History of the Garden City Confession of Faith

[MattY]

I recently listened to this sermon on the Pilgrim Ministry site about the Garden City Confession. The sermon was given at a Pilgrim church in 2019.

https://www.pilgrimministry.org/sermons ... n-of-faith

It was interesting to hear their perspective on it. I have seen here arguments that basically blame the fundamentalist movement behind the Garden City Confession for the condition of today's MCUSA; Harold Bender and The Anabaptist Vision are held up as a better alternative. I looked recently at a photo of the original graduating class of Eastern Mennonite University in 1919; I had seen it before, but I just wondered again, how did things go from that, to the theological liberalism and acceptance of pro-LGBT views in just 100 years?



But the speaker here sounds appreciative of the Garden City Confession, although noting some things that conservative Mennonites have since seen as weaknesses, or "eventually became uncomfortable with". He's not putting any blame on the people behind it. He doesn't sound very appreciative of Harold Bender though. I would guess he puts more blame on Bender and his generation for the way things have turned out.

To be clear, I'm not with the speaker on nonconformity, dress standards, etc. But I'm not sure about the legacy of The Anabaptist Vision either. It seems to me Bender led to John Howard Yoder (his student), and an emphasis on the social impact of the gospel, to the rejection of anything else about the gospel, which led to today.

If I understand correctly, the EPMC and other ultra-conservatives still use the Garden City Confession. I doubt they would say adopting it makes a group eventually go liberal. I am not sure if intermediate conservative groups like the Pilgrim Conference officially hold to it?

[Josh]

Moderate conservatives tend to uphold the 1921 confession. It is a rather confusing document, clearly showing itself as an intermarriage of two different lineages.

Fundamental conservatives (what Ernie calls progressive-conservatives) tend to prefer the 1963 confession.

Intermediates and ultras tend to prefer the 1964 confession.

Interestingly, Old Orders just stick to the 1527 and/or 1632 confessions. My own church does the same (and also tacks on “articles of faith” found in the Martyrs’ Mirror).

[RZehr]

My intermediate church holds to the 1964. But we probably haven’t even read it since 1964. I have little idea what it says or how it compares to the much more popular 1963.

[ken_sylvania]

Edsel Burdge did an analysis of how the 1964 CoF compares with the 1921 Garden City CoF.
https://churchplantersforum.org/wp-cont ... Burdge.pdf

[RZehr]

Edsel Burdge did an analysis of how the 1964 CoF compares with the 1921 Garden City CoF.
https://churchplantersforum.org/wp-cont ... Burdge.pdf

Thanks, interesting analysis.

[Biblical Anabaptist]

I recently listened to this sermon on the Pilgrim Ministry site about the Garden City Confession. The sermon was given at a Pilgrim church in 2019.

https://www.pilgrimministry.org/sermons ... n-of-faith

It was interesting to hear their perspective on it. I have seen here arguments that basically blame the fundamentalist movement behind the Garden City Confession for the condition of today's MCUSA; Harold Bender and The Anabaptist Vision are held up as a better alternative. I looked recently at a photo of the original graduating class of Eastern Mennonite University in 1919; I had seen it before, but I just wondered again, how did things go from that, to the theological liberalism and acceptance of pro-LGBT views in just 100 years?



But the speaker here sounds appreciative of the Garden City Confession, although noting some things that conservative Mennonites have since seen as weaknesses, or "eventually became uncomfortable with". He's not putting any blame on the people behind it. He doesn't sound very appreciative of Harold Bender though. I would guess he puts more blame on Bender and his generation for the way things have turned out.

To be clear, I'm not with the speaker on nonconformity, dress standards, etc. But I'm not sure about the legacy of The Anabaptist Vision either. It seems to me Bender led to John Howard Yoder (his student), and an emphasis on the social impact of the gospel, to the rejection of anything else about the gospel, which led to today.

If I understand correctly, the EPMC and other ultra-conservatives still use the Garden City Confession. I doubt they would say adopting it makes a group eventually go liberal. I am not sure if intermediate conservative groups like the Pilgrim Conference officially hold to it?

Pilgrim Conference uses the Garden City confession. I believe EMPC used what Lancaster Conference was using when they started. Pilgrim, coming out of EMPC continued to use it. Washington Co. does as well. I never understood how Washington Co. came to adopt that as they never sent delegates to the General Conference.

[Josh]

Wasn’t Nationwide the driving force behind the 1964?

[MaxPC]

My intermediate church holds to the 1964. But we probably haven’t even read it since 1964. I have little idea what it says or how it compares to the much more popular 1963.

Excellent thread by the way. RZehr, does your church teach the Confession to converts or newcomers?

[RZehr]

My intermediate church holds to the 1964. But we probably haven’t even read it since 1964. I have little idea what it says or how it compares to the much more popular 1963.

Excellent thread by the way. RZehr, does your church teach the Confession to converts or newcomers?

No we don't. We don't even have a copy of it handy. I'm trying to find one. I doubt that anyone in our church has read it at all in the last 10 years, and probably none have ever read it more than a few times in their life. And most have never read it at all.

[Bootstrap]

Edsel Burdge did an analysis of how the 1964 CoF compares with the 1921 Garden City CoF.
https://churchplantersforum.org/wp-cont ... Burdge.pdf

Let's compare these to the 1995 Confession of Faith. (I will do this for other sections he quotes one at a time, as time permits.)

1921 – Article IV. Of the Fall of Man –
We believe that man was created by an immediate act of God, in His own image and after His
likeness; that by one act of disobedience he became sinful in his nature, spiritually dead, subject
to physical death and to the power of the devil, from which fallen condition he was unable to
save himself.

1964 as Article VI -
We believe that man was created by an immediate act of God, in His own image and after His
likeness; that by one act of disobedience man became sinful in his nature, spiritually dead,
subject to physical death and to the power of the devil, from which fallen condition he was
unable to save himself; that this condition became the lot of all mankind.

Here's the Confession of Faith. How does it compare?

https://www.mennoniteusa.org/who-are-me ... faith/sin/

We confess that, beginning with Adam and Eve, humanity has disobeyed God, given way to the tempter, and chosen to sin. Because of sin, all have fallen short of the Creator’s intent, marred the image of God in which they were created, disrupted order in the world, and limited their love for others. Because of sin, humanity has been given over to the enslaving powers of evil and death.1

Sin is turning away from God and making gods of creation and of ourselves. We sin by making individual and group choices to do unrighteousness and injustice.2 We sin by omitting to do good and neglecting to give God the glory due our Creator and Redeemer. In sinning, we become unfaithful to the covenant with God and with God’s people, destroy right relationships, use power selfishly, do violence, and become separated from God. As a result, we are not able to worship God rightly.3

Through sin, the powers of domination, division, destruction, and death have been unleashed in humanity and in all of creation. They have, in turn, further subjected human beings to the power of sin and evil, and have increased burdensome work and barren rest. The more we sin, the more we become trapped in sin. By our sin we open ourselves to the bondage of demonic powers.4 Because of sin and its consequences, the efforts of human beings on their own to do the good and to know the truth are constantly corrupted. 5

The enslaving nature of sin is apparent in the powers of evil, which work through both individuals and groups and in the entire created order. These powers, principalities, and elemental spirits of the universe often hold people captive and work through political, economic, social, and even religious systems to turn people away from justice and righteousness.6 But thanks be to God, who has not allowed the powers to reign supreme over creation or left humanity without hope.

Gen. 2:17; 3:22-24; 6:11-12; Rom. 1:21-32; 6:23.
Dan. 9.
Isa. 1:12-17.
Rom. 6:12-18; Eph. 6:10-12.
Ps. 14:2-4; Rom. 3:9-18.
Eph. 2:1-3; Gal. 4:1-3.

Commentary

1. Sin is a reality, not an illusion. We cannot explain away sin by blaming it on illness or by claiming we are victims of circumstances or of evil. Sin involves personal responsibility and has real consequences. In Scripture, responsibility for sin and evil is ascribed not only to men and women. It is also ascribed to a personal power who is given various names: “serpent” (Gen. 3:1; 2 Cor. 11:3), “tempter” (Matt. 4:3), “Satan” (Zech. 3:1), “father of lies” (John 8:44), the “evil one” (Matt. 6:13), and “the devil” (James 4:7).
2. In addition, “powers,” “principalities,” “gods of the nations,” and “elemental spirits of the universe,” though not necessarily evil, are prone to distort God’s purposes for them. They can corrupt and enslave humanity (Isa. 42:17; 45:20; Gal. 4:9; Eph. 2:1-3; 6:12; Col. 2:15). Sin is thus not only an individual matter, but involves groups, nations, and structures. Such organizations have a “spirit” that can incite persons to do evil they would not have chosen on their own. Governments, military forces, economic systems, educational or religious institutions, family systems, and structures determined by class, race, gender, or nationality are susceptible to demonic spirits. Human violence toward each other, enmity between peoples, the domination of men over women, and the adverse conditions of life and work in the world–these are all signs of sin in humanity and in all creation (Gen. 3:14-19; 4:3-16; 6:11-13; 11:1-9; Rom. 8:21).
3. People sin not only by breaking particular divine laws, but also by breaking the covenant God offers to all. A covenant is an agreement that establishes a relationship. In the Bible, God initiates the covenant with God’s people (Josh. 24:16-18; Jer. 7:23; 31:31-34; Hos. 2:18-23). Faith or faithfulness (English words used to translate the same word in the biblical languages) means living rightly within the covenant relationship. Thus, sin is fundamentally unfaithfulness to our relationship with God and disobedience to God’s will. Unrighteousness and injustice include all sin; the same word in the biblical languages can be translated with either English word. Hebrew and Greek do not divide (as English does) between the individual dimension of sin (unrighteousness) and sin’s social dimension (injustice).
4. Sin is part of the human condition; we all participate in it. The sin of Adam and Eve affects all (Rom. 5:12, 19); at the same time, we are held accountable for our own behavior. As the Anabaptist leader Pilgram Marpeck wrote, any heritage we have received from our first parents does not deprive us of our own final responsibility before God (Ezek. 18). Although human beings have free will, choice is limited. By the grace of God, we have been given the freedom to choose the bond of covenant relationship with God or to choose bondage to sin (Rom. 6:16-18), which leads to final separation from God. The Scriptures issue stern warnings that those who do not fear God, but persist in anger, lust, power mongering, and the like, face the destruction of hell (Matt. 5:22, 29; 18:9). See “The Reign of God” (Article 24).
5. Human sinfulness affects the entire person. No one aspect of human beings, such as reason or sexuality or the physical body, should be singled out as the primary carrier of sinfulness. Giving way to the “flesh” is expressed in a variety of sinful attitudes and behaviors (Rom. 13:14; Gal. 5:16, 24; 1 Cor. 11:18-30; Phil. 3:3-7).
6. Just as sin has marred the relations between human beings, so the effects of sin and evil have distorted human work and rest. Work has not been cursed by God (Ps. 104:23-24), but neither should it be idealized. According to Genesis 3:17, God did not curse work directly, but the “ground,” that is, the conditions under which work is carried out in a world affected by sin and evil.