Once again, thanks for the quality article….

That’s the easy answer. Do all of these institutions always do good work? No. Are we doing enough to create these spaces? No. But I’m arguing that they are being created and should continue to be created, and you all are doing good work. We shouldn’t give up just because the dialogue is messy (as you say) and we don’t know how to do it best. That will never change.

Honestly, I’ve been a skeptical supporter of BikeMovement. In the U.S. last year, I thought, “Hey, that’s cool. I wish I could do that, because I care about the Church too. But it’s cool that they’re doing that.” Then in Asia this year, I thought, “Hmmm, weird. Sounds like they want a vacation, and they want the church to pay for part of it. Good excuse, I suppose. Who are they going to talk to? They don’t even speak the language.” I identified closely with Tim’s concerns: I was highly critical of the value of cross-cultural theological dialogue, and pretending that we have lots in common when we really don’t.

But now I’ve changed my mind, partly due to a 3-week course in Europe on Anabaptist/Mennonite history (as Krista mentioned earlier). I’m pumped about BikeMovementAsia, and I think it’s one of the best ways to create space for important dialogue with global Anabaptists/Mennonites. What better way than for a group of young Mennonites to travel around and speak to other Anabaptists? I only wish I could be there, or could read more detailed summaries of your discussions.

But maybe I’ll think about this more… Thoughts from others? What are other ways to build an increasing global awareness among North American Mennonites?

I’m curious to know what this looks like practically to you - where and how do such spaces grow? Are they happening already? Does an institution such as Mennonite World Conference create such a space?

I mainly want to add an “Amen” to Krista’s and Nicole’s recent comments — spot on. And on my earlier topic of doctrinal statements, John Roth had a good example: Lutherans worldwide can rally around the Augsburg Confession as their definition of Lutheran identity — if you can sign the confession, you’re in; if you can’t, you’re not a Lutheran. It’d be much simpler if we did that also (although I certainly hope we wouldn’t use Schleitheim as our defining statement), but I think there’s something extremely valuable in our historical hesitancy to reduce Anabaptist/Mennonite identity to a list of theological doctrines or ethical values (or cultural mannerisms, for that matter). Instead, we have to constantly remain in discussion with those worldwide who call themselves ‘Anabaptist’, and we have to decide what we do and don’t have in common. In the process, however, we should be wary of our increasing tendencies to identify ourselves solely with MC-USA and the North American Mennonite Church. Our continuing division of the church along national boundaries worries me.

And as someone wrote today in a response to Tim and me on YAR: “We [all] draw from a story, beginning in the Bible, of God welcoming the unwelcomeable and seeking reconciliation between people. Conversation and discernment in a spirit of community with those who disagree with us seems to me to be much more in keeping with that story than does cutting ourselves off from others to protect principles. And unity is more poignant when it is something that is clung to despite differences that make us want to go our separate ways.”