History: Bethlehem ’83: coming together and apart

Jul 17, 2017 by

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

When the General Conference Mennonite Church and Mennonite Church met in Bethlehem, Pa., in 1983 for their first joint convention, MC moderator Ross Bender and his GC counterpart, Jacob Tilitzky, placed their podiums next to each other to symbolize their denominations’ growing closeness.

They, of course, continued to come together, eventually merging to form Mennonite Church USA and Mennonite Church Canada. But they’ve also been coming apart over the past several decades. In both cases, Bethlehem ’83 was not only an important catalyst, it’s made an impact on the North American Mennonite environment that is unsurpassed.

Having moved their two pulpits into closer proximity to symbolize a growing togetherness, General Conference president Jake Tilitzky, left, and Mennonite Church moderator Ross Bender place two stones, representing their churches, atop a foundation stone. — Mennonite Library and Archives, Bethel College

Having moved their two pulpits into closer proximity to symbolize a growing togetherness, General Conference president Jake Tilitzky, left, and Mennonite Church moderator Ross Bender place two stones, representing their churches, atop a foundation stone. — Mennonite Library and Archives, Bethel College

The convention reflected a culture transitioning from the often-violent upheaval of the 1960s and ’70s into an era of staunch social, political and religious conservatism. Like much of the rest of the public, Mennonites were dogged by issues of sexuality, activism, women’s rights and more.

On the positive side, however, the General Conference Mennonite Church and Mennonite Church had been enjoying increasingly closer relations since World War II. Cooperative seminary education, joint publishing initiatives and dual-conference congregations had even raised the prospect of the two denominations officially uniting.

At Bethlehem ’83, GC and MC delegates bodies each approved formally exploring those possibilities. But that would be, in the long term, jeopardized by another agenda item.

Two years earlier, the two denominations established a joint committee to study sexuality and faith, and a preliminary statement was presented at the convention. Delegates accepted the statement, but discussions heralded coming turbulence.

While the document addressed many facets of sexuality, both GC and MC delegates focused on its references to “homosexuality” (the use of LGBTQ would come years later). A conventiongoer from Grace Mennonite Church, a GC congregation in Dallas, Ore., warned that many members would pull out unless “we will remain true to our historic position” that same-sex sexual relations were wrong.

True to his promise, Grace withdrew in the late 1990s, one of hundreds that have left in the past several decades.

The conflict threatened to thwart the MC-GC merger and has undermined both MC Canada and MC USA. In its wake, the bulk of MC USA’s convention this month in Orlando, Fla., was devoted to intensive discernment about the denomination’s purpose.

Meanwhile, many of the congregations that have left MC USA, MC Canada or its predecessors have found other affiliations, either with existing groups such as the Conservative Mennonite Conference and the Missionary Church, or created new organizations, such as Evana Network.

Bethlehem ’83 unwittingly contributed to another division. The premise had been that a merger would create one body of Mennonites in Canada and the United States. Instead, the result was two national denominations.

Canadian GC members for years had to deal with a three-level structure: provincial conferences, a national body (Conference of Mennonites in Canada) and a binational denomination. The CMC was founded in 1903, with provincial conferences emerging in the following years. Subsequently, the CMC functioned in many ways as both a full-fledged denomination and a GC area conference. The General Conference Mennonite Church didn’t recognize the provincial bodies as on par with its Eastern, Central, Northern, Western and Pacific districts in the United States.

Americans, meanwhile, had only area conferences and the denomination. Not only were the Canadians burdened with a more cumbersome system, they had to endure business that didn’t pertain to them, since the absence of an American conference meant U.S.-specific agenda had to be conducted at the denominational level.

To try to rectify the situation, GC delegates at Bethlehem approved the formation of a U.S. assembly. But it never became a workable solution. So during the process of forging a structure for the new, merged church, the Canadians successfully pushed for two separate national denominations. In effect, the CMC, with the addition of the country’s smaller number of MC members, became Mennonite Church Canada.

The legacy of Bethlehem ’83 included yet another separation, one that cemented the breach between the mainstream Mennonite Church and fundamentalist-influenced traditionalists.

Starting in the 1960s, cultural and theological conservatives forcefully responded to the Mennonite Church’s growing acculturation such as more social activism, dropping plain attire and accepting divorce and remarriage and women in leadership. In a parallel to today’s church, many members withdrew from the denomination, with two groups forming new conferences. Those who remained in the Mennonite Church increasingly distanced themselves from the main body.

A leading figure for the movement was George R. Brunk II, the legendary revivalist and dramatically harsh church critic. At Bethlehem, he convened a meeting of like-minded people, which led the following year to the formation of the Fellowship of Concerned Mennonites. Given its relatively small number of participants, FCM had little practical effect on the Mennonite Church and none on the General Conference Mennonite Church. Nevertheless, it was an important event, giving traditionalists an organizational framework and an intellectual home to advance their cause.

All these developments made Bethlehem ’83 a watershed event for North American Mennonites.

Rich Preheim is a writer and historian from Elkhart, Ind.

Comments Policy

Mennonite World Review invites readers’ comments on articles. To promote constructive dialogue, editors select the comments that appear, just as we do with letters to the editor in print. These decisions are final. Writers must sign their first and last names; anonymous comments are not accepted. Comments do not appear until approved and are posted during business hours. Comments may be reproduced in print, and may be edited if selected for print.

  • Ross Bender

    Thanks to Rich Preheim for his reflections on Bethlehem 83. It was indeed an important moment in North American Mennonite history.

    I have a number of observations. First, I think that Preheim understates the threat that George Brunk II and his movement posed to the Mennonite church. The encounter was extraordinarily dramatic. For my late father’s and also Willard Swartley’s reflections on the event, you can read their 2004 recollections on my website at:


    Also on that site is my personal reflection on my father’s life — “Mennonite Machiavelli?” I was present at Bethlehem 83 and can testify personally that it was an exceedingly stressful time for all involved.:

    “As they were leaving the meeting, Dad reported, Brunk observed gruffly that he felt like he had been in a courtroom. Dad’s response was, “No, it felt like we were in church.”

    It was also at that meeting that my father predicted there would be a woman as moderator of the Mennonite Church by the year 2000. Also at that meeting the Brethren and Mennonite Concerned were denied space and so they set up a table outside. I remember my father walking over and apologizing, saying “At least they can’t take away your dignity.”

    One of my realizations from attending that meeting and watching Dad at work was that many different factions in the Mennonite Church assumed that the Moderators were extremely powerful figures who could take immediate decisions to change one thing or another about the church. That, as I am sure everyone who has served as Moderator can testify, was and is simply not true. Church business is very very messy, and perfect solutions are never possible. The best we can hope for is to muddle through.

    Ross Lynn Bender
    Philadelphia, PA

    • Rich Preheim

      Ross, thanks for the comments and the affirmation. I most definitely need to check out your website for your father’s and Willard’s recollections.

      I also appreciate your counsel regarding GRB II. But I need to reiterate that he didn’t present a threat to the Mennonite church (small “c”). I acknowledge that he and is movement were obviously a source of signficant concern and consternation for the Mennonite Church (large “c”). But he his influence in the General Conference Mennonite Church was neglible at best.

  • Ken Fellenbaum

    As I read thru this article I came to the comments about GRB II. I studied theology under Dean Brunk at Eastern Mennonite Seminary in the 1970’s. He was the preacher at my ordination service. I have know many Christian Leaders – Dr Brunk (and Dr Myron Augsburger) among the best! Bro. George, as he preferred to be called, used to call me from time to time over the years to vent. Was he a critic of the Church – yes but his concerns were rooted in the Bible. It was a distinct privilege knowing and discoursing with him. He used to walk into the Seminary coffee room, clasp his big hand on a student’s shoulder and say, “How goes the battle”? (Eph.6:12) He remains a spiritual giant in this student’s memory!

  • Ken Fellenbaum

    P.S. Referring to GRB ll as a “threat” is a travesty to this Brother’s 60 years of ministry. And coming from fellow Mennonites. Truly uncharitable! It should be retracted and/or apologized for.

    • Ross Bender

      If anyone is interested in revisiting in detail the events of Bethlehem 83, I strongly recommend looking at both my father’s and Willard Swartley’s 2004 memoirs of the confrontation with George R Brunk II. I have appended documents from the Mennonite Church General Board and the Mennonite Board of Education recounting in great detail the consternation that Brunk’s harsh and vigorous attacks on fellow Mennonite scholars occasioned.



      Also, my father in his later years was quite (and in my opinion too) forgiving about powerful men who threatened both him personally and the Mennonite Church itself. My father, who devoted his entire life to serving the church, again in my humble opinion, suffered great personal harm from the stress of dealing with loud and cantankerous members of the church. Here is part of Dad’s 2004 reflection:

      “Although I felt threatened by him on occasion (and with all due respect and empathy for those who were publicly challenged and in some cases misrepresented by him) I am at this stage of my life thinking that there is a place in our denomination for someone like George, a colorful prophetic figure, one who earnestly and boldly contends for the faith.”

      After one has studied the documents in the case, one can make one’s own conclusions about the degree to which GRB II and his movement were a threat to the church.

      Ross Lynn Bender
      Philadelphia, PA

About Me