On November 19, 2022, Chris Friesen, congregational
chairperson at Winnipeg’s Jubilee Mennonite Church, shared the following with
the Mennonite Brethren Church of Manitoba (MBCM) Council of Representatives.
Written following consultation with the church council and
our congregation. Its purpose is to explain the process by which Jubilee
decided to become inclusive of LGBTQ+ people.
The hope is that other Mennonite and Mennonite Brethren churches
might read this story and understand difficult conversations are possible—regardless
of the content of the conversation—without splitting apart.
In late September, Jubilee's membership in MBCM was suspended over its decision to be inclusive, the first step in being expelled from the conference.
Thought experiment: Think
of your own congregation, the people and personalities, the overall character
of it.
Think also of an issue
or question that if addressed and discussed, has the real potential to be
controversial and divide your congregation into antagonistic sides.
It could be a doctrinal
issue, or a matter of scriptural interpretation, it could be an ethical
question, or maybe one of church practice (like worship music or use of face
masks).
How hard was it for you
to think of something like this in your congregation?
For Jubilee Mennonite
Church (JMC), one of these questions was about LGBTQ inclusion.
Questions about this
had been percolating at JMC for many years and finally got to the point where a
broader congregational conversation about it was needed. Members of JMC had
friends, neighbours, and family members that were part of the LGBTQ community.
We had members of JMC that came out as LGBTQ. JMC’s community ministry programs
regularly connected with LGBTQ people.
As biologists continue
to better understand the science of sexuality, the social and scientific
context in which we live, work, and minister has changed much in recent
decades. It was time for conversation. We needed to talk.
Mennonite history, of both
distant past and recent memory, offers far too many examples of churches being
unable or unwilling to engage with such questions without divisiveness.
It’s scary as church
leaders to address these kinds of questions. Mennonite
history, of both distant past and recent memory, offers far too many examples
of churches being unable or unwilling to engage with such questions without
divisiveness—how many church splits and excommunications have there been?
How many good and sincere Christians, including pastors and church leaders,
have been shown the door? At the same time, we the divisiveness in society more
broadly.
In short, we could see
all that could go wrong—hurt feelings, broken relationships, people leaving the
congregation, impacts to our community ministry, tension with our denominations
(JMC is a member of both MBCM and MCM). We certainly had these concerns at JMC,
both among church leadership and within the congregation in general.
We knew that there was
a diversity of perspectives present at JMC regarding LGBTQ inclusion. But we,
both leadership and congregation, knew that a conversation could no longer be
avoided and ignored. The focus for us as a church council then became ensuring
that the framing and structure of the conversation was such that the
opportunity for constructive conversation was maximised and the opportunity for
divisive conversation was minimised.
We wanted to welcome
diverse perspectives, but not divisiveness.
Notice my choice of
words here: minimize the opportunity for divisiveness. We wanted to welcome diverse perspectives, but not
divisiveness.
Before our intentional
discussions began in earnest, our pastor (Ken Warkentin) held one-on-one
conversations with all JMC congregants to see where we were as individuals.
These conversations were structured around several questions that Ken asked
each member to help us get a more detailed understanding of people’s thoughts,
perspectives, and questions about LGBTQ inclusion.
The challenge for us as
church leadership was then to find a way to have a congregational conversation
that drew out and gave space to the diversity of perspectives we knew existed
within JMC in a way that promoted mutual understanding; a way that would help
us live into one of our mission statements: to know one another in loving
community.
We started by talking
about talking. At the leadership level this meant many hours at council
meetings discussing how to meet this challenge (or was it an opportunity?).
At the congregational
level, many members read and discussed the book ‘How the Body of Christ Talks’,
which discusses the theory and practice of having hard but healthy conversations
in the church.
These were valuable
exercises in that they helped us as a congregation focus not on arriving at a
particular outcome regarding LGBTQ inclusion, but rather on developing a
process that welcomed diverse perspectives in a way that built up rather than
tore down.
We all recognized that what
we needed and desired was a conversation, not a debate.
In addition, since it
focused on the process rather than the issue itself, it helped establish an
ethos and atmosphere of listening, learning, and understanding. It helped bring
us to the place where we all recognized that what we
needed and desired was a conversation, not a debate.
The goal of a debate is
to win, to convince and persuade; it encourages entrenchment instead of
openness. A debate was not what we wanted.
We also didn’t want a
conversation with a constrained or pre-determined outcome; why bother having a
conversation if you know what the outcome is going to be? No, we needed to have
an open conversation. This was true for both the form of the outcome and the
substance of the outcome.
We didn’t start these
conversations with a plan to issue a statement at the end.
Regarding the form,
this meant we didn’t start these conversations with a plan to issue a statement
at the end—we didn’t know what, if anything, we would do. Regarding the
substance of the outcome, we didn’t know where these conversations would lead
us in regards to LGBTQ inclusion. And, importantly, we as leadership were very
intentional about not leading or pushing the congregation toward a particular
outcome.
The board of Mennonite
Brethren Church Manitoba (MBCM) has expressed dissatisfaction that JMC did not
invite conference representatives to have a bigger part in our conversation. It
was quite intentional that we did not issue such invitations to either of the
conferences to which we belong.
Both of our conferences
have confessions of faith with similar perspectives on marriage and sexuality.
One of our concerns with conference involvement was that, as participants in
the conversation, conference representatives could not be truly open to
different outcomes and may feel the need to adopt a posture of defensiveness
and/or a posture of persuasion regarding the confession of faith.
Such postures tend to
foster debate rather than an open conversation where participants must be
willing to at least entertain the possibility of a change in understanding.
This was what we asked of ourselves at Jubilee.
Uniformity of thought was
an unrealistic expectation.
Just as important as
being open to different outcomes, it was important to have realistic
expectations. Critically, this meant acknowledging that no matter how the
conversation went, there would still be a spectrum of perspectives at the end. Uniformity of thought was an unrealistic expectation. We
were entering this conversation with a diversity of perspectives and in all
likelihood would be finishing this conversation with a diversity of
perspectives.
The importance of
recognizing this is hard to overstate. Knowing that there would always be a
diversity of perspectives freed us from the burden and pressure of trying to
get everyone to agree on everything. It allowed us to have a truly open
conversation instead of a debate. It helped each of us individually recognize
that we had, for many years, already been worshipping and serving alongside
those who had different perspectives.
While the particular
question of LGTBQ inclusion remained directly in front of us, the question in
the background now came into focus, and centred on the relationship between
unity and uniformity. Was unity without uniformity possible? And if so, what
did it look like in the context of LGBTQ inclusion at JMC?
The first step we took was
to look to the Bible.
It was against this
backdrop that we entered intentional congregational conversations. The first step we took was to look to the Bible. Both
within our congregation and Christendom at large, there are various
understandings of the Biblical message when it comes to LGBTQ inclusion in the
church. We wanted to explore and understand these different perspectives and
have a forum in which people could ask questions about the Biblical text.
We invited professor
Dan Epp-Thiessen of Canadian Mennonite University to provide us with this biblical
background. He graciously spent three evenings with us, describing the various
ways in which people understand the biblical message in this context. He made
it clear that the writers of the Bible understood heterosexuality to be the
cultural and moral norm, and that in those instances where the biblical authors
explicitly discuss sexuality, they do so from this perspective, and that this
has been the traditional perspective of the church.
It’s important to recognize
that there are sincere, Bible-believing Christians on both sides of this issue.
He then discussed how
some Christians see this traditional perspective to be in tension with the
broader biblical themes of love of neighbour, welcome, non-judgementalism, and
humility. He emphasized that it’s important to
recognize that there are sincere, Bible-believing Christians on both sides of
this issue (or perhaps more accurately, along the full spectrum of
perspectives). This was, and still is, true of JMC.
We then held a series
of conversation events that each focused on different aspects of the question
of LGTBQ inclusion at JMC. The structure and questions of a given event were
discussed and approved by council, and often modified based on the outcomes of
previous events.
We didn’t pre-determine
how many events we would need, or how long this process would take. We knew
that this conversation was challenging for many people—it was emotional at
times, it pushed and pulled each of us in various ways and directions. As
leadership we were aware of the tension between the desire to let the
conversation take as long as it needed to take, while also respecting the
emotional and relational energy it took for people to engage in it.
We sensed that the
congregation was ready to move beyond conversation and was wanting to distill
our collective understanding into something like a statement.
After several of these
events, we sensed that the congregation was ready to
move beyond conversation and was wanting to distill our collective
understanding into something like a statement. We conducted an anonymous
poll of the congregation to determine if our sense was correct. This poll showed unanimous support for moving towards full
inclusion of members of the LGBTQ community at JMC.
I want to remind you
that a diversity of perspectives on LGBTQ inclusion is still very much present
at JMC. And, as expected, we did not end up at a place of uniformity of thought
on this. However, the congregation was unanimous that JMC, as a congregation,
should move forward in this particular way.
We achieved unity for our
direction as a collective, but not uniformity of thought as individuals.
We achieved unity for
our direction as a collective, but not uniformity of thought as individuals. We
have decided how we as JMC will move forward together, while ensuring there is
room for a diversity of individual perspectives. We are now living into the
challenge (or is it an opportunity?) of figuring out how this looks in our
particular time and space.
JMC was born out of the
union of two congregations: Northdale Mennonite Fellowship and Valley Gardens
Mennonite Brethren Church. Even before the MB’s and GC’s came together to found
Canadian Mennonite University, the two conferences had come together in the
form of this little congregation.
While I wasn’t around
at the time, I’m told by those who were that there was much conversation and
introspection. This was new and different—could something like this work? What
did it look like to be part of two conferences? Was unity possible despite
diversity?
The conferences were
bold and took a chance, letting their respective congregations take their first
steps as a united congregation. Since its founding in 1995, JMC has lived out
this experiment. By no means has the path always been clear and easy, but we’re
still here.
Mennonite Brethrenness is
baked into who JMC is.
There are still some at
JMC who were part of Valley Gardens MB and there are others who have joined JMC
along the way that are MBers. Mennonite Brethrenness is baked into who JMC is.
It is a part of who we are. And being part of the larger body is important to
us.
We have benefitted
immensely from the resources and wisdom of MBCM. And we strive to contribute
where we can, whether that’s helping fund missionaries like Richard and Hazel
Funk, which we did for many years, joining with our neighbouring MB churches to
put on Christmas dinners for our local community, sharing our experiences of
community ministry with other MB churches, or lending our unique voice to
conference conversations. Being part of the larger MB body is important to us,
and there is much we have in common.
We recognized at the
outset that by having an open-ended conversation about LGBTQ inclusion JMC
might end up at a place that wasn’t entirely consistent with our conferences’
confessions of faith. For example, both of our conferences have confessions of
faith that define marriage as exclusively heterosexual. It was certainly not
our intention to cause friction with our conferences, though we weren’t
ignorant of that possibility, either.
Like we did 27 years ago,
JMC is again embarking on an experiment.
Like
we did 27 years ago, JMC is again embarking on an experiment, testing our
discernment, trying to live out our unity in Christ despite our diversity of
perspectives. Our hope is that MBCM will once again be bold and continue to
journey with us. It is part of our history, it is part of our present, and we
certainly hope it will be part of our future.
I’ll end today with
some questions. Throughout this conversation with the MB conference, we’ve
invited our members to bring us their thoughts, concerns, and questions. These
are the questions Jubileers are asking.
Questions for the MBCM
from JMC are:
1) Has there been
enough talking about talking? Has the response process been intentional and
well-thought out? What’s the rush?
2) What are the goals
of the process? Persuasion in order to achieve compliance? Is discipline the
best lens with which to view this process?
3) Is uniformity of
thought consistently practised and/or a realistic expectation? Does it exist
presently? Consider the thought experiment at the beginning, think of your
congregation, think of the conference as a whole.
4) Is uniformity of
thought and practice desirable? To what degree is such uniformity a liability
rather than an asset?
5) Is this a question
of authority of scripture as opposed to authority of Confession of Faith (CoF)?
Scriptural interpretation has been shown to have relativity to it over the
centuries. What is the role of the CoF—to centre or box in?
6) Is there an
opportunity for true and open-ended conversation with MBCM? One without a
pre-determined outcome? An opportunity to explore what unity without uniformity?
What might look like within MBCM?
Shared with this blog with
permission from Jubilee Mennonite Church.
