Serious issues

It is my observation that in recent years the Canadian Mennonite Brethren Conference has to a considerable extent been focusing on programs – Conference restructuring and good programs such as Natural Church Development, Key Cities Initiatives, and the Leadership Matching Grant Program. In the meantime, a number of significant theological/polity questions have been quietly percolating in the background and are now coming into prominence. How we resolve these questions may well shape the direction of the Canadian Mennonite Brethren church for years to come.

Women in leadership roles

Our Conference position on this topic, reaffirmed in 1993 after an emotional and difficult study process, is that all leadership positions are open to women except that of senior pastor. This seems to me to be a compromise position between those who would open all roles to women and those who would place more restrictions on women’s roles than our current position does. Opinions on all sides of this issue are held deeply. The decision by the Manitoba MB Conference in March to ask the Canadian Conference to revise its position and open all church leadership roles to women is therefore very significant. If the Canadian Conference does reopen the question (and this now seems likely), several things could occur. We could reach consensus to open all roles to women; we could reach consensus to continue to restrict women from certain roles; we could reaffirm the current compromise position; we could reach a different compromise position; or we could fail to reach an agreement. Given the current diversity on this question, I do not think it likely that a broad consensus will be achieved, but perhaps we will reach a new compromise or find some way of living with diversity.

Baptism and membership

The Mennonite Brethren Conference position is that people must be baptized as believers in order to become members of our churches. We practise only baptism by immersion (except in very exceptional circumstances, such as a physical handicap), but we will accept as members people who have been baptized as believers by sprinkling or pouring in some other denomination. The Mennonite Brethren position is also that people who are baptized in our churches should at the same time become members of the local MB church.

This position is now being directly challenged on two fronts and is also being undermined by several divergent practices in some local MB churches. The first challenge is that one church has taken the position that it wants to accept as members people who have been christened (baptized) as infants but who have affirmed their faith through confirmation in another denomination. This proposal is very significant because it goes to the heart of what it means to be Mennonite Brethren. Our spiritual ancestors in the 16th century were called “Anabaptists” (rebaptizers) because they insisted that people who had been christened in Catholic and Protestant churches must be rebaptized as believers. It was this position which separated our spiritual ancestors from the state churches and sent thousands of them to death by martyrdom. It should be mentioned that while only one church has so far officially stated that it wants to deviate from the Conference position, other pastors and churches also struggle with this issue.

The second challenge is that some churches, especially new church plants, baptize people but do not make them members; membership may or may not happen later.

Besides these direct challenges to change policy, there are several divergent practices which arise more out of carelessness than a deliberate wish to change official policy. The first divergent practice is that young people throughout our churches are sometimes baptized as a rite of passage without them having a deep personal commitment to Jesus Christ. It is very difficult to discern another person’s spirituality, but sometimes it is true that we practise “believer’s baptism” at too young an age or without sufficient discernment, in a process that is not much more meaningful than infant baptism. Sometimes teenagers, parents and even church leaders secretly hope, like many Catholics, that the ritual itself will guarantee salvation.

A second divergent practice is that many churches keep on their membership roles people who are no longer active in the church and in some cases no longer living for Jesus. This is essentially a failure of our systems of spiritual care and mutual accountability. Some of the new church plants rightly contend that membership should mean more than this, and this reinforces their reluctance to make members of all those who are baptized.

A third divergent practice is that some churches adhere strictly to the position that people must be baptized as believers in order to become members, but then allow non-members to become church leaders and teachers. In such cases, church membership again becomes meaningless.

Because of the seriousness of these issues, the Canadian MB Conference Board of Faith and Life has organized a major theological study conference, to take place in Winnipeg May 22–24 (see website), to examine questions related to baptism and membership. I do not know what will come out of that conference, but the plan is probably to use the study conference to help prepare a formal position on the topic to be voted on at the 2004 Canadian MB Conference convention.

Mennonite Central Committee

Regular readers of the Herald are probably aware of recent criticism of a number of Mennonite Central Committee’s positions and practices on issues such as the uniqueness of Christ, the place of other religions, involvement in political issues, homosexuality and women’s roles. In fact, the Canadian MB Conference, while continuing to endorse MCC for its relief and development work, is taking the unusual step of writing a formal letter of concern to MCC. Other Mennonite Brethren have come to the defence of MCC. Some of these defenders apparently think the theological aberrations should be overlooked because of the great relief and development work MCC does. Others apparently agree with MCC’s stance on some of these theological issues.

Where are we going?

These are very fundamental and significant theological issues, and we should take them very seriously. As Mennonite Brethren, we are not in perfect agreement on them. Moreover, it is my observation that the three issues are related to each other, resting on different ways of interpreting Scripture. Those with “traditional views” on one of these questions often have traditional views on all three, and people with less traditional views on one often have less traditional views on all three. To complicate matters further, the theological division also has a geographical aspect. Some of the challenges to the current MB positions on baptism and women in ministry have initially come from the province of Manitoba. This becomes significant because the Canadian MB Conference has established a task force to study where the main Canadian MB Conference office should be located, in some location in Winnipeg (where the office is now) or in some other city.

When we understand how these issues converge, then we may recognize how serious the situation is in which we find ourselves. If we are unable to reach a consensus on these issues, then it is quite conceivable that some churches and/or individuals may leave the Conference. Indeed, some individuals have already left. At worst, this situation has the potential to divide the Canadian MB Conference, provincial conferences, churches and even families.

In recent years, a lot of attention has been given to the question of how well the Mennonite Brethren Church is doing. We have done a lot of Conference restructuring. We have cut back the Conference budget to keep the finances in a healthy position. We have deepened our commitment to evangelism and church planting. We have put programs in place to test and improve the health of local churches. We have placed a new emphasis on leadership development. Many local churches and many Conference programs are showing signs of dynamic vitality. Given all this, one would think that the Mennonite Brethren Church in Canada would have a bright future, and it probably does. However, that will be true only if we find some way to resolve these theological issues. If we do not, there is a possibility the questions we are now facing could seriously disrupt Conference life, derailing our significant outreach efforts and distracting us from continuing the many good things the MB Church is doing. On the other hand, theology matters, and we cannot avoid dealing with these issues. Programs will not unite us if we are divided on theology. It is therefore necessary for us to live humbly, pray fervently and act wisely.

Let me be very clear. One of the purposes of the MB Herald is to encourage dialogue and reflection on important issues, and it is because of that mandate that I am raising these issues here. My purpose in writing this editorial is to call us to prayer. Let us pray that the already existing theological disagreements in our denomination will not deepen. Let us pray that we will reach agreement on what Scripture teaches. Let us pray that the good work the Conference is doing will continue.