More reporting from breakout groups at the Jan. 9-11 Open Space gathering in Winnipeg.
Bible and Marriage
The group took a look at 1 Corinthians 7, noting the Bible doesn’t speak with one voice. We are to discern the “wisdom direction.”
They noted marriage is not a biblical institution; it’s a civil institution (that religious people can/should speak into). Most of the forms of marriage in the Bible people would find repugnant today. Christians have assumed that civil marriage is the biblical definition. We need to revisit this conception.
The Jewish heritage of the Christian faith suggests we need to look at all of the texts and work at them to “enhance our wonder of God,” rather than picking one text and dismissing/ignoring the others and then landing on the one text as an “answer.”
Questions the group asked: How does God being non-binary shape/direct the conversation? Does God being non-binary mean God created non-binary people? Is that a “direct step” to be made?
They noted Genesis 1-2 describes humans as being image-bearers of God. Jesus is described as the fullest expression of a fully alive human being. If Christians are called to be image bearers of God in the likeness of Christ, how might Jesus’ singleness and celibacy shape our understanding of what it means to be fully alive humans in his likeness?
The book of James talks about different types of wisdom. Do we have the skills (e.g. self-reflection) as a church to do that wisdom processing? What work do we have to do?
“Wisdom processing:” Is our denomination able/willing to consider/operationalize that posture/approach? Where does a community hermeneutic take place? Are there only certain, acceptable places where that happens?
Are we clear on what it is we are called to be and what we are calling people to? Are we called to (not) believe/do this or that in order to not go to hell and get into heaven? Or are we called to become fully alive human beings who bear the image of God in the likeness of Christ? Are we called to be a community that images God to the world?
Power and Patriarchy
The question the group asked: How does patriarchy and power influence the conversation?
They noted: How we frame the conversations and who is leading the conversations matters.
They wondered: If women were in stronger leadership in the church, would we be in the position we are now? Feminism is about the empowering everyone on the margins. (Because when you’re on the margins you can see the margins.)
They suggested power/patriarchy is the only thing that can make sense of the question “why this issue?”
Some denominations are doubling down on women in leadership because they have seen the link between women in ministry and inclusion and are feeling the threat to male dominance. (We see this in the move towards male eldership as well.)
An influence in this is the Gospel Coalition. (A well marketed theology.)
Power: Do Mennonite Brethren know how to talk about it? Conflict avoidance tends to be our methodology, which is also an act of violence. There is importance in naming this power. But how do you get the people with power to recognize it?
Power isn’t the problem; its how you are positioned when you hold that authority to be accountable to others.
It’s also important to create policies for protecting those who have less power
It was suggested the collaborative model, which governs the national Mennonite Brethren conference, is really just a denial of power not a divesting of power.
What can people do?
- Name and normalize the identification of power.
- Explore how love and power relate to each other, and the role of kindness.
- Stay curious. Who is in the room? Who is not in the room? Who got to talk? Who didn’t?
- Recognize the different types of violence. Mennonites can’t say they are non-violent when our systems have caused oppression and systemic violence to particular groups.
- Note how anxious people get when they feel threatened, or feel their power is threatened. How do we make it less scary?
- Realize that what drives patriarchy is certainty.
- Change the unit of analysis. It is easier to think about a singular unit of change (heart, life, etc.) That is the kind of change that is almost always given as an answer to a problem. But this conversation is all about systemic change. There is something about the parts, but also about the whole. Not one or the other, but both in full measure as the primary unit of change.
- Be theologically faithful. Ask: What are we called to do in this moment in time?
- Think strategically.
Mennonite Brethren as a family; is it a good metaphor?
Does this imagery, analogy and metaphor of family help us or hinder us in this conversation?
Family is significant theologically and personally; how we talk or sing impacts what we believe.
We use a lot of metaphors; so in regard to the church talking about itself as a family is acceptable. But it is not the only metaphor for the church in the Bible. In fact, one metaphor is not sufficient to describe the church.
In the past we have used military models (“mission”) and lately we have operated under “business” language and ideology—“organization” is also a word that is used a lot.
What are we feeling as a family participant in the Mennonite Brethren church when we now don’t feel like we particularly belong anymore after we have been here for a long time?
- All the years of investment feels as though it doesn’t count for anything.
- As an MB I have been historically labelled as “denominationally stuck.” But lately I have been losing my loyalty to this family—not mourning it, but just it is the reality. Then MB church that we are being left out of, isn’t what it was, it is no longer the family that we knew.
- Over the years my attachment has been “thinning.” I love the people, but there is something going on in the institution. I don’t mourn the loss anymore, but I am experiencing the numbness.
- These last few years my membership has felt precarious. Does it matter to me whether or not I am a member? I have felt a direct calling to that congregation and family, so it has meant more than I thought.
- I havee begun to let go. The kingdom is going to be OK. I don’t know if the MB family will survive, but the kingdom will.
- It still feels like home more than anywhere else; but it is a tense home right now.
- For me, family is a helpful metaphor; we have conflict in our family, yet we are still family. But after over 40 years in the Mennonite Brethren church, I find that my attachment is much thinner than it has been for a long time
- I don’t want to give up too soon on our conference; we have had a lot of chasms in the past.
- We are most polite with people we don’t know, but we fight with our family. Family is who we fight with, and I think we are sensing that we haven’t really done that or had conversation. In trying to work for peace, we have limited our ability to converse and have discussion in fear of conflict.
What about the people who are not here / marginalized / not feeling welcome? How does that perspective shape how you feel about family?
- How do you define Mennonite Brethren? And who decides what defines being Mennonite Brethren? Different people are defining it differently than we do. The powers that be only see Mennonite Brethren as boiled down to shared beliefs.
- Can we decide about our definition about what it means to MB? We have agency, and we have people in our community who have a historical and more robust definition. If there is enough of us maybe we have the influence to change the definition.
- We have multiple churches in the conference that are less Anabaptist than some of the churches that are being asked to leave.
- Extending the family metaphor; when the patriarchs and matriarchs are causing harm, then in a family we create boundaries. Are the people who hold the power in defining hold the trust of the family? What does it mean to hold healthy boundaries?
- Jesus is working to redefining our “family” and drove Paul to inclusion of Gentiles; who controls it? God.
- Mennonite Brethren ceases to be a family when it is kicking people out.
No comments:
Post a Comment