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

“What to do about River East:” Report about the January 20 Mennonite Brethren Church of Manitoba special session

 

(Note: I was not allowed to attend the January 20 special session as a reporter. The following was written from notes taken by some at the event.) 

The resolution to remove River East from membership in the Mennonite Brethren Church of Manitoba (MBCM)—unless it “returns to an active embrace of MBCM member church expectations by May 30, 2024”—was approved at a special MBCM session on January 20. 

The vote in favour of the resolution was 261 for and 52 against (83.3%). 

The resolution went on to extend an invitation for River East to “return to MBCM if they choose to embrace and live in accordance with our shared member church expectations.” 

The vote was held at the Westwood Community Church in Winnipeg. 

A “healthy and relational” process 

The special session began with a reminder from assistant moderator Terry Dueck that every church that is part of MBCM commits to following the Mennonite Brethren Confession of Faith (COF) and to submit itself to the “wisdom and guidance” of the Conference. 

During a lengthy process and review, he said, it was concluded that River East had broken that commitment to the COF and declined to accept the Conference’s wisdom and guidance—which included an option to voluntarily leave, something the church had “rejected.” 

That decision put the “burden” of deciding what to do about River East on the Conference, he added. 

Dueck acknowledged that, for some in the Conference, the process of dealing with River East had taken too long, while others felt it had not gone on long enough. 

He also acknowledged that, through the process, they didn’t always get it right, but felt it had been a “healthy and relational” discernment. 

He went on to urge delegates not to see River East as an enemy, or to participate in “the enemy-making machine.” 

River East decision “result of 20 years of discussion, study and practice” 

Reynold Redekopp, Chair of the River East Leadership Commission, spoke next. He echoed Dueck’s sentiment, acknowledging “the amazing way that MBCM leadership” had entered into open and honest conversation with River East. 

He then read the River East inclusivity statement, noting that is why “River East is here today.” 

That statement, Redekopp said, “was the result of a lengthy, deliberate process. We were aware that working at the statement, and adopting it, would challenge and change us, and that we were undergoing this work as a discipleship journey, led by God’s spirit, word, and people.” 

The Statement, he said, “is the result of around 20 years of discussion, study, prayer and practice.” 

As a result of that discussion, the church decided it needed to “welcome people with integrity. We can’t welcome people if there are limitations attached.” 

When it comes to how people serve at River East, “we don’t ask about gender identity or ethnicity or income or family status. We look for a love of and commitment to Jesus and an ability that suits the task.” 

This position is “difficult for many to accept,” he acknowledged. But it flows out of “desire to show the love of Christ. We think that love shouldn’t be limited as we are all on the journey of discipleship.” 

He emphasized that River East “did not set out to change the Confession of Faith.” Instead, the church hoped “we could work within these guidelines” through the Borderland Proposal, where the church could remain in MBCM while taking five years to work out the implications and realities of its statement. 

“We have deep ties to the MB Conference that we do not dismiss lightly,” Redekopp said. 

He added that River East appreciates that the Conference “is taking steps to be less hurtful to LGBTQ+ persons, but being ‘less hurtful’ is still hurtful. Strict adherence to the Confession of Faith has failed to protect the marginalized and the vulnerable among us . . . the Confession of Faith as it is currently used is not a document of peace and unity, and, as we are seeing today, it is a document of division.” 

At River East, Redekopp concluded, “we embrace inclusivity as a gift and call of Christ. From the outset, the River East community resolved that our welcome must be an invitation to participate; not merely an invitation to observe. In accepting that invitation people are entitled to the same privileges and responsibilities as any other people on the journey.” 

River East had “open posture” 

Jason Dyck, MBCM Director of Church Ministries followed, recognizing River East’s “open posture” by publicly sharing its story to inclusion and its biblical and theological foundations for inclusion. 

He went on to provide a brief overview of what has happened in other provincial Mennonite Brethren Conferences, with two churches in B.C. leaving or being removed because of LGBTQ+ welcome and inclusion (Artisan and Cedar Park) and two removed from membership in Ontario (Southridge and Free Church). 

Goal and guidelines for the special session 

Moderator Dave Ens then provided guidelines for the session itself, noting it was not open to the public or the media—except for the MB Herald. 

The session also was not made available online, except for members of two northern churches. 

Delegates were given two minutes each to speak, with only two members of each church allowed to speak. If time permitted, more could be permitted to speak. 

Ens reiterated the goal of the special session was not to decide if River East had broken its commitment to the Conference. “That has already been determined,” he said. 

The goal was “what to do about River East” in light of that broken commitment, he said. 

Motion to table and the vote 

What followed was a time for delegates to speak to the motion. Thirty-one people spoke. The majority who spoke supported the resolution about the future of River East’s membership. 

The third person to speak asked for the resolution to be tabled to permit more time for discussion. That motion was ruled out of order. 

The final person to speak was a delegate from North Kildonan Mennonite Brethren Church, who called for the vote to be taken. 

The vote to proceed directly to the vote on the resolution passed by a margin of 267 to 28. The vote on the resolution was taken immediately after that. 

Goodbyes and blessings after the vote 

After the vote was announced, MBCM Provincial Director Cam Priebe noted there were many reasons for the way people voted—for theological reasons, because they trusted the process undertaken by the Conference in dealing with River East, or because they didn’t want to see a break in the unity of the denomination. 

In the future, there will be more need for “listening and understanding” on this topic, he added. 

He expressed his thankfulness to River East leadership for their participation with the Conference in the process. Although the church officially won’t be removed until May 31, he agreed with the church’s leaders that the result of the vote “feels like the end.” 

For that reason, it was appropriate to share goodbyes and blessings, he said, noting the “significant investment” River East had made in the Conference over its 60 years of history. 

He then invited people from River East to share with the delegates. 

River East pastor Mary Anne Isaak began by noting the church had been nurtured by the Conference for six decades, and that it had participated in joint ministry with other churches in Manitoba and across Canada during that time. 

She went on to say the church has now “heard God calling us to move in a new direction,” adding “as we part ways, we acknowledge the many blessings” received during the church’s history. 

River East Leadership Commission Chair Reynold Redekop added he was grateful for the “careful process” undertaken by MCBM. 

The church concluded by saying they prayed MBCM would experience “abundant grace” in the future and that God would strengthen and renew it. 

In response, Jason Dyck said “it should not be easy” to part ways with a member church, and this experience wasn’t easy. 

He went on to say that he didn’t “begrudge” River East not voluntarily leaving, and praised the gathered delegates for “fulfilling your responsibility” through the vote. 

“We may not be able to walk the way we walked for the last 60 years,” Dyck said of the relationship between River East and MBCM, but he prayed the church “would continue to walk the way of Jesus . . . keep on loving one another as brothers and sisters, and grow in the grace and knowledge of Christ.”

Vote is in: River East removed from Mennonite Brethren Church of Manitoba

 

The vote is in: River East Church has been removed from membership in the Mennonite Brethren Church of Manitoba. 

The vote in favour of the special resolution at the January 20 special session to remove the church from the Conference was 261 for and 52 against (83.3%). 

To read more about the special session, click here. 

River East tells the story of its biblical and theological foundations for inclusion of LGBTQ+ people

 

“Tonight is a night for listening.” 

With those words, Reynold Redekop, Chair of the River East Leadership Commission, welcomed people to the January 14 meeting titled “The Story of our Biblical and Theological Foundations for Inclusion.” 

“It’s not an evening for debate,” he said. “It’s an opportunity to hear a different view. We don’t claim our view is correct or the right point of view—we are all on a journey to follow Jesus and live out our faith. We all have a lot to learn.” 

He was followed by Janet Schmidt, a member of River East who helped organize the event and the November 26 event where the church told the story of its journey to inclusion. 

“This is not a conversation, though we would like to have one,” she said, noting the church had asked the Mennonite Brethren Church of Manitoba (MBCM) for an open discussion.

“We pleaded with MBCM for an open conversation,” she said, adding that not being allowed to talk about it as a whole denomination “is not the Anabaptist way.” 

With that avenue shut down, “we created this event, the only way we could share what we are thinking,” she said. 

The event was not intended as a “comprehensive theological argument,” Schmidt said. “It’s just a snapshot of how we embraced inclusion while being deeply rooted in scripture.” 

Schmidt noted that for many at River East, becoming welcoming and inclusive of LGBTQ+ people meant “changing our minds” about the subject. 

For Mennonite Brethren in Canada, this isn’t the first time members of that denomination have changed their minds, or the Confession of Faith, on topics once considered settled by the Bible, she said. 

This included things like whether or not to accept into membership people not baptized by immersion; moving from the German language to English; embracing and supporting divorced people, including accepting them into membership if they remarried; and women in leadership. 

The people who made those decisions to exclude others “were good men—and they were all men back then,” she said, adding “they also believed they were following scripture. Yet they did significant harm.” 

Now those things are seen as unacceptable today, Schmidt said, noting that the Mennonite Brethren journey on issues like this seems to go from a definite conference-wide decision against something that is supported by scripture and tradition; to a tolerance of churches that hold different ways of practicing the faith; and then to “acceptance without judgement.” 

River East believes the Canadian Mennonite Brethren conference is on one of these journeys with LGBTQ+, she said. 

After Schmidt spoke, River East pastor Mary Anne Isaak shared some of her experiences as a pastor, including times she was part of excluding LGBTQ+ people from the church. 

Back then, she said, “she “felt the Bible was clear, it was sinful.” Today, “still rooted in Jesus Christ and scripture,” she believes otherwise. 

“The last 20 years has been a journey of slow change related to same-sex marriage,” she said. 

Of the church’s journey on this topic, Isaak said she sees River East as “acting with historical integrity with how the Confession of Faith has been adapted in the past.” 

At River East, "we are maintaining a posture of not being afraid to dive into complexity, with a spirit of humility, as we wrestle with biblical texts,” she said, adding “we believe God is calling us to do a new thing.” 

Isaak was followed by Aaron Thiessen, also a pastor at River East, who spoke about his own journey of changing his mind about LGBTQ+ and other topics while taking the Bible seriously, and Gordon Matties, who formerly taught Bible at Canadian Mennonite University, who explored a single set of scriptures on the topic to reveal the cultural and other assumptions behind them at that time. 

The evening was concluded by comments from Schmidt. Looking ahead to the January 20 vote about whether or not to expel River East from MBCM, she noted that most delegates to that meeting “will vote not having heard our story or how we understand scriptures.” 

She said River East had asked MBCM to promote the January 14 event to other Manitoba churches so delegates to the January 20 meeting could learn more about the church's exploration of the Bible, but the request was denied.  

In addition to 124 people at the church in person for the event, there were 181 screens for the livestream on Zoom. 

Note: I made no effort to try to summarize the presentations by Thiessen and Matties. (Wouldn't be able to do them justice!) The event was recorded and will be available at a later date on the church’s website. 

River East has also created a document titled “Talking Points from the Bible for Full Inclusion of LGBTQ+ Persons, and also about the Confession of Faith and Full Inclusion of LGBTQ+.” Find it here.

 

What can credentialed Mennonite Brethren leaders communicate about LGBTQ+ and same-sex marriage? The National Faith and Life Team director explains

In 2021, the National Faith and Life Team (NFLT) updated the Code of Personal and Ministry Ethics for the Canadian Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches (CCMBC).

Assenting to the Code is a requirement for credentialed pastors/leaders in the denomination, and also for CCMBC board members and staff. 

According to NFLT Director Ken Esau, there were two main reasons for this update. 

First, the previous code was “primarily a list of sinful behaviours to avoid rather than a code of positive commitments and aspirations appropriate to leading in the way of Jesus.” 

Second, the updated version “makes explicit what was assumed to have been obvious. It is clear that we can no longer make assumptions like that.” 

Among those things CCMBC can no longer make assumptions about is the topic of LGBTQ+ and same-sex marriage. 

In the pre-2021 version, the Code asked pastors and leaders to commit themselves to “reserving sexual expressions of intimacy exclusively for the context of a covenantal marriage between a man and a woman” and to “upholding the sanctity of marriage by not solemnizing, officiating, co-officiating, or otherwise affirming any marriage other than between one man and one woman.” 

In the updated version, pastors and leaders are now asked to commit themselves to “living out my sexuality in the way of Jesus’ Kingdom by limiting sexual expressions of intimacy exclusively to the context of covenantal marriage between a man and a woman. This also means avoiding any communication or actions (e.g., solemnizing or officiating in a marriage/civil ceremony) which is in conflict with this understanding of God’s vision for the expression of human sexual intimacy.” 

For me, an interesting addition to the updated Code on this topic is the word “communication.” What does that mean? I asked Ken that question. 

“In terms of your question, communication and actions do need to be consistent if one claims a posture of affirmation of the MB Confession of Faith,” he said, adding accountability in relation to these commitments is to the respective provincial conference office. 

As for the word “communicate” itself, Ken said that “would primarily involve preaching and teaching, speaking and social media.” 

What about attending a same-sex wedding—would that violate the Code? After all, a pastor who attended one would be “communicating” something by his or her presence. 

Said Ken: “When it comes to making decisions about actions not clearly articulated in the Code of Personal and Ministry Ethics, I'm assuming that the individual would seek discernment from both their local church leadership and from provincial conference leadership. I would want to leave these decisions to the prayerful wisdom of individuals who can discern with full knowledge of the situation.” 

I had another question for Ken. Would the prohibition on communicating about LGBTQ+ and same-sex marriage also apply if a pastor or leader wanted to hold a discussion about the topic in his or her church—a discussion that allowed for discussion of different sides of the topic? 

Ken replied: “A credentialed pastor is expected to facilitate important conversations within the local congregation that encourage the fulfillment of the church's mission. The question is more about the nature and purposes of those discussions. A local MB congregation should be practicing ‘community discernment,’ taking the scripture-based convictions in the Confession of Faith and exploring how these can be applied more effectively in the local church context. Credentialed leaders should certainly lean into this sort of community discernment process.” 

That would be different, he said, “from a local MB congregation (or a local credentialed leader) that begins with a blank slate and explores the possibility of adopting new ethical convictions in conflict with our existing convictions (even if the church employs a ‘community hermeneutic’). This objective and this process disregards and violates the church's mutual obligations to the larger MB family provincially and nationally.” 

(He added a link about the difference between “community discernment” and “community hermeneutic.”) 

I also asked Ken whether the Code might also be applied to others in leadership in Mennonite Brethren churches—for example, those on leadership commissions or church councils. 

He replied: “The NFLT did notice that, unless a local church deliberately crafts something, there are many leaders in MB churches who do not have any explicit code of ethics. This includes pastors who have not yet gone through the credentialing process (something that should happen within two years of job start), pastors who are less than half-time, and lay leaders of various kinds. 

“This does not seem to fit with best practices, so a version is available for local churches who want to have a more consistent approach with all of their leaders—credentialed and non-credentialed. In this case, the non-credentialed leaders would be accountable directly to the local church itself. As far as I am aware, this is a voluntary option for local churches.” 

As for the updated Code itself, it is being implement ed across all the provincial Mennonite Brethren conferences on different schedules. 

B.C. and Saskatchewan have already posted the updated Code on their websites.