Who is MWC?

Councils

Networks & Projects

News & Testimony

Publications

World Assembly: Africa 2003

World Directory

Site Map

1. Why are Anabaptist-Mennonites holding formal conversations with other Christian bodies?
     In the New Testament period there is a history of conversations between local communities, between Christians of different tendencies and perspectives. There seemed always to be at least two functions for those communications -- to move beyond one's own cultural and local setting to find a fuller understanding of the Gospel. And to emphasize the church's unity within itself as a sign of hope and witness to the world.
     The early Anabaptists were often in conversation with friends and adversaries. Sometimes they took the initiative to talk with other Christians. Other times they responded to requests or demands to give an account of themselves. So conversations were part of our identity from our beginnings, although later and for many years we didnt easily enter into dialogue with other Christians.
     Why wouldn't we converse even when we have differences? We need reason why we should not converse, rather than why we ought to converse. Why not listen and talk to others who claim, like we do, to be members of the church of Jesus Christ? Why not seek better relationships within the body of Christ?
     Such conversations often help us to see what within our identity comes largely from particular circumstances. When we come together to read the Bible and talk, we bring along our particular cultures and histories. Being together allows us to test the limits of our own understanding, to find out what is essential Gospel. By talking with Baptists, Reformed, Lutherans, and Catholics, we all sort out what we believe. What in fact in our identity is gospel truth? We may see things we are missing that will bring us closer to being a church with a full -- or bed gospel. Conversations are a way of testing who we are, as well as offering what we have which may benefit others.
     In fact, MWC has a statement called, "God calls us to Christian unity." It notes that "when Jesus met with his disciples near the end of his earthly life, he prayed that those who would follow him 'might be one.' (John 17:20-23). We see Christian unity, therefore, not as an option we might choose or as an outcome we could create, but as an urgent imperative to be obeyed."

2. We Mennonites have traditionally operated somewhat "separately." How did we become part of such discussions?
     The World Alliance of Reformed Churches and the Baptist World Alliance met in 1983, in Zurich, to celebrate ten years of formal theological dialogue between the two world bodies. And they asked MWC to send several Mennonites to comment on the significance of the Reformed/Baptist dialogue from an Anabaptist-Mennonite point of view. The day of discussion and fellowship culminated in Reformed, Baptists, and Mennonites joining together in a public service of confession and communion in the cathedral.
     After reflection on the events in Zurich, the WARC executive committee came to us with a request: "Will you talk with us?" Based on the conviction that Christians are to seek reconciliation and unity, there was no reason for us to refuse such a request. There were, in fact, good reasons to say yes, and to indicate that we wanted to talk about what each of our groups believes.
     At about the same time, Dr. Noel Vose from Australia became president of the BWA. He had developed a strong affinity for Anabaptist-Mennonite theology. When he was studying at the University of Chicago in the late 1950s, he discovered Anabaptist theology, went to Goshen, Indiana (USA) and met Harold S. Bender.
     He developed a strong conviction that Baptists and Mennonites should learn to know each other better. As Dr. Vose said, "Baptists were pursuing a path of conversations with various communions: Reformed, Lutheran, Roman Catholic. Why not Mennonite? We hold so much in common theologically." When he became president of the BWA in the mid-1980s, Noel took the initiative to ask MWC, "Can we sit down together and talk?" And again, MWC said yes.
     Our dialogue with the Catholic Church grew out of informal exchanges I had over the dinner table with Monsignor John A. Radano at the annual meetings of leaders of Christian world communions. He expressed interest in Anabaptist-Mennonite perspectives and in pursuing conversations with us at a more formal level. In 1997, we invited representatives of the various world communions to come to Calcutta as guests at the MWC Assembly. The Catholic Church sent a representative from Rome for the entire week and he told us that the Pontifical Council hoped there could be more conversations with Mennonites. Again, we saw no theological reason to say no to this invitation. The call to bring reconciliation within the Christian church led us to say, "Yes, let's talk so we can get to know each other better. Let's talk about the difficult history between us. Let's see what we have in common, as well as our points of difference, so that both of us can grow."
     With the Reformed, the Baptists, and the Catholics, our exchanges started relatively informally, with an expression of interest in more formal conversation. Each time, in response to our belief that there should be reconciliation within the Christian church, and not only in the world, we said yes.
     One conversation which hasn't taken place yet, but which may be in the works, is with the Lutherans. The Lutheran World Federation (LWF) has expressed informal interest in consultations with Mennonites, particularly in relation to the condemnations of Anabaptist-types in the Augsburg Confession.

3. What have we learned from the Baptists, the Reformed Churches, and now from the Catholics?
     Mennonites may not be as special as we sometimes think we are! Many of the convictions we hold are held also by others. Perhaps their church tradition doesn't value those understandings in the same way that our church does, or make them normative in the way we do, but at many points we share convictions.
     A specific dominant point stands out for me personally from each of the conversations. With WARC the conviction came to me in a new way that Jesus is Lord of history; not only of the church, but of the whole world. My Mennonite theology had emphasized more that Jesus is Lord of the church. Therefore, we are a new community, and we live life following the Sermon on the Mount. Our Reformed conversation partners emphasized Jesus as Lord of all. That has implications for how we relate to the world, speak to the world, and act in the world. That seems clearer in their theology than it sometimes does in ours.
     Is this part of the reason why some see us as sectarian? We have often tended to emphasize living our Christian life in cornmunity. Some of us have been less at ease living out the implications of Jesus being Lord of the whole world.
     The Baptists' passion for missions, for evangelism, and for conversion are strong points. I see how ingrained these are in their theology and their identity. True, many Baptists don't seem to pay much attention to church history. They focus on the New Testament period and on evangelism today. We have a 16th-century stopover between the two. (Unfortunately, we seldom pay much attention to all the other centuries of church history.) But the Baptist passion for missions, evangelism, and personal conversion made a strong impression on me.
     The Catholics have impressed me with their deep conviction about the need for unity in the Christian church. That's a conviction we Mennonites haven't worked with enough. We have often emphasized the call to faithfulness, but what do we do with Jesus' call for unity in the body of Christ? How do we work at that consistently and systematically?
     The Catholic Church raises another issue for me, for us: What are good ways of relating the local to the global -- the local church to the global church -- particularly in relationship to the issue of authority?
     The Catholic Church may sometimes permit the universal to dominate the local. We Mennonites are guilty of just the opposite. We have a hard time recognizing as fundamental any church life -- not to mention any authority -- beyond the local church. One question this poses for me is: What do we do with the biblical reality that the church has a local expression and a worldwide expression? How do we build up both components, in a relationship of mutual accountability, in order to be biblical church? How do we let this issue settle on us?

4. What have we learned about ourselves as a result of these conversations?
The worldwide Anabaptist family today has a diversity of opinions about whether or not we are a peace church, and about how important it is to actively pursue being a peace church. Is peace part of the core of Anabaptist-Mennonite identity today, or isn't it? One of the reasons that each of the three churches wanted to dialogue with us is our perceived peace emphasis. We may have strong debate and diverse opinions among ourselves about how important peace is in relation to missions and evangelism, for example. But we have learned that, in their eyes, we are a peace church -- or at least we are called to be one.
     The Baptists, who are very strong on evangelism and mission, wanted to talk with us about the peace dimension of the Gospel. And one of the results of this conversation is a BWA/MWC conference which will be held in January 2002 (at Eastern Baptist College in Philadelphia), primarily at the instigation of the Baptist World Alliance. The Conference's question is how do we bring together Baptist evangelism and Mennonite peace?
     Another thing we've learned is that we are not the only Christians who sometimes find it easier to divide than to unite. We have had a lot of splits for a relatively small group. I have come to the conclusion, however, that splintering is more of a Protestant and Evangelical reality than just a Mennonite reality. We can find similar patterns in the Reformed and Baptist families around the world. We say we split all the time and we have all of these factions. Sadly, this is not a uniquely Mennonite problem. But it is of course a serious problem for all of us, at least when New Testament theology is the norm.
     We've also learned to face our own significant diversity. When we speak with other Christian traditions, the Mennonites in the delegations are hesitant to say, "This is what Mennonites and related churches believe." So we sometimes say, "What we mainly believe is this ... ."
     These discussions with other Christians highlight the importance of having discussions within our own world family of faith, between our different Mennonite and Anabaptist-related denominations. What common core convictions do we share? Our MWC Faith and Life Council is working to discover this for MWC member churches.
     Because we have been in conversation with other churches, we look more carefully at ourselves. We see that we should be talking among ourselves, too.

5. Do we Anabaptist-Mennonites bear some responsibility for the fractured body of Christ, for a failure of unity with other churches?
To what extent were we responsible for some of the fractures in the 16th century, and to what extent were we the victims? Many early Anabaptists tried to be faithful and they sought to remain in conversation with others. In general, I believe, Anabaptists were more victims than perpetrators of the situation. But I doubt that we have sufficiently accepted the fact that significant innovation, including Anabaptist innovation in the early 16th century, naturally provokes significant -- and sometimes violent -- reaction on the part of people who believe that truth is undermined by the innovation.
     In any case, once we started going our own way, we became responsible for the continued fracturing of the body of Christ when we refused conversation, or did not seek conversation, with other churches. From the 16th century onwards, the number of denominational bodies among the Protestants and Evangelicals multiplied extensively. We are part of that. And who but we ourselves are responsible for fracturing the body of Christ within the Anabaptist-Mennonite family of faith?
     "Fracturing the body of Christ" is a fairly gentle expression. A member of the Catholic delegation referred to division in the church as "violence" to Christ's body. Do I have such a strong desire for unity in the holy body of Christ that division in the church -- whether global or local -- feels to me like a violent attack on Christ, the suffering servant? That was a new thought for me, and a feeling I hope to learn.

6. What does it mean for us to be a part of the body of Christ?
The body of Christ is a fundamental image of the church. The New Testament teaches that each part of the body has gifts to give and gifts to receive. If we are not full participants in that sharing, then Christ's body is disabled, and we are injured members of the body.

7. Where might these various conversations lead us as a global body of faith?
The primary thing they can help us do initially is to know and understand each other better at a leadership level. We should not overestimate the good -- or the harm -- that international dialogue can do. It is at best one instrument among many that could bring about significant change. If there is an accumulation of exchanges locally and nationally between Christians -- between Baptists and Mennonites, Reformed and Mennonites, Catholics and Mennonites, between Mennonites and others -- that may have some broader impact on us as global families of faith.
     The basic intention for the international Mennonite-Catholic dialogue is to learn to know and understand one another better. Within that experience we are addressing memories growing out of a history of confrontation, beginning in the 16th century. The objective for our five yearly conversations is not theological consensus. It is learning to know and understand one another better. That is how the Catholics view this round of conversations, too.
     At the end of the five years, we'll issue a joint report in which we Mennonites will speak about our own self-understanding. The Catholics will do the same. Together we will identify points of convergence and points of divergences on the subjects discussed. We will address the issue of reconciling and healing negative memories generated by our history of confrontation. The report will be circulated widely and discussed. The Catholics, for example, will send it to their dioceses around the world. MWC will make the report available to its member churches and solicit response.

8. Have the dialogues with the Reformed, the Catholics, and the Baptists been worth the effort?
How does one judge the worth of something like this? Compared to the efforts Anabaptist-related Christians make to create vital local and national church life or to promote mission and service in the world, efforts to converse with other Christians remain miniscule. Likewise, the amount of time, energy, and money MWC spends on dialogues is little compared to our investment in promoting relationships between Anabaptist-related groups. So, from that point of view at least, it would not be difficult for the dialogues to be worth the effort!
     Frankly, I think that it is too early to judge the lasting worth and significance of these dialogues. Clearly, they are useful to the people and the world bodies directly involved. They are also useful to individuals and churches around the world whose life situations lead them to pose questions about relationships between Anabaptist Christians and Reformed, Baptist, or Catholic Christians.
     But if "worth" refers to significant and lasting change in the churches, both local and global, only time will tell the value of these initial international dialogues. And to make the effort worth it in the long haul, we will need to be consistent and persistent participants in inter-church conversations at all levels, not only global, but also national and local. It is not a weeklong international conversation, once a year for five years, which can change the course of church history, the shape of world churches, or the hearts and minds of believers in local congregations. If this is true in any case, it is doubly so in a "Believers Church" like ours where no central authority can take the place of the baptized members ascertaining truth together.
     Of course, initially and ultimately, we are participants in these conversations because of our conviction that we are called to seek reconciliation, good relations, even unity, with other Christians and in all arenas of church life. By the grace of God, these conversations can become a worthwhile instrument, along with others, for healing the broken body of Christ.