Mary Daly Dies

Radical feminist theologian Mary Daly has died. An appreciation in the independent Catholic paper National Catholic Reporter calls her "a mother of modern feminist theology." What does radical feminist theology sound like? National Catholic Reporter shares an excerpt from a piece Daly wrote for the New Yorker: "Ever since childhood, I have been honing my skills for living the life of a radical feminist pirate and cultivating the courage to win. The word ‘sin’ is derived from the Indo-European root ‘es-,’ meaning ‘to be.’ When I discovered this etymology, I intuitively understood that for a woman trapped in patriarchy, which is the religion of the entire planet, ‘to be’ in the fullest sense is ‘to sin.’" That's classic Daly.

The above is excerpted from an article at the UTNE Reader. To read the rest of the article: http://www.utne.com/Spirituality/Mary-Daly-Radical-Feminist-Theologian-Dies-6291.aspx

Thanks to blogger Jon for sending this along!

VERY Ancient Hebrew Text Discovered

The article's title is: "Bible Possibly Written Centuries Earlier, Text Suggests" - and, well, the text doesn't suggest that, actually. The text is apparently from the 10th century BCE, and bears some striking resemblance to several Biblical scriptures. This is earlier than any extant Hebrew writing discovered to date.

The article claims that scholars think Hebrew writing didn't exist before the 6th century, which isn't true. Scholars believe the Hebrew Bible as we have it now was formed more or less in the 6th century, but drawn from and made with already-existing writings under extensive editorial revision. The discovery of the text is definitive proof that Hebrew writing existed centuries earlier, something that couldn't have been proven before - so there is something new. But hardly as revolutionary as the title makes it out to be. It also corroborates what scholars have long believed: that strands of what we inherited as the Hebrew Bible are in fact very ancient and had been in circulation long before the final composition of the definitive texts of the 6th century BCE.

Thanks to blogger Jon for sending this my way!

Christmas Truce in Seattle

Being back in Seattle, I thought I might start organizing peace and justice concerts and events again - my little votes for a more assertive peace church personality for my local congregation (and denomination). I was playing songs for my daughter about the incredible "Christmas Truce" on the Western Front of World War I in 1914, when I realized that this year is the 95th anniversary of that belief-defying night.

On Christmas Eve, 1914, soldiers on both sides along the trenches from Flanders to the Swiss Frontier spontaneously and almost universally negotiated with each other an informal "truce" for the night. In the night, soldiers from both sides came out from their trenches and met each other in No Man's Land, exchanged greetings, cigarettes, and trinkets. Carols were sung, improvised Christmas Trees decorated, contraband liquor shared. The next morning, the truce miraculously held, and each side gathered the dead from the battlefield and buried them together side-by-side. In many places, the truce lasted past New Year's Eve, by when of course Generals and Colonels had heard about this treasonous truce negotiated without their consent - and were taking steps to stop it (replacing and moving regiments about that had participated in the truce so that they were facing troops along the trenches that they hadn't met and comisserated with over the holidays). And WWI went on. But not without a profound note of the possibility of Peace being heard across a continent mobilized for war.

I am organizing a celebration of the 95th anniversary of this momentous event, and it seems the stars are aligned, because so much is coming into place so quickly. West Seattle Neighbors for Peace and Justice is on board for helping with promotion and logistics. The Seattle Labor Chorus has eagerly agreed to participate. The Seattle Peace Chorus is considering amending their already-busy holiday schedule to include the event. I have a readers theater piece about the event almost fully cast with fine readers. I have a sound system lined up to use. Organizations and other local events are very cooperative in advertizing and promoting the celebration. People are coming out of the woodwork to help. And just today I received a cd of a singer who performs one of the best songs about the 1914 truce - and he wants to play at the event.

I am giddy with excitement and amazed that this event is coming together with so little time to be put together. Somebody must want us to celebrate peace, I tell ya!

The event, if you'd like to come, will be at the Highland Park Community of Christ (8611 11th Ave SW, Seattle), at 7PM, December 24th (Christmas Eve). It will tell the story of the Christmas Truce in narrative, letters, songs and images from the period. There will be an opportunity for other local peace and justice organizations to set up tables for people to look at and learn more about them. There will be no charge for the event.

I'll try to post updates as the event develops. Needless to say, I am thrilled to death about this, and can't wait until Christmas Eve! :-)

Percy Bysshe Shelley died this day in 1822

Rise like Lions after slumber
In unvanquishable number -
Shake your chains to earth like dew
Which in sleep had fallen on you -
Ye are many - they are few.

Read about his life and work here.

Deliver us from amnesia

God of peace,
God of justice,
God of freedom,

We give thanks for your cadences of peace, justice, and freedom,
Cadences that have surged through the lives
of Martin,
and Ralph,
and Rosa,
and John,
and Fred,
and Hosea,
and Jesse,
and Andy,
and all that nameless mass of risk-takers who have been
obedient to your promises
and susceptible to your dreams.

Deliver us from amnesia
concerning their courage in the face of violence,
their peace-making against hate,
and their hunger for you in a devouring economy.

Deliver us from amnesia:
turn our memory into hope,
turn our gratitude into energy,
turn our well-being into impatience.

That these same cadences of your will may pulse even among us.
Amen.

-Walter Brueggemann
prayer after Martin Luther King Day, 1999

My Ancestor Was Here

While cleaning out the attic here at my new residence, I must sift through layers of junk and treasure left behind by so many previous residents. The other day, I came across a pile of old books - bound periodicals of church history from the turn of the 20th century.

Thumbing through the 1910 volume, I saw a familiar name: Joseph Burton - my great-great-great-uncle. It was a biography of Captain Burton (he was a merchant ship captain) written by his wife, Emma. Surprised to see my own relations mentioned, I started to read, following the serialized biography into the 1911 volume.

Being a merchant sea man from Nova Scotia and New England, it isn't surprising that Joseph sailed all over the Atlantic - from Europe to the Caribbean and all along the Eastern United States. What was surprising - at least to see it in print - was the brief reference to Joseph making a trip to Amsterdam in 1867. Then, not too much later, another trip from the US to Rotterdam. My great-great-great-uncle was in Rotterdam more than a hundred years ago.

This was, of course, before he had joined the church, and some thirty years before he would captain the missionary boat Evanelia from California to the Society Islands. But still, to have such a random and concrete connection with Rotterdam - to imagine my great-great-grandfather walking the downtown streets (or approximately, since the whole of downtown R'dam was destroyed in World War II) - touches me deeply.

I am, truly, just following in others' footsteps.

(The painting above is something of the scene Joseph Burton might have seen approaching Rotterdam. Johan Barthold Jongkind, The Schie Near Rotterdam, 1867.)

Remembering Resistance

By Flannel Christian

While visiting congregations in Germany, my partner Christie and I stumbled upon a surprising memorial. We were walking around a medieval cathedral in Braunschweig and on the ground lay a stone marking the spot where a memorial briefly stood. The stone read: “Here stood from 1 September 1994 until 1 January 1995 a memorial to military deserters. After twice being vandalized, it was on New Year’s Day stolen altogether.” It was the first time I had ever seen a memorial for a memorial, and I realized how difficult it is to remember unpopular ideas sometimes.

Not only is a monument to deserters rare (I had never heard of one before!), and not only was this monument attacked three times in four months, but the entire monument was stolen altogether! Who steals a whole monument? Someone who desperately wants us not to remember – someone who wants us to forget. Without the memory of those who went before us, we are more likely to just go with the crowd, obey orders, buy into popular ideas, and not question the powers and principalities of this world.

As Christians, we cannot afford to forget.

At every turn – from the television to history books to parades on holidays to international politics – war and violence are lifted up and praised as the ultimate good, the ultimate sacrifice, the ultimate service one can do for one’s country or family or community.

But where are the stories of those who refused to fight? Where are the stories of those who were so horrified by war that they chose not to follow the crowd? Where are memorials to their sacrifices, their courage, their vision? Where are the histories of the deserters, stories of their bravery, songs about their commitment, recognition for their service to humankind? In a world governed by governments that rely on the projection of power – either economic or military – we rarely hear the stories of those who resist the drums of war. They are erased from our collective memory – no mention in history books, no discussion in current policy, no news headlines, no memorials. We are not allowed to remember them or their sacrifice.

The ironic thing is, that is the same thing the Roman Empire thought it was doing by crucifying Jesus – making him a common criminal, anonymous, unremarkable, erased from our collective memory. I can only begin to imagine what it must have been like for the first few generations after Jesus died – the government refused to acknowledge Jesus’ sacrifice, let alone his resurrection, following a resister – let alone worshipping him – must have seemed close to treason. And then, just as now in many of our governments, treason toward the state comes with deadly consequences.

The absence of the Braunschweig memorial echoes the symbolism of the cross: a negative symbol redeemed. The cross and the missing monument at first seem to declare defeat and negation, but the cross was adopted by the early Christians as the very sign of Jesus’ victory and love for the world. The cross symbolizes both Jesus’ victory and our awareness of the brutality and power that Jesus was up against. Placing a memorial to the stolen memorial in Braunschweig is a sign of the refusal to forget – and also a sign of awareness of the powerful reactionary forces of patriotism, militarism, and violence. We know what we’re up against in our countries – just as Jesus and Paul knew what they were up against under Rome.

We worship a God and man that declares that all people are of inestimable worth, and that since we are all equally loved by God we should love each other just as dearly – regardless of citizenship, race, or language. Jesus died because he resisted the social, political and economic machine of oppression in his country and culture – a machine that declared some people more important or more holy than others. Jesus defied the expectations of his culture, his nation, even his own followers, and bravely and actively loved people that the crowds around him saw as unloveable.

Surely, those who deserted from the German army (or any army) in World War II (or any war) did so for many reasons. But it seems reasonable that most of them (if not all of them) felt that what their nation and culture and crowds were saying and doing was wrong. No one is of less worth than another – everyone is equally loved by God, and ought to be loved by those who follow God.

War and imperialism and greed and a thousand other vices are fed by the idea that “we” are better than “them.” Both the deserters and Jesus confessed with their lives that that idea is not true. But disagreeing with this idea is sometimes a very difficult, unpopular, dangerous statement to make.

It is easier for us to stand strong if we remember that we are not alone in resisting the urge to elevate ourselves above others – others have gone before us: Jesus and Paul, Peter and Mary, and the almost-forgotten wartime deserters. Stand as a living memorial to the missing memorial; live and love as a living sacrifice; be a symbol of Christ and the cross in the world.

(A version of this article will be published in the June editions of the church magazines in Germany and the Netherlands.)

Quote of the Week

Henri Bergson, a French philosopher in the early 1900's, wrote with such force and poetic style that in 1928 he was awarded the Nobel Prize for literature. In 1939 he was so reknowned and respected that the occupying Nazi army exempted him from restrictions placed on other Jews. A few weeks before his death, despite the exemption offered him, at the age of eighty-one he left his sickbed to stand in a queue in order to register as a Jew and so shame the German-inspired Vichy government that had barred Jews from holding educational posts in France. And he renounced all the honors whose retention might have been taken for his approval of the government. He made his position clear in a passage in his will:

My reflections have led me closer and closer to Catholicism, in which I see the fulfillment of Judaism. I would have become a convert, had I not forseen for years a formidable wave of anti-Semitism about to break upon the world. I wanted to remain among those who tomorrow were to be prosecuted.

(Taken from The Seekers, by Daniel J. Boorstin.)

"Mission" as Neo-Colonialism?

I spent the last two and-a-half weeks in Europe, meeting most of my staff and co-workers and beginning to become acquainted with some of the local lay leaders of our church across Europe. It was a tremendous tour, and a lot could be said about it. But there's one thing in particular... (of course).

My denomination is just starting to talk about "mission" - and has even re-named regional administrative units "Mission Centers." But the "Europe Mission Center" has consistently declined using that term in reference to itself, preferring simply "the Europe church." You see, Europe has had enough of "mission-talk."

Europe is made of of former-Empires: the Netherlands, France, Germany, Spain, Hungary, Russia, and so on. To their credit, when they look at their histories, even discussion of their respective "Golden Ages" (when they were at the peak of their imperial expanse) is trimmed with shame at the arrogance of imperialism and colonialism, embarrassment for their exploitation and oppression of other peoples, and a self-consciousness about even historical talk of military, racial or ideological superiority. To the European Christians in our church, "mission" sounds too much like a re-birth of this ancient vice.

Mission and missionaries are language that harkens to a period in Christianity (specifically European and American Christianity) where "civilization" and "European-style Christianity" were considered the same - and the spread of "our culture" went hand in hand with the gospel and the sword. Religious conversion (or corraling) was most often the first step in economic expansion, likely in the form of exploitation of labor and resources, if not outright slavery. Mission was the destruction of native sensibilities and structures, and the imposition (forced, if not voluntary) of North-Atlantic norms.

Now, don't get me wrong, there's something powerful about contemporary "missional" Christians attempting a redemption of that term - actually turning it on its head, meaning to serve those disadvantaged and oppressed, and taking place largely outside of official organizational structures. There is something powerful about converting the tools of the oppressor into ones that serve liberation. But there is also danger there that, in our eagerness, we might overlook.

Remember that even those most colonial of missionaries likely thought of themselves as serving the people they met. Civilization and the gospel, after all, were in the best interests of everyone - from the perspective of the missionary. The question we are now able to ask about that time period is did those missionaries (and armies and businesses that followed) have the right to determine what was in the best interest of another people? And is it any surprise that they determined that their own way of thinking and acting, their own values, were the superior ones that needed to be brought to those poor heathens, by carrot or stick or lash? It is easy for us to point to those years and those motives and eye them with suspicion. But are we so able to look at ourselves with the same critical eye?

Consider this. "Mission" talk has taken hold first and foremost in the United States in the last five years or so. This is at the same time that the United States has been talking about itself as an empire, even considering itself (favorably in some cases, unfavorably in others) the new Roman Empire. Is there something in imperial politics that draws the church along? Or is it simply a matter of people talking who hold both discipleship and citizenship?

Have we North American Christians unwittingly embraced a revised ("kinder, gentler") imperial theology? Are we assuming that our values are the values that should be universalized and normative? (Don't we think that, surely, the world would be better if it adopted our way of thinking?) We may not be as culturally imperialistic as our forebears, but that is something to watch out for. And could it serve as a distraction from prophetic discipleship to focus on patchwork social justice without working toward a larger, revolutionary system?

I'm just throwing these ideas out there. Honestly, I'm a missional Christian. I'm just starting this discussion in my head. So I'm less prepared than many to identify the imperialistic qualities of my theology. Perhaps in this way I actually do need Christians and people of other faith persuasions to push back against me. Perhaps, for my own sake, those whom I would convert must first convert me.

That seems to me the only way out. But again, I may be narrow-minded here.

New Book: EMPIRE

Reading the Christian Theological Legacy for a New Day

The radically altered situation today in religion, politics, and global communication—what can broadly be characterized as postmodern and post-colonial—necessitates close rereading of Christianity's classical sources, especially its theologians.

In a groundbreaking textbook anthology from Fortress Press, Empire and The Christian Tradition: New Readings of Classical Theologians, twenty-nine distinguished scholars scrutinize the relationship between empire and Christianity from Paul to the liberation theologians of our time.

The contributors discuss how the classical theologians in different historical periods dealt with their own contexts of empire and issues such as center and margin, divine power and social domination, war and violence, gender hierarchy, and displacement and diaspora. Each chapter provides insights and resources drawn from the classical theological tradition to address the current political situation.

Editors:
Kwok Pui-Lan is William F. Cole Professor of Christian Theology and Spirituality at Episcopal Divinity School.
Don H. Compier is founding Dean and Professor of Theology at Community of Christ Seminary, Graceland University, Independence, Missouri.
Joerg Rieger is Professor of Systematic Theology at Perkins School of Theology, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas.

Sunday At the Meaningful Movies

West Seattle Neighbors for Peace and Justice is sponsoring a free public film series and discussion afterwards. September 16, at 6PM, at the Fauntleroy UCC Church (9140 California Ave SW). This screening is of the compelling documentary "Why We Fight."

Christie and I own this film, and few things will better inform you or make you more mad - mad that our country, culture and economy is organized this way. The film brilliantly escorts the viewer through the development of our national arms-industry and its place in the political and popular life of our nation. It takes a brave and honest look at the history of American state-violence, and tries to make a fair and insightful analysis of our national psyche. This film, in short, is tremendously worth watching.

And what better way than for free, with other West Seattlites of like mind and concern? West Seattle Neighbors for Peace and Justice are fun folks, who thankfully haven't lost sight of either long-term dedication or a healthy sense of humor. If you haven't met anyone from this group yet, you really should. They're a hoot.

And there's free popcorn!

A New Book Remembers Sacco & Vanzetti, and Injustice Served

(From the Washington Post)

Eighty years ago this week, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts executed two first-generation immigrants from Italy, Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, for crimes they almost certainly did not commit. Before and after the executions, passions aroused by the case, in the United States and around the world, were incredibly intense. In part, this was because the case had strong political overtones at a time when much of the country was swept up in the Red Scare. In part, it was because, as the noted newspaper columnist Walter Lippmann wrote, "No man . . . should be put to death where so much doubt exists." And, in part, it was because Sacco and Vanzetti were appealing men, whatever one may have thought of their politics. In an interview with the New York World three months before his execution, Vanzetti was quoted as saying, in halting but powerful English:

"If it had not been for these thing, I might have live out my life, talking at street corners to scorning men. I might have die, unmarked, unknown, a failure. Now we are not a failure. This is our career and our triumph. Never in our full life can we hope to do such work for tolerance, for justice, for man's understanding of man as we now do by dying. Our words, our lives, our pains -- nothing! The taking of our lives -- lives of a good shoemaker and a poor fish peddler -- all! That last moment belongs to us -- that agony is our triumph!"

Read the whole article/book review at the Washington Post.

Thanks to blogger Jon for pointing this out to me.

Community of Christ Begins Legal Fight to Protect Historical Name

AP — The Community of Christ filed a federal trademark infringement suit against a small church in suburban Kansas City for what the larger church says is an improper use of its former name and initials.

The Community of Christ, which has about 250,000 members worldwide, is suing the South Restoration Branch of Raytown. The lawsuit was filed Monday in U.S. District Court.

The Community of Christ, headquartered in the Kansas City suburb of Independence since 1920, split from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1860. Its members remained behind when the larger Mormon church relocated to Utah. It was known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, commonly abbreviated as "RLDS," until 2001 and still holds trademarks on both designations.

"The church legally trademarked these names decades ago," presiding Bishop Steve Jones said in a statement issued Wednesday, "and has taken all appropriate steps throughout the years to retain its ownership of all right, title and interest in and to the marks 'Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints' and 'RLDS'."

The term "Restoration Branch" refers to members' belief that the movement restores proper doctrine lost by the larger church. Membership in the Restoration Branches consists largely of people who left what is now the Community of Christ in the 1980s, disagreeing with its decision to begin ordaining women. Other doctrinal differences also exist between the larger church and the Restoration Branches, which have an estimated 12,000 members.

In April, the Joint Conference of Restoration Branches adopted a resolution to use the RLDS name, although not all branches have done so. But while the Community of Christ no longer uses its former names, it is not willing to give up trademark rights to them.

"The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and RLDS names are integral to our heritage and will always be a significant element of who we are," Jones said. "Furthermore, there are nations in which the name Community of Christ could not be used, and there are important implications for legal documentation pertaining to such things as land titles."

No one answered the South Restoration Branch's listed telephone number, and court documents did not list an attorney.

AP - Community of Christ sues church over name
Independence Examiner - Church sues to protect name
Hays Daily News - Community of Christ sues small church for using its former name

The Day Hope Died

Today - August 4, 1914 - the greatest socialist party ever, died. The German socialist party voted in Parliament to authorize "war credits" in preparation for World War I. It violated every felt and expressed impulse to hold solidarity with the workers of every country, and fell tragic victim to nationalism and patriotic myopia.

The German socialist party held the swing vote - a sizeable portion of the Reichstag, actually - and could have prevented World War I and perhaps ushered into Europe a prosperous and exemplary society that valued protecting lives more than gaining land, resources, prestige and power. Instead, they bought the old nationalist line and voted in financing of the war machine, and authorized sending German workers against French workers, for the benefit of German politicians and bankers.

At the time, socialists were well represented in the Reichstag - oftentimes vying for majority control in the ruling body. They had a party membership in the millions, had thousands of news dailies, had established grassroots networks of activists and union halls, community centers and soup kitchens, and determined the politics in much of the southern half of the country. They could have ended WWI before it started - and there was heated debate among them whether they should or not. But in the end, they made the wrong choice, and put their extraordinary weight behind an unjust cause, just for the sake of nationalism. As a result, the rest of the century would be spent in warfare of spiraling severity and scope.

Also as a result, the fractured, hypocritical, failed socialist party infrastructure disintegrated, and is virtually forgotten in Western history. Americans only know the Cold War propaganda version of "socialism" - and react to the very word.

This is a sad day in history - one that we would do well to remember and keep close to our hearts. Never violate our principles, especially for the sake of nationalism and patriotism. Our conviction of peace and solidarity with all peoples, our commitment to welcoming the stranger, caring for the widow and orphan, clothing the naked, feeding the hungry, healing the poor - this is our rock, our worship of God. And no false god or idol can take its place, no matter what flag it is wrapped in or over which it waves. History proves the folly of nations. God will bear out our faith with righteousness.

June-teenth!

By Guest-Contributor Mary Dell Williams

Juneteenth celebrations date back to 1865 when on June 19, Union soldiers, led by Major General Gordon Granger, landed at Galveston, Texas with news that the war had ended and the slaves were free. This was two and a half years after President Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation became official on January 1, 1863.

The celebration of June 19 was soon coined "Juneteenth" and grew with participation from slaves' descendants. Indeed, Juneteenth continued to be highly revered in Texas, with many former slaves and descendants making an annual pilgrimage back to Galveston. Initially, Juneteenth was not celebrated outside African American communities. Most of the festivities were in rural areas around rivers and creeks that could provide for additional activities such as fishing, horseback riding and barbecues. Often church grounds were used for Juneteenth celebrations.

Juneteenth began to gain prominence during the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. In 1968, the Reverend Ralph Abernathy celebrated Juneteenth at the Poor Peoples March to Washington D.C. Many of those attending returned home and initiated Juneteenth celebrations in areas previously absent of such activity. The Juneteenth celebrations in Milwaukee and Minneapolis, which are two of the largest celebrations, were founded after the Poor Peoples March of 1968.

On January 1, 1980, Juneteenth became an official state holiday in Texas. It is considered a "partial staffing holiday" meaning that state offices do not close but some employees use a floating holiday to take the day off. Thirteen other states list it as an official holiday, including New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Alaska, and California. However, some of these states, such as Connecticut, do not consider it a legal holiday and do not close government offices in observance of the occasion. Its informal observance has spread to other states, including Alabama, with a few celebrations taking place in other countries.

Summary:
House Bill Report - 1 - HB 1870
June 19 is declared as a day of remembrance for the day the slaves learned of their freedom and will be recognized as Juneteenth.
<>Votes on Final Passage:
House 94 0
Senate 48 0

Effective: July 22, 2007

Here in Seattle, Juneteenth is celebrated at Pratt Park led by Central Area Chamber of Commerce Founder DeCharlene Williams. Ms. Williams has been heading up the festival for many, many years (like 20??)

Links:
Official Sites:
http://www.juneteenth.us/
http://www.juneteenth.com/aboutjuneteenth.htm

Letter from President Bush:
http://www.juneteenth.com/whitehouse.htm

Washington State Juneteenth Recognition:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1870&year=2007

Other Sites:
http://www.howard.edu/library/Reference/Cybercamps/camp2000/juneteenth.htm

Happy Nauvoo Expositor Day!

Our Church's Real Birthday!

In an act requiring the 19th-century equivalent of steel cahones, dissident Mormons published an expose of the secret and dramatically non-Christian rituals and teachings of Joseph Smith in Nauvoo - in Joseph's hometown.

On June 7th, 1844, William Law and William Marks printed a newspaper documenting and publicizing the eccentricities of theology and practice that Joseph Smith was publicly denying (while privately teaching), first among them: "spiritual wifery," aka, polygamy. They were loyal, believing Mormons who felt convicted that what was being taught in Nauvoo did not reflect the gospel of Jesus Christ, and said so.

Joseph responded, as prophet and mayor and commander of the local Mormon militia (the largest armed force in the country at the time), and ordered the printing press destroyed and the office ransacked. It was this violation of the First Amendment that eventually led to Smith's arrest and incarceration, which would facilitate his death at the hands of a mob of Missouri citizens. Marks and Law, and their families, were "escorted" out of town.

Although the publication of the Nauvoo Expositor led the way to a series of tragic events, the motivation behind the act is important to lift up. Since this auspicious beginning, those scattered and diverse believers in a restored gospel and church have felt a reverence for the revelation of God at work in the lives of the early church leaders, but their fundamental loyalty was to the gospel of Jesus. No matter how highly they held their leaders - even the Prophet Joseph Smith - they did not surrender their principle conviction: Jesus is the fullest revelation of God, and what nurtures discipleship to Jesus is good, what draws us away from the Lordship of Christ is bad. And there is a duty of dissenters within community to faithfully object, and state their reasons. And, there is no room for secret rituals or teachings in a community of Christ followers.

These are the underlying principles that were present at the publication of the Nauvoo Expositor. These are the seeds of our denomination, planted in the rich (and weird) history of Mormonism and the Second Great Awakening.

So, Happy Birthday, church. Happy Nauvoo Expositor Day!

(Note: "Nauvoo Expositor Day" is not a "holiday" officially recognized, endorsed or promoted by the Community of Christ. It is the creation of weird Mormon-history buffs, and eccentric Seminary students. This tongue-in-cheek post is not intended to offend or slight our Utah (LDS) cousins, who by and large view the publication of the Expositor and the ensuing events quite differently, and would not approve of making light of it this way.)

19th-Century Document and 21st-Century Scripture

The Book of Mormon Under Historical Criticism and Faithful Examination

By exposing the lie that the Book of Mormon is not an historical account of ancient peoples, we can see the truth it was crying out all along. By understanding what is fiction, we begin to identify the fact. The Book of Mormon isn’t something more than it is. It is, however, desperately more than the story of golden plates and peep stones. It is, at its heart, a sober and startling depiction of the reality young Joseph and so many others saw in the early years of the nineteenth century. The Book of Mormon was a truth-telling that ended up converting thousands, and giving them hope. That is still something we can touch today.

Read the whole paper at Bright Christian.

Joseph Smith for President?

Mitt Romney wasn't the first Mormon to run for President

A new movie about Joseph Smith's run for president is in the works. Read more about it here: http://mormoncoffee.blogspot.com

Diggers Begin Occupation (1649)

In response to the dramatic events and privations of the English Civil War, a group of people motivated in part by the New Testament occupied vacant public lands and started to cultivate them with crops and homes. Starting on St. George's Hill in April, by May communities were springing up all over the country. The government and the wealthy conspired to destroy the communal experiments, and within a year all the communities were dispersed. But, for a short time, the Kingdom of God was built on Earth.

More info if you're interested: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk

The Post I've Been Avoiding

I haven't been entirely honest with you. There has been a post on my mind for some time that I've avoided making, because it deals with a subject matter that might change our relationship (or, rather, what you think of me). Those of us in the Community of Christ tradition already know, but since this is an ecumenical-type blog reaching out beyond the narrow sectarian lines of a peculiar denomination, this is the first time I'll be addressing this. I've tried to give the impression that I am a blogger willing to discuss most any issue or topic respectfully and earnestly - and while that's mostly true, I've had this post in mind for some time and not written it. And it has affected my willingness/eagerness to post anything at all: I don't want to be untrue or ingenuine. But I realize now that I am also doing you and this proto-community we're building a disservice by not posting what I think is interesting. I have to respect you as much as I hope to be respected by you - and in the context of a blog that means sharing what I feel is topical and insightful.

The topic is the Book of Mormon. The Community of Christ inherits the Book of Mormon from our history as authoritative (alongside the Bible) for our community. The CofC generally approaches scripture differently than most traditions, but the Book of Mormon is nonetheless peculiar, and there is no dearth of positions among members of the church regarding it. My intent in posting this - as with all my posts - is not to convert, but to discuss or highlight what I have found interesting or compelling. Realizing that this is not just a CofC forum, but an ecumenical (perhaps even inter-faith) community, I ask for indulgence in posting the following. Thanks. -Flannel Christian

Recent interpretations of the Book of Mormon have emphasized its rationality in contrast to the religious enthusiasm of American revivalism, its calm millennial hope in contrast to Millerite enthusiasm, its progressive optimism in contrast to Calvinist determinism, and its quest for order in contrast to romanticism. Unfortunately, these interpretations miss the animating spirit of the book. ... These interpretations fail to see that the Book of Mormon is a document of profound social protest, an impassioned manifesto by a hostile outsider against the smug complacency of those in power and the reality of social distinctions based on wealth, class and education. (The Democratization of American Christianity, by Nathan O. Hatch, pp115-6, emphasis mine)

Author Nathan Hatch is an historian - specifically a religious historian, more specifically an historian of American religiosity in the post-revolutionary era. He is not, by the way, a Mormon. His book, The Democratization of American Christianity, which I read recently for a Seminary class in religious history, focuses on the fifty year period following the American Revolution (1780-1830) and analyzes the impact of the populist, democratic and revolutionary language and ideas of the Revolution affected American Christianity. His analysis is brilliant and engaging. Hatch meaningfully charts the course of American religion in a distinct and divergent direction from its European (primarily English) counterpart: anti-intellectual, anti-establishment, anti-authoritarian, emphasizing the authority of the individual and the unschooled. The whole way through, in fact, the text serves as an insightful commentary on American culture (not just religion) up to the present. (A recent manifestation of this American spirit of anti-intellectualism is so many people praising the president not for his education or insight but for his down-home-ness and approachability - the seeming greatest compliment to pay to the supreme leader that he seems like the kind of guy you could have a beer with.)

Hatch illustrates his thesis of the ideas of the Revolution affecting American Christianity by focusing on popular and upstart movements that arose or grew during the post-Revolutionary period. Among these are the Methodists, the Baptists, the Christian movement, black churches, and the Mormons. Being both an American and a member of a religious community that traces its history to the Latter Day Saint movement, this book was a phenomenal read for me. Hatch's thesis and work deserves more discussion and attention than I am prepared to give it here, but one part jumped out to me in particular: his (brief) discussion of the Book of Mormon.

Honestly, I was surprised he talked about the BofM at all, let alone as much as he did. And it is funny to think that this non-LDS historian has had a greater impact on my faith-encounter with the Book of Mormon than any religious thinker in the past twenty years of my life. You see, like most Americans, I am a rather secularized person. Like most people my age, I am also postmodern - meaning I approach absolute claims with significant criticism. And I am also an historian (albeit amateurish), so I see events and beliefs in the past (and present) as contextualized, as affected by the events and thoughts and historical factors surrounding them in space and time.

As such, many of the cliche absolute claims of Christianity are troublesome to me - when Christians use the Bible or doctrine to bash others, for instance, embarrasses me. I see many of the claims Christians make, no less the Bible, as historicized and context-bound. But the Bible and some elementary doctrinal claims are more or less public domain, and most everyone feels free to discuss them as if they are what they claim they are. (It's not all that simple, of course, but indulge me... this is just background.)

The Book of Mormon, though, doesn't have that same public acceptance. That's partly because of its newness (only 170 years old), and partly because of the difference of Mormons from what is generally-held Christianity. But the BofM's non-acceptance is primarily due, in my opinion, to our modern/post-modern reliance on reason and explicit verifiability (in a quasi-scientific way) for qualifications of "truth." We believe that in order for something to be meaningful, it has to be "true;" and in order for it to be "true" (in a modern/post-modern fact-driven way) it must be reasonably verifiable and coincide with other scientifically verified data. And, frankly, the Book of Mormon's historical claims just don't stand up under that kind of scrutiny. So the Book of Mormon has been both a part of my rich heritage and an embarrassment to my secularized, post-modern, rational sensibilities.

Here is this rational, post-modern historian, doing brilliant analysis of the cultural, political and religious climate of the post-revolutionary period, and he spends a few pages talking about the Book of Mormon. That's not too surprising. A lot of people can afford a couple pages dedicated to ripping the BofM apart for not matching up to its absolutist claims and so forth. But what is surprising is that Hatch didn't do this. Hatch, as an historian, approaches the text with the foregone conclusion that it was written by Joseph Smith (as opposed to an historical document divinely translated by JS). But this upfront falsehood is entirely unimportant to him - it forms one of the uninteresting postulates upon which his interest and analysis begins to rise.

What is interesting to Hatch is what the BofM says to its readers (particularly its nineteenth-century American readers), and what it expresses and gives voice to in that historical period and place. Hatch writes: "The single most striking theme in the Book of Mormon is that it is the rich, the proud, and the learned who find themselves in the hands of an angry God. Throughout the book, evil is most often depicted as the result of pride and worldliness that comes from economic success and results in oppression of the poor." (117) Hatch puts Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, and the Latter Day Saint movement in the context of an American sensibility that reflected the rage/outrage against injustice and authoritarianism that was cultivated during the American Revolution. Hatch's thesis is that the political language of the Revolution in the years following the end of the War spread and transferred to the religious sphere - inciting people to scorn religious authority and classism. "The vision of Joseph Smith is intensely populist in its rejection of the religious conventions of his day and in its hostility to the orthodox clergy, its distrust of reason as an exclusive guide, and its rage at the oppression of the poor." (120)

What captures and holds Hatch's attention (and therefore his readers') is not the outlandish historical claims for the origin and nature of the Book of Mormon, but the message and worldview the Book of Mormon was expressing and constructing. Smith was giving voice to a sense of alienation from and disappointment in traditional/institutional Christianity - seeing the sectarian bickering of denominations, the drive-through revivals that lifted people for a moment and then left them just as quickly, the hypocrisy of wealthy or ostentatious priests and religious hierarchy while the work of lifting up the poor and oppressed went undone.

In attempting to define his alienation from the world around him, Smith resorted to a biblical frame of reference rather than to one of conventional politics.... Yet in constructing a grand and complex narrative account of the ancient world, he chose to employ a distinct set of biblical themes: divine judgment upon proud oppressors, blindness to those wise in their own eyes, mercy for the humble, and spiritual authority to the unlearned. This book is a stern and sober depiction of reality. (116, emphasis mine)

Did you hear that? An historian calling the Book of Mormon a "sober depiction of reality"! Holy moly! I'm not advocating the acceptance of the BofM's historical claims and self-identification here. My postmodern critical mind can't do that. But what I am beginning to learn is that "truth" may have more meanings than my narrow, secularized, modern/postmodern sensibilities have heretofore allowed.

I have thought (or feared) for many years that because of the absolutist claims of the Book of Mormon and its dubitable origins, I would have to jettison the text entirely. I have fallen for the evangelical Christian line that everything has to be "true" if any of it is true. They were speaking of the Bible (advocating for its full and literal infallibility and authority) - on which I am willing to take them to task - but for some reason I yielded the argument on the Book of Mormon. Can I accept the outlandish and foundational claims as falsehood, and still lift up the work as a valuable and meaningful expression of the Spirit of God? Can I say - similarly to the way I speak of the Bible - those absolute claims about divine origin are not "true" in a scientific or historical sense, but the text nevertheless speaks a truth?

Or, to invert the question: Can we ever tell the truth without speaking through lies?