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?
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?
