The Mapleview Statement & the Possibility of a Mennonite Politics

If blame is to be assigned for the exchange of angry letters to the editor at Canadian Mennonite generated by the Mapleview Statement, I suggest it should be laid at the feet of our own Mennonite political culture. We do not want our leaders to articulate recommendations or positions for a way forward, or invite recommendations from their constituency. We do not see value in submitting diverse recommendations to the test of transparent debate, amendment and decision at public gatherings. Rather, we are convinced that leadership should manage a process in which leaders do not articulate their own positions (that would be hierarchical), and  constituents refrain from presenting their own positions (that would be divisive). The result has been an endless talking in circles, but without actually naming and engaging with the political-theological convictions that are boiling under the surface. 

The crazy thing about the Mapleview statement, is that it summarizes what for an important and substantial minority has been the issue all along. The real problem is not the publication of the statement, but that for the past couple of decades the issue itself has never been part of a structured and transparent discussion by  representatives of the denomination. That is why when Mapleview went public and did the responsible thing as a member of the denomination by laying its convictions out on the table, it was such a shock. How else will people respond if a difficult and important question that has never been transparently and vigorously debated by their own representatives is presented to them like a slap in the face? 

Mennonite Church Canada's Recommendation on Sexuality: An Analysis and Response

After seven years of discussion, deliberation, labour, and effort, the General Board of Mennonite Church Canada has presented its recommendation on sexuality in a document posted on its website (Summary & Recommendation on Sexuality). Regrettably, Mennonite congregations may feel they are no further ahead than when they began. Although the meaning of the four components of the recommendation under Section V of the document is not particularly clear, the consequences of their approval for Mennonite Church Canada are set out in Section VI of that document. A somewhat liberal paraphrase of those consequences is as follows: 

• Mennonite Church Canada will continue to "use" the Confession of Faith in a Mennonite Perspective. Of course, at issue is Article 19 of the Confession of Faith in a Mennonite Perspective, which applies to marriage, but the recommendation offers no interpretation or clarification of that section and specifically rejects the possibility of changing it.  There is nothing new here.

• Mennonite Church Canada will acknowledge that some congregations feel same sex relationships ought to be affirmed (which other congregations and individuals consider to be a rejection of Article 19). Does "acknowledge" mean endorse, or at least accept, or does it merely mean MC Canada recognizes an obvious fact?

• Area churches (Mennonite Church B.C, Mennonite Church Alberta, Mennonite Church Saskatchewan, Mennonite Church Manitoba, Mennonite Church Eastern Canada) will give some leeway to their constituent congregations for "alternative understandings". Alternative to what and of what is not made clear, but presumably this means providing some leeway to congregations with views on same-sex relationships that apparently contradict Article 19.

• Congregations will also give some leeway to "alternative understandings".

It seems we are in for another seven years of labour, but this time responsibility will be assumed by the Area churches and their congregations. 

On reading the full recommendation, I cannot avoid the impression the whole document is overshadowed by a cloud of grief and exhaustion. In fact, if the parallel recommendation of the Future Directions Task Force on the restructuring of MC Canada is also approved at the 2016 assembly, the BFC effort may turn out to be the MC Canada Swan song; a kind of eulogy to the national church project. If blame is to be laid, it should be put at the feet of a relatively recent Mennonite culture of governance we have bought into at every level of our community; at the level of national and regional leadership, the congregational level, and by a majority of individuals. The two key elements of that culture may be distilled as follows:

• Deep down, we feel better if we are all of the same mind. In this, we are in continuity with hundreds of years of Mennonite culture which strove to achieve unity of practice and belief through harsh discipline, informal social coercion and, if necessary, division. The difference today, is that we try to manufacture consensus with lengthy processes of discernment that are supposed to lead to an outcome of near unanimity. That rarely works with issues that matter (informal social coercion is still alive and well).

• We are not willing to be subject to one another. This is masked under the claim that we are non-hierarchical. Decades ago we did away with bishops. Since then pastors have been reinvented as paid staff to church councils with almost no delegated authority. If pastors have autonomy it is limited to their role as professional counselors. Church councils themselves cannot be seen as imposing their will on congregations, so any material decision becomes a congregational decision. This might not be a problem, but too often the first element comes into play. Controversial proposals are not permitted to come to the floor at a congregational meeting for fear that division will be exposed and in the expectation that minority voices will never be content to submit to the will of the majority. These same forces are at work at regional and national gatherings of congregational representatives.

We have now seen these factors play out on the national scene. The issue of the day: what the church ought to say to same-sex couples (both conservatives and liberals should agree on this), has been overwhelmed by anxiety about unity and the survival of Mennonite Church Canada. When it became clear after seven years of testing, "discernment" and cajoling that the outliers on the question will not listen to the pleas of the moderate middle to "just get along", we are left with a recommendation that essentially hands the problem over to the area churches. Ironically, when the BFC recommendations are read in conjunction with the recommendation of the Future Directions Task Force, it appears that in the course of desperately trying to preserve its unity, MC Canada has lost its relevance (perhaps the subject of a future post).

It is clear that our national church structure is incapable of helping the Mennonite church in Canada move forward on the question of same-sex relationships.  I suspect regional structures, which share the same governance ethos, will be similarly ineffective. This means the responsibility falls to individual congregations. The tragedy is that as individual congregations address their responsibility to same-sex couples separately, they neglect their calling to be part of the one body of Christ. Is there an approach that can honour both concerns? In other words, is it possible to be responsible to same-sex couples while also remaining accountable to the wider church?

How about trying this?

Each congregation that cares, should:

A. Come to a decision on its own, by whatever process it wants, and however long it takes, as to what it believes the church as a whole ought to say to same sex couples. Each congregation should be honest and clear about the question, not be afraid of debate and disagreement, and also be prepared to accept "we don't know", as a provisional answer. Everyone remember: the minority voices in the congregation may one day turn out to be prophetic voices, so whatever process is followed, ensure they are heard and considered by all. Finally, no decision is ever final.

B. Next, before any congregation takes unilateral action, it should forbear and do something to engage with the wider church. Each such congregation should engage with at least one other congregation in its region, country or the globe, that has or may have a different perspective on the question. Engage in an intentional and serious discussion about  the differences. Pay attention to subtle distinctions. The minority voices referred to in paragraph A, above, may turn out to be valuable mediators in this conversation. And see what happens.

Unity and difference? It is not a state, it is an effort. And a risk. Perhaps this proposal is a way that a congregation, or a cluster of congregations, can show the national church how it might be done. 

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO WNMC WELCOMING STATEMENT

I am pleased that time has been set aside at the congregation's AGM for members and adherents to speak with each other and make a decision about the statement that has been proposed by CMC and Ministry Team. I have a couple of suggestions for amendments/improvements. Because it is not clear how much time for discussion will actually be available at the meeting, I am posting the proposals in the hope of getting constructive feedback in advance. 

THE STATEMENT: At Waterloo North Mennonite Church we welcome all people to participate in our Christian community of faith with all its expectations, responsibilities, and opportunities regardless of their race, ethnic background, gender, age, sexual orientation, income, education, ability or any other factors that give rise to discrimination and marginalization.

PROPOSAL #1: Delete the reference to "age" from the statement.

Reason: The Mennonite/Anabaptist movement began with an act of discrimination based on age. For various reasons, Mennonites do not baptize individuals until they are of the age of accountability (and children are not full participants in communion). I am sure it is not intended by anyone that this statement should be interpreted to reverse that core element of Mennonite practice. It might be possible to craft exceptions or qualifications to address this issue. However, given that "age" has not been a live issue in this series of discussions, it would be simplest to remove the reference.

PROPOSAL #2: Add the following clarification to the end of the statement: "This means a request to be married should not be rejected on the basis that it is submitted by a same-sex couple."

Reason: The core issue that has driven the debate and the development of the statement is the question of marriage. The congregation ought to specifically address the issue. The statement should be crystal clear on the question. Most importantly, same-sex couples, should they wish to be part of the congregation, or wish to be married at the congregation, should not be left guessing as to whether their sexual orientation will be an issue.

POSTSCRIPT: I actually have serious reservations about the overall approach of the statement (See my June 15, 2015 blog post: Next Mennonite? Century). However, it is high time something clear, concise and public was said by our congregation about same-sex marriage. That means that if something along the lines of Proposal #2 is included, I will likely support the statement. My final caveat, is that I really wish WNMC had engaged in a conversation about theology of marriage, as it applies to same sex couples, and that we had done some serious thinking about how a move like this affects our congregation's relationship with other MCEC congregations and conference policies. Perhaps it would be a good idea to defer the decision long enough to take the time to have such a conversation, but not if it were merely an excuse to procrastinate

Waterloo North's Statement of Welcome & Inclusion

The Statement of Welcome & Inclusion under consideration at Waterloo North Mennonite Church proposes a response by this congregation to the question of same-sex relationships. It announces a welcome to all people in general, and expresses an intention to not discriminate on the basis of a number of categories, including sexual orientation. A copy of the proposed statement is replicated at the end of this post (it has not yet been approved by the congregation). I have a few concerns about the implications of this statement.

Autocracy of Consensus and Dignity of Dissent

I know your works; you are neither cold nor hot. I wish that you were either cold or hot. So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I am about to spit you out of my mouth. (Rev. 3:15-16)

There is so much handwringing going on in Mennonite circles about same-sex relationships, the threat to church unity and the possibility of raised voices, that we are forgetting the point. We are confronted; we have been confronted for several decades, by persons who by their very presence ask whether the church will embrace them not just as individuals, but as couples. They have grown old, waiting for our response. Our deliberations have grown tired.

Perhaps at one point this hesitation could be forgiven. Once, Mennonites had reputation for schism, harsh separation and (I hear) authoritarianism. Since then, we have preferred to characterize ourselves as communities epitomized by sensitivity and potlucks. Who wants to disrupt a family dinner with politics and religion? Why force a question that may polarize and disrupt? Well, we have had our chance and more than enough time to find an easier way. The thing is, this is not about "us". It is not about unity. It is about the responsibility of the church to answer, with integrity, those who have been knocking at the door for much too long. If forming a response results in discomfort, conflict, strained relationships, and perhaps separation, we may just have to take our medicine.

Responding to Same-Sex Relationships

A MOTION RELATING TO SAME-SEX MARRIAGES

COMMENTARY: Three members of Waterloo North Mennonite Church (WNMC), Mandy Witmer, Ross Willard, and Russel Snyder-Penner, have met on a number occasions to craft a proposal on how their congregation could move forward on the narrow question of same-sex marriage. The document below is the result. It is not entirely clear how a proposal such as this ought to be considered and decided at WNMC. In the absence of clear precedent it has been framed as motion to be made at a members' meeting of the congregation.

WHEREAS:

At present Mennonite Church Eastern Canada does not recognize same-sex

marriages nor sanction the marriage of same-sex couples by their member

congregations;

A significant portion of the congregation of Waterloo North Mennonite Church

wants our church to recognize and be prepared to perform the marriage of

same-sex couples;

BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

1. The congregation of Waterloo North Mennonite Church will recognize

and honor marriages of same-sex couples and invoke God's blessings upon

them.

COMMENTARY: This paragraph should not be interpreted as meaning the congregation will perform marriages of same-sex couples. Rather, it is a response to the fact that in Canada same-sex couples may legally marry, and that such couples may wish to be present in our congregations. Paragraph 1 represents an affirmation of those relationships, while remaining deferential to the present position of Mennonite Church  Eastern Canada with respect to performing marriages.

2. The congregation of Waterloo North Mennonite Church calls on

Mennonite Church Eastern Canada to authorize our ministers to perform

the marriage of same-sex couples.

COMMENTARY: Our  congregation has a responsibility to both the broader church (specifically, Mennonite Church  of Eastern Canada) and to same-sex couples. If this congregation concludes that it ought to be willing to  perform marriages for same-sex couples, it may honour both responsibilities by remaining subject to the authority of Mennonite Church  of Eastern Canada on the question, while clearly and unambiguously calling for a change to MCEC's opposition to the marriage of same-sex couples by its ministers.

Three Words for Scripture: A Sermon Delivered Sunday, September 15, 2013

[This text is still formatted and edited for delivery as a sermon.]

Is scripture SACRED? 

Is the bible different for us from other literature; Shakespeare's plays, for example; the books of other religions; Harry Potter?

Do MIRACLES matter? The bible is full of miracles. Can we ignore them? What do we make of them?

Whose WORD is the bible? Is it human words? Is it God's word? How do we come to one view or the other? Should we?

The SACRED; MIRACLES; the WORD of God; three words to help us consider the place of the bible in our lives and our church.