Return to the M.B.Herald Vol. 36, No. 17 Home Page
* "That our members stay away from circuses, theatres and such other places." (1887)
* "That it be decided unanimously that our members should not carry life insurance policies." (1897)
* Concerning the wearing of a beard, "the Conference cautions members of the Mennonite Brethren Church not to be a stumbling block to anyone." (1890)
* "That the cutting of hair by our sisters is in direct contradiction with the Word of God as found in I Corinthians 11:6." (1927)
* "That sisters, both single and married, should not be permitted to appear in church meetings nor in family worship without the proper head covering." (1878)
* "That the Conference does not permit its members to have weapons in the house." (1879)
* That, regarding the possession of firearms, going on the hunt, etc., the Conference recommends to put the sword into the shield and leave it there." (1890)
* That no firearms are to be permitted in our families." (1893)
* That churches are not to participate in the national (worldly) celebrations, such as the Fourth of July celebrations." (1905)
Additional examples could be cited which were passed at various conference levels. They refer to taking mortgages, playing card games, owning a television set, participating in organized/professional sports, having attendants at weddings, and much else.
Why raise these matters now? Without criticizing our forefathers, who made decisions according to their best understanding of Scripture and their times, we should feel uncomfortable with scriptural arguments concerning issues about which Scripture is silent. In some cases, we need to move beyond the hardline black and white categories when the issues are obviously grey. And in some cases, we should not insist on general conformity when both logical and theological analyses suggest that individual decisions are best or that the issue is situationally based.
Unfortunately, the Christian church all too often abdicates its role in ethical matters by doing nothing. Out-of-date or faulty statements of the past are not revised, and little or no guidance is given for present or future behaviour. Such a stance of doing nothing does not, of course, mean that things don't change. They do change, often drastically, but not because the faithful church provides leadership. At times, a revised stance does appear, but in many instances it appears only when a new majority supports a fundamental change in the ethical issue involved.
Such a response is inadequate--for several reasons. First, it indicates an abdication of leadership. Second, it indicates an unwillingness to learn from the past, to correct earlier errors, to spell out a better understanding of Scripture and to explain new understandings of certain kinds of behaviour. Third, it suggests that those who claim to be in touch with God must depend on societal trends to determine right and wrong. Fourth, it falsely suggests the lack of an independent and over-arching Christian ethical framework. Fifth, it reduces respect for the church and its policies. Sixth, it creates confusion about what the Bible teaches.
So what should be done? The following should be considered. We need to acknowledge the need for a better way of dealing with past and present ethical dilemmas. Our conference leadership should appoint a task force or commission of competent and respected individuals to identify our ethical "blue laws", to suggest how best to deal with them and to provide guidelines with how to deal with future ethical issues concerning which the Bible is not explicit. Such a group could also teach us how to distinguish between absolute and situation-based ethical concerns (cf. I Corinthians 6:12; 8:7-13).
It is difficult to speak with authority while simultaneously acknowledging human fallibility, but in a covenant community, where trust is strong, it can and must be done. Integrity and credibility require it.
John H. Redekop is on the faculty of Trinity Western University in Langley, B.C.
Return to the M.B.Herald Vol. 36, No. 17 Home Page