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? 

Here is the thing. If the question of non-heterosexual relationships actually becomes an open discussion between decision-makers at congregational gatherings (and gatherings of congregations), of course things will get heated, feelings will be hurt, and it is inevitable that many in positions of responsibility will be judged. But we may find that with practice, the constituency can learn to deal with it. In fact, between the lines of Mennonite discernment strategies is a subversive anxiety -- a fear that 'the people' simply won't handle an open discussion and can't be trusted to present, debate, amend and vote on material decisions. And of course, without having had much practice at this, the first few times will go badly. 

However, if one considers the notion of the priesthood of all believers essential to congregational decision-making (personally, I can take it or leave it), the present state of affairs is practically a heresy. Like Jack Nicholson's character in "A Few Good Men", we seem to be convinced 'our people' just can't handle the truth. I wonder how things might have have gone if within the past fifteen or twenty years one faction or another had been encouraged to present an equivalent to the Mapleview statement, and then our leadership and representatives actually came to grips with the thing. Argument, raucous debate, testing of all sorts of perspectives and positions would have been inevitable. Perhaps there would have been dramatic departures and acts of civil disobedience. Maybe we would have ended up exactly where we seem to be headed now, with first area churches, and then individual congregations withdrawing into their own comfortable and homogeneous solitudes. But perhaps the bringing of actual convictions to the surface, and testing them against each other, would have created opportunities for shared vision that could have cut across some of the current divides. 

What I am talking about is the creative possibilities that can be generated by political activity when groups in disagreement are encouraged (and encourage each other) to try to persuade the larger community. Such groups will then discover that to be persuasive, they need to reach for support outside their own narrow ideological tribe. For example, even now there is likely a widespread political constituency within Mennonite circles, probably not even aware of its own existence, with representatives within both 'progressive' and 'traditional' congregations. This is a constituency that could possibly find some common ground, but it is a ground described neither by the Mapleview statement nor by an anti-Mapleview statement. This group would include people from progressive congregations that are quite open to LGBTQ relationships, but are uneasy with contemporary wide-open sexual ethics and norms which feel like 'anything goes'. Or some of these people may not themselves be uncomfortable with such an open sexual ethic, but are at least sympathetic with those who are. On the other hand, there are likely people in traditionalist congregations that are quite conservative when it comes to sexual ethics, but when they find themselves face-to-face with loving and committed same-sex relationships find themselves conflicted. They can see the good in those relationships. Both of these groups will include members who want any resolution to be articulated within a biblical frame. 

How can these groups be united in constructive way? One suggestion would be to take the conversation out of the bedroom. I.e. Stop talking about sex. For example, the outcome of the Mapleview position can be distilled to the following: (A) sex shouldn't happen outside of marriage, and (B) same-sex couples may not marry. The response of our hypothetical constituency could be, "We are willing to concede "(A)", or at least we will not argue about it, but we have an issue with "(B)". This is to say, there might be a constituency that crosses a range of congregations that could live with a somewhat conservative sexual ethic (i.e. at least to not disturb or even address the tradition that sex is reserved for marriage), but would be prepared to be radical on marriage. 

And this position can be sustained with scriptural warrant. That is, scriptures seem to condemn all sorts of sexual activity that takes place outside of marriage, including sexual activity between men and women, and men and men (I am not aware of biblical criticism of lesbian sexuality). However, scripture tends not to be critical of sexual activity within marriage, thus leading to the common conclusion that sex within marriage is not a problem (this conclusion is an argument from silence). However, same-sex marriage does not seem to have been on the radar in scripture. This is the main point. Nowhere in the bible do we find a prohibition against two people of the same sex getting married to each other. It goes without saying that nowhere in the bible is there any comment about sex within same-sex marriage. So we have the basis for a position that might well cross the polarizing divide between progressive and traditional congregations and find some individuals in each that are prepared to work together towards a constructive outcome. The strategy is that the bible has all sorts of things to say about heterosexual sex and male homosexual sex outside of marriage, but we will choose to not talk about that. We want to talk about marriage, and there is no need to debate sex within marriage (heterosexual or homosexual) because the bible does not do that either. There is also no reason to debate sex outside of marriage (although we will not foreclose debate), because that is not where the political heat arises. 

The position can be summed up as follows: 

 1. We will exclude the question of sex and celibacy outside of marriage from the position and there will be no need for clear unity on that question. Some who are part of our hypothetical constituency will consider celibacy outside of marriage to be the rule. That is fine. Others in the same constituency may consider the question to remain open, but feel no urgency to challenge the traditional position. That, too, is fine (and essential). 

 2. The main point to be advanced, is to advocate for authorization of same sex marriage, throughout the denomination. 

 3. Finally, the position acknowledges that extending marriage to same-sex couples is a radically new thing. Nowhere in scripture is the possibility of same-sex marriage even contemplated. However, that very acknowledgment allows for an interpretation that (a) same-sex marriage is not prohibited by the bible; and (b) negative statements in the bible about male homosexuality, like its condemnation of heterosexual adultery, simply do not speak to the relationship between a married couple. There is no need to throw out the bible with the bathwater. 

There is one more, and from my perspective, most important point, and that arises from the question of 'why bother'? Why should one even advocate for a position at the denominational level when we have already backed into a decision, more or less, for congregations to go their own way on this issue? I suspect the authors of the Mapleview statement are quite clear on 'why we should bother'. At the risk of putting words in their mouths, I suspect they would insist that this issue be resolved from the perspective of faithfulness, discipleship and the integrity of the community, and that such a resolution involve adherence to scripture and a respect for traditional doctrinal interpretations. 

The Mapleview statement responds to these priorities by presenting a doctrinal position. My illustration is not really a doctrinal or theological statement - it is an example of a practical political platform for a denominational community, but it does engage scripture and I would claim that it is something that individuals who are concerned with faithfulness, discipleship and integrity could in good faith adopt. However, the important point to be made, is that the thing really at stake does not require that the political platform I have outlined be successful. What is required, is that in a theologically diverse Mennonite community someone needs to be loudly making the case for a position like the one I have proposed, while simultaneously being prepared to fail. That is because (we are told) non-heterosexual people are found and born into in every community, regardless of whether those communities are characterized as 'progressive' or 'traditional', whether we are looking a a Mennonite church in the Congo or an ad hoc self-consciously LGBTQ friendly gathering in Toronto, or a new Canadian and socially conservative congregation recently affiliated with MCEC. Given this reality, the recent trend of each congregation retreating to self-satisfied isolation on these issues is the worst possible outcome for a young LGBTQ person growing up within a homogeneous and socially conservative setting - s/he may now be even more isolated within an ideological echo-chamber (and something similar may be said for youth growing up within a uniformly 'progressive' setting). 

The irony is, Mapleview has offered the best available remedy to such an ideological echo-chamber. Keep talking. Raise a ruckus, but do not let go of the ties between the congregations, even if the ideological divide seems so deep as to be unbridgeable. Validate and affirm the expression of contrary opinions, even if one finds them offensive, because that is a sign we still belong to a single community. And a community which is fractious and angry but still insists that it is important that we consider ourselves to be together is more likely, ironically, to have a space somewhere within it for individuals who are truly different from each other, than an homogeneous and pleasant environment engineered to be of one mind.