« AnteriorContinuar »
my dissertation in his book, Ethics in a Christian Context. One of the strong influences on me was a seminar that met weekly in Paul Tillich's apartment. My dissertation was accepted cum laude.
During my first sabbatical I spent the year at Yale University, and I was in close conversation with James Gustafson. During a second sabbatical I was at Cambridge University, England, and was somewhat influenced by the linguistic analytic approach that has its source in Wittgenstein.
Please use this page to give us those personal details of a human interest type which can't be readily classified on a standard form-information about your family, hobbies, travel, interesting experiences, activities in church, civic, educational, and professional organizations. etc.
I grew up in an old Order German Baptist (Dunkard) home. I was married to Phyllis Gibbel in 1956. Her parents had been missionaries to Nigeria. Phyllis and I have three children: Bryan Daniel, born in 1959; Lisa Kathleen, born in 1960; and Bruce David, born in 1963.
I have traveled extensively in Europe, especially in Germany and Austria. In 1967 I was part of a delegation from the Church of the Brethren to visit the Russian Orthodox Church in the Soviet Union. During our family's trip to England last year we also spent a week in southern Spain and in Sicily.
I belong to the following professional associations: Religious Education Association, Association of Professors and Researchers in Religious Education (President 1968), Association for Professional Education for Ministry (yearbook editor 1972, president 1976), American Theological Society, American Society of Christian Ethics. I currently represent the Church of the Brethren on the Faith and Order Commission of the National Council of Churches.
I have been a visiting professor at the following schools : Drew Theological Seminary, Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary, Northern Baptist Theological Seminary, Saint Xavier College, Elmhurst College, North Central College, The School of Theology at Claremont.
I spend much time working with local churches and denominational committees around questions of the education and mission of the church.
The Shaping of Modern Christian Thought (with Warren F. Groff), World Publishing Company, 1958.
Using Biblical Simulations (with Graydon F. Snyder and Robert W. Neff), Tudson Press, 1973.
Using Biblical Simulations II (with Graydon F. Snyder and Robert W. Neff), ludson Press, 1975. The Wing-Footed Wanderer: Conscience and Transcendence, Abingdon, 1977. Who's Who in American Religion has a brief biographical sketch. PREPARED STATEMENT OF DONALD E. MILLER ON BEHALF OF THE CHURCH OF
THE BRETHREN GENERAL BOARD Distinguished Members of Committee on Foreign Relations: My name is Jonald E. Miller, and I reside at 18 W. 659 22nd St., Lombard, Illinois. I am 'rofessor of Christian Education and Ethics at Bethany Theological Seminary a Oak Brook, Mlinois, the only seminary of the Church of the Brethren. My estimony has been approved by the officers of the General Board of the Church f the Brethren and it is in behalf of the General Board that I testify. The hurch of the Brethren is a Protestant denomination of over 1,000 congregations cross the United States.
My special qualifications to appear before you regarding the pending Panama anal Treaties are perhaps two-fold. I have been a member of the special ommittee appointed by the Central Board of the Church of the Brethren to raft a statement on Biblical justice for use in the church. I have also been a art of an educational program. “In support of a New Relationship with anama", requested by the 1976 Annual Conference of the Church of the rethren. My specific assignment during August of this year was to lead a udy tour on the topic of "Biblical Justice" to the Panama Canal Zone and to cuador. During our stay in Panama we spoke to the Senior Political Advisor in anama for the United States Department of State, engineers and other emoyees of the Panama Canal Company, the Public Information Officer of the mpany, American church members inside and outside the Zone, students at the niversity of Panama, and Panamanian citizens on the street. An engineer employed by the Canal Zone Company served as our host during the two days of our visit.
The Church of the Brethren from early colonial days has been concerned about international peace and justice. At times criticisms of its peace stance bare quieted its voice before the Government. However, more recently Brethren concerned about conscientious objection to military service, criminal justice, aid and service programs to foreign countries and other concerns, have frequently brought testimony before Congressional Committees.
While not all members of the Church of the Brethren agree about United States policy regarding Panama, and while various views were stated at the July 1976 Brethren Annual Conference discussion of the issue, that Conference did adopt an official statement about the Panama question, prefacing its recommendations with these words:
"Out of our interest in just international relationships, our concern for social/economic justice for the people of Panama and our desire to reduce international irritants that threaten peace, Brethren should encourage the negotiation of the new treaty, the eventual turnover of the Canal and return of the Canal Zone to Panama, the ratification of the treaty by the United States Senate. and the authorization and appropriation of financial resources of its implementation by the United States Congress."
The Church of the Brethren, speaking through the 1976 Annual Conference statement just quoted, is clear in its support of a newly negotiated treaty that follows the principles laid down by the Kissinger-Tack Agreement of 1974. To quote again from the Conference report, Brethren agreed to:
1. Urge the U.S. Governent to recognize the sovereign rights of the Republic of Pannama over all Panamanian territory including the present Canal Zone, and accordingly call on the U.S. Administration and Congress to support a serious negotiation of new relationships between the two countries based on this principle;
2. Support the efforts of the U.S. and Panamanian Governments to proceed toward the negotiation of a new Isthmian Canal Treaty based on the Kissinger-Tack “Agreement on Principles," plus the principles of neutrality and arbitration, ensuring that the Canal be open, efficient, secure,
and serving without discrimination." The Church of the Brethren takes its stance regarding the proposed treaties with Panama from an understanding of the Biblical teaching about justice. (2) Such a stance is at times at variance with the common point of view. How. ever, the United States was founded and is nourished by a profound vision of justice that is not always commonly understood. We believe that the strength of this nation, or for that matter of any nation, rests in its commitment to a wider vision of human justice. When the vision of justice is diminished then the strength of the nation itself is jeopardized. We therefore, challenge a commonly held view that "might makes right.”
Biblical justice is concerned about the well-being of the whole community of nations. Long range self-interest includes concern about the benefits to the other nations. It goes beyond the common view that immediate self-interest is decisire.
Biblical justice is willing to be fair to the weak and the poor. King David had a right to take to himself Bathsheba, his subject's wife, simply because he possessed that right. However, the prophet Nathan rebuked him for using his power to take unfair advantage of the weak. Genuine justice goes beyond the common view that the powerful may take what they can get.
Biblical justice is concerned for the new order that is come into being. When the old covenant becomes too narrowly understood and inadequate to the time, the Prophets begin to speak of a new covenant. The common mind is often more concerned about the personal advantages of the old agreement rather than the reality of the new order that has come into being.
Biblical justice discerns rightly what will strengthen relationships between persons and community. Justice originally referred to the decision made by the elders at the town gate wherein relationships within the community were strengthened. The common mind is frequently more concerned about the balane ing of competing claims than of the wider well-being.
Biblical justice demonstrates a fundamental good will toward other groups Such justice is concerned about the freedom, respect, and self-determination of other groups. The common mind is frequently more concerned about using other groups for one's own advantage.
We do not pretend to believe that any one treaty will fully embody justice in a Biblical sense. Yet we do believe that the proposed treaties are much closer to such a view of justice than is the treaty currently in effect.
Consider the well-being of the whole community of nations. It is to the wellbeing of both Panama and the United States for the two nations to have a greater degree of mutual respect. When Secretary of State George Marshall initiated the Marshall Plan after World War II, he declared, “Our policy is not directed against any country or doctrine but against hunger, poverty, deprivation and chaos.” That policy was in my judgment one of the most effective that the l'nited States has ever taken. A similar policy today means acting so as to heighten respect between nations. Simple justice requires respecting the sovereignty of Panama.
The very weakness of Panama and its people calls for a policy that enables the country to gain greater strength. The Panamanians we spoke to pointed to the right of Panama to their own natural resource. The narrowness of the Isthmus is such a resource. This is not a time to reassert a colonialism that aims to keep a dependent nation weak.
A concern for the new order that is coming to be will consider that Panama has the support of the majority of American States as well as a majority of the members of the United Nations. An act that signals the economic and political strengthening of nations of the "Third World" can not but be well received among those nations. Clearly the coming new order must include a strengthening of Third World nations. "The challenge now is to determine whether the (Panama issue) becomes a monument to US shortsightedness and insensitivity to global community—or a monument to the larger human spirit that seeks the common good.” (Quoted from a Brethren General Board staff member.)
(A discernment about genuine relationships will see the inequity of the Treaty of 1903.) Its conditions would have been considerably different had it been negotiated with Colombia, as was originally attempted. The real issue is not the matter of who controls the Canal, but of acting so as to assure widest international use of it. The present situation is an increasing irritant to the Panamanians, as my experience in Panama fully persuaded me.
A fundamental good will toward Panama will be concerned about the economy of that country as well as the economy of the United States. The Canal is important for the United States, but it is vital to Panama. Panama has been meagerly paid for use of the Canal, and its economy sagged badly. That is obvious to anyone who steps across the Zonal boundary line.
A concern about the well-being of the whole of the United States means that judgments about these issues will not be over shadowed by military considerations. For years Panamanian soil has been used to train military personnel from other Latin America countries, a use that goes considerably beyond the Treaty of 1903. It is important that the Congress act from a sense of justice that is appropriate to the vision upon which the United States is based, for a lesser vision weakens not only this country, but its relationship to all other countries.
In summary, a concern about peace with justice leads the General Board of the Church of the Brethren to advocate ratifying the proposed Treaties with Panama. Consideration of Panama's sovereignty, economic well-being, and the relationship of the United States to the emerging world order all point to the ratification of the proposed treaties.
STATEMENT OF PROF. DONALD E. MILLER, ACCOMPANIED BY
MERLE CROUSE, CHURCH OF THE BRETHREN, SECRETARY FOR LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN
Professor MILLER. Distinguished members of the committee, I appreciate this opportunity to speak before you. I am professor of Christian education at Bethany Theological Seminary in Oak Brook, Ill. My testimony has been approved by the officers of our general board and it is in behalf of the Church of the Brethren that I testify.
The Church of the Brethren is a Protestant denomination of perhaps 1,000 congregations across the country.
MR. MILLER'S SPECIAL QUALIFICATIONS
My special qualifications are perhaps twofold: I was appointed by our annual conference to work on a statement on Biblical justice, and I have also served as a part of the educational program "In support of a new relationship with Panama,” requested by the 1976 Annual Conference of the Church of the Brethren.
This past August I led a traveling seminar in Biblical justice to Panama and then to Ecuador. As I am going to underline certain points in the prepared testimony, but I will speak rather informally rather than read it word for word.
MR. MERLE CROUSE
With me is Merle Crouse who is the Church of the Brethren Secretary for Latin America and the Caribbean.
He is on the World Ministry Commission of our general board. His offices are in St. Cloud, Fla.
BRETHREN CONFERENCE REPORT SUPPORTING NEW TREATY
While not all members of the Church of the Brethren would agree regarding the U.S. policy toward Panama, the various points of view were debated in our 1976 annual conference. The annual conference is an assembly in which there are several representatives from each of the congregations across the country. That conference did adopt a statement about the Panama question which is prefaced by these words:
Out of our interest in just international relationships our concern for social/ economic justice for the people of Panama and our desire to reduce international irritants that threaten peace, Brethren should encourage the negotiation of the new treaty, the eventual turnover of the canal and return of the Canal Zone to Panama, the ratification of the treaty by the United States Senate, and the authorization and appropriation of financial resources of its implemention by the United States Congress.
That position was adopted before the present form of the treaty.
The Church of the Brethren, speaking through the 1976 annual conference statement just quoted, is clear in its support of a newly negotiated treaty that follows the principles laid down by the Kissinger-Tack Agreement of 1974.
To quote again from the conference report, Brethren agreed to:
1. Urge the U.S. Government to recognize the sovereign rights of the Republic of Panama over all Panamanian territory including the present Canal Zone and accordingly call on the U.S. Administration and Congress to support a serious negotiation of new relationships between the two countries based on this principle.
2. Support the efforts of the U.S. and Panamanian Governments to proceed toward the negotiation of a new Isthmian Canal Treaty based on the KissingerTack “Agreement on Principles," plus the principles of neutrality and arbitration ensuring that the Canal be open, efficient secure and serving without discrimination.
The Church of the Brethren takes its stand regarding the proposed treaties with Panama from an understanding of the Biblical teaching about justice.
And so I would like to comment about the biblical view. We believe that the strength of this Nation or for that matter, of any nation rests in its commitment to a wider vision about human justice. When we disregard justice in that sense, the Nation itself is weakened and is jeopardized.
Now, I would suggest, there are five principles of justice we might lift up, and I would like to illustrate each one of them with regard to the proposed treaties.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Miller, as I had announced earlier, I have a 3 o'clock appointment meeting with the head of another state, before the Foreign Relations Committee. I feel that I should go. I understand Senator Sarbanes is willing to take the Chair and continue the questioning
We do appreciate your testimony.
The CHAIRMAN. And if I have not already asked this question, are you in favor of the ratification of the treaties?
Professor MILLER. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you think it will be in the interest of the United States to do so ?
Professor MILLER. Yes, we do.
Senator PERCY. Senator Sarbanes, I am due at the same meeting with Prime Minister Lee of Singapore. I wonder if it would be possible to have Dr. Miller's comments continue in the record but let me ask one or two questions now that would appear at the appropriate point in the transcript.
Would that be all right?
Senator SARBANES (presiding]. Dr. Miller, why don't you suspend your statement so Senator Percy will have the opportunity to ask his questions of you or make any observations which he may wish to do on your statement.
Professor MILLER. Yes, of course.
Senator PERCY. I particularly wanted to return this afternoon because Mr. Miller is a distinguished constituent of mine from Illinois. We are very proud of your work and of the seminary in Oak Brook, Ni.
OPINION OF LATIN AMERICAN CHURCHMEN ABOUT TREATIES I think you are in a unique position to receive comments from Latin American church leaders about the treaties. What has been their reaction? What reports have you received from the American missionaries in Latin America about the treaties and their acceptance in Latin America?
Professor MILLER. Well, when I was in the Panama Canal Zone, as I talked to leading Protestant churchmen outside the zone, they were very much in favor of the treaties.