The Unity We Have |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 1 of 3 | Next |
|
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
|
This page
All
|
THE UNITY WE HAVE-John Howard Yoder A -COMMON ERROR in thinking of the problems of church unity is to assume that each denomination is profound-ly united in the conviction that its peculiar emphases are very true and very important, so that interchurch relations are a matter of comparing, contrasting, and media ting between denominational _emphases. Thus it is often taken for granted that Mennonites, even more than others perhaps, because of their long history of isolation a nd t he radical nature of their dis-tinctive beliefs, have much to teach and little to learn when they meet with other Christians. This may be the case in the attitudes of some individuals, especially in our peace witnessing; yet historically it is false. Most of the things American Mennonites hold dear today they have learned from someone else in the course of the last century. Organized concern for mis· sions, Sunday schools, temperance, evangelism; church colleges, theological training, and support of ministers; involvement in the fundamentalist, mlllenial, holiness, and eternal security doctrinal controversies; relief work, publishing, the unde·rstanding of nonresistance as crossbearing agape rather than as legalism; the congregationalism of liberal Mennonites, the denom-inationalism of conservative Mennonites, the general evangelicalism of Mennonite Brethren-all these have been brought into Mennonitism from the outside. We can hardly say in advance what the next thing is which we should learn from other Christians; but we may at least be sure that the burden of proof lies with those who, within our ranks or without, think we have nothing more to learn. What we share with other Christians is not limited to the general consensus of orthodox beliefs (Trinity, incarnation, a tonement, creation ) or to the generally shared respect for saints who have gone before (Francis of Assisi, Luther, Pascal, Wesley, Moody) . We also share the position of being imperfect, inconsistent, un· disciplined churches. We must get over the myth ac· cording to which we are a disciplined, missionary, sac-rificially serving believers' church, and other Christians are not. Mennonites may differ from some other denomina· tions in desiring explicitly to be this kind of church, or March 13, 1962 at least in saying they so desire. In some very limited areas they may even differ quantitatively in the degree of partial attainment of such goals. But there is no qualitative difference between the practice of Menno· nites at these points and that of others, except per· haps in t he sense that, the officially proclaimed goals being higher, the failure to attain them is all the more blameworthy. Mennonites are not only hum anly imperfect; they are also humanly disunited. Mennonite conferen ces, with the exception of a few Amish and Old colony groups, are no longer-if they ever were-sects tightly organized around a creed, a person, or a cultural pattern. They are themselves actually coun cils of churches or small-scale ecumenical movements, includ· ing within their ranks both unity a nd diversity, some of the differences being quite significant and some of the agreements quite untheological. Yet on this level, no one challenges the usefulness of interchurch con-tacts and joint undertakings. On this level, m oderators (the title is not meaningless) will argue that our unity lies not in total agreement (whether guaranteed cred-ally, ethnically, or otherwise), but in the objectivity of Christ as our foundation and the Scriptures as a common norm, in addition to a certain amount of shared heritage and resulting common convictions. If, on the level of ecumenical relations we call the denomination, these considerations justify collabora-tion, there is no reason for the same reasons not to call for similar relations on other levels. But let not our awareness of shared convictions and shared weaknesses binding us to other Christians cover up the fact that at certain points we of the Anabaptist- Mennonite tradition have been a particular witness of exceptional significance, to which the slogans, peace church, free church, and believers' church feebly point. E ach of these emphases is represented by other Chris-tians, often with more vigor and sometimes with more Studies in--Chur-ch -Unity--XV 165 contemporary faithfulness than by Mennonites; yet ultimately the three are valid only together. Taken alone, the peace emphasis may de-generate into unrealistic social-bet-terment idealism, the free-church vision into fruitless debates about polity, and the believers' church ideal into unhealthy legalism and introspection. Taken together, not by simple addition of unconnected units but in a vital synthesis, they provide the corrective (which both mainstream ecumenicalism on the one hand and evangelicalism on the other) need if they are ever to over-come the temptation of conformity. The measure of the solidity of our peculiar traditions will be the confidence wi th which we face the challenge of testifying to them be-fore other Christian s on which we have no hold except for our com-mon loyalty to Christ. To stay with-in the circles where we can control the discussion by controlling the organs of education, communication, and discipline is a confession of in-security and in fact an argument for the Volkskirche. This is not to say that in a free debate the truth is always bound to triumph; the re-ality of apostasy is too omnipresent for that. But, still, truth is its own only defense, and it is truer for the truth to be crucified than to avoid the fray. There is thus some-thing paradoxically out of order when the most convinced advocates of the rightness and the importance of certain peculiar Mennonite con-victions are often the least inter-ested in sharing them beyond the borders of Mennonitism, whereas those who seek the most to asso-ciate with other Christians some-times have little in the way of pe-culiar convictions about which to testify. This paradox is the fruit of unbelief - of the assumption that we must bring about unity by or-ganizing agreement (whether in the narrow circle by excluding others, or in the broader one by diluting our distinctives) instead of accept-ing it as a work of God. For by grace we have been united through faith, and this not of our own doing, it is the gift of God-not by nego-tiation, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, cre-ated in Christ Jesus for the unity which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in it .
Object Description
Title | The Unity We Have |
Rights | http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/ |
Institution | Mennonite Historical Library |
Original format |
text |
Language |
English |
Collection Name |
AMBS and GC John Howard Yoder Digital Library |
Date created | 1962-04-13 |
Subject |
Church -- Unity Christian union Mennonite (Hillsboro, Kans.) Mennonites -- Doctrines |
Creator |
Yoder, John Howard |
Publisher |
Goshen College |
Description | Short essay on church unity published in the Mennonite. |
Rights Explanation |
Used by permission of MennoMedia. |
Extent | 2 p. |
Digital format |
pdf |
Item ID | im-amdc-jhy-0375 |
Rights-Rights Holder | MennoMedia |
Description
Title | The Unity We Have |
Institution | Mennonite Historical Library |
Original format |
text |
Language |
English |
Collection Name |
AMBS and GC John Howard Yoder Digital Library |
Date created | 1962-04-13 |
Subject |
Church -- Unity Christian union Mennonite (Hillsboro, Kans.) Mennonites -- Doctrines |
Creator |
Yoder, John Howard |
Publisher |
Goshen College |
Description | Short essay on church unity published in the Mennonite. |
Rights Explanation | Used by permission of MennoMedia. Researchers are responsible for using in accordance with 17 U.S.C.. Copyright owned by MennoMedia. |
Extent | 2 p. |
Digital format |
pdf |
Item ID | im-amdc-jhy-0375 |
Text | THE UNITY WE HAVE-John Howard Yoder A -COMMON ERROR in thinking of the problems of church unity is to assume that each denomination is profound-ly united in the conviction that its peculiar emphases are very true and very important, so that interchurch relations are a matter of comparing, contrasting, and media ting between denominational _emphases. Thus it is often taken for granted that Mennonites, even more than others perhaps, because of their long history of isolation a nd t he radical nature of their dis-tinctive beliefs, have much to teach and little to learn when they meet with other Christians. This may be the case in the attitudes of some individuals, especially in our peace witnessing; yet historically it is false. Most of the things American Mennonites hold dear today they have learned from someone else in the course of the last century. Organized concern for mis· sions, Sunday schools, temperance, evangelism; church colleges, theological training, and support of ministers; involvement in the fundamentalist, mlllenial, holiness, and eternal security doctrinal controversies; relief work, publishing, the unde·rstanding of nonresistance as crossbearing agape rather than as legalism; the congregationalism of liberal Mennonites, the denom-inationalism of conservative Mennonites, the general evangelicalism of Mennonite Brethren-all these have been brought into Mennonitism from the outside. We can hardly say in advance what the next thing is which we should learn from other Christians; but we may at least be sure that the burden of proof lies with those who, within our ranks or without, think we have nothing more to learn. What we share with other Christians is not limited to the general consensus of orthodox beliefs (Trinity, incarnation, a tonement, creation ) or to the generally shared respect for saints who have gone before (Francis of Assisi, Luther, Pascal, Wesley, Moody) . We also share the position of being imperfect, inconsistent, un· disciplined churches. We must get over the myth ac· cording to which we are a disciplined, missionary, sac-rificially serving believers' church, and other Christians are not. Mennonites may differ from some other denomina· tions in desiring explicitly to be this kind of church, or March 13, 1962 at least in saying they so desire. In some very limited areas they may even differ quantitatively in the degree of partial attainment of such goals. But there is no qualitative difference between the practice of Menno· nites at these points and that of others, except per· haps in t he sense that, the officially proclaimed goals being higher, the failure to attain them is all the more blameworthy. Mennonites are not only hum anly imperfect; they are also humanly disunited. Mennonite conferen ces, with the exception of a few Amish and Old colony groups, are no longer-if they ever were-sects tightly organized around a creed, a person, or a cultural pattern. They are themselves actually coun cils of churches or small-scale ecumenical movements, includ· ing within their ranks both unity a nd diversity, some of the differences being quite significant and some of the agreements quite untheological. Yet on this level, no one challenges the usefulness of interchurch con-tacts and joint undertakings. On this level, m oderators (the title is not meaningless) will argue that our unity lies not in total agreement (whether guaranteed cred-ally, ethnically, or otherwise), but in the objectivity of Christ as our foundation and the Scriptures as a common norm, in addition to a certain amount of shared heritage and resulting common convictions. If, on the level of ecumenical relations we call the denomination, these considerations justify collabora-tion, there is no reason for the same reasons not to call for similar relations on other levels. But let not our awareness of shared convictions and shared weaknesses binding us to other Christians cover up the fact that at certain points we of the Anabaptist- Mennonite tradition have been a particular witness of exceptional significance, to which the slogans, peace church, free church, and believers' church feebly point. E ach of these emphases is represented by other Chris-tians, often with more vigor and sometimes with more Studies in--Chur-ch -Unity--XV 165 contemporary faithfulness than by Mennonites; yet ultimately the three are valid only together. Taken alone, the peace emphasis may de-generate into unrealistic social-bet-terment idealism, the free-church vision into fruitless debates about polity, and the believers' church ideal into unhealthy legalism and introspection. Taken together, not by simple addition of unconnected units but in a vital synthesis, they provide the corrective (which both mainstream ecumenicalism on the one hand and evangelicalism on the other) need if they are ever to over-come the temptation of conformity. The measure of the solidity of our peculiar traditions will be the confidence wi th which we face the challenge of testifying to them be-fore other Christian s on which we have no hold except for our com-mon loyalty to Christ. To stay with-in the circles where we can control the discussion by controlling the organs of education, communication, and discipline is a confession of in-security and in fact an argument for the Volkskirche. This is not to say that in a free debate the truth is always bound to triumph; the re-ality of apostasy is too omnipresent for that. But, still, truth is its own only defense, and it is truer for the truth to be crucified than to avoid the fray. There is thus some-thing paradoxically out of order when the most convinced advocates of the rightness and the importance of certain peculiar Mennonite con-victions are often the least inter-ested in sharing them beyond the borders of Mennonitism, whereas those who seek the most to asso-ciate with other Christians some-times have little in the way of pe-culiar convictions about which to testify. This paradox is the fruit of unbelief - of the assumption that we must bring about unity by or-ganizing agreement (whether in the narrow circle by excluding others, or in the broader one by diluting our distinctives) instead of accept-ing it as a work of God. For by grace we have been united through faith, and this not of our own doing, it is the gift of God-not by nego-tiation, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, cre-ated in Christ Jesus for the unity which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in it . |