Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 6
The Virginia 1918 resolution lists “verbal inspiration,” “substitutionary atonement,” and “personal return of the Lord” as “fundamental doctrines denied by… the new theology”; how do you evaluate their assumption that these doctrines had to be explicitly defended—does it reflect faithfulness, fear, or both, and what does it reveal about what they believed God was like?
Another way to ask: When leaders in 1918 said they must defend verbal inspiration, substitutionary atonement, and Jesus’ personal return, do you see that as faithfulness, fear, or both? What does their choice of “fundamentals” suggest about the kind of God they believed in?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
Based on the speaker’s explanation, the explicit defense reflects real contested pressures from modernism and therefore includes an element of faithfulness—though the tone also shows alarm and a fear of “destruction” and “blight.” It reveals they believed God is a supernatural, speaking God who truly inspired Scripture, truly acted in Christ’s atonement, and will personally return.
- The resolution says they are “uncompromisingly opposed” to liberalism and “record ourselves as in full support of the verbal inspiration… substitutionary… atonement, the personal return of the Lord.”
- Brunck’s tone is intense: he came to “lift my voice against the corrupting and blighting influence… and to save this conference from destruction.”
- The conference question frames liberalism as “blighting and destructive… undermining of the old faith.”
- The speaker says these doctrines were not “something new” for Mennonites: they “have always believed” them, but now “they’re being questioned.”
- He argues it’s “a very real concern,” not merely “tilting at windmills,” with “pockets” influenced by modernism.