Ontario Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches issues statement on release from membership of Southridge, FreeChurch

The following was shared with churches in the ONMB conference and with this blog.

On behalf of our Ontario Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches (ONMB) board, we wanted to provide a report to follow up from our 2023 Convention. We were grateful for all our pastors and leaders, from member churches, associate churches, agencies, and partners, who gathered in Wellesley, Ont. 

On Friday evening we shared a powerful time of worship, celebrating God’s faithfulness in our brokenness and struggles in song, scripture, teaching and communion. Dan Chook Reid, Bytown Community Church pastor and planter, gave a testimony of God’s transforming work in the midst of his cancer journey. You can view a recording of this service [here].

 

Saturday’s time together included a variety of breakout sessions, a time for equipping and learning from various ministries in some of our churches and agencies. We then finished with a time of important decision making, including elections, approval of our annual budget and financial statements, and approval of updates to the Camp Crossroads general operating bylaw. 

 

Finally, our members also voted on two significant decisions regarding our suspended member churches. Motions were brought for the removal of FreeChurch Toronto and Southridge Community Church from membership in the ONMB conference.

 

Two breakout sessions were held prior to the motions, one online and one in person, in which extensive questions and concerns were engaged. There was also significant discussion on the conference floor as the motions were presented to the delegates.

 

The motion regarding removal from membership of FreeChurch Toronto passed with a 96% vote in favour and the motion regarding Southridge Community Church passed with an 85% vote in favour. 

 

Our board recognizes the weightiness and complexity of these decisions and the difficult task we asked of our members and delegates. We were deeply grateful for the posture of many participants, the open and honest dialogue, the respect modelled even in a space of disagreement and pain. We understand that for many of us, these decisions come with grief and sadness, and we continue to pray for our ONMB community. 

 

Our session on Saturday closed with a laying of hands and prayer for the congregations of FreeChurch and Southridge, as we released them from membership. We invite your ongoing prayers for ONMB and for the congregations of FreeChurch and Southridge. Although we are no longer bound together in this formal way, many opportunities remain to connect and serve together as brothers and sisters in the broader body of Christ and His Church. 

 

These decisions by our members reflect our commitment as ONMB to our Canadian MB Confession of Faith, as our best articulation of scripture and the redemptive work of Jesus and as a guide for our discipleship. It is these convictions and beliefs that are to guide us in how we can best live out the ways of Jesus as his disciples, and to be an expression of His Kingdom. 

 

In light of these decisions, we also recognize there remains much learning and growth ahead for us as ONMB. In the coming season, our board, staff, and Faith & Life Team are committed to providing this discipleship, equipping and resourcing for our churches.  

 

We agree with Jesus’ call to his church to love, welcome, invite, or embrace ALL people, including 2SLGBTQ+ individuals, and we believe that the convictions expressed in our Confession give us the theological vision to live as this Jesus-centred, Kingdom of God community. In this posture, we desire to grow in how we create space for all people to experience Jesus and choose to surrender to His lordship and enter into a life of discipleship, following Jesus together. 

 

We also recognize there are definitely times when the Christian Church, including the Mennonite Brethren, have not loved people well who identify as 2SLGBTQ+. For that, we need to walk in repentance, to ask their forgiveness, and recognize that we need to do better. As we interact with and serve all of our neighbours, including the 2SLGBTQ+ community, we want to model the posture of Jesus, walking with grace and speaking truth in love. 

 

Thank you for continuing to walk this road together. We always welcome your questions and feedback and conversation. As we navigate these challenging times, may we seek Christ together in a spirit of humility and obedience, trusting that God is fully able and perfectly faithful. Again, In our brokenness, Jesus shines. 

 

With prayer, 

 

Michelle Knowles & Ryan Jantzi, 

On behalf of the ONMB Board 

The River East Church story: A Journey toward Inclusivity

Don Peters, a member of River East Church, wrote an account of the church's journey towards inclusivity. It is shared here with permission from the church.

It is standard practice for churches to include the expression, “All are Welcome!” with their announcement of Sunday morning services. In recent years, many churches, including the River East Church (REC), have become reflective about how the expression “All are Welcome” doesn’t feel welcoming to all. Does the invitation have exceptions? Does the invitation come with limitations?

At River East Church (REC) we grappled with these questions and invited the Manitoba Mennonite Brethren Church (MBCM) leadership to accompany and observe. Our Inclusivity Statement 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. On this journey, we worked to identify our blind spots and become conscious of unintended harm we’ve caused along the way. 

At REC we have become convicted to embrace inclusivity as a gift and call of Christ.

At REC we have become convicted to embrace inclusivity as a gift and call of Christ. From the outset, the REC community resolved that our welcome must be an invitation to participate; not merely an invitation to observe. That is, people who enter REC are welcome to join us on a journey of discipleship. In accepting that invitation, they are entitled to the same privileges and responsibilities as any other people on the journey.

At the end of our process, our Inclusivity Statement was approved by the community (1) and circulated.

Here it is in full:

River East Church is a Jesus Community for the world. We invite everyone to join us in living out this mission as followers of Jesus in the Anabaptist / Mennonite tradition. This invitation is extended to all persons, 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. We strive to live as a community of love, even as we acknowledge our different understandings of Scripture. In our diversity, we gather around the Lord’s Table to celebrate our unity in Christ. (2)

Since its release, the Inclusivity Statement has received much attention in the wider Mennonite Brethren community. We hope the welcome it contains will be received with interest by people within the family of Mennonite Brethren churches, by people from other churches, and by people with no church affiliation.

It is in the spirit of engagement and welcome that we write this letter. If we were delivering the letter from a stage, we would think of three components to the audience:

We know that leaders of MBCM will have interest in what we have to say.

We hope that individual MB churches and people within those churches will have interest.

And we hope that the people groups identified in the Inclusivity Statement will read and consider our invitation.

We understand that all aspects of the Inclusivity Statement will challenge our common practices and understandings of faith and discipleship. We are seeking to attend to all these aspects in our worship and work.

The focus of attention, in the responses we have received, is on just eight: ‘all persons’, ‘gender identity’, ‘sexual orientation’, and ’full participation’.

The statement has around 100 words but the focus of attention, in the responses we have received, is on just eight: ‘all persons’, ‘gender identity’, ‘sexual orientation’, and ’full participation’. MBCM leadership wrote REC to ask specifically what ‘full participation’ means in relation to ‘all persons.’ To the extent that this letter focuses on matters of sexual orientation and gender, it is because that has been the focus of questions from MBCM.

We developed the Inclusivity Statement at a time when many conversations within society were growing louder. This included conversations regarding 2SLGBTQ+ persons, race discrimination, income inequality, climate change, and reconciliation with Indigenous people. We realized that REC needs to do much better on many fronts and that our statement of welcome needed to be broad.

To illustrate, the REC community aspires to deep engagement with matters of reconciliation related to Indigenous communities. There has been no disagreement among us that we need to do better, and we have worked actively to educate ourselves: We set up a committee of members to address the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) recommendations that pertain to churches; we’ve invited members of the Indigenous community to speak with us; we’ve participated in listening circles; we’ve offered our facility as a church location for an Indigenous group; we’ve provided food and fuel to an encampment at the Legislative Building; we’ve resourced our library with relevant reading material3 ; we’ve sent our youth and youth leaders to a reservation to build relationships. We are learning what it means to be treaty people.

We share the REC story on matters of Indigenous reconciliation to underscore that developing the Inclusivity Statement was not intended to be a process on 2SLGBTQ+ inclusion per se. Rather, the statement is an invitation to the larger set of communities that we consider to be systematically excluded by the church on account of its particular history, practices, and understandings of faith.

We acknowledge that all of us grew up having been taught, and largely accepting, that “All are Welcome!” did not include 2SLGBTQ+ persons.

That said, the Inclusivity Statement also intends to be a process on 2SLGBTQ+ inclusion. We acknowledge that all of us grew up having been taught, and largely accepting, that “All are Welcome!” did not include 2SLGBTQ+ persons or, if it did, the welcome was limited to observation. Over decades, but primarily over the last decade, many members of our community, because of their work, family, and other connections, had life experiences that questioned their initial upbringing. In the 90’s, a same-sex couple participated in REC for many years. During this time, we had an informal policy of ‘don’t ask’, ‘don’t tell’, ‘don’t talk about it.’ Did the couple participate in our journey of discipleship? After a fashion. Were they welcomed to full participation? Hardly.

We acknowledge that personal stories, especially those that arise within our families and our faith community, have motivated us to re-examine scripture. We ask the question; how can we reconcile what we’ve learned in scripture with what we are learning from experience? We acknowledge that we were not of one mind in this question, and we needed to go through a lengthy process of educating ourselves, studying scripture, hearing stories, and holding experience and scripture together4 . Over time, most of us began to change our minds. REC is known to be a discerning community. It takes questions seriously, as well as the process whereby to address them. In-person discernment is essential, but COVID intervened. Finally, the REC community has been able to meet in-person and has reached broad agreement on the general direction that our Inclusivity Statement will take us.

Our Inclusivity Statement is neither a starting point for what God is calling us to, nor is it an end point.

As we tell the story of how we arrived at this place, it is important to note that our Inclusivity Statement is neither a starting point for what God is calling us to, nor is it an end point.

The Inclusivity Statement is the result of decades long journeys of discernment on what it means to be a follower of Christ today. In the end, the statement is a natural outgrowth of our identity, mission, and core values.

Many people in the wider MB church community will know that REC was in the vanguard of change to MB policy with respect to women in church leadership. REC hired the first full-time female pastor before church policy was changed to one accepting women in all leadership roles. We mention this here because REC, while demonstrating its commitment to this essential aspect of inclusivity, also contributed significantly to the wider MB church.

Within the last decade, REC developed, and posted, our Identity and Mission, and statement of Core Values (4), articulated as “Our Beliefs” on the church website. (5) The details in “Our Beliefs” are rooted in Anabaptist essentials summed up in a statement by Palmer Becker that has become a mantra for many Mennonite denominations, including the Mennonite Brethren (6): “Jesus is the Centre of our Faith; Community is the Centre of our Life; Reconciliation is the Centre of our Work.” (7)

REC understands itself as a “Jesus community for the world” and believes “that church should be a place where anyone can experience belovedness and kinship with God.”

If the church “should be a place where anyone can experience belovedness and kinship with God,” then the invitation to “full participation in the journey of discipleship” should be extended to ‘all persons.’

“Our Beliefs” were developed long before our Inclusivity Statement and form the foundation for it. That is, if the church “should be a place where anyone can experience belovedness and kinship with God,” then the invitation to “full participation in the journey of discipleship” should be extended to ‘all persons.’ To limit that invitation would require adding a qualifier to the ubiquitous statement “All are Welcome!” on any and every MB church sign.

REC boldly asserts that we are A Jesus Community for the World:

We are a Jesus Community. We take Jesus and his teachings seriously. We believe that Jesus called us to do justice and to reach out to the marginalized, just as he did throughout his life.

Our community is purposed toward the World. Of course, there are rewards that members of the community realize within REC. But our community does not exist for itself. It exists for the purpose of interaction with others.

This statement of identity, A Jesus Community for the World, is also a statement of aspiration. We take Jesus seriously and we take the World seriously. Specifically, we challenge ourselves to relate to society, our culture, and the environment with the sense of justice, compassion, and inclusion exemplified by Jesus.

Our Beliefs and the Inclusivity Statement, as presented on the REC website, were developed in a Mennonite Brethren church community. We are a diverse community like many others. And like other church communities, we also have a distinct uniqueness: REC has a strong record of support and service for MBCM, the Canadian Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches (CCMBC), wider MB conference, and Anabaptist agencies. Those who have reached agreement on this statement include: past and present leaders of our Mennonite institutions including positions in MBCM, CMU, MBCI, MCC and MEDA; many persons who have sat both on Canadian and Manitoba conference boards as well as national and provincial Faith and Life Teams; a member of our community who sat on the last revision of the MB confession of faith; theologians who have taught in our institutions; and pastors who have served in our congregation and other MB churches.

We are people whose faith has been nurtured in many MB congregational, conference, and agency communities. The MB church has shaped the convictions of our faith and who we are as followers of Christ. We also are a people of many other vocations and life experiences beyond church work and church related academics – teachers, musicians, health professionals, social workers, business people.

Our Beliefs and our Inclusivity Statement were developed in a church community that takes the Bible seriously.

Our Beliefs and our Inclusivity Statement were developed in a church community that takes the Bible seriously. We seek to follow Christ, to study scripture and practices of faith, including the use of the Confession of Faith, and to be attentive to where God’s spirit is moving.

The REC community has searched for Biblical guidance with respect to the topic of inclusivity. This search was deliberate and methodical. (8) For example, community members were encouraged to read, to pray, to reflect; sermon series were prepared, delivered, and received. During COVID restrictions, we had on-line break-out discussions. We heard moving accounts from community members whose minds and hearts were changed by listening to the stories of others, sometimes the stories of family members. (9)

We asked the question, “In our time, who are those that we tend to push away, but that Christ would not?”

We asked the question, “In our time, who are those that we tend to push away, but that Christ would not?” After much reflection, an overwhelming majority of community members are convinced that the Bible can be read with integrity and welcome the inclusion of all persons to full participation in the journey of discipleship. Many of us would state it this way: when the Bible is read with integrity, the Bible welcomes all persons to full participation in the journey of discipleship.

The Inclusivity Statement is not an end point.

It is an invitation to a journey of discipleship, a process that involves people in relationship with each other and with God. We will live into the journey as we walk it.

The Inclusivity Statement is a statement of aspiration, a statement of intention. The REC community aspires to be a healthy home. What does a healthy church home look like when all persons identified in the statement—whatever their ability, age, ethnicity, family status, gender identity, income level, race, sexual orientation, or other identity distinctives—feel welcome? How do we go about creating this healthy home?

The REC Inclusivity Statement is a signal that the REC community intends to be a Jesus community in the world, willing and committed to engage and to serve. We remain committed to the Biblical tradition, a community hermeneutic, and our Anabaptist foundation.

We acknowledge that we are not unanimous in our acceptance of the Inclusivity Statement. We acknowledge that a few community members have left REC in the process of this discernment. We miss them and we are working to remain in relationship.

We acknowledge that some community members are concerned that the direction taken in REC’s Inclusivity Statement will threaten our relationship with MBCM. We hope that we will be able to stay together at REC and model an acceptance of each other.

We acknowledge that some in our community feel that it is necessary to leave the MB conference to stop doing harm to persons and communities who do not understand themselves to be fully welcome. Others within REC remain committed to retaining membership. Many of us hope that the current discussion regarding REC’s Inclusivity Statement will be a catalyst for change within MBCM and CCMBC and, at the very least, will encourage other MB churches in their own discernment processes on the topic of inclusivity.

It disturbs us that some MB conferences are removing or sanctioning pastors and congregations simply because they feel compelled to examine questions related to sexuality.

We conclude our letter with a call-out to the three components of our audience:

To the MB leadership in MBCM and CCMBC: It disturbs us that some MB conferences are removing or sanctioning pastors and congregations simply because they feel compelled to examine questions related to sexuality. Mennonite Brethren history has ample illustrations of imposition and exclusion: those who divorced; those who divorced and then wished to remarry; those who were not baptized by immersion; and going far back in time, those who went to movies. The church has changed its position on these matters and on others more current: leadership positions in the church are now open to women. Even confessional statements change not only as wording is updated but as church conferences modify an article to mirror the church’s conviction. An illustration of this is the USMB modification of Article XIII of Confession of Faith, “Love, Peacemaking and Reconciliation.” Change occurs in our practices, change occurs in our Confession of Faith. The issues that we deal with today, issues that challenge current practices and our Confession of Faith, are not the first nor will they be the last.

Few today would concur with past practices of the church which saw the censure, even expulsion, of members who stepped outside of then current church practices and positions. We aspire to model that it is better to treat differences in the family with listening, tolerance, and acceptance, than with suspension and expulsion.

We have not arrived, and we cannot arrive because ours is a faith journey.

To other MB churches and community members within them: We welcome you to engage with us. We have not arrived, and we cannot arrive because ours is a faith journey. We hope that you recognize the seriousness with which we have engaged this topic and that our work may serve as building block for you. We hope that our story encourages you to be true to scripture and to love and accept anyone who enters your community. We are open to your challenge, to listening, sharing, and examining together.

To “all persons” mentioned in our Inclusivity Statement, including persons who self-identify within the 2SLGBTQ+ community: Our statement means what it says -- “All are welcome to full participation in the journey of discipleship.” We welcome you to walk confidently with us. We welcome you to stumble along with us. You will challenge us; we will challenge each other. You are welcome to join us on a journey of discipleship. We extend this invitation without caveat.

This is our story at this stage of our journey. We know that other MB churches, and members within MB churches, are grappling with the same questions we have been working with and we write this as our invitation to engage with you.

Footnotes

1. September 14-19, 2020; online vote on statement

2. https://rivereastchurch.ca/our-beliefs/ 

3. As examples, see: Steve Heinrichs, ed., Unsettling the Word: Biblical Experiments in Decolonization. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis. 2019; Randy Woodley, Becoming Rooted: One Hundred Days of Reconnecting with Sacred Earth. Minneapolis: Broadleaf Books Ltd. 2022.

4. The REC Core Value Statements were approved by the congregation in February 2018.

5. https://rivereastchurch.ca/ 

6. Becker’s statement was a focus of Emerson Cordoso’s plenary address at CCMBC Gathering in Saskatoon, July 2018. Cordoso is Executive Director of the Brazil MB Church and on the Executive Committee of ICOMB

7. Palmer Becker. Anabaptist Essentials: Ten Signs of a Unique Christian Faith. Harrisburg Virginia: Herald Press. 2017

8. It included not only the materials referred to in Appendix A but also sermons based on relevant Biblical material.

9. https://anabaptistworld.org/finding-pride-in-my-brother-finding-my-brother-at-pride/ 

Opinion: How many people does it take to effect change over something like LGBTQ+ in a denomination? Not as many as you might think

Now that the votes are in on churches like Southridge, FreeChurch and Jubilee, people who are in favour of more conversation about LGBTQ+ welcome and affirmation are feeling disappointed—while those who voted for their removal are feeling positive about the results.

But both groups should be taking a moment to pause when they consider new research about how what percentage of a population is needed to sway a majority opinion in a different direction.

First, some background.

In Ontario, 87 percent of delegates to the Ontario Mennonite Brethren Conference convention voted to remove Southridge Community Church from membership. (No vote total was given for Toronto FreeChurch.) So, 13 percent voted against it. (For whatever reason.) 

In Manitoba, just over 74 percent voted to oust Jubilee Mennonite Church from the Mennonite Brethren Church of Manitoba. Almost 25 percent said no to removing them.

In both cases, those are powerful mandates. But research published in the journal Science in 2018 suggests a different view of the results—especially in Manitoba.

In the abstract about the research, the publication notes that all it takes to overturn a consensus opinion is for 25 percent of people to hold a different perspective. 

In an interview in Scientific American, one of the researchers, Damon Centola, an associate professor in the Annenberg School of Communications at the University of Pennsylvania, elaborated on the findings.  

The classic model "says that once an equilibrium is established, in order to change it you need 51 percent,” he said.

“And what these results say is no, a small minority can be really effective, even when people resist the minority view.”

The team’s computer modeling indicated a minority of 25 percent of a population would be sufficient to reverse a majority opinion for populations as large as 100,000.

For some, this represents the tipping point, the percentage of a given population that is needed to change a group's behaviour or way of thinking. 

Thinking about this reminds of previous debates over issues that were once a majority view but aren't any longer: Enabling women so serve as ministers, admitting divorced and remarried people into membership, and also slavery (much further back).

Other issues that once were considered sacrosanct among Mennonite Brethren included, for some churches, excommunicating those who married outside the denomination (including to members of other non-Mennonite Brethren churches), or the use of the German language.

In all those cases, what started out as a minority view grew until the entire denomination changed its mind on those topics. (Although not all churches are open to women in ministry.)

When it comes to LGBT+ welcome and affirmation among Mennonite Brethren in Canada, the denomination has barely begun this journey. It was only in 2021—just two years ago—when some members of the denomination began to call for more conversation on the topic.

(That was also the year Artisan Church pulled out of the B.C. Mennonite Brethren conference over this topic, the first church to do so.)

So it’s something for there to be 25 percent of delegates at a convention in Manitoba saying no to removing a church because it welcomes and affirms LGBTQ+ people, and 13 percent opposing it in Ontario.

Of course, those who want change won't see it happen overnight. But those who want nothing to change shouldn't think it won't happen, either.

Not if the research is right, anyway.

"Give us a theological case for changing something the church believes and practiced for two millennia." Open Space leaders respond to a commenter's question

In March, someone left an anonymous comment on the blog expressing disappointment over some of the other comments. Some, the writer said, seem to be deliberately attempting “to not actually hear what anyone from the other side of discussion is saying.”

The writer went on:

“Yes, there are poor examples of those who are exclusionary and prejudicial. We heard some of those voices at MBCM Assembly.

“But it seems there is no acknowledgement of those who are attempting to welcome, include, and yet continue hold a theological view of marriage as between a man and woman. In my own church, we have a ton of Side-B & Side-A LGBTQ+ folks. I don't think it's charitable for David Wiebe to compare those sorts of folks to genocidal colonizers. It's in poor taste and a straw man of those who love LGBTQ+ people dearly, and of LGBTQ+ people like Wesley Hill or David Bennet who read Scripture as not supporting same-sex marriage but themselves serve as leaders in the church and experience deep belonging.

“It seems the assumption at work in this conversations is that it is IMPOSSIBLE for Christians truly love LGBTQ+ people without changing their theology of marriage. That's a huge assumption at work without any of the leaders of Open Space, Jubilee, or River East giving the conference a theological framework for an alternative reading.

“I find it so curious that it appears that the conference, via Ken Esau. is saying: "Please give us a theology so that we can review the Confession of Faith and arrive at a shared practice"

And Open Space, Jubilee, River East etc, moved by compassion and love, are saying "here's our new practice in conflict with the confession—please don't kick us out."

“No one is talking to each other. No one is speaking in language that the other side would understand. It's a damn tragedy.

“That's way different than the conversations we had on women in ministry. Women in ministry won the day in our conference because they had a compelling theological case. Can't we do the same here? If there is a compelling theological case for LGBTQ+, it will win the day.

“Yes, we need to stop the bleeding. I think everyone can agree on that. Open Space leaders, please help us see why an orthodoxy/theology shift is needed and not an orthopraxis/ posture shift.

“Please, please, please.... give us a theological case for changing something that the church has believed and practiced for two millennia.”

Since the writer named Open Space leaders specificlaly, I asked them to respond. Here is what three of them said.

James Toews

I think we all agree with the responder’s statement that- “No one is talking to each other. No one is speaking in language that the other side would understand. It's a damn tragedy.”

The overriding call from those who planned the Open Space is “we need to talk. Please engage with us on the matter of inclusion/exclusion.” 

In my opinion, there is not a single position on either “side.” In fact, I think the challenge is a wide and frankly multi dimensional paradigm discussion. It’s staggeringly complex.

To get to first base we need to agree to a good faith discussion. This is what our conference leaders have not allowed. We need an Acts 15 dialogue (the one about whether men had to be circumcised to be considered true Jesus followers). We had many different theological positions in our Open Space room. They need testing. Let’s actually test them. 

In my opinion, theology shouldn’t lead the conversation. Hence the call for a theological challenge is misplaced in terms of order. Acts 15 was prompted by community problems that came from the mixing of people from different places in society. That problem exists in our churches. We need to sit down as a community and solve this problem. Theology will follow in healthy communities. 

The question of gay marriage is important. But it follows well down the road. It will follow from the theology of inclusion. Marriage is not a simple biblical institution, contrary to some people’s assumptions. It is not simple from either “side.” Unfortunately it has been used as a litmus test. This is tragic.

Bottom line: we need to talk!

David Wiebe

It's fair for the commenter to make those comments. And they are reasonably gracious. 

I don't like the comparison to the women in ministry and leadership debate, except . . . we did come up with a theology for it when the Board of Reference and Council (BORAC) commissioned the book Your Daughters Shall Prophesy.

When the first drafts came out, there was a lot of complaining from the "classic/traditional" side that it was "biased." Where was the argument for keeping women silent and out of the pulpit? So BORAC dutifully added a couple of chapters to appease the complaints. The classic side always wants to keep their say in it. 

What I am saying is if and when we publish all the pieces related to a theology in favour of inclusion and even affirmation, we'll be strung up for bias. I know our history and character. 

As for "genocidal colonizers," I was referring to the people who said "there is enough light." (The same language as John Underhill of 1600s.) I figured fair is fair: If some, like a delegate at the Manitoba Mennonite Brethren Conference convention thinks homosexual men are still criminals and “need to be accompanied to the bathroom,” and another delegate said the ongoing nature of this issue is like "being raped," then I feel the field has been opened up a bit.

Here's what I'd like to contribute to the commenter's honest question, starting with this key ide: Establish your starting point. 

If you start with "biblical truth" and then move to "dealing with" the problem (whatever it is), you will end up with the 2,000 year-old classic model because you won't get past the proscriptive texts.

If you start with "the church's call to be a blessing for the world" and then move to "dealing with" the problem, you can find the scriptures that balance off the proscriptive texts.

Take, for example, the question of circumcision in the New Testament. Paul had to deal with very clear Old Testament texts proscribing it such as Genesis 17 (It's an everlasting sign.) Which leads to the question: When does "everlasting" end? Apparently, Paul felt he could call it!

In Galatians 5:6, he says that in Christ “neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love." I'm very game to do the Bible studies on that!

Other things we could talk about include:

The purpose of the church: how the Bible shows the church is to be a blessing to the world like Israel was to the nations.

Fleshing out "blessing." What do we see in the Old and New Testaments that pushes us to be that blessing? To the rich and powerful and also to the marginalized (widow, orphan, slave, foreigner, those considered unclean.

The purpose of the Bible. Is it a morality code for purity or is it to form and inform a people who will be God's example of kingdom character and bless the world? Is it primarily a source of proof texts or is its purpose to guide us to wisdom? If the latter, where in scripture do we see that wisdom processing occur and how might we learn from that?

Still with the role of the Bible: Does it speak with one voice on this issue? Does it speak with one voice on any issue at all? Why are there nearly 40 duplicate (and even triplicate) stories just in the Torah/Pentateuch? Is the Bible more story than propositional truth? If so, how do we discern truth from story, and what kind of truth are we looking at?

What about delving into the bible as a text by and for the oppressed and marginalized? We miss a lot, as rich, white North Americans if we don’t try to see it from that point of view. (We may not want to do that since will change how we interpret the Bible.)

There are other topics we can explore, such as redemption and its work; what does it mean for the church to offer shalom and kingdom restoration? What is the role of the Holy Spirit? Can we trust the Spirit to do its work of directing queer people in discipleship? What about the “purity" challenge? Why Jesus charted a different path than the pharisees who championed the purity laws, and the implications for us today.

It would also be interesting to talk about neuroscience and morality and (maybe) our ideas of sin; since we know so much more about the body and how it functions in comparison to the last 2,000 years or more, maybe we need to take a new look at our biblical understandings of the human condition and the problems our faith is trying to fix.

Or what about the church's role vis-a-vis culture? Do we recognize how we have already adopted a white, male, rich, colonizing/powerful culture as a church?

There is so much more! But currently there is no space for those kinds of discussions. Many of us are open to trying.

John Unger

Dear Commenter,

Thank you for your post.  It helps me understand how our actions and words are being received and interpreted.

"No one is talking with each other." I couldn't agree more.

Two years ago we sent an Open Letter (signed by over 500 Mennonite Brethren church members), asking our leaders to create space for us to speak and listen to each other—community to community. We wanted to ask questions, seek clarification, and speak the truth in love, remembering that God welcomes all who seek truth with sincerity and integrity.  

In a subsequent meeting with the Executive Board, National Ministry Team, and the National Faith and Life Team, I said conversations around LGBTQ+ inclusion WERE happening all over the place, like popcorn. Wouldn't it be better if we engaged in a national dialog together? Moreover, I said, this was their chance to lead the conversation.

Our national leaders said, no.

(The Open Letter as well as the Response can be found here.) 

Since that time, more churches have been suspended by their provincial conferences, and more pastors are having their credentials reviewed or revoked.   

Thus, the idea of an Open Space event was born. We informed conference leaders of our plans. We met with Elton DaSilva and Ken Esau. They expressed reservations but emphasized they were not trying to stop us from hosting this event. We promised to report the results (which we have done). 

The Open Space offered participants nothing except a safe place to talk. Over 60 people from BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Ontario took time out of their schedules to spend three days in Winnipeg, in January, at their own expense, to talk about our key question: How do we faithfully include and love 2SLGBTQ+ people in our lives and churches as Mennonite Brethren? 

As you will note from the question, this was not designed to be primarily a theological discussion. Yes, questions of theology came up, but the main questions were pastoral and missional. People came with their questions and a wide spectrum of convictions. They spoke and listened respectfully.  

There were many tears as people shared their deep love for the Mennonite Brethren church. But they also told of deep wounds they and their families have experienced in the Mennonite Brethren context. Many said: "If the MB conference could be like this event, I would be in 100%.” 

I still wish those national conversations could have happened. Given recent events of churches being removed from their conferences, I wonder if that window of opportunity has closed. 

You raise the question of resources regarding LGBTQ+ inclusion, particularly from a Side B perspective. One of our congregations has initiated a study based on the book, Two Views on Homosexuality, the Bible, and the Church. It's a good place to start  and is a model for the way in which people who disagree can remain respectful in dialog with one another. 

Another constructive conversation might be had with regard to "texts of rigor" and "texts of welcome," as outlined by Walter Brueggemann.

He goes into more detail in an interview. 

I am particularly intrigued with your church experience, with those on Side A and Side B worshiping together despite deep and often painful differences. A proposal along these lines was presented to the Mennonite Brethren Church of Manitoba Leadership Board, whereby "Side A" congregations (Jubilee and River East, for instance) would be allowed to function as "Borderland" churches within the larger (mostly Side B) conference.  Despite differences, both sides would embrace a commitment to not divide the body of Christ. 

The proposal was rejected. A modified version was presented, but to my knowledge, has not been taken up for consideration. 

All to say that although the Open Space event was not primarily aimed at theological work, theology is definitely important. You may see some online articles of a theological nature in the not-too-distant future.    

I am certain I have not answered all of your questions, but perhaps this is a helpful start.

After votes to remove Jubilee, Southridge and FreeChurch from membership, where do Open Space organizers think things should go from here?

Now that Southridge, FreeChurch and Jubilee have been voted out of the Ontario and Manitoba Mennonite Brethren conferences, what’s next for those who want to keep the conversation going about LGBTQ+ welcome, inclusion and affirmation? I posed that question to the four people who organized the Open Space event in Winnipeg in January. Here’s what they said.

For David Wiebe, a new goal is to convince Mennonite Brethren pastors and leaders to read materials produced by marginalized people so they understand how they think and how they are impacted by decisions made about them. 

Another is for them to understand the changing nature of theological revelation. 

In so doing, Wiebe referenced Randy Woodley's book titled Indigenous Theology and the Western Worldview where he quotes John Underhill, a seventeenth century colonist in America who slaughtered as many as 1,500 Indigenous people in raids. 

Underhill justified that killing by referring to wars in the Old Testament, saying “We had sufficient light from the scriptures." 

That phrase, said, Wiebe, has been used by some who oppose welcome and inclusion of LGBTQ+ people—that the Bible provides sufficient light on the matter. 

But just as people in the past claimed they had sufficient light on things like slavery, denying women the opportunity to be clergy or excommunicating divorced people who remarried, the light they see about LGBTQ+ welcome and inclusion may not be as sufficient today as they think, he suggested.   

“Saying there is no new light is a mistake of the highest order,” Wiebe said. 

Wiebe also thinks it’s time to address the Confession of Faith and argue “it is not equal to the Bible. So many people seem to conflate the two. This has to be addressed.” 

He also thinks it is time for pro-inclusion and affirmation individuals and churches to create a network of some kind. 

“It’s too soon to say what that will be, but several of us are connecting about steps going forward,” he said. 

Wiebe also sees signs of hope as more churches explore the topic of LGBTQ+ inclusion and affirmation. This includes a church he knows about where young and young adults in that church see LGBTQ+ welcome and inclusion as not a big deal. 

“Those young adults are leading the way with clarity,” Wiebe said, adding that church is planning some listening sessions this year. 

Finally, he said, it’s time to hear more from Queer people themselves—not just talk about them. 

“It’s time to listen to them, not just talk about the Confession, the Bible, and our politics,” he said.  

For John Unger, the immediate goal is to support churches that have been removed so they know they aren’t alone. 

He also wants to look for positives, wherever he can find them. This includes being assured by CCMBC leadership that no Mennonite Brethren pastor will be de-credentialed and no church have its membership revoked by simply asking questions about the topic. 

“It's only at the point where individuals or congregations make public statements contrary to the Confession that the processes toward exclusion begin,” he said they told him. 

For Unger, “this gives us room to work by connecting individuals, and perhaps congregations, that are looking for more conversation.” 

For James Toews, an urgent need is “to stop the bleeding. Emergency room action is needed before the much needed, longer-term solutions can be undertaken. There are wounded people lying beside the road, apparently unattended. What a travesty!” 

As for a future network, “I hope something mobilizes, and suspect it will,” he said. 

Finally, Dan Unruh had this to say. 

“I read in the Lenten offerings provided by our Mennonite Brethren seminary that ‘Jesus . . . is perfectly righteous and perfectly loving at the same time, not leaning one way or the other as we so often do.’”   

For Unruh, “this necessary juxtaposition of Jesus'  seemingly contradictory leanings are what I have so deeply missed in our Mennonite Brethren journey these past few years vis-a-vis LGBTQ+ and the Mennonite Brethren Conference. 

“I felt that Winnipeg Open Space event was the beginning of the possibility of bringing these two central characteristics of Jesus-following back together at every level in our Mennonite Brethren community. 

“To not do so will be damaging to our faith, our witness, and our mission; to do so would find us walking faithfully in the reality and the mystery of the Jesus way.” 

So, what do you think? Leave a comment with your ideas.