For my graduate school studies, I earned 30% of my credits at Lancaster Bible College | Capital Seminary & Graduate School, a Calvinist-Reformed "non-denominational" Bible college. I then transferred to Evangelical Seminary, a Wesleyan-Arminian "non-denominational" seminary, where I earned 60% of my credits. Because Evangelical Seminary was a non-denomination seminary, they gave me the opportunity to earn denominational-specific credits at another seminary. I took advantage of this opportunity. The remaining 10% of my credits I earned at Eastern Mennonite Seminary (Lancaster Campus), an Anabaptist-Mennonite seminary. As a result, those percentages of credits earned are the same exact percentages that describe my theology. My theology is 60% Wesleyan-Arminian, 30% Calvinist-Reformed and 10% Anabaptist-Mennonite. I asked a few AIs what that looked like or meant, and I like how 1 AI put it: I have a Wesleyan-Arminian heart, a Calvinist-Reformed head and Anabaptist-Mennonite hands. From that observation, somebody might ask me, "Then why do you attend a Mennonite church if that's your lowest percentage?" That's because my ecclesiology (theology of the church) is 100% Mennonite. Indeed, it has created an interesting dichotomy. On one hand, sometimes I experience at a Mennonite church things I am glad I experience, which I would not experience at another church of another denomination, and I gladly avoid the things that I don't want to experience, which I would experience at churches of other denominations. On the other hand, at other times, I hear things at a Mennonite church that I believe do not accurately reflect the theology the Bible teaches. Of course, the positive experiences outweigh the negative experience, also hence why I attend a Mennonite church. Still, from these experiences, I have discovered Mennonite doctrines that I strongly affirm, and I have also discovered Mennonite doctrines that I find challenging to tolerate because I disagree with them so much. Here are my top 3 Mennonite doctrines, which I strongly affirm, and my bottom 3 Mennonite doctrines, which I find somewhere between challenging and very disagreeable. I would highly recommend that anyone reading this blog post also read up on both the 1963 Mennonite Confession of Faith and the 1995 Confession of Faith in a Mennonite Perspective, in order to keep up with the doctrine and theology. PDF versions can be found by clicking on the titles in the prior sentence.
My Top 3 Mennonite Doctrines
As stated in my introduction, I most strongly affirm to “Article 9: The Church of Jesus Christ.” Article 9 understands the meaning behind the metaphors used for the church throughout the New Testament. In my opinion, Article 9 has picked out the top 3 metaphors the New Testament uses for the church. Paul calls Christians in the church citizens of the kingdom of God (Ephesians 5:18). The 1st commentary under Article 9 understands that this idea of God's people in the church as citizens of the kingdom of God builds off of the Old Testament understanding of Israel (Confession of Faith in a Mennonite Perspective cites Exodus 6:7 and 2 Samuel 7:24, but I would also add Deuteronomy 7:6 to that list). Confession of Faith in a Mennonite Perspective, however, stops short there, refusing to participate in the debate of the relationship between Old Testament Israel and the New Testament Church. Instead, it simply understands that the New Testament Church, consisting of both Jews and Gentiles, has some common denominators with Old Testament Israel (compare Exodus 19:6 to 1 Peter 2:9). Nevertheless, Confession of Faith in a Mennonite Perspective puts the emphasis and the weight on highlighting how the church eliminates divisions caused by race, ethnicity and nationalism, which is the correct application (again, Ephesians 5:18). Paul then proceeds to call Christians in the church family members (Ephesians 5:19), for a family provides the four “mutuals”: mutual sharing, mutual care, mutual discipline and mutual hospitality. Paul also calls the church the Body of Christ to illustrate the idea that Christians bring together their own gifts and talents together for the glory of Jesus and the support of the church (1 Corinthians 12). Confession of Faith in a Mennonite Perspective, however, takes it a step further. According to it, seeing the church should be like see the actual Body of Christ. Therefore, in order to fulfill that, the church and its members must live lives and minister to the world like Jesus did. Also, for Confession of Faith in a Mennonite Perspective, this metaphor also calls for and commands church unity. Later on, in the commentary, this article will further expound on the idea, going on to say that belonging to the Body of Christ should encourage participation in the Body of Christ, from getting baptized to corporate worship (Hebrews 10:25). These are all wonderful applications to the metaphor of the Body of Christ, which aren't commonly considered. With all this in mind, the church must consist of solely members who have voluntarily confessed their sin, believed in Jesus and have committed to Christ as Lord and Savior. Nobody can be born into the church, and no one can claim salvation or church membership based off their parents' salvation or church membership. Even those who grew up in the church as children must make their own personal commitment to Christ. Although both the 1963 Mennonite Confession of Faith and the 1995 Confession of Faith in a Mennonite Perspective hold off on church practices for other articles, I will briefly mention them here. I also agree that baptism is a symbol/sign of the forgiveness from God, the commitment to Jesus and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, which the church should only bestow on believers, old enough to be accountable for their sin, preferably adults, but definitely not infants. I too believe that the Eucharist/Lord's Supper/Communion is a symbol/sign remembering how Jesus's death and resurrection established the New Covenant, which in turn established the church. I concur that footwashing is a symbol/sign a forgiveness, reconciliation, brotherhood, humility, submission and servanthood, and it should be practiced in concurrence with the Eucharist/Lord's Supper/Communion, for not only does John 13:1-20 have the events happening at the same time, Jesus explicit commanded it specifically in John 13:14. If you are wondering why I keep saying "symbol/sign," that is because the 1963 Mennonite Confession of Faith calls them "symbols," but the 1995 Confession of Faith in a Mennonite Perspective upgrades them to "signs," a move that I strongly affirm. The Mennonite denomination of the Christian religion understands ecclesiology (theology of the church) best, in both who the church is and what the church does.
I strongly affirm to “Article 17: Discipleship and the Christian Life,” more specifically, the 1st commentary. According to "Article 17: Discipleship and the Christian Life," under the 1st commentary, it states, "Christians are called to be separate from the evil in the world. Our nonconformity does not mean that we withdraw from all contact with those outside the church. Rather, our way of thinking is changed, and we avoid sinful behavior and participation in groups which promote sin (Romans 12:2, 1 Corinthians 5:9-10). When we do not conform to the evil ways of the world, others will sometimes separate themselves from us (John 3:20). We are able to be nonconformed to evil when we are conformed to Christ and willing to let the Holy Spirit transform us into Christ’s image." I believe the 1st commentary under Article 17 holds the correct interpretation of Romans 12:2, 1 Corinthians 5:9-10 and John 3:20. Too often in the past have Mennonites and other Anabaptists, in their attempt to pursue discipleship and holiness, have withdrawn from the world to the point they are not really in the world anymore, but instead, their own little world (e.g. the Amish). On the flip side, some Mennonites and other Anabaptists have become so engulfed in the world, in the attempt to become relevant in the world, that they can no longer become distinguishable from the rest of the world (e.g. MCUSA's Central District). As part of Christian discipleship, Jesus calls Christians to evangelize to the world, disciple the world, and even change world through the power of the Holy Spirit changing our hearts. Withdrawal from the world does not allow such transformation of the world. Become so engulfed by the world, in the attempts to become relevant to the world, resulting in become undistinguishable from the rest of the world, also does not allow the transformation of the world. Yes, indeed Christians need to abstain from the sin the world offers, but a total withdraw of the world does a disservice to the world. Christians need to learn to participate in the world yet not participate in sin, in order that they may become the evangelists, the teachers, the preachers, the prophets, the pastors and the activists that the gospel calls them to be, and they need to rely and trust in the Holy Spirit for that power.
I strongly affirm to “Article 22: Peace, Justice and Nonresistance.” I appreciate how it follows the typical four-act structure of the Bible, highlighting the peace aspect in each part. God created the world in peace. Sin entered the world, disrupting the peace with unrighteousness and violence. The redemption work of Jesus Christ displayed peace in its perfection. The Holy Spirit dwells within the Christian, re-creating Christians to embrace peace and reject violence or anything else that opposes it. I especially appreciate that this article pro-life stance does not merely stop at anti-abortion, but it also includes standing against war, abuse, domestic violent and capital punishment. That’s true pro-life! It is interesting, though, that the 1995 Confession of Faith in a Mennonite Perspective subtracts some acts of violence included in the 1963 Mennonite Confession of Faith. The 1963 Confession of Faith includes suicide, euthanasia and murder, yet these 3 disappeared from the 1995 Confession of Faith. I can't say for sure why, but I can hypothesize. Murder is kind of self-explanatory. After all, Commandment 6 of the 10 Commandments explicitly forbids it. My guess is that the 1963 Confession of Faith put it in for the "justified" reasons for murder (i.e., the 1963 Confession of Faith rejects the idea of justifiable murder), but the 1995 Confession of Faith takes it out because it is self-explanatory. Suicide has become a debated subject because suicide may reflective a psychological illness, which brings into question how voluntary the action is. Euthanasia has also become a debated topic because some have raised into question if euthanasia can be justified. A more likely explanation comes from considering the culture and the context of each Confession of Faith. The 1965 Confession of Faith desired to design a document that could explicitly define the denomination's doctrine, in order to protect the denomination and determine which church is in and which church is out of the denomination. This would require and result in listing specific sins. The 1995 Confession of Faith originated out of a merger of 2 Mennonite Conferences, 2 Mennonite Conferences who wanted unity. Instead of defining the denomination's doctrine, it wanted to describe and teach what a Mennonite church looks like. In order to so, it sticks to general principles, biblical themes and Anabaptist commitments. As a result, the 1995 Confession does give some flexibility to how to apply these doctrines. Therefore, somebody can actually join the military, which Mennonites and other Anabaptists have historically frowned down upon, if that person justify the military preserving life and peace (with which I personally disagree). When the 1995 Confession speaks on neither preparing for nor participating in war, it merely does so as an example. Indeed, recently this thinking has come into effect, as many young Mennonites express foregoing their absence of war if they believe only war can stop an international injustice, which sounds more like Augustine's Just War theory. As another result (and the better result, if I may say so myself), the 1995 Confession actually expands and expounds on protecting life from violence. Whereas the 1963 Confession concerns itself only with the violence that kills, the 1995 Confession all violence, whether it kills or just inflicts suffering and torture. Anyway, either way, the Mennonites have done an excellent job of avoiding the common pitfall of equating "pro-life" to just meaning "anti-abortion." The Mennonite truly support a peaceful life, free from all violence, for all people of all races, ethnicities, genders and ages.
My Bottom 3 Mennonite Doctrines
The area that I find most challenging is when the 4th commentary under “Article 7: Sin” says, “The sin of Adam and Eve affects all (Romans 5:12, 19); at the same time, we are held accountable for our own behavior.” This statement is just an implicit way to say what the 1963 Confession of Faith says explicitly in “Article 4: Man and his Sin”: “Although men are sinners by nature because of Adam's fall, they are not guilty of his sin. Those who perish eternally do so only because of their own sin.” This doctrine finds its roots early on in the Anabaptist movement. Anabaptist forefather Pilgram Marpeck championed this belief, citing Ezekiel 18, a passage that states that the sons shall not suffer from the sins of the father. Indeed, the 4th commentary of "Article 7: Sin" references this origin. While I understand from where Marpeck comes, my discernment ultimately disagrees with this view. In Ezekiel 18, the prophet Ezekiel does not attempt to comment on humanity's sin condition. Rather, he criticizes the sons blaming their fathers for putting them in exile, while committing the same exact sins that landed their fathers in exile. In Ezekiel 18, Ezekiel uses the term "father" in the most literal sense - the male parent who begat the son. He did not mean their forefathers, and even if he did, he would not have gone as back as Adam. The Bible has more explicit verses that do explicitly declare humans born in sin, like Genesis 8:21, Psalm 51:5 and Romans 5:12&19. When I read Genesis 8:21 and Romans 5:12&19, I believe those verses teach that all human beings are born in sin, inheriting the original sin Adam and Eve committed, inheriting both the corruption and the guilt. Heck, in Psalm 51:5, David declares that he was conceived in sin! Ultimately, sin is sin, whether the sin born into, the sin nature or the sins committed, and all this sin declares humans guilty of sin, sentenced to the punishment of death. It would seem that both the 1963 Mennonite Confession of Faith and 1995 Confession of Faith in a Mennonite Perspective (especially the 1963 Mennonite Confession of Faith) seem more concerned about defending the stance of their forefather than the doctrine depending on what the Scriptures actually say. I do appreciate, however, that the 1995 Confession of Faith in a Mennonite Perspective uses the implicit language to allow Christians who believe in original sin to join the Mennonite church, which the 1963 Mennonite Confession of Faith would not allow.
With that in mind, the second most challenging area to me is the doctrine of the innocence of children. I had to give this doctrine its own name, for the 1963 Mennonite Confession of Faith placed it under "Article 4: Man and his Sin," but the 1995 Confession of Faith in a Mennonite Perspective moved it, putting it under "Article 11: Baptism." By moving it, the 1995 Confession of Faith makes me look bad. Disagreeing with something that falls under the doctrine of baptism sounds shocking, for after all, the Mennonites arose from the Anabaptists, whose name literally means "re-baptizers," so surely I wouldn't disagree with the doctrine from which the Mennonite emerged. Ultimately, I overall agree with the Mennonite theology of believers' baptism, especially when it comes to baptizing adults over baptizing children, but I do find 1 detail very disagreeable. According to the 1995 Confession of Faith in a Mennonite Perspective, "Article 11: Baptism," under the 2nd commentary, it states, “Infants and children have no need for baptism, since they are safe in the care of God. When they are able to be accountable for their own actions, they are able to make the church’s faith their own.” Again, this is just an implicit way to state what the 1963 Mennonite Confession of Faith "Article 4: Man and his Sin" declares explicitly: “Before the age when children are accountable to God, their sins are atoned for through the sacrifice of Christ.” Both statements become problematic because both statements make children innocent of sin, when in fact children have the guilt of sin, too, as established in the above paragraph. I believe that children do indeed have the guilt of sin, but God, in his prevenient grace, does not condemn children until the age in which their knowledge and understanding of sin makes them accountable of their sin. I will admit, however, that if asked why, I would say it's because of Jesus Christ's atoning work on the cross, with which both confession of faiths would agree. Maybe I'm just taking the long way around the subject. I have a theory why Mennonites have taken this position. The Anabaptist movement arose at a time when only half of children born lived long enough to see their 5th birthday. I imagine the early Anabaptized evangelizing this good news of adult baptism, but the listener saying, "I get what you're saying. You've made a very convincing argument from the Scriptures. Still, there's a good chance that my infant child will not make it to the age of adulthood, or any age of accountability, for that matter, and better safe than sorry, so I'm going to baptize my infant, just in case." Out of desperate response, the Anabaptist declared children innocent of sin. As for why the erroneous belief still exist today, I can't help but wonder if precedent and tradition is to blame. The 1995 Confession of Faith in a Mennonite Perspective, the most updated Mennonite statement of faith, should have stuck with the precedent set in the New Testament for baptism, not in Anabaptist tradition, erroneously assuming the past was right.
The third area I find challenging is “Article 4: Scripture.” This article multiple times uses the phrase "reliable and trustworthy.” I consider this phrasing weak wording. The phrase "reliable and trustworthy” can go down the slippery slope of “mostly reliable and trustworthy” to “generally reliable and trustworthy,” which in turn makes room to question or even doubt biblical truth. I would have preferred stronger wording, either declaring the Bible “infallible” or “inerrant.” The 1963 Mennonite Confession of Faith has no problem doing so, as "Article 2: Divine Revelation" states, "We accept the Scriptures as the authoritative Word of God, and through the Holy Spirit as the infallible Guide to lead men to faith in Christ and to guide them in the life of Christian discipleship." Personally, I'm somewhere between "infallible" and "inerrant." The more I encounter discussion and debate on this theology, the more I resonate with John R. Franke, who, when asked whether he holds to inerrancy, responds, "Yes, as long as I get to define it." It really does come to down to beliefs about epistemology, that is, the philosophy of truth. One of my favorite lines from the movie for V for Vendetta has main character Evey saying, "My father was a writer. You would've liked him. He used to say that artists use lies to tell the truth, while politicians use them to cover the truth up." It begs the question if the truth can tell lies and if lies can tell a truth. If leaning towards no, then infallibility would not suffice, and then inerrancy would become required. Inerrancy has its own issues arise, however, when encountering claims the Bible makes outside the religious, spiritual and theological. Some have tried to explain this away by claiming the original manuscripts were inerrant, but future copyists, who were not inspired by the Holy Spirit, made errors, downgrading the Bible to infallible. Not only does this thinking deny any doctrine that believes in the preservation of the Scriptures, it makes the matter of explaining anomalies even worse. For example, if taking this stance when Joshua 10 says that the sun stood still, the argument following would have to believe that the Holy Spirit revealed to Joshua the appearance of sunrise and sunset actually comes from the earth rotating, Joshua wrote that down, and some uneducated and uninspired copyist in the future thought that was wrong and changed it to what he thought was right. While within the realms of possibility, the proposition is highly unlikely. Despite the problems with the terms "infallible" or "inerrant," both terms better describe the Scriptures than just "reliable and trustworthy." I understand, however, if the 1995 Confession of Faith in a Mennonite Perspective avoided such theological terms in order to sound less scholarly, or even just to avoid the infallibility versus inerrant debate, which in turn would allow more inclusion into the Mennonite church.
No comments:
Post a Comment