Near Emmaus


59 Comments

Why I Am a Mennonite (Pt. 1c)

I220px-Meno_simonis came to the Anabaptists (or what theologian James McClendon refers to as “baptist,” with a little “b”) through quite the convoluted personal journey. I was raised in a largely non-religious household and family, but grew up going to a United Methodist church almost every Sunday in my small Ozark hometown. My great-grandfather had been a Methodist preacher for most of his life, but none of the rest of my family were adamant churchgoers, and we didn’t talk about religion much. During my time as a youth in the Methodist church, I was swept up into that neo-Evangelical movement of Christian worshipers who proclaimedthat what we really needed to do was get rid of all that ol’ tradition stuff (which shocked the members of that little high liturgical church) and replace it with music that you could really feel, music that you could groove to. I was into bands like Jars of Clay, Third Day, and David Crowder. I became a walking, talking billboard for “hip” Christianity, with my edgy t-shirts and saying “I know that’s right” instead of “amen,” and calling God “Daddy” or “Papa,” instead of “Father” (or even just “God”) because I picked it up from some youth pastor who I thought was cool. And then I became a youth pastor myself, at the ripe old age of 19. It was one of the most difficult jobs I’ve ever held in my life. After several years of struggling bitterly with the church bureaucracy as a youth minister, I was finally laid off (along with the children’s minister and the music minister) during the financial collapse in 2008. Immediately following, I visited Methodist churchafter Methodist church, and typically found that I was either unwelcome there, or I saw through the shiny veneer and was too disgusted by it to stay for too long. I became horridly cynical, anti-bureaucratic, anti-Church Christian, and preferred the company of those who sought to subvert the Church by “creating a new society in the shell of the old,” as Dorothy Day and Peter Maurin once put it. I felt severed from my roots, unwanted by the very church that I had spent my entire life up to that point building an identity with.

Since then, I have spent time attending Cooperative and American Baptist churches, Episcopal churches, led worship regularly for a Wesleyan church, and eventually even made my way into a Quaker meeting. I’ve swung from high liturgy to contemporary worship to no liturgy and no worship.

My choice to become a Mennonite was admittedly borne less from a love affair with the theology and more of a matter of community and practicality. When my wife Alyssa and I moved into the Kansas City, Kansas, area last year, our current church was the closest church to us. We hadn’t been committed members of any particular church since we got married (the last church I was a member of—aside from my default membership at the Methodist church I worked for—was my home church), and we were really just ready to find a community that we could embrace, and one that would embrace us, as well. Aside from getting to have a really cool beard, though, I am currently growing into the theology. I had read some Yoder and Hauerwas in college, but now I’m beginning to pile it on higher and thicker as I become more fully acquainted with the tradition.

As a Mennonite, I can appreciate the icons, high liturgy, “smells and bells,” and the rich shared history carried on today by the Roman church, as well as the personal religious freedom touted by the Evangelical movement. But the Mennonites (at least, those at my church and those I have recently met from other similar churches) offer that appealing “third way” that is neither this nor that, but instead the quiet grace of the middle—my friend Leroy refers to it as the “radiant center.” This attitude is the historical Mennonite approach—while Luther and Calvin and Zwingli were throwing their (sometimes violent) theological tantrums in Germany, France, and Switzerland, Menno Simons—a Roman Catholic priest—was quietly struggling with the Church’s practice of infant baptism and the doctrine of the “real presence” in the Eucharist. In Simons, I saw something of my own need to quietly wrestle with the Church without washing my hands of it altogether. This Mennonite commitment to the eternal peaceful struggle has appealed to me more than any other faith tradition—just read the story of Dirk Willems to get the picture of what drew me in.

When it comes right down to it, the reason I have chosen to self-identify as a Mennonite is because 1) I am deeply convinced that the peace tradition of the Anabaptists most resembles the Reign of God of any church I have ever attended, and 2) I just love the community. At many churches, you can slip in the door, be a face in the crowd, listen to the pastor/priest affirm what you already believe, and return home without being challenged or experiencing growth. At other churches, a person can speak their mind and create a disagreement in the church that ultimately destroys the community (I’ve seen it happen). With the Mennonites, there is room for disagreement, there is a theology of nonviolence, and there is community of worship—I couldn’t ask for more.

About these ads


9 Comments

Pentecostal and Anabaptist perspectives

FYI: As readers of this blog know JohnDave Medina and I have begun a series titled “A Dialogue between a Catholic and an Evangelical” where we will be discussing the differences in our shared Christianity through this public forum. You may be aware that our other contributors resonate with different traditions as well. Daniel James Levy is a Pentecostal. Joshua Smith as an Anabaptist (Mennonite). Oddly, I came into Christianity through Pentecostalism, and I worship with a Mennonite Church now, so I resonate on some level with both of those traditions.

Of course, as I said in my first post of the series (see “Why I am an E/evangelical”) I think the label “Evangelical” remains in flux, so it is possible that one might be a Pentecostal Evangelical, an Anabaptist Evangelical, and even a Catholic Evangelical. It will be interesting to hear from Daniel and Joshua as to why they self-identify with Pentecostalism and Anabaptism respectively.

Make sure you pay attention for their entries and don’t forget that JohnDave’s first post is scheduled for next week.


15 Comments

The Apocalypse, original sin, martyrdom, and Anabaptists.

These are some blog posts and articles I have enjoyed recently:

Matthew Montonini has embedded some lectures by David deSilva on the Apocalypse: David deSilva Revelation videos.

Peter Enns gives us five reasons to rethink original sin as an Old Testament doctrine: 5 Old Testament Reasons to Rethink “Original Sin”.

Danielle Tumminio interviewed Candida Moss about her forthcoming book The Myth of Persecution: How Early Christians Invented a Story of MartyrdomCandida Moss on Whether Christian Martyrs are a Myth.

As I’ve mentioned, I worship with a local Mennonite congregation here in San Antonio. My wife and I have come to love our group, even though neither of us had any direct connections to Mennonites. Interestingly, this is true of many people in our congregation. I have a Pentecostal background. Another person has a Lutheran background. One person came to us after several years in the house church movement. My experience has made me aware of other people discussing anabaptist thought including the following:

- David Flowers writes about leaving the SBC to become anabaptist in Finding the Naked Anabaptist. Also, he shares some thoughts on Anabaptist Core Convictions.

- Zach Hoag proposes that as there has been a Neo-Reformed movement there may be a Neo-Anabaptist movement in the making as well in Nuancing the Neo’s.

- Woodland Hills, the congregation pastored by Greg Boyd, considers joining the Mennonite Church USA (we are part of this denomination): Minnesota Megachurch to Go Mennonite? Possibly, Says Greg BoydUpdate: Boyd’s first sermon exploring anabaptist thought: Ana-What?


41 Comments

Wrestling with the ecclesiology of Ignatius of Antioch (or, do I need a Bishop?!)

ignace

Bishop Ignatius of Antioch

I’ve been a low church evangelical for many years now. I entered Christianity through a sectarian Pentecostal group (some doubted we should celebrate Christmas because it was of “pagan origin”, so you imagine the type of ecumenism I was taught). I have thought about the teachings of Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Anglicanism/Episcopalianism and there are times when I find these groups quite attractive and other times when I find these groups to be concerning. Currently, I worship with a (modern, not Amish-like) Mennonite church, which I like because of their commitment to serious discipleship, and their emphasis on the Kingdom of God and the reconciling hope of their eschatology. Yet I worry at times that Mennonites are similar in some ways to my Pentecostal friends in that there is a lack of catholicity with little emphasis on the Lord’s Supper/Communion/Eucharist tradition that has enriched the church for hundreds of years.

As I have mentioned (see here) I have decided to participate in a group called “Read the Fathers”. One figure whose writings are listed early is Ignatius of Antioch (CE 35/50-98/117), a Bishop in the early church who is said to have been one of the more immediate successors of the Apostle Peter and a student of the Apostle John. I haven’t studied this figure enough to have an opinion on such claims, but that he was writing not too long after documents like the Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation were composed demands attention.

Is this gathering of U.S. Catholic Bishops the assembling of "the church"?

Is this gathering of U.S. Catholic Bishops the assembling of “the church”?

There have been several statements made in his epistle that seem to foreshadow the teachings of the more developed church, the ecclesiology to which aforementioned groups like Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and Anglicans appeal. As someone who is worshipping with Mennonites, who has been educated by Baptists and Reformed thinkers, who has taught in churches with roots in Lutheranism and Pentecostalism, and who (admittedly) prefers “low church” Christianity (though I have grown fond of some form of liturgy and practices such as following a form of the liturgical calendar), I thought I’d post some excerpts here for conversation.

The first to grab my attention is from Ignatius’ Epistle to the Ephesians (V) where he writes:

“Let no man deceive himself: if any one be not within the altar, he is deprived of the bread of God. For if the prayer of one or two possesses such power, how much more that of the bishop and the whole Church! He, therefore, that does not assemble with the Church, has even by this manifested his pride, and condemned himself. For it is written, “God resists the proud.” Let us be careful, then, not to set ourselves in opposition to the bishop, in order that we may be subject to God.”

This seems Eucharistic (though I am trying to avoid anachronism). The Bishop performs the rite at the alter providing the bread to the people, and to deny the assembly is of grave concern. He writes later (XIII):

“For when ye assemble frequently in the same place, the powers of Satan are destroyed, and the destruction at which he aims is prevented by the unity of your faith. Nothing is more precious than peace, by which all war, both in heaven and earth, is brought to an end.”

And then (XX):

“…breaking one and the same bread, which is the medicine of immortality, and the antidote to prevent us from dying, but [which causes] that we should live for ever in Jesus Christ.”

What we have in this epistle is the need to gather with the church, the importance of the Bishop, and the centrality of the Eucharist in worship. I struggled even more with a statement he made in his Epistle to the Magnesians (II):

“Since therefore I have been permitted to see you in the person of Damas, your godly bishop, and the worthy presbyters, Bassus and Apollonius, and my fellow-servant, the deacon Zotion, of whom may I have joy, because he is subject unto the bishop as unto the grace of God, and to the presbytery as unto the law of Jesus Christ.”

The Bishop of one church represents the whole local church to the other church through that local church’s Bishop. Later in the epistle he writes (XII):

“…that in everything which you do, you may be prospered in flesh and spirit, by faith and love, in the Son and Father and in the Spirit, in the beginning and in the end, along with your bishop who is worthy of all honor, and the fitly-woven spiritual coronal of your presbytery, and the deacons who are according to the mind of God.  Submit yourselves to the bishop and to one another, as Jesus Christ [was subject] to the Father [after the flesh], and the Apostles to Christ and the Father, that there may be union both of flesh and spirit.”

Submitting to the Bishop brings unity, and it models Jesus’ submission to the Father, and the Apostles to Christ and the Father. He writes in his Epistle to the Trallians (II), “For, since you are subject to the bishop as to Jesus Christ, you appear to me to live not after the manner of men, but according to Jesus Christ, who died for us, in order, by believing in His death, you may escape from death.”

Subject to the Bishop as to Jesus Christ? 

Submit to the Bishop as to Christ? Always?

Submit to the Bishop as to Christ? Always? What if my Bishop was John Shelby Spong?

Now, as I said, I want to avoid anachronism. I realize that a “Bishop” doesn’t seem to be as authoritative as it might come to be later. There doesn’t seem to be Archbishops. It could be argued that at this stage in the history of the church a Bishop was like the “Sr. Pastor” over the church in a city. There was no acknowledgement of anything like denominations, so you wouldn’t have a Lutheran pastor, a Presbyterian pastor, and so forth and so on. You’d have one, single pastor (Bishop) who oversees other leaders (Presbyters and Deacons). We know from the emergence of groups like the various gnostic sects that this idea is challenged, and that catholicity is “in flux” for the perspective of historicism, but for those of us who affirm that Spirit’s guidance in developing the church to become what most of us would consider “orthodox” (e.g., Trinity, deity of Christ, nature of Christology, function of canonical books) what do we say to this (and other statements by Ignatius in other epistles)?

Also, for pragmatic purposes, in light of Ignatius’ words, what do you think he would have said if someone said, “My ‘Bishop’ is John Shelby Spong! Should I remain under his authority?” How would Ignatius have advised people under the episcopal rule of Spong? or Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori? or an Arian Bishop or a gnostic Bishop?

Your thoughts on this subject are welcome, whether you be of a tradition with Bishops or without Bishops. What do you think of the need for Bishops today? What do we do if we think Bishop lead churches have strayed from the Gospel?