Christian Unity Within a Divided Protestantism |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 1 of 13 | Next |
|
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
|
This page
All
|
M.ENNONITE BOARD OF MISSIONS AND CHARITIES memo to from date subiect To Whom It May Conc~rn .John H . Yoder April 26, 1966 Christian Unity With in 1711 PRAIRIE STREET , ELKHART, INDIANA 46515 The .fo llowing position paper is being dra:f'ted in response to r equests coming e~-pecially from two directions: a) £rom Mennonite missionary a gencies, which find themselves invite d to enter cooperative relationships, both in home administration and in overseas work, with other Christian bodies of many kinds ; b) from Mennonite Student Services Committees, called upon to advise students about patterns of Christian fellowship, on many university campuses where denominational representation is limited and the wider Christian fellowship agencies are not unified. !t is dependent for its accuracy on whether it fits the e)cperience of various persons and perspectives; it is therefore being shared with numerous individuals who might have had experience relating to it , with the request for any kind of critical response, but especially for personal testimonies relating to the last parag r aph o f text, V- F. I t is appropriate that in both 0£ these connections; the student and the mission contexts, Mennonites must react to the same t wo factors: First of all they both £ace the. dividedness of the efforts of American Christians at cooperation. In each of these contexts there is a division with (at least) two different orgar.i- :zati ons each attempting to be expressions of Christ ian unity and mission, so that t he instruments of. coordination become themselves instruments 0£ division. Secondly, both of these connections are in the context of mission broadly understood, so that the concer1i for coordination and Christian unity can be tested, among other 'things , by its relevance to the responsibi lity of Christians for witness and service in and t o the unbelieving world. 1. The :framework of any study or this kind must be not denomi-national but biblical. Although I shall come bac k to the quest ion of specific appl ication by Mennonite agencies such a s thos e which request this study , what we need first of al l i s not a Mennonite position paper but a biblical one. '. . ') A. In our age ~e no longer assume thut f1<.1ch denomination has a clear bold on its own identity and jl1sti.fication for existence, and that t he proper answer to any questi on is to develop a denominational position derived .from denominational distinctives .. Thus the :first reason for beginning with the Bible is simply that that is the right place to begin with any question . B ~ Yet further reason for this can be seen in the current uncertainty of the various Mennonite and affiliated denominational bodies as to what normative Mennonitism would be if we wanted to £ollow it . Is it derived from the sixteenth century? Why should one particular age have that kind of authority? Or is the Mennonite identity to be seen in the cultural strengths of the rural Mennonite communities of the last century in North America? If so, can we claim that this identity persists with the increasingly rapid abandoning of that rural cultural cont ext ? C. Our approach shall therefore be to attempt to delineate a stance in interchurch relat ion; which would be dictated by fundamental biblical considerat ions, seeking to develop it as if there were no specific Mennonite position to draw upon . Then this attempted statement should be tested with a view to its applicability; does it describe with any degree of £aithfulness how Mennonites have .found themselves behaving, in the past oz how they would like to behave in the future, in the :face 0£ t:he questions of church unity and mission? If the stance here sketched should appeal to numer•.,us Mennonites as descriptive or how they have been trying to behave or would like to, then perhaps it might repre-sent as wel l the orient ation of several other kinds of persons and church groups; of other denominations which :find themselves ttbetween the camps" , s uch as evangelical Friends ox the Mission Covenant Church, of 'the Bible societies, as well as 0£ many individuals whose denomi-nations are clearly affiliated with one "side" or the other, bu't who themselves would prefer a less onesided position . II. The Main lines of New Testament guidance on the subject as illuminated by comparison with current thought. (The sketchy statements here are based on fuller treatment in °The Ecumenical Movement and the Faithful Church", which I shall not attempt to repeat ) A. The basis of Christian concern for the unity of Christians is theological and not merely practical.. The point is not simply that time and effort are wasted when different -2- Christians work independently and thus wastefully, or at cross purposes and thus in a mutually defeating way; though that is bad enough~ Nor is the reason for conc~rn for unity merely practica l on the deeper level of which much is currently made : that the Christian witness is less credible when Christians themselves cannot be u ni ted in presentin9 it; though this of cours e i s true as well ~ This reason finds expression i n frequent quotat i on of the prayer ot Jesus (John 17 : 23) but even then it is a purely practical concern . The deepest reason for concern tor Chr isti an unity is the f aet that, especially according to the message of Ephesians, chapters 2 and 3, and Romans 9 - 11, the gathering together of different kin<ls of people in one body is itself a constituent element of the 9ospel. If men of different kinds and races are not reconciled in one body, then the gospel is not fully true . Thus even if it were not the case that a more faithful expression of unity coUid promise greater results in institutiona l efficiency or even church growth, the imperative would remain the same. B. The concern of the biblical writers for Christ ian unity was a concern for wholeness and not for richness. Again in contemporary discussion of church unity much is made of the great variety of convictiona and traditions r epre-sented in different parts of Christendom, with the idea that each of us is missing out on something if he does not find ways o~ learning what others have to contr i bute . This is a.gain quite true on the level of cultures and traditions; but it is not an unimbiguous truth, for there is much t hat each Christia11 herit age would like to contri-bute t o the c011111on fund which is falseor dan9erQus .. The i mperative of Christian unity applies to t hose from wham we have nothing in particular to l earn {assuming hypothet :i.cal ly that there cat) well be such) ; the basis of this concern is · not the me rit of particular Christians or Christian bodie s ~ their gifts or their heritages , but tbe work of Christ . The apostle Paul 1~ver explained his concer n f or keeping in fellowship wit h the Judaizing wing of the .Yerusaleta church on tbe basis of what the Judaizers had to contri-bute to a futur e united church. As a matter of fact be could see very little good coming from the special ideas or the in~titutional operations of tbe Jewi sh wi ng of the church. Whatever there was of good in the Jevrl.sh heritage, he h3d good reason to believe he h ad a lready worked into his OWtl systemo His reason for continuing to invest, in a costly way, in fellowship with Jewish Christians, was a more objective and a less instrument al reason; it was that the work of God in making one new humanity where there bad been two ho5tile races le.ft him no choice. He could no longer regard men from a human point of view; the .Judaizer as a Jew aid the Greek as a pagan. -3- c. The sociological expression of Christian unity will be most appropriately in the .for m o~ mutua l recognition rather than .great concern for either uniformity of expression or c ent r a l izat ion of administration. The early chur ch must certainly be thought of as expr essive of t he ki nd of co ncern f or unity which the authorized apostles imple-mented. Yet there were two quite dist inct missionary organi2ations with different politie s, and more than two schools of thought with regard t o patterns of worship and common life - We find specific argument against t he demand for unifor mity with regard to ritual a:atters (Acts 15, Romans 14) and no eftor1: t o coalesce admi nis .. trative structures . Between Christi ans of d i ffering convictions in one place it was asked that the}~ r e cognize one another, accept one mother, and c ommune at the Lord's t abl e, but not that they agree fully; betwe en Chr ist ian groups in dif ferent places it was asked that t he y reeognize one another, send and receive visi tors, and shar e in material aid according to the need; but there was no concern foL any kind of common process of administration or hie rarchy of authorities ~ n.. It i s 1:he duty of the apostle to go more than half way. The attitude of extr eme f l exibili ty port rayed by Paul in I Cor inthians 9 demonstrates that he who understands best the fullness or God ' s purposes wi ll be the one investing the most effort i n the kind of f l exibi lity that permi ts him to be all t hings to all men But t.he ~eason £or this :fle xib i lit y is not s imply .the est abl i shment of superficial agre ement nor of common organization, but 0 that I might win some" for the church and her mission. Our concern in relationship between d ifferent kinds of Christ ians is therefore not adequate ly expressed a s s i mply one of coordi nation or efficiency, but as mi s s i on ; as a r e spons i-bili~ y to communieat~, ~o e ach t ype of per son in his own language, a nd within the fr amework ot b i s OM'J capacities to understand, a message wbicb is greater t han what he h~s thus f ar understood, and to whi.ch he needs to be "won"~ III o Tbe positio~ we seek must be more ecumenical than t hat of the "eeuaenical mainstream" The label 0 ecumenie al mainstream" i s int~ntionally vagueo Much of what will be 9aid would r · tate mos1: appropriately to the City, National and tt.brld Councils of Churches or to the Student Christian Movement • . Within the scope of various agencies and operations which belong within this "mainstream" there is of course great variety, to which the following characterization may well fail to be fully fairo Nevertheless it can be said that this hasty summary is based on considerable - 4- e''J)erienee and :friendly contacts within t he world of which I am trying to speak ~ My auggestion is that although seeking to be "ecumenical°', namely to express Christian unity in a. whol~some and relevant form, some of the positions taken or patte~ns used in the councils of churches and other ecumenical agencie s are not adequately expressive of all that truly open ecumenical experience and expression would demand. A ~ It is not sure that ecumenical agencies are always fully responsible in the way they mix representativity and l eadership. On the one band most of these agencies are set up with great care to be rep.resentative, and to have a kind of legal existenceov~ which the member churches through their delegated representatives have a measure ot real control . And yet. at the same time there are usually a few especially weighty members of t ·he executive committees and the staffs of these agencies : persons who do not conceive their role as only one of representation at points where there is a genuinely common conviction to be expressed or commonly desired action to be carried out .. These persons have frequently been able to commit the organizations to positions which would not be supported by all (and sometimes perhaps not even by most) of the member agencies if there had been adequate time and machim~ry ~or fully responsible deliberation . Now it is not the point of the present observation t:> suggest that we need only representation and not crea·tive leadership; but only that the two cannot necess arily best be provided by the same organism. There are times at which I have agreed with creative new suggestions comi ng out of the conciliar movement, or at least with the fact that these questions were opened up for discus s ion in a way that called for serious attention o Yet while grateful at such points, I must still ask whether there are not cases of such initiative where the capacity o! the agency to be an expression of existing unity among the supporting churches was weakened by the use ot that plat:f orm for the communi-cat ion of minority convictions (even where they happen to be right); or where its capacity to be an organ of ~,!algg among variant traditions is destroyed by premature statements or consensus ., One expression of this difficulty can be :rather easily discerned in the study processes e arried on by the councils of churches .. Alt hough set up as " studies", with the initial appearance of coming t o a problem trom all sides, at least seveJ:"al of these study processes have turned out to be more promotion than research; they have tended more to provide a sounding board for the propagation 0£ a particular positi on~ which happened t o be held and conimunicatcd persuasively by persons exercising l eadership within the process, than to be i nstruments for asking all t he possible critical quest ions which would need to be raised from the perspectives of all - s- the participants. T~ is seems to me t o be the case £or the current emphasis on the mission o f the ch1.u-ch to get out within the structures of the world and see what God is doing ther·e ~ I welcome the questions which are raised in this connection, and agree with some (only some) ox the answers . The total fermentation process precipitated by the various ecumenical studies and conferences around this topic will probably in the long run be wholesome; but this does not change the £act that it has not really operated as a study.. There has been no rigorous effort to make sure that those positions most naturally critical of this new slant would be adequately represent ed or their criticisms heard ~ B. Parallel to this observation, one can disc ern a certain preference for new ideas. Old ideas axe those held by the separated churches; if the ecumenical movement is to establish itself, it will have to come up with someth ing new. Sometimes these new discoveries are genuinely that and are helpful # At other times however it seems to some not basically unsympathetic observers that novelty is being pursue~ for its own sake; this can become a positive disservice to the concern for unity, since it simply increases the number of variant positions which need to relate to each other. I do not challenge the feeling that there are many areas where new answers are really needed, and certainly much of this search for novelty is motivated by a desire to renew the church r s mi ssion to the world which has got out o:f touch. But if it is to be the church that has a message to be p hrased in new concepts , we need a discipline, which is not always provided, to make sure that the new concepts actually still carry the old message. A structure of interchur ch relat ions should be e specially qualified to ask these questions as well; but thel:'e are t imes when they do not seem to achieve t his .. some " e"•angelical" critics of the ecumenical movement hold that it is a :front for liberal Chr istianity, see~i ng consciously to reject the faith of the Chr i stian tr adition in f a vor of something more acceptable to modern man. This is certainly an unfair cr i ticism when measur ed by t he doctrinal basis of the Worl d Council of Churches or by t he cKeedal positions of the member chu:rche5; nevertheless some of the kind s of literature circulated in the journals and produced by staff can, by its concern for novelty 1 give some justification to such e~pressions. c. Neither in the New Testament nor in t he o:f.:ficial t heology of a ny Clu:istian tradition does Chri stian unity i nclude everyone TA'ho claims to be Christian. The.re a re here-tics and apostates who exclude themselves from the chur ch of J~sus Christ ,. No expression of Christian unity c an claim to have done its job without racing as well the t a sk of -6- discernment and rejection of heresy or apost asy . If it is felt, with good reasons , th at the traditional ways in which denominations have excommunicated each other have been wrong, the proper repl acement for this is not do away with the distinction between Christi anity and that which is counter to it, but rather to find a more biblical and more effective and more evangelical way of recording for our time the difference between what is Christian and "nat is not . This is not a concern which runs counter to genuine Christian unity; the question of truth is a part of the concern for unity . At many points, in fact, the ecumenical movement has helped liberal American denominations to be more aware of the reality of the line between belief and unbelief; but this concern for the identification of apostasy is not built into the system ~ D. The initial eeunenical thrust is always related to evangelism and to mobility . The origins of the current e cumenical movement i .n the 'YMCA and the Student Volunteer Movement are clear signs of that kind of rootage .. Here the expression of Christian unity did not begin by as suming everyone was Christian and asking how to get them all together, but rather by assuming that the committed Christians were a limited nullber and that they needed more effectively to work together for the s ake of t he ir mission in the world . Thus in i t s origins the ecumenical movement had a ''free church" kind of structure and a missionary concern .. Increasingly, especial ly North America, the official ecumenical agencies have a much more "christendom" stance in their readiness to act as the religious dimension of a Christian civiliz ation, and a relatively less "evangelistic" concern (in the traditional sense of th at word, as it relates to c alling individuals to specific conscious decision and coamitment to a visible community) • E ~ Any organization as large as these council s of churches ·have now become can hardly avoid the normal temptation to move along with the convic tion of the majority and the stronge st leaders ~ leaving behind those who dissent. Numerous sensit ive individuals within the Councils of Churches are concerned about the g ap, which is widening in s0111e eases, between those who a.~e members of the council and those who are not; but meanwhile t he wheels continue to turn and at certain points the unconvinced minorities are farther from being in the conversation then a generation ag o . Thus the e cumenical a ge ncy , by its very ef£ectiveness in moving peopl e along in a commop program, tends to. solidify the dividedness which leaves out numerous other Christian groups and similarly the dissent of growing numbers within member churches. -7- Thus the NAE , while claiming c learly to work onl y within the realm of agreement on "essenti a l s" already existing, has clearly developed a momentum of it s own with regard t o prayer in the schools, the war in Vietnam, and the military chaplaincy, and the use of t he good offices of the State Department to aid missions overseas, concerning which not all member agencies agree . The World Council, equally careful in principle, likewis e seems in practice to be leaning toward the "new" again s t the old, and currently (e wg . ) toward particular "secularizing" concepts of the mission of the Church _in society which are not representative of the member churches. IV .. The biblical position on church unity should be more evangelical than that of the "evangelicals" . Again we must group t .ogether under a common label various movements , like the InterVarsity Christian Fellowship on the university c ampus and the National Association of Evangelicals in North America, without due reference to var i ety in these movements in and changes in their character with the passage 0£ time . Again this generalization will be sure to 1:ie less than fair at certain points and yet it can still be helpful . A. Evangelicalism is now broadly committed to a creedal definition of what it means to be a believer in the gospe l . Until l e ss than a century ago , evangelicalism was anti-creedal. Numerous churches of this tradition would . stil l r eject in theory the idea that Christian fidelity can be measured either positively or negat i vely by subscription to a fixed number of doctr i nal points. And yet evangelicalism has clearly accepted, on the contemporary church scene, the assumption that the way to know who is faithful is to ask a ~ew very basic doctrinal questions about the authorit y 0£ the Bible, the person of Jesus, or other matters deemed of central importance; yet other very important questions do not ~e t i n .the lists; and it i s not yet sure that enshrining these logically important matters in specific p hrasings is the best way to know who is i n and who i s out. Just as con-tempo_ rary -"ev angelicalism" is made up of several di fferent streams of church hist ory which flowed together around 1900 in the fundamentalist controversy, (conservative oxthodoxy in t he major denominational traditions, frontier evangelicalism of an anti-creedal form, and the Darbyist- Bible Church tradition with its formal rejection or past churches), so it attempts t o merge biblicism and creedalism i n a common protest against modern unbelief. A fully biblical evangel ical position would not give the kind of t ouchstone status to s pecific creedal issues wh~<rid fundamentalism with its five or six .fundamental poi nt s,rother O?ltlines do . Both for what ~hey include and f or what t he y exclude, such concen-t rations on non-biblical verba l for ms fall short of both ~he f reedom and the exclusiveness oi t he Gospel . - 8- B. Much of "evangelicalism" finds expression in a new kind of ecclesiastical definition. In the InterVarsity Christian Fellowship and in ''faith mission" agencies for other kind of tasks, instrument s of Christi an fellowship and collaboration are established which have all of the theological characteristics of a denomination but without taki.ng full responsibility £or all of the burdens of the denomination . They have structures of handling money {koinonia), recognizing ministers, distinguishing between true and f'als·e doctrine, between who is a spokes-man and who is not . They develop from one service (whet her radio, mass meetings, missionary sending, schools, or publication} progressively into the others . These are the distinguishing marks of. the denomination. That they do not have the classic way of channeling the support cf the grassroots believers i nto the central office is ~ r eal difference; but does not make them any less a "denomination". This is not to suggest that these agencies are illegitimate, but that even their proponents are generally not fully aware of the n~w complexity which they b.ring into the concern for church unity by making it possible for their members to belong to more thi'n one "denomination" at the same time, and by dodging certain of the responsibilities for faithful expression of Christian unity by virtue of the fact that they are "not churches". c. Those who in North America call themselve s "evangel i cals" by and large take a specific conservative and social and poH.tical st ance . With regard to polit ical economics they 9enerally take a middle cl~ ss position. ~~th regard to war they are rather uncritically patriotic. Wit h regard to race they came alive slowly and often co~tinue to be more concerned about what cannot be done by legislation than about what must be done by the church~ This position is confused by the explicit statement, often made sincerely, th at the church should not be concerned for these matters; as a matter of fact i t would be a more accurate statement of what is really meant to say that the church should favor leaving thita gs by and large as they a.t·e socially, which of course is a very decide d kind of social act ion~ Not only do evangelicals at large have very little understanding for the biblical basis of a Christian re-jection or war or racial segregati on; they are at least sometimes driven by a marked concern to be seen in company with v;ealthy men, rulers and soldierst as if the great men of this world were especially strategic in the work of the gospel. D. Certain "evangelical" agencies talce a very particular and very closed i nstitutional stance. They dra w :from the (correct) ur1de.rstanding that the Bible calls for distinction between -9- belief and unbelief, an institutional exclusivism which does not follow either from that biblical teaching or f r om the redemptive concern of the Gospel. Some (not all ) " e vangelical" agencies therefore require of all who would relate to them, that they renounce any kind of fraternal relationships to other Christian bodies or to other specified Christian groups ~ This kind of institutional definition, and especially attributing to another agency the negative value of defining whom we may fellowship with only in terms ot who does not belong to something else certainly is a denial of evangelical concern and spirit . V. Specific applications of the above concerns in the mission of the church in campus, city, and overseas . Let it first of all be clearly understood that the position sketched above, naore ecumenical than the ecumenical agencies and more e;.rangelical than those who call themselves evangelical, represents a vision . Although I shall suggest later that this vision has a particular social relevance to Mennonites and some others, it is stated in terms of biblical imperitives and not as a denominational claim to particular virtue .. I do believe that some individuals rooted in the Anabaptist-free church heritage have found themselves taking a position like that sketched above; but certainly many have not ~ Most Mennonite individuals, churches, and church agenc i es have rather in the past been less ecumenical than the evangelicals and less evangelical than the ecumenicals . Furthermore, any understandings and faithfulness in mission which can now be discerned among Mennonites can usually be traced to origins outside of the Mennonite heritage . It is not by studying Mennonite history or even An ~baptist origins that Mennonites have been led, to the modest extent to which they have, into worthwhile activity in our century; they learned this kind of thing from Moody and Mott, from the Wesleyan Revivalists and the Presbyterian educators . A .. Given the existence of the two "camps", a biblically oriented (and Mennonite) position will in principle be open to responsible collaboration and conversation in both directions, according to need and opportunity 5 In both directions there are both practically and theological imperatives for such contacts . Beyond the specific common goals which may make it appropriate to relate one way or the other in a given context, there is furthermore a specific testimony involved in the very fact of being open in both directions, whereas many in one or the other of the camps cannot afford this same openness. B.. With regard to the "mainstream" Christian agencies , we shall find common interests with respect to responsible organizations in such matters as mi$5ionary -10- ' I medicine, r elief services, gove.rnment .relations, Christian agencies of higher education, and in No:rth America matters of social concern, peace witness, civil rights ~ It is :furthermore often the case that in these concerns one encounters a respectful and tolerant manner of dealing with differences, with institutional problems and matters of public ethics, whereas journalis~ic and admi.nistr~tive irresponsibility are more often encountered among the more free wheeling "evangelical'! groups. c. On the "evangelical" side we shall often find ground £or common action in the evangelical concern for the element of personnel decision and commitment, both in evangelis1a which calls for such a decision, and , on the level of sezv:!.ce and witnessing, in a quality or devotion which reflects the self giving response of sincere conversion . Bible study and a desire to be guided by it, openness to the voluntary contributions of nonprofessio11al Christian workers, a readiness to do what is right on the ground of revelation without calculating results~ a willingness to be different for the sake of onets faith, and a willingness to sacrifice other worthwhile things for a superior Christian goal, are traits found somewhat mo.re often in "evangelical" circles . D. The fact that relationships in both directions are not only possible but desirable and in fact mandatory does not decrease but rather increases the need and the occasion £or a clear definition of one's own identity . Being related in both directions means never finding one•s id~ntity fully and simply in any one place, and always being responsible to be aware of the limits of identification at eitheK point . This not only contributes to a greater degree or consciousness of one's own identity as a brotherhood with a distinct t radition; it also heightens the .responsi-bility to define at each point just what coliilmo.n task it is which brings us t og~ther ~ Debating an issue together requires one kind of common commitment; operating an institution togeth~r requires another. Sending ministers into a united church requires still another level 0£ mutual recognition . E 0 Our concern, once we have renounced the idea of settling all probl ems of Christian fellowship by saying yes or no 'to an over- all identification with one "side" is the dis~e:nmen: of j u st what is proposed by way of common activity, Just what type of common comnd tment i s required to ma~e . that c ollaboration meaningful , and just what are the limits at1d the 2.u thm:i "!:Jt o:f th-e joint process. -11 - ' I ( I F . The above has all been outlined from a perspect ive of b iblica l and theoretical objectivity . But i f such a suggestion were to make sense, · it wou ld ha ve to connect somehow with what individuals Mennonites in different places have found themselves already doing about t he same problems . It is therefore suggested that at this point a later, fuller form of this present outl i ne should refer in a corraborative way to the e~-perience of Mennonite congregations, ministers, and agencies in maintaining this kind of position "between the camps". - 12-
Object Description
Title | Christian Unity Within a Divided Protestantism |
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 | 1966 |
Subject |
Church -- Unity Protestant churches -- North America |
Creator |
Yoder, John Howard |
Publisher |
Goshen College |
Description | Memorandum on Mennonite Board of Missions and Charities stationery, April 26, 1966. |
Rights Explanation |
Used by permission of Martha Yoder Maust. |
Extent | 12 p. |
Digital format |
pdf |
Local item ID | HM1-048, Box 14, Folder 11 |
Item ID | im-amdc-jhy-0244 |
Rights-Rights Holder | Martha Yoder Maust |
Description
Title | Christian Unity Within a Divided Protestantism |
Institution | Mennonite Church USA Archives |
Original format |
text |
Language |
English |
Collection Name |
AMBS and GC John Howard Yoder Digital Library |
Date created | 1966 |
Subject |
Church -- Unity Protestant churches -- North America |
Creator |
Yoder, John Howard |
Publisher |
Goshen College |
Description | Memorandum on Mennonite Board of Missions and Charities stationery, April 26, 1966. |
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 | 12 p. |
Digital format |
pdf |
Local item ID | HM1-048, Box 14, Folder 11 |
Item ID | im-amdc-jhy-0244 |
Text |
M.ENNONITE BOARD OF MISSIONS AND CHARITIES
memo to
from
date
subiect
To Whom It May Conc~rn
.John H . Yoder
April 26, 1966
Christian Unity With in
1711 PRAIRIE STREET , ELKHART, INDIANA 46515
The .fo llowing position paper is being dra:f'ted in response to
r equests coming e~-pecially from two directions: a) £rom Mennonite
missionary a gencies, which find themselves invite d to enter
cooperative relationships, both in home administration and in
overseas work, with other Christian bodies of many kinds ; b) from
Mennonite Student Services Committees, called upon to advise students
about patterns of Christian fellowship, on many university campuses
where denominational representation is limited and the wider Christian
fellowship agencies are not unified.
!t is dependent for its accuracy on whether it fits the e)cperience
of various persons and perspectives; it is therefore being shared
with numerous individuals who might have had experience relating
to it , with the request for any kind of critical response, but
especially for personal testimonies relating to the last parag r aph
o f text, V- F.
I t is appropriate that in both 0£ these connections; the student
and the mission contexts, Mennonites must react to the same t wo
factors: First of all they both £ace the. dividedness of the
efforts of American Christians at cooperation. In each of these
contexts there is a division with (at least) two different orgar.i-
:zati ons each attempting to be expressions of Christ ian unity and
mission, so that t he instruments of. coordination become themselves
instruments 0£ division. Secondly, both of these connections are
in the context of mission broadly understood, so that the concer1i
for coordination and Christian unity can be tested, among other
'things , by its relevance to the responsibi lity of Christians for
witness and service in and t o the unbelieving world.
1. The :framework of any study or this kind must be not denomi-national
but biblical. Although I shall come bac k to the
quest ion of specific appl ication by Mennonite agencies such
a s thos e which request this study , what we need first of
al l i s not a Mennonite position paper but a biblical one.
'. .
')
A. In our age ~e no longer assume thut f1<.1ch denomination
has a clear bold on its own identity and jl1sti.fication
for existence, and that t he proper answer to any questi on
is to develop a denominational position derived .from
denominational distinctives .. Thus the :first reason
for beginning with the Bible is simply that that is
the right place to begin with any question .
B ~ Yet further reason for this can be seen in the current
uncertainty of the various Mennonite and affiliated
denominational bodies as to what normative Mennonitism
would be if we wanted to £ollow it . Is it derived from
the sixteenth century? Why should one particular age have
that kind of authority? Or is the Mennonite identity to
be seen in the cultural strengths of the rural Mennonite
communities of the last century in North America? If so,
can we claim that this identity persists with the
increasingly rapid abandoning of that rural cultural cont ext ?
C. Our approach shall therefore be to attempt to delineate
a stance in interchurch relat ion; which would be dictated
by fundamental biblical considerat ions, seeking to
develop it as if there were no specific Mennonite position
to draw upon . Then this attempted statement should be
tested with a view to its applicability; does it describe
with any degree of £aithfulness how Mennonites have .found
themselves behaving, in the past oz how they would like
to behave in the future, in the :face 0£ t:he questions of
church unity and mission?
If the stance here sketched should appeal to numer•.,us
Mennonites as descriptive or how they have been trying
to behave or would like to, then perhaps it might repre-sent
as wel l the orient ation of several other kinds of
persons and church groups; of other denominations which
:find themselves ttbetween the camps" , s uch as evangelical
Friends ox the Mission Covenant Church, of 'the Bible
societies, as well as 0£ many individuals whose denomi-nations
are clearly affiliated with one "side" or the
other, bu't who themselves would prefer a less onesided
position .
II. The Main lines of New Testament guidance on the subject as
illuminated by comparison with current thought.
(The sketchy statements here are based on fuller treatment
in °The Ecumenical Movement and the Faithful Church", which
I shall not attempt to repeat )
A. The basis of Christian concern for the unity of Christians
is theological and not merely practical.. The point is not
simply that time and effort are wasted when different
-2-
Christians work independently and thus wastefully, or
at cross purposes and thus in a mutually defeating way;
though that is bad enough~ Nor is the reason for conc~rn
for unity merely practica l on the deeper level of which
much is currently made : that the Christian witness is
less credible when Christians themselves cannot be u ni ted
in presentin9 it; though this of cours e i s true as well ~
This reason finds expression i n frequent quotat i on of the
prayer ot Jesus (John 17 : 23) but even then it is a purely
practical concern .
The deepest reason for concern tor Chr isti an unity is the
f aet that, especially according to the message of
Ephesians, chapters 2 and 3, and Romans 9 - 11, the
gathering together of different kin |