Who Were the Pilgrims?

In English history, the Protestant Reformation – if it can be called that in England – began with King Henry VIII’s creation of a state church in which Catholic and Puritan influences remained in conflict for quite some time. The group we call Pilgrims wanted nothing to do with the Church of England regardless of which theology predominated. The Pilgrims were more radical in their vision of reform than the Puritan wing of the Anglican Church. During much of their life in England they faced legal obstacles to the practice of their faith. We call them “Pilgrims” because they made a journey of faith – multiple journeys, in fact. A better word for this group, however, is “Separatists,” “Dissenters” or “Non-Conformists.”

The Pilgrims were strict Calvinists who believed in predestination. They observed only two sacraments (baptism and communion). Their churches were simple, with no crosses, statues, stained glass windows or fancy architecture. There was no particular religious significance to their “meeting house.” The church organization was congregational in polity. They practiced infant baptism. The Lord’s Day (Sunday) was the “Sabbath,” the weekly day of rest and worship. They did not observe (and actively frowned upon) the observance of Christmas and Easter as holidays. Their clergy were permitted to marry. Marriage itself was regarded as a civil institution. They valued both education and labor. They practiced church discipline. Punishment for violating the congregation’s standards could range from admonishment to excommunication. The Pilgrim family was a moderate patriarchy in which all members were valued, but in which there also existed definite gender roles. I’m telling you these details not because I share all these views, but because we need to remember that the Pilgrims were a specific group of people living in one particular time with a unique outlook on life. While their story may form part of the American civil narrative, I’m not sure how they would feel about that.

How Did the Pilgrims Become Pilgrims?

In 1609, John Robinson took a group of these Separatists to Holland where they believed they would be freer to structure their community in accordance with their faith. They had to sneak out of England under threat of arrest. The group landed in Amsterdam and settled in Leiden.

The Pilgrims (as we call them) started over in foreign country with nothing. For the most part, they were farmers in England. In Holland, where they were landless, they had to learn new trades. Their attitude toward hard work and thriftiness enabled them to prosper despite the challenges of living in a foreign country, and they came to be quite capable businessmen living in a land of merchants. They spent 11 years in Holland where they found their religious views tolerated by the government. They also developed considerable experience in governing their little group of expatriates.

The Separatists began to worry, however, that their little group would be absorbed into Dutch culture and society, and they wished for their children to remain English. And even though they had considerable success in Leiden, they could neither buy land nor work in the best jobs. So they decided to leave Holland.

The new lands in America looked promising, and they sought backing to establish an English colony there. They eventually found a group of English merchants willing to finance the venture. In July of 1620, members of the Leiden group sailed on the ship Speedwell for Plymouth, England. There they intended to rendezvous with the ship Mayflower to begin a voyage to America. The Speedwell, however, proved to be unserviceable for the Atlantic voyage and after some false starts had to be left behind. This further compounded space problems on the Mayflower. In September 1620, the Mayflower finally departed Plymouth with 102 passengers bound for the Virginia coast. By this time, the members of the Leiden congregation had already been living aboard ship for a month and a half. Of the 102 passengers on the Mayflower, only a little over one-third actually belonged to the Leiden congregation.

A long two-month journey in a tiny ship followed. Rations consisted of dried bread, meats, cheese and fruits - and beer. Beer, it seems, travels better than untreated water. (And lest you think that a steady diet of beer sounds good, imagine it in the cramped quarters of a rolling ship. Sea-sickness was the most prevalent medical problem.)

I’ve seen the inside of the replica Mayflower II anchored now in Plymouth. The colonists all shared the small, open gun deck of the ship. There were no berths or private accommodations (although some of the passengers erected wooden dividers that offered the illusion of privacy to their family). The deck was about 5 1/2 feet in height and ran the length of the ship. Much of the space was occupied with canon and the ship’s equipment. The colonists’ access to the deck of the ship was extremely limited; passengers would just get in the way of the crew members who were working with the ship’s rigging. In bad weather, passengers could be swept overboard. Consequently, the colonists spent most of their time cramped together below deck. [The photo at the top of this article pictures the ship's rigging. The photo here is the Mayflower II replica. Unfortunately, the photo doesn't reveal just how small the ship really is.]

On November 9, 1620, the Mayflower arrived at Cape Cod. Bad weather prevented the ship from sailing further south to Virginia. After a month and a half of exploration, the Pilgrims decided to settled on the western shore of Cape Cod Bay. They named their new home Plymouth.

The Mayflower Compact

The Pilgrims first came ashore at Provincetown on the northeastern tip of Cape Cod. There, on November 11, the Pilgrims agreed to form a government – under a constitution of sorts – since their settlement would not fall within the boundaries of the Virginia colony or the charter they had received. The agreement, signed by the 41 adult men among the settlers, is known today as the Mayflower Compact.

We whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God of Great Britain, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, etc. Having undertaken, for the Glory of God and advancement of the Christian Faith and Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the First Colony in the Northern Parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God and one of another, Covenant and Combine ourselves together into a Civil Body Politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute and frame such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the Colony, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In witness whereof we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cape Cod, the 11th of November, in the year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord King James, of England, France and Ireland the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domini 1620. In the name of God Amen.

While we often attribute the goal of “religious freedom” to the Pilgrims, it was not “free exercise for all” that they sought. They sought, rather, the freedom to build a community that conformed to their Separatist views. They wanted the freedom to live in stricter accord with their beliefs and their understanding of the Bible. That would not necessarily translate into freedom for others to live as they chose. Nevertheless, by joining in a political compact with those who did not share all of their religious views, the Separatists bound themselves to a government that would provide equal protection for the general good of all. The seeds of free exercise, equality before the law and participatory government are here, if not the full flower.

There are a couple of interesting things to note in the Mayflower Compact. Even the Separatists still saw themselves as subjects of the King, and everyone – not just the Separatists – agreed that the enterprise’s goals included “the glory of God” and the “advancement of the Christian faith.”

Winter in Plymouth

The Mayflower Pilgrims arrived in on the American coast with the clothes they wore and a few others in a trunk. They brought a few tools, a little food and no furniture. There was no welcoming committee and no English settlement to provide to shelter or feed them. Life was extremely hard. The weather was brutal and the work back-breaking.

There was little to eat. It was too late in the year to plant anything, and the Pilgrims were extremely bad at hunting and fishing. In the first month, they caught one fish and no game. At one point, their daily ration consisted of only a few grains of cereal.

Sickness and disease took a horrible toll, once leaving only seven healthy colonists in Plymouth. In the first year, half died. It’s impossible to imagine the physical and psychological cost of living in Plymouth during the first year of its existence.

Salvation from Native Americans

In the spring of 1621, a Native American walked into their settlement and announced, “Welcome, English. I am Samoset. Do you have beer?” Samoset had learned English - and about beer - from English fishermen who had visited the area. Besides beer, the fishermen brought European diseases which decimated the local population.

Samoset introduced the colonists to another Native American whom they called Squanto (an English attempt to say Tisquantum). Squanto spoke even better English, which he learned after being kidnapped by Europeans and taken to England. When he returned from England, he discovered that his tribe, too, had been wiped out by disease. Nevertheless, he offered to help the new settlers.

He and the local Wampanoag tribe helped the colonists learn to fish, hunt and plant in ways that worked on the Massachusetts coast. They planted wheat (which they called corn), corn (which they called Indian corn) and barley (for more beer!). By next autumn, it looked like the colony would survive.

Thanksgiving 1621

In October 1621, the remaining colonists of Plymouth – along with about 90 Native Americans – celebrated a three-day outdoor feast that included venison and water-fowl. It probably also included wild turkey, fish, wheat, corn, barley, and perhaps a few peas. They might have also had shellfish, lobster, eel, nuts, squashes, and beans - which were common local foods. There might also have been dried fruit gathered earlier in the year, and perhaps some English vegetables grown from seeds brought with them.

Why celebrate? For what was there to give thanks? Life was still hard. Hunger, debt, and sickness continued to trouble New England for a decade. They had gone through unimaginable hardships. If they had lived today, we might suggest that they needed counseling for Post Traumatic Stress more than they needed a celebratory meal.

It’s hard for us to imagine people with that level of commitment to an enterprise, and with that level of resiliency. These were men and women who could give thanks because they believed God had indeed blessed them. God had been faithful to his promise. They dreamed of a “city on the hill” in which God’s will was done, and their dream was still alive.

[These photos are from the recreated town of Plymouth as it appeared in 1627, seven years after the colonists' arrival. The actor in this photo is playing the role of William Bradford, governor of the colony. I guess when politicians shoveled manure back then, it really was manure.]

Five Grains of Corn

In Five Grains of Corn, Bass Mitchell tells the story of his childhood Thanksgiving at the home of his friend Kenny, whose family roots were in Massachusetts .

We all went into the dining room. The table was set - plates and glasses but no food. Not even a piece of bread. We all sat down and then I noticed beside each empty plate a little pile of corn, five kernels to be exact. And my first thought was, “I didn’t know Kenny and his family were so poor!” My second thought was, “I’m gonna starve!”

Then I saw Kenny’s father nod to his youngest daughter and she asked, “Father, why are there five pieces of corn beside our plate?”

I wanted to know that too.

And I don’t remember everything he said, but the gist of it was that the Pilgrim fathers and mothers faced many hardships when they came to America seeking freedom to worship God as they felt they should. One of those was hunger. One of the first winters it was so bad that they had only five pieces of corn per person each day to eat. The next spring, however, because of God’s blessings through help from their Indian friends, they had a bountiful harvest and raised their voices in thanksgiving, inviting their new Indian friends to a great banquet - the first Thanksgiving. So the five pieces of corn are there to remind us of their suffering, of our bounty, and our need to give thanks.

The Pilgrim Fathers (and mothers) could give thanks even for the five grains of corn that kept them alive another day - to serve God another day - to pursue the dream one more day. Only if you can give thanks for five grains of corn, do you know what true thanksgiving is all about. Do you have five grains of corn for which you can give thanks this week? You might, if you see your life as a divine journey of faith - if you, too, are a pilgrim.

[Bumped from November 2007]

* * *

Related:
Thanksgiving in Time of Conflict and Struggle (Lincoln and Thanksgiving in 1863)
An Ancient Act of Thanksgiving (Deuteronomy 26:1-11)

Sources:
I took the pictures on a trip to New England following my return from Iraq in 2003. The source for some of this material is Mayflower History. Another source is The Pilgrims’ Real First Thanksgiving. I also visited Plimouth Plantation historical site a few years ago, and have gathered bits of information along the way. And, I once stayed at a Holiday Inn Express. Please don’t consider this a scholarly resource for Pilgrim history!

One of the strengths of our military-political system is the subordination of the armed forces to civilian control. I don’t serve in a Republican army or a Democrat army, but in the Army of the United States. The members of the armed forces don’t make policy; we implement it - often at great cost.
[That I Will Support and Defend]

While presidential candidates promise many things during a campaign, their first duty is to serve as the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.” This is the first of the very few duties enumerated in Article II of the U.S. Constitution. This will be the fourth president under whom I have served.

Military officers are taught that those in command are responsible for everything that the unit does – or fails to do – under their command. The new president will assume his responsibilities in a nation at war. He will bear the unimaginable burden of being responsible for the defense of the United States (and its allies). His decisions will affect the lives of both American citizens and people around the world. His decisions will also affect the lives of military members under his command. Every single president under which I have served has ordered military forces to engage in operations that intentionally took the lives of the enemies of peace, inadvertently took the lives of some innocent and cost the lives of American service members. The new president, as commander in chief of forces at war, will bear these burdens on day one of his term.

Paul encouraged Christians to pray for those in authority.

I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone—for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. (1 Timothy 2:1-4)

Psalm 72 offers this prayer for the sovereign:

Endow the king with your justice, O God, the royal son with your righteousness. May he judge your people in righteousness, your afflicted ones with justice. May the mountains bring prosperity to the people, the hills the fruit of righteousness. May he defend the afflicted among the people and save the children of the needy; may he crush the oppressor. May he endure as long as the sun, as long as the moon, through all generations. May he be like rain falling on a mown field, like showers watering the earth. In his days may the righteous flourish and prosperity abound till the moon is no more. May he rule from sea to sea and from the River to the ends of the earth. May the desert tribes bow before him and his enemies lick the dust. May the kings of Tarshish and of distant shores bring tribute to him. May the kings of Sheba and Seba present him gifts. May all kings bow down to him and all nations serve him. For he will deliver the needy who cry out, the afflicted who have no one to help. He will take pity on the weak and the needy and save the needy from death. He will rescue them from oppression and violence, for precious is their blood in his sight. (Psalm 72:1-14)

Psalm 72 is offered within the context of Israel’s unique covenant with Israel, and the president is not a king. In the United States, sovereignty rests with the people within the framework of the constitution. That the people might live in security – at peace from both foreign and domestic threats – is one of the constitution’s primary aims (”insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence”). Congress has a constitutional role to play as well; it authorizes the establishment of military forces, pays for them and authorizes the use of military force.

Pray then, for the president, the congress and the people of the United States as they all perform their roles in exercising constitutional sovereignty within the United States.

Related:
That I Will Support and Defend
Who Made You King?
On the Force of Law

Pictured this photo by Kathy Gilbert are Chaplain (Lieutenant Colonel) Charles Jackson (l) and your humble author (r). We’re both members of the North Georgia Conference and both stationed in Korea.

Gilbert took this photo during a visit to our Vacation Bible School, which just happened to be going on during the brief visit to Daegu. The VBS is a joint venture of the Protestant congregation (for which I serve as senior pastor), the Multicultural Gospel congregation and Roman Catholic congregation.

Gilbert’s story follows. The original story is linked here.

Korea is fertile ground to reach young soldiers

By Kathy L. Gilbert*
Oct. 27, 2008 | DAEGU, Korea (UMNS)

While mainline U.S. churches struggle to reach 17- to 20-year-olds, two United Methodist clergy members from Georgia have more young adults seeking faith conversations than there are hours in the day.

U.S. Army Chaplains Charles Jackson and Mitchell Lewis preside in Korea over worship services that are generally standing room only.

Maj. [ed. note - lieutenant colonel] Lewis is the senior Army chaplain stationed in the southern half of South Korea, and is lead pastor for the Protestant congregation at Camp Walker in Daegu.

“I train, coach, and provide executive-level guidance to chaplains and assistants within this geographical area,” Lewis said. “It’s a little like being district superintendent on a small scale.”

Jackson preaches at a worship service at the Yongsan Army Garrison chapel in Seoul.

Approximately 200 people attend the primary worship service each Sunday. The congregation also conducts a full Sunday school program and “has an outstanding choir supported by talented musicians,” he said.

Lewis also coordinates youth programs for junior and senior high, a monthly men’s fellowship and two weekly women’s fellowships (including one for Korean-speaking spouses), a weekly adult Bible study, a retreat program and an outreach program to a local orphanage with special-needs children.

Jackson is the deputy command chaplain for the 8th Army Command at the Yongsan Army Garrison in Seoul. He provides religious support to the 23,500 soldiers serving in the headquarters for the U.S. military presence in Korea. He also preaches and leads worship for some 120 people who attend Sunday morning services at the garrison chapel.

“I’ve served at various levels, as a battalion chaplain, a brigade chaplain and then as a lieutenant colonel,” Jackson said. “I can mentor and train and coach and teach a young person or a fellow chaplain that’s going through that process. And I think those are the kinds of skills that I bring to the local church.

“Once you become the equivalent to a lieutenant colonel, you’re pretty much an administrator and you’ve developed those skills to really be an effective leader in managing people, resources, time, a large staff and making sure that all the missions are being accomplished on time.”

Jackson said he has a “wonderful and warm” congregation at Memorial Chapel.

“We have lay people there who have been there for a long time. So they provide the continuity for getting new chaplains oriented to that type of ministry and really are doing a great job of augmenting what we do,” he said.

A young girl sings during Vacation Bible School at Camp Walker in Daegu, Korea.

Many of the soldiers coming to Korea are straight out of high school and need help to “cope with the stresses of being in the military and staying connected to their families and getting settled away from home and not forgetting the values they were raised with. … It’s high tempo, a busy place, a lot is going on all the time.”

Jackson and Lewis are among five United Methodist chaplains serving in Korea, and both come from the church’s North Georgia Annual (regional) Conference. They say the challenges of tending to military personnel frequently extend beyond individual soldiers. Quite a few have brought their spouses and children with them.

“Being stationed in a foreign country creates challenges for everyone, regardless of their family situation,” Lewis said.

*Gilbert is a United Methodist News Service news writer based in Nashville, Tenn.

Related stories from Armed With Faith (UMEA’s Far East trip):
Military chaplains extend church’s global outreach
Chaplains: Ministry to warriors is exciting, humbling
Cross opens doors for military chaplains to minister
Chaplains provide ‘listening ears,’ ‘tender hearts’

Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit. Ephesians 2:19-22

October 31 is the anniversary of Martin Luther’s posting of the 95 theses and the beginning of what came to be known as the Protestant Reformation.

Ephesians 2 contains a good example of a text that highlights some of the main principles of the Reformation, what came to be known as the five solas: sola scriptura, sola gratia, sola fide, solo Christo, soli Deo gloria.

But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ–by grace you have been saved– and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. (Ephesians 2:4-10 ESV)

Salvation by grace alone jumps out from this text. Twice Paul says, “by grace you have been saved” and once “it is the gift of God. Salvation through faith is explicit as well. The centrality of Christ is evident throughout. That glory is due to God alone is implied in Paul’s statement about good works; even they are ultimately rooted in God’s design and redemptive activity. No one can boast. And while the primacy of scripture is not evident in the text, the text is only critical if we give recognize the authority of scripture.

If we keep reading in Ephesians 2, however, we will find that the five solas are missing something. What are they missing? The church!

It has been common in Protestant history to pit the scriptures against the church’s authority, personal faith against the church’s common belief and Christ against the clergy. It’s not surprising that the reformers framed their arguments the way that they did since they were arguing with a monolithic church hierarchy.

If you read the reformers, you will find that they all had a high regard for the church, properly understood. If you simply went by their slogans, however, you might miss that point. Some forms of Protestant Christian teaching, in fact, ignore the church in their presentation of the “basics” of the Christian faith. You can’t do that. There is no Christian faith without the church. The scriptures were written for the people of God as a body and not just for individuals. The scriptures are the foundation of the church! God’s grace is given in a covenant in which the people of faith participate. Both grace and faith are communal as well as individual. The church is the body of Christ; to be “in Christ” is to belong to his people. It is in the church that God is glorified.

Ephesians 2:11-22 goes on to make this point. The church is a holy temple built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets with Christ Jesus as the cornerstone (Ephesians 2:20-22). It is the household of God (Ephesians 2:19). Those who belong to Christ are citizens of the same commonwealth (Ephesians 2:12, Ephesians 2:19). The church is a new human race in which all believers participate (Ephesians 2:15). This is what the grace of God in Christ accomplishes! In fact, Paul’s first mention of the “blood of Christ” in Ephesians comes in Ephesians 2:11-22 in the context of talking about the church as household-commonwealth-temple-humanity.

But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. (Ephesians 2:13 ESV)

“Brought near” here means to be connected to God’s people. Those who were far off (the Gentiles) have been brought near – connected to God’s people in Christ. Here in Ephesians, this is what Paul highlights as the purpose of Christ’s death on the cross! The church is not an afterthought, to be tacked on after one has faith in God’s grace given in Christ as taught by the scriptures. The church is an integral part of that grace and seeing yourself as part of the church is an integral part of what it means to have faith.

If the scriptures tell us that as believers we are part of God’s temple-household-commonwealth-humanity, maybe the sola scriptura principle makes the church and its mission a big deal. If Christ died to connect us to Christ in his church, maybe it is important to maintain that connection.

That’s exactly the point that Paul will make in the “therefore” portion of his letter. Ephesians 4 begins:

I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit–just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call– one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. (Ephesians 4:1-6 ESV)

The Reformation principles, however, have not always led to unity in spirit. The sola sciptura principle has led to thousands of diverging points of view and religious practices. By the time John Wesley and the Methodist movement appeared on the scene in the 18^th century, the number of Christian sects had grown tremendously. Both the European continent and the United Kingdom had experienced centuries of sometimes violent conflict, not only between Protestant and Catholic but also between Protestant and Protestant.

In his sermon “Catholic Spirit,” Wesley makes an important contribution to overcoming these divisions – a problem that seems to be inherent in the Protestant approach to the Bible and the church. Here are some extracts from that sermon:

Although a difference in opinions or modes of worship may prevent an entire external union, yet need it prevent our union in affection? Though we cannot think alike, may we not love alike? May we not be of one heart, though we are not of one opinion? Without all doubt, we may. Herein all the children of God may unite, notwithstanding these smaller differences.

It is very possible, that many good men now also may entertain peculiar opinions. . . . And it is certain, so long as we know but in part, that all men will not see all things alike. It is an unavoidable consequence of the present weakness and shortness of human understanding that several men will be of several minds in religion as well as in common life. So it has been from the beginning of the world, and so it will be “till the restitution of all things.”

Although every man necessarily believes that every particular opinion which he holds is true (for to believe any opinion is not true, is the same thing as not to hold it); yet can no man be assured that all his own opinions, taken together, are true. Nay, every thinking man is assured they are not, seeing humanum est errare et nescire: “To be ignorant of many things, and to mistake in some, is the necessary condition of humanity.” This, therefore, he is sensible, is his own case. He knows, in the general, that he himself is mistaken; although in what particulars he mistakes, he does not, perhaps he cannot, know.

Who can tell how far invincible ignorance may extend? Or (that comes to the same thing) invincible prejudice? –which is often so fixed in tender minds, that it is afterwards impossible to tear up what has taken so deep a root.

And how shall we choose among so much variety? No man can choose for, or prescribe to, another. But every one must follow the dictates of his own conscience, in simplicity and godly sincerity. He must be fully persuaded in his own mind and then act according to the best light he has. Nor has any creature power to constrain another to walk by his own rule. God has given no right to any of the children of men thus to lord it over the conscience of his brethren; but every man must judge for himself, as every man must give an account of himself to God.

Every wise man, therefore, will allow others the same liberty of thinking which he desires they should allow him; and will no more insist on their embracing his opinions, than he would have them to insist on his embracing theirs. He bears with those who differ from him, and only asks him with whom he desires to unite in love that single question, “Is thy heart right, as my heart is with thy heart?”

When Wesley asks, “what does it mean to have a right heart,” his answer coalesces around three poles:

• Passionate, heartfelt faith in Christ
  that results in
• Enthusiastic love for God and one’s neighbor
  that produces
• Active engagement in Christian labors and good works

Wesley’s question – being centered on the heart - and his answers - focusing on internal affections and external benevolence - are particularly Wesleyan. When reading Wesley here, it is helpful to remember that Wesley’s Methodism was a reform movement primarily within the Church of England and not a separate church. The components of his religious world included catholic and Puritan elements in the Church of England, Reformed separatists (dissenters and nonconformists) in England, Calvinists and Armenians, Lutheran scholastics and pietists, quietists, Anabaptists of various descriptions and, of course, Roman Catholics. For Wesley, indifference, formalism, hypocrisy and unholiness were the most important dividing lines in the Christian church.

He could see people with a living Christian faith in many branches of the Christian church, despite their differences of opinion and practice. The most important divide that Wesley observed was the one between the dead and the alive, not between those who practiced differing forms of baptism or those who had different opinions about predestination. Wesley’s “catholic spirit” makes best sense when in a seen in this Wesleyan framework. Wesley truly believed that every Christian SHOULD have a passionate, heartfelt faith in Christ that results in enthusiastic love for God and one’s neighbor, producing active engagement in Christian labors and good works. That – and not creeds or liturgical practices – was the focus of the Wesleyan movement! While his sermon says, “We can unite around these things” what he really means is “Every Christian group should adopt these aims as their own.”

Wesley does what most of us in fact do. “Let’s agree to disagree about the small things. Let’s just agree about the most important things, which I will now define.” As important as faith, love and good works may be, they are also some of the things about which Christian opinion differs. What does it mean to have faith? To what extent are sinful people truly able to love either God or their neighbors? How should Christians live in this world?

Wesley’s argument “begs the question” (in the technical sense) in that the conclusion is contained in the premise. Is having a “right heart” indeed the essence of Christian unity? Or is it, as the reformers said, Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Solo Christo, and Soli Deo Gloria? Or is it something else?

I bring this all up to make a simple point. There is a tension that will always exist within the church as two forces pull us in opposite directions. That’s not all bad. The earth and the planets circle the sun with the force of mass in motion wanting to fling them into space and the force of gravity wanting to pull them into the sun. The two forces balance each other and hold the planets in their orbits.

The reformers were right. Sola scriptura. We must listen to the voice of God in the Holy Scriptures, ascribing to it authority greater than that of any human being, whether that human being is the pope, Martin Luther, John Wesley or your beloved and humble pastor. We must listen to the voice of God in the Holy Scriptures even if the force of our individuality means that our varying interpretations will push us further apart.

But that same voice of scripture points us back toward each other. If we haven’t learned the importance of love and the centrality of our place in the body of Christ, we haven’t really heard the scriptures. Wesley was right. The force of love – love of God and love of neighbor – will pull us back toward each other.

The tension between individual responsibility before God and the unity of the body of Christ will always exist in this age. I will continue to affirm the Reformation slogans of sola scriptura, sola gratia, sola fide, solo Christo, and soli Deo gloria. To them I would add one more. In una, sancta, catholica et apostolica Ecclesia.

For a modern English version of Wesley’s sermon, see Dennis Bratcher at CRI/Voice: A Catholic Spirit.

Related: Reformation Day

For decades we have been divided on a number of issues, one of which is the sinfulness of homosexual conduct. Our General Conference has consistently decided to adhere to the historic and ecumenical Christian standard: homosexual conduct is incompatible with Christian teaching and those who engage in it will not serve as pastors. A vocal minority of the church disagrees with this standard and refuses to accept the decision of General Conference.

The covenant that binds us together has been coming apart at the seams for quite some time; now the fabric of our covenant may be irrevocably torn. A group calling itself the “Church Within a Church”  has taken it upon itself to ordain two individuals – one a partner in a homosexual marriage - who were not offered ordination within the United Methodist Church. The ordinations took place in Baltimore on October 19, 2008. You can read more at:

• The Baltimore Sun
• United Methodist Portal
• Reconciling Ministries Blog
• The Institute for Religion and Democracy

“Extraordinary ordination” is schismatic act. Under United Methodist law, the right to ordain belongs only to the Annual Conferences and the bishops, and then only when acting in accordance with the rules and procedures outlined in the Book of Discipline. With this act of ordination, the Church Within a Church has become a Church Outside the Church. United Methodists should understand this. Extraordinary ordination is how Methodists came to separate from the Church of England.

Methodism was born as a renewal movement within the Church of England and remained so until the American Revolution. In 1784 John Wesley ordained two men (Richard Whatcoat and Thomas Vasey) as clergy for Methodists in the newly free colonies. He also appointed Thomas Coke (an ordained Anglican priest) as “superintendent” or bishop. Upon arriving in Baltimore, Coke called the American Methodists to assemble. Together, they established the Methodist Episcopal Church, ordained twelve additional elders and one additional bishop – Francis Asbury. With an act of extraordinary ordination, Methodism ceased to be a movement in the Anglican communion and became a separate institution and a new denomination of Christianity.

CWAC openly says that it chose Baltimore because of that city’s associations with the 1784 birth of Methodism. There is one important difference, here, however. With its 1784 ordinations, American Methodism recognized that its future was separate from other Anglican heritage churches in America. It did not then try to reassert its influence or claim authority within the Anglican Church from which it separated. I doubt that will be the case here. I suspect that CWAC intends this as act an end-run around the Discipline, since church law also allows those ordained in other Christian bodies to be recognized and received as clergy and appointed as pastors. Presumably, the prohibition against the bishops appointing clergy involved in homosexual relationships to active ministry still stands, but I foresee more legal wrangling ahead.

Before the American Civil War, Abraham Lincoln said, “A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free.” The United Methodist Church can probably endure in some form with divisions over homosexuality, but it cannot thrive in the presence of an ongoing internal rebellion. When an institution cannot live with the rules that it sets for itself, its ruin is at hand. The covenant that exists among us means nothing when people are no longer willing to live by its provisions.

Perhaps it might be better, then, if we followed the 1784 model to its logical conclusion – two separate bodies, each taking responsibility before God for their own understanding of ministry and the Christian life, living side-by-side, respecting each other as Christian churches but recognizing our significant differences on important matters. The ongoing conflict is harmful to the church. Both sides might do more good for the kingdom if we didn’t have to spend so much time and energy defending our positions or confronting the each other. In the end, God’s action in history will make things clear.

Go in peace. Serve the Lord.

Related:
What’s the Trajectory, Kenneth?
Flee Sexual Immorality
To Have and Have Not
Clergy Sexual Ethics
Sexual Ethics in 1 Corinthians
Forsaking All Others

With the issue of slavery, for example, we find the people of God coming on the stage of history in a world in which slavery is universally practiced. The people of God themselves practice slavery at first, but then fall into slavery in Egypt. God liberates them from bondage, changing their perception on slavery forever. The revealed law permits slavery (especially of non-Israelites), but limits it and controls it. Nevertheless, the people of God continue to exploit their neighbor’s poverty and force the weak e them into slavery. The prophets denounce this, and God allows his people once to fall into bondage once again. And then once again, he liberates them. In the New Testament, we find Jesus proclaiming release to the captives with the words of the prophets. Christians adopt the word “slave” for themselves and Paul teaches masters to treat slaves as brothers. Paul proclaims, in fact, that there is neither slave nor free in Christ. The arc of this trajectory, it is observed, ends naturally in the elimination of slavery altogether.

Applying that same principle of interpretation to sexual ethics, however, reveals something quite different. If the Bible’s arc with regard to “slavery” leads to ever greater freedom, the “sexual ethic” arc leads to ever greater self-control and restraint.

The people of God come on the scene in a world filled with sexual license. The stories of pagan gods were filled with tales of sexual activities of every kind, including homosexual conduct, incest and bestiality. Cultic prostitution – both heterosexual and homosexual – characterized much of the religious practice. Polygamy, concubinage, non-marital coitus (both hetero and homosexual) and all sorts of libertine sexual practices were widely accepted. Sexual domination of the weak by the strong was common. While the patriarchal stories reveal that some of these activities went unquestioned in the earliest period of Judeo-Christian history, the coming of the law restricted these sexual practices among God’s covenant people. Not everyone followed, the law, of course. And the law did not take its narrowing of acceptable sexual conduct as far as later Jews and Christians would take it. The law, for example, did not explicitly prohibit polygamy. We continue to find it and concubinage in the monarchial period. The law also prescribed the rather odd institution of levirate marriage and permitted divorce if accompanied by a legal release from the marital bond. The prophet Hosea took an unfaithful wife and remained faithful to her nonetheless. This act served as a prophetic image of God’s faithfulness, but it also portrayed a marital commitment that even adultery could not break. The intertestamental period witnessed a move toward exclusive, heterosexual mongamy as the standard for God’s people, in stark contrast to the Hellenistic world in which prostituion and extramarital homosexual relationships were common. Jesus tightened the requirement of sexual fidelity even more. He severely restricted (or prohibited, depending on which gospel text you read) divorce and condemned even impure thoughts. Paul upheld that standard, affirmed marital sexuality and strongly objected whenever Christians leaned back toward pagan sexual practices. Celibacy or heterosexual monogamy became the explicit standard for church leaders, who set the example for the remainder of the church. The arc of this trajectory ends most naturally with a rather narrow standard for sexual conduct in the covenant community, one rooted in God’s intention for creation and affirmed by Jesus: one man, one woman, sexually faithful to each other, united for a lifetime.

Related:
Flee Sexual Immorality
To Have and Have Not
Clergy Sexual Ethics
Sexual Ethics in 1 Corinthians
Forsaking All Others

Some of them have used the crisis as an opportunity to remind Christians that they cannot serve God and mammon - that where their treasure is, their heart will be also - that moth and rust destroy and thieves steal the treasures we lay up on earth, but there is a treasure in heaven that no thief can steal - that there is no need to be anxious about life, food or clothing, for the Father knows that we need these things, but we are to seek first God’s kingdom and God’s righteousness, and all these things will be given us as well. Point well made. These are certainly important things to remember in both good economic times and bad.

Most of the preachers, however, can’t resist pointing their words at the usual suspects - capitalism, consumerism, business owners, corporations and their executives - and accuse their ideological opponents of greed, malice, callousness and all sorts of other vices. For some reason, many Methodist preachers seem to think that a liberal seminary education makes them experts in economics. Perhaps the majority are just following the example of John Wesley, who seemed to have a high opinion of his own opinion, no matter what the topic. See, for example, “The Cause and Cure of Earthquakes,” in which Mr. Wesley tells us that earthquakes are punishment for sin. I personally think the theory of plate tectonics offers a better explanation.

J. Richard Peck has written a commentary on “John Wesley’s Advice for the Economy” for the United Methodist News Service. Of course we can’t be Methodists if we don’t ask, “What would Wesley do?” Peck’s article is not filled with finger wagging or tut-tutting; it has some very interesting historical observations.  For Mr. Peck, however, the review is not only descriptive, it is prescriptive. Raise taxes on the wealthy. Pass more environmental laws.  This, according to Mr. Peck, is what Wesley would have us do. Based on Mr. Peck’s own selection of Wesley material, however, he could have just as easily - perhaps more easily - argued that Wesley required us to reintroduce prohibition, put as much land into agricultural production as possible, reduce both government spending and taxes and replace the income tax with a consumption tax.

Peck continues, “John Wesley believed that most of the economic problems of the day were caused by a growing disparity between the rich and the poor,” Perhaps, but Peck doesn’t supply a quote to that effect. Rather, he supplies a fragmentary quote of Wesley’s desire to repress “luxury, either by example, by laws, or both.” Wesley’s disdain for luxury is well known. For Wesley, luxury was a spiritual danger in and of itself. Even if everyone could live in luxury, I doubt that Wesley would have favored it.

But does it really matter what Wesley thought about economics any more than what he thought about earthquakes?

Writing for the Acton Institute, Ray Nothstine responds to Peck’s article and asks, “Is John Wesley’s Economic Advice Sound?” Nothshine answers, “While some of Wesley’s economic advice is certainly sound, especially his views on the danger of debt, his understanding of basic economic principles in a free economy is severely limited.” He points to Kenneth J. Collins’ The Theology of John Wesley: Holy Love and the Shape of Grace. Collins wrote:

Arguing ostensibly from a larger theme of proper stewardship, Wesley posited a “zero sum” world in which the maxim, “if the poor have too little it must be because the rich have too much,” by and large ruled the day. As such, not only did he fail to recognize how capitalism actually works in a growing economy, even in a mercantilist one, but also his concern for stewardship, of what he called robbing the poor,” often developed upon such petty matters as the size and shape of women’s bonnets (and he forgets that poor workers often made these accessories) or upon his favorite moral foibles of censure, the consumption of alcohol.

Nothstine notes that Peck curiously closes his commentary with a reference to Wesley’s medical views, some of which frankly are quack cures:

…there were suggestions like rubbing your head with raw onions for curing baldness and holding a live puppy on the abdomen as a recommendation for intestinal obstruction.

Nothstine concludes,

The point is that we would not take medical advice from Wesley over more advanced modern medicine, nor should we take economic advice from somebody with little economic understanding. It’s important to note that Wesley’s passionate assistance to the poor is certainly an effort to emulate.

The best advice Methodists can take from Wesley is to be rooted in the Good News he so passionately preached and spread across the globe. When United Methodism as a whole fully recaptures Wesley’s chief suggestion to his followers which was to “preach Jesus Christ and him crucified,” his followers will then again be aligned with the ancient truths.

Exactly.

I benefited from being born to parents who took their marriage and family commitments seriously, giving me a loving and stable home in which to grow up.

I benefited from being born to a father who went to school part-time to get a college degree – and qualify for a better job – while he worked to support his family. I benefited from the fact that he was talented, diligent and trustworthy in his work, enabling him to advance in his career and provide the family with all of its material needs.

I benefited from being born to a father who came home at night, didn’t get drunk, didn’t tomcat around and didn’t give us a knuckle sandwich when he got mad. I benefited from being born to a father whose character and faith continued to mature throughout his life and set a good example for me as a man.

I benefited from being born to a mother who cared for our family and our home, ensuring that we had good food on the table, a clean and wholesome environment in which to live and exposure to some of life’s most enriching experiences. I benefited from being born to a mother who insisted that we be responsible for our actions, help around the house, keep things tidy and follow the family rules.

I benefited from being born with an extended family that played a significant role in my upbringing and helped shaped my life experiences.

I benefited from being born to parents who expected a lot from me, but who also gave me a lot of freedom and respected my individuality. I benefited from being born to a family that valued education.

Other families may structure themselves differently, but this is the way ours worked, and I benefited greatly from it. It was an unearned, undeserved privilege of my birth.

I also benefited from participating in an educational system that still expected me to learn classic literature, grammar, writing, math, science and history. I benefited from participating in an educational system that mostly still sought competency and achievement from students and held them accountable. I benefited from having teachers who challenged me and wouldn’t accept anything less from me than mastery of the subject.

I benefited from being born in the United States, an imperfect nation to be sure, but one in which freedom, opportunity, security and prosperity exist in ways that they do not in many places in the world.

I benefited from being born in the post-Enlightenment west, a culture in which inquiry, reason, ambition, creativity and individuality have combined to produce amazing things.

I benefited most of all from being born to parents who took me regularly to a church that shaped my faith, character and outlook on life – a church that taught me to value the Bible and Christian community - a church that taught me to worship God, thank him for his saving grace in Jesus and grow in faithful Christian service. It was in this church that I learned what unearned, undeserved privilege really meant. The greatest unearned privilege of all, I found, was not limited to those who shared my fortunate parentage, but was available to all who put their faith in Christ, who is the true source of every good gift.

Many of the benefits that I enjoy (but have not earned) are the result of virtuous actions by others. Others are pure accidents of birth – where and when I was born. I also enjoy, I am sure, the residual benefits of wrongs or misdeeds committed by some of my forbears.

Some aspects of our inheritance bless us and some curse us. While I didn’t do anything to deserve either blessings or curses, there’s nothing anyone can do to change the past. We could become paralyzed by guilt about wrongs committed by others or embarrassment at our unearned place in this world, but I’m not sure what good that would do.

I am certain, however, that we can bestow unearned privileges on generations yet to come – if we have the strength of character to do so. We can, if we choose, give our children the unearned privilege of being born into good homes and virtuous communities. I did not earn these privileges, but I have benefited from them. I think I owe it to my own children and their generation to give the same gift to them.

I have not seen the program. I don’t know who these soldiers are, much less what we will learn about the specifics of their moral reasoning processes. Consequently, none of the comments that follow are a reaction to the specifics of the program or to the decisions made by any particular soldier. What I want to discuss is one particular phrase in PBS’ program promotion that started me thinking.

Soldiers, PBS says, are “torn between the demands of duty and the call of conscience.” Based on the theme of the program, one presumes “the demand of duty” is killing and the “call of conscience” is not killing.

This way of describing the issue is problematic on two fronts. First, it presents the issue as a conflict between external demands (”duty”) and an internal call (the voice of “conscience”). Doing one’s duty is also a matter of conscience; the word “duty” itself implies a moral “ought.” Failing to do one’s duty should give one an uneasy conscience. Duty and conscience are intimately related.

More significantly, what if - when you come face-to-face with an armed sociopath rampaging through the halls of a school or an insurgent about to bomb a marketplace - what if that voice in your head telling you not to pull the trigger is not the moral voice of conscience, but simply a programmed response that emerged over the long course of human biological evolution?

Based on their studies of battles from the 17th century onward, authors such as Dave Grossman (On Killing and On Combat) and S. L. A. Marshall (Men Against Fire) have made a convincing case that even “the man who can endure the mental and physical stresses of combat still has such an inner and usually unrealized resistance towards killing a fellow man that the will not of his own volition take life if it is possible to turn away from that responsibility” (Marshall, quoted in Grossman, On Killing, p. 1). There is within the human psyche a nearly universal aversion to killing another human being.

Grossman builds on and expands Marshall’s work, examining modern warfare in a number of different cultural and technological settings. Wherever he looks, he finds the same patterns. In combat, soldiers face the choice to fight, flee, submit or posture (the same choices faced in the animal world). Historically, many of them have chosen to “posture” (to make fighting motions and noise in the hope of driving the enemy away) instead of actually attempting to kill the enemy.

In On Combat, Grossman subsumes this concept into his theory of the Universal Human Phobia . Interpersonal violence, Grossman says, makes a psychological impact on humans far out of proportion with the actual physical threat. Grossman believes both the fear of experiencing interpersonal violence and the reluctance to inflict it are related and universal, to be found in every age and culture.

Grossman’s findings support the idea that psychological resistance to killing (and the powerful related fear of violent conflict) is a hard-wired personality trait in the vast majority of human beings. It’s a good thing that it is. The human aversion to killing keeps the murder rate relatively low and facilitates living in community. While we may bemoan how common violence is within our world, we should probably be thankful that “thou shall not kill” is written on our genes. The daily violence in this world could be much worse! The vast majority of human beings go through life without being assaulted or murdered by their neighbors.

And while Christians will certainly want to say that this genetic programming is part of God’s common grace to us, scientists will want to answer the question, “How did the reluctance to kill come to be written on our DNA?” Grossman doesn’t answer this question, but the evolutionary advantage is obvious: populations with a biological impulse against killing were more likely to be successful than those with no biological aversion to murder. It’s hard to build a civilization when murder is as common as sunshine.

And if the universal aversion to committing or experiencing interpersonal violence is the result of biological evolution (or even the result of social programming), how can it be described as either moral or immoral? An inborn or conditioned psychological urge is not a moral mandate. Some people take it that way, though. Indeed, it is difficult to separate one’s genetic disposition from one’s moral reasoning. It’s very easy to confuse one’s dispositions with “the right” and develop moral arguments for what are essentially biological urges.

Of course people have made the same observation about the resort to war; it’s very easy to fancy up greed, vengeance, hatred or lust for power with moral language. “Duty” is one of those words that is sometimes abused.

Most soldiers experience the call of duty on multiple levels. Certainly, military authorities establish specified duties that a soldier must perform. Those in command can and do back up those demands with the threat of corrective actions and punishment. In this sense, “duty” is something imposed on a soldier from the outside. There is nothing inherently moral about this form of duty; it is up to those in positions of power to ensure that the duties they impose on others are shaped largely by moral considerations.

But soldiers also want, on a psychological level, to be a part of a team and to do what is right. The “team” aspect is very significant for soldiers. It is very true that in the midst of combat that soldiers are often motivated more by the fear of letting their buddies down than by abstract moral reasoning. Perhaps “loyalty” is a better word for this phenomenon than “duty,” but many soldiers would go further than that. Soldiers, they believer, have a moral obligation that soldiers have to support and defend the men and women with whom they risk their lives. In the midst of the battle, soldiers fight for their brothers and sisters in arms and don’t think much about the underlying moral foundation of the fight. But that doesn’t mean they don’t think about such things at all. They do.

For soldiers, duty exists at all three levels. There is a legal duty to the institution, but there is also duty to the members of the team and moral duty to do what is right. As I have often written before, most of the soldiers I know want to make a positive difference in the world by their actions. They want their sacrifices to count for something. In this sense, “duty” is not some arbitrary action imposed by an all-too-human authority figure. Rather, “duty” is what conscience demands.

For soldiers, the demands of duty (in the proper sense) and the call of conscience are ultimately one in the same. Biological or socially formed urges to shrink from combat are no more moral in themselves than the urge to kill. A truly moral conscience – and not one simply formed by the forces of nature and society – must reflect what is most truly right in any situation. That which is right is our duty - no matter how uncomfortable it might make us. When the use of force is right, it would be wrong not to use it.

That doesn’t mean that the act of killing isn’t painful and regrettable for many – perhaps most - soldiers, even when it is morally necessary. I hope that Christian soldiers always recognizes that the use of lethal force – even when justifiable – is something less than God intended for creation. Soldiers cannot confuse their unease or discomfort, however, with the demands of duty or the call of conscience.

Even when the use of force is justified, soldiers always pay the price of acting in a manner contrary to millennia of beneficial biological and social evolution. In On Killing, Grossman describes many of the high psychological costs associated with lethal combat. That’s just one more reason that when we send soldiers to use lethal force in our name, we’d better make sure that it’s worth the price.

Veterans Day is observed on November 11 each year on the anniversary of the armistice that ended World War I. Traditionally, a moment of silence is observed at the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month. And while the nations of the British Commonwealth remember their war dead on November 11 (Remembrance Day in the UK, Canada and Australia), we Americans do that on Memorial Day in May. In the United States, Veterans Day is an occasion to thank the living more than it is a day to remember the dead.

The United Methodist General Board of Discipleship has some suggestions about the observance of Veterans Day in churches. It emphasizes the fact that Veterans Day is primarily a civic observance, not a Christian liturgical one. It suggests participation in community-wide ceremonies or interfaith services as the primary venue for elaborate celebrations. The article suggests: “If churches are going to honor and give thanks for veterans, their observances should be in a context of prayer and in the concerns and prayers. Churches should not turn the entire service into a rehearsal of our national concerns.” All of this is good advice.

I serve a military congregation on a military installation, and OUR worship on Veterans Day weekend will not be “all veterans, all the time.” The city of Leavenworth, Kansas - home of the Army’s Fort Leavenworth - annually holds what it claims is the “largest Veterans Day parade west of the Mississippi.” Old soldiers stuff themselves into the uniforms of another era and parade next to bands, floats, funny cars, fire engines and assorted militaria.  It is not, obviously, a religious event. The focus is on thanking all veterans for their service, and the whole county turns out. When I served at Fort Leavenworth, I would see many of the same soldiers and family members at the parade that I would see at chapel on Sunday. At the parade, we waved the flag and thanked the veteran. At chapel, God - and not the veteran - was the focus of our worship. There is a time and place for waving the flag, and a time and place for kneeling at the cross.

That’s not to say that we don’t mention veterans and their service on the Sunday nearest Veterans Day. As a military chapel community, we pretty much spend EVERY week helping military service members and their families live out their faith at least partly within the context of military life. Most congregations, however, don’t live immersed in military culture. It wouldn’t hurt to take a few moments on one Sunday out of the year to say “thanks” and pray for your members who have worn the uniform.

Some thoughts to help you do that are here in my article,  The Veterans Gift of Love.

Also, Mark Roberts published A Prayer for Veterans Day adapted from a PCUSA prayer “crafted by the Presbyterian Peacemaking program.” Mark has added language that expresses gratitude for the positive role that military service members make in a fallen world and tweaked the eschatological framework of the prayer. Both edits are spot on, and Mark’s prayer is highly recommended.

God of the ages, We thank You for all who have served in the armed forces of this country. We thank You for the freedom their sacrifice has earned and guarded for us. Help us to prize this freedom and use it well. We ask You to bless all living veterans in a special way today, as well as the families of all veterans. Comfort those who grieve for those who gave the last full measure of devotion. Strengthen those who bear physical, emotional, and spiritual wounds. Stand with those who provide care to them. Move us to reach out to sisters and brothers who are veterans, or relatives of veterans, or who currently serve in the military. We pray for the day when no one needs to serve in the military. Help us to live now in anticipation of that day, as people who long for peace, who pray for peace, and who seek to be peacemakers in this world. We pray in Jesus’ name. Amen.

Finally, in June 2006, Christianity Today carried several articles on ministry to veterans. One article suggested that churches become “military friendly.” To do this, a church need not (and should not) become a cheerleader for (or against) any political party or military strategy. War is serious business - too serious to trivialize it with naive exuberance in worship. Military service members have volunteered to put themselves (and their families) in very difficult situations for the sake of others. Christian service members know the tension that exists between the demands of temporal justice in a fallen world and the promise of God’s reign of peace. Churches can pray not only for the well-being of soldiers, but for their families to remain strong, their leaders to be wise and selfless, and for their actions to to produce the peace for which they sacrifice their time, comfort and safety. Churches can help with the practical matters of life: assisting the non-deployed spouse with child care or fixing a leaky faucet, for example. Christians can express humble, quiet appreciation to service members for their sacrifice. They can accept service members as “real Christians,” not denigrating their vocation, and not expecting them to be more broken than the rest of God’s people.

The Christianity Today articles, I think, overstate the brokenness of those who have seen combat. For some, it is true, combat is a debilitating experience. A number will need intensive care for the soul. Their situation calls for an interdisciplinary approach that includes medical help. For all combat veterans, however, war is a painful experience that calls for immersion in God’s grace. Allow them the same space, freedom and time to work through the meaning of God’s grace in their lives that you would any other member of the congregation. Soldiers sometimes have scary or ugly stuff to work through, but so do many other members of the household of God. God works by the same “means of grace” whether one is civilian or a Soldier.

When I returned from Iraq, it was the singing of hymns that most brought healing to my experience of war. The Eucharist, preaching the Gospel, prayer, pastoral conversation, communal fellowship, caring acts, opportunities for service: these are all ordinary means by which God works in the veteran’s life.

I commend these Christianity Today articles to your consideration, even though I have a few minor (and a few not-so-minor) quibbles with some of the ideas.

Beyond Yellow Ribbons
Veteran Ministry
Where Atrocity is Normal

By all means, recognize and pray for your veterans on Veterans Day weekend in the most grace-filled way that you can imagine. Do not, however, make veterans the focus of your worship. That honor belongs to God alone. Your veterans would probably be embarrassed by all the attention, anyway. The most important thing that you can do for your veterans is to honestly and reverently worship the God who revealed himself in Jesus Christ. Soldiers need to connect their lives with God more even more than they need a pat on the back or a ticker-tape parade.