By What Criteria Does a "Grand, Noble Experiment” Fail?
What the Case of John Howard Yoder Reveals about the
Mennonite Church
PAUL MARTENS AND DAVID CRAMER*
Abstract: This essay argues that the attempts by the Mennonite Church to
address Yoder’s problematic sexual explorations revealed and heightened at least
three tensions internal to the Anabaptist tradition that affect its polity in very
practical ways: 1) the tension between the “Anabaptist vision” and “Mennonite
reality”; 2) the tension between church discipline and anti-Constantinian resistance
to power; and 3) the tension between the Anabaptist desire to separate from sin and
the need for continued dialogue in disagreement. After describing how these
tensions are narrated in Yoder’s writing and manifested in the competing
perspectives concerning his disciplining process, the essay argues that-even
though the circumstances are radically different»the same tensions are present in
the current discernment process devoted to same-sex marriage and LGBTQ
inclusion in the church. In so doing, we clarify the implicit theo-logics appealed to
by differing groups in the Mennonite Church in order to facilitate better
understanding among those representing various perspectives in these often
impassioned discussions.
John Howard Yoder was not a saint. This much is patently obvious
given the revelations from the discernment group about his numerous
sordid sexual activities' But, while virtually all Mennonites condemn his
abusive actions and remain mystified about the theological justifications
he created to defend them, in this essay we argue that Yoder’s
theological outlook heightened several internal tensions within the
Mennonite Church that unwittingly and ironically affected its polity in
very practical ways. Thus, if we are to learn from the case of John
Howard Yoder, we cannot stop at simply condemning his actions; we
must also face the deep-seated and still unresolved tensions in the
Anabaptist tradition-as part of the broader believers church tradition-
_____________________
*Paul Martens is an associate professor and David Cramer a doctoral candidate in the
Department of Religion at Baylor University, Waco, Texas.
1. For our own attempt to come to grips with Yoder’s actions, see David Cramer, Jenny
Howell, Paul Martens, and Jonathan Tran, "Theology and Misconduct: The Case of John
Howard Yoder,” The Christian Century 131, no. 17 (Aug. 20, 2014), 20-23; and idem,
"Scandalizing John Howard Yoder,” The Other Journal (July 7, 2014), online: hit.ly/jhyoder.
172 The Mennonite Quarterly Review
that surface in Yoder’s thought and that are also manifested in
contemporary Mennonite ecclesiology and its attempt to come to grips
with the complexity of a Christian understanding of human sexuality.
To begin this process, we attend to three particular tensions within
Yoder’s thought that have generally been escalated by the occasionally
overt but usually implicit (or even vestigial) assumption that Mennonites
bear the burden of being the pure church, or, in Yoder’s language, of
being the church that is the "first fruits” of the kingdom of God. The
three specific tensions that emerge out of this tradition are:
1) the tension between (a) the high normative standards of the
Anabaptist vision (whether stated in the form of Harold S.
Bender's "The Anabaptist Vision” or some other formally
analogous description) and (b) the daily recognition that
Mennonite reality falls short of this ideal.(2)
2) the tension between affirming (a) the power of the church
community to exercise discipline and, at the same time, (b) the
subversive anti-Constantinian resistance to the exercise of power;
and
3) the tension between (a) the need for identification of, and
separation from, sin and (b) the need to continue dialogue in
disagreement.
Although the first of these issues-the tension between a high
normative ideal and the actual practice of lived experience-has a long
history and is familiar to those in the Mennonite world, many have come
to see this tension as more acute and complex in the wake of the case of
Yoder than it is usually understood to be. Tending to this tension, we
suggest, leads to consideration of the further tensions, which are, at
present, very pressing concerns for the Mennonite Church.
To make our arguments concrete, we demonstrate how these tensions
are currently playing out in another discernment process within the
Mennonite Church USA, namely, on whether or not to affirm non-
celibate LGBTQ persons through ministry licensure and ordination. By
describing the formal parallels between the tensions in Yoder's thought
and the current tensions over same-sex marriage and LGBTQ inclusion,
we hope to show the ways in which Mennonites have inherited the
assumptions and tensions within their tradition, regardless of the "side"
________________
2. We use the term "ideal" intentionally here, and our rationale will become clearer as
our argument progresses. For Bender, Yoder, and many Mennonites, references to "The
Anabaptist Vision” are, by their own definition, references to "the biblical vision" (and
vice-versa). Not everyone makes this connection explicit, but it permeates Mennonite
history to the extent that we will, on occasion, use "Anabaptist ideal” and ”biblical ideal"
interchangeably.
Criteria for the Failure of a “Grand, Noble Experiment” 173
they are on in the current debates concerning sexuality, celibacy, and
ordination. Our purpose, therefore, is not to criticize any particular
position or party in these debates but rather simply to help clarify the
theo-logics at play in order to better understand how these tensions arise
and become entrenched.
“'THE ANABAPTIST VISION AND MENNONITE REALITY’
REVISITED” REVISITED
The tension between the ideal of the Anabaptist vision and the reality
of Mennonite communities has been the subject of considerable debate
for some time.(3) In most cases, the distinction between normative vision
and reality-where the former is always defined as "Anabaptist" and the
latter is always defined as "Mennonite"-is a loaded one in which the
former is superior and stands in judgment of the latter. On the other
hand, some have criticized the Anabaptist vision itself for being deficient
in some way.(4) What are rarely recognized in this discussion, however,
are the multiple ways in which the dissonance between vision and
reality find expression. We would like to briefly address three.
Option 1: The Difference Is Sin
One way of describing the difference between the Anabaptist vision
and Mennonite reality is that it names a failure to live up to the
normative expression of the Christian life. Or, to rephrase, the gap
between vision and reality could be thought of in terms of sin. Although
some prominent ethicists like Stanley Hauerwas have sometimes
described Mennonites as belonging to communities that faithfully
exemplify Christian practices of nonviolence and forgiveness,(5) anyone
_________________
3. Specifically, our subtitle alludes to John D. Roth’s essay "Living Between the Times;
'The Anabaptist Vision and Mennonite Reality' Revisited,” The Mennonite Quarterly Review
[hereafter MQR] 69 (july 1995), 323-335, which was a direct response to Jolm Howard
Yoder's essay "Anabaptist Vision and Mennonite Reality,” Consultation on Anabaptist-
Mennonite Theology: Papers Read at the 1969 Aspen Conference, ed. A. ]. Klassen (Fresno, Calif.:
Council of Mennonite Seminaries, 1970), 1-46. Yoder's essay, in turn, was a response to
(among other things) Harold S. Bender’s essay "The Anabaptist Vision,” MQR 18 (April
1944), 67-88.
4. The most notable example of this latter argument is Stephen F. Dintaman’s influential
essay "The Spiritual Poverty of the Anabaptist Vision,” Conrad Grebel Review 10 (1992), 205-
208
5. In his book In Good Company: The Church as Polis (Notre Dame, Incl., University of
Notre Dame Press, 1995), for example, Hauerwas writes, "I am often accused of
romanticizing both Catholicism and Anabaptism, and no doubt that is a danger. But the
reason I am so attracted to those traditions is that they have managed to keep some
practices in place that provide resources for resistance against the loss of Christian presence
in modernity. For that is the heart of the matter-namely, practices. Practices make the
church the embodiment of Christ for the world” (67-68).
174 The Mennonite Quarterly Review
who grew up in a Mennonite community or participated in Mennonite
church life recognizes that these communities are not exempt from pride,
selfishness, envy, and various other personal vices-including manifold
expressions of violence.(6) This is the form of the tension that Maurice
Martin sought to address pastorally in ”The Pure Church: The Burden of
Anabaptism."(7) and that John D. Roth identified in "Living Between the
Times." It frames many Mennonite sermons on a weekly basis.
Mennonites have a hard time accepting identifications that they would
rather ascribe to others; Mennonites do not generally refer to their
church, for example, as made up of people who are simul justus et
peccator (simultaneously justified and sinners), a description roundly
embraced in the Lutheran tradition. Rather, Mennonites prefer to speak
of the church as “the new community of disciples," ”the new society
established and sustained by the Holy Spirit," and “the visible
manifestation of Jesus Christ.”(8)
Arguably, however, the strong Mennonite emphasis on church
discipline-rooted in Matthew 18:15-22 and appropriated in the
sixteenth century through the Schleitheim Confession-demonstrates that
this tension is so recognizably ever-present that the church has adopted a
customary practice for addressing it. In the words of the Confession of
Faith in a Mennonite Perspective, "Discipline is intended to liberate erring
brothers and sisters from sin, to enable them to return to a right
relationship with God, and to restore them to fellowship in the church”
(Article 14). It appears that this sort of practice can work effectively to
address most of the sorts of personal sins encountered on a regular
basis.(9) More extreme sins (e.g., murder or kidnapping) are usually
______________
6. In this context, we adopt Yoder’s own definition of violence: ”As soon as either verbal
abuse or bodily coercion moves beyond that border line of loving enhancement of the
dignity of Persons, we are being violent. The extremes of the two dimensions are of course
killing and the radical kind of insult which Jesus in Matthew 5 indicates is just as bad. I
believe it is a Christian imperative always to respect the dignity of everv person: I must
never willingly or knowingly violate that dignity.” -John Howard Yoder, “Fuller
Definition of 'Violence/” collected in the London Mennonite Centre, Highgate, London,
March 28, 1973, p. 3.
7. Maurice Martin, ”The Pure Church: The Burden of Anabaptism,” Conrad Grebel
Review 1, no. 2 (Spring 1983), 29-41.
8. These statements are drawn from Confession of Faith in a Mennonite Perspective
(Scottdale, Pa.; Herald Press, 1995), 39-41. To be fair, Article 9: The Church of Jesus Christ
also recognizes that ”the church is imperfect and thus in constant need of repentance" (39),
even though this admission is given considerably less emphasis. Further, it should be noted
that we use the Confession of Faith simply as illustrative in this argument, recognizing that
its form, content, and role is variously understood among Mennonites. In the cases where
we cite it, however, we believe it represents the normative theological convictions of a very
significant number of Mennonites throughout history and in North America today.
9. In the course of this process, grace and forgiveness usually are introduced only after
moral striving and failure. This ordering and its implicit emphasis has generated
Criteria for the Failure of a “Grand, Noble Experiment” 175
addressed in federal or state disciplinary processes; but these
governmental actions do not usually replace church discipline even if
they complicate it.
What this way of articulating the tension generally presumes is that
the church has a clear and uniform understanding of the normative
vision that it is called to uphold and that the church has the same
confident capability to identify what counts as sin. These presumptions,
however, were called into question by Yoder, and it is this complication
that made his disciplinary process so vexing and seemingly incomplete.
Option 2: The Diffence Is Structural
A second way to describe the tension between the Anabaptist vision
and Mennonite reality is to think of the dissonance in terms of ecclesial
structures or sociological forms (i.e., that the sociological shape of the
Mennonite Church, as a community, is profoundly different from that of
the early Anabaptists).(10) Although Yoder himself occasionally
recognized the first expression of the tension sketched above,” it is this
second, sociological expression of the tension that drives much of his
critical and constructive agenda. Yoder himself noted this tension early
in life-it yielded the derisory ”The Cooking of the Anabaptist Goose"
letter to his Concern Group in which the young Yoder contrasted
modern Mennonite institutions, especially its colleges, with the “Spirit-
led way of facing the world.(12) and the later, more formal critique
__________________
considerable debate. In “The Spiritual Poverty of the Anabaptist Vision,” for example,
Dintaman writes, “We have had little patience or compassion for human weakness and
insecurity which drives people to hold tenaciously to false gods. We have often scorned
people who weren't ready to give up their nationalistic and materialistic attitudes. We have
had little sensitivity to deeply wounded people who are trapped in deep holes of bondage
and addiction. That is, I believe, why Anabaptist vision churches have tended not to grow.
The Anabaptist vision only taught us how to minister to strong people who are in
fundamental control of their lives. It left us frustrated and impotent when we met deeply
troubled people who seemed incapable of change” (206).
10. We recognize that structures can be sinful. In this context, however, we are
following Yoder’s lead and simply speaking about structural difference without valuation
(except that implied between naming the difference between Anabaptism and
denominational structures found in other expressions of Christianity, including but not
limited to education, publication, and biblical interpretation). The question that Yoder
suggests and leaves open is, however, precisely this: how does one know when sociological
difference is merely difference and when it becomes sin?
11. See, for example, John Howard Yoder, "Reinhold Niebuhr and Christian Pacifism,”
MQR 29 (April 1955), 101-117. In describing Niebuhr's theology, he discusses Niebuhr’s
view that "there exists between finitude and transcendence a tension which provides
occasion for sin” (1025); later he reminds the reader of ”Niebuhr’s real service to theology,
and to pacifism, in making real the omnipresence of sin, even when mixed with the best of
intentions” (117).
12. John H. Yoder, "Reflections on the Irrelevance of Certain Slogans to the Historical
Movements They Represent; Or, The Cooking of the Anabaptist Goose; Or, Ye Garnish the
176 The Mennonite Quarterly Review
expressed in ”The Anabaptist Vision and Mennonite Reality." In essence,
the argument Yoder develops in the later essay is simple. The basic
premise is that Anabaptism, at its core, has two criteria: (a) it is a
believers church that (b) follows the way of the cross. He further defines
”believers church" as (i) mission-oriented (when oriented externally) and
(ii) evidenced by ”voluntarism”(13) (when oriented internally). This
description of the believers church assumes that “the adhesion of a
member is his own personal responsible, conscious, mature, adult choice
and cannot be made for him even by someone who desires to make that
decision for him for his own good.(14) Yoder also succinctly summarized
the way of the cross as the renunciation of the use of power and the
refusal to reduce persons to things in the making of decisions.(15) This is,
for Yoder, the kernel or essence of Anabaptism. It is not a historical
description, he argued, but a “hermeneutic.(16) a principled distillation of
his reading of sixteenth-century Anabaptism and the New Testament
itself.
The narrative Yoder then unfolds is, by definition, the failure of
Mennonite history to match the transhistorical ideal of the Anabaptist
vision. Each instantiation of Mennonite community becomes-almost by
default, because it is an actual community-a small Christendom, a
corpusculum Christianum.(17) And, each enculturation of the vision in the
Mennonite Church is the result of "borrowing" from sources-whether
Christian or not-external to the Anabaptist vision. Yoder, for example,
charges Iohn F. Funk with borrowing from Dwight L. Moody, and he
singled out the appropriation of Sunday school and the creation of
publishing houses for their role in synthesizing a new Mennonite
identity.” J. B. Smith, A. R. Wenger, and John L. Stauffer--to cite further
examples-are noted for introducing dispensationalism, a ”special
flavor" of piety, and "unique techniques of biblical interpretation" into
Old Mennonitism.(19) And, of course, Yoder targeted Harold Bender, his
mentor and a dominant midcentury church leader-for similar sorts of
Mennonite syncretization accomplished through administrative and
institutional efforts.(20) Bender, however, was actually only one in the long
____________
Sepulchres of the Righteous," Box 42, Folder 6, H. S. Bender Papers, Mennonite Church
USA Archives - Goshen, Goshen, Ind.
13. Yoder, "Anabaptist Vision and Mennonite Reality," 4.
14. Ibid.
15. Ibid.
16. Ibid., 5.
17. Ibid., 6.
18. Ibid., 7-8.
19. Ibid., 10.
20. See, e.g., ibid., 10.
Criteria for the Failure of a “Grand, Noble Experiment” 177
line of Mennonite leaders who profoundly reshaped ”Mennonite reality"
further and further away from “the Anabaptist vision."
Stepping back from Yoder’s argument for a moment, three
observations are in order. First, although Yoder sketches his analysis as if
he were describing a declension narrative, the language of sin is
remarkably absent. Rather, because the failure is apparent in alterations
observed in the sociological shape of Mennonite reality and not in the
sinfulness of the individual actors,” the form of dissonance Yoder is
primarily concerned about cannot be the same as that described in
option 1 above.
Second, despite his professed posture of neutrality or objectivity, it is
simply impossible for Yoder to stand outside of Mennonite reality while
generating the comparative analysis that he does. As useful as such a
summary statement might be for heuristic purposes, it could very well
be argued that for a Mennonite to make the suggestion that Anabaptism
can be defined as a typological ”model”22 or as a ”concept"23 is possible
only through another philosophical "borrowing" from beyond what
Yoder considers true Anabaptism. In other words, to operate as if it is
possible to define Anabaptism outside of its historical manifestations
might be simply the next post-Bender step in the syncretization of
Mennonite reality. Whatever the case may be, in adopting this posture,
Yoder conceded that his own Mennonite Church inadvertently looked
much like that of his apparent nemesis, Reinhold Niebuhr-namely, its
historical reality always falls short of the ideal expressed in the life of
Jesus.
Third, and related to the above, much of the description Yoder
provided of the "great men” who determined the historical shape of
Mennonite reality hauntingly reads as if it could be ascribed to Yoder
himself. For example, he noted, speaking of "each of these men”:
The borrowings that he brought into this denomination from
outside [were] synthesized so creatively with what had been there
before, that by the time the next generation came along, they could
___________________
21. Yoder certainly bemoans the actions of individual actors, but he stops short of
calling them sinful--it would certainly be hard to justify calling Funk a sinner for
introducing Sunday school into the Mennonite Church.
22. Ibid,, 46.
23. Ibid., 25.
24. While Niebuhr allows this reality to necessitate the occasional choice of evil (i.e.,
force), Yoder takes a rather Kantian stance and simply reasserts the duty to do good
regardless. Although Yoder was often critical of Niebuhr, their relationship is more
complex than is often realized. For more on the connections between the two, see David C.
Cramer, "Realistic Transformation: The Impact of the Niebuhr Brothers on the Social Ethics
of John Howard Yoder," MQR 88 (Oct. 2014), 479615.
178 The Mennonite Quarterly Review
not tell the difference between what he had brought to it and what
had been there before. He had become in a sense ”Mr.
Mennonite.(25)
To read early twenty-first century descriptions of ”neo-Anabaptism,”
“Anabaptism/’ and ”Mennonite” theology and ethics is to discover that
Yoder had become, in much the same sense, ”Mr. Mennonite."(26) This is
perhaps the most substantial reason why Mennonites beyond the women
and men directly harmed by Yoder’s actions cannot simply choose to
ignore his writing from this day forward-the Mennonite Church’s very
self-understanding has been shaped by Yoder’s influence through his
preaching, teaching, publications, and various administrative roles.(27)
And there is more in Yoder's description of each of these Mennonite
leaders that may have a bearing on his own case:
The fact that . . . [the leader’s] reaffirmation of Mennonite identity as
he recreated it was a free choice led him to misperceive the effect of
his ministry in the denomination. He tended to assume that those
who followed his lead did so with the same genuineness of
voluntary commitment which this position had had for him; but
many of them were using his reaffirmation as a prop for their own
security or as a new handle on their own children. He was thus by
his own experience ill equipped to be aware of the difference
between the psychology of those who followed him and the shape
of his own leadership. (28)
If nothing else, this observation reveals that Yoder was conscious that
Mennonite leaders could problematically affect and unintentionally
abuse their position because they misunderstood the psychological state
of their followers. Whether he was self-aware enough to recognize that
he too would become one of these leaders is, again, part of the ongoing
_______________
25. Yoder, "Anabaptist Vision and Mennonite Reality,” 11.
26. See, e.g., James Davison Hunter, To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, and
Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World (New York: Oxford University Press,
2010), chapter 11.5, "The Neo-Anabaptists,” 150-166, where Yoder serves as the prime
interpreter and exemplar of (neo-)Anabaptism.
27. Along with his teaching and administrative roles at A.M.B.S., Yoder also served in
various administrative capacities with the Mennonite Central Committee, the Mennonite
Board of Missions, the Institute of Mennonite Studies, and The Mennonite Quarterly Review.
Outside the Mennonite world, he taught at the University of Notre Dame and was involved
in various capacities with the National Council of Churches, the World Council of
Churches, the Society of Christian Ethics, the Journal of Religious Ethics, and Sojourners
magazine. In addition, Yoder had regular speaking and preaching engagements around the
world and, of course, wrote prolifically. For a more detailed account of Yoder’s
professional activities, see Mark Thiessen Nation, “john Howard Yoder: Mennonite,
Evangelical, Catholic," MQR 77 (]u1y 2003), 357-370.
28. Yoder, "Anabaptist Vision and Mennonite Reality,” 12.
Criteria for the Failure of a “Grancl, Noble Experiment” 179
debate. But regardless of how one answers this particular question, it
seems that Yoder understood that the best way to describe the failure of
Mennonite reality was in structural, sociological, or even political terms.
Still, the case of his own actions suggests that the tension is even more
complex than he realized.
The Case of Yoder: Neither (Or Both) of the Above Differences(29)
By describing at some length these two options for naming Mennonite
failure, we have taken what might appear to be a detour in order to set
up what we take to be the unique challenge faced by the 1992
disciplinary committee when confronted by the case of ]ohn Howard
Yoder. In short, the case of Yoder is unusual in that it exhibits the
challenge that emerges when these two competing perspectives on the
relationship between the Anabaptist vision and Mennonite reality
collide. On one side, many Mennonites-perhaps foremost, the women
who were harassed and abused by Yoder--construed Yoder’s actions as
a sinful expression of Mennonite reality that fell short of the Anabaptist
vision Yoder himself articulated (option 1). (30) On the other side, Yoder
narrated his activities as an attempt to rectify the failures of Mennonite
structures, to embody truly an Anabaptist vision of human sexual
relations by imaginatively recreating Mennonite reality (option 2).
Yoder’s For the Nations, published in 1997, begins with the claim that
the theme of the book is “the tone of voice, or the style and stance, of the
people of God in the dispersion,”(31) Throughout and in various
modulations, Yoder reiterates that the believing community is "the
world on the way.(32) the “first fruits” of the kingdom of God. This theme
had been present in Yoder’s thought already for decades and he
addressed it in some detail in The Priestly Kingdom (1984).(33) In that text,
_________________
29. In the use of the language of "case" (here and in what follows), we are utilizing a
shorthand way of referring to the complexity of all that is involved here that is already in
use. We use it more with reference to what is meant by a case study and less than what is
meant by a legal case (though there is some overlap).
30. Indeed, we have ourselves largely adopted and developed this perspective at some
length elsewhere (see note 1 above), and a number of others have carefully attended to this
perspective in various ways as well. See, e.g., the excellent set of essays “On Teaching John
Howard Yoder" by Gayle Gerber Koontz, Gerald I. Mast, Malinda E, Berry, Peter Dula, and
Justin Heinzekehr in Mennonite L#e 68 (2014), http://archive.bethelksedu/ml/issue/vol-68/_
31. John Howard Yoder, For the Nations: Essays Public 8 Evangelical (Grand Rapids,
Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1997), 1.
32. Tbid., 50.
33. For one of his earliest articulations of this perspective, see his essay "The Original
Revolution" from 1968, in which he writes: "This is the original revolution; the creation of a
distinct community with its own deviant set of values and its coherent way of incarnating
them.”-]ohn Howard Yoder, The Original Revolution: Essays on Christian Pacifism
(Scottdale, Pa.: Herald, 2003), 28.
180 The Mennonite Quarterly Review
Yoder suggested that one of the roles of the church, as a microcosm of
the larger society, is to undertake "pilot programs to meet previously
unmet needs or to restore ministries which have collapsed." “The
church,” he continued, ”is more able to experiment because not all
ministries need to pay off. She can take the risk of losing or failing, more
than can those who are in charge of the state."(34) In the context of
nonviolence, this understanding of the role of the church has often
received unqualified praise and appropriation.
Yet, this understanding of the church was equally important to Yoder
in the context of sexuality. Already in the early 1970s he was exploring
what rethinking singleness and nonmarital relations ought to look like in
this new community that is the world "on its way." In a memorandum
dated March 28, 1974, that he circulated for feedback, Yoder sought to
rectify the negative connotations of singleness in the church. As part of
what one might properly call a "pilot project" concerning rethinking
singleness, Yoder proposed the following:
If we were able to free ourselves from the tyranny of assuming that
relations between two persons must be seen as potential courtship,
we would discover a new liberty for the expression of affection and
moral support between persons, whether of the same sex or of both
sexes, without being frightened by the fear of misrepresentation or
unwholesome developments. In some places we may clearly have
been taught by "the youth culture” to rediscover the possibility that
spiritual intimacy and physical touching need not lead to sexual
expression, so that the married person may be free to express
affection physically to others than his or her spouse, and the single
person may receive physical and spiritual affirmation from others of
the opposite or the same sex without fear or scandal. (35)
The witness of his victims bears out the seriousness of Yoder’s
conviction. This is noted well by Carolyn Heggen, a victim who came
forward in the early 1990s: "In a bizarre way, he’s a very ethical man.
He’s got to have an ethical system that supports his behavior."(36) And, the
____________________
34. John Howard Yoder, The Priestly Kingdom: Social Ethics as Gospel (Notre Dame, Ind.:
University of Notre Dame Press, 1984), 92. In much of the following, we will be drawing on
The Priestly Kingdom in order to illuminate a chronological coherence between Yoder’s
thought and action. In nearly all cases, however, these ideas appear in other texts. In this
case, the idea of the social creativity of the minority community is also present earlier and
in other contexts. See, e.g., John Howard Yoder, Revolutionary Christianity: The 1966 South
American Lectures, ed. Paul Martens, et al. (Eugene, Ore: Cascade, 2011), 100-101.
35. “Memorandum to whom it may concern," March 18, 1974. The ”youth culture"
Yoder refers to here seems to be the broad sexual revolution that was transforming North
American culture at the time.
36. Quoted in Tom Price, "Yoder’s actions framed in writings," The Elkhart Truth, July
15, 1992. Heggen was referred to under the pseudonym “Tina” in this article.
Criteria for the Failure of a “Grand, Noble Experiment” 181
ethical system Yoder employed was summarized in this way: "We are on
the cutting edge. We are developing some new models for the church.
We are part of this grand, noble experiment."(37) As Yoder argued in The
Priestly Kingdom, the believing church is free to experiment with pilot
projects precisely because ”It is the function of minority communities to
remember and to create utopian visions."(38)
The very practical questions that emerge (and did emerge) with some
force, then, are: (a) who gets to determine what sort of failure is
displayed in the case of Yoder? and (b) by what criteria are Yoder’s
actions to be evaluated--i.e., is the failure the behavior affirmed by the
pilot project itself, Yoder’s inability to live up to the normative
expectations of the pilot project, or Yoder’s inability to live up to the
normative expectations of something else? On the surface, the answers
seem to be easy: nearly everyone recognizes that Yoder’s actions were
abusive and violent and therefore should be condemned by the church
based on both the Mennonite Church’s own criteria and Yoder’s own
nonviolent theology.” Pressing further, however, yields a slightly more
clouded picture-a picture that, however murky it might be, helps to
shed light on the ongoing tensions within Mennonite Church polity in its
attempt to adjudicate a reconciling path through the competing
perspectives on the licensing and ordaining of non-celibate LGBTQ
persons for the ministry. But before turning to that debate, we must first
describe the second Anabaptist tension sharpened by Yoder’s theology-
namely, the tension between his emphasis on the power of the church to
enact disciplinary processes and his view of the church as a subversive,
prophetic, "anti-Constantinian” minority community.
CHURCH DISCIPLINE AND ANTI-CONSTANTINIANISM: THE
MENNONITE PROBLEM WITH POWER
Already in The Schleitheim Confession, early Anabaptists affirmed (a)
the important role of church discipline in the application of "the ban,” (b)
the separation of ”all wickedness which the devil planted in the world,”
and especially (c) the rejection of the sword.” Under Yoder’s guidance,
and with obvious debts to Bender, the understanding of the church’s
rejection of the sword was transformed and articulated in terms of a
sweeping rejection of power and the attempt to make sure things turn
________________
37. Ibid.
38. Yoder, The Priestly Kingdom, 94.
39. Again, we are assuming Yoder’s own definition of violence here. See note 6 above.
40. See articles 2, 4, and 6, respectively.
182 The Mennonite Quarterly Review
out right.” In defining Constantinianism as the belief that Providence
works through earthly power and authority, Yoder names the antithesis,
which he argues is the way God actually works in the world. God works
through the "power" of weakness, through suffering.” Yoder's
description of the church, therefore, is the inverse corollary of
Constantinianism: the “minority community."(43)
The Case of Yoder: The Pilot Project U. Denominational Power
The description of the believing or true church as a minority
community is important here, because of its posture vis-a-vis authority
and its nonconformity to the world. In The Politics of Jesus, Yoder tied
together this minority posture’s rejection of power with following Jesus:
There is but one realm in which the concept of imitation holds -but
there it holds in every strand of the New Testament literature and
all the more strikingly by virtue of the absence of parallels in other
realms. This is at the point of the concrete social meaning of the
cross in its relation to enmity and power. Servanthood replaces
dominion, forgiveness absorbs hostility. Thus-and only thus-are
we bound by New Testament thought to "be like Jesus.(44)
Not only was the first edition of The Politics of Jesus unusually popular
for an academic book-selling 75,000 copies-but Yoder's account of
imitating Jesus provided there seems also to have had a wide influence
on subsequent generations of Mennonites. Yet, the open-endedness of
the identification of power with enmity and the entailed Christian
resistance to power-that is, the perpetual demand to stand in
opposition to structures of power-led Yoder, first, toward a very
localized ecclesiology that resisted even Mennonite denominational
authorities as pseudo-Constantinian because they serve as
representatives of a corpusculum Christianity.(45) Second, it also led him to
_________________
41. Although in The Politics of Iesus Yoder recognizes a certain amount of "ambiguity in
the language of power" (136), he nevertheless ends the book with an argument for
obedience as “accepting powerlessness” (237). This theme becomes even more prominent
in his later work. See, e.g., Iohn Howard Yoder, The jewish-Christian Schisrrz Revisited, ed.
Michael G. Cartwright and Peter Ochs (Scottdale, Pa.: Herald Press, 2008), especially
chapter 9, "On Not Being in Charge,” 168-179. incidentally, the broad acceptance of this
articulation excellently exhibits how Yoder functioned as ”Mr. Mennonite” in the second
half of the twentieth century.
42. See, e.g, Yoder, For the Nations, 34-36, 143-147.
43. See, e.g,, Yoder, "The Kingdom as Social Ethic,” in The Priestly Kingdom, 80-101.
44. ]ohn Howard Yoder, The Politics of jesus: Vicit Agnus Noster, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids,
Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1994), 131.
45. It is important to note that not all aspects of Mennonite reality fall under Yoder's
judgment.
Criteria for the Failure of a “Grand, Noble Experiment” 183
adopt something of a prophetic role both in the academic world(46) and in
the Mennonite Church.”
In The Royal Priesthood, Yoder described the localization of the church
in manifold ways. In this particular context, however, it is important to
note that ”a mark of its authenticity will be our renouncing any of the
tools of privilege and power in defining it."(48) In short, the church is
always in need of reformation or, as he stated in The Priestly Kingdom,
"we educate ourselves in the reasonable expectation that when we see
things “differently from others, we will often be seeing them more
truly."(49)
The seemingly self-effected prophetic role of Yoder also fits with his
understanding of the church as minority, with the church as standing as
an alternative subculture with deviant values. In 1984, he claimed, ”The
credibility and the comprehensibility of an alternative vision which does
not always convince on the part of an individual original or 'prophetic'
person, is enormously more credible and comprehensible if it is tested,
confirmed, and practiced by a community,"(50) It seems entirely coherent,
then, to suspect that Yoder’s experimental nonmarital relationships
could very well be described as his prophetic contribution towards
seeing nonmarital relationships "more truly," toward testing the
comprehensibility of these relationships within a community.
And here we find the root of the challenge: given the expectation that
the true church will see things differently from the rest of the world
(including the Mennonite corpuscular Christianity), what process might
possibly discern whether a pilot project is truly a success or a failure?
__________________
46. For example, Thomas Shaffer begins his reflections on Yoder with the words "John
Howard Yoder, prophet and theologian."-Thomas L. Shaffer, Moral Memoranda from John
Howard Yoder: Conversations on Law, Ethics and the Church between a Mennonite Theologian and
a Hoosier Lawyer (Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock, 2002), iii. Almost unfailingly, this represents
the perception of Yoder by his former colleagues in the Christian ethics guild.
47. It is no secret that although Yoder grew up in a Mennonite community, taught in
Mennonite schools, and served within various Mennonite institutions, he always
maintained an uncomfortable relationship with the Mennonite world. This is evident from
his early resistance to Harold Bender's institutional energy to his late perception of the
relationship seen through the lens of the disciplinary process carried out by the Prairie
Street Mennonite Church and the Indiana-Michigan Conference. To illustrate the latter, a
letter from Yoder to Stanley Hauerwas dated July 27, 1993, states, "[M]y theology was a
creative retrieval of certain elements congenial with the Anabaptist type but not present
within the Mennonite world.” And further, ”Mennonites were never with me; they just
respected the fact that I was getting attention from people like Gustafson and Hauerwas.
Now their identity agenda is going in many other directions.”-Box 212, John Howard
Yoder Papers, HM 1-48, Mennonite Church USA Archives-Goshen, Goshen, Ind.
48. Yoder, The Royal Priesthood, 314.
49. Yoder, The Priestly Kingdom, 95.
50. Ibid., 93.
184 The Mennonite Quarterly Review
After all, Yoder argued for the rightness of Christian pacifism against
overwhelming historical and numerical odds. Therefore, it is evident that
near universal Christian resistance to a pilot project-in this case, the
women and men who understood his actions as harassment or assault-
would not necessarily convince him that the ”grand, noble experiment"
was a failure. There is, in Yoder's vision of the church, no obvious
empirical or external court of appeal to verify success or failure.
In Yoder’s vision of the church, all moral decisions are internal to the
practices of the church. This practice of "practical moral reasoning" is
defined by Yoder as “binding and loosing” or "the Rule of Christ."
Rooted in Matthew 18 and its long legacy in the Mennonite tradition, the
practice of binding and loosing is intended to reconcile members within
a community in the event an offense has been committed. In The Priestly
Kingdom, Yoder succinctly defined the process: “A transcendent moral
ratification is claimed for decisions made in the conversation of two or
three or more, in a context of forgiveness and in the juridical form of
listening to several witnesses."(51) Compatible descriptions appear in his
writings from 1967 through 1997.(52) Repeatedly, in line with his resistance
to centralized authority within the church, he emphasized that
”forgiveness is a person-to-person process, not a priestly prerogative."(53)
This conviction also surfaces, unsurprisingly, in his late writings on
punishment where it functions in precisely the same manner-in both
civil justice systems and in notions of "due process” drawn from the
New Testament the accused should be confronted face-to-face by the
accuser.(54)
Stepping back once again, this brief analysis begins to illuminate and
pull together several elements of the dissonance between Yoder and the
1992 disciplinary committee tasked with addressing the charges leveled
against him. First, it is quite likely that Yoder understood his own
actions to cohere with his broader attempt to reform a repressive
Mennonite reality in the direction of a new or yet-unrealized Anabaptist
vision of Christian sexuality. That is, it is doubtful that Yoder viewed
himself as doing anything morally wrong in his attempts to cultivate
experimental nonmarital (or extramarital) sexual relationships with
various Christian women. Second, it illuminates why Yoder was
frustrated by Mennonite institutional attempts to discipline him. That is,
it is doubtful that Yoder thought the representatives of Prairie Street
_____________________
51. Ibid., 27.
52. See Yoder, The Royal Priesthood, 323-358; Yoder, For the Nations, 30-31, 43-44.
53. Yoder, For the Nations, 30.
54. john Howard Yoder, The End of Sacrifice: The Capital Punishment Writings of John
Howard Yoder, ed. John C. Nugent (Harrisonburg, Va.: Herald Press, 2011), 204.
Criteria for the Failure of a “Grand, Noble Experiment” 185
Mennonite Church and the Indiana-Michigan Conference who began to
discipline him in 1992 had the right perspective for determining what he
may have done wrong, if, indeed, he had done anything morally wrong.
Or, to restate, it seems that the disciplinary committee was seeking to
determine what personal sin, if any, Yoder had committed (i.e., the
failure of Mennonite reality in the first sense), while Yoder thought he
should be judged according to whether his pilot project was a success or
failure in embodying a new communal vision for the church (i.e., the
failure of Mennonite reality in the second sense).(55)
Third, the case of Yoder reveals that pretensions to identifying one’s
actions with the ”true church" -at least in the Mennonite world-allows
one recourse to the charge of Constantinianism in order to resist the
judgment and power of select authorities. That is, in Yoder’s
ecclesiology, one can almost infinitely localize one’s church community
in an attempt to escape the discipline levied by church institutions and
denominations. And, the evidence available at this time poignantly
attests that Yoder began to see himself, during the disciplining process,
as serving as a Girardian scapegoat for what he termed ”the Mennonite
women's posse,(56) and as the archetypal ”father” for the younger men in
the denomination who were "driven by the oedipal need to reject both
my person and my ideas."(57)
So, how then does the Mennonite Church satisfactorily address
internal challenges to its authority that infer that it is the denominational
structure and procedures that are the failure and not the person or group
subject to discipline? Or, perhaps another way to ask the question, with
reference to Matthew 18, is this: which two or three witnesses are
__________________
55. This is to say that Yoder did indicate that he was sorry that women were harmed in
his "misunderstood" attempt to incarnate this vision, but he never apologized for the
vision itself or for attempting to embody it.
56. Letter from John Howard Yoder to Stanley Hauerwas, June 30, 1993, Box 212, John
Howard Yoder Papers, Mennonite Church USA Archives-Goshen, Goshen, Ind
57. Letter from Yoder to Stanley Hauerwas, Iuly 27, 1993, Box 212, Iohn Howard Yoder
Papers, Mennonite Church USA Archives-Goshen, Goshen, Ind. At this point, we hope it is
clear that the claims that Yoder’s actions are little more than expressions of social
awkwardness, Asperger’s Syndrome, or a mild form of autism are only relevant-if they
are relevant at all-in rationalizing Yoder’s awkward performance of the experimental
nonmarital relations. See, e.g., Ted Grimsrud, "Word and Deed: The Strange Case of John
of-john-howard-yoder/, and Glen Stassen, "Glen Stassen's Reflections on the Yoder
case/. An appeal to these conditions simply cannot explain Yoder’s careful narrations of
marital and non-marital relations or the larger theological framework within which they
function. This, of course, does not rule out the possibility that Yoder suffered from an
illness of some kind (whether psychological or otherwise). Rather, it is to say that,
whatever language is used to describe Yoder’s actions, his own description of them is
internally coherent and intentional.
186 The Mennonite Quarterly Review
selected to give testimony concerning the sin of the brother or sister?(58)
This is one of the questions that the case of Yoder raises that has been
largely ignored, and it is a question that is not going away soon. The fact
that Yoder was guilty of harassment and abuse that entailed violence
(even according to his own definition of violence) appears to let the rest
of us off the hook because nearly all implicitly assume that charging
Yoder with violence is equivalent to rejecting his attempt to embody a
form of sexuality that he claimed had emerged organically from the
Anabaptist vision. But we are not really off the hook because most have
simply sidestepped the challenge to "Mennonite reality" offered by his
particular vision of Anabaptist sexuality. In the case of Yoder, he did
eventually fulfill his denominational disciplinary obligations and was
restored to his local church and to his role as a teacher and theological
authority in the denomination.” But, it took much convincing for him to
submit to this process,” and it appears that there are many who believe
his completion of the process and his subsequent apology were
performed pro forma. Understandably, others have been hesitant to pick
up Yoder’s attempt to radically revise Christian sexuality-among men
and women either single or married-in the Mennonite Church. But, that
does not mean that the question of authority has been answered
adequately. After all, another form of this very challenge to ”Mennonite
reality" has been growing for some time in the Mennonite Church. And,
again, sexuality is at the heart of the challenge.
The Case of Theda Good: The Minority Community vs. Denominational Power
Having discussed Yoder’s case at some length, we turn finally to a
comparison between it and the current case of Theda Good-both of
which are the focus of current Mennonite discernment groups.°(61) Of
______________
58. In our article "Scandalizing John Howard Yoder,” for example, we report on one
woman who-at the time at least-described her physical relationship with Yoder quite
positively. Regardless of the particular dynamics of the relationship, then, it is clear that
she did not believe it to be sinful .
59. His ministry credentials, which Yoder never sought in the first place, were not
reinstated.
60. In his memoir, Hannalrs Child (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2010),
Stanley Hauerwas recounts, "John was supposed to submit to a discipline laid out by a
discernment committee of the church. They were enacting Matthew 18:15-20. It was not
clear if John would submit. He did not think the process was following the rule that he
should be allowed to confront his accusers. I am not sure what would have happened if it
had not been for the intervention of Iim McClendon and Glen Stassen" (244-245). Others
involved in the disciplinary process have described Hauerwas's own insistence with Yoder
that he comply with the process as well.
61. Elizabeth Evans reports, "On Sunday (Feb. 2 [2014ll, a regional body of Mountain
States Mennonites licensed the first lesbian in a committed same-sex relationship [Theda
Good], the first step toward ordination.” - Elizabeth Evans, ”Mountain States Mennonites
Criteria for the Failure of a "Grand, Noble Experiment” 187
course, any attempt to draw parallels between these two cases could
easily be misconstrued since, materially, the two cases could hardly be
more different. Most importantly, Yoder's case involves charges of
sexual abuse, harassment, and other violent offenses, which find
absolutely no parallel in Good’s case. Further, Yoder’s position of power
within “Mennonite reality"-in terms, for example, of gender,
administrative connections, renown, and institutional employment-was
considerably different from the position Good finds herself in. And,
finally, while Yoder appeared to be enacting his vision either alone or on
behalf of a very small number of others, Good appears to be representing
not only herself but also both the Mountain States Mennonite Conference
and a large number of others, including but not limited to LGBTQ
Mennonites.
Nevertheless, there are a number of formal parallels between these
respective cases that are instructive and, therefore, should not be
ignored, despite the risk of misunderstanding. First, both Yoder and
Good would describe their actions as expressing a faithful attempt to
follow Jesus. We have outlined the logic of Yoder's "pilot-project” above.
A brief comment concerning the logic of Good’s position is also in
order.(62) The foundational assumption of this latter “minority position"
appears to be that people are born as sexual beings (a) that are not
necessarily limited by the traditional designations “male” and "female,"
and (b) that may require sexual expression beyond traditional
heterosexual relations for fulfillment and flourishing. Therefore, it
should come as no surprise that many Mennonites have expressed
loving solidarity with Good because they “feel called by Christ to
welcome and bless LGBTQ people who are seeking to follow Jesus.”
And, returning to the posited disjunction between Anabaptist ideal and
Mennonite reality, Good and many others are willing to appeal to the
original ideal (”We believe this openness embraces the heart of the
biblical Good News, and furthers our growth as communities of grace,
joy and peace") against the derivative reality. That is, for the sake of their
__________________
take step toward gay ordination,” Religion News Service (Feb. 3, 2014), online:
http://www.religionnews.com/2014/02/O3/denver-mennonites-tal<e-first-step-toward-gay
ordination/.
62. In print, Good has maintained a rather low profile over the past year. The logic we
are working from here, therefore, is drawn from a letter sent to executive board members,
conference ministers, and other leaders of MC USA on ]an. 24, 2014. The letter was
organized by six authors (one of whom was Good) and signed by 150 Mennonite ministers
and others credentialed for ministry. For the text of the letter, see http://www.pin1<-
menno.org/2014/01/150-mennonite-leaders-call-for-change-in-policies-toward-gay-
christians/.
188 The Mennonite Quarterly Review
understanding of the Gospel, they are willing to put themselves "at
variance with denominational guidelines."(63)
At the same time, not all Mennonites hold these foundational
assumptions. Therefore, a second similarity emerges: the expressions of
sexuality practiced by Yoder and Good are, at least at present,
interpreted as "sin"-that is, against what God intends-both by
denominational documents and by a large number of Mennonites within
the denomination.(64) To be sure, their actions are described quite
differently--Yoder’s in terms of several forms of sexual violence and
Good’s in terms of "same-sex” relationships or, sometimes more bluntly,
as "homosexuality."(65) Nevertheless, both are regarded as “sinful/' Read
in this vein, both Yoder and Good have fallen far short of the Anabaptist
or biblical ideal. In both cases, therefore, denominational representatives
are forced to confront and address challenges to their identity and
authority expressed as actions (a) that the denomination defines as
sinful, and yet (b) are narrated, by the minority community, as
expressions of Christianity that are purer or closer to the Anabaptist
vision of biblical living than the denomination itself embodies.
So, how then is such a challenge resolved? In the case of Yoder, some
of those currently standing alongside Good support denominational
attempts to condemn the actions of Yoder and take the lead in healing
and reconciliation.(66) These same voices, however, cannot call upon MC
USA denominational representatives to do the same in the case of Good,
of course, because that action would simply bring condemnation upon
themselves; these same voices thus find themselves in a dilemma with
_______________
63. Quotes taken from the letter cited in the immediately preceding note.
64. See, e.g., the Confession of Faith: "We believe that God intends marriage to be a
covenant between one man and one Woman for life ..,. According to Scripture, right sexual
union takes place only within the marriage relationship" (Article 19). See also, e.g., Mark
Nation's side of the "conversation" with Ted Grimsrud in Mark Thiessen Nation and Ted
Grimsrud, Reasoning Together: A Conversation on Homosexuality (Scottdale, Pa: Herald Press,
2008).
65. See, e.g. Willard M. Swartley, Homosexuality: Biblical Interpretation and Moral
Discernment (Scottdale, Pa.: Herald Press, 2003). Despite the bluntness of the title and some
of the language in the book, Swartley offers one of the more sensitive treatments of the
topic from a traditional view. Moreover, his ultimate rationale for the book is to aid the
church in its processes of discernment. As he writes, "I too sit at the table of discernment to
listen to how others perceive the crucial issues in this debate. On these matters we need to
respectfully engage each other in ongoing discussion" (11).
66. Both the Anabaptist Mennonite Biblical Seminary, led by Sara Wenger Shenk, and
the Mennonite Church USA, led by Ervin Stutzman, have made institutional attempts to
address Yoder’s legacy. For the former, see the AMBS Statement on Teaching and
Scholarship Related to John Howard Yoder (approved April 30, 2012), online:
http://www.ambs_edu/about/documents/AMES-statement-on-IHYpdf; for the latter, see
the John Howard Yoder Discernment Group website: http://wwwxnennoniteusa.org/what-
we-do/john-howard-yoder-discernment-group/.
Criteria for the Failure of a “Grand, Noble Experiment” 189
significant parallels to that faced by Yoder. And they, like Yoder, chafe at
the possibility that they may be judged according to a perspective-held
by the guiding documents and many of the constituents of MC USA-
that in their minds radically misunderstands their position. Yet, as of
June 30, 2014, and despite efforts to seek a resolution that might be
”redemptive rather than punitive,” MC USA does not recognize Good's
licensing and will not recognize other “licenses and/or ordinations
offered by area conferences to persons living in same-sex relation-
ships."(67)
At present, therefore, the longstanding tension between church
discipline and anti-Constantinian resistance of the minority community
is palpable in the Mennonite world.(68) If it is unclear whether Yoder was
really sorry for what he did, it is indelibly clear that Good and many
others feel that they have nothing to be sorry about. And, there are those
who have intimated that the only apology that will be forthcoming ought
to be from MC USA itself.(69) At the same time, lest it seem that this
minority community posture is peculiar to those who challenge
traditional sexual norms, it must be noted that many Mennonites who
hold to traditional views of marriage have taken the same posture. Given
the growing acceptance of LGBTQ relationships within broader
American culture and many segments of the church, some Mennonites
with traditional views of marriage argue that "the ongoing dialogue over
blessing same-sex relationships, credentialing pastors in same-sex
relationships and the additional demands of LGBTQ . . . advocacy
groups is crippling our witness and mission to the world." Thus, instead
of submitting to the outcome of the discernment process, they call for
“clear decisions by the denominational leadership so we can determine
the best direction for our congregations,” which ,involves “identifying
with congregations, a conference, and a denomination that unite us in a
common witness to the transforming power of Jesus Christ.” In short,
they are calling for their views of what it means to be ”Christ-centered
and Biblically-grounded" to be reaffirmed by the denomination and are
_________________
67. “Report from the Executive Board of Mennonite Church USA,”
http: //181 224.147.130/~mennonit/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/EBReport_Iune30_20l4.pdf.
68. Of course, there are many other factors contributing to the current tensions in the
Mennonite world, including evolving views of sin itself, personality dynamics, and so on.
All of these only further complexity but do not override the tension we describe here.
69. See, e.g., Yoderian echoes amplified in Stephanie Krehbiel’s charge that Mennonite
denominational processes are violent in her essay "The Violence of Mennonite Process:
Finding the Address of the Present,” https//www.pinkmermo.org/2014/02/the-violence-of
mennonite-process-finding-theaddress-of-the-present-part-1-of-2/.
190 The Mennonite Quarterly Review
making it clear that, if their views are not reaffirmed, they will look to
create new "minority communities” of like-minded believers.(70)
Thus, as with Yoder, everyone seems to affirm the idea of communal
discernment and fraternal correction in theory, but, also as with Yoder,
in practice many seem unwilling to affirm the legitimacy of the outcome
of such processes-unless the outcome affirms what they already
believe. This state of affairs then leads to the appearance of the third
tension in Anabaptist thought, a tension that is to be worked out at the
2015 MC USA Convention in Kansas City and beyond.
SEPARATION FROM SIN vs. “THE RULE OF PAUL”:
THE FUTURE OF MC USA
As Mennonites in North America look to address the case of Good in
the next months and years, once again they find a tension between two
emphases in the tradition. Pulling in one direction-again, since at least
the creation of the Schleitheim Confession--the tradition has maintained a
strong sense of separation from sin and "the wickedness which the devil
has planted in the world.”(71) Although Mennonites have been taught-by
Yoder above all-that they are not (or no longer) sectarian, the urge to
draw a sharp line between what is good and what is sinful persists. In
this generation, the line is generally drawn most sharply between peace
(good) and violence (sinful), and it is imperative that one be on the side
of peace. In the case of Theda Good, many Mennonites are convinced
that describing LGBTQ persons and their concerns as immoral (i.e.,
delegitimizing the personhood of LGBTQ persons) is inherently violent
and, therefore, sinful. Standing on the side of good, therefore, requires
drawing a sharp line between those who are on the side of affirmation
and inclusion (good) and those on the side of exclusion (sinful). But, for
another large group of Mennonites, the line between traditional
understandings of sexuality and marriage (good) and same-sex
relationships (sinful) is drawn just as sharply. And, despite the fact that
both groups claim to be drawing upon the Anabaptist or biblical ideal as
their lodestone, both groups also seem to desire that MC USA
institutions and representatives recognize, defend, and further entrench
or expand their competing positions against the other. lf this
longstanding Anabaptist emphasis prevails, there seems to be little hope
that MC USA will, or even can, remain united.
__________________
70. See the "Transformation Letter” (Feb. 3, 2014) sent from a number of pastors in the
Indiana-Michigan Mennonite Conference to the denominational leadership at
71. The Schleitheim Confession, trans. and ed. John H. Yoder (Scottdale, Pa: Herald Press,
1973), ii.
Criteria for the Failure of a “Grand, Noble Experiment” 191
Pulling in the opposite direction, however, Mennonites have been
taught-again, by Yoder as much as anyone-that dialogue in
disagreement is a defining mark of true Christianity. Yoder referred to
this process as "The Rule of Paul” and, in the book Body Politics, he
explained it as follows: ”There is no voting in which a majority overruns
a minority and no decision of a leader by virtue of his office. The only
structure this process needs is the moderating that keeps it orderly and
the recording of the conclusions reached."(72) At present, it is this strand
that the denominational representatives are attempting to follow,
evidenced by the recent appeals for prayer, patience, and understanding
issued by Ervin Stutzman, executive director of the Mennonite Church
USA.(73) If this Anabaptist emphasis prevails, it may be possible that MC
USA can remain united. lt is clear, however, that some also perceive
continued dialogue to be an implicit affirmation of the status quo,”(74)
while others perceive it as flirting with compromise.”(75)
What the future holds for the American Mennonite community is
unclear and probably unimagined at this point.” The case of Yoder has
occupied many Mennonites for decades, and many within the
community have been forever scarred by the sexual violence that was
perpetrated-and allowed to be perpetrated-in his attempt to bring
others into what he understood as a "grand, noble experiment.” To that
extent, his execution of the experiment failed miserably. We take this
volume of The Mennonite Quarterly Review to be just one of many steps
toward coming to grips with the many facets of this failure. Yet, in
addressing the failure, and the broader persistence of sexual abuse in the
Mennonite community, we also believe it to be important to recognize
the ways in which the logic that supported Yoder’s experiment is still at
_______________
72. John Howard Yoder, Body Politics: Five Practices of the Christian Community before the
Watching World (Scottdale, Pa.: Herald, 2001), 67. See also Iohn Howard Yoder, Anahaptisrn
and Reformation in Switzerland: An Historical and Theological Analysis of the Dialogues between
Anabaptists and Reformers, ed. C. Arnold Snyder; trans. C. Arnold Snyder and David C.
Stassen (Kitchener, Ont.: Pandora, 2004).
73. See, e.g., ”Call to Prayer from Ervin Stutzman,” wwwmennoniteusa.org/call-to-
prayer-from-ervin-stutzman/_
74. See, e.g., Jermifer Yoder, "Response by Jennifer Yoder to the Response by Ervin
Stutzman," http://queermenno.wordpress.com/2014/02/05/108/.
75. See, e.g., the "Transformation Letter" cited above.
76. For a hopeful perspective on the future of MC USA, see John D. Roth, "From
Tragedy to Apocalypse: Why we can be hopeful about the future of the church," The
Mennonite, www_themennoniteorg/issues/17-5/articles/Frorn_tragedy_to_apocalypse. For a
more sobering analysis, see Ted Grimsrud, "Will Mennonite Church USA survive?
Reflecting on three decades of struggle," http://thinkingpacifism.net/2014/O2/28/-wilk
mennonite-church-usa-survive-reflecting-on-three-decades-of-struggle-part-1/; and id., “ls
the Survival of the Mennonite Church USA now less likely?/’ http://thinking-
pacifism.net/2014/07/O1/is-the-survival-of~mennonite-church-usa-now-less-likely/.
192 The Mennonite Quarterly Review
work in the Mennonite Church in the ways it wrestles through issues
relating to sexuality, including but not limited to the very contemporary
and pressing Mennonite disagreements relating to the case of Theda
Good.
Frustration seems to be mounting on all sides as lines are drawn
clearer and sharper between those for and against the licensing of Good.
Both sides claim to be embodying what they take to be the true vision of
Christian sexuality;(77) and both sides claim that the other has fallen far
from the ideal in the first sense (i.e., the other side is sinning, either
through violence or through condoning sexually immoral behavior). Yet,
neither side has given up hope that the power of denominational
structures can be utilized in service of their appropriation of the ideal.
And, it is precisely this that is currently at stake, since, for better or
worse, Mennonites still desire the denomination’s authority (i.e., the
authority of the majority) to affirm what counts as good and what counts
as sinful. The ”Report from the Executive Board” (]une 30, 2014)
acknowledged this indirectly: "As a national conference, we will not
recognize Theda Good’s licensing unless the Mennonite Church USA
Delegate Assembly changes the stated polity on same-sex marriage.”
Indeed, even the vigorous appeals and oftentimes critical responses to
the Executive Board from Mennonites on both sides implicitly attest to
this desire as well.(78)
MC USA, in the case of same-sex marriage and LGBTQ inclusion, is a
house divided against itself. Whether this division is sufficient to destroy
the house is yet to be seen. But, to suggest that either the case of Yoder or
the case Good has created these divisions is to overstate the case. Both
cases have revealed and refined many of the longstanding tensions
inherent in Mennonite practice and theology, tensions that have merely
been exacerbated and broadened in the current debate over same-sex
marriage. As Mennonites move forward, perhaps it is time to recognize
that these tensions are not merely evident in the failure of ”Mennonite
________________
77. Even the denominational documents reflect this rhetoric. The "Report from the
Executive Board” (Iune 30, 2014), for example, states: "These are important documents, not
because they describe rules for behavior but because they describe our highest aspirations”
(2). Perhaps this statement, as clearly as any, indicates that the Anabaptist vision is, and
always has been, malleable and recreated according to the evolving challenges facing
“Mennonite reality.”
78. See, e.g., Tim Nafziger, “Pink Merino voices respond to Ervin Stutzman,” The
Mennonite, Feb. 9, 2014, online: http://www.themennonite_org/bloggers/timjn/posts/-
Pink_Menno_voices_respond_to_Ervin_Stutzman; Anna Groff, ”Letters from conference
leaders and pastors express concern about Mountain States’ decision: Leaders in Ohio,
Indiana-Michigan and East Coast conferences send three main letters,” The Mennonite,
erence_leaders_and_pastors_express_concern__about_Mountain_States_decision_
Criteria for the Failure of a “Grand, Noble Experiment” 193
reality” but also in the selective articulations of the "Anabaptist vision"
itself; that is, in the various-and at least occasionally self-justifying-
Anabaptist renderings of the biblical ideal. This may sound like a
despairing conclusion, and perhaps it is simply a reflection of sobering
times. But, as difficult as it may be, there is no automatic trump card
available to resolve the difficulties of Mennonite reality. There is no self-
evident appeal to good or evil from which consensus Will emerge; there
is certainly no self-evident process for determining how to move forward
when there is fundamental disagreement about these most basic
questions. Yet, perhaps this helps us understand Why, despite their
obvious flaws, the various institutions of Mennonite reality are still
valued, are still utilized, and are still looked to for some kind of
authority-even (or perhaps especially) when their authority is
questioned.
