Previous | Next 

EDITORIAL
Reflections on a Mennonite merger

Jim Coggins

At the beginning, it seemed like a good idea. Over the last decade or so, two of our sister denominations, the Mennonite Church and the General Conference Mennonite Church, decided to merge. The Mennonite Church was the largest Mennonite denomination in North America, with over 100,000 members, about 80% of them in the US (in Canada, there were regional conferences in Ontario and northern B.C./Alberta). The General Conference Mennonite Church, the second largest Mennonite denomination in North America, had about 60,000 members, almost evenly divided between Canada and the US. The Mennonite Church was originally mainly composed of Mennonites from Switzerland/south Germany. The General Conference Mennonite Church people were mostly Dutch in origin, but reached North America after migrating first to Poland and then to Russia. (The General Conference Mennonite Church people were the group that Mennonite Brethren broke away from to form the Mennonite Brethren Church, in Russia, in 1860.)

On the surface, the merger was a good idea. The different geographic origins of the two denominations were no reason to keep them apart now that they were living in the same place. Moreover, if the two largest Mennonite denominations merged, that would be a wonderful symbol and example of unity in Christ. (The hope was expressed that other Mennonite denominations, including Mennonite Brethren, would eventually join the merger.)

In the summer of 1999, the merger formally took place. There is now one denomination, although divided into two national bodies, Mennonite Church USA and Mennonite Church Canada.

What is happening in the emerging denomination, however, must cause any Christian to grieve deeply. Things have not worked out as hoped.

First, when one considers the cost of a merger, one has to wonder whether it was worth it. The two denominations have spent almost $1 million in direct costs (for things such as extra meetings and administrative planning) for the merger. Moreover, from my perspective, it appears that the churches have been somewhat preoccupied with merger for most of the past decade, to the neglect of some other aspects of church work. And the process is far from complete.

More serious, however, is the human cost. As a church historian, it is my observation that usually when two churches of 100 members join, the result is a united congregation of 150 (the remainder either split off into groups of 25 or simply disperse). Sadly, this appears to be happening in this case. In the US, the Eastern Conference of the Mennonite Church voted this spring on a resolution that it not join the new church; the resolution was defeated 52% to 48%; this inconclusive result means that some congregations may well leave the new denomination even if their regional conference does not. The Lancaster Conference, the largest regional conference in the Mennonite Church, has expressed doubt about whether it will join the merged denomination. Numerous other congregations and parts of regional conferences are considering withdrawing for a variety of reasons (a few have already left). In Canada, significant differences of opinion have appeared in the regional conferences of the General Conference Mennonite Church in Alberta, B.C. and Saskatchewan.

Further conventions and meetings will be held this summer, and the new Mennonite Church may yet resolve its problems. We should pray for our sister denomination. This may also be a time to do some soul-searching of our own. Are there things that we can learn from the experience of our sister denomination? I will suggest some ideas.

1. Membership needs to be clear.

All Mennonite churches have traditionally believed in covenant community, that their churches are composed of believers committed to God and to each other. However, from the beginning, there were differences in polity (organizational structure) between the two merging denominations. The Mennonite Church had a stronger sense of covenant and accountability. Its churches exercised discipline over their members, and its regional conferences exercised discipline over their churches. General Conference Mennonite Church churches and conferences, on the other hand, tended to see themselves more as voluntary associations. Its churches were free to join a regional conference or the national or binational conference, and membership in one did not necessarily mean membership in another. Their conferences were often reluctant to discipline member churches, and their churches were often reluctant to exercise strong discipline over their members. Much more divergence was tolerated.

A complicating factor was that both denominations allowed churches that were members of one denomination to also be members of the other denomination. For instance, perhaps half of the Mennonite congregations in Ontario belonged to both denominations. These joint congregations made a merger of the two denominations almost inevitable. But this meant that the merger was not so much a conscious decision but an inevitable result of local decisions made earlier. The local decisions did not sufficiently take into account the difference in polity/organizational structure.

This difference in polity reached a crisis over the issue of homosexuality. About a dozen Mennonite congregations in the US decided to accept practising homosexuals as members. Most of these belonged to both denominations. The Mennonite Church, with its stronger emphasis on accountability, expelled a half-dozen of these congregations. The General Conference Mennonite Church did not. When the two denominations merged, the question arose whether those congregations would become part of the merged denomination or not. In fact, while the two denominations merged last year, they have still not resolved the question of how to decide membership in the US section of the new denomination. Many in the Mennonite Church refuse to become part of the new denomination if the homosexual-friendly congregations are allowed in.

It is to avoid problems such as these that the leadership of the Canadian Mennonite Brethren Conference is presenting a recommendation this summer that the Conference in future not allow MB congregations to also belong to another denomination. (There were two such congregations, but one, South Calgary Inter-Mennonite Church, has been expelled over the homosexual issue.) Local Mennonite Brethren congregations should also examine how they handle the issue of membership. Confusion over who is in and who is out will inevitably cause problems. This warning applies both to those (primarily older) congregations who keep a lot of nonactive people on their membership lists and those (primarily newer) congregations who have baptized, active people who are not members.

2. Can two walk together unless they have agreed? (Amos 3:3)

The merger did not create the division in the Mennonite churches. It simply brought that division to light. Before merging, the two denominations approved a common confession of faith. That confession says that homosexual sexual activity is sin. However, both denominations also agreed to continue “dialoguing” about the issue. What is clear at this point is that there is a significant minority in both denominations who believe that some homosexual sexual activity is okay, as well as a majority who believe what their confession says. This is considered an important enough issue on both sides that many people are not willing to compromise. For instance, two or three General Conference congregations in Alberta have withdrawn from the new denomination; this is not because of the merger specifically but because the General Conference Mennonite regional conference in Alberta has waffled on whether to expel the South Calgary congregation. (It should be mentioned that some congregations are also leaving the new denomination because it is not friendly enough to homosexuals.)

The issue of homosexuality in itself may not be that significant, but it is a symbol of disagreement on a variety of other theological issues. One is a disagreement between “spiritual” and “biblical” Mennonites that dates back to the 16th century. (This disagreement relates to both the interpretation of Scripture and the willingness to enforce rigid moral codes.) Related to this is a disagreement between those who stress discipleship and those who stress tolerance and inclusiveness. Personally, I don’t think it possible for people who disagree on such fundamental theological issues to work well together in a church.

For Mennonite Brethren, the lesson may be that we need to be clear about what we believe. As the United Church of Canada has demonstrated, attempts to accept “everybody” inevitably alienate those with firm convictions. Attempts to please everyone end up pleasing no one. If we accept all kinds of views, there is eventually nothing to bring us together.

3. The peace position is not a sufficient basis for unity.

One understanding of the peace position among Mennonites stresses love, unity, tolerance, dialogue, cooperation and inclusiveness as the primary teaching of Christ. Such a stress eventually leads to pluralism, relativism and doctrinal fuzziness. If peace is to be sought at all costs, then nothing else matters.

The original Mennonites in the 16th century, however, did not make the peace position central. The Schleitheim Confession, the first Mennonite confession of faith, written in 1527, says that Christians, through a deep commitment to Jesus Christ, have moved from the kingdom of the world into the Kingdom of God. Because of this, they use only the weapons of the Kingdom of God; they use spiritual weapons, not physical ones; they practise love and nonresistance. The peace position was thus based on a prior commitment to Jesus and the Kingdom of God. These 16th-century Mennonites understood that peace comes only through submission to the Prince of Peace. This meant that there was unity and peace within the church, but it did not mean that the church would offer to include just anyone in its membership. In fact, the same confession has a strong emphasis on using the spiritual weapon of the ban to expel those who were theologically and morally out of step with the Kingdom of God. While personally practising love and nonresistance, these Mennonites did not expect to live in peace with the world; in fact, the world slaughtered them by the thousands.

Mennonite Brethren need to recover an emphasis on the peace position, but we should be clear that that peace position flows out of an understanding of being part of and agents for the Kingdom of God.

Previous | Next 

Last modified June 27, 2000.

© 2000 Mennonite Brethren Herald.
Published by the Canadian Conference of MB Churches.
Masthead and usage information.