What does it mean to be a Mennonite Agency Faithful to its Constituency |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 1 of 10 | Next |
|
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
|
This page
All
|
·~MENNONITE BOARD OF MISSIONS AND· CHARITIES memo to from date subiect To Whom It May Concern John H. Yoder, Associate Consultant May 14, 1969 What does . it mean to be a Mennonite Agency faithful to its constituency? BOX 370 • ELKHART, INOIANA 46514 The experience of all those who have been attempting to carry on serious communication about the mission of the church, within the last generation in Mennonite agencies, has been marked by a profusion of complaints that these agencies are not representative or are "leading the church" in · some wrong direction. This paper suggests that these complaints are very worthy of analysis, even if they are sollletimes axgued in unworthy ways. The analysis should begin by identifying a certain confusion of categories and criteria. For some, a church agency is responsible to represent ~ constituency, as a government agency is responsible to discharge a mandate from its electors. Such a perspective leads one to the conclusion that the administrators and missionaries in Mennonite church agencies are not fully faithful, since they find ·.themselves taking ·positions distinct · from those . of . the .bulk of the constituency congregations; · toward the urban . life style, toward social concerns, toward other Christian groups. The reprimand for failing to be : "representative of the constituency," although sometimes stated in .too sharp a form; ·has often not been fundamentally unfair. · .The other approach is to , argue · openly that church agencies should · get direction rrom some other perspective than . that ·of : the present'·;C:onsensus of the . cons ti tuenc::y • . '.This may be appealed to because the ·cons titUency speaks with many voices, or because one is convinced ··that some other standard is more proper. This other standard may be borrowed from some other Christian tradition such as· conservative evangelicalism or mainstream American protestantism, ·and mixed with the Mennonite tradition in the proportions with which a given individual can feel ·at home. Or it may be given still more authority; instead of seeking a synthesd:s between the borrowed standards and the constituency tradftions, the borrowed standards may be given such authority. :1:hat 1:hey stand in judgment .upon the tradition. In .this case the agency administrator or workermay believe that the constituency should support him because the position he takes is right, but he recognizes no obligation to convince the con·stituency of the rightne$s of . .h is position since he is emotionally committed to that other standard. Or . . ~his "other standard" may be the individu·a1' s own adjustment to con-temporary society, which is given symbolic ·expression in ·the word, ·"relevance." Anything is then "irre:levant" which does not :fit into contemporary social tastes. Or this same quality of commitment ·may be attached to some doctrinal tradition other than one's own, such as conserva tiv-? evangelicalism or some current style in ecumenical or liberal theology. '• -2- What do Mennonite agencies claim to be governed by? The Constituency? The Gospel? The Bible? The Anabaptist vision? The needs of the world? These are not all the same, as some define them. For a time, it was possible for American Mennonites to postpone the reckoning on this question which had to come some day. It had to come some day because these various kinds of borrowing from and of commitment to other theological traditions were not ultimately compatible with each other, or with the constituency which was being called upon to support them. In most other Christian movements, which also have this identity problem~ the reckoning has had to take one or both of two possible forms. One form is the loosening up of the peculiar identity to the benefit of a kind of tolerant pluralism in which the various views are permitted to exist side by side and the identity of the denomination makes no more claims to be a theological unity. The understanding is rather maintained that many views may persist side by side, as long as they serve a population with something of the same cultural background, and support the same mediating institutions. The other alternativ.e, if matters of strict theological identity are important enough to those involved, is a division, whereby a group of persons committed either to one of the newly borrowed theological positions or to a revitalization of the old tradition, is able to take with it a segment of the constituency, and to bring off the creation of a new body which has, for a generation at least, a new identity clarified by the experience of division. Mennonites were spared this day of reckoning through the experiences of the 1940's, which brought about two phenomena in the Mennonite experience which are not typical of such devolving social groups. One aspect was the experience of conscientious objection and civilian public service, which restored to Mennonitism a sense of identity distinct not only from the world but from other church traditions, an identity which was reinforced by the experience of standing up and suffering for it. Conscientious objection was by no means the heart of the living faith of Mennonite communities. Nor did there exist any very extensive theological undergirding which would enable such a position to be argued ecumenically or taught theologically. Nonetheless there remained enough strength on the a:> identity of American and Canadian Mennonites that the crisis of full acculturation could be pushed off by a fraction of a generation. The other new event was the "Rediscovery of the Anabaptist Vision." With this label we usually designate the following combination of circumstances : . 1. The progress of historical studies of 16th century Anabaptism as carried on by Mennonite scholars. Much of this was not brand new scholarship, as much of the original research had been done in the latter half of the preceeding century by non-Mennonite scholars and in the first third of the present century by European Mennonites. What happened between 1930 . -3- and 1945 was the translation and assimilation of this historical research by c. Henry Smith, John Horsch and Haro.ld Bender, culminatin9 in the early 1940's in the consensus that there was such a thing as an "Anabaptist Vision" which was both historically rooted and theologically respectable. 2. A generation of young Mennonites, pulled away from h~me _ into Civilian Public Service, forced to focus attention upon their inherited idectity as never before; were able to grasp this rediscovered histo~ical vision as somehow connected ~ith the faith of their own fathers, and thereby could resist , ~he temptation to wonder away into mainstream .protestantism ,pr into one of the other more cultured peace churches or : pe~ce movements. 3. Responding to the combined shock of the acculturation crisis and the war, there came the institutional development of Mennonite relief and service agencies, :followed a:fter the war by rapid growth as well in missionary and educational agencies, so that ·the personal sel:f discovery and the historical rediscovery correlated with a sense o:f ins~itutional movement· and maturation. The way:· in which these experiences delayed the . impact o:f the accul tura ~ion crisis has hidden for a generation o:f Mennonites the :facts .of their sociological life. The sense of being "a people apart" could survive without sociological self-criticism. These facts are not coming . to. the sμrface in a way which is widely felt .in the :form of source of dismay and .questioning. The first reaction in the fact of this .dismay is to :feel that .:fr . so.me .kind of study were done or some kind of conference were ·held or some: new ?ffice created, it would be possible to "return to normal"; -- namely, , .to a situation where most Mennonites, and all of them who are .concerned ;about operating church agencies, would be basically agreed about who they are and widely supported by. their constituency. It is the lesson o:f a sober· x:eading of Mennonite history .that there is no such "norm.al" situation to return to. · The basic cultural .identity of Mennonitism as itmigrated :into North America and .ac;ross the midwest was that of an ethnic enclave, kept a:live by linguistic and cultural peculiarities, 'and by limiting its contacts with the wider world and·:the wider church. . . Immigrating American Mennonites maintained their .ethnic identity just as did most of ·.the other cultural groups who entered the American continent; -- thanks · to the relative looseness .of · the general social structure, · which enabled any 'blood-bound group · to live largely for :itself during the periods be.fore the development of a unifying national culture-and language. This identity was strong enough not to feel unsure of itsel:f as numerous additions we~e made in the .form of elements from the surrounding culture -4- and church practice, which were grafted into Mennonite practice with more or less debate: -- Sunday schools, evangelism, the church college, conference organization, etc. Once each of those grafts had "taJcen;" it seemed to the next generation to be a taken-for-granted part of a self-evident whole. But then when in the middle of the present century the number of grat'.ts had become so great, and the ethnic distinctiveness had become so slight that the old pure root stock could hardly be found, it was suddenly visible that the various grafts or borrowings were not necessarily compatible with one another. The borrowings from conservative evangelicalism had developed into confidence in the authority of a particular protestant-orthodox doctrinal style and the centrality of a certain kind of religious experience. The church colleges had opened the door to a particular concept of the independence of the several academic disciplines. The leaders of church conference and board structures developed a preoccupation with mediating any debates rather than permitting them to issue in divisiveness, and with smoothing out and centralizing machinery. Thus each segment of the institutional life of the denomination has become a sub-culture of its own, deriving a major portion of its identity from one particular set of borrowings from American protestantism, which didn't necessarily fit together with all the others. The various segments are held together by their outward loyalty to the same Mennonite population. Yet this common loyalty no longer gives a particular spiritual character to the total brotherhood. It is only natural that each segment of the denomination should believe that in this crisis of identity the only hope for survival is in the priority of its own specific emphasis. The church agency moderators call for moderation and for a type of administrative structure which can stand administrative tension without breaking. The proponents of the borrowings from evangelicalism call for a renewed commitment to basics. The outreach agencies call for a redefinition of the mission of the brotherhood. Those who are the least conscious of their borrowings, the American patriots, call for an end to all the new ideas. Each group, taking for granted the priority of its ovm receipe for renewal, and assuming that its own borrowing was fruitfully and fully merged with the original anabaptist-Mennonite identity, can hardly avoid accusing the proponents of other views of either limited intelligence or lack of good faith, as "they" continue to tail to see the centrality of the solution which seems so sel1' evident to "us." Now in principle, this same problem existed ten or even thirty years ago, but the common cultural and ethnic experience was so strong that the separate strands never came completely apart. Now the plurality of cultural experiences has grown to the point where such a reconciliation by an appeal to a common cultural heritage and denominational brotherhood is no longer taken for granted and perhaps no longer even possible. Yet we go on assuming that "the brotherhood" is a unity, that all the various borrowings :from the various mainstreams are all compatible with proper theology and with each other, and that therefore it is a fruitful thing to do to keep all the people and all the ideas together. -5- Now what would happen to our ·picture of things if we stopped making this assumption, which certainly has not been . proven either logically or theologically, that all po~sible borrowings . are reconcilable and that the root stock is heal thy and strong enough to carry them all? \·Jha t if the various positions are so far apart that there isno conceivable way that they can be "moderated" within one structure? Is it still a virtuous thing for the moderator . type of person to keep trying to hold them all together at the cost of great efforts in restructural studies .and comprises which will satisfy no one? \\!hat i:f radical commitment to "involvement in the social crises of our time" sho~ld be really incompatible with a11 :the value commitments with rural conservative Mennonite society; is it really a worthy concern for the activist urban pastor to wear himself out ·trying to be relevant without being too offensive to the country cousin? What i:f ·administering Mennonite hospitals or colleges should be fundamentally inconsistent with radical discipleship because discipleship demands renunciation of power? What i:f the cultural task of the midwestern church college should be fundamentally incompatible with the critical attitude of the believers' church toward culture? If it is the case that the averageMennonite con-gregation and the average person who has grown up into membership therein have an understanding that the meaning o:f the Christian faith which is structurally incapable of being communicated to someone who is not born into it, is there any real utility to attempting to pump missionary vitality .into such persons or groups by means of workshops and study processes, when the basic reality of their faith is ·not missionary in character? Is there any special mer;t in trying to prove that we can get closer to doing all of these impossible things together than somebody else could? Or would there be a point at which it would .be most proper . to recognize that some · tensions are impossible to resolve and · that there is no special virture in continuing to try. to do the impossible? Let it not be thought that this is a problem v1hich every denomination ·has with equal seriousness at a certain point in "sect cycle." It will not happen in the same way to groups like the conservative Christian Reformed or Missouri Synod, Lutherans who have atheology ·:for·a community which is not .a church .of believers. It will not happen to ·groups like pentecostals whose '..distinctive theological position .is not one which makes a deep . difference for . congregational structure and process. It will not happen to. t!le community chwrches and Bible churches whose ethical position is very eclectic and middle of the road. It is a unique problem .for Mennonites because of a strong cultural apartness (German rural), a ·powerful tradition ·of separate self preservation, (by definition, the oldest sectari an group in protestantism), ·linked with a strong theological rationale for a distinct . pos :f:tion (the "renewal o:f the anabaptis t ·vis ion"). What would happen if we admitted that it is no longer a possible test or source of strategy to say .that whatever we do must be integrated into the root stock of Mennonite .population? What if we assumed frankly that any cause around which it is worthwhile to gather the renewed commitment of -6- Christians in our age is not one which all who are Mennonites by birth would be willing to accept? What i£ we projected a vision for the immediate future· without making the claim that it is that to which our Mennonite heritage commits us? This is, in a sense, what Harold s. Bender was trying to do when he raised the flag of "Anabaptist Vision" over the Mennonite ship of state. The anabaptist vision was really very different from Mennonite reality, put he hoped to be able to use the appeal to the forefathers as a way to commend this vision to his constituency. By now it is possible to discern some of the limits of that strategy. a. To the extent to which H. s. Bender was successful in telling Mennonites that the Anabaptists were their forefathers, this had as much the effect of diluting Anabaptism as it did of providing an entering wedge for renewal. Sanford Shetler appeals to the Anabaptists as the pioneers of his attitude toward church and state; Norman Kraus appeals to the Anabaptists as forerunners of a more radical vision of social change than other protestants have accepted. Myron Augsburger appeals to the Anabaptists as the first representatives of the merger of evangelical piety and discleship ethics which he advocates for today; J. D. Graber appeals to the Anabaptists as the pioneers of the modern missionary idea; Goshen College appeals to the Anabaptists as the first representatives of a vision of culture for service, Goshen seminary is established to propagate Anabaptism through a presbyterian pattern of ministry and ministerial education. In short, the Anabaptist label has been accepted, but it has become a source of self-justification and a slogan for promotion of what we were going to do anyway, rather than being a source of standards, judgment and renewal. Instead of being effective because it is different from what Mennonites currently are or believe in, it has been accepted as a handy label with which to justify what we were and were going to do for other reasons. b. A further unintended implication of directing the anabaptist message to Mennonites was that this same amount of effort was not invested in a kind of testimony which would have reached Methodists or Catholics, Adventists or Marxists, who would have in principle just as much reason to be expected to be open to the appeal of this vision. c. Still another effect of the linkage between the anabaptist vision and Mennonite institutions is the "rejection by association" which can result. Individuals who have had bad experiences with Mennonite communities or agencies or administrators may, by virtue of the above association, believe that it is the vision which they must reject. The .. -7- biblical orientation o:f anabaptism may be rejected by a contemporary young Mennonite because o:f . the cultural · obscurantism with which Mennonites he has . known have used the Bible. The concept o:f congregational :decision-making and community moral ·witness may be rejected because of bad experiences with gossip or · ostracism or ·community pressure tactics in congregational experience. The vision o:f the simple life may be rejected because 0£ tlw :frustrations of having been the child o:f a minister or missionary whose congregation exploited his services while other members lived com£ortably • . The vision or nonresistance and the way or : the cross may be rejected because o:f the way some Mennonite young men behave unworthi·ly in 1-W service or the way some institutional leaders use power -plays against one another • . The vision o:f the Believers' Church :may be rejected because the practice· of baptism in Mennonite .churches is quasi-automatic. In many such cases, which could be documented abundantly :from the experience--(e.g.) o:f seminary graduates, because it is the vision which is explicitly proclaimed, it is the visioowhich is rejectedj · ·even though the bad experiences have been not with the vision but with practices which would stand condemned by the vision ; · d • . When points (b) and (c) above are seen ··together;· it :further :· :follows that a questionable stewardship ·o:f· creativity and initiative is involved ·in attempting -to commend an anabaptist idealism to a population o:f people who have heard the most about · it in the past. I:f one were·attemptirig .to give some contagious disease to a maximum ·number o:f persons, one would not select as targets a population·: which : had ·already been vaccinated. Yet · this is in effect what is done -when a Mennonite population, that is to .say .a selected ·group:.0£ persons who have already been subjected ·to ·a very mild case o:f discipleship, and have thereby developed resistance to anything more, are ·chosen as the privileged target audience ·:for an ·e:f:fort: -to communicate the ·anabaptist vision.o ·. The ··continuing. .c hanneling o:f· ..t his: particular ·vision 'into· the tninds ' o:f this. particular ·target populationt · with the hope ·~hat it. will provide .a new identity. ·to the ·same, thereby results : in a disfunctional applicationo:f :the · anabaptist message. It the above analysis· ·is: correct, .then the ·very· :flexibility of this slogan, its availability to serve as a la.bel for every vision of renewal rather than discriminating among them, makes problems worse by postponing serious . dealing with them.· Everyone could think there was far reaching agreement because the several parties within the denomination all agreed, :for various reasons, to civilian public service and overseas relie:f and to calling it anabaptist •. This gave a deceptive impression o:f common conviction where .it would have · been more :fruitful for the real resolution of problems to have begun with more or earlier awareness 0£ the depths of the di££erences. '· -8- e. A further shortcoming of this unquestioning identification of Anabaptist rhetoric with Mennonite sociology is the warp it gives to the "agenda" for the thinking of Mennonites. Mennonite sociology as it undergoes social change dictates the agenda with which congregations, conferences, and individuals must struggle: The introduction of the organ into worship, the relaxing of the prescription for a specific form of devotional veiling, the adoption of urban social-climbing life styles, the acceptance of divorced persons are examples. i. This forced set of priorities diverts effort, attention and energy from issues which would be more strategic from a biblical-anabaptist perspective. ii. This acculturation/urbanization agenda actually prejudices Mennonites to be on the wronq side of some issues: social change, the need for disciplined family life, non-conformity. iii. Being dictated by events, this agenda is uncreative. iv. By its nature, this agenda contributes to a sense of retreat, or "drift" or loosening-up period "leadership" then comes to be conceived of as predominantly a sense of timing, testing what "the churches are ready for," and making sure that one does not go too far: or "too slowly." Whereas from a biblical or anabaptist perspective leadership would call for a recovery of' discipline, in this context the most significant ';leadership" is that which moderates in the process of loosening up of discipline. For the losing party, the conservative person who has made himself' the advocate of the discipline which is forsaken, this contributes to a soured defeatism, with self-realizing prophecies about where the church is going. For the advocate of' change, the result is an unrealistically opti!'i.dstic sense of' progress; since it interprets as increasing "relevance" and "success" an accommodation process which is really a loss of character and which, when it is most successful, simply means that Mennonites accept positions and practices which other churches have accepted before them. Instead of focusing upon the Word and the World and identifying fresh issues; leadership focuses upon the median church constituency and what it will be possible to get them to accept. ' . -9- Thus it is not enough to say that Mennonite sociology does not always provide a .fitt:!.::o vehicle for the anabaptist vision. At some points it must be said it constitutes a positive handicap both to an inner understanding of that vision and to effectiveness of witness • .f. The above considerations have spoken to whether Mennonites can .freely and fruit.fully ~ind '.their place as bearers of the anabaptist vision in the modern world. This is the .Problem of the image Mennonites have of themselves. It must also be pointed out that many of the same handicaps have as well an external dimension; they con.fuse the image which others have o.f Mennonites. Mennonites are perceived through a public image which tends to accentuate the quaintness and irrelevance o.f their convictions and practices, however correct or relevant their ~ image may be. This draft is not aimed at any kind o.f publication beyond agency personnel circles. It proposes no conclusions. Any critical comment will be appreciated. JHY:csd cc: InterChurch Relations Committee Student Services Committee Administrative Secretaries, MBMC
Object Description
Title | What does it mean to be a Mennonite Agency Faithful to its Constituency |
Rights | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ |
Institution | Mennonite Church USA Archives |
Original format |
text |
Language |
English |
Collection Name |
AMBS and GC John Howard Yoder Digital Library |
Date created | 1969-05 |
Subject |
Church management Mission of the church |
Creator |
Yoder, John Howard |
Publisher |
Goshen College |
Description | A paper analyzing the complaints related to the mission of the church and whether Mennonite agencies are representing the church. |
Rights Explanation |
Used by permission of Martha Yoder Maust. |
Extent | 9 p. |
Digital format |
pdf |
Local item ID | HM1-048, Box A, Folder 30 |
Item ID | im-amdc-jhy-0129 |
Rights-Rights Holder | Martha Yoder Maust |
Description
Title | What does it mean to be a Mennonite Agency Faithful to its Constituency |
Institution | Mennonite Church USA Archives |
Original format |
text |
Language |
English |
Collection Name |
AMBS and GC John Howard Yoder Digital Library |
Date created | 1969-05 |
Subject |
Church management Mission of the church |
Creator |
Yoder, John Howard |
Publisher |
Goshen College |
Description | A paper analyzing the complaints related to the mission of the church and whether Mennonite agencies are representing the church. |
Rights Explanation | Used by permission of Martha Yoder Maust, copyright holder. Users may only access the digital documents under the terms of the Creative Commons “Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 Unported” license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/). |
Extent | 9 p. |
Digital format |
pdf |
Local item ID | HM1-048, Box A, Folder 30 |
Item ID | im-amdc-jhy-0129 |
Text | ·~MENNONITE BOARD OF MISSIONS AND· CHARITIES memo to from date subiect To Whom It May Concern John H. Yoder, Associate Consultant May 14, 1969 What does . it mean to be a Mennonite Agency faithful to its constituency? BOX 370 • ELKHART, INOIANA 46514 The experience of all those who have been attempting to carry on serious communication about the mission of the church, within the last generation in Mennonite agencies, has been marked by a profusion of complaints that these agencies are not representative or are "leading the church" in · some wrong direction. This paper suggests that these complaints are very worthy of analysis, even if they are sollletimes axgued in unworthy ways. The analysis should begin by identifying a certain confusion of categories and criteria. For some, a church agency is responsible to represent ~ constituency, as a government agency is responsible to discharge a mandate from its electors. Such a perspective leads one to the conclusion that the administrators and missionaries in Mennonite church agencies are not fully faithful, since they find ·.themselves taking ·positions distinct · from those . of . the .bulk of the constituency congregations; · toward the urban . life style, toward social concerns, toward other Christian groups. The reprimand for failing to be : "representative of the constituency," although sometimes stated in .too sharp a form; ·has often not been fundamentally unfair. · .The other approach is to , argue · openly that church agencies should · get direction rrom some other perspective than . that ·of : the present'·;C:onsensus of the . cons ti tuenc::y • . '.This may be appealed to because the ·cons titUency speaks with many voices, or because one is convinced ··that some other standard is more proper. This other standard may be borrowed from some other Christian tradition such as· conservative evangelicalism or mainstream American protestantism, ·and mixed with the Mennonite tradition in the proportions with which a given individual can feel ·at home. Or it may be given still more authority; instead of seeking a synthesd:s between the borrowed standards and the constituency tradftions, the borrowed standards may be given such authority. :1:hat 1:hey stand in judgment .upon the tradition. In .this case the agency administrator or workermay believe that the constituency should support him because the position he takes is right, but he recognizes no obligation to convince the con·stituency of the rightne$s of . .h is position since he is emotionally committed to that other standard. Or . . ~his "other standard" may be the individu·a1' s own adjustment to con-temporary society, which is given symbolic ·expression in ·the word, ·"relevance." Anything is then "irre:levant" which does not :fit into contemporary social tastes. Or this same quality of commitment ·may be attached to some doctrinal tradition other than one's own, such as conserva tiv-? evangelicalism or some current style in ecumenical or liberal theology. '• -2- What do Mennonite agencies claim to be governed by? The Constituency? The Gospel? The Bible? The Anabaptist vision? The needs of the world? These are not all the same, as some define them. For a time, it was possible for American Mennonites to postpone the reckoning on this question which had to come some day. It had to come some day because these various kinds of borrowing from and of commitment to other theological traditions were not ultimately compatible with each other, or with the constituency which was being called upon to support them. In most other Christian movements, which also have this identity problem~ the reckoning has had to take one or both of two possible forms. One form is the loosening up of the peculiar identity to the benefit of a kind of tolerant pluralism in which the various views are permitted to exist side by side and the identity of the denomination makes no more claims to be a theological unity. The understanding is rather maintained that many views may persist side by side, as long as they serve a population with something of the same cultural background, and support the same mediating institutions. The other alternativ.e, if matters of strict theological identity are important enough to those involved, is a division, whereby a group of persons committed either to one of the newly borrowed theological positions or to a revitalization of the old tradition, is able to take with it a segment of the constituency, and to bring off the creation of a new body which has, for a generation at least, a new identity clarified by the experience of division. Mennonites were spared this day of reckoning through the experiences of the 1940's, which brought about two phenomena in the Mennonite experience which are not typical of such devolving social groups. One aspect was the experience of conscientious objection and civilian public service, which restored to Mennonitism a sense of identity distinct not only from the world but from other church traditions, an identity which was reinforced by the experience of standing up and suffering for it. Conscientious objection was by no means the heart of the living faith of Mennonite communities. Nor did there exist any very extensive theological undergirding which would enable such a position to be argued ecumenically or taught theologically. Nonetheless there remained enough strength on the a:> identity of American and Canadian Mennonites that the crisis of full acculturation could be pushed off by a fraction of a generation. The other new event was the "Rediscovery of the Anabaptist Vision." With this label we usually designate the following combination of circumstances : . 1. The progress of historical studies of 16th century Anabaptism as carried on by Mennonite scholars. Much of this was not brand new scholarship, as much of the original research had been done in the latter half of the preceeding century by non-Mennonite scholars and in the first third of the present century by European Mennonites. What happened between 1930 . -3- and 1945 was the translation and assimilation of this historical research by c. Henry Smith, John Horsch and Haro.ld Bender, culminatin9 in the early 1940's in the consensus that there was such a thing as an "Anabaptist Vision" which was both historically rooted and theologically respectable. 2. A generation of young Mennonites, pulled away from h~me _ into Civilian Public Service, forced to focus attention upon their inherited idectity as never before; were able to grasp this rediscovered histo~ical vision as somehow connected ~ith the faith of their own fathers, and thereby could resist , ~he temptation to wonder away into mainstream .protestantism ,pr into one of the other more cultured peace churches or : pe~ce movements. 3. Responding to the combined shock of the acculturation crisis and the war, there came the institutional development of Mennonite relief and service agencies, :followed a:fter the war by rapid growth as well in missionary and educational agencies, so that ·the personal sel:f discovery and the historical rediscovery correlated with a sense o:f ins~itutional movement· and maturation. The way:· in which these experiences delayed the . impact o:f the accul tura ~ion crisis has hidden for a generation o:f Mennonites the :facts .of their sociological life. The sense of being "a people apart" could survive without sociological self-criticism. These facts are not coming . to. the sμrface in a way which is widely felt .in the :form of source of dismay and .questioning. The first reaction in the fact of this .dismay is to :feel that .:fr . so.me .kind of study were done or some kind of conference were ·held or some: new ?ffice created, it would be possible to "return to normal"; -- namely, , .to a situation where most Mennonites, and all of them who are .concerned ;about operating church agencies, would be basically agreed about who they are and widely supported by. their constituency. It is the lesson o:f a sober· x:eading of Mennonite history .that there is no such "norm.al" situation to return to. · The basic cultural .identity of Mennonitism as itmigrated :into North America and .ac;ross the midwest was that of an ethnic enclave, kept a:live by linguistic and cultural peculiarities, 'and by limiting its contacts with the wider world and·:the wider church. . . Immigrating American Mennonites maintained their .ethnic identity just as did most of ·.the other cultural groups who entered the American continent; -- thanks · to the relative looseness .of · the general social structure, · which enabled any 'blood-bound group · to live largely for :itself during the periods be.fore the development of a unifying national culture-and language. This identity was strong enough not to feel unsure of itsel:f as numerous additions we~e made in the .form of elements from the surrounding culture -4- and church practice, which were grafted into Mennonite practice with more or less debate: -- Sunday schools, evangelism, the church college, conference organization, etc. Once each of those grafts had "taJcen;" it seemed to the next generation to be a taken-for-granted part of a self-evident whole. But then when in the middle of the present century the number of grat'.ts had become so great, and the ethnic distinctiveness had become so slight that the old pure root stock could hardly be found, it was suddenly visible that the various grafts or borrowings were not necessarily compatible with one another. The borrowings from conservative evangelicalism had developed into confidence in the authority of a particular protestant-orthodox doctrinal style and the centrality of a certain kind of religious experience. The church colleges had opened the door to a particular concept of the independence of the several academic disciplines. The leaders of church conference and board structures developed a preoccupation with mediating any debates rather than permitting them to issue in divisiveness, and with smoothing out and centralizing machinery. Thus each segment of the institutional life of the denomination has become a sub-culture of its own, deriving a major portion of its identity from one particular set of borrowings from American protestantism, which didn't necessarily fit together with all the others. The various segments are held together by their outward loyalty to the same Mennonite population. Yet this common loyalty no longer gives a particular spiritual character to the total brotherhood. It is only natural that each segment of the denomination should believe that in this crisis of identity the only hope for survival is in the priority of its own specific emphasis. The church agency moderators call for moderation and for a type of administrative structure which can stand administrative tension without breaking. The proponents of the borrowings from evangelicalism call for a renewed commitment to basics. The outreach agencies call for a redefinition of the mission of the brotherhood. Those who are the least conscious of their borrowings, the American patriots, call for an end to all the new ideas. Each group, taking for granted the priority of its ovm receipe for renewal, and assuming that its own borrowing was fruitfully and fully merged with the original anabaptist-Mennonite identity, can hardly avoid accusing the proponents of other views of either limited intelligence or lack of good faith, as "they" continue to tail to see the centrality of the solution which seems so sel1' evident to "us." Now in principle, this same problem existed ten or even thirty years ago, but the common cultural and ethnic experience was so strong that the separate strands never came completely apart. Now the plurality of cultural experiences has grown to the point where such a reconciliation by an appeal to a common cultural heritage and denominational brotherhood is no longer taken for granted and perhaps no longer even possible. Yet we go on assuming that "the brotherhood" is a unity, that all the various borrowings :from the various mainstreams are all compatible with proper theology and with each other, and that therefore it is a fruitful thing to do to keep all the people and all the ideas together. -5- Now what would happen to our ·picture of things if we stopped making this assumption, which certainly has not been . proven either logically or theologically, that all po~sible borrowings . are reconcilable and that the root stock is heal thy and strong enough to carry them all? \·Jha t if the various positions are so far apart that there isno conceivable way that they can be "moderated" within one structure? Is it still a virtuous thing for the moderator . type of person to keep trying to hold them all together at the cost of great efforts in restructural studies .and comprises which will satisfy no one? \\!hat i:f radical commitment to "involvement in the social crises of our time" sho~ld be really incompatible with a11 :the value commitments with rural conservative Mennonite society; is it really a worthy concern for the activist urban pastor to wear himself out ·trying to be relevant without being too offensive to the country cousin? What i:f ·administering Mennonite hospitals or colleges should be fundamentally inconsistent with radical discipleship because discipleship demands renunciation of power? What i:f the cultural task of the midwestern church college should be fundamentally incompatible with the critical attitude of the believers' church toward culture? If it is the case that the averageMennonite con-gregation and the average person who has grown up into membership therein have an understanding that the meaning o:f the Christian faith which is structurally incapable of being communicated to someone who is not born into it, is there any real utility to attempting to pump missionary vitality .into such persons or groups by means of workshops and study processes, when the basic reality of their faith is ·not missionary in character? Is there any special mer;t in trying to prove that we can get closer to doing all of these impossible things together than somebody else could? Or would there be a point at which it would .be most proper . to recognize that some · tensions are impossible to resolve and · that there is no special virture in continuing to try. to do the impossible? Let it not be thought that this is a problem v1hich every denomination ·has with equal seriousness at a certain point in "sect cycle." It will not happen in the same way to groups like the conservative Christian Reformed or Missouri Synod, Lutherans who have atheology ·:for·a community which is not .a church .of believers. It will not happen to ·groups like pentecostals whose '..distinctive theological position .is not one which makes a deep . difference for . congregational structure and process. It will not happen to. t!le community chwrches and Bible churches whose ethical position is very eclectic and middle of the road. It is a unique problem .for Mennonites because of a strong cultural apartness (German rural), a ·powerful tradition ·of separate self preservation, (by definition, the oldest sectari an group in protestantism), ·linked with a strong theological rationale for a distinct . pos :f:tion (the "renewal o:f the anabaptis t ·vis ion"). What would happen if we admitted that it is no longer a possible test or source of strategy to say .that whatever we do must be integrated into the root stock of Mennonite .population? What if we assumed frankly that any cause around which it is worthwhile to gather the renewed commitment of -6- Christians in our age is not one which all who are Mennonites by birth would be willing to accept? What i£ we projected a vision for the immediate future· without making the claim that it is that to which our Mennonite heritage commits us? This is, in a sense, what Harold s. Bender was trying to do when he raised the flag of "Anabaptist Vision" over the Mennonite ship of state. The anabaptist vision was really very different from Mennonite reality, put he hoped to be able to use the appeal to the forefathers as a way to commend this vision to his constituency. By now it is possible to discern some of the limits of that strategy. a. To the extent to which H. s. Bender was successful in telling Mennonites that the Anabaptists were their forefathers, this had as much the effect of diluting Anabaptism as it did of providing an entering wedge for renewal. Sanford Shetler appeals to the Anabaptists as the pioneers of his attitude toward church and state; Norman Kraus appeals to the Anabaptists as forerunners of a more radical vision of social change than other protestants have accepted. Myron Augsburger appeals to the Anabaptists as the first representatives of the merger of evangelical piety and discleship ethics which he advocates for today; J. D. Graber appeals to the Anabaptists as the pioneers of the modern missionary idea; Goshen College appeals to the Anabaptists as the first representatives of a vision of culture for service, Goshen seminary is established to propagate Anabaptism through a presbyterian pattern of ministry and ministerial education. In short, the Anabaptist label has been accepted, but it has become a source of self-justification and a slogan for promotion of what we were going to do anyway, rather than being a source of standards, judgment and renewal. Instead of being effective because it is different from what Mennonites currently are or believe in, it has been accepted as a handy label with which to justify what we were and were going to do for other reasons. b. A further unintended implication of directing the anabaptist message to Mennonites was that this same amount of effort was not invested in a kind of testimony which would have reached Methodists or Catholics, Adventists or Marxists, who would have in principle just as much reason to be expected to be open to the appeal of this vision. c. Still another effect of the linkage between the anabaptist vision and Mennonite institutions is the "rejection by association" which can result. Individuals who have had bad experiences with Mennonite communities or agencies or administrators may, by virtue of the above association, believe that it is the vision which they must reject. The .. -7- biblical orientation o:f anabaptism may be rejected by a contemporary young Mennonite because o:f . the cultural · obscurantism with which Mennonites he has . known have used the Bible. The concept o:f congregational :decision-making and community moral ·witness may be rejected because of bad experiences with gossip or · ostracism or ·community pressure tactics in congregational experience. The vision o:f the simple life may be rejected because 0£ tlw :frustrations of having been the child o:f a minister or missionary whose congregation exploited his services while other members lived com£ortably • . The vision or nonresistance and the way or : the cross may be rejected because o:f the way some Mennonite young men behave unworthi·ly in 1-W service or the way some institutional leaders use power -plays against one another • . The vision o:f the Believers' Church :may be rejected because the practice· of baptism in Mennonite .churches is quasi-automatic. In many such cases, which could be documented abundantly :from the experience--(e.g.) o:f seminary graduates, because it is the vision which is explicitly proclaimed, it is the visioowhich is rejectedj · ·even though the bad experiences have been not with the vision but with practices which would stand condemned by the vision ; · d • . When points (b) and (c) above are seen ··together;· it :further :· :follows that a questionable stewardship ·o:f· creativity and initiative is involved ·in attempting -to commend an anabaptist idealism to a population o:f people who have heard the most about · it in the past. I:f one were·attemptirig .to give some contagious disease to a maximum ·number o:f persons, one would not select as targets a population·: which : had ·already been vaccinated. Yet · this is in effect what is done -when a Mennonite population, that is to .say .a selected ·group:.0£ persons who have already been subjected ·to ·a very mild case o:f discipleship, and have thereby developed resistance to anything more, are ·chosen as the privileged target audience ·:for an ·e:f:fort: -to communicate the ·anabaptist vision.o ·. The ··continuing. .c hanneling o:f· ..t his: particular ·vision 'into· the tninds ' o:f this. particular ·target populationt · with the hope ·~hat it. will provide .a new identity. ·to the ·same, thereby results : in a disfunctional applicationo:f :the · anabaptist message. It the above analysis· ·is: correct, .then the ·very· :flexibility of this slogan, its availability to serve as a la.bel for every vision of renewal rather than discriminating among them, makes problems worse by postponing serious . dealing with them.· Everyone could think there was far reaching agreement because the several parties within the denomination all agreed, :for various reasons, to civilian public service and overseas relie:f and to calling it anabaptist •. This gave a deceptive impression o:f common conviction where .it would have · been more :fruitful for the real resolution of problems to have begun with more or earlier awareness 0£ the depths of the di££erences. '· -8- e. A further shortcoming of this unquestioning identification of Anabaptist rhetoric with Mennonite sociology is the warp it gives to the "agenda" for the thinking of Mennonites. Mennonite sociology as it undergoes social change dictates the agenda with which congregations, conferences, and individuals must struggle: The introduction of the organ into worship, the relaxing of the prescription for a specific form of devotional veiling, the adoption of urban social-climbing life styles, the acceptance of divorced persons are examples. i. This forced set of priorities diverts effort, attention and energy from issues which would be more strategic from a biblical-anabaptist perspective. ii. This acculturation/urbanization agenda actually prejudices Mennonites to be on the wronq side of some issues: social change, the need for disciplined family life, non-conformity. iii. Being dictated by events, this agenda is uncreative. iv. By its nature, this agenda contributes to a sense of retreat, or "drift" or loosening-up period "leadership" then comes to be conceived of as predominantly a sense of timing, testing what "the churches are ready for," and making sure that one does not go too far: or "too slowly." Whereas from a biblical or anabaptist perspective leadership would call for a recovery of' discipline, in this context the most significant ';leadership" is that which moderates in the process of loosening up of discipline. For the losing party, the conservative person who has made himself' the advocate of the discipline which is forsaken, this contributes to a soured defeatism, with self-realizing prophecies about where the church is going. For the advocate of' change, the result is an unrealistically opti!'i.dstic sense of' progress; since it interprets as increasing "relevance" and "success" an accommodation process which is really a loss of character and which, when it is most successful, simply means that Mennonites accept positions and practices which other churches have accepted before them. Instead of focusing upon the Word and the World and identifying fresh issues; leadership focuses upon the median church constituency and what it will be possible to get them to accept. ' . -9- Thus it is not enough to say that Mennonite sociology does not always provide a .fitt:!.::o vehicle for the anabaptist vision. At some points it must be said it constitutes a positive handicap both to an inner understanding of that vision and to effectiveness of witness • .f. The above considerations have spoken to whether Mennonites can .freely and fruit.fully ~ind '.their place as bearers of the anabaptist vision in the modern world. This is the .Problem of the image Mennonites have of themselves. It must also be pointed out that many of the same handicaps have as well an external dimension; they con.fuse the image which others have o.f Mennonites. Mennonites are perceived through a public image which tends to accentuate the quaintness and irrelevance o.f their convictions and practices, however correct or relevant their ~ image may be. This draft is not aimed at any kind o.f publication beyond agency personnel circles. It proposes no conclusions. Any critical comment will be appreciated. JHY:csd cc: InterChurch Relations Committee Student Services Committee Administrative Secretaries, MBMC |