May 28, 2012 issue
It’s more than one issue
Disagreement about appropriate sexual activity is based upon differing approaches to several elements of the church and to ethics that signify contrasting sets of core convictions
This letter was signed by 32 Mennonite Church USA pastors, leaders, teachers and individuals concerned for the denomination.
How should we understand the different approaches in Mennonite Church USA to sexual relationships? A much discussed article [signed by six people, including five pastors] in the Nov. 28 Mennonite Weekly Review takes a look at this question by asking, “Should one issue define us?” The article argues that what it treats as the single issue of same-sex relationships should not define the identity of contemporary Anabaptists. But does this account for the depth or complexity of conviction among those who disagree about the appropriate expressions of sexuality for Christians?
Among followers of Jesus, disagreements about sexual relationships can cover some predictable ground. Discussions usually address the Bible and its interpretation, the criteria of justice, the quality of love, the place of freedom, the determination of truth, the character of grace, the place of accountability, the problem of self-righteousness, and the nature of the church and its documents. We can all agree that the physical expression of human love is a profound and beautiful gift from God, and that those who care about Jesus should care also about justice, freedom, truth, grace, Scripture and the church in ways that affect how we understand this gift.
Our understandings of the propriety of sexual relationships reside in the deep places of our souls. This is why disagreements about this question are often deeply felt, why discussions and arguments rarely lead to changes in points of view, and why each side feels that there comes a time when views cannot be compromised without compromising those who hold them. Even those who compromise in one way (the article sides with those it describes as able to tolerate differences in understanding and practice) will not compromise in another (the writers’ disagreement with the denomination will continue as their conscience compels them). Convictions that are compromised do not remain convictions.
The article describes those who disagree as doing so out of conscience and based upon certain understandings of biblical discernment, prayer, God’s Spirit and the interpretation of church documents. These are drivers of the disagreement, so when the disagreement is strongly felt the distinctions among these drivers will be sharp as well.
Since these and other drivers — how we read the Bible, how we pray, how we seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit, how we interpret what the church has said and how we think of conscience, justice, freedom, truth and grace — are key components of conviction for Anabaptist followers of Jesus, the article itself shows that disagreement in MC USA about appropriate sexual activity for Mennonites is not really about one issue.
The disagreement about the propriety of premarital, extramarital and homosexual sexual activity for Anabaptist Christians is based upon differing approaches to several elements of the church and to ethics that signify contrasting sets of core convictions among those who disagree.
We agree that it is time to be honest about this disagreement and its cost to the denomination. We do not think that the denomination would be well served by more years of painful discussion. We hope that in fairness to all and out of a concern for its own witness and integrity, MC USA will in one way or another bring to a close its decades of discernment regarding the sexual activity it deems appropriate for its members. We believe this would give clear guidance to those who are a part of the denomination now and to those who may wish to join it in the future.
Signers: Pastor Kent Beck, Pastor Nehemiah Chigoji, Rev. Olufemi Fatunmbi, Pastor Esdras Ferreras, Associate Pastor David Fry, Pastor Carl Geissinger, Associate Conference Minister Dave Gerbrandt, Pastor Makmur Halim, Pastor Buddy Hananto, Pastor Virgo Handojo, Pastor Darwin Hartman, Associate Pastor Jeff High, Pastor Marc Hochstetler, Bishop Lloyd Hoover, Pastor Beny Krisbianto, Pastor Rina Kusuma, Pastor Sunoko Lin, Pastor Jeff Linthicum, Pastor Madeline Maldonado, Mark Thiessen Nation, Pastor Chuwang Pam, Grace Pam, Pastor Jack Scandrett, Pastor Rodger Schmell, Jewel Showalter, Richard Showalter, Pastor Aldo Siahaan, Pastor Bob Sprunger, Pastor Dave Stratton, Pastor Eugene Thieszen, Douglas Yoder, Christopher Yuan.
Comments
-
While I think a 3rd way is possible, we are too co-opted by our culture, current politics (both view A and B claim and use justice and righteousness as a weapon, a bludgeon) and the soft-sciences of our day to perhaps move there now. I did not sign this (nor was a I asked to) but I agree in large part. http://shelboese.org/?p=2240
-
It feels like the church talks in metaphor and couches everything in such vague terms. Which is funny, because it reminds me of how my extended family talks about things.
When it comes to honesty, I'm all for it -- can we remove the vagueness, too? Can we get straight to the point? Either it's about what happens in the bedroom or it's about a larger sense of social identity.
And while I'm talking about honesty, I shall be honest: the older generations will be left behind. Those who claim "traditional" values (traditions so recent that the very concept of heterosexuality has only arisen in the last 150 years or so -- and don't get me started on marriage) will be outnumbered as minds and hearts open.
The Mennonite church was founded by radicals. Why then have we forgotten this? Can we not continue to be radical in our love for the world?
-
From the two statements—"Should One Issue Define Us" and "It's More Than One Issue"—it is clear that lots of people are weary of the debate. (I cannot call it a CONversation because there is little "con" [withness].) One side would allow diversity and continue in fellowship; the other prefers purity and separation. Neither response will solve the issue but division will—as this post advocates—at least separate the conflicting positions and allow each group to feel more holy than the other.
In the history of Mennonites, separation hasn't resolved anything except separate warring positions. I guess better an armistice than continuing war, but I believe the Body of Christ will suffer once again. And my heart aches.
Is there any way it could be a Paul-Barnabas separation without irreparable division. I don't see how, but I desire to join Jesus in praying that his followers may be one so that the world will rightly identify us.
-
Growing up in the Mennonite church, while some of my family member's struggle has been with the homosexuality 'issue' because of their personal experiences and relationships, my own struggle with the Mennonite church has nothing to do with it. I think there is a wider contrasts of approaches to expressing our identity in Christ as the authors in this article share, but I realize that for some individuals and groups, their sexuality is a core issue because it is an essential part of our identity as human beings. I love the radical, third-way approach the Mennonite tradition promotes, and yet somehow as an ethnic group, I have witnessed our tendency to be exclusive — as Christians, we are proud of our ethnic and cultural heritage as Mennonites who changed the history of Christianity and because of that, there are many of us who tend to approach being 'Mennonite' as the only way to be Christian. I think that there is something that both this stance of 'wider contrasts' and the question 'should one issue define us' reach to an even deeper question of 'How should the church be an influence on society?' If we split because of our differences, would there be a way to do it amicably so that the 'world' sees us as being able to love each other as Christians, or can we stay together and still be able to love each other as Christians? How exclusive do we want to be? I do not believe that our intent has ever been to be exclusive but to serve out of love even if ends up that way. It is not only the cost to ourselves as a denomination that we are facing, it is the cost of how we represent Christ's redemption and power of change in the world. How can we move forward so that we still are salt and light to the world and not lose our saltiness? Holy Spirit move in us!
-
Greetings to those who prepared and signed this!
I just read this letter, and I appreciate the thoughtfulness you have put into this article. This letter raises some very important points of discussion and provides some fresh insight into our denomination's life together. It also leads me to ponder and process some important questions:
1) Why do we ever bring discernment to a close? Surely the work of theology is never finished, as we, at least on this side of resurrection, will never possess the mind or ways of God. Even our current confession indicates as much. Don't we want to be in conversation about the things that are most important to us? Is anxiety or fear an appropriate reason to end discernment permanently, while love is at work casting out anxiety and fear?
2) How much discussion/discernment have we really had? Does delegate discussion under the rubric of writing and voting on resolutions via parliamentary procedure really count as dwelling in God's word together, praying together, and seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit together? When have we ever really discerned, or if we have, has it really been for decades? Why is true discernment so illusive with these matters; what makes us so afraid and anxious about discernment; and why are we willing to give in to our own anxiety and excuse ourselves prematurely?
3) I appreciate the effort to place homosexuality in the broader category of human sexuality and the other issues presented to us, but how much lack of clarity and agreement is there about premarital and extramarital sexual activity among those who are seriously committed to following Jesus, compared to other matters of human sexuality (at least I haven't seen anyone seriously advocate the church blessing premarital sexual intimacy, and certainly not extramarital sexual intimacy)? Why is divorce and remarriage – an issue with which the Confession provides significant latitude and something Jesus himself talked about – not included with this call to clarity?
4) Why call specifically for clarity and end of discussion on matters of sexuality – the only one of major division being homosexuality? There are many issues with which there is significant diversity of opinion in MC USA, related to matters of “how we read the Bible, how we pray, how we seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit, how we interpret what the church has said and how we think about conscience, justice, freedom, truth, and grace”: the use of violence in seeking justice, security, or vengeance; the accumulation of possessions and the practice of economic justice; paying taxes and believers' relationship to the worldly powers that be; accountability in the body of believers; the importance of unity among the body of believers; the witness of proclaiming and demonstrating the kingdom and making kingdom people; divorce and remarriage; God's judgment; oaths and simple speech. In contrast to same-sex relationships, these are all issues to which Jesus directly spoke, beyond any doubt or any argument from silence or summary. To this one could add the role of women/men in the church and home, care of creation, and immigration. If the drivers behind our diversity are in fact as this article indicates, why does this letter advocate decision of finality regarding the presenting issue of appropriate sexual activity, instead of seeking clarity first about the more basic drivers of hermeneutics, prayer, Holy Spirit, etc.? Does this not ironically reflect a view that it is, in fact, one issue that divides us?
5) Why does the prospect of acceptance of diversity regarding sexuality represent a compromise of conviction while other differences do not? Nearly every time I have come to the Lord's Table, I have shared fellowship with brothers who have served in the military, with believers who are divorced and remarried, with brothers and sisters who possess significant wealth, and many other ways in which we have made significantly different life-faith decisions (and no doubt folks would rightly say the same about me!), yet never in my life has that acceptance of difference compromised my deep and heartfelt conviction in any way. The results of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 seem to be more of a compromise (i.e. a meeting half-way) than anything I've ever heard proposed, yet I would tentatively suggest that this first generation of believers did not feel that the decision compromised their convictions. To the contrary, there was rejoicing.
6) I appreciate the call for the church to offer clear guidance regarding sexual activity; what specifically does this letter seek beyond the official clarity we already have in resolutions, the Confession, and guidelines? I also appreciate that this letter leaves the specifics of discernment open-ended – after all, why should we have to accept the binary options presented to us? Why should we presume that the issue that enfolds the totality of the discernment needed regarding human sexuality is the yes-or-no question of whether the church may bless same-sex union? Is it really that simple?
The degree to which we promote the issue of same-sex union (assuming we have greater unanimity on premarital and extramarital sexual activity) above those things that we know Jesus actually talked about and made central to the life of his disciples is the degree to which this issue has become an idol. The leading of the Spirit does not necessarily exist within the binary polarities in which our culture's anxieties are exposed; nor do we need to carry the anxiety of our culture into the life of the church. It seems to me that Jesus rarely provided answers in the binary terms his questioners gave him. Why should we have to? What other creative and courageous response might the Spirit be leading us to provide?
What if the clearest and best guidance that we can give people who are a part of the denomination and those who may wish to join is that as followers of Jesus – as those who have been united with him by declaring our allegiance to him by being baptized upon the confession of our faith – our primary concern in our shared life together rests with the things about which we know that Jesus provided leading and example to his followers; what if we say, as we always have in our best moments, that the center of our faith is Jesus? What if we approach discipleship together not as having all the answers to every issue, but as humbly yielding inwardly more and more to the transformation of the Holy Spirit, yielding outwardly more and more before the will of God, yielding together more and more to the body of believers, and ultimately in surrendering all – even justice, even life itself – to the greater purposes of God? Of course we will still disagree, but this is a much different perspective than an end to discussion. A shared commitment and openness to mutual confession, discipleship, dwelling in the Word, growth, and transformation by the Spirit on the individual, congregation, conference, and denomination levels is perhaps our greatest deficit, and it often seems to me that our inability to yield or even discuss is perhaps the point at which we have been most co-opted by our culture – or worse, by the powers operating contrary to the purposes of God who seek the division and distraction of Christ's body.
Again, thanks so much for offering this article! Obviously, it sparked some thoughts for me :-) and I hope that this is indeed a beginning to finding greater clarity and unity.
Grace and peace, Peter
-
Renita, agree with exception of your remark about the "older generation." I had a conversation with an 80+ year old relative a couple years ago that shocked the socks off me! We both agreed that once you know someone, it's a whole different ball game.
Remember when Mennonite churches were run by the people who sat on the pews, not by some faceless, nameless committee that doesn't even run policies past the grassroots anymore? Remember when you had the option to leave if you disagreed? Or stay and fight for your view? I have a family history of both actions. Let's get this straight. President Obama, bless his heart, was talking about a CIVIL ceremony, a right he has correctly identified as being a CIVIL right (as in "courthouse and a judge" as opposed to "church and a preacher"). No one is forcing churches to perform a ceremony or accept someone they don't agree with. Can we just get over it?
-
@ Debra - It's certainly not unilaterally true that all older folks are anti-same sex marriage and all younger folks are pro. I simply feel that much the way that it astonishes us now that anyone would be against people of different racial backgrounds marrying, we will one day feel that way about same-sex marriage.
But, it's unfair of me to conflate religion and civil liberties. You are right - same-sex marriage is a civil right, and does not need to be recognized by any particular church.
-
I think that trying to end discernment on human sexuality would have an unsatisfactory and demoralizing effect on Mennonite Church USA, resulting in widespread division, perhaps allowing for temporary relief of tension, but not demonstrating Christian reconciliation. And if the conversation is silenced temporarily, it will soon come up again, because every missional church in the 21st century (particularly those in urban settings) will relate to people whose sexuality or family arrangements are nontraditional.
We live and minister in diverse contexts, and (for better or worse) discernment on most issues now lies with the individual and local congregation. Generally, we prefer local discernment. It has allowed us to make peace around matters of family life and ethics (divorce, remarriage, gender roles, women in ministry, etc.). It should be no difficulty then to allow for local discernment on matters of same-sex partnership.
The recent decision of Central District Conference shows a way forward. CDC chose to affirm and uphold the ministry of pastor Megan Ramer, while noting publicly that her actions (in performing same-sex unions) are at variance with the denomination. This decision respects the local congregation’s discernment and ministry in their context, grants authority to the credentialing body (the Conference) to hold pastors accountable, and also acknowledges the teaching position of the denomination. The decision provides accountability for all three bodies in a way that facilitates conversation and builds community, rather than forcing conformity in order to avoid conversation.
-
I respect the sentiment of the statement. I too am weary of homosexuality being on the front burner of conversations. But, does shutting down the conversation make us a more focused, faithful witness? If we aren't talking about sexuality, then are we talking about immigration reform? And if we are talking about immigration reform, and the conversation doesn't go the way church leaders would like, perhaps church leadership will choose to shut down that conversation too.
It's always something, friends. We need to be very careful about our urges to find absolute answers, and end conversations.
-
In my mind, denominational division over the sexuality issue is inevitable. So why put it off? Would it really be such a terrible outcome? Let's face it: Mennonites who favor inclusion of gays have precious little in common with Mennonites who oppose inclusion. They practice different brands of christianity. They view the world and spirituality differently. The chasm isn't likely to be closed in the near future. MC-USA today consists of two divergent constituences under one organizational roof. There's no virtue in maintaining the appearance of unity when it doesn't really exist. I believe it's only a matter of time until church leaders in Elkhart invite "welcoming" congregations to sever their ties with MC-USA and go their own way. They'll try to be nice about it, of course. But in reality it will be a purge. At which point the "welcoming" groups will be free to create their own independent structure, inevitably attracting most of the urban Mennonite congregations, the university-based groups, the young people, the Marginal Mennonites, the social activists, those involved in the arts and sciences, etc. And MC-USA will get whoever's left: Mostly the old and rural folk. And life will go on.
-
how sad we are so driven by the times... FYI if there were two denominations I highly doubt the divisions will be so stark.
(1) You will have some that welcome all but still hold to ancient Christian teaching of a new kind of relationship with one's body and sexual use of it. Remember the sexuality of the greco-roman world was very similar to our current secular/western/white-privileged influenced culture that argue for a hard H/LGBTQ way of identifying, talking about and categorizing sexuality). Early Christianity taught a sharp break from this.
(2) The growing global church is young, diverse and exploding more than any denomination that chooses the path of the Episcopal Church, ELCA, or UCC. And so if we do nothing - we are oppressing the voice of the Majority World church - which is another tragedy IN PROCESS right now in MCUSA.
(3) Ethnic/racial diversity will explode in the urban areas and new congregations that are embracing Evangelical-Anabaptist theology will explode and thrive in urban centers.
From a "statistical" point of view staying in the middle or forming a 3rd way is actually not a recipe for disaster. It's embracing the growing parts of Global Anabaptism.
American culture with it's unholy trinity of individualism, classism, and materialism will continue to be a challenge for the church - EVEN those that refuse to find a new way beyond the hardened soft-science position of I am a "H or LGBTQ" person. But when the church calls us to something different and beyond through Jesus - there is growth. Simply capitulation to the current A or B debate is probably not it.
FYI it's easier to be a moderate in a more conservative church than a conservative or moderate in a liberal church - because they make their conceptions of justice "godlike" and close their minds to contrary narratives or real third-ways and start screaming...
-
"The disagreement about the propriety of premarital, extramarital and homosexual sexual activity for Anabaptist Christians". MC USA is not my denomination, so I really do not figure in its business. However it is dismaying that an article does not trouble itself with Transsexual issues.It is like we don't even matter. It is the LGBTI situation in the church that needs to be addressed, not just the homosexual issue. One of my "T" friends had to take her church to the Antidiscrimination Commission in Australia to get permission to train for a leadership position as Pastor. I have been told that I cannot train for a leadership position and I wonder if I should consider the same action.I wonder how many transexuals are training in American Mennonite seminaries? The church travels the world preaching justice, but to my knowledge it has no room for transexual Pastors.
-
The stereotyping of "old" and "rural" reflects ignorance. Try talking to old and rural people; you may be pleasantly surprised. I can be considered old and I certainly live in a rural area, but I am not the only person of my ilk to long for the day when ALL (LGBT, rural & old) are truly welcomed at the table.
Comment on the article It’s more than one issue
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