Previous | Next

Spring 2025 · Vol. 54 No. 1 · pp. 21–40 

Boundaries and Bridges for Unity: A Mennonite Brethren Overview

Andrew Dyck

“This is not the Mennonite Brethren church I once belonged to. What’s happening to the Mennonite Brethren?” I have recently heard people from Mennonite Brethren (MB) and other churches make statements like this out of concern that the MB church in Canada is devoting too much energy to strengthening the boundaries that determine which churches and individuals are united in this denomination—and which are not. 1 By implication, the MB church may be doing too little to build bridges of unity beyond itself. Although these comments are often prompted by conferences, churches, and individuals who are parting ways because of their differing convictions regarding same-sex marriage, MBs in the past twenty-five years have also parted over other theological and ecclesial p. 22 differences. 2 All this prompts me to consider ways that boundaries and bridges both express and hinder Christian unity.

The Canadian Mennonite Brethren church . . . has pursued unity both by maintaining boundaries and by building bridges. These efforts have generally existed in tandem, even if one or the other has had precedence for a time.

It is not surprising that Christian denominations give attention to their boundaries. Boundary work can be a way of practicing (or maintaining) Christian unity within a particular Christian group. The scriptural injunctions to be of one accord, one spirit, and one mind can be apropos here (Phil 2:2). Churches demonstrate such unity through shared ministries, spiritual practices, personal ethics, theological statements, and more. At the same time, denominations also build bridges to practice Christian unity across denominational divides. Churches build these bridges through theological statements, institutional partnerships, joint ministries and mission, and common worship. Jesus’ prayer is appropriate here—that all believers in all eras be one so that the world will know God’s mission of love through Jesus (John 17:20–23).

As Mennonites around the world celebrate five hundred years of Anabaptism, the topic of unity through boundaries and bridges is a poignant one. While unity and disunity were at stake among sixteenth-century Catholics and Protestants, the Anabaptists were particularly invested in these topics when their lives and livelihoods were on the line. For instance, The Schleitheim Confession—subtitled Brotherly Union of a Number of Children of God Concerning Seven Articles—was written to foster unity among scattered believers by calling them to uphold seven Christian practices: believers baptism, the ban, a closed communion table, separation from abominable church practices, selection of pastors, rejection of the sword, and not swearing oaths. 3 Yet, while Anabaptists taught that Catholics, Lutherans, and Reformed Christians “belonged to the kingdom of Satan,” Anabaptists leaders also demonstrated that other believers were in fact fellow Christians. 4 Menno Simons makes a point of admonishing Catholics, Lutherans, and Zwinglians in a “faithful brotherly spirit.” 5 Hans Denck, acknowledging that he himself errs, separates from those who use coercion in matters of faith; but he will not turn away from “any person who fears God.” 6 Among Anabaptists and Mennonites, boundaries and bridges have been used to practice unity.

The purpose of this study is to examine ways that the Canadian Mennonite Brethren church—with Anabaptist roots—has pursued unity both by maintaining boundaries and by building bridges. I will argue that these efforts have generally existed in tandem, even if one or the other has had precedence for a time. I will illustrate this argument by surveying the history of the MB church from its beginning in 1860 until the General Conference of Mennonite Brethren was dissolved into Canadian and American national conferences in 2002. 7 Based on this survey, I will offer a brief analysis, suggest avenues for further exploration, and make proposals for today’s MB church.

I will limit this nonexhaustive survey to English-speaking MBs in Canada and their German-speaking forebears (in Canada and in Ukraine, previously called South Russia). 8 Based on key events in the church, the years from 1860 to 2002 will be considered in four periods of roughly thirty to forty years each.

From 1860 to the 1890s

The first period began on January 6, 1860. Eighteen Mennonite householders in South Russia agreed to secede from the Mennonite church, to worship on their own—that is, as Mennonite Brethren. Mennonites along with other German speakers had migrated to this region from Prussia in the late eighteenth century. Six decades later, these Mennonites were overcoming the hardships of pioneering and developing economically, educationally, musically, and ecclesiastically. In the 1870s, when the Russian government began removing privileges that had once been granted to the Mennonites, eighteen thousand Mennonites (more than a third of the Mennonites in Russia) migrated to the United States and Canada to maintain the distinctives of their faith. Approximately two hundred MB families were among those who settled in the States. 9 These developments shaped the fledgling MB church from the 1860s through the 1890s.

The Mennonite Brethren genesis in 1860 emerged from bridges between Mennonites and other Christians. During the preceding fifteen years, a German Lutheran pastor named Eduard Wüst, who was serving German-speakers in South Russia, brought a pietistic renewal among Mennonites. His engaging preaching emphasized the possibility and necessity of a conversion experience—an experienced justification—that provides converts with a felt assurance of salvation. This was a significant departure from the standard Mennonite teaching that those who persevere in following the ways of Jesus can hope to be saved in the end, but in this life can never be entirely certain that one has been saved. Those who accepted Wüst’s message experienced tremendous joy in knowing that their sins were forgiven—a joy that was soon expressed in enthusiastic worship practices, including singing translated gospel songs from America’s Third Great Awakening. In time, however, these Mennonites withdrew from Wüst because he did not share their Anabaptist boundaries around living a holy life under the discipline of the church. 10

The 1860 secession by Mennonite Brethren was, of course, a boundary event, and yet bridges with other Christians became part of that separation. p. 24 The Mennonites influenced by Wüst came to believe that it was a sin to take communion with so-called Christians who had not had a conversion experience and who did not live consistently as Jesus taught. They asked the Mennonite church elders for permission to take communion on their own—only with “true believers.” 11 However, that permission was denied, and secession followed. 12 Within a year, the new group began adopting immersion baptism (instead of affusion or aspersion) as the truly biblical marker of genuine conversion. The switch to immersion came about through the influence of a pamphlet written by a Baptist. 13 In the coming years, Baptists also introduced new forms of Bible teaching (incl. Sunday school), public testimonies (incl. at baptism), and organizing churches and church meetings. 14

In 1876, Mennonite Brethren in the town of Einlage produced the first, albeit unofficial, MB confession of faith. This confession represents boundary and bridging work. The writers largely reproduced the Hamburg German Baptist confession of faith and added articles on Mennonite practices (esp. nonresistance, footwashing, and the oath). 15 They included an appendix that differentiated MBs from Baptists and Mennonites, naming the Mennonites as “a spiritually dead congregation.” 16

Two early leaders illustrate the Mennonite Brethren tension between strengthening boundaries and building bridges. Gerhard Wieler (1833–1911) is remembered for the boundaries he maintained as the pastor in Einlage. He insisted that true worship requires joyful singing with dancing and that only the Bible was to be read (he had other Christian books burned and eventually banned sermons). He also excommunicated leaders with whom he disagreed. 17 By contrast, Gerhard’s brother, Johann Wieler (1839–1889), is remembered for building bridges through his bold evangelism (he broke Russian law by proselytizing among Orthodox Russians and baptizing a convert) and through efforts to create a pan-evangelical network for all of Russia (the Russian Baptist denomination emerged from that effort). 18

Thus, although secession created a boundary between Mennonite Brethren and the so-called churchly (Kirchliche) Mennonites, this secession was also marked by bridges of learning and association with other Christians: pietist and revivalist Protestants in Europe and America, Baptists, and various Russian evangelicals.

From the 1890s to the 1920s

The 1890s to the 1920s were decades of severe contrasts for Mennonites in South Russia, many of whom migrated to Canada. Prior to World War I, the Mennonite communities achieved remarkable levels of educational, p. 25 social, cultural, political, and economic development. This was the golden era of what sociologist E. K. Francis called the “Mennonite Commonwealth” within imperial Russia. 19 However, this reality rapidly disintegrated because of a series of cascading events: World War I, the October Revolution, the Russian Civil War, anarchist attacks, the Povolzhye famine, and ultimately the creation of the Soviet Union in 1922. Through the rest of that decade, more than twenty thousand Mennonites (including MBs) left Russia for Canada. 20

During this second period, Mennonite Brethren churches strengthened many of their boundaries. This began early on with the insistence that immersion was the only biblical form of baptism. In 1878, these churches adopted the practice of deciding contentious issues at delegate assemblies, which could pass resolutions that were binding on all MB churches. That year alone seven resolutions were passed: on the topics of baptism’s form (immerse backwards), fellowship with Baptists (withdraw), excommunication (allow spouses to interact), holding government offices (do not), head coverings for women (require), leftover bread and wine after communion (do not need to consume), and ministers officiating weddings (for MB couples only). 21

Another growing boundary among the Mennonite Brethren was their expectation that the experience of conversion would follow a predictable pattern. Conversion was expected to begin with an awakening discontent with one’s religious experiences and life with God, followed by a profound agony (over weeks, months, or years) at one’s own sinfulness, leading to a climactic experience of peace and great joy at receiving the assurance of God’s forgiveness, and resulting in a realignment of the person’s relationships, beginning with immersion baptism into the church. 22 By restricting and conventionalizing their experience of conversion, MBs “may have become more conservative than their founders.” 23 The MB church was narrowing into an ethnic or family-based church instead of a believers church. 24

The Mennonite Brethren’s first official confession of faith (published in German in 1902 and in English in 1917) created both boundaries and bridges. As stated in its foreword, “The following pages will show to what extent the doctrinal view of this denomination agrees with the doctrines of other Mennonite bodies and upon what points it differs from them.” 25 Thus, while the confession was defining the bounds of acceptable teachings, it did so without explicitly criticizing other Christian denominations. Instead, it located MBs within their larger Anabaptist and Mennonite family by quoting Menno Simons and citing Mennonite documents. 26 Although Baptists p. 26 are not named, this confession too borrowed from the 1937 German Baptist confession of faith (Hamburg). 27

During these decades, Peter Martinovitch Friesen (1849–1914) sought to build bridges between MBs and their fellow Mennonites and with Baptists. He did this in several ways: through his monumental history, The Mennonite Brotherhood in Russia (1789–1910); as the primary author of the 1902 confession of faith; in negotiations with Russian officials for Mennonite rights; and as pastor of a Russian evangelical church in Sevastopol. In his pastorate, he and his wife Susanna provided a home-away-from-home for Mennonite students. He also defended Jews threatened with persecution. 28

Friesen considered MBs to be uneducated in church history and theology and thus excessively rigid in their practices. Friesen therefore promoted a generosity of spirit that would open the way to having “spiritual union”—including communion—“of all those (from all shades and groups of Mennonites) ‘who love our Lord Jesus Christ immovably,’ ” regardless of differences concerning “church buildings, baptism, etc.” 29 To that end, Friesen promoted the Alliance (Allianz) movement among Mennonites and Mennonite Brethren. 30 This movement was shaped by those of both groups who had attended the Blankenburg Conferences in Germany, which held to the pietistic emphasis on being in fellowship with all true Christians no matter one’s denomination. 31

Another bridging endeavor in these years was the official entry of Mennonite Brethren into missionary work. In 1883, MB churches in the United States sent “home missionaries” to Canada where they founded the first Canadian Mennonite Brethren congregation near Winkler, Manitoba, in 1888. 32 Two years later, MBs in South Russia began sending missionaries to train at the German Baptist seminary in Hamburg and then to serve in India under the American Baptist Missionary Union of Boston. 33 Twenty MB missionaries served under the Baptist Missionary Union before the MB church organized its own missionary ventures. In 1906 MBs formalized their evangelistic efforts among their neighboring Russians. 34 An exemplar among MB missionaries was Katharina Schellenberg (1870–1945). Born in Russia and having migrated to Kansas as a child, she served as missionary and doctor of homeopathic medicine in India for nearly forty years. 35

From the 1920s to the 1960s

From the 1920s through the 1960s, Canadian Mennonite Brethren underwent many changes. This began with the influx of immigrants from Russia, which resulted in a large and rapid increase in the number of MBs in Canada. These immigrants (Russländer) and those already in Canada (Kanadier) p. 27 needed to find ways of meshing their customs and practices after having developed separately for decades. 36 Among the Kanadier, many were ready to anglicize, whereas the newly arrived Russländer were committed to the German language, in part as a security against the unknowns of their new environs. The Russländer also brought prerevolution memories of economic, educational, and artistic development beyond what many of their fellow believers had experienced in Canada. After World War II, a smaller number of MBs from the Soviet Union came to Canada (sometimes after first living in South America), bringing changes associated with migration and memories of suffering—as well as memories of spiritual revivals and inter-Mennonite cooperation in the Soviet Union. As MBs adapted to these developments and tensions, they increasingly also experienced urbanization, higher education, and changes in their churches—including beginning to pay pastors and here and there replacing German with English. Boundaries and bridges for unity were present throughout these changes.

Because many Mennonite Brethren were experiencing the challenges of being strangers in a new land, they often looked for ways to maintain adequate boundaries around their communities so that successive generations would not abandon the faith in the face of unfamiliar cultural trends. Retaining the German language was a key element within this boundary work. In the many MB Bible schools, this priority was usually stated explicitly. 37 In 1946, a group within the Herbert MB church began constructing a building they designated a “tabernacle” for nondenominational evangelistic services because of disputes over mission strategy and the use of German in worship. National denominational leaders, however, pressured the church to stop this endeavor because “it is not right to join with other groups thus exposing members to foreign influences”; the tabernacle was “not in accordance with the spirit [sic] of God.” 38 In 1950, delegates at the national denominational convention created the Committee for the Preservation of the German Language. This entity oversaw the development of Saturday schools for teaching children German and faith, urged members to cultivate German wherever possible in Sunday schools and public schools, and asked parents to speak German with their children. 39 This urgency around maintaining German, however impossible, caused some congregations to refuse to incorporate new Christians who did not speak German. 40

Mennonite Brethren sought to guard their faith not only by retaining German but also by clarifying the ethical behaviors of the converted. For instance, the influential pastor Johannes Harder, with others, drafted rules for Canadian MBs to follow. Church members should commit to Bible reading, prayer, congregational fellowship, and family devotions; obey all p. 28 church decisions and contribute to the church financially; witness; refuse military service and oaths; and refuse to conform to the world (incl. do not smoke, drink alcohol, attend theatres and dances, wear jewelry and cosmetics, or marry an unbeliever). 41

Intriguingly, many of the Mennonite Brethren ventures for protecting the faith also helped bridge divides between MBs and other Christians, and between MBs and their Canadian neighbors. This was especially the case with the MB Bible schools, high schools, and Mennonite Brethren Bible College (MBBC). These schools helped many generations navigate their way beyond the confines of their “old country” expressions of faith. The schools taught students evangelism, trained students in classical genres of sacred music, encouraged students to pursue further education, and after World War II (e.g., at MBBC) introduced students to the three themes of Anabaptism in American Mennonite Harold Bender’s seminal 1944 essay, The Anabaptist Vision: discipleship, church as voluntary community, and love and nonresistance. 42 In these ways the schools aided cultural accommodation among Mennonite Brethren. 43

An illustration of these bridging activities comes from Bethany Bible Institute, an MB Bible school in Saskatchewan. By 1932–33, Bethany’s faculty and students were meeting each Monday to pray for neighboring homesteaders—including Doukhobors, a religious sect from South Russia. Summer vacation Bible school ministries and outreach to local adults followed. Under pressure from the largely Kanadier students, who were committed to mission and evangelism, the school became fully English by 1937 despite denominational pressure to promote German. MBs in Saskatchewan then created the Western Children’s Mission. MBs in Alberta did similarly in 1940 and in British Columbia as an interdenominational ministry the following year. 44 From these ventures and more, MBs eventually developed the C2C Network (2012–2017), which supported church planting in Canada and the U.S. among denominations as diverse as Christian Missionary Alliance and the Anglicans. 45

A more theologically focused instance of bridge-building was the Mennonite Brethren engagement with Protestant fundamentalism in the first half of the twentieth century. Having previously engaged with the Blankenburg Conferences in Germany (which promoted Darby’s dispensational eschatology), MB Russländer found that they had landed amidst the fundamentalist-modernist debates of the day (esp. in the United States)—debates that were followed by widespread and influential “fundamentalist Bible institutes, radio broadcasts, and Bible conferences.” 46 Although the MBs found many connections with fundamentalism (incl. emphases on p. 29 biblical authority and upright living), fundamentalism also contributed to narrowing trends among the MBs. These included divisive debates about biblical inerrancy, understanding conversion more as a human choice than a work of the Holy Spirit, a diminished emphasis on discipleship, independence instead of interdependence of congregations and denominations, and evangelism at the expense of perfecting the church. 47 In short, the bridge to fundamentalism thickened the boundaries of the mid-century MB church.

From the 1960s to 2002

From the 1960s through 2002, Canadian Mennonite Brethren accelerated their acculturation to their North American context. Educationally, more and more MBs were not only completing high school but going on to higher education in public institutions. Those Bible schools that remained open became colleges. Mennonite Brethren Bible College, once called a “higher Bible school,” evolved by fits and starts into a Christian liberal arts college. 48 By 1970, most MB churches were using English for their worship services, not only for their children and youth ministries. 49 By 2000, through the work of evangelism, church planting, and adopting churches, MB churches were worshiping in nearly twenty languages, including “English, German, Russian, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Hindi, Korean, Mandarin, Cantonese, Farsi, and Arabic.” 50 MBs were also urbanizing and becoming financially prosperous. 51 They moved from having multiple lay ministers to hiring pastors—one per church at first, but eventually many pastors in the largest churches. 52 Becoming involved in politics and facing family issues common to Canadians (e.g., divorce and remarriage) were other marks of MB acculturation.

In step with this acculturation, Mennonite Brethren in the latter twentieth century were softening or eliminating boundaries in matters of culture and ethics. The reduction of cultural boundaries was marked most sharply by the discontinuation of the German language in nearly all MB churches and the expansion to using other languages. 53 The softening of ethical boundaries was made explicit in two 1969 resolutions in which Canadian and American MBs agreed that in their continued pursuit of seeking agreement on matters of ethics (i.e., holy living in accordance with Scripture), their agreements would now be framed as guidelines for individuals instead of as conditions for church membership. 54

Concurrently, Mennonite Brethren continued to focus on their theological boundaries. Sometimes this occurred behind the scenes—as when a prominent leader pressured pastor Herb Neufeld to resign from pastoring because Neufeld was leading his congregation in a charismatic direction. 55 p. 30 Other times, boundaries were expressed more visibly. When MB churches began to hire previously ordained pastors from other denominations, those pastors were required to complete “the regular ‘Statement of Faith’ questionnaire required ordinarily for [MB] ordination to the satisfaction of the examining committee.” 56

During these decades, Mennonite Brethren rewrote their confession of faith twice to clarify doctrinal and ecclesial boundaries while simultaneously building bridges. The introduction to the 1976 revision explicitly weaves both roles together. On the one hand, the confession is to strengthen the church’s corporate growth in convictions and ethics (incl. “instruction of candidates for church membership”) and protect the church from external threats (esp. “false accusations and heretical movements”). 57 More pointedly, the confession is to “serve as a guide and standard for scriptural discipline of disobedient members and dissenting churches,” since departing from the confession violates the covenant of brotherhood that joins MBs around the world. 58 On the other hand, the confession is “to be an effective instrument in the mission of the church”—“a missionary pamphlet” that builds bridges to people not part of MB “faith and practice.” 59

Curiously, this dual role generated significant discussion among delegates to the 1987 convention of the General Conference of Mennonite Brethren churches. A proposed resolution sought to clarify that the confession was descriptive more than normative, because only the Bible is truly normative (i.e., authoritative); yet, insofar as the confession is biblical, it too is authoritative. Therefore, although the confession is “not a closed statement of faith, but open to periodic review and revision . . . it is also prescriptive and normative for our congregations” because it represents the covenanted commitments made by the congregations. 60 After an amendment was added, clarifying that the confession was to be “binding for all churches”—including “pastors, teachers, and conference officers”—the resolution was passed, but only by fifty-nine percent of the 509 delegates who voted. 61 This ambivalence between normativity and description continued through to the next revision of the confession of faith.

The introduction to the 1999 revision of the confession of faith says very little about how the confession is to function. Its boundary role, however, is clear: “This confession . . . not only describes how the Mennonite Brethren Church . . . interprets the Bible for our context but is also an authoritative guide for biblical interpretation, theological identity, and ethical practice.” 62 Yet the confession’s framers “gratefully [acknowledging the framers’] indebtedness to the Confession of Faith in a Mennonite Perspective,” 63 a hint of a bridge over the one hundred forty-year divide from the Mennonite church. p. 31

In most other ways, however, the Mennonite Brethren were building bridges like never before. The denomination’s home missions (innere mission), for instance, expanded its focus dramatically from evangelism among people of MB background to evangelism and church planting among people in Canada more broadly. This expanded focus—itself a work of building bridges—was influenced by new partnerships with other Christian organizations and movements, for instance, the Shantymen Christian Association, the charismatic renewal (e.g., among Anglicans), the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, Campus Crusade for Christ, and the church growth movement. 64 On another front, MBs joined the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada when it began in 1964 and subsequently contributed several key leaders to that organization. 65

Even theologically Mennonite Brethren moved beyond their previous borders. MBs generally left Christian fundamentalism for a more moderate evangelicalism, as illustrated by scholar David Ewert’s longstanding efforts to help MBs stop teaching dispensationalism. 66 MBs also came to understand the conversion experience as having many possible expressions. 67 In time, MBs grew in their receptivity to the works—even dramatic works—of the Holy Spirit. 68 Liturgically, congregations underwent a major shift in hymnody from gospel songs and classical music to songs in the praise and worship genre—a move in keeping with a trend in churches of nearly all traditions across Canada and the United States, and eventually globally. 69 In higher education, MBs partnered with other denominations. In 1999, Mennonite Brethren Biblical Seminary partnered with seminaries of the Fellowship Baptists, Conference Baptists, and Evangelical Free churches to create the Associated Canadian Theological Schools (ACTS) consortium. 70 The next year, Concord College (formerly MBBC) joined two other Mennonite colleges to create Canadian Mennonite University. 71 By 2002, MBs were riding a wave of momentum for building bridges into the twenty-first century.

Review and Proposals

At the conclusion of this paper’s survey, and before briefly tracing the shifting tides of unity among Canadian Mennonite Brethren, it is helpful to note that MBs developed boundaries and bridges primarily in seven spheres: expectations of spiritual experience (esp. initial conversion and, later, other works of the Holy Spirit), ecclesial practices (e.g., worship expressions and church discipline), ethical behaviors, ethnic markers (esp. language), theology (i.e., confessions of faith), ecumenical networks, and evangelistic ministries locally and abroad. p. 32

These spheres can be reviewed by time period. During a season of relative cultural stability (the mid-nineteenth century), the pietistic revival among Mennonites gave birth to a movement that required a realignment of its expressions of unity. During their first three decades, MBs devoted significant energy to clarifying boundaries and making bridges in nearly all the previously listed spheres. This was a period when MBs generally shared the same ethnicity as their Mennonite neighbors.

However, between the 1890s and the 1920s, and from the 1920s to the 1960s—periods that included not only increasing prosperity but also unexpected upheaval and adaptation—Mennonite Brethren were especially invested in boundary work with less evidence of bridging activities. Boundary work was especially notable in three spheres: holding clear expectations of the conversion experience, establishing church practices, and specifying ethical requirements for church members. After the 1920s migration of Russländer to Canada, MBs sought to strengthen these unifying boundaries by fostering—even insisting on—the use of the German language.

Then, as Mennonite Brethren immigrants were acculturating to Canadian ways from the 1960s on, this trend reversed dramatically, with bridge-building becoming much more evident than maintaining boundaries. In most spheres, MBs were primarily building bridges. This included the removal of the language boundary (although other ethnic markers persisted, often without comment). MBs did, however, seek to maintain their denomination’s boundaries in theological matters.

As the various expressions of unity ebbed and flowed, Mennonite Brethren were largely consistent at bridge-building in two domains: networking with other Christians and doing the work of local evangelism and foreign missions. Ever since 1860, MBs pursued meaningful links—whether through personal interactions or organized networks—with Mennonites, Lutheran pietists, German and Russian Baptists (and other European evangelicals), North American Christian fundamentalists (followed by more moderate evangelicals), and charismatics (incl. Pentecostals, Anglican charismatics, and the Vineyard movement). 72 Through evangelism and service, Mennonite Brethren also sought to build connections with people they considered to be non-Christians. These connections were directed toward other Mennonites (e.g., the founding of the first MB church in Canada), non-Mennonite neighbors (e.g., outreach to Russian neighbors and to Canadian children, followed by church planting), and people overseas (e.g., MB missions). 73

Of course, other analyses would also be helpful. The Mennonite Brethren approaches to unity could be studied in terms of how bounded- and p. 33 centered-set thinking has been at play. There are theologians, for instance, who have proposed that both sets must exist together—or even that centered-set approaches must replace bounded-set approaches—if the church will be faithful to the mission of God. 74 Also, the analysis of Peter Hamm, who used the sociological categories of sect, church, and denomination to study the MB church from 1925 to 1975, could be extended into subsequent decades. 75 In addition, there are insights from the modern ecumenical movement that could aid a study of the MB church (e.g., the many ways that the body of Christ can demonstrate its unity visibly without denominations merging institutionally).

This survey and analysis suggest other avenues of research into Canadian Mennonite Brethren efforts for unity. One avenue would be a study of the experiences of MBs whose roots are not among German-speakers from Russia. A second avenue would be researching MB bridges and boundaries after 2002. This research would need to include the bridge to New Calvinism, a movement whose particular theological emphases have altered and/or reinforced certain boundaries among the MB church. 76 Another recent bridge is to contemplative practices long treasured by the Catholic Church. 77 Two other changes, internal to MBs in Canada, have also influenced recent boundaries and bridges: a decline in national ministries (coupled with regionalization) and an increased role and presence of the confession of faith for the denomination’s bylaws (nationally and provincially), ministers, and congregational and conference leaders. A third avenue of exploration would be the continued interaction between cultural trends and MB approaches to unity—trends such as regionalization, polarization, identity politics, and secularization. Fourth, Canadian MBs would benefit from a study of their implicit and explicit theology about unity—unity of the MB church, of all Christians and churches, of the church with Christ, and of the Trinity—since this underlies the boundaries and bridges that MBs implement.

Returning to the criticisms with which I opened this paper, I will venture two proposals for Mennonite Brethren in Canada. First, those who entered the church during the past sixty years and now perceive a shift from building bridges to strengthening boundaries may be correct in their assessment. After a half century of building theological, ecclesiological, and missiological bridges to Christians of other denominations and traditions, current work to clarify MB boundaries may come as a surprise. However, a longer view of the MB story demonstrates that these believers have often buttressed their unity by clarifying who is and is not MB. If such clarification is now increasing, that may be a logical response for a denomination that is p. 34 no longer ethnically defined and is seeking definition in its current cultural contexts.

Believers who joined the Mennonite Brethren when the church was in an expansive mode may feel the current mode as retraction. However, as I have sought to demonstrate in this survey, the unity impulses of the MB church have ebbed and flowed. To those who are concerned about boundary endeavors, I propose testing whether such endeavors are in fact nurturing denominational unity. I also propose that these people check whether MBs are concurrently building bridges to other groups in the body of Christ; such unifying works of the Spirit should not be overlooked.

Second, in light of the perceptions and criticisms being communicated, I propose that Mennonite Brethren leaders consider whether they are dedicating appropriate time and energy to the work and communication of boundary and bridging endeavors in order to maintain the Holy Spirit’s unity in the body of Christ, both within and beyond the MB church (Eph 4:3). Five hundred years after the start of Anabaptism, MBs who are attentive to the Holy Spirit’s work of unifying Christ’s church will find themselves participating in the unique and “lively pneumatology” of the Anabaptists. 78

Notes

  1. I use the terms “Mennonite Brethren” (MB) and “Mennonite Brethren church” to encompass Mennonite Brethren individuals, congregations, and conferences.
  2. Partings have been initiated by conferences, churches, and individuals.
  3. John H. Yoder, ed., The Schleitheim Confession, trans. John H. Yoder (Scottdale, PA: Herald, 1977), 7–8, 10–18.
  4. Walter Klaassen, ed., Anabaptism in Outline: Selected Primary Sources (Scottdale, PA: Herald, 1981), 302.
  5. Menno Simons, “Foundation of Christian Doctrine” (1539), in The Complete Works of Menno Simons, ed. John C. Wenger, trans. Leonard Verduin (Scottdale, PA: Herald, 1956), 207.
  6. Quoted in Klaassen, 305.
  7. The year 2002 also provides this paper with a suitable distance of time for the sake of historical reflection.
  8. I will generally use the terms “Russia” and “South Russia” instead of “Ukraine” to reflect the common usage of Mennonite Brethren at that time. p. 35
  9. Bruce L. Guenther, “Training for Service: The Bible School Movement in Western Canada, 1909–1960” (PhD diss., McGill University, 2001), 115.
  10. John A. Toews, A History of the Mennonite Brethren Church: Pilgrims and Pioneers (Fresno, CA: Board of Christian Literature of the General Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches, 1975), 31.
  11. Peter M. Friesen, The Mennonite Brotherhood in Russia (1789–1910) (Fresno, CA: Board of Christian Literature of the General Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches, 1980), 230–32.
  12. It is also important to recognize that the causes of the secession were not onesided; MBs withdrew just as much as they were pushed out.
  13. Jacob P. Bekker, Origin of the Mennonite Brethren Church (Hillsboro, KS: Mennonite Brethren Historical Society of the Midwest, 1973), 71. Bekker is vigorous in his explanation of why MBs needed to separate from the Mennonite church, titling one of his chapters “Decadence of the Mennonites” (17–21). For more detail on the sources of immersion baptism, including its roots in church history and Anabaptist history, cf. Friesen, 284–300.
  14. John A. Toews, 366–67; John B. (J. B.) Toews, A Pilgrimage of Faith: The Mennonite Brethren Church in Russia and North America 1860–1990 (Winnipeg, MB: Kindred, 1993), 128; Victor Adrian, “Born of Anabaptist and Pietism,” Mennonite Brethren Herald, 26 March 1965, 1–11 (special insert).
  15. Abe J. Dueck, Moving Beyond Secession (Winnipeg, MB: Kindred, 1997), 15; Friesen, 479.
  16. Glaubens-Bekenntnis und Verfassung der gläubiggetauften und vereinigten Mennoniten-Brüdergemeinde im Südlichen Russland (Einlage: 1876), 62 (my translation of “eine geistlich erstorbene Gemeinde”).
  17. Friesen, 275; Bekker, 84; John B. Toews, “Patterns of Piety Among the Early Brethren (1860–1900),” Journal of Mennonite Studies 12 (1994): 148; John A. Toews, 111; John B. Toews, “The Early Mennonite Brethren: Some Outside Views,” Mennonite Quarterly Review 58:2 (1984): 100; Heinrich Epp, “Historical Endnotes: Documents in Mennonite Brethren History—The Founding of the Einlage Mennonite Brethren Congregation,” Direction 19:2 (1990): 133. Gerhard reportedly left the Mennonite Brethren in 1867. Cornelius Krahn and Richard D. Thiessen, “Wieler, Gerhard (1833–1911),” Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online, December 2007, https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Wieler,_Gerhard_(1833-1911)&oldid=136135.
  18. Jacob J. Toews and Richard D. Thiessen, “Wieler, Johann (1839–1889),” Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online, August 2013, https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Wieler,_Johann_(1839-1889)&oldid=86044; Gregory L. p. 36 Nichols, The Development of Russian Evangelical Spirituality: A Study of Ivan V. Kargel (1849–1937) (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2011), 106, 118–20, 124–25.
  19. Emerich K. Francis, In Search of Utopia: The Mennonites in Manitoba (Altona, MB: D. W. Friesen and Sons, 1955), 20.
  20. Before this, there were about 120,000 Mennonites in Russia. Frank H. Epp, Mennonites in Canada, 1786–1920: The History of a Separate People (Toronto, ON: Macmillan of Canada, 1974), 140.
  21. A. E. Janzen and Herbert Giesbrecht, eds., We Recommend . . .: Recommendations and Resolutions of the General Conference of the Mennonite Brethren Church (Parts I [1878–1963] and II [1966–1975]) (Fresno, CA: Board of Christian Literature of the General Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches, 1978), 11, 15, 63, 79, 82, 83.
  22. John B. Toews, “The Early Mennonite Brethren and Conversion,” Journal of Mennonite Studies 11 (1993): 77, 84–91; Dora Dueck, “Print, Text, Community: A Study of Communication in the Zionsbote, a Mennonite Weekly, between 1884 and 1906” (Master’s thesis, Universities of Manitoba and Winnipeg, 2001), 45, 112–13.
  23. John B. Toews, “The Early Mennonite Brethren and Conversion,” 92.
  24. Hans Kasdorf, “Reflections on the Church Concept of the Mennonite Brethren,” Direction 4:3 (1975): 341.
  25. Confession of Faith of the Mennonite Brethren Church of North America (American Edition) (Hillsboro, KS: Mennonite Brethren Publishing House, 1917), 3.
  26. Confession of Faith (1917), 8, 11, 16, 23, 28.
  27. Doug Heidebrecht, “Atonement in the Mennonite Brethren Confession of Faith,” Direction 41:1 (2001): 22–23.
  28. Abe Dueck, “Peter Martinovitch Friesen: The Man Behind the History (1849–1914),” in Shepherds, Servants and Prophets: Leadership Among the Russian Mennonites (ca. 1880–1960), ed. Harry Loewen (Kitchener, ON: Pandora, 2003), 131–48; H. P. Toews and Cornelius Krahn. “Friesen, Peter Martin (1849–1914)” in Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online, 1956, https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Friesen,_Peter_Martin_(1849-1914)&oldid=145185; Abe Dueck, “Peter Martinovich Friesen: Advocate for the Oppressed,” Mennonite Brethren Historical Commission, Spring 1998, https://mbhistory.org/profiles/friesen/.
  29. Friesen, 979.
  30. In Canada, the Kitchener MB church began as an Allianz-style congregation by including both Mennonite and MB congregants and being flexible on mode of baptism and participation in communion. The church had to become more restrictive when it joined the Canadian MB Conference in 1936. Samuel p. 37 J. Steiner, “Kitchener Mennonite Brethren Church (Kitchener, Ontario, Canada),” in Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online. February 2017, https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Kitchener_Mennonite_Brethren_Church_(Kitchener,_Ontario,_Canada)&oldid=166719.
  31. John B. Toews, “Russian Mennonites and Allianz,” Journal of Mennonite Studies 14 (1996): 46. The Blankenburg movement also introduced MBs to dispensationalist teachings, which in time would prove divisive instead of unifying (60).
  32. William Neufeld, From Faith to Faith: The History of the Manitoba Mennonite Brethren Church (Winnipeg, MB: Kindred, 1989), 23–30.
  33. John A Toews, 99.
  34. John A. Toews, 98.
  35. Cf. Esther Jost, “Free to Serve: Katharina Schellenberg (1870–1945)” in Women Among the Brethren: Stories of Fifteen Mennonite Brethren and Krimmer Mennonite Brethren Women, ed. Katie Funk Wiebe (Hillsboro, KS: Board of Christian Literature of the General Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches, 1979), 82–94.
  36. The labels of Russländer and Kanadier applied to other Mennonites too, not only MBs.
  37. Guenther, “Training,” 152. Note that among the first of these schools, several were begun by MB leaders who had been part of such schools in Russia before the Soviet Union banned them. Baptists had played a role in the development of these schools.
  38. T. D. Regehr, Mennonites in Canada, 1939–1970: A People Transformed (Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press, 1996), 301. For another distressing example, see Regehr, 303-4.
  39. J. A. Toews, 328; Gerald C. Ediger, Crossing the Divide: Language Transition Among Canadian Mennonite Brethren, 1940–1970 (Winnipeg, MB: Centre for Mennonite Brethren Studies, 2001), 194; for more detail, see Ediger, 42-47. The committee lasted until 1962.
  40. Ediger, 161, 204.
  41. Regehr, 202–3.
  42. John B. (J. B.) Toews, A Pilgrimage of Faith, 182; cf. Harold S. Bender, The Anabaptist Vision (Scottdale, PA: Herald, 1944).
  43. Guenther, “Training,” 152.
  44. Victor G. Wiebe, “Western Children’s Mission,” in Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online, August 2012, https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Western_Children%27s_Mission&oldid=163590 p. 38
  45. “C2C Network: Church Planting Resources (2012–2017),” Centre for Mennonite Brethren Studies, https://cmbs.mennonitebrethren.ca/inst_records/c2c-network-church-planting-resources/.
  46. John B. (J. B.) Toews, “The Influence of Fundamentalism on Mennonite Brethren Theology,” Direction 10:3 (1981): 22.
  47. John B. (J. B.) Toews, “Influence,” 23–27.
  48. Abe J. Dueck, Mennonite Brethren Bible College: A History of Competing Visions (Winnipeg, MB: Kindred, 2021), 173, 184, 186, 195, 200.
  49. Ediger, 5–6.
  50. Ediger, 3.
  51. Abe J. Dueck, “Economics, Faith and Practice,” Direction 14:2 (1985): 50.
  52. For example, in 2000, Willingdon Church’s website listed a dozen people in key pastoral roles. Ministry was taking place in eight languages. “Contact Us,” Willingdon Church, October 3, 2000, https://web.archive.org/web/20001003113413/http://www.willingdon-church.bc.ca/about/contact.html.
  53. Historian Gerald C. Ediger’s research into the halting transition from German to English indicates that this transition was driven by the need to retain next generations and the impulse to evangelize (Ediger, Crossing the Divide).
  54. Janzen and Giesbrecht, 273–74, 281–82.
  55. Andrew Dyck, “Herb Neufeld: He Opened Doors and Pushed Out Walls,” in Canadian Mennonite Brethren: 1910–2010—Leaders Who Shaped Us (Winnipeg, MB: Kindred, 2010), 259. Neufeld did not resign.
  56. Janzen and Giesbrecht, 308. Further research is warranted on the relationship between this 1966 requirement and the credentialing now expected of all MB pastors in Canada.
  57. Confession of Faith of the General Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches (Winnipeg, MB: Board of Christian Literature General Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches, 1976), 7–8.
  58. Confession of Faith (1976), 7–8. The preface softens this strong boundary language by explaining that confessions of faith “are to be regarded as descriptive more than normative” (9).
  59. Confession of Faith (1976), 7–8.
  60. Abe J. Dueck and David Giesbrecht, eds., We Recommend . . .: Recommendations, Study Papers, and other Leadership Resources (Part III [1978–2002]) (Winnipeg, MB: Historical Commission of the Conferences of Mennonite Brethren Churches in United States and Canada, 2004), 48–49.
  61. Dueck and Giesbrecht, 49. p. 39
  62. Confession of Faith of the General Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches (Winnipeg, MB: Board of Faith and Life and Board of Resource Ministries General Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches, 1999), 5.
  63. Confession of Faith (1999), 5 (the document to which this alludes had been embraced by the soon-to-be-merged Mennonite church and General Conference Mennonite church in North America). Notably, the articles in the 1999 confession do not build the kinds of fences around biblical inerrancy, young earth creationism, and premillennial eschatology that were often promoted by conservative and fundamentalist evangelicals in the latter half of the twentieth century (cf. 9, 25–26).
  64. The life story of Nick Dyck exemplifies these developments. Jonathan Janzen, “Nick Dyck: The Farmer Who Grew Churches,” in Canadian Mennonite Brethren: 1910–2010—Leaders Who Shaped Us, ed. Harold Jantz (Winnipeg, MB: Kindred, 2010), 246–51. From 2012 to 2017, MBs conducted a national church planting ministry—C2C Network—that was shaped by various Christian groups (e.g., The Gospel Coalition, Acts 29, Redeemer Network) and in turn assisted the church planting ministries of other denominations (e.g., Alliance, Anglican, Baptist, Pentecostal, Presbyterian, Vineyard). Cf. “C2C Network” (see note 45); Gord Fleming, “Partnering Together to Make Jesus Known in Canada,” Mennonite Brethren Herald (July, 2012), 18; and “Planting and Growing Churches,” Anglican Diocese of Canada, https://www.anglicannetwork.ca/planting-growing-churches.
  65. Bruce L. Guenther, “Living with the Virus: The Enigma of Evangelicalism Among Mennonites in Canada,” in Aspects of the Canadian Evangelical Experience, ed. George A. Rawlyk (Montreal, QC: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1997), 233.
  66. Cf. Bruce L. Guenther with Kevin O’Coin, “David Ewert: Bible Teacher and Scholar for the Church,” in Canadian Mennonite Brethren: 1910–2010—Leaders Who Shaped Us, ed. Harold Jantz (Winnipeg, MB: Kindred, 2010), 239.
  67. Hans Kasdorf, Christian Conversion in Context (Scottdale, PA: Herald, 1980), 14.
  68. John Schmidt, “New Wine from the Vineyard,” in Wonders and the Word: An Examination of Issues Raised by John Wimber and the Vineyard Movement, eds. James R. Coggins and Paul G. Hiebert (Winnipeg, MB: Kindred, 1989), 78–79. MBs were more receptive to the Vineyard (aka “signs and wonders”) movement than they had been to earlier Pentecostal influences.
  69. Gospel songs sung in harmony entered the MB church at the time of the revivals in the 1860s. Classical music (incl. choral and instrumental) began to be added to the church’s liturgical life about sixty years later. These innovations, like that p. 40 of praise and worship music, were adopted from outside the MB world and were initially youth-oriented expressions. Cf. Andrew Dyck, “Praying Like the Catholics? Enriching Canadian Mennonite Brethren Spirituality through Spiritual Direction, Lectio Divina, and the Taizé Community” (PhD diss., Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, 2017), 42–55, 122–51.
  70. Bill Fledderus, “The EFC’s First 50 Years,” The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, https://www.evangelicalfellowship.ca/About-us/History.
  71. “About Canadian Mennonite University: The Story of CMU,” Canadian Mennonite University, https://www.cmu.ca/about.
  72. The creation of networks has long been a key feature of the evangelical movement. Evan Howard, “Evangelical Spirituality” in Four Views of Christian Spirituality, ed. Bruce Demarest (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012), 176.
  73. MBs were also involved in founding and continuing the global and local work of Mennonite Central Committee. See Family Matters: Discovering the Mennonite Brethren, Canadian Revised Edition, Second Edition (Winnipeg, MB: Kindred, 2019), 95–99.
  74. Darrell L. Guder, et al. Missional Church: A Vision for the Sending of the Church in North America (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), 205–13; Mark D. Baker, Centered-Set Church: Discipleship and Community without Judgmentalism (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2021), 15. Cf. Paul G. Hiebert, “The Category Christian in the Mission Task,” Anthropological Reflections on Missiological Issues (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1994), 107–36.
  75. Cf. Peter M. Hamm, Continuity & Change Among Canadian Mennonite Brethren (Waterloo: Wilfred Laurier University Press, 1987).
  76. Cf. essays in the “The New Calvinism Considered” issue of Direction 42:2 (2013).
  77. Cf. Dyck, “Praying Like the Catholics?”
  78. C. Arnold Snyder, Anabaptist History and Theology: An Introduction (Kitchener, ON: Pandora, 1995), 87.
Andrew Dyck is Assistant Professor of Christian Spirituality and Pastoral Ministry at Canadian Mennonite University and co-recipient of the P. M. Friesen Chair in Biblical and Theological Studies. Andrew was a Mennonite Brethren pastor for sixteen years and has a PhD in Christian Spirituality from the International Baptist Theological Study Centre and the Free University of Amsterdam.

Previous | Next