Reports from the Listening Committee

In my comments, I will set forth points drawn from Stuart Murray’s presentations and my own church planting experience.

Stuart made four points about how the need to communicate in a post-Christendom and postmodern world may lead to some rethinking of current Mennonite/Brethren thought and practices. First, the incarnational model (we witness to the world by our lives) is not sufficient in a context that does not know the story of the Bible. We must be willing to wed the telling of the Christ-story with the living of the Christ-story.

Second, we also need to change from the traditional sequence of believe-belong-behave, which assumes an understanding of the gospel and assent to it, to belong-believe-behave, which emphasizes a more relational, accepting attitude that leads a person to faith.

Third, many Mennonites and Brethren have bought into the modern paradigm of the "minister" as professional, omni-competent, and distinguished from the laity – not in the sacerdotal sense, but in the professional, "you’re hired to do it," sense. We need to look back to shared models of leadership (the priesthood of all believers) found in our own heritage and in Scripture.

Finally, we need to reclaim the missional heritage of our Anabaptist and Brethren forebears.

Stuart also identified four points where the Anabaptist and Brethren heritage can have a very positive impact on a post-Christendom and postmodern world. First, we have maintained, more so than other Protestant traditions, that the life, the story, of Jesus has significant implications for how we ought to live the Christian life. At this point our heritage would challenge postmodernism: there is a metanarrative – God’s story and Jesus’ story – that is normative. God’s story is able to transform my story, no matter how good or how dysfunctional it is. My story, though vitally important, can never become my personal metanarrative; I need the transforming wholeness that comes when Jesus’ story becomes part of my own.

Second, the relational element that has been so important to the Anabaptist/Brethren tradition (note the themes of community and family) can powerfully challenge a tendency today to be connected with people only on a superficial level. Further, the Anabaptist/Brethren view of the church as a community on a journey can offer an appealing alternative to the church as static institution, which has been dismissed by both post-Christendom and postmodernism.

Finally, those of us in the Anabaptist/Brethren heritage have tended to define ourselves by our center in Jesus Christ rather than by the boundaries of confessions of faith, creeds, and formal theologies. This centered-set approach has more attraction for post-Christendom and postmodernism than a bounded-set approach.

Stuart also offered several theological observations that I would affirm. He noted that models of the atonement and salvation based on guilt and death are less effective in our current context. The sixteenth century Anabaptists and the eighteenth century Brethren used a variety of models for the atonement and salvation: reconciliation, union with Christ, adoption, Christus Victor, vicarious atonement. The more relational models like reconciliation, union with Christ, and adoption can be very helpful in presenting the work of Christ in our contemporary setting which, all too often, is relationally starved. Like the New Testament and our own heritage, we need to present the work of Christ and the concept of salvation in a rich variety of models.

Finally, I would like to make some observations about leadership issues in Mennonite and Brethren churches. Most Mennonite and Brethren congregations have adopted the fellowship model of the church. In this model the church typically thinks of itself as one extended family or cell. The pastor of such a congregation generally envisions his or her role as that of a shepherd.

Such a view of the pastor is not necessarily the best for church planting. Pastors of this type will generally have churches with slower growth because of the time necessary to build relationships in a single cell. Also, the churches that are birthed in this extended family model will find it difficult to grow much larger than 100 to 120; beginning with 50 people or less makes growth even to 100 more difficult.

A catalytic or visionary church planter may be able to foster more rapid growth. Teaming such a person with a shepherd style of pastor would seem to be an excellent model in our heritage.

Finally, I would also strongly urge that small groups be incorporated into the "DNA" of every new church. Small groups allow a continued emphasis on relationships and caring that are important to our heritage. At the same time they avoid the restrictions that are inevitably connected with viewing the church as a single cell, what one person has called "single cell anemia." Multiplying cells can create churches without inherent size restrictions, thus allowing and encouraging greater congregational growth.

 Copyright ©2000-2012 New Life Ministries (www.NewLifeMinistries-NLM.org). All Rights Reserved.
(see information on our copyright policy)

Top of Page