Timeline for LGBTQ+ in the Canadian Mennonite Brethren Conference

When Marnie Klassen, creator of The Schism Between Us, offered to share her timeline about LGBTQ+ in the Canadian MB Conference with me, I jumped at the chance to use it on the blog. Together, we stitched it together to come up with what we think is a pretty accurate tally of the major points along the way from 2021-24, with a few stops along the way after that. If we missed something, please let us know! 

October, 2013. John Unger tells part of his family story (including having an LGBTQ+ child) at the CCMBC national study conference titled “Honoring God with the Body: A Study on Human Sexuality.” Read more here from the Christian Leader and from A Time to Listen. 

January, 2021. Artisan Church in Vancouver publishes their Milestone Statement on LGBTQ+ inclusion. 

March, 2021. Artisan Church withdraws from the British Columbia MB conference (BCMB) before the provincial conference can release it. It’s pastor, Nelson Boschman, surrenders his license as a BCMB pastor. 

March, 2021. In response to the Artisan decision, an open letter is released calling on the Canadian MB Conference to hold a national conversation about LGBTQ+. It was ultimately signed by over 500 people. The Conference said no, but it said it was open to hearing from members about the topic. 

March, 2021. River East Church in Winnipeg adopts an LGBTQ+ welcome and inclusion statement, prompting discussions with the Manitoba MB Conference. 

May, 2021. The MB Biblical Seminary releases the results of a survey of Canadian MB churches that found that 88 percent of churches say they want help navigating the complexities of ministering to LGBTQ community. 

June 2021. Since the Conference said it was open to listening to members about LGBTQ+, A Time to Listen was created to hear the stories of LGBTQ+ people and their family and friends. 

March, 2022. – A Time to Tell blog is started by River East Church member and Winnipeg Free Press faith reporter John Longhurst, who also writes for Anabaptist World. Since the MB Herald, the official publication of the Canadian MB Conference, was reporting about LGBTQ+, the blog was created as a way to help people stay abreast of developments. 

March, 2022. Three pastors at Cedar Park MB Church in B.C. resign after the BCMB requires all its clergy to reaffirm the Confession of Faith, with a special focus on articles dealing with sexuality and marriage. The church was ultimately shut down by the BCMB and re-opened with a new name and leaders. Read more here about that situation and process, which led to the creation of a new independent LGBTQ+ affirming congregation called Estuary. For former Cedar Park pastor Lee Kosa’s reflections on that experience, click here. 

June, 2022. On Holy Ground: Stories By and About Women in Ministry Leadership in the Mennonite Brethren Church, is published by the Mennonite Brethren Historical Commission. Written to record the lived experiences of MB women in leadership, the executive boards of the American and Canadian MB conferences demand the first printing be destroyed when they discover it contains three pages by River East pastor Mary Anne Isaak about her experiences with LGBTQ+ people in churches she served. It is reprinted without those three pages. After that decision, there is a peaceful protest outside the CCMBC office in Winnipeg. Mary Anne is interviewed about it on CBC radio. And the missing three pages are published on the Time to Tell blog. 

July, 2022. The Canadian and U.S. MB conference executive boards release an official statement regarding their decision about Isaak’s three pages in On Holy Ground. 

September, 2022. Ed Willms is ousted as executive director the Ontario MB conference for holding discussions about LGBTQ+ welcome and inclusion. 

October, 2022. Jubilee Mennonite Church, which belongs jointly to Mennonite Church Manitoba (MCM) and Mennonite Brethren Church of Manitoba (MBCM), is suspended by MBCM. 

November, 2022. The Ontario MB Conference suspends Southridge and FreeChurch over their decision to welcome and include LGBTQ+ people.

November, 2022. 79 current and former members of the Waterloo, Ont. Mennonite Brethren Church call on that church’s leadership to create safe space to talk about LGBTQ+. 

January, 2023. The first Open Space is held in Winnipeg, organized by retired Mennonite Brethren pastors and conference leaders David Wiebe, John Unger, James Toews, and Danny Unrau. It is held at the Canadian Museum for Human Rights. 

February, 2023. Southridge Community Church and FreeChurch Toronto are formally removed from ONMB.   

February, 2023. River East Church proposes a new process for Mennonite Brethren churches in Manitoba living on the "borderland" of the Confession of Faith when it comes to LGBTQ+. 

March, 2023. Jubilee Mennonite Church is formally removed from MBCM. Jubilee retains their relationship with MC Manitoba. 

March, 2023. River East Church is suspended by Mennonite Brethren Church of Manitoba. That same month, the Church shares its journey towards inclusivity. 

November, 2023. River East Church holds an online and in-person public meeting to tell its story of inclusion. 

January, 2024. River East Church is formally removed from MBCM. It later joins MC Manitoba. 

January, 2025. FaithWorks voluntarily withdraws membership from MBCM. It joins MC Manitoba. 

October, 2025. The second Open Space event is held in Ontario. 

November, 2025. The third Open Space event is held in B.C.

Spring, 2026. Lendrum Church in Edmonton leaves the Alberta MB Conference.

October, 2026. The fourth Open Space event is held in Manitoba.

Speaking personally about LGBTQ+ welcome and affirmation

2026 is the 5th anniversary of when over 300 Canadian MBs signed an open letter asking the Canadian Conference of MB Churches to discuss the issue of LGBTQ+ welcome and affirmation. The Conference said no. Since that time, seven MB congregations have left or been expelled from the Conference for becoming welcoming and affirming of LGBTQ+ people—as reported by this blog. I paused the blog in 2024, after my church at the time, River East, was expelled. Five years later, I decided to check in with those congregations to hear their reflections and see how things are going. 

But before doing that, I thought I might share a bit about my own views on this topic—something I sought to keep out of the blog when I was reporting as a journalist about LGBTQ+ and the MB Conference. I’m sure my personal views were no secret but, in keeping with the journalistic nature of the blog, I kept them to myself. Now that I am no longer MB, it doesn’t matter; I can be fully “out of the closet.” 

Like many of my generation—I’m a boomer—who grew up in conservative Christianity, I believed homosexuality was a choice and a sin. For most of my life, it wasn’t even on my radar. But then I had a few experiences that started my journey of changing my mind. 

The first was in 2009, when my old college roommate sent me a letter to say he was gay—and had just married his partner. 

I had no idea, although people who heard the news said they suspected it all along. My “gaydar” is terrible. 

We lived together for three years and became best friends. But all that time he never told me his big secret. In fact, he told nobody knew it. Not his family, his church, his friends. 

Until he came out in 2005, he kept his secret from everyone—but Jesus. In his journal, parts of which were shared with me after his death from cancer in 2018, he wrote about never feeling at home with others since he couldn’t completely be himself with them.  “I am only myself to you, Lord Jesus,” he wrote. 

While serving as music director at a Baptist church, he wrote he wished he could tell his pastor he is gay. “Lord, I really don't want to burden him,” he wrote, knowing such knowledge would a problem for the pastor and the church. But “shouldn't a pastor know some of his flock are gay, and some of his flock have left because they are gay?” 

Despite his struggles, and his worry about what might happen if his secret was discovered—he would surely lose his job—he never lost his faith. 

“Let us follow this wonderful Jesus, whoever we are regardless of age, colour, beliefs, gender or sexual orientation,” he wrote in his journal. 

The incident that prompted him to come out was when he heard members of his church claim gay marriage needed to be opposed because homosexuals were a danger to children—something he knew wasn’t true. He began to secretly reach out to find other gay Christians and starting attending events for them. That’s where he met his partner. 

When he came out, some welcomed the news; others didn’t. But over time almost everyone came around to love and accept him the way he was—and he grew in his love and accept of himself. 

When I learned about his wedding, I immediately phoned him and gave him heck for not inviting me. “I was afraid you wouldn’t come,” he said. 

That was a blow. Of course I would have come, I said. He went on to explain that his family refused to come—only one sibling attended, and not his parents. My refusing to attend would have only been one more hurt, he explained. 

After that, we connected regularly by e-mail and in person. And at his funeral, I was invited to MC the sharing.

His former partner told me that what sustained my old roommate was “an experience in prayer, a mystical experience, in which he was overwhelmed by the love of God, a blessed assurance that stayed with him throughout all the turmoil.” 

That experience taught me that there are many people who quietly struggle not with who they are—they know—but with letting people like me know. It made me realize I needed to let others know I was a safe person to confide in, to be honest with. 

In his journal, my friend wrote: “Lord Jesus Christ, if you can use what I have suffered by being homosexual for the comfort of others and for your divine presence, please, please do!” 

He certainly used that experience to help me. 

The second experience that changed me was when a young Hutterite came into the life of our family. 

He was a friend of my daughter’s, a student at Canadian Mennonite University. After coming out, he was disowned by his family and colony, told he was going to burn in Hell. 

With nowhere to go, and fearing for his safety, we invited him to live with us for a time. We offered to “adopt” him as one of our own children, in absence of any other parents in his life. 

As we talked, we learned he knew he was gay from the age of 12. 

“Even as a small child I felt different,” he said. “It wasn’t until I reached my teenage years that I started to really understand those differences.” 

At first, he said, he cried and prayed things were different. But when he was about 20, he came to see that this was the way God made him—there was nothing wrong with how he was feeling. 

He stayed in the closet for a long time out of fear of how his family would react, and what people in his close-knit community would say. 

Over time, however, the closet “became an unsafe and toxic place,” he said. “It caused me to suffer from anxiety, depression and self-hate. I knew I needed to get out of the closet in order to prevent further harm.” 

In a letter to his parents about being gay, he thanked them for their love and care when he was a child. 

He concluded by saying: “I don’t know how you will react to this letter, but just know that I love you very much… it is my hope that my honesty about who I am will help bring us closer as a family.” 

His parents wrote back that they were angry and appalled and told him he was no longer welcome in their home—unless he repented and changed. 

He only stayed with us a short time. But the experience never left me; how could parents—Christian parents—act that way towards their own child? That’s surely not the way of Jesus. 

The final experience was an act of repentance and contrition on my part. 

When I was in middle school, there was a boy there named Lawrence. He was different from other boys in the school. He wasn't into sports. He was quiet, soft and gentle. 

So of course we called him “faggot.” 

We really had no idea what the word meant, or what was involved in being one. But we knew it was bad—our parents and churches told us so. And we were sure that Lawrence was one. 

But was he? We didn’t know. But we knew he was different. So we used that word to torment and isolate him, making him feel unwanted and alone. Years later, I could still see him in my mind, walking sadly away from a group of jeering boys. 

After my experiences with my college roommate and Hutterite “son,” I wondered about Lawrence. How was he doing? And what did he think about his life back then? 

Through a mutual friend from those days, I was able to track him down. I said I was sorry for the way we treated him, for the ideas that led to his isolation, for the thoughtlessness we all displayed. That I displayed. 

I told him I am doing everything I can to make sure nobody else goes through what he did—ever again.

Thankfully, Lawrence forgave me. He’s doing fine—and yes, he is LGBTQ+ and happily so. 

There were other experiences: Two lesbian women who began attending my church, a gay colleague at work, my own reading on the subject. And I was moved in 2015 when evangelical leader Tony Campolo came out in support of same-sex marriage and including LGBTQ+ people in the church. 

All those things added up to making me ready to support the same thing in 2019, when River East began its journey of inclusivity. 

There were no big "aha!" moments, no deep theological exploration (although the revelations that the translators of the RSV version of the Bible got it wrong when they erroneously used the word "homosexuality" in 1 Corinthians played a role). It was a transformation the way many people change their minds on this subject: Knowing LGBTQ+ people and realizing the table is big enough for all, that nobody should be excluded.

People like my old roommate, the Hutterian young man, and Lawrence. And anyone else. 

Time to Tell five years after the Open Letter: Where are things at now?

Five years ago, in 2021, over 300 members of the Canadian Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches signed an open letter asking the conference to hold an open discussion about LGBTQ+ inclusion. The conference refused.

That refusal led that same year to the creation of Time to Listen, an online gathering of Canadian MBs and other who wanted to talk about this topic.

Throughout that year, I wrote 10 articles on the topic for Anabaptist World. This included one about the decision of Artisan Church in Vancouver to withdraw from the conference over its decision to include LGBTQ+ people—the first of eight MB churches to either withdraw or be expelled since 2021.

(For the record, those are Artisan and Cedar Park in B.C.; Southridge and Free Church in Ontario; River East, Jubilee and FaithWorks in Manitoba; and Lendrum in Alberta.)

Since Anabaptist World is primarily an American publication, it couldn’t publish everything I wanted to write on this topic in Canada.

That led me to create this blog, a Time to Tell, in 2022, as a journalistic way to keep the conversation going—something that was necessary since the official publication of the conference, the MB Herald, would not cover it.

From 2022 to early 2024, I wrote 126 articles on the topic on this blog. The goal was to keep Canadian MBs informed—and also to shine a bit of light on something some conference leaders preferred remained dark.

(In that regard, I must have been doing something right; I was prevented from attending two provincial assemblies by conference leaders where LGBTQ+ was discussed. It didn’t work. People who attended furnished me with notes from both meetings.)

It was also to provide a first draft of history, some original source material that could be used by a future researcher who may want to write a book about this period in Canadian MB history.

I paused the blog in 2024 for a couple of reasons. First, I was exhausted by covering this topic. Second, the church I attended at the time (River East) was expelled from the MB Conference—why report about something I wasn’t part of anymore?

But now, five years after that open letter, I decided it was time to follow-up with some of the people I interviewed. I wanted to hear their reflections on that time, and see how they are doing now. Over the next while, I will post those reflections.

And if you have any thoughts on this topic related to the Canadian MB conference, feel free to send them to me at jdl562000@yahoo.com

Photo above from Getty Images.

Update on this blog: Time for a pause

Don’t you hate it when a blog you follow just stops, no explanation? Yeah, me too.

That’s why I am posting this note to say that I am taking a pause from this blog, for a few reasons. (As you may have noticed, the last post was in late January.) 

One reason is, after the flurry of activity related to LGBTQ+ welcome and affirmation between 2021 and early this year, nothing is happening. No more churches are facing expulsion from provincial Mennonite Brethren conferences over that subject. 

There simply isn’t any news to report. 

To be clear, this doesn’t mean the subject has gone away. I am aware of at least three churches in Manitoba that are exploring LGBTQ+ welcome and affirmation. There may be others in other provinces, too. None of them want to talk about it at this time.

Another reason is, now that River East has been expelled from the Mennonite Brethren conference, I am no longer a member of that denomination. There’s no personal reason for me to care about the subject as it relates to CCMBC, no reason for me to want to hold it to account. 

It’s not my denomination, anymore. It can do what it pleases.

A final reason is I’m just tired of it all. Tired of seeing churches that are trying to do good and positive things for marginalized and ostracized people be turned away time and again by provincial conferences that champion rules over compassion and community. Tired of hearing the same old arguments as to why the denomination can’t make room for those who don’t read the Bible the same way they do. 

Just tired. 

Don’t get me wrong. I may be tired, but I believe that Mennonite Brethren in Canada, like most other denominations, will one day accept and affirm LGBTQ+ people as full members of their churches. 

How am I so sure of that? You just have to look at the history of change in the church over things like slavery, divorce and remarriage and women in leadership. Those things were once “plainly” wrong according to the Bible, but no longer are seen that way by all or most Christians. 

I expect full welcome and affirmation of LGBTQ+ people to follow the same path. 

In fact, I can envision a day when a Mennonite Brethren conference leader will stand up and apologize to the LGBTQ+ community for how it treated them and the harm it caused—just as happened in 1986 when the Canadian Mennonite Brethren conference apologized to what was then known as the General Conference of Mennonites for refusing membership to those who were part of that group. 

That day may not come in my lifetime. But when it comes, a book may be written about that change in the Mennonite Brethren denomination. If that happens, perhaps the posts in this blog can help some future researcher with the writing of that book. 

As for this blog itself, maybe there will be a need for it again in the future. Maybe there will be more churches that will face discipline or expulsion for seeking ways to welcome and affirm their LGBTQ+ brothers and sisters. Maybe I will have new energy to report about it then. In the meantime, it’s time for a pause. 

And we all need a pause now and then.

A conflict resolution perspective on the vote to remove River East from Mennonite Brethren Church Manitoba

 

How did the process leading up to the removal of River East from membership in the Mennonite Brethren Church of Manitoba (MBCM) look from a conflict resolution perspective? That was the question on my mind after the denomination removed River East from membership. 

So I asked Janet Schmidt for her view. Janet has been working in the field of conflict resolution and mediation since 1986. She has a Masters of Education Degree (1987) with a focus on organizational behaviour, and a Certificate in Mediation Skills (1996). She regularly works with churches and organizations to help them address conflict and different points of view, and has facilitated conversations about many difficult and contentious issues. 

She is also a member of River East, and was able to see close-up how the process leading to the church’s removal played out. Now that River East is out of the denomination, she feels free to share her thoughts. 

My questions are in bold. 

How did you feel about the process leading up to the removal of River East? 

I was deeply disappointed in how MBCM managed the process. Yes, River East made a decision outside the Confession of Faith when it came to same-sex inclusion. The problem is the history of the Mennonite Brethren denomination shows that is exactly how the COF ends up getting changed. A church starts acting outside the Confession, conversations happen and then changes are made. 

As Jon Isaak, who directs the Centre for Mennonite Brethren Studies in Winnipeg, noted on this blog, Mennonite Brethren have seen many changes to things once considered to be "standard" in the denomination's 162-year-old history—things such as accepting modes of baptism other than immersion; allowing those who weren't baptized to participate in communion; enabling women to be involved in leadership; and not speaking against cremation. 

When it comes to the Confession of Faith, there have been two changes since 1999. In 2014, the American Mennonite Brethren church decided to change Article 13, the one on love and non-resistance, to say now that “historically” many Mennonite Brethren have chosen to do alternative service in times of war; non-resistance is no longer the default expectation. And in 2021, the Canadian church decided to change Article 8, the one on baptism, softening the covenantal language with the church but keeping all the rest. 

As Isaak put it, “the evidence for changes over time is clear. This should not surprise us. Usually, there are some social or cultural realities that eventually convince the majority of Mennonite Brethren on whatever topic that a change is needed.” 

In other words, is the Confession prescriptive of the way things always have to be or descriptive of how they are at this moment in time when an article was written? For some reason, on this issue the Conference is treating it as the former.

Why does that disappoint you from a conflict resolution point of view? 

It disappointed me because the subject of the Confession—which was at the heart of the conflict—was never allowed on the table. The idea of changing the Confession to reflect the new reality on the ground for the six churches in B.C., Manitoba and Ontario that have been removed from membership was never permitted. That discussion could not be had. All that was said was “the Confession says no” so the discussion was ended. The two study conferences in the past were more teaching events than study events where true exploration was not permitted.  That is no way to deal with a conflict. 

What about the process itself—any thoughts about that? 

My concerns with the process was that efforts to engage in meaningful dialogue were not permitted. We knew the church was out of line with the Confession. But we also said River East did not want to leave the Conference. 

There was never any serious conversation about making space for River East in the Conference. River East asked the MBCM Board to consider the Borderland proposal, where we offered to sit on the edge for five years while a conversation took place. The MBCM board rejected this proposal. 

The first rule of resolving a conflict is there must be dialogue. The Anabaptist way is to talk, to dialogue, to hear each other, to respect differences. We asked for this multiple times and such a conversation was not organized. 

A quick aside: I’m not talking about leaders from River East and from MBCM having a coffee to stay in touch and keep each other informed. That’s good. But it doesn’t replace a full and open conversation among members of the church and the Conference, gathering together, where all can have their say and hear each other. 

But the church did hold two open meetings where it shared it story, right? 

Yes, we did. But we did that on our own because there was no other way for River East to share our story. We built these events based on what other conference members were asking us individual. For our first event, sharing about our journey, we asked MBCM to share the notice with their pastors requesting that they share the information with their community.  This was granted, although we don’t know many pastors shared it with their congregations. 

For our second event, where we shared about the biblical and theological foundations for inclusion, we asked MBCM to again share the invitation with the pastors and the pastors to share it with their church communities. They refused. 

One of my concerns about that, from a conflict resolution perspective, is about gatekeeping. MBCM prevented people from hearing about our convictions. Delegates (we are not sure how many) went into that meeting on January 20 not knowing what we thought or the work we had done to arrive at our conclusions. 

In fact, the only thing MBCM included in the package to delegates was our Talking Points Document, not links to our two events on November 26 and January 14. The Talking Points document was created for our members as a way to help them have conversations with their family and friends, not a coherent rationale about who we are and what we thought. In, addition they included their rebuttal to our talking points document criticizing on gaps that it was never intended to fill.  

It all makes me curious to know how many delegates knew our story, not just what pastors and others had told them or what MBCM leaders had shared with them. We have heard many things about what we did and why we did it that could not be further from the truth. When you don’t allow people to hear directly from people, it becomes a fertile ground of rumours and innuendos.  

I suspect most delegates voted based on what they were told, not on their own informed belief. If delegates still voted to remove River East after attending or watching our two events, and having had a conversation with us, fair game. But not having those opportunities is not OK from a conflict resolution perspective. And it is a travesty of the way Anabaptists are supposed to engage each other. Many churches make decisions this way that are hierarchical in structure; but that is losing our Anabaptist distinctive. 

It all makes me wonder: What was MBCM so afraid of? Why did they have to keep that information from delegates? That’s a question only they can answer. 

What did you think of the resolution itself? 

As written, the resolution did not allow for conversation around the point of difference on the matter of inclusion. In addition, the conference floor is not the place to have dialogue. The most that you get is people exchanging different points of view. That is not dialogue. In addition, River East guests (no longer delegates) and could only speak if permission was granted.  

I am not saying this question didn’t need to come to the larger community at some point. I am simply saying from a conflict resolution lens it needed to happen after there was actual dialogue.  

Any final thoughts? 

I don’t think the vote reflects the feelings of people in the pews. Some delegates were told to come and vote not as individuals, but as representing what their church councils and leaders had decided. At least one church did not select delegates who disagreed with REC being voted out. If that’s the case, people from these congregations should be outraged. 

I’ll admit the way River East engaged in the process wasn’t perfect, either. Our pastors and members had many conversations with people who reached out to us. This took a lot of time in addition to being the church in our community. There just wasn’t enough time to pursue every request. That is why larger group processes are so important.  

What happened was s not the way to do good conflict resolution, and it’s not the Anabaptist way. The Anabaptist way is to talk, wrestle, debate and struggle with issues. To hear each other. I’m very disappointed with how things transpired. 

My final thought is this. MBCM played their hand well, given their goal was to have River East removed (what we call win/lose paradigm). They designed a process, shared information and made a resolution that was bound to have them win. But at what cost? 

Processes that silence voices, that force people to vote with inaccurate or limited information do not bring health to institutions. The unintended consequences of this and other events like this will not bring life and vibrancy to the Mennonite Brethren Conference in the long run. And this just makes me sad, that the conference that I have lived my entire life in would act in this way. 

I would invite every person at the conference who voted for the resolution to at least watch our two taped events “Our Journey Towards Inclusion” and “Our Theological Story of Inclusion” found on the REC’s website at https://rivereastchurch.ca/sermons-category/our-journey-towards-inclusion. I believe REC deserves this act of respect.

A few observations from the special session to remove River East from membership in the Mennonite Brethren Church of Manitoba

 

(I wasn't at the special session where the vote was taken to remove River East from membership in Mennonite Brethren Church Manitoba. The following is taken from notes about the event.)

In 2023, when the Mennonite Brethren Church of Manitoba voted to remove Jubilee Mennonite from membership, the vote was 74.2% in favour. When River East was voted out, the vote was 83.3%. 

Noting the vote difference, someone asked me: What happened? Why was it higher this time, despite River East’s efforts to share its story and its biblical and theology rationale for inclusivity? 

The short answer is: I don’t know. But I have a few ideas. 

One reason for the change is River East members were not allowed to vote at the special session. That removed as many as 15 votes. But that still wouldn’t have made a huge difference. (79.5%) 

Another reason might have been the presence of large numbers of members from ethnic churches—Chinese, Eritrean, Congolese and others. 

I was told there were more delegates from these churches at the special session than at the March annual assembly where Jubilee was voted out. (But I can’t independently verify that.) 

That would have meant more people at the special session to vote in favour of the resolution. 

One thing that was clear from the comments by delegates from those churches was they were in favour of removing River East. 

Those who spoke talked about the need to “stay true” to the Bible and resist culture, citing Bible verses opposing same-sex relations. 

But they had an impact beyond the meeting itself. 

Prior to the session, MBCM sent delegates a document containing comments from leaders of these churches—comments where they made their opposition to inclusivity very clear. 

A few examples of what they said: 

“To our culture, same-sex marriage is nonsensical, it’s an attack against creation.” 

“We are subject to Jesus and His Word, not culture. God’s word is unchangeable.” 

“This is a time to stand, unite and face societal pressure with the truth. We face an effort to erase Christianity.” 

“We are in total agreement with MBCM leadership. We must obey the Word. We must go back to Biblical clarity, same-sex marriage is wrong. REC has chosen their own path.” 

“There are different conferences. REC wants to change the conference from the inside. REC is coming up with something new.” 

”Let’s not worry about the few that might leave because of our determination to stand on truth and walk the narrow path.” 

“Discipline leaders who compromise the confession. We need discipline to prevent decline.” 

It's possible comments like that helped sway how some voted.

Along with that, there was the threat these churches would leave MBCM if River East was allowed to stay.

Commenting on what he heard while interacting with ethnic church leaders, Jason Dyck, Director of Church Ministries, said: 

“There were certainly themes in common within these conversations. One stood out to me, and when I heard it repeated in my first and second conversations, I tested this to see if it was a commonly felt experience. It was. I did not prime this statement; it was offered in each conversation.” 

He then shared that statement: 

“If MBCM has room for a church who embraces same-sex marriage, in theology and practice, MBCM will not have room for us.” 

If that was true, it could have meant the loss of between 8 to 10 churches—something that would have weighed on the minds of some delegates.

(There were rumours that some other churches planned to leave, as well, if River East was not removed; the number is unknown.) 

Another reason for how the vote came down is it was made clear by MBCM that delegates were not to vote as individuals—but as representatives of their churches. 

As the Conference put it: Delegates to the special session were to be people “appointed by their church leadership who have been chosen to represent the church as a whole.” 

I know at least three churches had meetings to discuss how to vote. I expect others did, too. 

That’s why at the session one Winnipeg church noted their congregation was divided over the resolution. For that reason, they announced they had decided to grant them freedom to vote “their consciences.” 

Also, one or two people who spoke indicated they were sharing as individuals, not as representatives of their churches. 

Another reason for the increase might have been how delegates were prevented from hearing River East’s story. 

On January 14 the church held a meeting to share the story of its biblical and theological foundations for inclusion. 

The church asked MBCM to send an announcement about that event to all of its member churches so delegates to the special session could vote with all the relevant information about River East’s decision in hand. 

I'm told MBCM decided against sharing that information and the link to the event. 

As a result, delegates did not get an opportunity to hear River East's rationale, with the result that some—many?—of them would have gone into the meeting without the full story from the church. 

They would have cast their votes without having access to River East’s rationale for why it made its decision to be inclusive.

Perhaps it might not have made any difference, anyway. But we will never know. 

If you attended the special session, do you have thoughts about the vote? Share about it in the comments.

Mennonite Brethren Church of Manitoba issues statement on removal of River East Church

I reached out to the Mennonite Brethren Church of Manitoba, inviting them to share a statement on the removal of River East Church from membership in the denomination. 

Blessings,  

The Mennonite Brethren Church of Manitoba (MBCM) leadership recognizes that LGBTQ+ persons, along with their friends and families, may feel excluded from some aspects of church participation. While this is not everyone's story, we understand that it is the story of many. We are committed to a future where better stories are experienced. Each MBCM church is invited to join this journey, where LGBTQ+ persons and their families and friends experience community and care. 

We also recognize that we operate from a place of power. Power is often experienced as force, and there are ample examples of church institutions applying power in ways that fail. We strive to understand power through the life and person of Jesus. Our shared confession states, "The church is a covenant community in which members are mutually accountable in matters of faith and life.” We recognize that we serve from a position of authority and remain determined to function from a place of humility and kindness as members of that covenant community. 

We recognize that working to include and care for LGBTQ+ persons has caused some tension with regard to the convictions described in our shared confession. Each MBCM church has voluntarily joined the MBCM and committed themselves to the convictions outlined in our shared confession. Our task, as MBCM leadership, is to maintain theological alignment with the convictions described in our shared confession.  

River East Church (REC) voluntarily committed to participate in the Mennonite Brethren Church of Manitoba in a manner consistent with our shared convictions and practices. MBCM leadership's task is to monitor MBCM churches for this commitment. REC’s recent action has departed from that commitment. MBCM’s review of REC has resulted in the proposed step of removing REC from MBCM. On January 20, 2024, it fell to MBCM delegates to process this decision.  

By way of the decision outcome on January 20, 2024, the MBCM constituency has invited River East Church to return to MBCM member church expectations. Should River East Church decline this invitation, River East Church will no longer be affiliated with MBCM, effective June 1, 2024.  

We recognize that it is the experience of River Each members that the decision on January 20th marked an end to their formal relationship with MBCM. Understanding this dynamic, we agree that saying goodbye was most appropriate at that time. MBCM leadership expresses gratitude to River East for their posture and blessing, in this time of parting ways.    

Cam Priebe, Provincial Director, Mennonite Brethren Church of Manitoba