 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Admin Techie Joined Feb 7, 2002 42 posts |
 Question of the month: December, 2007 |
Posted Dec 3, 2007; 11:59 pm |
|
This month's online poll:
Do you think we should stop using "Mennonite" as an ethnic term?
Everyone can vote in this poll, even if you're not registered at MB Forum. |
|
|
|
| Sudsy Member Joined Sep 23, 2003 2833 posts |
| |
Posted Dec 4, 2007; 9:46 am |
|
I am not sure I understand what is meant by 'stop using'. I believe there are some good arguments to keep a low profile with this name if we are to open our doors more to the community at large but within the local church I think there is still benefit in learning about the history that lead up to the current MB organization.
I personally know people who would not enter the door of a church that had the word 'Mennonite' in it's identification. I believe names like 'Meeting Place', 'Fellowship', 'Community Church', etc. are much more inviting to everyone.
Perhaps whether to maintain this distinction openly or not is related to how evangelical a local church wants to become. Do we want a name to stand in the way of a seeker ? How important is it to have special identification outside of that of belonging to Christ ? 1 Corinthians 1:12 coms to mind. |
|
|
|
| Bro Member Joined May 4, 2004 912 posts Location: Richmond B.C. |
| |
Posted Dec 4, 2007; 8:05 pm |
|
| We can use Mennonite as regular word.We can keep it in the background and call ourselves community churches,(ie) Fraserview Community Church. |
|
|
|
| lornewel Member Joined May 11, 2004 553 posts Location: Abbotsford |
| |
Posted Dec 4, 2007; 9:53 pm |
|
Sudsy, Bro:
The way I read the poll question, it is whether we should cease to use the term Mennonite as an ethnic term, not should we stop using it altogether, or stop using it in our local church names. Mennonite could be a somewhat accurate synonym for Anabaptist which describes a set of theological beliefs including baptism only for confessing believers, non-violence and non-resistance, etc. To my mind, it is debatable whether Mennonite is a useful label at all. But certainly, when the majority of Mennonites are now African or South Asian, it makes little sense to think it is an accurate ethnic label for a subset of descendants of Dutch/German people with family names such as Yoder, Thiessen, Wiens, etc. |
|
|
|
| gay lynn voth Member Joined Jan 25, 2005 693 posts |
| history and identity |
Posted Dec 5, 2007; 9:53 am |
|
I have alot of questions, and a number of opinions, on this one simply because I am "Mennonite" both in a historically "ethnic" and "church community" sense.
I assume the question is limited to the Mennonite Brethren conference?
Does it seem conceivable that we will be able to explain to all the "omas" and "opas" (like me) - that we are now not using the word "Mennonite" to express their identification to a family history? Would this be a "mandate" given from "above" in some way? No more use of the name that has traditionally been used to identify your historical identity  Is that possible?
The historically, "ethnic" Mennonites are similiar in some ways with other religious, social, ethnic groups like the Jewish communities. Some Jews are "religious" and others are not. Some Jewish folk are socially connected to other Jewish people, some are not. Some Jewish individuals continue to find their identity as such even without either a religious or social dimension to their Judaism. How would you tell that Jewish individual that they are not "Jewish" when they use this as a way of identifying their links to an ethnic past?
Because of our historical roots, don't some Mennonites indeed find their historical identity - ethnic lineage - in this group? Are you suggesting that we can abandon this? It would be like asking a "Scotsman" whose family has not lived in Scotland for three generations to stop calling themselves a "Scot". On what basis would we do this? The fact that this individual no longer has a Scottish passport or is a landowner of property in Scotland? What if for generations this individual's family had perceived of themselves as "Scottish" and defined their sense of self around that identity by eating certain ethnic foods, enjoying certain music or cultural activities?
The historic "Mennonites" found their identity in the church community rather than in a national identity - though in time the distinctions included both geographical and religious titles - i.e. Swiss Mennonites, Russian Mennonites, German Mennonites, Dutch Mennonites, etc.
If we are going to "drop" the use of the word "Mennonite" to define ourselves "ethnically", what are we going to replace it with? How do you come up with a "new history"? That mocks the whole idea of an ongoing historical narrative, doesn't it?
Are we now going to simply develop a new theological and community history for all of us to share? What are we going to replace our former history with?
Can we really be a "non-historical" "community" that is local and contemporary only? Doesn't that seem incredibly subjective, individualistic and relativistic? If we are going to develop our new identity with a strong sense of wanting to include our global brothers and sisters in the church .... How will we do this? Whose historical narrative will we fit ours into?
Will we genuinely allow the Mennonite Brethren leaders from Africa and India to contribute to our new ethnic history, if we try to develop one? I, personally, would welcome a broader story of who we are now - But my question remains: How are we going to legitimately include all others in this new narrative without the majority getting swallowed up in someone else's narrative of the past?
I recently had a conversation with a pastor of a church in another Mennonite affliated denomination regarding the article I had written for the Herald. He suggested straightforwardly that he is hoping for, and working toward, reincorporating the Mennonites in his church into the historic "British Evangelicalism that is both Reformed and Baptist" in orientation.
I am all for an ecumenical exchange of ideas but I fear that some unique historical perspectives are slowly being eroded by forms of nationalism and other historical narratives that include theology. For example, in the USA, this is a real concern for some Mennonite theologians who see the Anabaptist historical narrative being overtaken by the American historical narrative with a loss of the pacificist identity marker.
In many "Mennonite" churches today, we have no clear sense of the theological distinctives our forebearers were persecuted for, and believed were geniunely faithful interpretations of scripture. In our hunger for a bowl of porridge, what are we giving up?
In some cases, our historical traditional understandings are not being discussed theologically so that they can be thoughtfully revised. Instead, Mennonites are simply being absorbed into a larger "evangelical" identity that has a unique history as well. It would at least be worth looking at the theological aspects of this history carefully before we abdicate.
I know the Mennonite Brethren theological history is unique from that of other Mennonite church groups, so the decision to drop the ethnic part would perhaps be a loss of connections to their past that came before the 1850s. I guess history really is a matter of what we "choose to remember" rather than "a record what has been experienced" ....  "Lest they forget?" 
Last edited by gay lynn voth on Dec 5, 2007; 7:42 pm; edited 4 times in total. |
|
|
|
| gay lynn voth Member Joined Jan 25, 2005 693 posts |
| ethnic? |
Posted Dec 5, 2007; 10:03 am |
|
I should note that in my comments above, I used the word "ethnic" to denote historical family lineage that is indeed passed on by "names" like Yoder, Jantzen, Fast, etc.
 Maybe this is a question of whether or not our churches should be named after an ethnic sense of identity? |
|
|
|
| Sudsy Member Joined Sep 23, 2003 2833 posts |
| |
Posted Dec 5, 2007; 12:03 pm |
|
Well, after posting that I know people who would not enter a church with 'Mennonite' in the name, I just purchased a book called 'Surprising Insights from the Unchurched' by Thom S. Rainer and it gave little support to my argument.
This book was based on a survey of 350 people who within the past 2 years have become Christians and now attend church regularly and these folk were from no previous church background to speak of. The survey was to find out what did and what did not attract them to coming to church.
Results regarding the church name - only 4 out of 100 formerly unchurched indicated that a denominational name had a negative influence on them as they sought a church. 84% hardly considered the church name at all and 1 out of 8 said that the denominational name actually was a positive influence.
What did have the biggest influence ? The sermons/preaching/pastor was 90%, doctrines 88% and the next largest category was friendliness of members at 49%. What was very interesting to me that these folk rated worship style and music at only 11%.
From what I have read so far, I would recommend this book to anyone interested in reaching the unchurched. I must read on and see what other myths I may have in my thinking.
So, it seems from this study, a church name matters little to those we have the best chance at reaching. |
|
|
|
| rudyhiebert Member Joined Oct 2, 2003 481 posts Location: Abbotsford BC |
| Mennonite As Ethnic Term |
Posted Dec 5, 2007; 11:59 pm |
|
| It doesn't need to be on the sign on the lawn of the church or other places but showing affiliation to a larger body of believers with mutual values is totally fine with me. Keep in mind that there are more than one group with the term "Mennonite", ie. G.C., Brethren, Evangelical, Chortitzer and this list is probably by no means exhaustive. There are Mennonites in some 60 countries in church on any given Sunday. How then one would stop using the term "Mennonite" seems pointless and a waste of time and energy. This is a good example of how Satan loves nothing better than get us all wound up over useless activity that detracts from the real reason for doing what the church should be doing. |
|
|
|
| gay lynn voth Member Joined Jan 25, 2005 693 posts |
| "ethnic" or "Christian community"? |
Posted Dec 6, 2007; 11:22 am |
|
Rudy's comment got me thinking: | Quote: | | It doesn't need to be on the sign on the lawn of the church or other places but showing affiliation to a larger body of believers with mutual values is totally fine with me. |
While Mennonite history can define some of us as a an "ethnic" group we don't want to promote "ethnocentricity" (a form of favoritism ...  ).
I think that is one of the problems - When a church community has a lot of members who share the same "ethnic" identity, it can be easily transferred into a form of ethnocentricity that has to be guarded against.
The idea of identifying with a particular Christian tradition - Catholic, mainline Protestant, Radical Protestant, Orthodox, etc. - may frequently carry the possibility of some "ethnicity" attached - "Dutch Reformed", "Greek Orthodox", "American Evangelicalism", "British Evangelicalism", and so on.
Each religious tradition has a "history" - and some histories carry with them a sense of "place - geography", or a unique set of rituals that emerged within a particular cultural setting.
Look at how music in the various churches reflects some of those cultural preferences: ranging from fairly grand musical arrangements, to very simple musical scores (with or without drums  , to the prohibition of musical instruments, etc.
Is this choice "ethnic" - culturally and historically influenced in a "defining way"? Is the one more reflective of "Roman", "European high culture", while the others identify with a tradition that rejected both the "high culture" and "Roman" influences by becoming more "down to earth" and "popular"? Is the last an attempt at rejecting all "cultural" influences and thereby representing it own "ethnicity" over time? (thinking of the Quakers and Amish here)
I don't know if we can divorce any church community from its history. But our more recent history now does include many others who are do not share the same German Dutch Russian background. (Bruce Guenther references this as GDR I believe .... but I may have the order mixed up).
So back to Rudy's thought that triggered this post: What should our church signs say about us?
How can we describe ourselves well, without forgetting either our past or recent history? How do we make theological changes when we don't know historical theology well enough to know when we are like the "frog in a pot of water on the stove?" |
|
|
|
| Sudsy Member Joined Sep 23, 2003 2833 posts |
| |
Posted Dec 6, 2007; 12:32 pm |
|
This got me thinking about how I felt coming from an English background, generations back, to an MB congregation that had already, obviously began reaching out to welcome all groups of people to their fellowship. Regarding learning about the MB history, I jumped right in to see what MBs believe and how their beliefs have developed over the years. This was a very rewarding study and continues to be. One I took on myself to pursue. It really meant nothing to me as to what Menno's ethnic background was.
I don't really believe in 'taking pride' in any background. I'm not proud to be a Canadian or proud to be a Mennonite, although the latter some still would not regard me as one, being an adherent. I'm not proud either to be a Christian. I do though feel fortunate (for lack of better word) to be all of these. I think we should first and foremost stand out as a 'Christian Community' of Kingdom people that includes all born again believers.
However, looking back, when I told people in the community that I was attending a 'Mennonite' church, I did get some questions about not being of German/Dutch/Russian origin. We have 12 or more different Mennonite groups in our area and some of these are very 'closed '. Perhaps this is what causes some non-Mennonites to think that perhaps all are 'closed' to outsiders. Others associated the word 'Mennonite' to what they read in the newspapers regarding some Mexican Mennonites that were involved in drug trafficing and jokedly asked me about getting cheap drugs from the church. So, in our area, perhaps the name means something different than it would somewhere else.
There are, however, some references to the Mennonite traditions that have made me feel somewhat as an outsider. One of these just occurred yesterday when some of the seniors, primarily of German/Dutch/Russian background, tried to figure out how to sing Happy Birthday in German. They all seemed to get a kick out of this but myself, and I noticed other seniors of other backgrounds, didn't get the humour and therefore, I did not feel part of the group at that moment. I have noticed this type of thing is more common with the older crowd. I doubt that the youth have these type of things happening but I don't know.
I recall the first time I came to a Mennonite church, some 30 years ago, and how people would quickly try to figure out if my last name had German/Dutch/Russian roots. I think we have come a long way from this time, at least at our church we have.
| Quote: | | How can we describe ourselves well, without forgetting either our past or recent history? |
I think one way is for people of German/Dutch/Russian background to be reminded of what it was like when they were treated as a minority in the early days of coming to Canada and just be sensitive to what others may feel if they feel marginalized. We all need to be careful to see everyone in the church as brothers and sisters in Christ first and foremost. And we are not perfect and likely will slip up at times.
I don't think most people, if they are anything like me, (which probably is a stretch)  , mind studying Mennonite history and if this survey, I mentioned before, is fairly representative of most seekers, then the name we give our churches has little impact (4 out of 100 said it had negative impact to coming to that church). |
|
|
|
| Bro Member Joined May 4, 2004 912 posts Location: Richmond B.C. |
| |
Posted Dec 6, 2007; 8:23 pm |
|
| Simply put I think we can still remember our history without needing necessarily to have it stated on our sign.Our signage does not need to point to our history.No need to over complicate the issue. |
|
|
|
| Radames Member Joined Feb 17, 2006 322 posts Location: Surrey |
| |
Posted Dec 6, 2007; 9:20 pm |
|
| Quote: | If we are going to "drop" the use of the word "Mennonite" to define ourselves "ethnically", what are we going to replace it with? How do you come up with a "new history"? That mocks the whole idea of an ongoing historical narrative, doesn't it?
Are we now going to simply develop a new theological and community history for all of us to share? What are we going to replace our former history with?
Gay Lynn Voth
|
I did not grow up a Mennonite, and it was 6 months or so after I joined Willingdon Church that I became aware that it was Mennonite (because the pastor mentioned the name during the sermon). What attracted me to the church was its solid teaching, and also because my sister was a member there before she moved out of town, so I was already familiar with the church. I do not think of Mennonites ethnically. I think of it as a denominational name (like United, Baptist, Pentecostal, etc).
A simple definition of what I think of when I think of "Mennonite" is:
Mennonite = Reformed Theology - infant baptism + pacifism + radical discipleship + church discipline.
I base the foundation on the writings of Menno Simons, who is the original "Mennonite". When I read his writings, I do not feel any "ethnicity". Everyone is welcome if they can accept the above items. Being Mennonite is about practical theology. How we live it out in our everyday lives. It does not require a lot of knowledge, but it does require a radical transformation!
If a Mennonite doesn't practice what Mennonites believe, are they a Mennonite?
Radames |
|
|
|
| Marshall Member Joined Feb 7, 2002 1191 posts Location: Langley, BC |
| |
Posted Dec 11, 2007; 12:15 pm |
|
Hi Radames. Interesting equation. I'd add one more bit to the end:
Mennonite = Reformed Theology - infant baptism + pacifism + radical discipleship
+ church discipline - Reformed Theology
More seriously, especially given Menno Simon's background, I think the starting point was closer to Catholic Theology than Reformed Theology. |
|
|
|
| Radames Member Joined Feb 17, 2006 322 posts Location: Surrey |
| |
Posted Dec 11, 2007; 1:39 pm |
|
| Quote: | | More seriously, especially given Menno Simon's background, I think the starting point was closer to Catholic Theology than Reformed Theology. |
Anabaptists did not seem to focus on systematic theology during the reformation, perhaps in keeping with:
But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless. Tit 3:9
However, there does seem to be a trend today to accept much of Reformed Theology. This is occuring at my church (one of the largest MB churches in Canada). From what I have read of Reformed Theology, much of it does seem to be pretty sound scripturally. It may go too far in trying to define things that are not provable from scripture, but in our educated society I think people (myself included) find it difficult to know how to apply:
For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 1 Cor 2:2
Whether it is good or not, there does seem to be a convergence going on between evanglicals in theology. Not all Mennonites (even pastors) hold all of the traditional distinctives. I do hold to these distinctives, not out of tradition, but because I believe them to be scripturally correct.
I based my definition on these words from the pastor of my church:
Hence, Anabaptist theology is a necessary correction to Reformed theology, a correction that includes the need for a believer's church (with baptism upon a believer's confession of faith rather than infant baptism) and radical discipleship.
Pastor John Neufeld (MB Herald Oct 2007 p11)
I also found this pamphlet from the MB Conference by John H. Redekop that talks about some differences:
http://www.mbconf.ca/believe/pamphlets/anabaptism.en.html
This article lists the key principles as:
1) A high view of the Bible.
2) Emphasis on the New Testament.
3) Emphasis on Jesus as central to all else.
4) The necessity of a believers’ church.
5) The importance of discipleship.
6) Insistence on a church without classes or divisions.
7) Belief in the church as a covenant community.
8) Separation from the world.
9) The church as a visible counterculture.
10) Belief that the gospel includes a commitment to the way of peace modelled by the Prince of Peace.
11) Commitment to servanthood.
12) Insistence on the church as a missionary church.
Radames |
|
|
|
| Marshall Member Joined Feb 7, 2002 1191 posts Location: Langley, BC |
| |
Posted Dec 11, 2007; 2:39 pm |
|
| Radames wrote: | | However, there does seem to be a trend today to accept much of Reformed Theology. This is occuring at my church (one of the largest MB churches in Canada). |
I have no doubt this is happening at your church, and to some extent, elsewhere. Another example would be the recent study conference where the keynote speaker, a Presbyterian pastor, seemed more intent on converting us to Reformed theology than any other message. I just don't see this shift as positive. But like you, I think the key is what is good and true and not merely what is traditional (though of course the two can overlap, and our understanding of the former is limited). |
|
|
|
|
|
