November 17, 2006

RESPONSE by Gareth Brandt TO
JOHN NEUFELD’S PRESENTATION

It is an honor for me to respond to John Neufeld’s excellent presentation.  I was intrigued by your personal reflections and also challenged by the implications for the present and future church.  I come as one who represents the generation in between that of our esteemed presenters and the students whom I present to on a daily basis at Columbia Bible College.  Although the presentations tonight have looked primarily to the past, my response will look primarily to the future.  In a sense I have a foot in both the world of the past and that of the future.  I teach both Anabaptist Theology and Contemporary Church courses at Columbia! I agree that historical theology is not only for the sake of information and curiosity but it should be challenging to our present and future theology and practice as well.

There is so much that could be responded to but let me choose a few items.

Congregational Life:
It is ironic that there was a “top-down” authoritarian style of leadership and preaching in the past century (I find that preaching and preaching in Mennonite churches continues to be dominated by one hired leader rather than a team of gifted people.) when the Anabaptists of the 16th century were willing to die for the idea of a priesthood of all believers.  Contemporary dialogical methods seem to be more consistent with this idea.

Christian Education/Evangelism:
It was mentioned that in the past evangelistic preaching was aimed at producing a memorable conversion experience such as that of Paul on the Damascus road.  I would concur with the evangelists that no distinction should be made [between someone who had been living in the world and many of us who grew up within the church.], but I would disagree with the evangelists about the message of the gospel.

The message of the gospel as I understand it [Kasdorf, Henry Schmidt, Lewis Rambo, Gordon Smith and others are helpful in this regard] does not necessarily call for dramatic experiences of conversion, but it calls for a life-long journey of radical discipleship that is lived out in daily obedience.  Conversion is a process of transformation and rarely a single cataclysmic event.  This gospel of continual repentance and transformation can and should be preached to those living in the world and those living in the church; there is no distinction.  Jesus said, “follow me” to the Pharisee and the publican and following takes longer than one evening at an evangelistic meeting.

Your opportunity to preach a sermon twice sounds like a good idea.  Maybe this should become common practice!  It might not only help for understanding but also for practice!

Engagement with Scripture:
Unfortunately individualistic literalism and biblicism continue their plague upon the present generation and that’s why I feel that our task as a church [and as a college] is not only to teach biblical literacy and biblical knowledge, but also to teach critical thinking skills, a communal hermeneutic and a constructive biblical theology.

Studying the Bible seriously whether in seminary, college or in groups IS dangerous, but maybe for different reasons than mentioned.  It is dangerous because we may be called to respond in obedience which might mean we have to change our lives!

Ethics and morality:
Ethics and morality have been primary struggles for the church in the last century and it shows no signs of letting up.  Homosexuality has replaced divorce and remarriage as the “hot-button” issue of our present day.  Although the issues are obviously different, it seems to me that the comments regarding how the churches dealt with divorce and remarriage might be instructive for us in our present struggle with the issue of homosexuality.  Are we open to hearing all relevant biblical texts and all voices within our congregations?  Are we responding with rigid pastoral practice or with the restorative spirit of Jesus?

One thing troubled me regarding the discussion of ethics was not about what was said, but about what was not said.  The focus seemed primarily on personal sexual ethics.  What about social ethics?  I believe that the primary moral issue for the church today is not about sexuality but about violence.  Mennonite churches struggled with this during the world wars of the past century.  The issue has become more complex but no less urgent today.  Our families, our communities and our neighbors around the world are suffering deeply.  How will the Mennonite church, as a historic peace church, stand up and be a prophetic witness against the grotesque immorality of war and violence in our age?  Will we dare to defy the culture of violence by being a model and a voice for peace?

I say “Amen!” to your conclusion.  Mennonite churches need not desire to become more culturally main-stream to be effective witnesses.  Our Amish siblings have again shown us that the most effective witness is often from the margins.  They probably did more to spread the gospel of God’s reconciling reign with their simple acts of love and forgiveness than multiple million dollar technologically superior culturally relevant evangelistic campaigns.

To your concluding texts from the prophets I add one from the Gospel of Matthew 16:18.  Whatever controversies and theological issues might challenge the church in the future, we cling to the promise of our Christ that he will build his church and the gates of death will not overcome it.