Exploring the Issue of Group Uniformity In Practice (Part V)
An Examination of the Writings of the Anabaptist/Brethren Community on Church Standards and Discipline.
The first publication I wish to excerpt from is an essay that was published in The Sword and Trumpet magazine and later printed as a pamphlet. This pamphlet, “The Mennonite Rationale for Church Discipline, was a reprint of articles in the January, February and March issues of 1969. The author is Merle Ruth.
The pamphlet begins with some questions:
“Is it legitimate for a Christian congregation to set entrance requirements? What are the grounds, if any, for church standards? Can a church conference make binding decisions for its constituency? Are spiritual leaders accountable to God for irregularities in their brotherhood.”
The author points out that church discipline was the subject of many debates in the sixteenth century. He then states:
“The Anabaptists simply could not tolerate the absence of discipline in the state churches of their day”.
The author quotes Harold S. Bender, “From it’s beginning, the main stream of the Anabaptist-Mennonite movement has been characterized by discipline and the maintenance of order.”
The author believes that, “Mennonites have dared to make their piety a matter of particulars.”
I have no intention of misrepresenting the author by a limited amount of quotes, but I think the following quotes from the pamphlet will give a general understanding of his beliefs on the subject.
“Discipline is part of the whole process of encouraging righteousness. It embraces both preventive and corrective measures.”
“‘Church regulations’, when properly formulated, are ‘divine regulations’.”
“One could say, then, that the aim of discipline is to save both the standard and the offender.”
“If the majority of persons in a church are carnal, then the decisions of that church, arrived at in a democratic way, will not likely be according to Divine will.”
“Obviously, no brother, leader though he be, has the power to discipline because of a perfect life. A careful reading of I Corinthians 5 makes it clear that the human agent who administers discipline should not be viewed as acting in his own right.”
“Any group that practices church discipline can expect to be accused of denominational pride and holier-than- thou attitudes. It is certainly true that such attitudes can develop, but diligent teaching can do much to prevent them.”
“In the days of the Judges before their was a king in Israel, ‘every man did that which was right in his own eyes’ (Jud. 21:25). Church discipline is realistic in that it guards against this blight of anarchy that is sure to assert itself wherever the individual conscience is allowed to run rampant.”
“Currently in the Mennonite Church we are experiencing a peculiar uneasiness which comes from having left a rigorous disciplinary heritage, without having found a suitable substitute. To be sure, hosts of Mennonites are personally satisfied with the freedom and individualism which has been won. But there are undeniable symptoms that freedom and individualism have not brought with them a hoped-for revival of Christian vigor.” (Quoting James Fairfield)
This is just the first of several historical sources I want to reference. I am not desiring to disrespect any group of believers by quoting historical documents. I want to establish the background of thought among the various Anabaptist groups to help us all understand our roots and to give us a place of honest discussion as we seek direction going forward on these issues.
DSJ
One thought on “Exploring the Issue of Group Uniformity In Practice (Part V)”
Out of the many thoughts running around in my mind right now, I’ll just comment on one of the above quotes:
“‘Church regulations’, when properly formulated, are ‘divine regulations’.”
We know that Jesus granted a certain authority to the church. That is often used as a basis to argue that a given denomination has a certain authority over its people. But what or who was the church Jesus and the Apostles were speaking of? The church (ekklesia) was a term used for the assembly of believers, either locally in a certain place, or including all believers throughout the world (and this is the only way Jesus used it). Neither of these correspond to today’s concept of a denomination…unless that denomination actually comprises all true believers. So for the authority Jesus gave to be directly conferred to a denomination, either that denomination has cultish doctrine (that no one outside their group is saved), or the statement is a case of the logical fallacy equivocation (an argument using the same name for two different things). Jesus’ church does not equal our denomination.
Also, divine authority rests in God alone, and can only be delegated to those whom God chooses. No one can take this authority for themselves, or it obviously ceases to be divine. So has God delegated this authority to create “regulations” to our denomination? If not, they cannot be divine. But if He has, how has it happened that our regulations contradict those of other denominations? Once again we’re forced into a contradiction, unless either the other denomination is wrong and their claimed divine authority is false (so we’re the only true believers again…or a cult).
I’m not saying the denomination should have no authority; I am saying that it does not come from the direct mandate of Jesus to His church, nor is it on the same level as Scriptural or Divine authority.
The scary thing to me personally is that any group that practices the “closed Communion” effectively uses their own regulations to determine who is allowed to take Communion with them. Does this imply that we really do treat those regulations as “divine”?
Comments are closed.