More Work on Definitions

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.

Multi-Axis Identities, the Lustre Synthesis

Multi-Axis Identities as a Unifying Concept:

Note:  This is a reflection on the organizational difficulties in mapping out an organizational structure for a proposed cultural and spiritual history of the EMB church or Brüderthaler Mennonite culture.

    While I understand previous thoughts regarding a structure based on the name changes, I am not sure that this as effective for delineating the generational shifts in perception of the conference, the self-identity of the membership, or the growth stages of the conference.

    I would recommend an organization based on growth stages (Erikson’s developmental models provide some intriguing ideas), with a strong emphasis on biographical details of the men and women who created the conference, supported the missions and were called to service.

    What we need is a system that recognizes that the EMB were often a very loose fellowship of many different groups who were more involved or more influential at different times but always present in shifting alliances -- the missionaries, the Mennonites, the non-Mennonites, the Evangelicals, the Urbanites, the Rural Farmers, those who wanted to Reform existing movements, those who wanted to plant new endeavors.  Furthermore, I am more and more convinced that many of the church bodies joined and remained part of the conference for different reasons -- some wanting fellowship with reform-minded congregations, some wanting to join resources but otherwise be left more or less to their own devices, and those who wanted to join resources to generate a strong missions presence, and those who wanted to maintain a strong ethnic identity.  Even amongst the ethnic Mennonites, you had Kleiners, General Conference, those who leaned towards the MB, the Bruderthaler, the cultural Mennonites, etc. 

Are We an Ethnicity or a Religion?

    Does the term Mennonite refer to a religion or to an ethnicity?  This question regarding religion versus culture assumes greater significance as those who self-identify as Mennonite increasingly move away from their traditional clusters of farms, congregations, and colonies.  People have coined many terms to deal with this question -- Patrick Friesen, the noted poet and teacher of Mennonite descent, refers to himself as a “Recovering Mennonite.”  Many of my fellow Mennonite students at Georgetown University, a well-known Jesuit university of the Catholic faith, referred to themselves not as Mennonites but as having Mennonite grandparents -- in the same manner that Philip Landis, the controversial “Mennonite” cyclist, would later identify himself not as Mennonite but as of Mennonite descent.  In a former Mennonite Brethren church in Minneapolis, Minnesota -- we all celebrated one communion and a single fellowship, but identified ourselves as Bruderthaler-Mennonite, Old Mennonite, General Conference Mennonite, Hutterite, and Mennonite Brethren -- all the same, but all different.  Obviously, we retained distinct cultural differences -- the proverbial alphabet soup of Mennonite identities, that had no affect whatsoever on our shared spiritual understanding.  In an informal conversation, Carolyn Fauth, a Mennonite journalist and historian from Lustre, Montana, shared in conversation that until the 1940s, you could tell the Mennonite groups of Lustre-Volt apart by the pattern of ribbons on the bonnets worn by the women -- the Bruderthaler, the Mennonite Brethren, and the General Conference women all ascribed to a distinct style.  Furthermore, you use the same criteria to distinguish between the Old Mennonite churches, the Amish Mennonites, and the Hutterites.  Yet, I am aware of no written understanding that any of the Mennonites ever believed that God preferred or mandated a specific pattern for bonnets in His Church (though I am aware of stories where certain hairstyles and clothing fasteners are mandated by formal church instruction).  Though originally grounded in a religious understanding, many of these practices would seem to have become cultural norms and traditions rather than religious dogma.