I'm Weary Of Blessing Same-Faith 'Church Divorces'

...You are God’s building. Because of God’s grace to me, I have laid the foundation... Now others are building on it. But whoever is building on this foundation must be very careful. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one we already have—Jesus Christ... Don’t you realize that all of you together are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God lives in you?  
God will destroy anyone who destroys this temple. For God’s temple is holy, and you are that temple.

- from I Corinthians 3 (New Living Bible)

Since becoming a part of Virginia Mennonite Conference nearly fifty years ago I've lost track of the number of times I've been through the grief of church divorces, where God's "people temple" (see above) is structurally damaged. 

Last evening at our quarterly Harrisonburg District delegate meeting we were again asked to approve a motion granting a release to a local congregation breaking ties with us--separating themselves from our district, from the Virginia Conference and from Mennonite Church USA.

Heartsick, I abstained. I just wasn't prepared to vote either yes or no. How could I, with many of the members of this congregation being my friends, and all of them brothers and sisters in my faith family?

A part of me understands where these family members are coming from. Like others before them, they see leaving as a necessary part of being faithful to the Bible, believing the mother church is on a wrong course. I went through similar distress when Virginia Conference agreed to accept as members, in some cases, people who were already a part of the military. To me this meant violating the clear teachings of Jesus and the practice of the early church, as well as being contrary to our church's Confession of Faith.

The current issue, of course, is over same-sex marriage, even though currently we have no openly gay couples as members of any of our congregations. But at least one church has stated it would be open to receive such, and Eastern Mennonite University, a part of MCUSA, is currently debating the question. 

Of course, at most, only a small percentage of our members (the percentage of people who are gay or lesbian) would ever even think of choosing such a partnership. 

Nevertheless, these are the kinds of concerns the church must take seriously. But must we walk away from each other as soon as we even talk about controversial issues--like accepting divorced persons who have "married another", or blessing members choosing to "fare sumptuously every day" while billions are in want, or baptizing people who believe killing as a part of military service is OK?

Or should we stay with each other, meanwhile encouraging congregations, as they feel led, to discipline individual members who refuse counsel or correction from the church, but not separate ourselves from whole congregations or districts? And meanwhile, shouldn't we at least allow for time to discern and pray with each other, to confront and engage each other, and love and weep with each other as members of fellow congregations or districts? Even no-fault divorces of married couples in Virgina require a year of waiting before formally severing ties.

Our Swiss Anabaptist forbears didn't seek to see the church divided, but appealed to their entire church in Zurich to follow Jesus' call to voluntary discipleship and a renunciation of violence. They were forced out, were persecuted, tortured and exiled for preaching a baptism of the willing rather than having everyone forced into membership in the state church.

I know there is much about today's churches and congregations that is broken. We are a mix of flawed, imperfect people, to say the least, as have been members of churches ever since their first century founding.

But dare we just ignore Jesus' fervent prayer for unity, "that we might all be one"? Are we assuming there is more than one Lord, faith, or baptism? Are we not to become one beloved bride of Christ rather than resembling a fragmented harem? Do we believe that in our Father's house there are separate rooms reserved for each of our kind, or that only those who agree with us can even find a home there?

Or can we affirm there is "a wideness in God's mercy" that is beyond our imagination?

Celebrating One As A Whole Number

Debra Farrington, author of “One Like Jesus, Conversations on the Single Life,” writes, “Churches have unconsciously bought into the belief that being single is being miserable. They might pat singles’ heads and say it’s okay, but they don’t really believe that.”

Farrington notes, for example, that some churches call their 20s and 30s groups “pairs and spares,” as if people who weren’t married were left overs.

I’ve long held the belief that the best preparation for married life is to first learn to live joyfully and well without being married. In other words, to first become “One like Jesus”, or like a St. Francis or a Mother Teresa.

That may sound idealistic, even impossible, but isn’t there something wrong if we can’t be a happy or whole person without being married, as good a state as that may be for most?

I suggest we encourage our young to make their decisions about who, when or even whether they choose someone as their “soul-mate-for-life” from a position of already having a bucketful of happiness. That way they won't be bringing their half-empty buckets to a relationship hoping someone else can fill it. And then resenting them for failing to fully do so.

Not that any of us can go it alone. Each of us, married or single, need a strong and nurturing network of support, good people in nurturing congregations with whom we can share good times and bad, whether single or married.

Sister Fannie Mae, with my father, Ben, after my mother's death

One of my older sisters, Fannie Mae, who was never married, became a volunteer registered nurse and midwife who operated a clinic in Belize for ten years and later one in Paraguay for another decade. In both places she made a positive difference in  the lives of hundreds of families in underserved areas. She will always be one of my admired heroes, in many ways having accomplishing more than any of us.

Whitewashing The World's Ultimate Travesty

The front page of Saturday's Daily News-Record featured a depressingly long list of area men killed in US wars over the past hundred years. There were over 250 men included in this horrific roster, one with the headline "The Ultimate Sacrifice".

No one with a heart should ever simply glance at these names or note these numbers and remain unmoved. These are real people, and their tragic stories represent an unimaginable trauma not only for them, but for the 250 or more families directly involved, for the untold numbers of sweethearts, spouses, siblings, parents, children, coworkers, neighbors and friends of the dead whose lives were forever altered by these deaths.

Today I grieve for each one of them, and pray for healing for worldwide wounds inflicted by war.

The only way any of us could ever begin to support such utterly cruel and preventable killing is through the use of euphemistic language in lauding armed conflict as a noble and selfless sacrifice. We avoid naming armed conflict for what it really is, a form of organized mayhem and inhumane brutality.

The editorial page of the same issue of the DNR features the text of an eloquent speech by General Douglas MacArthur delivered to cadets at West Point on May 12, 1962.

His remarks begin with, "Duty, Honor, Country. These three hallowed words reverently dictate what you want to be, what you can be, what you will be. They are your rallying point to build courage where courage seems to fail, to regain faith when there seems to little cause for faith, to create hope when hope becomes forlorn...The unbelievers will say they are but words, but a slogan... But...They build your basic character...They teach you to be proud and unbending in honest failure, but humble and gentle in success..."

Note the religious language in such speeches, with words like "hallowed", "reverently", "faith", "hope", "(un)believers", "character", "humble" and "gentle". Who could oppose an enterprise so laced with piety?

I do not fault the average foot soldier for embracing such embellishments in support of killing, or for becoming brainwashed into engaging in it out of love for God and country. But while many soldiers display extraordinary and laudable courage, I find it hard not to see them at the same time as being expendable pawns of the powers that control them.

What would happen to our addiction to killing, for whatever cause, if instead of describing our dead as merely haven "fallen", or having made "the ultimate sacrifice", we would honor their lives and their tragic deaths by being candid in how we describe it? In reality, killing in battle typically means having fragments of human flesh, bones, blood, brains, intestines, and other body parts splattered and scattered beyond recognition, accompanied by the desperate and God-forsaken cries of the wounded and dying. And that doesn't even begin to describe all of the horror of what really happens when we aim heavy artillery fire at other human beings, whether soldiers or civilians.

So the best way to honor those around the world who have been killed or permanently injured as a result of having been persuaded (or coerced) into defending freedom, honor, and/or their homeland, would be to announce that the barbaric business of war is over, and we are pledged to forever putting an end to it.

So listen Syria. Pay attention, Sudan, Russia, Kenya, the U.S. Listen to the cries of the suffering and the laments of the grieving. For God's sake, for Allah's sake, for Jesus' sake, let's work and pray together to find a better way to peace on earth.

Could This Growing Threat Divide Our Church?

Greed: wanting more than is needed

This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but did not help the poor and needy.

- Ezekiel 16:49 (NASB) 

While the Mennonite church is in the midst of multiple conflicts and deep divisions over what to do with gay and lesbian members who want to be in committed relationships, there's another equally sobering issue we need to address.

I refer to the question of how we respond to greed-oriented persons who seek to become members of our fellowship.

I'm aware of a growing number of Mennonites who have quietly come out as multi-millionaires, and have begun to live accordingly. They may represent fewer than 3-5% of us, but that's still a lot of people. In addition, an untold number of members, while not yet living an openly multi-millionaire lifestyle, nevertheless have a strongly greed-based and consumer-driven orientation. All of us face the danger of becoming far too attached to money and the abundance of things money can buy.

Not everyone who stewards large sums of money or manages enterprises that produce large amounts of wealth is necessarily greed-driven.  I know business men and women who operate with integrity, provide decent jobs at fair wages and don’t assume that managing more capital wealth entitles them to a greater share of consumer wealth. In other words, they continue to live simply and frugally and share sacrificially with those in need.

But Jesus repeatedly warns us of the danger of greed and of pursuing wealth for selfish ends rather than solely for the good of others. And what should make this a grave concern is that if one takes scripture seriously it is clear that no greedy person can be considered a part of the rule of Christ. Note:

Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.

- I Corinthians 6:9-10 (NRSV, emphasis mine)
  

So what do you think? Should the church begin to do some major house cleaning based on this growing concern about the love of Mammon, one to which Jesus gives more attention than to any of his other teachings?

Clarifying note: The Merriam-Webster definition of greed is "a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed."

An Appeal To Members Of Virginia's New Parole Board

Virginia Parole Board
6900 Atmore Drive
Richmond, VA 23225
(804) 674-3081 

Current members:
- Ms. Karen Brown, chair
- Mr. Algie T. Howell, Jr., vice-chair
- The Reverend Doctor A. Lincoln James (pastor of Trinity Church in Richmond)
- Mr. Sherman R. Lea (Roanoke City Council member, former VDOC head, Western District)
- Mr. Minor F. Stone (25 years in law enforcement)

Dear Parole Board member:

Congratulations on your recent appointment to the current Parole Board.

According to the Parole Board website,  "The Virginia Parole Board... continues to be empowered by Virginia Code Section 53.1-136 to make the following decisions:

• to conditionally release inmates who are parole eligible,
• to revoke parole and post release supervision of those under supervision found to be in violation of the terms of their release, and
• to investigate, prepare reports and advise the Governor, when requested, on Executive Clemencies.

The Board has the legal responsibility to act on geriatric requests for conditional release under Virginia Code Section 53.1 - 40.01."

I hope you will increase the numbers of prisoners who have been behind bars for many years and who could be safely released to their families and communities. A number of men with whom I have been in correspondence were incarcerated on the basis of plea agreements in which they were told that if they served some of their time and exhibited good behavior they would be eligible for parole in a reasonably short time.

Such promises were never kept for countless numbers of persons who, in spite of their best efforts, have been refused parole year after year because of "the severity of their crimes", something they are of course powerless to change. Many of these parole eligible inmates are over fifty, having passed the age where their being at risk for re-offending is dramatically reduced. Many of them would in fact qualify for geriatric release.

I offer the following names only as examples of good people I believe deserve to be given their second chance. As a taxpaying citizen, I fail to see the merits of detaining persons long after they have demonstrated that they have learned their lesson and are ready to become contributing members of society:

Mr. James E. Bender #1010837 (excellent prison record, seeks parole after spending years in prison under old law)
Greensville Correctional Center
901 Corrections Way
Jarratt, VA 23870-6914

Mr. Stephano Colosi #1037581 (excellent prison record, is an active advocate for geriatric release for aging prisoners)
Buckingham Correctional Center
P. O. Box 430
Dillwyn, VA 23936-0430

M. Steven W. Goodman #1028377 (excellent prison record, active in doing legal research on restoration of parole)
Buckingham Correctional Center
P. O. Box 430
Dillwyn, VA 23936-0430

Mr. Danny Haskin 1005852 (excellent prison record and has taken every educational opportunity available to him)
Greensville Correctional Center
901 Corrections Way
Jarratt, VA 23870

Mr. A. Jefferson Grissette #1143033 (wrongfully sentenced based on plea bargain and photo line-up, excellent prison record)
St. Brides Correctional Facility
P.O. Box 16482
Chesapeake, VA 23328

Mr. Nat Painter 1009725 (age 72, incarcerated 19 years, denied parole in spite of excellent prison record)
Coffeewood Correctional Center
12352 Coffeewood Drive
Mitchells, VA 22792

Mr. Jens Soering #1161655 (47-year-old who seeks return to his native Germany, has authored six books on prison life and prison reform since 1986, when he was incarcerated for a wrongful confession)
Buckingham Correctional Center
P.O. Box 430
Dillwyn, VA 23936-0430

Mr. Jonathan D. White #1161021 (has exceptional prison and education record and has worked hard to earn parole)
Powhatan Correctional Center
3600 Woods Way
State Farm, VA 23160

Mr. Charles E. Zellers, Sr. #1036758 (excellent prison record, active in prison reform efforts)
Buckingham Correctional Center Bl-113-B
P.O. Box 430
Dillwyn, VA 23936

Sincerely,

Harvey Yoder, LPC
11345 Hamlet Drive
Harrisonburg, VA 22802

If Christians Had Only Listened To Jesus, They May Have Saved The Planet

source

Sell what you have and give to those in need. This will greatly multiply your stock in the company of heaven. And your portfolio is absolutely safe from any downturn in the market. Your treasures will never disappear; no thief can steal them; no moth can destroy them.

Luke 12:33 (paraphrase)

We tend to dismiss these words as among those impractical sayings of Jesus that no reasonable person could ever put into practice in real life. But what if Jesus intended them to be wise counsel about the kinds of investments that bring about optimal returns?

When we invest in the needs of our fellow human beings rather than in ever more consumer goods, he insists, we are putting our money where it really produces lasting results and brings the greatest possible satisfaction.

Had Christians heeded this kind of advice, the planet might have averted disaster.

Unfortunately, most so-called Christians, especially those of western Europe and the new world, have become known as the most ravenous and reckless consumers of all time, promoting a way of life that is wrecking the planet, exhausting its resources and poisoning its atmosphere. And regrettably, most other developing nations have been all too eager to follow our lead.

What would have happened if those who profess to follow Jesus would have from the beginning taken him far more seriously when it came to sharing wealth with those in need rather than storing up more and more earthly treasure for our own comfort, convenience or self-indulgence? There would have been far more peace on earth, and trillions could have been saved through investing in plowshares instead of swords and through spending on human need rather than on human greed. Hunger, malnutrition, homelessness and many diseases could have been virtually eliminated if the rate of consumption had been reduced and wealth more equitably shared.

We may all realize, too late, that Jesus was not simply giving humanity some good sounding but optional financial advice in the gospels, but a mandate that could prove to be the only way we could all survive.

But alas, professed Christians, on the whole, have been no more Christ-like when it comes to their rate of consumption than unbelievers in general.

Location, Dislocation, Relocation.

source

I was six years old when my mother, with my two older brothers and five older sisters, completed a 1400 mile journey from eastern Kansas to the little village of Stuarts Draft in Augusta County. We arrived early on a Norfolk and Western passenger train on the morning of March 5, 1946, then walked nearly a mile to where our dad was staying, surprising him with our early arrival.

My father had just made the same trek in a freight car designed for cross country moves, one that held livestock in one end, farm machinery in the middle and our furniture at the other end. It was a huge undertaking for my 40-year-old parents to make this move to a new community with their brood of eight. They also faced the challenge of making a living on the rocky and hilly 120 acre farm my uncle financed for us, quite in contrast to the 160 acres of relatively flat land we had come from.

Why did they do it? Not for financial gain or for a better farm, but for the benefit of us children, believing that the families and young people in the little Amish congregation at Stuarts Draft would provide a better environment for us to grow up in. Many of the young people in their Kansas church youth group were into things like drinking and smoking and some engaged in courtship practices they were afraid we would be negatively influenced by.

I will always be grateful to them for making the decision to relocate. And it turned out pretty well as far as our passing on their faith and values to families of our own. I've often wondered what might have happened to us if they had chosen otherwise.

I shared that story at our house church gathering yesterday, where our lectionary texts reminded us that following Jesus is sure to involve some major relocation, certainly a decisive dislocation of our perspective and direction if not an actual geographical move.

In the Acts 7 passage for this Sunday, Stephen, a passionate member of the Jesus movement in Jerusalem, is brutally stoned by angry members of the Jewish establishment. This young firebrand, not a Judean native, outraged the Judean powers by promoting two controversial positions regarding religion and location. First, he insisted that God doesn't identify primarily with a certain land (the whole earth is the Lord's), and secondly, that God does not dwell in temples made by human hands (but inhabits the hearts and lives of faithful people everywhere).

source

So in his speech, instead of appealing to conqueror Joshua, military King David or empire builder Solomon, Stephen elevated landless nomads like Abraham and Sarah, who had answered God’s call to leave their roots and their homeland and to relocate in Palestine, even though, as Stephen reminded them, they never owned a foot of land in the new world--except for their burial plots. He insisted that what really holds people together is not so much their land, but their Lord, their Abba. The kingdom of God is wherever God rules, in the hearts and lives of followers of Messiah.

That didn’t go down well with the ruling party, who saw God as providing a promised land they could call their own, with secure borders that would forever exclude outsiders--along with a temple in their midst which would be God's exclusive dwelling.

But Stephen, quoting key Hebrew texts, insisted that God had no need for either a particular plot of real estate or for a dwelling made with human hands, something very hard for them to hear, especially since they had just been given the gift (by King Herod) of a glorious new temple on Mt. Zion, which they believed pointed to a restored theocracy and a land free of all foreign enemies. The idea that God’s new kingdom, led by Messiah, would welcome everyone, that it was to be an international movement that included all believers of all kinds from every tribe and nation, and not Jews only, was in their minds a rank heresy.

So the relocation Stephen calls for takes us into Abraham, Joseph, Moses and Jesus territory--all of them being resident aliens in their time--and into temples not made with human hands.