Goshen College will play national anthem before sporting events

Reader Comments

• Posted by timjn at Monday, January 25, 2010 at 01:53 PM

  Brenneman's use of the term "loyal opposition" is very telling. He seems to be exploring this concept further in his recent sermon to GC students entitled "Getting to Yes and Amen! The New GC 'School of Thought'". Based on the GC press release, the message seems to be, through the text and accompanying photos, that he hopes to take GC in the J. Lawrence Burkholder path. That is the tradition of institution building and a focus on working from within the system. Burkholder's vision flows out of a focus on the "sea of moral ambiguity" as Perry Bush describes it. Bush references the story I often heard Burkholder tell of the time while working in China when he forced frantic refugees off a plane while the pilot held a gun to their head so that the plane could take off.

• Posted by kckaufman at Monday, January 25, 2010 at 03:42 PM

  What an argument from a heritage which gave the American Republic the separation of church and state. It's the prayer which doesn't belong at an athletic venue. A prayer for what? That usually turns into let God's favorite win...a Calvinist assumptionl. The historic and intellectual content does little to enhance the integrity of thought at the school. Kenneth C. Kaufman, Emeritus, Stanford University

• Posted by SamS at Monday, January 25, 2010 at 03:55 PM

  This is an unfortunate decision that appears to more one of public relations/increasing enrollment than opening "up new possibilities for members of the Goshen College community to publicly offer prophetic critique —if need be—as citizens in the loyal opposition on issues of deepest moral conviction, such as war, racism and human rights abuses."

• Posted by audrey at Monday, January 25, 2010 at 04:21 PM

  I'm sorry, but Brenneman's reasons for initiating the playing of the National anthem are lame, if not downright silly. Certainly, they are the saddest commentary on a Mennonite institution I've ever heard. He invokes the name of Jesus - "the ultimate peacemaker"?? What a far reach to cover his actions! Does he really believe Jesus or any of his followers would have condoned "bombs bursting in air"?? I can't believe this is happening at Goshen College! About 20 years ago I was singing in the choir of a church that wasn't Mennonite. Each Sunday we processed into the sanctuary singing one of the hymns in their hymnal, the congregation singing with us. For July 4 we were to process while singing the National Anthem. I was trying to find the right words to say that I could NEVER sing, let alone process into a church singing about "bombs bursting in air". Before I found the right words, another choir member, (not then or ever a Mennonite), spoke up and said he can't sing that song in all good conscience. The choir director (not then or ever a Mennonite) excused him and any of the rest of us from singing. I am aghast that the president of a Mennonite institution - with so-called Anabaptist beliefs - would stoop so low to win approval of people outside the Mennonite church - because that's what it's REALLY about.

• Posted by laisda at Monday, January 25, 2010 at 06:41 PM

  Maybe a more appropriate headline: Goshen College Adopts A Laodicea Posture to Appease Caesar. Mr Brenneman, there is no question of "higher allegiances" if one believes John 3:16 and a few other outdated texts. Your task force has obviously adopted the theory that states, "that if one is to get rid of the rats one must get in the sewer." Finally Mr Benneman, please remember the people in our heritage who died and were threatened with death and harm if they did not bow to the flag and the militarism it stands for. This come as somewhat of a slap in the face to the. Were they wrong. You can get all the task forces to dialogue all you want. And I notice that you are very good at inserting the "right christian words" into your article. I think that in your lifetime your conscience will tell you that this was not a decision with positive consequence. Sincerely Dan Lais Lebanon, Or The son of one who was harassed in WWII

• Posted by wandaleekabira at Tuesday, January 26, 2010 at 08:52 AM

  Class of 52. Here is a message of disappointment and opposition to the decision to have the national anthem and a prayer before sport events at GC. The rationale seems convoluted and thin... Public prayer is a public statement before God. What is prayer at GC before a sport event proclaiming? If you think a prayer is good at a non-religious event, could you print a prayer for dedication to good sportsmanship at this game and have the two teams read the prayer aloud in unison at the start, and skip any big public prayer, or have a prayer printed on the electric board before the game starts. Maybe print there a prayer for peace among the nations which is one of our big values? Would that offend or bless our country? Then what about religion in US? Are there Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim prayers at USA colleges or public sport events? Do colleges recognize USA is a pluralistic nation? GC is a Christian college but the national anthem is not only for Christians. Perhaps the music department would compose a song for mutual blessing the citizens and the officials who serve the citizens and play it at some occasions when people gather such as sport events, etc. Do non-religious college events at GC have a public prayer ritual or do you only have this ritual at sport events? Will you have the anthem and prayer before other non religious events at GC such as debate contests, music performances, drama events? Anthem or prayer at those non religious events perhaps is perhaps not a culture habits among colleges , so is GC simply imitating secular or other religious colleges who go along with the ritual of anthem and prayer at only sport events? To me, sport events in USA seem a kind of pseudo national religious event. Sport events are competitive, to win over the opponent. The national anthem sings of victory over the enemy by military weapons. Is that a GC value? A Biblical value? Are we concerned about proving our good citizenship by following a certain habit of national culture? What do we have to prove? Having a national anthem at thousands of sport events in the nation may bring among people an emotion of national identity. a kind of nation-as-religion feeling and so then there is a prayer with the anthem ritual. Sport as religion? GC part of this national-religion syndrome? I ask GC to reconsider the decision. Hold to values and practices which are not bound by nation-as-religion, but reflect the Mennonite values of our faith. Yes, all of life is sacred, and the question is how to live that well. Thank you for any reconsideration of the decision. wandalee kabira- Yokohama, Japan.

• Posted by ryanahlgrim at Tuesday, January 26, 2010 at 09:30 AM

  I commend GC for what appears to have been a very deliberate and broad process of discernment on this difficult issue. I hope the college has made the right decision. But I fear it has not. Though I'm sure the following points were made during the campus discussion, I would like to highlight my concerns: 1. Why is a Christian college sporting event the appropriate venue for expressing solidarity with the nation? 2. Is the effect of following the national anthem with prayer the solidifying of civil religion--the very opposite of Anabaptism? 3. As others have pointed out, what does one pray for before a sports event? What is the religious and worship context? 4. If one wants to be hospitable to visitors who are expecting an acknowledgement of gratitude to the nation, why not instead have an ensemble play "America"--a song that is not militaristic or triumphalistic. This would be a more appropriate way for us to express honor for our country, and it is far more consistent with our Anabaptist faith. I hope the new policy is a very short-lived one.

• Posted by rick at Tuesday, January 26, 2010 at 11:41 AM

  Yes, this is a disappointing decision.

• Posted by TaraLHersh at Tuesday, January 26, 2010 at 04:25 PM

  Here is my prophetic critique: Since when does "providing a hospitable atmosphere" trump a radical commitment to non-violence, and social-justice? The call to identify ourselves with a greater Kingdom has never been easy, but apparently Goshen can't resist the pressure of public sentiment. The nature of the national anthem is contrary to the core-values of a Christ-centered, compassionate peacemaker. We should stand aligned with the Kingdom we chose, instead of the flawed nation we inherited. Tara, class of '08

• Posted by twocyldoc at Tuesday, January 26, 2010 at 10:19 PM

  For years, Goshen College has been flying both the US and UN flags. For those who oppose playing an instrumental rendition of the national anthem, then perhaps you should also suggest that GC no longer fly these flags.

• Posted by nesdetd at Wednesday, January 27, 2010 at 07:22 AM

  The decision certainly seems more rooted in social/political pressure than a sincere desire for prophetic dialogue. This must be, in the end, a decision based on economic pressure. And just as mennonite thriftiness often lends tacit support to unjust labor relations, this decision does nothing to guard against blind trust in human institutions.

• Posted by genestoltz@yahoo.com at Wednesday, January 27, 2010 at 11:23 AM

  The Star-Spangled Banner O! say can you see by the dawn's early light What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming? Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight, O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming? And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air, Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there. O! say does that star-spangled banner yet wave O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave? Dear Jim Brenneman, When I saw the announcement that Goshen College will play the national anthem before athletic events I felt kicked in the gut. In your speech I read that it is time to move beyond the old “fixed canons of thought” to a new radical YES of “positive” engagement. That triggered another kick in the gut. In the distance I could hear the liturgical rendering of the anthem of our nation. How could I reconcile the college that I wanted to be a safe fountain for engagement with the reality of building a people of conscience in a world not yet safe from “the bombs bursting in air”? Do I want to reconcile it? Or does this hard decision signal a time for all of us to wake up? Since I graduated 48 years ago I have learned to give myself time to allow the experience of being kicked to mellow in the circulatory and nerve systems of my body so that whatever truth might be available becomes focused, and available for words and action. I have learned from that deeper place of knowing that being kicked is the moment of awakening to fresh images of the mystery of life and faith. I spent my life in nonresistant-nonviolence organizing. Neither term fully expresses the confident and positive experience of Christians in our walk through the cities and villages of this earth to overcome and build towards something that mirrors the glory of God. When I heard you hold up diplomats, policy makers and heads of agencies as the implied goal for a college student today I was disappointed because I know that good people in positions of power and influence often fail to bring positive change. In fact change frequently does not come from the top at all. It comes from the bottom, the stance of prophets who love their nations, institutions, and tribes enough to call them to a more honorable expression of truth and justice. I share your conviction that prophetic insight grounded in wide margins of compassion should never become locked in a predictable negativism. I believe that your faculty, students and 1000s of supporters will find a way to continue this conversation so aptly ignited by the empire’s anthem, a discussion that may in fact be long overdue and ripe for the surprise of a new unity still to be revealed. Respectfully, Gene Stoltzfus, stoltzfusg@gmail.com

• Posted by joseph.penner at Thursday, January 28, 2010 at 03:48 PM

  Because I went to a Mennonite college that did typically play an instrumental version of the anthem before many sporting events, this doesn’t really seem like a big deal to me. I understand that Goshen College and its supporters grow out of their own unique history, which gives them a unique perspective on the significance of this decision. Therefore I don’t mean to butt into a conversation that’s out of my sphere, however, out of personal experience I know that a Mennonite college can allow the star-spangled banner to be played at athletic venues and still play a critical role in nurturing radical, well-educated, non-conformist Christians who provide a bold witness of God’s kingdom to the world around it. Still, I understand the discomfort of changing a long-standing tradition that has its roots in fundamental aspects of Christian-Mennonite faith. I suspect that the conversations that come out of this decision (along with Brenneman’s proposal for a new “GC School of Thought) will lay groundwork for many other conversations regarding how Mennonites ought to relate to the broader culture. I urge the Goshen constituency therefore to converse well. Personally, I’ve come to believe that living with ambiguity or accepting compromise can be the logical outgrowth of a peace and justice ethic, which at its core is an ethic of humility that makes room for other peoples and other perspectives, no matter how antagonistic they seem to our values. When Brenneman speaks of creating a “hospitable atmosphere,” to me it rings true and appropriate. It's rarely a cop-out to accommodate one’s neighbor; sometimes it’s a most genuine expression of love. Granted we all draw the line somewhere with our principles. And, frankly, this conversation is merely about where Goshen will choose to draw their line. I know too many fine products of a Goshen education to believe that this conversation is about the fate of Goshen’s prophetic witness to the world, which to me is still in good hands.

• Posted by JEBrenneman at Thursday, January 28, 2010 at 04:28 PM

  I’m glad that this discussion is being engaged by our alums and the broader church. It reflects the profound tension that is intrinsic to the human condition – our relationship with God and our relationship with the world (we are in good company; the Bible embodies this tension as well). Like the larger Mennonite church, Goshen College has struggled to hold together these two schools of thought: one of prophetic critique and one of civic engagement. Both of these perspectives are within me, and I know that to accept either exclusively is to accept a half truth. My hope for Goshen College and the church is that we will continue to be challenged by this dialogue within each of us and between each other.

• Posted by Andy Alexis-Baker at Friday, January 29, 2010 at 12:39 AM

  I taught at Goshen College for a semester as an adjunct in the Peace and Justice Department in 2008. What I find disturbing about this blatant act of cowardice is that Brenneman couches it in terms of Christian peacemaking. This is a typical response for people who do not like to confront or deal with conflict. Jesus confronted conflict and did not throw it onto the backburner. Revelation has some choice words for churches that turn lukewarm, that would also apply to church institutions like Goshen College that are lukewarm as well. I think Mennonites should boycott donating or attending Goshen College until this is repealed.

• Posted by ruthsjost at Saturday, January 30, 2010 at 04:03 PM

  An open letter to Goshen College: It is with real sadness that we read that Goshen will play our nation's battle anthem followed by a prayer at sports events -- reenacting our nation's primary ritual of its civil religion, which so skillfully enlists the power of genuine devotion to God into the service of loyalty to the state. We give the benefit of every doubt to fellow believers who struggle sincerely with difficult questions. We understand that local dollars and student enrollments are at stake. The misplaced idea that this is an act of hospitality for others ignores the power of the ritual, with its conjoined reverences, to form participants on many levels of consciousness, and to deform the kind of identity and loyalty which we see as Jesus' call. Perhaps you discussed a truly broad hospitality: playing a medley of songs of the diverse nations represented on campus, especially since Goshen has been a leader with its transnational Christian orientation. A minute's thought told you this would not conform to the religious ritual your local community wants. So maybe you considered the testimony of stating on every ticket a brief explanation of Goshen's worthy tradition of Christian transnationalism? We can only speculate. Sadly, it seems non-local alums and supporters were not told of the dialogue until after the decision was made. The "hospitality" now offered is to present our nation's militaristic anthem in a place of honor and in a quasi-reverential way that accommodates local tastes. Witness a feat of acrobatics in which a Christ-centered school, while poised in devotional attitude, moves its Christ over to share the center with an anthem celebrating military victory over bombs bursting in air. The superb teaching we value from Goshen faculty frankly puts to shame the thin and wishful rationale the administration propounds for this action. We believe the rationale will be forgotten in a season, but our agonized decision to reconsider all support for a school we have loved will continue until the decision is reversed. We commit to further dialogue and will keep you in our prayers. Ruth Stoltzfus Jost Timothy Stoltzfus Jost ng '69 Jacob Sider Jost '02 Laura Sider Jost ‘00 Micah Stoltzfus Jost '07 David Stoltzfus Jost '12 John Fairfield Kathryn Stoltzfus Fairfield Peter Fairfield ‘02 Bethany Versluis Fairfield Andrew Fairfield ‘07

• Posted by jostt at Sunday, January 31, 2010 at 10:27 PM

  As I reflect further on Jim Brenneman's post, I find one thing very striking about it. Yes the Bible is the story of the tension between our relationship with God and our relationship with the world, but the whole story of the Bible is how this tension must be resolved when worship of God and worship of another god come in conflict. This is the point of not just the first, but also the second commandment. Read Daniel 3, a story familiar to all of us since childhood. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, could easily have bowed to the statute, just to be “hospitable” and "welcoming" to the land in which they found themselves. They did not, and were thrown in the fiery furnace This did not mean, however, that they were disengaged. They were appointed to rule the province of Babylon. But they knew where to draw the line. Does Goshen know where the line must be drawn? Is it possible that Goshen is simply missing the religious nature of the national anthem ritual in the United States?. Remember that Obama was criticized during the campaign for not being sufficiently reverential during the playing of the anthem. This is, of course, why the anthem is to be paired with a prayer at sports events, so all gods can receive their due. This is a serious matter. As a strong and long-time supporter of Goshen who had no idea this decision was being considered, I urge President Brenneman not only to continue the dialogue, but to reconsider this seriously flawed decision.

• Posted by Timothy I. Shenk at Friday, February 05, 2010 at 09:01 AM

  As a 2003 GC graduate and a Mennonite, I was disappointed by the recent decision to play the National Anthem at sporting events. The Christian peace witness is at the heart of what it means to be Mennonite and what I always felt that Goshen College stood for. By declining to play the anthem and honor the American flag, we made a public statement of our commitment to Christ's way of peace. It made some people uncomfortable, but it was a strong statement of what we believed as Christians. I am glad that the college went through a consultative and reflective process before it reached its decision on this issue. But I deeply regret the decision, and I hope that it will be overturned. Goshen College is part of a centuries-old Christian tradition that has upheld the belief, through grave persecution, that allegiance to Christ should not be wedded to loyalty to the state. It should not compromise this bedrock belief. In Christ, Timothy I. Shenk

• Posted by victor at Sunday, February 07, 2010 at 09:21 PM

  If you listen carefully it seems there is another motive lurking in the background. This interview between the public figure that "outed" Goshen as Anabaptist raises the question of federal funding of the college. I think Brenneman and company realized that the cost of bad PR could ultimately include serious questions about federal funding. Is anyone ready to tell Anabaptist institutions that they shouldn't accept the tax dollars extracted by the government at the threat of force? (http://townhall.com/MediaPlayer/AudioPlayer.aspx?ContentGuid=f3333d13-1689-4b17-9edb-8c4061c4c188) Even Brenneman argued against this decision just over a year ago (http://record.goshen.edu/2009/11/8187-jim-brenneman-on-why-gc-doesnt-play-the-national-anthem-at-sports-games). Burkholder is convenient cover for more foreplay with our DC-based Empire.

• Posted by lukekreider at Sunday, February 14, 2010 at 10:57 AM

  I believe commenter "timjn" (above) is correct to notice a connection between this decision and Brenneman's call for a "new school of thought" at GC focusing more heavily on "assent" and "positive engagement." It is easy to see how Brenneman and the National Anthem task force at GC might consider this new policy to be an excellent first (public) expression of a "new" GC posture of "yea-saying." I agree with Brenneman that Mennonites have sometimes been mired in dissent and critique, failing to offer constructive alternatives. I agree that Mennonites ought to make a more hearty effort to discern how we might engage constructively with the world. The ambiguity that Brenneman (following J. Lawrence Burkholder) discerns in the world of politics is undeniable, and I think he is right that Mennonites would benefit from a realistic assessment of conflicting goods and tragic choices. I am grateful that Brenneman takes his role as a biblical scholar seriously, calling us to a more complex and accurate understanding of the biblical prophets -- we would do well to look more honestly at our sacred texts, especially when we seek their guidance for ethics. Perhaps we ought to start saying "yes" more often, to start engaging more positively and deliberately. But to what will we say yes? How will we engage? Mennonites have an honorable tradition of finding their "yes" not in idolatrous battle hymns, not in U.S. American definitions of political responsibility, but in the radical politics of Jesus and his alternative community of jubilee justice. Brenneman's perspective (and its logical outgrowth here in this National Anthem policy) bespeaks a narrow understanding of "positive engagement" and "social responsibility." Brenneman' gives us a false choice between prophetic critique and "positive engagement." The question is not whether we will say "yes" or "no." The dilemma is not whether to be positively engaged, negatively engaged, or disenegaged. The question is: HOW will we be engaged? To what will we give assent? What will our yes be? Though I think I understand the roots of Brenneman's perspective, I am deeply troubled by the form it has taken. This unfortunate decision to wed public prayer with the Star-Spangled Banner on Goshen College's campus is an excellent example of the types of policies that too easily arise when the church loses its moral imagination, adopts false definitions of "positive engagement," forgetting to whom and to what they are called to say "Yes!" May we reverse this trend. May we call, not for conformity, but for renewed imagination in the Mennonite church -- reinvigorated attempts to discern what it means to say yes to God's reign, the global kinship inaugurated by Jesus Christ, Prince of Peace.