The Unity We Have

              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 .