The case for seminary

Do we need a seminary? Fifty years ago, Mennonite Brethren answered Yes and MB Biblical Seminary opened its doors Sept. 8, 1955 in Fresno, Calif.

The rationale for the new institution was based on a survey showing that MB ministry students were studying at 15 seminaries of other denominations in North America. This was a problem, wrote J.B. Toews in The Seminary Story (1975). Since Mennonite Brethren had “some theological premises distinct from mainstream Protestantism, the future leadership of the Mennonite Brethren Church required the background of an Anabaptist theological orientation.” These theological distinctives included conversionist mission practice, life-long discipleship, community discernment and non-resistance.

“It became rather clear,” Toews said, “that a decision to send our future leadership through the training programs of ‘mainstream Protestant’ institutions without a firm grounding in their historic faith would mean a systematic destruction of the theological distinctives which brought the Mennonite Brethren fellowship into being.” Some of his concern was fueled by the inroads being made within MB churches by pietism, fundamentalism, dispensationalism, individualism and militarism.

What is the consensus 50 years later? Do Mennonite Brethren still need a seminary? Having a seminary costs a million or so dollars each year; why should we bother?

I believe a strong case can be made for continuing to invest in an MB seminary. While times have changed since Toews’s assessment, a seminary is still vital for the life of the MB church. Certainly the more than 1,200 alumni who contribute in the church and in the world testify to the merits of this investment.

In addition to their influence, however, there are three reasons why MBs should still bother with a seminary.

Clarifying our unique contribution

First, in an increasingly post-denominational world, a seminary helps MBs clarify their contribution to the global church. Most indicators in the western world show a decreasing commitment to denominational structures, institutions and programs.

While we may mourn the loss, this reality offers a new opportunity for MBs. Identity promotion can now be framed in more positive terms instead of trying to shore up MB distinctives as characterized by J.B. Toews’s assessment.

The global church is remarkably open and interested in the MB contribution to faith and life, and we have something very valuable to share with the larger communion of saints. I am always amazed at how interested my non-MB students are in hearing a clear articulation of MB theology.

The global church needs people who think deeply about the four themes typically associated with MB theology.

• Our conversionist mission practice has much to offer a world increasingly immobilized by the western fascination with tolerance, where transformation or change is questioned.
• The Anabaptist stress on life-long discipleship is valued by those of other traditions who often struggle with articulating a link between confession and ethics, between belief and daily practice.
• The MB emphasis on community discernment and accountability brings fresh air to our arid contemporary context where people are silenced by the strong voices of a few or by the constant noise of individual opinions.
• The call to find creative solutions to conflict without the use of lethal violence is welcomed by many around the world.

In a post-denominational age, groups like the Willow Creek Association will likely play a larger role in linking churches across denominational lines. This is a good thing. Let’s take our place at the table and contribute the historic values that have made MBs unique. To do this, we need a seminary where people are thinking deeply about these issues. Pastors, church planters, counsellors, theologians and leaders of all kinds need a place where the MB voice is nurtured, cultivated and honed.

Constructing responses to culture

Second, in an increasingly post-Christian world, a seminary helps MBs engage our host cultures in constructive ways. Canada and the United States built societies rooted in the historic Judeo–Christian value system, but they are no longer so.

Again, we can mourn the loss or frame it as an opportunity for MBs. The leaders of the church in the next 50 years will still need formation in the skills of exegeting the biblical text, preaching sermons, leading worship experiences, assessing cultural movements, building communities, chairing meetings, walking alongside hurting people and mentoring leaders. But, they will need to do this in a world that does not presume a Judeo–Christian worldview regarding God, morality, family and so on.

Negotiating within our post-Christian world is a high priority for church leaders and takes a special set of skills – careful listening, playful imagination, critical thinking, sensitive cultural engagement, biblical literacy and theological depth. If these skills are not developed, churches will follow one of two classical trajectories.

Some will adopt an isolationist approach, pretending the post-Christian worldview is a passing fad, which will go away if we ignore it – something like an ostrich. Others will adopt the concessionist approach, conceding that the Judeo–Christian worldview is just one among many equally good scenarios representing God’s way and not worth particular promotion – something like a chameleon.

I would argue for an approach that is neither ostrich nor chameleon. The church in every age is clearly part of a particular cultural worldview, yet seeks to self-critically transform and reform its host culture. In our rapidly evolving post-Christian world, we need neither ostriches nor chameleons, but rather raccoons – those who instinctively wash and examine food before eating it – taking some things and leaving aside others.

A seminary remains devoted to helping leaders develop a set of raccoon skills. Increasingly we will need to find creative ways to differentiate our theological allegiances from our political or nationalistic ones. This takes some thoughtful and careful cultural observation and construction, just the kinds of things a seminary does.

Extending God’s claims in our time

Third, in an increasingly postmodern world, a seminary helps MBs with the philosophical challenges of embracing the biblical witness to God’s purposes. The postmodern mantra we hear all around us goes, “the only truth is that there is no truth outside of my truth.” The postmodern assertion is that all understanding is tentative, personal, subjective and ad hoc. The western phenomenon of turning in on itself is mirrored in the church’s growing reluctance to say anything about social justice, personal behaviour or moral responsibility to or for others. Conservatives retreat to peddling a safe and narrow “Jesus and me” gospel, while liberals appeal to another version of the same “Jesus and me” gospel to ward off any challenges to personal behaviour.

It is precisely in such a foundationless postmodern context that an MB seminary makes a valuable contribution to church life. Courses in biblical interpretation, theology, history and counselling all address in some way the root question of our time: is it possible to make any claims about God, the Bible or our life together in a postmodern context? If so, how would one go about this in a culturally sensitive way?

A seminary embodies the church’s mandate of working within our postmodern social location to come up with new expressions of faithful biblical interpretation for our time. In the marketplace of ideas, competing interpretations clamour for acceptance and these need to be sorted out.

Some advocate abandoning the ancient images of God and our life together preserved in the Bible in favour of something more “contemporary.” Others want to freeze these same images for all times and cultures, virtually silencing any theological reflection. Again, I would argue for neither approach, believing instead that faithful biblical interpretation is about discerning together how to extend the biblical images in contextually appropriate ways.

The critical discerning criterion is as follows: is there a “familial resemblance” between the biblical interpretation being proposed and the form emerging from the Bible, representing the testimony of the faithful “cloud of witnesses” (Hebrews 12:1)? If the answer is yes, then the Christian community can be assured that the interpretation is an appropriate embrace of the biblical witness, one that continues giving testimony to God’s living way. If no, the interpretation is set aside.

As our postmodern world continues on its trajectory further and further from the ancient world depicted in the Bible, the church will need more, not less, help in bridging the gap from the biblical world to our own. The challenges continue in our time, and so does our need of the vital service of our seminary in the tasks of interpretation and discernment, extending the biblical witness to our world.

Jon Isaak is associate professor of New Testament at MB Biblical Seminary, Fresno. He is a member of College Community Church, Mennonite Brethren, in Clovis, Calif.