Telling the story of who we are: an interview with Bruce Guenther

Bruce Guenther is associate professor of church history and Mennonite studies at MBBS’s Langley campus (ACTS Seminaries) and a regular presenter at the annual credentialing and orientation event for new MB pastors. Dora Dueck spoke with him during this year’s event, held May 13–16 at Canadian Mennonite University, Winnipeg.

DD: You’ve been doing the history session at new pastors’ orientation for six years now. How do newcomer pastors respond?

BG: Some come with a bit of anxiety about the prospect of denominational indoctrination! I’ve found it necessary, and helpful, to have a posture of humility and candour. After yesterday’s session someone thanked me for telling the story with warts included.

Certain questions emerge each year. One is, what does it mean to be a peacemaker? How do Mennonite Brethren understand this stuff about love and nonresistance? Do we all have to become pacifists?

Another is the relevance of denominations. Lots of voices say denominationalism is dead. We’ve often responded pragmatically, pointing to the value of working together as congregations. But is there a more enduring, theological foundation for denominational identity? I think it starts with recognizing that the kingdom of God is bigger than any denomination, but also affirms the specific contribution different groups offer the church at large.

You noted that we’re living in a culture disconnected from the past. Why is it important for us to know our church story?

In our technological, postmodern society we get snowed under with facts and trivia until we can’t sift the important from the unimportant. Ideas and identities are fragmented.

Telling our story de-fragments information. In Scripture, the word remember is about “re-membering” or putting pieces of memory back together again. Our stories create meaning, belonging, coherence. They situate us. Having a story to belong to is far more important for who we are as human beings, and Christians, than we realize.

The Russian origins and immigration portions of our story have often been seen as more ethnic and therefore problematic, compared to our 16th century Anabaptist roots, which might be considered more theological. How do you respond to resistance to the Russian story on account of that perceived liability?

The 16th century Anabaptists came from many parts of Europe, so there’s no less of an ethnic or cultural dimension in that story than in 19th century Russia. But neither is the Russian story somehow less theological.

The story of the MB origins [in 1860] is very important for understanding our unique theological DNA. The MBs took a significant theological departure from some of the 16th century influences that shaped the Mennonite church in Russia. Our origins give us many clues as to why MBs have been so eclectic and how they filtered the sources from which they borrowed. It helps explain, for example, why we have a gravitational pull towards expressions of faith that are intensely experiential.

But your question gets into the larger issue of ethnocentrism among Mennonites and whether the label Mennonite is ethnic or religious. It’s becoming increasingly clear to me that using the term Mennonite as an ethnic adjective is irresponsible and creates considerable confusion within our congregations. It seems to me this is mostly a Canadian problem, created in part by the government policy of multiculturalism in the 1970s which encouraged immigrant groups to celebrate their ethnicity.

We need to stop using the word Mennonite to refer to certain foods, ways of dressing, surnames. This misuse of the word creates insider/outsider kinds of boundaries that are completely inappropriate within the life of a Christian community. Especially within a Christian community that’s now so multicultural and diverse.

You say that the new paradigm of conversion at the heart of our origins makes us more Protestant in orientation than other Mennonite groups. What do you mean?

The MB emphasis on conversion experience – and the possibility of having assurance of salvation – was a shift in the theology of salvation on the part of Mennonites in Russia during the 19th century. The Anabaptists, and the Mennonite church in Russia, didn’t always differentiate as cleanly as the Protestants between justification and sanctification. They saw the two more closely wrapped together as an ongoing process. It wasn’t all that important to know exactly when someone had crossed the line. The MB emphasis on personal conversion was a revision of the Mennonite understanding of the doctrine of salvation. It was a Protestant turn.

Miroslav Volf has said, “We must name the troubling past truthfully to be freed from its destructive hold on us.” Are there things we’ve had trouble naming truthfully which have therefore been destructive?

I’ve never encountered any conspiracy to hide parts of the MB story. But there are facets that haven’t always been talked about or confronted openly. The Russian–German ethnocentrism, for example, or the spiritual elitism that’s been a part of the story at times, or the way in which some of our practices have negatively affected our relationships with other groups, particularly other Mennonite groups.

And, the variegated story of how our young men responded to conscription and to war and the impact that had on congregations, families, and our theology of peacemaking needs to be explored with more candour.

Historians and leaders of a generation ago, such as JA Toews and JB Toews, worked hard to orient us towards Anabaptism. You seem to be calling us to another kind of orientation.

JB Toews and others were trying to move MBs back towards Anabaptism at a time when the denomination had largely lost its understanding of, or connection to, that particular stream. I think they did so without always telling us how selective they actually were with respect to the Anabaptist tradition. That’s one piece.

The second piece is, it was only a matter of time before the considerable natural compatibility between MB immigrants and evangelical Protestants in North America drew them together. Evangelicalism has had a huge influence on MB practice and theology. In fact, I would say that MBs are far more like other evangelical Protestants in North America than like 16th century Anabaptists.

I’m trying to help us acknowledge all the influences that make up our identity. We have a dual identity – evangelical and Anabaptist – and it’s based on historical realities.

So the label evangelical doesn’t bother you?

Not really. I know it has many different connotations and needs a whole range of nuances. I teach a course in the history of evangelicalism and spend three hours just on definitional issues. But we’re being disingenuous if we focus on our Anabaptist identity and object to our evangelical Protestant identity. Our history connects us to both!

I’m convinced our dual identity actually gives us an advantage for doing effective ministry within a Canadian context. It offers us a way to see – and critique – both streams that have shaped us. And it definitely gives us more resources to respond to a postmodern, post-Christian society.

For a summary of Guenther’s presentation at annual pastors’ orientations, see “MB History Tour,” in MB Herald, Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, 2005.