 |
|
| Which statment do you most identify with? |
| I am 100% Evangelical |
25% |
   |
| I am 75% Evangelical and 25% Mennonite |
0% |
|
| I am 50% Evangelical and 50% Mennonite |
0% |
|
| I am 25% Evangelical and 75% Mennonite |
25% |
|
| I am 100% Mennonite |
50% |
|
| Total Votes: 4 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| ntoews Member Joined Feb 28, 2009 5 posts Location: Vancouver |
 Evangelicalism and the Mennonite Brethren |
Posted Feb 8, 2010; 9:46 pm |
|
Hi everybody
I am writing a paper for one of my Prof.'s on Evangelicalism and the Mennonite Brethren and I wanted to get an idea of what people within the church thought. I have surveyed the forum to see if I could find any threads on the relationship between Evangelicals and Mennonite Brethren and have not had very much success. The topics I have found either, assumed that we are Evangelical with no questions asked or focused upon whether or not Mennonites are evangelistic (i.e. do they evangelize non-Christians), which is an aspect of Evangelicalism but not its entirety. The definition of Evangelicalism that I am working with is D. W. Bebbington's four principles: 1. Conversionism, 2. Christocentric, 3. High view of the Bible, and 4. Activism. The Mennonite Brethren hold these principles as stated in the confession of faith, however are they based on the Mennonite Tradition or on Evangelical influences? If they are based on a historical connection (i.e. so-and-so Baptist came to town and preached and changed the way we think) to Evangelicalism then when were they introduced and how do you think this has impacted Mennonite identity? Should Mennonites feel comfortable being defined as Evangelical? If the four principles originate within the Mennonite Tradition then why do we identify ourselves as Evangelicals rather than the other way around or simply maintain ourselves a distinct? These are all just preliminary questions and I am happy to hear whatever people think is important to add to the conversation.
P.S. A difficulty with this question is the fluidity with which we define being a Mennonite but that seems to be the nature of Anabaptism  |
|
|
|
| lornewel Member Joined May 11, 2004 568 posts Location: Abbotsford |
| |
Posted Feb 9, 2010; 10:05 am |
|
I notice the poll has no category for "I am 100% Evangelical and 100% Mennonite" which is my guess about a lot of my fellow MBs. I don't think in my own mind I would fit that either, as I am not ethnically GDR, which might contribute to being 100% Mennonite. But I am, for example, 100% male and 100% caucasian and 100% Canadian and 100% Christian all at the same time. Evangelicalism seems to me to include many different "denominations" from many historical backgrounds, e.g Plymouth Brethren, some Anglicans. German Baptists, a variety of charismatics. It does not seems to include many strains of traditional Mennonites, but at least in Western Canada, it seems to me most MBs are pretty squarely Evangelicals. MBs may have some other distinctives, like non-resistance, but other evangelical "brands" also have their distinctives like everything from "you must speak in tongues if you are filled with the Holy Spirit" to "if you speak in tongues you are deceived by the devil."
So, IMO. asking MBs whether they are evangelical OR Mennonite is a false dichotomy. Historically, the MBs split from the old Mennonites so that they could, if you will, be both. |
|
|
|
| Sudsy Member Joined Sep 23, 2003 2902 posts |
| |
Posted Feb 9, 2010; 11:30 am |
|
| Quote: | | These are all just preliminary questions and I am happy to hear whatever people think is important to add to the conversation. |
OK and I'll give my 'whatever' and see if you can maintain your happiness with it. 
Since my home church is an MB church and I am not an ethnic Mennonite, I found your poll not really representing what I might regard myself. I have Evangelical, Anabaptist and Mennonite beliefs but especially have trouble with the label 'Mennonite' as it still carries an ethnic perception by some of my acquaintances that is a problem for them.
However, I do have background in other Christian faith groups that are more evangelical than liberal Protestant groups. In my opinion, MBs, in general, are basically neither left or right but quite central when it comes to evangelicalism.
Regarding these 4 areas: (my opinions)
1. Conversionism - to some extent the idea of needing to be 'born again' is still preached in my church however, I don't see the expectation of radical, supernatural changed behaviour as it is in some other evangelicals. The tendency, IMO, is toward people bettering or transforming themselves through good works and humanistic disciplines/techniques. Perhaps part of this is due to the bulk of MBs being raised in Christian homes and if their MB church was not proselytizing non-Mennonites, then radical lifestyle change was not as evident and therefore not anticipated. I grew up in a church where the norm was radical conversion experiences and was anticipated on-going. I think local MB churches may differ on their expectations on what it means to be 'born again' depending on what degree they have reached out to unchurched unbelievers. So, conversionism views on what is expected to occur in being born again probably varies with each local church and the degree they are internal or external focused communities.
2. Christocentric - I think this is a very Anabaptist traditional emphasis and yet certain teachings of Christ are interpreted quite differently by some modern MBs. There seems to be more emphasis today on the social and environmental concerns for life than the soul saving concern and the interpretation of being like Christ seems more on what you do than who you are. Yet, I think MBs are still keen on discipleship training. However, the example of Christ being more involved where sinners live is not as emphasized as being part of a community that has more of an internal focus. But it seems a new younger group of MBs are seeing this need to live amongst those who are the real needy. So, IMO, MBs rate pretty high in Christocentric emphasis compared to some others in evangelicalism.
3. High view of the Bible - hmmm, biblical authority may be stated as accepted but in practise, I don't see as much reading and meditating by MBs as I have in other evangelical groups. I don't think many have agreed that spiritual growth, direction and joyful living is very related to reading and meditating on the scriptures. It often sounds to me like the emphasis is more on understanding what was said historically under a certain circumstance and less of what this may mean to us today. This may be because so much applied today by some is taken out of original context yet it seems that application of truths are not as emphasized as knowing why something was said to whom and treating the scriptures more as a history book. Today, there are some that appear to see the need to interpret certain scriptures in a way that gives distinctiveness to an Anabaptist view from other views. A move from less application and more doctrinal distinction is, IMO, not a high view of the Bible but a high view of our interpretation of it.
4. Activism - although our local church has participated in things like a parade against same sex marriage, in general, I don't see much yet in greater community involvement. Probably much more involved than in the past, very closed believer community but still more laissez-faire in this area. This is OK for my preference, as I am not a believer that our focus is to be in much social, political or environmental activism. However, I do think the younger generation has a more involved view in this area. To some extent I agree that we have not been as involved as we should be in temporal concerns yet on the other hand, our main mission is to point people to living in another Kingdom and not trying to change the one they live in here on earth through reforms.
In general, I don't think maintaining a 'Mennonite' identity is a good thing. I say this because I know how it affects some of my non-ethnic, unbelieving acquaintances. And whether I am labelled an 'Evangelical' or an 'Anabaptist' means very little and I would much rather be labelled a true follower of Christ. I think Paul made that point in scripture that we should 'knock it off' with these other labels. IMO, we need to be studying what it will take to get back to being recognized, first and foremost as followers of Christ than any other label. Our lights are to shine in away that bring glory to God and Him alone. |
|
|
|
| McDLT Moderator Joined May 14, 2004 1451 posts Location: Toronto |
| |
Posted Feb 9, 2010; 9:14 pm |
|
I must say that I don't really fit into either of the categories. I am not ethnically Mennonite, Mennonite Brethren, et al. But do tend to lean to a more Anabaptist side of things rather than Evangelical. At one time I probably was more Evangelical than Anabaptist but as I learned more about God I've embraced a more Anabaptist approach to faith and life. And as I continue on my journey, I'm finding that those types of labels aren't helping me define who I am in Jesus anymore.
As always I hope this makes sense. |
|
|
|
| ntoews Member Joined Feb 28, 2009 5 posts Location: Vancouver |
| |
Posted Feb 9, 2010; 10:37 pm |
|
Thanks for responding I find your answers very informative. It seems to me that all of you have difficulty with the labels, which is understandable since they are taxonomies and don't necessarily represent anyone perfectly. First, lornewel I should have included an option for 100% for both, oops on my part :) In response to the difficulty with the dichotomy of the two labels it was not my intention to place them in conflict with one another. Though I do think they are two distinct identity markers which have different weight within our own experiences. It is true you can be 100% Canadian and 100% Caucasian however these are categorically different. I wonder whether Evangelicalism is categorically different from Mennonite tradition and therefore needs to be clarified in order for us to understand our denomination better?
Sudsy I think I can maintain my happiness with your response though I think we may disagree on some points. I really appreciate the depth you went into on the four points I listed. I found it very interesting that you identified the distinctions that the MB church makes within the paradigm of Evangelicalism. In terms of the usefulness of the Mennonite identity over against labeling ourselves as Christians I think we often make the mistake of getting the priority of the two mixed up. Christian is the broader definition, which encompasses the smaller identity of Mennonite. Therefore a Mennonite, a Protestant and a Catholic are all labeled Christian however they are dramatically different expressions of the faith. The reason why I think discussing whether or not we are Evangelical and why is to determine whether or not we are Evangelicals with Mennonite distinctives or Mennonites with Evangelical distinctives. Though the differences may be subtle I think it will help us in the future as a denomination (whether that means dropping the Mennonite name or not). |
|
|
|
| Len Member Joined Nov 7, 2007 255 posts Location: Kelowna, BC |
| labels, taxonomies |
Posted Feb 10, 2010; 12:02 pm |
|
These days "Christian" is also contested territory.. having come to mean many things that I don't identify with. Historically, given the Christendom context we were all raised in that is now dying, Mennonites would have protested such a label given the hegemony of the state and the legacy of Constantine.
Here is a YOUTUBE cliip of a wrestle with the term "Christian."
http://kathyescobar.com/
I resonate with the desire to identify as an Anabaptist but can't identify with the cultural history of Mennonites.
If I had to find a label I would borrow the one David Fitch uses "neo-Anabaptist."
Evangelical.. no thanks.. though I might agree to "post-Ev." Michael Spencer is at least partly right
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2009/0310/p09s01-coop.html
These days there are so many streams flowing together it's difficult to find a place to sit. |
|
|
|
| Ryan Member Joined Jul 22, 2008 32 posts Location: Nanaimo, BC |
| |
Posted Feb 10, 2010; 12:18 pm |
|
Thanks for the interesting discussion, Nick! I find myself in agreement with much that has already been said here. There are elements of both "evangelical" and "Mennonite" (or at least what these terms tend to connote) that make me not want to place my eggs in either basket (although I find "Mennonite" way more appealing). For me, the word "evangelical" comes with far too much negative freight for it to be one that I embrace. I resonate with this quote from David Wells' The Courage to be Protestant:
| Quote: | | There have been just too many instances of obnoxious empire-building going on, too much in evangelicalism that is partisan and small, too much pandering to seekers, and too much adaptation of the Christian message until little remains. Too many of its leaders have been disgraced. There have been too many venal television preachers. There are too many of the born-again who show no signs of regenerate life. For many people, the word “evangelical” has become a synonym for what is trite, superficial, and moneygrubbing, a byword for what has gone wrong with Protestantism. Those who still think of themselves as being in the tradition of historic Christian faith, as I do, may therefore want to consider whether the term “evangelical” has not outlived its usefulness. Despite its honorable pedigree, despite its many outstanding leaders both past and some in the present, and despite the many genuine and upright believers who still think of themselves as evangelical, it may now have to be abandoned. If not evangelical, what?…If the word “evangelical” has outlived its usefulness, what is the alternative? Here, I am flummoxed. My own labels are too ponderous to be used widely. I am reaching out for help… I am nevertheless going to think of myself as a biblical Christian first and foremost, as in continuity with Christians across the ages who have believed the same truth and followed the same Lord.” |
|
|
|
|
| dwark Member Joined Feb 8, 2008 43 posts Location: Port Coquitlam, BC |
| theological centre |
Posted Feb 10, 2010; 4:04 pm |
|
Hey Nick, great topic - one which as I'm sure you've seen in your research has been relevant for quite some time, but never resolved (and perhaps shouldn't be?).
I like how you frame the issue here:
| Quote: | | The reason why I think discussing whether or not we are Evangelical and why is to determine whether or not we are Evangelicals with Mennonite distinctives or Mennonites with Evangelical distinctives. |
I think the issue is what defines us as MB's - what's our theological center? As the responses already illustrate, there is much diversity. Beyond the simplistic, "the Bible is our center," it seems individuals and churches are left to pick whatever theological center appeals to them, be it Mennonite, Anabaptist, Evangelical, or even Reformed. Hence the diversity of MB's worldwide.
Personally, I think MB's (individuals and churches) should firstly identify with our MB Confession of Faith - even if that means holding certain beliefs in tension. Other influences from Evangelicalism such as the charismatic movement or Reformed theology should be interpreted/accepted through the grid of our MB confession. Based on the theological diversity of our MB conference, however, I'm not sure all would agree. |
|
|
|
| McDLT Moderator Joined May 14, 2004 1451 posts Location: Toronto |
| Re: labels, taxonomies |
Posted Feb 10, 2010; 6:20 pm |
|
| Len wrote: | I resonate with the desire to identify as an Anabaptist but can't identify with the cultural history of Mennonites.
If I had to find a label I would borrow the one David Fitch uses "neo-Anabaptist." |
This is where I'd say I'm at too.
As to the Evangelical Mennonite or the Mennonite Evangelical, I do see the subtlety and must say that I see more of an Evangelicalism with Mennonite distinctions. Which saddens me a bit because I think something gets lost when there is too much focus on one thing. I guess a lot does come down to how the word "Evangelical" is defined. |
|
|
|
| ntoews Member Joined Feb 28, 2009 5 posts Location: Vancouver |
| Summary |
Posted Feb 10, 2010; 8:36 pm |
|
I would like to summarize what I think I have heard.
There is a general dissatisfaction with either being labeled Evangelical or Mennonite or both. These range from the negative connotations from historic events that the definitions hold or simply not identifying with the definitions. In general the responses have centered around a desire for better labels and definitions. As expressed in the quote Ryan offered there is a tension with the need to redefine ourselves and the lack of words to do it. Do you think this summary is fair? What would you add? |
|
|
|
| Neto Member Joined Feb 2, 2005 288 posts Location: Holmes County, Ohio |
| An outsider's view |
Posted Feb 11, 2010; 8:21 am |
|
| ntoews wrote: | | … and I wanted to get an idea of what people within the church thought. |
A view from the outside.
As a former insider ("ethnic" Mennonite from an MB congregation) and now an outsider (ethnic Dutch Mennonite but no longer MB), I wonder how "Mennonite" the Mennonite Brethren are, if at all. I remember a lot of resentment toward being associated with other Mennonites (people like me now). The older people bristled when our MB church was called simply "Mennonite" - "We are not Mennonite, we are Mennonite Brethren!" they exclaimed.
As a Mennonite Brethren child I was taught personal pacifism - to not fight back on the playground, etc, but absolutely nothing was ever taught about participation in war efforts. When I became politically pacifist it was more from hippie influence than from traditional Anabaptism. (It eventually brought me there, but it was a long journey, a long way home.) I have almost no exposure to MBs anymore - just when I visit my parents - I live in an area of the US where there are no MBs - but it is my impression that if MBs are pacifists at all, they are pacifist activists, not non-resistant. The distinction I'm trying to make here is what I went through myself, first wanting to "change my nation and my world" so that peace is chosen, by "legal (legislated) force" if necessary. On to becoming non-resistant in the historical Anabaptist sense, with a belief that to join the kingdom of God automatically means that I am a foreigner (illegal alien, if you will) in my nation of residence. A denizen, not a citizen.
The term “Evangelical” has a lot of different uses – I recall once years ago (in the 70’s, I believe) when Christianity Today ran an article which gave the assumed definition of the term when it came into common use – I unfortunately cannot recall the different points of the definition, but I remember thinking for the first time that “I am not an Evangelical.” (Same with "fundamentalist"....)
| Quote: | | ….four principles: 1. Conversionism, 2. Christocentric, 3. High view of the Bible, and 4. Activism. |
Reading through the writings of Menno Simons or Dietrich Philip, I believe you will find all of these elements of faith mentioned over and over, with the exception of the last, Activism.
Baptism for believers only, the church as a homogeneous group dedicated to living like Christ, rather than the ‘church within the church” philosophy of the state churches.
Scripture over (church) tradition, or any word of man. Careful avoidance of adding to the teaching of the scripture, whether by a pope, or by a theologian constructing a systematic theology.
Interestingly, Activism was also not common in “Evangelical” churches until the “Moral Majority” and the “Radical Right” rose up. Gospel expression in areas of social concern was left to the “Main-liners” and the “Liberal Mennonites” – people who either did not understand salvation, or were at least perceived that way. Like the changes one can observe in the objectives of Focus on the Family, which used to be dedicated to building Christian families, until it got side tracked into trying to legislate Christian family values. |
|
|
|
| Sudsy Member Joined Sep 23, 2003 2902 posts |
| |
Posted Feb 11, 2010; 10:00 am |
|
| Quote: | | In general the responses have centered around a desire for better labels and definitions. As expressed in the quote Ryan offered there is a tension with the need to redefine ourselves and the lack of words to do it. Do you think this summary is fair? What would you add? |
For me, the question is about what the motivation is to have labels other than being labelled by unbelievers as Christ followers. I guess I see more benefit in majoring more on our unity within the church of Christ than on our distinctiveness. As far as I can see in scripture the church was identified geographically only and it's distinctions, as seen in the early chapters in the Revelation, were issues within a local church. Actually, if anything, I think scripture really opposes these 'other labels' that man has come up with. When the early church was identifying themselves with being followers of Appollos or Cephas, Paul rebuked them. But the church in history did not follow these teachings and took on other labels of men such as Menno, Luther, Wesley, etc. They even went so far as killing fellow believers from other Christian faith views that they deemed heretical. What is God thinking about all this ? Is this what He desired or what man chose ?
There also seems to be a trend to put much effort into defining what it means to be 'post' this or 'neo' that or whatever. I was raised to think being anything but a Pentecostal was a step down and I don't doubt that other faith groups also had an elite attitude about their label. Seems labels can carry this eliteness attitude with them. Many still today seek to have these definitions mainly to not be associated with other Christians. We might concede that God makes them His adopted children but we want the world to know that we are not like them in various beliefs and often, in a sense, that we are 'most correct' which is, IMO, an elite attitude.
I look forward to the day when all labels will disappear. As Kingdom people, why would we not want to live as much now as it will be after we leave this world ? As Neto says, and I so agree, we are aliens and strangers here. It is Jesus we are to point people to receive. I want to be around those who focus on this rather than what label my beliefs are most represented by. I want to embrace my fellow believers in these various denominations and keep certain secondary distinctions in the background. I like the idea of coalitions for the greater cause yet I think they too can get an elite attitude. God hates pride and gives His grace to the humble. I don't think there is any handle that could be put on my beliefs but thats OK with me, I don't need one or want one. |
|
|
|
| James Toews Member Joined Mar 31, 2006 405 posts |
| Labels |
Posted Feb 11, 2010; 12:40 pm |
|
| So "Sudsy" is that why you go by that label rather than your given names? :) |
|
|
|
| Sudsy Member Joined Sep 23, 2003 2902 posts |
| |
Posted Feb 11, 2010; 2:29 pm |
|
It's just shorter. My real last name is 'Sudds'. I remember the first time I entered an MB church and people tried to sort out how my background could be Mennonite. I got some funny looks when I said it was really of a 'Limey' origin. However, sometimes it is mis-leading to some people who associate this nickname with being a heavy beer drinker.
Speaking of names, James, and that is my first name also, I get confused on how to say your last name. I had an MB school teacher that pronounced it 'Taves' and I played hockey with another Mennonite buddy that pronounced it 'Toes'. Is this just the difference in original language pronunciation ? I think I've slipped up a few times using it the wrong way in speaking of someone with last name 'Toews'. The only question I get with my last name is whether it has 2 'd's or one. |
|
|
|
| James Toews Member Joined Mar 31, 2006 405 posts |
| Off Topic- But Not |
Posted Feb 11, 2010; 3:49 pm |
|
Hi Sudsy. Thanks for the explanation.
I go by "Taves" and consider "Toes" to be a capitulation :) I would go into the history but it is as lot easier sticking to my guns now that there is a fine young Chicago Blackhawks hockey player of this lineage to identity with. On the other hand when the reputation of a Conservative MB from Manitoba, with that pronunciation rises and falls- it isn't as fun.
Long and short- we are going to be called something. It's better if it makes sense- unlike "Taves" :) |
|
|
|
|
|
