This article takes a narrative approach to christology, linking together our stories as modern people with the gospel story of Jesus. Special attention is paid to Jesus' death and resurrection--with an emphasis on how those two events point us toward life, toward ethical faithfulness.  The article strikes a consistently positive tone. Only in asking what is not mentioned in the article would one begin to get a sense that this portrayal of the meaning of Jesus is presented as an alternative to christologies that emphasize Jesus' divinity and his death as a sacrifice needed to satisfy God's honor (or wrath or holiness).

In a lengthy article, Mark Hurst explores the common threads of Anabaptism and New Monasticism. He quotes at length from Schlabach’s essay “The vow of stability : a premodern way through a hypermodern world”. The quote is a challenge to my life:

Benedict’s rule requires a “vow of stability” – the uniquely Benedictine commitment to live in a particular monastic community for life. At first, this may seem to apply least of all amid our way of life. Yet precisely because it contrasts so sharply with the fragility of most commitments in our hypermodern society, the Benedictine vow of stability may speak more directly to our age than anything else in the Rule...

It is no use rediscovering any of our church’s roots, nor discerning innovative ways to be faithful to our church’s calling, if we won’t slow down, stay longer even if we can’t stay put indefinitely, and stake something like a vow of stability. Slow down – because postmodernism may be hypermodernism. Stay longer – because there is no way to discern God’s will together without commitment to sit long together in the first place. A vow of stability – because it is no use discerning appropriate ways to be Christian disciples in our age if we do not embody them through time, testing, and the patience with one another that our good ideas and great ideals need, in order to prove their worth as communal practices.

I have pretty much swallowed the contemporary myth that freedom is the failure to make deep connections or commitments to a place. I’ve moved about thirteen times in the ten years of my adult life.

I do believe in pacifism as a core conviction that should be taken seriously by all followers of Jesus (indeed, all human beings). However, we need to think through the motivations for our commitment to nonviolence.  I believe this commitment must ultimately stem from love if it is to be fruitful and sustainable.

Reclaiming the Mind Ministries was created to impact individuals, the church, and the culture with the glory of God and the majesty of Christ by presenting the truths of the Christian faith in a fair and balanced way. We truly believe that God is calling us to have a major impact on the church and culture by taking back what rightly belongs to God - the mind. We live in a time of anti-intellectualism, skepticism, and confusion. Our goal is to reclaim the mind by energizing the church providing resources for intellectual engagement.

In a related article called "The Danger of Sola Scriptura", also from Reclaiming the Mind Ministries, writer Michael Patton describes the historical controversy around Christians thinking for themselves:

On September 30, 1452, the Bible became the first book to be published. Desiderius Erasmus published the Greek New Testament in 1516. From this Martin Luther translated the Bible into German, his native tongue. Until this time, the Bible was not readily available in the common language of the people. The institutionalized Church, of course, objected to Luther’s presumption in translating the Bible into the common language. Why? In essence, they said to Luther, “Do you know what will happen if you put a Bible in the hands of the common man? They will interpret it themselves and come up with all kinds of crazy ideas and heresies.” Luther understood the risk of putting a Bible in every man’s hands. He understood the danger. But he believed it was worth the risk, believing that the commoner of his day could interpret the Bible better than many in the “scholars” of the Church in Rome.

In other words, Martin Luther considered it crucial, and worth risking his life, for the average believer to examine what they've been taught, to know what they truly believed and to know how to defend these beliefs to themselves and to others. Luther knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that the alternative was not an option:

At the time of the Reformation, the institutionalized church had become the Kinko’s of theology. Everyone outsourced their theology to the Church. If they had a theological question, they would simply go to the magisterial authority in the church, “insert their question” and out came the answer that they were to believe. There was no other option. The institutionalized church held a monopoly on theology. No one was allowed to “do” their own theology. People were indoctrinated with the “truth” in order to protect the “truth.” (...) So, to put the matter simply, the church decided that the only true doctrine comes from within the already established Church.

I was raised in a theological tradition that was born out of the great risks and accomplishments of the Reformation. Our European ancestors endured incredible hardship, persecution, torture, and murder for the sake of standing on their convictions, which came directly from their reading and understanding of Scripture - no doubt from the same German translation Luther had published. These days, a widespread belief within this theological tradition is that our denomination's understanding of theology is pretty much set and no longer in need of serious or ongoing inspection and testing. We believe our ancestors did the work for us, and that it's now up to us to learn, trust, and obey their interpretation of Scripture.

But over the last number of years (as described in an earlier post) I've come to notice inconsistencies between Scripture and the beliefs I've been taught, with mixed results coming out of discussions with family, friends, church leaders and others in our denomination. I have been grateful for the openness I've been shown by some. However, my most surprising responses so far have been 1) laughter at the suggestion of reading Scripture together, and 2) flat-out refusal to crack open the Bible.

Is this what Luther and our ancestors risked their lives for?

Patton continues...

Thus began the Reformation. Thus began the time when people took the Scriptures and interpreted them for themselves. Thus began the time when men and women, clergy and layperson, learned and unlearned, all had common access to the Word of God. Thus ended the outsourcing of theology . . . Or did it?

Evangelicals must be on guard of recreating an outsourcing system under the guise of sola Scriptura. Many Protestants since the Reformation have simply created their own catechisms, creeds, and confessions and expect their people to agree with the details contained therein. While there is nothing wrong with having these as a means to communicate dogma, it can and does easily turn into another magisterium (teaching authority), with characteristics not unlike that of the Roman Catholic Church. This will always be the case if people are not intentional about revisiting the doctrine of sola Scriptura. While we should desire our people to respect the beliefs of past generations, understanding that God is a God of history, Evangelicals do not believe that any tradition, creed, or confession is infallible. ...We must revisit, with fear, personally and as a community, all the major doctrines of the Christian faith if we are to truly have theological revival. This is truly a fearful thing—it is dangerous. But this is the essence of sola Scriptura.

In short, the doctrine of sola Scriptura means not only that there is a Bible in every man’s hands, but also a struggle in every man’s mind—a struggle to find the truth for themselves. Again, it must be restated, this does not mean that we do not have teachers who are gifted in theology and exegesis. Neither does this mean that we disregard traditions of the past. It means that each person must study and wrestle with theology for themselves, coming to a deeper understanding, and taking ownership of their convictions. It means that we have the right to ask tough questions, search for answers, and come to intellectually defensible conclusions. It means that we do not have to ignorantly accept what someone else teaches without question. Is the doctrine of sola Scriptura dangerous? Yes. Is it worth it? Absolutely! The alternative is even more dangerous, since it is nothing less than a surrendering of the mind.

Sola Scriptura: the belief that the Scripture alone is the final and only infallible source for matters of faith and practice.

In short, know what you believe. Know why you believe. Keep asking tough questions. And don't ever settle for the status quo.

This third approach follows from the belief that Jesus' peaceable social ethics are ultimately meant for the entire world and that the call he has given his followers is to witness to his way to the ends of the earth.  One helpful insight that should encourage American pacifist Christians is an awareness that we live in two Americas, the American republic (which is compatible with pacifism) and the American empire (which is not).  One may oppose the American empire while still embracing (nonviolently) the American republic.

As is likely obvious by the title and the publisher (Zondervan), Jesus for President, is written by two young Christians aimed at a Christian audience.  And this book needs to be read by Christians.  However, many people of good will who have written off Christian faith may find this book an eye-opener and inspiration.

While the writing is accessible and colloquial, the book rests on solid scholarship and actually presents a pretty sophisticated argument for the political relevance of the biblical story (including the Old Testament).  The kind of politics the Bible presents is peaceable, compassionate, concerned with care for vulnerable people--pretty much the opposite of the kind of politics the "Christian" right advocates in the US right now.

Claiborne and Haw carry the story beyond biblical times, giving a perceptive account of how biblical politics were transformed into empire politics--that is, how the Jesus movement became Christendom.  They conclude with some hard-hitting proposals for a social philosophy for the present that includes a preferential option for the poor and an thorough-going commitment to pacifism.

All in all, a terrific book.  It is encouraging to see Claiborne and Haw attract a large audience with their uncompromising advocacy of the politics of Jesus (yes, John Howard Yoder is an important source for them).

I found Elaine Ramshaw's commentary on this text to be very helpful ("Matthew 18:  Power and Forgiveness")  Several observations/preaching points:

Three ways of responding to offense/conflict/sin in the church or in any relationship:
Attack:  (blame and shame, passive aggressive behavior)
Retreat:  ("things aren't going the way I would like, so I'm going to take my toys and go home-go to another church")
Third Way:  Constructive engagement as framed in the discourse of Jesus in Matthew 18

1.  vv. 15-20 have often been lifted out of the context and applied as a formula for bringing errant individuals into line.  These instructions have been implemented in the practice of church discipline as procedural guidelines for dealing with misbehaving persons.  Some communities (Anabaptist included) have understood the last step--to treat the unrepentant recalcitrant brother or sister as a "pagan and tax collector"--as grounds for exclusion from the community (i.e. excommunication, or shunning).

2.  Matthew's emphasis is clearly on the goal of reconciliation.  It is restorative, not punitive.  The piecemeal application of vv. 15-20 without framing these verses within the context of the whole discourse that takes place in Chapter 18 is problematic.  Ramshaw argues that Matthew 18 intentionally raises the issue of power, precisely in association with the hard questions of how to deal with harm done within community.

3.  When we look at the whole of Matthew 18, we see that the directions for how to deal with the offender (vv. 15-20) are framed by parables and other material that emphasize mercy, forgiveness, the imperative to seek the lost, and the Christian's need for the brother/sister.

4.  Some commentators suggest that the "70 x 7" passage is placed right after vv. 15-20 to infuse an attitude of forgiveness and grace in the midst of necessary confrontation and invitation to make things right.

5.  How do we practice Matthew 18 in the church (and in the world)?  Recognize that reconciliation is a process.  Jesus puts the onus on the person who has been hurt/offended to take the initiative in going to the person who has hurt us/offended us/sinned.

6.  We approach the person not from a position of "power over."  Power that comes from anger, desire for retribution/payback.  We do not shame the person and exclude them in our bitterness.  We are to go directly to them.  Email is never a good way to deal with conflict.  Jesus is calling us to a deeper level of relationship that reflects what it means to belong one to another in the body of Christ--to be mutually submitted.  So we do not react when we are hurt by projecting our voice into the community--indirectly talking about our experience of pain without going directly to the person we feel has hurt/offended us.

7.  Going to the person who has offended us or with whom we differ is a risk.  There is no guarantee that they will be willing to operate in submission to Jesus.  There is a very real chance that we could get kicked in the teeth.  Nevertheless, Jesus calls us to authentic relationships in the body.  This requires vulnerability if we are going to uncover what it means to be the body of Christ together.

8.  If we are unable to find resolution/reconciliation when we go directly to the person who has hurt us, Jesus enjoins us to keep working at reconciliation in the relationship.  The next step is still in direct communication with the person who has offended us, but this time we take one or two others from the community to help facilitate communication/reconciliation.  This step also reflects a willingness to submit to a communal Jesus (versus the private individualistic Jesus which often is used to legitimate our independent mindset--WE ARE RIGHT SO WHY SHOULD WE SUBMIT).

9.  If this attempt to work toward restoration of the relationship is not fruitful--"if that person refuses to listen"--we are to take the case to the church.  Again, the one offended is walking in humility and submission to a communal process.  Just because we have been hurt or offended does not give us the right to recklessly fire away like a loose cannon--in public or in private.  We bring our case to the community for discernment.  This communal approach is the same one that is applied to "binding and loosing"--discerning matters of moral and ethical import as the church interacts with culture.

10.  "If the church decides you are right, but the other person won't accept it, treat that person as a pagan or a corrupt tax collector."  So here is where we kick them out of the church.  Right?!?  Before we do that.  Before we shun them, excommunicate and exclude them in some form or another we must ask ourselves a very important question for a community seeking to be Jesus-centered.  How did Jesus treat pagans and corrupt tax collectors?  Answer:  he ate with them, he kept their company (Zaccheus, Matthew's party, etc.).  Once we have done all we can do to work toward reconciliation and restored relationship, we still do not wash our hands of that person.  In Christ, we are called to extend forgiveness (an unlimited amount of times) and mercy toward the offender.  It doesn't mean that the relationship will not be changed by the lack of reciprocation.  However, we always are ready in our hearts to forgive and receive the person back into fellowship.

11.  This is where it seems that the church has sometimes abused it's communal power out of a desire to keep the church pure.  We have marginalized those who are caught in the universal struggle against sin.  Our judgments have perhaps not been tempered by the story that Jesus tells immediately following this passage--the story of the unforgiving servant who was forgiven much.  Perhaps we have been harsh in our judicatory actions because we have failed to appreciate how much we are all debtors to the grace of God.  Perhaps we would do well to appropriate a stance of power under--the posture of humility that does not judge the sin of another.  Rather, prays for mercy upon them.  Jesus also models this in a poignant way from the cross when he offers a prayer to the Father from the depths of agony.  He prays, "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do."  What if in the church we would take this same attitude toward those who offend us?

12.  What keeps us centered on Jesus when we are divided by so many things--theological differences... diverse views of what it means to follow Jesus and to be the church?  What will keep the church unified when we are deeply divided on such things as how to interpret scripture, or how to vote?  What will keep us from just moving on when relationships are strained and there are differences of perspective?  The lectionary assigned Exodus 12 as the OT reading to go with the Matthew 18 text.  It is the narrative of liberation from slavery in Egypt for God's people.  The passage provides the details regarding the institution of the covenant meal (Passover) which will shape the community's understanding of God's saving action into the future.

13.  The Passover feast becomes the setting in which Jesus then also institutes a covenant meal.  Perhaps this is where we need to come back to again and again if we are to see ourselves in proper relation to each other in the body.  It is at the Lord's supper, that we are called to receive bread and wine.  We are reminded that we are a part of the body--that we belong to each other--not because we can agree on things, but because of the body and blood of Jesus.  We are a covenant community, not just a social club or organization that just chucks relationships aside when they cease to serve our purposes.  We remain a part of each other even when there is deep pain among us.  The table calls us back together as brothers and sisters who are recipients of immeasurable grace and who are called to be ministers of reconciliation in the church and in the world.

14.  And so we sing--"Will you let me be your servant, let me be as Christ to you.  May I have the grace to let you be my servant to."

12When he had finished washing their feet, he put on his clothes and returned to his place. "Do you understand what I have done for you?" he asked them. 13"You call me 'Teacher' and 'Lord,' and rightly so, for that is what I am. 14Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another's feet. 15I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. 16I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. 17Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them.

Why isn't footwashing an accepted church sacrament? The Anabaptists thought it should be. In John 13, Jesus clearly indicates it should be. Of course, more important than the ritual is the attitude of servanthood, but I think the ritual could remind us of the attitude.

My wife and I washed each other's feet at our wedding; I don't think I even knew it was an Anabaptist practice then. Our old house church did it a few times too. Did it do any good? I'd like to think so. The other day, I suddenly recalled the ritual and it made me decide to try to be more servant-ish.

But then last night I read this in Roy Strong's History of Britain:

It was customary for the monarch to wash the feet of as many poor people as their age each Maundy Thursday, thus emulating Christ washing those of the disciples before the Lord's Supper. This ceremony... emphasised the sanctity of the ruler. (192)

The miniature above is of Elizabeth I preparing to wash the feet of paupers. My first reaction is that it illustrates how little the ritual could mean, when it leaves the social inequalities and un-servant leadership unchanged. But I wonder if it did some good, if just a little of Christ's original intent got through to the people watching and participating?

Oh, it's complicated!

Part 1 in this series: "Introduction"
Part 2 in this series "Deconstruction and a Frog"

-----------------------------------------------------------  

 Why did I start with this illustration?  Because it deeply impacts the persons we call the “church,” the movement and tradition we call “Christianity,” it shapes our understanding of what is the “truth” (whether we claim to be “Biblical people” or not), and it does this in many ways without our conscious awareness.  As a Christian with deep respect for the Bible, I confess that I cannot claim to represent the fullness of truth because I have been so deeply shaped by social forces surrounding me that I am often a hopeless mess of selfish and/or naïve approaches to life that require constant attention, constant questioning, and constant conversion away from what is relatively untrue to what is relatively more true.  And I do this in the hopes that my thoughts and actions travel closer to what is really true.

    There is a significant obstacle to the pursuit of that truth in daily life for seekers, and that is that the deck is stacked against their pursuit of truth outside of approved cultural pathways.  Our parents often called this peer pressure when we were teens.  Our societies have much at stake in their citizens accepting and living by what is defined as normal, and significant amounts of money, energy, and time are invested to perpetuate that system.  All of these obstacles make it exhausting at times for seekers of truth to sift through the cultural twistings and shadings to gain some degree of freedom.  Theologian Lesslie Newbigin in his book The Gospel in a Pluralist Society calls these influences “plausibility structures.”  They are basically neutral in that we need some ordering of human life, but certain plausibility structures shape life in basically negative or basically positive directions.  Philosopher Stanley Fish agrees, though he uses the term “ideology” to describe these structures.  He suggests that the embedded ideologies of certain systems gain their legitimacy by being assumed as “natural”; and they reinforce their “natural” state by labeling competing visions as “ideologies.”

What is and is not ideological is itself a determination of ideology, of that agenda or vision in the happy position of getting to draw the lines.  What this means is that any arrangement of the categories will be to the advantage of some ideologies (whose central truths will be accorded the status of common sense) and to the disadvantage of others (whose central truths will have been labeled ‘not safe for deployment in public life.’)  In late-twentieth century America the preferred truths and values of liberalism (autonomy, individual freedom)…are in the first category- they ‘go without saying’ and no agenda is legitimate unless it defers to them- and the preferred truths and values of Christianity (obedience, respect for authority and tradition, faith, the community of worship) are in the second- it is fine to adhere to them so long as you leave them at home when you enter the marketplace.

    To clarify a bit, the "liberalism" Fish is talking about is not what people talk about in our society today as the opposite of "conservative."  Fish is talking about the ideas of individual freedom that John Locke and Thomas Hobbes and other philosophers talked about (that became the foundation of America's government, NOT the Christian Scriptures).  Fish’s simple suggestion here is that America presently is governed by “liberalism,” which has certain central “truths” and that approach and its central "truths" often run head-on into the "truths" and "values" of Christianity (which are rooted in the concept of revelation and the Scriptures).  It is literally a clash of institutions and perspectives on truth, and the institution that can explain, persuade, and market its perspective on truth the best inhabits the prominent role in shaping what is “normal” and “true” (at least for a time).  It seems obvious to me that Fish is right about American liberalism being the governing plausibility structure, happily occupying the place of “getting to draw the lines.”

    What makes the picture scary is that much of what American Christians believe is “normal” is more deeply shaped by the system of American liberalism than it is by the Scriptures.  We literally have stood in the pot of liberalism long enough that we almost can’t recognize the temperature change at all.  Those of us who feel uneasy with American liberalism defining for us what is “good” and “right” for the world in an unchallenged position then have a significant uphill battle to fight to find some degree of perspective outside of what we're constantly fed in the hopes that we might gain some ears to listen to what we are suggesting.

1 Tim 5:21 I charge [thee] before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.1 Tim 2:9-14 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

1 Pet 3:3-5 Likewise, ye wives, [be] in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; While they behold your chaste conversation [coupled] with fear. Whose adorning let it not be that outward [adorning] of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But [let it be] the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, [even the ornament] of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.

1 Cor 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with [her] head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

1 Tim 6:3-4a If anyone teaches otherwise and does not consent to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which accords with godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing, but is obsessed with disputes and arguments over words...

1 Cor 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered [them] to you.

This article, "The Anabaptist faith: a living tradition" that was published in The Mennonite (May 2, 2006), reflects on these themes.

This is a series of posts trying to deal honestly with what is true in our world; and who has significant interests in us keeping a naive belief that what we've always known is somehow more healthy than other competing options.

Part One in this series:  "Introduction"

-----------------------------------

In this second section, I will attempt to deconstruct a bit of what we consider to be "normal" and "truthful" through a simple illustration.  Maybe it doesn't work, but it helps bring clarity to some of my thinking.

    Along the lines established by the introduction, there’s an ancient story I have heard of…well…it’s ancient to me because there’s never been a time where I have not consciously known of this story, and the situation seems to be the same with my mother and father, and their parents as well.  And at least three generations makes the story ancient, doesn’t it?  The story has three elements (water, a pot, and a frog) and two different situations (in one the water is boiling, and in the other it slowly heats to boiling).  As the story goes, if you throw a frog into a pot of boiling water, it will immediately jump out again (it “knows better” than to stay there; its life is in danger!), but if you throw a frog into a pot of water, then slowly warm the water to boiling, the frog will stay in the water and cook to death (I thought it “knew better” than to stay there; its life was in danger!). 

As a child, I got some sort of sick delight out of hearing that story, and even consciously remember saying to myself, “What a dumb animal!  How could he stay in the midst of something that was killing him?!”  As I’ve grown older and reflected on that story, though, my triumphant description of the frog as “dumb” is much more muted, because in many ways I can now see much of myself and others in that frog. 

     If we expand the story of the frog into a much wider arena than a pithy proverb, it begins to reveal a deeply incisive truth. In the arena of human society, for example, every people group across the face of this world has a unique take on what is “reality,” “truth,” the “good life,” and what is “normal.” 

     As a concrete example, the latter half of the 20^th century was marked by a struggle of two economic systems (capitalism and communism) for global ascendancy.  This struggle became so tense that some people groups developed whole theories (one theory known by a parlor game of black rectangles with white dots) on how to stem the tide of the opposing ideology.  For communists, it was “obvious” that communism provided the best approach for the “good life,” and they had all kinds of reasons why it was “good.”  For capitalists, it was “obvious” that capitalism provided the best approach for the “good life,” and they had all kinds of reasons why it was “good.”  Both sides then proceeded to demonize the others’ systems to the point that they were willing to kill for the sake of what was “obvious” to them. 

     This simple illustration above shows a basic conundrum of life:  how do we know what is really “good” and “true” (what is “reality”)?  Both communists and capitalists seemed to come at their beliefs with integrity.  This illustration, I would suggest, suggests that our belief of what is really “good” and “true” is conditioned by a variety of factors and shaping influences.  Otherwise, how could two different groups of people arrive at radically different conclusions?  At the very least, we must confess that what we assume to be “true” is in fact a result of us being intimately shaped in various ways by our society to pursue certain things, to assume certain things, and to order our lives in various ways.  And the sum total of these beliefs is a life that we and others most like us call “normal” (which then enables us, if we’re lazy or naïve, to look at others not like “us” and call their different approach “abnormal,” because we “clearly” have a deeper perspective on what is objectively “normal”). 

The frog story then truly does have something to say to us here.  If we can imagine the various orderings of society in the story, the greater societal forces that have shaped us have a structure (the pot) and messages the forces disseminate on what is normal (the water); and from the moment we are more than a twinkle in our parents’ collective eye, we are educated, enculturated into a way of life that is “normal.”  These different influences stretch from the wider (global influences, theories on the ordering of goods) to the more specific (parental guidance, everyday experience).  Literally, we are so deeply enmeshed in our societies’ ways of seeing that we often don’t even know how deeply we have been shaped by them.

    Essentially, New Monasticism is the result of a profound dissatisfaction persons have with the Christianity they have been presented with in our society; one that spends most of its time talking about life after death and virtually ignoring what kind of impact Christ has on life before death.  Persons dissatisfied with this brand of Christianity have been driven elsewhere; some to a place of cynicism, some to emptiness, some to despair, some to just knuckle under to the things are in Christianity...but a courageous few in their dissatisfaction have been driven back to the Scriptures that are supposedly the foundation of Christian faith, and have found a Bible shockingly different than the one portrayed most often in their "churches."  A group of folks with this courage to keep struggling for truth got together in Durham, NC in 2004, discerned some of their common interests as disciples of Jesus, and called those interests the "12 Marks."  

    As far as my context goes, Dustin has been a great friend for me because he's been a safe place for my ventings and tentative explorations beyond Christianity-in-America-as-is (and hopefully I've been able to serve as a safe place and sounding board for him).  As we have sought to go deeper together, we ended up in a class together and Dustin floated the idea that we each pick a chapter in "12 Marks"and write about how our Anabaptist heritage speaks into the New Monastic movement.  I picked the chapter written by Shane Claiborne entitled "Sharing Economic Resources with Fellow Community Members and the Needy Among Us," and brought some of Shane's thoughts into conversation with Anabaptist Communal Economics (you'll get familiar with it if you're not yet).  I'd like to post my thoughts in a number of parts for the sake of others who may be interested, or just the chance to have some folks interact with something they aren't familiar with right away.  Without further ado, this is the intro;

How often we hear Christians speak about “believers,” concerning themselves only with doctrine, dividing over theological differences, making “orthodoxy” the only criteria for discipleship.  Most activism revolves around “orthopraxy,” doing the right things.  I believe the power of monasticism is the fusion of these two into a movement that is both theologically grounded and offers practical alternatives to the world’s pattern of inequality.  Most people know what Christians believe, but if you ask them how Christians live they do not know.  We have not shown them.

                            -Shane Claiborne in 12 Marks of a New Monasticism, pg 31

    I'm convinced that any sound critique of the "way things are" (in whatever arena of life the critique is directed) should involve some time devoted not only to deconstructing the perceived error of the "way things are" but also a good amount of energy and time invested in imaginatively reconstructing a hopeful alternative in its place. The ideal would be a hopeful reconstruction that is pursued in both word and deed, which is precisely why I chose Shane Claiborne’s quote to lead off my thoughts on the subject of economic sharing. 

    Shane and his “New Monastic” compatriots are doing some significant thinking and acting both in deconstructing and reimagining.  They have a God-given desire to seek creativity in what it might look like for followers of Jesus to find fresh, rooted ways to live more fully into Jesus’ prayer to his Father; “Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.”  The more specific context for these thoughts will be a conversation of sorts on economic resources, what is “normal,” and how our Anabaptist forerunners speak into this situation.

Staunton Mennonite Church

7/20/08

Matthew 9:14-17

14Then the disciples of John came to him, saying, “Why do we and the Pharisees fast often, but your disciples do not fast?” 15And Jesus said to them, “The wedding guests cannot mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them, can they? The days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast. 16No one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old cloak, for the patch pulls away from the cloak, and a worse tear is made. 17Neither is new wine put into old wineskins; otherwise, the skins burst, and the wine is spilled, and the skins are destroyed; but new wine is put into fresh wineskins, and so both are preserved.”

This has been a busy week for Sonya and me.  We closed on our home in Staunton last Friday, the 11^th.  Since then we have spent late nights painting rooms and cupboards, packing boxes and moving them South on 81, and loading a large truck to transplant all of our possessions from Harrisonburg to Staunton.  Then we started unpacking all of those trucks and boxes yesterday.  We are beginning a new life here in Staunton.

            We have enjoyed being in the city, sitting on our front porch, sipping iced tea.  We moved into a house that has been on the market for 18 months, and it has sat empty most of that time.  So the neighbors have been excited to see that the house is now occupied.  Just the other night, as we were sitting outside with a couple of you, a neighbor was riding his bike by and he noticed that “new” people were in the house on Springhill Rd.  So he stopped by to say hello.  We have received a number of friendly waves and introductions.  My next-door neighbor even brought me over ice cream one day because she thought I had been working too hard in the hot weather.

            All of this is to say that I am excited to be living in the city of Staunton.  I think this just might work.  It takes me all of five minutes to drive to the church and Sonya knocks off about 25 miles from her commute to work.  We are a block and a half away from the park and we hope to take in a lot of the free concerts and events.  Maybe they will let me on that train sometime.  On top of all of this, we are now only minutes away from many of your homes.  So what advantage do I see in living in Staunton?  We are now living, working, worshipping, and serving in one community.  I feel we are going to be building relationships with many people in this city.  And now our religious lives and our social lives don’t have to be separate.  We are ready for this city, and I think that this city is ready for us.

            Our scripture for this morning has a lot to do with changes as well.  But it isn’t a new house that Jesus is talking about, but a new movement; a movement that would later be called Christianity.  Our scripture begins with John the Baptist’s disciples approaching Jesus and asking him why his disciples do not observe the fasting rituals of the Jewish community.  They fast, the Pharisees fast, it seems like the thing to do.  All of the “religious” people are fasting.  So why don’t Jesus and his disciples fast?

            Now we can’t say for sure what fasting ritual Jesus and his disciple were not adhering to, but it is clear that they were not doing something that was expected of them.  And Jesus’ reply is that a wedding guest cannot mourn as long as a groom is with them.  He uses the metaphor of a wedding, where he, Jesus, is the groom.  This is a metaphor that Jesus uses a number of times in the New Testament.  He is the groom to be married to the people who follow him, who we might call the church.  They were in a covenanted relationship with one another, much like a husband and a wife.  And there was much reason to celebrate.  So why mourn while they should be celebrating?  This was a party.  There would be plenty of time to mourn in the future.  When Jesus mentions that there will be a time when the bridegroom is taken from the people and that they will mourn, he is obviously telling the people about his coming death.  And when he is taken away from the people, then they will mourn and fast.  But until then, it is time to enjoy life.

            But Jesus doesn’t stick with this subject for long.  He is ready to move off the subject of fasting and move on to something more important; his ministry and purpose on earth.  Jesus goes from one metaphor to another, telling how nobody sews a piece of unshrunk cloth to an old garment.  Because if you do, when you wash the patched garment, the unshrunk patch will shrink and the previously shrunk garment will not shrink.  So the new patch will tear away from the material that it was intended to patch.  And what happens to the old garment?  It is torn worse!  The very thing that was intended to fix the problem is now making it worse.

            Then continuing with this old and new motif, Jesus says that you don’t put new wine into old wineskins.  Because if you do, the wineskins will burst and the wine will be lost.  See in Jesus’ day, after grapes were squished into juice, the juice was stored in animal skins that were sewed up on the sides and allowed to ferment to preserve the juice.  They couldn’t can or freeze the juice, so they kept it long term in skins, fermented to preserve the juice (and they probably didn’t mind the alcohol).

            But when we allow something to ferment, it produces carbon dioxide.  And this excess gas has to go somewhere, so it builds up pressure in the skins.  Eventually, after enough pressure builds, the animal skins are stretched to accommodate the built up gas pressure.  However, if an old skin is used to hold the wine, it cannot stretch anymore.  It has reached its stretching threshold.  So what happens?  It explodes like an over-inflated balloon.

            Now the thing about Jesus and his metaphors is that he doesn’t always explain them.  And this confused and frustrated people in Jesus’ day just as much as it confuses and frustrates people today.  People today might read this and get frustrated thinking, “why doesn’t he ever tell us what he means?”  But I think it is ingenious, because by not prescribing an interpretation of his parables and metaphors, Jesus prevents us from looking at these parables as only referring to one thing.  Instead, they can be applied (correctly and incorrectly) in many different ways.

            In this instance, I believe that Jesus is saying that the message that he is bringing is not simply an add-on to the lives that the Jews were currently living.  He was not bringing a new law to add to the other laws, like fasting laws.  To do so would be like sewing a new piece of cloth on an old garment.  He wasn’t bringing a new law, but a new way of life.  A life grounded in the Jewish traditions, but so much more.  I am not saying that Jesus came to start a new religion, but to change the lives of Jewish people (see John Howard Yoder’s The Jewish-Christian Schism Revisited http://www.amazon.com/Jewish-Christian-Schism-Revisited-Radical-Traditions/dp/0802813623).

            One thing that I have had to learn as we have moved into our new house is that there are certain things that require a little bit of time to work out the details.  For instance, when our place was uninhabited for all of that time, the previous owners didn’t want to pay as much for their utility bills.  So they turned their water heater off.  So when we started moving in, we didn’t have any hot water.

            Then as we planned to spend our first night here on Tuesday, Sonya reminded me to turn on the water heater so that she could have a hot shower in the morning before work.  I forgot to do that; she had a cold shower the next morning.  So one of the first lessons that I have learned since our move is that if you want results, sometimes you have to actually turn the knob to get something started.

So as I walk through the streets of Staunton, I can probably assume that a large number of the people that I come up to do not belong to or attend a church on a regular basis.  This isn’t to say that they don’t believe in God.  I bet most of these non-church goers believe in God in some way.  But there are so many people that have become disinterested in church because of the false piety, the overly simplified spirituality, and the failed fruits tests of evangelical Christianity in the United States.  Essentially, I believe that these people have lost their faith in the church, not their faith in God.

            I think that is one of the major reasons why Christianity seems to be in such a decline in the United States today.  Because we don’t see lives being changed when people become Christians.  And in part, I blame this on how we “sell” Christianity today.  We tell people that they are sinners, and that is true.  Nobody I know would say that they never make any mistakes.  We are not perfect, and we know it.  But then we tell them that they don’t have to change.  There is nothing that we can do, we are all sinners, right?  All they have to do is say the sinner’s prayer and then they are set for life.  That is all that it takes.  So what do these people do?  They say “Sure, I can do that.”  They pray and then they keep on sinning.  Christianity becomes an add-on, something that you just add to your current life and expect it will be better.  But that isn’t the way it works.  You don’t become a Christian, pray that God improves your marriage, and then keep cheating on your spouse.  You don’t pray that God delivers you from alcoholism and then keep going to the bars every night.  We have responsibilities as Christians.  Responsibilities for living our lives as Christ lived his while helping others to find this way as well.

            Jesus said that you don’t sew a new piece of unshrunken cloth on an old garment.  Things are made worse if you do.  And when Christianity becomes just an add-on to your current life rather than being an entire change in lifestyle, we are putting a new piece of cloth on an old garment.  It just makes things worse.  And non-Christians see this and they are turned off by Christianity.

Staunton has become new wine skins for us.  This is where we live; we are contained by this city.  And I believe we must become new wine for the city.  And by we, I mean us, Staunton Mennonite Church.  We are new wine for this new wine skin that we find ourselves in.  We are stewards of a message that I believe this city is hungry for.  For almost 500 years Anabaptists have emphasized what is often called Radical Discipleship, following not only Jesus’ teachings, but following him in his actions as well.  Anabaptists refused to accept cheap grace, but instead were willing to pay the ultimate price for the grace of God; they were willing to lay down their life for Jesus Christ.

            And this radical discipleship, this following Jesus in word and deed is something that we still see today in the Mennonite Church.  Christianity isn’t just some add-on to our current lives.  It isn’t just some piece of cloth that we add on to a garment to try to cover a vacancy or a hole in our lives.  Christianity is a new way of life.  It is a new life, a new beginning.  And I believe that the Anabaptist message and the emphasis on Radical Discipleship is the new wine that this city needs.

            I think that the best thing we can do is to be exactly what those outside of the church don’t expect the church to be.  We need to be people living as a part of the Kingdom of God here on earth.  We need to practice what we preach.  We need to turn the other cheek, we need to offer forgiveness, even when an apology is not first offered.  We need to pray for peace and work for peace.  We need to live first as citizens of the Kingdom of God, making sure that others know that we have no other priority, no greater allegiance, and no stronger conviction than our priority, allegiance, and convictions for the Kingdom of God.  Christianity isn’t just an add-on.  It is a way of life.

            In a world obsessed with buying, money, and power, we have a message of simplicity in the Mennonite Church.  Why buy new what you can buy used?  That’s why Mennonites love thrift shops.  Jesus was a poor, homeless man.  It is confusing when non-Christians see so many Christians buying million dollar houses with guest quarters that sit empty most of the time while our brothers and sisters down the street have nothing to eat or perhaps even a place to sleep.  Jesus was a man of much love, much compassion, and much joy.  But he wasn’t a man of many possessions.  If we claim to be followers of Jesus Christ, then we need to be followers of Jesus Christ.  The simplicity of the Mennonite tradition is appealing to those in the city of Staunton looking to escape the traps and lies of consumerism.  As Stauntonians find that you cannot buy happiness, they will appreciate Jesus’ message of simply living so that others might simply live.  Christianity isn’t just an add-on.  It is a way of life.

            We have a war that has been going on now for over five years.  There have been over 4,000 American military deaths and over 1 million Iraqi deaths due to this war.  And I believe that many Americans are tired of this fighting in a war we do not understand.  Then we find people like the Anabaptist Ron Sider who started Christian Peacemaker Teams as an alternative to fighting, instead working as Jesus would to reconcile people’s differences.  Christian Peacemaker Teams has had a ministry set up in Iraq since October of 2002, six months before the war on terror began.  These peace workers are trying to find ways to fight terror, build relationships, and eliminate conflict without the unnecessary loss of lives.  And just as soldiers are willing to lay down their lives in battle, Christian Peacemakers are willing to lay down their lives for Christ.  I think this is appealing to the people of Staunton, and to the people of the world.  People are starting to take notice of what Mennonites have been doing for hundreds of years.  Because Christianity cannot just be an add-on.  It is a way of life.

            So we are back in our new house now in Staunton, the day of my wife’s cold shower.  I turned on the water heater, and I intended to get cleaned up myself that evening.  But even after a couple of hours, the water was still pretty cold.  I hadn’t turned up the temperature enough.  I had to turn up the temperature on the water heater a few times until I got it where I wanted it to be.  This just goes to show that even after you get things started, they might need adjustment.  It might even require constant adjustment.

            In May we celebrated our 50^th anniversary here at Staunton Mennonite Church.  So there has been an Anabaptist witness here in Staunton for 50 years.  There are some here that are cradle Mennonites, meaning you have never been anything but Mennonite and never really known any other denomination.  And as I said earlier, Anabaptism traces back to the 16^th century.  This isn’t just something new to most of us.

            But it is new to many others.  If there are 30,000 people in the city of Staunton, and only 40 people here today, the message of Radical Discipleship is going to be new to 29,960 people.  For these 29,960 people, we have a message that is new wine to them.  And like the water heater in our new home, we need to continue to adjust our method of sharing this message with the people around us.

            The people of Staunton are hungry for the message that we have to share with them.  We have new wine for the new wineskins of Staunton.  For the many people that have not given up on God, but have given up on the church for whatever reason, we have a message.  Christ does change lives.  I hope that we can show people with the way we love them that Christianity is not simply an add-on to their lives, it is an entirely new way of life.   

I suggest that the key elements in the ability of the young men of draft age to stay faithful to their convictions were the efforts made by their church communities to offer spiritual and material support. About 50% of the Mennonite young men who were drafted performed alternative service (they made up about 40% of all legally recognized conscientious objectors).

Though this was a difficult time for Mennonites in the U.S. in many ways, they emerged from World War II with their sense of identity intact. Many of those who performed alternative service became leaders in the churches in the years following--and exerted a powerful influence in deepening Mennonite pacifist commitments.

Conspiring together with Steve, Mark, Jessica, Hinke, Joe, Jason, Eliacin, John, Lora, Joel...

Appreciated the gracious hospitality of the brothers at Christian Brother Spiritual Center.

Introduction

We could look at Anabaptism in two ways.

Firstly, as a historical movement in the sixteenth century - the radical reformers. That history is a helpful counterpoint for Baptists as Anabaptists are as important to the Baptist heritage as Luther or Calvin, and yet you could grow up in a Baptist church like I did without ever hearing them mentioned.

But I didn't become an Anabaptist for historical reasons. I became an Anabaptist when I encountered a theological framework which made me excited about following Jesus and excited about what the church is meant to be. That's the second option for looking at Anabaptism - as a theological framework drawing on the key insights of the sixteenth century radical reformers but not captive to their particular historical and cultural concerns.

In this talk, I will give you an historical sketch of Anabaptism to orientate you. I will then discuss two key aspects of an Anabaptist framework - the Constantinian shift and the view of the church.

Anabaptist history

The Anabaptists originate as the third group in the Reformation. The Protestant Reformers broke with the Catholic Church over the place of the Bible, the doctrine of grace and the abuse of the priestly office. The Reformers sought to make their reforms through the magistrates and councils which ruled the city-states. The Anabaptists went further than the Reformers. They understood the church in a fundamentally different way, rejecting the alliance between church and state. For Anabaptists, being a Christian meant following in the footsteps of Christ. They refused to compromise, and like Jesus this brought them into confrontation with the authorities and led many of them to the cross - martyrdom.

In 1517, Martin Luther set off the reformation. Two years later, a priest named Ulrich Zwingli heads to the Swiss city-state of Zurich. He is convinced that the church needs to return to the Bible. He begins preaching from Matthew 1 and starts working his way through the Bible. He believes the church needs reforming. But he's also a pragmatic man, and he wants to be effective. He has a disputation with scholars and church people to make recommendations for reform. He then implements the program of reform in consultation with the council.

Zwingli also has a small study group with some enthusiastic young disciples. Among them are Conrad Grebel and George Blaurock. He studies the Greek New Testament with them and they talk about the reform of the church. At first, Zwingli says his final authority will be the Bible. But increasingly, he becomes more pragmatic. Tensions rise with his radical disciples who don't want him to compromise with the powers.

The radicals break with Zwingli at the end of 1523. A disputation calls for the abolition of the mass. Zwingli brings the idea to the Council, but says he will submit to whatever the Council decides. The radicals are furious that he is compromising on something they feel the Bible is clearly saying. Their disagreement with him over how the reformation of the church should proceed shows the Anabaptist idea of the Constantinian shift, a theme I'll return to.

The radicals continue meeting without Zwingli. After further study, they come to the conclusion that infants shouldn't be baptised. They refuse to give their infants up for baptism. The Council issues an order that all infants are to be baptised immediately. On January 21, 1525, the radicals meet to discuss what to do. They decide that if baptism without faith is invalid, none of them have been baptised yet. So George Blaurock asks for Conrad Grebel to baptise him. Next Blaurock baptises Grebel, and then they baptise the rest of the gathering.

The term ‘anabaptists' soon came to be applied to the group, meaning ‘rebaptisers'. The Anabaptists, of course, did not believe the first baptism was valid, and the term was one of derision, having connotations of treachery and heresy.

The group spread rapidly through Europe and were persecuted wherever they went. Two main streams of Anabaptism survived - the Mennonites and the Hutterites. The Mennonites named themselves after Menno Simons, a second generation Dutch Anabaptist who re-orientated the movement after a disastrous event at Munster, where Anabaptists tried to take over a whole city. In the end, most of them were killed. This uprising gave Anabaptism a bad name and made it an easy target for critics who saw the movement simply as political rebels. Such an interpretation was common until the middle of the twentieth century.

The stream of Anabaptism that contemporary Anabaptists trace themselves back to had three central principles, laid out in Harold Bender's important idea of the Anabaptist Vision:

1) Christianity as discipleship

2) Church as brotherhood

3) Christian ethic as love and non-resistance.

All of these themes will emerge in the theological framework later.

Many Mennonites fled persecution by migrating east until they ended up in Russia. From there they were persecuted again by Stalin in the twentieth century and many of these rejoined the large Mennonite population in the USA and Canada. Today, a lot of Mennonites resemble evangelicals in most of their beliefs and even practices. However, there is also a strong movement within Mennonites reclaiming their radical roots. Pacifism is something Mennonites have rarely compromised on and Mennonite agencies are involved in peacemaking throughout the world.

The Hutterites have continued their practice of communal living and have communal farms in different parts of the world.

An Anabaptist theological framework

The Anabaptist theological framework I'm going to present is largely drawn from John Howard Yoder. Yoder was a Mennonite scholar and a student of Karl Barth who lived from 1927 to 1997. He wrote from an Anabaptist perspective in dialogue with mainstream theology and the ecumenical movement. He forced the wider theological world to take Anabaptism seriously. We were fortunate enough to have him speak here at the seminary in the 1980s and 1990s and some of these talks can be found in the library. His perspective is not normative for Anabaptists; there are different streams of Anabaptist theologians that would differ significantly him. Yet all Anabaptist thinkers would at least agree with the basic outline of these two issues.

A. Constantinian Shift

The Constantininian shift didn't start in the fourth century, but the critical moment in which state and church became intertwined can be traced to Emperor's Constantine's conversion in 313AD. Eventually, the whole empire became Christian, and for Anabaptists this is compromise is the worst thing to have happened to God's people.

• Suddenly, a person was a Christian by birth rather than by commitment to follow in Jesus' footsteps.
• This meant your identity as a Christian shifted dramatically. Before Constantianism, you were called to join a diverse church which transcended cultures and nationalities. Your old loyalties were left at the door, because you were now a Christian before you were a citizen of your country. It would have been unthinkable for first century Christians to kill each other on the battlefield. Yet once a nation became Christian, suddenly the old loyalty to your country became primary again. Being a citizen and a Christian were now the same.
• To allow a whole state to be Christian, the demands of being a disciple were watered down. It no longer meant sharing your money. It no longer meant taking the Sermon on the Mount literally. Instead, Christians were now in power and had to do what was ‘responsible'. It is irresponsible to follow Jesus by refusing to use violence.
• The distinction between the church and the world was abolished. There was no longer a holy people showing the world a new way of life and speaking prophetically to its fallen structures. This is why Baptists have always insisted on a ‘regenerate church', or a ‘believers' church'.

Anabaptists believe that the church has more chance of being faithful when it is a minority and it is out of power. Living in exile and persecution is a recurring pattern of what it means to be God's people. Anabaptists were saying this while the church was still in power. Now that we're in a post-christendom age with the church disestablished and forced to be a minority, other Christians are finally listening to what Anabaptists were saying all along. Anabaptism could offer important insights into what it means to follow Jesus in such a context, both from its history and its theologically framework.

Disavowing Constantine is something that Anabaptists and Baptists have historically done. It is weakened in contemporary Baptist circles when we claim Australia was a Christian country or should be again. The popularity of books by Col Stringer claiming just this shows there is still a lot of confusion amongst Christians about the legacy of Christendom. Strong guidance from the pulpit to embrace a minority position could do much to better equip Baptists for mission in our current context. I think it is an insight that the emerging missional church has taken on board already, with it forming the basis for a lot of their models of engagement with society in books like Frost and Hirsch's Shaping of Things to Come.

B. Church

If Constantinianism was a mistake, what should the church look like? I'm going to offer you an Anabaptist account of the church which draws on one of Yoder's books called Body Politics : five practices of the Christian community before the watching world.

Yoder writes, ‘The people of God is called to be today what the world is called to be ultimately' (Body Politics, ix) For him, the church is the firstfruits of the new creation. The church shows, imperfectly and falteringly as it might be, what life in the kingdom is like. It gives a foretaste of what the world will ultimately be like when Jesus is acknowledged by everyone to be Lord.

In this book, Yoder describes five of the practices that the church does now to show the world what the new creation is like. All of them derive from the New Testament, all of them have roots in the Old Testament, and all of them have been practiced to differing extents not just by Anabaptist churches but by all churches. I'm going to present four of them, adding to them from other Anabaptist writers. These practices offer a radical option for Baptist churches, one that returns to the believers' church heritage to find answers instead of to mainstream evangelicalism.

1. Baptism

Firstly, Yoder restores the social meaning of baptism. Baptism has important personal meanings, but we diminish it when we neglect its wider meaning. It marks a person's entry to a new humanity. It is the ritual that brings together old enemies. It is a theme we see again and again in the writings of Paul.

Baptized in Christ, you are clothed in Christ, and there is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female; you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:27-28)

Formerly there was a dividing wall of hostility between people of different races, different classes and even different genders. Now different types of people are brought into the same body, the church, and they worship together and share their lives with each other.

Even if you don't agree that baptism is the practice that marks this new people, the idea still stands that diversity and reconciliation are part of the good news. It is central to the good news of the kingdom that Jew and Gentile eat together at the same table. It would have been easy for Paul to allow the churches he planted to separate, with one for the Jews and one for the Gentiles, another for the poor and another for the rich. But instead, he insisted that they worship together in the same church and learn to overcome their differences.

This is an Anabaptist distinctive that strongly challenges contemporary Baptist practice. It speaks against the homogenous unit principle behind both the church growth movement and the emerging missional church movement. It speaks against segregation by age or class or interest. Forget what works best. When we maintain the divisions of the world in our church, we deny the good news that the dividing walls have been broken down by Jesus Christ.

In his book The New Conspirators, Tom Sine describes a new stream of church called ‘mosaic' which is deliberately multicultural. Another recent book with similar ideas is Bruce Milne's Dynamic Diversity.

2. The Lord's Supper

An Anabaptist understanding of the Lord's Supper recovers its original practice as part of a shared meal. Yoder looks back to the table fellowship of Jesus as he and the disciples went from town to town. The disciples ate together and welcomed tax collectors and prostitutes to the table with them.

We come to the Last Supper, which would have been a full meal. Jesus says ‘when you do this, remember me'. What was the ‘this' he was referring to? Yoder says there are two possibilities - eating together or eating the Passover meal together. It seems much more likely that meant ‘eating together', and this is how the disciples understood him. We all know from Acts 2:42-47 the activities of the first church - as well as devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching and to prayer, they devoted themselves to the fellowship and the breaking of bread. They were remembering him as he instructed them to do, by eating together.

The practice of the early church was to hold a shared meal called the agape, in which Christ was remembered. We have lost the social meaning of that meal. The sharing of food made sure that no-one went hungry. The rich were able to provide food for the poor.

So Yoder reads the Lord's Supper as a part of the economic newness of the Kingdom of God. In Acts, the disciples go on from sharing food to sharing all they have with each other - again from that same Acts 2 passage, ‘Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone who had need.'

For Anabaptists, radical generosity starts at the table by sharing food, and quickly moves to our wallets. Only some Anabaptist communities like the Hutterites practiced communalism. However, all of them stressed providing for each other as need arose. And need arose often, persecuted as they were.

Baptist churches today might do well to recover the common meal as an act of worship. It might challenge us to be generous with our money and our time. It rescues the Lord's Supper from the individualistic and unimportant place it has come to occupy for many churches.

3. Church Discipline

Church discipline has always been a key part of the Anabaptist understanding of church. At times it's been misused and abused, and the practice of the ‘ban' has given Anabaptists a bad name. But the solution to bad church discipline is good church discipline - not no church discipline.

Why church discipline?

1. Anabaptists see it as a part of the process of discipleship, of shaping each other to be more like Christ.

2. Anabaptists have always been concerned with trying to maintain a holy church, and this means confronting sin.

3. As part of a commitment to peacemaking, the process of discipline is actually about reconciling people.

Anabaptists have always taken Jesus' instructions in Matthew 18:15-20 as the starting point of their understanding of church discipline.

‘If another member of the church sins, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one. But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

‘Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Again, truly I tell you, if two of you agree on earth about anything you ask, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them.'

The first step, of going directly to your brother or sister when they offend you, prevents gossip and the build up of bad feelings. Instead of harbouring resentments within the church, disciples are told to fix things up between themselves. All through the process, the concern is for things to be fixed up with the brother or sister who has gone wrong. Even the final step of treating the offender as an outsider is not intended as punishment but as a final drastic measure to get them to be reconciled. As Paul writes in 1 Cor 5:5 ‘hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.'

Yoder emphasises that it is the task of all disciples to be involved in church discipline, not just church leaders. He also emphasises that it's not reserved for big sins, but is a process to use whenever there's conflict that arises.

Church discipline speaks strongly against the prevailing consumer culture of today. Too many Christians hold church membership so lightly. If they fall out with one church, they can go to the next one down the road. A commitment to church discipline might even mean encouraging newcomers to a church to be reconciled to their brothers and sisters from their last church.

A challenge to Baptists is to take Jesus' procedure seriously in congregational life. It means that sexual and public sins are not the only ones which will be dealt with. It means that the pastor is not the only one to go to his brother or sister when they sin. It would be a difficult and dangerous thing to attempt, but it has the potential to renew and restore congregational life.

4. Priesthood of all believers

The fourth and final aspect of the church I want to talk about is the priesthood of all believers. It's a concept honoured in name by Baptists, but too often not in practice. Yoder talks about the priesthood of all believers meaning the end of religious specialists. That the creation of a class of people set aside from the rest to be priests is a part of the fallen world and that God has been a work through history reversing it.

But the priesthood of all believers is not the individualistic idea we often see. It does not simply translate to us all standing as individuals before God without a human mediator. That idea has more to do with Martin Luther than with Anabaptists. Instead, we need to think of it in terms of the function of the church. We also need to couple it with the image of the church as a body.

A body is organically interdependent; no part is independent of the rest of the body. Each part has a function.

Historically, Anabaptist church worship would follow Paul's instruction in 1 Corinthian 14:26 - ‘When you meet for worship, one person has a hymn, another a teaching, another a revelation from God, another a message in strange tongues and still another the explanation of what is said.'

This idea of worship is a long way from the carefully managed services we see in many churches. But if we believe in the priesthood of all believers, it's something we need to be challenged by. Perhaps it should make us question whether large gatherings with most people saying nothing were meant to be the main way we ‘do' church.

In the same chapter of 1 Corinthians, Paul tells us that everyone who has something to say, something given by the Holy Spirit, can have the floor and say it. In 1533, Anabaptists wrote that they refused to attend the state church services because these churches did not follow the instructions given in this passage. Yoder mentions that some British Baptists arrived at similar conclusions on their own a century later (Body Politics 66-67).

The Anabaptist pastor Wally Fahrer quotes from a job description worked out between him and one of the churches he pastored - ‘In salarying a pastor, we are not purchasing a commodity of ministry but are freeing a brother from the need to work additionally to support his family in order that he might be free to give himself to the work of ministry' (Building on the Rock 67).

Conclusion

I want to end by clarifying the relevance of Anabaptism to an understanding of being Baptist. The Anabaptists has many points of contact with the Baptists.

• The 16^th century Anabaptists can be seen as the originators of a free-church movement of which the Baptists are a part. The issues faced by the 16^th century Anabaptists have a lot in common with the 17^th century Baptists. There was also at least some contact between the groups. As members of the same family, dialogue and mutual understanding is important.
• The Anabaptist theological framework is particularly relevant as a challenge and option not just for Baptist theology but evangelical theology in general in a post-Christendom, postmodern context. Some of its insights have been used by the emerging missional church, but there are far more to be debated and considered.

In the two lists approach, Anabaptists share the standard distinctives of evangelicalism you might find for any evangelical organisation (like the Australian Fellowship of Evangelical Students for example), usually one starting with the infallibility of Scripture and going on to the trinity, the divinity of Christ, substitutionary atonement and ending with the second coming.

We then have a second list of Anabaptist distinctives - usually confined to 'social ethics' (peace) and 'ecclesiology' (the disciplined church).

I don't like this approach (and neither does Finger, really). The vision of the church found in Anabaptist thought and the radical understanding of Jesus should infect every part of our theology. I don't want to be an evangelical with extras.

I see the same issue even in the Vineyard, where we're careful to establish our evangelical credentials with a 'first list', and then offer our distinctives in the 'second list', centring on the kingdom and the Spirit. Same again with Baptists in WA.

I think there's a good impulse behind this - the unity that the evangelical movement hopes to achieve as an umbrella above all these particular expressions of 'orthodox' (very small o) Christianity.

The Facebook group Missional Cohort (Lancaster) gathered for the second time last evening.  Here is a bit of a summary of our conversation:

1.  Read this post by Greg Boyd. 

2.  We talked about the tension that tends to exist between "institutional/structured" expressions of church and "missional/incarnational" expressions.  We explored a number of side trails off this main theme. 

• Characteristics of "institutional/structured" expressions of church--sense of stability/permanancy; like order; buildings are important symbols and markers...
• Characteristics of "missional/incarnational" expressions of church--messy, grassroots, relational, contextual, de-centralized. 

3.  We reflected on this polarity as we examined the purpose statement of SMC.  "...we gather for worship and then scatter to be Jesus' witnesses in our communities and around the world."   Here are some questions that emerged:

• How can grassroots, incarnational expressions of church be seen to be of equal value/importance to the purpose and identity of a congregation as the times of gathered worship? 
• Do we have the imagination to see multiple grassroots, incarnational/missional expressions of living in the way of Jesus organically connected and drawing life from the structured/institutional church that gathers for worship? 
• Why do we tend to think primarily of the church in the "gathered for worship" expression? 
• Why does so much of our primary identity and vision for the church center around buildings and programs?
• What would it look like if a congregation would find ways to balance both of these expressions of being church (gathering for worship...scattering for witness)?  How would our view of the building (as gathering place) change?  Would it be more or less important?  How could we possibly recalibrate our sense of identity and purpose as a missional community if the building wasn't the primary symbol/place defining our communal rhythm? 
• Do buildings in of themselves have a tendency to co-opt and limit our imagination for what it means to be church so that gathering for worship becomes the primary way the congregation imagines itself being church?

While there are some tensions between institutional/structured expressions and missional/incarnational expressions of following Jesus communally (Church), it seems that we need both.  There is value on both sides of this polarity.  How can the dynamic tension between these expressions produce fruitful and creative expressions of following Jesus and being the church? 

4.  We see an importance of acknowledging this duality and the value with both expressions.  It is important to situate our small, grassroots expressions of living incarnational/missional lives within some more formalized institutional/structured expression of church.  This should include some connection to a local community that gathers for worship (congregation).  Beyond that, we would see the importance of congregations placing themselves within and affirming a relational connection to a tribal story (i.e. Anabaptism).  This is what Greg Boyd is articulating in his letter.  That the values expressed in the groundswell of missional/incarnational communities are ones that are aligned with the Anabaptist tribal story (rejection of Christendom model of power over to bring about God's righteous reign).  So we need to identify the tribal story that we are a part of--the communal tradition (Church) that helps frame and give meaning to our particular stories. 

What we see (I would argue) in much of contemporary evangelical Christianity is the rejection of Tribal stories--the framing narratives which provide accountability beyond our own localized expressions of church.  One could argue that any sense of accountability to a Tribal story situated within a 2,000 year view of the Church has been displaced by an accommodation to the framing narrative of empire.  So the rich deposits (treasures) of the faith within the Tribal story and 2,000 year communal tradition are exchanged for the idol of relevance.  Relevance is measured by what serves the individualistic sensibilities of those who are living out the narrative of empire (globalized capitalism, militarism). 

This disconnect has implications for how we read Scripture and understand what it means to follow Jesus and be the church.  Authority becomes localized.  In fact, the authority often is represented by voices that are willing to preach a gospel that does not offend the sensibilities of empire and the spirit of the age.  So the narrative of empire goes unchallenged as church capitulates to the spirit of the age.  A chaplain to righteous empire, the church baptizes this narrative with Christian language and sensibilities so that free individuals are blessed to pursue life, liberty and hapiness under Pax Americana.

There is little sense of accountability or need for submission to a broader communal tradition.  We decide what it means to be the church autonomously.  The values of empire are usually not too far beneath the surface of these independent expressions of church. 

Church as missional/incarnational small group is valuable, but it is not the whole.  Congregation as community that gathers for worship is another important expression, but it is not enough.  The Tribal story that frames denominational expressions of church/movements is also needed, but that is not the whole.  The Tribal story needs to be placed within and interact with the 2,000 year story of the Church. 

5.  We discussed the pattern throughout history that when the institutional/structured church becomes accomodated to the way of life of empire, the Spirit of God stirs movements of renewal (i.e. monasticism).  Every 500 years it seems that the Spirit stirs followers of Jesus to radical ways of living The Way.  How is this pattern being expressed again in our day? 

6.  How is pastoral role both an expression of institutional/structured church and the missional/incarnational current of the Spirit?  How do we work out the ambiguity inherent with the both/and nature of pastoral ministry?  Can we name the forces that seek to define the role of pastor in one direction or the other (either/or)?  What is at stake if we don't acknowlege this tension and make room for the ambiguity?

My essay, "From Sixteenth-Century Anabaptism to Mennonite Church U.S.A.", a version of which was published in my book, Embodying the Way of Jesus: Anabaptist Convictions for the Twenty-First Century, pays special attention to how the tradition has evolved through the years.

Brian McLaren, "Note to critics and self"

Tim Stevens, "Open letter to a church hopper"

Michael Danner, "The Forgotten Ways meets real life"

In his post, Michael offers this helpful diagram to frame our thinking on being the church.  Helpful thinking on the consumption/production program-driven model of church. 

How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of the messenger who announces peace, who brings good news, who announces salvation, who says to Zion, 'Your God reigns.'

As shoes for your feet put on whatever will make you ready to proclaim the gospel of peace.  Ephesians 6:15

You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'  But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you...  Matthew 5:43

Kimberly Kindy wrote a piece that appeared in the Sunday News yesterday.  The piece entitled, "Stormy weather,"  comments on the recent political theater in which Sen. John McCain accepted, then rejected, the endorsements of evangelical Christian leaders Rod Parsley and John Hagee.  This blogpost is not an attempt to analyze the motives or potential effectiveness of McCain's decision.  Rather, I want to reflect on some of the comments made by Parsley and consider the underlying theology they represent.  I also will dig for other expressions of the righteous empire theology within evangelical Christianity.  Exhibit A--a personal anecdote.  Exhibit B--Left Behind series. 

Parsley is the pastor of a 12,000-member congregation in Columbus, Ohio.  At a recent service he punched the air and called Islam a "false religion" that God has told America to destroy.  Referring to America, he said:

We were built for battle!  We were created for conflict!  We get OFF on warfare!

Interesting.  Using the Christian narrative to justify shock and awe.  Amazing.  Which Gospel?

Ken Sensenig was with us at SMC yesterday sharing the amazing story of Amish forgiveness in the aftermath of the Nickle Mines school shooting in September of 2006.  Ken recounted that just as the initial act was inconceivable to the world beyond serene Lancaster county, so too was the response of the Amish toward the perpetrator.  The response of the Amish to extend forgiveness rather than lash out from their pain demanding retribution was incomprehensible to the outside world. 

The witness of forgiveness rather than angry retribution has so piqued the curiosity of the outside world, that many have come to Lancaster county to discover what is informing and shaping this unconventional response.  Those who come to visit ask incredulously, "How is it possible to forgive in this way?"  This kind of question is raised by both Christians and non-Christians alike.  And the Amish respond with similar incredulity to Christians who cannot fathom this kind of behavior in response to violence.  "Is there something wrong with our response?" they ask.  "Something inconsistent with Scripture?" 

And so a powerful witness goes forth from the quiet in the land.  A witness that seeks to uncover the way of Jesus who teaches about enemy love and incarnates this kind of love from the cross, "Father forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." 

I am struck by the stark contrast between the Amish understanding of the Gospel and the one proclaimed by Rod Parsley.  Parsley is not alone in his theology which presumes America is the righteous instrument of divine justice against the infidel Islamic world.  This reading of the Gospel in which the Kingdom of God is aligned with the interests of righteous empire is one that points to holy war and a bloody conflict in the name of Jesus.  It is sometimes difficult to tell where America ends and the Kingdom of God begins from this theological perspective. 

And this theological view has seeped into the evangelical consciousness in ways that now threaten to make visible a way of living that is foreign to the way of Jesus.  It is the kind of thinking that looks at the Amish response with disbelief.  The Gospel that is preached reflects an unquestioned support to the interests of empire.  The Gospel is heard from the inflammatory preaching of Parsley, but it also raises its head in more subtle ways that appear benign.

I received an email from a relative (a sincere Christian) a few months ago.  It was one of those emails where someone forwards something to you for a laugh.  Here's how the joke went:

An Amish farmer, walking through his field, notices a man kneeling down and drinking from his farm pond. 

The Amish farmer shouts:  "Trink das Wasser nicht.  Die Kuehe haben dahin geschissen."  (Which means:  Don't drink the water, the cows have shit in it.) 

The kneeling man shouts back:  "I'm a Muslim, I don't understand you.  I speak Arabic and English.  If you can't speak in the sacred tongue of Islam, speak in English."

The Amish farmer says:  "Use two hands, you'll get more."

Without going into the details of the email exchange that ensued, let me just say that I think that a Christian sending this joke represents the same misunderstanding of the Gospel of peace that we hear in Parsley's preaching.  It is just more subtle.  Seemingly more benign.  The fruit of this Gospel is just as complicit with the holy war narrative as Parsley's rhetoric.  

My Christian relative perceived this as a harmless, innocent joke.  I had a very different reaction.  Why was I not amused?  Why was the joke troubling to me?  It has to do with the hidden underlying narrative that feeds into the joke.  Let me explain.  1.)  The caricature of the Muslim paints him as one who encroaches on someones land to take what is not his.  When confronted he is rude and demeaning to the Amish.  2.)  The response of the Amish (totally inconsistent with the kind of response revealed at Nickle Mines) is to essential say, "Go to hell."  What Amish person would respond like this?  Of course in the structure of the joke, this is the unexpected twist.  The punch line.  3.)  The underlying presumption is that anyone would read the joke and find it funny, because of course one more dead Muslim is a good thing.  It is the kind of thinking not disimilar to that found in this bumper sticker. 

So we send this type of joke on without questioning the way the narrative is framed that sees this joke as funny.  Yet we see that the witness of Nickle Mines seems to have uncovered a deeper reality that transcends the ways of thinking revealed in Parsley's preaching.  Their is something that looks like a deeper reality of love.  The words from Parsley's pulpit call for violent retribution.  The actions of the Amish point to a deeper reality rooted in grace, love and transformation. 

Is it any surprise that one hears the Gospel of righteous empire in an American pulpit?  Is it any surprise when we see broad-based acceptance of the eschatology represented in the popular fiction of the Left Behind series.  A series that has had significant influence on the way many evangelicals read the newspaper and understand the role of the United States in terms of the apocalyptic portions of Scripture.  Loren Johns, professor at AMBS, provides a helpful critique of the series.  Here is one of his conclusions. 

At the end of the day, this series is ultimately a rejection of the good news of Jesus Christ.  I say this because it rejects the way of the cross and Jesus' call to obedient discipleship and a new way of life.  It celebrates the human will to power, putting Evangelical Christians in the heroic role of God's Green Berets.  In this story, premillennialist dispensationalism meets American survivalism.  This is a story about so-called Christian men who never really grew up, who still love to play with toys and dominate others, and whose passions are still largely unredeemed.  Love of enemies is treated as a misguided strategy associated not with the gospel, but with the Antichrist.  Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins have the right to offer any kind of interpretation of Christianity and of the end times that they wish.  Ultimately, it is not their interpretation of the end times that troubles me so much as their interpretation of Christianity.  It is devoid of any real theology, or substantial Christology, or any ethics that are recognizably Christian.  This is a vision of unredeemed Christianity. 

You can read the rest of this review of the Left Behind series here.  I have not been able to force myself to read any of the Left Behind series, but based on this review, it sounds like they present the same gospel that Parsley is preaching.  God save us from this dangerous narrative!  God help us reject the sword of empire.  God help us embrace the cross, the way of forgiveness. 

How beautiful are the feet of the Amish families who are proclaiming with their very actions the gospel of peace. 

Lord, help us to see where we have embraced a false gospel.  Where we have re-made Jesus into the likeness of our own warrior heros in the mythic narrative of redemptive violence.  Lord, help us to uncover the reality of Jesus--the way of redemptive love, forgiveness and reconciliation.  AMEN.