"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.