Jesus Radicals is strategizing a response to Goshen College’s decision to play the national anthem at a peace church institution. At this point, we are asking folks to “sign” our letter of resistance and will be prayerfully planning ways to deliver it during the season of Easter.

Please click on the following link to take you to the petition (hosted here at Jesus Radicals):

http://www.jesusradicals.com/anarchism/resistance-to-the-national-anthem-at-goshen-college-2/

From Christian Peacemaker Teams

Gene Stoltzfus, founding director of Christian Peacemaker Teams, died March 10 after a heart attack. He served as CPT director from its founding in 1988 until 2004, when he retired and moved to Fort Frances, Ontario. He was born in 1940.

Gene traveled to Iraq immediately before the first Gulf War in 1991 and spent time with the Iraq CPT Team in 2003 to facilitate consultation with Muslim and Christian clerics, Iraqi human rights leaders, families of Iraqi detainees and talking with American administrators and soldiers.

From mid-December 2001 to mid-January 2002, Gene and current CPT co-director, Doug Pritchard, were in Pakistan and Afghanistan listening to the victims of bombing and observing the effects of 23 years of violence.

Gene’s commitment to peacemaking was rooted in his Christian faith and experience in Vietnam as a conscientious objector with International Voluntary Services during the U.S. military escalation (1963-68). Read the rest of this entry »

Recently two of our friends at The Jesus Manifesto, Mark Van Steenwyk and Joanna Shenk interviewed Jesus Radicals co-founder and organizer Nekeisha Alexis-Baker for episode one of their fledgling Iconocast. Titled “Who Would Jesus Subvert,” the discussion covers a wide range of topics including an introduction to connections between anarchism and Christian, what it is like to be a Black woman in the Christianity and anarchism movement, and thoughts on oppression. The conversation even touches on living as a vegan in the meaty Midwest! Future epis will feature a wide variety of radical voices so do stay tuned.

John Howard Yoder’s newest posthumously published book, Nonviolence: A Brief History, is comprised of lectures that he gave in Warsaw Poland in 1983. At that time the Solidarity Movement had became a powerful nonviolent force trying to affect change in Communist Poland. Pope John Paul the II was to visit Poland just a month after Yoder delivered his lectures. So the time for Yoder to urge nonviolent resistance was ripe, though Yoder did not reference contemporary events in Poland during the lectures. First Yoder urged his hearers to consider the lessons that have been learned by nonviolent movements in the twentieth century. He then refutes objections that just war theorists might raise to the effectiveness and legitimacy of a nonviolent movement, moving from there to ground nonviolence resistance in the Judeo-Christian heritage. Finally he addresses the Roman Catholic Church in the final three lectures, agreeing with liberation theologian Adolfo Pérez Esquivel that “It is love, not violence or hatred, that will have the last word in history.”

For those who have read much in Yoder, these lectures present little that is new or surprising. Much of the material here, plus much more, can be found in Christian Attitudes to War, Peace and Revolution or The Politics of Jesus, not to mention other books. Yet there is an element to these lectures that brings out more clearly than ever Stanley Hauerwas’s claim that Yoder provides us with resources to think of “natural theology” in a new way. “The gain of the cosmos” bends towards Jesus and nonviolence (46).
Read the rest of this entry »

Alexandre Christoyannopoulos, editor of Religious Anarchism: New Perspectives, has added a new book to the growing literature on Christianity and anarchism. Published with Imprint Academic, Christian Anarchism: A Political Commentary on the Gospel looks at the work of people like Jacques Ellul, Vernard Eller, Dave Andrews and the Catholic Worker movement and attempts to provide a comprehensive view on how the gospels shaped their anarchist critiques. According to the description:

Christian anarchism has been around for at least as long as “secular” anarchism. . .Yet despite the relevance and growth of this literature, no generic study bringing together these different thinkers or reflecting on their contribution has been published to date, because such work involves meticulous searching, compiling and structuring of countless different texts and sources, not all of which are easily accessed. This book, however, provides precisely such a study, and thereby presents Christian anarchism to both the wider public and the wider academic community.

Printed in the U.K the book is also available in the U.S.

Many people say they stand during the national anthem as a sign of respect to those around them, even if they do not sing the words themselves. Indeed, some people do not think the anthem glorifies war. Instead they claim that it merely describes a battle scene in which the flag remains even though a military had attacked Fort McHenry. As one person recently commented:

The primary intent of the lyrics is not for calling people to arms; the lyrics, primarily, are meant to illustrate a scene in which the flag waved proudly after weathering an attack from a foreign power and to use this as a sign of hope for the survival of our nation and its ideals. The battle imagery in the lyrics is in the context of the United States defending an attack from British bombs bursting in air.
–Joseph Penner

In their book, Blood, Sacrifice and Nation: Totem Rituals and the American Flag, Carolyn Marvin and David Ingle argue that American patriotism is a civil religion of blood sacrifice in which the flag is a sacred object akin to totems and idols. Violence is key to this religion. The Star-Spangled Banner is a hymn to the American flag. It essentially is about how the sign of the flag was a beacon of hope that the American patriots would not be defeated by the British military. As Marvin and Ingle state:

The patriotic statement that Americans are an unconquerable people, common at times of totem peril, is a deadly serious statement of totem faith. The totem wards off evil and protects from harm.
-Marvin and Ingle, Blood, Sacrifice and Nation, 37.

Read the rest of this entry »

A response to John D. Roth’s “A Moderate Proposal for Peace,” published in the Goshen College Record, Feb 16, 2010

This morning, I read one of the latest entries into the discussion on Goshen College’s decision to break with 114 years of Mennonite tradition and play the national anthem instrumentally at select sporting events. Written by John D. Roth, history professor at Goshen College, director of the Mennonite Historical Library and editor of the Mennonite Quarterly Review, “A Modest Proposal for Peace” calls its audience to “shift our attention to the second half of the equation—the prayer that is to follow the anthem.” He then offers a concrete suggestion on how to accomplish this, stating:

At the beginning of each event a recorded message would say something like the following: “Please rise for the playing of the national anthem and remain standing for the words of Jesus taken from the gospel of Matthew, chapter 5.” Then, immediately following the national anthem, a recorded voice would read the beatitudes (Mt. 5:3-10) without commentary, followed by a pause, and finally: “Welcome to Goshen College. Enjoy the game!”

Before I delve into my own reflections on this proposal, I want to say that I respect Roth and believe that his reputation for being a thoughtful theologian and scholar is well-deserved. Furthermore, I want to say that I admire the courage he showed as one of the few Goshen College faculty who has publicly voiced his disappointment with the school’s decision. That said, there are a few flaws in his proposal that I feel compelled to address. I hope to do so as diplomatically as possible below.

As I see it, Roth’s proposal is pointing at the wrong target. The problem with Goshen’s decision is not the longstanding Christian discipline of prayer that demonstrates one’s faith in God to hear and respond to God’s people. The difficulty is with the anthem itself, which is little more than a worship song to the flag and the national hymn of American empire. For this reason, what is most needed are proposals for ways to work at repealing the decision before it becomes entrenched (at best) or truly subverting its privileged position at games (at least). In my view, focusing our attention on what to do after playing a nationalistic song with violent and idolatrous overtones does neither.
Read the rest of this entry »

Many other people have written about how disappointed they are with Goshen College’s decision to play the national anthem. Here is a list of some commentary outside the jesus radicals site that we have found.
UPDATE 3/11/2010

• Because Words Matter, Schleitheim
• Letter to Editor, from GC Faculty, The Goshen College Record
• Letter to the Editor — David Hiebert, The Goshen College Record
• Letter to the Editor — Rueben Miller, The Goshen College Record
• Patriotism mit paxibum, ja? — By Glenn Lehman, Mennonite Weekly Review
• Goshen anthem decision debated — Celeste Kennel-Shank, Mennonite Weekly Review
• Is the Roman Emperor Still Your God? — John Goerzen
• To Whom Should Christians Pledge Allegiance? — Heber Brown, III, Faith in Action
• Goshen College caves – Peacemaking, Convictions and Heritage — Amish Phonebook
• No national anthem at Goshen, please — Halden, Inhabitatio Dei (contains a good comments discussion)
• The national anthem and Christ’s lordship — Celeste Kennel-Shank, Mennonite Weekly Review
• An Open Letter to Goshen College — Britt Kaufmann
• Christian College Reconsiders National Anthem: Has 114 year history of NOT singing it — Heber Brown, III, Faith in Action
• Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation — Tim Nafziger, The Mennonite
• I am making peace with the national anthem — Sheldon C. Good, The Mennonite
• Letter to the editor on GC’s anthem decision — East Chestnut Street Mennonite Church, in Lancaster, Penn., The Goshen College Record

On the heels of Goshen College’s recent decision to play the national anthem, a local Mennonite high school is now revisiting its own policy on not playing the national anthem according to an article in yesterday’s (Sunday Feb. 14th) Elkhart Truth. Why?

Three years ago, all the athletic directors in Indiana met at the Indiana High School Athletic Association (IHSAA). At this meeting, the other directors complained that Bethany should not be able to host sectional games unless they played the anthem. As a result, this Mennonite high school has been punished by the state for refusing to play the anthem, despite its attempt to help people understand their stance on pacifism. It has cost them.

Yet Bethany wants to attract non-Mennonites so that the school can continue to have a higher enrollment. One of the ways it hopes to do that is by reconsidering its stance — (unfortunately) with the help of Goshen College administrators. According to The Truth, article:

Bill Born and Joe Leichty, two faculty members at Goshen College who were on the college’s national anthem task force, spoke with the Bethany board and faculty about the college’s recent process of addressing the national anthem issue.

This is all the more reason to oppose the Goshen decision. Please consider signing the letter of resistance and/or contacting the college and Mennonite Church USA (the college’s institutional home) directly:
Goshen College’s phone number: 1 (800) 348-7422.
Jim Brenneman (President): president@goshen.edu .
Executive director of Mennonite Church USA: Ervin Stutzman: (574) 523-3092

By the time I decided to see James Cameron’s Avatar, I had already heard enough about the film to be unsure whether it would be worth the time, effort and petroleum to see it. People’s comments about the film ranged from praise for its groundbreaking 3D animation; to criticism of its racist portrayal of the indigenous; to disappointment with the overly predictable storytelling; to appreciation for its critique of colonization and civilization. I even heard complaints from fellow peace church Mennonites about its overwhelming use of redemptive violence. After seeing the film through my Christian anti-civilization (anti-civ) anarchist vegan anti-racist woman of color lenses, my sense is that Avatar is more complex than many of its detractors or advocates acknowledge.

Set on the planet Pandora, Avatar is a sci-fi story of a mercenary-backed corporation’s attempt to confiscate and mine the land inhabited by humanoid aliens known as the Na’vi. Enter Jake Sully, the paraplegic U.S. marine protagonist who joins the science and anthropology wing of the operation as a substitute navigator for his deceased twin brother’s avatar. Early in the film, we discover that the avatar is an expensive high-tech clone that allows its user to temporarily experience and subsequently infiltrate the Na’vi community. After a series of unexpected events during his first avatar excursion, Jake finds himself living amongst the Na’vi clan known as the Omaticaya where he becomes an apprentice to the female tribe member Neytiri. From that point, the film revolves around the internal and external conflicts that arise as Jake bonds with the Omaticaya and struggles between his mission and his allegiance to the aliens.

Although Avatar’s primary focus is on Jake’s steady transition from an ambivalent supporter and participant in colonizing Pandora to a rebel against both the project and his own people, the film also touches on a number of hot-button issues. Without trying too hard, viewers will quickly notice thinly veiled commentary on the Iraq War, the American government’s policy on terrorism, veteran benefits, corporate greed and concern for the environment. There even appears to be a nod to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict as the Na’vi attempt to fight heavily armed helicopters with wooden bows and arrows. Yet these and other references are used to explore the film’s bigger question: who are the savages, the terrorists, the “uncivilized?” Is it the near-naked, primal, forest-dwellers with the intimate connection to each other and their planet? Or is it the technologically advanced humans who kill and dominate on behalf of their shareholders? Avatar clearly answers: it is the latter. Yet, the film also insists that the colonizer’s savagery is not a permanent condition. How it chooses to make this second point, however, is praiseworthy at times and problematic at others. Read the rest of this entry »