Fearless Faith

It’s hard not to be defensive when someone challenges you by declaring, “Well, that’s not very Christian!” If fruits of the Spirit bolster one’s faith, then perhaps a more appropriate challenge should be, “Well, that’s not very Christlike!” Both point out the reality that living in Christ is a subjective standard at best. Authors of New Testament scripture take their best shots at defining righteousness and yet there exists no clear litmus test that conforms to all circumstances and settings.

Examine the organizational timeline of any denomination and one can identify moments of positive evolutionary progress, steady slow marches toward something better. Contrasting moments represent a devolution away from Christ-centered behavior. What we now consider acceptable, even pedestrian behaviors, engendered passionate discussion in earlier contexts in the life of the church. Will future church historians recognize a progression toward a kinder gentler church in its acceptance of broader theological understanding, or will they simply record the death throes of Christianity as it exists today and consign such learnings to a high dusty shelf in some obscure seminary library?

Much can be gained by studying our past and garnering what has tested true over time. For Brethren, “The Great Schism of 1880” took seriously the elements of simplicity, non-conformity and worldliness, but they were not of one mind in those matters. In 1894, having one’s image memorialized in a photograph was reluctantly allowed.

Brethren tobacco farmers of 1899 were not be seated as delegates at any conference or proceeding in which they were otherwise allowed. Holding political office was frowned upon and considered inappropriate and unchristian, though it was ultimately ‘tolerated” as evidenced by the 26th governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Martin Brumbaugh. By 1920, musical instruments were authorized for use in worship services. That same year, neckties were no longer a barrier to membership in the church, though they were still considered a vain “adornment.”

Use and ownership of cars was approved by the denominational body in 1921. Locally a member of the Haxtun congregation was “churched” in the late 1800s for dressing as Santa Claus at a community holiday event. A late 1920s argument over the appropriateness of Easter bonnets was resolved in favor of the bonnet. And early in the 30s decade, the church found its voice in denouncing the presence of the KKK whose members interrupted Sunday services in full hooded regalia, marched up the aisle and left a cash gift in the offering plate before departing.

All of these events, and many others, have a common denominator, that being the tension between human will and ego and God’s will for us. We still confuse appropriate Christian behavior with rules and regulations and punishments meted out in appropriate measure. The latest schism involving a small departing minority of the membership began two years ago as differences over Biblical authority and inspiration were in question. Many of the ensuing arguments were merely non-essential adornments to the baseline issues accompanying sexual identity and orientation. Why dress up arguments with adornments that are non-essential to the base questions at hand?

It's quite simple. When the dignity and worth of all peoples are at stake, will we discriminate on the basis of ethnicity, race, skin color, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, disability or creed? Remove religious adornments from the equation and see where it falls out. We might just discover that honoring diversity is a Christian mandate that can no longer be ignored.