The Hartville Restatement of the Christian Fundamentals (1964)

[RZehr]

Anyone able to find and post this here?
This is not the same as the more popular 1963 Mennonite Confession of Faith, Kalona, Iowa. Which is here: viewtopic.php?t=4842

[Josh]

Anyone able to find and post this here?
This is not the same as the more popular 1963 Mennonite Confession of Faith, Kalona, Iowa. Which is here: viewtopic.php?t=4842

I haven’t been able to find it online in a while; the last time I did, it was an appendix to some PDF of an Eastern discipline. (I wish I’d saved that.)

[MaxPC]

I am assuming this came from Hartville, OH? Is it associated with a particular group?

[RZehr]

According to one of my wife's relative, Roy Geigley (Western Fellowship - Arizona), Moses Baer (Nationwide Fellowship - British Columbia), and Wilbur Kropf (Western Fellowship - Oregon), were tasked with writing the Revised Christian Fundamentals. Possibly there were other men involved in writing it.
It was part of the Non-Conference Fellowship Movement back in the 1950's -1960's, and discussed and accepted at the "Fellowship Meetings" of those times.

I think that at that time Nationwide Fellowship and the Western Fellowship were the same thing. The two became separate later. I could be wrong about the timing.

[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.

[Soloist]

According to one of my wife's relative, Roy Geigley (Western Fellowship - Arizona), Moses Baer (Nationwide Fellowship - British Columbia), and Wilbur Kropf (Western Fellowship - Oregon), were tasked with writing the Revised Christian Fundamentals. Possibly there were other men involved in writing it.
It was part of the Non-Conference Fellowship Movement back in the 1950's -1960's, and discussed and accepted at the "Fellowship Meetings" of those times.

I think that at that time Nationwide Fellowship and the Western Fellowship were the same thing. The two became separate later. I could be wrong about the timing.

Wilbur has an article on it, I need to see if I can find it… I miss him.

[RZehr]

Written by Wilbur Kropf, published in Western Fellowship newsletter in March, 1999

THE HOW AND WHY OF THE REVISED CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALS


I. Decline of Mennonitism from its Biblical and Historic Position.

1. Early in the twentieth century, Protestantism began to be affected by Neo-orthodoxy, which questions the authority and reliability of God's Word. This had also filtered down into the intellectual brackets of the Mennonite Church. Eventually the schools, colleges, and publishing house began to reflect this compromising spirit of the age.
2. As conferences progressively became controlled by the liberal element, there followed a breakdown of discipline and an adaptation to the cultural practices of society. As a whole these often reflected Protestant viewpoints. Ecumenicism became evident in the publishing work and in relief and missions. Pacifism, with its emphasis on political reform and social betterment, became mixed with the Biblical doctrine of nonresistance. Nonconformity in attire, the unequal yoke, divorce and remarriage, the abstention from jewelry and the wedding band were being questioned and previous views were being laid aside.
3. The influence of radio and television, with its cesspool of depraved thought, and worse, its many unsound religious doctrines, accelerated the trends of apostasy. Conservative leaders rose in protest, feeling that something must be done to save us from these unwholesome trends.


II. Beginnings of the Fellowship Movement in the Early 50’s.

1. The first positive steps were taken in the latter 50’s from within the Conservative Conference.
a. Reasons for withdrawal from conference lay basically in the development of a powerful executive committee. When problems arose within congregations, they would often settle in favor of the liberal element. When a liberal split from a local congregation, this move would be supported by allowing them to begin a new congregation close to the old one, yet they were allowed to remain in the same conference. Conservative ministers sometimes found their ministry in jeopardy when they opposed these decisions. In consequence, a number of congregations left the conference and began the Conservative Fellowship.
b. They also began the paper called the Herald of Truth, periodical in which conservative voices could once again be heard within the conferences.
2. Rumblings of discontent were beginning to be heard within most conferences as the drift away from Biblical doctrine and practice continued. Small meetings of concern were held here and there.
3. A meeting was then called Nov. 1-3, 1960, at Nappannee, IN, on a larger scale for all those interested in maintaining a Biblically conservative position which the Mennonite Church had always stood for.
a. There were those who assembled from the U.S. and Canada at this meeting. It was a heart-warming meeting. Prior to this, small groups felt somewhat alone in their position, but now found many who shared similar conviction from many areas of our continent.
b. This sparked a determination that something needs to be done to offset the apostate trends that seemed to be existing everywhere.
c. Since these apostate influences were evident in the Mennonite Publishing House materials, it was determined that a new publishing work should be started. This was fulfilled in the beginning of Rod and Staff Publishers. The immediate concerns seemed to be directed toward Sunday school helps, along with a youth paper.
c. From this point it led to further fellowship meetings.
d. There were leaders from Lancaster Conference who deplored the drift as their conference departed from the truth, as well as a reaction toward their conference method of administration through the Bishop board who made decisions with little ministerial counsel.
e. Because of trends in conference there was a strong emphasis on congregational autonomy.
f. From this developed regional fellowships that met regularly and established mission programs.


III. Meeting at Shedd, Oregon, in 1962.

1. This was hosted by the three conservative Oregon churches.
2. There was a strong emphasis on the need of standing for truth and touching on points wherein we needed to take a positive position.
3. Because of conference drift and lack of discipline, it became obvious that groups were leaving their respective conferences.
3. Reverberations from the old conferences were that we were “splitting the body of Christ.”
4. In this meeting there arose a concern for the development of a statement of doctrine for the following reasons:
a. To show there were definite doctrinal differences between our position and the apostate trends existing in conferences.
b. There was a need of a basic position in the new movement, for it was drawing many different people, perhaps some who were just disgruntled in their setting.
c. It was clear it should be a statement of doctrine and not a discipline or statement of standards for congregations.
5. A committee was appointed, namely, Moses Baer, Roy Geigley, and Wilbur Kropf. The latter served as chairman of the committee.


IV. Development of the Statement.

1. A suggestion came that we simply revise the Christian Fundamentals accepted by the Mennonite General Conference of 1921 at Garden City, MI, adapt it to meet current needs, and call it the “Revised Christian Fundamentals.” The original Christian Fundamentals were written to meet the inroads of “Modernism” of that time. The new revision gave expression to some of the doctrines and practices of the early church which at the time the former confessions were written were not a matter of difference, but since that time were questioned or denied by many church organizations and institutions.
2. There were a few slight changes, including the exact order of subjects discussed.
a. Assignments within the committee in the original writing were made according to interest and ability.
3. Because of the rather complicated and lengthy historical introduction to the Dortrecht Confession as used in the previous booklet, it was decided to rewrite it in a more simple and systematic way so that it would better introduce the beginnings of our church to those interested.
a. The historical introduction was intended to cover the Apostolic church, the development of Catholicism, the reformation, and the beginning of Anabaptism.
b. This historical writing was assigned to Bro. William McGrath and came back to us for review.
4. The total doctrinal part of this work was then presented at the ministers’ meeting held at Sheldon, WI, in 1963. A number of suggestions and revisions were then brought back to the committee.
5. The committee reworked the material and again presented it to a ministers’ meeting at Hartville, Ohio, in 1964. Again a few changes were suggested, but with the understanding that with these changes it stood approved.
6. With these changes it was then submitted to Rod and Staff for publication.
7. For the printing the following suggestions were given:
a. To differentiate it from previous confessions, it should have the verse I Cor. 3:11 on the bottom of the front cover.
b. It would have the following order: 1. Historical Outline. 2. Apostle’s Creed. 3. Schleitheim Confession of 1527, Dortrecht Confession of 1632, and then the Revised Christian Fundamentals.


V. Printings of the Revised Christian Fundamentals in the booklet along with the other confessions.

1. As of 1998 it is in its eleventh printing, the latter printing being in a larger booklet form.


VI. Responses to the New Supplement.

1. At first it was largely accepted by most fellowships and served its original purpose well.
2. It may be less used by some in groups where there are tendencies to be more closely knit and follow more after the old conference pattern.
3. Eastern Mennonite Church, which began later, accepted the old Christian Fundamentals of 1921, but never did accept the new Revised Christian Fundamentals, possibly because it was felt to have too strong an emphasis on congregational autonomy.
4. All agree that the Revised Christian Fundamentals still serve a purpose in showing the vast difference between apostatizing Mennonitism and the fellowship movement as a whole.
But a new question arises in local fellowships. Is it adequate in meeting our needs as greater diversity develops among us with some groups accepting a more modified conservatism that is patterned more after the world? Will this direction ultimately lead our conservative groups back where those of our descendants who wish to stand will again need to begin a new movement at some future time?
5. Some of the areas of concern and issues now faced in this modified conservatism could be listed as follows: the use of cam-recorders, along with purchased videos or home movies being able to be shown on the computer, use of the Internet with its access to world information including the worst filth, attendance at worldly entertainment, attire with short sleeves and short skirts, turning from dark hose to flesh-colored stockings and bare legs, and the fashionable dressing of children. Do we need more definite guidelines as to the nature of our local fellowship or are there other answers in dealing with the problem of looseness coming into our churches so that our Biblical positions can be maintained? We do well to give serious thought to present day issues and work toward solutions.

[RZehr]

I think this is where this 1964 statement is available. I still haven’t found a copy online.
https://www.milestonebooks.com/item/1-2330-3/