Archive for November, 2011

BFL statement of affirmations for study conference 2011

As your board of faith and life for the Canadian Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches, we feel encouraged by what we have heard at this study conference on “The Mystery of the Cross.” We affirm the openness with which we have spoken to one another and listened to one another, particularly as we have studied Scripture together. We sense a mutual respect and desire to edify one another that befits our relationships as brothers and sisters in Christ.

We affirm the reality that there is a healthy diversity within our fellowship – members coming from different backgrounds and cultures, across regions and within regions, proclaiming the fullness of the cross in varied ways that bring the truth of God’s revelation to bear on contexts with sensitivity, grace, and prophetic boldness. In all of this, we see a unity that underlies our diversity. We recognize in this a parallel to how biblical passages depict the gospel being brought to bear in distinct yet complementary ways to different hearers.

We affirm the common desire to build on the foundation of our theological convictions regarding the cross in order to holistically proclaim the gospel to our nation and participate in the work of reconciling Canada to God in Jesus Christ. This is because the salvation made possible through the atoning work of Jesus Christ is the only hope for humanity. We believe that our theology mandates this common commitment, and that it helps to unite us in the work of the Kingdom of God.

We affirm that through the self-sacrifice of Jesus Christ, God himself graciously atoned for the sins of the human race, demonstrating ultimate love toward us even while acting in full accord with divine justice. We are renewed and transformed by the person of Christ for the mission of reconciliation now made possible. We have confidence in our proclamation of this reconciling work because Christ triumphed over the principalities and powers against which we struggle as we contend for the gospel in this life. We look ahead to the consummation of God’s amazing work on our behalf, and await the ultimate fellowship we will enjoy with God and with one another in eternity, all made possible through the mystery of the cross.

Some of the complications in our theological conversations parallel the differences in terminology we have discussed between systematic and biblical theology. Some of us define atonement strictly around the death of Christ on the cross, while others look more broadly to the life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Christ. As a result, what for some is talk about the implications of the atonement is talk about the atonement itself. But we are affirming the same truths, despite differences in our theologies and terminology. And for that reason we are encouraged as a BFL, and pray that you are encouraged as you move forward together as Mennonite Brethren.—Board of faith and life, Canadian Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches

—Barrie McMaster

If we have a weak sense of Jesus’ atonement for us on the cross, we cannot have a strong faith because we have little to be thankful for, in the view of Willy Reimer, executive director of the Canadian Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches. “We must understand the depth of what God has done,” he said. “We have to have a robust understanding – do you know what you have been saved from, and what you have been saved FOR?”

Through the 2011 study conference on the atonement, we have been pushed to think of the judgment of God that Christ took for us, says Reimer. He was responding to the study conference presentation by Erwin Penner on the death of Christ.

Reimer said thinking about peoples’ understanding of Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross “makes me anxious for us. To understand the implications of our sin, and the impending judgment, everyone will need to know God one way or the other, whether it is as our judge or our Saviour.” Scripture states that, one way or the other, every knee will bow before Christ, he said.

He believes there is a generational difference in Canada in response to the atonement. “I think my parents (now 83) had a clear understanding of the wrath of God,” he said. “Then I look at the baby boomers. We turned God into our buddy. We changed how we expressed our relationship to him. There was a loss of holiness.”

“Kids grew up in the lap of luxury, and it did not serve them well,” he said. “The younger generation now engages in two streams. One is focused on the implications of the gospel – like environmentalism and justice. The other stream wants truth, clarity and holiness, the core of the faith. So if we preach the whole gospel, social justice has to be part of it. But some people bypass the gospel and go right to justice and environment issues. Yet, the social side of things needs to be one outcome of how we understand the atonement.”

He said current Canadian statistics show that Canadians, unlike Americans and Europeans, are more open to the ministry of the gospel than ever before. He points to New York City pastor and church planter Tim Keller’s question: “Will we step up for the gospel and the kingdom of God?”

Reimer says in that context alone, he personally leans to the penal substitutionary view of the atonement. “The hope in that atonement is so overwhelming, it is the incredible grace of God. I am overwhelmed at God’s goodness, at God’s grace,” he said. “I want to pray, God, give us this city. We pray for the country. Because it matters.”

“I pray as we walk out of here with the greatest gift of grace through faith, that we do not just go home from this conference, having thought better. I hope it is much more than that,” he said.

—Barrie McMaster

Don’t collapse Jesus’ gifts of redemption and atonement into mere personal piety, delegates and guests of the biennial Canadian MB study conference were warned.

Erwin Penner, professor emeritus of religious studies at Tyndale University College, Toronto, said while it is true atonement has personal application to us as individuals, much more is happening. The disastrous physical world since Adam and Eve contrasts with the new creation Isaiah foresaw. What Christians can look forward to, thanks to Christ’s atonement, is “…a reversal, moving us to the promise at the end of the day when there will be a new heaven and a new earth.”

So when we are in Christ, he said, we know the new creation. “There is also a global level of this claiming of creation, as we await eagerly for our adoption” – the adoption Jesus made possible in the resurrection, and our liberation from the fall of humankind.

Penner asked, could such a “horrid, cruel, sadistic symbol of torture and execution like the cross” become the answer to the sin in the world? In fact, what was God doing on the cross? There was a threefold purpose, he said. God was showing his nature, his grace, and his reconciling work.

Jesus spoke of how “the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing….” (John 5:19). Penner said it’s important to understand that the Father and the Son are unified. It was “self-giving on the cross. Did God abuse his son? No, he also took the punishment, and gave himself in Christ.”

Through the resurrection, the power of sin is broken, said Penner. “Christians are ‘in Christ’ and belong to the kingdom of God. “We cannot avoid dying. But what Jesus accomplished on the cross reversed the curse we read about in Genesis, and raises us back to life.”

“We cannot overestimate the wickedness and horror of the fall,” Penner continued. “There is no way out of that unless God himself were to act.” That gift “also causes us to want to confess his name.”

He concluded with the description in Revelation 22 of the river of the water of life, flowing from the throne of God, and how the Lamb will be present, and his servants will see his face and will serve him.

“Our response ought to be as in verse 20,” he said. “Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.”

As delegates responded to the presentation, International Community of Mennonite Brethren executive secretary (and former CCMBC executive director) David Wiebe welcomed Penner’s “braided rope idea” of God’s purposes in the atonement. He said there is a “holding together of these images in our fellowship around the world.”

Fort Garry pastor John Unger asked about the relevance of suffering of the church, and whether it is an essential part of Christianity. Penner said Christians are the body of Christ. “It is not a question of an insufficient atonement in that passage,” he said. “When Christ’s body suffers, he suffers.”

Stéphane of Montreal said that much of the time “we Christianize the same things in our lives that are sinful,” like religiosity, selfishness and cowardice. And “people see no difference in us.” He said Christians need to remember that the cross is a way of life, walking in humility, and in the love of God.

Mennonite Brethren can be found in “the four corners” of the earth — from Canada to Japan to DR Congo to Paraguay. These diverse conferences work together under the International Community of Mennonite Brethren (ICOMB). Interim executive secretary of ICOMB David Wiebe presented a statement at study conference on behalf of our international “brethren”:

“I believe the international MB community would caution North Americans against naming one model as the theologically driving or unifying model, when that seems to be simply a cultural preference. I polled several leaders around the world: in their responses, there is clear acknowledgement of a variety of atonement models and their effectiveness. For illustration let me quote a few answers when I asked if there is a push toward one model or another.
The Paraguayan leaders, who have two conferences said:

We are not sure whether we can speak of one preferred image that is being used and has doctrinal status over the others. In the context of the German conference, the importance of forgiveness and taking away the guilt is valued very much. In the Latin American, context the image of victory over powers, the shedding of blood (Catholic background), is valued very much.

Takashe Manabe, theological and pastoral leader of the Japan conference for decades said,

Our biblical understanding of atonement is primarily the substitutional death of Jesus Christ, though secondarily, the cross of Jesus Christ is the victory over Satan and the powers of the evil spirits. In Japan, both aspects are important. Many Japanese people have been struggling with the evilness of mind and heart of the human beings. They also look forward to victorious living, where both body and mind are in good condition. We believe Jesus is willing to forgive our sins and this is the true foundation of our healthy living, and he is willing to supply all our physical and spiritual needs.

Arthur Duck from Brazil said,

I believe what is most effective today is the appeal to Jesus’ model (moral influence) instead of his teaching or something else. It is not effective in terms of numbers, but effective in transforming lives.

“What I read from these responses is that whether one or the other preference is on the table, they are not concerned with saying one image or another is ontologically of greater import. That push seems to be our North American cultural agenda – not a theological necessity. Rather, the elevation of one or another model seems to be missionally driven – that is, to use those images which best proclaim the gospel within the cultural context.

To stand with our larger family seems to imply that we simply focus on Christ as our author of salvation, and try to learn as much as we can about every aspect of his work, so that we may become better disciples and evangelists, without pushing one atonement model to theological or ontological prominence.”—David Wiebe

—Laura Kalmar

Amid much talk about trials and judgment, it was BFL’s turn to be on the hot seat Saturday morning. Ready for cross-examination, board members sat on stage to field questions from delegates. Surprisingly, not much conversation focused on the topic of the atonement.

Talk centred around the structure, role, and future of the board:

• When the Canadian conference moved to its current governance model of leadership, the BFL was charged with the task of “spiritual watchcare” over the executive board (EB). Perhaps it was a way to keep the BFL distinct from the EB, or perhaps the structure was intended to quell potential abuse of power…. Regardless, things are going to change.

“The two boards aren’t speaking into each other’s work enough,” said executive director Willy Reimer. “We need to formalize lines of communication. Structurally, the roles will stay the same. But we’re building a stronger functional connection.”

What implications does this have for the autonomy and “authority” of the BFL in the future? And what does it mean for the EB? There’s certainly a sense that EB members will be expected to be more involved in “spiritual matters” of the conference.

• What’s happening with our confession of faith (CoF) in light of our family ties with the U.S. and other international brothers and sisters (ICOMB)? Conversation between Canada and the U.S. has already begun: “We’re looking to give the national conferences the liberty to flesh out their own CoFs, in order to reflect the different contexts in the U.S. and Canada,” said chair Brian Cooper. “The commitment to a joint process may not do justice to our unique contexts.”

It’s another big change. If we’re going to craft a distinctive Canadian MB confession, what posture will we take toward the global ICOMB confession?

• Oh my, what big teeth you have! Or not. How much authority does the BFL actually wield? “We don’t want to be a top-down type of board,” said board member Ralph Gliege. “The best place to resolve difficulties is at the local church level.” Overall, the BFL’s authority depends on each province’s constitution.

This “lack of teeth” causes concern for some, as they anticipate controversial theological issues coming down the pipe (such as homosexuality). Will the BFL become more directive/prescriptive in the future? According to vice chair Terrance Froese, the BFL remains optimistic about the general health of the conference (85% or higher), and about the board’s ability to deal with issues as they arise.

Other comments of note from the floor:

• “We need to encourage structure to allow for the possibility of prophetic voices coming from outside of structure,” Andrew Dyck, Highland Community Church, Abbotsford, B.C.
• “1979. It was a very lonely convention for me because I didn’t have the right last name. I’m glad things have changed,” Ralph Gliege, Saskatchewan.
• “There are some faces I don’t see here – other Chinese churches, Vietnamese faces…. How is the BFL working at bringing these other churches out?” Mike Nishi, South Hill Church, Vancouver
• “The BFL feels encouraged. There is a healthy diversity within our fellowship, as we proclaim the fullness of the cross,” Brian Cooper, BFL chair