Progressive Conservative Mennonite Churches

[Ernie]

One thing I highly respect about BMA is they seem to be committed to consistency. I expect they will probably be more “conservative” than many other formerly quite plain churches in 30-50 years, simply because they choose to hold the line and stop gradual shift and change.

BMA was started by folks leaving Conservative Mennonite Conference who wanted to stop drifting. So it makes sense they would stay "conservative". Eastern started for the same reason. They just drew the lines on different issues.

[Josh]

One thing I highly respect about BMA is they seem to be committed to consistency. I expect they will probably be more “conservative” than many other formerly quite plain churches in 30-50 years, simply because they choose to hold the line and stop gradual shift and change.

BMA was started by folks leaving Conservative Mennonite Conference who wanted to stop drifting. So it makes sense they would stay "conservative". Eastern started for the same reason. They just drew the lines on different issues.

The current push is really coming from the Lancaster Conference origin congregations that weren’t allowed to join Keystone. (Keystone made a deal they wouldn’t accept any more congregations from Lancaster in exchange for a peaceful separation. The ones who got left out went BMA instead.)

My local BMA affiliate that was ex Amish got kicked out of BMA a few years ago. A group of people who grew weary of Charityisn affiliated with BMA here recently, though. A number of people from that church departed because they didn’t like the BMA expectations.

[joshuabgood]

One thing I highly respect about BMA is they seem to be committed to consistency. I expect they will probably be more “conservative” than many other formerly quite plain churches in 30-50 years, simply because they choose to hold the line and stop gradual shift and change.

BMA was started by folks leaving Conservative Mennonite Conference who wanted to stop drifting. So it makes sense they would stay "conservative". Eastern started for the same reason. They just drew the lines on different issues.

Much like the Eastern, BMA has been on (some would say decided) rightward track the last number of years as more congregations joined that were more conservative in nature (think plain suits, no shorts, no ties, no instruments, no TV's), and overcame the critical mass of ex-CMC congregations. At the BMA convention these days, one won't see any shorts, ties, there won't be any instruments, and there will be a good number of plain suits. The original BMA congregations in many cases would have had ties, instruments, shorts, etc...(UB, FJMC, etc)

I expect that rightward direction to mostly continue...combined with a likely increasing alignment with reformed and systematic theology.

I expect that many BMA will continue as a transition church in many ways.

[ohio jones]

Much like the Eastern, BMA has been on (some would say decided) rightward track the last number of years as more congregations joined that were more conservative in nature (think plain suits, no shorts, no ties, no instruments, no TV's), and overcame the critical mass of ex-CMC congregations.

That wasn't difficult, really; out of the 80+ congregations in BMA, fewer than a dozen are ex-CMC.

[Josh]

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

[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 =)

[joshuabgood]

I should maybe add...if it wasn't clear, I respect reformed theologians, even if I can't quite agree with them on a number of points. Their commitment to intellectualism and study I find compelling.

And I would also add, I don't see BMA as explicitly Reformed, but that influence is there.

[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.

[Judas Maccabeus]

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.

[Judas Maccabeus]

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.