Introduction
Leaving Anabaptism

This is the story, told from a sociohistorical perspective, of how the Evangelical Mennonite Brethren became the Fellowship of Evangelical Bible Churches. The narrative begins in the late 1880s (the exact time is not documented). At the time Aron Wall, elder of the Mennonite congregation at Mountain Lake Minnesota, came to the conviction that he was not being honest in his role as bishop if he allowed conditions to continue [in the life of the congregation], for his conscience and the Scriptures told him “No longer is any distinction made between clean and unclean, between holy and unholy.”

Thus after much prayer, sighing and tears, pain and derision, the new congregation (Gemeinde) was formed in January 1889.1 The story is of a movement with clearly focused objectives, as stated in the original constitution: “The purpose of this Conference is not only to build and strengthen the members in the holy faith, but also together to throw out the net of the gospel to save the entire sinful world [Suendenwelt] and to bring it to Christ.” The constitution of the Mountain Lake, Minnesota, Bruderthaler congregation, one of the two original congregations to form the conference, stated its purpose in almost identical language: “The purpose of this congregation is to glorify God’s name, to mutually nurture the members in the spiritual life, and to bring the gospel of Christ to the lost world.”2 The edification and nurture of the members of the local congregation and the propagation of the Gospel to the entire world was clearly articulated.

The Evangelical Mennonite Brethren (EMB; the group’s most common name), began as a renewal/reform movement in the larger Mennonite family of congregations in Russia. The EMB attempted to return to the traditions of the Anabaptist forebears, guided by the teachings of Menno Simons, whose motto was, “For other Foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 3:11).3 Not only did the EMB want renewal of Christian faith and life; yearning as they did for a “warm and spiritual” experience of the regenerated Christian life, they were also deeply concerned about sharing this liberating gospel with the rest of the world.

This movement was spearheaded by two men, Isaac Peters and Aron Wall, who protested the “spiritual deadness” of the larger Mennonite Gemeinschaft as they had experienced it, both in Russia and in North America. After they and their sympathizers, mainly fellow congregational members, had settled in Minnesota and Nebraska, they formed two new congregations and a new conference.4 The renewal initiated an impressively warm and positive spiritual life expressed in congregational vitality and piety as well as missionary zeal.

Organized as a conference in 1889, the Peters and Wall congregations originally registered as the Conference of United Defenseless Mennonite Brethren in Christ in North America (CUDMBCNA). From these two original congregations in Nebraska and Minnesota, the movement grew through members who came from other Mennonite groups and through tcontinuing immigration from Russia. New congregations were formed in other states and provinces in Canada. In 1937, as it adapted to changing challenges and conditions in its environment, the movement became the Evangelical Mennonite Brethren Conference. Though early counting itself a member of the Mennonite family, the EMB operated fairly independently, rarely cooperating with other Mennonite conferences in religious activities though constantly worried about its insignificant size.

Over several generations the movement thrived and expanded, finally changing its name to Fellowship of Evangelical Bible Churches (FEBC) in 1987.5 Today’s loose federation of congregations maintains identity and coherence through commitment to the supreme purpose of mission and evangelism—winning lost souls for Jesus.

The movement increasingly and consciously rejected its traditional heritage during the 1930s-40s, especially during World War II, but the cohesion and momentum of this latest collectivity (FEBC) still benefits from the historic Anabaptist-Mennonite tradition and community in subtle and unconscious ways.6 The key question is how long, or whether, the Fellowship of Evangelical Bible Churches can retain an identity in the context of a national and popular evangelical and civil religion.

I propose that influence of the original vision will last until the final vestiges of family and community connections with the Anabaptist/pietist heritage and tradition have dissolved. At that point the congregations will become identified as community Bible churches cohering around local religious entrepreneurs.7 Or they will merge as individual or grouped congregations with an evangelical/fundamentalist cluster of denominations.8

The focus of this book is on how and why the movement reached its present status. The story may not be considered that important by those unaware of EMB history. However, there are two good reasons to tell and analyze this story. First, to the extent they listen to or read them, the histories of how human groups have struggled to achieve their ideals are of great benefit to descendants. Second, the history of the Peters/Wall movement involves an intriguing, fascinating, and important story of how a renewal movement becomes transformed.

Thus I propose that this story is one instance of that archetypal story experienced by hundreds of other Christian reform movements which have made the long trek from protest and renewal to loss of direction and loss of the bond of unity. This story is so prevalent, in fact, that leading scholars of religion and society suggest religious protests historically tend to end up in middle class respectability as they try to make their piety “relevant” in the world.

I conclude that the relatively unknown EMB story is not as insignificant as it may appear. This is because it provides a remarkable example of one movement’s experience which yields considerable insights into all movements desiring religious reawakening or recovery. The particulars of this movement offer analogies applicable to other movements which may initially appear unique.

This book attempts to provide an intimate and penetrating look at the Peters/Wall renewal movement to discern why it took the course of birth, growth, and death (or rebirth, according to the present leaders). These phases unfolded over a period approximating the life cycle of a hardy human being—98 years. The intent is to locate the movement in the context of the Mennonite heritage and culture in Russia and eventually North America as well as within the larger social and cultural contexts in which Mennonite society attempted to chart its course. But this work is also a tract in which I attempt to convey the poignancy of the struggle of a religious group to achieve noble ends while ultimately losing its original purposes for being.

My intimate relationship to the movement has helped make this study possible and exciting. However, this very intimacy increases the difficulty of achieving some distance as I analyze the nature and dynamics of such a movement. It is of course up to the reader to decide whether I have balanced disinterest and passionate involvement. But I submit that only an ambiguous or a love-hate relationship with an entity ensures that a historian both spends the necessary time and energy researching it and maintains appropriate distance from it.

This book is not an exhaustive history of the Peters/Wall renewal movement and all of its congregations; I hope such a history will one day emerge. One such ambitious attempt was begun by Arnold Schultz, son of early leader George P. Schultz. He had gathered a substantial amount of material9 and was in the preliminary writing stage when he died. I have benefited from his research, as I hereby acknowledge.10

This is intentionally a sociohistorical analysis of a religious movement rather than a narrative account only; it uses the methodology of the social sciences and theology. In this context I am indebted to Kevin Enns-Rempel, who has produced a major research paper on the EMBs, as well as several other documents which have provided significant material and overall perspectives.

Because of many name changes, it has been difficult to know how the group should be designated; this incidentally reflects confusion regarding the group’s own identity. Appendix A provides an accounting of the official names the group took. In light of the complex and confusing official names, I have decided to use such already-introduced names as the “Peters/Wall Movement” or the “Evangelical Mennonite Brethren” to refer to the entire history or saga. In some contexts a shortened version of the official name of the group is used for specific time periods.

I have deep respect and appreciation for Isaac Peters and Aron Wall, principal leaders in the emergence of the renewal movement described here. It is in a sense an act of ancestral piety to attempt to analyze this well-intentioned religious renewal. I further honor the memory of all the compatriots of Peters and Wall who were committed to spiritual renewal and who contributed to the significant spiritual nurture and experience that took place in all the many congregations through the years.

My attempts to describe and analyze what actually happened and why may seem callous sacrilege to some who do not share my commitment to the Anabaptist heritage. As far as I know my motives, my intention is rather to understand how the honest efforts of a “little flock,” poignantly losing its original direction, can help us understand the larger human community and continuing desires of many to join the flock of the Good Shepherd, Jesus Christ.

Calvin Redekop
Harrisonburg, Virginia
Spring 1998

Notes
1. Coronelius Freisen, “Gemeinde und Konferenz,” Der Evangelisatsionsbote, (Jubilaeumsnummer) May 15, 1936, 3.
2. Article 3, “Zweck,” Konstitution der Konference der Vereingigten Mennoniten Brueder von Nord-America (1889), 2; Gemindeordnung der Bruderthaler Gemeinde bei (Mountain Lake, Minn., 1920), 2.
3. This is not to ignore the many other influences in the renewal movement, such as pietism and the experience in Russia. Such influences will be documented in succeeding chapters.
4. A very brief but deeply felt account of the renewal movement is found in Appendix C. The reader is encouraged to read it early in order to obtain an “insider’s view “ of the cause for the movement.
5. See Appendix A for an extended explication of the names. To simplify references to the movement at various times in its history, I have decided to call the movement the Defenseless Mennonite Brethren (DMB) from 1889 to 1937, the Evangelical Mennonite Brethren (EMB) 1937-1987, and the Fellowship of Evangelical Bible Churches after 1987 (FEBC).
6. This might be denied by the younger contemporary leadership, but in fact the aggressive attempt to slough off Mennonite “trappings” proves the point.
7. By “religious entrepreneur” I refer to the congregationalist sector of North American Protestantism in which the pastor shapes the religious culture and structure around himself, approximating in many situations the “cultic.” For an expansion of this thesis, see Erling Jorstad, “Popular Religion in the Churches: An Estimate,” in Jorstad, Popular Religion in America: The Evangelical Voice (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1994).
8. Fundamentalism is referred to quite often in the text; hence a definition is in order: “An American fundamentalist is an evangelical who is militant in opposition to liberal theology in the churches or to changes in cultural values or mores, such as those associated with ‘secular humanism.’” George Marsden, Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 1. Marsden continues, “fundamentalists are a subtype of evangelicals and militancy is crucial to their outlook,” 1. Trollinger concurs: “What distinguishes fundamentalists from other evangelicals is their strident opposition to modernism”; see “Fundamentalism,” in Donald H. Musse and Joseph L. Price, eds., A New Handbook of Christian Theology (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1992), 194.
9. Schultz collected considerable specific information, especially concerning the history of a number of congregations. His files are in the Mennonite Historical Library at Bethel College, N. Newton, Kansas, which contains other material on the CUDMBCNA as well. The Mennonite Historical Library at Goshen College, Goshen, Indiana, contains documents on the Peters/Wall relationships with the Old Mennonite church. The library at Fresno (Calif.) Pacific College also holds a variety of relevant material. The FEBC headquarters in Omaha, Nebraska, possesses a set of the annual conference proceedings as well as copies of other conference documents. Many documents, of course, may be permanently lost. I express my appreciation to Robert Frey at the headquarters for very congenial assistance.
10. I strongly disagree with Schultz’s interpretation. His work, though incomplete, was premised, in my view, on a distorted and truncated interpretation of this saga. Schultz maintained that the conference was a champion in the historical orthodox Christian and Mennonite orthodox fight against the destructive influences of modernism and liberalism. As I will show, leaving aside the anachronism of this assumption, there was almost no awareness in the conference that such a conflict existed; on the contrary, I will demonstrate, the cause of the rejection of the Anabaptist-Mennonite heritage was that it seemed to hamper the Great Commission—to go into all the world and preach the gospel.

Leaving Anabaptism orders:

• Pandora Press U.S., Herald Press, and other order options
• Credit card orders through Leaving page, MennoLink Online Bookstore