THEOLOGICAL AND ETHICAL ISSUES THE MB CHURCH FACED IN THE LAST FIFTY YEARS
The Mennonite Brethren Church has witnessed significant changes in the area of theology and ethics in the past half century. I have personally participated in the challenges, the joys, but also the frustrations in grappling with the many issues we had to confront during these decades. When I was asked to review some of the questions we dealt with during the past fifty years, I had to decide whether to make brief comments on a number of issues, or pick out two or three and go into greater detail. Rightly or wrongly I chose the former, and so I have singled out twelve questions we have dealt with in the last half century, not to mention, that we also did at least two major revisions of our Confession of Faith. Our Conference has for many years had a board of faith and life, and when a theological issue, that could affect the life of the church, came up, it was, as a rule, submitted to this board, either by provincial or national conferences, or even by individuals. This board handled these questions in different ways, but, almost without exception, brought their recommendations to our conventions. If accepted by the delegates, they became denominational policy. Without exception, when faced with a theological issue, the question was asked: What does the Bible say to this? It’s a question which those who stand in the Anabaptist tradition would be expected to ask. And that touches upon the critical question of Hermeneutics. How do we interpret the Bible? The Scriptures are unchanging, but our understanding and our application of them changes from time to time. With that as a brief introduction, let me now mention a number of
1 THE PRESERVATION OF THE BELIEVER When we first moved to Winnipeg in 1953 to join the faculty of MBBC, one of my first extra-curricular assignments was to prepare a paper on what is popularly known as “eternal security." This question was creating conflicts in our churches, and so church leaders met in Winnipeg to deal with this question--a question which is almost as old as the Christian church itself. Going back to Augustine in the 4th century, John Calvin a great advocate of this doctrine in the 16th century. lt was clearly spelled out in the Westminster Confession in the 17th century: “They whom God has accepted in the Beloved, effectually called and sanctified by his Spirit, can neither totally or finally fall away from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved." However, already in the 16th century Jacob Arminius and others rejected this rather one-sided reading of the scriptures, for the NT contains not only words of assurance(but also warnings against falling from the faith. Both Calvinists and the followers of Arminius claimed to have scripture on their side, and to this day, entire denominations have opted for either one of these positions. Mennonites, by and large, have tended to lean more toward Arminianism than Calvinism, but have never really identified fully with either position. In their attempt to be biblical they have insisted that both the passages that assure us of God’s keeping power, as well as the warnings against falling from the faith, must be taken seriously. Sometimes believers need to be assured that the one who began the good work in them will complete it on the day of Jesus Christ, as Paul puts it in Philippians. But if we read on in Philippians 2, we hear him exhort the readers to work out their salvation with fear and trembling. And so the consensus of our leaders at that consultation was, that we must take seriously both the assurances as weIl as the warnings. Not everyone was willing to accept that approach, but the controversy subsided. The question still comes up occasionally in Bible study sessions, but it is no longer a divisive issue. 11. ESCHATOLOGY At the beginning of the 2Oth century sorne of our leaders in South Russia used to attend prophetic conferences in Blankenburg, Germany. Here the teachings of a leading Plymouth Brethren, John Darby, regarding end-times were in vogue, and some of our leaders brought this method of reading the Bible back to Russia and then to Canada. In North America Darby's teachings had already spread, and were popularized by C.I. Scofield who published a KJV with Darby's notes in the margin --- notes which became almost as inspired as the biblical text. Among other things, Darby taught that Christ had come to establish the kingdom of Israel. However, Israel rejected him as Messiah, and so God brought in the church age, as a kind of parenthesis in his saving plans. Once the church is raptured, God will then return to his earlier plan of restoring national Israel. And so when in 1948 the modern state of Israel was established, speculations about end-times began to flourish. Without going into other details of this kind of interpretation, known as Dispensationalism, let me just say, (he MB's were strongly influenced by this hermeneutic, and until about the 1950's this method of reading the Bible was widely practiced in churches and in our Bible schools. However, there were those who challenged this approach1and that often led to acrimonious debates. A study conference was convened in Fresno in the late 70's, attended by delegates from all over Canada and the USA. Questions such as: How do we understand end-times were discussed. Is it legitimate to use the signs of the times, mentioned in the NT, to predict the imminence of the end of the age? Where is there a reference to a 7-year tribulation, following the rapture? Is it legitimate to divide Christ's coming into two events-- his coming for the saints and his coming with the saints? What do we know about the nature of the millennium, mentioned only in one chapter in the NT (Rev 20). Where does Antichrist fit into this scheme of things? But the most sensitive issue was: what does the future hold for national Israel? As you can imaginr, we had enough material to discuss and debate. The controversy did not immediately die down, and since I taught NT Theology at our seminary during those years, I was repeatedly attacked for not teaching seminarians the dispensationalist method of reading the Bible. I still have a file of rather vitriolic letters. Today, however, our Bible teachers in our schools no longer espouse the teachings of John Darby. Rather, the emphasis is put on the unity of God's plan of salvation, and that the true people of God are those who have the faith of Abraham, be they Jews or Gentiles, all of them looking forward to the return of the Savior from heaven at the end of the present age. 111. THE CHARISMATIC MOVEMENT The Pentecostal movement had its beginnings in 1901 in the Asuza Street Mission in Los Angeles, following an outburst of glossolalia in a Bible school in Topeka, KS. A fundamental plank in classical Pentecostalism, as well as in many other charismatic churches, is, that believers should experience a second work of grace, beyond conversion. This second work of grace is called “the baptism of the Spirit." And the sign that one has experienced this baptism, is the ability to speak in tongues. In the first half of the 2Oth century the MB church gave this movement a rather wide berth; some leaders even condemned it as a heresy. But that changed about the middle of the century, when this movement began to influence some of our churches. We look the position that the NT nowhere speaks of a second work of grace, and that the expression, “baptism with the Spirit" refers to the beginning of the Christian life, when believers are baptized into the body of Christ (1 Cor 12: i3), at the time of their conversion. Moreover, Paul makes it clear that the gift of tongues is not given to every believer. Also, we were troubled by the exaggerated claims of divine healing,
even though we agreed that God did in fact heal in miraculous ways at limes. Those
who had experienced the second blessing tended toward spiritual elitism
which divided believers into haves and have-nots, something contrary to
the NT concept of the church. Some even claimed to have the gift of prophecy
in the primary sense of that word, and were receiving direct messages from
God. In California there was a group that called itself the Acts 29 group,
adding a chapter to the canonical Acts.
IV THE CREATION ACCOUNT AND MODERN SCIENCE With the establishment of Mennonite high schools and Christian liberal arts colleges, such as Tabor and Pacific, science teachers often faced a dilemma: the biology text-books used in the public schools, for example, were written from the standpoint of Darwinian evolutionary theory. Some MB parents, as well as church leaders, felt uneasy about the kind of teaching our young people were being exposed to. And so the leadership of our conference arranged for a convention iii the 1960's, held at Tabor College, Hillsboro, KS, to which both pastors and science teachers, as well as biblical scholars, were invited. Over a three-day period, study papers, which had been given to the delegates in advance, were presented and debated. It was assumed that the God of creation and the God of the Bible are the same God, and that the Genesis account, if understood correctly, should not be viewed as standing in opposition to discoveries of scientists. It was recognized that the Bible is not a text-book on biology, geology, or astronomy, but is a history of salvation, and the Genesis account sets the stage for this story. Also, it was agreed that the age of this earth cannot be established on the basis of the genealogies of Genesis. The Irish bishop Ussher in the 17th century tried this and came up with the date of creation as 4004 B.C. Evangelicals today generally accept the fact that this universe, including our planet, is very old. G. Campbell Morgan of London probably spoke for them when he said, it didn't matter to him how old the earth was, as long as we put God where Genesis puts him: “in the beginning." People of faith need not fear the discoveries made by scientists in this marvelous universe, created and sustained by God. However, they reject all atheistic or polytheistic cosmogonies. They can say with the Psalmist, “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament proclaims his handiwork." V. WATER BAPTISM From the beginning of the church on the day of Pentecost and throughout the apostolic age, water baptism was the rite by which believers were initiated into the Christian community With the introduction of infant baptism in the late 2nd century, a practice which eventually became the norm in both western as well as the eastern church the NT concept of believers' baptism was eroded. Our Anabaptist forbears in the 16th century (resurrected this NT concept once again) and thereby provoked the wrath, not only of the Medieval Church but also of the mainline Reformation churches. The mode of baptism in Anabaptist churches was that of effusion, i.e., pouring or sprinkling. However, when the MB Church was founded in 1860, it adopted immersion as its mode of baptism, creating great controversy within the wider Mennonite community. This form of baptism was taken so seriously by Mennonite Brethren, who zeroed in on Rom 6, where Paul speaks of being buried with Christ in baptism and rising to a new life, that they would not accept believers into membership, if they had been baptized by any other mode than immersion. After a hundred years, it was recognized that one form of baptism alone cannot express the rich theology of Christian baptism. And so steps were taken to open up membership to believers who had been baptized by a mode other than immersion. At a bi-national convention in Corn, Oklahoma, it was agreed, that local congregations should have the freedom to receive such persons into membership. However, such members would not necessarily have the right to transfer freely to congregations, that were not yet open to such a move. Then in 1972, when the convention was held in Reedley, CA, this restriction was dropped and non-immersed believers could now transfer freely from one congregation to another. However, this did not apply to those who had been baptized as infants, and who later became believers. More recently there has been some controversy within the MB Church on the question of baptism and church membership, and a study conference in Winnipeg, convened by the Board of Faith and Life, gave this issue an airing. The recommendation was that we must retain the linkage between baptism and church membership, in order to be true to NT and early church practice. VI. HOMOSEXUALITY This topic was never discussed publicly in our churches or conventions prior to the 60's. By then it had become a critical issue in our secular society. This called for a careful examination of the biblical texts that speak to this topic. Our biblical scholars were asked to make presentations to the board of faith and life. Meanwhile several inter-Mennonite conferences were held in which MB representatives participated (I remember attending two such conventions--one in Chicago, the other in Anaheim). A resolution was finally brought forward at our bi-national convention in the early eighties meeting in St. Catharines, at which it was agreed, that however one might explain homosexual leanings of some church members, our denomination could not condone a homosexual life-style. This meant that individual members, or congregations, who endorsed homosexual practices, would be asked to leave the MB Church. Nevertheless, where there was repentance and a genuine desire to live a chaste life, just as this was expected of heterosexuals, the chureh was ready to offer love and pastoral care. VII. THE PASTORAL MINISTRY OF WOMEN The teaching/preaching ministry (other than Sunday School teaching) was the domain of men in the first hundred years of MB history, as it was in most denominations during that period. However in the 60's, voices were raised, calling for greater openness in this area of church life. Biblical scholars were asked to examine once again the relevant NT passages, to see whether our long established practice squared with the scriptures. Most Bible readers were familiar with the texts that seem to put restrictions on women with respect to pastoral ministries, but had perhaps not paid sufficient attention to the new freedom offered to women in the gospel. Several conferences were held at which this topic was discussed. One
of these was held in Vancouver in 1974. Out of that came a recommendation
to our bi-national convention in the early 80's that women should be encouraged
to serve in any area of church life, assuming they were able and willing.
This might include Bible teaching, pastoral work, and other church services.
There was however one restriction: they were not to serve as lead pastors
of congregations. This position was re-affirmed in 1999 at the general
conference in Wichita, Ks. The hermeneutics behind that resolution was
this: when the scriptures seem to point in two different directions, it
is not proper to choose one or the other emphasis alone; both have to be
taken into account. This was our position for the past 30 years.
The biblical rationale for dropping all former restrictions, was based on the view that the restrictive passages of the NT were culturally determined. Also, it was felt that the new freedom which the gospel offered the Christian woman, pointed beyond the NT to the day when it would be quite acceptable for women to serve in leadership positions. VIII. THE INERRANCY OF SCRIPTURE In the 1970s there was a huge debate in some denominations on this question, provoked in part by the writings of Harold Lindsell (The Battle for the Bible, The Bible in the Balance). As a result, pressure was put on our theological faculties to join this battle and champion the inerrancy of the Bible. Professors in our schools had no great problem, confessing that the scriptures were entirely trustworthy. Also, they recognized that this topic had been debated many times in history, although the vocabulary varied. Sometimes it was the infallibility of the Bible, next time its plenary inspiration, and now it was its inerrancy. Some of our Bible teachers wondered whether the emphasis on inerrancy was not misplaced, since it was easier to confess one's faith in the inerrancy of the Bible, than to live under its authority. Our Board of Faith and Life took up the matter and we formulated a recommendation that was accepted by the bi-national convention, meeting here in Abbotsford in the mid 80's. The gist of it was, that we should not get hung up on definitions of inspiration, but rather that believers should be challenged to live their lives under the authority of the word of God. IX. ABORTION The cruel practice of terminating life in the womb had not been on our conference agendas until the 1960s. Today it hangs like a curse over our society, and our conference leadership was challenged to formulate a policy on this matter. Its another example of the world setting the agenda for the church, for in our churches this was no big issue. However, the Board of Faith and Life put it on its agenda for a study conference. After receiving input from those who had studied this issue, it was agreed that abortion was not an option for members of our churches, with possibly one exception: when the mother's life was in danger. (This decision was made at the bi-national convention in Reedley, CA, and delegates from our conference in India objected even to that exception.) Our latest edition of our Confession of Faith puts it this way: “Ultimate decisions regarding life and death belong to God. Therefore, we hold that procedures designed to take life, including abortion, euthanasia and assisted suicide, are an affront to God's sovereignty." X. DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE There always was general agreement in our churches that divorce was a tragedy and that it was not condoned by scripture. In the first hundred years of MB history there were relatively few marriage breakups, but by the middle of the 20th century, it was happening more frequently1 that marriages of church members were ending in divorce. Those who focused entirely on Jesus' sayings about divorce, tended to hold to the view (that divorce and membership in the church were incompatible. There were those who, in light of the exception clause (Matthew 5) thought divorce was allowed, where marital infidelity had occurred. But even in such cases some of our leaders thought, membership in the church should be denied. Closely linked with the question of divorce was that of re-marriage after divorce. Did the church have a place for such members? There were some leaders, however, who took a somewhat different approach. Arguing from the good news of the gospel as a whole, in which sinners are offered forgiveness and restoration, they felt that the church should accept divorced members. Consultations were held on this question over a period of years. The basic question was: can we uphold the sanctity of the marriage covenant, on the one hand, and offer forgiveness and a new beginning to those whose marriages have failed on the other hand? We summarized what we thought was in the spirit of the gospel in our 1999 Confession of Faith, in this way: “Human sinfulness may sometimes lead to divorce, a violation of God's intention for marriage. With truth and compassion the family of God offers hope and healing while continually upholding the biblical ideal of marital faithfulness." This was accepted by our conference as MB policy. It would not have been accepted 50 years ago, and that raises the question: how can a denomination change its position when the scriptures haven’t changed? All I can say here is that our generation wanted to be faithful to the scriptures, just as former generations did. But when new problems arise, and new perspectives for understanding scripture are offered, such changes are often made in the Christian community, hopefully always under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. XII. SPIRITUAL WARFARE: It seems a bit ironic that our society, which tends to worship at the shrine of science, and is skeptical about things that lie beyond the realm of the visible, should at the same time have developed a fascination with the occult, magic, astrology, horoscopes, Ouija boards and the entire realm of the demonic. Although the church has always taken seriously the teaching of the Bible on Satan and his host, and has at least given lip-service to the reality of demonic powers at work in our society, some members of the MB church have more recently taken renewed interest in the principalities and powers with which we have to contend. When I was still on the faculty of our seminary in Fresno, I was invited to visit some Canadian churches. After preaching in one of the Saskatchewan churches, I was invited for lunch by a couple, that promptly informed me, that they had a room in their house exorcised of demons recently, and they wanted to know whether our seminary offered a course on exorcism. The seminary did have a course on what was called “spiritual warfare” with lecturers from different denominations making presentations. Also, the Board of Faith and Life asked several of our biblical scholars to write papers on the topic. It was obvious that NT books take the presence of supernatural evil powers seriously. However, it was felt that a preoccupation with the power of the demonic in daily life, could also play into Satan's hands. Also, there was the danger of blaming all of our ethical failures on the devil, and become less accountable personally for transgressions. On the other hand, if we minimize the power of the demonic, we will not be able to explain the monstrous evils that are perpetrated from time to time in our presumably sophisticated society. Although we are exhorted to be on guard against the evil one, we also have the assurance that Christ has broken Satan's power, and that we can live without fear, for, as John writes, the one in us is greater than the one in the world. The Canadian Board of Faith and Life took up this question once more, and brought a recommendation to our Canadian Conference along the lines that I have just suggested. As you can see from the 12 issues that I have mentioned, we have come through a rather stormy half century. Dealing with these theological and ethical problems is also part of spiritual warfare. Although we tried to remain faithful to the scriptures, I will not claim that we always got it right, or that these issues have all been finally resolved. We don't know what the 2lst century holds for our churches, but we can move forward without fear, encouraged by the promise of Jesus, “I will build my church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it." David Ewert
|