BRETHREN IN CHRIST:
AN UNEASY SYNTHESIS OF HERITAGE STREAMS

by

Luke Keefer[1]

Two questions are central here. In relation to the Brethren In Christ denomination (hereafter BIC): (1) "What are the streams of church tradi­tion that comprise this tradition?" and "What is the nature and extent of the integration of these streams in the current denominational identity?" I will address both of these questions and in that order, since the theologi­cal analysis of the second question is decisively affected by the historical evidence associated with the first.

What Are the Streams of This Heritage?

With the pioneering work of Asa Climenhaga in 1942[2] and the focused research since 1960 of Owen Alderfer,[3] Carlton Wittlinger,[4] Mar­tin Schrag,[5] and E. Morris Sider,[6] it has been a common consensus that traditionally three streams have made up this heritage. They are Anabap­tism, Pietism, and Wesleyanism. Within the last decade, however, there appears to have emerged a fourth stream, Evangelicalism.[7] It will be help­ful to examine each of these streams in sequence, noting their characteris­tic qualities and investigating how the BIC is shaping and being shaped by these streams into a broader, more eclectic identity. With this shaping comes the concern that currently the fourth stream may be excessively dominant at the expense of the denomination's classic heritage synthesis.

Anabaptism

Current studies have emphasized the diverse beginnings of the Anabaptist movement and the way they contributed to different theologi­cal emphases. For our purposes, however, it is sufficient to ask only about the status of Anabaptism in Pennsylvania in the second half of the eight­eenth century. The Lancaster County Mennonites and Amish were largely from Switzerland and Germany. They represented a heritage that was two centuries old, a tradition that had eliminated early expressions of social radicalism, mystical theology, and eschatological excitement. They had become disciplined by suffering and fortified by long oral tradition, bringing to the "New World" the German Bible, the Anabaptist hymn­book, the Martyrs Mirror, and several Anabaptist confessions and creedal statements. There was an established church order of officials, discipline, and worship.

Characteristic of these Anabaptists was a commitment to a Believ­ers' Church model in which adult baptism was the door of entry to both personal faith and corporate fellowship. The ideal was to become disci­ples of Jesus as taught by the Gospels and illustrated in the pristine fel­lowship of the early church. Life was to be simple and separated from the worldly style of the ungodly and the compromised style of the "Constan­tinian churches" around them. Theirs was a church truly separate from the state. No one would serve as a civil magistrate, swear legal oaths, or par­ticipate in armed conflict. Their circle of fellowship was nourished by mutual aid and protected by strict observance of church discipline. Wor­ship was simple and solemn and observed in the homes or barns of the church members. It was conducted in the German language, for all these people were first or second generation immigrants.

Culturally, the Anabaptists were somewhat isolated from the rest of colonial America by theology, language, and location. This intensified their sense of personal identity and magnified the importance of the church. Consequently, the Great Awakening, which had stirred Christian faith and witness in America for several decades already, had not pene­trated the Anabaptist communities of Lancaster County. This revival, both in Europe and America, was largely fueled by Pietism. But its English voices had but a faint chance to penetrate the Lancaster County Anabap­tists. This was to be altered slightly, though decisively, by the approach of Pietists who were German speaking.[8] Especially was this the case of those Pietists who had great affinities with the Anabaptists, such as the ` German Baptists and the ex-Mennonite preacher Martin Boehm.

Pietism

The central feature of Pietism was the emphasis on a heart-felt and life-changing conversion experience of the saving grace of God. Com­bined with this, both as evangelistic technique and as Christian nurture of the saved, was an emphasis on small groups for devotional study of the Bible, prayer, testimony, and intimate Christian fellowship.[9] Classical Pietism also emphasized evangelism, missions, Bible Societies, and social structures to care for widows, orphans, the poor, the sick, and the educa­tional needs of children and youth.

Pietism first took root among the Lutheran and Reformed Churches in northern Europe. It spread to the Puritan communities in both England and America and penetrated the Anglican Church through the evangelistic work of John and Charles Wesley, George Whitfield, and a host of their fellow laborers. It proved to be a movement that influenced nearly every Protestant communion in due course. It sought not to erect a new, distinctive church entity, but to revive individual Christian life and practice. Its common denominator was a vital experience with and relationship to God. It rele­gated such divisive issues as sacramental practice, church structure, and theological systems to secondary and marginal status. Thus, it was able, with little threat to distinct traditions, to penetrate the inner spiritual life of numerous churches and even to achieve evangelical ecumenicity. People of diverse church backgrounds could come together in neutral fellowship groups and cooperate in joint evangelistic and missionary ventures.

Early Brethren In Christ Blending of Anabaptism and Pietism Brethren In Christ family names in the early years of the denomina­tion (1780s) indicate that many came from Mennonite roots. They were located within the Anabaptist heritage. It is not surprising, therefore, that their concept of the church-its nature, officials, worship, discipline, and separateness from the state and ungodly culture-is for the most part Anabaptist. The personal piety and lifestyle were also reflective of Anabaptist heritage. But they had personally experienced Pietist conver­sions, and the denomination they founded was distinctively Pietist in its theology of salvation and its style of fellowship.

Though it is somewhat simplistic to say that initially the BIC her­itage synthesis was an Anabaptist understanding of the church and a Pietist understanding of salvation, this does correctly state the essential mix. What we want to know is whether such a synthesis is congenial and whether it can be stable? At one level one can reply, "The two streams must be congenial, because the early BIC successfully synthesized them." There are, however, other factors which argue that such a synthesis is pos­sible. Both Anabaptism and Pietism shared the conviction that Protes­tantism alone did not make one Christian. They both critiqued Protestants who were not genuinely converted. There were affinities between the per­sonal and family piety of the two movements.[10] Both looked to the early church, as depicted in the New Testament, for their model of Christianity, though they emphasized different aspects of that primitive vision.

More attention should be given to two groups which modeled a synthesis of Anabaptism and Pietism for the early BIC. I am referring to the German Baptist Brethren (later to be called the Church of the Brethren) and the Moravians. When Alexander Mack and his close associates formed the Brethren Church in Germany (1708), they deliberately blended radical Pietism and Anabaptism in their movement.[11] The Brethren group moved in mass to America in 1733 (to the Germantown section in Philadelphia) and were well represented in Lancaster County by the beginning of the BIC. The founding fathers of the BIC are known to have had serious conversations with Brethren elders before establishing themselves as a church. In fact, the first baptism of the BIC was in direct imitation of Alexander Mack and his group. There was a virtual copying of the Brethren approach to the practice of the ordinances (even the name is significant) of baptism and communion. The deacon's function was modeled in part on that of the Brethren, as well as some other details of Christian life and worship.[12]

The other group which may have influenced the BIC was the Mora­vians. Under the protection and influence of Count Zinzendorf, they became one of the more evangelistic groups of the German Pietist move­ment. They descended from the reform movement begun in Bohemia by John Hus, withstanding two centuries of intense persecution before taking refuge in Germany. They also looked to the early church for their group model, and, at the time they moved into Lancaster County (establishing a, settlement at Lititz), were pacifist in theology and practice. They often practiced communal living (not unlike the Hutterites) and wore a distinct garb. Many were German speaking. They also were a group of Pietists who resembled Mennonites in many respects.[13]

The Moravians demonstrated the possibility of blending the Pietist view of personal salvation with an Anabaptist-like style of living. The big question is, "Did the BIC have any contact with them?" To date we have no concrete historical documentation that they did. However, the Mora­vian Church by 1748 had congregations in Lancaster, York, and Donegal;[14] and the settlement at Lititz (1757) could hardly have been unknown to the early Brethren In Christ. It is virtually certain that Mora­vians would have attended the evangelistic barn meetings that were held at the time in the area since it was a primary rule of Moravian strategy to cooperate with all meetings that fostered true conversions no matter who sponsored them. They made concerted attempts to unify German-speak­ing peoples in Pennsylvania in common evangelistic enterprises.[15]

Two expressions in the early BIC Confession of Faith are character­istic of Moravian language in the eighteenth century.[16] Further research of BIC beginnings is needed to see if there are possible Moravian influences on the early BIC heritage. Since these two groups were living proof that such an Anabaptist/Pietist synthesis could be made as the very foundation of a denomination, the only real question remaining is whether such a synthesis could be stable? Could Anabaptism and Pietism form a perma­nent marriage or would the two traditions eventually divorce and go sepa­rate ways?

The marriage metaphor is apt for an assessment of this synthesis. Just as two distinct individuals join in a one-flesh union, so a synthesis of two traditions will be a new entity, while retaining unmistakable signs of separate identities. One can, for example, go through the early BIC confession and clearly identify the Pietist and the Anabaptist sections. Heart­felt and life-changing conversion is there. So also is adult baptism and renunciation of the sword for the disciple of Jesus. But both traditions are altered by the synthesis. There is more concern for ordinances, church' order and discipline, separation, and pacifism than in classic Pietism. The mode of baptism (triune immersion) for regenerated adults and the rather tolerant view of other Christians regarding baptismal practices suggests' that the BIC had modified some of the Anabaptist tradition.

There is here a crucial insight into the nature of synthetic move­ments. In blending two traditions one also changes them. Anabaptism and Pietism are not like two separate cogwheels in a machine, whose teeth perfectly mesh with each other. Rather, they are more like a mixed fruit, drink where both flavors can be identified individually, but also achieve a new blended flavor that is not like that of either ingredient. From the very beginning the BIC were Anabaptists with a difference. They were not identical with the Amish or the Mennonites, though they were Anabaptist., They were also Pietists with a difference. They were not identical to any of the recognized Pietist groups in Pennsylvania at the time, though they were quite similar to the German Baptist Brethren.

Judged in this light, the BIC synthesis has lasted for two hundred years. This speaks well of the stability of the synthesis. But stability does not require a static state of affairs. Just as stable marriages go through phases where the heritage of one or the other of the spouses seems to play a more dominant role, so also an ecclesiastical synthesis might alternate its emphases. Take, for example, the mid-nineteenth century divisions of the River Brethren movement. One way to see the Yorker reaction is to understand it as a re-emphasis of the Anabaptist side of the heritage. These brothers and sisters feared that new styles of evangelism, copied from the American revivalist tradition, were compromising the practice of separation in the church.[17] On the other hand, Matthias Brinser and the United Zion's Children[18] were emphasizing Pietism at the expense of Anabaptism. They feared that the tradition of home worship by the group meant that no longer was there a neutral place where sinners might come to hear the word. They placed a priority on saving souls and challenged the centuries-old Anabaptist tradition of worship in homes.

I am not suggesting by this that the BIC got it right by holding to the middle ground. Both the Old Order River Brethren and the United Zion's Children retained the original synthesis as well as the BIC. They merely shifted their point of emphasis. Events in the BIC reflect changing emphases in the synthesis as well. The dress codes of the 1930s and 1940s was a renewed emphasis upon the Anabaptist doctrine of separa­tion. The two world wars of this century gave new vigor to the Anabaptist doctrine of non-resistance. On the other hand, the mission movement a century ago, as the church planting efforts since the 1950s, are Pietist emphases. Only over a long period of time can an assessment be made about whether one dimension of the synthesis is being eclipsed.

Wesleyanism

In the late nineteenth century a major new component entered the traditional synthesis of the BIC. It rooted in the eighteenth-century Eng­lish revival inspired in large part by John Wesley. He was a complex per­sonality and his theology reflects that in its comprehensiveness and its eclecticism. He cannot be reduced to one issue, not even to the doctrine of Christian perfection. However, it was his views on entire sanctification which entered the BIC in the years between 1886 and 1910. To be more precise, it was his views as understood and propagated by the American Holiness Camp Meeting tradition. This tradition followed the lead of John Fletcher, Joseph Benson, and Adam Clarke in equating the baptism of the Holy Spirit with entire sanctification. Wesley himself did not agree with the terminology, but he was not willing to make an issue over words when they agreed in substance that God could purify the Christian's heart and fill it with perfect love. To say the least, this was an understanding of a completeness to sanctification that neither Anabaptism nor Pietism was want to hold. It clashed with the BIC assumption that sanctification was a process in the regenerate that would not be not completed until glorification. For our purposes, we are interested in how the original BIC synthesis fared with the introduction of the new Wesleyan stream.

Methodism entered Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, too late to influence BIC beginnings, though it had substantial influence on other Pietist groups which sprang from the same revival matrix. Methodism itself was a Pietist revival movement, so there is no surprise that it was compatible with Pennsylvania groups which were predominately Pietist in character. Anabaptist groups, however, were largely closed to the Methodist influence. At the time that the BIC would have encountered the Methodists in Lancaster County, it is likely that the church's commitment to Anabaptist principles would have closed it to Methodist influence. A century later the situation was considerably different. Methodism by then was the most successful version of Pietism in North America and the BIC' in the Mid-West was not as culturally isolated in their Anabaptist way of life as the earlier Pennsylvania folks were. Besides, the BIC had begun to . adopt the evangelistic practices of American revivalism which were leav­ened considerably by Methodist precedents.

The introduction of Methodist holiness into the denomination presented little challenge to the Pietist part of the synthesis. Even though it meant a new theology of sanctification, it was a challenge which could be negotiated. Pietism emphasized heart-felt, life-changing salvation. Holi­ness was both of these, intensifying regeneration through a dramatic sec­ond experience. Pietism also had a strong pragmatic bend to it; methods that resulted in conversions and Christian renewal were seen as good. The fact that the holiness renewal among the BIC coincided with new ven­tures into evangelism and foreign missions gave credence to the new doc­trine from the Pietist perspective.

It was the Anabaptist half of the synthesis that was most challenged by Wesleyan sanctification and was most resistant to it. There were numerous issues that caused concern. Did the emotionalism of personal experience and the spontaneity of corporate worship violate worship that was decent and orderly? Did the new optimism of grace overlook the sub­tleness of sin and the necessity of suffering in the Christian life? Would the emphasis on the freedom of the individual conscience subvert the importance of group guidance and judgment? Would the doctrines of bap­tism, separation, and non-resistance suffer through associations with holi­ness groups?

Reports of the "Kansas wildfire" and some of the early holiness tes­timonies in the Evangelical Visitor gave substance to these concerns. Intense religious experiences can lead certain personalities to excessive individualism, resulting in views and actions which bring tension and dis­credit to the body of Christ. The church in Kansas passed through that experience and emerged disciplined and strengthened by the ordeal. The printed testimonies in the Visitor which raised concern were those which attacked the practices of separation as legalism. These people claimed that the Holy Spirit had now freed them from this bondage. Accordingly, they had stopped wearing the plain style of clothing practiced in the BIC. Letter responses in the Visitor sounded the alarm. Is this what the new theology produces? Are the old ways in jeopardy? Are the "perfect" ones beyond the counsel and control of the group?

I maintain that the introduction of the third stream of Wesleyanism neither destroyed the initial synthesis of Anabaptism and Pietism nor won at the expense of either of the first two streams. It found acceptance in the denomination by coming to terms with our Anabaptist heritage and it mod­ified the Pietist stand with which it already had widespread commonality. It is a credit to the BIC that the Wesleyan doctrine of sanctification did not result in a church split even though the tension was strong at points. The Anabaptist sense of group held the BIC together. Leaders talked until there was majority agreement, and those who dissented were not excommuni­cated. In fact, those who opposed Wesleyanism were used in the church as pastors, evangelists, teachers, and institutional administrators. The doctri­nal positions on sanctification in 1887 and 1910 are clearly compromise statements. There was enough latitude that both old and new could live with the decision. There is in this tolerance much of the spirit of classic Pietism, for Pietism strove to keep Christians unified on essentials, while differing on secondary matters, for the sake of evangelism.

Finally, the type of Wesleyanism that emerged in the BIC was differ­ent from other holiness groups in North America. Wesleyanism had been domesticated to the BIC mind. In a striking about face, the testimonies in the Visitor soon took on a different tone. People wrote of their experiences of sanctification and noted that they could not "pray through" to the witness of the Holy Spirit until they died to their pride and were willing to take the "plain way." So strongly was Wesleyanism wed to Anabaptism that to this day the congregations that most support Wesleyan holiness are also the most explicit about separation and other Anabaptist distinctives.

As the BIC entered the twentieth century, then, it did so as a synthesis of three heritage streams. At least through the doctrinal formulas and disciplinary decisions of the 1930s and 1940s, this synthesis remained strong. The Constitution and By-Laws of the period reflects some of the strongest, most explicit statements on regeneration, sanctification, separation, and non-resistance to be found anywhere in the history of this denomination. However, this was all to change beginning in the 1950s and accelerating thereafter. The clearest barometer of that change was the work of the Church Review and Study Committee, its annual reports to General Conference, and the actions of Conference regarding those reports and recommendations. Noticeably affected were requirements for church membership, patterns of worship, the pastoral office, and church administrative and financial structures. The doctrinal statement of the early 1960s indicated that these changes were not without doctrinal causes and effects. What had happened and how was the three-part heritage synthesis affected?

The causes of the changes were diverse and we might still be too near the events to see all the implications. The denomination was approaching its second centenary. Original visions are difficult to maintain over time. The Brethren In Christ had acculturated considerably since 1900. Two key indicators were participation in the public school system (both as students and as teachers) and the language shift to English rather than German. Demographics had also changed. The trend from rural to urban had begun, more clearly reflected by vocation than by residential location. Geographic dispersion had sufficient time to allow for area differences to emerge. Evangelism in North America and overseas missions had raised questions about some aspects of the heritage. Changes were bound to come. The only question was the direction they would take.

In general, the Brethren In Christ accommodated to North American culture. What theological heritage served as a model for that acculturation and provided the theological rationale for the changes that occurred? I suggest that the answer in the main is Evangelicalism, with the denomination's entry into the National Association of Evangelicals in 1949 being the symbolic harbinger of things to come.[19]

Evangelicalism

"Evangelical" has proved to be a difficult word to define historically. Protestants at the time of the sixteenth-century Reformation generally saw themselves as evangelical because they emphasized faith in Christ as the saving cause rather than the sacramental acts of the church which Catholi­cism emphasized. In English Christianity, evangelical came to mean those groups which undertook evangelistic activities of one sort or another, seeking conversions to Christ on an individual basis. Thus, in North America it now is an umbrella term that covers numerous denominations. The very term National Association of Evangelicals is recognition of this fact.

But there are significant nuances to Evangelicalism in North Amer­ica that must be reckoned with. While many Anabaptists could be Evan­gelicals, they are marginally present in the NAE, preferring instead to find associations in the Mennonite Central Committee, Mennonite World Conferences, and forums of the Historic Peace Churches or Believers' Church gatherings. Several Wesleyan bodies are openly linked with the NAE, but they are outnumbered by other traditions, and their distinctive concerns find better expression in the Christian Holiness Partnership and like assemblies. Pietism is the only aspect of the BIC heritage that can mesh significantly with the majority groups of NAE with no doctrinal or ecclesial difficulty. This suggests, on the one hand, that part of the BIC heritage predisposes the denomination to association with Evangelical­ism. On the other hand, it says that two streams of the BIC heritage, while attracted to Evangelicalism, have significant reservations about it. Why?

North American Evangelicalism is in large measure mild Calvinism. In part this is historical, dating back to the groups most affected by the First Great Awakening in America. While the nineteenth century wit­nessed the dominance of Wesleyan-Arminianism in evangelism, this was blunted by the end of the century due to the impact of German Liberalism on mainline Methodism. Wesleyan Evangelicalism was kept alive through Methodist campmeeting associations and splinter groups which emerged as the various holiness denominations, but the movement had lost its numerical strength and has not been able to affect twentieth-century American Christianity as it did the previous century.

Moreover, the groups most active in opposing Liberalism were those who owned a Calvinist heritage. They were the dominant voices in Fundamentalism. The Anabaptists in America were protected from this battle by their cultural isolation. Wesleyanism was fragmented, preoccupied with personal denominational identities, and thus not prepared to address the chief issue of the time. Consequently they endorsed much that the Fundamentalists stood for, clearly sensing kinship with these conservatives rather than the doctrinal stance of the Liberals. Then in the 1930s and 1940s Evangelicalism emerged out of the Fundamentalist cocoon. It left behind the cultural mindset of Fundamentalism, but not its Calvinist overtones. What remains is a tolerant Calvinism, ready to work with evangelical Anabaptists, Wesleyans, Charismatics, and many others. Yet it is a vigorous Calvinist voice in several respects.

First, many Evangelical denominations of large memberships are doctrinally Calvinistic. The weight of their numbers overshadows the memberships of many Anabaptist and Wesleyan denominations. In the American perception that big makes right, this fact has influence, even if unconsciously. Second, Calvinism is represented well in Christian education. This is true of many Bible colleges, liberal arts colleges, universities, and seminaries. Graduates of these institutions attend BIC churches and often serve as pastors and missionaries. Third, Calvinist Evangelicalism is well represented in the media. Several well-known suppliers of Sunday School curricula own this heritage. The same holds true of the biggest publishing houses of Evangelical books. In the fields of radio, television, film, and video they would be rivaled only by Pentecostal Evangelical. Fourth, Calvinist Evangelicals are heavily involved in parachurch ministries, especially to youth and young adults.

At this point I am making no value judgments. I am simply stating evidence for the fact that Evangelicalism in the mid-twentieth century was significantly shaped by a Calvinist mindset. The important question here is whether this shaping force has affected the BIC vision of itself as a denomination. Has it affected the traditional synthesis of the three streams of the BIC heritage? At the doctrinal level, mild Calvinism would differ most from the pre-1950 synthesis at two points: sanctification and the security of the believer. It would argue for progressive sanctification in this life, applying the concept of entire sanctification to glorification. If one looks at the BIC statements of 1961 and 1994, they are tending increasingly in this direction. If the denomination were suddenly deprived of the members above age 60, there would scarcely be a Wesleyan note in the BIC understanding of sanctification. Many pastors in recent years would find the Evangelical stance more palatable than Wesley's doctrine of entire sanctification.

None of the BIC doctrinal statements have ever affirmed the Calvin­ist position on the security of the believer. But, as a member of the com­mittee responsible to draft our most recent position, I know that explicit language affirming the Arminian heritage of our denomination on this question did not make it into the text presented to General Conference. A number of current BIC church members would affirm some adherence to "eternal security," and some pastors would too, at least privately.

Obviously, some doctrinal model has been affecting the BIC over the last four decades. The fact that the two doctrines mentioned above coincide precisely with the mild brand of Calvinism prominently repre­sented in American Evangelicalism suggests the force which has moved us. Unacknowledged, the BIC has adopted a fourth stream into its her­itage. This new stream has substantially blunted our Wesleyan voice on sanctification. On the question of the believer's security, both the Anabaptist and the Wesleyan aspects of the BIC heritage are being eroded because both affirm the possibility of losing one's relationship with the Lord.

Mild Calvinism also has a different model of the church's relation­ship to the world than does the Anabaptist heritage which shaped most of the BIC's first two centuries. It was this difference that led the Anabaptist leaders at Zurich to separate from Ulrich Zwingli. He believed that the church should seek the approval of the civil magistrates for the changes in religion introduced to public life and worship. The Anabaptists said that the two spheres were separate and thus the church should follow the council of God whether the secular powers agreed or not. Calvin, how­ever, believed strongly in a theocratic approach to society, and his follow­ers, though exhibiting diverse models, have uniformly been persuaded that the church has an aggressive role in civil affairs.[20] Calvinists criticized those Christians who were judged to be too isolated from the world or too idealistic in their stance on social ethics. North American Evangelicalism has leveled both charges at Anabaptist groups, judging that such separation from the larger culture inhibits evangelization. It has argued that Christians should be directly involved in the affairs of government, including voting, holding office at all levels, and participating in the military branches of government in all "just war" situations.

Again, one needs only to note changes in the BIC denomination since 1950 to see a clear pattern. Many of the patterns of living and worship (rationalized as legalism) were dropped so that no cultural isolation would hinder evangelism. At the same, the denomination has become politically involved in voting and holding offices. The peace witness has steadily declined, and many newer members and preachers have more sympathy with the "just war" theory than they do with biblical non-resistance.

Without question the new stream of Evangelicalism has muted much of the BIC's Anabaptist heritage. The denomination did not suddenly get lost in a theological muddle in the 1950s; it opened itself to a clear theological tradition that represented a new stream of influence. The BIC believed that it could learn from it discretely, adopting only what was judged of value. But the new stream to be adopted selectively had more force than was anticipated. The BIC has not domesticated Evangelicalism as it did Wesleyanism; instead it has been domesticated by it. Evangelicalism has clearly won much ground while two thirds of the BIC's previous heritage has lost considerably (all but the Pietism).

Theological Reflection

I favor the BIC's current participation in the NAE, but I do wonder why the BIC has managed poorly to synthesize a new stream of influence while the denomination's forbearers did it well. The earlier BIC leaders wed Anabaptism and Pietism as equal partners in a relationship. At the turn of the last century, they encountered dynamic Wesleyanism and allowed it to renew the spiritual vision and energy of the church, but not to crowd out its original synthesis.

It is not that the BIC has completely lost this art of critical synthesis. In the same period that the denomination was being "Evangelicalized" without effective critique, the denomination also encountered the Charis­matic movement. In this case the BIC's critique has been substantial, vir­tually resisting its early expression and more recently borrowing only selectively and deliberately. One key factor here might be the internal sense of need. The BIC already had experiential and theological resources on the Holy Spirit from its Wesleyan heritage. But Evangelicalism was encountered by the BIC at a point where it felt ineffective-success in evangelizing contemporary North Americans and retaining youth in their churches of origin. The BIC critiqued what it did not feel it needed (i.e., the Charismatic movement), but was uncritically open to a stream that offered help where it was judged to be needed it (i.e., contemporary evangelism).

Another aspect might be synthetic overload. Merging two or even three streams might work, but how many more can be added before the mix becomes an indistinct blur? Might not the punch then take on the fla­vor of the most recent additive or the most pungent ingredient? A fourth influence, to change the metaphor, might just have been the proverbial straw which breaks the camel's back. The BIC's eclectic capacity may have been exceeded and the coherent synthesis lost. The new stream poured through the broken machinery without significant blending from the previous influences. Is that why most Brethren In Christ think first of the word "Evangelical" when asked by strangers to identify their denomi­nation?

There is at least one other aspect that should enter into this discus­sion. If I may oversimplify the categories for the sake of clarity, the origi­nal BIC synthesis reduces to this: Anabaptism supplied the form and Pietism the spirit. The version of Wesleyanism that was encountered revived and intensified the spirit part of this equation. Spirit is very mal­leable; it can be adjusted to many forms. Thus the Pietist side of the BIC could readily adapt to Evangelicalism. Form, however, is different: it shapes but is not readily shaped. So as long as the BIC accentuated its Anabaptist heritage, it retained a distinct denominational form of identity. But when it moved from its Anabaptist forms, it lost its capacity to shape the influences that were coming. The spirit side of the BIC heritage took on the new form of Evangelicalism, which replaced Anabaptism as the form of Brethren In Christ identity.

So the Brethren In Christ has come to this point in its history with a badly eroded sense of identity. Three streams have become four, and the synthetic glue has lost its power to bind. Pietism has merged with Evan­gelicalism, thus becoming the dominant mind. Those who are uneasy with this state of affairs identify either with the Wesleyan or the Anabap­tist sides of the heritage, but they are minority voices. Nonetheless, the BIC needs visible forms to shape spiritual vitalities. I predict that this denomination will either reaccess its Anabaptist form to regain its identity or it will totally embrace the Evangelical form to shape a new identity. If nothing is done, the latter will surely happen by default. To do the former would require leadership and a denominational commitment similar to the magnitude of the Church Review and Study Committee process of the 1950s. Any campaign to recapture aspects of past heritage will be futile if it does not resonate with currently felt needs in the body as a whole. Nor will an arbitrary wrenching of the clock backwards succeed. Unless an image has the perceived potential to lead forward with new resources, it will fail. God must create the proper kairos for renewal to occur. That is more a matter of prayer than it is theological formulation.

In fact, such a kairos may be at hand, at least in terms of what is happening throughout conservative Christianity. Prayer for revival is a growing international movement. Part of the restlessness which drives this concern is the feeling on the part of many groups that theological and ecclesiastical identity has been lost in the general pragmatism which has dominated the last fifty years of the Western Church.

A good model to analyze the current situation is a military one. In the midst of all-out battle, the sides can become so intermixed that gen­eral confusion results. One cannot distinguish friend or foe, let alone who is winning or losing. Commanders do not know whether to advance or sound the alarm for retreat. At times like that it is important for all to rally to their divisional symbols. The flag bearers must stand up and wave their colors, so people know where to gather. Such theological flag waving has begun in recent years. At the same time that some of us see our roots being severed by a prevalent Calvinism within Evangelicalism, other voices are lamenting the corruption of Evangelicalism by dynamic Arminianism and experiential Pietism.[21] Wesleyans wonder what has blunted their heritage, and Anabaptists fear the loss of their distinctives to the pervasive cultural Christianity of North America. This pause in the battle, to continue the metaphor, may provide the needed respite which allows the BIC to reassess denominational identity.

It is not a situation that is without risk, however. While strong com­pany loyalty is crucial to the success of an entire army, it could degener­ate into sectarian rivalry. I hope that what emerges is stronger personal identities on the part of all concerned. But this must be in the interest of the larger unified effort to defeat the kingdom of darkness, proclaim Christ to all peoples, and disciple a world of true followers of Jesus Christ. The Protestant Reformation introduced a divisive mentality into Western Christianity. We are now needing to come together as Christians. But our skills for cooperation are not as well-developed as are our habits of individualism. Thus, positive denominational identities are not a given; they will need deliberate effort.

A difficulty in reassessing the heritage of the Brethren In Christ, especially its Anabaptist form, is determining what kind of Anabaptism is to be accessed. Whatever the party claims might be, no group today repre­sents original Anabaptism. At best, we can identify only such distinctive Anabaptist concerns as discipleship, believers' baptism, separation, disci­pline, and non-resistance. We need to work with those Anabaptist fellow­ships which exemplify these original values, along with contemporary commitments to a high view of Scripture, the deity of Christ, and the min­istries of evangelism and mission. Re-formation will not occur without intimate association and shared commitment to a common vision.

Conclusion

If what is said here about the formation of the heritage of the Brethren In Christ is true, then certain things appear obvious in regard to the identity of this particular tradition. There must be some addressing of the current imbalance within the historic synthesis. The undue role of Evangelicalism must be addressed through submitting it to a conscious, thoroughgoing critique. It must be made to answer to the other parts of the Brethren In Christ heritage. Secondly, those aspects of this heritage, especially Anabaptism and Wesleyanism, which have declined, need new and emphatic articulations. The identity crisis of the Brethren In Christ is not unique. There are sister denominations that are facing similar dilem­mas. A larger conversation may help all involved to move forward with new strength of purpose to be the faithful people of God.

Endnotes:

[1] This is an edited version of the article by Luke Keefer titled "The Three Streams in Our Heritage: Separate or Parts of a Whole?" in Brethren In Christ History & Life XIX:1 (April 1996), 26-63.

[2] A. W. Climenhaga, History of the Brethren in Christ Church (Nappanee, IN: E. V. Publishing House, 1942).

[3] Owen H. Alderfer, "The Mind of the Brethren in Christ: A Synthesis of Revivalism and the Church Conceived as Total Community" (Ph. D. dissertation, Claremont Graduate School, 1964).

[4] Carlton O. Wittlinger, Quest for Piety and Obedience: The Story of the Brethren in Christ (Nappanee, IN: Evangel Press, 1978). This is the standard denominational history.

[5] Martin Schrag, "The Brethren In Christ Attitude Toward the 'World': A Historical Study of the Movement from Separation to an Increasing Acceptance of American Society" (Ph. D. dissertation, Temple University, 1967).

[6] E. Morris Sider, The Brethren in Christ in Canada: Two Hundred Years of Tradition and Change (Nappanee, IN: Evangel Press, 1988).

[7] David Zercher, "Opting for the Mainstream: The Brethren Join the National Association of Evangelicals," Brethren In Christ History and Life, 10 (April 1987), 48-70.

[8] A very helpful source for understanding the Pietist influence in Pennsylva­nia at this time is F. Ernest Stoeffler, Editor, Continental Pietism and Early American Christianity (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Com­pany, 1976). Especially significant are chapters by Donald F. Durnbaugh on the Brethren, Martin H. Schrag on the Mennonites, and John R. Weinlick on the Moravians.

[9] For a good introduction, see Dale W. Brown, Understanding Pietism (Nap­panee, IN: Evangel Publishing House, rev. ed. 1996).

[10] Robert Friedmann details the extensive use of Pietist devotional materials by Mennonites in both Europe and America in Mennonite Piety Through the Cen­turies: Its Genius and Its Literature (Sugarcreek, OH: Schlaback Printers, 1980), 225-231

[11] For a brief historical sketch, see Donald F. Dumbaugh, The Believers' Church: The History and Character of Radical Protestantism (Scottdale, PA: , Herald Press, 1968), 120-130. A more detailed doctrinal analysis can be found in Dale R. Stoffer, Background and Developments of Brethren Doctrines, 1650-1987 (Philadelphia: Brethren Encyclopedia, Inc., 1989), 5-57.

[12] See Donald F. Dumbaugh, "Nineteenth-Century Dunker Views of the River Brethren," The Mennonite Quarterly Review, 67 (April 1993), 133-151.

[13] American Mennonite reaction to Pietistic revival is a fascinating, complex story. While appreciative of Pietist literature, especially of a devotional nature, Mennonites seem to have resisted the revival techniques of the mid-eighteenth century when they came to Lancaster County. Count Zinzendorf s efforts in Penn­sylvania to reach evangelical accord among the diverse Protestant groups may have been a significant factor in this attitude. The Mennonites had been affronted by his approach in that abortive process of 1742. They, like other denominations involved in the process, became less open to outside influences and concentrated on developing their own denominational identity. Two very helpful sources on this question are John Joseph Stoudt, "Count Zinzendorf and the Pennsylvania Congre­gation of God in the Spirit," Church History, 9 (December 1940), 366-380, and Beulah Stauffer Hostetler, American Mennonites and Protestant Movements: A Community Paradigm (Scottdale: Herald Press, 1987), 23-74.

[14] John R. Weinlick, "Moravians in the American Colonies," in Stoeffler, Continental Pietism, 150.

[15] Ibid., 142-145.

[16] Wittlinger, Quest for Piety and Obedience, 551-554. The expressions are "poor sinner" (frequently used in the early part of the confession to describe a person under conviction of sin) and "such children" (used in the middle of the confession in regard to intimate small-group fellowship of Christians). They were not exclusive to the Moravians, however, and can be found in general in Pietist literature of the time. In regard to the first, "poor sinner," it is instructive to note that Martin Boehm so refers to himself as one seeking salvation. See his testi­mony, "I felt and saw myself a poor sinner," in A. W. Drury, History of the Church of the United Brethren in Christ (Dayton: United Brethren Publishing House, 1931), 97.

[17] Laban T. Brechbill, History of the Old Order River Brethren, edited by Myron S. Dietz (n.p.: Brechbill & Strickler, 1972). The issues involved, based primarily on oral tradition, are covered vaguely in his historical sketch, pp. 35-37. More definite issues are mentioned repeatedly during the brief ministerial sketches that comprise the bulk of the book. See, for example, critiques of revivalism and worldliness on pp. 50, 53, 84-85, 101, 110-111, 119, 122-124, 126, 133, 156-159, 167, 188, 202, 209-212. Cf. Wittlinger, Quest for Piety and Obedience, 134.

[18] Wittlinger, Quest for Piety and Obedience, 134-140.

[19] The National Association of Evangelicals itself was not a problem for the Brethren in Christ Church. Its leadership and doctrinal statements required no compromise of the denomination's heritage. Rather, the denomination's associa­tion merely indicated that the church was open to a new influence, namely evan­gelicalism. Subsequent effects came from other causes whose analysis lies beyond the scope of this paper.

[20] Timothy George, Theology of the Reformers (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1988), 110-112, 132-136, 244-246. Harvie M. Conn even critiques Fundamental­ism and Evangelicalism for not developing a thoroughly Reformed view of the state and society (Contemporary World Theology: A Layman's Guide, Phillips­burg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1973, 112-147).

[21] Note the lament of David T. Wells over the loss of Reformed thought in American Evangelicalism in his No Place for Truth: Or Whatever Happened to Evangelical Theology (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Com­pany, 1993). In praising the Puritans, J. I. Packer clearly advocates Reformed the­ology as the only consistent Evangelical position (Among God's Giants: Aspects of Puritan Christianity, Eastbourne: Kingsway Publications, 1991).

Edited by Michael Mattei for the
Wesley Center for Applied Theology
at Northwest Nazarene University
© Copyright 2003 by the Wesley Center for Applied Theology

Text may be freely used for personal or scholarly purposes, provided the notice below the horizontal line is left intact. Any use of this material for commercial purposes of any kind is strictly forbidden without the express permission of the Wesley Center at Northwest Nazarene University, Nampa, ID 83686. Contact the webmaster for permission or to report errors.