Like the author of a piece posted on Ekklesia, I too am finding myself more and more influenced by the anabaptist understandings of non-violence, the rejection of privatism of belief and the discomfort with the co-option of the Church to...

We are told that back in the day an Anabaptist was fleeing one of the European towns where his kind were not welcome . He was hotly pursued by a posse of the townspeople. Hoping to escape, he crossed the frozen river. Probably some of the pursuers turned back, but one kept coming - until he hit a thin patch of ice and fell in. The wicked Anabaptist, inspired by some deviltry, turned back and fished the sheriff out. Upon which he promptly arrested the Anabaptist and took him back to town, where he was put to death as a warning to other nonviolent people. Ethics of the sheriff's actions in this case? ...

To learn more about where we come from and where we’re going, come to the next Resurgence conference: Our Fathers & Our Future, Orlando, February 2011.

All too often, the textbooks focus solely on the men of the Reformation—Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, and others—and fail to take notice of the faithful women who served among, beside, and with the Reformers.

These women were dedicated to the gospel of Jesus Christ, some to the point of martyrdom. Many of these women were well-educated, especially by the standard of their time. They read theology books, especially the Bible, and anything they could get their hands on from the reformers. Their inner circles of friends were part of long and frequent Bible studies. Most were wives and mothers. Some were also authors, apologists, ex-nuns, and queens. All were faithful servants of Jesus.

 

GERMANY

Katherine von Bora was a former nun who married Martin Luther. They were married for 21 years and had six children. Her quick tongue, humor, and stubbornness matched Martin’s—no small feat. She managed their home (which was frequently full of students), had a large garden and livestock, fished and farmed, and ran a brewery. She also managed their money and took care of their extended household. Martin called her “My Lord Katie.”

Katharina Schutz Zell was married to Matthew Zell of Strasbourg and ministered as a team with her husband. She developed women’s ministries and published a book of Psalms for women to sing. She took a leading role in organizing relief for 150 men exiled from their town for their faith, and wrote scriptural encouragements to the wives and children left behind. During the Peasants’ War, she organized Strasbourg to deal with 3,000 refugees for a period of six months.

Ursula von Münsterberg (1491? – 1534) was the granddaughter of King Georg Podiebrad of Bohemia. Ursala was a nun at a convent in Freiberg, Saxony. She spearheaded an effort to bring in a chaplain who was familiar with Luther and had Luther’s books smuggled into the convent. Because of this, she was forced to flee her convent in 1529, after which she stayed with the Luther family.

Argula von Grumbach was a Bavarian noblewoman who vigorously challenged the faculty of the University of Ingolstadt to debate her reformed views. Her letters were widely published.

Anna Rhegius was born in Augsburg in 1505. She had a good education, which included the study of Hebrew, enabling her to discuss biblical writings in great depth.

Elisabeth von Braunschweig married at age 15. After being married for ten years, her mother visited Elisabeth and invited a Lutheran pastor to preach. Within a year, Elisabeth converted and resolved to raise her son as a Lutheran. After the death of her husband she wrote a book attempting to console widows, helping them through the grieving process.

Elisabeth Cruciger was from Pomerania and spent time at the convent in Treptow on Rega. She left the convent in 1522 or 1523 and married Caspar Cruciger in 1524, which marked the first official Protestant wedding. A friend of Katie Luther’s, Elizabeth was involved in theological discussions at Luthers’ “table talks” and with Philip Melanchthon, who considered her to be a bright woman. She wrote the first Protestant hymn in 1524, which created a controversy since women were not usually songwriters in her day.

 

FRANCE & THE LOW COUNTRIES

Jeanne d’Albret was the Queen of Navarre and an influential leader of the Huguenot movement in France. She invited Reformed preachers to speak in her land and publicly declared her adherence to Calvinism in 1560; however, she made it clear that she followed “Beza, Calvin and others only insofar as they follow Scripture.” She attempted to bridge the divide between Catholics and Protestants and tried to bring peace as wars began to break out. In fact, while a Protestant, she continued to allow the Mass to take place in her land, refusing to punish Catholics who did not convert to Protestantism.

Ursula Jost was an influential Anabaptist woman in Strasbourg who wrote a book recounting her prophetic visions of the impending judgment of God that would come upon the people of her city.

Idelette de Bure was a widow with three children when she married John Calvin. One child of theirs died while an infant and she miscarried another. In the process, Calvin, who spoke little of his married life, was deeply touched. Their relationship softened his heart deeply.

Marie Dentière (c. 1495-1561) was of Flemish descent from a family of minor nobility. She was part of an Augustinian monastery in Tournai, which she later left after embracing the teachings of the reformers, a crime against both church and state. She fled to Strasbourg and married Simon Robert, who had had been a priest in Tournai, becoming his assistant in their goal of spreading the reform to the area to the east of Geneva. After her husband’s death she married Antione Froment, a follower of reformer William Farel. Marie wrote an anonymous pamphlet intended to convince the Genevans of God’s intentions for their city. She also spoke out in public taverns and on street corners. It was a success as Geneva eventually became a Protestant republic. She also wrote a book recounting the history of the Geneva reformation.

 

ENGLAND

Jane Grey wrote letters to the reformer Heinrich Bullinger at age 14. As queen, Jane fought off intense efforts to convert her to Rome when she was 16. She resisted those efforts with theological reasoning and biblical teaching against a professor of theology twice her age.

Catherine Willoughby became the duchess of Suffolk in 1533 and was related to Jane Grey. She protected the preacher-bishop Hugh Latimer from persecution until things became so unbearable for her that, to save her life, she fled to the Netherlands with her infant.  She was forced into exile as a supporter of the Reformation.

ITALY

Olimpia Fulvia Morata was an Italian scholar born in Ferrera as the oldest child of a humanist scholar, who, after being forced to flee his city to northern Italy, lectured on the teachings of Calvin and Luther. Olimpia flourished in her studies, especially in Latin and Greek, exhibiting impeccable scholarship. She wrote Latin dialogues, Greek poems, and letters to both scholars (in Latin) and less educated women (in Italian). In her “Dialogue between Theophilia and Philotima,” she encouraged those who feared that their gross sins obstructed their way to God:

All of these women longed to see the Reformation triumph, and the good news of the gospel overcome opposition both within the church and outside it. They served with patience, perseverance, and courage. They were not just observers of the Reformation, but they were also participants. Moreover, each was used mightily by God to maintain the integrity of his church and redeem a fallen humanity.

 

Further Reading:

• Women and the Reformation, by Kirsi Stjerna
• The Women of the Reformation series: In Germany and Italy, In France and England, and From Spain to Scandinavia, all by Roland Bainton
• Five Women of the English Reformation, by Paul F. M. Zahl

 

David Augsburger is an Anabaptist minister and author teaching at Fuller Seminary. He’s written on such subjects as confrontation, violence and prejudice, about forgiveness and biblical counseling. But my favorite book of his is Dissident Discipleship; about how to follow Jesus in community – it can’t be done alone, he says, and it should [...]

....but a dream within a dream.

So wrote Poe, words that have a peculiar relevance, given all the oohing and aahing about the profile of Al Mohler in Christianity Today.  Some have felt the need to make it clear that Dr Mohler does not represent them as evangelicals; others have pointed towards the Janus face of contemporary evangelicalism, narrowing on the one hand, broadening on the other, and seemingly heading for a major schism.

I would like to suggest an alternative take, one intended neither in a mean nor chauvinist spirit: maybe evangelicalism, as some kind of abstract ideal in which all us `evangelicals' participate does not really exist.  Maybe it is now (even if it has not always been) simply a construct which lacks any real doctrinal identity (and claims to be `gospel people' simply will not do here, given that the Catholics and liberal friends I have also claim the same title).  Maybe it is to be defined institutionally, not theologically.   And maybe, therefore, it is not worth fighting or fretting over.

As in the debates between realists and nominalists in the Middle Ages, it seems to me that evangelicalism only exists in particulars, in highly qualified forms such `Confessing Evangelical', `Open Evangelical' etc. The essence of evangelicalism is elusive, and, I believe, illusory.   After all, it is surely an odd term that implies a Reformed Calvinist has more in common with an open theist than a traditional Dominican.  That, by the way, is a merely descriptive remark.

If this is so, and we can come to acknowledge such and act upon it, many of the current battles might well be defused.  We will not be fighting, after all, over ownership of something that does not really exist.  We could all be free to be ourselves (Reformed, Baptist, Presbyterian, Anabaptist and so on).  No-one would get their knickers in a twist over who was speaking for whom (for example, I speak for no-one but my institution, my church and myself -- and neither does anybody else for that matter).  No-one need worry if the movement (singular) is being narrowed or broadened unacceptably because there is no `movement' (singular) to undergo such change.  And ecumenical dialogue, free from the need to fight over a meaningless label, might perhaps become truly meaningful -- truly ecclesiastical -- as we can all see where we are situated on the landscape and how we differ and how we resemble each other.  Nobody has to surrender cherished identities before coming to the discussion table,

OK, the last two sentences are perhaps a naive aspiration; but it is surely a lot more attractive than competing to make ourselves the normative examples of what constitutes the real, unqualified, pure, ideal evangelical.  That is rather like arguing about what weapon is best for hunting unicorns.

“Telling the truth and being honest is a fundamental virtue of Amish [Anabaptist] faith, and he is directly violating the teachings of Jesus if he is lying. That’s a very serious moral offense for them.” Professor Donald Kraybill -   NY Times – Sept. 3, 2010 Does the same standard of honesty apply to the Mennonite [...]

Regarding my recent comments about events at The King's College in New York, there seems to be some confusion about what I was actually trying to say.  The confusion is at least strongly implied in the Christianity Today web report, and has also been suggested in private -- and, I should stress, genuinely courteous, gracious, and helpful -- correspondence I have had from a King's faculty member.  The misconception is this: my comments on the doctrinal significance of the appointment of the new president are seen as a result of me confusing the different roles of a seminary and a college.  My problem, apparently, is that I want King's, a college, to behave like a seminary.

Nothing could be further from the truth.  My problem, rather, is twofold: first, what does it mean when an institution has a doctrinal statement, which must be subscribed by all faculty and which presumably forms at least part of the basis for fundraising and student recruitment, and which then appears to be sidelined in a key hire?  I doubt that the institution wrote the document when, in a moment of madness, it confused itself with a seminary.  Still, I have said all that I want to say on that.

Second (and this was really the underlying burden of my original post): in what does a Christian world and life view (and the various synonymous terms) consist?    If a liberal arts college says that it teaches such a thing, then doctrine is surely important.  All world and life views are doctrinal, after all; and a Christian one is presumably constituted by Christian doctrine in some basic way   Further, as the very term indicates total comprehensiveness, the teaching of such a thing does not seem to me to require any less clarity on doctrine at a foundational level than the curriculum at a seminary would so do (albeit the curricula at the two types of institution might be markedly very different).  For example, does my view of God's personal being affect my view of the world?  Does my view of God's sovereignty affect my view of the world?  Does my view of scripture affect my view of the world?  Does my view of justification affect my view of the world?  Does my view of eschatology affect my view of the world?   I every case the answer is surely `Of course.  Is that a question?'

Just to be clear: all this `Christian world life view' talk is not my language. I am myself very uncomfortable with it because it fails to respect difference among Christians; but I do not consider it inappropriate to ask those who do use this language with such confidence to explain it to me; to explain, for example, why they use the singular not the plural; and what are the doctrines that can be set to one side as matters indifferent when constructing this singular Christian world life view?

For myself, I am very comfortable with the view of the world expressed in the Westminster Standards.  The theology therein profoundly expresses my view of life, the universe and all that.   Does that mean I deny the name Christian to someone who is, say, an Arminian or a Lutheran or an Anabaptist or a Catholic?  Not at all, though they would be as ineligible to serve as an officer in my church as I would be in theirs.  But -- and here's the rub -- does it mean we share the same comprehensive world-life view?  I would say not -- holding to Catholic sacramentology profoundly shapes how a Catholic looks at the world; holding to justification by imputation profoundly shapes how a Protestant looks at the world; holding to dispensationalism profoundly affects how a Fundamentalist looks at the world; and holding to Anabaptist ecclesiology profoundly affects how an Anabaptist looks at the world. And, while we're at it, to be indifferent to these things, to assume their a priori unimportance, profoundly affects one's view of the world as well. In other words, there are as many CWLVs as there are Christian sects (I use the term non-pejoratively); and it is extremely odd, not to say depressing, that, in a world where we are now supposed to rejoice in difference, it is frankly so hard to get people to see what seems to be a fairly obvious point.

The result: my concern for doctrinal indifferentism at a Christian College arises not out of a seminary-college category confusion but rather out of my belief that one huge mythological misconception is simply being allowed to continue unchallenged: that there is `a [singular] Christian life and world view' that can be separated as some kind of Platonic ideal from the phenomena of particular confessional commitment, whether Reformed, Anabaptist or whatever.  It is time to come clean: we need to speak of Christian life and world views (plural) and we need to acknowledge that  those who talk of such in the singular are more than likely privileging their particular view of the world (including their politics -- Left and Right) as the normative Christian one, and thus as being essentially beyond criticism and scrutiny -- whether that view is doctrinally complex or indifferent to all but being `born again.'

Over the last decade, it has become something of a commonplace in Reformed evangelical circles to decry the level of polemic that has historically characterised the Reformed world.  From John Frame's famous critique of Machen's warrior children to more recent comments by high-profile members of the Gospel Coalition, the idea has gone abroad that there are these Reformed and evangelical doctrinalists who just live to fight.    Discussing this over lunch with a pastor friend the other day, he commented to me, `You know, I'm not quite prepared to jump into this sea of self-loathing just yet.'  And I think he is right.  Here are some reasons why.

1. Polemic is no monopoly of the Reformed.   Talk to Catholic, Orthodox, Anabaptist, and Episcopalian friends.  They too have their struggles.  This does not in itself make any particular polemic, or any particular polemical technique, correct; but it does rather highlight the fact that the church was born in controversy and, if her beliefs are important, there will always be such struggles.  The day the polemics die out you will know that (a) Christ has returned or (b) people no longer care about doctrine and the church has ceased to exist.

2. The criticism of polemics often comes from those who enjoy the space that polemics have carved out for them and the safety that polemics provides them.   Such critics are like those who use their right to freedom of speech to decry the used of armed force by police and army, not realising that the very right they enjoy in this regard is positively connected to what they are attacking.     Don't tell the world that the Trinity or justification by faith are important doctrines and then lament the existence of polemics; you can only have a coalition based on the gospel because every element of that gospel has been first hammered out in the furnace of controversy and then defended in the same way.  Sure, not all polemics are good polemics, in form and/or substance -- so be discriminating in your criticisms and drop the stereotypes.  Failure to be so is simple ingratitude to those who have put reputations and, in the history of the church, often lives on the line for the preservation of the truth. Penning an anti-polemic polemic may help the author sleep well at night, confident that his hands are clean and his conscience clear; but he can only do so because somebody has first made the mean streets outside his house safe for women and children. 

3. Closely related to point 2 is the fact that, 99 times out of a 100, a nasty controversy only ever erupts because, at an earlier point in time somebody, somewhere took the easy way out and chose to turn a blind eye to a peccadillo, moral or theological.   Think of David and Adonijah, the son who rebelled.  We are told in 1 Ki. 1:6 that his father had never checked his behaviour as he had grown up, surely one of the most eloquent verses in the Bible.    What had presumably started with Adonijah as throwing toys out of the pram or not observing a teenage curfew ended with full-scale rebellion.  In my limited experience in both local churches and institutions, all of the major conflicts in which I have been involved could have been avoided if somebody at some point in the past had had the backbone -- and the love for an erring brother or sister -- to check them gently when they first showed signs of wandering.   Dare I say it?  It is pretty rich to criticise those involved in major polemics if those polemics actually involve cleaning up significant messes created by the fact that others failed to do what was right when the problem was much easier to address and the stakes were much lower.   Anti-polemic polemicists should reflect as much about how the events of the present -- not least their development of the next generation of leaders -- will impact the church for good or for ill -- as they do on the allegedly over-polemical attitude of some.  Polemics in one generation are often as much, if not more, the fault of the lack of discernment or moral leadership in the previous generation as they are of any innately combative personalities in the present.

4. Finally, I simply don't recognise the pictures drawn by the Reformed evangelical critics of Reformed evangelical polemicists.  The problem is they build grand cases about general types on very limited access to evidence.  When particular figures are dismissed as being polemically minded, relentlessly aggressive etc, it is possible that, on occasion, the criticism is true.  More often, however, it is built upon reading a few pages of a blog or a book or a magazine; or listening to one lecture or public statement; worse still, it is based on hostile witness of some kind.  For most of us who write and speak in the public forum, that speaking and writing is just a small part of our lives.  More important for us is being in church both ends on a Sunday, encouraging our pastor, helping with the Sunday School or the nursery or the church cleaning rota, connecting with other members in church when their basement is flooded or they need help, having an open office policy so students can wander in at any time to talk about a problem, striving to be better husbands and dads.  Sure, we can fight when we think it is necessary; and yes, certainly, as sinners, we sometimes fight when it isn't necessary or in an inappropriate way, and, as with all sin, we need to be challenged on that and repent -- believe me, my wife, my own `Katie' is quite capable of tearing me off a strip on that score;   but that is just a small part of our Christian lives -- a necessary one, for all the reasons given above -- but a small one.

So, please, let's bin this sad, misguided self-loathing on the polemic front.  We must repent where necessary, where we have crossed the line; but, just as necessary, we must fight where we see the truth is at stake.  We should be grateful for the truth that polemics have preserved so that we have a gospel to proclaim; and we should not allow a misguided commitment to being nice to allow us, in effect, to dump huge problems on the next generation by running up a huge theological and moral deficit in the church of the present.

Polemics against polemics have a role to play in provoking self-reflection; and, let's face, they sound pretty cool and attractive in the current cultural climate; but they are, ironically, parasitic on polemic and polemicists; and, moreover, when they witness to, and help promote, self-loathing, they should be abandoned as serving no good purpose.

Halden posts some great thoughts about ecumenical dialog, particularly with Anabaptist traditions, a

HARRISBURG, Pa. — The search by the booming North American population of Amish for affordable, fertile farmland has produced settlements in 28 states and Ontario – and has even led parties to scout recently for suitable properties in Alaska and Mexico.

A new study estimates the number of Amish has increased nearly 10 percent in the past two years alone, to a total population of 249,000, compared with about 227,000 in 2008. That figure was just 124,000 in 1992. Nearly all Amish descended from a group of about 5,000 in the early 20th century.

The study by the Young Center for Anabaptist and Pietist Studies at Elizabethtown College in Elizabethtown, Pa., found that about two-thirds of Amish still live in the traditional strongholds of Pennsylvania, Ohio and Indiana, but that they continue to spread west, particularly into the Midwestern corn belt.

Farmland in Lancaster County, Pa., can cost $15,000 an acre, compared with $2,000 or $3,000 per acre elsewhere.

"They are sort of challenging some of the mainstream assumptions about progress and how you achieve the good life and happiness," said Elizabethtown professor Don Kraybill, the study's director. "They're not merely surviving; they're thriving, and growing at this very rapid rate."

The highest rates of growth over the past year were recorded in New York (19 percent), Minnesota (9 percent), Missouri (8 percent), Wisconsin (7 percent) and Illinois (7 percent). High-growth areas for Amish in the past five years also include Kentucky, Kansas and Iowa.

The newest state to get an Amish settlement is South Dakota, after a group of at least six families bought several farms near Tripp in the southeastern part of the state. They have planted forage for their cows, built barns and established a weekly bake sale.

Myra Weber, co-owner of Weber's Grocery, said they've patronized her store for baking supplies and ice cream.

"We put it in paper sacks for them, wrap it up really well," Weber said. "They say they have to get it home right away and eat this."

The study focused on all Amish groups that use horse-and-buggy transportation, so it excluded such automobile-driving groups as the Beachy Amish and Mennonites.

The Amish are a devout Christian faith dating to the 1500s, and their ancestors began arriving in eastern Pennsylvania around 1730. They generally eschew modern conveniences such as motorized vehicles, instead relying on horse-drawn carriages and permitting only limited use of telephones and electricity. Practices can vary from group to group, but their plain dress and use of the Pennsylvania Dutch dialect make them distinct in modern society.

The remarkable growth is almost entirely due to the Amish birth rate – many Amish families have five or more children. Kraybill said the Amish retain about 85 percent of the young adults who have to decide whether to remain in the church. The Amish marry within the community, and the total number of converts nationwide is believed to be less than 100, he said.

About half the Amish are under 18 years old, meaning the community tends to focus much of its energy on young people and schools, Kraybill said.

Earlier this summer, a van of Amish land scouts from Prattsburg, N.Y., visited Alaska to seek a site for a new settlement but were unable to find anything suitable. Another group, from Illinois and Missouri, just made a return trip to Mexico on a similar mission.

Kraybill said there are no Amish congregations in Alaska or Mexico, although small numbers of Amish schoolteachers from Pennsylvania and Ohio have been helping improve education within an Old Colony Mennonite community in Mexico. That conservative Mennonite group has roots in Russia, rather than Switzerland and southern Germany, like the Amish.

The teachers' supporters produced a newsletter describing their experiences in Mexico, in an effort to raise money for the project.

In the new population study, Pennsylvania passed Ohio as the state with the largest Amish population, in part because the authors employed a more precise method to estimate the number, one that takes into account the different average size of an Amish district, or congregation, depending on the state.

The study says the Amish have targeted areas for new settlements judging by the quality and cost of farmland, the potential for nonfarm employment, a rural lifestyle, other factors conducive to their values and proximity to other Amish communities.

Their decisions to leave are often prompted by suburban sprawl, land costs, tourism and other intrusive activities, zoning or similar governmental disputes, the local business climate, employment needs and church-related conflict.

The Amish account for less than one-tenth of a percent of the U.S. population of 310 million.

___

Online:

Elizabethtown College Amish Studies: http://www2.etown.edu/amishstudies/

Typical Anabaptists/Baptists minus the pitchforks, horns and tails. Photo of an actual Baptist Cult

A review of I Am Hutterite , Mary Ann Kirkby's memoir of growing up in a radical Anabaptist community.

A review of I Am Hutterite, Mary Ann Kirkby's memoir of growing up in a radical Anabaptist community.

I wrote last time about an “Ode to Joy” moment I experienced 17 years ago, when I first walked into my university library and discovered the full depth of the skeptical literature. Since then, I’ve had many other wonderful moments in my life as a skeptic: the day I discovered Skeptic magazine (in a café in Sherbrooke, Quebec in 1995); the first time I saw hundreds of skeptics in one room (at “The Amazing Meeting 2″ conference in 2004); or, the day last year when the Skeptics Society announced the release of a free full-color Junior Skeptic-based evolution book to thousands of Portuguese school children.

Today I’m writing about another Ode to Joy moment — one of the greatest of my career. It’s a moment I’ve long hoped for, and never expected to see: last week’s announcement that The Amazing Meeting 8 conference (July 8 – 11, 2010, in Las Vegas) will be co-sponsored by all three U.S. national skeptics organizations:

In keeping with recent trends for national US skeptical organizations to work more closely together to advance shared aims, the James Randi Educational Foundation is very pleased to announce that…both the Skeptics Society, as well as the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (formerly CSICOP), will officially be co-sponsors of the event, providing both financial and promotional support to the JREF for the meeting.

Long-time skeptics are aware that skepticism, like other intellectual movements, has seen its share of schisms and factions. This isn’t remotely unusual. Think of the many finely graded camps within, for example, atheism, feminism or animal welfare activism. Nor is it unusual for like-minded organizations to compete for resources or duplicate efforts.

Factionalism isn’t unique to skepticism, but it can be a bummer. When natural allies miss opportunities for mutual support, it reminds me of something a member of a colony-based anabaptist denomination once told me. I asked him to describe the key differences between his group and closely-related group they held very much at arm’s length. He told me, “Mostly the hats.”

Now, this is not to downplay the truth that skeptical groups do differ in emphasis and approach. Each of the big U.S. groups has its own strengths and specializations, as do national groups overseas and regional groups worldwide. It’s been argued that this vigorous variety is itself a strength, and I think this is often the case. A variety of groups and mandates covers more ground in more ways.

Still, skepticism and science advocacy are projects built on optimism — a “yes we can” sort of feeling. In skepticism as in other activist traditions, grassroots support lives and breathes on the hope that together we can make the world a bit better than it would have been. Optimism is a precious thing, and delicate. It flourishes best in an atmosphere of civility and cooperation.

A Long Hope

In the Spring of 2001, the Center For Inquiry’s then-Director of Education, Austin Dacey, asked me to write a proposal for a hypothetical print magazine to promote skepticism and humanism on college campuses. (That print project never went past the proposal stage, but the Center for Inquiry On Campus brought it to life as the online Campus Inquirer newsletter). Much of that proposal concerned production matters, but I also included some more general thoughts about promoting skepticism. In particular, I emphasized the practical and symbolic value (and public service benefit) of “close cooperative ties” between skeptical organizations.

I even went so far as to suggest a then-utopian example: why not “skeptical summits,” or skeptical conferences co-sponsored by like-minded national skeptics groups “under a joint banner”?

In the years since, I’ve often thought what a wonderful symbol that would be. And, in the skepticism 2.0 context, it began to seem possible. Buoyed by the enthusiasm of the new grassroots skepticism, fueled by the success of podcasting and online outreach, cooperation and collaboration between skeptical organizations has risen dramatically in recent years. I’ve been pleased to be a small part of that process, working with colleagues at many other groups, and helping to promote not only JREF projects (like TAM, which we have long supported through eSkeptic, Skeptic magazine, and Skepticality) but projects from CSI and other organizations as well. Cross-promotion and mutual assistance are emerging as the new normal for skeptical organizations. Early last year, D.J. Grothe and I even discussed the possibility of a hypothetical three-way conference — and reflected again how powerfully that would symbolize skepticism’s renaissance.

Ode to Joy All Over Again

I hasten to add that I had no part in arranging the three-way co-sponsorship of The Amazing Meeting 8. When the JREF’s announcement popped up on Twitter last week, I was as astonished as anyone else. But, I think you’d have to go a long way to find someone more pleased to hear the news than I.

Not that I needed any more reason to be excited. TAM is widely acknowledged as skepticism’s premier multi-day event — truly the summit meeting for North American skepticism. Every year, the contacts made there spin off into unexpected ideas and important new grassroots outreach projects. (For example, Canada’s influential Skeptic North blog site is a TAM7 spin-off. What a difference a year makes!)

Even before the co-sponsorship announcement, it was clear that TAM8 would be more representative of the wider skeptical landscape than any previous year. Never before have so many of skepticism’s pioneers been scheduled to participate in a single event: not only giants like James Randi, Michael Shermer, and Steven Novella, but also CSI legends Paul Kurtz, Ray Hyman, Joe Nickell, Kendrick Frazier, and Barry Karr. Even Martin Gardner is due to appear by video. Martin Gardner! (And that’s to say nothing of folks like Richard Dawkins and Adam Savage. Honestly, I’ve never seen a speaker list quite like this one.)

The Amazing Meeting 8 was already going to be something special. And then came the announcement of the co-sponsorship. The Skeptics Society, The James Randi Educational Foundation, and the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry — all working together.

I had nothing to do with it, and yet I feel personally involved. I don’t quite know how to describe my feelings about this watershed moment.

Skepticism is my life’s work. It matters to me. And this announcement changes skepticism. Changes it for the better.

Are anabaptist and Mennonites the same thing? To my understanding, Anabaptist's started out as Mennonites then they became known as the Anabaptists? Is that true? Or are they two different religions? I am confused!

What a delightful talk. I blogged a few days ago on Dr. Jeremy Begbie's talk at Wheaton. Deeply respectful and honoring. In fact, I have given some thought to the three Wrightian themes that Begbie believes emerging church leaders would do well to pay attention to:

1. ASCENSION.

Begbie: EC should take the ascension more seriously because they tend to collapse it into the resurrection, losing the sense of Christ apart from his church, standing OVER his church as Lord and High Priest, leading to either "strident triumphalism on the one hand or painful disillusionment on the other."

TSK Response: OK, touche! This is most likely just as Begbie observes, and if so, it is not because the emerging church has put forward a new, closer, more localised Jesus but rather because so many of us have come through the charismatic movement, or the seeker movement, or have a background in Anabaptist or radical reformed thinking. The criticism could just as easily be made to all of us.

2. ISRAEL.

Begbie: In the EC is a huge Christological stress amidst much "trinitarian enthusiasm" but lacking in OT, history of Israel, etc.

TSK Response. Well said. I often put forward a trinitarian emphasis with a focus on Christ but this is the default position of my evangelical background. However, over the past few years, my teaching has been increasingly based on OT themes, in particular my ecclesiology. I am growing in this, as many of us are. And Tom Wright might be partially responsible, as I said in my previous post on this topic.

3. CATHOLICITY

Begbie: More catholicity is needed, both QUALITATIVE [rising above affinity groups, or culture specific groupings] and EXTENSIVE [spatial catholicity] in which the EC should follow Tom Wright's example of pursuing greater connection with boring traditional streams of Christianity. [my paraphrase]

TSK Quick Response: Here I find some tension. If you see the emerging church movement as primarily a missiological movement with a theological backing and not the other way around, as I do, the critique loses some steam. From my observations, I think that:

1. Emerging churches are MORE involved in their respective communities [part of Begbie's criticism] than traditional churches that provide a smorgasbord of weekly activities and programs. Not less. Some emerging churches do not even have their own building, choosing instead to find a suitable third space to gather together. Some dont even gather on a Sunday but are totally absorbed into their communities - reason for a different kind of critique

2. The emerging church movement is primarily a missiological movement that is informed by theology, and not the other way around. I noticed the all the books mentioned by Begbie were theological books. Yes, there are a few groups that focus solely on theology but they are the exception. Lesslie Newbigin was a missionary in India. Tom Wright puts forward a missional thrust embedded in the Abrahamic covenant while at the same time avoiding the missional term and getting stuck in the controversies. Gotta love him for doing that. And if you want to really understand the global EC movement, then a shift from the theological section to the library to the missiological section will take the ball out of the scrum and "put it into touch".

3. Because the EC is primarily a missiological movement, many of its distinctives are quite pragmatic and strategic, located on the edge of where the church is going next. The EC movement respects Newbigin but it also draws from that other white missionary in India, Donald McGavran. Yes, I am aware of Newbigin's distaste for McGavran's pragmatism, and of how the movement ran amok amidst American positivism and spawned the church growth movement with its numerical infatuation. Nevertheless, there is much to learn from McGavran's observations on people movements and the multiplication of the church, as presented in The Bridges of God and mirrored in the Scriptures.

There is a place for cultural uniqueness. People who decide follow Jesus tell their homies and their homies sometimes join the party. Thus, we have what I call "The Homies Unit Principle". But the homies need to break out and join the larger Kingdom party.

There can be an appreciation of the organic unity of the one church, and the breaking down of barriers through Christ, and at the same time an acknowledgement that some soils are better places to plant seeds than others at given times, that not everyone will be a "person of peace", that new churches will most likely be birthed amidst cultural groupings that are unique to that group and their worship will reflect this. Yes, cultural enclaves are challenged to break out and not forsake the wider ecumenical gatherings with each other but they will continue to preserve a particular cultural heritage. If we dont allow the church to exist in every tribe, every tongue, every culture, then we will be tempted to insist on our own culture as the norm. We call this colonialism.

4. If McGavran is too much of an acquired taste for Anglicans, I join with Newbigin in recommending Roland Allen, another reflective practitioner whose teachings on the "way of Christ and his apostles" introduced a more organic, strategic and sustainable way of doing missions while staying connected to the inherited church structures. Actually, my first introduction to Newbigin was through his forward to Allen's book "Missionary Methods: St Paul's or Ours?".

5. Because the EC is primarliy a missiological movement, opportunities for highlighting and strengthening the CATHOLIC nature of the church will often be found in missiological gatherings and to a lesser extent, meetings of a purely theological or ecclesiological nature. That's not to say that we are uninvolved in such meetings. Find a group of crusty Lutherans in the USA and you might find Karen Ward tapping on her computer in the back row. Search for the most staid and fossilized Anglicans in a musty English church basement and Jonny Baker has probably sat through their boring meeting, or even addressed the participants. God bless'em!

Although most of my time is spent with young people around the world starting new churches in exciting places, I have also made the trip to Italy to converse with Roman Catholics [quite clumsily I might add], I have been to Geneva to talk with the WCC, and later this year I will be in both Greece and Turkey to chat with the Eastern Orthodox. When the 100th anniversary of the modern ecumenical movement takes place in Edinburgh this summer, I will be there. When 4000 mission leaders convene in Capetown, South Africa in October as part of Lausanne 3, I will be there. And so will many others like me.

To say that we do not make an adequate effort in ecumenical affairs is a little unfair, esp. since much of the criticism from fundamentalists is related to the ease at which we relate with others who disagree. In fact, I would be inclined to say that the EC has in many cases formed partnerships without preserving their own voice or even their own home base. That leads to fuzzy thinking and voice-loss.

Having said all that, I wish to thank Jeremy Begbie for his thoughtful and thorough critique, which I found honoring and at times exhilarating. Hope to hear more from him in the future.

Felix Manz, a Swiss Brethren Anabaptist in Zurich, Switzerland, and the first martyr of the Radical

When it comes to financial and insurance services I like big, national companies with thousands upon thousands of customers. For others, smaller institutions that cater not only to their financial and insurance needs but also to their religious beliefs is the way to go. Since there is no Mexican-Almost-American-Jewish financial and insurance company I stick with the aforementioned. But for those that follow the Anabaptist faith — "a Protestant Christian reform movement in Europe during the 16th century" with various denominations like the Mennonite, Brethren, and Amish church groups related to it — the Mennonite Mutual Aid (MMA) has

An Interview with Brian McLaren
by Melvin Bray

This is the first of 4 posts that will contain the full text of Melvin’s interview with Brian. Check back soon to read the rest of the interview.

It would be disingenuous of me not to confess up front that my appreciation of Brian McLaren extends beyond his merits as an author to include his contributions of friendship as a conversation partner, a connector of fellow sojourners and a faithful dreamer. However, if one were to assume that friendship in any way inhibits me from critically engaging his newest book with the requisite skepticism paradigmatic upheavals deserve, one would be grossly mistaken. For me, and I imagine for many in the Emergent conversation, friendship is a full contact sport. I tend to delve deep fast with questions that can disquiet, disrupt and often unearth that which one might rather have kept hidden—questions that could be considered invasive. Still, Brian was gracious enough to talk to me.

Brian’s A New Kind of Christianity: Ten Questions That Are Transforming the Faith (HarperOne)—now in your local bookstore and online—proves to be an incisive and provocative contribution to the public conversation on the future of faith. Incisive in that it clearly discerns the scriptural fault lines and historical inconsistencies upon which modern Christian hegemony has been built. Provocative in that it posits fresh and forward-looking ways of being in the world that simultaneously deconstruct faithless assumptions of the past while making an ever more faithful connection to the best intuitions of the past. The book’s basic premise is that there are pressing questions about God, faith and life, that can no longer be ignored, to which Christianity as it has been commonly practiced throughout modernity offers insufficiently useful responses. Rather than intuitively hunker down in a defensive posture or go on the attack, as our dominant religious metaphors might incline us to do, McLaren proposes Christians reach for a new metaphor, that of quest. A quest is a search for something worth having, in this case a search for a faith increasingly more worthy of Jesus, our Lord.

Not everyone has had as affirmative an encountered with the book. Scot McKnight, a friend of both Brian and the Emergent conversation, has written what seems to be for the Christianity Today audience an ‘about time’ critique of “Brian’s new kind of Christianity.” With his review McKnight casts himself as the Puddleglum of an often Marshwigglesque Evangelicalism. For those who immediately understand that metaphor, they will know that it is not meant to disparage, for Puddleglum is one of the hero’s in the Narnia tale The Silver Chair, even as McKnight has been a cherished champion of the value of orthodoxy within Emergent Village. Nonetheless, McKnight’s essentially one note mantra does not seem to adequately apprehend the complexities and in some cases unprecedented challenges of the present. Don’t get me wrong: to dismiss McKnight’s warrants would, in my opinion, prove a grave misjudgment. However, if after all this time McKnight’s singular concern remains the lack of apparent orthodoxy in Brian’s proposals, I am forced to wonder aloud: Discretion may be the better part of valor, but who decreed that orthodoxy is the better part of faith?

This interview was conducted before McKnight’s review was published, but it does address some of the McKnight’s misgivings. I tried to pose questions that reflect my own ambivalence about faith as quest as well as questions that give voice to the deep reservations and doubts of my more fundamentalist friends and family who remain fully committed to faith as bastion. However, I must say that at the end of my questioning I find this quest of faith (humble confidence) toward a God whose hopes, dreams and desires are for the good of all creation far more compelling than what was my former belief (uncritical certitude) in the God of a triumphal few.

The first and last questions of this interview include content originally published at God’s Politics blog.

Melvin: Brian, it seems to me that the crux of the book is the “What is the Gospel?” chapter and that the most challenging declarations are made between pages 138 and 140. Was this true in the writing of the text? Of all the questions, what do you think makes the gospel question such a challenging conversation for so many to have? I know for myself, it’s the very conversation I’ve sought to avoid with anyone within the denominational tradition I call home who seems uncritically committed to doctrinal orthodoxy.

Brian: So much depends, of course, on what you and they mean by “doctrinal orthodoxy.” I am deeply committed to doctrinal orthodoxy, meaning I want to be faithful to the truth and to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, even if that puts me at odds at certain points with what this or that group has determined as doctrinal orthodoxy. For example, my Calvinist friends who claim orthodoxy need to remember that to the Eastern Orthodox, Calvinists are heterodox from the get-go, because they’re not submitted to the patriarchs and bishops of the One True Church. And my many Wesleyan and Quaker and Anabaptist friends who consider themselves doctrinally orthodox are only questionably so from the perspective of some of my Calvinist friends. And my Dispensationalist friends often speak of “historic orthodoxy” without noticing the irony that before 1835, their approach to the faith had never even been dreamed of. The same could be said in slightly altered ways for Adventists and Pentecostals.

You might be right that the fifth question is the crucial one, although I think the first two or three questions are probably the most radical, in that they open up space to ask the other seven or eight. I tell the story in the book of how shocked I was when an Evangelical theologian once proposed to me that most Evangelicals – including me – didn’t have “the foggiest notion” of what the gospel really was. So perhaps this question will seem like a shock to folks, but I can’t put into words how liberating it is to rediscover Jesus’ gospel of the kingdom of God, and to see that Paul and Jesus have the same gospel, not different ones.


Melvin Bray is chief bbq taster on the Emergent Village green and the coordinating author of The Stories in Which We Find Ourselves: A Bible Story Project to write/collect re-tellings of the biblical narrative that resonate with emerging, missional and/or ‘post-ism’ sensibilities.

The Anabaptist Vision was a message preached by Harold S. Bender at Columbia University in 1943. It is a radical Christian manifesto calling Christians back to the kingdom message of Jesus Christ. As Bender explains, “The Anabaptists were concerned most of all about a true Christian life, that is, a life patterned after the teaching and example of Christ.” This is Bender’s original message, read by Dean Taylor, author of the recent best seller, A Change of Allegiance. Harold S. Bender delivered this radical Christ-following manifesto to the church of his day at a time when the alternatives were becoming conspicuously deficient. Radical Reformation Books offers his message to the church today, over 50 years later, at a time that we believe to be no better. Originally preached before the Historical Society at Columbia University, Dec.29, 1943, Bender’s message had never been recorded. Now, this recording of The Anabaptist Vision brings Bender’s challenge alive from the pages of history to today’s church. Text used by permission from The American Society of Church History ©1944. Special thanks to Altar of Praise Studio for donating the professional recording time.

My mother told me to take notice of bearded men without a moustache!

The beard without moustache was an anti-war statement among early Anabaptists (including my ancestors on my mother's side), and remains so among the Amish and Old Order Mennon ...

Goshen College in Goshen, Indiana was one of the holdouts.  Several other Mennonite colleges and universities – Bethel, Bluffton, Tabor and Fresno Pacific – were already playing “The Star Spangled Banner” before sporting events.  Goshen College had historically not played the song on campus, along with Heston College and Eastern Mennonite University.  That is about to change.  Jesus Radicals is among the sources covering Goshen College’s January 22 announcement that an instrumental version of the National Anthem will be played before select  campus sporting events starting in March.

The Mennonites are part of the Anabaptist movement – peace churches with a strong tradition of political dissent.  For that very reason they have a history of persecution both in Europe and the United States.  Although the Mennonite Church USA does not have an official position on the playing of…

I wrote last week about the pseudo historian David Barton who was called on for testimony during the Texas Board of Education hearings to discuss the writing of the textbooks that will not only be used in Texas but across the country.

Turns out that Barton’s got bigger ears to fill than just the Texas School Board’s. Glenn Beck who has been scheming up a conspiracy-laden next “great awakening,” called “The Plan,” set to be kicked off in DC on the anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech, draws on Barton’s ahistorical accounts of the US founding. Here’s a segment from Keith Olberman’s show that account’s not only Barton’s rewriting of history but Beck’s plans for our nation’s next 100 years.

In tomorrow’s New York Times Magazine, Russell Shorto has a story that looks at the battle over the soul’s of the Founding Fathers and how the Texas School Board and affiliated organizations (the Legal Right) work to establish that not only was the country founded on Christian principles but that the US’ laws are Biblical in origin. Barton makes an appearance, below. In the article, Shorto writes that like last year’s battle over “intelligent design,” this year’s battle over the religious birth of the nation has a long history:

The cultural roots of the Texas showdown may be said to date to the late 1980s, when, in the wake of his failed presidential effort, the Rev. Pat Robertson founded the Christian Coalition partly on the logic that conservative Christians should focus their energies at the grass-roots level. One strategy was to put candidates forward for state and local school-board elections — Robertson’s protégé, Ralph Reed, once said, “I would rather have a thousand school-board members than one president and no school-board members” — and Texas was a beachhead. Since the election of two Christian conservatives in 2006, there are now seven on the Texas state board who are quite open about the fact that they vote in concert to advance a Christian agenda. “They do vote as a bloc,” Pat Hardy, a board member who considers herself a conservative Republican but who stands apart from the Christian faction, told me. “They work consciously to pull one more vote in with them on an issue so they’ll have a majority.”

snip

The Christian “truth” about America’s founding has long been taught in Christian schools, but not beyond. Recently, however — perhaps out of ire at what they see as an aggressive, secular, liberal agenda in Washington and perhaps also because they sense an opening in the battle, a sudden weakness in the lines of the secularists — some activists decided that the time was right to try to reshape the history that children in public schools study. Succeeding at this would help them toward their ultimate goal of reshaping American society. As Cynthia Dunbar, another Christian activist on the Texas board, put it, “The philosophy of the classroom in one generation will be the philosophy of the government in the next.”

On Barton, Shorto writes:

The other nonacademic expert, David Barton, is the nationally known leader of WallBuilders, which describes itself as dedicated to “presenting America’s forgotten history and heroes, with an emphasis on our moral, religious and constitutional heritage.” Barton has written and lectured on the First Amendment and against separation of church and state. He is a controversial figure who has argued that the U.S. income tax and the capital-gains tax should be abolished because they violate Scripture (for the Bible says, in Barton’s reading, “the more profit you make the more you are rewarded”) and who pushes a Christianity-first rhetoric. When the U.S. Senate invited a Hindu leader to open a 2007 session with a prayer, he objected, saying: “In Hindu [sic], you have not one God, but many, many, many, many, many gods. And certainly that was never in the minds of those who did the Constitution, did the Declaration when they talked about Creator.”

In his recommendations to the Texas school board, Barton wrote that students should be taught the following principles which, in his reading, derive directly from the Declaration of Independence: “1. There is a fixed moral law derived from God and nature. 2. There is a Creator. 3. The Creator gives to man certain unalienable rights. 4. Government exists primarily to protect God-given rights to every individual. 5. Below God-given rights and moral laws, government is directed by the consent of the governed.”

Social conservatives have long known that the best way to shape the future tone of the country is through Christian schools (and universities, targeting particularly the medical and legal fields) that instill respect for and adherence to God’s laws.

My first reaction to the need to paint the founding fathers as Christian is the question: So what if they were? As a necessarily “living” document, the Constitution should be interpreted to reflect contemporary society and technological, social and scientific advancements. But as Shorto notes, even the term “living document” has been eradicated from text books:

To give an illustration simultaneously of the power of ideology and Texas’ influence, Barber told me that when he led the social-studies division at Prentice Hall, one conservative member of the board told him that the 12th-grade book, “Magruder’s American Government,” would not be approved because it repeatedly referred to the U.S. Constitution as a “living” document. “That book is probably the most famous textbook in American history,” Barber says. “It’s been around since World War I, is updated every year and it had invented the term ‘living Constitution,’ which has been there since the 1950s. But the social conservatives didn’t like its sense of flexibility. They insisted at the last minute that the wording change to ‘enduring.’ ” Prentice Hall agreed to the change, and ever since the book — which Barber estimates controlled 60 or 65 percent of the market nationally — calls it the “enduring Constitution.”

I was born and raised in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. My grandparents were Mennonite and their story and that of Martin Harnish, our ancestor who was recruited by William Penn, along with other Anabaptist families (Amish and Mennonite) to come to America in the early 1700s, is the perfect illustration of the importance of separation of church and state. The Radical Reformation bred a hostile environment for those in Switzerland and Germany who did not ascribe to the beliefs of the state-ordained church. They were killed and tortured for their faith for centuries. A ticket to the frontiers of what would soon be called Pennsylvania saved my ancestors from continued persecution.

Today, the Amish and to some extent the Mennonites live outside society, protected from governmental discrimination by the Establishment Clause and the “separation of church and state.”

One can only wonder how non-evangelical or non-fundamentalist Christian Americans feel about a particular “Christian” history being taught at their public, federally-funded schools. It is this sort of discrimination against individual religious conscience that “separation of church and state” is meant to prevent. And yet, it is this sort of discrimination that the Texas Board of Education and other related groups seek to perpetrate.

Report This Post

The Anabaptists, Pentacosts, Adventists, Baptists, Calvinists, Presbyterians, Puritans, Methodists, Pietists, Lutherans, Anglicans, Catholics, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Miaphysitists, Apostolic...wait, the list is getting endlessly divided and confusing. Can anyone tell me where the real "true" ones come from and if so, then who are all the others?

A couple of weeks ago, in "Uganda 'kill the gays' story underscores--bearing false witness lies at 'Religious Right's' core", I quoted the following from Rick Warren's belated public rejection of the Ugandan bill that would put gays to death:

5. What did you do when you heard about the proposed Ugandan law?

I wrote to the most influential leader I knew in that country, the Anglican Archbishop of Uganda, and shared my opposition and concern. He wrote me back, saying that he, too, was opposed to the death penalty for homosexuals. There are thousands of evil laws enacted around the world that kill people (For instance, last year, 146,000 Christians around the world were killed because of their faith.). In this case, I knew the Archbishop in Uganda, so I did what I could, but my influence in that nation has been greatly exaggerated by the media.

And I went on to write:

So, is Warren saying that 146,000 Christians were killed because of their faith in accord with "evil laws"?  What laws, exactly would those be?

I called his PR organization, hoping to get some clarification.  When they called me back, it was just sort of a "what is it exactly that you want to know?" kind of call.  I talked to them a little about what I discovered myself below, just to push them a bit, and maybe they'll get back to me on Monday with something substantive. But on the face of it, this is simply a bald-faced lie, and there's really no way out.

While there certainly still is widespread religious persecution in the world (a reminder of why America's separation of church and state is a good thing), there is relatively little religious killing as a matter of course.

Open Doors is a decades-old organization identified as "Serving persecuted Christians worldwide." It produces an annual World Watch List of the 50 worst countries in terms of persecuting Christians world-wide, but its literature is remarkably free of any sorts of mass murders on the scale one would need to get anywhere near 146,000 martyrs--as I explained to Warren's PR flack, who at first seemed pleased that I was referring to this site.

Later the next week I received an email reply, not from Warren directly, and after puzzling over it a bit, I've decided to return to the matter, because it's not just Warren.  Apparently, the mythology of mass martyrdom is one of the religious rights' big lies that somehow never gets discussed in polite company.  I kind of think it's time for that to stop.
Here is the email response I received from Karen May, Assistant to A. Larry Ross of A. Larry Ross Communications, Warren's PR person whom I did not identify by name in my original diary:

Larry Ross just heard from Rick Warren's assistant with the answer to your question.  Larry is running to catch a plane and asked me to forward the information to you, hoping that it is in time to meet your deadline.

This is what we can confirm, according to the Open Doors ministry research:  The number of persecuted believers is around 100 million worldwide, and Christians are being persecuted in at least 60 countries worldwide.      

Another source (International Bulletin of Missionary Research) puts the number at 176,000 from mid-2008 to mid-2009.  This, according to the authors, compares to 160,000 martyrs in mid-2000 and 34,400 at the beginning of the 20th century. If current trends continue, it is estimated that by 2025, an average of 210,000 Christians will be martyred annually.  It has been estimated that more Christians were martyred in the 20th Century than in the previous 1,900 years combined.

We are not able to get the exact source where Pastor Warren got his number -- he's traveling in Africa right now - but it appears his number quoted is less than other sources we can find.

These figures are patently bogus--as I will shortly demonstrate.  But they are also, apparently widely believed in the evangelic community.  It helps to notice first of all that there is simply no comparison to executing people for being gay.  Murdering people because of their religious beliefs is utterly heinous, but it is not state action, and not the least bit comparable to the sort of law beingcontemplated by Warren's purpose-driven fans. (Depsite his attempts at distancing, Uganda is only the second African state to declare itself a "purpose-driven" nation.  Their purpose, apparently, is state-sanctioned murder. Aimlessness and slackitude never looked so good.)

The total number of state murders worldwide in 2008 was around 2400, according the NY Times article on Amnesty International's report in March of this year:

Amnesty International said at least 2,390 people were executed worldwide in 2008, compared with its 2007 figure of at least 1,252.

With at least 1,718, China was responsible for 72 percent of all executions in 2008, the report stated. After China were Iran (346), Saudi Arabia (102), the United States (37) and Pakistan (36), according to the group.

"Together they carried out 93 percent of all executions worldwide," the report said.

Nice company we keep, no?  And it's even possible that some of those state murders have a religious component to them.  But martyrdom is something a bit more specific--it's death that results from refusing to renounce one's beliefs.  While it's equally heinous that one should be put to death, say, for publicly observing a forbidden religious practice, that's not quite the same thing--unless, of course, one is told that the death penalty would be dropped, if only one would renounce one's faith.  Because of such subtleties, it's certainly possible that cases of true martyrdom can be found in these numbers.  But there is nothing here comparable to the mass executions of martyrs in olden days.

But--setting aside the whole "bad "laws" question--what about those claims of mass martyrdom more generally?  Well, to begin with, 176,000 murders worldwide is an awful lot of murders.  How many?  Well, according to the UN-derived numbers here, which are about a decade old--the average murder rate is about 1 in 10,000, or approaching almost 700,000 per year.  That means that according to Warren's source, one out of four murders worldwide is a Christian dying for their faith.  And it's not on all the networks 24/7?

Heck, not only is not on all the networks, it's not even on the websites that track the persecution of Christians worldwide.  Open Doors, for example, has a "Christian Martyrs" page which announces:

Hundreds of Christians Martyrs around the globe are dying for their faith.

Not "hundreds of thousands a year", but "hundreds" without any given time-frame.  That's at least three orders of magnitude less than what Warren and the International Bulletin of Missionary Research wildly claim.  But it's probably far less than even that.  After all, if there actually were hundreds of martyrs dying around the world every years, couldn't Open Doors easily find five examples from last year?  But the "Christian Martyrs" page has links to five cases, of which only three happened last year, while one happened in 2007 and another in 2005. What's more, one case from 2009, from Colombia, contains no indication whatsoever marking it as a case of martyrdom.

In short, the best evidence appears to show that martyrdom is, fortunately, a rare, though disturbing event in the world today.  If there really were evidence to the contrary, it should be very easy to produce.  So where is it?

False Martyrs?

There's something even worse than a lack of evidence of widespread martyrdom: evidence of false marytrdom.   Such apparently may have been the case with one of the victims at Columbine, as recounted in a 2008 article in Christian Century, by Jason Byassee, "How martyrs are made: stories of the faithful".  The article begins:

ONE OF THE TEENAGERS killed in Colorado's Columbine High School shootings in 1999 was Cassie Bernall. Soon after her murder, reports emerged about how one of the shooters had found Bernall under a table, pointed a gun at her head and asked, "Do you believe in God?" She said yes and was promptly shot.

Within weeks of that event I heard a sermon at an Episcopal church praising Bernall's witness and urging Christians to imitate her faithfulness. Prognosticators predicted another Great Awakening in American life sparked by Bernall's martyrdom. Billboards appeared that announced, "She Said Yes." Her mother penned a memoir using the phrase as its title, and a Web site started selling "She Said Yes" T-shirts and other merchandise.

There was one problem: the reported exchange between Bernall and her killer may never have happened. Students who were within earshot of the event disputed the account. One survivor claimed that she, not Bernall, had been the one questioned by the shooter. Those who made grand claims for Bernall started backpedaling. Some suggested that the story was important whatever the facts behind it. Elizabeth Castelli, who recounts this history in Martyrdom and Memory, points out that this latter rationalization was an odd one to come from Christians who also adhere to biblical literalism; they would never say the truth behind a biblical story is what counts, whether or not the event happened. Stories like Bernall's suggest some of the reasons to hesitate when confronted with claims to martyrdom.

It's not Byassee's intent to deny Bernall's martyrdom, or to dismiss martyrdom in general, but to unsettle people from their preconceptions. Indeed, his article is a very serious consideration of martyrdom, drawing largely on the non-violent Anabaptist tradition (particularly Mennonites.)  But it is permeated with questioning, and challenges to certainty. For example:

In To Share in the Body: A Theology of Martyrdom for Today's Church (Brazos), Craig Hovey, a Mennonite theologian trained at Fuller and Cambridge, argues that Christianity is a training for martyrdom. Martyrdom is not a tragic mistake, nor is it a historical relic from a bygone age. It is "a gift of God to the church." Christians cannot and should not hope for martyrdom, but they must be prepared for it.

Hovey argues against any utilitarian reading of the martyrs. Martyrdom makes no argument. Martyrs should not be used to argue that someone else's religion is bad or that some other country deserves retribution. In the New Testament "martyrs do not die because they fight for what is right, but precisely because they refuse to fight for what is true."

Of course, the evangelical practice of using martyrs is what got me writing this diary in the first place.  And it's the deeper meaning of the phrase "False Martyrs" that heads this section.  The Anabaptists cited in this article point in a very different direction:

Chris Huebner, another Mennonite theologian (he teaches at Canadian Mennonite University), argues in A Precarious Peace (Herald) that the ambiguity that surrounds claims to martyrdom is all to the good. The truth about martyrs is always something a community must pursue, without claiming to capture or possess it. In fact, arguing about martyrdom is part of the church's growth in holiness. Martyrdom is a "work of memory"--no one can declare herself a martyr, only the community can. "The very designation of martyrdom is a fragile and tenuous one, existing ... between the twin extremes of suicide and victimhood." Huebner grants to Elizabeth Castelli the point that remembrances of martyrs are always constructs, never able securely to capture truth.

The attitude here is strikingly different from the smug self-certainty of the evangelicals, which Byassee does not comment on directly. Early on in the article, however, Byassee does offer the following restrained commentary on claims of mass martyrdom:

An emphasis on mission to a godless world keeps martyrdom, or the possibility of martyrdom, a major theme for evangelicals. Touchstone magazine has a regular section devoted to the topic. Organizations like The Voice of the Martyrs send out magazines, e-mail blasts, and a steady stream of speakers to local churches and radio stations to raise awareness of the number of contemporary Christian martyrs. They often cite data from the International Bulletin of Missionary Research, which forecasts that 175,000 Christians will be martyred worldwide in 2008. That's 480 per day.

Another oft-cited source is the World Christian Encyclopedia, produced by the Center for the Study of Global Christianity at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary outside Boston. It declares there have been some 70 million Christian martyrs in history, and more than 45 million in the 20th century. In evangelical circles one often hears the claim that there were more Christian martyrs in the 20th century than in all previous centuries combined.

These numbers deserve more scrutiny than can be offered here, but it should be noted that the Encyclopedia treats every victim of Stalin as a Christian martyr and says there were 1 million "Jewish Christian" martyrs in the Holocaust. It also gives some problematic data in listing causes of death: between 1,000 and 10,000 martyrs may have been "quartered," we are told; a similar number were "eaten by piranhas" and as many again "eaten alive." Between 10,000 and 100,000 (notice the broad range) have been "frightened to death," from 1 to 2 million "liquidated" and 4 to 10 million "lowered into sewage." Even more nonspecific: between 500,000 and 1 million were "wiped out."

That the data on martyrdom can be exaggerated does not mean that there are no real martyrs. In recent years, a number of Christian martyrs have made the news. Newspapers covered the story of Gracia and Martin Burnham, Bible translators with an organization called New Tribes in the Philippines, who were kidnapped in May 2001 by Abu Sayyaf, a terrorist group aligned with al-Qaeda (see Eliza Griswold's brilliant profile of the Burnhams in the New Republic, June 4, 2007). While being held, the couple apparently treated their captors with sacrificial love. During a rescue effort, Filipino soldiers inadvertently killed Martin. After his death, applications to New Tribes soared. As Tertullian famously said, the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church--or, nowadays, of the mission agency.

My point in all this is rather simple: Religion is serious business. Martyrdom makes it all the moreso.  In contrast, folks like Rick Warren are shameless charlatans who make a mockery of everything genuine about religion.  Allowing them to become the public face of Christianity is in itself a blasphemous act... or more precisely, a blasphemous failure to act.  The rightwing fanatasy of mass martyrdom is just one more way that the idolatrous religious right seeks to build its moral capital on lies, the better to justify bossing others around... and ultimately, making martyrs of them.

At least when the religious right sets out to crucify the gays, it makes perfectly clear which side it is on.  They cannot speak the truth, any more than they can hide it.

As the editorial team for Christian History & Biography was preparing our issue on the Anabaptists in America (Amish, Mennonites, Brethren), a bizarre new reality show hit TV screens. The show, which threw a group of Amish teenagers into a west coast “party house,” had an interesting squirm factor:“Knock, knock.” “Who’s there?” “The Amish.”UPN’s “Amish [...]

0 comments Source: gratefultothedead.wordpress.com