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.