Today's morning reports were from the Central Pastoral Office for Hispanic Ministries (www.obrahispana.org), North American Pacific / Asian Disciples (napad.net) and the National Convocation (www.disciples.org/convo). These three fellowships represent some of the fastest growing and most dynamic segments of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). I think one of the most poignant points of interest for me is the diversity these fellowships bring to the denomination. Although many might disagree with me, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) was born in a 19th century frontier culture. We were overwhelming a white unity movement that in many ways reflected the predominant values of most 19th century frontier white folks. Although we are a movement that looks to the first century church as a model for ministry and evangelism, that vision was filtered through a white culture and values. Generalizations of ethnic groups are not all that helpful, but these fellowships offer a perspective that will drive us to a vision of dynamic change. The prophetic word from our Latino, Pacific Asian and African American fellowships force us to understand our identity in a new context of this post modern, post Christian world.
When our founders offered a word to reconsider what was essential to our Christian expression, things like creeds, hierarchy and simplicity in faith/practice were bothersome to many of their contemporaries within the European denominations of the 19th century. Presbyterians, Methodists, Episcopalians and Baptists all looked at us with wariness and suspicion as we preached an open table for the Lord's Supper, a radical call to transformation through adult baptism and a truly catholic/ecumenical understanding of the Church of Jesus Christ. Many of our radical positions of 100 years ago have themselves become entrenched identity markers for who we think we should be in this contemporary culture. Our ethnic fellowships remind us of our original values. What would our Church look like with the dynamic worship, insightful theology and a new understanding of prophetic leadership that many of our ethnic fellowships bring to our new fabric? Internationally, we are seeing profound growth among Christians in the Southern hemisphere, in Africa, South America and Asia. Has the North American Church become the new European colonial church which we worked so hard to challenge? If our very identity changed to include new concepts of leadership brought to us by our African American brothers and sisters, how might congregations be transformed to empower ministry in the whole church? If our worship changed to include new concepts of celebration brought to us by our Latino/a brothers and sisters, how might our own worship bring people to encounter God in a new and dynamic way? If our call to personal accountability and spiritual discipline were transformed by the presence of our Pacific / Asian brothers and sisters, how might our own lives be re-focused toward a fuller understanding of mutual accountability? I am somewhat uncomfortable with the call from some of my contemporaries to be more hospitable to our ethnic brothers and sisters because the very idea conveys that we are in and they are trying to get in. Hospitality is indeed a Christian discipline, no argument here. However, the Church doesn't belong to us in the first place. God has called all of us into the Church through our baptism. Still, I remember the critique of one particular Latino visitor to FCC-Ashland that we must be careful not to entrench our own culture of respectability and characterize it as inherently "Christian." Our speaker this morning reminded us that Christianity is sufficiently fluid to welcome all people and all cultures to the central message that God's love has been revealed through Jesus Christ. Yet again, I am not sure any of us have the answers, but the challenge to begin the conversation has been set before us. In Ashland, the fastest growing ethnic group is Latino/a. How will our congregation be prepared to continue to do ministry in the years to come?
The closing worship service today featured the powerful preaching of Dr. Fred Craddock. His focus on this year's theme of "Tell It!" reminds us that to tell others of how God has met us through Christ requires courage. It reminded me that one does not need to articulate a philosophical proof of God or a neatly packaged theology that reasonably presents proofs for belief. All we have to do is tell people about God. The Holy Spirit does the real work. One speaker reminded us today that a river never rises above its source. I hope we will all continue the conversation of how we might celebrate the freshness of a worldwide Christianity. A willingness to allow Christ to be the source of our river in which we are baptized that will flood the world with God's love. Our "end times" Christian brothers and sisters continue to frighten us with a perspective that a worldwide church is a sign of an anti-Christ mentality. Nonsense. Christ did not found an ethnic Church. Christ did not institute a European Church or an American Church or a white Church. Christ instituted THE Church. It is frightening for some, uncomfortable for others but an exciting prospect for all of us for God has chosen this moment and all of those around us to do this work of unity in the midst of diversity. Still, difficult questions remain. What if our openness brings us into fellowship with those who might propose a perspective that tries to silence those of a certain gender? What if our openness bring us into fellowship with those who might propose a position that narrows our theological perspective away from mutual respect to an new creedalism of social views or political opinions? Ultimately, from a historical perspective, the Church has been here before. We have lived through times of great growth and faithfulness. We have also lived through times of Crusades and Inquisitions. Still, the Church has lived and carried on the work of God's realm. In the long run, Truth always wins. The writer of Hebrews reminds us that often those to whom the promise of God has been made never see the fruition of that gift. Yet, those ancient prophets and patriarchs/matriarchs lived by faith that God was at work in the midst of the confusion, debate and arguments. That faith is still present, still powerful and for those who are confident of the sovereignty of God, it offers us a confidence that no matter what, our call is to faithfulness to the passion and power of the Holy Spirit. Do not be afraid. Do not try to protect God. God is perfectly capable of handling whatever might seek to prevent the Gospel of peace, grace and mercy. God won. The resurrection proves that. Death, evil, sin, ignorance, hate and greed are already defeated. Thanks be to God.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Monday, July 11, 2011
End of Day Two - Sexual Abuse
The other resolution brought to today's Assembly was an outline of how congregation's might both protect and minister to victims/survivors of Sexual Abuse in the Church. Now this is honest talk.
The resolution original used wording to only refer to victims of Sexual Abuse. Some of the delegates asked if the resolution could be amended to reflect that indeed there are victims of sexual abuse as well as survivors. One who has suffered from sexual abuse is at first a victim. With God's grace and the ministry of the Holy Spirit, these individuals move to being sexual abuse survivors.
In many congregations and denominations, these persons have been neglected and ignored. The gift of ordained ministry carries with it a holy responsibility to be healers not predators. We all have heard stories of how some parts of the Church have sought to protect and even move abusers to new contexts of ministry thinking that a new placement will stop the behavior. What we have found is that such actions have only allowed the abuser to continue to act in predatory ways. It is an uncomfortable subject, but the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) has sought to be honest and take strong measures to make sure we act faithfully and with do care in being a church of high ethics.
The resolution will be revised to reflect better wording and brought back to the Assembly. I have no doubt that it will pass. The true test, however, will be the implementation of it in local congregations. High ethics of all who do ministry in the church, both ordained and lay, should be the norm. Pray for those who came to the Church for healing and were further wounded. Pray for the abusers as well, that they might know God's grace and seek to be accountable for the sake of their own souls and healing.
Summary of the day:
The day ended with a service in the model of Emergent Worship, which is both a contemporary music setting with meaningful liturgy and ritual that draws the worshiper closer to the Creator. Worship is a transforming event that leads the human being to the throne of a divine and loving God. Although you might not be surprised that I tend to draw more meaning from the ancient liturgy of the Church's history, it is good that the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) seeks to reach out with the Good News of Jesus Christ to all people. Christ did not come to establish a pattern of worship, but to radically change lives of both individuals and all of creation. At the heart of Disciples worship is the meeting of Christ and one another at the Lord's Table. Thanks be to God!
The resolution original used wording to only refer to victims of Sexual Abuse. Some of the delegates asked if the resolution could be amended to reflect that indeed there are victims of sexual abuse as well as survivors. One who has suffered from sexual abuse is at first a victim. With God's grace and the ministry of the Holy Spirit, these individuals move to being sexual abuse survivors.
In many congregations and denominations, these persons have been neglected and ignored. The gift of ordained ministry carries with it a holy responsibility to be healers not predators. We all have heard stories of how some parts of the Church have sought to protect and even move abusers to new contexts of ministry thinking that a new placement will stop the behavior. What we have found is that such actions have only allowed the abuser to continue to act in predatory ways. It is an uncomfortable subject, but the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) has sought to be honest and take strong measures to make sure we act faithfully and with do care in being a church of high ethics.
The resolution will be revised to reflect better wording and brought back to the Assembly. I have no doubt that it will pass. The true test, however, will be the implementation of it in local congregations. High ethics of all who do ministry in the church, both ordained and lay, should be the norm. Pray for those who came to the Church for healing and were further wounded. Pray for the abusers as well, that they might know God's grace and seek to be accountable for the sake of their own souls and healing.
Summary of the day:
The day ended with a service in the model of Emergent Worship, which is both a contemporary music setting with meaningful liturgy and ritual that draws the worshiper closer to the Creator. Worship is a transforming event that leads the human being to the throne of a divine and loving God. Although you might not be surprised that I tend to draw more meaning from the ancient liturgy of the Church's history, it is good that the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) seeks to reach out with the Good News of Jesus Christ to all people. Christ did not come to establish a pattern of worship, but to radically change lives of both individuals and all of creation. At the heart of Disciples worship is the meeting of Christ and one another at the Lord's Table. Thanks be to God!
End of Day Two - Education
Perhaps most notable in today's business is the re-election of the Rev. Dr. Sharon Watkins as our General Minister and President. The other resolutions that seemed to raise the most interesting debate was the Issue of Justice in Education and how the church can deal with issues of victims/survivors of sexual abuse. First, lets talk about Education.
Much of the conversation around Justice in Education was well received among the delegates. However, many objected to the categorization of Charter Schools as a part of the perception of inequity in public education. Others disagreed with the church's emphasis on an issue that seemed political not spiritual. First, let me speak to the second objection. Historically, if you have a Sunday School program in your Church, you can thank the social conscious Christians of Industrial London. The advent of Sunday School was the church's effort to educate young people in the midst of a booming Industrial Revolution in 19th century England. As families moved from the farms to the city, using children in the growing and often dangerous factories was common. Even in the United States it was not uncommon to see children as young as 12 working around dangerous machines churning out goods for the increasing appetite of the growing middle class and the already over satiated wealthy. The Church of England saw the danger of losing a whole generation of children as churches, village schools and small communities who had once educated the young were now empty. Seeing the increase in crime and an uneducated populace, the Sunday School movement was launched. The fact that it had been the Church who educated children over the preceding 1000 years it wasn't such a huge jump in logic that it would also be the Church that sought to minister to the needs of a working class population of children. As Sunday was deemed the one day that factories were required to scale back their work, the Church of England began to gather the children off of the streets in London and other cities in England to teach them the Bible and other basic skills in language, history and mathematics. As laws against child labor and efforts to offer public education increased, the Sunday School transitioned into a basic method to teach the faith. The point? The Church has always been involved in issues of education, especially the education of children. It is a natural for the Church to be involved in issues of education, especially in issues of justice and the seeming failure of public education in our own country. I and others may disagree with particular points of how we might best address these issues, but in my opinion, it is perfectly appropriate for the Church of Jesus Christ to continue its leadership in this realm of our human society. As a Democratic Republic, education is the key to an informed voter who is able to articulate matters of state interests and be involved in the ongoing conversation about not only the responsibility of public education but also the necessity of being vigilant. It is therefore, in my opinion, a perfectly normal issue to be discussed when Christians come together to vision the future of our ministry together.
As for the particular resolution, I am not an expert on education. I can not speak to the general inequities that motivated the presenters to raise the issue at this General Assembly. I can, however, covenant to continue to study the issue and be involved in how our public education can best fulfill the mandate to teach the citizens of our nation. Are Charter Schools the answer, one answer or a part of the problem? I would not have the slightest clue. I can say that I have seen that schools in poor communities generally produce poorly educated graduates or no graduates at all. I have seen with my own eyes communities with parents who are actively involved in local public education consistently produce students who are better prepared for the ever changing world. I have also seen communities where parents either do not or are not able to be involved in the education of their children turn out students who can not fill out a job application, let alone inform themselves on issues of national and political importance. I can also accept that this is an issue of justice. Where do we go from here? We will find our way. I'm just glad we are courageous enough to reclaim the once influential leadership the Church of Jesus Christ had in education. We should never, as individuals or as congregations, relinquish our role in working toward a just society where every citizen has access to education.
Much of the conversation around Justice in Education was well received among the delegates. However, many objected to the categorization of Charter Schools as a part of the perception of inequity in public education. Others disagreed with the church's emphasis on an issue that seemed political not spiritual. First, let me speak to the second objection. Historically, if you have a Sunday School program in your Church, you can thank the social conscious Christians of Industrial London. The advent of Sunday School was the church's effort to educate young people in the midst of a booming Industrial Revolution in 19th century England. As families moved from the farms to the city, using children in the growing and often dangerous factories was common. Even in the United States it was not uncommon to see children as young as 12 working around dangerous machines churning out goods for the increasing appetite of the growing middle class and the already over satiated wealthy. The Church of England saw the danger of losing a whole generation of children as churches, village schools and small communities who had once educated the young were now empty. Seeing the increase in crime and an uneducated populace, the Sunday School movement was launched. The fact that it had been the Church who educated children over the preceding 1000 years it wasn't such a huge jump in logic that it would also be the Church that sought to minister to the needs of a working class population of children. As Sunday was deemed the one day that factories were required to scale back their work, the Church of England began to gather the children off of the streets in London and other cities in England to teach them the Bible and other basic skills in language, history and mathematics. As laws against child labor and efforts to offer public education increased, the Sunday School transitioned into a basic method to teach the faith. The point? The Church has always been involved in issues of education, especially the education of children. It is a natural for the Church to be involved in issues of education, especially in issues of justice and the seeming failure of public education in our own country. I and others may disagree with particular points of how we might best address these issues, but in my opinion, it is perfectly appropriate for the Church of Jesus Christ to continue its leadership in this realm of our human society. As a Democratic Republic, education is the key to an informed voter who is able to articulate matters of state interests and be involved in the ongoing conversation about not only the responsibility of public education but also the necessity of being vigilant. It is therefore, in my opinion, a perfectly normal issue to be discussed when Christians come together to vision the future of our ministry together.
As for the particular resolution, I am not an expert on education. I can not speak to the general inequities that motivated the presenters to raise the issue at this General Assembly. I can, however, covenant to continue to study the issue and be involved in how our public education can best fulfill the mandate to teach the citizens of our nation. Are Charter Schools the answer, one answer or a part of the problem? I would not have the slightest clue. I can say that I have seen that schools in poor communities generally produce poorly educated graduates or no graduates at all. I have seen with my own eyes communities with parents who are actively involved in local public education consistently produce students who are better prepared for the ever changing world. I have also seen communities where parents either do not or are not able to be involved in the education of their children turn out students who can not fill out a job application, let alone inform themselves on issues of national and political importance. I can also accept that this is an issue of justice. Where do we go from here? We will find our way. I'm just glad we are courageous enough to reclaim the once influential leadership the Church of Jesus Christ had in education. We should never, as individuals or as congregations, relinquish our role in working toward a just society where every citizen has access to education.
Sunday, July 10, 2011
The End of Day One
A new process for resolutions has been used for the first time at this year's Assembly. In the past, Resolutions that were often very divisive were treated like all Resolutions. There would be a presentation of the Resolution and a usually short period of discussion would be the prelude for a vote. In recent Assemblies, these votes were often far from a solid majority. People would often leave upset that neither enough time was given to the discussion nor was the vote a satisfactory way to deal with issues that often left some feeling like winners and others as losers. This year a new plan has thus far proved to be very popular. The issue on the docket for discussion was a dealing with the Christian response to war.
According to a press release from the General Church, a recognition that "the planning for this conversation was a belief that taking a “yes/no” vote on a complex topic before the church after 12 minutes of debate at the Assembly has often contributed to the tendency for church members and congregations to be polarized on volatile topics. The design proposed by the Council on Christian Unity, working in partnership with the Disciples Peace Fellowship...hopes to provide a “safe space” for honest and tough dialogue, but without moving to a vote – and without creating division and a sense of “winners and losers” within the family of the church. Beginning with “from the heart” sharing in a business plenary, a diverse group of Assembly Disciples will lift up the difficult issues of war and peace, while still laying claim to unity in Christ. “Somehow, somewhere, we need to model honest, genuine disagreement as Christians and still claim each other as one in Christ,” said Robert Welsh, Council on Christian Unity president in describing the intention of the conversation he and the CCU Board have developed. With an approach that involves story telling from a variety of perspectives, the design invites Assembly participants to engage in further reflection in one of three Monday afternoon sessions on July 11. These “Faithful Conversations” will explore the issues of:
• Christian Perspectives on War and Peace
• Pastoral and Theological Perspectives on War, Peace, and Unity
• New Developments Regarding War and Peace in the Ecumenical Movement
In preparing for these conversations, major attention has been given to offering diverse perspectives from Disciples throughout the presentations on issues of war and peace -- from congregational pastors who minister to families that have members in the military; from young adults who are uncertain as to what their faith and their church teaches about war; and from military chaplains, and pacifists, and just-war advocates."
The early church struggled with how to receive many new Christians who were in service to Rome as military officers and soldiers. Many of the early bishops required these new converts to leave military service, especially since much of the empire's military might was used against Christians specifically. Early Christians were not permitted to make a living in the army, on the stage as performers and in many cases, government service itself was prohibited.
In the years that followed, the Church grew to become the official religion of the Roman/Byzantine Empire and in subsequent years, European nations. By the end of the first 1000 years, ministers of the church transformed from outspoken critics of war to those who blessed soldiers before going into battle. It was common for priests and ministers to bless the troops of their respective nations as two "Christian" armies lined up to do battle.
As the complexity of war and politics dealt with not just empire building, but the defense of nations that found themselves the target of attack or the effort to protect innocent citizens who might be the victims of totalitarian regimes, many great theologians like Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas argued for a just war theory. That is, there were certain cases that Christians not only should engage in armed conflict, but must engage in war for the greater good. During the rise of Protestantism in the last half of the past thousand years, many Protestant groups were founded and grew as pacifist Christian movements. Scholars of Disciples of Christ history debate the predominant trend among our movement. Some of our founders like Alexander Campbell argued that war was an affront to God, while others argued that, although war is a sin, it is an inescapable part of the human experience. They argued that peace should never be at the expense of justice and if a people were suffering under persecution, and all other attempts failed, armed conflict was a necessary evil.
I would guess that most all of us at First Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in Ashland deplore war but at the same time the patriots and servicemen and women of our congregation have and still answer the call of our nation to defend the rights and freedom that we believe are given to all people by our Creator. How should we respond to war? What word does Christ have on the subject and how can we maintain the integrity of our Lord's title as Prince of Peace and still value the responsibility to defend the weak and support nations in their efforts for justice for all? Could our military have prevented the genocide in Rwanda? Was not an armed response the only thing that could have stopped Hitler's genocide of six million Jews? What is our role in the civil wars in the Congo and Libya? Why have we not heard of the Christians' plea in Afghanistan who are fearful that a US withdrawal will open the doors to further persecution? Although the death of martyrs throughout history have made an indelible mark of faithfulness on the world, at what point do governments of the world have a responsibility to protect the lives of Christians, Jews and Muslims alike?
Most soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen alike will be the first to testify to the horrible plight of war. My father, a veteran himself, often told me of the horrors of war. What would be my response if my own family were threatened by a foreign government? During the Revolutionary War, many clergymen enlisted in the Continental Army and local militia. When asked why they would put down their Bibles to bear arms, they would respond that 'sometimes the shepherd must protect the sheep from the wolves.' Do our present day wars always defend the weak or do they protect "a way of life" and the supply of natural resources upon which we are so dependent, like oil and free trade? The opinions are diverse at this Assembly. However, the unifying themes among all involved in the conversations is a desire to be faithful to Christ, kind to our brothers and sisters with different opinions and the desire to live into the prophetic vision when "swords will be beat into plowshares and spears into pruning hooks." Pray for us as we try to faithfully deal with a mark of the human condition and the futility of violence. Peace is always our goal. However, is refusing to take up arms pragmatic? Are we willing to suffer the consequences at the hands of another whose view and understanding of God and the integrity of every human being may not be similar to our own? Like most here, I see the point of both sides. I am also grateful for our brothers and sisters who insist on the call to be peacemakers at all costs. Although I may be willing to suffer the cost, I am not sure I am so willing to risk the cost that might be paid by my own son's life. Perhaps the reality of a sinful world means that no one wins when it comes to war, but when forced to choose, I must confess that I will not allow my family to be taken to the coliseum without a fight. May God have mercy on me. May God have mercy on us all.
According to a press release from the General Church, a recognition that "the planning for this conversation was a belief that taking a “yes/no” vote on a complex topic before the church after 12 minutes of debate at the Assembly has often contributed to the tendency for church members and congregations to be polarized on volatile topics. The design proposed by the Council on Christian Unity, working in partnership with the Disciples Peace Fellowship...hopes to provide a “safe space” for honest and tough dialogue, but without moving to a vote – and without creating division and a sense of “winners and losers” within the family of the church. Beginning with “from the heart” sharing in a business plenary, a diverse group of Assembly Disciples will lift up the difficult issues of war and peace, while still laying claim to unity in Christ. “Somehow, somewhere, we need to model honest, genuine disagreement as Christians and still claim each other as one in Christ,” said Robert Welsh, Council on Christian Unity president in describing the intention of the conversation he and the CCU Board have developed. With an approach that involves story telling from a variety of perspectives, the design invites Assembly participants to engage in further reflection in one of three Monday afternoon sessions on July 11. These “Faithful Conversations” will explore the issues of:
• Christian Perspectives on War and Peace
• Pastoral and Theological Perspectives on War, Peace, and Unity
• New Developments Regarding War and Peace in the Ecumenical Movement
In preparing for these conversations, major attention has been given to offering diverse perspectives from Disciples throughout the presentations on issues of war and peace -- from congregational pastors who minister to families that have members in the military; from young adults who are uncertain as to what their faith and their church teaches about war; and from military chaplains, and pacifists, and just-war advocates."
The early church struggled with how to receive many new Christians who were in service to Rome as military officers and soldiers. Many of the early bishops required these new converts to leave military service, especially since much of the empire's military might was used against Christians specifically. Early Christians were not permitted to make a living in the army, on the stage as performers and in many cases, government service itself was prohibited.
In the years that followed, the Church grew to become the official religion of the Roman/Byzantine Empire and in subsequent years, European nations. By the end of the first 1000 years, ministers of the church transformed from outspoken critics of war to those who blessed soldiers before going into battle. It was common for priests and ministers to bless the troops of their respective nations as two "Christian" armies lined up to do battle.
As the complexity of war and politics dealt with not just empire building, but the defense of nations that found themselves the target of attack or the effort to protect innocent citizens who might be the victims of totalitarian regimes, many great theologians like Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas argued for a just war theory. That is, there were certain cases that Christians not only should engage in armed conflict, but must engage in war for the greater good. During the rise of Protestantism in the last half of the past thousand years, many Protestant groups were founded and grew as pacifist Christian movements. Scholars of Disciples of Christ history debate the predominant trend among our movement. Some of our founders like Alexander Campbell argued that war was an affront to God, while others argued that, although war is a sin, it is an inescapable part of the human experience. They argued that peace should never be at the expense of justice and if a people were suffering under persecution, and all other attempts failed, armed conflict was a necessary evil.
I would guess that most all of us at First Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in Ashland deplore war but at the same time the patriots and servicemen and women of our congregation have and still answer the call of our nation to defend the rights and freedom that we believe are given to all people by our Creator. How should we respond to war? What word does Christ have on the subject and how can we maintain the integrity of our Lord's title as Prince of Peace and still value the responsibility to defend the weak and support nations in their efforts for justice for all? Could our military have prevented the genocide in Rwanda? Was not an armed response the only thing that could have stopped Hitler's genocide of six million Jews? What is our role in the civil wars in the Congo and Libya? Why have we not heard of the Christians' plea in Afghanistan who are fearful that a US withdrawal will open the doors to further persecution? Although the death of martyrs throughout history have made an indelible mark of faithfulness on the world, at what point do governments of the world have a responsibility to protect the lives of Christians, Jews and Muslims alike?
Most soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen alike will be the first to testify to the horrible plight of war. My father, a veteran himself, often told me of the horrors of war. What would be my response if my own family were threatened by a foreign government? During the Revolutionary War, many clergymen enlisted in the Continental Army and local militia. When asked why they would put down their Bibles to bear arms, they would respond that 'sometimes the shepherd must protect the sheep from the wolves.' Do our present day wars always defend the weak or do they protect "a way of life" and the supply of natural resources upon which we are so dependent, like oil and free trade? The opinions are diverse at this Assembly. However, the unifying themes among all involved in the conversations is a desire to be faithful to Christ, kind to our brothers and sisters with different opinions and the desire to live into the prophetic vision when "swords will be beat into plowshares and spears into pruning hooks." Pray for us as we try to faithfully deal with a mark of the human condition and the futility of violence. Peace is always our goal. However, is refusing to take up arms pragmatic? Are we willing to suffer the consequences at the hands of another whose view and understanding of God and the integrity of every human being may not be similar to our own? Like most here, I see the point of both sides. I am also grateful for our brothers and sisters who insist on the call to be peacemakers at all costs. Although I may be willing to suffer the cost, I am not sure I am so willing to risk the cost that might be paid by my own son's life. Perhaps the reality of a sinful world means that no one wins when it comes to war, but when forced to choose, I must confess that I will not allow my family to be taken to the coliseum without a fight. May God have mercy on me. May God have mercy on us all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)