Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 10
John F. Funk argues, “Yes, worldly churches use Sunday school, but can’t we have Mennonite Sunday schools” to teach “Mennonite doctrine,” while old orders insist teaching beyond preaching should be in the home; what does this conflict expose about trust (God’s methods vs pragmatic methods), authority (leaders vs laity), and the hidden costs of adopting “neutral” tools from other traditions?
Another way to ask: What does the fight over Mennonite Sunday school vs teaching only at home show about trust in God’s ways versus “what works,” and about who has authority—leaders or regular members? What hidden costs can come from using tools that seem “neutral” from other churches?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
The transcript suggests this conflict exposes competing instincts: whether to trust inherited Mennonite patterns of home-and-pulpit formation or to adopt new “methodologies” for effectiveness, and whether teaching authority should remain mainly with ordained leaders and fathers or expand to wider lay involvement. It also shows that “neutral” tools can reshape church life by importing outside assumptions and shifting power and expectations.
- Burge says before the 1860s Mennonites mostly resisted outside groups; later they began “accepting new methodologies, things like Sunday school.”
- Funk’s defense: “Yes… worldly churches use Sunday school, but can’t we have Mennonite Sunday schools… taught… Mennonite doctrine.”
- Old order argument: teaching beyond preaching “should be done at home by the parents,” especially “by the father.”
- Burge notes Sunday school “increases the role of laity in teaching,” changing authority patterns.
- He describes Funk as a “cautious innovator,” while later protégés were “less cautious,” implying tools can open doors to broader changes.