Rainbow Peace & Justice

KC Move To Amend

2012-01-09T18:28:00.002-06:00

KC Move To Amend

Occupy the Federal Court
in Kansas City!

Friday, January 20

11:30am - 1:30pm

Federal Courthouse

400 East 9th Street MAP

Kansas City MO

Inspired by our friends at Occupy Wall Street, Move To Amend is planning bold action to mark the second anniversary of the infamous Citizens United v. FEC decision!

Occupy the Courts will be a one day occupation of Federal courthouses across the country, including the U.S. Supreme Courtin Washington, D.C., on Friday January 20, 2012.

Move to Amend volunteers across the USA will lead the charge on the judiciary which created — and continues to expand — corporate personhood rights.

Americans across the country are on the march, and they are marching OUR way. They carry signs that say, “Corporations are NOT people! Money is NOT Speech!”
And they are chanting those truths at the top of their lungs!
The time has come to make these truths evident to the courts.

Repeal the Death Penalty in Kansas -- final vote in Senate, 2010

2010-02-19T17:00:00.004-06:00

1094 JOURNAL OF THE SENATE (2/19/2010)

SB 375, An act concerning abolition of the death penalty; amending K.S.A. 21-3452, 21-4622, 21-4634, 21-4635, 21-4641, 21-4706, 22-3405, 22-3705, 22-3728 and 22-4210 and K.S.A. 2009 Supp. 21-4619, 21-4642, 22-3717, 22-4902, 38-2255, 38-2271, 38-2312, 38- 2365, 39-970, 65-5117, 72-1397 and 75-52,148 and repealing the existing sections; also repealing K.S.A. 21-3439, 21-4623, 21-4624, 21-4625, 21-4626, 21-4627, 21-4629, 21-4630 and 21-4631.

On roll call, the vote was: Yeas 20, Nays 20, Present and Passing 0, Absent or Not Voting 0.

Yeas: Brungardt, Emler, Faust-Goudeau, Francisco, Haley, Hensley, Kelly, Kultala, Lee, McGinn, Morris, Owens, Pilcher-Cook, Reitz, Schmidt V, Steineger, Taddiken, Teichman, Umbarger, Vratil.

Nays: Abrams, Apple, Barnett, Brownlee, Bruce, Colyer, Donovan, Holland, Huelskamp, Huntington, Kelsey, Lynn, Marshall, Masterson, Ostmeyer, Petersen, Pyle, Schmidt D, Schodorf, Wagle.

A constitutional majority having failed to vote in favor of the bill, SB 375 did not pass.

EXPLANATION OF VOTE

MR. PRESIDENT: I vote no on SB 375 which would abolish the Kansas death penalty. Under threat of the Kansas death penalty, the killer of Kelsey Smith plead guilty and spared her family the agony of a trial or they may still be awaiting that trial. I believe human life is created by God and therefore of immeasurable value. Yes I can say I am prolife and vote to protect unborn life which is totally innocent and not had the opportunity to wrong anyone. Yet I also believe that it is just punishment to allow the death penalty in limited cases when someone has unjustly and violently taken another’s life.— KARIN BROWNLEE

Senator Lynn requests the record to show she concurs with the ‘‘Explanation of Vote’’ offered by Senator Brownlee.

MR. PRESIDENT: The people of my Senate district elected me to represent their views on the great issues of the day. It is an honor and a privilege to be elected to represent them. I have lived with, listened to, and discussed many issues with my constituents. This is one of the fundamental issues where I must represent their views. And while there are many issues pro and con, the people of my Senate district have made it clear that they support the death penalty for the most heinous of crimes.—JEFF COLYER

Senator Ostmeyer requests the record to show he concurs with the ‘‘Explanation of Vote’’ offered by Senator Colyer on SB 375.

MR. PRESIDENT: I vote ‘‘AYE’’ on SB 375. The record kept by my secretary shows that every one of my constituents who contacted me on this issue asked me to support the bill. The concerns they raised varied widely: the terrible possibility of executing an innocent person, prolonging the suffering of a victim’s family, the need to maintain respect for human dignity, the ineffectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent or way to get a plea bargain, the estimated 70% greater cost of a case taken to execution vs. lifetime incarceration, and the requirement that the death penalty should reflect the ‘‘conscience of the community’’ which may not be possible if a significant percentage of potential jurors are not permitted to serve on a capital case because they oppose the death penalty. I appreciate the Senate Judiciary Committee working out the details and moving this bill forward, the Majority Leader scheduling the debate, and the committee chair carrying the bill. It made it possible for me to express the wishes of my constituents to live in a state that does not allow for the death penalty, no matter how limited. — MARCI FRANCISCO.

Senator Hensley requests the record to show he concurs with the ‘‘Explanation of Vote’’ offered by Senator Francisco on SB 375.

MR PRESIDENT: In time.....Over the course of Time will always come reflection and that reflection will bring Abiding Confirmation or Deep Regret. May God have mercy on the souls of these ‘‘justice’’ seeking Americans today. And always. In this Time and in this hallowed Place, with God’s abiding Grace . . . we almost made a real Difference. — DAVID HALEY

MR. PRESIDENT: The death penalty has been on and off Kansas statutes since the late 1800’s. Although placed back on the books in 1994, no one has been executed since 1965. The death penalty has not been applied equitably across the state. The issue of justice is mirrored in two ways, some seeing justice when a murderer is executed, others when he is locked up without any amenities and with time to think about the horrible crime he committed. Many family members of murder victims who are against the death penalty would prefer life without parole. Having a death penalty was low on the list of priorities of the National Poll of Police Chiefs for preventing crimes. Dollars spent would be better used to prevent future heinous crimes, preventing the wrong people from walking the streets. Dollars could be spent on law enforcement, corrections, parole, drug and alcohol programs, or invested in pre-and post-natal programs. This is a very emotional and controversial issue; people on both sides feel strongly. Although we may have like to avoid the discussion, as a legislature we have the responsibility to deal with issues and allow our constituents who want repeal of the death penalty the opportunity to make their case. — CAROLYN MCGINN.

Senators Faust-Goudeau, Kelly, Kultala, Morris, Owens, Umbarger and Vratil request the record to show they concur with the ‘‘Explanation of Vote’’ offered by on SB 375.

MR. PRESIDENT: I vote NO on SB 375. The people who elected me to represent them in the 40th Senate District expect me to vote their views. It is an honor to have been elected by them, and I take that privilege very seriously. Although this is a very deeply felt issue on my part, I hold my Catholic faith very dear, my constituents have always trusted my judgment. Without giving them an opportunity to respond with such short notice on this issue, I feel I can explain the no vote. The majority of my constituents prior to today’s debate, have made it clear they support the death penalty for the most heinous of crimes. — RALPH OSTMEYER

MR. PRESIDENT: I have thought many years about the efficacy and effectiveness of the death penalty. For many years I have believed that the death penalty has no deterrent effect what so ever. I also believe there is clear and compelling evidence that innocent men have been put to death. I have defended the death penalty as a tool for prosecutors to use to gain cooperation from those accused of crime. However, the advocacy for the repeal of the death penalty by Therese Bangert, John Vratil, Carolyn McGinn, David Haley, and others have convinced me to move on from those outdated positions. I enjoy freedom . . . to be outdoors, to travel, to be with my family and friends. For me, the more cruel punishment is life in prison, alive but without freedom. It is true that we Americans, by keeping the death penalty, remain in league with nations, such as Iran, Yemen, North Korea, and Saudi Arabia. I prefer to join the nations who have attained universal health care for their citizens, established comprehensive early childhood education, resisted the economic burden of the military-industrial complex, and ended the death sentence. — CHRIS STEINEGER

Repeal the Death Penalty in Kansas?

2010-02-09T18:12:00.002-06:00

About the War & Peace Dialogue

2009-12-01T10:26:00.006-06:00

November 30, 2009

by Ron and LouAnn Voth (rlvoths@msn.com)

We would like to respond to several statements at the November 22nd Peace & Justice Dialogue (with the four officers from the Command & General Staff College) that we didn’t have time to address:

1. Major Robert spoke of putting down his gun and using his mind in his military service as if that was not using violence.

Does this mean someone like Osama bin Laden or Khalid Sheikh Mohammed shouldn’t be accountable for the processes they facilitated on 9-11-01? We’re sure neither of them have personally initiated force for many years. They just facilitated and enhanced it’s use with their minds.

2. Major Robert spoke of a “CO” (Conscientious Objector) Commanding Officer.

Isn’t it odd for a Commander to order people to perform tasks they personally consider immoral? We try to imagine organizing someone to rob people because we can’t morally participate in stealing ourselves. It’s even more morally abhorrent to force someone else do something you personally believe to be wrong. Staying in his military position is either milking it for the benefits or not being brave enough to take a stand.

3. We’d like to revisit the tax resistance stand.

We’d like to hear a military view on the logic of prosecuting mosque’s in the United States for funneling money to Al Qaeda or the Taliban. We presume the mosques are considered accomplices in terrorist efforts for providing financial support. How does that extrapolate to our military support through personal income taxes? Are we also accomplices in attacking Iraq when we finance it with our current tax structure?

4. We’d like to revisit the problem of pacifists living under the protection of the military but not contributing to their protection:

There is a difference between working for the American kingdom and working for God’s kingdom.

Countries like Canada and Australia have at least as much freedom as we do and didn’t have to go to war to get them. It’s the art of negotiation.

It is important to recognize what the military protects…..and it is not necessarily the citizens or the Constitution- Will the military protect us from a government that tortures, kidnaps people on foreign soil and removes them to countries that torture? Would the military stand up against attacking countries without proof of wrong doing in hand, or be the invasion force? Will the military stand against a government that releases the names of CIA agents (if acceptable, that same government might do the same to it’s military personnel) or fires Federal Judges for political gain? Will the military oppose secret prisons or serve as guards? Will the military refuse to hold people arrested without charges or even protest a government that spies and wire taps it’s citizens? Based on recent history, we suggest the military’s allegiance doesn’t allow for them to protect us from abusive governments or Constitutional violators and are likely forced by their authorities to be the enablers.

It is not the military that will oppose abusive governments. It is the people that create change. It starts as a minority opinion, and with logic, persuasion, and media exposure civilians are the eventual force for change. In that sense, the military needs our protection to keep their government from sending them into harm’s way unnecessarily, from forcing them to abuse prisoners, or be accomplices in abductions and secret prisons.

We don’t fault the military for this powerlessness. They aren’t allowed to insert themselves into the political realm due to laws prohibiting it. But, we will ask the question of who is protecting whom? They actually need someone not obligated to serve the authorities to expose the authorities.

5. Our society will produce what we celebrate.

When the Iraq War is over, what will we put on the memorial? What will we want our society to remember about the war?

Here are our some of our choices:

a. The bust of a pacifist from Hesston College that negotiated with Iraqi leaders during the successful war-ending “surge.”

b. A checkbook that funded the war and paid Sunnis not to fight during the successful war-ending surge.

c. The dying face of a mother representing one of the 60,000 innocent Iraqi civilians that paid the ultimate sacrifice.

d. Or, the recruiting tool — a statue of one of the 5,000 soldiers killed while riding in an armored humvee.

6. We’d like to recognize the unique position “JAG” officers represent in being able to speak to these issues.

We are all products of the data we believe to be foundational to our life paradigms. This data was often imprinted by our upbringing which often has limited perspective and illustrates why the “apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.” It is exciting to see two diverse groups talking about an issue we disagree on and risk inputting new data into our paradigm. We should recognize the unique position JAG officers have on legal issues and commitment to authority. Since the Bible represents several covenants, (of which we ascribe to adhering to the “New Covenant”) it would be useful to understand from a military perspective the “legal” obligations God has inserted into the New Covenant and how such a covenant is binding to our daily lives? And, conversely, what is the implication for our disobedience of His authority.

Reflections on War & Peace Dialogue

2009-11-23T22:26:00.001-06:00

Nov. 23, 2009

by Jonne Long (jlong14@kc.rr.com)

Some quick reflections:

I would like very much to live in a world where violence is absent from the peoples' minds as well as from their actions, where a culture of nonviolence is so strong throughout the world that a military presence would be unnecessary.

I respect and agree spiritually and philosophically with the views expressed by you and your Mennonite brethren and sistren. Yet I know when push comes to shove, there would come a point when my resolve would weaken, and I would welcome some protection, even if it involved violence. And on a larger scale, it appears that some level of defense is needed to keep order in cities, states, and countries in the world today. Even so, I think it is very important to stand up for nonviolence as an ideal to be expressed as fully as possible in each of our own lives, and that we should always be found calling upon our institutions and organizations to resist the use of violence to the extent possible.

I was impressed by the thoughtfulness of all four of the Army representatives - their willingness to listen - and their lack of defensiveness about their own choices. It made me feel a little better about what is being taught to the officers at Ft. Leavenworth. Strength restrained by discipline and tempered by a deep-seated understanding that violence is a last resort is much better than undisciplined strength turned loose without thought or reason.

Did I hear you or someone say that another similar session or two might be planned within the next few months?

An Annual Event?

2009-11-23T18:14:00.001-06:00

November 23, 2009
by Edward Neufeld (edneuf@yahoo.com)

Wish I would have suggested we make this an annual event! I thought it was great. They were very impressive people, and I thought some of our folks and guests had done a lot of deep thinking about their pacifist position.

It certainly led me to reflect more fully on my pacifist position, as well as helping me to not put all military persons in "stereotypical boxes!"

For the Officers

2009-11-23T13:31:00.002-06:00

November 23, 2009

by Andrea Whitmore (whitmoreandy@hotmail.com)

I was so impressed with the officers who came to your church yesterday and want to thank you again for inviting me.

This afternoon, as it happens, I was reading Professor Stephen Walt (Harvard) on the Foreign Policy blog (http://walt.foreignpolicy.com) and by coincidence he addressed the problem of occupation that we discussed somewhat yesterday. I'll try to paste his comments below.

Prof. Walt, besides teaching at Harvard, wrote The Israel Lobby, you might remember, with John Mearsheimer of the U of Chicago ("short" version at the London Review of Books http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/john-mearsheimer/the-israel-lobby).

I think the people from Ft. Leavenworth yesterday are outstanding examples of fine Americans. I also think the the America they think they're defending may not be the America they're really defending. There is much that is unseen in our foreign policy that our military has to clean up--at great risk to beautiful young lives--due to tragic and craven decisions by our government that are driven not by virtue or pragmatism but by lobbying--and hence, corruption. Feel free to share with Major Magnell and the others.

Here is Stephen Walt's blog from today:

Why They Hate Us (I): on military occupation

Mon, 11/23/2009 - 11:58am

One of the many barriers to developing a saner U.S. foreign policy is our collective failure to appreciate why military occupations generate so much hatred, resentment, and resistance, and why we should therefore go to enormous lengths to avoid getting mired in them. Costly occupations are an activity you hope your adversaries undertake, especially in areas of little intrinsic strategic value. We blundered into Somalia in the early 1990s without realizing that we weren't welcome; we invaded Iraq thinking we would be greeted as liberators, and we still don't fully understand why many Afghanis resent our presence and why some are driven to take up arms against us.

The American experience is hardly unique: Britain's occupation of Iraq after World War I triggered fierce opposition, and British forces in Mandate Palestine eventually faced armed resistance from both Arab and Zionist groups. French rule in Algeria, Syria, Lebanon, and Indochina spawned several violent resistance movements, and Russia has fought Chechen insurgents in the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries. The Shiite population of southern Lebanon initially welcomed Israel's invasion in 1982, but the IDF behaved badly and stayed too long, which led directly to the formation of Hezbollah. Israelis were also surprised by the first intifida in 1987, having mistakenly assumed that their occupation of the West Bank was benevolent and that the Palestinians there would be content to be governed by the IDF forever.

Military occupation generates resistance because it is humiliating, disruptive, arbitrary and sometimes terrifying to its objects, even when the occupying power is acting from more-or-less benevolent motives. If you've ever been caught in a speed trap by a rude or abusive policeman (I have), or selected out for special attention crossing a border (ditto), you have a mild sense of what this is like. You are at the mercy of the person in charge, who is inevitably well-armed and can do pretty much whatever he (or she) wants. Any sign of protest will only make things go badly -- and in some situations will get you arrested, beaten, or worse -- so you choke down your anger and just put up with it. Now imagine that this is occurring after you've waited for hours at some internal checkpoint, that none of the occupiers speak your language, and that it is like this every single day. And occasionally the occupying power kills innocent people by mistake, engages in other forms of indiscriminate force, and does so with scant regard for local customs and sensibilities. Maintain this situation long enough, and some members of the local population will start looking for ways to strike back. Some of them may even decide to strap on explosive vests or get behind the wheel of a explosives-laden truck, and sacrifice themselves.

It is sometimes said that Americans don't understand this phenomenon because the United States has never been conquered and occupied. But this simply isn't true. After the Civil War, a "foreign army" occupied the former Confederacy and imposed a new political order that most white southerners found abhorrent. The first Reconstruction Act of 1867 put most southern states under formal military control, supervised the writing of new state constitutions, and sought to enfranchise and empower former slaves. It also attempted to rebuild the south economically, but the reconstruction effort was undermined by corruption and poor administration. Sound familiar? However laudable the aims may have been, the results were precisely what one would expect. Northern occupation eventually triggered violent resistance by the Ku Klux Klan, White League, Red Shirts, and other insurgent groups, which helped thwart Reconstruction and paved the way for the Jim Crow system that lasted until the second half of the 20th century.

Nor should we forget how long a profound sense of anger and resentment lasted. I was recently discussing this issue with a distinguished American journalist who grew up in the South, and he told me that one hundred years after the end of the Civil War, he was still being taught songs that expressed a lingering hatred of what the Yankees had done. Here are a coupl of stanzas from one of them -- "I'm a Good Old Rebel" -- written by a former Confederate officer and first published in 1914:

I hates the Yankee nation, and everything they do,
I hates the Declaration of Independence too.
I hates the glorious Union, 'tis dripping with our blood
I hates their striped banner, I fought it all I could.

Three hundred thousand Yankees lie stiff in Southern dust;
We got three hundred thousand, before they conquered us
They died of Southern fever, and Southern steel and shot,
I wish they was three million, instead of what we got.

Or to take a more recent (1974), less poetic example, from Lynyrd Skynyrd:

Well I heard Mr. Young sing about her,
Well I heard old Neil put her down.
Well, I hope Neil Young will remember,
A Southern man don't need him around anyhow.

This is what defeat in war and prolonged occupation does to a society: it generates hatred and resentment that can last a century or more. Hatred of the "party of Lincoln" kept the South solidly Democratic for decades, and its political character remains distinctly different even today, nearly 150 years after the civil war ended. (Among other things, Barack Obama has favorable job approval ratings in every region of the country except the South). And don't forget that unlike our current presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, the occupying forces of the North spoke the same language and had been part of the same country prior to the war; in some cases, there were even strong family connections on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line. Yet defeat in war and military occupation were an enduring source of division for many years thereafter.

The bottom line is that you don't need to be a sociologist, political scientist, or a student of colonialism or foreign cultures to understand why military occupation is such a poisonous activity and why it usually fails. If you're an American, you just need to read a bit about Reconstruction and reflect on how its effects -- along with the effects of slavery itself -- have persisted across generations. If that's not enough, visit a society that is currently experiencing occupation, and take the time to go through a checkpoint or two. Then you might understand why the local population doesn't view the occupying forces as benevolent and isn't as grateful as occupiers often think they ought to be.

ADAM JAN/AFP/Getty Images

Stephen M. Walt

About the War & Peace Dialogue

2009-11-23T08:09:00.001-06:00

November 23, 2009

by Diane Eickhoff (diane.eickhoff@gmail.com)

I thought it was a very good experience, and I only wish Aaron could have been there. He would have relished the dialogue.

Since yesterday afternoon I have thought of many things I wished I or someone else had said, but I thought it was a great beginning with people on both sides listening to each other, being respectful, and wanting to learn. I wish the dialogue could continue, as both sides often only talk to people of like mind or talk AT one another.

About Today's Discussion

2009-11-22T23:15:00.003-06:00

November 22, 2009

by John Mueller (jmueller245@yahoo.com)

I was disappointed that we didn't get more than a cursory start on the various questions that were proposed.
Also, it would have helped to see the questions (along with the names of the questioners).
The repeated statement, that the US military is the only agency capable of doing the major building-up type of work in developing countries, becomes more scaring the longer I think about it. Thoughts include the idea that if the only tool you have is a hammer, then all problems.... I don't doubt their logistical and structural capabilities; I just question the assumptions that make them the agency of choice.
Give the meeting a B+ in terms of civility and respect; give it a D+ in terms of dialogue; with a second try, its grade may improve.

Dialogue Questions 11/22/2009

2009-11-19T21:57:00.003-06:00

November 19, 2009

by Dick Tatro (Taterchief@aol.com)

Moderator - I will introduce myself and give an opening statement. This will be followed by the introduction of the Officers. Eric if you want to you can introduce officers or you can have them introduce themselves.

I will start with the first question that Eric sent to me. “How do you reconcile the paradox inherent in pacifism that, whether or not want to, you relay on others willing to use force in order to preserve your right to practice your beliefs?”

The next question is for the officers. What were your original motivation /goal to have a dialogue with pacifists? Has this evolved or changed?

Question 3 Christian Pacifism seems to be based on a rejection of popular social norms and a belief in separation of church and state. So how do you justify advocacy of some public issues if you are unwilling to accept the authority of the government in all areas?

Question 4 The next question will be directed to the officers. My Suggestion: Do you believe that the military is justified in taking part in the political process in a country that cedes military control to civilians? Examples making public statements about the civilian leadership in an effort to sway public opinion. Example McArthur and Truman over tactics during the Korean War.

Question 5 The Army traditionally granted CO status to members of historically “Peace” churches. With no draft today do you support members of your church volunteering for the non-combat roles that were at one time filled by those of CO status?

Question 6 Do you think that the all-volunteer military is working? Or is it leading to the enlistment of candidates who might not be up to the standards that the draft did?

Question 7 Why did you personally make the decision to join the military? Has reality of the military of the military life changed your perception?

Question 8 Does the military accept the concept of civilian control?

Truman and the Atomic Bomb.
Truman and the firing of MacArthur

Open questions and answers.

First War & Peace Dialogue

2009-11-11T11:11:00.001-06:00

Sunday, November 22, 2009

12 Noon -- simple meal

1-3 PM -- dialogue

Rainbow Mennonite Church

1444 Southwest Boulevard, Kansas City, KS 66103

Meet with Maj. Eric Magnell

and other officers enrolled at the

Command and General Staff College, Ft. Leavenworth, KS

RSVP: phil.rhoads@gmail.com

What's Wrong with Cute?

2008-10-09T09:34:00.001-06:00

What's wrong with Cute is the same thing that is wrong with Profane.

I totally agree with Diane Stafford ("Let's not wink at careless gesture," Oct. 9). In watching the vice-presidential debate, I really didn't think much about Palin's wink and folksy manner of speech since I was favoring Biden, anyway, but Stafford was very thorough in pointing out the down-side of such behavior and speech patterns.

I like to think that I can look past the superficial aspects of one's appearance or speech or behavior and focus on the content of their character and ideas, but subconsciously I know that surface matters, that speech matters, that behavior matters. My gray ponytail and white Amish beard and frequent attendance at anti-war protests over the past 47 years may reinforce some people's stereotype of hippies and dismiss me. But at least I try to use thoughtful and serious language to express myself, to bathe regularly, and to dress appropriately for the occasion.

When the protestors at Kent State University in May, 1970, were vilified as sub-human and deserved to be shot by the Ohio National Guard, I was shocked. I laid the blame on the narrow-mindedness of the pro-war "adult" generation. But now that I am 65, I know that the grooming habits and drug use and profanity and "free love" of some of the protestors gave excuses to those who despised dissent anyway.

As we voters evaluate the candidates for President and Vice President, let us try to focus on the issues and the leadership strengths and weaknesses of the candidates, but may the candidates present themselves respectful of our natural tendency to see only the surface and show us the true depth of themselves.

Phil Rhoads

6600 Marty St., Overland Park, KS 66202

Home: 913-722-3938 • Mobile: 913-397-9660 • Fax: 913-273-0717

Fair Trade Printing in K.C. since 1953

www.rhoadsprinting.com

Building a Culture of Peace

2008-09-12T11:11:00.004-06:00

UNITAR Hiroshima Roundtable
Steven Lloyd Leeper
Chairperson, Hiroshima Peace Culture Foundation
Hiroshima, 30 August 2007
(English Summary)

"Building a Culture of Peace: the Short-term Priorities"

I have seen and helped to create cultures of peace in families and in companies. For ten years I thought I was becoming a family therapist, then in 1981 I suddenly switched to management consulting. In both occupations, I was working with the same question. How do human beings resolve conflict?

Despite my interest in conflict resolution, I was never interested in large group conflicts. For me, conflict resolution was a personal matter, something that happens within, between or among individuals. I still had that attitude when I first came to Hiroshima in 1984. I had little interest in politics and less in world peace. I was somewhat interested in environmental issues and joined the local chapter of Friends of the Earth, but my work was helping Japanese and Americans learn to work together.

Now, after 23 years in Hiroshima, I am completely involved in politics, with little time for personal peace. However, my earlier experience with conflict resolution does inform my understanding of peace and peace culture. Thanks to families and companies, I know what peace and the resolution of conflict look like.

Since becoming chairman of the Peace Culture Foundation, one of the most common questions I receive is, what is peace? Another common question is, what is peace culture? So before going further, let’s deal with these.

To me, peace is the state of everyone being happy. I often use the analogy of physical health. When all of the cells in our bodies are receiving adequate nutrition and are performing their proper functions, and when we have no significant damage or pain anywhere, we refer to that state as “healthy.” In my philosophy, peace is social health, and any effort to move a group or a society or the world in that direction is a manifestation of peace culture.

Today, about 50% of the world’s population is trying to live on less than two dollars a day. About 24,000 people starve to death every day. Tens of thousands more die of easily curable or preventable diseases. This is not health, and it is not peace.

The question is, why do people starve to death? Why do so many suffer so terribly? Is it a lack of money? Is it a lack of food? Human beings produce twice as much food as we need for everyone to eat well. The US is spending more every year in Iraq than it would cost to provide health care to the whole world. We have plenty of food. We have plenty of money. What we lack is concern or caring or love.

I was amazed to discover that during the Vietnam War the US spent approximately 40,000 dollars per Vietnamese citizen. At that time, 10,000 dollars would have been a fortune to most Vietnamese. If the US had given each Vietnamese 10,000 dollars, they all would have become our friends. Thus, we could have won the love of the Vietnamese for a quarter of what it cost to fight them. But we prefer to fight. This is because we live in a war culture. We have inherited territoriality and empire building from our animal ancestors. We understand and love competition. We find cooperation extremely frustrating and difficult. Many of us, especially economists, actually worship competition. They believe that free competition and a free market will magically solve all our problems.

After the bombing of Hiroshima, Ichiro Moritaki, a Hiroshima University philosophy professor, spent five months recovering in a hospital, where he thought deeply about the meaning of the atomic bomb. He achieved a radical insight. At the deepest level, the meaning of this new weapon is that human beings can no longer resolve their disputes through all-out contests of destructive power. That is, nuclear weapons make war obsolete. Moritaki was among the first to tell us that to survive, human beings will have to graduate from the civilization of power to a civilization of love. These days, we use the terms culture of war and culture of peace, but this is what we mean.

Moritaki derived peace culture from the atomic bomb. Now, however, we are being driven to graduate from the war culture by two main problems. One is nuclear weapons. The other is the environment. These problems cannot be solved by competition. If the human family does not rise rather quickly to far higher levels of cooperation than we have yet achieved, our competition will plunge us to levels of violence and misery we have not experienced since WWII.

Competition itself is becoming a serious problem. Because of competition we are already working too hard and young students are committing suicide, but I don’t have time to go into this issue in depth. I will focus only on the most obvious problem - oil. Just when supplies of oil and other resources are declining or soon will decline, India, China and other countries are demanding ever-larger shares. From what I have heard, the United States, with 4% of the world’s population, still uses about 25% of the world’s oil and emits over 30% of all CO2. This situation is obviously not sustainable, but how is it going to change? Is the US going to voluntarily reduce its share of oil? Is the international community going to take control of oil away from the US? We are standing at a momentous crossroads. Are we going to solve our social, environmental and economic problems through competition or cooperation? Some believe that if we choose competition, the strong will survive and the weak will die, and that is perfectly natural. I believe that if we choose competition, we will all suffer terribly and graduation to a peace culture will be greatly delayed or impossible. We might not be able to recover at all. Thus, one of the short-term priorities facing those of us who would like to live in a
peaceful world is the urgent question of how we are going to share or divide up our resources.

However, even if we decide right now that we want to solve our problems through cooperation and the peaceful resolution of conflict, I suspect that graduating from today’s war culture to a true peace culture will take at least the rest of this century. Unfortunately, most human beings, especially our current leaders, still do not understand the fundamentals of peace. It will take time to conquer our selfish and violent tendencies. Still, I like to believe that we are evolving in that direction and, if we can just avoid using nuclear weapons, I believe we can make it.

This brings me to our most serious short-term priority. Just yesterday, I received an article by email saying that US Vice President Cheney has already decided to bomb Iran, maybe next month. In July 2006, Seymour Hersh, writing in the New Yorker, described plans being developed by the civilian leadership, Cheney’s people, to use nuclear weapons in Iran. In April 2006, Doug Bruder of the Department of Defense said, “There are some very hard targets out there that right now it would be extremely difficult if not impossible to defeat with current conventional weapons. Therefore there are some that would probably require nuclear weapons.” Thus, we know that some powerful people in the US government want to use nuclear weapons in Iran. According to Seymour Hersh, these people are being stopped by General Pace and other high-ranking officers at the Pentagon. However, we also know that the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima despite the opposition of US military leadership.

Many people, especially the Iranians I have met, say that even the Bush administration is not stupid enough to attack Iran, and certainly not with nuclear weapons. Such an attack would cause chaos. However, I am afraid they forget that the men guiding the US right now all represent the war industry. They profit from chaos. Dick Cheney was CEO of Halliburton. Halliburton is a company that needs enemies and war. These people are not afraid of war. They are afraid of peace.

In November 2008, the people now in power will lose that power. I am just guessing, of course, but I suspect that their top priority is to create a situation that will continue to generate profits even while the Democrats are in power. By attacking Iran, they can guarantee another terrorist attack in the US like September 11. Such an attack is just what they need to make sure that the world does not move toward peace while they are out of power. I suspect that within the next five years, the international community will decide whether to eliminate nuclear weapons, or allow them to spread and be used. At the moment, we are allowing them to spread. If we stay on the course we are on today, we are heading toward military and environmental catastrophe.

One of the most serious political problems for peace is the fact that most peace people do not like to fight. We try to keep tensions low and avoid serious confrontations. We like to keep the peace. Today, however, though this may sound like a contradiction in terms, we need peace people to stand up and fight hard for peace. Of course, we do not use violence, but must use every non-violent technique available. Only a spectacular tidal wave of public demand for peace and specifically for the elimination of nuclear weapons can save us from disaster. I hope you will all help to create that tidal wave and force our leaders to give us what we truly want — a sustainable, peaceful, nuclear-weapon-free world.

In the next three years, Mayors for Peace will be working with NGOs around the world on a new global campaign, but right now the best way you can help is to contribute to the PR campaign associated with the 101 A-bomb exhibitions that we will hold in the US between now and the end of 2008. I have distributed a flyer about this project, so please take a look and think about how you can help. Thank you.

— Steven Lloyd Leeper

Hiroshima Delegation visits Kansas City

2008-09-01T07:53:00.005-06:00

Henry Stoever, long-time Kansas City peace activist, lawyer, member of the Catholic Worker Movement, has arranged for a visit of four representatives from the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum to Kansas City. Let us join them on September 5, 7 PM at the Community of Christ Temple for a Reception and Panel Discussion.

See Henry's comments below this poster:

HIROSHIMA-NAGASAKI POSTER EXHIBITION: WHY?

I was moved and touched when I went through the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC. To see depicted a historical event of horrific proportions -- a landmark for "man's inhumanity to man" made me re-affirm the call, "Never Again."

The purpose of the Hiroshima-Nagasaki Poster Exhibition is to remember what occurred August 6-9, 1945, and to evoke the call, "Never Again." The posters show these two Japanese cities as they were before the atomic bombings, the immense devastation after the atomic bombings, the long-term aftereffects, how the bombs worked, and how the rebuilt cities appear today.

For me, the exhibition is a journey of moral and spiritual dimensions. May we reject now and in the future the ways of inhumanity and see that we are all of one human family. The only way for us to survive is to see that our destinies are interlinked and to abolish such weapons.

Retired U.S. Navy Vice-Admiral Jack Shanahan has stated that today's nuclear weapons are 15 times more powerful than each of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and that a mere 5 nuclear bombs would devastate Russia. The USA and Russia each have approx. 10,000 nuclear weapons today. The 1963 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty called for a build-down of nuclear weapons so that said weapons would be eliminated. We have far to go. This Hiroshima-Nagasaki Poster Exhibition is a reminder of our duties to fulfill that Treaty.

Henry M. Stoever

Contact: Henry Stoever with PeaceWorks KC, (913) 375-0045 or henrystoever@sbcglobal.net

See http://www.kansascity.com/115/story/776224.html

Carpools: call Phil Rhoads, 913-722-3938.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Community+of+Christ+World+Headquarters+and+Temple,+201+So.+River+Blvd.+(River+%26+Walnut,+just+west+of+the+downtown),+Independence,+MO+64050&ie=UTF8&ll=39.108418,-94.423628&spn=0.034433,0.066605&t=h&z=14&layer=c&cbll=39.09023,-94.42735&panoid=4gvq48bUFYonWvhntWn1WQ&cbp=1,221.1268600361566,,0,5

Top Ten Reasons Why Mennonites Should be Interested in Community Gardening

2008-06-29T20:00:00.007-06:00

10. Food grows in a community garden and we are called to feed the hungry.

9. Flowers grow in a community garden and flowers feed the soul.

8. A community garden is a peaceful place and we are called to be a people of peace.

7. Mennonites would do well to spend more time on their knees.

6. Mennonites are called to evangelize and the shortest path to the soul is through the soil.

5. Jesus used to hang out in a garden. Maybe they'll meet him there.

4. Everyone who wants a Mennonite quilt already has one.

3. MCC really stands for More Carrots and Cabbage.

2. The first Menno Simons sighting of the new millennium occurred in a community garden in Goshen, Indiana.

1. IT ALL STARTED IN A GARDEN.

(written by Ted Zerger, Salina, KS)

Christian Pledge of Allegiance

2008-06-29T10:00:00.004-06:00

I pledge allegiance to Jesus Christ,
And to God’s kingdom for which he died—
One Spirit-led people
the world over, indivisible,
With love and justice
for all.

(written by J. Nelson Kraybill)

(Click Title above for link to source article in The Mennonite, August 3, 2004)

Rainbow Peace & Justice Notes for 2007

2007-12-31T08:15:00.000-06:00

January

Haiti ~ Whole Committee
Publicized & Organized two speaking events for Matt Kaiser, a MVSer who presented information on the socioeconomics, politics, and history of Haiti and and told about how his organization, the Lambi Fund of Haiti, is working to create democracy and sustainable development in the country. (Matt is now a student at KU Med and regular attendee at Rainbow).
~ ~ ~
Web Page ~ Several members
Developed a “Peace and Justice” link on the RMC website and an online blog for communicating about events and issues — http://rainbowpeacejustice.blogspot.com/
~ ~ ~
Israel / Palestine ~ Several members
Publicized and attended: Combatants for Peace tour, which is coming to Kansas City in late January. Combatants for Peace consists of former Israeli and Palestinian soldiers and militants who once fought each other, but now are fighting for peace. Sounds very interesting. Iťs happening on Jan. 30, 7:00 p.m., at the Jewish Comm. Center.
~ ~ ~

February

Coalition building ~ Regina Troyer
Publicized the KC Olive Branch online newsletter — www.kcolivebranch.org
~ ~ ~
Iraq War ~ Several members
Promoted the “Policies of Hope” postcard campaign, organized locally by the American Friends Service Cmte. — providing this opportunity to the congregation, to write brief messages on the cards to then be delivered to area elected officials. The best time to have RMC folks participate is after worship on Sunday mornings. There could be a table set up in the fellowship hall, where people could write their messages on the postcards. There could also be announcements in the midweek notables, newsnotes, during the worship service, etc. If we are to get this done quickly, we need volunteers to sit at the table in the fellowship hall during the next several Sundays. We probably need at least 2 volunteers per Sunday. Any takers? I propose that we use the next three Sundays (Feb. 11, 18, & 25) — RMC folks wrote 88 postcards to local elected officials. I will deliver the cards to the AFSC office, and the cards will then be taken to the offices of each elected official.
~ ~ ~

March

Iraq War ~ Chris Alliman ~ $100.00
Coordinated with Small Groups to collect Relief Kits for MCC and sent donation to MCC
~ ~ ~
Global Warming ~ Regina Troyer
Promoted signing petition sponsored by Al Gore
~ ~ ~
New Sanctuary Movement ~ Phil Rhoads & Muriel Stackley
Attended dinner with Rev. John Fife (from the original Sanctuary Movement in the 1980’s) at Grandview Park Presbyterian Church in KCK
~ ~ ~
Environment ~ Chris & Elizabeth Alliman
Promoted and attended event for “Community Supported Agriculture” sponsored by KC Food Circle.
~ ~ ~
Environment ~ Chris Alliman
Promoted and attended training event for “Rain Barrels” sponsored by Bridging the Gap
~ ~ ~
Iraq War ~ Phil Rhoads
Attended Christian Peace Witness for Iraq in Washington, DC — received $100 for the three Mennonites from Western District Conference for travelling expenses
~ ~ ~
Iraq War ~ Several members ~ $50.00
Endorsed event and attended Vigil for 4th anniversary of the start of the Iraq War, and to call for an end to the war — starting at Penn Valley Community College at 1:00 p.m. and ending up at the Lake City Army Ammunition Plant in Independence, Mo. around 5:30 p.m. The goal is to ensure that there will not be a 5th anniversary of the war next year.
~ ~ ~
Immigration Reform ~ Several members
Participated in two local immigranťs rights groups, calling for a just and humane response to the broken immigration system. The groups are: People of Faith for Hospitality and Justice and the New Sanctuary Movement.
~ ~ ~
Homosexuality ~ Phil Rhoads
Posted on Blog: “Urban Kansas Mennonites and Homosexuality, 1968-1999” — Robert Michael Weaver’s senior seminar paper for Bethel College
~ ~ ~

April

Global Warming ~ Phil Rhoads
Attended Step It Up KC at Community Christian Church, sponsored by Sierra Club and True Blue Women — http://april.stepitup2007.org/
~ ~ ~
Immigration Reform ~ Joel Goering
Signed on to letter that El Centro is sending to elected officials calling for comprehensive immigration reform that: emphasizes family reunification, humane treatment, an earned path to citizenship, and workers’ rights. El Centro wants local faith groups to sign on to the letter.
~ ~ ~
Peace & Justice ~ Joel Goering ~ $100.00
Sent donation to Peace and Justice Support Network of Mennonite Church USA — Muriel brought up the fact that since RMC is not contributing to Mennonite Mission Network this year (due to Freedom School and other budgetary demands), it is important for us to show at least some commitment to the efforts of the wider church by supporting the PJSN
~ ~ ~
Iraq War ~ Phil Rhoads
Participated by being in the KS delegation delivering “Too Many Have Died” postcards to our (2) Senators’ offices and (1) Congressperso’s office in Overland Park.
~ ~ ~
Bolivia and MCC ~ Several members
Hosted potluck after Sunday School for Carmen Shelly’s brother, Mark Epp, and wife Cathy Wismer and children Hannah & Carlin.
~ ~ ~

May

Immigration Reform ~ Joel Goering
Promoted Justice for Children of Immigrant Parents — march/rally for immigrants’ rights, to be held (May 1) at Washington Square Park (in front of Crown Center).
~ ~ ~
Department of Peace and Nonviolence ~ Phil Rhoads
Discussion in Sunday School reminded me about the proposed Department of Peace which I heard about almost three months ago. I have now posted it on our blog and hope you will join me in lobbying Dennis Moore (or your congress person) to become a co-sponsor. It currently has 64 co-sponsors.
~ ~ ~
Nonviolent Intervention ~ Phil Rhoads
In memory of the shootings in April at Virginia Tech fresh in your minds. But the shootings last October of the Amish school girls in Pennsylvania may be starting to fade. And the memory of the fourth hijacked airplane on September 11, 2001, which crashed in Pennsylvania, may no longer be haunting you.
I bring these examples up because I have been contemplating a project for some members from our church, that would be a response to these tragedies. I especially am interested in the opinions of current or past members of East Hill Singers, who have had contact with inmates in prison.
It is hard for me to describe this project precisely, because I can’t figure out what is practical and what is fantasy. Thaťs why I need your opinions and conversations.
As succinctly as I can explain it, I envision something like a “volunteer fire department” except not to put out fires, but to reduce violence. The main goal would be to save lives, including the person holding the gun, if possible. (The recent police shooting at Ward Parkway Shopping Center to stop the man who had already killed and wounded several people and was threatening to shoot more would be to me a failure of nonviolent tactics.)
Now that our church is hosting a Freedom School, we are more vulnerable to a Virginia Tech-type shooting spree. Recent gang activity at Whitmore Playground reminds us that our church is not in a violence-free “green zone.”
We have the local police, of course, as do the Presbyterians, and the Catholics and all the other people in our community, but shouldn’t we as Mennonites have our own ways to address violence whenever possible?
We were all impressed with the response of forgiveness by the Amish in Pennsylvania, but where were the Amish men when their school was entered by the gunman? Did they have a plan but just were not able to implement it in time? Did they choose not to have a plan on purpose and just trust in God to protect them? Or did they just trust in the police like everyone else?
To me, first we need to answer the question, should we develop a “volunteer nonviolence team” that we would call first, whenever possible, instead of the local police?
And second, could we do it?
~ ~ ~
Nuclear Weapons ~ Phil Rhoads & John Mueller
Made public comment on the proposed $150 billion nuclear weapons Complex 2030 and replace the old Kansas City Plant with a new half-billion dollar facility.
~ ~ ~

June

Iraq Vets Against the War ~ Several members
Provided tents and food for Adam Kokesh and fellow vets against the war
~ ~ ~
Immigration Reform ~ Phil Rhoads & Muriel Stackley
Attended NSM training from 10 am to 1 pm here at Grandview Park Presbyterian Church — opportuity to meet with and be trained by people who are involved in the movement at the national level.
~ ~ ~
Environment ~ Chris Alliman
Started Cell Phone Recycling program at church
~ ~ ~

July

Hotdogs in the Park ~ Several members
Hosted & prepared food for community
~ ~ ~

August

Immigration Reform ~ Several members
Attended event by NSM-KC at Argentine Presbyterian Church! There were many Catholics, and Presbyterians, along with a few Methodists, Disciples and Mennonites (4) in attendance.
~ ~ ~

September

Iraq War ~ Phil Rhoads
Hand out Peace Buttons to our kids during the Children’s Story on Sep. 30. The kids could then hand them out to the congregation. Ordered 200 buttons ($50 + $14 shipping, which makes them 32¢ each). Attached is a picture of the button. Each button is 1” diameter and can easily be worn as a lapel pin. Wording on the button is: “Pray and Act for Peace in Iraq (CHRISTIANPEACEWITNESS.ORG)” and the graphic is a hand holding a candle.
~ ~ ~
Iraq War ~ Several members
Promoted and attended “The Consequences of War” — Kathy Kelly — St. Francis Xavier Church, KCMO
~ ~ ~
International Peace Day ~ Several members
Participated in the International Day of Prayer for Peace at First Central Church of the Brethren
~ ~ ~
Immigration Reform ~ Several members
Participated in the dedication rally for the “Love the Immigrant as yourself” at Truman Rd. & the Paseo
~ ~ ~
Worship ~ Several members
Led worship on September 30, “Peace & Justice Sunday.”
~ ~ ~
MCC High School Essay Contest ~ Phil Rhoads
Promoted participation
~ ~ ~

October

Burma ~ Bob Carlson & Regina Troyer
Bob Carlson found this timely blog from Gene Stoltzfus, about the current situation in Burma: http://gstoltzfus.blogspot.com/2007/09/burma-on-march.html>
Also, Regina found this on-line petition for Burma:
http://www.avaaz.org/en/stand_with_burma/tf.php?cl_tf_sign=1
~ ~ ~
Human Rights/Labor Rights ~ Regina Troyer
Wrote “On Fire” blog
~ ~ ~
Hope Flowers School ~ Several members
Attended fundraising dinner on Oct. 13 by Citizens for Justice in the Middle East; this is a Palestinian elementary school near Bethlehem that teaches peace, co-existence, and democracy.
~ ~ ~
Religion & Politics ~ Phil Rhoads
Participated in Anabaptist Vision and Discipleship Series Conference — “Politics pits people against each other-even Christians against Christians. Should Christians be involved in politics? Would Jesus belong to a political party? Can we talk with each another (and listen!) when we disagree? Hesston College is hosting the conference, “Christian Ministry in a Red and Blue World.” October 19-21. Greg Boyd (well known speaker and author of the New York Times Best seller The Myth of a Christian Nation), John D. Roth (Goshen College professor and popular speaker) and a host of workshop presenters will lead conversations.
~ ~ ~

November

Calendars ~ Phil Rhoads & Muriel Stackley
HOT OFF THE PRESS (from Phil Rhoads’s print shop, that is): Offical Rainbow Mennonite Calendrs for 2008. Pick up yours today — downstaris in the Fellowship Hall. Suggested donation $20 each — leave cash or checks (to “Rainbow-calendars”) in basket on table with calendars. This year all proceeds will be divided equally between the Rainbow Peace & Justice Committee and the new Parking Lot Fund. A special option this year: for additional donation of $10, Muriel T. Stackley will add hand-drawn, full-color fraktur (Pennsylvania Ductch decorative art) to your calendar top. (Special instructions for Fraktur by Muriel: put your name on the back of your calendar top and place in special box marked “For Fraktur by Muriel” — your finished calendars will be returned to church in the next week or two. Note — this offer is restricted to the first 50 people who sign up, or until Muriel gets tired, whichever comes first!)
~ ~ ~
Homelessness and Poverty ~ Chris Alliman & Regina Troyer
Promoted and sold Christmas cards for a good cause - from a women’s workshop in Denver called the Gathering Place. TheGathering Place serves women and children living in homelessness and poverty. The Card Project, as this specific workshop is called, is an on-site therapeutic studio environment in which women create hand-made greeting cards. Cards cost $2 each.
~ ~ ~
Alternative Christmas gifts ~ Several members
Created and distributed a list of environmentally-friendly and socially-conscious Christmas gift ideas to RMC members.
~ ~ ~

December

Advent ~ Phil Rhoads
Peace Lamp from MCC to focus attention on “No War on Iran”
~ ~ ~
MCC High School Essay Contest ~ Phil Rhoads
Wrote essay about Immigration Reform and the Frances Semler controversy with Mayor Mark Funkhouser.
~ ~ ~
Iraq ~ War Phil Rhoads
Participated in conference call for Christian Peace Witness for Iraq promoting March 7 event in DC for the 5th anniversary of the war
~ ~ ~
Iran ~ Several members
Collected petition signatures advocating for peaceful, non-military solutions to the growing U.S.-Iran conflict.
~ ~ ~
Iran ~ Phil Rhoads, Muriel Stackley & Joel
Delivered petitions at the local offices of (4) U.S. Senators and (3) Representatives from Kansas and Missouri.
~ ~ ~

Delivering the Iran Petitions

2007-12-22T08:50:00.001-06:00

On December 19, 2007, we delivered the Iran petitions to the SEVEN local offices of our elected federal officials: 2 US Senators each for Missouri and Kansas, 2 US Representatives for Missouri, and 1 US Representative for Kansas. Our Peace Lamp traveled with us to each of these offices, and helped us feel connected to the two delegations to Iraq (May, 2002) and Iran (February, 2007) when the original Peace Lamps were presented there.

See more photos at: Peace Lamp photos with Petitions

Here is the wording of the Petitions:

Petition for Peace between the United States and Iran

Dear Representative Moore,

We want you to know that our congregation, Rainbow Mennonite Church, 1444 Southwest Boulevard, Kansas City, KS 66103, is praying for peaceful relations between the United States and Iran. We urge you to support a path of diplomacy between our countries with no preconditions. The only way that differences between our two nations can be truly resolved is through negotiation. Military strikes bring only anger, fear and retaliation, never reconciliation or understanding. We respectfully ask that you do all you can to ensure conflicts between our countries are resolved peacefully, without using any type of military action.

Sincerely,

(Our names and addresses were listed here.)

We had "polite" receptions at each local office, and "warm" receptions at two of them. It was a very empowering experience for Muriel Stackley, Joel Goering and me. I hope that all who took the time to sign the petitions feel appreciated and inspired to keep up the good work.

I am forwarding a report of our congregation's involvement in this peace effort to our Peace Advocate, Susan Mark Landis. You may email her at: susanml@mennoniteusa.org. Please leave comments below.

Litany for the First Sunday of Advent, 2007

2007-11-30T15:13:00.001-06:00

Our Elected Government Officials

2007-11-28T15:31:00.000-06:00

President:

Bush The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20500, Phone Numbers: Comments: 202-456-1111, Switchboard: 202-456-1414, FAX: 202-456-2461, Email: comments@whitehouse.gov

Senators:

KS: Brownback 11111 West 95th, Suite 245, Overland Park, KS 66214, Voice: 913-492-6378, FAX: 913-492-7253
Roberts 11900 College Boulevard, Suite 203, Overland Park, KS 66210, Voice: 913-451-9343, FAX: 913-451-9446

MO: Bond 911 Main Street, Suite 2224, Kansas City, MO 64105, Voice: 816-471-7141
McCaskill 400 East 9th Street, Suite 40 Plaza Level, Kansas City, MO 64106, Voice: 816-421-1639, Fax 816-421-2562

Representatives:

KS: Moore 8417 Santa Fe Drive, Suite 101, Overland Park, KS 66212, Voice: 913-383-2013, FAX: 913-383-2088
and 500 State Avenue, Suite 176, Kansas City, KS 66101, Voice: 913-621-0832, FAX: 913-621-1533

MO: Cleaver 101 W. 31st Street, Kansas City, MO 64108, Voice: 816-842-4545, FAX: 816-471-5215
Graves 113 Blue Jay Drive, Suite 100, Liberty, MO 64068, Voice: 816-792-3976, FAX: 816-792-0694

Interview with John Perkins

2007-10-07T20:38:00.000-06:00

Here is an interview with John Perkins that sort of summarizes what he is about, if anyone is interested.
www.zentertainment.org/podcasts/zentertainment19.mp3

On fire

2007-10-07T18:43:00.000-06:00

The biggest challenge for me lately is what to do about this…this injustice I am reading about in John Perkins’s book!! (The Secret History of the American Empire, and he also wrote Confessions of an Economic Hit Man). I’m having a hard time dealing with the knowledge that there are sweatshops out there, cranking out cheap goods for Americans to consume…and the word “sweatshop” doesn’t begin to convey the deplorable labor conditions in these factories…even people getting killed for trying to organize! Even two Americans who went to Indonesia to investigate and expose these conditions were nearly killed by these so called “jackals” that Perkins talks about. These two Americans are currently completing a film about their experiences talking and living with the workers at a Nike factory there (see sweatthefilm.org and educatingforjustice.org). I have felt that I am on fire with this knowledge, a sort of dangerous, intense fire, whose energy can either destroy me or which, by the grace of God and my fellow Mennonites (hello Rainbow Peace and Justice group!) and other friends, I can somehow learn to channel to creative means for change. We (Americans) are the ones who buy these cheap goods, so we ultimately are the ones with the power to insist that people making them are treated fairly. I think letter writing can go a long way.

The conference minister of our regional Mennonite church organization (Dorothy Friesen) gave the sermon today, in our minister’s absence. She used the word “fire”, too, as a metaphor for how the world received Jesus’s message in his time, and how the Anabaptists insisted on a more direct and pure living of the gospel gone awry in the midst of the Reformation and were persecuted for it, and how the Russian Mennonites of last century fled Stalin’s persecution and came to Kansas. She extended it to the fire burning even in our times, and there is a treasure to be guarded, polished, shared and passed on in the midst of this fire. I can’t help but hope that somehow Mennonites can be a major player in shifting the way the world does things, to a more just and equitable way. Certainly I think this is part of Jesus's "treasure" we can guard and pass on. The Mennonite partnership in Ten Thousand Villages is a wonderful start, but oh, so much more can be done!! Education is key. I don't think most people are aware of how much global injustice and corruption permeates the major companies and brands that we Americans are so familiar with.

— Regina Troyer, rtroyer@kc.rr.com

Kathy Kelly in KC

2007-09-15T16:31:00.000-06:00

Kathy Kelly, long-time peace activist and member of a Catholic Worker Community in Chicago, will report on the consequences of war that she has witnessed in Amman, Jordan, where she recently spent two months among the large and growing community of Iraqis who have fled the violence in their country.

Her talk will focus on the consequences of war for displaced Iraqis, for Americans who suffer neglect because of a bloated military budget and for the planet when we fail to address major environmental problems in part because inordinate resources go toward military pursuits.

Kathy will include an invitation to engage in a sustained campaign of resistance. (possibly the current campaign in Iowa: http://vcnv.org/seasons-of-discontent-a-presidential-occupation-project-sodapop)

Recent articles she has written from Jordan can be found at the Voices website at HYPERLINK www.vcnv.org www.vcnv.org.

This lecture is the first of a series of events planned at St. Francis throughout the coming year on the topics of nonviolence and peacemaking…Stay tuned for future events.

Sponsors: Holy Family Catholic Worker House (816-753-2677) &

SFX Adult Education Ministry

Dear friends of HFH:

We strongly encourage you to find the time to attend this presentation!

We have found Kathy’s witness to nonviolence, social, economic and environmental justice to be transformational. She is a true example of one who has made a commitment to examine and change her own lifestyle in pursuit of a better world.

Please join us as we welcome our dear friend and hero to KC!

Kathy Kelly

The Consequences of War

Sunday, September 16

7:30 pm

Saint Francis Xavier Church

1001 East 52^nd Street

(52^nd & Troost)

Kansas City, MO 64110

816-523-5115

New Sanctuary Movement--discerning the level of our support

2007-08-26T18:25:00.000-06:00

Here is the website of the New Sanctuary Movement: http://www.newsanctuarymovement.org/hospitality.htm

There are at least two categories of support solicited by the New Sanctuary Movement:

1. Role and Expectations for Host Congregations
What does a place of worship have to do to participate and become a sanctuary for immigrant families?
• Agree to host an immigrant family that meets the following criteria:
Be in the legal process and under an order of deportation
American citizen children
Good work record
Viable case under current law

• Host the family for an initial commitment. The family will use the congregation as their mailing address and will be able to spend time as needed at the site. They may need actual hospitality (a place to live) in the congregation, in real estate owned by the congregation or in the home of a family that belongs to the congregation.

• Help with material and spiritual support for the family. There will be a larger network of individuals and congregations who will not be hosting families but will be providing material and spiritual support for families. Expert immigration lawyers will be handling their case.

• Participate in a public press conference with congregations all over the country who are hosting families. All of the host and allied congregations are joining in an interfaith statement of accompaniment/solidarity lifting up the human rights of immigrant families as children of God.

• Be available for press interviews.
2. Allied Faith Communities Statement of Support and Involvement
Moved by our faith to participate in the New Sanctuary Movement, this faith community commits to the following:
Education
• We will educate ourselves about issues facing immigrants in our society, and about the current status of immigration-related legislation.
• We will avail ourselves of resources from the New Sanctuary Movement, and will welcome the first-hand stories of immigrants themselves who have experienced injustice.
• We will renew our study of the sacred stories of migration and hospitality, injustice and hope, which already exist in our own faith tradition.
• Seeking also to educate our greater community, we will offer public forums on immigration.

Advocacy
We understand that education alone brings no change if it does not lead to action. Therefore,
• We will actively and publicly work for comprehensive immigration reform in the United States.
• We call for an immediate moratorium on all raids and unjust deportations that cause the separation of families, until such time as the broken system of immigration laws is fixed.
• We agree to include our names, our voices and our selves (or representative members) in public events, various forms of media, and other appropriate venues.
• We will be a compassionate and persistent voice for justice for our immigrant brothers and sisters.

In addition, we commit to one or more of the following:

a. Legal Triage
The need for competent and free or low-cost legal advice to the immigrant community far outstrips the capacity of the movements “prophetic hospitality.” Therefore, faith communities are called upon to host legal clinics, provide legal referrals and to identify families in need of such assistance.

b. Prophetic Hospitality
Faith communities will "host" a family seeking sanctuary for a period of three months, and serve as a tangible support system for them during that period. Based on the needs of the family in question, such support might include (a) meals for the family, (b) transportation to and from work, school or other events, (c) housing at the faith community itself, should such emergency housing be required, and (d) financial support and/or job referral (particularly in the case of job loss due to publicity of the case). Although this form of very public hospitality is entirely legal, faith communities involved in this aspect will have access to first-rate pro-bono legal services.

c. Material Support
Faith communities will provide financial support towards either (a) the New Sanctuary Movement itself, or (b) a pool of money to be used to assist specific families in the local community seeking sanctuary and in need of the support. Depending upon storage and distribution capacity, other forms of donations could also be given, including food, bedding, clothing, and other material goods. Cultural, musical and other educational events are encouraged to raise both money for and awareness of the movement.

d. Worker Justice
Despite society’s ongoing desire for the services of day laborers and immigrant domestics, the climate of racism and harassment has reached a fever pitch. Faith communities are called to offer support through: 1) being publicly present at existing day labor pick-up sites as a peaceful presence in the face of racist and hateful demonstrators; 2) serving as an alternative labor/employer match site; and/or 3) being advocates for worker issues.

_______

It is my hope that Rainbow can commit to one of these levels of participation, and that our committee, at least, can reach consensus before Sep. 19 to sign on as a Committee of our congregation in anticipation that our congregation-as-a-whole will sign on shortly.

-- Phil Rhoads

Cell phone recycling

2007-06-26T08:47:00.001-06:00

Cell phones, desk jet cartiges, and laser jet cartiges can now be recycled at church. Next to the mailboxes is a basket to place the items in. These will get mailed off during the J+P meetings every two months and the money received goes directly to MCC. The plan is to have this in place this week with a notice in the midweek notables, the news letter and the bulletin. Is someone willing to announce this at church during sharing time or should we wait a bit.

Chris Allimn

Freedom School Training

2007-06-14T12:18:00.001-06:00

The Freedom School volunteer training went very well last night with a good turnout. Joel and John presented the program, needs and a bit of the philosophy to the volunteers. The various books that will be used were also sitting out so we could look at them. It was enjoyable to see some of the cheers and how the freedom school will act and interact. I'm glad our church is participating in this and expect it will be a good addition.

There were some questions as to whether our church is the first Caucasian church in KC to host Freedom School, and with a significant number of scholars being Hispanic whether the curriculum will slowly modify to meet that ethnic group. Seems like the Freedom School directing body will have some interesting issues to struggle with as they grow and work toward expanded relevance.

Chris Alliman

New Sanctuary Movement

2007-05-10T10:38:00.001-06:00

Check out the website for New Sanctuary Movement. I like the articles that Phil suggested and appreciated Muriels comments. Maybe something we should all read more about and consider in our discussions. All the activity listed seems to be in LA and Chicago, any known activity in KC?

chris

New Sanctuary Movement being launched nationwide

2007-05-10T09:11:00.000-06:00

Today in the KC Star was an article on page A2 and a more recent one online report about the "New Sanctuary Movement."

I hope Rainbow will agree to be a member of the movement and participate fully in its activities.

See also Muriel's blog on "New Sanctuary Movement"

Immigration Issue

2007-05-08T17:22:00.000-06:00

I've finally figured out how to post to this thing....anyway, to answer your question, Chris: I have been periodically attending the meetings of a new group calling itself, "People of Faith for Hospitality and Justice." It consists of mostly KCK pastors and lay people concerned about a fair and just solution to the immigration issue. If you or others on the Peace and Justice Committee are interested, I can provide more information about this group and its advocacy efforts.

Also, Melinda Lewis is the advocacy/lobbying person at El Centro. She is very articulate and well-informed on this topic. I can inquire about getting on her e-mail list and/or inviting her to address our group or perhaps an adult Sunday school class.

Cinco De Mayo

2007-05-08T15:33:00.001-06:00

One of the focuses of our group has been an interest in immigration advocation. Cinco De Mayo passed with a rally at the KC, Missouri city buildings, but the awareness of a march was lacking. I think we, as a group, found out about it a day before hand or even the day of. Is there a way that we can get better connected with the groups working for immigration reform? As we are trying to support them it would be good for us to develop some type of connection. Someone mentioned El Centro as a good place to begin. Does anyone already have contact to El Centro or know of other groups?

Chris

Urban Kansas Mennonites and Homosexuality, 1968-1999

2007-03-28T05:19:00.000-06:00

(Editor's note: some names have been substituted for confidentiality)

Robert Michael Weaver's senior seminar paper for Bethel College, 3/29/07 :

Mennonite communities in Kansas, no matter how conservative, strict, or separate they have tried to remain from the permissive and indulgent American society, have had to address homosexuality.1 A controversy over homosexuality can rip a Mennonite community apart after years of unspoken and unquestionable condemnation of homosexual acts. For example, an intense controversy arose in the 1980s in Lawrence, Kansas when the pastor at the time, John Linscheid, came out. After intense dialogue within the congregation, it split and imploded.2 At Alexanderwohl Mennonite Church, "Jane Doe", whose soprano voice had been a gift to the choir, was driven out in November of 2004 after it was found out she had had a commitment ceremony with her partner "Joan" at Metropolitan Community Church in Wichita.3 In Pretty Prairie, Kansas, "John Doe", a married father of two, was forced out of the closet and driven from the tight-knit community he had lived in all his life. Throughout the last fifty years, homosexuality has been the toughest controversy to deal with across Kansas. So much so that in 2003 Western District Conference delegates, the General Conference district which includes the area of Kansas, fearing that the issue was ripping the church apart, decided to cease debate or the offering of new resolutions on homosexuality. Kansas Mennonites across the political spectrum have conceded that this was a necessary move.4

Preface

I seek to understand how and why Mennonite urban professionals have justified and articulated a theology of acceptance toward homosexuals.5 I also desire to discover if they have formulated this theology in a way that would allow them to persuade Mennonites who hold the traditional view of homosexuality as deviance or sin toward a more accepting position. Studying Mennonite writings and personal reflections, with a special emphasis on Kansas urban Mennonites, during the period of 1968-1999, one can find that progressive Mennonites articulated a well-developed theology justifying acceptance of homosexuals, but this theology is far from being broadly accepted in Mennonite communities. I also studied key differences between the two sides of the homosexuality debate among Mennonites in Kansas. Some factors that have led to a more accepting attitude toward homosexuals among Mennonites were: education level, seeing the Biblical theme of justice as more important than the theme of purity, one’s views on the literalness of the Bible, and the newness of the church attended. However, the most significant factor that has led to an accepting position for Mennonites was positive experience with homosexuals. Despite clear demographic and theological differences between inclusive and traditional minded Mennonites, the debate is more about personal subjective experience than disagreements over grand Biblical truths.6

This study is specifically focused on progressive Mennonites.7 I focused on progressive Mennonites because their views represent a change from traditional Mennonite understandings of Bible passages condemning homosexual acts, and historians study change over time. A historical perspective will help people, especially young Mennonites, understand how much of the current debates over homosexuality is influenced by past and ongoing debates about the meaning of the 1960s “sexual revolution” and various people’s feelings toward the conflicts over changing sexual mores that have been occurring for decades. Currently, the major historians of twentieth century Mennonite history have not addressed homosexuality.8 I began in 1968 because the Mennonite Church held a convention on family, marriage and sexuality in Goshen, Indiana in that year, which started many discussions about sexuality among Mennonites.9

Background on Mennonites

Many of the Mennonites studied here are descendants of families that came to Kansas in 1874 in what is known as the “First Migration.” These were German-speaking Mennonites who started moving to the Ukraine at the beginning of the nineteenth century. They had received favorable conditions under Czarina Catherine II, but faced increased pressure to acculturate and join the military in the 1870s under a variety of programs collectively called “Russification.” These Russian Mennonites, as well as other Mennonites already in America, were staunch pacifists. Other Mennonites, with various Central and Northern European backgrounds, have been in America since the seventeenth century.10 During the American Revolution, Mennonites, who generally refused to participate in government, take oaths or carry weapons, were essentially told to take loyalty oaths, leave, or lose the rights they had previously enjoyed in places like Pennsylvania, which had had strong respect for religious autonomy before the American Revolution. After the Revolution, American Mennonites cast themselves as “the quiet in the land,” and unlike Canadian Mennonites, rarely participated in American politics.

The Russian Mennonites continued this practice of political separation when they came to the United States in the 1870s. Church leaders prohibited voting or running for office. Communities maintained their independence from others by buying land as much as possible in blocks all together while moving to Kansas.11 This maintained both the separation from the world and the communalistic tight-knit aspect of Mennonite culture.

One unique characteristic of these Russian Mennonites was a much more positive attitude toward education than other Mennonite groups. They already had an independent school system in Russia and invested in schools in America earlier than other Mennonites.12 Openness toward education rendered these Russian Mennonites more progressive than other American Mennonites. This progressivism was cemented when they joined the General Conference Mennonite Church (GC), which has had a decreased sense of ethnic identity compared to the Mennonite Church (MC) and at times a more progressive focus.13

In 1860 the GC was formed when a progressive Mennonite named John Oberholtzer quit wearing the required clothing and sought to work with anyone using newspapers and schools to teach Mennonitism. Many of the Mennonites studied here have a GC background, and the theme of decreased emphasis on church discipline is apparent. The GC, unlike the MC, has always had a congregational polity, meaning congregations have been independent of and not subject to the conference body.14

Increased acculturation and urbanization throughout the twentieth century brought many challenges for Mennonites and drove them to find new ways of expressing their identity that were more engaging toward the world.15 Reflection on World War Two led some Mennonites to develop and change their views toward the state and the rest of society. To Beulah Stauffer Hostetler, as well as other Mennonite scholars, the 1950s marked the beginning of a heightened articulation of Mennonite peace and service positions.16 In Civilian Public Service (CPS), as well as other service organizations, Mennonites were exposed to places all over the world.17 Also, many did very tough relief work where absolute pacifism became more complicated as they faced utilitarian life and death decisions. These experiences led the Mennonite participants to recognize the need for more ambiguity on issues, and also the need to pick up on secular ways of speaking and thinking so that they could explain and eventually advocate their pacifist position in a way that made sense to outsiders. Young men who had been through CPS formed the Young Peoples’ Conference and became very successful in pushing the GC and MC to become more comfortable engaging the world. Many had been influenced by Quakers in CPS and brought the idea of “speaking Truth to power” into the Mennonite Church as a strong counterpoint to the Mennonite idea of being the “quiet in the land.” The Young Peoples’ Conference pushed for publishing peace curricula, peace conferences, developing strong relief and service organizations, witnessing to the state, and addressing housing/urban, labor, and prison problems. All these visions were fulfilled in less than fifty years.18

Despite post-WWII progressive movements, Mennonite churches tended to lag behind other churches and American society in general when it came to certain social issues, such as acceptance of divorce and women in ministry. Mennonite churches, in the 1970s and 1980s were some of the most conservative communities in America.19 One unique aspect of the Mennonite conflicts over homosexuality is Mennonite churches have a long history of discipline and strict membership standards.20 This means that while mainstream churches were debating homosexuals in positions of leadership, Mennonites were debating whether to even let them into the church as members. Many progressive Mennonites see the results of this uniqueness as a sign of slowness and conservatism among Mennonites.

History of Churches Studied

Rainbow Mennonite Church in Kansas City and Lorraine Avenue Mennonite Church in Wichita are both rather young churches. Lawrence Mennonite Fellowship is an even younger church, started in the early 1980s. This youngness is especially true when compared to Kansas churches like Alexanderwohl, which has preserved its 300 plus year congregational history from Prussia to Russia to Goessel.21 Lorraine and Rainbow were both started by a Home Missions program (Lorraine in 1932 and Rainbow in the 1950s), which had the goal of gathering together urban Mennonites.22 This was a safe evangelical effort whereby rural Kansas Mennonites, who were not ready for full-scale evangelism, could do smaller efforts in the city by gathering “lost” Mennonites. These Mennonites had moved to urban areas both to find work and often as well to escape the closed and conservative nature of the congregations they grew up in.23 Rainbow, Lorraine and Lawrence have been viewed with skepticism by Kansas Mennonites with a sense of rural pride. One factor in my research that seems special to Kansas Mennonites is that the newness of the church was a significant factor for increasing homosexual inclusiveness. This is something that is not likely true in other places. For example, Germantown Mennonite Church in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the oldest Mennonite congregation in the American continent, was downgraded to associate member status by the Franconia Mennonite Conference of the MC and disciplined by the Eastern District of the GC for their open acceptance of homosexuals.24

Many barriers between the Mennonite community and broader society broke down in churches such as Lorraine, Lawrence and Rainbow. These urban Mennonites developed extensive programs to minister to and help the poor, people of different races, and people in prisons.25 As members of these churches listened to the stories from gay people in their cities, in their own families, as well as from rural areas who had been ostracized for their orientation, they decided that homosexuality was not a sin, or at least not a special, scary, unclean, or unredeemable sin. Encounters with homosexual friends and family members have been a strong influence in these Mennonites’ decisions to accept homosexuals. Every interviewee, except the most conservative one, had had significant contact with at least one homosexual person, and many had homosexuals in their families. One Lorraine interviewee thought that it is likely that each of the regular attendants at Lorraine have had gay friends or family members.26

Rainbow’s progressive identity is partly rooted in members’ reaction to restrictive rural communities, their history of social activism, and a theology centered around peace and social justice. A number of Mennonites strengthened their commitment to peace and social justice during the Vietnam War and the Civil Rights movement. One such person was Leo Goertz, a founding member of Rainbow and a conscientious objector during World War II. After seeing an intense push for conformity to violence and fear of any dissent, Goertz realized the importance of dissent. He learned it was important to listen to others with unique perspectives. This is an ethic that he has applied when he has encountered homosexuals in his lifetime. Goertz was a medical doctor and like many of the professionals at these three churches, he has had homosexual clients. Another such person was Robert Kauffman, who became the pastor of Rainbow in 1998. He grew up in a fundamentalist Mennonite missional church called Crossroads Bible Church, deep in the Mississippi Gulf. Kauffman, a tall man, who speaks loudly and friendly with a hint of an informal Southern style, saw connections between minority groups such as blacks, Anabaptists, and homosexuals whose refusal to go along with the majority status quo resulted in oppression. Kauffman, whose home church worked hard to eradicate racism, stated that Mennonites caught on to the race issue relatively early, and he wished they would be more ready to push for homosexual rights.27

Members at Rainbow have pushed for their church to be “on the cutting edge of the Mennonite world” to the point that they often make other Kansas Mennonites uncomfortable. When pressure was put on them to change their position of acceptance toward homosexuals, they have remained confident that it was the right thing to do. Many, if not most, of the members at these three urban churches grew up in rural Mennonite farming communities. Lorraine and Rainbow, since their founding, have been places for Mennonites to build new theologies after leaving their closed rural communities. Many of the members that left such communities have bad memories of the strictness, some would even say coerciveness of their home congregation.28 These members have become accepting toward homosexuals not only because of a basic set of Mennonite morals which included supporting social justice and following Jesus’ actions toward social outcasts, but have become additionally progressive in spite of their Mennonite upbringing on social issues. They have done so while maintaining traditional worship styles and framing acceptance of homosexuals as part of broader Mennonite positions supporting peace and social justice.

* * *

In 1968 homosexuality was rarely, if ever, talked about among Kansas Mennonites. Everyone simply knew it was wrong.29 Parents and church leaders alike felt little need to address homosexuality directly, possibly because children learned from school or the playground that being a “fag,” or a “queer,” was one of the worst things one could be. It was assumed that homosexuality was an unnatural “problem” that only people “over there” in certain sinful areas had to deal with. Roland Krause, a long-time member of Lorraine Avenue in Wichita, now 80 years old, reflected that when he grew up in Goessel and Hillsboro (Mennonite farming towns in central Kansas) there were single women in the church who lived together and everyone knew that arrangement was economically necessary, but nobody would dare ask either them, or the men who never married, if they were homosexuals.30 While conservative Mennonites have referred to homosexuality as a recent “problem,” many of the progressives, especially older ones at Rainbow in Kansas City, said that sexual acts deemed “deviant” have always been around in all communities and the key difference post-1960s is that people talk about them.31

Growing up homosexual was very difficult in the 1960s and 1970s in Mennonite churches. Homosexuals I interviewed from these conservative communities prayed hard for God to remove their illness and severely suppressed their sexual feelings.32 Many homosexual Mennonites married, thinking that would finally “cure their sickness.”33 One such person was Sonia Andreas, now age 57, who joined Lorraine in 2003. She grew up in the Bruderthal Mennonite Church in Hillsboro. While attending McPherson College to become a nurse, Andreas heard people call others gay, and there was gossip about certain students being gay, but she did not believe there were really homosexuals anywhere. As was expected of her, Andreas pursued her vision of a peaceful married life with kids. However, in her marriage her husband and she discovered that she did not enjoy sex. In response, Sonia convinced herself that she was simply asexual. At the age of twenty-nine, she realized that she was not asexual, but that simply all but one of her attractions and fantasies had been toward women. She had been bitterly repressing her sexuality, which was strongly oriented toward women (she put it numerically at 99% homosexual).34 Andreas’ story is not at all unusual among homosexual Kansas Mennonites, many of whom have tried to be heterosexual, and ended up in nearly impossible marriages with continual sentiments of denial toward self and fear of getting close to others at work and at church.35

In 1978 Rainbow members looked closely at the issue of homosexuality and decided that sexual orientation would be not be an issue for membership in their congregation. Rainbow was the first Mennonite congregation in the United States to fully study homosexuality and the first to come to such a decision. This decision was possibly an impetus for larger Mennonite studies of the issue shortly afterwards.36 The pastor from the mid-1970s until 1999 was Frank Ward, who gave several sermons on the relevant biblical material in the late 1970s and encouraged others to examine how words for “homosexual” have been interpreted by various New Testament scholars. Ward and Rainbow member James Yoder, a counseling psychologist, organized several workshops in 1978, which included storytelling by homosexual persons. During the 1980s Lorraine and Rainbow both had pastors that were very progressive on homosexuality.

Frank Ward saw making Rainbow more open to homosexuals as part of his ministry. As he explained during one of his sermons on the topic, he had ministered to a young homosexual woman who had attempted suicide. This intense personal experience, as well as other encounters during his ministry, increased the sense of urgency with which Frank approached the issue.37

Don Steelberg, the pastor of Lorraine during the 1980s, was also very progressive and willing to push the issue at times. Although nobody ever approached Steelberg with discomfort about his pushing of the issue, at least one interviewee said that his “off-hand” remarks from the pulpit directed toward people who hold the traditional position had made some uncomfortable.38 In 1986, Steelberg gave a sermon on Galatians that compared the intense fears and clawing to tradition that occurred in debates over homosexuality to the early Christian debates over circumcision. He concluded the sermon with openness toward which ever way the congregation would decide to go. Despite Steelberg’s attempts at being gentle and not pushing the too much issue, the members knew where he stood. Steelberg grew frustrated by the bigotry he saw in Mennonite publications and heard about from his wife Elsie as she worked for the Human Sexuality Study Committee (HSSC) in the 1980s. Steelberg discussed the issue many times with the deacons and they asked him not to perform a gay wedding/commitment ceremony and not to use the Lorraine Avenue building. Steelberg did, however, conduct a gay wedding at Metropolitan Community Church while pastor at Lorraine, something most members remained unaware of.39

Although Steelberg was more progressive than most in the congregation, this is not to say that Lorraine was exclusive. Elsie Steelberg described Lorraine as an “exceptional church” due to its ability to welcome a variety of people and she believed that “Lorraine Avenue, on a whole, has been much more accepting [than other Mennonite churches toward homosexuals].” In the early and mid 1980s, when most Mennonite churches were ignoring the HSSC’s recommendations for Mennonites to discuss homosexuality and seek positive interactions with homosexuals, Lorraine invited and listened to gay persons in their Sunday school classes.40

It is especially interesting that Rainbow and Lorraine were not only addressing homosexuality far earlier than other Mennonites, but that they came to an inclusive position in a very conservative denomination that had actually become more conservative during the 1970s and 1980s. Although Mennonites can relate to the more liberal churches on issues of nationalism and war, they have been one of the most socially conservative denominations in America.41 For example, in a 1989 sociological survey, Mennonite attitudes on abortion, homosexuality and premarital sex were more conservative than any other group studied in an 1987 survey of American religion. In the 1989 survey 92% of the Mennonite respondents said that homosexuality was always wrong, compared to the most conservative 1987 group labeled “Conservative Protestants” where 89% said that homosexual acts were always wrong.42 If one compares the 1989 survey of Mennonite attitudes in which 92% unequivocally disapproved of homosexual acts to a 1972 survey in which only 86% of Mennonites responded in the same way, one can see that Mennonites became slightly more conservative during this time.

Homophobia was rampant in the MC and GC. Despite the fact that the Bible only addresses same-sex acts and not homosexuality itself, 48% and 51% respectively of the 1989 MC and GC respondents would not allow a celibate homosexual to be a member of their congregation. The percent allowing a celibate homosexual to be a pastor was only 8% for both the MC and GC, revealing in 1989 an atmosphere with intense anxiety about homosexuality among Mennonites.43 It seems that as sexuality increasingly moved into the public sphere and became a political issue in the 1980s, Mennonites found themselves firmly and increasingly conservative.44 Meanwhile, Rainbow and Lorraine headed in the opposite direction.

The MC and GC Study Homosexuality, 1978-1987

As sexuality became increasingly politicized in the late 1970s and early 1980s, Mennonites sought to better understand homosexuality.45 Several driving forces were operant in this push. One likely force was the 1978 decision at Rainbow to allow people to be members regardless of their sexual orientation. Another force was the general American anxiety about sexual values that led to an increase in sexual politics and subsequent successes by right-wing activists. While feminists and gay liberationists had won key victories in the early 1970s, by 1977 the tide was turning and right-wing activists had racked up nearly three dozen victories against local anti-discrimination clauses that included sexual orientation.46 Beginning with Ronald Reagan’s 1980 campaign, Republicans have solidified support from social conservatives by talking about traditional family values and topics such as sexuality which had previously been mostly left to the personal sphere of life, rather than the national political stage.47

Another driving force behind Mennonites’ interest in homosexuality in the 1970s was the founding of the Brethren Mennonite Council for Gay and Lesbian Concerns (BMC) in 1976. BMC was started by Martin Rock. Rock faced clear discrimination when his contract was not renewed by Mennonite Central Committee (MCC) due to his sexual orientation, after what he described as eleven years of enthusiastic and successful service.48 Since its founding BMC has kept in contact with Mennonite leaders, distributed literature and newsletters, and worked to keep the issue of homosexuality in the Mennonite spotlight.49

During the late 1970s professionals in the kind of jobs that are predominant at urban Mennonite churches-- teachers, doctors, psychiatrists, lawyers, nurses, social workers, etc.-- felt tension between their denomination, which had long taught that a member’s first allegiance was to the church, and their professional duties to their clients. Applying the traditional position of the Mennonite churches to their homosexual clients would either be illegal, violate ethics codes, mean an economic loss, or simply be embarrassing in a professional setting. It is out of this tension that Mennonite professionals sought practical answers as to how Christians should act toward homosexuals.

The Mennonite Medical Association (MMA) set out to better understand homosexuality in 1978 and 1979. MMA sponsored four symposiums on human sexuality with an emphasis on homosexuality. Presenters included medical doctors, psychologists, and top Mennonite theologians from across the political and theological spectrum. The questions that MMA members asked reflected questions medical professionals had been asking throughout the 1970s about homosexuality. In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from their manual of mental and emotional disorders. The American Psychological Association followed suit in 1975.50 At the MMA symposium Mennonites mirrored trends in the larger professional American society.

But they were clearly behind the broader American society in their conclusions. There was still a strong push for the idea that homosexuals could change, and that the church should encourage them to change through guilt and loving support.51 By the end of the sessions, debate over whether it was possible for someone to choose their orientation came to a standstill. Noting a lack of consensus on many issues, the MMA Task Force on homosexuality wrote in their findings report that, “While persons are not totally responsible for their sexual orientation, both heterosexuals and homosexuals are responsible... for their behavior,” and “Many homosexuals have struggled to change their orientation by means of therapy or religious experience. A significant number have experienced such change and a significant group have not experienced change; others have no interest in changing.”52 Although the discussion proved promising, Mennonite pastors and congregations were still without clear guidelines on how to minister toward homosexuals. Perhaps this was because many of the scholars, especially the more open-minded ones were left with key scientific questions about homosexuality. Repeatedly, presenters urged others to keep an open mind because the data were very scarce and often unreliable.53 Despite the lack of consensus at the symposium, the format of studying and discussing homosexuality was far ahead of what most Mennonite communities were comfortable with. There was clear advocacy for full respect toward homosexual persons and a statement deploring homophobia.

Continuing the trend of discussing issues of sexuality, both the GC and the MC general boards called for a major study of sexuality and homosexuality in the early 1980s. The two critical driving forces for the formation of a Human Sexuality Study Committee (HSSC) were the many unanswered questions after the MMA symposium and a strategy to divert an anti-homosexual resolution from coming to a vote in the 1980 GC assembly in Estes Park, Colorado. The GC hierarchy, realizing the conservatives had a clear majority to pass such as resolution, and fearing how a reactionary resolution would divide (and potentially embarrass) the church, successfully pushed for a major study to be done on homosexuality instead.54 In 1981 the MC followed suit and decided to support a joint study between the GC and the MC on sexuality and homosexuality. The HSSC was formed and over the next five years sixteen Mennonites engaged in intense study, writing, debate and received criticism about issues of sexuality.55 The goal was to produce a document that would guide Mennonites on sexual standards in the modern world.

The result of the HSSC was a 168 page book called Human Sexuality in the Christian Life, completed in 1985 and labeled as “A Working Document for Study and Dialogue.” The conclusions of the HSSC were cautious and varied. It offered and explained its various positions, including that homosexuals should change, should be celibate, and that they should be in committed monogamous covenantal unions. It did not pick one specific advocacy over others. The schizophrenic character of the document is likely due to the influence of Enos Martin, who advocated for change therapies, as well as inclusive writers such as Elsie Steelberg, a psychiatrist from Lorraine, who was arguably the chief contributor to the section on homosexuality.56 The GC and MC adopted resolutions in 1986 and 1987 supporting the findings of the book. Debates arose over whether the document represented the official position of the Mennonite Church, and also over whether the denomination, rather than individual congregations, even had to power to declare one “official position”. Many congregations were confused as to how resolute the findings in the book were, and this debate remained unsolved. This was not only due to the dual-minded nature of the conclusions in the document, but also because the document referred to itself as “a document for study and dialogue. It is not a reference guide on sexual issues. Rather, it is a study paper to assist the church in looking at our attitudes toward human sexuality.”57

The HSSC did conclude, however, that the Mennonite church’s traditional prohibition of premarital, extramarital and homosexual genital relations was justified. Fearing backlash from conservatives who were angry that homosexuality was even being studied, the MC General Board gave formal instructions to the HSSC as it was first being formed that it would uphold the church’s traditional stance. This frustrated BMC and inclusive Mennonites who questioned the value of a study in which at least one major conclusion was predetermined. Elsie Steelberg was frustrated that the MC members of the HSSC constantly called the MC General Board asking for guidance and permission to change things along the way. She observed that the GC members were much more free from control and used a wider variety of sources.58 Many from the inclusive side have been frustrated that traditional Mennonites cite the HSSC document and subsequent resolutions as the official position of the Mennonite church, while ignoring the apologies for past homophobia, condemnation of current homophobia, acknowledgment that homosexuals do not choose their orientation and repeated calls for further dialogue on the issue.59

Mennonite scholarship on homosexuality during the 1980s often followed broader academic work on the issue. For years the University of Chicago funded major studies as part of the Chicago Series on Sexuality, Gender, and Culture. One such work published by the University of Chicago was John Boswell’s 1980 National Book Award-winning Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality. Boswell’s book, as well as Robin Scrogg’s 1983 The New Testament and Homosexuality, were mentioned frequently by BMC members and were influential in the HSSC’s findings.60 By showing accepted, even exalted, gay unions in premodern Europe, Boswell challenged the very idea of a “traditional” Christian view toward homosexuality. Boswell and others challenged interpretations of verses condemning homosexuality and argued that Biblical writers were addressing deviant sexual behaviors such as pederasty and rape rather than contemporary homosexuality.61 This is especially true considering that homosexuality itself is etymologically (and arguably conceptually) a late nineteenth century construction and the word “homosexual” did not appear in an English Bible until the RSV in 1947.62 Mirroring broader academic trends, many Mennonite scholars, both inclusive and traditional, concluded that the words translated as “homosexual” were ambiguous.63

John Linscheid and the Lawrence Mennonite Fellowship

In the 1980s there was much anxiety and ignorance about homosexuality. Mennonites have been repeatedly unsure on how to proceed when the homosexuality issue has been thrust into their lives. Just as Mennonite scholars and professionals scrambled to find answers when the American Psychiatric and Psychological Associations changed their official understandings of homosexuality, members at Lawrence Mennonite Fellowship scrambled to figure out what to do when their pastor, John Linscheid, admitted he was gay in 1983.

Linscheid grew up in Goessel, Kansas and graduated from Bethel College in North Newton, Kansas in 1975. After completing his Masters of Divinity degree at Mennonite Biblical Seminary in Elkhart, Indiana he became the first pastor of the newly formed Lawrence Mennonite Fellowship in 1980.64 Longtime Lawrence member Anne Bailey recalled that few people discussed homosexuality in the early 1980s and AIDs was just entering the American consciousness.65 The congregation was quite surprised, and most even dismayed, when Linscheid came out to the congregation in the fall of 1983.

The event began when an eight person prayer group was meeting in a house of one the members of the budding congregation. All had been sharing their spiritual journeys, but Linscheid remained unusually quiet until near the end of the session. He then calmly said that he was a homosexual and did not want to remain silent about it anymore. News of Linscheid’s orientation quickly spread throughout the congregation and the Western District Conference (WDC).

Soon after, the congregation held an important meeting in one of the members’ living rooms to discuss what this meant for them. Linscheid went upstairs as members discussed whether to keep him as their pastor. There was an overwhelming majority who believed their congregation could not support homosexuality. Bailey recalled that the liberals were in the minority and did not speak up.66 Those with small children were especially fearful.67 Many said that they did not want their children growing up with a gay pastor.68 Carl Edwards recalled that about seventy-five percent of the congregation were opposed to keeping Linscheid as their pastor throughout a long discernment process involving many meetings and study sessions. They opposed keeping him for two reasons: first, anxiety about homosexuality, and second, fear of losing WDC monetary support. At the time, the vast majority of the Lawrence Fellowship’s money was coming from the WDC, and in meetings with the congregation, WDC leaders made it clear that if they kept Linscheid as pastor, they would lose their subsidy. The conference does not have to power to outright fire a pastor, but in this special case, they had extra leverage because the congregation was so financially reliant upon the district. The congregation kept him on an interim basis while they debated how to respond, but Linscheid left Lawrence in May 1984 and relocated to Philadelphia.69 This event was a key force, along with general political and ideological disagreements that led to a split in the Lawrence Fellowship. Conservative members broke off shortly afterwards, and what remained of the congregation formed Peace Mennonite Church. This small group has scraped by with a part-time pastor, and have met in the Ecumenical Christian Ministries building near Kansas University’s campus in Lawrence.

The Listening Committee, 1990-1992

After continued frustration among inclusive-minded Mennonites over the lack of dialogue and open-mindedness among Mennonites, and rising anxiety on the traditional side, the MC and GC appointed a joint committee in 1990 to listen to homosexuals and others with strong opinions on the matter. This Listening Committee was instructed to “care for gay and lesbian persons and their families … by listening to their alienation and pain … to encourage and facilitate dialogue between persons of various perspectives … [and] to make recommendations … regarding policy, program, and church life.”70 In 1991 the MC General Board issued a statement that urged continued study, called for celibacy on the part of homosexuals, and condemned harsh attitudes toward homosexual persons.71

In 1992 the Listening Committee submitted their findings and recommendations to the GC and MC hierarchies. The committee recommended that the churches intensify their efforts in encouraging further study of homosexuality at all levels, from the congregation to graduate study, while providing further support staffing on the denominational level. Neither the GC nor the MC General Board accepted the committee’s recommendations, and both suppressed the release of those recommendations to the broader church.72

Lorraine and Rainbow Become More Inclusive in Different Ways, 1990-1998

From 1990 to 1995, Stew Graber, a gay man in a committed relationship, was a member of Lorraine Avenue Mennonite Church. A leader in the formation of the Lorraine Avenue Mennonite Pantry, an outreach program which has provided goods to people in need, Graber was an active force in the congregation. While some members knew he was gay, overall it was simply not a huge issue. Elsie Steelberg, a psychiatrist who has worked with gay patients, recalled that although Graber did not bring his partner to Lorraine, he “had felt really accepted.” Graber’s death from AIDS in the mid-1990s convinced Don Steelberg, and others at Lorraine, of the important of both the compassion that can be given and the torment that can be received by homosexuals and their loved ones.73

At the same time, Rainbow was becoming more inclusive in a much more overt and public way. In the business meeting of January 1990, Rainbow joined the Supporting Congregations Network (SCN) as an “Accepting” congregation; meaning they were part of SCN, but their name would not be made public by BMC. It was not until March of 1996 that the Rainbow church council decided to be a “Publicly Affirming” congregation in the SCN.74 Rainbow interviewees recalled that 85 to 98 percent of the congregation was in favor of the various decisions to be inclusive.75 Since 1996 Rainbow has had a statement in their bulletin that welcomed people regardless of sexual orientation. In the same year Mennonite Weekly Review published a list of “Supporting Congregations.” This led to disciplinary action toward Rainbow and several other Mennonite congregations.76 While the Western District Conference, the GC area conference, did not formally discipline Rainbow, the MC affiliated South Central Conference expelled Rainbow by a majority vote due to its willingness to accept homosexuals. Rainbow members who were involved in the many meetings during the long expulsion process felt that they had little power and that they “were not treated very lovingly,” or very “Christianly.”

Homophobia, Expulsion and Frustration 1990-1999

During the 1990s the issue of homosexuality dominated the Mennonite media.77 Muriel Stackley, a current member of Rainbow and the editor of The Mennonite at the time, felt that the arguments over homosexuality really “introduced us to ourselves” and she was “amazed at the anger” and homophobia displayed.78

Progressive Mennonites lost repeated votes on homosexuality during the 1990s and increasingly realized that acceptance or rejection of homosexuals would be decided by conference and denominational politics and power. Mennonites wanting an accepting church for homosexuals were in the minority during the entire period I studied. Toward the end of the millennium many progressives shifted from trying to convince others of being inclusive to simply addressing homophobia in the church as recommended by multiple resolutions. Addressing homophobia for John Linscheid meant shifting the focus away from discussion bounded by sexual behavior and towards addressing issues of rejection and prejudice. In Linscheid’s words that type of shift “wrenches the discussion out of the safe deliberation over those sins and sinners and drops it uncomfortably into the personal lives of the majority.”79 Homophobia was successfully addressed once in 1998 when the aid organization MCC issued a statement against the anti-gay Hefley amendment to H.R. 4104, which would have allowed gender-orientation discrimination in the federal government. This was the first time that MCC, an organization that had discriminated against BMC founder Martin Rock, supported gays in any formal way.80

By the late 1990s, while not agreeing on the proper application of Bible verses relating to homosexuality, the Mennonite hierarchy was at a point where they could agree that the biblical writers did not have an understanding of the modern idea of homosexually orientated persons. Much of the early activist scholarship on homosexuality, however, was rejected by the late 1990s, and agreement emerged that Bible passages do clearly condemn homosexual acts, especially pederasty and homosexual rape. Tom Harder, pastor at Lorraine Avenue Mennonite, has felt the strain between Mennonite ethics of justice and acceptance versus purity and discipline. In his words, he has chosen to be “willing to err on the side of love.”81 Progressives have also realized that change did not come as easily or as naturally as they had wished. Being in the minority, progressives had to respect that conservatives Mennonites, as long as they acted with love and humility, did have legitimate theological ground, but progressives wanted to at least fight homophobia in American society and in the Mennonite church.

Homosexuals and inclusive congregations after expulsions and failed dialogue have become weary. Progressive Mennonites feel that the majority of Mennonites have been too caught up in the homosexuality issue and have “vote[d] for Bush and forgot about social justice.”82 While conservative Mennonites insist that progressives have lost their way in a dangerous post-1960s urban relativistic morality, and the progressives are responsible for dragging the church into damaging homosexuality debates.83 Many progressive Mennonites have become dismayed at the slowness and lack of what they perceive as progress including what they call the “evolution of theology.” Elsie Steelberg has been frustrated because she believed in the 1980s that when everyone realized and agreed that homosexuality was not a choice, homophobia and exclusion from congregations would quickly disappear. Some remain hopeful and continue to publish articles urging acceptance of homosexuality, such as the hundreds of Mennonites who have backed the “Welcome Committee” formed in 1998. Others have focused on change in their home congregations and avoided the larger conflicts. Still others, such as gay Rainbow member "John Doe", age 60, have predicted that small Kansas Mennonite communities simply will not change. He viewed rural Mennonite communities, not as part of some grand narrative of inevitable progress, but as cyclical communities where members are indoctrinated with ancient homogeneous values with little or no outside opinion.84 John Linscheid reflected upon his early enthusiasm and recent loss of hope:

In these years of struggle, I took the role of a “Christian soldier marching as to war” in the fight for justice and the vision of an inclusive church. I battled for understanding and unity in diversity. But now I look over the field and mostly see the casualties. I look around at those who lived by these visions and we seem to be shell-shocked survivors of a spiritual genocide. The right-wing victories mount in the campaign to rid the church of gay, lesbian, and supportive believers. And we are left disillusioned and confused about how to proceed. The visions I lived by, of a flawed but basically good church and of a united though diverse body of Christ, have faded. My conviction that integrity in one’s journey of discipleship will triumph seems disproved.85

By the end of the 1990s, Mennonites were locked in a battle between an ethic of purity/church discipline versus an ethic of love, acceptance, and social justice. Both of these ethics have long histories in Mennonite thought and practice. It seems that the various groups often operated from different histories and talked past each other. Mennonite writers who have urged acceptance of homosexuals have described homosexuality as a natural gift from God and have reduced the Bible to an ethic of love and hospitality. Meanwhile, conservatives have felt a threat to their more literal reading of the Scriptures and have been hesitant to accept homosexuals, fearing that following God’s second commandment to love others is in this case likely breaking God’s first commandment to love God and follow God’s will.

Being located in the middle of Wichita, Lawrence and Kansas City has given members at Lorraine, Lawrence, and Rainbow increased opportunities to break down many of the barriers that previously separated Mennonites from the broader American society. The Sunday school environments at these three churches have been places where progressives and homosexuals have been able to feel accepted. These churches have been on the radical fringe of the Mennonite world. Especially Rainbow members very explicitly saw themselves as pushing the edge and have been comfortable being in the minority. Lorraine has been more cautious, but has been able to involve gay persons for years. Members of these three churches are typically highly educated and have developed complex, well thought out biblical and theological positions on why homosexuals, like eunuchs, lepers, the blind and the uncircumcised, all once previously viewed as inherently sinful, should be accepted into their churches. These progressive Mennonites have not been able to persuasively articulate this inclusive theology to conservative Mennonite communities and have remained the minority despite many quality studies on homosexuality. A key difference between the two sides has been that so many in the inclusive camp have had the ability to have positive interactions with gay friends, clients, coworkers, family members and church members. By the end of the 1990s, the proper interpretation and application of words and verses related to homosexuality was unclear to Mennonite scholars. Those in the inclusive crowd, due to their personal positive experience with gay persons, have chosen an ethic of compassion and acceptance, even when it has meant discipline and expulsion.

Bibliography
Interviews by Author

Andreas, Sonia, Lorraine Avenue member. Interview by author, 7 June 2006, Wichita. Tape recording. MLA, North Newton, KS.

Bailey, Anne, Lawrence Mennonite Fellowship members. Interview by author, 27 Feb, 2007, Lawrence, KS. Tape recording. MLA, North Newton, KS.

Beachey, Bonnie, Rainbow member. Interview by author, 12 June 2006, Kansas City. Tape recording.

Beachey, Jake, Rainbow member. Interview by author, 12 June 2006. E-mail.

Boyts, Bernita, Rainbow member. Interview by author, 13 June 2006. Kansas City.

Darcy, Cathy, Rainbow member. Interview by author, 12 June 2006, Kansas City. Tape recording. MLA, North Newton, KS.

Ebersole, Willard, Lorraine Avenue member. Interview by author, 3 June 2006, Camp Mennoscah. Tape recording. MLA, North Newton, KS.

Edwards, Carl, Lawrence Mennonite Fellowship member. Interview by author, 27 Feb 2007, Lawrence, KS. Tape recording. MLA, North Newton, KS.

Fetters, Ann, Lorraine Avenue member. Interview by author, 5 June 2006, Wichita. Tape recording. MLA, North Newton, KS.

Fetters, Mike, Lorraine Avenue member. Interview by author, 5 June 2006, Wichita. Tape recording. MLA, North Newton, KS.

Gerbert, Linda, Lorraine Avenue member. Interview by author, 15 June 2006. E-mail.

Goertz, Leo, founding member Rainbow. Interview by author, 11 June 2006, Kansas City. Tape recording. MLA, North Newton, KS.

Graber, Duane, Rainbow member. Interview by author, 11 June 2006, Kansas City. Tape recording. MLA, North Newton, KS.

Graham, Dale, Rainbow member. Interview by author, 9 June 2006, Kansas City. Tape recording. MLA, North Newton, KS.

Harder Lois, Lorraine Avenue pastor 1999-present. Interview by author, 5 June 2006, Wichita. Tape recording. MLA, North Newton, KS.

Harder, Tom, Lorraine Avenue pastor 1999-present. Interview by author, 5 June 2006, Wichita. Tape recording. MLA, North Newton, KS.

Hostetler, Karen, Rainbow member. Interview by author, 11 June 2006, Kansas City. Tape recording. MLA, North Newton, KS.

Kaufman, Robert, Rainbow pastor 1998-present. Interview by author, 8 June 2006, Kansas City. Tape recording. MLA, North Newton, KS.

Kaufman, Krista, Rainbow member. Interview by author, 10 June 2006, Kansas City. Tape recording. MLA, North Newton, KS.

Krause, James, Lawrence Mennonite Fellowship member. Interview by author, 27 Feb 2007, Lawrence, KS. Tape recording. MLA, North Newton, KS

Krause, Roland, Lorraine Avenue member. Interview by author, 8 June 2006, Wichita. Tape recording. MLA, North Newton, KS.

Nickel Friesen, Dorothy, Western District conference minister, e-mail communication, 6 June 2006.

Page-Goertz, Sallie, Rainbow member. Interview by author, 11 June 2006, Kansas City. Tape recording. MLA, North Newton, KS.

Rhoads, Marsha, Rainbow member. Interview by author, 9 June 2006, Kansas City. Tape recording. MLA, North Newton, KS.

Schmidt, Erica, Lorraine Avenue member. Interview by author, 1 June 2006, Wichita. Tape recording. MLA, North Newton, KS.

Seibel Wallace, Lorraine Avenue member. Interview by author, 4 June 2006, Camp Mennoscah. Tape recording. MLA, North Newton, KS.

Stackley, Muriel, Rainbow member and former editor of The Mennonite. Interview by author, 8 June 2006, Kansas City. Tape recording. MLA, North Newton, KS.

Steelberg, Don, Lorraine Avenue member, former pastor . Interview by author, 14 June 2006, Wichita. Tape recording. MLA, North Newton, KS.

Steelberg, Elsie, Lorraine Avenue member, psychiatrist, served on HSSC. Interview by author, 14 June 2006, Wichita. Tape recording. MLA, North Newton, KS.

Stucky, Brian. Alexanderwohl Mennonite Church member. Interview by author, 17 Feb 2007, Goessel, KS. Tape recording. MLA, North Newton, KS

Swartley, Willard, professor emeritus, Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminaries, Elkhart, Indiana. Interview by author, 7 November 2006, Hesston, KS. Tape recording. MLA, North Newton, KS.

Swartz, Karl, Lorraine Avenue member. Interview by author, 3 June 2006, Camp Mennoscah. Tape recording. MLA, North Newton, KS.

Troyer, Regina, Rainbow member. Interview by author, 8 June 2006, Kansas City. Tape recording. MLA, North Newton, KS.

Published Primary and Secondary Sources

Bush, Perry. Two Kingdoms, Two Loyalties: Mennonite Pacifism in Modern America. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1998.

D’Emilio, John. Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities, The Making of a Homosexual Minority in the United States, 1940-1970, 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998.

--- and Estelle B. Freedman. Intimate Matters, A History of Sexuality in America. New York: Harper and Row, 1988

Garber, Lin. “Mennonites and the ‘Homosexual’ Issue: A Recent History.” In Booklet 2: Historical Perspectives, part of the “Welcome to the Dialogue Series, A Search for Inclusiveness.” Ruth Conrad Liechty, ed. Goshen, Indiana: Welcome Committee, 2001.

Gascho, Rob. “The Journey Is Our Home: A Brief History of Brethren/Mennonite Council for Lesbian and Gay Concerns.” Dialogue, 13(1): 1991 March.

Haury, David A. A People of the City, A History of Lorraine Avenue Mennonite Church, 1932-82.

Hostetler, Beulah Stauffer. “Midcentury Change in the Mennonite Church.” Mennonite Quarterly Review 60, no. 1 (1986): 60-82.

Kauffman, J. Howard, and Leo Driedger. The Mennonite Mosaic. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1991.

Kniss, Fred. Disquiet in the Land. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1997.

Krabill, Anne Hershberger. Sexuality, God’s Gift. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1999.

Kreider, Roberta Schowalter, ed. The Cost of Truth: Faith Stories of Mennonite and Brethren Leaders and Those Who Might Have Been. Kulpsville, PA: Strategic Press, 2004.

---, ed. From Wounded Hearts, Faith Stories of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered People and Those Who Love Them. Gaithersburg, MA: Chi Rho Press, 1998.

Kraus, C. Norman, ed.. To Continue the Dialogue: Biblical Interpretation and Homosexuality. Telford, PA: Pandora Press, 2001.

Linscheid, John. “Profile: John M. Linscheid.” The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Religious Archives Network. 4 March 2004. <www.lgbtran.org/Profile.aspx?A=L&ID=30> (13 March 2007).

Johns, Loren L. Resources on Homosexuality, www.ambs.edu/ljohns/glbmenu.htm (18 July 2006).

Miller, Keith Graber. Wise as Serpents, Innocent as Doves. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press, 1996.

Myers, Darlene. “Sexual Attitudes in the Mennonite Church, 1940-1985: a Survey, Analysis and Critique.” Undergraduate thesis, Bethel College, 1986.

Mumaw, John R., ed. Consultation Papers, A Symposium on Human Sexuality. Harrisonburg, VA: Mennonite Medical Association, 1979.

Schlabach, Theron F. Peace, Faith and Nation. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1998.

Schrag, Dale R. “The Founding of Lorraine Avenue Mennonite Church.” Department of History, Paper for Special Topics in History 810, Wichita State University, 1978.

Smith, C. Henry. The Story of the Mennonites, 4th ed. Newton, Kansas: Mennonite Publication Office, 1957.

Swartley, Willard. Homosexuality: Biblical Interpretation and Moral Discernment. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 2003.

Ward, Frank. “A Brief History of the Rainbow Mennonite Church and Its Acceptance of Persons Regardless of Sexual Orientation, [1997].” Typewritten. Rainbow Mennonite Library. Revised 28 Oct, 2000 by Mitch Kaufman.

Working Document for Study and Dialogue, Human Sexuality in the Christian Life, Responses from the Mennonite Church and the General Conference Mennonite Church. Newton, KS: Faith and Life Press, 1985. (Also available in full online at <www.ambs.edu/ljohns/HSCL/hscl-cl.htm>).

Zuercher, Melanie. “The Story of the Listening Committee.” In Booklet 2: Historical Perspectives, part of the “Welcome to the Dialogue Series, A Search for Inclusiveness.” Ruth Conrad Liechty, ed. Goshen, Indiana: Welcome Committee, 2001.

Appendix A: Members of Human Sexuality Study Committee (HSSC)

From the MC: Howard Charles, David Helmuth (first two years), Willard Krabill, Naomi Lederach, Enos Martin, Wilmer Martin (co-chair), Wayne North (general board), Lois Janzen Preheim (secretary), Lavon Welty (second two years).

From the GC: Vern Preheim (General Secretary of the GC), Kenneth Bauman, Sue Flickinger, Sue Goerzen (co-chair), Herta Funk (first two years), Maynard Shelly, Elsie Steelberg (Elsie is from Lorraine and married to Don, who was the pastor there during the 1980s).

Appendix B: Members of the Listening Committee (1990-1992)86

From the MC: Delphine Martin, Vern Rempel, Ann Schowalter, Ed Stolzfus (co-chair), Clare Shumm (represented both GC and MC)

From the GC: Sue Goerzen, Dorothea (Dotty) Janzen, Earl Loganbill, Bernie Wiebe

Same-sex oriented people added for their perspective: Doug Basinger and Ruth Wenger

Appendix D: Questions

1. Name?
2. Age?
3. How long have you been a member of this congregation? Before that? In the church that you grew up in, was sexuality or homosexuality ever addressed? What about your parents?
4. Occupation?
5. Education?
6. How active have you been in your congregation? How regular is your attendance and have you served on any committees?
7. How do you view the Bible?
8. How do you view Jesus? Who do you think Jesus is?
9. How do you define church? Where should authority lie when there is conflict: the pastor, congregation, conference, denomination?
10. What are some important shaping influences on your theology? Especially in relation to sexuality or homosexuality.
11. What are appropriate Christian standard for sexuality? Pre-marital sex, living together?
12. Do you believe that homosexuality, in general, is a choice?
13. Do you feel that sexually actively homosexuals should be allowed membership into your congregation?
14. Non-practicing?
15. When a person has a sexual urge toward a member of the same sex, is that or can that be a sin?
16. When they act upon it?
17. How have your views changed over your lifetime?
18. What are your feelings or perceptions toward the level of acceptance and Lorraine Avenue? What direction do you feel your congregation is moving in?
19. MCUSA as a whole?
20. Do you see any connections between your position on this issue and your identity as a Mennonite?
21. How important is being Mennonite to you?
22. Have you ever felt or been made to feel less Christian or less Mennonite for your position or orientation? Describe those experiences.
23. Are those who disagree wrong? Why do they feel the way they do? What are the key differences between accepting Mennonites and non-accepting ones?
24. What are your feelings toward conservative activist groups who very publicly hold anti-homosexual sentiments and policies to be central to Christian identity?
25. Have you taken positions before or do you now take positions that you feel are outside of the thinking of the majority of Mennonites?
26. How would you feel about a gay wedding in your congregation?
27. How would a gay wedding go over in your congregation?
28. What do the children learn in your congregation? Has homosexuality been addressed in the children’s time or in Sunday school?
29. Have you been part of debates or discussions about homosexuality in your congregation? How do they play out?
30. (L) David Haury, who wrote the history of Lorraine Avenue, wrote that “Serious disagreements among the members of Lorraine Avenue have been unusual, and the congregation has usually accommodated a wide variety of opinions. The ability of the diverse membership to work together is a major strength of Lorraine Avenue and explains the almost complete lack of significant disputes... Member are vocal and opinionated, but they also respect each other and the integrity of different viewpoints?” That was written in 1982, has it been true for you?
31. (L) Were you there for Don Steelberg’s 1986 sermon on Galatians that addressed circumcision and homosexuality? What do you remember of Don’s approach and position toward homosexuality?
30. (R) Were you part of discussions leading up to the welcoming statement? What were the reactions? Did anybody leave?
31. (R) What were the reactions from other groups? Other Mennonite churches? Other groups in the area?
32. Do you know of any other denominations or congregations whose approach to this issue you admire?
33. What are your thoughts on the recent legislative debates over homosexual? What is your position on gay marriage, gay unions, the constitutional amendment in Kansas?
34. In your life time, have you seen a culture of permissiveness? What should be the church’s response?
35. What does it mean for Lorraine/Rainbow to be an urban church? Do you think Lorraine/Rainbow has a vision and/or a mission here and are they living up to it? How are the needs of Lorraine/Rainbow different than rural Mennonite churches?

Appendix E: Glossary

Anabaptist – Term meaning “re-baptizer” used to describe the sixteenth century groups that formed the radical wing of the Protestant Reformation. Includes groups today such as various Mennonites groups, various Amish groups, Hutterites, and the Brethren in Christ. Radical left-leaning Mennonites today are especially apt to want congregations to fulfill the vision (parts both real and mythical) of these urban dwellers who were radical, loud and executed by both the Catholics and the Lutherans.

BMC – Brethren/Mennonite Council for Gay and Lesbian Concerns

CPS - Civilian Public Service. An organization created during World War II for conscientious objectors who refused to do active or noncombatant military service. Participants did a variety of domestic service projects.

GC – General Conference Mennonite Church, especially important among Kansas Mennonites. The Western District Conference is the GC area conference for Kansas.

HSSC – Human Sexuality Study Committee. Joint MC and GC effort in 1980s

MC – Mennonite Church. Largest Mennonite denomination. Merged with GC in 2001 to form MCUSA. Also called “Old Mennonites.” In addition to the many GC Mennonites, there are also many MC Mennonites in Kansas, including an MC owned school Hesston College, in Hesston, KS. The South Central area is the MC district which covers Kansas. Lorraine and Rainbow were both members of the South Central district until Rainbow was loosed in 1996 after putting a welcoming statement in their bulletin and not backing down from it.

MCC – Mennonite Central Committee. Aid organization that received support from dozens of different Mennonite-related denominations. Also has had a lobbying office in Washington, D.C. since 1968

MCUSA – Formed after the two largest Mennonite denominations in America (GC and MC) merged in 2001. Canadian Mennonites thus became more separate than they had previously been from American Mennonites.

MLA – Mennonite Library and Archives, located on the Bethel College campus in North Newton, Kansas

MMA - Mennonite Medical Association

Muppies – Slang term for Mennonite urban professionals. Not really used at all, outside of Emerson L. Lesher’s humorous book The Muppie Manual: The Mennonite Urban Professional’s Handbook for Humility and Success. Intercourse, PA: Good Books, 1985. This book is focused partly on helping older rural Mennonites and their urban fast-paced children relate to each other after twentieth century urbanization.

WDC - The Western District Conference is the GC area conference for Kansas. Both Lorraine and Rainbow are strong parts of WDC.

The reader should know that sources published by by Herald Press in Scottdale, PA are going to be from the Mennonite Church (“Old Mennonite”) and sources published by Faith and Life Press in Newton, KS are likely focusing more on the General Conference.

(Footnotes)

1 Lois Harder, personal interview by author, 5 June 2006. Lois points out that rural churches have been sucked into the controversy because their children are gay and lesbian. Those children then often go to the cities to find acceptance.
2 John Linscheid’s tells his version of this story in “Two Faithful Congregations,” in Cost of Truth: Faith Stories of Mennonites and Brethren Leaders and Those Who Might Have Been, ed. Roberta Schowalter Kreider (Kulpsville, PA: Strategic Press, 2004), 242-250.
3 The Metropolitan Community Church denomination was founded largely to minister to Gays, Lesbians, Bisexual and Transgendered persons.
4 Dorothy Nickel Friesen, personal communication, 6 July 2006.
5 “Mennonite” is used in this essay to describe the two largest American Mennonite denominations, the General Conference (GC) and the Mennonite Church (MC), unless noted otherwsie. The MC and the GC merged to form Mennonite Church USA in 2001. The three churches studied here, Lorraine, Rainbow and Lawrence Fellowship, have in the past had dual membership with conferences in the GC and the MC.
6 When I speak specifically about the two sides of the homosexuality debate, “inclusive” and “traditional” will be used.
7 In this essay “progressive” and “conservative” will be used to describe persons or groups of people in the context of social policies. Someone who is “conservative” (socially) would be one who is more likely to oppose legalized abortion, feminism, and gay civil unions. Progressives are those more likely to see the effects of modernization in sexual mores on the Mennonite community over the last 50 years as a positive change, or necessary corrective.
8 For example Fred Kniss, Disquiet in the Land (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1997), a book completely devoted to conflict in the MC sees homosexuality as the “latest disquiet,” but leaves it for “later analysts.” Keith Graber Miller’s Wise as Serpents, Innocent as Doves (Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press, 1996), Perry Bush’s Two Kingdoms, Two Loyalties, Mennonite Pacifism in Modern America (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998) and Paul Toews’ Mennonites in American Society 1930-1970 (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1996) leave the issue uncovered. Jim Junke’s People of Two Kingdoms: Political Acculturation of Kansas Mennonites (Newton, KS: Faith and Life Press, 1975) ends at 1948.
9 Additionally, 1968 is near the Stone Wall Riots of 1969, which was a major turning point for the modern gay rights movement.
10 C. Henry Smith, The Story of the Mennonites, 4th ed. (Newton, KS: Mennonite Publication Office, 1957), 529-530.
11 Theron F. Schlabach, Peace, Faith and Nation (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1998), 231-294.
12 Bethel College in North Newton, Kansas, founded in 1887 is the oldest Mennonite College in America. Bethel as well as Tabor College in Hillsboro, KS which was founded in 1908, were formed by Russian Mennonites.
13 J. Howard Kauffman and Leo Driegder, Mennonite Mosaic (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1991), 149. Kauffman and Driedger noted that the MC has had a larger focus on traditional ethnic culture because many of the new converts come from Amish backgrounds, whereas GC Kansans have been more ethnically pluralistic.
14 Toews, Mennonites in American Society, 30.
15 Bush, Two Kingdoms, Two Loyalties, 129, passim.
16 Beulah Stauffer Hostetler, “Midcentury Change in the Mennonite Church,” Mennonite Quarterly Review 60, no.1 (1996): 60.
17 Ibid., 63.
18 Stauffer Hostetler, “Midcentury Change,” 60-1.
19 Driedger and Kauffman, Mennonite Mosaic, 192-9. Dreidger and Kauffman focused on churches in the MC, GC, Mennonite Brethren, Brethren in Christ, and Eastern Mennonite Conference. This paper focuses only on the first two, which both were shown to be a bit more progressive on social issues such as acceptance of homosexuality and legalized abortion than the last three groups in Driedger and Kaffman’s large sociological survey.
20 Lin Garber, “Mennonite and the ‘Homosexual’ Issue: A Recent History,” in Booklet 2: Historical Perspectives, part of the “Welcome to the Dialogue Series, A Search for Inclusiveness,” Ruth Conrad Liechty, ed. (Goshen, Indiana: Welcome Committee, 2001), 25-7.
21 Brian Stucky, interview by author, 17 Feb 2007.
22 David A. Haury, A People of the City, A History of the Lorraine Avenue Mennonite Church, n.p. 1982, 48, 50-1. Dale Schrag, “The Founding of Lorraine Mennonite Church,” Department of
History, Paper for Special Topics in History 810, Wichita State University (1978), 48-9. Although the idea of a Wichita Mennonite church had had some official support since at least 1911, construction of Lorraine began 5 August 1932 and the first business meeting was 9 October 1932. This history of Rainbow is less well-documented, but page 51 of Haury’s book as well as multiple interviews put the founding of Rainbow in the 1950s, likely a long process.
23 The economic incentive was analyzed in Dale Schrag, “Founding of Lorraine Mennonite Church,” 20. Schrag noted that while the Mennonite leadership, including E.G. Kaufman and J.W. Kliewer had a strong pro-rural bias, some of the best Mennonite stock, especially young girls, were headed to Wichita throughout the first half of the 20th century. Escaping closed rural communities, as well as the anti-urbanism mindset of many Kansas churches, was noted in an interview by author with Don Steelberg, 14 June 2006, Wichita.
24 Garber, “Mennonites and the “Homosexual” Issue,” 24.
25 Mennonites have been instrumental and abundant in the Arts in Prison program both in the Newton/Hutchingson area and the Kansas City area. Mennonites from Rainbow have been crucial in programs such as the East Hill Singers in Johnson County, KS. The East Hill singers have been active since 1996, perform multiple concerts every year, and have a reputation for memorable performances. For more see, www.volunteersolutions.org/vcjc/org/15008886.html
26 Ann Fetters, personal communication, 25 June 2006.
27 Robert Kaufman, personal interview, 8 June 2006.
28 Interviewee Willard Siebel, age 72, used to term “coerced” to describe treatment toward many Mennonite conscientious objectors to war. Leo Goertz, age 84, described his youth community as “rigid” and many others had similar reflections. Robert Kaufman and Don Steelberg both described this flight of rural “disenfranchised” Mennonites to Rainbow and Lorraine.
29 Roberta Schowalter Kreider, ed., Cost of Truth: Faith Stories of Mennonite and Brethren Leaders and Those Who Might Have Been (Kulpsville, PA: Strategic Press, 2004), 84. Also all the interviews done by author clearly show that homosexuality was typically never addressed publicly, such as from the pulpit or a similar medium during the 1960s or earlier. Most never had to think about homosexuality beyond schoolyard homophobia, and at least one was doubtful as a youth whether homosexuals really existed. Garber, “Mennonites and the ‘Homosexual’ Issue,” 32. Garber wrote that “Before 1969 Mennonites simply subscribed to the attitude of the general population on the subject of same-gender affection: they pretended it did not exist.” Garber also described that “The prevailing mood was “don’t ask, don’t tell”--as it was with such subjects as premarital cohabitation, abortion and even birth control.”
30 Roland Krause, interview by author, 8 June 2006.
31 Duane Graber, interview by author, 11 June 2006. Roland Krause, a more conservative interviewee at Lorraine repeatedly used the word “problem,” whereas progressive Mennonites used the term “issue” instead.
32 Sonia Andreas, personal interview by author, 7 June 2006. Kreider, ed., Cost of Truth, 59-64, 85, et al. Roberta Schowalter Kreider, ed., From Wounded Hearts (Gaithersberg, MD: Chi Rho Press, 1998), 59, et al. Many of these stories are from people who grew up in Kansas.
33 Garber, “Mennonites and the ‘Homosexual’ Issue,” 30.
34 Sonia Andreas, personal interview by author, 7 June 2006.
35 Sonia Andreas, personal interview by author, 7 June 2006. Kreider, From Wounded Hearts, 59-67, 154-161, et al.
36 Garber, “Mennonites and the ‘Homosexual’ Issue,” 35.
37 Leo Goertz, personal interview, 11 June 2006. Leo described Frank as the “primary promoter” of the push for inclusiveness and as “sensitized very early in his ministry by a young woman” who attempted suicide. Frank has been very public about his inclusiveness and his views can be found in Kreider, Cost of Truth, 233-241.
38 Don Steelberg, personal interview, 14 June 2006. A short statement by Don and his wife Elsie, who served on the HSSC in the 1980s, can be seen in Kreider, Cost of Truth, 305.
39 Don Steelberg, personal interview, 14 June 2006. It is my impression that most members did not know about this ceremony.
40 Don and Elsie Steelberg, personal interview, 14 June 2006. See early in interview, after question 9.
41 Kauffman and Driedger, Mennonite Mosaic, 212-213. Again to emphasize this point, 78% of the 1987 Conservative Protestant group would favor legalized abortion in the case of rape, whereas only 31% of the 1989 Mennonite group would.
42 Ibid., 199. “Mennonites” in this study included five groups: the MC, the GC, the Mennonite Brethren, the Brethren in Christ, and Eastern Mennonite Conference. Although the two groups studied in this paper, the GC and MC, were the most progressive of the five groups, the percent difference was usually only about 3-7 percent for the various homosexuality questions. The “Conservative Protestant” group consisted of Nazarenes, Pentecostals, Baptists, Mennonites, Salvation Army, etc.
43 Kauffman and Driedger, Mennonite Mosaic, 198.
44 Ibid., 196. Kauffman and Driedger also warn scholars against assumptions of liberalization (or some sort of constant “progress”) over time.
45 John D’Emilio, and Estelle B. Freedman, Intimate Matters, A History of Sexuality in America (New York: Harper and Row, 1988), 346-7.
46 Ibid.
47 Ibid.
48 For more see Martin R. Rock, “Rejected by the Church – Chosen by God,” in From Wounded Hearts, 1-7. Also, Rob Gascho, “The Journey Is Our Home: A Brief History of Brethren/Mennonite Council for Lesbian and Gay Concerns” Dialogue, 13(1): 1-2; 1991 March.
49 Letters between BMC leaders and Vern Preheim, General Secretary of the GC and member of the HSSC, are available in Human Sexuality Study Committee Box 1 of 2, MLA VII DD.1, North Newton, KS.
50 American Psychological Association, Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality, 2006, www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html#mentalillness (June 17, 2006).
51 Enos Martin, and Ruth K. Martin, “Homosexuality: Development and Ethical Issues-- Implications for the Church,” in Consultation Papers, A Symposium on Human Sexuality, John R. Mumaw, ed. (Harrisonburg, VA: Mennonite Medical Association, 1979),174-187. See also Ewert, David, “The Bible and Homosexuality,” in Consultation Papers, 143-145.
52 Mumaw, Consultation Papers, 198.
53 Mumaw, Consultation Papers, 15, 23. This was often due to the small numbers of homosexuals that had participated in studies at the time, and the fact that many of the studies had been done on non-standard groups, such as prisoners or psychiatric patients.
54 Don and Elsie Steelberg, personal interview by author, 14 June 2006.
55 For a list of HSSC members, see appendix A.
56 Don Steelberg should also be given credit for helping Elsie write her paper on homosexuality for the HSSC (especially with the theological parts). A simple readings of the document will quickly reveal its dual-minded nature. Like the MMA, there were many issues that people could not agree upon. Papers and letters taken from Vern Preheim’s desk show that there were three initial documents gathered: a lecture/paper from Howard Charles, Elsie’s contribution and the Martin/Martin article seen in note 55. Also influential was John Linscheid’s detailed Febuary 1983 critique of draft 7, in which, among other things, John critiqued the HSSC for looking at homosexuality as a “problem” brought on by a certain group of people instead of focusing on homophobia and how the church’s response has been unloving. Human Sexuality Study Committee Box 2 of 2, Mennonite Library and Archives VII DD.1, North Newton, KS
57 Working Document for Study and Dialogue, Human Sexuality in the Christian Life (Newton, KS: Faith and Life Press, 1985), 11, 13.
58 Elsie Steelberg, personal interview by author, 14 June 2006.
59 Garber, “Mennonites and the “Homosexual” Issue,” 29-31. Loren L. Johns, “Homosexuality and the Mennonite Church,” Resources on Homosexuality, www.ambs.edu/LJohns/H&MC.htm (18 July 2006) noted that “the [HSSC] was disappointed with how few congregations actually studied their document.”
60 Letters between BMC leaders and Vern Preheim, other communications as well, available in Human Sexuality Study Committee Box 1 of 2, Mennonite Library and Archives VII DD.1, North Newton, KS.
61 Willard M. Swartley, Homosexuality, Biblical Interpretation and Moral Discernment (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 2003), 179n. Swartley lists Schrogg’s and Boswell’s books among the three influential revisionist works that brought forth wider theological study of homosexuality.
62 See John D’Emilio, Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities, The Making of a Homosexual
Minority in the United States, 1940-1970, 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1998), 4. Also Kenneth Plummer, ed. The Making of the Modern Homosexual (London 1981).
63 Tom Harder, personal interview by author, 5 June 2006. Tom recognized that humanity’s understanding of homosexuality, both scientifically and theologically, is limited at this point and could move in many directions. For the time being, he has told several members of Lorraine that he is willing to err on the side of acceptance and love. Reading Swartley’s Homosexuality, Biblical Interpretation and Moral Discernment reveals that the traditional and inclusive sides of the homosexuality debate among Mennonites are not nearly as radical or polarized as in the broader American political atmosphere. Although Swartley is clearly on the traditional side, he has been very humble in his approach and has been willing to listen to all sides.
64 John Linscheid, “Profile, John M. Linscheid,” The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Religious Archives Network, 4 March 2004, www.lgbtran.org/Profile.aspx?A=L&ID=30 (13 March 2007)
65 Anne Bailey, interview by author, 27 Feb 2007.
66 Ibid.
67 Carl Edwards, interview by author, 27 Feb 2007.
68 Anne Bailey, interview by author, 27 Feb 2007.
69 Linscheid, “Profile.”
70 Johns, Homosexuality and the Mennonite Church. Thorough coverage of the Listening committee was provided by Melanie Zuercher, “The Story of the Listening Committee,” in Booklet 2: Historical Perspectives, part of the “Welcome to the Dialogue Series, A Search for Inclusiveness,” Ruth Conrad Liechty, ed. (Goshen, Indiana: Welcome Committee, 2001), 25-7. For a list of Listening Committee members, see appendix B. It should be noted that Kansans are more than represented. The first meeting was in Newton, KS on November 16-17, 1990. Also, to my knowledge two members were longtime Kansans (Dotty Jantzen and Earl Loganbill), one grew up in Kansas (Vern Rempel), and one has moved to Kansas since (Ann Schowalter).
71 Johns, Homosexuality and the Mennonite Church.
72 Ibid.
73 Elsie Steelberg, personal interview by author, 14 June 2006.
74 Frank Ward, “A Brief History of the Rainbow Mennonite Church and Its Acceptance of Persons
Regardless of Sexual Orientation, [1997].” Typewritten, Rainbow Mennonite Library, revised 28 Oct, 2000 by Mitch Kaufman, 1.
75 Kreider, Cost of Truth, 240. Here Frank lists the supporting percentage as more than 85% throughout the process. Others have noted higher amounts on specific votes.
76 Johns, Homosexuality and the Mennonite Church.
77 The “Mennonite media” here includes The Mennonite, Mennonite Weekly Review, Gospel Herald, and Mennolink, a public listserv for Mennonites.
78 Muriel Stackley, personal interview by author, 8 June, 2006. So much so that the editor of the Gospel Herald declared a moratorium on printing letters about homosexuality in 1995.
79 John Linscheid, Letter to Vern Preheim and HSSC members, Human Sexuality Study Committee Box 2 of 2, Mennonite Library and Archives VII DD.1, North Newton, KS.
80 Loren L Johns, Statements of Mennonite Conferences, Boards, and Committees on Homosexuality (1985–2004), www.ambs.edu/LJohns/ChurchDocs.htm (18 July 2006).
81 Tom Harder, personal interview by author, 5 June 2006.
82 Sonia Andreas, personal interview by author, 7 June 2006.
83 Swartley, Homosexuality, 142-146. Swartley sees homosexuals as victims of postmodern relativism in moral values. Affirming this paper’s earlier idea of a 1990s focus on addressing homophobia, Swartley agrees that discrimination and hatefulness is the worst sin in relation to this issue.
84 Duane Graber, personal interview by author, 11 June 2006.
85 John Linscheid , “An Undaunted Hope,” in Kreider, From Wounded Hearts, 100-1.
86 Zuercher, “The Story of the Listening Committee,” 5-6.

____________

Addendum: Letter from John Linscheid, 6/19/07:

Dear Rainbow blog keepers:

A couple of days ago, my partner, Ken, ran across Robert Michael Weaver's amazing senior seminar paper regarding Urban Kansas Mennonites and Homosexuality on your blog. Since I seem to figure prominently in what Robert wrote, I thought you and he might be interested in a slightly alternative account of the Lawrence church portion of that interesting history. I hope you will have some way to pass my notes along to him. I commend him on his effort and a truly astute analysis. I don't think my differing memory of events substantially changes the analysis. And I suppose that, after almost twenty-five years, each person who was part of those events now remembers them somewhat differently.

I am struggling to remember which Anne was Anne Bailey (for some reason the last names faded faster than the first). I do remember Carl Edwards--but probably because we have periodically been in touch since those days. The question arises whether I have colored the history, in my memory, to make it a beautiful example of Christian discernment and process in the face of institutional pressure. Maybe I have made things sound better than they were to justify what I put the Lawrence congregation through. On the other hand, I suppose it is possible that Carl Edwards and Anne Bailey have colored the process a bit more bitter because they lived through the subsequent conflict and split in the Lawrence Fellowship that was so destructive. (I had long since moved to Philadelphia by that time.)

An historical detail: The Lawrence Mennonite Fellowship started long before 1980, although documentation may make its genesis seem to stem from that time. It existed for a while as just an occasional fellowship group for Mennonites (mostly KU-related) in Lawrence. But for several years in the late 1970s, it was meeting every other week for worship in homes (because John and Reinhild Janzen, who were major organizers, traveled to church in Elbing, Kansas, on the "off" weeks). Indeed, that was the pattern when I was called to be its first pastor. But I soon began an "off" Sunday gathering that led to an every-Sunday meeting plan.

At least 80 percent (if not more) of the congregation's funding came from the Western District Home Missions Committee.

My coming out to the congregation in my fourth year there was actually a long process. In early 1983, I wrote an article on sexual ethics for BMC's Dialoge. One couple in the Fellowship objected to my views. They raised objections with church leadership. However, because there was no official Mennonite position on the issue at that time (pre-Saskatoon, pre-Purdue), it was generally argued that I was free to argue positions as long as I argued them biblically.

Later that Spring, I authored the BMC response to the draft report of the HSSC presented at Bethlehem '83 and I became closely associated with BMC as a "supportive pastor" (BMC leaders were aware I was gay).

With the topic hot in the denomination, it got raised more and more. As the debate grew, I became increasingly uncomfortable arguing in the third person something that was first-person for me. So I wrote a spiritual journey paper that I shared with a small study group. Anne remembers the meeting being unusually quiet and it probably was because, instead of an oral presentation, I handed around written copies to be read.

I then took the information to the congregation's leadership and we decided to share it with everyone in the congregation through a letter. As I recall, individuals in the study group were very good about keeping it confidential prior to distribution of the letter.

A congregational meeting was called. Not of one mind, the congregation decided it needed time to study and pray and so decided to meet again in a month. They also agreed to ask the conference pastor of Western District to attend.

Agree or disagree, everyone was open with me. People were open about talking with one another--there was no talking behind my back. I experienced nothing but great respect and love from both those who agreed with me and those who disagreed with me.

One month later (in December of 1983), the congregation reconvened. Some did not know how they could explain to their children that their church had a gay pastor. Others would not know how to explain firing a pastor just because he was gay. Some thought they might need to leave if I stayed. Others if I would go. All seemed terrified that it would split the congregation. No one wanted anyone else to leave. Finally, someone noted that it appeared that the one thing they all agreed on was that they didn't want to split up over this.

After considerable discussion, they decided that they did not have to make a decision immediately and could continue the discernment process. They would invite the Western District Home Missions Committee and Ministerial Committee into a study process and work toward a decision. But their primary goal would remain to stay unified.

Uncertain what to do with me, they decided to keep me on as pastor for five more months and then revisit the question of my employment. They would take as long as they needed to discern where God was leading.

I was asked to write to the Ministerial Committee to give some information about my point of view. The church chair would arrange with District leader for a the joint discernment meeting.

But several months later, at the meeting the congregation understood would start the discernment process with Western District, the district representatives isntead announced that my credentials had been revoked and that all funds to the congregation would be cut off if I was not fired immediately. The congregation was stunned and requested time to respond.

After several weeks, the congregation responded to the District in several ways.

First, it pointed out that there was no official denominational position on homosexuality upon which to base the action that had been taken. They requested that at least the District hold a meeting to discuss the topic of homosexuality. (The District agreed and about a year later held a meeting on homosexuality was held in Hutchinson, Kansas--I was invited as one of the resource people.)

Second, the congregation noted their promise to keep me on through May and requested District funds continue at least through then as a matter of integrity. The district agreed.

Third, they promised to give the District a final decision before the end of May.

In April, about five months after I came out to the entire congregation, the meeting was held that Anne Bailey describes as "in one of the members' living rooms". Although there was still not unity in views, there was in practicality. Some felt I should leave on principle. Some felt I would have to leave once the money was cut off anyway. Some felt that having to continue to process the issue forever would be debilitating to the congregation. A general consensus (I think one person "stepped aside" so as not to block consensus) was achieved. I had left the room and I believe that I joined the general consensus when I returned to demonstrate my agreement that it was best for the community.

I stayed a few more Sundays until the end of May. Then I moved to Topeka, having met my partner, Ken White, early in the process of coming out to the church.

Ironically, the following October, I was elected a member of the Peace Committee of the Western District Conference without objection by the same delegates who received the Ministerial Committeee report that noted the action removing my credentials and my removal from ministry because I was gay. Even in 1984, the issue had not yet become as polarizing as it would eventually become. I'm guessing that I was the first openly gay man elected to a district position in the Western District Conference (maybe the only one so far). But I had to resign the position when I moved to Philadelphia several months later.

I can't shed any light on the subsequent conflict that split the Lawrence Fellowship. Even after I came out, I got along very well with the "conservatives." There had always been some tensions there between more progressive and more conservative views. I actually think that I held the two together quite well because I was very liberal in my thinking but very very biblical. I think my biblicism made my liberalism less threatening and my liberlism made my biblicism less threatening. The spiritual encounters I'd had with Jesus were sufficiently familiar to be trusted by evangelicals but questioning, agnosticism, atheism, and interfaith dialogue never freaked me out. If my ouster contributed to the subsequent split in some way, that's ironic, because I think that in many ways, I was probably exactly the sort of pastor they needed to keep the factions together.

Although I have to leave it to others to tell what happened after I left and what caused the subsequent splits, I find myself reluctant to believe it happened. When we got into conflict, everyone treated me with absolute love and respect. I can't remember being mistreated by anyone. I felt more mistreated by the WDC "moderate" leaders who kept doing what was "practical" and "necessary" than by the Lawrence people who genuinely opposed my views but respected me and confronted me face-to-face. It saddens me. I remember them all, supporters and opponents, very fondly.

Robert Michael Weaver is sadly correct. The Mennonite Church has hardened over the years. It has become more exclusive, more conservative (in a bad way).

So if you have a way to get this message to Robert Michael Weaver, please send it along with my thanks for his good work and the reminder of my time in Lawrence. And thanks to all of you for posting his paper on your blog--your work is of God.

Peace in Christ,

John Linscheid

up coming elections

2007-03-22T09:17:00.000-06:00

Kansas City, Missouir has it's upcoming elections and I am interested in knowing what the Rainbow communities knows about Mr. Brooks and Mr. Funkhousier. It seems like we have two very good candidates to choose from but I don't know much about them. I read things, but distrust much of the press and of course the flyers are bias. Give me some input please.

chris alliman

My Thoughts about Divine Obedience/Civil Disobedience

2007-03-19T23:07:00.000-06:00

(The following is written by Phil's friend and fellow peace activist, Janie Stein of Salina.)

My friends ask me what I accomplished by getting arrested at the White House.

Well, maybe nothing; at least in the world’s eye-view, maybe nothing I do matters. And even though in this paradigm of my life logic isn’t always the answer, this is my reasoning:

There is a circle of impunity around systems that hold power over people. Unspoken and spoken, it is not nice to enter this sacrosanct circle, it just isn’t done. Entering that circle for me has meant:

That I can follow the call faithfully
That I can somehow prick the conscience of a nation, albeit on a very minute level
That I surrender my need to control a situation, trusting in the Divine for the right thing to happen
That I do not have to allow myself to be swallowed up by my emotion or the charged circumstances around me
That I can speak truth to power, be a voice for the voiceless, and take this truth wherever it leads
That I put my body on the line, as an instrument of the peace that can only come from emptying out, from choosing to see the other as another, and treating ‘others’ with compassion that is truly different from staying on the same old level of us and them, continuing to fuel flames of death
That I have gone one step further in my solidarity with the earth’s forgotten victims of injustice.

Stones cast into water create ripples, and we never know on whom our actions can have an effect. I feel that my following the call I felt from within can have a ripple effect to either help people who have not considered my point of view before (such as, perhaps, the policemen I dialogued with, or the Gathering of Eagles members I joked with), &/or encourage those who feel alone without options to perhaps feel not quite so alone. I do know that we encouraged people who have been organizing for years, giving them hope that even in the red center of this nation, there are people willing to put their bodies on the line for hope, life, and peace.

Seeds of hope can be sown from times of despair. I feel that going to a place of worldly power, praying for peace in our world, praying for the people associated with this place, i.e., those oppressing others and those oppressed, and going just a small step further than usual can be one of these seeds.

I think it takes all types of people and many different actions and types of actions to create the change we all wish to see. The best thing each of us can do is to follow our own way the best we can. This desire has been building in me for a long time, and more intensely of late. I feel that once again I have officially registered my voice as one for a positive change, a not-for-business-as-usual voice in compliance with the merchants of death. Each of us does this often in our own way, and our power collectively becomes stronger when we answer our own call individually. Hopefully, I’ve added my little light to the fire, and helped hold up the sky a little more with my own little stick (an Indian legend).

Janie Marie Stein
19 March 2007

(Part 3) "Into The Storm & Finding the Calm" - a Powerful Lenten Experience in Wash. DC (in a series of reflections on "Things That Really Matter”)

2007-03-19T20:55:00.000-06:00

Editor's note: this is an excerpt of his full article, just giving his report about the Mennonite gathering on Saturday morning, March 17, in Washington, DC, after the candlelight vigil at the White House:

I suspect we had at least three or four times that number at “the march” but about one hundred of us Mennonites actually made it Saturday morning to our own fairly informative and inspiring denominational gathering (utilizing the fellowship hall of the Capital Hill United Methodist Church.) This included some sharing - with only an hour’s worth of sleep behind her- from Susan Mark Landis, who had a major hand in the overall planning of the whole event, and who had participated in the civil disobedience (“Divine Obedience!”) the night before. We also heard insights from others on the Peace and Justice Support Network, hearing about some new ideas for peace advocacy, education, and resources for the Mennonite Church USA, including some new endeavors for and by the youth in our own denomination.

Some profitable time was spent listening to and interacting with Dr. Peter Dula, who recently joined the faculty of Eastern Mennonite University as an assistant professor of Religion and Culture, but spent quite a bit of time just prior to this as the Mennonite Central Committee’s Iraq Program Coordinator. He shook things up a little by postulating that the two most practical actions we can take, if we are going to have any hope in actually challenging current policies, besides just talking about them with people in power, are to 1) get off the oil grid - by growing good gardens and ride bicycles as much as possible and 2) engage in war tax resistance! Well – now that generated some discussion! We then took time to process our experience of the weekend, thus far, in smaller regionally-based groupings before heading out.

— Clair Hochstetler, Goshen , IN

Why I chose to risk arrest at The White House

2007-03-19T15:34:00.000-06:00

(The following is written by Phil's friend and fellow peace activist, Marty Bates of Salina.)

This past Wednesday, Janie and I drove with 7 other peace activists to Washington DC for a weekend of activity surrounding the 4th anniversary of our invasion of a sovereign nation. We drove 23 hours in a 15 passenger van rented from a local car sales lot for the trip. As we drove out, I knew that Janie and I would discern whether or not to risk arrest with the larger group that we met at DC. At the time of the discussion in the Van on the way to DC, I fully expected that I would not participate in Divine Obedience. We received the tentative okay from the other parties to continue to pursue discernment. On the way back home after the action, some of the van riders expressed wonder at our becoming arrested. They wondered why we would do this and what benefit it would have. I expect to answer this same question a few times in the next few weeks so I thought I’d get a jump on things.

As I said, I didn’t really expect to cross the line and risk arrest when heading down there. I had some definite feelings about this and thought that getting arrested was giving up power to the society at large. I thought, “I can do more as a moderator of this group (Salina People for Peace) out of jail than I can in jail. Of course I knew that risking arrest didn’t necessarily mean I’d be in jail forever, but that it could work out that way. So you can see that my plan for Friday was to attend a great non-violence resistance training and then demonstrate peacefully and not risk arrest.

As a Christian, the question has been nagging at me for some time, how much is enough, when every second more people die and more money is spent on war that could be spent on food, jobs, job training, college scholarships, etc. I went to the extended non-violent resistance training (10:00 am – 6:30 pm) with the hopes of discerning what God would have me do as a witness for peace. I wasn’t disappointed.

I went in with the theme of “how much is enough” and “how do I walk in faith.” I went in wearing my best witness icons, my Vets for Peace hat along with a t-shirt and sweatshirt combination I usually wear to rallies. It seems like being a 20 year Air Force Retiree has been a strong witness and well received at the peace rallies. I wasn’t a veteran of war so much as a non-combatant who was always in supporting roles of the warriors, I was a medic for the first seven years and I couldn’t carry a weapon, then as a substance abuse counselor the last 13 years, I never looked at CO status - everything seemed as thought in peacetime there was no likelihood I’d ever have to be a combatant.

At the training I ran out to make a phone call and ran into Elliott, another Veteran for Peace. He remembered me from earlier interaction at the School of America’s Watch actions and saw my Vet garb and called me over. He told me a woman was interviewing vets for an article she’s writing for a German news service. He asked me if I’d like to be interviewed as well. I indicated I’d be happy to help out. During the interview, she asked if there was a benchmark to be met here at this action today. I responded, “I’m considering civil disobedience or as I call it divine obedience. Whether I do it or not, the decision will be a bit of a benchmark I think.” She asked me with a very direct stare, “Are you going to do it?” I responded, “I honestly don’t know, I’m still in the discernment process.” I mention this now because I think the semi commitment of telling her was one of the points I discussed in my head later in the day. I thought about and debated the impact of saying that and not doing it vs. doing it, as in retrospect I realize my commitment had already been made, I just wasn’t ready to voice it at that time.

During the day, I kept looking at the resolute faces around me. These were people seriously considering or planning to give up their power to the police, not knowing how it would impact their day, week, and/or lifetime. I was thinking of the solidarity and at some point decided that if it weren’t for the uncertainty of what might happen and how my arrest might impact my fellow travelers, family, and coworkers, I would surely step over the line and be arrested. I might mention here that we kept referring to the action as “risking arrest.” There was really no “risking” about it. We who stepped over the line would be arrested; we just didn’t know what exactly would happen next. We had a pretty good idea and the homework of the planners helped outline the basics presumptions, but it was unknown what would really happen once we crossed that line.

Now, I think of myself as an extremely faithful person. I continually walk in faith to the best of my ability to remember my role. This is what really got me. I thought, “If I truly have faith in God, then why do I worry what will happen with the people around me? Why wouldn’t I just step forward and trust the final details to God?” That’s when I decided. Everything up to that point, for me, was just a gap in my personal faith. Once I remembered to trust God, I knew completely that I would do it. A few times I turned to Janie and said, “Well, have you decided?” Each time I asked this she said, “Not yet.” The last time I asked, I had decided. We knew when we both took a form and filled it out. What the form entailed was basic information about us and our support persons so the organizers could track us through the system. We both held those forms for a while and then all of a sudden, I asked Janie if she’d like me to turn in her form with mine and she said yes. I went and turned in the forms and got our blue armbands signifying our status as Divine Obedience participants and it was done. I was glad to have done that before the wonderful church service because it really allowed me to relax and just take in the whole movement of God and God’s interaction with God’s followers.

What I was to get from the action, was left to be learned. I think if asked why I chose to do this, I would say, “Why not? It’s a natural step in this process in which I’ve been involved for two years. The only reason I wouldn’t do it would be a lack of faith or other inability to put one foot in front of the other or otherwise be present.”

Now, I’ll share a little about the process and what true benefit it was.

It was very cold outside and enough of a breeze that I couldn’t keep my candle lit. Others had a cup to house their candle and protect it from wind, I didn’t. We began the March from New York Avenue Presbyterian Church at around 10:00 I suppose. I think time had gotten away from me at this point. We walked a few blocks to Lafayette Park, across from The White House. The White House looked smaller than I expected from photos. While there I worried a lot about how I would make sure I was available to hear the announcements about when I’d cross the line. I needn’t worry however, as the organizers, Christian Witness for Peace in Iraq, had everything under control. They sent the large group on their walk encircling the White House and us to line up and await our chance to enter the area for which we didn’t have a permit. All of a sudden we heard the announcement for the 100s (the first group of 100) to move toward the demonstration area. They proceeded on and gathered beginning to pray individually in their own tradition. It was wonderful to be with Christians, finally gathering together ecumenically to speak out. They were then warned that they were demonstrating without a permit and to leave the area, which they didn’t. We were told this was how it would be and that once the first 100 were arrested, if we (the second group of 100; the 200’s) went over, we’d be crossing a police line and that’s what we’d be arrested for. The 100s were warned one more time and then began the slow process of arrest, identification, and mug shots, right there on Pennsylvania Avenue, followed by detention in the buses brought there for us. Once the first wave were all placed under arrest and detained in their busses, it was our turn to cross the police line to pray. Believe me we were already doing plenty of praying, and singing, and dancing. As a bus filled it drove off to the processing center at Anacosta National Park Office, right across the river from where we were arrested. I walked across the line with Janie and for me it was a scary and freeing moment. That’s the moment I think I realized what a profound conversation I’d been having with God all day long. This was the greatest communion. I felt the Communion of Saints; I felt the presence of all of the great peacemakers in their non-cooperation as well.

Now in the forbidden area, we kneeled and stood to pray, we danced and sang. We spoke solemnly and laughed. We also spoke with the officers that were there and explained a little of our purpose. One of my themes that I hoped to say was, “If you knew what I know, you’d be praying with me.” I can’t remember if I said that or not, but I think I asked an officer to pray with us.

By this time I was very cold. I hadn’t really planned on the weather being as cold as it was, (partially because I hadn’t planned on being arrested) and so I was sorely underdressed. My shivering was coming out in my voice and occasionally in my hands. I was watching the officers arresting the participants and at one point I was shaking pretty bad and just thinking and this officer looked at me and walked directly toward me with the cuffs. I think at that moment Officer Adrian was performing a “mercy arrest.” He put the cuffs over my hands and pulled them tight, and asked me to walk with him, which I did. As we walked he asked me for identification which I fished from my pocket and placed in a Ziploc bag he was holding. I gave him my military retiree ID card, I was wearing my Vet’s for Peace clothing. He then frisked me, and walked me to another person who numbered the bag and my cuffs and passed me on for a mug shot. They took the mug shot with two different cameras, one a Polaroid. After the mug shot, they sent me up the steps of the bus, politely suggesting I watch my step and use the handrail. I was guided to my seat beside Maggie, a 20 something woman who bicycles to work every day in DC and works as a service provider for underprivileged persons.
Across the aisle from me was Palma (pronounced Palmer) who was a 56 year old house repair contractor who was also a tax resistor, maintaining a life under the radar of the tax laws. Janie was soon arrested and I watched her progress as she went through the same steps and joined us on the bus. Our fellow inmates wanted us to sit together, as they had been observing our synergy and the great love we have for each other. We declined, thinking we would get to meet and converse with some new and wonderful people this way.

When the bus was full, we headed out to Anacosta. At some point I suddenly realized I was warm again. I hadn’t even noticed the transition. We were arrested at about 2:30 am on St. Patty’s day, and released at 5:00 am. They allowed us to keep our cuffs. They only had to cut one half of my cuffs as during the wait I had been playing around with mine and slipped my right hand out of the cuffs. I guess the right has always been free and now the left was too. Janie and I hugged and kissed and walked in our cuddling way the half mile or so to our organizers’ waiting busses. There we found food and water (but not a bathroom) and lots of camaraderie. We sang told stories and slept while waiting to go back to New York Avenue Presbyterian Church for more celebration, followed by sleep. Janie and I slept for about an hour and a half on the stage in one of the multipurpose rooms of the church. I thought the hardwood stage would be slightly softer than the linoleum tile floor. From there we got directions and joined other friends at the 1st precinct police station via the Metro, to pay our fine of 100 dollars each.

What I benefited was a strengthening of my resolve as a Christian. I finally feel like I faithfully followed the call of my God. I know that my presence at the white house and my giving myself to the authorities for arrest won’t stop the war. I know that God will stop the war and may consider my faithful walk in the process. I think that the best way to grow in spirit is to clarify the walk, which I did with great focus that Friday/Saturday. I know that the bond we form with our co conspirators will make a difference, if the difference is just to strengthen us for the next step. Ken Butigan, our trainer, modeled the example of us Jumping (emphasized with a hop forward with two feet) into the center and imagining waves going out from that central point. I would add that they connect with other waves of other jumpers and grow into expanding and strengthening circles. I felt that hop and now I watch the circles.

Thanks for reading.

Sincerely, in peace,

Martin A. Bates, MSgt, USAF Retired
Peacenik and drum builder
martinbikes@cox.net

Phil's Peace Weekend in DC

2007-03-19T13:10:00.000-06:00

I'm back from DC, and I'm full of inspiration and hope from my time there. The round-trip van ride was challenging, weather-wise on the way to DC, and interpersonal relationship-wise on the return to KC. (But most of the latter is covered by confidentiality standards.)

The highlight of my time was being mistaken for Art Gish TWICE in one day! And then getting to meet Art for the first time, and getting to talk to him one-on-one for a few minutes over our sack lunch-dinners on Friday night before the worship service. (Art is Peggy Gish's husband; Peggy is the sister of Tom Neher's mother. Both Art and Peggy are long-time Christian Peacemaker Teams full-timers. And Art and I do resemble each other quite a bit!)

The mime performance by the ten Mennonite youth from Harrisonburg, VA, set to music and portraying Christian Peacemaker Teams "Getting in the Way" followed by Art Gish's short speech was also a high point for me.

Two riders in our van went through five hours of civil disobedience training and decided to be two of the 222 who were ultimately arrested in front of the White House that night. Janie Stein and Marty Bates, leaders of the Salina People for Peace and organizers of our van, experienced their first civil disobedience on a cold, wet and icy night in DC, with Mennonites Jim Sager of Salina and me as their "support" people. Jim and I were each able to provide $100 in cash to Janie and Marty so that they could pay their fines.

I will write more details later.

— Phil Rhoads

Related Links: See "Christians protest against 'theological justification' of Iraq war."
And see "Two hundred Christians arrested during protests over Iraq war."
And see "Parliament Square turned into graveyard on anniversary of Iraq war."

I get daily emails from Ekklesia, which has articles of interest from a religious perspective in the UK.

Christian Peace Witness for Iraq

2007-03-12T18:54:00.000-06:00

Editor's note: below are the Frequently Asked Questions about the March 16, 2007, worship service at the National Cathedral in Washington, DC, and the candlelight procession to the White House and the vigil following. Our own Phil Rhoads from Rainbow will be attending and proudly wearing a green armband to represent Mennonites in the group. Western District Conference of the Mennonite Church, USA, provided Phil and five others these stipends to support their involvement in this event. For more information, see the Mennolink website.

FAQ

a. What sort of witness will this be?

This witness is for those who desire to stand up and be counted – folks who know that this war must end – and who are looking for a witness that allows them to model their own convictions about peace. This form of witness will be centered on a worship service and a vigil. All who participate are asked to affirm a commitment to nonviolence throughout our time together. We will intentionally lift up that which we affirm about peace, and we ask all participants to help us model our convictions in our interactions with one another, public officials and officers of the law, and anyone with whom we might disagree.

b. Why now?

We know that our leaders will need to show great courage to end the war now. This is a critical moment for Christians to show our political leaders that we will both hold them accountable and support their efforts to bring the war to an end.

c. Who is invited to participate in the Christian Peace Witness for Iraq?

You are invited to participate in this Witness if:

· You agree with the affirmations we ask of one another and of our government.

· You are committed to nonviolence as expressed in our nonviolence pledge.

· You feel comfortable participating in an activity that is intentionally Christian yet welcoming of all people.

d. I agree that the war in Iraq is wrong, but I don’t want to participate in something that is disrespectful of our troops.

That’s how we feel too. Many of us are weary of the false choice between supporting our troops in combat and desiring a clear commitment to withdraw our military forces from Iraq. We both care about the welfare of our troops and believe the war is wrong.

We believe that the best way to support our troops is to keep them out of combat. This is the most respect that we can give them—to protect their lives. Furthermore, we believe that we can better support our troops by offering them improved financial, medical, and psychological support systems as they return to their families.

e. I feel uncomfortable with all the partisan bickering about the war.

This witness to our faith transcends partisan politics. It is a prayerful attempt to ask all of us, including our political leaders, to reconsider our nation’s course of action in Iraq. Together, we affirm that any response that meets violence with greater violence is fundamentally antithetical to the teachings of Jesus.

f. I want to participate, but I’m not sure that I want to do anything that might get me arrested.

This witness is about calling on our deepest religious traditions – worship, prayer, vigil – to find the strength to stand against a war that we know must end. We expect that some of those who participate will feel called by God to acts of “divine obedience” by taking nonviolent actions that risk arrest in order to make clear our seriousness about ending the war. There will be a permit acquired for this witness to be totally legal, and participants will not face arrest unless they deliberately choose to do so. Because this witness is built on a foundational commitment to nonviolence, there will be no violence or damage to property. We could be arrested for continuing to kneel in prayer on a sidewalk after being asked to leave; in that instance the charge would be trespassing. We hope that everyone will feel welcome in this act of faithful witness, which intentionally includes many different ways to participate.

g. How can I talk about my participation in the Christian Peace Witness with people who disagree with me?

First, feel secure in what you believe and nondefensive in your conversation.

Second, pray about the person and how to approach your differences in love.

Third, choose language that explains what you believe, rather than insults the beliefs of others. Talk about your own journey and the experiences that have led you to your convictions.

Remember that this might be an opportunity for this person to hear thoughts about Jesus that are new to them—an opportunity to welcome them into new understandings. Be open about your own doubts, but confident about your feelings. Stay in touch with the person. Increase the opportunities to do things with the person, and show that you care deeply about the other person’s problems.

Learn more about the Christian expression of nonviolence on the Theological Resources page.

h. I have a family member who is in the military. What should I say to that person about my participation in the Christian Peace Witness?

Often common ground can be found not by reaching full agreement with one another about contentious issues, but by appealing to one another to respect the strength of our convictions when we disagree. People in the military are often acting sacrificially on their own strong beliefs. Might you hold those beliefs in common, while differing on how to act on them? Listen to their stories. Ask if their experience in the military is what they expected and what their doubts might be.

This witness is for those who know that few people are argued into a new position. Rather, most of us change when those whom we love or respect take principled action on their beliefs and treat our own beliefs with respect.

Explore your own beliefs and commitments by clicking here to learn more about resources for Nonviolent Direct Action.

i . It is unrealistic for peace folks to talk about the United States leaving Iraq. Now that we’ve created this situation, don’t we have to stay until we’ve cleaned it up?

We are clear that the United States has a moral obligation to make a long-term commitment to work with the international community for the physical and human reconstruction of Iraq. Our conviction as followers of Jesus Christ, backed up by the assessment of many world leaders and many in our own military and intelligence agencies, is that the violence in Iraq will only begin to abate when Iraqis can see our clear commitment to end the war and pull back our troops. Along with the physical reconstruction of Iraq, we are equally concerned with the trauma, poverty, and orphaned children this war leaves behind. We are committed to the mending of relationships, support in healing, and the restoration of social services.

j. Now that the Democrats have control of the Congress, isn’t it unnecessary to have this Witness?

Our witness is not about partisan politics. Many Republicans and Democrats supported this war when it began and many Republicans and Democrats now do not. Our role as people of faith is to create a strong, grassroots movement of folks who will hold our political leaders accountable to the highest ideals of our nation.

If anything, our witness is even more important now that political control of Congress has changed. Proponents of change need public support to make difficult choices. Remember, half the deaths in the Vietnam War occurred after disgust with the war led to the partisan shift of the presidency in 1968 in favor of Richard Nixon and his “secret plan to end the war.”

k. What about people of other faith traditions, or those who don’t consider themselves part of any faith tradition?

This witness is intentionally Christian because it embodies the principles of pacifism upon which Jesus based his life and ministry.

We welcome the participation of all people who agree with our five affirmations, principles that we affirm with one another and ask our government to affirm as well. Further, we call all people of faith (especially those who are Jewish and Muslim) to hold us in prayer as we carry out this intentionally Christian Witness. For those who are not a part of any religious tradition, we ask for your support and encouragement as we attempt to live up to the highest ideals of nonviolence that were embraced by Jesus Christ.

l. I want to be a part of the Witness, but I’m afraid it will be too costly to go to Washington.

We have worked to make this event as inexpensive as possible. There are alternative housing opportunities available in Washington, and we encourage you to team up with others to share expenses wherever possible. If you feel you are called to participate, we encourage you to form a small circle of support in your church – 10 friends who are each prepared to contribute $50 and hold you in prayer during your trip could probably make it possible to cover your air fare and other expenses.

Further, we hope that many who are unable to come to Washington will help to Lay the Local Foundation for an ongoing witness by organizing Christian Peace Witness for Iraq events in your local communities. Declaration of Peace is a sister effort to end the war that shares many of our commitments, and they are prepared to offer support as you organize a local witness.

m. I want to organize a local event instead of coming to Washington. What should I do?

We encourage you to work with members of churches in your community to plan events leading up to March 16, as well as to organize a Christian Peace Witness in your own community on the day when the national event is taking place. Go to Laying Local Foundations to learn more; the Declaration of Peace and the organizers’ packet on this Web site can help you with many of the resources you will need. Please contact Christian Peace Witness Organizers to let us know of your plans.

n. Okay, I want to come to Washington. Where will I stay?

Go to our logistics/housing page to find information on a variety of housing possibilities, including local hotels, churches that are willing to host folks who are willing to “rough it” by sleeping on the floor, and some folks who are willing to host you in their home.

o. How can I meet other folks like me who might be coming?

Go to our Meet Up page to find other people in your area who are planning to participate in the Christian Peace Witness either locally or in Washington, D.C.

p. What other events are planned besides the Christian Peace Witness on Friday night?

The Christian Peace Witness for Iraq will offer nonviolence training for any participants on Thursday night, Friday morning, and Friday afternoon before the Witness. On Saturday, some of our partner organizations will offer strategy sessions for future nonviolent organizing efforts to end the war in Iraq.

There will be more information to come about other events.

Joe's travels to India

2007-03-12T12:08:00.001-06:00

Joe Deurkson is traveling to India during March and April. He is in the continued process of trying to set up a medical school with MMA. He will be sending emails back to me and hopefully I can then post them here. Travels are always fun to hear about and sharing this experience should be fun for us here at home.

Rain Barrels and the environment

2007-03-12T09:36:00.000-06:00

For those interested in utilizing water better, especially as KC's sewer system is rundown, rain barrels are a great option. If you don't know much about rain barrels there are some great websites, mainly www.rainkc.com which talks about the benefits and links to other websites. Rain barrels can be a bit expensive but there are some work shops coming up soon. Check out Bridging The Gap for the specific information http://www.bridgingthegap.org/news/specialEvents/RainBarrels/RainBarrelMain.html. Elizabeth and I have signed up for the April 7th course and there are maybe 4 more open spots. Cost is $35 and you walk out with a completed 55 gallon rain barrel.

Coming--and already here: A New Sanctuary Movement

2007-03-10T22:07:00.000-06:00

"What is the role of the church when people are in danger if sent back to country of origin?" "Can our churches be 'sanctuary churches' as they have been in the past?" (In the 1980s, about 280 churches and synagogues were "sanctuaries.")

These two questions are the passion of John Fife, long-time Presbyterian pastor in Tucson, Arizona. He gave us good advice at Grandview Presbyterian Church (KCK) on March 10: Just tell the U.S. government, "We are a sanctuary church." Go public. Then the government is less likely to harrass.

In the 1980s, John Fife's congregation sheltered about 13,000 people, ending in 1992 when Guatemalan Peace Accords were signed.

Now the churches are coming together again. One organization is "No More Deaths," which has included Christian Peacemaker Teams personnel, maintaining water stations and taking backpacks of food. To date more than 5,000 migrants have died in the desert, trying to get to employment in the U.S. Meanwhile, stateside, immigration officials and vigilantes like Minute Men are raiding work places, and day labor centers to round up "illegals." Parents have been apprehended as they take their kids to school.

"Churches," proclaims John Fife, "can be a safe place to keep families together when threatened with deportation. We're talking Family Values." (Many families represent mixed immigration status; children born in this country are citizens.) When people ask, isn't this illegal? the answer is, "If the church is public about this, it is not illegal."

Churches can also host day-labor centers on their property. Immigration officials are trained not to go onto church property (or school, hospitals, or mortuaries). Churches can train pastors and others to confront people like Minute Men (who are organizing locally).

Until the U.S. governments provides a pathway to citizenship for people coming across the southern border, churches are important in this New Sanctuary Movement.

— Muriel T. Stackley

Immigration Legislation and American Fascism

2007-03-10T20:09:00.000-06:00

Cardinal Roger Mahoney of Los Angeles, who recently slammed by CNN commentator Lou Dobbs on pedophilia and immigration (see http://philsclips.blogspot.com/2007/03/lou-dobbs-commentary-on-immigration.html), is praised in Chris Hedges' new book, American Fascists: the Christian Right and the War on America.

On page 203, Hedges says Mahoney "has called on Catholics to be prepared to defy the laws now being considered in Congress and backed by the Christian Right that make it a felony to shield or protect or offer support to illegal immigrants. Such civil disobedience would be an act of faith." (The legislation referred to here is last year's (2006) legislation which did not pass.)

From my perspective, if Dobbs is against Mahoney and against Senators Kennedy and Reid, and against Representatives Gutierrez and Lofgren who are working to write comprehensive immigration reform legislation, then there must be some good in the legislation.

Dobbs most serious complaint is that Republicans are being excluded from the bill writing process, and that the targeted industries for permitting more immigrants for employment are suffering from depressed wages in the past 5 to 10 years.

The industries being discussed are being lumped together as the Essential Worker Immigraton Coalition (EWIC): construction, housing services (including landscaping), leisure, and hospitality. EWIC is founded, staffed and supported by the Chamber of Commerce, according to Dobbs.

This goes to prove that you can learn facts, sometimes, from even those with whom you disagree on their conclusions!

Thank you to Chris Hedges, whom I trust implicitly, to give me a positive opinion of Cardinal Roger Mahoney, and to Lou Dobbs, whom I disagree with almost by reflex, for educating me about some of the thinking behind the Democrats new (2007) immigration legislation.

I will be watching carefully if shielding, protecting or offering support to "undocumented" immigrants will be addressed in the new legislation. Rev. John Fife spoke this evening in KCK about his role in creating the Sanctuary Movement in the 1980's and his hope to build a "New Sanctuary Movement" in the next few months. Muriel and I were able to attend and were impressed by his knowledge, commitment and ability to inspire. We hope to learn more about these issues in coming weeks. John Fife quoted someone, no human being is "illegal," just as no infant is "illegitimate," Muriel added.

-- Phil Rhoads

Community Supported Agriculture

2007-03-10T20:08:00.000-06:00

We've recently been discussing the option of a membership to a local CSA farm. I love the idea of getting a box of fruits and vegetables directly from a local farmer instead of supporting the megafarms. Unfortunately the whole process has been rather discouraging as each time we talk with a CSA farmer, okay it was only two different ones, they said they had waiting lists. I got on the kcfoodcircle website and it looks like there is a minigathering on march 24 where various CSA folks will be trying to get new members. I'm hoping to go but and afraid everyone will have waiting lists for this next season. Check out the posted link to the food circle if you're interested.

I also appreciate how this ties in with the Slow Food movement which is attempting to counter the fast food movement.

American Fascists: the Christian Right and the War on America

2007-03-09T18:04:00.000-06:00

I just received my copy of Chris Hedge's new book from Amazon, and I can barely put it down! It is especially scary when Chris postulates what might happen if another September 11th occurs. My short blog on resiliency building as a form of peace building seems so appropriate.

I look forward to writing a full review in a few days!

for Mennonite groups traveling to the Christian Peace Witness for Iraq, March 16, in Washington, DC

2007-03-09T12:30:00.000-06:00

Pre-witness worship
prepared by Patty Peebles for Mennonite groups traveling to the Christian Peace Witness for Iraq, March 16, in Washington, DC, Worship service

Note: this suggested order of worship is filled with many songs to be used, substituted, or adapted according to each group’s resources. Our congregation sings a lot, so this is true to that tradition-please feel free to use it as is, or change it as your faith community would benefit. Blessings on your preparation for this witness to God’s kingdom come.

Order for Worship

Holy Spirit, come with power Hymn #26 (MH)

Opening Scripture John 1:1-5

God of Grace and God of Glory Hymn #366 (MH)

Scripture Reading: Philippians 2: 5-11

Lead on, O cloud of Presence Hymn #419 (MH)

Responsive Prayer

Unison: Jesus, you know what it is like to be utterly emptied. Teach us the value of emptiness. Comfort us like a mother comforts her child. Strengthen us with your meekness. Tame us with your peace. Capture us with your hope. Let us recognize your steadfast presence with us, and may that calm our fears when we are empty and afraid. May we be open to the work of the Holy Spirit, able to listen, cooperate, and grow into your likeness.

Lord Jesus Christ, we pray to you because you were tempted like us, in all things, yet did not submit.

Group 1: You have promised to come to the help of those who, in every age, are put to the test;

Group 2: Because we are not exempt from the subtle attraction of what is wrong and what is evil, we pray to you.

Silence, then sing the chorus of Kyrie Eleison, Christe Eleison, Kyrie Eleison (or substitute simple chorus or response)

1: We call you to where, in our lives, we exploit our abilities purely for personal gain, and let the human gifts, which were meant to illuminate the world, light up no more than our own vanity.

2: Because we are not exempt from the desire to be superior, we pray to you.
Silence, then chorus.

1: We call you to where, in our lives, we have made a show of our religion and made faith a means of attracting people to us, at the cost of distracting from you.

2: Because we are not exempt from judgmental living, and timidity at embracing your call, we pray to you.

Silence, then chorus.

1: We call you to where, in our lives, another god, more to our liking, is the object of our fawning, the recipient of our time, our attention, our worship.

2: Because we are not exempt from putting the life in the Body of Christ last on our list of priorities, we pray to you.

Silence, then chorus.

Unison: For it is in these places in our lives that we threaten to desert you, terrified of what your emptiness calls us to face.
You are the one who has chosen us and who,
in the wilderness,
at the Temple,
on the mountaintop,
on the Cross,
showed us and the powers and principalities that there is a third way.
Lord, redeem us from mistaking desolation for consolation.
From these we look away, and turn our backs. We turn our faces towards you, Jesus Christ our Lord. AMEN

If the war should go on Supplemental hymnal

Scripture Reading Lamentations 3:19-26

Forgive our sins as we forgive Hymn #137 (MH)

Prayer: Corporate Confession

Reader: Let us come before God with humble hearts and confess our sins: God in heaven;
For turning from the kingdom of God to this world for “reality”-
Forgive us Lord.
For turning from the suffering of service to aggression for “protection”-
Forgive us Lord.
For turning from the peace of forgiveness to violence for “justice”-
Forgive us Lord.
For turning from the hope of resurrection to fear for “security”-
Forgive us Lord.
For turing from the assurance to providence to war for “effectiveness”-
Forgive us Lord.
For turning from the comfort of simplicity to money for “well-being”-
Forgive us Lord.
For turning from the Lordship of Christ to government for “leadership”-
Forgive us Lord.

Silent Reflection and Meditation

Reader: Let us continue our confession together:
From the “necessity” of war and retaliation,
Deliver us, O God.
From the idols of money and nation,
Save us, O God.
From the “impossibility” of peace and forgiveness,
Redeem us, O God

Silent Reflection and Meditation

Please adapt the following to the manners and traditions of your faith community as you prepare for this Peace witness. We know that across the miles, we pray in unity as the Body of Jesus Christ. May God make us one in our faith, love, and witness to the Kingdom of our Lord.

Corporate prayer for those oppressed by war in Iraq, for Iraqi and American soldiers whose lives are being destroyed, for those who are illegally imprisoned and tortured, for world leaders making decisions on these issues.

Followed by prayer for this peace witness, for those planning, those traveling, those demonstrating, those remaining at home, and those observing, counter-resisting, arresting or reporting.

Here in this place Hymn #6 (MH)

Affirmation of Commitment

Reader: Let us pray.

Unison: Almighty and loving God, we give our loyalty to you and no other. As your church we will peacefully resist the violent world as it is, wisely discern your peaceful Kingdom within it, and eagerly act toward its fulfillment in the new heaven and earth that is to come.

Reader: let us affirm together:
We are the people of God, our Father.
With the compassion of God
we will hear the cries of our neighborhood and world.
With the patience of God
we will not rush to war and violence.
With the justice of God
we will bless the just and the unjust.

Silence

Reader: let us continue our affirmations.
We are the body of Christ, our Lord.
With the love of Christ
we will heal the broken and deliver the captive.
With the peace of Christ
we will love our enemies and turn the other cheek.
With the faithfulness of Christ
we will count the cost and take up our cross.

Silence

Leader: let us finish our affirmations.
We are the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, our comforter.
With the presence of the Spirit
we will stand in solidarity with all who suffer.
With the purpose of the Spirit
we will proclaim the gospel to all nations.
With the power of the Spirit
we will live as first-fruits of God’s Kingdom come in Christ.

Silence

Reader: let us pray.
Creating and redeeming God, we are your people, your body, and your fellowship on earth. By your presence and power may we be faithful to our calling to the kingdom, hopeful in our vision of its fulfillment, and loving in our action toward that end. Through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God and one Lord, now and forever. Amen.

We are people of God’s peace Hymn #407 (MH)

Benediction

War After September 11

2007-03-07T19:35:00.000-06:00

Hi Phil,

I received a copy of a chapter in this book recently and would like to recommend it as reading material. I need to get my hands on a copy of the book myself to finish reading it. "War After September 11" edited by Verna V. Gehring

On NPR: Win Without War, and Rainbow is a member!

2007-03-05T10:13:00.000-06:00

February 15, 2007:

I just heard an interview with Tom Andrews, former congressman from Maine, who is the director of a "Mainstream" anti-war coalition (pardon the pun) on "Day-to-Day."

Here is a link to their web site: http://www.winwithoutwarus.org/html/coalition.html

Notice that Rainbow is a member! (Actually, Rainbow/Push).

Andrews stated that March 14 is the date when a major piece of legislation is to be voted out of a House committee that will seriously tie Bush's hands to prolong and expand this war. It is a mainstream strategy, and I hope, a serious threat to this administration.

I, of course, would prefer impeachment, but let's support every way possible to end this war and prevent any new ones.

And I am so glad for the timing: I hope to join the Salina peace folks and ride in their van to DC for the candlelight vigil and march from the National Cathedral to the White House on Friday night, March 16, and the March on the Pentagon, March 17.

See http://peace.mennolink.org/resources/cpw/index.html from Mennonite Church, USA

and http://answer.pephost.org/site/News2?abbr=ANS_&page=NewsArticle&id=8107 from ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism)

Anyone else want to join us?

— Phil Rhoads

http://web.mac.com/philrhoads

Department of Peace and Nonviolence

2007-02-05T09:47:00.000-06:00

(Editor's note: This proposal deserves serious consideration by all advocates of peacemaking and nonviolent conflict resolution. For a skeptical view by a prominent career peacemaker, see Gene Stoltzfus's blog:
http://gstoltzfus.blogspot.com/2007/02/us-department-of-peace-and-nonviolence.html

HR 808 IH
110th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 808
To establish a Department of Peace and Nonviolence.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 5, 2007

Mr. KUCINICH (for himself, Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Mr. ANDREWS, Ms. BALDWIN, Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida, Ms. CARSON, Mr. CLAY, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. CUMMINGS, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Mrs. DAVIS of California, Mr. DEFAZIO, Mr. ELLISON, Mr. FARR, Mr. FILNER, Mr. AL GREEN of Texas, Mr. GRIJALVA, Ms. HIRONO, Mr. HOLT, Mr. HONDA, Mr. JACKSON of Illinois, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Mrs. JONES of Ohio, Ms. KAPTUR, Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan, Ms. LEE, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mrs. MALONEY of New York, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. MEEKS of New York, Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California, Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin, Mr. MORAN of Virginia, Mr. NADLER, Ms. NORTON, Mr. PAYNE, Mr. RANGEL, Mr. ROTHMAN, Mr. RYAN of Ohio, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. SCOTT of Virginia, Mr. SERRANO, Mr. SHERMAN, Mrs. TAUSCHER, Mr. TOWNS, Ms. WATERS, Ms. WATSON, Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. WU, and Mr. WYNN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committees on Foreign Affairs, Judiciary, and Education and Labor, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL
To establish a Department of Peace and Nonviolence.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title- This Act may be cited as the `Department of Peace and Nonviolence Act’.
(b) Table of Contents- The table of contents for this Act is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.
TITLE I--ESTABLISHMENT OF DEPARTMENT OF PEACE AND NONVIOLENCE
Sec. 101. Establishment of Department of Peace and Nonviolence.
Sec. 102. Responsibilities and powers.
Sec. 103. Principal officers.
Sec. 104. Office of Peace Education and Training.
Sec. 105. Office of Domestic Peace Activities.
Sec. 106. Office of International Peace Activities.
Sec. 107. Office of Technology for Peace.
Sec. 108. Office of Arms Control and Disarmament.
Sec. 109. Office of Peaceful Coexistence and Nonviolent Conflict Resolution.
Sec. 110. Office of Human Rights and Economic Rights.
Sec. 111. Intergovernmental Advisory Council on Peace and Nonviolence.
Sec. 112. Consultation required.
Sec. 113. Authorization of appropriations.
TITLE II--ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS AND TRANSFERS OF AGENCY FUNCTIONS
Sec. 201. Staff.
Sec. 202. Transfers.
Sec. 203. Conforming amendments.
TITLE III--FEDERAL INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE ON PEACE AND NONVIOLENCE
Sec. 301. Federal Interagency Committee on Peace and Nonviolence.
TITLE IV--ESTABLISHMENT OF PEACE DAY
Sec. 401. Peace Day.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) On July 4, 1776, the Second Continental Congress unanimously declared the independence of the 13 colonies, and the achievement of peace was recognized as one of the highest duties of the new organization of free and independent States.
(2) In declaring, `We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness’, the drafters of the Declaration of Independence, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World, derived the creative cause of nationhood from `the Laws of Nature’ and the entitlements of `Nature’s God’, such literal referrals in the Declaration of Independence thereby serving to celebrate the unity of human thought, natural law, and spiritual causation.
(3) The architects of the Declaration of Independence `with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence’ spoke to the connection between the original work infusing principle into the structure of a democratic government seeking to elevate the condition of humanity, and the activity of a higher power which moves to guide the Nation’s fortune.
(4) The Constitution of the United States of America, in its Preamble, further sets forth the insurance of the cause of peace in stating: `We the People of the United States, in Order to Form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.’
(5) The Founders of this country gave America a vision of freedom for the ages and provided people with a document which gave this Nation the ability to adapt to an undreamed of future.
(6) It is the sacred duty of the people of the United States to receive the living truths of our founding documents and to think anew to develop institutions that permit the unfolding of the highest moral principles in this Nation and around the world.
(7) During the course of the 20th century, more than 100,000,000 people perished in wars, and now, at the dawn of the 21st century, violence seems to be an overarching theme in the world, encompassing personal, group, national, and international conflict, extending to the production of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons of mass destruction which have been developed for use on land, air, sea, and in space.
(8) Such conflict is often taken as a reflection of the human condition without questioning whether the structures of thought, word, and deed which the people of the United States have inherited are any longer sufficient for the maintenance, growth, and survival of the United States and the world.
(9) Promoting a culture of peace has been recognized by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) through passage of a resolution declaring an International Decade for a Culture of Peace and Non-Violence for the Children 2001-2010. The objective is to further strengthen the global movement for a culture of peace following the observance of the International Year for the Culture of Peace in 2000.
(10) We are in a new millennium, and the time has come to review age-old challenges with new thinking wherein we can conceive of peace as not simply being the absence of violence, but the active presence of the capacity for a higher evolution of the human awareness, of respect, trust, and integrity; wherein we all may tap the infinite capabilities of humanity to transform consciousness and conditions which impel or compel violence at a personal, group, or national level toward developing a new understanding of, and a commitment to, compassion and love, in order to create a `shining city on a hill’, the light of which is the light of nations.
TITLE I--ESTABLISHMENT OF DEPARTMENT OF PEACE AND NONVIOLENCE
SEC. 101. ESTABLISHMENT OF DEPARTMENT OF PEACE AND NONVIOLENCE.
(a) Establishment- There is hereby established a Department of Peace and Nonviolence (hereinafter in this Act referred to as the `Department’), which shall--
(1) be a cabinet-level department in the executive branch of the Federal Government; and
(2) be dedicated to peacemaking and the study of conditions that are conducive to both domestic and international peace.
(b) Secretary of Peace and Nonviolence- There shall be at the head of the Department a Secretary of Peace and Nonviolence (hereinafter in this Act referred to as the `Secretary’), who shall be appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate.
(c) Mission- The Department shall--
(1) hold peace as an organizing principle, coordinating service to every level of American society;
(2) endeavor to promote justice and democratic principles to expand human rights;
(3) strengthen nonmilitary means of peacemaking;
(4) promote the development of human potential;
(5) work to create peace, prevent violence, divert from armed conflict, use field-tested programs, and develop new structures in nonviolent dispute resolution;
(6) take a proactive, strategic approach in the development of policies that promote national and international conflict prevention, nonviolent intervention, mediation, peaceful resolution of conflict, and structured mediation of conflict;
(7) address matters both domestic and international in scope; and
(8) encourage the development of initiatives from local communities, religious groups, and nongovernmental organizations.
SEC. 102. RESPONSIBILITIES AND POWERS.
(a) In General- The Secretary shall--
(1) work proactively and interactively with each branch of the Federal Government on all policy matters relating to conditions of peace;
(2) serve as a delegate to the National Security Council;
(3) call on the intellectual and spiritual wealth of the people of the United States and seek participation in its administration and in its development of policy from private, public, and nongovernmental organizations; and
(4) monitor and analyze causative principles of conflict and make policy recommendations for developing and maintaining peaceful conduct.
(b) Domestic Responsibilities- The Secretary shall--
(1) develop policies that address domestic violence, including spousal abuse, child abuse, and mistreatment of the elderly;
(2) create new policies and incorporate existing programs that reduce drug and alcohol abuse;
(3) develop new policies and incorporate existing policies regarding crime, punishment, and rehabilitation;
(4) develop policies to address violence against animals;
(5) analyze existing policies, employ successful, field-tested programs, and develop new approaches for dealing with the implements of violence, including gun-related violence and the overwhelming presence of handguns;
(6) develop new programs that relate to the societal challenges of school violence, gangs, racial or ethnic violence, violence against gays and lesbians, and police-community relations disputes;
(7) make policy recommendations to the Attorney General regarding civil rights and labor law;
(8) assist in the establishment and funding of community-based violence prevention programs, including violence prevention counseling and peer mediation in schools;
(9) counsel and advocate on behalf of women victimized by violence;
(10) provide for public education programs and counseling strategies concerning hate crimes;
(11) promote racial, religious, and ethnic tolerance;
(12) finance local community initiatives that can draw on neighborhood resources to create peace projects that facilitate the development of conflict resolution at a national level and thereby inform and inspire national policy; and
(13) provide ethical-based and value-based analyses to the Department of Defense.
(c) International Responsibilities- The Secretary shall--
(1) advise the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State on all matters relating to national security, including the protection of human rights and the prevention of, amelioration of, and de-escalation of unarmed and armed international conflict;
(2) provide for the training of all United States personnel who administer postconflict reconstruction and demobilization in war-torn societies;
(3) sponsor country and regional conflict prevention and dispute resolution initiatives, create special task forces, and draw on local, regional, and national expertise to develop plans and programs for addressing the root sources of conflict in troubled areas;
(4) provide for exchanges between the United States and other nations of individuals who endeavor to develop domestic and international peace-based initiatives;
(5) encourage the development of international sister city programs, pairing United States cities with cities around the globe for artistic, cultural, economic, educational, and faith-based exchanges;
(6) administer the training of civilian peacekeepers who participate in multinational nonviolent police forces and support civilian police who participate in peacekeeping;
(7) jointly with the Secretary of the Treasury, strengthen peace enforcement through hiring and training monitors and investigators to help with the enforcement of international arms embargoes;
(8) facilitate the development of peace summits at which parties to a conflict may gather under carefully prepared conditions to promote nonviolent communication and mutually beneficial solutions;
(9) submit to the President recommendations for reductions in weapons of mass destruction, and make annual reports to the President on the sale of arms from the United States to other nations, with analysis of the impact of such sales on the defense of the United States and how such sales affect peace;
(10) in consultation with the Secretary of State, develop strategies for sustainability and management of the distribution of international funds; and
(11) advise the United States Ambassador to the United Nations on matters pertaining to the United Nations Security Council.
(d) Human Security Responsibilities- The Secretary shall address and offer nonviolent conflict resolution strategies to all relevant parties on issues of human security if such security is threatened by conflict, whether such conflict is geographic, religious, ethnic, racial, or class-based in its origin, derives from economic concerns (including trade or maldistribution of wealth), or is initiated through disputes concerning scarcity of natural resources (such as water and energy resources), food, trade, or environmental concerns.
(e) Media-Related Responsibilities- Respecting the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States and the requirement for free and independent media, the Secretary shall--
(1) seek assistance in the design and implementation of nonviolent policies from media professionals;
(2) study the role of the media in the escalation and de-escalation of conflict at domestic and international levels and make findings public; and
(3) make recommendations to professional media organizations in order to provide opportunities to increase media awareness of peace-building initiatives.
(f) Educational Responsibilities- The Secretary shall--
(1) develop a peace education curriculum, which shall include studies of--
(A) the civil rights movement in the United States and throughout the world, with special emphasis on how individual endeavor and involvement have contributed to advancements in peace and justice; and
(B) peace agreements and circumstances in which peaceful intervention has worked to stop conflict;
(2) in cooperation with the Secretary of Education--
(A) commission the development of such curricula and make such curricula available to local school districts to enable the utilization of peace education objectives at all elementary and secondary schools in the United States; and
(B) offer incentives in the form of grants and training to encourage the development of State peace curricula and assist schools in applying for such curricula;
(3) work with educators to equip students to become skilled in achieving peace through reflection, and facilitate instruction in the ways of peaceful conflict resolution;
(4) maintain a site on the Internet for the purposes of soliciting and receiving ideas for the development of peace from the wealth of political, social and cultural diversity;
(5) proactively engage the critical thinking capabilities of grade school, high school, and college students and teachers through the Internet and other media and issue periodic reports concerning submissions;
(6) create and establish a Peace Academy, which shall--
(A) be modeled after the military service academies
(B) provide a 4-year course of instruction in peace education, after which graduates will be required to serve 5 years in public service in programs dedicated to domestic or international nonviolent conflict resolution; and
(7) provide grants for peace studies departments in colleges and universities throughout the United States.
SEC. 103. PRINCIPAL OFFICERS.
(a) Under Secretary of Peace and Nonviolence- There shall be in the Department an Under Secretary of Peace and Nonviolence, who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. During the absence or disability of the Secretary, or in the event of a vacancy in the office of the Secretary, the Under Secretary shall act as Secretary. The Secretary shall designate the order in which other officials of the Department shall act for and perform the functions of the Secretary during the absence or disability of both the Secretary and Under Secretary or in the event of vacancies in both of those offices.
(b) Additional Positions- (1) There shall be in the Department--
(A) an Assistant Secretary for Peace Education and Training;
(B) an Assistant Secretary for Domestic Peace Activities;
(C) an Assistant Secretary for International Peace Activities;
(D) an Assistant Secretary for Technology for Peace;
(E) an Assistant Secretary for Arms Control and Disarmament;
(F) an Assistant Secretary for Peaceful Coexistence and Nonviolent Conflict Resolution;
(G) an Assistant Secretary for Human and Economic Rights; and
(H) a General Counsel.
(2) Each of the Assistant Secretaries and the General Counsel shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.
(3) There shall be in the Department an Inspector General, who shall be appointed in accordance with the provisions in the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.).
(4) There shall be in the Department four additional officers who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The officers appointed under this paragraph shall perform such functions as the Secretary shall prescribe, including--
(A) congressional relations functions;
(B) public information functions, including providing, through the use of the latest technologies, useful information about peace and the work of the Department;
(C) management and budget functions; and
(D) planning, evaluation, and policy development functions, including development of policies to promote the efficient and coordinated administration of the Department and its programs and encourage improvements in conflict resolution and violence prevention.
(5) In any case in which the President submits the name of an individual to the Senate for confirmation as an officer of the Department under this subsection, the President shall state the particular functions of the Department such individual will exercise upon taking office.
(c) Authority of Secretary- Each officer described in this section shall report directly to the Secretary and shall, in addition to any functions vested in or required to be delegated to such officer, perform such additional functions as the Secretary may prescribe.
SEC. 104. OFFICE OF PEACE EDUCATION AND TRAINING.
(a) In General- There shall be in the Department an Office of Peace Education and Training, the head of which shall be the Assistant Secretary for Peace Education and Training. The Assistant Secretary for Peace Education and Training shall carry out those functions of the Department relating to the creation, encouragement, and impact of peace education and training at the elementary, secondary, university, and postgraduate levels, including the development of a Peace Academy.
(b) Peace Curriculum- The Assistant Secretary of Peace Education and Training, in cooperation with the Secretary of Education, shall develop a peace curriculum and supporting materials for distribution to departments of education in each State and territory of the United States. The peace curriculum shall include the building of communicative peace skills, nonviolent conflict resolution skills, and other objectives to increase the knowledge of peace processes.
(c) Grants- The Assistant Secretary of Peace Education and Training shall--
(1) provide peace education grants to colleges and universities for the creation and expansion of peace studies departments; and
(2) create a Community Peace Block Grant program under which grants shall be provided to not-for-profit community and nongovernmental organizations for the purposes of developing creative, innovative neighborhood programs for nonviolent conflict resolution and local peacebuilding initiatives.
SEC. 105. OFFICE OF DOMESTIC PEACE ACTIVITIES.
(a) In General- There shall be in the Department an Office of Domestic Peace Activities, the head of which shall be the Assistant Secretary for Domestic Peace Activities. The Assistant Secretary for Domestic Peace Activities shall carry out those functions in the Department affecting domestic peace activities, including the development of policies that increase awareness about intervention and counseling on domestic violence and conflict.
(b) Responsibilities- The Assistant Secretary for Domestic Peace Activities shall--
(1) develop policy alternatives for the treatment of drug and alcohol abuse;
(2) develop new policies and build on existing programs responsive to the prevention of crime, including the development of community policing strategies and peaceful settlement skills among police and other public safety officers; and
(3) develop community-based strategies for celebrating diversity and promoting tolerance.
SEC. 106. OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL PEACE ACTIVITIES.
(a) In General- There shall be in the Department an Office of International Peace Activities, the head of which shall be the Assistant Secretary for International Peace Activities. The Assistant Secretary for International Peace Activities shall carry out those functions in the Department affecting international peace activities and shall be a member of the National Security Council.
(b) Responsibilities- The Assistant Secretary for International Peace Activities shall--
(1) provide for the training and deployment of all Peace Academy graduates and other nonmilitary conflict prevention and peacemaking personnel;
(2) sponsor country and regional conflict prevention and dispute resolution initiatives in countries experiencing social, political, or economic strife;
(3) advocate the creation of a multinational nonviolent peace force;
(4) provide training for the administration of postconflict reconstruction and demobilization in war-torn societies; and
(5) provide for the exchanges between individuals of the United States and other nations who are endeavoring to develop domestic and international peace-based initiatives.
SEC. 107. OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY FOR PEACE.
(a) In General- There shall be in the Department an Office of Technology for Peace, the head of which shall be the Assistant Secretary of Technology for Peace. The Assistant Secretary of Technology for Peace shall carry out those functions in the Department affecting the awareness, study, and impact of developing new technologies on the creation and maintenance of domestic and international peace.
(b) Grants- The Assistant Secretary of Technology for Peace shall provide grants for the research and development of technologies in transportation, communications, and energy that--
(1) are nonviolent in their application; and
(2) encourage the conservation and sustainability of natural resources in order to prevent future conflicts regarding scarce resources.
SEC. 108. OFFICE OF ARMS CONTROL AND DISARMAMENT.
(a) In General- There shall be in the Department an Office of Arms Control and Disarmament, the head of which shall be the Assistant Secretary of Arms Control and Disarmament. The Assistant Secretary of Arms Control and Disarmament shall carry out those functions in the Department affecting arms control programs and arms limitation agreements.
(b) Responsibilities- The Assistant Secretary of Arms Control and Disarmament shall--
(1) advise the Secretary on all interagency discussions and all international negotiations regarding the reduction and elimination of weapons of mass destruction throughout the world, including the dismantling of such weapons and the safe and secure storage of materials related thereto;
(2) assist nations, international agencies and nongovernmental organizations in assessing the locations of the buildup of nuclear arms;
(3) develop nonviolent strategies to deter the testing or use of offensive or defensive nuclear weapons, whether based on land, air, sea, or in outer space;
(4) serve as a depository for copies of all contracts, agreements, and treaties that deal with the reduction and elimination of nuclear weapons or the protection of outer space from militarization; and
(5) provide technical support and legal assistance for the implementation of such agreements.
SEC. 109. OFFICE OF PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE AND NONVIOLENT CONFLICT RESOLUTION.
(a) In General- There shall be in the Department an Office of Peaceful Coexistence and Nonviolent Conflict Resolution, the head of which shall be the Assistant Secretary for Peaceful Coexistence and Nonviolent Conflict Resolution. The Assistant Secretary for Peaceful Coexistence and Nonviolent Conflict Resolution shall carry out those functions in the Department affecting research and analysis relating to creating, initiating, and modeling approaches to peaceful coexistence and nonviolent conflict resolution.
(b) Responsibilities- The Assistant Secretary for Peaceful Coexistence and Nonviolent Conflict Resolution shall--
(1) study the impact of war, especially on the physical and mental condition of children (using the ten-point agenda in the United Nations Childrens Fund report, State of the World’s Children 1996, as a guide), which shall include the study of the effect of war on the environment and public health;
(2) publish a monthly journal of the activities of the Department and encourage scholarly participation;
(3) gather information on effective community peacebuilding activities and disseminate such information to local governments and nongovernmental organizations in the United States and abroad;
(4) research the effect of violence in the media and make such reports available to the Congress annually; and
(5) sponsor conferences throughout the United States to create awareness of the work of the Department.
SEC. 110. OFFICE OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND ECONOMIC RIGHTS.
(a) In General- There shall be in the Department an Office of Human Rights and Economic Rights, the head of which shall be the Assistant Secretary for Human Rights and Economic Rights. The Assistant Secretary for Human Rights and Economic Rights shall carry out those functions in the Department supporting the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights passed by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 10, 1948.
(b) Responsibilities- The Assistant Secretary for Human Rights and Economic Rights shall--
(1) assist the Secretary, in cooperation with the Secretary of State, in furthering the incorporation of principles of human rights, as enunciated in the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 217A (III) of December 10, 1948, into all agreements between the United States and other nations to help reduce the causes of violence;
(2) gather information on and document human rights abuses, both domestically and internationally, and recommend to the Secretary nonviolent responses to correct abuses;
(3) make such findings available to other agencies in order to facilitate nonviolent conflict resolution;
(4) provide trained observers to work with nongovernmental organizations for purposes of creating a climate that is conducive to the respect for human rights;
(5) conduct economic analyses of the scarcity of human and natural resources as a source of conflict and make recommendations to the Secretary for nonviolent prevention of such scarcity, nonviolent intervention in case of such scarcity, and the development of programs of assistance for people experiencing such scarcity, whether due to armed conflict, maldistribution of resources, or natural causes;
(6) assist the Secretary, in cooperation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury, in developing strategies regarding the sustainability and the management of the distribution of funds from international agencies, the conditions regarding the receipt of such funds, and the impact of those conditions on the peace and stability of the recipient nations; and
(7) assist the Secretary, in cooperation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Labor, in developing strategies to promote full compliance with domestic and international labor rights law.
SEC. 111. INTERGOVERNMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL ON PEACE AND NONVIOLENCE.
(a) In General- There shall be in the Department an advisory committee to be known as the Intergovernmental Advisory Council on Peace and Nonviolence (hereinafter in this Act referred to as the `Council’). The Council shall provide assistance and make recommendations to the Secretary and the President concerning intergovernmental policies relating to peace and nonviolent conflict resolution.
(b) Responsibilities- The Council shall--
(1) provide a forum for representatives of Federal, State, and local governments to discuss peace issues;
(2) promote better intergovernmental relations; and
(3) submit, biennially or more frequently if determined necessary by the Council, a report to the Secretary, the President, and the Congress reviewing the impact of Federal peace activities on State and local governments.
SEC. 112. CONSULTATION REQUIRED.
(a) Consultation in Cases of Conflict- (1) In any case in which a conflict between the United States and any other government or entity is imminent or occurring, the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State shall consult with the Secretary concerning nonviolent means of conflict resolution.
(2) In any case in which such a conflict is ongoing or recently concluded, the Secretary shall conduct independent studies of diplomatic initiatives undertaken by the United States and other parties to the conflict.
(3) In any case in which such a conflict has recently concluded, the Secretary shall assess the effectiveness of those initiatives in ending the conflict.
(4) The Secretary shall establish a formal process of consultation in a timely manner with the Secretary of the Department of State and the Secretary of the Department of Defense--
(A) prior to the initiation of any armed conflict between the United States and any other nation; and
(B) for any matter involving the use of Department of Defense personnel within the United States.
(b) Consultation in Drafting Treaties and Agreements- The executive branch shall consult with the Secretary in drafting treaties and peace agreements.
SEC. 113. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this Act for a fiscal year beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act an amount equal to at least 2 percent of the total amount appropriated for that fiscal year for the Department of Defense.
TITLE II--ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS AND TRANSFERS OF AGENCY FUNCTIONS
SEC. 201. STAFF.
The Secretary may appoint and fix the compensation of such employees as may be necessary to carry out the functions of the Secretary and the Department. Except as otherwise provided by law, such employees shall be appointed in accordance with the civil service laws and their compensation fixed in accordance with title 5 of the United States Code.
SEC. 202. TRANSFERS.
There are hereby transferred to the Department the functions, assets, and personnel of--
(1) the Peace Corps;
(2) the United States Institute of Peace;
(3) the Office of the Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security Affairs of the Department of State;
(4) the Gang Resistance Education and Training Program of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms; and
(5) the SafeFutures program of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention of the Department of Justice.
SEC. 203. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.
Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall prepare and submit to Congress proposed legislation containing any necessary and appropriate technical and conforming amendments to the laws of the United States to reflect and carry out the provisions of this Act.
TITLE III--FEDERAL INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE ON PEACE AND NONVIOLENCE
SEC. 301. FEDERAL INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE ON PEACE AND NONVIOLENCE.
There is established a Federal Interagency Committee on Peace and Nonviolence (hereinafter in this Act referred to as the `Committee’). The Committee shall--
(1) assist the Secretary in providing a mechanism to assure that the procedures and actions of the Department and other Federal agencies are fully coordinated; and
(2) study and make recommendations for assuring effective coordination of Federal programs, policies, and administrative practices affecting peace.
TITLE IV--ESTABLISHMENT OF PEACE DAY
SEC. 401. PEACE DAY.
All citizens should be encouraged to observe and celebrate the blessings of peace and endeavor to create peace on a Peace Day. Such day shall include discussions of the professional activities and the achievements in the lives of peacemakers. There are several models for such a Peace Day that have been endorsed by Congress and the United Nations.

END

Report to the Congregation: Christian Peacemaker Teams' Stop Depleted Uranium Delegation Nov. 24 to Dec. 3 2006

2006-12-04T21:04:00.000-06:00

Did we accomplish what we hoped to? Such a simple question, such a long answer. In a word, "Yes." But explaining why I think we succeeded even though depleted uranium is still the accepted weapon of choice by our government for piercing armor and busting bunkers, etc., takes many words.

We succeeded because, first, we learned how to form a team out of eight (full-time) individuals, only a few of whom had ever met each other before. And we included six other volunteers for portions of our delegation. Our ages spanned from 27 to 85, male and female, Christians of various theological traditions who are active in their local congregations, Christians who are inactive, and one Pagan. We came from Kansas, Indiana, Michigan, Washington, DC, Chicago, and Toronto. We divided up responsibilities and shared the work load and the variety of tasks of keeping ourselves fed, transported, spiritually energized, intellectually engaged, scheduled, photographed, bathed, and rested. And we kept a daily web "blog" of our activities — http://stop-du.org/.

We succeeded because, second, we educated ourselves about the issues involved in DU weapons production, and the controversies of health care for veterans, the politics of gathering epidemiological data to indict DU as a long-term health threat (physical half-life of 4.5 billion years) or to clear it of unfounded suspicions. (One expert explained the biological half-life as a measure of how long it stays in the human body once it is inhaled or ingested, which depends on the solubility and the size of the particles: soluble uranium oxide particles have a biological half-life of about 400 days, while insoluble nano-particles can stay within the body for a lifetime.)

Third, we informed ourselves about some ethical thinking for use in matters of complicated and inconclusive science, namely, the "Precautionary Principle," which is cited by the Physicians for Social Responsibility: "PSR believes the Precautionary Principle applies in the case of battlefield use of DU. In this context, the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof" — http://www.psr.org/documents/psr_doc_0/program_4/DU_Report.pdf.

Fourth, we networked with other groups which have been working on the DU issue for some time, and which come from different perspectives. One especially helpful link was with the Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance — http://www.stopthebombs.org/orepa.php4 — which is located only two hours west of our prayer vigil site at the Aerojet plant in Jonesborough, TN. Ralph Hutchison, a Presbyterian minister and executive director of OREPA, came to speak to us at our vigil at Aerojet in Jonesborough, TN. Craig Etchison, college professor of English and Linguistics, spoke at our press conference and vigil in Pinto, MD, across the Potomac from the ABL/ATK plant in Rocket Center, WV.

Fifth, we are committing ourselves to the "long haul," to continue our involvement with Christian Peacemaker Teams on the Depleted Uranium issue or on other more direct violence reduction interventions, which have been the traditional CPT foci. Or we three team members in Kansas may join with the Oklahoma folks who are organizing to oppose the bunker buster factory in McAlester, OK (south of Tulsa).

I compare CPT's and other groups' campaign against Depleted Uranium to Carrie Nation's and other Prohibitionists against alcohol. There are a lot of entrenched interests at stake, and after a long struggle, even if we get DU eliminated from weapons, as alcohol was banned when the Eighteenth Amendment was ratified in 1919, there may be a backlash and we may be reversed, just as the Twenty-first Amendment which was ratified in 1933, overturned the Eighteenth. (The Prohibition Movement began in the 1840's. Our own Carrie Nation, buried in Belton, MO, in 1911, before Prohibition was enacted, only became active in her temperance work after 1889 when she moved to Medicine Lodge, KS.)

Opposition to the use of Depleted Uranium in weapons may be said to have begun in 1996 (when the International Court of Justice (ICJ) declared that depleted uranium weaponry is not prohibited by the treaties of the Second (1899) and Fourth (1907) Hague Conventions or by the Geneva Protocol (1925) as their primary use is not to poison or asphyxiate, but to destroy materiel and kill soldiers through kinetic energy). This ruling by the ICJ only spurred the creation of numerous groups to take their case to the court of public opinion. Therefore, by this reckoning, we are only ten years into this campaign. The suspected long-term environmental and health effects of DU weapons lead opponents to believe that the United Nations Charter and the Geneva Conventions declare DU to be an illegal weapon of mass destruction.

As Christian pacifists, we oppose all weapons and all violence, of course, but working for the reduction of violence is a more achievable goal for Christian Peacemaker Teams. Thus, after much discernment, CPT joined this campaign to stop DU weaponry. We acknowledge that the science is unclear, and more research needs to be done, but we believe the Precautionary Principle should apply, and an immediate moratorium should halt the manufacture and use of DU weapons in war theaters or in practice ranges, and that military personnel should refuse to load DU ammunition or use it in any of its forms.

We invite you to join us in this struggle!

— Phil Rhoads
RhoadsPrtg@aol.com