Defining Oneself
This past weekend, I have spent
considerable time attempting to develop stronger, more universal definitions
for many of the terms that I use in my essays and which I tend to encounter in
my reading. I also spent a fair amount
of time writing an essaic criticism of the rhetorical argumentation in a recent
series published in Fellowship Focus on the emergent
churches. The emergent church movement
is a new concept to me, so I was able to approach the articles with an open
mind. However, the quality or
organization of their particular line of argument was often inconsistent,
non-linear, even self-contradictory, leaving me, the reader, confused and
uncertain. Note that one finds it much
easier to criticize the work of another than to recognize the same deficiencies
within oneself, which is why there is a certain intellectual strength to be found
in the Scholastic or even consensus-building process -- and why most books and
literary efforts shower such profuse praise on those who assisted in the
editorial process.
In large part, anyone who writes on these
topics is going to encounter certain problems -- chiefly, how does one
establish a close, linear line of argument when there is so little consensus as
to the basic definitions of so many fundamental terms.
The EMB-FEBC tradition has long had a
tradition of avocational intellectualism.
Honestly, I think that this is both healthy and proper. Yet, as a conference, or even a socio-ethnic
identity, the EMB-FEBC lack an organ through which such definitions might be
developed and promulgated or spread.
My specific contemplation of definitions
involved two particular areas of interest.
My primary motivation involved some residual confusion over the defining
of the emergent church movement. To be
fair, I did some further research that only added to my confusion. The point being that everyone seems to be
upset about a movement of which no one has yet to propose a reasonable
definition. I found myself a bit
concerned. I self-identify as a
schismatic Mennonite. The EMB-FEBC and
the Mennonite Brethren (MB) both have strong roots in the 19th
Century Pietist Movement and many of the more cogent objections raised against
the Emergents in Fellowship Focus could also be applied
against the Pietists. Nor was I
comforted by the knowledge that the author of the piece has historically been
known to be more or less ambivalent towards that church’s Mennonite and Pietist
traditions. I felt the strong necessity
of defining both the Pietists and the Emergents so as to determine for myself
what the similarities and differences are.
The second issue with which I was
confronted had to do with the indices I have been proposing as a way to
understand both the identity and the history of the EMB socio-ethnicity. Following Calvin Redekop’s lead in Leaving
Anabaptism, one is easily attracted to a linear scale with the term Mennonite
at one end and the term Evangelical at the other. Though I feel that most readers have a
tendency to over interpret Redekop’s work, there is a certain truth to
that dichotomy within the history and identity of the EMB-FEBC as a church
conference. But -- what are the
definitions of the two extremes? My
proposal was to take a similar historical progression apparent in the work of
O.J. Wall, also of the Lustre community, that begins with the original focus of
the Brüderthaler on Reform and leading towards Missions. Historically, O.J. Wall’s progression is
solid and makes quite a lot of sense.
The EMB were founded on the basis of reform of the church and of the
life of the individual. Following the
old formula, right thinking leads to right action, as the reformed church
established itself, the EMB-FEBC naturally turned increasingly towards Missions
outreach (action). Previously, I had
been convinced that the proposal was clean, clear, and even a bit sexy.
Working out definitions for the various
poles, I am now convinced that while the proposed Lustre Synthesis still
retains value as a means of mapping the identity and progress of the group as a
whole, that the definitions of the opposing axes do not necessarily represent clear
dichotomies. Pietism includes the sense
of service or missions, and it is difficult to separate the term Mennonite,
used in the context of the Kleine Gemeinde, the Bruderthaler, or the Ebenezers,
(or the Mennonite Brethren) in as much as they have been oft referred to as the
Pietist Mennonites. First, I
attempted to clarify the vertical axis by noting that by Pietist I was meant
those who were focused on church reform, internal spirituality, and the
spiritual exercises or aspects of the Christian life that are generally thought
to be inward focused traits, versus aspects of outreach, conversion, and
service that are aimed outward.
But, this was not really a true use of the labels.
Secondly, I thought to maintain the term Pietist
at the top of the vertical axis and to change the label at the bottom as Fundamentalist. This also brings up questions when you
consider the greater historical overview of the socio-ethno-religious
experience. Furthermore, I became
increasingly concerned that there was too much overlap between the four
axes. Lacking precise definitions of the
terms, it was not, however, clear as to where or what those overlaps might
be. The situation became more convoluted
when you tried to graph the position of the so-called Emergents -- how would
you determine the appropriate location of the identity point and how would one
weight the various variables and components of the definition?
Finally, in my essay on multi-polar graphs
indicating the relative Mennonite identities, I became increasing concerned
that many of the identities on the Bruderthaler-FEBC graph were in fact
reflections of the greater Conservative-Liberal // Cultural Isolation-Cultural
Assimilation.
One might also consider that the terms Liberal
and Conservative are normally extremely relative. For instance, politically, today’s
conservatives are yesterday’s classical liberals. When one considers the EMB-FEBC, one has to
consider that prior to 1987, the Conservatives were the so-called
traditionalist or ethnic Mennonites. The
Liberals who wanted to change the conference identity and to move away from the
Conservative Mennonite world view were the Modernists or American Fundamentalists. Now, according the FEBC publication, Fellowship
Focus, the conservatives are now the Fundamentalists, and
the new liberals are the groups that comprise the Emergent Movement. Not only have the Fundamentalists
changed poles, but the Emergents share a number of similarities with the
old Pietist Mennonites.
So, the issue becomes one of definitions
and defined categories.
Traditional Mennonite -
Evangelical -
Pietist -
Emergent -
Fundamentalist -
Bruderthaler -
Ethnic Mennonite -
Schismatic Mennonite -
Anabaptist -
No comments:
Post a Comment