Progressive Conservative Mennonite Churches

[Josh]

I would add that fundamentalism is very clearly derived from (Reformed) systematic theology. All of the Mennonites who embraced fundamentalism are thus infected with various strains of Reformed doctrine.

Huh? Are you saying all systematic theology is reformed? While I will admit most of the texts out there are, there are some like Odom (most assuredly not) Erickson, (maybe a moderate) and Pardington (an old C&MA guy, not) not all of them are. Pardington actually predates Fundamentalism.

You could also consider Gordon Fee (Pentecostal ) or even Daniel Kauffman (Mennonite)

So working within the discipline of systematic theology does not necessarily make you reformed.

No, I’m not saying that. What I am saying is that Fundamentalism sprang from Reformed origins, and like anything else Reformed, has a heavy influence of systematic theology. Those who adopted fundamentalism end up with both reformed and systematic theology influences.

Daniel Kauffman was the major cheerleader for fundamentalism in Mennonite circles, and ended up promoting a very confused mix of fundamentalism with some plain clothes put on and changes to a few reformed doctrines that would be too offensive for Mennonites to accept.

When one interacts with people who are German Baptists, Old Order, or Holdeman, it is like a breath of fresh air or water to thirsty soul simply because the influence of fundamentalism is not present. As I’ve often said, if one thinks reformed theology is the way to go… then go be part of a reformed church.

[JimFoxvog]

I heard yesterday that in at least some BMA churches, ordained persons are being asked what their doctrinal position is on Eternal Conscious Torment vs. Conditional Immortality. If an ordained person makes any room for CI, his credentials are withdrawn. Even if he believes in ETC, but acknowledges that there are some verses that could use further discussion, his credentials are withdrawn. He is required to state that the New Testament only teaches ETC and that the NT does not make any room for CI.

Wow! Do they have to avoid John 3.16?

[AndersonD]

When one interacts with people who are German Baptists, Old Order, or Holdeman, it is like a breath of fresh air or water to thirsty soul simply because the influence of fundamentalism is not present. As I’ve often said, if one thinks reformed theology is the way to go… then go be part of a reformed church.

So I don't understand how "fundamentalism" is not present in the Holdeman church. They have "revival meetings" and "mission work" and I think one could argue that John Holdeman was a Fundamentalist considering his rationale for breaking off the Old Mennonite church. Do Holdeman preachers speak about "the lost" or a literal interpretation of the Great Commission or "the plan of salvation"?

So I would delete Holdeman's from your list and add the Hutterites and Amish to your list, excluding New Order Amish and the renegade colonies like Fort Pitt and Elmendorf.

My grandmother who was an Old Order gave me "Doctrines of the Bible" for a birthday gift. And I remember the now senior bishop in WF saying the Mennonite church has always believed in mission efforts. Any books where I can find a detailed interpretation of Fundamentalism? It's a vague term for me.

[Josh]

Holdemans have some fundamentalist influences but overall do not think like, say, a 1940s era Lancaster Conference person did, or like an independent Baptist does today. And yes, non-evangelical Hutterites should be added to the list.

The New Order in the present era aren’t very fundamentalist either and are in fact becoming more “Old Order” in their thinking.

To learn more about fundamentalism I would simply read the history of it; it was basically a Presbyterian who was wealthy from oil money who decided to distribute a lot of tracts and otherwise promote teaching several fundamentals (virgin birth, etc.) are what is essential to Christianity and fight the tide turning at places like Princeton seminary against that.

[joshuabgood]

It is pretty widely accepted that Daniel Kauffman specifically, and the late 19th/early 20th century Progressive Mennonite leaders in general, were heavily influenced by fundamentalism. I would be one that would go on record saying that wasn't all bad. The music for instance got a lot better =). And preaching in a language understood by all seems like step forward.

[joshuabgood]

I was under the impression BMA no longer tolerated preachers who promoted eternal security.

I think that is a fair statement. I think some folks though feel that perseverance of the saints, the way Calvin taught it, is not the same as eternal security the way it exists in easy believism cultures.

It isn't hard at all to see the connection between Reformed Theology and BMA. Wayne Grudem's book, Systematic Theology, was literally an anchor text at EBI. The S and T, edited by Paul Emerson and J Stoltzfus (both teachers at EBI) regularly runs articles that originate in Reformed publications. I myself attended, with the invitation of the current EBI principal, a good friend of mine, a Ligonier Conference with him - where, among others, RC Sproul was a featured teacher and song writer.

But I am a big tent person so I don't mind...as theology isn't really the most important thing =)

One of the principal texts that I have used to teach Theology proper in the past was J.I. Packer’s “Knowing God”. You can use material without adopting all of the theology of the author. When my daughter was at Toccoa Falls, in their missions program, they used Grudem, much to my dismay, I would have preferred Pardington’s outline studies, but it is out of print. For the record, one cannot be ordained in the C&MA if you buy the entire package of reformed theology. They demand a premillennial view.

Just because S&T runs articles by authors that happen to be Reformed, does not mean that the board that oversees it is reformed. Of that you can be fairly certain.

That is fair. I don't think the editors of S and T are reformed, only that they are influenced by Reformed thinkers. I think from the editors perspective, which Julian shared with me directly in a convo we had last spring, in their view their only alignment with Reformed Theology comes from where the "clear Bible teaching" overlaps with Reformed theology. Where "the clear Bible teaching" is not in alignment, they are not in alignment. A sort of aspirationally pure Biblicism. I had the privilege of asking Julian, in his view, are we (the BMA theologians) then just better and more faithful exegetes of the Biblical text than are the Piper's, Grudem's, Sproul's, et al of the world? His thought was he wouldn't be ready to say that...which I agree with. This then begs the question, why then do we not agree with the Reformed ways?

My answer is because we use a hermeneutic that is centered in Jesus being Lord of the scriptures. Through his life and witness we interpret the scriptures rather than the other way around. Any perceived contradictions are resolved through the life and witness of Jesus.

Julian suggested the difference was that the BMA theologians weren't as committed to systematizing theology, and therefore are willing to accept contradictory teachings/principles in the scripture as somehow both being simultaneously true - ie free will versus predestination.

I can basically buy Julian's thinking on topics like the one above - however, I can't get on board with Romans 13 invalidating the clear life and witness of Jesus. I will harmonize that to the Lordship of Jesus.

[Josh]

It is pretty widely accepted that Daniel Kauffman specifically, and the late 19th/early 20th century Progressive Mennonite leaders in general, were heavily influenced by fundamentalism. I would be one that would go on record saying that wasn't all bad. The music for instance got a lot better =). And preaching in a language understood by all seems like step forward.

You know, it's possible to do either of those things without embracing fundamentalism.

[Sudsy]

I heard yesterday that in at least some BMA churches, ordained persons are being asked what their doctrinal position is on Eternal Conscious Torment vs. Conditional Immortality. If an ordained person makes any room for CI, his credentials are withdrawn. Even if he believes in ETC, but acknowledges that there are some verses that could use further discussion, his credentials are withdrawn. He is required to state that the New Testament only teaches ETC and that the NT does not make any room for CI.

Wow! Do they have to avoid John 3.16?

Yes, I agree. John 3:16 does not say 'should go on perishing forever and ever'.

What I find to be so hypocritical is that one can say they believe in ECT and go about their lives with little to no real concern to try to rescue everyone from such a never ending state of conscious torment. Is that what God's love is about in our attitude toward the unsaved ?

My father was an ECT street preacher and lived out his belief to be a constant daily witness. But what I see in the vast majority of ECT believers is a 'too bad for them, I got mine' way of living out this belief.

One of my considerations to ECT is that we don't find it in the NT that it was used as a tool to persuade others to be saved. Salvation was not presented by the apostles as an escape from ECT. Salvation was most often presented as the solution to our current sinning problem that keeps us from enjoying a full life now and being with the Lord after we are resurrected from this life and put on immortality. What Jesus said about hell needs careful study and consideration to what one believes about God's love and punishing. I have read some pretty shocking ways of viewing God by those who preached ECT such as a Charles Finney. I don't see that the Gospel of good news to be an escape from ECT and I don't see where the early church preached ECT either.

I would challenge those who hold to ECT as to whether or not this is a heart belief that changes how you respond to such a belief. Can one really believe ECT and just 'shrug their shoulders' when it comes to being a fervent evangelist ? And one could say something similar to me in my attitude for others to have life after death in heaven as Jesus describes it. But, to me, it is one thing to believe people will be judged and some will go on to an immortal life with Christ while others to an immortal ECT as described as hell. And quite another to believe in a judgment for all but those who have not believed will be destroyed.

Anyway, my father accepted the Pentecostal teaching on ECT and acted accordingly, imo. My involvements in evangelism where initially with tracts with an ECT message but changed as I studied this further. I believe the Gospel message is about our current sinning and what Jesus has done for us to make heaven possible. If the early church, as seen in the NT, was one that preached being saved from ECT, I would have to think differently about this but it was not a 'hell fire' message they preached and they were Spirit lead.

[Josh]

ECT is not something that God imposes or punishes men with.

Rather, it is something that the devil offers and that sinful man chooses. Mankind has the option to repent.

The horrible truth is that those who don’t listen to Moses and the prophets won’t listen after the second death and judgment either. I believe Jesus offer of salvation remains open to all - it is just that many choose to reject it.

[joshuabgood]

ECT is not something that God imposes or punishes men with.

Rather, it is something that the devil offers and that sinful man chooses. Mankind has the option to repent.

The horrible truth is that those who don’t listen to Moses and the prophets won’t listen after the second death and judgment either. I believe Jesus offer of salvation remains open to all - it is just that many choose to reject it.

That understanding of ECT I find the most compelling. Though I still think the Biblical data that explicitly supports the idea of the immortal soul, or Immortality for all, is scarce. It does specifically note that the soul that sins shall die and that God alone is immortal.