Mennonite World Conference mourns the loss of John A. Lapp, who died on Tuesday, 7 December 2023, at 90 years of age.
John A. Lapp was coordinator and co-editor of MWC’s Global Mennonite History Series. From 1997 to 2012, he and C. Arnold Snyder documented the planting and growth of Anabaptist-Mennonite churches in the world. He worked with Anabaptist-Mennonite leaders in each country on researching, writing and editing five books, one for each continental region. Although the books are more than a decade old, the stories continue to instruct and inspire. “This was his big retirement project, and a big gift to MWC and its member churches,” says MWC regional representative coordinator Arli Klassen.
John A. Lapp taught history at Eastern Mennonite University (1956-1969), served as academic dean then provost at Goshen College (1972-1984), an served as executive director of Mennonite Central Committee from 1985 to 1996, and was honoured as executive emeritus in 2006. During his tenure, he nurtured MCC’s relationship with MWC and was instrumental in MCC’s $600 000 “jubilee gift” that was used to start MWC Global Church Sharing Fund.
“I remember him as a gentle, softspoken, friendly man,” say Henk Stenvers, MWC president. “It was an honour knowing him, and to continue his passion for making known the impact that the Anabaptist movement has had throughout the world.”
“The positive impact of John A. Lapp on our global church is enormous,” says César García, MWC general secretary. “His ministry as a historian, church administrator and coordinator of the Global Mennonite History Project for Mennonite World Conference will continue illuminating the path of many of us. ‘Those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the sky, and those who lead the many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever’ (Daniel 12:3).”
John A. Lapp is survived by son John F. (Sandra Shenk) Lapp; daughters, Jennifer (Robert) Lerch and Jessica W. (Phil Hertzler) Lapp; six grandchildren; great-grandchildren; siblings.
Earth in all its diversity, vitality and abundance is a gift that has been overshadowed by neglect, exploitation and unsustainable consumption.
Anabaptist values, by contrast, call for stewardship (thoughtful care-taking), simplicity and the dignity of all persons created in the image of God. On behalf of Mennonite World Conference, the Creation Care Task Force (CCTF) has endorsed the interfaith call for a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty.
“To be good caretakers of our common home, we must act and phase out the production of fossil fuels,” reads the interfaith letter.
It calls on governments to lay out a binding global plan to
End expansion of any new coal, oil or gas production;
Phase-out existing production of fossil fuels in a manner that is fair and equitable;
Ensure a global just transition to 100% access to renewable energy globally.
The letter, directed at national governments around the world, was first delivered to world leaders at COP27 (2022’s United Nations Climate Change Conference of the Parties in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt). This call, begun in 2015 by Pacific Island countries whose borders are rapidly being reduced by rising oceans, attempts to spur nations to address the production of oil, gas and coal and to negotiate a fair transition to renewable energy.
“It is important that Anabaptists make our voices heard in support of actions that care for the planet,” says Doug Graber Neufeld, CCTF chair. “Moving away from fossil fuels is one of the most effective ways to support our brothers and sisters around the world whose livelihoods are threatened by climate change.”
“For Anabaptists from the Global South, the production and use of non-renewable natural resources such as fossil fuels, gas and coal raises various ethical problems, including our responsibilities to future generations. We are challenged not only to seek alternative energies but also to ensure that everyone can enjoy the abundance of natural resources fairly. We believe that God’s creation can fulfill every human need, but not human greed,” says Nindyo Sasongko, CCTF Asia Representative.
“All of creation is God’s work of love,” says Thomas R Yoder Neufeld, Faith & Life Commission chair. “To turn from our heedless exploitation of fossil fuels is not only in our human self-interest, but more importantly participation in God’s love for the world.”
“Anabaptists believe that human patterns of greed, selfishness and overconsumption are sin which require repentance and transformation. This is spiritual work and it is also societal work. This call for fossil fuel non-proliferation asks governments to use their power to reduce the effects of these sins on the most vulnerable, and all of humanity,” says César García, MWC General Secretary.
MWC joins hundreds of other faith groups from the Laudato Si’ Movement (Roman Catholic) to the Parliament of the World’s Religions in calling upon governments to develop and implement a Fossil Fuel Non-proliferation treaty.
Tomorrow, November 30, the annual United Nations (UN) climate summit starts in Dubai. It’s number 28, that is why the meeting is called COP 28.
COP stands for Conference of the Parties. Those Parties are the participating countries in the climate convention of the UN, almost two hundred of them. In other words: almost all countries in the world.
These climate negotiations (because that’s what they are) started in the 1990s. The World Council of Churches (WCC), which has a good working relationship with the UN, has been involved in these summits from the beginning. This involvement has now grown and has become multi-religious. Yes: the other major religions in the world also understand the importance of the climate summits and are making themselves heard.
The Vatican has a special role. In 2015, just before the big climate summit in Paris, the Pope released an important encyclical (Laudato si’) that had an impact on the negotiations. That summit concluded with the Paris Climate Agreement, which has become the new guiding principle.
Sharing as a new concept
Many citizens all over the world are concerned about climate change. That is very understandable, because far too few measures have been taken so far. Realistically it’s very difficult to reach good agreements with all those countries.
A rich country (like the Netherlands) must make efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But it also has a historical responsibility: CO2, the most common greenhouse gas, remains in the atmosphere for centuries. That is why poor countries are calling on rich countries to make more money and clean technology available. Otherwise, they will have to use fossil fuels for their economic development for a long time to come. And that means even more greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, due to their geographical location, these countries are most affected by the consequences of climate change. We see this almost every day on the news.
This, in a nutshell, is the complex problem facing the world.
The major economies follow a business model based on making profits. They don’t work with the concept of sharing. However, this will be necessary to roll out the clean technology the world needs quickly enough. If this does not happen, the climate will warm too much and the consequences will be incalculable.
Learning through collaboration
The reader will realize by now that we are essentially dealing with a profound moral and ethical challenge – one of the reasons the major religions in the world are involved. After all, the climate challenge is about preserving creation, including people, animals, plants and ecosystems.
Humanity will have to radically change course.
That is why, in recent years, other cultures – especially those of Indigenous Peoples – have been looked at with new eyes, because they can teach us a lot in many respects. The WCC works closely with their organizations and amplifies their voices.
Since the year 2000, I have been a member of the WCC team that monitors the climate summits. In that capacity I will be following COP 28 closely and will blog about it.
More to come.
Marijke van Duin
Member of the Mennonite Church in the Netherlands, a MWC member congregation.
Since 2000, member of the Working Group on Climate Change of the World Council of Churches. This team is accredited as observers of the yearly UN climate negotiations. These blogs were originally published in Dutch on the website ofthe Netherlands Council of Churches.
It’s November 30, COP 28 has started. What are the most important points?
Global Stocktake (GST)
This year, for the first time, national climate efforts of recent years can be assessed and evaluated.
All countries have submitted climate plans under the Paris Climate Agreement and must implement them. Whether that actually happened, and whether those plans are ambitious enough, will be the focus in the coming weeks.
But various reports have already shown that this is not the case. In fact, the ambition must be increased 5 times (!) to achieve the most important goal of a maximum of 1.5 C warming. According to the latest data, global warming is currently already 1.4 C.
Loss & Damage
Loss and damage due to climate change.
Last year, after 30 years of lobbying, it was finally decided to set up a fund to compensate for this damage. Many countries are already experiencing this, which often leads to a decline in their gross domestic product.
Today, the fund has been formally established after a year of preparation. The fund is temporarily placed with the World Bank, which not all countries like. The need for (administrative) transparency and fair accessibility without geopolitical control was immediately pointed out.
There are of course many more important points. These will be discussed in subsequent blogs.
It is clear that this will be a very difficult COP.
The president of COP 28, Sultan Al Jaber, is also CEO of the state oil company of the United Arab Emirates. In his opening speech today, he stated that there is an important role for the fossil industry in tackling climate change.
And that is a sore point for many countries and organizations, especially the environmental movement.
How can you present the cause of a problem as the solution?
Well, it turns out that there are all kinds of ways to do this, especially technological innovations such as capturing and storing CO2 underground (CCS). But not only is this technology still under development and (therefore) very expensive, it is also used as an argument to continue developing new fossil sources.
Is that really the solution?
This contradiction will dominate COP 28.
The religious organizations, or Faith-Based Organizations (FBOs), were immediately busy today. Various religious organizations have been working together during the COPs for about eight years. Not only Christian, but also Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist, Hindu and others. This afternoon there was an open dialogue about various important agenda items, which could also be followed digitally. The most important results will be submitted as recommendations to the Presidency of COP 28.
The dialogue was followed by an interfaith celebration.
The role of religion in climate discussion
New at this COP is the Faith Pavilion – a meeting place especially for religious organizations. Tomorrow various activities will be organized there by young people. The World Council of Churches, among others, is involved.
In addition, there will be a meeting tomorrow, co-organized by the United Nations itself, on the role of religion in the climate discussion and in climate action. That role is gradually being seen and appreciated.
And the day after tomorrow, 2 December, the ecumenical service will be held that has now become a tradition at the COPs.
Marijke van Duin
Member of the Mennonite Church in the Netherlands, a MWC member congregation.
Since 2000 member of the Working Group on Climate Change of the World Council of Churches. This team is accredited as observers of the yearly UN climate negotiations.
These blogs were originally published in Dutch on the website of the Netherlands Council of Churches.
Dr. Sultan Al Jaber, COP28 President, joined climate leaders in launching the Global Cooling Pledge to collectively raise ambition and reduce cooling-related emissions. Photo: COP28UAE
The second day started with the so-called High-Level Segment. Today and tomorrow, many heads of state will give a speech in Dubai to underline how important this summit is. These will be given in two plenary rooms simultaneously, by one president after another, kings and heads of government – a tradition at climate conferences.
During the first few years I followed those speeches closely. I now know that they more or less amount to the same thing: the situation is urgent and we must act quickly. Some heads of state boast of what has already been done by their country, others – usually from less wealthy countries – call on their counterparts from richer countries for global solidarity.
While the speeches are being presented, informal meetings of civil servants preparing for the actual negotiations are held in other rooms. It is striking that the vast majority of them are in their 30s, some even in their 20s.
The discussions include the Global Stocktake (GST) and climate finance. That last point is perhaps the most important of the entire climate process. Because without money there can be no sustainability transition and no global solidarity.
Although around 400 million dollars was already pledged yesterday for the new Loss & Damage Fund, it does not mean much. The question is whether that money is ‚Äònew and additional’, i.e., comes on top of existing money flows, especially those for development cooperation and for adaptation projects. If that is not the case, the commitments could have negative consequences.
It is also important that the money is not spent in the form of loans, because that will further increase the already large debt burden of poor countries.
This is one of the many points that specialized observers of NGOs – including those of religious (development) organizations – pay close attention to. In this way they support the poor(er) countries that desperately need these flows of money.
That is why finding a definition for climate finance that is accepted by everyone is a very tricky issue. Civil servants and their government bosses have been considering this for years, including now in Dubai. Ultimately, these negotiations should result in a ‚Äònew collective and quantified goal’ for climate financing: NCQG (New Collective Quantified Goal). Many tough nuts will undoubtedly be cracked during this process…
What are other organizations doing in the meantime?
Climate Action Network International (CAN-I) holds a press conference every day to explain the status of the summit. This network is formed by approximately 2 000 organizations (!) from 150 countries. CAN-I has been a fixture at climate summits for years.
We, observers of religious organizations, also benefit from their expertise.
Today it became clear that the most important point for CAN-I is the phasing out of fossil fuels. One of the spokespersons is the founder of the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative – an initiative to ban fossil fuels for good. Many religious organizations, including Mennonite World Conference, support this initiative.
A meeting about this will be held tomorrow at the Faith Pavilion, together with Greenfaith, an international multi-faith organization focused on climate justice.
Litmus test
Not only NGOs, but also authoritative organizations such as the IEA (International Energy Agency) and the IPCC (the international team of hundreds of climate scientists who work for the UN) argue that we must phase out fossil fuels as quickly as possible.
Ditto former UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights, David Boyd. He said that COP 28 will be a litmus test for the entire UN climate negotiation process. In his opinion, if it is not possible to clearly agree that fossil fuels must be phased out as quickly as possible, this could mean the end of the entire process.
This afternoon the Youth Climate Report was presented. This is an interactive documentary project: a digital database with videos about climate research by young people worldwide, from 2008 to the present.
The IPP has only been around for a few years and was created with the support of the World Council of Churches. Many Indigenous Peoples around the world feel disconnected from national borders and poorly represented by their national governments. Their voices were therefore not heard for years. Thanks to the platform, there are now various opportunities for them to participate in the climate process.
It is clear that they not only want to be seen as victims of climate change, which they certainly are, but also as providers of solutions. After all, they have centuries, even millennia, of experience with living with nature – not against nature.
Something to learn from.
Marijke van Duin
Member of the Mennonite Church in the Netherlands, a MWC member congregation.
Since 2000 member of the Working Group on Climate Change of the World Council of Churches. This team is accredited as observers of the yearly UN climate negotiations.
These blogs were originally published in Dutch on the website of the Netherlands Council of Churches.
Today is Health Day in Dubai. This means that the focus is on the relationship between climate change and human health.
Many people have died purely from heat stress in recent years, including in Europe. In addition, floods increase the risk of diseases such as cholera and malaria. Malaria is also advancing north, just like dengue: the mosquitoes that spread these diseases move north because of the higher temperatures.
And consider the smoke released during forest fires: it is very bad for your health.
Medical journals are increasingly paying attention to the negative effect of climate change on human health.
Another important meeting today was the ministerial round table discussion on “Just Transition.” This means achieving the fairest possible energy transition for the entire world.
This is perhaps the most important topic, certainly for the longer term.
The rich countries do have money for sustainable energy, but the poor(er) ones often do not. They are largely dependent on fossil fuels for their economic development. Something the fossil industry knows but too well. Their assessment of the future shows that they expect a decrease in the use of fossil fuels in rich countries, but an increase in poor ones. If this trend is not reversed, it will become impossible to adequately combat climate change. So there is every reason to focus on sustainable energy worldwide.
The strongest shoulders
Fortunately, there is broad agreement about the need to double energy efficiency worldwide in the coming years (up to and including 2030) and to triple investments in sustainable energy. But this will have to be accompanied by a rapid decrease in the use of fossil energy to have a positive effect on the climate.
However, strict realism is required: after all, we know what happens if, for example, the price of petrol goes up – protests and unrest everywhere. Just think of the yellow vests in France a few years ago, and the many protests in Latin American countries. People complain when they have to pay more at the pump.
This clearly shows that poor(er) people and countries need help to make the sustainability transition. This socio-economic aspect will become increasingly important in the coming years, also in rich countries. The slogan ‚Äòthe strongest shoulders must bear the heaviest burdens’ will have to be lived up to.
It is as if a ‚Äòthird way’ must be followed: not a foreign concept to Christians.
On the one hand, climate change forces us to switch to sustainable energy, on the other hand there is the need to keep economies running and/or further develop them. Hence the lobby to make fossil fuels cleaner and not to ban them.
To ensure that the energy transition takes place in a controlled manner, without economies being disrupted and societies ending up in chaos, but also without warming the climate further, a true balancing act is required.
This process is probably the greatest challenge humanity has ever faced. And it therefore needs input from all parties: not only governments, but also the business community, citizen movements, trade unions, NGOs and science. Everyone can and should be able to discuss this. The ministers agreed on this today.
Due to the comprehensive nature of the Just Transition, there will be a Work Program (JTWG). It was advocated that this should be included in all work streams of the climate negotiations: mitigation (the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions), adaptation (to climate change), climate finance, technology and more. The Work Program will also have to find its way into national climate plans and long-term strategies.
Loss through militarization
Yesterday, 2 December 2023, the Pope was scheduled to give a speech in Dubai. But he had to be absent due to illness. Fortunately, his spokesperson was able to present his text during the last part of the High-Level Segment.
And what a text!
The Pope called for national interests to finally be subordinated to the overarching interest: fighting climate change and choosing life.
It is time for a new vision, he said, new confidence in the multilateral process and attention to the victims. Moreover, care for creation is closely intertwined with the pursuit of peace – how much money and energy is lost in all kinds of wars that destroy our common home!
CAN-I also referred to the link between climate change and militarism. Their ECO newsletter today read the following:
Militarization is responsible for 5.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions but is not being addressed. On top of that come the emissions as a result of actual conflicts: in the first year, the emissions from the war in Ukraine were equal to those of a rich country like Belgium. In 2022, global military spending rose to a record high of $2.24 trillion. G20 military spending represents 87% of that. These same countries spend 30 times more on their military than on climate finance.
(translation and summary by Marijke van Duin)
A topic that resonates with us peace churches…
Marijke van Duin
Member of the Mennonite Church in the Netherlands, a MWC member congregation.
Since 2000 member of the Working Group on Climate Change of the World Council of Churches. This team is accredited as observers of the yearly UN climate negotiations.
These blogs were originally published in Dutch on the website of the Netherlands Council of Churches.
Dr. Sultan Al Jaber and World Bank President Ajay Banga connected during Finance Day at COP28, to discuss how to accelerate climate finance commitments from billions to trillions. Photo: COP28UAE
Actually, finance is always in the centre during the climate negotiations, but today it is being talked about even more than usual. There are various streams of negotiations underway: about long-term climate financing, about the new target to be determined that I mentioned a few days ago (NCQG), about financing for adaptation through the Adaptation Fund (AF), about the Green Climate Fund (Green Climate Fund, GCF) for which the promised annual $100 billion by 2020 has still not been achieved. And more.
The discussions always come down to the same thing. Many poor(er) countries are in a downward spiral. Their economies are under pressure due to large debt burdens and increasing problems caused by climate change (storms, floods, droughts, crop failures, migration). It is not without reason that they have been calling for better support from the rich countries for years. Not only because those countries are richer, but also because they are responsible for the historic emissions of greenhouse gases, the consequences of which we experience today.
Billions
You would say that the installation of the Climate Damage Fund should alleviate this need. But the reality is that that is just a drop in the ocean.
The real need is not in billions of dollars, but in the trillions as many studies have shown. Because money is needed not only for loss and damage, but also for adaptation plans (adaptation to climate change) and for mitigation (reducing greenhouse gas emissions).
The rich countries understand that they have to pay, but try to avoid this as much as possible, by
not taking responsibility for historical emissions;
using existing funds and labelling them as climate money (e.g., money for development cooperation);
saying that everyone should contribute (e.g., China);
having loss and damage handled by insurance companies;
involving the private sector.
Shouldn’t China contribute then? It is the second largest polluter in the world, after the United States.
And yes, perhaps it is strange that China is still classified as a developing country at the UN. But then it is often forgotten that emissions per capita are much lower than those in the US or the EU.
Moreover, China’s emissions are recent, not from centuries ago. So some nuance is in order.
Meanwhile, Western countries and China continue to have a stranglehold on each other in this regard.
And aren’t insurance companies useful? Well, for people who can pay the premium, yes.
But most people in the poorest countries cannot. So for them, the most needy, it is not a solution.
In addition, there is the risk that companies no longer want to invest in countries with a high climate risk. Which would be the beginning of the end. These countries actually need support for much-needed adaptation to climate change. But contributions to the Adaptation Fund have declined in recent years…
Shouldn’t the private sector participate?
Yes, of course, but that requires one or two things. For example, a different tax system; levies on CO2; levies on international financial transactions; and so on. It also includes reforming international financial institutions such as the World Bank and multilateral banks. Discussions about this have only recently started.
At recent COPs, there is a push for heavily taxing the billion-dollar profits of the fossil industry and using that money for climate finance. Will that happen? Let’s hope so.
Efforts without results
Back to yesterday.
A row broke out when it was announced that COP28 president Al Jaber had said that science had not shown that the target of a maximum 1.5¬∞C warming could not be achieved while maintaining the fossil industry. He promptly received a letter from two top climate scientists who debunked this. Didn’t Al Jaber know that CCS (carbon capture and storage) can only eliminate a very small part of the emissions? Even people in the oil and gas industry themselves know that. (I can confirm the latter. An acquaintance I have works on CCS at Shell, and he says that a maximum of 5% CO2 emissions can be eliminated.)
The cold figures are as follows:
The fossil industry is responsible for 75% of global greenhouse gas emissions.
Approximately 85% of this is caused by the combustion of the end products by industries and consumers (“scope 3”).
So even if the sector tries to make extraction, processing and production climate-neutral, it still makes little sense. In other words, the signing yesterday of the Oil and Gas Charter – an initiative of Al Jaber – by 50 oil and gas companies, does not have much significance.
By way of comparison, here is a statement by the head of the climate and health department at the World Health Organization: “Talking about climate change without talking about fossil fuels is like talking about lung cancer without mentioning tobacco.”
Unfortunately, fossil fuels are not mentioned in the COP 28 Health Declaration that was signed yesterday by 120 countries.
Marijke van Duin
Member of the Mennonite Church in the Netherlands, a MWC member congregation.
Since 2000 member of the Working Group on Climate Change of the World Council of Churches. This team is accredited as observers of the yearly UN climate negotiations.
These blogs were originally published in Dutch on the website of the Netherlands Council of Churches.
At the Youth Climate Champion Pavilion, Indigenous young people from the 7 socio-cultural regions engaged in insightful discussions to promote their essential involvement into the UNFCCC process, alongside leaders of each working group, indigenous organizations, communities and Youth Climate Champion Shamma Al Mazrui. Photo: COP28UAE
Today, almost all meetings start late or are postponed. Not so strange, since this is the largest COP ever, with more than 100 000 registered participants.
The delegations are getting bigger. That of the fossil sector is the third largest, with almost 2 500 people. Only the delegations of host country UAE and of Brazil (which will host the COP in 2025) are larger.
This makes the negotiations increasingly unworkable. And more importantly: not all countries can delegate so many people. Poor(er) countries in particular have to make do with sometimes only a handful of delegates. Due to the large number of parallel meeting streams, it is impossible for them to follow everything, so these countries are immediately behind.
Now or never
Time is running out, because the ministers will soon be coming to Dubai. The negotiating texts must be well prepared by then. It doesn’t look good in that regard.
The new EU Commissioner for Climate, Wopke Hoekstra, will also make his appearance. He will try to push for the most important EU position: the phasing out of fossil fuels.
At the moment the split is approximately 50-50: half of the participating countries want that too while the other half does not. If it is not possible to get the phasing out in black and white, to many, the summit will have failed according.
It is now or never.
The reality of the world is grim. Five countries in the world (namely the United States, Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom and Norway) have new oil and gas production projects in the pipeline until 2050; approximately 51% of the total number of planned projects. If these countries – which are also historic emitters – were to withdraw those plans, it would save an enormous amount of CO2 emissions.
Fortunately, other countries show real leadership by joining the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance, or by trying to get a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty off the ground. That kind of leadership is desperately needed.
In the Netherlands, Greenpeace has done important work on the fossil sector.
A Mennonite perspective on religious freedom in 3 parts
“But our citizenship is in heaven, and it is from there that we are expecting a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ” (Philippians 3:20).
These words of the apostle Paul are part of a letter that addresses a church audience that likely included both Gentiles and Jews. Some were Roman citizens, and others were not. However, Paul identifies all of these Christians, regardless of their political nationality, as citizens of another kingdom – God’s kingdom.
Once we decide to follow Christ, our supreme allegiance changes. We turn from anything else that demands our obedience and give loyalty to Jesus as our ultimate and unique Lord. We become part of a transnational community of others who also give their highest loyalty to Jesus and him alone.
That is one reason the Roman Empire sometimes persecuted Christians during the first centuries of the church. The church affirmed Jesus’ supreme lordship, even over the emperor, which was an offence punishable by death.
Being citizens of God’s kingdom makes us ambassadors and representatives of that kingdom to societies and governments where we live. Citizenship in God’s kingdom grants us a new identity as members of a transnational community.
We see this same idea of heavenly citizenship and our role as kingdom ambassadors in 2 Corinthians 5:20 and Ephesians 6:20.
Do not get me wrong. I am not saying that there is something evil about loving your culture, land, customs, language and the people where you grew up. God does not ignore or suppress our cultural identity (see Revelation 7:9-10).
But as ambassadors, our exclusive allegiance is to God’s nation and its king, Jesus.
As God’s kingdom ambassadors, we do not believe in political leaders who introduce themselves as saviours because our only saviour is Jesus.
We do not support the idea of “Christian” countries because the divine nation we represent includes citizens from all languages and cultures and has ambassadors in all the kingdoms of this world.
The tendency to confuse human political systems and empires with God’s kingdom has been a tragic pattern in church history. Starting with the conversion of the Roman emperor Constantine in the fourth century, Christians have too often identified God’s kingdom with a political empire.
Because the emperor supported the church, people perceived Constantine as an anointed leader, a saviour who would enhance God’s kingdom on earth. He learned to use Christian symbols to manipulate the faith of Jesus’ followers for political purposes.
Since his reign, many other political leaders have governed in alliance with the church, using similar strategies. As a result, many of God’s kingdom ambassadors have lost their proper role in society and ended up supporting imperial politics that contradict Jesus’ teachings.
That was a painful lesson Mennonites learned right at their beginnings in the 16th century and thorough their history until today. Among the thousands of martyrs in our tradition, the vast majority have been persecuted and killed by governments of the so-called Christian kingdoms or nations.
Very early in their history, Mennonites saw the need to separate church from state to guarantee the church’s viability.
Unfortunately, in our history, we have not always kept that vision.
In contexts like Colombia, our churches need to recover this vision. We often find people speaking about Colombia as a “Christian” country or promoting the approval of laws that reflect Christian values but are oppressive for people who do not share the same convictions.
Although Christians are called to promote general morality in society, this cannot be done by the imposition of specific Christian values on people who are not Christians, even if they are a minority.
Christian values are for Christians. Christian morals may be practiced by others only when that results from persuasion and honest conversation. The practice of Christian values always needs to be embraced voluntarily. Violence emerges as a natural response to oppression when that is not the case.
Religious freedom, in other words, is a condition for the possibility of peaceful convivence. Peace – another key Mennonite value – is directly related to religious freedom.
Today, 500 years after our beginnings, religious freedom continues to be a crucial need in many countries. Religious freedom keeps being called to Christians that, in many places like my country, end up oppressing minorities in their search for political power and privileges.
Working for religious liberty opens the door to creating new mosaics, new societies where people of each faith and no faith can offer their values. A new mosaic where through honest conversation and consensus, peaceful coexistence is possible.
—This three-part article is adapted from a speech MWC general secretary César García gave as a featured speaker at the 9th World Congress of International Religious Liberty Association (IRLA). Portions of this speech are excerpted from César García’s book What is God’s Kingdom and What Does Citizenship Look Like? (Herald Press, 2021).
Some years ago, in my local congregation in Colombia, a friend said to me: “Oh! César, how I envy you!” Why? I asked her. “I work in a multinational company. I deal with a lot of stress because of ongoing conflicts and broken relationships with my colleagues and bosses. But you, César, you work with pastors and leaders of churches. What kind of conflicts could you have?”
We know conflicts among leaders, polarization and divisions are part of all churches – local, regional, national or global. Broken relationships because of disagreements seem to be the only option when differences are irreconcilable. However, I wonder if it has to be that way.
How the church handles conflicts ought to be a mark of an alternative community. The church is the community that can show the world that handling conflict without division or broken relationships is possible.
But as Anabaptists, we know that that has not been our case historically.
Some months ago, I was reading an article in a Mennonite magazine. Its author said: “I am proud of leaving this church because that is the faithful thing to do. You know, when you have to sacrifice doctrine or ethics, you must leave.”
Of course, that is a dilemma if you have to decide between unity on one hand or doctrine or ethics on the other. Is it necessary to sacrifice unity to keep a healthy doctrine or good ethics? That is how we have dealt with doctrinal and ethical conflicts in our Anabaptist history. Our experience of ongoing fragmentation has taken us to spiritualize unity or to leave it for the afterlife.
However, the New Testament speaks about the unity of Jesus’ followers as a gift of the Holy Spirit to be received, enjoyed and kept here and now (see, for example, the book of Ephesians).
Speaking of unity implies the existence of differences and disagreements.
I do believe unity and disagreements are not opposites. In my own life, I experience contradictions. Today, I can’t entirely agree with everything I have taught before during my 30 years of ministry. Thanks to God, I can say that I have been growing in my spiritual life and walking following Jesus.
“Do not be conformed to this age, but be transformed by the renewing of the mind, so that you may discern what is the will of God – what is good and acceptable and perfect,” says the apostle Paul (Romans 12:2). Renewing implies change, transformation and some internal contradiction with what I believed, did or was before.
If disagreements and contradictions are part of Christ’s body, conflicts are, too. That may be one reason why disagreements, teachings about forgiveness and conflict resolution among disciples are common topics throughout the New Testament.
The problem, then, does not have to do with the existence of conflicts but how we deal with them.
Broken relationships and divisions do not have to be the result of a conflict. If there is a robust and irreconcilable disagreement among Jesus’ disciples, condemning or excommunicating each other is not the only option. Why would we think our brother or sister in Christ is not an honest Christian because they do not coincide with our current way of thinking or with our group?
Strong disagreements may push us to distance – for some time – from each other. Irreconciled positions may make it too difficult to work together. But that does not mean we must question the commitment to Jesus of those who disagree with us. Can we say: “I strongly disagree with you but still respect your commitment to Christ”? Can we create distance with other believers without condemning them and breaking the relationship?
Those are some of the questions we want to address in this issue of Courier. May God guide us to find biblical answers that help us show the world what is different when we address conflict as members of an alternative community and in the power of the Holy Spirit. May God help us renew our minds about responding to church conflicts.
—César García is general secretary of Mennonite World Conference. Originally from Colombia, he lives in Kitchener, Ontario, Canada.
Indonesia
The churches of GITJ (Gereja Injili di Tanah Jawa – Evangelical Church in the Land of Java), Indonesia, had been in conflict for some 22 years. This was largely because one group (with 24 member churches) was recognized by the Indonesian government while the other (with about 50 member churches) was not.
All during the time of disagreement and conflict, many in the churches were longing to reconcile.
The churches invited Pastor Lawrence Yoder (USA) to come to work on the issue, and through his personal approach he was able to motivate both sides to agree to talk with each other. They did so in a pastors’ retreat and at a general church council meeting.
Then in 1999 each group had opportunity to send a representative – Pudjo Kartiko and Hendro Soeradi – to the Summer Peacebuilding Institute (SPI) at Eastern Mennonite University in Harrisonburg, Virginia, USA. The two returned from SPI and began to work hard with both groups toward reconciliation.
With the help of the peace center at Duta Wacana Christian University in Yogyakarta, churches in both groups agreed to come to a meeting to deal with their differences and the conflict that resulted.
At that meeting, the two groups decided to hold an extraordinary conference meeting in order to become one body. The conference was to be the reconciliation of the GITJ synod board.
So in the extraordinary conference meeting in 2000, we were able to choose a daily board for one GITJ conference. In the next two years it worked toward a unified Synod Board. Now all our churches are in one body, and we are working hard to maintain the spirit of unification.
—from Gereja Injili di Tanah Jawa (GITJ – Evangelical Church in the Land of Java).
This article is reprinted from Courier / Correo / Courrier 2004, volume 19, issue 3
Canada
The Mennonite Brethren church began in the midst of significant change among Mennonites in what was then South Russia.
It was in 1860 that some members in the Gnadenfeld Mennonite congregation in the Molotschna settlement petitioned their leaders to meet separately for communion. These members did not want to celebrate communion with those who had not experienced personal Pietist renewal and conversion. When the leadership refused to grant their wish, these members met separately, celebrated their own communion and founded the Mennonite Brethren (MB) church.
The reason for forming the MB church was the desire by those renewed through the influence of both Lutheran and Baptist Pietism to form a church that would include only like-minded people. In contrast, the other Mennonite churches accepted the new Pietist influences as well as the historic Mennonite practices and pieties. The MB’s separatist stance and its active proselytizing among Mennonite churches created tensions with those churches.
After a while, some MBs became unhappy with the gulf that had developed between their church and the Mennonite church, and they spearheaded the formation of the Allianz Mennonite Church. This church tried to be a bridge between the two, allowing for more diverse religious pieties.
Inter-church tensions
The Mennonite migration to North America in the 1870s had far-reaching significance. Many of the other Mennonite immigrants who came from various churches in Russia joined the General Conference. The tensions that had existed between the Mennonite Brethren and the other Mennonite churches in Russia were now transferred to the relationship between the MB and the General Conference churches.
In the U.S., with evangelism as its primary focus, and because of easy access in the German language, the MB church continued to target other Mennonite churches. This created tensions. When the MB conference, centred in Kansas, sent “missioners” to the Winkler area of southern Manitoba in the 1880s, who formed the first MB church in Canada, this set up further tensions with Mennonite churches in the area.
Immigrant groups separate again
The immigration of 20,000 Mennonites to Canada in the 1920s, about a third of which were Mennonite Brethren, initially promised to change the dynamic between the MB and other Mennonite churches.
The immigration itself required cooperation between Mennonite groups in both Canada and Russia. In Russia, the emigration movement was led by B. B. Janz and C.F. Klassen, two MBs. In Canada, it was led by David Toews, chair of the Canadian Mennonite Board of Colonization and moderator of the Conference of Mennonites in Canada, now part of MC Canada.
Upon immigration, members of the Mennonite and MB groups worshipped together in many locations. For a short while it looked like the trauma and difficulties of immigration would result in healing the divide within the Mennonite community.
Then, however, institutional and denominational loyalties rose to the fore. Each of the joint worship centres separated, and in each community two denominational churches formed.
Cooperation on MCC, CO service
There were, however, also areas of cooperation.
During World War II, the Mennonite Brethren, Conference of Mennonites in Canada, and the Swiss Mennonite conferences in Ontario together proposed to the federal government alternative service as their form of conscientious objector service.
Subsequently, MBs were involved in the founding of Mennonite Central Committee (MCC) Canada in the 1960s, and in the establishment of Columbia Bible College in B.C. in the early 1970s. This spirit of cooperation continued in the formation of Canadian Mennonite University (CMU) in Winnipeg in the 1990s.
The change of worship language from German to English in the 1950s and 1960s allowed MBs to accept many of the emphases of the Canadian evangelical movement. MB Pietism was transformed into Evangelicalism. For some MBs, the influence of Evangelicalism meant stronger ties to evangelical groups, and a decrease in the emphasis on peace, service and other historic Mennonite emphases.
Other MBs were influenced by the renewal impulses of the “Anabaptist Vision,” associated with the name of Harold S. Bender. Many within this orientation became strong promoters of peace and justice issues and supported interMennonite organizations like MCC.
MBs also played significant roles in founding and supporting various interMennonite service organizations like the Canadian Foodgrains Bank and the Canadian branch of Mennonite Economic Development Associates.
The present situation
From the early years, the two sides have moved to a relationship where, even though they are somewhat different, they can accept and learn from each other.
—John J. Friesen is professor emeritus of Canadian Mennonite University. This article is adapted from Canadian Mennonite.
You are invited! Join us for Climate Pollinators, a webinar series on creation care. See below!
On a map of Green Churches in the Netherlands, there is a green dot for the Mennonite congregation in Aalsmeer. Another dot represents Arboretumkerk (previously Doopsgezinde Gemeente Wageningen), located a province over.
“Six years ago, the church (in Aalsmeer) thought about (climate change) and said, ‘we have to do something’,” said Leo Bakker, a member of the sustainability committee at Doopsgezinde Gemeente Aalsmeer. “One of the first things that we did was connected to a country-wide network of Green Churches.”
That network, Groene Kerken, includes 410 churches throughout the Netherlands. “It’s a wide network for all kinds of different churches from all denominations,” says Leo Bakker.
Jan Joost Kessler, who served on the sustainability working group at the Arboretumkerk in Wageningen, says joining the Green Church network was an important part of his church’s climate change response as well.
“At the entrance of our church we have a sign which is quite big that says we are a Green Church,” Jan Joost Kessler says. “So it’s easy to recognize us.”
The Green Church website provides a list of actions for churches to take. To join the network and apply for a sign, churches have to commit to taking one new step each year.
The actions fall into six categories: creation and nature; faith and inspiration; energy and climate; handling of money; policy and approach; and conscious purchases. When a church completes an action in one of these categories, it receives a badge on the website.
Steps taken by the Aalsmeer congregation include calculating the church’s carbon footprint, switching to renewable energy sources, organizing education events, publishing a newsletter with sustainability tips, using non-toxic cleaning supplies and organizing “green” services every year.
Arboretumkerk has improved the building’s insulation, installed double-paned windows, committed to purchasing fair trade products and invested its money in responsible industries.
Every two years, Green Churches in the Netherlands gather to connect and share stories.
“It’s very useful because there’s a lot of exchange and learning and inspiration,” says Jan Joost Kessler, who usually attends the events.
That’s the network’s goal.
“Green Churches are contagious to other churches,” reads a statement on the website. “They lead the way in joyful, simple coexistence and pull others along with (them).”
MWC’s Creation Care Task Force members from each region will host one hour of storytelling and Q&A. Church members from around the world will share how they are affected by climate change – and responding with resilient action and gospel hope.
In recent years, the Mennonite theological school Bienenberg Training Centre in Switzerland has offered a “Hot Topics” course, which gives voice to opposing perspectives on current hot topics in the churches. As they hear points they agree or disagree with, the attendees are invited to engage with their own sensibilities and convictions: to listen deeply and be willing to question their own responses. The sessions end with this prayer for unity.
Our God, Thank you… for the Word you have spoken to others before us and continue to speak to us today. We praise you, Lord!
Thank you… for the shimmer of your Word on our lives, on the Church, on the world – and for its power of transformation. We praise you, Lord!
Thank you… for the incarnate and ultimate Word that has taken on the face of Jesus, who opens the way to the kingdom of shalom. We praise you, Lord!
Forgive us… for our deafness to hear what you want to tell us through your Word, when it disturbs us… Lord, have mercy.
Forgive us… for the scuffles with others, caused by the hot topics between us. Lord, have mercy.
Forgive us… for the ferocity with which we seek to be right all the time, as well as for the cowardice that leads us to make everything relative. Lord, have mercy.
Please… teach us to know how to reconcile the search for the truth of your Word with love for those who understand it differently. Help us, Lord!
Please… gather your church with its many branches so that it may be a sign of unity, as you want it to be, by the means you want. Help us, Lord!
Please… lead your people, by the power of the Holy Spirit, to seriously practice love, as your Son has shown us, for the day when you will be all in all. Help us, Lord!
We pray together through Jesus, our Lord, Saviour and brother. Amen.
—Michel Sommer is a teacher at Bienenberg, the Mennonite Bible training institute in Switzerland. This prayer was previously published in Christ Seul, the magazine of the Mennonites in France.
I am serving officially as a member of the Deacons Commission (2018-2025).
My journey with MWC started in 1997: I was a youth steward in the Global Church Village (GCV) during the Assembly in India.
Then, I was the first GYS representative for Asia (then called Youth Summit Committee) in Zimbabwe in 2003.
From 2008 to 2012, I wasn’t much involved, but then in 2013, I was given this responsibility to be member of Programme Oversight Committee and to coordinate GCV for Assembly 2015.
I am also involved in other activities: travelling to conferences with regional representative Cynthia Peacock; sharing all the news from MWC with the churches; participating in online prayer hour (group leader and Hindi interpreter); translating worship materials (Peace Sunday and AWFS).
How do you serve your local church?
At present, I am serving my local church as pastor (Rajnandgaon Mennonite Church). Also, I am executive secretary of Mennonite Church in India. I live 115 km from my MCI office in Dhamtari, so 2-3 days a week I travel to the office; the rest of the time, I stay in Rajnandgoan to do visitation, take part in meetings, conduct Bible studies, prepare Sunday worship and preach, meet with young people and facilitate Friday evenings meetings.
What does it mean for the body of Christ to be unified?
We all have unique gifts, we have different cultures, different church practices, but when we are unified in body of Christ, we are interdependent. We need one another in spite of all our differences.
All the church members must connect with the global family, it’s not only for the leaders. As I learn that each one of us are part of MWC, I like to share that with people.
My father came to know Jesus through Mennonite missionaries who came to india. He was saved. When he shared his stories with me, I as well connected with Mennonites. People came from so far and helped people here; we can also do the same. This encourages me to connect with the global church and their needs.
What book or podcast have been reading/listening to lately whose insights you would recommend?
I listen to Turning Point by David Jeremiah and Daily Hope by Rick Warren for my personal growth. I like to watch videos about Anabaptism/History of Anabaptist/ Anabaptist Faith on YouTube to learn and to share with the young generation. I am still learning.
What MWC resource do you recommend and why?
I read From Anabaptist Seed and I am studying the Sermon on the Mount.
Whenever we receive news from MWC (Prayer Network, Pastoral Letters), we pray. It helps us to pray for each other. We don’t know those people, but we feel that we are one body and that they are our brothers and sisters. It’s all because of Christ and his love.
I love it to be part of Online Prayer Hour. It helps me to grow in my faith. People all around the world are praying to the same God. It gives me the idea of the greatness of our God.
A Mennonite perspective on religious freedom in 3 parts
I love mosaics. Mosaics are artworks that show an image – a message – made up of many small pieces.
In Christian art, it is common to find mosaics representing an image of Jesus. One example of a Christian mosaic is in the Basilica of Sant’Apollinare Nuovo in Ravenna, Italy. In that piece, called Cristo attorniato da angeli e santi, many stones of different colours and sizes are organized so that the viewer can see a depiction of Jesus.[1]
Human societies are like living mosaics. They tell us their values and priorities by how they are organized and how their members interact.
Capitalist societies value financial progress, even if that means poverty for others.
Totalitarian politics value order over freedom.
Communist societies often seem to privilege economic equity at the expense of personal initiative.
That, of course, is overly simplistic. None of these structures of society are precisely as I have described, but these broad characterizations illustrate that politics transmit a message.
The design of a society (its politics and interpersonal relations) tells us what that society is.
Sadly, every human community or nation includes structures that allow injustice, domination, violence and abuse. Evil is pervasive. Of course, some political systems are worse than others, but all are fallen structures that transmit values and priorities that contradict God’s will and kingdom.
All of these different mosaics and designs of society have emerged after the intrusion of evil in human history. Because we are born outside paradise, we are immersed in politics and social interactions that ignore God’s will. Regardless of where you are born, your country and inherited political system shape you with values and priorities that may contrast with God’s kingdom.
We are like fish swimming in the only reality we know: a fallen and evil world. Without realizing it, we move within evil structures equivalent to water for a fish.
Our financial relations, our systems of domination, how we understand justice, and how we face conflict and disagreements – all include evil values from which there is only one way to escape.
Becoming Citizens of God’s kingdom
“Repent” is Jesus’ message. Pray for the coming of God’s kingdom; believe in the good news.
That is the escape route toward the freedom Jesus offers and the mark of a new politics not from this social order.
Repentance is the human response to God’s grace that opens our lives to the Holy Spirit, changing hearts and minds from the inside and creating a just society on the outside.
The Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5–7) describes that society. The whole Sermon speaks to Jesus’ followers as a group, and in doing so, it mentions God’s kingdom eight times. Without being exhaustive, the Sermon on the Mount tells us about the kingdom of God: its ethics, some of its benefits and responsibilities, and who belongs to it.
The new society that organizes itself as God’s kingdom evidences a new creation in which finances, power relationships, justice, leadership and many other facets of communal life add up to a message.
Like the Italian mosaic mentioned before, that message is the image of Jesus.
When we enter God’s kingdom, we receive new citizenship and are freed to experience a new kind of politics. We are not slaves of evil systems anymore. We belong to a new society where, along with other followers of Christ, we project Jesus’ image to the world.
But we still live in our countries and human societies, right? Yes! However, now we do so as representatives of God’s kingdom. Do we look for ways of serving our human communities? Yes, but we do so as ambassadors of God’s kingdom.
Watch next month for the next article in this series.
—This three-part article is adapted from a speech MWC general secretary César García gave as a featured speaker at the 9th World Congress of International Religious Liberty Association (IRLA). Portions of this speech are excerpted from César García’s book What is God’s Kingdom and What Does Citizenship Look Like? (Herald Press, 2021)
I grew up in a Mennonite congregation in Argentina. I remember the preaching and teaching on forgiveness and reconciliation both within the church family and also in relating with those outside the faith community.
I also remember situations involving tension and even the threat of division. Some of the concerns: diverging views on women’s use of head coverings in worship; participation in politics; and how to deal with divorced persons wishing to join or remain in the church.
More recently, the most difficult challenges faced both congregationally and on the conference level include who can become pastoral ministers and how widely inclusive we ought to be in welcoming new members and in occupying leadership roles.
Two related factors are always present in conflict situations like those mentioned above: on the one hand, what is right or true, that reflects and fosters faithfulness; and, on the other hand, love and grace that seek peace and foster reconciliation and community building.
The summons to “speak truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15) nicely integrates the two factors involved.
Another constant element of conflict in the church is the place of the Scriptures. The function of biblical interpretation in the search for resolution, conflict transformation and healing is indispensable. In the Scriptures we can find insight, inspiration and guidance.
The remainder of this article consists of a biblical case study. It is offered as a model to consider while pondering the challenges and opportunities presented by conflict situations in our churches today.
The Jerusalem council as prototype (Acts 15:1-35)
Since the beginning, the church has needed to practice moral and spiritual discernment. It is a process of interpretation in which human experience is viewed and evaluated within its social-cultural context and in light of the Scriptures.
An early and clear testimony of such practice is found in the account of the Jerusalem council in the book of Acts. Let’s review it, keeping in mind our concern with conflict in the church.
Gentiles are becoming followers of Christ. A mission success! Before long, however, church leaders have “no small dissension and debate” (2) on this very matter. New questions emerge about requirements for belonging to the church as people of God, and thus for salvation itself.
Conflict often results in separation, even schism and alienation. However, those involved here choose to take the gift of conflict as an opportunity to challenge and enrich their theological and spiritual imaginations.
The leadership call a meeting. Paul, Barnabas and others have the opportunity to tell their story, while some Pharisees insist on the need for converted male Gentiles to be circumcised and to keep the law of Moses (5).
We are told that this is the concern and business of the whole church (4, 12, 22).
The leaders have a special role to play: Peter and James speak persuasively, and the apostles and the elders make significant choices with the consent of the whole church (6, 22).
Those who speak up connect personal testimony with the perceived work of the Holy Spirit and the words of the Prophets (15-18).
The discernment process is somehow experienced as Spirit-led and culminates in a unanimous decision. (25) The gathered council will send two leaders – Judas and Silas – as special representatives “to the brothers and sisters of Gentile origin in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia” (23) with a letter of accord.
The letter clarifies the scope of key expectations concerning Gentiles in keeping with Mosaic law (20, 29) and reaffirms the work of Paul and Barnabas. Luke’s narrative also tells us that the Antioch believers rejoiced at the exhortation and were encouraged and strengthened by Judas and Silas (31-32).
In sum, this text offers a rich illustration of the early church doing practical theology while facing a challenging situation. It can be considered as a multiway hermeneutical process for the sake of relevant and truthful discernment and faithful action. Some of the lessons that can be drawn are underscored below.
Some guidelines to highlight
Discernment is like a multiway conversation: factors ranging from people’s stories and social-cultural context, to Scripture and the Holy Spirit to the church’s traditions and practices are all interacting, both bringing and receiving insight. Carried out as a necessary, ongoing spiritual practice, it is a never-ending process!
Faithful discernment in the face of conflict always takes much time and energy. Furthermore, not all resolutions after careful discernment are final; some can be revisited and even reversed (e.g. the issue of eating certain meat alluded to in the letter).
Those who lead the process need to develop “Spirit fruit” such as humility, patience, generosity, hopefulness, wisdom and grace. They must demonstrate the necessary knowledge of the culture, the church teachings and Scripture. And they must also have the necessary skills to care well for those involved and for the process itself.
Conflict between leaders (Acts 15:36-41)
Following the account of the successful resolution concerning how to welcome Gentiles into the church, we are told of another conflict. Paul and Barnabas part ways because of John Mark. 1 Let’s review the background of this situation in order to gain clarity on the nature of the conflict.
The predominantly Gentile church in Antioch sends Paul and Barnabas, accompanied by John Mark, on what would become known as Paul’s first missionary journey (c. AD 46-48).
When they arrive in Cyprus, the Roman proconsul Sergius Paulus becomes the first recorded high official of the Roman government to become a Christian (Acts 13:4-12). Between the details provided, there is much opportunity to speculate on motivations and feelings. As we explore the story below, we will take such liberties as we seek to draw insight from the story.
From Cyprus they sail to Perga in Pamphylia (southern Turkey) where John (Mark) “left them and returned to Jerusalem.” This reference in Acts 13:13 probably became a significant marker in the lives of Paul, Barnabas and John Mark.
Apparently, John Mark was Barnabas’ young cousin, the son of his aunt Mary who was the head of a home church in Jerusalem. (Acts 12:12).
We are not told directly, but maybe it can be inferred that Mary had suggested Mark accompany his older cousin Barnabas and Paul on the missionary journey. Barnabas (“son of encouragement” (Acts 4:36), or the encourager of others) perhaps persuaded Paul to allow the young man to come with them in order to strengthen John Mark’s faith and to give him experience as a witness and missionary.
We are not told why Mark decides to go home. Perhaps he was homesick or found the rigorous ministry too demanding. But we are told of the heated argument between Paul and Barnabas precipitated by Mark’s exit at the port city of Perga, capital of Pamphylia:
After some days Paul said to Barnabas, “Come, let us return and visit the brothers and sisters in every city where we proclaimed the word of the Lord [on the first missionary journey] and see how they are doing.” Barnabas wanted to take with them John called Mark. But Paul decided not to take with them one who had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not accompanied them in the work. The disagreement became so sharp that they parted company; Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus. But Paul chose Silas and set out, the brothers and sisters commending him to the grace of the Lord. [On this second missionary journey c. AD 50-52] he went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches. (Acts 15:36-41)
Lessons in leadership development
“San Barnaba”, a depiction of Barnabas, “Son of Encouragement” (anonymous Lombard painter). Public domain
The hope Barnabas had in young Mark’s potential and the encouragement he gave his cousin show a discerning spirit.
At the time of the argument, Paul could never have imagined that the seemingly weak young man would one day write one of the four Gospels. Additionally, according to Coptic tradition, Mark eventually journeyed across the Mediterranean and founded the Coptic Church in Egypt – the oldest Christian body of believers in the world.
It is interesting to connect the story of the conflict with Barnabas with the account of Paul and Silas having come to Lystra, in Turkey: “‚Ķwhere a disciple named Timothy lived, whose mother was a Jewess and a believer‚Ķ.Paul wanted to take (the young Timothy) along on the journey, so he circumcised him.” (Acts 16:1-3).
Could it be that Paul had come to realize the importance of fostering faith in young men and giving them the experience of communicating the gospel? The young Timothy, mentored by Paul, like the young Mark, mentored by Barnabas, would turn out to be one of Paul’s most beloved and faithful disciples.
In c. 60 AD when Paul was in prison in Caesarea, he ended his letter to the church in Colossae near Ephesus: “Aristarchus, my fellow prisoner greets you, as does Mark, the cousin of Barnabas.” (Colossians 4:10). It seems that sometime in the previous years Paul had reconciled with Mark (one wonders whether at the prompting of Barnabas?).
It would appear that more than 10 years after Paul and Barnabas had a serious conflict involving Mark, now Paul can write to his own disciple Timothy: “Only Luke is here with me. Get Mark and bring him with you, for he is useful to me in ministry.” (2 Timothy 4:11)
Mark is helpful to me in my ministry. Can we surmise that Barnabas, the “Son of Encouragement,” lived to see the fruit of his ministry with his young cousin Mark? Regardless, Barnabas’ belief in, and encouragement of both his cousin Mark and the Apostle Paul might have altered the course of history.
Perhaps those three followers of Jesus represent the realized promised of second chances, redemption, forgiveness and reconciliation. That being the case, the story of parting ways invites us to highlight some implications.
Sometimes separation is unavoidable, or even advisable in order to prevent further conflict. Nevertheless, the choice of parting ways from one another, although acrimonious at present, can be transformed in the future.
Separation and division don’t need to be permanent. The hope for further understanding and reunion in the future can remain.
It’s possible that Barnabas became a mentor to John Mark. In any case, we are reminded that it’s necessary to care for younger, future church leaders in that way. And that always requires commitment, patience, willingness to take risks and generous investment of time and energy.
The story also suggests that there is a special place for mediating ministry. And, of course, such ministry depends on the trust and good will of the parties involved. Barnabas might have played a mediating role between Paul and John/Mark. (Interestingly, Paul’s letter to Philemon can also be read as documenting the former’s mediating work between the latter and Onesimus!).
Finally, in our imaginative reading, is it fair to project that the “reunification” of Paul and John Mark was possible not because one prevailed as having been right but both continued to grow and to learn better ways from past experiences?
Highlighted at the beginning of this article is the claim that two related factors are always present in conflict situations like those discussed in our case study of Acts 15: what is right or true, that reflects and fosters faithfulness; and love and grace that seeks peace and fosters reconciliation and community building. Psalm 85:10-11 alludes to that inseparable connection and beautifully sums up a vision of shalom for conflict transformation and healing: Steadfast love and faithfulness will meet; righteousness and peace will kiss each other. Faithfulness will spring up from the ground, and righteousness will look down from the sky. May that be so!
—Daniel Schipani is an ordained minister with Mennonite Church USA and a member of Belmont Mennonite Church, Elkhart, Indiana, USA. He and his wife Margaret have two adult children and three grandchildren. With a doctorate in Psychology and a PhD in Practical theology, he is emeritus professor at Anabaptist Mennonite Biblical Seminary and affiliate professor at McCormick Theological Seminary and San Francisco Theological Seminary. He is author of several books of education, pastoral care and counselling and practical theology.
