River East Church creates Talking Points from the Bible for Full Inclusion of LGBTQ+ Persons, and also about the Confession of Faith and Full Inclusion of LGBTQ+

 

“You don’t care about the Bible." 

That’s the comment members of River East Church in Winnipeg were hearing from their family and friends as they discussed REC’s decision to be welcoming and affirming of LGBTQ+ people. 

“We do care about the Bible,” they would respond, according to pastor Mary Anne Isaak. “We have taken it very seriously throughout our journey to full inclusion.” 

And then, she said, they turned around and asked church leaders for a tool to help in these conversations. They couldn’t always remember the info from the deep dives into Scripture, or quickly recall the adult education sessions on the topic a year or two ago. 

“It’s a pastoral response, a resource for our members, and also for anyone else who wonders how the Bible can lead to an inclusive posture,” Isaak said of the document, called “Talking Points from the Bible for Full Inclusion of LGBTQ+ Persons.” 

The document doesn’t answer every objection some may have, she noted, and it isn’t apologetics—an argument in favour of a position. 

According to the Isaak, it is "intended for use in a conversational setting where there is mutual and respectful listening. It’s intended to help people think about this topic and ask questions." 

The document itself is the result of work by leaders in the congregation, working together with the Leadership Commission. 

“It went through many iterations,” Isaak said. “It is owned by many people in the congregation.” 

While the Leadership Commission voted to approve it, they are also respectful of that fact that not everyone agrees with every point in the document, she explained. 

“And we may want to update it again in the future,” she said, “as we continue to be influenced by our on-going conversations and growing understandings. We don’t need to agree on every point or interpretation. But as a church we do agree that being faithful to Jesus includes an invitation to everyone who wants to join us in the journey of discipleship.” 

The church has decided not to promote the Talking Points document on its website, but it agreed to make it available through this blog. Click here to read it. 

The Mennonite Brethren Confession of Faith and Full Inclusion of LGBTQ+ Persons at River East Church 

As with the Bible, River East Church members have heard questions about how it views the Confession of Faith (CoF). Do they take it seriously? 

And just as how they created a document to show they took the Bible seriously, the congregation created a document to show how they examined and explored the COF, and its role, in their journey towards full inclusion of LGBTQ+ people. 

The result is a document that explains how the church feels it is working within the historical way Mennonite Brethren have approached, changed and updated the CoF—how it has been adapted many times since to reflect the changing conditions and mission of the church.

As the document notes, it is often the articles that touch on lifestyle that experience the most pressure to evolve, especially if a case can be made that the move promotes a missional impulse, increase the contemporary relevance of the church, or highlights an individual's spiritual experience.

As with the Talking Points from the Bible document, this document about the CoF went through several iterations before being approved by the congregation, Isaak said. And like that other document, it is also intended as a resource to help members, and others, answer the question of whether they take the CoF seriously. 

The church has not promoted this document on its website. It has agreed to share it with this blog. Click here to read it.

River East has also created an inclusivity statement. Click here to read it.

Letter: Brian Cooper responds to Don Peter's letter about music, conductors and living on the Borderland

 

Don, thank you for taking the time to respond. (To Brian’s article about the River East Borderland proposal.) I think the way you interpreted my metaphor (which, admittedly, has shortcomings) reveals a basic difference between our two different approaches to theological reflection. In my thinking, there is only one conductor. There can be only one conductor—Jesus.

All members of the metaphorical choir are subject to the direction of the Great Conductor, and he is the one who calls the tune. Our work is concerned with the task of playing our parts faithfully.

However presumptuous or arrogant it may seem for me to insist that the established position represents what we believe to be the direction of Jesus, in my view it is more problematic to consider the implications of participating in a choir with multiple conductors, all of whom are presuming to give leadership to the group.

It would be truly arrogant to insist on a theological direction that originated in the ruminations of a group wielding its own authority.

What MBs confess is the product of group reflection on what Scripture leads us to agree together. What has changed has changed for specific reasons, not because of the presumed inevitability of change itself.

On a related note, my working assumption about the nature of theology itself is that it is secondary reflection on God's self-revelation. It is not ultimately the product of human ingenuity, however sophisticated or well-intended. 

So what I have argued is not a truth I presume to have invented or mastered. Rather, it is a truth to which I am bound to be subject, and I do not pretend to have any advantage over anyone else. 

Brian Cooper is Associate Professor of theology at MB Seminary.

Letter: Living on the Borderland (And an explanation about this new Letters section)

 

When I started this blog, I envisioned it like a publication with me as the reporter. A one-person show.

Unlike other publications, which accept submissions from other writers, I would only publish things written by me. I was not interested in being an editor, choosing items for the blog. (People can leave comments on this blog, though.)

And yet many are hungry for honest conversation about this topic. A couple of people have sent me submissions, hoping I would publish them. I declined. 

But when I received the submission below, it got me thinking anew about whether this blog could play a role in facilitating conversation about LGBTQ+ in the Canadian Mennonite Brethren Conference. 

But how to do that? Then I thought: A Letters section.

The best place for submissions/letters like this to be published is the Herald itself. But the publication doesn't have a letters section anymore, and I doubt it would accept submissions that challenge Conference beliefs and policy about LGBTQ+. 

That's where a letters section comes in.  

To be honest, I do this with some trepidation; I am not keen to run a public forum! But until some other way comes along, I guess its something I can do.  

If others wish to write a letter, send them to jdl562000 AT yahoo.com. They must address the issue of LGBTQ+ in the Canadian Mennonite Brethren Church, and they should be in response to something on this blog. (Although personal stories are also welcome.) 

I reserve the right to publish or not publish any letter. Keep your submission short and to the point and be respectful. Give your name, city/town and church you belong to (if any), although some letters can be published anonymously.  

All submissions express the opinion of the writer, not necessarily my own. (Or they might; I'm not saying.) Here's the first letter.   

Living on the Borderland, June 23, 2023

Brian Cooper’s point in Living on the Borderland? is summed up in his metaphor of the choir:  If you want to sing in the choir, you need to sing the song the conductor assigns and pay attention to the conductor’s baton. 

If you can’t do both, perhaps there is another more suitable choir for you somewhere else. 

Cooper concedes that other choirs also make music, just not the music the conductor of our choir makes.  

Imagine a choir where the conductor, year after year, chooses the same music and performs it in the same way despite there being many innovations that could be explored.  

Finally, some members of the choir take the conductor aside and suggest modifications to the repertoire. 

“No,” says the conductor. “This is our expression of music; the repertoire and the presentation of it are not to be questioned.” 

Some members gather a petition asking the national cohort of conductors to discuss aspects of the repertoire and their presentation. The conductors ignore the petition but, nonetheless, structure two nation-wide consultations on a single component of the repertoire.

They call these consultations ‘Study Conferences’. They make it clear from the outset, however, that the repertoire and its presentation are not under discussion.   

I am one who has sung in the conductor’s choir for more than fifty years.  I still want to sing music in this choir, but Brian Cooper has made it clear that my being in the choir will be more painful for the choir than whatever pain is caused by my departure. 

Some direct observations on the matter at hand:  

First, Jesus, not our Confession of Faith, is our centre. 

Second, confessions of faith are important for the identity of a faith community. That said, believers, including MBs, change their confessions of faith over time.  

These changes occasionally result from theological discussion that is initiated as the church ministers to people within its community and beyond. The change of the MB Confession of Faith on divorce and remarriage, and the recent U.S. MB change on non-resistance, were substantive changes. They were controversial because they challenged expressions of faithful discipleship that were held in common until then.

Third, confessions of faith can’t say it all and sometimes say too much. If Mennonite Brethren were to write a confession of faith today, what would it look like? Would it have the same number of articles?

Even with the Confession of Faith as it is, might the Statement of Shared Convictions of the Mennonite World Conference offer us something useful at this time?

This Statement summarizes commonly accepted faith principles of most Anabaptist groups worldwide. While it is not a confession of faith, the seven shared convictions are central to Anabaptist belief and practice. 

Are these seven convictions sufficiently cohesive to hold Anabaptist groups in worldwide communion? Are they sufficiently cohesive to hold current members of the Mennonite Brethren family in Canada in communion with each other? 

I hope that they are. Our commonalities greatly exceed our differences. The diversity that now exists among the Mennonite Brethren is not unusual and not unhealthy when Christ is our centre. 

Returning to the choir metaphor, let us encourage the conductor to try a little new music. There are people within and beyond our circle who’ve wanted to sing for a very long time.

Donald Peters, Winnipeg. (Don is a member of River East Church.)

Reflection: Who speaks for the Mennonite Brethren Conference? And a wandering discourse on the history and current state of the MB Herald

An anonymous writer had a set of questions after my post about the River East Borderland proposal getting a negative reply from the Canadian Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches. 

He asked: 

I'm confused by the headline. Does this associate professor represent the Canadian Conference? If so, why would the CCMBC be responding on behalf of the MBCM? If not, why are you describing his opinion piece as "the answer"? 

It’s a fair set of questions, one that many might be wondering. So let’s unpack it, shall we? 

Does Brian Cooper represent CCMBC? Before answering that, it’s worth noting that little to nothing has been officially said by CCMBC leaders on the topic of LGBTQ+ welcome, inclusion and affirmation. 

The Conference’s silence on this topic means there is little to no information or insight into its position. 

As a result, we need to infer or deduce what they think. And that’s where the Herald comes in. 

It is the official publication of the CCMBC and carries the official news and opinions for the Conference. Nothing gets published in it unless it is approved by the Conference (at some level). 

As a result, we can infer and deduce that Brian Cooper’s articles reflect the position of the Conference on this topic. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be published there. 

But there’s more. Cooper is also because a member of the National Faith and Life Team (NFLT), the body that “exists to articulate and safeguard Mennonite Brethren theological convictions” and identify and address “areas of concern and significant issues impacting the MB churches in Canada.”

It is the official voice of the Conference on theological matters, in other words.

As a member of that body, it is unlikely Cooper didn’t confer about it with other NFLT members, or at least its Director, Ken Esau, to make sure it represented the opinion of that group.

As for why CCMBC should be replying instead of MBCM, I don’t know. But I do know that MBCM has not responded to the proposal from River East. Maybe that’s why CCMBC decided to step in, via Cooper’s article. (Whether at the request of the Conference or the NFLT, or at Cooper’s own initiative, I can’t say.) 

And that, to answer the questioner, is why I said the answer had been given to the Borderland proposal. 

Sure, I could be wrong. But here’s another thing to consider; to date, CCMBC has not challenged me on the post.

A few thoughts about the Herald

 

Before ending this post, a few thoughts about the history of the Herald, and the role it currently occupies in CCMBC.

There was a time when it was an independent denominational magazine—or as independent as a denominational magazine could be. (There is a long and solid history of independent Christian journalism in Canada.)

It used to be the editor had the final say on what was selected to be published, and a variety of perspectives were carried on various issues. (I know this because I once was the associate editor of the Herald.)

For example, during the controversy over women in leadership, the Herald carried articles for and against, letting readers decide and respond through letters to the editor.

Ah yes—letters to the editor. We used to joke when I was there that the letters section was the first place most readers went when the new issue arrived. (Obituaries were the second!)

It was the place where you could find a lively selection of opinions and ideas, not all of which would pass Conference muster. But as editors, we believed it was important to let members have their say, both pro and con. Those were their pages, the place where Conference leaders could hear what the average member was thinking.

Today the Herald doesn’t have a letters section. (Although comments can be left on articles on the website—if they are approved.)

That change dates back to when Willy Reimer became Executive Director of the CCMBC in 2011. (He served in that position until 2017.) Under his leadership, the Herald became what I called a “cheerleader” for the Conference.  

Many of the articles were written by Conference leaders or pastors, and topics hewed closely to official Conference positions—nothing controversial permitted.

(I know first hand because, soon after Laura Kalmar became editor in 2005, she asked me to write an “edgy” kind of column for the Herald. My first column was published in February 2006. It was titled “Do we need a ceremony for divorce?” I wrote it after attending just such a ceremony, asking the question if many marriages begin in the church, should they end their, too? After it ran, Laura called to say that Willy had told her such an edgy column was unacceptable, and my services would no longer be required.)

Under Reimer’s leadership, the Herald committed the worst sin of journalism: It became boring and predictable. That was evidenced by the lack of letters; there simply was nothing to write about, nothing to contest, nothing to spark discussion, nothing to disagree over—nothing that challenged anyone’s way of thinking.

(In 2016, the lack of letters prompted Carol Penner, then pastor at Lendrum Church in Edmonton, to start a blog titled “Dear MB Church.” Penner thought, erroneously, that the Conference was suppressing letters and wanted to provide a place for people to post them. The truth of the matter was nobody was sending any letters—something confirmed to me by an editor at that time.)

Today, the Herald still very much functions as a cheerleader for the CCMBC. Its role is to support and promote the Conference and its positions, not allow them to be challenged.

That’s why we get articles like the one by Cooper, and why we may never see a response that challenges him in the pages of the Herald. 

One final thing: The current state of the Herald is the reason this blog exists at all.

If the editor had freedom to carry views contrary to the Conference position on LGBTQ+ welcome and affirmation, or to carry news about things like the Open Space gathering in Winnipeg in January, or even just news about the suspension and expulsion of churches, including responses from members and pastors from those suspended churches—this blog might not be necessary.

The fact it exists is testimony to the current state of affairs with the Conference and the Herald. Until and unless the Herald changes its editorial position, I guess it will continue to be needed.

Mennonite Brethren Conference responds to Borderland proposal: The answer is no

 

Earlier this year, River East Church sent the Manitoba Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches a Borderland Congregations proposal.

In it, the church proposed a way for the Conference to allow churches like itself—a welcoming and affirming congregation—to stay in the Conference by finding a home on the “borderland” of the denomination for a period of five to seven years. During that time, they could together discern a way forward on this topic.

Or, as the church put it, a way for churches such as River East to “remain part of MBCM and yet pursue understandings and practices that may border on the edges of common interpretations of the Confession of Faith.”

During this time period, MBCM would not suspend or expel any Borderland churches that sought to be more inclusive of LGBTQ+ people.

At the end of the specified time, there would be a complete evaluation of how the inclusion process is working in both Borderland and non-Borderland congregations as both seek to live out our mission for the world. 

If no common ground could be found, churches like River East could be asked to leave the Conference.

The proposal was sent prior to the MBCM Assembly in early March, where the decision was made to expel Jubilee, and before River East itself was suspended.

Now the Canadian Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches has responded to the proposal the pages of the June issue of the MB Herald Digest, its official publication.

In a cover article titled “Living on the Borderland: What does being a community require of us?”, Brian Cooper, Associate Professor of Theology at the MB Seminary in B.C. addresses the proposal. He finds it wanting.

"In a nutshell, I am convinced that the answer to this question is no, and that attempting to move toward a theological borderland is the way that leads to disaster,” Cooper said. 

“The impulse to adapt or change our theological convictions for our context may be common, but it is not the way of faithfulness. Theological review is not a bad thing, if it is motivated by a desire to read Scripture more attentively, faithfully and missionally. The result is affirmation of theological convictions that address the breadth of Scripture well, not only certain carefully chosen texts.” 

“I am not convinced that Scripture contains a call from God to a borderland on this point.” 

Read Cooper’s entire article here.

River East Church joins other Mennonite churches in marching in Winnipeg Pride Parade

People from River East Church joined with people from other Mennonite churches in Winnipeg to march in that city’s June 4 Pride Parade.

 

While people from other Mennonite Brethren churches may have marched, River East was the only Mennonite Brethren church in Winnipeg to have an official presence there.

Other Mennonite churches that marched were First Mennonite, Fort Garry Mennonite Fellowship, Bethel Mennonite, Hope Mennonite, Home Street Mennonite and Sargent Mennonite. All of those congregations are part of Mennonite Church Manitoba. (If I missed any, let me know.)