MENNONITES: The Next Generation

The Mennonite existence is changing. We are more engrained in politics, activism, consumerism, and economic investment than ever. We have droves of Mennonites carrying weapons, shedding their doctrine, but yet somehow still holding on to their Mennonite cultural roots. Little of the original doctrine of sacrifice and submission still exists, yet you see that most Mennonites go to Mennonite churches, work for fellow Mennonites, marry Mennonites, and socialize with Mennonites, but somehow refuse to call themselves what they are; Mennonite. A leopard may not change his spots, and simply not calling someone a Mennonite does not make them something else. If we are not pleased with what the previous generations of Mennonites have done, we do not need to try to remove our heritage, instead we need to improve our understanding of our history so that we can minister in an educated manner.

In this denial of our heritage, I find there are indeed some things that need to go. Old traditions that are simply the specters of a dead world need to die. But many parts of doctrine are being tossed out with tradition; this does not need to be so. We do not need to abandon solid, Christ-centered theology for doctrine taught elsewhere simply because we are ashamed of our fore-bears. Indeed, I see things that are not Christian at all, but simply American, (Capitalism, American Liberty, Patriotism) being taught by our generation as if it is divine.  These things may not be evil, but they are not of God, yet they are taught as such, making them equal with Christianity. This idol worship is very wrong. Capitalism may be good for the nation and useful to us, but that does not make it a morally good thing. Nor does it make it a morally bad one. However, we have starting incorporating it into Christianity, and that is wrong. 

We as a culture have come to a fork in the road: either we hold to our theology, that which is good and Christian (not simply the traditions), or we abandon the constructs of having a Mennonite society completely- close the doors and join the Baptists, Methodists, and Presbyterians. If we do not wish to be mennonite, let us not be so. But this nonsense of just removing the label and continuing as Mennonites in our culture is just pandering to our own ego. 

Rough waters are ahead for Mennonite Churches. As we become indistinguishable from our neighbors in all but last name, one may ask, "Have we just become to self-righteous to interact with the world?" For most of our generation marry, interact, and serve only those with the same culture as we ourselves have. If we have no doctrinal reason to separate ourselves from those around us, why do we do so? Why must we be our own sub-group? If we really want to stop being Mennonite, we should stop congregating within ourselves and actually assimilate with the culture around us. If we do not have any religious differences with our neighbors then the only reason we do not join them must be based on something more selfish; our pride.

It is time for our generation to take a stand in what we believe and teach as Mennonites. We need to do one of two things: abandon ship, or set about the maintenance that has been lacking for generations. The latter choice may be messy, painful, and difficult, but it needs to be done. I must play the hand we have been dealt, we are Mennonite. We do not have an American heritage, Canadian heritage, Mexican heritage, or Russian one. Our forefathers did not bleed and die for these nations, we have not right to appropriate them as if they did. We must accept our own heritage and build upon it. We can complain all we like, that does nothing. We must assess our situation and decide what we wish to do with what we have inherited.
I am delighted with some aspects of my heritage, and ashamed of other parts. Yet I will take and learn from it; not abandon it.

I cannot deny who I am, instead I will learn from it. I advise you to do the same. 

Backpedaling our Faith

I have recently been talking to people about the Mennonite Doctrine of Non-resistance. There seems to be a great deal of concern about this doctrine, and wether or not our churches should still teach this, or if we remove it from Church Doctrine should let each member decide for themselves. Let's see what Jesus taught.  Out of the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew:


38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’39 But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. 


Here we see Jesus commanding us to turn the other cheek. This is not some Old Testament law that we have been freed from, nor is it the words of an Apostle to one of the first century churches. This is an explicit command of our LORD and Savior that He addresses to all of us. As if this wasn't clear enough, He continues on this subject later in the chapter. 


43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and theunrighteous. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?48 Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

God, in human form, came down and commanded this teaching. It isn't an easy teaching, but it is a clear one. Nowhere does Jesus give us an exception to this command. Even His own life was an example of how to live out this truth. 

We cannot say that Jesus didn't command this. He did. Explicitly. He gave no exemptions; no addendum saying He didn't mean it. Our choice is simply this, do we accept what Jesus said or do we try to find a way around it? Can we choose which parts of Christ's commands to follow? If so, which are ok? Do we get to negate Christ's words? Do we just want a Savior, or do we accept His authority as LORD as well? Can backpedal on such a clear command and still profess to teach His Word? What Word are we teaching if not love? Can we as a church condone those who obey our fleshly inclination here, and if so, what does can the Church condemn? If we stop teaching the commands of Christ, why are we claiming to represent Him? 

I have heard many people advocate the church remove this clause from our Constitution, that we remain silent on the matter. They would advocate that everyone do what is right in the sight of their own eyes instead of offending those who do not want to obey this command. Is this the legacy we wish to leave to our children? That we backpedal on Christ's commands that our forefathers died for simply because we no longer like the command? How can we profess to be obedient followers if we cannot actually at least support His commands in teaching? 

Not only this, but the main argument against this doctrine is not based on war any longer, but on defending ourselves with violent or deadly force. The theoretical, "What would you do if your family was at gunpoint?" argument is the most common one, and this disturbs me on a psychological level. I personally do not know of anyone who has ever been in such a situation, nor do I feel it likely. However, there are those who argue this just so they have a reason to justify taking up violence against another person. As Christians we should seek the path of peace, not look for a socially acceptable excuse to kill people. I am concerned by the fact that so many people are trying to find the one loophole where they could shoot someone. We should focus on love and peace, not look for hypothetical situations where we could kill people. The fact that it is so enjoyed by so many should concern us. We should have an obsession with saving life, not taking it. The fantasy of killing an intruder is just the adult version of the teenage, "save the girl" fantasy, just with more murder involved. We need to be mature in Christ, follow His commands, even when they cost us something. 

Christ's command was explicit either we obey or disobey. Ignoring a command is disobeying it. Choose you this day. 

Called or Commissioned?

Recently, our church has announced that we are returning to old traditions of the Mennonite culture: only those with a church title are allowed to preach on Sunday morning. For years now, those brothers in the church who were determined to have the gift of preaching and teaching were allowed to exercise their gift for the good of the church and the glory of the Lord. But no longer. This was due to the fact that someone had apparently complained that we were not following Mennonite traditions. Frankly, this bothers me greatly; that we would go back to such a vapid tradition after having left it for many years.

Note, there is no Scriptural reason that one needs a title to preach. In fact, we are told in Scripture that Spirit gives the gift of prophecy and teaching. (Ephesians 4:11) We are told that we are not to quench the Spirit. (1 Thessalonians 5:19) No where in Scripture is it implied or stated that we are supposed to only allow those with church titles to preach.  Indeed, the concept of only elected leaders preaching is foreign to Scripture entirely. There are those in Scripture who are commissioned to preach the Gospel, but only after the Spirit calls them, not when a body of some local church group elected them. The Great Commission (Mark 16:14-16) is a command that we are all called to follow, not those that are elected by popular vote once every two years.

Not only is it against Scripture to deny those with the gift of teaching to teach; it is also against Scripture to indulge those who are ignorant in the Church. We are commanded to stop following the doctrines of man. (Matthew 15:9) If someone is bothered by not keeping tradition that is not Scriptural, we should correct them in love. (2 Timothy 2:25) We are not to be caught up in our traditions, (Colossians 2:8) but instead we are to correct those who are wrong out of love. We should not alter the Church in order to help people hold on to incorrect theology, but instead train them in the truth. (II Timothy 3:16)

But if we are going to go back to abandoned Mennonite traditions, why stop there? Why not have our ministerial wear all black? Why not only preach and teach purely in High German? Why not sing in the traditional, long winded Mennonite style? Why not take up issue with head covering? At least that argument is a Biblical one. (I Corinthians 11)

I am disheartened by this decision to placate those who are still caught up in traditions that should remain dead. We are going to lose the next generation of Mennonite leaders to dead traditions in order to placate the weak. I cannot and will not stand by.

The Right to Rule

The Founding Fathers are often the rallying figures for the conservative faction of America. They point to these men as deeply religious leaders whose piety would be able to subdue all the 'evils' of modern progressivism and federalism that has so besmirched this great nation. They speak of the Divine selection of America, and the rights that God gives.

A look into history tells a different tale, however. For centuries leading up to the American Revolution, it was the assumption of the people of the world that God ordained government, and therefore the common population should be subservient toward it. However, with the rise of new ideals of the 'rule by the people, for the people' we find that the Founding Fathers did not believe in the right of government as ordained by God; instead, they believed it was man who had the right to chose to be ruled. This is a major step in humanism that modern Fundamentalist tend to overlook; that the Founding Fathers did not believe the message of Romans 13 which clearly states that God ordains government. Instead, they believed it was the right of men to decide who rules over them. They denied the authority of God and instead believed they could establish a form of government that took its authority from the people, not from God. This was not a 'Christian' ideal, it was a strongly, intentionally secular idea for its era.

This departure from Scripture is indicative of the real setting of the American Revolution. It was a humanistic movement led by religious men. The term religious does in any way imply Christian or Christlikeness. Instead, we see a denial of Scripture and a reversal of God's position. Instead of viewing God as the authority figure who decides who rules us, the Founding Fathers believed that God had given them rights that even God Himself could not deny: life, liberty, and a pursuit of happiness. None of these so called 'rights' are scripturally based, indeed we are called as Christians to die, be slaves, and to crucify our fleshly desires. In short, the exact opposite of the claims of the Founding Fathers.

This is unsurprising if we look at the men who penned this document. Thomas Jefferson, the penman of this worshipped document, was not a Christian, but a Diest. He did not believe in the Godhood of Jesus, nor his Messiah status. Instead, Jefferson thought Jesus to be a good teacher. As such Jefferson authored his own version of the Bible. The Jefferson Bible was a cut and pasted document that removed all references to Jesus deity and any supernatural elements from the Gospels. He was against the idea that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God. This by definition makes Thomas Jefferson an AntiChrist President. 

George Washington, another of the worshipped ancestors of America, was explicit with the Muslim nations of his era that the Unites States was not a Christian Nation. He put that in plain writing when making a treaty with them in 1797. The exact words, written in Arabic, but read in English to the entire Senate were as follows, "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." This approved by the Senate and signed by the then president, John Adams, another of the Founding Fathers.

America is a wonderful land of  great opportunity, but that does not make it the most holy nation that has ever existed. There is much revisionist history on both sides of the American divide. We should not worship the Founding Fathers, nor should we worship the icons of our nation. Worship belongs only to God, and as such we are called to be servants of the appointed government. That does not extend to worshiping its Founders, who were impressive and accomplished men; but we do well to remember that they were as fallen and sinful as our current government.

The Topic of Expository Teaching

Expository preaching is the buzzword of the Reformed movement today. "If your pastor would only use expository preaching, all your churches problems would be solved," they seem to say. For those who aren't familiar with the term "expository preaching', it means to preach Scripture chapter by chapter, verse by verse, in its original order and meaning. Sounds very biblical, right? In fact, the advocates of expository preaching will tell you that avoiding the 'shallowness' of topical preaching and sticking to expository preaching will create a firm foundation for the church that will help it avoid fads of Christianity, oh the irony.

In the rush to not skip over any part of Scripture, the expository movement has somehow forgotten to check if expository preaching is Scriptural itself. Did Jesus use expository teaching? Did Paul? Did Peter? How about James? Anyone in the New Testament at all? How did God Almighty preach when He was here? How did His hand-picked followers preach?

Jesus used Scripture in His teachings, but He used it to underline the points He was making while on particular topics. His recorded teaching is all topical. In fact, there is a constant theme to His teaching: love. Some preachers in the modern era have said that we preach too much on the love of God and not enough on His wrath. I disagree. If every human from Adam to the last human to draw a breath all preached the love of God till their dying breath, we would not do the love of God justice. God would not take us aside and tell us that He doesn't love us that much. I understand what these preachers mean, that there is more to God than 'just' love. While that may be true, love was Jesus's main theme when He taught, maybe it should be ours as well. We should never undermine that love. Jesus used it as His theme in almost every message He preached. If it is important enough to God that He preached on it, it should be to us as well.

But what about the disciples? Did they teach topically? Yes, and we see that in every message that they they preached. No matter where they start, they always bring the focus back to their main topic: Jesus Christ. Paul said he wished to know nothing else among the Corinthians than Jesus Christ and Him crucified. They had an unending theme: salvation through Jesus. Even in Paul's sermon where the name of Jesus was not mentioned, the theme of God's salvation through repentance and the resurrection are made clear.

Now, I strongly believe that preachers should study the Scriptures in an expository manner themselves. The teachers of the church should have a thorough understanding of all of scripture in order to preach and lead in a Godly manner. Even group study can benefit greatly from expository study for mature and earnest Christians. However, the obsession with preaching in an expository manner is not Scriptural, nor does it seem to have the miraculous effect on churches people claim it does. You know who does have a miraculous effect on the church? Our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. Our relationship with Him should be our obsession. He is our theme, our hope, and our God. He should be the theme of everything we do. Every message preached should point back to Him.

Reforming Anabaptists

As our Anabaptist traditions fade and are replaced with more modern Protestant and Catholic ideas, many forms of church function are changing. We are replacing the tradition of our fore-bearers with the traditions of the fore-bearers of the Reformers. Teaching, doctrine, and style of the last five hundred years are being pulled up and quickly and quietly chucked out of the window as we scramble to replace our backward and embarrassing past with the prestigious and regal formalities of the Calvinists. All but Calvinism itself has been accepted, with patriotism being lauded as Christlike, weapons of self defense touted proudly, and Zionism becoming the norm; all the while we cover our mantles with guns, flags, and crosses.

How do Mennonites become functioning Calvinists? By turning from studying the Word to following loud, confident men. We listen hungrily to the confidence and emotion of teachers who teach the religion of Americanism. We drink up stories of the nobility of long dead men, fantasizing about becoming them, idolizing those who came before us. Instead of turning to the purity of Christ and His Word, we take in the predigested words of those who speak boldly. We idolize fallen humans of the Old Testament; sinners who are under grace, just as we are, and relish in the violence of their lives. We take the stories of Godly men and deify those men, rather than glorify the Creator of men.

Sadly very few people born as Mennonites believe or even understand anything that the Anabaptists taught. The last century of Mennonites have left a poor example of leadership and theology and instead of improving the situation, we have abandoned the focus that the original Anabaptists taught; namely, following Christ and only Christ. Instead, the majority of Mennonites have become "Reformers in Denial". That is, they adopt the teaching of Reformed personalities on tv, youtube, and the radio without understanding the theology and meaning or implications behind that teaching. We have become starved for leadership, and like starving men, we stopped checking what we are using to fill that void. In our hurry to have human leaders to look up to and admire, we have trampled the foundation that our Anabaptist forbearers insisted upon: the literal interpretation of Christ's commands and obedience to them. 

Instead of this literal interpretation, we have substituted the doctrines of the Reformed Church. Our churches may not accept TULIP theology in so many words as of yet, but that is usually out of ignorance, not disagreement. We have turned from a literal application of the Sermon on the Mount to the American Reformed teachings of justified lethal self-defense, the glory of mammon in the form of capitalism, and the inalienable rights that are promised to all men that are not found in the Bible, but instead in American Scripture, the Constitution. We reinterpret loving your enemies to somehow exclude the actual enemies of the United States or those of the new nation of Israel. The teaching of the Anabaptists is dead, so now Mennonites are now scrambling to join Calvin's followers, a mere five hundred years late to the party.

Our Anabaptist heritage doesn't make us better than other Christians, however the teaching of the original Anabaptists still is founded upon God's truth. Not because its labelled Anabaptist, but because it is founded in following Christ, literally and fully. It is not founded in adding teaching to Scripture, such as the Just War Theory or TULIP. Instead, Anabaptism is about removing these human doctrines from our faith. 

Sadly, most Mennonites don't even know the term Anabaptist, nor what it means. We have become ignorant, both of history and theology. As such we have turned to predigested theology offered in an appealing way through some easy to use media, be that tv, the radio, or youtube. As such, I very much doubt that my son's generation will have any qualms about Reformed doctrine, as the majority of them won't even bother to find out what that means. Instead, it will just permeate the church as the easiest and most available teaching to digest, with very few, if any, to care enough to find out why so many of their forefathers were martyred for disagreeing with the Reformed doctrines. While our forefathers were willing to die for rejecting man's doctrine mixed with God's command, we cannot be bothered to tell the difference. 

What Does It Mean to be a (Bat)Man?

Two years ago, I was talking to a friend of mine. He asked me a question that I have pondered in my mind for a while now. His question was this, "What is your definition of 'being a man'?" Now of course being a man can be construed as being born male and being over eighteen. But that is not what was being asked here. The question is a valid one and in our current area I'm sure many of my cohorts would say that David was a prime example of being a man. Strong, fearless, obedient, Godly. Which I agree entirely.

There is more to this question, I think. This desire to 'be a man' as we put it, permeates our society. Big beards, big trucks, concealed weapons, UFC, MMA; all these flood our society. Machoism is alive and well in America and in the church. There is an intense obsession with 'manliness' in our generation. There are websites, books, and YouTube tutorials on 'how to be a man'.

While being manly is all well and good, there is logical and human reason why our generation of Christian men feel the need to look up to facial hair and testosterone. It feels good to be capable of instilling our will on our fellow man, to force them to yield to our strength. Much of modern 'manliness' is really just a power struggle. Its about being the biggest, bulkiest man in the bunch who gets to order the rest of the 'beta' men around. This is frankly the antithesis of Christianity. Becoming strong to force our will upon the world is the exact opposite of Christ's teachings of self-sacrifice. The reason Christians pick David as 'manly' is mainly due to his war record. I've been hard pressed to find anyone in our generation who was obsessed with the manliness of David's poetry. Instead, they all point to his battles, the blood he spilled, as the cause to admire his manliness.

While I do believe that David is a great man; I have another example I prefer to use when answering this question. My incarnation of 'manliness' (excluding Christ Himself) would be Bruce Wayne, aka Batman. I'm not kidding. Well, maybe I am kidding a bit, but bear with me. Although Batman may be fictional, he sets standards that those of us attempting to be manly would do well to follow.

Bruce Wayne is a wealthy man who dedicates his life and fortune to helping those that cannot defend themselves. He does this out of his own pocket, with his own time. He doesn't do it for praise; in fact, no one knows his name. Instead, he personally invests his life in improving his city, Gotham, without accolade and without regard for the status of the person he defends.

Secondly, Batman doesn't force his will upon others; instead his goal is to defend the helpless from that very fate. His goal is to free others to make their own choices; even when those choices are foolish, nefarious, or evil, like those of his rival, the Joker. Although Batman does not believe that the Joker deserves to live, he does not take another life into his own hands. Instead, Batman attempts to free everyone, even those who despise him, to make their own choice. This is exactly what God Himself does for us. He frees us to choose, even when we choose evil. The Joker knows that Batman will never kill him; most of his plots revolve around that assumption. Batman lets Joker make his choice, yet he never condones the evil choices he makes. Batman does all in his power to negate the evil choices of others with the choices he himself makes. He incarnates the ideology that goodness cannot simply kill evil; for in doing so those who thought themselves good become the very bullying, dictatorship of evil they sought to destroy.

While this example of manliness may be a bit satirical, there is more than a grain of truth to it. The form of manliness that Christ shows us embodies this truth as well. Christ allowed everyone to make their own choice about Him; he did not force Himself upon them. He was not a brute, but a healer and defender. He allowed those who mocked Him to do so. He didn't condone the evil around Him; yet He did not force Himself upon them either. He was frank and honest with people, both in praise and condemnation.  Yet, in the end, Jesus let both groups make their choice.