the letter indicates we are now in the midst of listening sessions across our denomination on the issue of homosexuality. We will be hosting one of them in our district on October 23. I don't expect any minds to be changed by this exercise. Given the rapid decline of our denomination's membership I would like to think that we can agree to a truce and a big tent approach that makes room for diversity. So we can all focus on reaching out to our wider communities with what is the best of the COB. My prediction, though is that nothing will change. Conservatives will remain adamant that their truth is the only truth and liberals will continue to want to keep talking. And we will continue to lose glbt pastors and members who choose to be part of welcoming communities. (My dissatisfaction with fellow liberals in our denomination is much greater on this issue). And all the while our denominational decline will continue unabated.

A denominational split would be a much better option than the status quo. The letter mentioned above follows.

Southern Pennsylvania District Church of the Brethren

Standing Committee Delegates: Larry M. Dentler & John A. Shelly

(letter was approved & affirmed by the Southern Pennsylvania District of the Church of the Brethren District Board, meeting at Upton Church of the Brethren, July 24, 2010)

August 9, 2010

To: Annual Conference Office
2010 Annual Conference Officers
2010 Program & Arrangements Committee

Letter of Deepest Concern

Dear Sisters & Brothers,

As Standing Committee delegates for Southern Pennsylvania District we are writing this letter following 2010 Annual Conference. The decision to write this Letter of Deepest Concern comes after discussions with many of our constituents from Southern Pennsylvania District who attended Annual Conference in Pittsburgh. We write in humility for we know that Annual Conference involves a mind boggling myriad of details to care for. There is much about Annual Conference that we affirm and applaud as being inspirational, well planned, and exciting. But this year we come home with some very deep concern that was not just expressed by one or two but by many of those who attended Annual Conference from our District.

1) The 10 year old granddaughter of one of our families was in the exhibit hall. Persons at the Womaen’s Caucus booth gave her a rainbow scarf and told her, “You should wear this.” The little girl went back to her grandmother‘with a lot of confusion. This was very distressing for the family. Annual Conference should be a safe place for children, not a place where other persons’ controversial viewpoints are thrust upon them. Since this booth this year seemed to be singular in focus — handing out scarves to support homosexual acceptance – we believe that Womaen’s Caucus should either be denied further exhibit space or placed on a probationary status stating clearly that they were in violation of #2, #3, and #6 of “Expectations of Exhibitors” (2010 Annual Conference Booklet, pp.52,53) this year, and any future disregard for Program & Arrangements Policy will result in future denial of exhibit space.
———————–
p.2

2) The “rolling BMC booth” was present again this year. This seems to laugh in the face of the decisions of Program & Arrangements and Annual Conference policy. This seems to us to reflect a total disregard for the authority of church leadership. Persons find the in-­your-face nature of the “rolling booth” to be embarrassing. We understand that we stress “no-force,” but we have also stressed respect for leadership. Something must be done!

3) When new fellowships and churches were welcomed we were introduced to Common Spirit in Minnesota. In only slightly shrouded language it was made clear that this is a congregation with a main focus on acceptance of homosexuality, in direct violation of the 1983 policy. We understand that new fellowships and congregations are acknowledged as part of District responsibility, but many delegates from our District felt that they were manipulated at this moment in Annual Conference. There was no time given to ask questions, and only a vote on accepting all four at once. These procedures lead to a gnawing, growing, festering belief that Conference officers are not being forthright and honest with the delegate body, and that we are being “set up.” I can’t tell you how many times we as our District’s Standing Committee delegates heard this kind of discontent and skepticism. Trust is eroding.

4) The moment causing the greatest concern for us was the sermon of Brother Earle Fike in Monday evening worship. Perhaps you noticed as we did that many persons left the convention center with tears. Others with faces gripped in anger. Have no doubt, this message will be noted as a milestone in the record of the debate before us. Anyone with conservative viewpoint on the human sexuality issue left feeling beat up and bruised. We affirm Brother Earle’s right to his viewpoint, but this message came across more as a “lobbying speech” than a message from God’s Word. This is especially true since, as many have noted, Earle completely ignored the fact that what brought acceptance was Zacchaeus’ repentance. This message came after we had been told repeatedly by the Conference Officers that there would be no speeches on this issue this year!

When I questioned Moderator Shawn about the message he said that Earle didn’t deliver the message that Shawn had asked him to. He also said that Annual Conference Director Chris had informed him,
———————————-
p. 3

upon receiving Earle’s manuscript, that “it was going to be controversial.” Why then was there not some intervention? This 30 minute “moment” did great harm to the unity of the Body, great harm to the spirit of the Annual Conference, caused further brokenness and division at a very moment when we are trying to encourage people to listen to each other!

Again, please hear us affirm that Brother Earle certainly has a right to his viewpoint. But to use the message time during worship for this one-sided “lobbying speech” with no chance for rebuttal or discourse, not only showed very poor taste by Earle, but extremely poor leadership by those who might have intervened, and was in reality ‘out of order’ in keeping with the Special Response Process before us, and as one District Executive noted, may well have been in violation of the Ministerial “Code Of Ethics” (Ethics in Ministry Relations – 1996, pp.AC80.5-7).

In our minds a very sincere public apology is in order from those in leadership to the Body of the Church. This did great damage, very likely even hindering the Special Response Hearing process which is just before us.

Let us conclude by saying once again that we celebrate and affirm all the hard work by many faithful servants to make Annual Conference the wonderful “family reunion” that it is. Our love for you as our leaders, and our love for our Church compels us to share these concerns at this tenuous moment in our history when the rumblings of division rattle around us. Please understand that we would be remiss in fulfilling our responsibility as our District’s Standing Committee delegates if we did not share our concern.

Your brothers & servants in Jesus’ love,

Larry M. Dentler
Bermudian Church of the Brethren, 279 Bermudian Church RD, East Berlin, PA 17316 / office ph: 717- 292-1861

John A. Shelly
7535 Talhe1m RD, Chambers g, PA 17202/ph: 717-375-2510

How Diverse Can a Church Be?

James McGrath asks this question on his blog: how diverse can a church be? I think there are couple of ways of thinking about an answer. One is that it depends a lot on the emotional health an intelligence of the people in leadership at the church. Emotionally healthy people have clearly self-defined values and boundaries and are not threatened by people who have different beliefs. If the leadership is healthy they can model healthy dialogue and conflict and the congregation can tolerate, perhaps even welcome, a certain amount of diversity. On the other hand if the leadership isn't emotionally healthy then they will probably be threatened by diversity and seek to enforce adherence to a more narrow theology or doctrinal position. (And this has nothing to do with liberal or conservative theology; it is true across the spectrum. Emotionally healthy leadership seems to attract more diversity of thought and opinion around whatever the spiritual orientation is.)

Another way to think about it is what I learned from evangelical church planters whose training I attended nearly 20 years ago. At the time there was no training available for liberal church planters, at least not that I was aware of. The one teaching that was driven home over and over was that the group of people planting the church must all agree on essential matters of theology and doctrine. Therefore, I was taught, it was very important to hammer out a set of core values that clearly define where you stand on how you read scripture, understand Jesus, think about culture-war issues like homosexuality, etc. The leadership needs to agree on these issues and then when the church gets underway new members also need to be in essential agreement. It is better to say to someone "You know there is another church down the road that might better meet your needs" rather than be so desperate for new people that you welcome those who have fundamental disagreements about core issues. I heard these trainers say that there would be more than enough diversity to deal with even among those who are in agreement on core values.

For the most part we followed this advise as we started Open Circle. I knew starting the church that there were certain issues that were important to me that I no longer wanted to have to be fighting about in a congregation: gays would be welcome, I would not be interpreting scripture in a literal way, and Christianity was not the only valid spiritual path. I was clear about these issues as I talked to potential members and those who stayed were in agreement on these issues. When we had enough of a core group we worked out a set of core values and then we clearly published these in all of our literature. We still do.

In some ways our congregation is not very diverse. We are mostly white, theologically and politically liberal. In other ways we are quite diverse. We have a lot diversity in religious background: Catholic, many flavors of Protestant, pagan, atheist, Jewish. We have a growing diversity in age. We started out with mostly boomer individuals and families; now we run the gamut from young families to seniors, singles, cohabitating and married couple with and without children, gay and straight. We have city dwellers, suburbanites and folks coming from small towns and the country, some driving 30 miles to get to church.

I have found it to be true that even with clearly defined core values there is plenty of diversity that presents continuing opportunities for dialogue and challenges for the congregation as we chart our way forward. We have constant conversations around the issues like these: what does it mean to be a Christian or a follower of Jesus today; how do we relate to our denomination, The Church of the Brethren; how do we best deploy our people resources to serve church and community? We have some strong differences of opinion in the congregation about these issues.

I wish we were more racially diverse than we are and interestingly enough, we were more racially diverse when we started than we are now 17 years later. I am not sure why that is but I would guess that part of it has to do with the fact that I do not have great cross-cultural skills and it is not one of the passions that drives me as a pastor, like say being welcoming to glbt folk does.

It is interesting to note that my answer to this question doesn't even touch on some of the issues found in this response.

On Disbelieving Pastors

I said I was going to respond to this article.

For eight years out of seminary I served a Church of the Brethren congregation in northern Ohio. I still remember the Sunday after worship when a parishioner came up to me and told me that my recent sermons were "undermining the faith of our children." I don't remember what I was preaching on; but I distinctly remember the responses I was getting at the time.

Just out of seminary I spent the first half of my tenure at that church getting my pastoral legs under my feet. I spent the second half of my time there beginning to find my own faith. It was a messy process for me. Looking back on my time there it is not surprising to me that some people sitting in the pews must have been wondering why they were paying this pastor to raise question that might challenge their faith.

To be fair to me in many ways I was just tinkering around the edges, sharing a little bible scholarship about sources and sitz im leben and discrepencies in the Greek text of the NT, etc. My own biblical studies were being re-invigorated by the work of the Jesus Seminar, but I wasn't giving them full doses. And I wasn't sharing anything about my own deeper questions about Jesus and the reality of God.

To be fair to them they were a very traditional Brethren congregation. They were mostly pacifist and service oriented, the best of my tradition. They were also mostly union folks and liberal on economic issues, definitely a plus. But they held very traditional and moderately evangelical views on sin and salvation, the "purpose" of Jesus, and the authority of the Bible. And the issue of homosexuality was a "live" issue in that congregation but the subject was taboo. I didn't preach about it from the pulpit but I was talking about it a lot with individuals and families. From their perspective I am sure it felt like I was messing with their faith.

I began to realize during my last few years that I could not keep doing what I was doing. I couldn't say one thing from the pulpit - the safe thing, the traditional thing - and think something else. I couldn't not talk about some issues because it made some people uncomfortable. I couldn't lead the congregation in prayer to God when I wasn't sure there was anybody up there listening.

So I decided to resign. The fateful moment actually was brought about by a congregational vote to turn down an offer made by a local company to take a piece of the church's large property and build on it a child-care center paid for by that company who would also share the building with the church. It was in my view a huge no vote to mission and to the viability of the congregation. It was time for me to go.

At first I interviewed at several other churches. But in each case I realized that it wasn't going to work. They were asking me questions about biblical authority and the virgin birth and I wasn't going down that road again. So because of my wife's employment and education situation where we were in Ohio, I began to look for other work there.

When I got the call from a denominational representative to consider planting a church in the twin cities I initially said no. He said he was sending me the material anyway. So it came and I began to realize that this might be an opportunity for me to be a pastor and to be honest about my faith. If I started from the very beginning saying "this is what I believe" then those who came would know what they were getting into and those who stayed would stay because they appreciate this way of being a person of faith.

Seventeen years later I am still saying "this is what I believe" on Sunday mornings. Not "this is what the Bible says you should believe" or "this is what you must believe to be a Christian" or "this is what I believe" (but secretly I don't). I have found it to be a recipe for growing a thriving liberal Christian community where some non-Christians also find a spiritual home. I have also found it to be a recipe for sleeping well at night.

I sympathize with pastors who feel trapped because their own faith experience doesn't match the faith experience of the congregations they serve. I was there once. And I don't think there is one right response to being in this situation. Some pastors have the cross-cultural skills to make it work. They love the people they are with for who they are and have the vision and persistence to work at bringing people along little by little over time. (I realize this may sound patronizing and it is certainly true that growth happens in both ways. But I also make no apologies for saying that it is part of the pastor's job to "bring people along," i.e to grow; and bringing people along towards a more open and progressive vision is in my view a good thing.)

Other pastors don't have the temperament or the skill set. Or they simply have lost their faith. For them there is no sleeping well at night. I know some of them. For their own sake and for the sake of their congregations it would probably be better if they found a new career, or better yet started a new church where they could figure out their faith among like-minded people.

The Passing of a Mentor

When I arrived in Youngstown, OH, young and fresh out of seminary I had no clue about what it meant to be a pastor. I was incredibly fortunate to find there a former pastor of the church who served as a mentor and who became a great friend. Dick Speicher had been pastor at Woodworth Church of the Brethren in Youngstown during the 1960's. He was one of "liberal" pastors of his day who introduced the Revised Standard Version of the Bible to the congregation. He lost families at the church because of that and some people were still talking about it when I was there.

He had gone on from serving as pastor there to serve as a campus pastor at Youngstown State University and then as Executive Director of the Mahoning Valley Association of Churches. Dick died a week ago today. His memorial service is tomorrow in Youngstown.

When I arrived at Woodworth Dick was very careful to stay out of my way as a former pastor who didn't want to step on my shoes or violate ethical guidelines in respect to being involved with former churches. But he took me out for coffee regularly and was a great listener. He hauled me around to every ecumenical event in the Youngstown area. And eventually with my encouragement and after more than 15 years of staying away, he began attending Woodworth again and became involved in doing nursing home and senior visitation. He was also - and I didn't learn this until near the end of my eight years there - a quiet advocate on my behalf in many ways.

Every pastor needs a Dick Speicher in their congregation. One day I hope to be able to return the favor when (if?) I retire. My thoughts and prayers are with the family.

The Perfect Church

Posted today on a COB listserve:

It strikes me as reasonable that none of us can ever really know exactly what a church is like, until we enter it ourselves, until we become a part of it. And then, of course, that church is "like" what it is like, at least in part, because we have joined it!!

Its kind of the ecclesiastical "Uncertainty Principle." You cannot both know "the perfect church" and be a part of that church, yourself. By joining the church, we make it imperfect! All of us. . . . . .

New Brethren Church in Twin Cities

Dunker Journal links approvingly to a new Brethren church plant in the twin cities, noting that it doesn't sound like "they will be opening the circle." The church web site is under construction and nowhere mentions that the church is affiliated with the Brethren Church, a sister denomination to the Church of the Brethren that broke away as a progressive group in 1882 only to be swept by the fundamentalist movement soon after. In any case there is nothing on the website but this list of recent sermon topics:

REVELATION

11/16/08	Introduction (1:1-3)
11/23/08	Jesus Revealed (1:4-20)
11/30/08	The Seven Churches I (2:1-29)
12/07/08	The Seven Churches II (3:1-22)
12/14/08	Setting the Stage – The Throne of God (4:1-5:14)
12/21/08	Is Jesus Really the Reason for the Season?
12/30/08	Preparing for the New Year
01/04/09	Reading the Judgment: The Seven Seals I (6:1-6:17)
01/11/09	Reading the Judgment: The Seven Seals II (7:1-8:5)
01/18/09	Announcing the Judgment: The Seven Trumpets I (8:6-9:21)
01/25/09	Announcing the Judgment: The Seven Trumpets II (10:1-11:19)
02/01/09	The Ancient Cosmic Battle (12:1-14:20)
02/08/09	Pouring out the Judgment: The Seven Bowls (15:1-16:21)
02/15/09	The Judgment of a Culture of Greed, Lust, and Power (17:1-18:24)
02/22/09	The Battle of Armageddon (19:1-20:6)
03/01/09	The Last World War: The Summing Up of All Things in Christ (20:7-22:6)
03/08/09	Revelation for the Church (22:7-21)

Definitely doesn't sound like my cup of tea, but I wish them well. Interestingly, I am just finishing up a series on the "books of the Bible I don't like and why," and Revelation is my last book.

Denominational Implosion

Staff cuts are coming fast and furious at the denominational headquarters. Last month the position of Director of District Ministries and the office of Mission Interpretation was eliminated. This week we learn that the Washington Office has been closed and staff let go, Congregational Life Team leaders are being let go (6 regional support staff), and the governing board of the denomination is being immediately reduced from 29 to 19 positions. Apparently more cuts are coming.

What is troubling about this is the way this is happening without warning and transparency, and with no apparent connection to ministry priorities. While everyone has known the budget was facing a shortfall there was no emergency appeal, no message that stuff cuts might be necessary, no communication apart from posting on the website that the cuts had happened - and some of these staff cuts are not even on the website yet, and no explanation at all about how these cuts fit in with ministry priorities. If there are any ministry priorities anymore.

We appear to be in total survival-mode.

More Diverse and More Secular

That's the finding of a new survey on religious participation in the country. The American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) shows a continuing decline in religious affiliation with mainline Protestant and Catholic churches and a significant increase in the number of Americans who are opting out of religion all-together. Among the findings:

So many Americans claim no religion at all (15%, up from 8% in 1990), that this category now outranks every other major U.S. religious group except Catholics and Baptists. In a nation that has long been mostly Christian, "the challenge to Christianity … does not come from other religions but from a rejection of all forms of organized religion," the report concludes.

Baptists, 15.8% of those surveyed, are down from 19.3% in 1990. Mainline Protestant denominations, once socially dominant, have seen sharp declines: The percentage of Methodists, for example, dropped from 8% to 5%.

The percentage of those who choose a generic label, calling themselves simply Christian, Protestant, non-denominational, evangelical or "born again," was 14.2%, about the same as in 1990.

Meanwhile, nearly 2.8 million people now identify with dozens of new religious movements, calling themselves Wiccan, pagan or "Spiritualist," which the survey does not define.

In many ways here at Open Circle we are living on the front-lines of this phenomenon. There is very little denominational loyalty. We have a handful of folks who maintain strong denominational ties but the majority are post-denominational. They support the progressive vision of our congregation and are largely uninterested in what is happening in our denomination, or any other denomination.

Among those who are active participants at OC there is what I would call a continuing left-ward drift on the religious spectrum. Most who come to OC are coming in from more traditional or more conservative churches. Church is still important to them but they want to be in a church where scripture isn't read literally, where other religions are respected, and where "spirituality" is more important than "religion." Perhaps most importantly, many of these folks have young children. They want their children to have a religious upbringing and they want it to be in a more liberal environment.

But as their children grow and move on to college they continue their left-ward spiritual drift. (To say this is not to say that they are spiritually adrift, but that the direction of their spiritual exploration, which they take seriously, is left-ward.) Some stay connected to church but experiment with alternative spiritualities: wicca, men's spirituality groups, new age, Buddhism, etc. A few drift further left into Unitarianism, but stay within the organized religion circle. Some drift out of church altogether and join the ranks of the formerly religious.

This is the niche market of a church like ours. We are "capturing" those, many with children, who have left behind traditional and denominational and Christian identities and are moving left-ward on the religious spectrum. It is a challenging and interesting place to be.

What the Brethren Could Learn from the Chabad Movement

Among those massacred by terrorists in Mumbai were Hasidic Jews who were members of what is known as the Chabad movement. In a recent article in the Wall Street Journal Lucette Pagnano recounts his own experience worshiping in a Chabad House after 9/11 and then talks about the Mumbai deaths and the philosophy behind the movement:

I thought of that sense of safety and comfort as I watched the horrific events unfold in Mumbai, and specifically at the Chabad House.

I am absolutely certain that Rabbi Gavriel Holtzberg and his pregnant wife Rivka, massacred by the terrorists, had also set up a safe-haven. Theirs was a retreat for Jews living in and around Mumbai or even those who were merely passing through.

I would venture that's one of the secrets behind the Chabad movement's extraordinary growth -- that they build little sanctuaries for lost Jews, alienated Jews, secular Jews, Jews who have no interest in traditional religion.

Chabad has redefined religion in part by getting away from the notion of large, formal temples to establishing places of worship that are small, intimate and, above all, deeply comforting; they have made religion personal.

And so, even as some other branches of Judaism and other religions have withered, they have ventured to the far corners of the earth: Siberia, Alaska, Kiev, Odessa, Ho Chi Minh City. But no matter where the Chabad house the philosophy is always the same -- to bring even the most alienated Jews back into the fold.

You go to a Chabad house and you can count on being invited to Friday night dinner by the rabbi and his wife. The model emphasizes old-fashioned notions of community and home -- the sense that religion is not a once-a-year affair but a way of life.

They have made inroads even among the militantly secular, I suspect, precisely because of their sense of conviction. No matter where they are in the world, in the Chabad houses of Siberia or Southampton the rabbis wear the traditional black hats and dark suits, the women long dresses and wigs. There is little attempt to blend in or assimilate.

It can be jarring to run into them on the streets of Southampton or South Beach, strolling in their religious garb, trying to ignore the stares of women in halters and fashionably dressed men in Bermuda shorts and sandals.

This article is interesting because it gives us a window into missionary Judaism, which is something you don't see very often. But as I read it I couldn't help but be reminded of the similarities - and differences - between these Hasidic Jews and my Anabaptist ancestors and relatives who made it a point to wear distinctive clothing to avoid assimilating with the "world." Of course the practice lives on among the Amish, Old Order Mennonites, and plain Brethren.

Like the Anabaptists, Hasidic Jews attempted to freeze history at a particular point in time by keeping the dress of their founding period while the world of fashion moved on. What was common attire in its day became a mark of distinction in later times. Among my Brethren ancestors the matter of dress was once very important. It is more than a little amusing to read the minutes from the big Annual Meetings in the 1800s and see how much time was devoted to discussing the propriety of making minute changes in clothing. Any change that appeared to follow the fallen culture was rejected. After the big three-way split in the 1880's, the largest group that became known as the Church of the Brethren began to leave behind the plain dress and assimilate with regard to attire. Many Brethren men, though, still wear the distinctive beard with no mustache (the mustache was commonly worn by military types) and if you travel east to Ohio and Pennsylvania you will find Brethren who dress somewhat plain. We still have that "set-apart" mindset in our DNA, as do Hasidic Jews.

But for some reason we do not share their missionary passion. When I read about the Chabad House movement where hospitality, community, and spirituality are offered in the heart of the cities, I think that this ought to be the perfect model for the Brethren. It fits our Anabaptist and Pietest DNA perfectly. But for some reason we don't get it. Even as our rural churches decline and our children move to the cities to find work, and we lose them to other denominations, there is not a flicker of interest shown at a denominational level in following our children there and setting up hospitality houses, house churches, or any enduring presence. We love to go into the big city to do service projects; we are great at that. But apparently we'd rather die than risk being corrupted by actually setting up shop there and making urban America the focus of our mission. The more I watch what is happening within our denomination the more I become convinced that we really don't believe we have anything important to offer to the world. If we did we could learn something from the Chabad movement.

Progressive Brethren Summit

I was working on this for my church newsletter article but went another direction, so I thought I would post it here.

Recently I attended the Progressive Brethren Summit in Indianapolis. It was a joyful experience to be surrounded by 200 progressive Brethren, to attend worship services that had life and theological integrity, to be part of the first-ever large gathering of progressives in the denomination.

One of the highlights of the event was the presentation by Robert Miller on Jesus and the parables. Miller is a member of the Jesus Seminar. He shared some interesting and highly relevant comments on Jesus and his vision of the kingdom of God. For Jesus, Miller said, the kingdom of God is not a place or a future state of affairs. It is a present reality for all who choose to live as if it is present in their lives: "For Jesus, the kingdom of God exists whenever and wherever people dare to live as if God's will (not Rome's) governed the world." Miller likened Jesus' message on the kingdom to Gandhi's work in India. Gandhi told his fellow Indians that if they ignored the British and acted free, they would be free. They needed to stop fighting the British and begin living out of a vision of a free, self-determining people. In the same way Jesus challenged his listeners and followers to imagine what the kingdom of God would like like if it were there in their midst, and then make it happen.

I thought Miller's comments set the right tone for progressives in our denomination. For too long we have been arguing with conservatives about the future direction of the denomination, trying to change minds that can't be changed (on either side), fighting for power in a denomination that is in steady numerical decline, devoting too much time and energy playing inside baseball and not enough on service and progressive evangelism in the world around us.

What would happen if we just ignored the denomination and acted as if we are already free to be a progressive Christian presence in the world? Why not ordain LGBT people who want to be ordained and marry LGBT people who want to be married? Why not begin to pool some of the outreach money being sent to the denomination and begin using it to support progressive education, conferences, training, and church planting? Why not shift our focus to growing the progressive Christian movement? We can continue to cooperate and participate in the denomination where we share common interests, but our primary focus is not saving or changing the denomination but fully living out our vision of what it means to be a Jesus presence in our world.

At the workshop I led I heard fear expressed about the consequences of dividing the denomination. The denomination is already divided. Our fixation on needing to "fix" this problem is contributing to denominational decline and a waste of energy among progressives. Let's stop worrying about holding the denomination together and start reaching out to our neighbors with the wonderful welcoming message of Jesus. We might actually discover that there are people looking for progressive Church of the Brethren congregations that offer the best of our Anabaptist (community) and Pietist (spirituality) heritage. What we offer is more relevant today than ever.

It's in Our Nature to Be Intolerant

Here is Craig Alan Myers of the BRF explaining why conservative Christians won't fully accept gays:

Put aside, for the moment, the double-speak of believing that homosexuality is a sin, and allowing–or forbearing–it openly. One of the whole obstacles to liberals understanding conservatives in the church is that liberals want conservatives to act like good liberals. They want us to accept liberal presuppositions. One of those presuppositions is inclusiveness. Conservatives do want to be as inclusive as the New Testament, but we also understand there are some exclusionary principles as well. For example, those who do not trust Christ do not go to Heaven, based on John 14:6. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 also speak of those who formerly practiced gross sins, and would not have entered the presence of God if they remained in their sins, and now have been saved from those sins.

Liberals have tolerated conservatives–and you might want to check how much conservatives have been tolerated (it may not be really as much as you believe)–because it is a liberal value to be inclusive. To exclude us would go against a liberal core value, and be perceived as “intolerant.”

Apparently it is a conservative core value to be intolerant.

How the Other Half Thinks

Craig Alan Myers is a Brethren Revival Fellowship (a conservative faction in our denomination) leader. He relays these worries about an Obama victory:

IN CONVERSATION WITH VARIOUS BRETHREN, there is an air of unease. One very faithful sister, who has always voted “D” in Presidential elections since That Man, fears that Mr. Obama will fill the White House with Muslims. Another wonders whether there will be persecution of Christians because of our stance against homosexuality and other perversions. It’s no wonder. In Alberta, Canada, one pastor is already under governmental inhibition (forced silencing) on saying anything or publishing anything against homosexuality. The speed with which “Joe the Plumber’s” background was illicitly checked by government officials in Ohio was unnerving. The congregations which Mrs. Palin have been a part are under intense scrutiny and criticism for their “standard-issue” Pentecostalism and basic Bible teaching. (Meanwhile, Jeremiah Wright and Trinity U.C.C.–where Mr. Obama was once a member for 20 years–have been largely off-limits during the general election.) One newspaper is publishing addresses of homes in its area that have conservative or Republican signs in place.

I certainly hope Craig responded to the woman worried about Muslims in the White House: why not? If there are Muslims who are most qualified for the jobs to be filled then they should get the jobs. I note that there is no link to the charge that a "newspaper is publishing addresses of homes in its area that have conservative or Republican signs in place." I'd like to see the evidence and know what kind of newspaper would do this.

Flags in Church

Continuing along on the blog train this morning I came across some lively discussion about flags in church. The discussion came in response to this quote by Stanley Hauerwas:

I assume most of you are here because you think you are Christians, but it is not all clear to me that the Christianity that has made you Christians is Christianity. For example: How many of you worship in a church with an American flag? I am sorry to tell you that your salvation is in doubt. How many of you worship in a church in which the fourth of July is celebrated? I am sorry to tell you that your salvation is in doubt.

Hauerwas teaches at Duke Divinity School and at the Duke University School of Law. He has an affinity for anabaptist theology and promotes a form of virtue ethics. He is very popular in Church of the Brethren and Mennonite circles. Many are part of the Hauerwas Mafia.

Jim West posted this comment on his blog:

What Hauerwas has forgotten, or perhaps doesn’t know, is that salvation is by faith, through grace, and not by anything that we do or leave undone. Flying or not flying a flag; sitting in a sanctuary with or without a flag; these are things which have no bearing on salvation at all.

If H. believes that the presence of the flag in a Church is an idol and that it leads to idolatry- which it may well do for some - then he must also insist that every Christian sitting in any Church with any sort of money at all in their pockets must too be an unbeliever, since money is an idol far more frequently worshiped than a flag.

Hauerwas wishes to make Christianity a-political. But that is an impossibility since we live in a world in which politics is a reality. He may believe that his intention is good- but it is shortsighted, narrow minded, bigoted, biased, and evil. His demonization of a group of seminary students by implication is as wrong as calling all blacks by the n-word or all Jews by a slur. H. may imagine, in his somewhat gifted mind, that he is on the side of right- but he is on the side of darkness precisely because he has striven to make salvation a work. For that reason he deserves all the scorn and mockery we children of the Reformation can hurl at him. Sola fide, thou unbeliever.

I think West is wrong to say that Hauerwas wishes to make Christianity a-political. I think he wants to make it more political, but from what he argues is a truer pre-Constantinian-Christian, not liberal and not American, perspective.

I also think he is vastly oversimplifying the faith-works dichotomy. The louder you shout that Christianity is all about faith not works, the more you turn it into a work. It is always both; it can't be any other way.

But to the flags. Here is where I realize that I am a child of the Radical Reformation. Too much time spent learning about the dangers of cozy church-state relationships and persecution of my Anabaptist ancestors at the hands of Catholics, Lutherans, and Reformed, all in the name of God and with the help of Caesar's sword.

The flag is a symbol of allegiance to a country. It belongs in lots of places but never in church. There is room for only one allegiance there. It is certainly true that we don't experience church-state coercion in the United States, but there is already far too much mistaking of the will of God with the might of America. Church should stand as one place where it is clear that the two do not go together.

My first experience with a flag in worship came as a seminarian in Chicago when I spent a year working at Wheaton First Presbyterian Church. What an education! It was the largest church I had ever been in and the Jr. High youth group I was hired to be "in charge" of was larger than almost all Church of the Brethren congregations. The flag was conspicuously present on Sundays. What is more on American holidays like Memorial Day and the 4th of July, the flag was processed in along with the Bible to patriotic hymns. Talk about culture shock.

My second flag in church experience came while serving as pastor at my first church in Youngstown, OH. One Sunday an American flag "appeared" in the front of the sanctuary, donated in memory of someone in the church who had died. What a brouhaha ensued. People threatened to quit the church if it stayed; people threatened to quit the church if it left. A negotiated settlement was reached where the flag was moved into the fellowship area, which also served as home to some other civic groups who used the church as well as a precinct voting location during election years. Some still left the church over the presence of the flags.

It's totally unrelated, but the same family that donated the flag in honor of one deceased relative later donated clocks with the face of Jesus on them after another relative died. What fun I had at that church!

Pew Survey and COB Survey

Much has been said about the Pew Forum survey on religion in America. James McGrath provides numerous links here. He also comments on the good news that the majority of religious adherents in the country, including evangelicals, believe there is more than one way to get to heaven. It appears that our increasing religious diversity is making us more comfortable with a diversity of religious beliefs. Hallelujah.



But I am reading the Pew survey side by side with a newly published survey of beliefs in my denomination, Portrait of a People: The Church of the Brethren at 300. It appears that this growing spirit of tolerance is not touching the COB. In the Brethren survey the question is: Which best expresses your view of the uniqueness of Jesus? 64% agreed with "Jesus is the only way to God and those without faith in Jesus will not be saved." 22% said that "Jesus is the clearest revelation of God, but God may save people who don't know Jesus." 11% checked "Jesus is one of many ways to God." 2% admitted that they believed "Jesus was a great teacher and prophet, but not more than that."

According to the survey, the COB has become more conservative in the last 25 years. In the new survey conservatives outnumber liberals by 4 to 1.

What really surprised me, though, was the geographical distribution of our denomination. 51% of the members live in just two states: Pennsylvania and Virginia. Maryland and West Virginia account for 12%. So nearly 2/3 of the denomination lives in these 4 states.

I wondered if this might account for the disparity between the Pew and COB results. But if you take a look at the state-by-state breakdown in the Pew study these states pretty much mirror the results found in the rest of the country. COB members are just less willing to entertain the idea that there is more than one way to salvation.

It is disappointing but not surprising.

Denomination Gets Smaller

From the online denominational newsletter:

First the good news: Membership in the Church of the Brethren dropped by a smaller amount in 2007 that in either of the previous two years, down a net 1,562 members to a total of 125,964 in the US and Puerto Rico. And the denomination's smallest district, Missouri/Arkansas, had the largest percentage gain, adding a net of six new members to grow to 555 (up 1.09 percent).

We are about the size of a dozen mega-churches. To be fair, though, they don't add in membership statistics from churches in Nigeria, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Brazil, and India.

The Future of the Church of the Brethren

Yesterday I had lunch with a Church of the Brethren (COB) friend and we were talking about how long it would take for our denomination to die. This person suggested that within 15 years everything the COB now owns or runs will be in the hands of Mennonites. I had to admit that I had never considered this possibility. I countered that I think within 10 years the conservative faction will have withdrawn from the COB and merged with their more natural religious soul-mates, the Brethren Church. We will see if either of us is right.

What seems clear to me, though, is that our present path as a denomination is in a death spiral. Our institutional center is re-organizing, again. The deck chairs will be shuffled once more. Although it is financially untenable to maintain two denominational headquarters, in IL and MD, leaders were unable to pull the plug on either one.

Although our annual meeting, Annual Conference, has been paired from a week to a few days, it is still a money-loser. It would make more sense to have our national gathering every other year. On the other hand our annual meeting may be the only thing still holding us together.

We have two factions in the church, liberal and conservative, who are equally stubborn in their unwillingness to compromise on core issues. I am part of the liberal faction. We have a weak institutional center that is scared to death of picking sides. Some are genuinely conflicted. Some have their hearts in one place but their wallets in another.

Meanwhile we bleed members and churches. Our churches, declining in number though they are, can't find pastors from within the COB fold. So they go outside and find pastors with no interest in the COB. They've got their Bible and their paycheck, and that is all that matters. So inevitably these churches drift away from the denomination.

Denominations are dying everywhere. What is happening to the COB is not unique. But because we are smaller to begin with we are more at risk of making a quick exit.

I have no interest in reviving a dying denomination. I do, however, have an interest in participating in a movement that is progressive and based on the very best of COB values. Little by little I am seeing more and more of my progressive COB brothers and sisters coming to this same place. The time has come to stop putting energy into breathing life into a dying institution or gatherings where we bring members of the two stubborn factions together to talk things over.

I have no ill feelings toward those conservatives. I respect them for their strong beliefs and disagree with them on every one. I have no interest in trying to get them to change their minds, and I don't want to use the precious amount of time I have in my life listening to them tell me why I am going to hell. We will see who is right soon enough.

In the meantime. it is time to begin thinking about what a new structure will look like. Perhaps the place to begin is with a district made up of progressive churches and individuals that crosses geographical boundaries. Perhaps the time has come to begin channel outreach monies into this kind of structure. Our fall gathering of COB progressives in Indiana may be a good first step.

I don't know what it will look like yet, but what I do know is that within 10 years the COB will no longer exist in its current form. It is time to begin planning now for a different future.

When Should We Disobey Our Government?

Over on the blog of Craig Alan Myers, from the BRF (Brethren Revival Fellowship) which is the conservative wing of my denomination, Craig says:

THERE ARE only two times when the disciple of Jesus declines to obey human authorities: (1) If the government forbids him to do what the Bible plainly commands; (2) If the government commands him to do what the New Testament clearly forbids. Note the following examples which illustrate each situation:

(1) The Great Commission (Matthew 28:19-20) commands us to preach the Gospel to every person. If rulers forbid our doing what God clearly commands, we do it anyhow, like Peter and John did (Acts 4:13-20).

(2) Jesus prohibits the taking of human life and teaches us to love our enemies (Matthew 5:43-44). If rulers command us to take human life, we refuse to do it, like the early church did for three centuries after the time of Christ

The prevailing atmosphere in the New Testament is one of respect for those persons in the places of civil authority. Very seldom does it happen in a nation which is a republic that one is required to do what God’s Word clearly forbids. If we must ever disobey human government, it should be done with a spirit of humility and not in a spirit of defiance.

Is this really true? A couple of thoughts.

First, notice what Craig says is the only authority for deciding whether to obey or disobey civil authorities: the Bible. God doesn't speak in any other way? To one's conscience, for example?

Second, Craig says that "the prevailing atmosphere in the New Testament is one of respect for those persons in places of civil authority." Is this true for Jesus? I don't think so. Take for example this teaching of Jesus from Matthew 5:41:

⁴¹and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile.

In the passage from the Sermon on the Mount Jesus is addressing one of the much resented reminders of the Roman occupation of Palestine: soldiers forcing civilians to carry their packs on military marches. What is Jesus saying here? Kill them with kindness? Ingratiate oneself with the enemy to stay out of trouble?

This example clearly does not meet Craig's threshold for resistance to civil authorities. It is not about preaching the gospel or killing another person. Jesus is addressing a humiliating and unjust act sanctioned by the goverment. What is his instruction?

Here is what Walter Wink has to say about Jesus' instructions in his classic, Engaging the Powers:

Jesus does not encourage Jews to walk a second mile in order to build up merit in heaven, or to exercise a supererogatory piety, or to kill the soldier with kindness. He is helping an oppressed people find a way to protest and neutralize an onerous practice despised throughout the empire. He is not giving a non-political message of spiritual world-transcendence. he is formulating a worldly spirituality in which the people at the bottom of society or under the thumb of imperial power learn to recover their humanity. (p. 182)

Jesus is teaching a strategy of non-violent resistance to unjust actions sanctioned by civil authorities. A practice Jesus himself employed in the passion story: riding the donkey into Jerusalem making messianic claims about himself in the midst of a highly charged Passover atmosphere, overturning the tables of the money-changers in the temple, refusing to answer the questions of Pilate, etc. Each of these actions is an example of non-violent resistance to civil authorities. (I suppose we can debate whether over-turning tables in the temple is non-violent.)

Our (Craig and me) Church of the Brethren ancestors misread these passages and others as examples of non-resistance to evil. They did not know what we know now about the sitz im leben, the setting in life, of these passages. They did know all too well about oppression against the anabaptist movement. But what they took from the scriptures was a lesson on non-violent (right) non-resistance (wrong) to the injustices perpetrated by government in the name of keeping the peace.

It is certainly true in theory that, as Craig says, because we live in a republic there ought to be rare moments when we need to resist civil authorities. But the practical history of the long struggle for civil rights in our country, as well as the recent history in my life-time of political leaders taking us into two wars on false pretenses and of having a current administration willing to sanction illegal wiretapping and torture of prisoners suggests otherwise. And my reading of the teachings and practice of Jesus tells me that when our government acts in unjust ways and we are unable to remedy the situation through the ballot box then we are called to non-violent resistance to this injustice. Just like Jesus did.