For Advent, I’ve been reflecting particularly on what it means to tell the Christmas story to my 4-year-old daughter. Particularly, as one for a preference […]
Andrew Suderman teaches theology, peace and mission at Eastern Mennonite University in Harrisonburg, Virginia. He also serves as secretary of Mennonite World Conference’s Peace Commission. Andrew and his wife, Karen, served with Mennonite Church Canada as coordinators of the Anabaptist Network in South Africa from 2009 to 2016. They live in Harrisonburg with their two children.
Many institutions within our Mennonite family are wrestling with questions of identity. There are good reasons for this. We want to be contextual, appropriate, relevant and hospitable in our ongoing journey toward faithfulness. What in our journey thus far can we, or should we, affirm? What must we change? How can we more faithfully achieve our aim, vision and calling? What is our aim, vision and calling? Such wrestling is good.
It really should not surprise us that Mennonites are persistently interested in questions of “identity.” This is a logical outcropping of a faith-movement based on personal consciousness. Each generation is confronted with the choice as to whether it will choose to identify with its inherited faith tradition.
Susan Shultz Huxman, in her lecture at the Eastern Mennonite University faculty and staff conference at the beginning of the 2017-18 school year, helpfully highlighted three elements that determine identity: a) the importance of hindsight (looking back to learn from our past); b) foresight (looking forward to determine where we want to go); and c) insight (the ways we choose to embody the intersection of hindsight and foresight). Her reminder is important. “Identity” is not static. It is constantly shaped and determined as we walk. The creation of identity is a dynamic process.
Her lecture reminded me of a Colombian proverb that says (roughly): “If you don’t know where you’re coming from, and you don’t know where you’re going, than any bus will do.” Knowing where we are coming from and knowing where we want to go are important elements in determining how we will walk now.
Susan offered new words for a common Anabaptist perspective, namely the essential inter-related triad among Jesus, Kingdom and Church. These are not synonyms, but neither can any one of them be understood without the other. These three aspects of faith serve as three legs of an Anabaptist faith-stool.
We recognize, of course, that this community we call “church” has imperfections; it has spots and wrinkles. It is not yet the full vision of shalom that God desires. And yet, as Paul routinely suggests through his use of the word ekklesia (or “the called out ones”), this is an audacious calling! And this continues to feed the church’s identity as it enacts God’s mission and purpose in the world.
What does this lived vocation actually look like? What habits, practices, values and commitments emerge when these three traits come together? Robert Suderman provides a helpful list that begins to explore this:
This inter-related triad of Jesus, Church and Kingdom was – and continues to be – radical, even revolutionary!
I suspect that what is sketched above is not new for many of us. But I find it interesting, and sometimes concerning, that at times we have rendered this “Anabaptist perspective,” this inter-related triad, as “hindsight.” We may recognize it as part of our history, and simply depict it as such. We fail, in other words, to recognize how such a perspective motivates our present challenge to be faithful.
Interestingly, while in South Africa, we experienced a vibrant community convinced that the genius of Anabaptism is not just its hindsight, but also the insight and foresight it offers in their efforts to be the church. Anabaptism, in other words, is not simply a historical reality; it continues to inform who they want to be.
Often, when we would come back from South Africa, we would speak in churches about “being reminded of an Anabaptist vision.” Whenever there were historians or theologians in the congregation, such talk would inevitably conjure up visions of H.S. Bender and his portrayal of the 16th century “Anabaptist Vision.” We, however, would try to highlight that for many around the world an “Anabaptist vision” is not simply the story of 16th-century Anabaptism, nor Bender’s depiction of it. It is a lived, contemporary, Christian expression of faith and ecclesial discipleship. The emergence of the different Anabaptist networks around the world serve as but a few examples of the contemporary significance of this faith identity. Listen to the words of Mzwandile Nkutha, coordinator of the Anabaptist Network in South Africa (ANiSA):
Anabaptism… can be juxtaposed with the narrative of the black church under colonialism and apartheid in South Africa. The 16th-century Anabaptism emerged within a context of Protestant Reformation with an attempt to re-imagine the role of the church. Anabaptism has had a small but significant influence in South Africa, particularly among the theological and activist voices during the struggle against apartheid.
The black church in South Africa sought to decolonize as well as create space for a new imagination beyond the apartheid theology of social, political, racial and economic segregation. Thus, both narratives expressed an ecclesiology distant from state hegemonic power. There is a compelling binary between black liberation theology within the South African context and Anabaptism[’s] nonresistance and nonviolent posture that speaks to the church identity in South Africa.
Anabaptism provides a theological and ecclesial perspective that refuses to move away from the margins[;] rather [it] speak from the margins. It is this kind of alternative ecclesial and theological politics that attracted me to explore Anabaptism.
This “Anabaptist vision,” or identity, is not only a historical movement. It is not simply hindsight. It is experienced as a current, embodied, liberative – even emancipatory – identity, an identity that is connected with what it means to be “Mennonite,” which many around the world embrace. This identity is intelligible only when we willingly and consciously align ourselves with those on the margins struggling for life, justice and peace. Such contexts provide the necessary perspective and the necessary questions with which we too must wrestle to envision how we can be a community shaped by Jesus’ character, seeking to embody now God’s peaceable kingdom on earth.
 This is not a new idea. Robert (Jack) Suderman makes this suggestion in his chapter “Reflections on Anabaptist Ecclesiology” in Re-Imagining the Church (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock, 2016), 31-37. Harry Huebner also explores such a relationship, although Huebner distinguishes between God, Church, and New Kingdom (see his chapter “Moral Agency as Embodiment: How the Church Acts” in Echoes of the Word: Theological Ethics as Rhetorical Practice [Kitchener, ON: Pandora Press, 2005]), 61-83.
 Suderman, Re-Imagining the Church, 34.
 Suderman, Re-Imagining the Church, 32.
The Mennonite, Inc., is currently reviewing its Comments Policy. During this review, commenting on new articles is disabled. Comments that were previously approved will still appear. Comments on older articles can continue to be submitted for review in accordance with the policy below. To promote constructive dialogue, the editors of The Mennonite moderate all comments and comments don’t appear until approved. Anonymous comments are not accepted. Writers must sign posts or log into Disqus with their first and last name. Read our full Comments Policy.