Truth: A Concept Bigger Than Words

A couple Sundays ago I was riding along with some church friends on our way to a hymn sing (something us conservative Mennonites do) and we came upon a hitchhiker.

The hitchhiker, a young man, was strumming some sort of ukulele. He had a sign asking for a ride west. We were going west. We conferred quickly, decided to make use of our extra seat and soon were on our way with one more passenger.

The young man, a friendly nineteen-year-old from Raleigh, North Carolina, has spent nearly two years on the road and told us of his nomadic lifestyle. He relies on the hospitality of others, often sleeps under the stars, and is on his way to California.

Being that we are religious and on our way to a church service, the conversation turned to religion. He explained that he is uncomfortable with the “Christian” label. He described himself as “a follower of Jesus” and later that evening mentioned the influence of Taoism.

We invited him to church. He accepted the invitation and soon he was amongst us Mennonites as we sang acapella music. To my ears, we sounded pretty good. He stayed until the end of the service and soon enough was being introduced by me to others in attendance.

One of those introduced, after some friendly chat (the usual Mennonite game banter and assessment of pedigree) ended by quoting John 14:6 at the young man, “Jesus is the way and the truth and the life” and emphatically stating this is the only way…

As we paused with this sort of non-sequitur concluding statement, presented in such a religiously cliché way, I almost asked this ordained Mennonite man if he knew what it meant. But, fearing he would try to answer if I asked, I restrained the impulse and smiled.

I have no idea what my guest was thinking, he was courteous and didn’t seem too uncomfortable in our midst. And so the evening went some polite conversation and some awkwardly presented evangelical dogma, me holding my tongue with slightly annoyed amusement and answering his questions.

Incidentally, nobody offered this young man shelter for the night (one of those asked apparently making excuse for himself because of his wife) and so we took him a few miles further west to ‘civilization’ where he would have more options. We prayed with him, gave him some cash and bid him farewell before returning east again.

What is truth?

The incident above, especially the quotation of Scripture, seemed like a good basis for a blog and reason to consider the meaning of truth. Truth, in this case, the idea of truth (alétheia) found in the passage, the truth of Jesus, that was partially quoted at my young hitchhiker friend.

The words “I am the way and the truth and the life” are cherry-picked from the Gospel of John. It is a part of a discussion Jesus was having with his disciples about imminent events. The disciples, as usual, were bewildered and asking questions:

“Thomas said to him, ‘Lord, we don’t know where you are going, so how can we know the way?’

Jesus answered, ‘I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.'” (John 14:6-7)

Philip was still confused. He goes on to ask Jesus to reveal the Father to them.

Jesus responds to explain in further detail, stating that he is one with the Father, that his words are spoken by the authority of the Father and telling them that the Father will be revealed to them through obedience to his teaching and by the Holy Spirit.

The truth of Jesus is more than book knowledge.

It is interesting to note that Jesus did not tell his followers to diligently study Scripture.

Instead, Jesus told them to obey what they knew and that more would be revealed by the Spirit after their obedience. It might seem backward, but faith without works is dead (James 2:14-26) and salvation is a gift from God:

“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.” (Ephesians 2:8-10)

That is not to say that the Scripture is unprofitable, it most certainly is profitable to a believer. It is “through faith in Jesus Christ” (Hebrews 2:3-15) that Scripture is able to make us “wise for salvation” and only through this truth of faith can we ever understand.

Book knowledge is not the same as correct understanding and those who opposed Jesus most vehemently had a great knowledge of Scripture. In fact, it was because of their own understanding of Scripture (and dogmatic literalism) that they rejected Jesus.

The truth of Jesus is something more than mere book knowledge, it is more than religious devotion to the study of a text or a theological proposition. The truth of Jesus is something more profound and powerful than words on a page. It is a spiritual reality that goes far deeper than fallible human knowledge or our finite ability to understand.

The truth of Jesus is something beyond description in words.

Truth is a word, but truth itself is not a word.

We use words to paint pictures in the minds of our audience. Words are symbols used to describe ideas, they are things we use to describe other things and yet words are not themselves the thing being described. Words are not truth of themselves any more than a portrait in acrylic color on canvas is the actual person being portrayed.

Words depend on the ability of our audience to understand them. One could tell their cat to “take out the garbage” and the poor critter would stare at them blankly. Language—like beauty is in the eye of the beholder—depends on the interpreter to correctly understand the word usage Communication is an interactive affair requiring both parties to be on the same metaphorical page.

Furthermore, talk is cheap, words can also be used to construct a false image of reality and deceive. Jesus warns of false teachers, people who profess with their mouths to be faithful, who present themselves as sheep and yet are inwardly wolves—We are told we can know people by their good or bad fruit. (Matthew 7:15-23)

So truth is more than words. Truth is an abstraction, it is something greater than the sum total of words and language used to describe it. Truth is something bigger than us and beyond our own concept of reality. Truth is transcendent and, still, it is something that can be fleshed out and represented.

The truth of Jesus is God’s word and a living testimony about a greater reality.

Jesus was brought before Pontius Pilate, a Roman civil authority, to be judged. The Gospels give slightly different versions of the events. In summary, the religious leaders accuse Jesus, they say he claims to be their king (a crime amounting to sedition against the established state) and insist that he is evil.

Here’s one account of the beleaguered governor questioning Jesus and trying to get the bottom of the issue:

“Pilate then went back inside the palace, summoned Jesus and asked him, ‘Are you the king of the Jews?’

‘Is that your own idea,’ Jesus asked, ‘or did others talk to you about me?’

‘Am I a Jew?’ Pilate replied. ‘Your own people and chief priests handed you over to me. What is it you have done?’

Jesus said, ‘My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.’

‘You are a king, then!’ said Pilate.

Jesus answered, ‘You say that I am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.’

‘What is truth?’ retorted Pilate. With this he went out again to the Jews gathered there and said, ‘I find no basis for a charge against him.'” (John 18:33-38)

This conversation is interesting and especially when Jesus claims to have come to “testify to the truth” and says those on the side of truth listen to him. It is reminiscent of when he told the religious dogmatists that his sheep hear his voice and makes an incredible claim:

“The Jews who were there gathered around him, saying, ‘How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly.’

Jesus answered, ‘I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me, but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.'” (John 10:24-30)

For this Jesus is accused of blasphemy. But to that charge, he replies by quoting their Scripture to them. He quotes from Psalms 82:6, where it says “I have said you are ‘gods’,” and uses that to argue against their idea that his claim of divine sonship was blasphemy.

Pilate seems agnostic about truth and exasperated by Jesus. He is dealing with a contradiction, he sees an innocent man not worthy of punishment and the religious crowd sees a man guilty of blasphemy against God who deserves death.

Pilate ultimately bends to political pressure and, while washing his own hands, complies with the demands of the crowd. However, both Pilate and Herod (who’s part is described in Luke 23:8-12) seem to see Jesus as a curiosity rather than as a direct threat to the state.

The truth of Jesus is found in our following his example and being a self-sacrificial testimony of God’s grace.

The truth of Jesus is not a reasonable or rational proposition by worldly human standards. It is only understood through spiritual means, through having the “mind of Christ” (1 Corinthians 2) and a process that starts in the heart (2 Corinthians 3) rather than through outward means.

It is transformative, as Paul explains:

“Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship. Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.” (Romans 12:1-2)

The Orthodox Christian tradition would call this theosis or divination. Unfortunately, my own Anabaptist tradition has picked to focus on the other negative end (the “be not conformed” part) and the result is an idea of “non-conformity” that usually amounts to a reactionary worldly effort to control outward appearance.

The truth of Jesus is about more than our ability to conform to a man-made list of requirements. It is a truth that transcends all worldly means and is expressed in our unrelenting, unapologetic and uncompromising pursuit of the divine. The truth is a positive vision. The truth is God’s grace made manifest in us.

The truth of Jesus is a path we walk that leads us to greater life and the perfection of divine love.

The words “the way” (hodos) refer to a journey. It is a path to walk and live out. The trail was blazed by Jesus who died for our sins, but it is lived also by those who truly believe and wish to be disciples. As Jesus said:

“Then he said to them all: ‘Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me. For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will save it.'” (Like 9:23-24)

Jesus is using the cross as a metaphor. A cross, in human terms, represented suffering and shame. However, in following after Jesus, for a believer this is not useless suffering, it is not pain for the sake of pain or self-flagellation, it is suffering for the good of others or making a path to something greater.

Jesus promises a more abundant life (John 10:10) to those who follow him. In this he is not promising material or worldly wealth. But he does say that we should use our worldly wealth to gain friends and gain true riches (Luke 16) which is to prioritize God through our loving people:

“Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen. And he has given us this command: Anyone who loves God must also love their brother and sister.” (1 John 4:20-21)

Jesus said we can know the truth of a person’s profession of faith by their fruit (Matthew 7:15-23) and that the fruit of the Spirit is described by Paul “love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.” (Galatians 5:22-23) Our truth must be more than words.

So what does ‘I am the way and the truth and the life’ mean?

To understand this we need to understand the context. The context is the last supper, it is during the Passover feast, the night Jesus is betrayed and an intimate moment. In these passages of Scripture (John 13 and 14) the implications are clear.

Jesus explains that his disciples will be known by their love for each other, he says he must go so they may know the truth more intimately (promising the Spirit to those who obey his instructions and example) and then goes on to demonstrate a truth of love worth dying for.

The truth of Jesus is not a theological proposition, not a religious profession or book knowledge. His truth is not a product of human reasoning and founded on scientific research or evidence. The truth of Jesus is something found in our walking in the Spirit, it is demonstrated in our love for others and bringing the dead to life.

Truth is living a reality greater than our reality, something that transcends worldly knowledge and human understanding. Truth is both known and still yet to be known, it is a reality that goes beyond the currently available evidence and is something that can only be experienced through a true walk of faith.

The truth of Jesus transcends religion and is a walk of faith.

In some respects, it seems my hitchhiking friend may have a better grasp of faith than his religiously indoctrinated counterparts. He is more literally taking no thought for tomorrow (Matthew 6:34) and depending on God to provide. By contrast, we too often rely on our own understanding, planning, and abilities.

I wish my traveling friend well on his journey and pray that the truth of God’s word (Jesus) is made manifest in him. May God’s truth of self-sacrificial love and spiritual life be found in us who claim to know Jesus.

Making Your Life Matter

Kayla Mueller had a life that mattered.

Her name has been in the news lately because of her death at the hands of ISIS.

But her courage and sacrifice for the good of others will live on. She loved others, not because they looked like her or shared her tribal identity, but because she loved God and knew God loved them.

Kayla’s example made an impact on everyone now reading her story and her life mattered in particular to those whom she served and rescued. She is remembered especially by Julie, a young Yazidi girl, who knew Kayla as a protective older sister and true friend.

Kayla’s selfless attitude and actions are a true reflection of Christian love and is an example of a life that mattered for all the right reasons.

Does your life matter?

We all want our life to matter. My Christian faith has led me to believe human life has intrinsic value. But does this mean all life has equal value? Is your life worth the same to society as a serial killer’s life? Is my life equal in value to a President who is guarded by dozens of armed secret service agents?

The answer is both yes and no.

It depends on perspective. My life may have equal value to the President’s if you ask my own family and friends. However, I would expect that the answer would change if the random person from the street were asked and that is one reason why we do more to secure the President.

A President’s death would likely be far more disruptive to more people than my own and that gives their life more value as far as national security is concerned. It does not mean my life has less intrinsic value, but it does reflect a reality of life that does matter.

What we contribute and value matters.

President John F. Kennedy and his assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, had lives that mattered to someone. And, despite the fact Kennedy is responsible for more deaths than the man who killed him, his life was valued more than Oswald’s by many Americans.

Why?

Kennedy, in his inaugural address, challenged those listening to “ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.” He had the right idea and how much we matter to others depends on what we do for them. Kennedy’s life mattered more to many people because he worked within their own established system rather than defy, resist or rebel against it.

Our value as individuals will be judged better or worse depending on what we contribute to the whole. Our outcomes, in part, will be shaped by our own attitudes good or bad and the respect we show to others. All people are supposed to have equal protection under the law. However, this does not mean all people contribute the same to society and that matters.

We live in a time where many have an entitled self-centered mindset and wish to be valued without being willing to make a positive contribution. Many Americans are only in it for themselves or people like them. When no life matters except our own then our own life loses value. When we treat others like they do not matter it hurts them and is sabotage to our own value.

Make your life matter for goodness sake.

We make our life matter more by loving all people as we wish to be loved. When we treat other people with love we create value where it did not exist before. By loving others as we wish to be loved we create value and make our life matter more as a result.

Yes, certainly that does not mean all people will value us. Some might despise us no matter what we do because of their hateful ideologies or judgemental assumptions about us. We cannot force others to love us or treat us as if our life matters. If our life doesn’t matter to someone then all the pleas, protests and demands for respect can’t change that. Even our kindness will not matter to some.

Nevertheless, we can always make others matter to us, we can always live a life that matters for the right reasons, and nobody, not even ISIS, can stop us.

Be like Kayla Mueller who died to save others.

My challenge is for all of my readers to go out and love someone who others do not care about or notice.

Find someone who is different from you (not your own race, family, culture, religious affiliation or political background) and then show them unconditional love. Love them as thoroughly and completely as the good Samaritan did.

Be like Jesus who laid down his own life so others, including his personal enemies, could find their salvation in his example and together have opportunity to live a more abundant life.

Live a life that transcends differences and expands the scope of love to all people deserving or undeserving alike.

Live a life that matters.

The Lost Witness of Christian Community and Finding it Again

There has been much focus on the family in the church. Popular media commentators (like James Dobson, Michael Pearl, Bill Gothard and Doug Philips) encourage making a high priority of our own immediate families.

Family is important. But the “no greater joy” in 3 John 1:4 is not written about a man’s own family or his blood relatives. Instead the letter is written about the church. John is describing love for spiritual children and the family of God. Do we find as much joy in the church family as we do in raising our own children?

Christian community has been watered down over the years. Yes, we might have more ‘church’ activities than ever and yet, as far as real interdependence, we are lacking. Those of you from good homes, who are happily married and in your prime, may not notice. But there is great social need beyond your doorstep.

This blog will explore where we are, where we were and where we need to go from here; it will address the enemies and also the benefits of faith community. One blog can’t even begin to do the topic justice, but hopefully it will spark thoughts and discussion. My prayer is that those reading will take faithful steps to restore the Christian community where they are.

Where we are…

The loss of community in the world around us is profound and the results are tragic. Isolated people are unhealthy people. The family unit itself has been degraded. Many children do not have opportunity of dinner time conversations together with their parents at home. Child care is increasingly outsourced. More people survive on food cooked by strangers than ever. The elderly are interned for sake of convenience, out of sight and out of mind. It is madness.

The church has not fared much better. People in many churches have very little meaningful interaction with each other during the week. After the church service is over most go their seperate ways and expect the needs to be taken care of by those appointed to do so. There is very little difference between the mainstream church and the world in regards to community. Sure, many churches bustle with activities, and there are many good people who are trying to make a difference, but there are many unmet social needs.

My conservative Mennonite culture has a more distinct history of community. Other Anabaptist groups, our spiritual (and often biological) cousins, have a stronger community emphasis than our own. Amish have taken dramatic steps and have rejected technology (starting with the automobile) in an effort to preserve the integrity of their communities. The Hutterites have a long communal tradition. But conservative Mennonites lack a clear structure and could lose this strength of community entirely.

I’ve seen changes in my own Mennonite community in my own lifetime that indicate the erosion of our community. We are following after the mainstream and the world more than we often realize. The Anabaptist prioritization of brotherhood has been replaced with a more individualistic mindset.

We do not pursue the concept of Gelassenheit anymore. Instead we turn to our own biological families for support and our fellowship is growing apart.

Where we were…

The early church example is very clear. The family language used by early church leaders meant something. When Paul spoke up for Onesimus (Philemon 1:8-25) he speaks with the urgency of a father speaking for his son. It is not casual usage of words. It is not us singing “I’m so glad to I’m a part of the family of God” on Sunday mornings and then doing next to nothing for each other during the week. The chuch then was a true family in every sense of the word…

“All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.” (Acts 2:44-47)

And repeated again later in the book of Acts…

“All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.” (Acts 4:32-35)

Their commitment to each other was clearly not a superficial commitment like our own too often seems to be. What is described in the passages from Acts above is not coincidence. No, what is described is what will happen when people commit fully to the teachings of Jesus and love as they ought to love.

Where we need to be…

What we need, first of all, is intention—we need to want to make the ideal of community a greater reality. We must realize our own weakness alone, confess this to each other and then bear our burdens together…

“Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ.” (Galatians 6:2)

It is not a meddlesome or controlling spirit, but rather a growing recognition of our own need for community and deepening commitment to the good of our Christian brothers and sisters. This kind of love is the truest expression of obedience to the law of Christ.

Jesus said the world would know we are his followers by our love for each other (John 13:34-35) and this is expressed in Koinonia (κοινωνία) or our common union as believers. We are to be intimately involved in fellowship together, and in all things, or we are not fully living the example Jesus taught. This must be made a reality today in our own time or we cannot claim to be fully living in faith.

The church should be extending our family to those without. Our elderly should never be left to a commercially operated nursing facility. Young single mothers should be able to find a restful place amongst us. We need to be less focused on our own individual family and more concerned with the family of God.

Enemies of community of faith…

There are many reasons why we do not follow the Acts church example today and it is mostly because we fear that the arrangement will not benefit us as an individual or our own family. This is a short list of reasons why one may resist a greater expression of Christian community:

1) Individualism: There is no doubt that our American culture centers on ideas of independence and rugged individualism. Unfortunately this has evolved into a rat race where everyone pursues a dream (unattainable for many) at the expense of real and fulfilling relationship. We seek independence, and it is good when we are working to support ourselves, yet we have social needs that cannot be fulfilled in ourselves alone.

2) Prosperity: People can create an illusion of their lack of need for other people because they are wealthy. Our wealth as Americans is used as defense of the status quo. The argument goes that since everyone has food, shelter and clothing there is no need for a better application of what we read in the book of Acts. Unfortunately government programs, while keeping people from physical death and complete destitution, do nothing for social or spiritual needs. Even materially wealthy people can be very isolated and miserable.

3) Pride: Religious people can easily imagine they are better than other people including their own brothers and sisters in the church. They do not want their children influenced by other children and adults, therefore they remove them, homeschool, etc. It is the oldest sin in the book. It was what seperated mankind from God and it is also an enemy of Christian community. Pride is dangerous, it causes divisions in the church and decieves us into believing we are better off when we are in complete control.

4) Technology: The Amish were right. The automobile dramatically changed and has aided in the decline of community. Add to that the television and smartphones. Children nowadays have more reason to stay inside and isolated. Adults are not much better by choosing to live in some suburban home with a privacy fence. We are increasingly buried in technology, addicted to the quick fix of social media and at the expense of true relationship.

5) Fear of commitment: It takes faith and commitment to seek after deeper relationship and many of us are simply avoiding it. In the conservative Mennnonite church we are afraid to court and adopting the same reluctance towards marraige of the Millennial generation. Commitment is scary. The rewards of community (like marriage) are not immediate and the risks loom large. Unfortunately we miss out on a blessing because of our fear.

The practical arguments in favor of community of faith…

First and formost, there is need. Again, just because your own needs are met does not mean that there is no need. The plight of our older singles and elderly people would be a little less severe if they were intergrated into a community rather than the afterthought that they often are. The church shold be a place where everyone has an equal seat at the table.

Unfortuantely many of us our too preoccupied with our own families to notice or care about those who are lacking. That is not the spirit of Christ who told us to leave all (including family) to follow after him. The irony is that those who actually have by some means found their security in themselves may actually have the most need. Wealth, whether it be that of material or biological variety, has always hindered commitment to faith. Our need to repent of our religious individualism and spiritual pride could be our greatest need of all.

Then there is the matter of efficient use of resources. As most of us currently live there is this ridiculous redundancy. We all need our own seperate lawn mower, garden tools, pickup truck and would be so much further ahead sharing. That’s not to mention our reliance on commercial lenders rather than each other. It is sad that we would rather our brothers pay interest to a bank and struggle to stay ahead than help them as we might our own son. It is a wasteful use of resources that could otherwise be used to further the gospel of Jesus Christ.

One of the most spurious arguments against a more real expression of Christian community is the idea that it would come at the expense of evangelism. The reasoning goes that existing groups that practice a community of goods concept have failed in one regard or another and often in sharing the Gospel. This, of course, is the same argument used by those saying that we should drop other non-mainstream Biblical practices currently practiced by conservative Mennonites. If we start abandoning practices that can somehow be associated with abuse or neglect we would probably need to join the faithless and stay home.

Community of faith is actually the most practical witness of the Gospel we have. How better to meet the needs in the world around us than to offer them the clearest possible alternative? There is no choice between missions outreach and Christian community because one can compliment the other. In fact, one enhances the other and makes it much more effective. Sure, maybe the commitment would require more of us. However, there are many people with needs who would benefit greately from a church that truly acted as a family.

Change comes upon us slowly…

The book of Acts describes a reality quite a bit different from our own today. Then, unlike now, there was a willingness to give up financial independence and truly be a part in a community of faith. This is something that must be restored for the church to function as it was supposed to fuction.

I believe that the contrast between then and now is something that must be part of our discussion. Even in my own lifetime there seems to be a weakening of our commitment to each other. There was a time it seemed we spent more time together visiting on a Sunday afternoon, when we worked closer together and had a more meaningful impact on each others life.

There needs to be radical steps taken in faith. We need not recreate the past, but rather we do need to walk in obedience to the same Spirit that caused the early church to want to have a better communion (or common union) together. We must ask what has changed between our priorities today and theirs then.

Many of us would scoff at the idea of a commune. However, do we see the absurdity of our own time and way? Do we see the cost of paying strangers to prepare our coffee in the morning or care for our elderly? Do we see what the loss of community has done to our neighbors and nation?

There needs to be a vision for community of faith. We need to take steps to get off the tragectory that the world is on and present something different and better. My own conservative Mennonite church family can lead the way in this regard. We have this better prioritization in our Anabaptist history and could use this as a basis for a fresh push in that direction.

We need to be intentional. We need to challenge the thinking of the world that has crept into our lifestyle and has convinced us that we are better off in our own corners rather than in loving community together. Jesus said “make disciples of all nations” (Matthew 28:29) not only our own biological progeny. The church should be our family.

So my encouragement is that we pursue the true ideal of church community with all sincerity. We should tune out the radio and internet commentators and commit to love each other more. I believe we will find God faithful when we do.

Marriage as Martyrdom: The Truly Christian View of Love and Romance

Do you want to know a secret?

You are never ready for marriage nor are you ever worthy of anyone’s faithful abiding love—and nobody is.

We are all fatally flawed, even those of us who are more capable of hiding it beneath a facade, and eventually our own immanent human weakness will be made known.

Some, for fear of being exposed as the frauds, never open themselves up fully to the love of others. They prefer the safety of the illusion that they are able to create (in the solitary confines of their own minds) to the risk of honesty about their own hopelessness. This is a worldly approach to love, it is all about proven performance, all about carefully maintained outward appearances and it lacks true faith.

Others make themselves vulnerable. They confess their faults openly and let their flaws be known. They would rather deal with the pain of rejection than deal dishonesty with themselves or others. These people have hope of finding real love because they have humbled themselves, they have taken this risk to confessed their own sinful imperfection, and choose to live in faith of forgiveness rather than in fear.

Christian love transcends existing reality and, in true communion with God, seeks to find a more glorious future—it reaches out in faith rather than dwell alone in fear of our imperfection.

Jesus sacrificed all while we were still dead in our sins, Jesus healed even those who did not take time to thank him, and faithful followers must do the same. Christian love is a preemptive love, it is a truly selfless love only possible through means of God’s grace and a genuine spiritual transformation.

Christian love is always a gift given to those completely undeserving.

In contrast, the secular world has a version of love that is special favor distributed based on past performance. It is only given out in expectation of a return bigger than the investment made and abandoned quickly when the initial pleasurable feelings of an expected return fade. It it is a selfish false love despite the selfless romantic language it is often disguised in. It is a love of “what’s in it for me?” and is the only kind of love those without the Spirit of God can show.

The religious hypocrite may too use the language of faith and grace to describe their love. However, with a bit of testing of spirits, sometimes their lack of truth in love can be revealed and their acting the part (as hypocrites) will be known. This self-seeking love and self-serving spirit is found all over the church—even tacitly sanctioned in the romance and courtship arena. But in marriage the truth of our love is known.

Is our conservative Mennonite idea of romance purely Christian or somewhat worldly?

I must vote the latter.

As much as I hear talk about being the “right person” and emphasis on past and anticipated performance it is quite evident that we have an idea of love being something that is deserved. It is the very antithesis of the Gospel of Jesus Christ we profess. If love were indeed something earned then we would all be stuck in an impossible situation in relation to God and hopeless.

It is paradoxical, but many of the things the world uses as a basis to reject people and withhold love are the very things only love can cure. For example, many prefer to criminalize addiction and take putative measures against addicts. Unfortunately this approach is often extremely counterproductive, we drive those suffering further towards the margins of society, and a growing body of research shows that connection (a practical expression of love) is the solution.

We in the church, as religious people, do make an effort to reach out to those on the margins of society. I have great respect for those faithfully involved in prison ministry, who visit the elderly interned in nursing facilities or for those who conduct clubs for disadvantaged children. However, these are also things that can be done mostly out of obligation or religious duty, an attempt to earn the favor of God, and not out of genuine Christian love for others.

We can maintain a facade of Christian love in church and church activities. But there is a point when the truth of the kind of love we possess will be brought to light. And, while I’m not talking about only romantic love, our romantic and marital love is where this mask can no longer be maintained. Sure, we can fake self-sacrificial love around our religious peers when preening for their approval, but we will not give away our whole life for our lie and therefore must keep some places off limits.

It is ironic that many conservative Mennonites (the same who affirm a belief in a doctrine that would preclude them even defending loved ones) also preach an extremely self-serving me-first worldly idea of romance. I’ve had a father literally whip out a calculator while trying to explain why I was ineligible to court his daughter. It is appalling faithless hypocrisy and yet never really seriously questioned.

My way or the highway: If I can’t marry who I want to marry, why marry at all?

Marriage, as something self-interested, means we will only marry when the calculations favor our own interests. This, again, is a worldly idea of love and the antithesis of actual Christian love.

Unfortunately many in the church, going against their profession of faith, will only marry when they believe that it will produce a future advantage for them and choose based in things like family pedigree or past performance. They rely on their own understanding and not faith in God.

Such might have been the case when a young woman named Emily Cavanaugh turned down a suitor back in the spring of 1938. She rejected a young man’s love because he didn’t seem to be getting anywhere in life and she believed he would never amount to much. She wanted a leader in the church and, by her analysis, he lacked that potential.

That young man rejected by Emily later preached to millions. He even acted as a personal advisor in matters of faith to Presidents of the most powerful nation in the world. I had the honor of hearing him speak to the multitude at Flushing Meadows Corona Park in Queens. His name is familiar to many people today.

The man?

Evangelist Billy Graham…

One should note carefully that all of the significant men in Scripture were losers and outcasts by worldly standards. Noah was a drunk, Abraham was too old, Isaac had his head in the clouds, Jacob was a liar, Moses had murdered a man and couldn’t speak confidently and this pattern of God using the unlikely candidates continues into the New Testament. Matthew was a collaborator with an enemy occupation, Thomas had doubts about Jesus, Peter was a basically racist (with a bark much bigger than his bite) and a Paul was actually abusive against the faithful. They were misfits, but God saw what others did not.

Consider what God told Samuel when he was in search of a leader for his people:

“Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The Lord does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.” (1 Samuel 16:7)

The man who fit the requirements was King David. David, unlike Saul before him, was not a man of impressive stature and was a mere shepherd (a menial task) at the time Samuel found him. What David had was a strong faith that was not recognized by his peers and yet was already known to God. The courageous warrior and Biblical hero that we know today only emerged later in the story. One can imagine the faith that it took for Samuel to anoint this unknown commodity as the future leader of a nation.

I believe those who reject a suitor (or a marriage eligible woman) based in their own expectations and arbitrary standards may want to reconsider their own profession of faith in a man run out of his own home town as a false prophet. I would recommend some reflection on the words Jesus spoke to his Bible-believing (and deceived) detractors:

“Have you never read in the Scriptures: ‘The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; the Lord has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes’?” (Matthew 21:42)

Jesus was also turned down by his rightful bride because he was deemed unsuitable. That is a reality worth considering when it comes to how we pick and choose today. Perhaps our reasonable standards today are wrongheaded and unGodly? Perhaps we are no better than our unfaithful religious predecessors?

Do our American ideals for love and marriage fail in delivering orthodox Christian imagery?

Marriage, in western society at least, has somehow become a legal arrangement dependent on human vows and will. But this “till death do we part” contract view of matrimony is not necessarily the most faithful understanding in Christian tradition. In fact it is this view that makes the very definition of marriage dependent on human whims. Marriage has become about us rather than about God.

But, what if we were to put God at the center of the marriage union instead of human effort and need?

The Orthodox Christian marriage tradition (in contrast to our Western and somewhat Catholic originated ideas) puts much more emphasis on the eternal perspective and mystery of God. And, in fuller recognition that God is the one who creates the martial bond, they make no wedding vows. To them God makes a marriage commitment sacred, not human promises.

Most significantly, the Orthodox view puts stronger emphasis on the symbolic and positive spiritual value of Christian marriage. It does not treat marriage as if a mere compromise for human weakness. As an Orthodox friend of mine explains it:

“…marriage is the means blessed by God from the very beginning for a man and a woman to be yoked together in order that they might achieve union with God. In Orthodox Christian teaching, the original intention of God is reaffirmed by Jesus in his teachings and in his blessing of the Marriage Feast at Cana. Furthermore, the Orthodox put a great deal of emphasis upon the mystery of Christ and his Church—the Bridegroom imagery of Ephesians 5 and see marriage as one very important manifestation of God’s love for his children.”

(Fr. Anthony Roeber, priest of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America and Professor of Early Modern History & Religious Studies, Penn State.)

Conservative Mennonites do like their symbolism. We have persistently held onto symbolic Christian practices (like veils, kisses of charity and foot washing) long after the mainstream church abandoned or neglected them. This cultural penchant for resisting change could give the impression of faithfulness. Unfortunately, our reality of heart can sometimes be vastly different from what we display outwardly.

Is our concept of marriage a reflection of a radical commitment to Christian self-sacrificial love? We might say that our romantic endeavors are God honoring and rooted in faith, but is this actually true? Or, beneath the veil of religious symbolism, is our romance spiritually vacant and about our own personal preferences?

Love as God loves and for God wants to do through us, not for what we want to choose for ourselves.

I believe emphasis on choice and knowing (on our own terms) often comes at the expense of faith. There is cognitive dissonance in the church when you compare our courtship ideals to what we expect in marriage. In courtship we forget about God’s perspective and adopt a worldly approach. Yet then we expect that self-centered attitude to disappear once some religious ritual is performed?

Marriage is not about our choosing what is best for ourselves. To be successful in marriage requires commitment to self-sacrificial love and giving up our own rights to another. I believe that our American/Western culture is hung up choice and independence, it is to our own spiritual detriment too, but there are few who address this weakness in our courtship ideal. We push human calculations, our own personal or political advantages, and not faith.

The worldly perspective of romantic love is self-centered and is only about a person getting what they want. But the true Christian ideal is martyrdom:

“Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church—’For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.” (Ephesians 5:21-33)

That, a text oft used at weddings, is a great guide to marital relationship. However, to remain consistent, isn’t this the same reality of love that should be guiding our lives and including the whole process leading to marriage from start to finish? Can we truly expect Christian love to be made manifest in marriage when we married for selfish gain or to advance our own personal agenda religious and otherwise?

A faithful follower of Jesus should marry because they wish to better serve God by their devoted self-sacrificial love to another. It should not be a market based decision, a weighing of available options and determination to select what will be most beneficial to ourselves. When marriage is about our own plans and ambitions it becomes as a business transaction between two people. Yes, we can dress it up in the language of love or romance and celebrate it together in religious formality, but we might as well call it what it is: legal prostitution.

There is sometimes a vast difference between what people say they believe and what they actually believe in practice. We can claim to be ready to sacrifice anything in service to God, but are we actually willing to sacrifice our right to marry or marry the person of our own choosing? Do we bring honor to God in our romance or are we as self-seeking and carnally minded as our secular neighbors?

It’s not what you can obtain through romantic pursuits, but about the glory God will obtain. Marriage, for a Christian, should be a great testimony of our faithfulness, a practical display of a transcending self-sacrificial and eternal commitment to love.

Our romance, according to the most ancient of Christian traditions, can be our greatest witness and testimony of faith put to practice. In truest form marriage is a dying to ourselves for love of another or, in other words, martyrdom.

Disposable Men: Millennial Rejection of Marriage and Mennonite Bachelors

We live in an age that prefers convenience over conservation. We do not want long-term commitment to that plastic cup at the picnic over the weekend or anything else really. Even marriage has become disposable and cheap to match the current generation.

Marriage in the conservative Mennonite community is one of those things that has not undergone this silverware to plastic transformation. Divorce is not an option for those raised in this tradition. However—having been otherwise assimilated into the prevailing culture—many of us are choosing to divorce from a marriage commitment altogether and remain single.

In some cases there can be abstinence from marriage for religious and other good reasons. Paul wrote: “Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for a man (unmarried) to remain as he is.” (1 Corinthians 7:26) That recommendation likely being for the “present crisis” of widespread persecution and the coming destruction of Jerusalem.

But, the awkward unholy alliance of Mennonite and millennial values is not a Christian ideal.

In this age I suspect the choice to remain single is often selfish and simply a reflection of millennial generation values having rubbed off on us. To many marriage seems inconvenient, it would impose on their freedom to travel the world and require maturation. We, like other millennials, postpone our adulthood and some would rather remain perpetually childish.

There is some difference between us as conservative Mennonites and the typical millennial. We, unlike them, are afraid to date and young women encouraged to turn down all suitors who do not fit their (or their mother’s) idealistic list of requirements. They are convinced (and perhaps because of a culture too focused on women being submissive) not to take a risk until they simply lose interest.

You’ll note that I’ve positioned women as the gatekeepers to courtship and marriage and that’s because they are. It is the one place in conservative Mennonite culture where they know their voice is heard. Can we really blame a young woman, especially one raised around a patriarchal dad or controlling brothers, for being reluctant to sign away her independence?

Unfortunately her reluctance is not equally matched by male counterparts. I know many exasperated unmarried guys who followed all the rules, who jumped through all the hoops, and have only known rejection. A good Mennonite guy will not even get a first date unless he is judged worthy by some incomprehensible measure.

Our not choosing commitment in the present will cost our faith and future potential.

I’m all for choice and choosing wisely. However, that is something altogether different from choosing not to choose altogether for fear of choosing incorrectly. There is an unbalance in favor of over-caution (or a commitment phobia) that could result in lasting consequences and serious disappointment if not addressed.

Marriage, a relationship where Christian commitment to self-sacrificial love is tested and exampled, should not be so easily discarded. Men, especially non-resistant men who can’t serve society as soldiers and police, have strong desire for something of tangible concrete value to protect. Women, by contrast, can have this need to nurture fulfilled in caretaking, a career in the medical profession or elsewhere, and even profit handsomely.

A single man is often ineligible for leadership positions in the church. Conservative Mennonite employers often offer less compensation men without families or overlook them entirely. And, in youth obsessed American culture, his disadvantage only grows and increase in age only increases the stigma. The married men brag from the pulpit how their lovely wife made them everything they are while the bachelor wonders why he is amongst those unworthy.

That’s not to say that there aren’t many unmarried and wanting women either. For as many young women who got asked two dozen times and said “no” every time, there’s also probably as many who never got asked once. It is because Mennonite guys won’t risk asking a girl who doesn’t fit their list of requirements for fear of rejection and getting a reputation for a girl they were unsure about to begin with.

Yet, in my estimation, it is unmarried men and the future of the church that are hurt most in the current paradigm. Our culture is still traditional enough that a single woman can expect to be under the care of her parents. She can enjoy a special flexibility whilst waiting for her white knight. Not true of her brothers, they can’t afford to go on adventures and yet risk being judged as unspiritual for preparing for the responsibility of marriage.

Unmarried conservative Mennonite men are the most disposable. We must be always available without complaint at a moments notice and be providers protection without compromise. It is pathetic, actually, what men give out for free. But to be more guarded, to carefully guard our hearts as something precious or preservable, and keep our strengths to ourselves is impermissible.

We must be like a paper plate, an adequate stand-in performer, something wanted around for temporary use, and okay to be tossed in the trash. And, yet, we must also live up to the traditional Mennonite male role and display the qualities of fine chinaware.

Respect your own value if you wish to be respected.

Here’s my recommendation for those single people who wish to be married and have been routinely rejected or overlooked: Stop grovelling in front of the unappreciative, open your eyes like Peter did envisioning the expansion of the church (Acts 10:9-16) and open the doors of your wedding feast to those who understand the value you intend to offer them.

Jesus spoke about not casting our pearls before swine (Matthew 7:6) and not persisting with those who do not value us: “If people do not welcome you, leave their town and shake the dust off your feet as a testimony against them.” (Luke 9:5) We might want to consider this advice when the value of our commitment is rejected in our own communities.

Loyalty can be a fault. There are unmarried men and women outside your own religious community who might better appreciate your Christian testimony. So don’t waste the remainder of your virile years wondering why the ‘right one’ won’t even have coffee with you. God isn’t a Mennonite and—as a faithful child of God—you aren’t garbage.

Is a second marriage ever permissable for a Christian?

As an idealistic person, one raised in a purity culture, and unmarried, I rarely have needed to question my indoctrination on the issue of remarriage. Likewise, those who are happily married (or who have never been married) have the luxury of easy absolutism on this issue and can draw a hard line with no need to take a closer look.

However, having been asked my opinion on divorce and remarriage on a couple of occasions, I have been pondering the question for several months. The opinions of modern commentators are as varied as those I have found in the writings of those in the early church and onward.

What do the commentators say about divorce and remarriage?

Some of the conclusions of early church writers differ dramatically from what I’ve been taught. For example, divorce was not only recommended in the case of an unfaithful spouse—it was required. Some taught remarriage, in any case, was wrong for a Christian and forbid all second marriages even if the first spouse died.

Tertullian, however, did make an exception when the prior marriage ended (by death or divorce) before conversion. Menno Simons and other notable early Anabaptists also allowed divorce and remarriage in the case of unrepentant adultery, but only with the council of the church body:

“In the fourth place, if a believer and an unbeliever are in the marriage bond together and the unbeliever commits adultery, then the marriage tie is broken. And if it be one who complains that he has fallen in sin, and desires to mend his ways, then the brethren permit the believing mate to go to the unfaithful one to admonish him, if conscience allows it in view of the state of the affair. But if he be a bold and headstrong adulterer, then the innocent party is free–with the provision, however, that she shall consult with the congregation and remarry according to circumstances and decisions in the matter, be it well understood.“ (Wismar Articles)

That is in sharp contrast to the conservative Mennonitism that opposes all divorce, recognizes the marriages of even unbelievers as valid, and yet allows remarriage if the prior spouse has died. Many teach that a second marriage (besides those ended by death) should be broken up even if there are children involved and it creates a hardship.

~~That is also in contrast to David Bercot who’s lawyerly approach to Scripture and early church writings led him to believe that remarriage after a divorce is NOT a perpetual sin:~~

“I have not found any situation in the early church where they ever broke up the second marriage. In other words, they said that it was an adulterous marriage, it was a wrong situation, but they didn’t say that it was just the same thing as living with someone in adultery. In other words, there was a union that had taken place there, and they don’t seem to have taken the position that breaking that up would be something good. Instead, it’s a second wrong that doesn’t make the first wrong right. It just makes things even worse, and we can see that today where there’s a family with children. To divorce a second time, break up a happy home, doesn’t seem to be the way God would normally work.”

~~That, of course, is Bercot’s opinion…~~

[Edited 11/2/2018 The quote above, attributed to David Bercot, was taken from a conversation on a defunct website called MennoDiscuss.com. The person posting the quote, as I recall, claimed to have transcribed it directly from a cassette tape of Mr. Bercot, I copied and pasted it because it was an interesting point. That much is now in dispute, I’m not going to go through every recording to properly attribute the quote, and that’s why I’ve crossed out the quotation. However, what is not in dispute: There is no record of the early church breaking up second marriages.]

[Edited 06/24/2022 I received a call, late one evening, from Jerry (see comments section) who informed me that he was the one who transcribed the text above, from a cassette that was put out by Scroll Publishing, where Bercot indeed spoke those words. I’m leaving the strikethrough in place because this does not reflect the current opinion of Bercot.]

So how does all that above stack up against the actual teachings of Scripture?

“It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.“ (Matthew 5:31-32)

Jesus quoted the common practice and then corrects it. He states “anyone who divorces his wife,” then adds the caveat “except for sexual immorality” and continues with that qualification to describe remarriage as sin. From this one can conclude that remarriage is not adultery if there was infidelity (or “porneia” in the original Greek) discovered in the prior marriage.

In fact, if we take the Apostle Paul at his word, then a person applying his teachings must separate themselves from an unfaithful and unrepentant spouse or they are joined together in the sin:

“Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, ‘The two will become one flesh.’ But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit.” (1 Corinthians 6:15-17)

To send an unrepentant sinner packing is NOT hardness of heart (as in what Jesus rebuked in Matthew 19:8) but an absolute necessity and why the church was directed by Paul (1 Corinthians 5:13) to cast out those who refused to repent of their immorality. It is not hard-hearted, it is something necessary to preserve the testimony of the church.

In the Old Testament, we read various places where God is portrayed as the husband of an unfaithful spouse. When the children of Israel break their covenant with God they are given their divorce papers and sent packing (Jeremiah 3:8) because their unfaithfulness could no longer be tolerated. It was not hard-hearted of God to divorce.

But, besides that one exception given by Jesus for sexual immorality, I see the clear indication in Scripture that marriage commitment is permanent and a change of status is not recommended. At the very least it seems second marriage (presumably any second marriage) has consequences. We are told a church leader must be “husband of one wife” (1 Timothy 3:2) and, since all should desire to be the best example of faithfulness, I would conclude remarriage is at least strongly discouraged.

In conclusion…

I believe grace triumphs over judgment and that we should love others as we wish to be loved. It is my opinion that one is to remain committed to their first spouse in every circumstance except in the case of unrepentant sexual sin. I believe death (or divorce of an unfaithful spouse) does unbind the living spouse and gives them the freedom to marry again. But, if there is any doubt, it is better to remain unmarried.

For those who have already divorced and remarried, there must be repentance of the broken marriage. I do not feel I have the authority to overrule those who believe it is permissible to remain in a subsequent or second marriage. But, we also should not continue in sin that grace may abound and should obey our conscience when in doubt. That said, I am also not of the position that there is any sin (past, present, or future) beyond the grace of God.

Anyhow, is a second marriage permissible for a Christian?

Maybe.

But it is nearly always undesirable, unpleasant, and not ideal. Those who have lost a spouse or have been abandoned by an unfaithful spouse know that pain all too well. Children of divorced parents often suffer terrible insecurity throughout life as a result. It is not ideal.

So, to married people, stay faithful if at all possible and don’t risk your own future or that of those who are your responsibility by taking the commitment lightly.

Christian Love Is Not Asceticism

Christianity prioritizes the spiritual without sacrificing physical practicality. It is about faith that expands possibility and potential rather than limit it.

Many religious people teach some form of asceticism. This an idea that individuals who empty themselves totally of physical desire will find something spiritual and redemptive.

In the early church many did give up their material possessions (Acts 2:45) and were willing to sacrifice their all in faith as Jesus taught:

“If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple. And whoever does not carry their cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:26-27)

Paul builds further on the same theme while encouraging the early church:

“Therefore we do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day. For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all. So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.” (1 Corinthians 4:16-18)

This is acknowledgement of reality. This world, our life in it, is temporal and will pass away. But in faith we can see what cannot be known through physical means. Through the Spirit, through the mysterious backdoor of our consciousness, we are able to see spiritual reality greater than what physical senses can detect. It is for this reason that we adjust our priorities according to what we know as the greater transcending reality.

But this is not asceticism in the sense of merely our emptying ourselves as an individualistic spiritual pursuit. No, this is intentional self-sacrificial love that compels us to go beyond our own individual gain and love as God loves. Our cross is not suffering for the sake of suffering, it is not a Gnostic self-loathing of our physical bodies, but is rather a means to the end and expression of deeper divine love.

Many practice asceticism as a means to judge their neighbors. Many deny themselves as to prove themselves superior to others and earn their salvation. However, this is not the way of Jesus. Jesus did not need to die to save Himself from sin or earn God’s favor. He did not sacrifice to prove our inferiority and bring judgement or condemnation:

“For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.” (John 3:17-18)

It is simply reality that we will all eventually die a physical death. That is true by default and not something inflicted upon us for sake of manipulation. This is scientific, a result of physical processes, something with causal explanation, and established. You will not physically die because you reject Jesus, but rather you will eventually physically die (with or without Jesus) and the only way to eternal life is faith in Jesus:

“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16)

We are saved because we believe in Jesus and through our belief are empowered to love in a way that transcends individualism and becomes all things to all people (1 Corinthians 9:19-23) so they too might be saved. Jesus explains obedience succinctly:

“Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” (John 13:34-35)

It is that simple. This is not denial of physical desires for sake of individual spiritual gain or asceticism. This is denial of self for the collective good, as directed by the Spirit in those who believe, and so the lost can be saved.

It is not sin to enjoy life. It is in no way wrong to enjoy sexual pleasure (in appropriate context) and relationships based in biology. Having friends because of our physical proximity and the community we were born into is not inappropriate. However, when our preference for what is familiar supersedes Christian commitment, when we prioritize temporal pleasure over eternal gain, then we must repent.

Ultimately, what we do or do not possess individually and materially is of little consequence. It is not sin to have a successful business, big family or nice car. What ultimately does matter is that these pleasures of physical life do not distract and blind us. We must find our security in God rather than our possessions or other worldly pleasures.

To be in this world but not of it doesn’t mean a life of misery and complete abstinence from pleasure. Rather it is to possess the transformation of mind (Romans 12:2) that enables us to love more completely and experience greater joy than the world offers.

If you sell all or leave family behind, do it out of genuine love for your neighbor and not asceticism. Give freely because you believe in the eternal life Jesus promised and love God.

Jesus Always Trumps Politics

I overestimated.

I had assumed my own conservative friends would spot a charlatan and choose a candidate with their own supposed values.

Trump’s rise came as a surprise to many on the left. However, the bigger surprise was probably for conservatives who are principled, conscientious and consistently liberty-minded.

Trump is everything conservatives have complained about in liberals. He’s divisive like Barack Obama, a serial womanizer like Bill Clinton, arrogant like Al Gore and a waffler like John Kerry. Yet somehow it is all okay when Trump does it?

Why?

Well, I suppose it is because Trump is one of ‘us’ and is ‘our’ guy…?

Which, in translation, is tribalism or identity politics and the same thing conservatives have claimed to loath in liberals. This loathsome behavior has now become acceptable to some self-described conservatives because it suits their political agenda.

When you can’t beat them join them?

Conservatives, in fear of being marginalized and feeling unheard by the political establishment, have abandoned traditional conservativism en-masse to follow their own audacious Pied Piper who promises to give them a voice again.

Conservatives can no longer blame liberals for dividing the nation with a man as divisive as Trump as their choice for leader. They can no longer point a finger at Hollywood for promoting evil when they themselves pick an obscene and angry man to represent them.

No matter what the outcome of the election (Trump, Clinton, or other) it is safe to say that irrationality has won, tribalism has won, and we all together will lose. Something once anathema to American greatness has now come to define us both right and left.

Trump’s ascendency as a ‘conservative’ is a watershed moment. Now no side can claim moral high ground. Conservatives are now as guilty of rank partisanship and hypocrisy as their rivals. They fall for fear-mongering propaganda as quickly as anyone else.

So where do we go from here?

First we must identify the problem in us, not them. Jesus said that before we judge others we must judge ourselves, because how we judge others is how we will be judged (Matt. 7:1-5) and this is something that should sober up any honest person conservative or liberal.

Both sides identify the same problems.

Both see the divisiveness, bullying and irrationality of the other side.

But, can we see it in ourselves? Have we actually heeded the warning of Jesus, seen our own hypocrisy and repented?

Or do we hold onto our imagined right to a sanctimonious judgmental and entitled attitude? Do we think it is okay for our side to be divisive because they are? Is it fine to be a bully when it suits our own agenda? Can we abandon a rationality of self-sacrificial love and somehow save ourselves?

#1) Simple labels lead to more division and greater irrationality.

Trump wins using what Scott Adams (who makes a case why the billionaire celebrity will win) has explained as the “linguistic kill shot” or taking an opponent’s most notable attribute and redefining it in a memorable and negative way.

The presidential characteristics of diplomacy and reasonableness embodied by Jeb Bush were turned into “weak” and “low energy” by Trump. Ben Carson’s political outsider status, unique life story and calm demeanor were turned into comparison to a child molester and a cause for mistrust. Ted Cruz, a skilled debater and political strategist, he demolished by calling into question his credibility.

Of course, this is not anything new, political partisans and activists have long tried to define their opponents in a negative way. The language in the abortion debate, for example: Those in favor self-identify as “pro-choice” while those against call themselves “pro-life” and both imply the other side as against life or choice. It presents an intentional oversimplification of a complex topic. It is often language representative of a false dichotomy and strawman argument.

This was also the most frustrating part of the healthcare debate early in President Obama’s first term. You were either for a massive new government intrusion into the healthcare industry or you were pigeonholed as a cold hearted and angry racist.

It was not conducive of a constructive dialogue. It marked the end of any chance for bipartisan cooperation and in many ways forced otherwise reasonable people to choose a side. Many conservatives have apparently decided to embrace the labels rather than rise above them.

Perhaps it is because there is enough truth to the accusations against conservatives? It does seem, in retrospect, that some of the opposition to Obama’s policies may have been partially rooted in bigotry and prejudice. This could be in need of correction.

Political correctness came to be for a reason. Unfortunately, the purveyors of political correctness have not overcome the same tendencies that they identify in others. They, like those whom they deride as racists and sexists, have resorted to their own forms of the same ugliness.

Trump has mastered this art of oversimplification of opponents. He uses language that creates a negative image and the more the identifier is resisted the more it is reinforced at a subconscious level.

Trump relies on irrational human tendency to judge ‘outsiders’ collectively. This leads to more mistrust, creates deeper division and leads to more tribalism.

#2) More tribalism (or identity politics) will never make America great.

Trump promises to make America great again. But in reality he represents a more advanced stage of the cancer destroying our strength as a nation. Namely the problem is tribalism (or identity politics) and this is not helped more angry partisan rhetoric.

Just the other day I was told (by a left-leaning friend) it was “politically toxic” to get lunch at Chick-fil-A. And on the other side we have Joshua (coffee cup controversy) Feuerstein and a less than meek spirited woman marching through Target (submissive man and family in tow) demanding people leave or be in league with the devil.

Tribalism blinds us to the sins of those with whom we identify with and leads to a vengeful self-perpetuating tit for tat cycle. Both sides have convinced themselves the other side is getting what they deserve when the government encroaches on their freedom. It might be described as revenge for what their tribe did to ours, but it is really just hatred and hypocrisy.

Democrats described conservatives of being unpatriotic for opposition to tax hikes and other liberal policies. Now Trump supporters have turned tables and claim you aren’t a patriot unless you support their vile mouthed candidate. This is utter nonsense, nevertheless it is believed by many on both sides—it keeps us divided, easily manipulated, and weak.

“If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand.” (Mark 3:24-25)

Abraham Lincoln paraphrased that bit of Scripture in his House Divided speech to point out the double-mindedness of those seeking to be on both sides of the slavery issue. Lincoln lost that round, nevertheless his point was well made and our own prideful hypocrisy today (on both sides) must be addressed or we will fall.

The tendency to demonize or marginalize those who disagree is expression of identity politics. Rather than respect each other we are driven to mistrust. Rather than build a common unity around our shared values, we are encouraged to divide into competing tribes of race, gender or religious affiliation. The result is a predictable never-ending conflict where nobody ever wins and everyone comes out as loser.

We cannot promote divisiveness, demagoguery and disunity then claim to love a nation that values freedom. We cannot expect tolerance for ourselves or our tribe while demanding others share our opinions and being completely intolerant of those who do not.

#3) The answer to abuse and bullying is not more abuse and bullying.

Every abuser feels justified. Men, child molesters or rapists, will often blame immodesty of women and the innocent for their own sinful lusts. Likewise looters and rioters feel their own violent outbursts against are excused because of police brutality or other historic injustices.

People bully and abuse others because it works. It may even get Trump elected according to some. It is easier to manipulate others into compliance with fear of violence than it is to convince them with a rational argument. The civil conversation is over when the mob arrives shouting demands with torch and pitchfork in hand.

Trump has encouraged mob spirit in his political rallies. His supporters gleefully cheer on rough treatment that they feel is justified and it is dangerous.

For years conservatives have put up with the disruptions and disrespect for those expressing their perspective, so perhaps some of us think this makes it right for us to act out?

It might be cathartic to see some elbows thrown on behalf of our own perspective. However, repaying evil with evil is a path to greater evil. It is a positive feedback loop that produces greater evil with each cycle. It is a march towards civil war and a path to our mutually assured destruction.

We can’t overcome evil with evil. We must overcome evil with good (Rom. 12:21) and forgive. Real moral leadership leads by example rather than use of reciprocal violence and political force.

Jesus trumps partisan politics.

Politics is about power. Political leaders often use fear to motivate and threat of violence to manipulate those who stand against them, they feed discontentment rather than promote peace, but this is not the way of Jesus.

I’ve heard some exclaim: “We’re electing a president not a pastor!”

This is double mindedness. Those who believe a thuggish leader is necessary to control their neighbors should not be surprised when the same rationale is used by their adversaries to subjugate them. It is not reconcilable with Christian love.

Jesus is the answer or our profession of faith is a lie. Jesus is the right example of leadership, is the only appropriate basis for measurement, or he’s not our Lord and Savior.

And, furthermore, if the standard for leadership established by His example can’t be reconciled with politics, then I recommend those who claim to be Christian choose their master and remove themselves from the process entirely or admit their unbelief in Jesus.

A President is indeed like a pastor (read more if interested) to a nation. His morality and ethics will is the example for the nation (or so that was the claim of conservatives in response to Clinton’s infidelity) and cannot be ignored. We cannot separate the character of a person from their politics nor can we seperate our own personal morality from those whom we choose to represent us.

Politics, or at very least the politics of division, violence and tribalism, is antithetical to sincere profession of faith in Jesus. Politics that leads by force rather than example is a direct contradiction to what Jesus taught.

“Go and do likewise.” (Luke 10:25-37)

That quote is the final answer given by Jesus to a legal expert (perhaps the equivalent of a Constitutional conservative today) who asked what he must do to inherit eternal life. Jesus first ask what the law says, the man responds with a summary of the law—love God and love your neighbor.

But the expert, evidently unsatisfied, wanting to be justified, pushes for further definition and asks Jesus: “And who is my neighbor?”

It is at this point that Jesus tells a story of the ‘good Samaritan’ who treated an enemy (his political and ethnic or social rival) with loving care and respect. Jesus does not answer the question of who is our neighbor, instead he answers how to be a good neighbor.

That is the way of Jesus. We are to love our enemies, to lead others by showing them by example how we wish for them to treat us and through this overcome evil with good. This brings unity and love rather than more fear and divisions.

If there is no candidate attempting to lead with Christian love? Stay home election day and pray. When given a choice between two corrupt and unrepentant people? Choose neither!

We should choose to transcend the tribal political warfare. We can love our neighbors as faith requires without casting a ballot.

So, when in doubt, choose Jesus and love your neighbor.

Courting Disaster: Why Mennonites Are Afraid To Date

Secular society, in many quarters, has moved in a direction of sexual promiscuity and too often young women bear the brunt of the consequences. Single mothers are much more likely to live in poverty regardless of race. Children without two-parent homes often suffer from neglect that leads to behavioral problems and this creates a problem for society. Men too, for their own part, have to deal with the unwieldy burden of child support and it is far-far from ideal.

However, on the other side, in the opposite ditch, is the religious ‘purity culture‘ dominated by patriarchal men (or controlling parents) and fear-based reasoning. As secular culture has abandoned traditional mores there have been those on the other end who are adding precaution and increasing the burden of requirements. Young people, young women in particular, are manipulated by those in positions of authority over them and driven to unreasonable expectations. The result is a growing rank of unmarried singles and deep disappointment.

Clearly, there is a balance between both cultural extremes. Unfortunately, the consequences of the overbearing purity culture are often not as obvious as a crying baby and an exhausted single mother. The pain of the girl never being asked on a date or the suffering of the young man being rejected time and time again is very real. Yet, complaining about the current state of affairs could be perceived as weakness and drawing attention adds an additional penalty of shame—failure is often carefully concealed out of embarrassment.

Too Guarded, Too Superficial…

The logic of ‘guarding heart’ is great when applied to an already established dating relationship and holding back on sexual intimacy until the commitment of marriage. But when it is a reason not to even attempt a first date it is no longer helpful. It is a Hollywood myth that relationships should be built off of some kind of magical initial feeling. That is a shallow ‘eros’ love at best. Feelings can come and go.

Love, real love, cannot develop without a relationship. Love is a product of commitment to love. Commitment to love requires a relationship and starting a new relationship requires a seed of faith. Faith is a commitment to act in love even before the feelings exist. Faith provides a better foundation for a successful long-term relationship to develop than the shallow feelings-based alternative.

The purity culture, as I have experienced it, is motivated primarily by fear rather than faith. Young people are encouraged to be absolutely sure before even a first date. Communication between genders (outside of dating) is discouraged as potentially harmful. And the result is an impossible quagmire for many. Only the most superficially attractive or socially adept have a chance. Be a shy guy or a too-average girl and you don’t have a snowman’s chance in the Florida heat.

I know young women who say (evidently with complete sincerity) that they will only date a guy they are sure they would marry and seemingly turn down every guy who doesn’t ride in on a white horse It is an absolutely absurd expectation and yet not uncommon in the religious culture of my birth. Many never take a half step of faith to ask for or accept a date. Many who do start dating feel pressured into marriage because they have this false idea that turns a dating relationship into an engagement.

Of course, the insanity is promoted by cherry-picked success story anecdotes (sanitized of impurities to make them more compelling) and thus the fairytale myths perpetuated to a new generation. Ignored is the wreckage, the many many stories of those who did everything right according to the purity culture, and now lay bloodied in the ditch as the successful cross to avoid contact. I believe if both sides were told there would be an impetus to encourage a more balanced faithful approach to courtship.

Finding Our Balance Between Extremes

The religious of today have seemed to have picked the worse parts of the two systems. They copy secular society and the idea that feelings of immediate or superficial attraction are a basis for relationships. But then they take on the most onerous requirements, practically betrothal, before even being willing to talk with a young woman and take seriously a suitor. It is not a faith-based system.

We do not find the purity culture standard in the Bible. In Scripture, we don’t see the promotion of the silly notion of secular ‘love at first sight’ or the preeminence of feelings of initial superficial attraction as a basis for relationship. We don’t see a ‘one size fits all’ template. We do not see ‘perfection’ either. Instead, there is diversity of experience in the examples, and faith (not fear) as the driving force.

Fear has caused the religious to overreact and only faith can correct the course. We in the community of faith need to stop comparing ourselves to our to secular neighbors and deal squarely with the shortcomings of our own side. If we want leaders we must quit treating young men in the church (in good standing) as not worth a first date and basically untrustworthy.

No harm comes from a date. In fact, my grandparents dated many different people and have been married faithfully for nearly sixty years. Had my grandma governed herself by the current paradigm there may have never been the opportunity for her relationship with Grandpa to even get started—I would not even exist today.

We need to recognize that our current standard is often based in fear and overreaction rather than faith. We do not need to fall in the same ditch as secular society to be as off-base and faithless. Love can triumph if we commit to loving faithfulness in relationships rather than live in fear of failure.

Performance Anxieties and Worship

The Mennonite culture I am a part of has had a tradition of music that spans a few generations. The tradition is acapella congregational singing (typically in four parts: soprano, alto, tenor, bass) and hymn music. It is my preference, it is what I am accustomed to and comfortable singing in a church worship service, but some conservatives would have it as the only right way.

The other night, as is not uncommon, we had a choral program at my church. A group of a few talented individuals (dressed with matching outfits and practiced) sang together in front of an audience of family and friends. Their selection of music had meaningful lyrics focused on distinctly Christian themes and the Christmas season. It was a beautiful presentation.

Afterwards, the pastor (asked to give the benedictory prayer) went to pains to explain that the presentation that preceded was not a “performance” or “entertainment” and was worship. I understood what he meant. However, is it actually truthful to say that a presentation to an audience is not a performance? Are concepts of worship and performance mutually exclusive?

Mennonite Tradition, Progressive Evolution and Lingering Guilt…

Mennonites have historically avoided elevation of some in the group. Leaders were expected to be servants to all rather than a privileged hierarchy. In fact, even raised pulpits were a controversial topic because of the potential for pride and spiritual inequality they represented. Traditionally there was a table for those who preached to put their Bibles on and no pulpit. Preaching was not to be done flamboyantly or in a way that drew special attention to the presenter.

Music in worship was ordered likewise. There were no solo instruments or vocals in worship services because it was believed that would draw too much attention to the individual(s) performing. In the church service singing was strictly congregational and in unison rather than divided into parts. Four part singing only became part of Mennonite practice in the late 1800’s and special singing groups likely followed some time after as Mennonites adopted more mainline practice.

But it is an uncomfortable position to the conservative Mennonite mind. There is still an urge to distinguish between performance for entertainment and worship of God. In my own congregation we allow solos and special singing groups. However, we are also dutifully reminded that the point is the worship God rather than recognize those presenting and (except for a few occasional outbursts by rebels) we do not offer any applause.

It is this careful avoidance of applause and tendency towards the over-wrought explanation that makes me wonder what is truly amiss—It seems too anxious. If nobody else but God is getting the attention, shouldn’t that just be self-evident, why the need for an explanation? Why the contrast and comparison?

Our Worship *IS* Imperfect, Be Honest…

I believe the reality is that a special group singing before an audience is obviously a performance and for entertainment. No, this does not nullify the reality it is intended as worship for God either. What we do for others is an expression of our worship for God and that can certainly include wholesome entertainment. Our performance for the good of others is ultimately what brings God honor and glory, is it not?

Furthermore, we aim to be perfect expressions, but we are not and might as well be honest about it. Of course there is potential for pride in performance. Did anyone on the stage not want to please the audience they sang to? It would be utterly absurd to claim otherwise and with that the danger of self-aggrandizement.

Yet, denial of that potential for self-centered worship doesn’t get us any closer to perfection of worship either. If anything it is the same fatal error of Ananias and Sapphira who were judged instantaneously for dishonesty in their claiming to give all while secretly withholding some for themselves. Their deception, likely rooted in their wanting to maintain appearances of perfection or religious pride, was their downfall.

We are imperfect even at our best. Yes, even in our worship we can have mixed motives. We enjoy being talented, we often keep some of the praise for ourselves, and that’s okay if we are honest about it. We are saved by God’s grace and not by our own perfect efforts. It is this admission of our own imperfection that leads us to be more gracious towards others and a more true expression of the worship Jesus described.

“Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.” (Matthew 25:40)

In conclusion, we should do as Jesus instructed and learn what it means in Hosea 6:6 where it says God desires mercy not sacrifice. This is a reference back to the religious sacrificial rituals observed as worship in the Old Testament. Sacrifice is an impractical expression of worship whereas mercy is not.

Our better worship is not having the right mode or music style as much as it is in our expressed in our genuine love for each other.

	Joel on By Way of Deception
	Michael on By Way of Deception
	Joel on Shifting Sands of Sacred: How…
	radre4m on Shifting Sands of Sacred: How…
	Joel on A Conservative Mennonite and F…

Irregular Ideation

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." Albert Einstein

Love