Nov. 28, 2011 issue
Should one issue define us?
There have always been differences among Mennonites over how to interpret church documents. Recently, there have been calls for Mennonite Church USA to impose churchwide uniformity on the interpretation of these documents, particularly as they relate to pastoral credentialing issues and same-sex marriage ceremonies. We believe such a move would not only repudiate the direction set in the “Purposeful Plan” at the Pittsburgh convention this summer but would be a recipe for increased conflict, distraction and polarization.
There are strong differences in the church related to same-sex relationships. Those advocating full inclusion of LGBT people are not going away, at least not voluntarily. Imposing greater uniformity or stronger rules is not going to change that.
If the majority believes the differences that exist on this issue are so intolerable, so antithetical to what it means to be an Anabaptist follower of Christ, that this issue defines the core of our faith, then let’s be honest about that and move toward dividing into two denominations. Otherwise we must stop setting this issue up as the defining one.
While there is no hard data, we believe a majority in MC USA probably still support the teaching positions that speak against all same-sex sexual activity — though at the Columbus convention in 2009 delegates voted to “acknowledge” rather than “affirm” these positions. It also is likely that this majority is getting smaller each year and that in the not-too-distant future that position will no longer be the majority.
So what can the church say that provides some way beyond perpetual rancor? We believe that in this conflicted time the church would do well to say something like the following:
“The majority in the church currently understands, based on careful biblical discernment and prayerful openness to God’s Spirit, that same-sex marital relationships are sin. It follows, therefore, that the current teaching position of MC USA is that homosexual sexual activity is sin.
“However, it has become clear that a significant and growing minority in the church, after careful biblical discernment and prayerful openness to God’s Spirit, have come to a different conclusion, and their conscience compels them to act in accordance with their understanding. Faced with a division of this sort, the church must discern whether the issue at stake is core to its identity as Anabaptist followers of Christ.
“If it is, the church cannot afford the resultant distraction and in-fighting over its core convictions as it seeks to be a missional church. It will need to take seriously the possibility of parting ways with those who can tolerate differences in understanding and practice on this issue, and to explore dividing with as much grace as possible.
“However, if the church’s position on same-sex marriage is not core to its identity as Anabaptist followers of Christ — even though many still feel strongly about it — then we as a church must recognize that there will be some variation of interpretation and practice in the church, as there is on other non-core issues.”
Written by Su Flickinger, Hyattsville, Md.; Sheri Hostetler, San Francisco; Cynthia Lapp, Hyattsville; Weldon Nisly, Seattle; Megan Ramer, Chicago; and Karl Shelly, Goshen, Ind. Hostetler, Lapp, Nisly, Ramer and Shelly are Mennonite pastors.
Comments
-
These words are so wise, gentle, and Spirit filled -- I don't know what to say other than THANK YOU. Joyce Hostetler
-
These words speak so gently in identifying the diversity in our beliefs. They challenge us in very appropriate ways to move to the core of our faith--Jesus is Lord---and accept each other while remaining in conversation. I hope that we do not have to be unanimous in our personal beliefs to be members of the family together. Thank you to each person who prayed, wrote, edited and shared this with us.
-
Thank you to the six who wrote and shared this grace-filled statement. The statement provides vision for a leap toward greater faithfulness in being Christ's body. I pray this may help us take at least one tiny step forward in being a Christ-centered faith community.
-
What an amazing article - so well-written and done with great sensitivity and thought! Thank you to all six persons for the time and effort to write this document.
-
What a powerful and thought provoking article, full of love and care for the Mennonite Church and all of God's people. All I can say is thank you and amen.
-
Thank-you!Thank-you!Thank-you! May each of you be richly blessed. Amen!
-
Wow! What an amazing article! Thank you to each of you who put this together. Well-written, wise, gentle, powerful, perceptive, tender, significant, sensitive, discerning. May this article help us all understand more clearly where we are as a faith community and where we go from here. Thank you!
-
I love the fact that this article focuses on our identity as Anabaptists and our core beliefs. These should provide common ground for the unity of MCUSA. The Mennonite church has allowed itself to be dogmatic and hierarchical for too long. It's time to be honest with ourselves, unite or divide.
-
I also appreciate the tone of this piece. Unfortunately, I suspect that the scenario suggested in the third paragraph might be what actually lies ahead, i.e. moving towards dividing into two denominations. And honestly, would that be so terrible? There's no virtue to institutional unity when unity of hearts and minds is lacking.
Couldn't a lot of heartache and agita be prevented by each side going their own way? Think of the endless committee meetings and consultations and purgings that could be avoided!
Here's the way I see it: A split-off group, which I'll call the "Welcoming Mennonites", could take a significant bite (let's say 25%) out of MCUSA's 100,000 members, leaving the remaining "Rejecting Mennonites" with some 75,000 souls. Such a separation would leave each side to focus on better things than contending over an issue upon which final agreement is unlikely.
The division would expose other interesting fault lines as well. For example:
Urban vs. Rural. The Welcoming Mennonites would take most of the urban and university congregations with them, leaving the Rejecting Mennonites as a predominantly rural grouping. Wouldn't both sides really be more comfortable that way anyhow?
Left-wing vs. Right-wing. With the departure of the Welcoming Mennonites (and their bleeding hearts), the Rejecting Mennonites could finally find their place within the Fundamentalist/Evangelical Wing of the Republican Party. And the Welcoming Mennonites could fully embrace the Social Gospel, without apology or defensiveness.
Peace vs. War. The Welcoming Mennonites would be free to develop a consistently pacifist orientation and program of action, forming alliances with fellow travelers like the Quakers and the Catholic Workers. The Rejecting Mennonites could start placing American flags behind their pulpits and singing the National Anthem during worship services.
I could go on, but you get the idea. Please do not mistake these comments for snark. I submit them in all seriousness.
-
How appropriate to read these comments at Thanksgiving time. I am very grateful that there are thoughtful, reflective people who are willing to stick their necks out like the six of you on behalf of what's right. After all, wasn't Jesus' core message one of Love?
Your grateful neighbor, Cynthia
-
This is a well timed article and frames this divisive issue in a way which should allow serious discussion. I disagree with Charlie Kraybill that division is almost inevitableand possibly desirable, however. I don't know if division would be "so terrible" but I do think it would be unfortunate. Charlie is probably correct about where many of the fault lines fall and how things might sort out - although I winced a little at the starkness of the stereotyping. But there would be some big problems with allowing this to happen. Individual congregations are not all one way or the other. So even if we allow congregations to sort themselves out along the fault lines, there will be individuals within those congregations who will be hurt - a lot - by such a sorting process. And we will lose individuals from the Anabaptist family who would otherwise stay and contribute to the mission. People who know me know that I speak from deep hurt about what church splits do to individuals. I lost the Mennonite community of my childhood through a church split forty years ago and I still have the scars. And do we really wish to mirror the fault lines of American society? Could the Mennonite Church not offer a different way - or does "Peace Church" simply mean we don't literally shoot people? Or do we have a vision which empowers us to to model a peaceful way of including diversity of opinion for American society?
-
I sing gratitude for the Spirit-led thoughtfulness of these words, for your consistent care for all parts of the church. Strength and blessings for your work.
-
The sentiment expressed above is nice at first blush - but it does not address the problem of letting the "soft sciences" define even how we speak of this issues. The GLBTQ AND Heterosexual identity categories are modern soft-science constructs.
Both extremes are actually moving us away from the tradition (within orthodox Christianity) and Biblical debates we need to have about the very nature.
The Equality Now and Focus on the Family approaches use the same coin - different sides and then read back into scripture their positions.
This statement simply does not move the us out of the assumptions based on soft-sciences that WILL indeed shift in secular society AGAIN - and to jettison people or doctrine based on this is a tragedy.
We must look at the issues of identity and the idolatry of GLBTQ and Heterosexuality constructs in our society - this approach does not work. A TRUE third way is needed- rooted in the wisdom of the church.
FINALLY it does not admit that the white-middle-class-privileged church is shrinking and if we force the soft-science informed change of theology we are simply doing a new form of "theological imperialism and colonialization" AGAINST the global church - which is growing and coming to the Northern hemisphere.
The theological liberals in this case are committing the crime they usually howl about in their telling the global non-white privileged church they are simply not as "advanced" or "enlightened" etc. etc. as we are on this issue therefore their voices do not count (this article makes my point beautifully - more force theological neo-colonization...)
Let's reject the Hetero-GLBTQ soft science assumptions that are the source of elevating a non-biblical view of sexual identity. That would begin to shift the conversation...The soft sciences will look different in another 50 years anyway!
-
A million thanks would not feel adequate to express my gratitude for this letter. I have been away from the church for the better part of 20 years because of this issue. The thought of finally having some peace surrounding the issue of inclusion of LGBT individuals within the Mennonite Church leads me to feel as though I might finally have a place within the church I grew up in. I think many would agree that this debate has gone on far too long, and at the expense of many individuals such as myself feeling abandoned by the church. If both "sides" are agreeable to a division, then please, let us move forward so that both "sides" can focus on other issues and those of us who have been marginalized may again feel not only welcomed back, but also not afraid to ask those ordained by the church to bless our same gender unions.
-
This is a challenging piece. I appreciate the combination of grace and forthrightness. It feels like an example of speaking the truth in love. It also challenges us as a denomination to be more explicit about what has been only mostly-explicit: to name our core values ("Jesus is Lord," as stated in a comment above, and the priorities of our Pittsburgh purposeful plan).
I am curious to hear from the writers about what prompted such a letter at this time. Does it feel like the current ambiguity is unbearable? A split would be freeing in some ways, but would also be tragic and most likely take a whole lot more work than the current "infighting" is demanding of us. Meanwhile, as is stated, those of us who celebrate queerness are not going anywhere and will continue to minister out of these convictions. -
I'm not convinced that a split would be more work than the current infighting. There wouldn't have to be any negotiations at all over a split. All it would take would be for the majority of welcoming congregations across the country to simply drop out of their conferences, like the Covenant Fellowship in Sarasota just did. Then the newly liberated welcoming congregations could form a new national entity, hopefully a looser, more decentralized one than the current MCUSA. One without budgets and staff. One that emphasizes social networking and potlucks over position papers and credentialing qualifications.
-
I am grateful for the six individuals who thoughtfully framed the central question of this letter -- will we indeed let one issue define us?
Like Herb I find Charlie's further fault lines too stark and stereotypical. Variation of interpretation and practice cannot be quite so easily defined between rural/urban, liberal/conservative, etc.
Shel, where in this article do the writers suggest that those who support the church's official teaching position are not as enlightened? In what way is this piece driven by "theologically imperialism?" I think great care is taken to be respectful of the majority opinion. Your harsh assessment seems defensive to me rather than considering the central question: should this one issue define us? You seem to say yes, but I believe we can say no without harming our commitment to being a global, inclusive church.
-
The problem is we are not letting the global church speak to us! We are assuming our western soft-sciences current views/debates regarding the make-up of orientation and sexual identity are authoritative. I think my point is this is still thinking in the same mode.
We need to move the conversation back into theology instead of a pastoral-theology view informed by current psychological fads/trends in the secular society - which are notoriously changing.
We are framing the whole discussion on assumptions and general feelings that are not being challenged. This article does not get to those issues at all.
Instead of declaring a false peace - I believe we need to stop doubling down on identity structures of the society which are forcing our conversation into modes like this and develop a third-way forward.
-
Thank you! Thank you! This clear and gentle statement of the situation in our beloved church warmed my heart. We CAN dwell together in disagreement and love, may the Spirit lead us to do so.
-
To me the statement that was asked towards the end of the article is a defining one "if the church’s position on same-sex marriage is not core to its identity as Anabaptist followers of Christ..." For my understanding there are 24 articles in the confession of faith which lays out our core identity as MCUSA. One of those articles has to do with the understanding of our sexuality. So I would say yes it is core to our identity along with 23 other items.
-
"Yield unto the beauracrats, as they go forth and decideth in committee the intent of what the Lord has sayeth. Should they not decide, then putteth my words to a vote sayeth The Lord." Leviticlese 46:66
It's a mystery why anyone attends a church these days, even a progressive and "accepting" church, because it's obviously not about felowship, worship, God and His son anymore. It's about politics.
When was the last time you listened to a sermon about sexual morality? I bet you can't even remember -- yet here we are, pushing the issue of who sleeps with who to the forefront of what defines the church. Disgusting.
-
It is unfortunate that this issue has become so divisive. But the reality is that the LGBT supporters are increasingly forceful in their attempts to push MC USA to a position of acceptance of same sex sexual activity. If we look beyond our denomination we see that acceptance on this issue has brought significant loss to many of our more liberal denominations. If we look to the international community we see that there is disdain toward the European and American churches for their acceptance of same sex sexual activity from most of our global brothers and sisters.
We have already lost many congregations to our right who have been frustrated over this issue. I believe that there are many more that we will lose if we are unable to maintain what many of us understand to be the faithful position on this matter. I don't like the idea of seeing congregations leave, but if there are congregations to our left who cannot tolerate our position we may have to graciously free them to move on so they can shape church as they see fit.
I do not think that this has anything to do with one issue defining us, but rather it is about trying to be faithful disciples of Jesus in every area of our life, including sexuality.
-
• The authors see and fear the potential for enforced uniformity; I see an opportunity for confessional integrity and spiritual renewal.
• The authors see the proportions of minority-majority opinions in the church about same-sex marriage changing; I see global Christians becoming increasingly prophetic toward a shrinking & uncertain western church.
• The authors see an issue of polity and social science data; I see a matter of Scripture, theology and good news of being transformed in Christ. -
I don't have an opinion either way on this issue and am going to vote for not letting it define us, and instead working toward unity not just within MC USA but also with other Anabaptist groups and between Christian denominations according to the prayer of Jesus for unity in John chapter 17. If we think of the entire Christian global community as the body of Christ, with a hand representing Anabaptism, how many fingers do we really need or how many more fingers can we fit before disabling ourselves? If we defined ourselves based on this issue then each congregation would have to decide which direction to go and there could be splits even at the congregational level. That would be difficult especially in communities like mine where there is only one small congregation. Can this issue be left to individual congregations to discern? Or if an area conference won't let individual congregations discern couldn't congregations transfer to a different area conference that will? John D. Roth addressed the issue of splits in his book "Beliefs", and his description of the mosaic of various Anabaptist groups that seem to find unity only at relief sales was sad to me. Not to imply his opinion either way on this issue, but in regard to past splits he also says in his book, "In retrospect, it is sometimes difficult to fully appreciate why some issues were so divisive." (i.e. past issues causing splits included introduction of four part singing, Sunday school and revivals, shifting from German to English, women not wearing prayer veils, women pastors and remarriage of divorced members). Will future Mennonites look back on this issue and wonder why we elevated it and focused on it to the point of making it our defining issue? Also written in his book in respect to different denominations but I think the idea could be extended to different groups within our denomination: "...to the extent that each branch shares the same trunk and the same roots, each part of the family tree bears resemblance to each other. Each part is dependent for its very life on a common foundation. For each of us, the primary concern should not be the health of all other branches, but rather the question that Jesus posed to his disciples: Is our branch bearing fruit? (John 15:2)." Should we consider if and how elevating this issue has distracted us away from bearing fruit?
-
Thanks, SRS, for your balanced and enlightening perspective. I sense that this is the direction the leadership of MCUSA is trying to encourage the church in.
A major step--and fairly simple one--that needs to happen sooner or later is for the article on "Family, Singleness and Marriage" in the Confession of Faith to be altered similarly to the first part of the suggested statement above--recognizing the majority belief and practice of the church against same-sex relationships, but also recognizing the integrity of those congregations who are supportive of same-sex couples, and stating clearly that this is NOT an issue that should cause division in the church. Then also we must stop punishing people (including pastors) for living honestly in same-sex partnerships.
-
I want to thank the writers of this thoughtful article and applaud the tone and realism. Its not our differences in beliefs that really divide us as much as it is our ego-involvement with whatever our belief is and the resulting attitude of "I am right and you are wrong." If we can't truly step back from that, then two churches is likely a better alternative. To step back from that would be to not let any one issue define us, period. When we do that we can embrace and respect differences without a need to control. Those of us who are gay will find fellowship where we are truly welcomed and affirmed.
-
This is my second attempt to respond. Through my years I have known too many divisions. When we divide as the easier solution we resist the Holy Spirit who is seeking to unite us. We also delay an answer to Christ's prayer that we be one as the God head is one. As I sense the times we are in time of slow but certain change and hope that we will not become impatient. That this article was published is an indication that change is here. That is my perspective.
-
We certainly will hold true to our Anabaptist history if MC USA decides to split. My personal experience mirrors Herb Reed's--splits are generally not employed with surgical win-win precision. For either side of the issue to believe the "problem" can be localized and then removed without future long term systemic issues seems short sighted and unrealistic. Who rejects whom in this scenario … each groups sees itself as the moral superior. “If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? During the life of any heart this line keeps changing place; sometimes it is squeezed one way by exuberant evil and sometimes it shifts to allow enough space for good to flourish. One and the same human being is, at various ages, under various circumstances, a totally different human being. At times he is close to being a devil, at times to sainthood. But his name doesn't change, and to that name we ascribe the whole lot, good and evil. Socrates taught us: "Know thyself." Confronted by the pit into which we are about to toss those who have done us harm, we halt, stricken dumb: it is after all only because of the way things worked out that they were the executioners and we weren't. From good to evil is one quaver, says the proverb. And correspondingly, from evil to good (Alexander Solzhenitsyn – The Gulag Archipelego)”
Furthermore, the typology of polarities discussed in many of these posts seem to be informed by the experience of our Anglo MC USA brothers and sisters. Do the non-Anglo MC USA brothers and sisters divide down the same lines?
-
I see that representatives of MCUSA are suddenly concerned about listening to what our global sisters and brothers (in the third world) have to say on the subject of same-sex unions. Conveniently, their view coincides with MCUSA's view. No word yet on whether MCUSA is listening to our global sisters and brothers on any of the following subjects: US materialism, US corporate criminality, US patronization and pandering, US exceptionalism, US missionary bribery and cultural extermination. I could go on, but you get the idea. Furthermore, I've just become aware that polygamous marriages are tolerated within the Anabaptist community in Ethiopia. So let me see if I understand the Mennonite Church's position correctly: Stand with our third-world sisters and brothers in the condemnation of loving monogamous same-sex unions, but live with male-dominated multiple-spouse marriages in Ethiopia. The hypocrisy is disgusting.
-
I think that we need to look at what has taken place historically. When a Mennonite congregation in Iowa put out an invitation to other Mennonite Church to begin working together in ministry, they did not propose any tests for uniting. This was the beginning of the General Conference Mennonite Church. In the 1800s when there was a split in the First Mennonite Church of Christian, Moundridge over whether a daughter church could accept as members persons who had been baptized in infancy without being baptized as adults, the newly organized Western District Conference put into their constitution as the second article, "We are not a legislative body." At the recent meeting of the Western District Conference, there was a motion brought by a Conference committee that we not censure the pastor who performed a marriage between a same sex couple, it was overwhelmingly affirmed !!! So the Western District is not wanting to have a split over this issue. It is likely that some some congregation will leave the WDC over this more open stance. It has already happened. An issue that is more central is that of participation in the Military. Churches that have honored persons entering the military have not been put out of the conference!!! Then, too, we need to recognize that quite a few of the younger generation are no longer participating in a Mennonite Church even though they are baptized members. I'm sure they are turned off by their culture and practices.
To survive as a church we will need to unite in the various programs that we find meaningful and not quibble over differences. David L. Habegger -
The authors of the article that launched this string of responses are knowledgeable people. I take their perspective seriously. Yet I find it difficult to evaluate the choice they pose because the article provides so little information.
The article states: “There have been calls for Mennonite Church USA to impose churchwide uniformity on the interpretation of (church) documents, particularly as they relate to pastoral credentialing issues and same-sex marriage ceremonies.”
Who has issued such a call? When? And to whom? Are there efforts underway to implement such a call? Given MC USA polity, what options are there for doing so?
Without such information, I assume it is business as usual. That is, our differences in biblical interpretation will continue to generate disagreement, dialogue and mutual learning. That’s the way it's always been and that’s how it always will be.
-
It might be helpful if those who are dismissive of Global Anabaptist church fellowships actually get acquainted with them. In the not too distant future a Multi-Nation Anabaptist Profile report will be published. This provides an instructive set of snapshots that can open informed comparisons with MC USA on a number of demographic and theological matters.
-
While we listen to all parts of the global church, let's not forget the European countries where Anabaptism first developed. I am encouraged by the inclusiveness of the Dutch Mennonite Church. This is a gift that the rest of the global church can learn from.
A recent editorial in MWR highlighted this: "[Dutch Mennonites] are inclusive. Members of the MWC delegation noted that in addition to 9,000 members, the Dutch Mennonite Conference counts 4,000 “friends.” Delegation member Cynthia Peacock of India wrote that while the number of baptized believers is declining, the number of friends is increasing. She and others commended the Dutch openness to include all who express interest in the church." http://www.mennoweekly.org/2011/11/14/gifts-land-menno/ This openness applies to more than LGBT inclusion, but it definitely includes same-sex partnerships as well.
Another thing to remember is that gay and lesbian people wish to be part of the church worldwide and in all cultures, not just Anglo corners of the church. Why should we forsake racial-ethnic LGBT folks just because the majority of the global church has heterosexist prejudices?
-
Having a white heterosexual male use the beliefs of the some Christians in the Global South to justify the exclusion of those who are not like him from the church is annoying at best.
Yes, I know and have worked along side non-North American Christians. They are every bit as susceptible to cultural captivity as anyone. When I am told by a Nigerian pastor that the Bible doesn't need to be interpreted, just obeyed, I know that he is just as limited as any American Evangelical in his understanding of what scripture is and the process by which we came to have the versions of the Bible we have today.
The issue is not what people in other parts of the world who have their own cultural limitations say about a particular (non-essential) aspect of Christian discipleship. The issue is how we will, who live here, among these people, respond to our neighbors.
-
Berry Friesen - See Everett Thomas's editorial in the October 2011 issue of The Mennonite http://www.themennonite.org/issues/14-10/articles/A_resolution_on_church_statements.
-
Don, thanks for posting that link.
Here's Stutzman's earlier remark, which I believe speaks for itself: “The experience of Pink Mennos at Columbus in 2009,” Stutzman said, “introduced a new level of engagement in controversial matters. ... The techniques of social advocacy and confrontation that we have taught young adults in our schools has come to haunt our church’s most visible gathering, to the end that convention-goers feel immense pressure to take up sides against one another on [homosexuality].”
-
I think the fundamental issue of letting current western soft-sciences views of human identity, sexual orientation categories (hetero, LGBTQ, etc.) are fundamentally problematic.
We have bought this hook, line and sinker this needs to be challenged for a third-way forward beyond the current discussion.
Simply pendulum-swinging is inadequate response and it will split the church. The path forward involved the rejection of these categories and doing some real and hard Biblical work on the nature of identity and sexuality.
We are simply soaking up the current culture and this is also neo-colonialism of the pastoral-theology type. It's not helpful.
I think moving beyond "sexual identity" is a huge Christ-centered way to move forward. The soft-science WILL change therefore to stake our whole fellowship on this false LGBTQH approach is problematic and creates more problems than it solves. AND YET the Libs and Cons ARE DOUBLING DOWN on it...Lord help us all! (I wish someone would actually reflect on this point of mine that we are simply imbibing and fighting based on fundamental view of human identity and sexuality that should be challenged - that LGBTQH approach is fundamentally wrong headed - that Focus on the Family types and Pink Menno types are really fighting from the same basic worldview of sexual identity categories in my mind. They are using the same coin, different sides.
I am arguing for a whole new currency of discussion - starting by rejecting this tired one based on soft-sciences that will change anyway. If anyone is looking for a REAL third-way forward/alternative.
My second point about the Global church is that we need to listen. Ethiopia Mennonite church does not require polygamous marriages to be dissolved if you join the church - but you are not eligible for leadership. This is making the best of a non-traditional situation theology. They do not endorse this situation as implied by an earlier poster.
OK had enough...Have blessed Advent. And get your identity in Jesus first - that is the scandal of our faith and what the early Anabaptists lived and died for.
-
My intuition tells me that Ervin Stutzman and others at the top echelons of MCUSA, Inc., are preparing to bring the hammer down on welcoming congregations in an effort to get them to fall into line. Such a move will result in bitter and drawn-out confrontations across Menno-land. Personally, I think welcoming congregations would be wise to anticipate this scenario and drop out before they're shown the door. There is life after MCUSA.
-
Shel, I never said Ethiopian Mennonites endorse polygamy. I said polygamous marriages are tolerated within the Ethiopian anabaptist community. Go back and read it.
Our gay and lesbian sisters and brothers could use some tolerance here in the USA. And in Ethiopia too, for that matter.
Further, I think you should drop this soft-science line of argument. Your repetition of the phrase "soft science" is having the distracting result of making me think sexy thoughts.
I can't believe you're trying to make the case that acceptance of gay culture is a temporary phenomenon that will eventually go the other way.
And let 's NOT go to the bible for guidance on identity and sexuality. The bible is so overrated as a source of wisdom for life in the modern world. If the abolitionists had consulted the bible for guidance on slavery (the bible is FOR IT), they would have never risked their lives to end the practice. If Martin Luther King, Jr., had consulted the bible for guidance on obeying governmental authority (the bible is FOR IT), he would have never led the civil rights movement. Similarly, if we go to the bible for guidance on whether or not to accept those with different sexual orientations (the bible is AGAINST IT), then the church will, once again, fall decades behind the rest of society in the advancement of justice and equality for all God's children.
-
Charlie,
Thanks for clarifying your view.
I think many Anabaptists would disagree with your interpretation of the Bible.
Moreover the Bible does not actually affirm the the concept of "sexual orientation" at all - which gets to main point that framing this discussion using the GLTBQ and H identity categories does violence to the text and tradition. From that perspective both theological liberals and fundes are failing us in the discussion.
I am not arguing that what you call "gay culture" is going away. I am saying for Christians to affirm a hetero or gay culture is simply avoiding hard theological work.
Again, thanks for clarifying your thoughts for me - I will try to be clearer as well.
Best,
Shel
-
Anabaptists hold to high view of the Bible. We read the Hebrew Bible (OT) in light of the New Testament/Covenant and all things about God in light of Jesus' life, teachings, death and resurrection.
Our reading of the Bible is not "flat". Jesus is the center - as Paul, John, Peter and the other Epistle writers go to great pains to say.
In Colossians we are told that in Jesus the "fullness of God was pleased to dwell."
For Anabaptists the Gospel of Matthew chapters 5-7 are the top of the Bible - the peak. And therefore the sermon on the Mount and Jesus subrogate all other parts. The whole thing was moving towards Jesus and Jesus makes universal claims on all people, places and times - this is the central scandal of Jesus AKA "scandal of particularity."
Now to reject this is to reject the basics of Christian orthodoxy as usually understood. So I am arguing for a third-way from the Bible because I am Christian who is also Anabaptist - that is not an unreasonable approach. Of course we also bring in tradition, reason and experience. However we still check them against the "T" tradition of the church and Scripture.
My point about "soft-sciences" aka psychology, sociology, parts of the humanities - is that their research and experiences are notoriously changing and changeable - and to give them authority OVER scripture, other forms of reason and experience is problematic on MANY levels.
We are all saints and sinners in process at the same time until the life of the world to come. Therefore love should guide us even in sin. We affirm brokenness and blessedness at the same time.
So again I would say theological work is a must and makes huge impact on bringing life and affirming the life of the Holy Spirit in each of us.
-
When the several immigrant pastors I know joined MC USA, they were under the impression that the church’s teaching position and general approach meant that individuals who were known to be sexually active outside monogamous heterosexual marriage relationships would not be considered appropriate candidates for church membership or leadership throughout the denomination. After having brought active, growing congregations to join MC USA and having been being members of the denomination for some time, these pastors have become more and more aware that this initial impression was not correct. Since this impression was based on what they read and what they were told, it’s hard to see how this is their fault. If I were in there shoes I think I would feel that I joined the denomination due at least partly to something that looks like false advertising. I don’t think this is fair, and I’d like to think that most people would agree with this no matter what their view about the underlying question. It doesn’t seem right to tell inquiring pastors who are expressing an interest in joining a denomination something that is not quite the whole truth, especially if these inquiring pastors would find the whole truth disturbing. I am not sure if the immigrant pastors would have joined MC USA if they were aware that the denomination’s position could conceivably encourage them in certain contexts to regard sexually active LGBT individuals as fellow pastors, but I doubt it. If for no other reason, and in fairness to other inquirers in the future, I think it would be good if MC USA could make its position clear – whatever that position really is – in a way that does not require inquirers and new members years to learn the Byzantine intricacies of a Mennonite polity and “way” (is this what we mean by Anabaptism?) that can easily appear to outsiders as saying one thing and meaning another.
-
Would the mennonite congregation that consistently monitors the extramarital sexual activity of its married leaders and the sexual activity of its straight unmarried leaders please cast the first stone.
-
This is a issue which is not really any buisness of mine as I am not in any American conference.
But this statement,"sexually active LGBT individuals......". Since when is it any business of others to dictate the sexual expression or activity of another? Better to deal with the sex lives of the married who stray from their partners. Now if a married LGBT strays from his or her partner and beds another,then it can be an issue as it should be for everbody. If a person lacks integrity in their married life why would you want them as a Pastor or any other leader?
-
Thank you, Don Barber and Debra Bender, for your answers to my question. Previously I read Everett Thomas’ editorial but hadn’t made the connection to the article that launched this thread. And thank you, Douglas Yoder, for your post providing important context for this discussion.
Several weeks ago, Harvey Yoder posted a guest blog at this site, “Combining caution and compassion: A pastoral perspective on sexuality.” He references seven perspectives on sexuality that he encounters in his work. I encourage readers to read his post; it is available here:
http://www.mennoweekly.org/blog/2011/11/1/combining-caution-and-compassion-pastoral-perspect/?page=1
Thomas’s editorial helpfully brings the question of authority out in the open. But it also left me wondering if the Western District’s position had been fairly presented.
Does the Western District hold the position that “decide(ing) whether leaders and congregations are in compliance” with MC USA teaching is NOT an appropriate function of the District? Does it hold the position that it is not appropriate to use our Confession of Faith as the basis for evaluating potential leaders? My hunch is that it has not taken such stark positions, but rather perceives it to be a legitimate for an area conference to use the Confession in nuanced ways that often require the exercise of judgment.
In short, Thomas’ editorial does not adequately describe the choices before us. Certainly the two he outlines (“rules” or “nonbinding guidelines”) makes for spirited debate but there are more choices than that.
One that interests me is described by Harvey Yoder: “support the church’s official position, but make pastoral exceptions for faithful same-sex relationships where no other option seems viable [similar to Paul’s ‘better to marry than to burn with passion’ counsel, an approach many churches have applied to divorced persons seeking to remarry]”. Were each area conferences to accept this description of its authority and responsibility, then MC USA would be on a sustainable path.
KJP references our “cultural captivity.” I agree it is a major factor in this debate.
We live in a society that equates liberation with the individual’s pursuit of happiness and that supports the use of military power to impose our progressive values on the rest of the world. Most Mennonites lament these trends and subscribe to the view that contemporary Western culture is having a corrosive impact on communal life (family, neighborhood, congregation, etc.). Given that this is who we are as Mennonites, I doubt many will be persuaded by the authors’ argument that we ought not to fight with one another about sexuality because majority opinion is moving in the direction of a more liberal position.
-
When I was a student at Bethel College, the President of the college, Edmund G. Kaufman, in a chapel talk said, "We should not call the Bible "The Word of God." rather, he said we should say "The Bible contains the word of God." I affirm that statement. His statement means that we need to interpret the Bible with the best tools we have today. We cannot expect persons who have not been taught to interpret the Bible with critical thought to move away from some very literal interpretations.
I would hope that some of our leaders will be able to move out of a primitive literalistic way of reading the Bible to actually discern what a better interpretation of what has been written might be. What is the Spirit saying to the church today? We should realize that since the writers of the New Testament wrote many years after the death of Jesus, that not all words put into the mouth of Jesus were actually his.
We need to be led by the Spirit to discern what is the message to the churches in our day. -
Most global renewalists (pentecostals, charismatics and Pentecostals) would quickly be put off by any "spirit" language that is not checked/discerned through the tradition of the church and the lens of scripture as canonized by the early church.
We are also to discern the "spirits" in the process as well as our interpretive approaches to the Bible. There are many spirits speaking - not all in agreement with the Holy Spirit - and some downright deceptive and darkening. I get get a great kick out of those who talk about Jesus prayer for unity in John 17 but ignore the words of John regarding unity and division in the Epistles of John (who is either the same author of one discipled by John and who also experienced Jesus' life and teaching).
The text of the NT is more verified than any other ancient document.
Literalism is a slippery word. In one sense I am literalist - I take the author's intent and literary genre at face value. So I take poetry as being poetry, historical narrative as historical narrative and so forth. Or do you mean more of a literalistic reading - reading whatever you want out of context of the author/culture? In that case many fundamentalists and liberals - make the same mistake - and they bring their sub-cultural filters to the words and make it say whatever they want - not in check by tradition of the church, reason, experience.
What is a "better interpretation?" One that reinforces modernistic/materialistic worldviews? One that makes God agree with us - in which case - surprise surprise we turn out to be God!
This statement is factually inaccurate: "we should realize that since the writers of the New Testament wrote many years after the death of Jesus, that not all words put into the mouth of Jesus were actually his." In fact much of the NT is written in the same generation of Jesus' physical life. And there were plenty of people around who did not become followers that could have challenged the teaching of the churches/early believers regarding Jesus.
I agree we have a huge Biblical studies and theological vacuum in the MCUSA. The 1960-80s oldline "pastoral care/chaplaincy" approach to church leadership has created a very weak minded church. God help us learn again so we are not so easily swayed by the left/right extremes who play on fears and emotions.
-
David, my Bible tells me that ‘All scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works 2Tim 3:16’.
Do you believe that verse is God inspired or is simply a man’s idea that can be discarded? How do you to know what is the Word of God and what is not?
Does former Bethel President Kaufman have something in print that should be considered the Word of God and those things that are not?
I wonder how many myths he thinks are incorporated in the Bible.
-
Dale, the verse you point to in 2 Timothy was written many years before the New Testament existed. The only scriptures in existence at the time were the Jewish Scriptures. So the author of 2 Timothy was clearly making a statement about the inspiration of Torah. This verse, then, cannot be used as an argument for the NT's inspiration. Using a verse contained within the NT to defend the inspiration of the NT is to DISTORT and TWIST the clear meaning of that verse. Dale, I know you are a literalist, who wants to take the plain and simple meaning of biblical passages, without distortion or twisting. So I'm sure you'll agree with me that the verse in 2 Timothy does not and cannot provide an argument for the inspiration of the NT. Do you have any other evidence to support such an argument?
-
Well to play advocate for Dale...if one believes the early church was inspired by the Holy Spirit staring in the pentecost event,
and, if one believes the first century was a time of solidifying through ecumenical counsels and apostolic writing that which was taught and practiced from the beginning of the Way,
and, if one believes that same Spirit was at work in the church that finalized the cannon and identified other books as heterodox (aka the later gnostically influenced gospels - which truly were written MUCH later),
Them it seems reasonable to say that "all scripture is inspired by God" and that inspiration is affirmed and tested in the larger church.
The Holy Spirit knew backwards and forwards what was, is and will be - not a flighty bird as some may wish to make the Spirit out to be...
Love to all,
:-)
-
arrgghhh dang spell check...
starting
councils
(I should give up posting - my internal editor is on strike...)
-
Charlie, take a number and have a seat. I will respond to you after David responds to my comments to him.
-
Charlie,
About your post of Nov. 26, I don’t know why you speak of casting stones.
If church leaders are publicly known to be sexually active beyond monogamous heterosexual marital relationships and this is not a problem in principle or practice for MC USA, then let the denomination say so and divest itself of the problem. Other denominations’ position papers have a laissez-faire approach to human sexuality (some restrict its practice to monogamous expression and some do not), so if MC USA went even in this direction it would not be alone in doing so. Immigrant pastors and their congregations probably wouldn’t join the denomination any more, but maybe this is beside the point.
If church leaders are publicly known to be sexually active beyond monogamous heterosexual marital relationships and this is a problem in principle or practice for MC USA, then let the denomination say what this means in a way that doesn’t leave immigrant pastors surprised when they find themselves encouraged in certain conferences to broaden what is stated or implied to be their theologically uneducated, primitive, rural perspectives to embrace those presented to them as educated, civilized, spiritually enlightened urban fellow-pastors, who are publicly known to engage in or condone sexual activity beyond monogamous heterosexual marital relationships. (This artifact of colonialism is an awkward tool to use for Anabaptists, who were frequently seen by their opponents as theologically uneducated, primitive, and rural.)
Either way, why not be clear about the denomination’s real position? It’s only fair, especially to outsiders – and if what’s on paper doesn’t appear to match what’s practiced very well this doesn’t encourage honesty anywhere.
As you point out (and as the discussion among the posts is showing in general), there’s more on the table here than LGBT sexual practice. The article’s “one issue” is a misnomer.
-
I think Douglas' point about language games is spot on! I have brought this up in several different forums - we have a situtation where we are affirming opaqueness and creating games of meaning. Indeed this is a huge rejection of early Anabatist ideals of yes being yes and no being no. Not to mention authenticity and realness.
However we approach issues creating intentional doublespeak or newspeak games adds another layer...
I will resist the philosophy of language digression I want to take here and what Jesus words regarding language games of religious leaders of His day inplies for us regarding truth and meaning and embodiment as sinners and saints in process ( if we submit to Him and the living tradition - which the war in each heart wants to avoid).
-
Charlie, the following is for your serious consideration.
You suggested in your Nov 23, 12:13a.m. post, that perhaps it was time for MC USA to divide into two denominations, the Welcoming and Rejecting Mennonites. In other words, a friendly divorce. This coming from you is evidence of your extremely brilliant mind. Having said that, it would seem very appropriate that you would automatically become the Executive Director of the newly formed Welcoming Mennonites denomination.
One of your first objectives would be to publish a condensed version of the Bible for the Welcoming Mennonites to reflect a seemingly common viewpoint of the Bible for today’s culture.
For the record, please be aware that Nebuchadnezzar did his version of condensing the known scriptures at that time as we read in Jeremiah 36.
-
Dale,
Wow! That's kinda harsh...
-
Dale, you flatter me and I can only assume I'll soon be hearing from you with a request for something you want from me. Having said that, you know very well that I am not mentally qualified to be executive director of anything, so that won't be happening. However, I can help you with the condensed bible you propose. As it turns out, I recently self-published this very thing, and it can be viewed here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/66466453/Jesus-Sayings-From-the-Sermon-on-the-Mount
Thanks for giving me opportunity to publicize it, Dale.
Regarding Jeremiah 36: As best I can understand, the king tore off pieces of a scroll dictated by Jeremiah, then threw the pieces into a fire. No indication that the scroll was regarded as scripture by the king or anybody else, from what I can tell. The scroll certainly didn't contain the book of Jeremiah as we have it today.
-
What I conclude from the six writers of this article is that it is a document of threat. The threat is there may be an exodus of congregations resulting in a down turn in church membership if the demands of people supporting sinful sexual lifestyles mentioned the Bible are excluded from full membership in MC USA This is an age old principle in people manipulation and is frequently quite successful. It worked for Hitler at Munich. It is first noticed in young children when they have difficulty playing together.
I would like to hear from the six writers on what they believe Rom 1:17-32 says. This passage gives specific teaching on this subject and clear warning to those who willfully choose to disobey. What the GLBT inclusion people are proposing is false doctrine and not sound doctrine. The inclusion people would have us believe that Holy Spirit of God is leading them to promote lifestyles that are identified as sin in the Bible. That kind of thinking and teaching shows disdain toward God who inspired the Bible we have today as our guiding light along with the Holy Spirit. It is strong evidence that Satan, the deceiver in chief, noted in the scriptures as the angel of light, is alive and well.
The following verses, among others, are clear and give sound warnings, that should not be ignored.
Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
Eph 4:14-15 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:
1Timothy 1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
2Timothy 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; (Note that five of the six article authors are pastors).
-
Correction of my nov 28, 10:43p.m. post. The king was Jehoiakim and not Nebuchadnezzar.
Shel, what do you consider so harsh? Charlie took my words as complimentary and not harsh.
Charlie, I see no evidence the scroll that was burned was scripture as I stated, non-the-less, it was the word from the Lord to Jeremiah who dictated it to the scribe to be read to the king. Whatever was written was deeply troubling to the king. Apparently he thought that by burning the paper, he would not experience the troubles noted in the paper. It was not the book of Jeremiah as we know it today. After it was burned, the word from the Lord came again to Jeremiah who dictated to the scribe.
Regarding your condensed bible, I will email my comments to you privately.
-
So Dale is playing the Hitler card, eh? Must have some strong arguments if you have to pull that one out.
Invoking Hitler pretty much discounts everything else you say, but I will ask, in amazement, how you can see this as a "document of threat"? The authors write, "Those advocating full inclusion of LGBT people are not going away, at least not voluntarily." How does this possibly fit with your notion of "an exodus of congregations"? In other words, how can you transform "we are not leaving" into "we are going to leave"?
We all know the five passages you cite, Dale, we just don't agree on interpretation. Could someone on the non-inclusion side please address the main point of the article, though? Is this issue the one you really want to use to define the entire Anabaptist/Mennonite faith? If so, and from your response, Dale, I would infer that you do, then the point of the authors, as I hear it, is that we should be honest about our differences on this core issue and part ways.
I, however, do not think this issue should define us, but rather believe that Christians of all kinds should instead show that we can actually relate in love and civility even while acknowledging our differences. Otherwise, how is the "church" any better than the "world", which sets up boundaries that separate and alienate people and leads to strife and warfare? We should sound less like competing political parties and more like the body of Christ.
What is the greatest commandment, after all?
-
Well I am all for a third-way - that rejects the polarization of the left/right views of sexual identity as central. The authors are doubling down on this instead of presenting any robust theology. And unity based on the agreement of disagreement on the centrality of modern orientation categories is not actually unity - it's nonsensical.
Majority world Christians (moderates, conservative, traditionalists, evangelicals, liberal-evangelicals) are not going to come around to the re-reading that liberals/progressives make of sexual activity proscribed. The tradition and trajectory of sexual behaviors narrows throughout the scripture and the churches traditions (for a great discussion on this Slaves, Women and Homosexuals is a good text regarding trajectory and cultural issues that deals with the red herring approaches.)
From my perspective the left and right culturally on this issue of LGBTQH identity and who's in and out of the church based on your views of this IS central. Because one side is saying the "H" side of the coin is it and defining itself against the other side of the SAME IDENTITY IDOL COIN. OR if you are on the "enlightened" side of the SAME IDENTITY CURRENCY COIN the you must affirm "LGBTQ" and if you don't you're (start name calling here)....on and on and on.
The statement implies that the soft-science view of identity IS the highest value - higher than a new identity in which the cultural currency of this coin is rejected for a life in Christ and the implications of the exercise of our bodies in light of the world now and to come.
I read this statement as saying..."since this is an idol - and we worship two different sides of the same idol of primary identity in sexuality as defined by modern western/enlightenment/soft-science culture - lets just put off and avoid moving into new theological territory - and pretend the idol does not exist and oh, FYI MY side is right".
I say let's question the WHOLE currency of sexual orientation and identity - look at the texts afresh as Anabaptists rooted in orthodoxy and stop assuming our western privileged views H or LGBTQ are necessarily even the right way to talk about identity and sex/sexuality - particularly given the scandal of Jesus.
A third way is not the progressive or the fundamentalist way in new clothes.
If we cannot develop a third way - then I am all for two denominations - how about the Progressive Church Mennonite for the true believer cultural lefties and then the Anabaptist Church USA for the left of center to right of center crowd (there are enough more conservative groups already in existence last time I checked - don't need another one of those).
I doubt any real unity in mission to evangelize and grow the church is possible with the current identity-politics approaches happening. Who wants to support a national group that you feel is undermining your core sexual identity values (both both sides of the current conversational currency) or even worse - is choosing to ignore it instead of redefine it. It's the paralysis resolution...
-
Shel, what does your "third way" grounded in a "robust theology" look like?
Stanley Hauerwas seemed to work on a similar project for a time. What do you think of the following?
Hauerwas argues that the ethics of sex must begin with political considerations because as followers of Jesus, our first calling is to be members of a community that bears witness to his way of living. Hauerwas describes this community as “an inclusive community of love” and so I expect it would not use sexual preference as litmus test.
Hauerwas goes on to say that “what one says about sex is correlative to one’s understanding of the nature of the family and what its function is.” And that brings him to marriage, which, he says, functions politically by establishing a “pattern of faithfulness” that shapes the children raised there and the larger Christian community in which the marriage exists.
Finally, he says this: “(T)he question of what we do or do not do with our genitals is not the first question. The issue is rather what kind of people should we be – and what we do or do not do with out genitals clearly has a bearing on that – who bring to and can sustain the kind of sexual life appropriate to the purpose of marriage in the Christian community.”
All quotes are from Hauerwas' Christian Century article found here: http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1797
-
Shel,
I'm not sure I buy into your "third way", or at least not as you seem to define it toward exclusion. It strikes me as simply another form of, as you say, "oh, by the way, my side is right", which puts us on the same coin to which you refer. GLBTQ are excluded or severely shamed if they act on their sexual orientation, despite the idea that this "third way" has somehow put this problem behind us.
I would further contest the notion that there are H vs. GLBTQ sides to this coin. At the very least, the sides should be understood as H vs. GLBTQH, since the latter side does not seek exclusion of anybody.
Now, I generally agree that simply "agreeing to disagree" is less than helpful, but can we possibly look to past divisive issues and how they were overcome? (Women's ministry, Mennonites and the draft, etc.) Each of these allowed room for the independent initiative of individual congregations, which eventually led other congregations to join in, until now, Women in ministry is the main stream, and Mennonites serving in the military are viewed with grace. This seems like the plausible "third way" to me, even if I still despise the phrase "third way."
Good points, BDF!
-
I propose a fourth way. All "Mennonites" who serve in the military should be immediately excommunicated and shunned. (This would put a welcome stop to the grave-spinning of our anabaptist foreparents.) All "Mennonites" who display an American flag in their homes or churches, and believe that the U.S. is a christian nation, should be excommunicated and shunned. All "Mennonites" who have ever said or thought a kind thing about Sarah Palin should be excommunicated and shunned. All "Mennonites" who believe it's OK to accumulate massive amounts of money and material goods should be excommunicated and shunned. All "Mennonites" who listen to and agree with Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh should be excommunicated and shunned. All "Mennonites" who have ever sent a nickel or more to the 700 Club should be excommunicated and shunned. Once all that cleaning house is accomplished, there may only be a few hundred Mennonites left, but at least it will be a pure group. Please take note, MCUSA leaders.
-
Oh great, Charlie. That would be very helpful.
On a serious note, I would assume this is sarcasm? The first line of this posting definitely was. Because there are so many utter nuts out there, sometimes real opinions and sarcasm become difficult to distinguish, particularly on online forums.
-
Charlie, one more thing you forgot. All Mennonites who disdain the Apostle Paul, believe the OT has many myths and who believe the Bible should be reduced to a small fraction of its size should be excommunicated and shunned.
That should take care of the few last ones, but who is left to do the shunning?
-
We could all just excommunicate ourselves, then history will have come full circle. From Wikepedia on the Amish/Mennonite Schism:
"In 1693, Jakob Ammann took issue with Swiss Mennonite leaders Hans Reist and Benedict Schneider over what he saw as a lack of overall discipline in the Mennonite congregations. This lack of discipline was exemplified by the lapse of the ban (or meidung) against those who left the church after being baptized into it. In 1693 disagreements over the implementation of the ban would come to a head between Hans Reist and Jakob Ammann and this would result in the Jakob Ammann faction splitting from the Mennonites.
Later in life, Jakob Ammann came to regret his actions, and made attempts to reunify the Amish with the Mennonites, even apparently offering to ban himself from his own congregation in order to show his regret for the disunity that he believed he had helped cause.
Despite admissions of being rash and overzealous, the Amish would not give up the belief of practicing the ban. Because of this, the main body of Amish and the Swiss Mennonites were never able to reconcile."
-
I regard the Amish split to have been a positive thing. Without it we would not have today's Amish culture, which has preserved many aspects of ancient anabaptism that would otherwise be lost to history.
I expect a positive outcome from the approaching schism within MCUSA. I expect that Ervin Stutzman and his allies will take an uncompromising stand on the gay issue and tell Mennonite congregations "You're either with us or not with us." Dissenting groups will be politely invited to leave the denomination. This will result in the exodus of almost all urban congregations, as well as those in university towns. Plus, I think it'll be surprising how many other congregations, suburban and rural, will choose to leave because of MCUSA's heavy-handedness. Further, young Mennonites will abandon MCUSA congregations and stream into Welcoming groups, because they just don't think hanging out with gays (or being gay) is a big deal, and they'd rather be part of the welcoming constituency. So the youth and vitality and creativity and intellect of the Mennonite world will transfer to the emerging Welcoming Mennonite Conference. And poor Erv Stutzman will be left ruling over a bunch of elderly, humorless, crotchety, creationist Mennonites whose numbers will dwindle at a more rapid rate than is happening even now.
-
Come off it, Charlie!
No one would benefit from such a split of Mennonite Church USA. Church splits are inherently bitter and destructive, rending families and congregations. The two fragments, void of any sort of balance, tend to become increasingly extreme while the middle, the part of the church that seeks to keep everything together, is utterly destroyed. In the end, we just wind up with yet another place where we do not talk to each other or work together. As much as I might disagree with conservative Mennonites on many issues, I would rather not see them go, or leave myself.
This is just the church itself, who knows what would happen to the associated missions agencies, schools, and the entire infrastructure of the denomination. You talk about this as a simple matter of urban vs. rural, liberal vs. conservative. I am not sure it is as clear a fault line as you contend; there are multiple fault lines in MCUSA that lie in many different places. Urban does not make liberal, and rural does not make conservative. What will happen with the Latin American, African American, Asian American, and other ethnic congregations? They might like more liberal views on immigration and social justice, but they are not necessarily on board with the GLBTQH understanding of sexuality and the Bible, so where would they fit in? Regardless of where people are right now, most folks are where they are through good faith, and this alone should be reason to work with them, rather than abandon them in a split. No, there must be a way found to bring inclusion, but at a pace that brings as many people along as possible.
Charlie, it seems easy for you to turn Ervin Stutzman into a right wing caricature. Do you know him well enough to make some of the claims you make? Ervin is surely not deserving of this sort of vitriol. I do not know him personally, but much of what I have heard in regular conversation with those who do would suggest that your allegations of rigidity are unfounded, as is you understanding of Ervin “ruling over” the denomination. Ervin may have a conservative outlook on faith, but anyone I have talked to who has had anything do do with him has reported he is most willing to listen.
-
First of all, JPR ... lighten up. Quit taking me so seriously.
You ask what would happen to mission agencies. I'd hope the new Welcoming Mennonite Conference would decide to get out of the mission biz. So MCUSA could keep all the existing agencies. No problem.
You ask what would happen to the schools. I'd hope the new Welcoming Mennonite Conference would get out of the private school biz. So MCUSA could keep all the existing schools. SUPPORT PUBLIC SCHOOLS!!
Look, man, MCUSA wants to eject dissident, gay-loving congregations here. The dissident groups won't have rights to lay claim to any infrastructure, other than their own congregational property. So MCUSA gets to keep all the infrastructure. Not a problem.
As for the Latin American, African, and other ethnic Mennonites ... MCUSA reps keep saying: "What will we tell our global brothers and sisters if we open the door to gays?" So it would seem MCUSA is confident those groups are already on the side of exclusion. So what's the problem?
The emerging Welcoming Mennonite Conference will get its share of ethnic members -- the gay ones.
Hey, JPR, if I didn't think Ervin Stutzman had a sense of humor I probably wouldn't be joshing him so hard. What vitriol are you talking about? One man's vitriol is another man's earnest convictions.
-
My hunch is that Stutzman knows full well that the debates within our denomination are rapidly being eclipsed by events over which we have no control.
Thus, while we flog one another over the upcoming convention in Phoenix, others states (including Indiana) are passing laws even more likely to cause harm to persons of color.
While we struggle to fund the new commitment to health insurance coverage for all our pastors, the corporate elite is pursuing a strategy that creates more unemployment and less health coverage here in the U.S.
And while we wring our hands over what to do about our divergent views on sexuality, the U.S. government – with the full support of the media and both major political parties – is becoming ever more bold and aggressive in its use of violence and its embrace of evil.
Stutzman knows we in the U.S. church are entering a period when our faithfulness to Jesus the Messiah will be tested in an unprecedented way. By affirming MC USA teaching on sexuality, I expect he is expressing his own heart while also encouraging us to refocus on how vulnerable our witness has become to the deceptions of empire.
Last March, I heard Stutzman speak to the annual meeting of the Lancaster Conference. He talked about the Kingdom of God in the present tense. He talked about the prominence of disputes in the life of the New Testament church and in MC USA and how the power of the gospel is shown by how we respond to those with whom we differ. He talked about the witness throughout scripture of “enduring one another’s sin” and of the call to follow Jesus in laying down our lives for those with whom we differ.
Charlie, I wish you could have heard it!
-
Charlie,
No worries, there is no danger that I can take you seriously. Your sarcasm and "joshing", however, are quite unhelpful, and are in fact toxic to a healthy discussion.
Charlie, you seem to have a very rigid definition of Mennonite mission that only includes evangelizing and proselytizing. Mennonite missions have traditionally also had the very real component of social justice and outreach to the needy, which has often been detached from evangelizing. Agencies such as Mennonite Central Committee, Mennonite Disaster Service, and others have done tremendous good around the world, providing hunger relief, disaster relief, and social justice advocacy, winning respect and acceptance in areas where other missions have not, precisely because they put the immediate needs of those they work with above the desire to evangelize. I would hate to see any of these agencies dismantled by such a split. We already see fissures between MCC USA and MCC Canada. I would guess that any division would bring about further splintering, which would be tragic. In some very real ways, I owe my existence to MCC.
As for schools, you assume that all schools are unwelcoming, and that all Mennonite schools are competing for the K-12 market. This is not the case, and many of the Mennonite institutions of higher learning especially are changing more quickly than their supporting churches. A fair amount of what keeps me involved in the church at all has been through my experiences at Bethel College. If I am somewhat ambivalent about private schools on the K-12 level, Mennonite colleges and seminaries are far too valuable to simply dismiss. For example, Bluffton University and Bethel College have both been places where many non-Mennonites--Mennonites are actually minority populations at both schools--have come to see that nonviolence is a key element of what Jesus is talking about. (This also happens at Goshen and EMU, but they have majority Mennonite student bodies.) They have been a place where students develop a broader worldview. Not that they cant get this at public universities, but Mennonite colleges can speak to the faith community in ways that public universities cannot. All our Mennonite schools struggle as it is and would surely die in such a split.
Shel seems to make the ballast argument, that the weight of the international community should keep us back, that we would somehow be betraying the global Mennonites in becoming accepting. I do not buy this nonsense.
However, I do believe that as a church, we should meet people where they are and lovingly work for change, just as Christ did with us. It is a fact that our ethnic congregations tend to be more conservative on the issue of sexuality, not some sort of conference propaganda ploy. There must be some way to bring these people toward being more welcoming and accepting, while still listening to them, taking council, and caring for each others' spiritual needs. This is our responsibility as people who claim to follow Christ. A split would do none of this.
So the Welcoming Mennonite Conference will get the gay ethnic members, but that wouldn't be helpful, would it? They would still have to leave their families, friends, loved ones along with all other GLBTQ who transfer to the splinter group. What would be their objective to do so? How would they feel less rejected? And when the rest of MCUSA changes to be more accepting, as demographics suggest would be an eventual inevitability, it is already too late. Splits are permanent.
So, I suppose I will give your statements about strawman Ervin Stutzman all the consideration they are due, and ignore them entirely. In fact, I might just save time from now on and ignore whatever else you say, since it is not to be taken seriously. In fact, if you are not writing to be taken seriously, why bother?
Berry, Well stated.
-
JPR, you are totally misreading some of my remarks.
I think MCC is a great institution and deserves support. But it is not a mission agency, it's a relief agency.
Where are you getting the notion that ANY church agencies would have to be dismantled?
What I see happening is not what I want to see happen. Rather, it's the inevitable outcome of the hard-line approach being taken by MCUSA.
The threat is that welcoming congregations are going to be ejected from the denomination. This scenario would not result in any church agencies being dismantled or carved up or anything of the sort. The agencies are MCUSA's marbles, and MCUSA gets to keep all its marbles.
I never said that church schools are not welcoming institutions. What I said was that MCUSA would retain control over its education-related entities. Yet I would expect members of Welcoming congregations to continue to attend MCUSA schools and to support them financially.
You think that change towards a more accepting position within MCUSA is inevitable. I agree, in the long-term. But it's not true in the short-term. If it were true in the short-term, it would be fantastic, and there'd be no need for welcoming groups to leave.
However, the crux of the article we're commenting on here is that the position of church leadership seems to be hardening, and that a major stand-off is coming down the road.
Let's not refer to it as a split, because split implies some kind of dividing of property. There's not going to be any dividing of anything. MCUSA controls the institutional pie, and is going to keep all the pieces.
Here's what I think will happen: Denominational leaders are going to say to Welcoming groups: Get in line with official church policy, or leave. Many congregations will then have no choice but to leave. And what's the natural next step for those congregations? To form their own alliance, or conference, or what have you. It wouldn't be a split as much as a spin-off.
That does not mean Welcoming groups would stop supporting MCC. It does not mean Welcoming groups would stop sending their kids to Goshen, Bethel, EMC, Christopher Dock, or LMH. (There are plenty of other non-MCUSA anabaptist groups who go to MCUSA schools and who work with MCC, even though they're not in sync with MCUSA policy.)
What the spin-off does mean is that if you're gay or gay-friendly, there will be Mennonite churches out there in which you'll be comfortable. And if you're homophobic or believe being gay is a sin, then there are Mennonite churches in which you will feel comfortable.
-
Charlie, you keep missing the boat on everything JPR is saying, and on the current understanding of theology regarding mission (you understanding of "mission" is clearly conservative, and at least 60 years out of date), not to mention how incorrect it is to reduce MCC to a relief agency, it does so much more beyond relief work (this is not to put down relief work or organizations like MDS, its just that MCC does a wide range of things). Social justice and relief work (of which MCC does both) are both understood as part of the mission the church is supposed to live out. You should do reading on Missio Dei, Leslie Newbingin, and works by more contemporary missiologists. As with your understanding of biblical studies, your understanding of mission and mission theology leaves a lot to be desired.
And you have failed to address the problem how does one divide the church into welcoming/nonwelcoming without forcing people to choose a single issue to define their faith, their faith community, and their identity rather than taking a dynamic approach to identity. You act as if it is going to be easy for people to choose a single part of their identity. It is just as bad to reduce identity of LGBTQ people to their sexuality as it is to reduce, for example, the identity of lantio/latina people to their ethnicity. To do the later is racist, to do the former is heterosexist.
You have failed to address the issue that Mennonite churches made up of first generation immigrants are more conservative in their theology, and this certainly goes for their stances on sexuality. Your suggestion continues to marginalize people who are already very marginalized.
P.S. EMC is now Eastern Mennonite University. And thanks for leaving out Bluffton University, an institution which serves/served as the home for important Mennonite thinkers, such as J. Denny Weaver.
-
MCUSA is taking no such hard-line stance, Charlie. You are greatly misinformed if you think otherwise. If this would result in a split, as you so much seem to celebrate, the bitterness and destroyed institutions would become an inevitability. If not, this would be the first such split in history.
If you believe that MCUSA's change in thought regarding GLBTQ is an inevitability, why jump ship now? Should we not rather work to advance that date?
I should add that there are presently Mennonite churches in which GLBTQH are welcomed and included. Again, such a "hardline" has not yet been taken by MCUSA, and I would not hold my breath waiting for it.
-
JPR, and others,
The true Default Position of the denomination with regard to human sexuality – the denomination’s combination in practice of principle and practice (the Saskatoon statement + the Purdue statement + the membership position + the Confession of Faith + the Agreeing to Disagree + how this is all actually interpreted and implemented in conferences + ditto in churches + MWR discussions + anything I’ve left out + & etc. etc. & etc.) – has not been without cost.
Consider: - many congregations (on “both sides” of what the article describes as “one issue”) have already left MC USA in one way or another because of the Default Position; - the Default Position is experienced as hypocritical by outsiders who have joined the denomination without anyone explaining to them how things actually work; - to imply this lack of understanding is because newcomers haven’t yet learned to understand the “Anabaptist” way with regard to the Default Position is to lay blame for the lack of understanding on the newcomers instead of on the lack of transparency of the Default Position, which is where it belongs; - the duty incumbent upon North Americans to be hospitable to their brothers and sisters from abroad who are newcomers among us calls us the denomination to be transparent in a way that the intricacies of the Default Position are not (for an example of how this has worked out see my post above); - to describe the Default Position as pertaining to “one issue” is already to take a position that is not neutral, because this is not how many within MC USA, including the immigrant pastors that I know, would describe the Default Position; - understanding the Default Position as pertaining to “one issue” is also not borne out by evidence like the posts of this forum; - all of which suggests that the Default Position has as its casualties understanding, transparency, and hospitality, and the wounded congregations (on “both sides”) that have already left.
I appreciate your thoughtful comments but it seems to me you have the impression that MC USA is a ship sailing forward on somewhat troubled seas, when what I see are casualties left in the wake.
It’s also difficult to avoid taking your hints of shepherding the immigrant pastors forward (of helping them gradually to come to see the light of the educated, civilized western mind in gentle ways) as an approach that is not in any way patronizing. Have you actually ever talked to any of these immigrant pastors for any length of time? Do you know any of them as friends, or do you know anyone who knows them in this way? It is not very hard to delicately imply to a western audience that these rather remarkable individuals are not sophisticated, clever, well-read, or fully exposed to appropriately civilizing influences, but it is not very humble or wise I think, nor is it reflective of reality.
The sixth churchwide priority adapted at Pittsburgh calls for developing an “intercultural competence” that I hope can be extended to the current discussion, in this forum and in the denomination.
I don’t think that whatever happens going forward is going to happen well unless these kinds of things are somehow taken into account, because they do so much to shape the framework and influence the tone of the discussion on the whole.
-
Could someone name one benefit of a congregation belonging to MC USA or any other denomination?
-
Douglas- I agree with what you are saying.
I do, however, want to clarify that it was not my intent to patronize our immigrant congregations or to imply that they are any less sophisticated, educated, or clever than the rest of us. This would be why I said we need to listen to them and take their counsel. As one who wants to move MCUSA toward acceptance, however, I would work with them toward this goal just as I would anyone else.
-
I have had the opportunity to talk not only to members of immigrant congregations, but also members of the global church (particularly Ethiopia and Korea), and develop relationships with some of them. Sure, not all of them are theologically "conservative," but most feel at home theologically in a "conservative" congregation, and are uncomfortable with "liberal" theology. Douglas, no one implied that immigrant churches are less theologically sophisticated because they hold a certain theological position. But it is easy for liberal white Mennonites to forget that generally speaking immigrant churches tend to be more theologically "conservative," but again, that says nothing about their intelligence.
-
Justin, JPR,
Thanks for your clarifications and comments. I certainly don't want to unfairly impute.
I wish I could say your perspective is representative at least of all those involved in present or recent past denominational leadership at some level, but unfortunately that's not what I've seen in my own experience, which shaped my response here to JPR. Apologies for any misplaced cautions.
-
Douglas, apology accepted and your concern is completely valid. Unfortunately too often it is assumed that "conservatives" are some how intellectually lazy or lacking in some way and we need to be aware of the fact that that is just not true and we need people to hold us accountable to that.
-
Many thanks to Su, Sheri, Cynthia, Weldon, Megan, and Karl for articulating this!!
-
Justin, are you implying in your dec 02, 9:20am post that you have superior intelligence compared to theologically "conservative" immigrant churches? What is your basis of measuring intelligence?
-
Unfortunate implication in last 2 paragraphs that traditionalists on sexuality are opposed to any variety or difference in interpretation. Reductionist framings like this fail to acknowledge the issue is always WHICH varieties or differences in conviction and practice are issues and WHY. E.g., participation in the military in noncombatant status is different from combatant status; both are different from nonparticipation as a CO, and all are different from non-registration for Selective Service entirely. We might agree that the first (use of lethal force as a combatant) is the one that matters most, perhaps the defining one. But we may disagree about how much the others matter and why (is any participation in the military essentially idolatry? etc.). Reductive simplification of differences in argument does not further conversation but closes it. Found unfortunate stereotyping in many responses about traditionalists also. I daresay I'm more anti-capitalist and anti-nationalist in my politics than most traditionalist OR "liberationists/inclusivists". Yet I don't assume that because they connect in particular ways in my own understanding and reflection, that they do in others, and I try to engage genuine conviction in its particularity. I don't assume that inclusivists endorse wholesale subservience to capitalism-formed desire or nationalism. Commensurate consideration and seriousness from inclusivists, even though it requires more work, would be helpful.
-
All I know is....
My God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. He does not change.
His word is "living and active, sharper than a double-edged sword, piercing to divide soul and spirit, joint and morrow" (Hebrews 4:12)
His Word does not change.
The Word became flesh, but is also Head of the Judgement Seat.
I serve a holy, righteous and living God. Not a denomination, not social justice, not love, not an identity, not Anabaptism, not a Mennonite denomination. My identity is in Christ exclusively, and He said we are to love Him first, even before our neighbor. And my love for Him compels me to stand in awe of His holiness and justice.
That's all I know. Pretty simple.
Come, Lord Jesus.
-
the "should one issue define us" is clever in that it is targeted to those that may not agree within one issue but are very passionate in regard to other issues....its a coercive carrot
i agree with Carl Geissinger when he says "I do not think that this has anything to do with one issue defining us, but rather it is about trying to be faithful disciples of Jesus in every area of our life, including sexuality." This is difficult for an activist to care about since activism is about changing the exterior rather than the interior.
-
somebody once wrote to churches: "We must begin seizing power wherever we are and we must say to the planners of this conference that you are no longer in charge. We the people who have assembled here thank you for getting us here, but we are going to assume power over the conference and determine from this moment on the direction in which we want it to go. We are not saying that the conference was planned badly. The staff of the conference has worked hard and done a magnificent job in bringing all of us together and we must include them in the new membership which must surface from this point on. The conference is now the property of the people who are now assembled here. This we proclaim as fact and not rhetoric and there are demands that we are going to make and we insist that the planners of this conference help us implement them. We maintain that we have the revolutionary right to do this."
however this time, the half a billion dollars won't be necessary. instead, just download your sermons for the year from the HRC.
Comment on the article Should one issue define us?
Please keep comments civil. MWR editors reserve the right to remove any comment. When posting a comment, you agree to the MWR Comments Policy. Name and comment will be posted; commenters are strongly encouraged to give their full name. Email address is for follow-up only and will not be made public.
Download