A Prayed For Preamble To The President's State Of The Union Address This Year

A spirit of genuine repentance would bless everyone.

This is the kind of introduction I wish our president could give to his speech this year:

My fellow Americans, before I talk about the state of the union, let me say a few words about the state of your president.

While there is much in my life for which I feel blessed, I have also become keenly aware of many personal failures for which I feel deep remorse.

Like the flawed and human King David of old, I have failed many times in being the person of moral integrity and fidelity I should have been. To my family and to my nation I acknowledge that with much regret and remorse.

I am also convicted by the words of one of the psalms of David* which declare that a person approved by God will always "speak the truth from his heart," and that "there will be no slander on his tongue." Whether I have actually spoken over 15,000 falsehoods since becoming president, as alleged by the Washington Post, or only 15, even one lie is one too many. I am also sorry for all of the ways I have slandered people in my speeches and in my many tweets, and for how I have disrespected women, Latinos, Muslims, my political foes, and even my political allies. For all of that I sincerely ask for your forgiveness.

I am equally troubled by the many questionable business deals in which I have failed to act with the standards of integrity that should be expected of any citizen, and certainly someone appointed to the highest office of the land. Like the notorious public official Zacchaeus after his face to face encounter with Jesus, I want to declare publicly that if I have defrauded anyone, I will restore whatever I've taken unjustly fourfold. That's how serious I am about wanting to set things right.

Finally, as far as all of the charges that have been made against me in the impeachment hearings, an acquittal before God Almighty is far more important to me today than any offered by courts, Congress or the voting public. But from this day forward I commit myself to maintaining an ever higher standard of conduct as your president. I realize that people of all races, colors and creeds are subject to the same ultimate judgment, whether rich or poor, Republican or Democratic, native born or recently emigrated. We are all equally responsible, in the words of the prophet, to "to do justice, love mercy and to walk humbly before God." No exceptions.

So today I humbly and gratefully identify with John Newton, the former slave trader who after thoroughly repenting of his wrongdoings penned the memorable words, "Amazing grace, how sweet the sound, that saved a wretch like me, I once was lost, but now I'm found, was blind but now I see."

And now to the state of the Union...

* Psalm 15

Relationships: Aiming For Deep Or For Wide?

Someone I really love and admire just sent me an email that's left me praying for a basic change of focus in my life. At my age that may not be easy, but it's something I know I need to take seriously.

The email, from a friend who suffers from chronic pain and whose activities and social life are significantly restricted, in part reads as follows: 

In a day when broadcast communication has become such

a norm... we as rushed, driven people are so overrun with communication from all sides that I fear we are finding it hard to sit down and map out a serious area of Bible study or reflection for our own growth, or to pray for long blocks of time.

Even in my quiet world the phone calls me with so many messages or voices from those I love. Often we share so much of the trivial with others that we hardly have time left to give from deep within ourselves to our families and neighbors--those who live closest to us. 

So how do we keep ourselves as deep wells from which we share things that can impact for eternity those who reach into our lives? Maybe we need to be purposely shutting the door to some of the good we could do further away in order to offer deeper things to those within our reach.

I pray we can be whole people who can be oil upon the head for everyone God sends our way. Christ became flesh so we could know as He knew what it was like to walk all the way to the cross. 

Teach me to be more like Christ. Teach me to do ministry as He did, reaching out to the crowds, yet sitting down with His twelve and revealing deep things of the Kingdom.  

It was the simple word deep in her post that I couldn't shake off. I found myself asking whether too much of my life has been spent in efforts to go wide rather than focusing on going deep. In other words, have I been so driven to reaching ever more people through social media, radio spots, blogging, writing and speaking opportunities that I failed to experience enough of the heart-to-heart and soul-to-soul connections I need with God and with other people? And might a change in this area mean my connecting with fewer people rather than always striving to connect with more?

My first impulse was to rationalize by defending a need to do both. After all, Jesus spent long days offering healthcare and soul care to crowds of people, but also set aside time for solitude, prayer and fasting, and for deepening his connection with God and with an intimate group of close friends and followers.

My problem has been to find the right balance. But I'm already convinced this means making meditation and reflection a priority over being driven to get ever more work done in a day. In other words, my going deep needs to take precedence over going wide. I need to focus more on fostering intimate and nurturing connections and not just instant and superficial ones.

The following is a kind of ladder of different levels of communication we humans may experience, from the least intimate to the most intimate:

Ritual Communication: As a means of establishing connections, this a necessary first step in all relationships. This includes our "hello's," "how are you's?" "good morning's," etc.

Information-Level Communication: Here we focus on life events, news happenings, and on task-related information.

Opinion-Level Communication: Here we discuss ideas and opinions about current events or personal beliefs.

Feeling-Level Communication: Here we share personal emotions of joy, sadness, grief, anger and the like. 

Soul-Level Communication: This includes times of deep, reflective listening, involving body language and touch that convey caring and empathy, as well as including times of golden silence. This often involves the use of words, but goes well beyond words to an experience of soulful communion.

Each of these levels of connection has its place, but I want to see this as a ladder for descent and not just ascent. I need to learn better how to go deep before I spend more effort at going wide.

How Would Jesus Impeach?

"If an offender refuses to hear you, then tell it to the ekklesia (the assembly). If he will not hear the ekklesia, then you must remove that person, consider them an outsider."     

- Jesus (who loved outsiders)

I can already hear people objecting to my title. The Bible isn't political, isn't about impeachment, and has nothing to say about the removal of any president or other public official. Besides, God's kingdom is separate from the temporal kingdoms of this age.

But as members of the Christian faith, we also affirm that everything here on earth is subject to God's rule. Our primary creed is "Jesus is Lord." Lord over everything. Lord over Caesar. Lord of all nations.

Christians affirm that while God ordains secular governments as a way to keep evildoers in check, everyone will ultimately be judged by the same standard. No exceptions. 

We also believe that the government (kingdom) of God and the governments of this age are by no means equal. God's rule is far and above every principality and power, and that rule is both now and forever.

So I'm disturbed at Christians seemingly seeing Jesus's life and teachings as naive and largely irrelevant to here and now, real-life issues. 

When it comes to finances, for example, the Jubilee economics taught and modeled by the Hebrew prophets and by Jesus and his early followers are simply set aside by most believers in favor of the wisdom of Wall Street. When it comes to  the governing principles by which we live, the U.S. Constitution is regarded as more authoritative than the Bible. And on the issue of defense, the Pentagon is seen as offering more security, and having more validity, than the non-violent, cross-bearing faith lived and taught by the Prince of Peace.

So should we at least consider Jesus' teaching and example in regard to something like an impeachment trial?

After all, even most members of Congress profess to be Christian. While they have also sworn to defend the Constitution, whatever they do in both their public and private life should reflect their allegiance to an even higher authority.

Were they to see themselves as subject to God's rule, as taught by Jesus and the prophets, they might consider the following as they consider removing a president:

Like the removal of a member from his or her congregation, as outlined in Matthew 18, the ultimate goal of an impeachment trial should not be to convict or acquit, but to rectify wrong and to restore the wrongdoer. In other words, the primary focus should, in the words of Jesus, be to point out the fault and to invite the offender to repent, to make amends. Only after repeated failed attempts to do so are we to excommunicate, or "impeach," someone.

Sadly, our current president may be unlikely to choose changing his ways, or rectifying any wrongs, having insisted that what he did was "perfect," and that he sees no need for him to repent or ask forgiveness.

But before any efforts to indict or remove anyone, there should be a sincere appeal to the offender to repent.

That's what the gospel is all about.

Would Virginia Counties Seceding (To Join West Virginia) Be Like Local Congregations Seceding To Join Some Other Communion?

No, this is not fake news, but actual legislation being considered in West Virginia.

The following resolution was introduced January 14, 2020, at the West Virginia state legislature:

"That the question of admission, or, the rejection of such admission, of any county or independent city of the Commonwealth of Virginia desiring admission to the State of West Virginia, and a majority of whose qualified voters, voting on the question, have approved such measure, prior to August 1, 2020, shall be submitted to the voters of the State of West Virginia at the next general election to be held in the year 2020.

"Such proposal shall be placed upon the general election ballot in the following form: “Shall the following county (or independent city) _____________________(name), currently a constituent part of the Commonwealth of Virginia, be admitted to the State of West Virginia as a constituent county of the State of West Virginia.”

Most of us will see this as most likely never happening and as being constitutionally unthinkable. In other words, it's a ludicrous idea that should never even be considered.

Yet we think nothing of it when churches withdraw from their Conference bodies or from their denomination to join another group of their choice.

Maybe that doesn't represent a fair analogy, but are some examples of local Virginia Mennonite Conference congregations that were once a part of Virginia Conference and in many cases have affiliated with some outside group:

1835 Virginia Mennonite Conference (formed from Lancaster [PA] Conference)

    1900 Old Order Mennonite Conference (left Virginia Conference and affiliated with Groffdale Old Order Conference in Pennsylvania)

    1953 Wenger Old Order Mennonite group (unaffiliated)

    1957 Mt. Pleasant Old Order Mennonite congregation (affiliated with Weaverland District Conference in Pennsylvania)

    1972 Southeastern Mennonite Conference (organized as a separate conference)

    1985 Timberville Mennonite Church (unaffiliated)

    1990 Calvary Mennonite Church (affiliated with Ohio-based Biblical Mennonite Alliance)

    2001 Cornerstone Churches (originally Mennonite, formed their own coalition of congregations)

    2002 Mountain Valley District churches (first unaffiliated, then the largest of these congregations, Dayton Mennonite, later joined the Conservative Mennonite Conference [now simply "CMC"] headquartered in Irwin, Ohio)

   

    2003 Broad Street Mennonite Church (unaffiliated)

    2005 Shalom Mennonite (joined Central District Mennonite Conference headquartered in Goshen, Indiana)

    2007 Lloyd Wenger Old Order Mennonite group (unaffiliated)

    2016 New Beginnings Church (became non-denominational and has remained unaffiliated)

A Heart Wrenching Time For United Methodists

If there were easy answers to the church's current
dilemmas, we would have probably arrived at 
them a long time ago.

As someone who decries same-faith church divorces, I can't help but feel grieved over the second largest Protestant denomination in the U.S., the spiritual descendants of John and Charles Wesley, possibly splitting into two separate bodies in May.

I certainly have lots of empathy for churches everywhere faced with the increasingly divisive issue of how to deal with gay and lesbian members who want to be in some kind of marriage union. And I totally understand the case to be made for traditional marriage, defined as being between a man and a woman for life. For the record, this is the position I've supported for pretty much all of my life.

So far be it from me to have an easy answer for United Methodists. But one of the problems all churches face in dealing with this and many other disputable issues is that there are no simple binary positions into which their members, or their member congregations, fit.

On the issue of same sex relationships. there is a whole range of responses supported by members of most of their congregations, as follows:

1.  Condemn and ostracize all lesbians and gays, keep them “in the closet.”

2.  Advocate acceptance of gays and lesbians but expect them to undergo a change of orientation (“healing”), enter into a heterosexual marriage or live a life of celibacy and secrecy.

3. Openly welcome and accept all believers into membership without making sexual orientation a barrier, but continue to support sexual relationships for only one man and one woman in marriage.

4.  Support the above approach as the church’s official position, but make pastoral exceptions for faithful same-sex relationships where no other option seems viable, similar to Paul’s “better to marry than to burn with passion” counsel (much like the approach many churches have taken with divorced persons seeking to remarry).

5.  Celebrate and affirm all monogamous and faithful relationship equally--heterosexual or homosexual.

6.  Encourage monogamous relationships, but make questions of exclusivity and fidelity matters of personal conscience.

7.  Leave all questions about sexual behaviors up to the individual.

So in order to actually accommodate everyone, should UMC divide into seven groups? And how are they to accommodate all of the other differences of conviction held by members of their churches?

In my opinion, our ultimate responsibility is to prayerfully seek to have our membership rolls correspond with the names of those we believe are written in the Lamb's Book of Life.

But since that may seem hard to discern, do we risk erring on the welcoming side or on the excluding side of the above spectrum?

That is the question that's tearing my soul apart, and the soul of churches everywhere.

Oh The Accolades From My Online Friends!

This is a sample of some of the more interesting responses I've gotten recently to some of my facebook posts and op ed pieces in our local newspaper:

"Mr. Yoder is one of the most radical left wing neo-liberals ever, Period. He is completely lost in his socialist agenda and cares nothing about America, traditional values or anything related to the Valley. Reading his opinions is a complete waste of time!"

"Though I love Harvey Yoder as a brother in Christ please do not waste a second in debating with him. Bless him and move on. His worldview has nothing in common with reality and the true fall of man. I only pray he keeps himself insulated and protected in his ideological cocoon and safely stays immune to the world around him. His arguments sound great in a sociology class but wouldn’t play well on the streets of Baltimore. Cut bait and don’t waste your time, breath or frustration attempting to use facts and common sense to change his “perspective”. He is harmless and a genuinely sweet gentleman that I unfortunately would not want as a partner in a life or death situation."

"Mr. Yoder, if you want to be taken seriously on any issue, then you really do need to educate yourself regarding that issue, starting with your description of the gun that your parents owned when you were growing up. They owned a 22 caliber rifle, not a 22 gauge rifle. Rifles are classified by caliber, shotguns are classified by gauges. Secondly, I've read your blog, and more specifically, some of the hot links to the blogs of others that you apparently endorse, as they appear embedded within the articles in the blog itself. Many of those who comment on these articles demonstrate complete ignorance of the Shenandoah Valley, coupled with an arrogance that is a complete turnoff. I saw references to folks in this valley "re-fighting the civil war", "backwards thinking", "people only wanting to own guns because of an irrational fear of the government", "bullying" (specifically in reference to the Rockingham County Board of Supervisors meeting at Spotswood High School the other night), and the list goes on and on. There was even one person who liberal who suggested that their friends move up to Canada to escape the backwards thinking people of the Shenandoah Valley. 
Mr. Yoder, you and your liberal friends live in a bubble of your own making. What happened at Spotswood High School the other night was not "bullying". It wasn't even anything close to bullying. What you witnessed, Mr. Yoder, is people who disagree with you about the fundamental principles this great country was founded on. If you can't handle the robust exchange of ideas, then I would suggest that you take your liberal friend's advice and move to Canada where everyone agrees with you. Otherwise, I would suggest that you stop talking and writing down to the good people of this valley and the values that we hold dear. It really doesn't paint you in a good light."

"Mr. Yoder, if you do not wish to be judged by the ignorant and arrogant words of these folks, then perhaps you should think twice before including their articles as hot links in your blog. Furthermore, I find it very hypocritical that you advocate for the confiscation of guns as it relates to peaceful, law abiding citizens, and yet you constantly lobby for the release of violent criminals from prison into our society. I too long for a day when there will be no more death, no more pain, no more evil, and no need for guns, but until Jesus returns, there will be sin and violence in the world, and the second amendment is the citizens' last line of defense against tyranny. I'll be keeping my guns."

"Harvey, I have nothing against you personally, and I wish you well, but I see absolutely no need for us to get together and have "meaningful dialogue". I have lived around, and known people like you my entire life. With all due respect, you have lived your entire life in a bubble. You've never worked in the private sector, run a business, or had to live with the consequences of the governmental policies that you promote. I remember reading a post from you a few years ago, where you admitted to not knowing the difference between the national deficit, and the national debt. You very clearly (as you have acknowledged) know nothing about guns, and yet advocate for stricter gun laws for law abiding citizens. At the same time, you openly lobby for the early release of convicted criminals, and even think it "unfair" that prisoners in the Rockingham County Jail should pay a $1 per day keep fee for their room and board. You lobby for "restorative justice" options within our criminal justice system, which likely works very well when a kid accidentally throws a baseball through his neighbor's window, and then mows his neighbor's lawn for the summer to pay off the debt, but is absolutely useless and dangerous when applied to hardened criminals. In short, Mr. Yoder, I'm sure that you are a very nice fellow, and I have very little doubt that you mean well, but frankly, I don't want people of your mindset to be in charge of anything. You truly live in an alternate reality. As I mentioned at the beginning of my post, though, I do wish you well, and specifically today I wish you and your family a very blessed and Merry Christmas."

What The Nickel Mines Response Could Teach Us About Revenge

The radical and non-violent response by the Amish to their
terrorist attack proved to be their most powerful witness ever.

You have heard it said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth," but I say to you, do not resist an evildoer,... Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you.

- Jesus

Do not repay evil for evil... Do not take revenge, for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord"... If your enemy hunger, feed him, if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.

- Paul

What we are seeing in the Middle East is the result of a vicious cycle of revenge, each side justifying their violent responses as completely legitimate ways of evening the score, of executing justice. 

But how well is that working?

Among the tragic and unintended consequences of this most recent vengeance cycle has been the accidental shooting of a Ukranian passenger plane in Tehran, resulting in 176 precious lives lost. While Iranian authorities are now taking appropriate responsibility, it is highly likely that the victims of that terrible attack would still be alive if we had not responded to an alleged "imminent threat" in the way we did, thus putting the Iranian defense forces on hyper-alert status. 

I am in no way excusing the Iranian action, or reaction, but even in the case of responding to the worst possible kinds of bad actors, like Kim Jong Un, for example, we don't see it as being in the nation's best interests (and against international law) to kill him. The possibilities of untended and terrible consequences are simply too great, including the likelihood, in the case of Iran, of bringing about greater sympathy and support for the Iranian government and for its policy of seeking revenge against the U.S. in whatever ways possible, thus making us all less safe. 

Imagine our response if a foreign attack by some super power would have made a martyr of Colin Powell while he/we were plotting an invasion of Iraq in 2003? Would that kind of preemptive strike have been in an attacking country's best interest or would it have galvanized American resolve to get ever more revenge by whatever means possible? Which in fact is what drove the US to attack on Afghanistan and Iraq, which even the president who initiated those attacks to later acknowledge them as a mistake, particularly the invasion of Iraq.

I know most of my readers will dismiss Jesus's and Paul's teaching against exacting revenge as applying only to our personal relationships and not being applicable to nation states. But even a legitimate national right to defend is not the same as an unlimited right to attack.

These same readers may also see any comparison between how a nation should act and how the Amish responded to the attack on their children at the Nickel Mines School as ridiculous. But is it?

What would have happened if after the 911 tragedy, when we experienced an outpouring of sympathy and support from virtually all nations everywhere around the world, including Muslim ones, we would have responded in a manner more like that of the Amish?

At the very least the U.S. could have called for a high level meeting at the UN to probe every possible means of never having a tragedy like the 911 attacks to happen again anywhere in the world. 

But the Amish went much further, actually returning good for evil, raising money to help their attacker's family, attending his funeral service, and stating their unconditional forgiveness for his horrendous deed. This didn't take away from their sorrow or anguish, but it was their radical and Christ-like response to it.

(Parenthetically, I prefer to see forgiveness as being an appropriate response to either repentance or ignorance on the part of an offender. In other words, to forgive as God forgives, based on a change of heart and mind (repentance), or as Christ asked for God's forgiveness on the basis of "they know not what they do" (ignorance). In this case, the attacker was neither ignorant nor able to repent (as far as we know). But what the Amish offered was a supreme expression of unconditional agape love, even toward ones worst enemy.)

In the case of the Amish, it could be argued that their response--that of returning good for evil instead of exacting revenge--has actually made them safer rather than more vulnerable to attack. They have garnered the universal respect and support of people all over world in their witness against evil and for their faith in their Lord as the non-violent Prince of Peace.

But could that approach ever actually work as a national strategy?

We may never know, since it's hard to imagine any nation ever trying it. But we can say with near certainty that an "eye for an eye" approach (originally meant to limit rather than add to a cycle of vengeance) will never achieve lasting world peace, and only cause eventual blindness for all who engage in it.

Note: Years ago I read something on the theme above, someone raising the question of what might have happened if our nation had responded to 911 as the Amish did to the Nickel Mines tragedy, but I haven't been able to find the source. If anyone can find that, I would like to give appropriate credit.