November 17, 2006

Response by Bruce L. Guenther to
“Theological and Ethical Issues The MB Church Faced in the Last Fifty Years” by David Ewert

It wasn’t very long ago when David Ewert offered a short response to my presentation at an event such as this. On that occasion, as on so many other occasions including tonight, I have appreciated his insights.

First, I’d like to express my appreciation for the gracious encouragement that he has offered to younger Mennonite Brethren scholars in general, and to me in particular. The support, encouragement and hospitality Lois and I experienced from both David and Lena when we arrived in BC eight years ago to be part of the start up of MBBS-ACTS was much appreciated.

Second, I want to acknowledge David’s role in shaping and directing the MB response to many of the issues he has highlighted. His personal experience offers a tremendous foundation from which to offer his overview. He modestly understates the influence he exercised as a professor at both MBBC and MBBS, as a biblical scholar, and as a devoted and godly churchman. It is important to note too that at times, he defended theological positions at considerable personal cost – and if the more public letters to the editor in the MB Herald are any indication, then I can only imagine all the wonderfully creative ways in which some concerned MBs might have tried to express their brotherly love in the private letters you received from time to time!  I would be remiss not to include your wife Lena in this acknowledgment, whose labour in running the household made it possible for David to pour his energy into fulfilling a more public calling.

Now to the presentation itself: Time is always a severe limitation in these kind of presentations – the subject is so enormous that it simply impossible to include mention of everything. As a result, it’s always easy to criticize a presentation for what was NOT said. I don’t want my remarks to be understood in this way. I’ll comment on a number of the issues mentioned by David Ewert , and then identify several lines of inquiry that would be productive to pursue in order to augment the list already provided.

First, he appropriately begins by highlighting how the MBs, at their best, tended to start their theological deliberations by asking, “What does the Bible say?” This is consistent with the MB description of themselves as “people of the book.” Dr. Ewert’s presentation repeatedly exemplified this priority. But as David  also noted at several points, the MBs have occasionally changed their mind on some matters: as he put it in his comment regarding divorce and remarriage, “how can a denomination change its position, when the scriptures haven’t changed?” I readily accept his observation that our generation wants to be as faithful to the scriptures as did the former generations. So if the scriptures haven’t changed, and the motivation to understand and obey the scriptures hasn’t changed, what has? I would suggest that a deeper understanding of the changes within MB hermeneutics, that is, the way in which MBs read the Bible, are as important in understanding theological transitions among MBs as naming the specific issues themselves. The philosophical shifts that make up what is sometimes called postmodernism are partly responsible for this. Among other things, it has become abundantly clear that scripture is not read in a vacuum, and that culture shapes the methods we use for interpreting the biblical text. These cultural influences need to be identified and examined.

Second, I was struck by the frequency with which David Ewert referred to decisions made at denominational “conventions” or “conferences” including both “study conferences” convened to address a specific issue, or the regular denominational gatherings. I noted reference to at least 16 official conferences to be exact, and several other more informal consultations.  This says something very significant about how the MBs have understood “brotherhood.” This word is not as inclusive as it should be, and so today the MBs talk more about “community.” And MBs talk about study conferences as the place in which a “community hermeneutic” is exercised, where together as members of one denominational body we seek the mind of God. Within the ACTS consortium, we work shoulder to shoulder with leaders from many other denominations: it is fair to say that the degree to which the MBs have made, and continue to make it possible for members to be included in the processing of theological issues is unique, and the long history of using study conferences as the venue to discuss theological issues before making a decision is looked at with admiration (and even envy) by other denominations. While not perfect, I think this model, and the commitment to a “community hermeneutic,” deserves special mention for the way it has helped us address difficult issues and for the most part preserve unity.

Third, David mentions two major revisions of the Confession of Faith that took place during the 1970s and again during the late 1990s. Not mentioned, however, was the Confession of Faith recently drafted by ICOMB, the International Committee of Mennonite Brethren, which draws together 17 national MB conferences. It is telling that ICOMB’s first order of business was to write a Confession of Faith. Comparing both the content and the method of the 1999 Confession and the ICOMB Confession offers insight into the way in which the North American context has influenced our theological understanding, and the impact of changing MB global demographics.

Fourth, there are several issues I would add to the list presented by David Ewert. During the 1970s, the MBs were preoccupied with questions of identity. In part, this was driven by the need to locate themselves on the denominational landscape in NA. The result was the adoption of a dual “anabaptist/evangelical” theological identity. It would be helpful to explore what MBs actually mean by this label. What theological streams feed this MB theological identity? Why is it that the MBs have been virtually absent from the development of a distinctly Anabaptist systematic theology in North America?

Finally, curious to me is the fact that MBs are one of the most culturally integrated Mennonite groups in Canada–most rapidly urbanized, have generally displayed a vigorous pursuit of education, have become involved in politics, etc–and yet they have offered very little theological reflection on some of the major social and economic developments during the twentieth century. MBs have spoken to a range of personal ethical issues, but have offered very little theological reflection and guidance for its members regarding the entertainment industry, the pervasive influence of multi-national corporations, use of the environment, consumerism, individualism,  technology, and so on. Why does it seem like it is so difficult for MBs to name the idolatries (or the principalities and powers) that live within our culture? Despite their cultural integration I think MBs walk with a limp when it comes to a theological critique of culture, and in recognizing the impact of culture on their practice of faith.

Much more could be said, but my time is gone: thank-you David for your presentation, and to MHSBC for the privilege of being a part of this event. This kind of comparative historical study is significant for the way to contribute towards a better understanding between Mennonite groups.