Opinion: Perspectives from readers

The April editorial on a health-care institution’s “homecoming” sure triggered a host of memories. I served under Mennonite Central Committee and the Mennonite Board of Missions and Charities (MBMC) from 1943 (Civilian Public Service) until 1979 and on the board of directors of Mennonite Mental Health, Mennonite Mutual Aid and MCC’s developmental disabilities committee for many years. So I am pleased with this proposal and with the tone of your editorial.

But for me the facts behind the separation in the early 1980s are far more complex than Gene Yoder’s statement that “it had everything to do with creating a firewall.” This may not be completely accurate—at least it’s not the whole story. I do not have the full picture either and wish some of our historians would piece some of this together for us.

From my perspective, the issues are deep and go way back and with changing understandings and values. Even the births of MBMC and MCC were not easy. It took the great famine in India to mobilize the church to concern itself with “outsiders.” And then concern for the needs of our own aging brought forth the Mennonite Benevolent Board. By 1908, the Evangelizing Board and the Benevolent Board merged and became MBMC. But there remained a continual tension between those who thought the primary task of the church was to “evangelize” (i.e., save souls), “preserve the faith” (a more Amish position) or “serve the needy” (our own and/or our neighbors).

Then came World War II, Civilian Public Ser­vice and MCC. Out of the CPS experience came a whole new vision or maybe a whole new understanding of who we were and the place of the body of Christ in the world. This, coupled with the new understandings of science and faith and an expansion of higher education, brought new tensions and anxieties. But we also found we could work with each other (Mennonite Church, General Conference Mennonite Church, Mennonite Brethren, Conservative Mennonite other faith groups).

An underlying concern was what the church should “do.” Is it to “save souls,” “preach and proclaim,” “pass out tracts” or “simply serve (respond to human need)”. We were almost schizophrenic—we wanted to serve and help relieve human suffering, but some questioned the value of having a person go to hell with a “full stomach.” Should the focus be on “saving the soul first”?

I had the wonderful privilege of working with some great leaders—John Moseman, J.D. Graber, Ernest Bennet, Orie Miller, Herman Andres, Vernon Neufeld and others—who somehow managed to work across some of the fault lines. I know little of the progress east of Ohio but did work closely with Allen Erb and know of some of the criticism he faced as he worked so hard to get the church to back a “community” hospital in La Junta, Colo., and started the School of Nursing there.

While the need for a firewall might have triggered the separation, there was also a strong push-back to the zeal and new vision of those who served in CPS and particularly the mental hospitals. The health-care institutions and the new highly trained health-care workers (including physicians, nurses, chaplains and administrators) had become too many, too sophisticated and the institutions too large to understand and control. And MBMC opted to become Mennonite Board of Missions—without the “Charities”—once more in the early 1980s. I’m glad for the careful work done that I hope will bring the orphaned programs back into the fold.

Let me add that I chose to leave MBMC as Secretary of Health and Welfare in 1979 for two reasons—our aging parents in Oregon and my own felt need to allow new, better-trained people to lead—which they have done well, and I salute them. In Oregon I was privileged to serve as director of a fine retirement facility, serve as conference moderator and help start an MCC-related program for the developmentally disabled. What a privilege it has been!