Questions for the Director of the National Faith and Life Team about LGBTQ+

Last month, I posed two questions to Ken Esau, Director of the National Faith and Life Team, asking for a response for this blog.

Ken—who has always been open and responsive to questions from me on the subject of LGBTQ+ welcome and affirmation—asked if he could reply in the MB Herald Digest.

I said yes; you can find his answers in the most recent issue.

Here are the two questions I asked him.

Question #1: I am aware of a family with a trans child who has been in an MB church for a very long time but were struggling with whether they should stay in that church. The last straw for them was Iain Provan being invited to speak at Equip. How do you feel knowing this family has now left the MB conference because of how Provan considers them to be dangerous to the church? (Read about that family here.)

Question #2: Someone asked me a question the other day: Do those who want certain MB churches out of the Conference consider them to be Christians? That is, do they think people in these churches will be in heaven when we all get there? And if we can eat together at the great supper of the Lamb in heaven, why can't we eat together here in on earth as members of the same denomination?

You can find Ken’s answers here. (Starting on page 12.)

River East Church tells the story of its journey to inclusion

 

A chance to “tell our story in our own way.” That was the goal of the November 26 gathering at River East Church in Winnipeg. 

The event, titled “River East’s Journey to Inclusion,” was attended by 172 people in person with 173 screens on Zoom. 

The meeting was opened by church member Jan Schmidt, who said the event was being held, in part, to dispel some rumours circulating about why River East had decided to become welcoming and affirming of LGBTQ+ people. 

This included the ideas that the topic was being “pushed through by one person,” that the church was no longer Christian, that it had ignored the Bible in making the decision and that its guiding principle was the Canadian Charter of Human Rights. 

Since there was no other forum to dispel these rumours, the church decided to create its own, she said. 

The other goal of the meeting was to share the story with those who will be voting to keep or expel the church at a special meeting of the Mennonite Brethren of Church Manitoba on January 20. 

“We are hoping those who will be at that meeting deciding our future will take time to hear our story,” Schmidt said. 

Schmidt noted that some people might be wondering why River East just doesn’t leave; why wait for a vote? 

“The answer for me is this is my family of faith,” she said. “You all mean a lot to us.” 

She went on to say that the decisions made by the church were not done quickly or haphazardly. “It was a process that led us to decision,” she said, adding it was “a slow process.” 

The process started informally as far back as 2007, she said, and included Christian education classes on the subject and book studies. 

The formal process started in 2019. It led to a vote asking if the church should welcome LGBTQ+ people “into every and all aspects of church life.” Ninety percent agreed. 

Members were also asked if the church should place limits on LGBTQ+ congregants. 82 percent said no. 

When asked if opposing viewpoints on LGBTQ+ inclusion should be allowed, “choosing unity above our differences,” 72 percent said yes. 

That was followed by seven congregational meetings, with representatives from MBCM invited to all of them. The Leadership Commission also met four times to discuss the subject. 

At the same time, the congregation asked itself what the Bible said on the subject “and then interpreted the Bible into our context,” she said, along with listening to the stories of people inside and outside of the congregation. 

The church also created a document titled Talking Points About from the Bible for Full Inclusion of LGBTQ+ Persons. 

The congregation continued to meet to talk about the subject through the pandemic. When finally asked to vote on a full inclusivity statement, almost 94 percent agreed with it. 

That statement says that everyone is invited to be part of the church’s mission, “whatever their ability, age, ethnicity, family status, gender identity, income level, race, sexual orientation, or other identity distinctives. All are welcome to full participation in the journey of discipleship.” (Click here to read about the statement.) 

Also at the meeting, River East pastor Aaron Thiessen explained how the church employed what’s called “the Gentile analogy” from the book of Acts to help it discuss the subject of LGBTQ+ welcome and affirmation. 

“When confronted with dilemma, it’s good to see if a case in the past similar,” he said, noting that experience in Acts 15 can be used as a paradigm for approaching questions today. 

That chapter describes how the early church was deadlocked over the thorny question of whether to welcome and affirm new Gentile believers, he said. 

For some, Gentiles could only be allowed in if they followed Jewish religious customs and laws—especially with regards to circumcision. To bolster their case, they cited verses from the book of Genesis that demanded circumcision to be part of the covenant with God. 

After debate and discussion, it was agreed that the Spirit was active among Gentiles, and that Gentile men could be allowed into the church without being circumcised. 

Today, Thiessen said, the question isn’t about Gentiles but about whether Queer Christians could be welcomed into the church. 

“Is this story sufficiently similar to our dilemma today?” he asked. “Many at River East say yes, having experienced first-hand the Spirit at work in Queer people . . . the book of Acts compels us to take seriously the lives of Queer Christians.” 

Also part of the meeting, River East member Don Peters shared a snapshot about the church’s  long history of involvement in the Canadian and Manitoba Mennonite Brethren conferences. 

In total, current members of River East have given 982 years to the conferences and conference-supported agencies or schools, along with service on conference boards, he said. This includes 173 years of serving as pastors in Mennonite Brethren churches. 

As well, about 75 percent of members at a Sunday morning service indicated they had attended a Mennonite Brethren school or one supported by the Conference of Canadian Mennonite Brethren Churches. 

“Not only have we been shaped by Mennonite Brethren institutions, but we have shaped them and contributed to them,” he said, adding River East is “a community whose members were nurtured within the Mennonite Brethren family, a community that has contributed to the larger family of Mennonite Brethren and the larger Mennonite faith community.” 

Click here for a recording of the event.

 

Update on family that shared their journey with a trans child

In May 2023 I shared the story of Barb and Thomas and their child Sam, who is trans.

The family of six—Barb, Thomas and their four children—had been long time members of a Mennonite Brethren church in Canada. In the post, they spoke about how challenging it was to be part of that church and denomination, considering its stance on LGBTQ+ people.

At the time of the interview, Barb and Thomas were struggling with the decision about whether to stay or leave that church. “Increasingly, we just don’t feel we fit in the Mennonite Brethren conference anymore,” Barb said.

After taking time to think about it over the summer, Barb and Thomas have left that church and the Mennonite Brethren denomination. Here’s an update on their story.

While they would like to use their real names, there are people who could be negatively impacted by their association to this family’s story. As a result, they have chosen to still remain anonymous.

By June, we felt we had got to the point where we knew we needed to leave. It was a not a matter of if, but when. 

The way the denomination was handling the conversation about LGBTQ+ people—basically, not permitting an honest discussion about it—left us feeling deeply conflicted. 

How could we be part of a denomination where our child felt they didn’t belong or matter for who they are?

We thought we’d take the summer away to think about the best time to go. The new year seemed a possibility.

But then the Mennonite Brethren Conference announced that Iain Provan would be speaking at its Equip Conference in October, describing people like us who have a different view of welcome and affirmation of Queer people as being like cuckoo birds out to destroy the denominational nest. That was the final straw.

We thought: If the Conference is not willing to have a conversation about this, but only describe people like us as those who are dangerous and need to be expunged from the denomination, was it possible for us to stay?

At the same time, it was discouraging to think that all the conversation that had happened earlier at Open Space seemed to have fallen on deaf ears.

And so we left earlier than we planned. We stopped going to our church in early fall.

While we are sad to have left the relationships we had built in that congregation over the last decade of attending, we feel such a freedom on Sunday mornings now—we don’t have to hide or pretend about our family. I didn’t realize how freeing it would be to let go of that burden.

As for Sam, they found a new home at a local affirming church. They also find it freeing to be at a church where they feel totally accepted—“my church is fantastic! I love it there,” they said of how they feel accepted and affirmed.

Life, they said, “is much better now.”

As for us, we are attending a local evangelical church with two of our four children. (Sam and another sibling go to the affirming church) Our new church isn’t affirming, but the pastor is very open and welcoming of conversation on this topic—the church invites everyone to come just as they are. That includes us; we feel welcome there.

What we like about it is that the music and worship style is engaging and heartfelt and the teaching is deep and relevant. Everyone there is welcoming and intentionally relational; it is one of the core values of the church. It is amazing how we have been welcomed, integrated, and connected.

Although we aren’t attending an affirming church, we stay in touch with friends who are parents of LGBTQ+ children. We have also met other parents of queer children at our new church. That is an important connecting point for us.

While we would ideally like to be at an affirming church, all I can say is that, right now, it feels like we are where we are supposed to be. All of us feel freer than before, and feel our spirits are being renewed and reawakened.

Ahead of vote to expel it from the Mennonite Brethren Church of Manitoba, River East Church invites people to learn about its journey to inclusion

Before delegates to the January 20 Mennonite Brethren Church of Manitoba (MBCM) special session vote about whether to expel River East Church from that denomination, members of that church would like them to learn more about their journey to inclusion. 

For that reason, the church is inviting Mennonite Brethren church members in Manitoba (and beyond) to an in-person and online meeting titled “River East’s Journey to Inclusion” on November 26, 7 p.m. 

At the meeting, people from River East will explain how—after years of conversation and study—they decided to welcome and include people regardless of their gender identity and sexual orientation. 

For those attending in person, the church is located at 755 McLeod in North Kildonan. Those who want to attend online can do so at this link. The passcode is journey and the meeting ID is 854 7662 3489. 

In preparation for the meeting, the church invites people to read its inclusivity statement. 

Dispelling rumours, taking Scripture seriously

Jan Schmidt is a River East member who is organizing the meeting. When asked why the church is inviting people to this meeting, she said the intent is “to share our journey that led to the inclusion statement. We have heard many rumours about how we undertook this process, some of which inaccurately suggest we took the decision lightly.” 

Along with that, Schmidt said “we would like to share our journey to individuals and churches who also are embarking on this conversation.” 

For River East Church member Don Peters, the goal is to “express our thoughts on a topic that is crucial to the life of our church community and to the wider Mennonite Brethren church family. 

"We also want the wider church family to know that we take Scripture seriously and that we have been deliberate, methodical, and prayerful in our discernment process.” 

As a result of the meeting, “we hope that the larger Mennonite Brethren family will understand the seriousness with which we’ve approached our study and our conclusion,” he said. 

When asked if this was an attempt to sway the vote, Peters replied: “It is an effort to present a perspective. As members who are currently suspended from MBCM membership, we know we do not have voting rights. We know that with a meeting at our invitation, we will have the opportunity to express our views.” 

Said Schmidt: “Members of Manitoba Mennonite Brethren churches will decide whether we can remain within the Mennontie Brethren family based on our commitment to live into the inclusivity statement. We would hope that everyone who will participate in this decision would do so with knowing and understanding our journey.”

You can read more about River East's journey to inclusion on this blog. 

Iain Provan on marriage, inclusion, hospitality, boundaries and "protecting the sheep"

 

Normally, it wouldn’t be important for Canadian Mennonite Brethren who are interested in LGBTQ+ welcome and inclusion to pay much attention to Iain Provan and his idea about cuckoos in the Christian nest. 

But since he was invited to be a feature speaker in October at the national Equip conference put on by the Canadian Conference on Mennonite Brethren Churches, it can be assumed his views are important to Conference leadership. 

Not only that; Provan was profiled in the MB Herald, which is the official organ of the conference. Nothing gets published there without the blessing of the Conference. 

Another signal of his importance came October 30 when he was interviewed by British Columbia Mennonite Brethren Conference Minister Rob Thiessen for the BCMB Pastor to Pastor podcast. The title: A biblical response to the lies of our time.

During the interview, which ranged over several topics, Provan was asked to share some of his thinking in the area of inclusion. The quotes below are taken from that podcast transcript. 

Thiessen asked him about his view on marriage. 

He stated that the scriptures are “very clear that a marriage is between one man and one woman for life, till death do us part . . . no matter what other people may say. So that gives us our fundamental orientation point, really, for thinking about marriage, the place of sex in human relationships, sexual intimacy, and so on.” 

Later, Thiessen asked Provan about inclusion, one of the “prevailing cuckoos in the nest,” as he put it. 

Christians, said Thiessen, want to be hospitable and welcoming, since that’s what Jesus was like. But, he asked, is this “the deceptive lie that's jumping into the church under this framework?” 

Provan responded: 

“Well, I think the fundamental problem here is that once you remove Jesus in the Gospels from the Old Testament before it and the New Testament after it, you can almost make Jesus stand for anything that you like. And there's been a long history, in fact, of doing that, not least in the modern period where the liberal Jesus turns out to be a Jesus who's much like me. 

“No matter what the search for Jesus may involve, it always turns out that Jesus is much more conveniently available to me, and not somebody who challenges me or questions my assumptions and so on. 

“And so you get a situation here on this hospitality issue where somehow, because Jesus ate with sinners from time to time, somehow that becomes therefore the church should not have any hard boundaries with regard to the culture roundabout. And the problem is that when you look at both the Old Testament and the New Testament, the remainder of the New Testament, that's not what you find at all. 

“And there's a good reason for that. And that is that if you're going to have a discipleship community holding to a very distinctive countercultural idea of what it means to be a human being, you're going to have to protect the sheep from the wolves who want to destroy those ideas and the community that holds them.” 

He went on: 

“You're going to have to make sure that the boundaries there are actually quite hard. Not because you don't respect people, not because you don't treat other people with dignity, but simply because you recognize that they don't believe what you believe. 

“And if you want to protect your people, particularly your young people, from what they believe, and get them to continue to believe what you think is true, you're going to have to take steps to make sure it happens. 

“I don't think there's a more dangerous recent idea in the church than this idea of hospitality, as it is currently being articulated. I don't think it's a biblical idea of hospitality. I think it's a postmodern philosophy from France kind of view of hospitality. And in that view of hospitality, even holding strong beliefs is held to be oppressive. Right. You can't even articulate strong beliefs. That is a form of violence in the philosophy of Derrida and the quasi Christian people who are following Derrida. But it's coming from French philosophy. It's not coming from the Bible.” 

Thiessen then asked: “How would you describe a more biblical view of hospitality then? How would a church practice be biblically welcoming, or what would be some of the markers of that?” 

Said Provan: 

“Well, I think communities of any kind, typically, unless they're very close communities, typically have ways of welcoming other people into their midst that don't compromise their fundamental integrity. So, for example, I wouldn't be having and I don't think the Bible permits us to have people inside the discipleship community who are not actually walking as disciples, because that undermines the whole viability of the enterprise. 

“But does that mean that we can't invite people to church services? Does it mean that we can't invite people to lunch? Does it mean that we can't work with them? No, it doesn't mean any of those things. So having a hospitable posture in terms of friendliness and welcoming and, you know, and being a human being together, that's all fine and good and proper and all of that. But when you get confused about which level of thing you're dealing with, that's when the problems arise. 

“And there's something of a cry now, a demand now, that the church ought to be inclusive in a way that actually in any community, if you were to adopt that same view, would destroy the very nature of the community.” 

“It's always dangerous giving other examples, because they can sound trivial. So let me just take a very foolish example in a way, a silly example. If I'm a member of a golf club and I have somebody wanting to join my golf club on the basis of inclusion and diversity, who wants to play rugby on my putting greens, likely, I don't imagine there's any golf club in the world that would allow that to happen. Why? Because the person is asking for something that destroys the fundamental point of the community they're demanding to join. It's no different, really, by analogy, when people with very different views of what it means to be a human person want to become core members of our Christian discipleship community.” 

Replied Thiessen: “Yeah, that's good. And it reminds the pastors listening of their role of protecting the flock that's a serious command that we're accountable for as shepherds with the church.” 

Said Provan: 

“Well, I would say that's a primary command. I shake in my boots when I hear people being casual about this issue. There's so much about protecting the sheep, looking after the sheep and all that. And I think that's our primary duty as church leaders. Our primary duty lies not in the direction of the culture at large. I would suggest our primary duty is to make sure the church remains the church, and therefore able then to preach the gospel to the culture to be salt and light. If there's nothing there in the first place to go and do those tasks, the tasks can't be done. So if we get confused about this, we not only risk destroying the church, we also risk destroying the witness of the church in the world.” 

You can listen to the whole podcast and read the transcript here.

Read some reflections on Provan's presentation at Equip here.

Reflections on Iain Provan presentation about a "biblical theology of sexual intimacy, birth sex, and gender expression” at Equip

Some may be wondering about Iain Provan’s presentation at Equip.

Provan—who is known for his idea that there are people with what he considers to be unbiblical ideas who, like European cuckoo birds, sneak into the church’s nest to take it over and destroy its offspring—spoke about “Why the church needs a biblical theology of sexual intimacy, birth sex, and gender expression.”

I wasn’t there. So I reached out to some who attended his presentation and asked for their reactions. This is what they told me. (All were given anonymity in sharing.)

According to one person who heard him speak, Provan was unable to translate his theology and philosophy into pastoral practices. This is growing frustrating to some pastors.

This person, who has heard him speak before, said Provan’s presentation at Equip was more cordial that he has heard him in previous presentations. In his experence, Provan can be quite "dismissive and arrogant at times."

At the same time, he believes Provan is greatly appreciated by some in the Canadian Mennonite Brethren Conference, especially in B.C., since his presentation “told them what they want to hear.”

Another person who heard him noted that, given the title he gave his address, “Why the church needs a biblical theology of sexual intimacy, birth sex, and gender expression,” many there expected an answer. 

It never materialized, in his opinion, although, he noted Provan did not say he was going to provide one, only that the church required one.

This person was critical of Provan’s presentation in two areas.

First, he provided no reference to human sinfulness and to Christians as sinners “saved by Jesus.” That, he said, was an oversight when it comes to defining what it means to be a human being.

That, he said, “surely has to be the honest starting place in reference to communicating anything whatsoever about sexual intimacy, birth sex and gender expression.”

Failing to acknowledge that is a recipe for pride and judgmentalism, he said, noting it has huge implications for building bridges and creating meaningful relationships with the LGBTQ+ community.

Second, Provan failed to acknowledge the importance of “family, clan, tribe, people, and today, a nation-state or nationality,” this person said, and how that shapes people.

For him, this was also a big omission since people are not just individuals but part of grpups that help create identity, purpose and meaning.

A significant “tribe” for LGBTQ+ people, this person said, is what he called the “pride community.” That community provides them with a sense of belonging and identity—the same thing the church seeks to provide, but often doesn’t, for LGBTQ+ people.  

LGBTQ+ Christians who don’t find a home in a church find a home in this new tribe, he said.

From his own experience, this person said he has “witnessed unparalleled sacrificial love, compassion, awareness of other, fierce defending of dignity and honour, a thirst for justice and righteousness” in that LGBTQ+ community.

He described it as “embarrassingly more Christian” than what he has often seen in the Christian community. 

For this person, not recognizing or acknowledging the importance of the LGBTQ+ community to people who are members of it means any efforts to do mission or evangelism is “delusional” since it doesn’t recognize what it means to members of that community.

Another person who attended Provan’s presentation said his involvement in a conference about the theology of the church clearly indicated that the Conference is trying to clarify and strengthen boundaries regarding sexuality and gender.

He also wondered if Provan, as an Old Testament scholar, is qualified to speak about this topic. “I get concerned when scholars make pronouncements on fields outside of their expertise." he said.

He also shared the view of some that Provan’s presentation missed the mark when it came to the practical and on the ground matter of providing pastoral care to people who are exploring their sexual identity.

Did anyone else hear Provan’s presentation? What are your thoughts? Add them in the comment section below.

I should note I asked Provan for an interview before he spoke at Equip. He declined.

When it comes to LGBTQ+ and the Mennonite Brethren church, what do we know for sure?

 

Rich Janzen is a member of a Mennonite Brethren church in Ontario and was a delegate to the March 2023 Ontario Mennonite Brethren Church convention where Southridge Community Church and the Toronto Free Church were expelled from membership.

 

Prior to attending the convention, he was informed by the leadership of his church that all delegates from the congregation were expected to vote to expel the two churches. Rich responded that he would vote his conscience.

 

Rich provided this reflection on the convention, along with his remarks to the delegate body about expelling Southridge and Free Church.

                                            +++++++++++++++

 

When I was young, I had a construction boss who used to greet people with a strange question: “What do you know for sure?”

 

My personality is such that, at first, I thought I needed to answer him literally.

 

After a few mornings of awkward greetings, I came to realize that he was just being playful; inviting me to greet back in an equally flippant way (e.g., “certainly not the weather;” “not really sure;” “who are you again?”) Even so, his odd question has stuck with me. 

 

It came to me again earlier this year after Southridge Community Church was suspended by the Ontario Mennonite Brethren Conference (ONMB).  

 

During the time leading up to the March 2023 assembly, where the vote would be taken to expel Southridge from the Conference, I began thinking about what I would say on the convention floor about the motion to remove that church from Conference membership. How would I organize my thoughts for the brief 3-4 minutes of allotted time? 

 

That’s when I decided to use that question from my old boss to help me frame my response: “What do we know for sure?”

 

I’m not a theologian. I’m not a pastor. I’m not even a lay church leader at the moment. But I know a few things for sure, as found in Palmer Becker’s Anabaptist essentials. Becker boils Anabaptism down to three essential statements:

 

·       Jesus is the centre of our faith

·       Community is the centre of our life 

·       Reconciliation is the centre of our work

 

Becker’s essentials are really just an updated repackaging of Harold S. Bender’s more famous Anabaptist Vision, where he highlights the distinctives of our radical Anabaptist forbearers relative to other reformers.

 

You can see the echo of these essentials in the new organizational tagline of the Mennonite World Conference: “Following Jesus, living out unity, building peace.” (In a recent article in Direction journal, Lynn Jost has offered how this three-part focus could be tweaked to our uniquely Mennonite Brethren context.) 

 

All to say that I felt these three essentials were as good a starting place as any in helping me to frame a response to the unprecedented motion before our provincial conference. Below find what I shared with the convention delegates. I suppose others may have assessed the motion through this lens somewhat differently. But my point in speaking was not only to share my conclusion on the motion, but also that we should frame our assessment of it through the grid of some set of agreed upon first principles. (Not on cherry-picked statements of faith, much less on emotion such as fear.)

 

We now know that mine was a minority opinion among delegates. The vote wasn’t even close. Southridge (along with Free Church) was dismembered. 

 

Over half a year later, I’m left wondering who we are as a denomination. I wonder if there is any consensus on what Mennonite Brethren would say are our essentials. And I wonder who gets to do this framing of our essentials, especially in light of the word “Brethren” in our name, with its non hierarchical and communal overtones.

 

And I also wonder what it means that we have come to dismember our own. (I use the term “dismember” because it conveys literally that some are no longer formal members, but also because it conveys figuratively the pain and loss involved, both to those dismembered and presumably for those who remain).

 

In the last two years there have been a number of Mennonite Brethren congregations across Canada that have been dismembered either actively (by formal vote) or passively (left voluntarily after struggle). Similarly, there have been individuals who have been dismembered from their local congregations—my own congregation has experienced a rash of dismemberings, including long-term members and former leaders.

 

I suspect that this recent inclination of Canadian Mennonite Brethren to dismember will continue. And it makes me wonder what we know for sure, and who we have become.

 

Comments made on the Ontario MB Conference convention floor (February 25, 2023)

 

Hello, I’m Rich Janzen. I’m struggling to see how this motion [to remove Southridge Community Church from Ontario Mennonite Brethren membership] is consistent with our Anabaptist identity. I’ll give three quick reasons for this that are linked to the three Anabaptist essentials that Palmer Becker talks about.

 

First, Jesus is the centre of our faith. We Anabaptists privilege the gospels and read the rest of scripture through that lens of the life and teachings of Jesus.

 

I haven’t heard the rationale of this motion being [explicitly] based on the Gospels, about how Southridge is no longer following the direct example and direct teachings of Jesus. One could argue that Southridge has been following the example of Jesus in his radical hospitality and inclusion.

 

Second, community is the centre of our life, Christian community that is marked by unity in fellowship. This unity was Jesus’s only prayer for us in John 17. Paul picks up on this unity theme in Romans 14 not in some abstract universal big “C” church way, but in tangible local fellowship. He teaches us how we can live together despite strong disagreements. His advice isn’t to check out of community or to push others out of community.

 

In contrast, the motion before us is to dismember Southridge from our community. To me, that seems to reflect the way of the world, which likes to create echo chambers and votes off the island those who are disagreeable or those whose views make one feel uncomfortable. I fail to see how this motion is a fulfillment of Jesus’ prayer for us to live united in community.

 

And third, reconciliation is the centre of our ministry. This point is made in Article 13 of our Mennonite Brethren confession of faith that says that we’re people of peace and reconciliation.

 

The truth is reconciliation between the church and our LGBTQ+ siblings is desperately needed. There has been harm done by the church to the LGBTQ community (something not acknowledged in the Provincial Faith and Life Team report). Southridge has acknowledged that truth and has begun the hard work of reconciliation.

 

That sounds Anabaptist to me. I would humbly suggest that congregations who have closeted the truth of harm or resisted conversations and other efforts of reconciliation are not in line with Article 13 of our Confession of Faith. We should be careful of casting stones.

 

So, three reasons for your consideration. Combined, they raise the question of why this topic is leading us to live outside of our character. I personally think we would do well to wrestle with this question and I think there is wisdom in the calls from across the country for a moratorium on congregational suspensions and pastoral credential reviews until we sort this out.

 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

Mennonite Brethren Church of Manitoba announces timeline, special resolution to remove River East Church from membership over LGBTQ+

 

Saying it is “the conclusion of the MBCM board, following consultation with the MBCM Provincial Faith and Life Team (PFLT) . . . that River East Church (REC) is failing to uphold the commitment to the Confession of Faith expected of MBCM member churches,” the Mennonite Brethren Church of Manitoba has informed the church it will hold a special meeting on January 20 where delegates will vote on a special resolution to remove REC’s membership in MBCM effective May 31, 2024. 

The full letter about the Special Resolution is below. 

Notice of Special Resolution to River East Church, October 19, 2023 

Greetings to you, River East Church. You are a valued part of our Manitoba community. 

You have been at work to enhance the care and inclusion of LGBTQ+ persons in an intentional manner for many years now, in particular the last four years. We recognize this effort, even when we experience disagreement with aspects of your approach and conclusions. 

It is our wish to convey gratitude to the leadership of REC in so much that you have invited MBCM leadership to observe your work these past years. In particular, thank you to Rennie Redekopp, for his consistent willingness to proactively engage in conversation. 

A personal note from Jason Dyck, “Thank you Rennie, you’ve been a friend.” 

The MBCM Board recognizes that LGBTQ+ persons, along with their friends and families, have experienced exclusion and rejection in churches. While this is not everyone’s story, we know and have experienced 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 in this journey, where LGBTQ+ persons and their families experience inclusion and care. 

We recognize that some of the implications of working to include and care for LGBTQ+ persons can bump up against our shared confession. The MBCM board continues to affirm our shared confession, in all of its aspects. 

We also recognize that we operate from a place of perceived and actual power. Power is often experienced as force, and there are ample examples of church institutions applying power in ways that fail. Our shared confession states that “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. 

As you are aware, River East Church was suspended from active membership in Mennonite Brethren Church of Manitoba on May 10, 2023. Per MBCM’s constitutional process, the Provincial Faith and Life Team conducted a review of the circumstances of this suspension. The MBCM board has received that review and has subsequently decided to submit the following special resolution to MBCM churches on or before November 3, 2023. 

Special Resolution Preamble 

The Mennonite Brethren Church of Manitoba recognizes the marginalization that LGBTQ+ persons and families have experienced in churches. We remain committed to our ongoing work to reduce marginalization and the resulting harm, while remaining committed to our Confession of Faith, in all of its aspects. 

As a condition of their participation and membership in the MBCM, every MBCM congregation explicitly commits to an “acceptance of the Confession of Faith of the Canadian Conference” and to not “pass[ing] or accept[ing] resolutions or practices which are in conflict with this [MB] Confession of Faith.” In their sincere effort to offer welcome to LGBTQ+ persons, River East Church (REC) has made statements and decisions (e.g. A Response from River East Church to MBCM Board and PFLT, January 2023) that are substantively in conflict with the Confession of Faith. In so doing, REC has broken their commitment to not pass resolutions or practises which are in conflict with the Confession of Faith. REC has stated their affirmation of the Confession of Faith as well as affirm same sex marriage. MBCM leadership believes this approach to be incompatible with the intent and common understanding of the convictions described in our shared Confession of Faith. 

While our MB Confession of Faith is an expression of what we believe to be truth discerned from Scripture and is therefore changeable by our national MB conference of churches, a local congregation cannot legitimately make changes (actual or interpretive) on its own and then pursue practices in conflict with these nationally shared convictions. 

The conclusion of the MBCM board, following consultation with the MBCM Provincial Faith and Life Team (PFLT), is that REC is failing to uphold the commitment to the Confession of Faith expected of MBCM member churches. 

Special Resolution Explanation 

This special resolution is presented to the Assembly of Congregations at a Special Assembly on January 20, 2024. 

We invite River East Church to join the MBCM and CCMBC community in embracing a posture of commitment to the Confession of Faith. As a part of this return, it is the desire of the MBCM leadership board that River East Church would join us in this important and ongoing work of reducing marginalization and harm. If River East Church cannot respond to this invitation, and actively return to the shared membership expectations of the Mennonite Brethren Church of Manitoba by May 30, 2024, we regretfully acknowledge that River East Church has chosen a path that will end their membership with MBCM as of May 31, 2024. 

Should this ending of membership become a reality as of May 31, 2024, MBCM will continue to extend an ongoing invitation for River East Church to re-apply for MBCM membership if, at that time, they are able to commit themselves to the theological and practical expectations involved in being an MBCM member church. 

With this special resolution, the Assembly of Congregations of MBCM in no way preclude the agency of River East Church. River East Church has the option, at a time of their choosing before May 31, 2024, to withdraw from membership with MBCM. 

Special Resolution 

We, the Assembly of Congregations of the Mennonite Brethren Church of Manitoba, do resolve that, unless River East Church returns to an active embrace of MBCM member church expectations by May 30, 2024, River East Church’s official membership in the Mennonite Brethren Church of Manitoba will end effective May 31, 2024. 

We finally resolve that should River East Church’s MBCM membership end as of May 31, 2024, MBCM extends an ongoing invitation for REC to return to MBCM if they choose to embrace and live in accordance with our shared member church expectations. 

Kind regards, Dave Ens, MBCM Board Moderator, Mennonite Brethren Church of Manitoba