 |
| The Divided Kingdom, à Church of Latter Day Saints. |
Legacies
of Division
It has been a busy month – the Wenger
Mennonites, Sam Mullet’s guilty sentence for in-faith hate crimes and an
informative roundtable with AIMM representatives and church leaders from Burkina
Faso and Congo / Zaire. What do all
three of these events have in common?
They all deal directly with the Mennonite culture’s legacy of division.
This morning (being Sunday, 23 Sept), I lay
in bed listening to Minnesota Public Radio (MPR)’s broadcast of Krista
Tippett’s interview with Focus on the Family president Jim Daly and Gabe Lyons,
founder of “Q,” an Emergent Evangelical group.
Tippett focuses on three topics –
namely the efforts by Daly and Lyons to create a new, impactful and yet more
caring and human face of Evangelicalism, on their outreach to gays,
pro-Choicers and Muslims (the perceived traditional enemies of Focus on the
Family and faithful Evangelicals everywhere) and the controversy this new
leadership has generated between generations within the American Evangelical
movement. (For instance, Daly indicates
that 65% of Evangelicals under the age of 35 support the concept of gay
marriage – currently an almost violently divisive issue in Minnesota’s current
electoral cycle.)
A veteran of Minnesota’s inter-Mennonite
culture wars of the late 90s, my first reaction was to groan and suspect that
Focus was merely adjusting to future realities in fundraising. Focus and its officers have made a lot of
money off the anti-abortion, anti-woman, anti-gay coalition in the past. To me, Daly’s awareness of future trends
signaled a bellwether alert that future contributors might be alienated by a
legacy of such hard-core political preoccupations – and a growing reputation
for negativity, and um, err, well – something akin to “not exactly loving”
attitudes towards others.
Regarding
the Wenger Mennonites, I admit to being a bit behind the times. Horse-and-Buggy
Mennonites: Hoofbeats of Humility in a
Postmodern World by Donald Kraybill and James Hurd came out in 2006, but I
was only just fortunate to come across a used copy this week. In this book, the authors explore a church
division within the Old Mennonite Order that occurred in 1927 over the use of
the automobile. From a small group of 50
dissenters, the Wenger Churches have grown to a population of some 16 thousand
persons. Truly a successful legacy of
dissent.
“How
does one take this story?” I
wonder. “Should I celebrate diversity and a commitment to faith and cultural
traditions, um, err I mean principles?
Or are the authors celebrating a culture and legacy of division?” These small questions take on a larger
significance to a Brüderthaler Mennonite whose own culture split from the
Kleine Gemeinde Mennonites and the Russian Mennonite’s General Conference in
the 1870s and 1880s. “Are/were the Brüderthaler similarly a legacy
of division?”
The AIMM (Africa Inter-Mennonite
Missions) Roundtable on Mennonite Missions’ legacy and an on-going commitment
brought up similar questions. Grimly
stark against the celebration of 100 years of inter-Mennonite cooperation and
growth within Africa was the number of churches who equally shared in this
legacy and celebration but were no longer part of the community – the Mennonite
Brethren (MB), the Fellowship of Evangelical Bible Churches (EMB) or
even the Fellowship of Evangelical Churches (EMC). Certainly, they had not absented themselves
in the cause of missionary zeal or a commitment to Evangelical missions? Has Peace become such a divisive theological
concept that we can no longer celebrate even our past successes and
cooperation? How sad the legacy of
divorce, made so much the worse for the past success of a formerly close
relationship now gone bad. I am sure the
French have an appropriate phrase for this.
While the roundtable was a brilliant
success and greatly informative, not to mention a good conversation between our
Muslim Somali (from Djibouti) host’s conversation with our African leaders, or
some of the best roasted goat I have ever encountered. But, there would be one final reminder of
division. A Mennonite whom I did not yet
know introduced himself and asked which church I was with. I replied that I was of Brüderthaler heritage
and remained a strong supporter of AIMM as it was part of our family legacy as
well. I also identified myself as a
worshiper with a congregation in Evanston and one in St Paul.
“Have
I ever been to [he named another local Mennonite congregation]?” he asked.
Without thinking, I replied, “No, that church is a bit too political for
my tastes. I prefer to worship where I
can focus on God and not worry about politics.”
Note to future self –
excellent roast goat, savory samosas and sweetened Somali coffee can make one
say things one really wouldn’t say on purpose – next time stick to quiche and a
nice latté .
Of course, the person in question was from the
church in question. “Well, I think we’ve worked through a lot of
those divisions and both congregations tend to get along pretty well at
present,” he thoughtfully responded.
“Well, sure, but then if you
get along alright now, what does that say about the split? Are you reuniting now that things have calmed
down and the divisions have become less important, or will both congregations
continue to needlessly struggle in a legacy of division? How long will that last?” I wondered to myself – silently. “How
long will we have to explain being Mennonite in Minneapolis as a political
division between Republican Mennonites and Progressives Anabaptists rather than
as a united church faith heritage?”
 |
| Sam Mullet, courtesy NBC TV |
Finally, a federal court in Ohio
finally found Sam Mullet and 15 of his co-sectarians guilty of hate crimes for
assaulting his fellow Amish leadership and forcibly cutting off hair and beards
as a sign of spiritual humiliation. How
did all of that start? Rather
predictably, I’m afraid – it started over a church split. [Note that it has not passed my attention
that while Mullet’s presumed immoral leadership of his break-away sect,
including potentially having forced women into adultery, was seemingly included
only in the testimony against the church and did not contribute to any specific
charges regarding such abuses by a church leader on his congregation.]
While I can only agree with the verdict
reached, I am also somewhat concerned that the Mullet precedent will only make
churches all the more willing to agree to establishing separate paths in the
future. Instead of being able to hold
ourselves mutually accountable to the fellowship, as is the Anabaptist way, it
may now be too much easier, a lot more legally advisable and a lot safer to
just agree to go our separate ways. That
would truly be the most regrettable legacy of division – a legacy that looks
all the more permanent the further on we go.
Is
this truly how we want to be remembered?
_________________________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment