James Toews (r), speaking with CCMBC Executive Director Elton DaSilva in 2019.
James Toews, former pastor of the Neighbourhood Bible Church in Nanaimo, B.C., was recently asked by the British Columbia Mennonite Brethren Conference (BCMB) Pastoral Ministries Committee to explain his support for LGBTQ+ people. He was asked four questions, which he answered below. Toews offered to share his responses on this blog.
What is inclusion and affirmation to you?
My definition of “inclusion” is captured in Matthew 11:28-30: “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”
For me, Jesus’ call to “all” is to be taken literally. This is the very centre of the Gospel. There is no “but” in Jesus’ call to wounded people [all of us]. I think the Mennonite Brethren conference in Canada has added a big “but” to Jesus’ open invitation to join His family. To me, this is a deep distortion of the Gospel.
My definition of “affirmation” comes from Psalm 139:13-14: “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful; I know that full well.”
Or, to put it another way, everyone is created uniquely by God. They are God’s creation, given their identity by God. This includes all those who God created LGBTQ+. They deserve our unequivocal affirmation—not systematic exclusion.
How should these important values (inclusion and affirmation) be built up in the church?
To put it simply: Stop putting roadblocks in front of those who want to be part of the church. As we know, Jesus was very hard on those who cause those wanting to join the church to stumble.
As he bluntly put it in Matthew 18:6-7: “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble! Such things must come, but woe to the person through whom they come!”
I believe that the Canadian Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches is in danger of Jesus’ “woe.”
Paul addresses the same issue in Romans 14:13: “Therefore, let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister.”
Where and how are Mennonite Brethren churches getting it wrong when it comes to the issue of inclusion/acceptance?
BCMB and the Canadian Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches (CCMBC) are not listening to those who see things differently than a small group of leaders who are aggressively teaching and promoting exclusion and who are effectively making a narrow theology of inclusion into THE sole litmus test of Confessional orthodoxy. This is a very serious problem. By their actions, BCMB and CCMBC are doing terrible spiritual harm to gay Christians and their supporters.
What role should BCMB and CCMBC play in equipping and training our family of churches on this important topic?
It can start by actually listening to voices like the Open Space group, to LGBTQ+ people, and to their parents, siblings, cousins, friends, allies and others. Until listening happens, there is no next step. Is there really a willingness to listen to various inclusion theologies?
Those are my answers. I think they are complete and are not in conflict with our Mennonite Brethren Confession of Faith.
James conveniently skips over other biblical passages that list LGBTQ sins as ones that will exclude them from entering the kingdom of heaven. Does he think we should rewrite the Bible to agree with him?
ReplyDeleteFair comment. Here’s my response for you to test-
ReplyDeleteFirst, “All Scripture is God-breathed . . .” 2 Timothy 3:16. Full stop. The Bible is not subject to rewriting or “conveniently skipping over.” So here is how I read Scripture on the matter of inclusion-
#1. All Scripture is read through two centres- “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” Matthew 22:37-40
#2. All Scripture must be interpreted and applied through the lens of mercy- “On hearing this, Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” Matthew 9:12-13
#3. Judgementalism- natural as it is- is fundamentally the wrong paradigm through which to read and apply Scripture. Hence I take this injunction as Biblically centrist- “Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister.” Romans 14:13
Therefore, I believe that in their practice of excluding LGBTQ+ people and their allies, our MB leaders are on the wrong course.
These points are not to be seen as a kind of “final word” but are intended to lead to a family conversation in the pattern of Acts 15.
I hope that helps.
James, this is very helpful information. Can you clarify how your understanding is not in conflict with the MB Confession of Faith that calls for sexual intimacy only in a marital relationship, which is between a man and a women. I agree that churches should not exclude LGBTQ+ people, yet I struggle with their involvement in leadership roles if they are not committed to this aspect of the Confession, or if the teaching of the church endorses marital relationships outside of that described in the Confession. Thank you for your insightful comments as we journey on this.
ReplyDeleteThanks for those kind words I will do my best to answer your questions. This is to be a conversation not a declaration.
DeletePart of the challenge is that this is a multi-dimensional issue and answers can get long :) I will try to both break it down and keep my response as short as possible.
#1. I believe that the question of the inclusion and affirmation of LGBTQ+ people in the church is- first pastoral imperative- and then a theological challenge. That order is important as Jesus demonstrates. LGBTQ+ people are real people to be cared for by us- not a theological puzzle for us to solve. I say this- because I began my journey some 14 years ago trying to answer theological questions. Then I met and got to know LGBTQ+ people. Theology is important- but only if it begins- “on the right foot” as it were. When it doesn’t theology can be destructive. I’m happy to engage theological questions but my primary qualification is pastoral, having been a pastor for the past 37 years.
#2. With that, let me step into what has become a litmus test of confessional orthodoxy for MBs- Same Sex Marriage [SSM]. A theology of marriage, in this context, is a relatively new challenge given that SSM was only recognized in Canada in 2005. Our 1975 MB CoF was composed only 7 years after homosexual behavior was decriminalized in Canada. For most of history Confessional articles on marriage were almost entirely focused on the problem of divorce and its implications. Now that SSM is recognized as a legal entity the church must wrestle with what that means pastorally. I and others in the Open Space group, have been pressing for a truly open CCMBC family conversation on this matter. That call has been rejected.
#3. I believe that what I have proposed, in defining inclusion and affirmation is entirely in keeping with our CoF. I believe that these must themselves be affirmed. As important as the theology of SSM is- I don’t believe it can precede inclusion and affirmation in church practice- not merely in words. In the NT church the parallel challenge was first the Samaritan and then the Gentile problem. Both groups were excluded in practise because of their unclean identities and presumed behaviour- even after the Acts 15 council that was supposed to settle the matter. I believe that if Jesus were to tell the story of the Good Samaritan in our context- the hero would be the Good Lesbian.
I have not addressed the leadership question you asked, because I suspect that a theology of SSM lies at its core. If I’ve missed your query, tell me.
More good information again. Thanks James. I understand your pastoral heart, and see where this is critical in our relationship with all people. There are a few really difficult areas that we get hung up on:
Delete1. We never really seem to define what 'inclusion' and 'affirmation' actually mean. Are they different? We seem to live in a world of polarities where if you don't accept something in its entirety, you are deemed to fully reject it. This is unfortunate. We also tend to group LGBTQ2S+ as all one community when really they do consist of different groups. Our COF would seem to not be in agreement with SSM, which is where I find the conflict. Yet this does not mean that we don't love our LGBTQ family members and friends or want them to worship with us.
2. It is very true that SSM only became legal in Canada recently, but the legislation cannot drive our beliefs, otherwise the same could be said about abortion and MAID. Legislation certainly demands a response from us as we deal with a very real situation, but not necessarily a change in our beliefs. Imagine the implications in the US where every state determines its own legislation governing some of these areas.
Wish I had more time, but these discussions can go on forever. I'm sure Open Spaces has many ongoing dialogues and is much farther ahead on this topic than many of the rest of us.
Thanks
Thanks for engaging with me.
DeleteImo inclusion and affirmation are related and go together- but are quite different. Defining terms and agreeing on the definitions is both the most vital and energy consuming part of fruitful conversations. I’ve put forward my definitions. I hope they make sense.
Agreeing on terms, definitions and their history is especially vital in the matter of SSM. So far, we MBs have not yet had the conversation. The easy default is to make declarations and then talk past each other about this Biblically complex institution.
I think how you are I are engaging is a model for how to talk through vexing matters. Imo the biggest need in our MB family is for open respectful talking to each other.
I hope this has been helpful and I’m happy to carry the conversation forward both privately and publicly as time permits.
And the good news is- we want to have another Open Space event. We’ll keep you posted. I’d love to see you there.
Just a quick note to John Longhurst and the many contributors to this blog including the participants in this post. This has been such a helpful resource. Thank you to James Toews and the anonymous commenter for having this conversation in public. It has been very informative.
ReplyDeleteAs a lifelong Mennonite Brethren church member now in my 60's I have been devastated to see churches suspended from the conference. In my years as a member I have seen our churches work through so many issues as a community so I find it hard to see why this particular issue requires suspensions when in the past we have worked through so much together. And, of course, the future will hold many more issues for us to work through together. Is this to be the model from now on when tough issues come along - suspension?
I have been following these discussions quite closely but I can't quite figure out why suspension was necessary. Personally, I see gender issues as less of a threat than the growing tendencies toward authoritarianism and anti-intellectualism in the broader culture today. Are these or other factors contributing to the discussion of gender issues in the church and the suspensions and if so, shouldn't they be named and discussed so we have a clearer picture?
When I described this blog post and James' kind and engaged responses to my partner, they wondered why, like another wise interlocutor, James had not responded to the questions asked by the religious leaders using parables. 🙂
ReplyDeleteHi James, I see your reponse as pastoral but generic. Do you view affirmation and inclusion as the same thing or different. I agree with how you describe inclusion. Affirmation however needs more. What would you affirm? Would you affirm SSM in a church you pastor. Would you perform a marriage for a SSA couple? I'm all for discussion and I agree that having it is important. I think you need to take a stand a show were you are on the issue. It seems like you are dancing around the fringes trying to play all sides. What would you affirm.
ReplyDeleteYou see my answers as pastoral- that’s good. I assume generic isn’t :)
DeleteThanks for the questions though. On Sept 27 @ 2pm I will be answering in person to the BCMB PMC. I suspect they will want answers to questions like this. I appreciate the advance crack at them and hope they take the time to read what I’ve written here and in other places. Feel free to ask me how it went.
I have however specifically defined both “inclusive” and “affirming.” I fail to see the definition of “affirming” as generic. I think it is very direct [and Biblical] with deep pastoral and theological implications. LGBTQ+ people created that way by God, deserve affirmation of their created identities. Is that less than clear?
On the matter of SSM I’ve also tried to be clear. Is something missing?
As a licenced MB pastor I have not entertained performing a SSM, out of a genuine commitment to my MB family. I do however think that our CoF is deeply out of date and worse unbiblical. But that statement begs a larger conversation and which I and other long standing MBs are happy to have.
Once my BCMB licence expires, or I turn it in, I will no longer be under that restriction and when I get a new licence, as an agent of the state alone, I believe it would be unethical for me to refuse a SSM request. Is that clear?
I do know there will be other questions- and I’m very prepared to explore them. I know that this page’s default identity is “anonymous” but I’d love to know who you are, if we continue.
You see my answers as pastoral- that’s good. I assume generic isn’t :)
ReplyDeleteThanks for the questions though. On Sept 27 @ 2pm I will be answering in person to the BCMB PMC. I suspect they will want answers to questions like this. I appreciate the advance crack at them and hope they take the time to read what I’ve written here and in other places.
I have however did specifically define both “inclusive” and “affirming.” I fail to see the definition of “affirming” as generic. I think it is direct and with deep pastoral and theological implications. LGBTQ+ people created that way by God, deserve affirmation of their created identities. Dig into those if you like.
On the matter of SSM I’ve also tried to be clear. Is something missing?
As a licenced MB pastor I have not entertained performing a SSM, out of a commitment process within my MB family. I do however think that our CoF is deeply out of date and extra biblical. But that statement begs a larger conversation, which I am very happy to have.
Once my BCMB licence expires, or I turn it in, I will no longer be under that restriction. When I get a new licence, as an agent of the state alone, I see no reason for me to refuse a SSM request. Is that clear?
I know there will be other questions- and I’m very prepared to explore them. I know that this page’s default identity is “anonymous” but I’d love to know who you are, if we continue.
Thanks, James. As someone with close friends and family in this world, it is refreshing to see someone make a public statement about what they would do. I think affirming still needs something more. We can't affirm absolutely everyone or everything. Isn't there some wall we will come up against?
DeleteThanks for the kind response. But maybe it's also my turn to ask questions. Do you think that affirming someone implies affirming everything? I don't intend it to. But in the case of those whom God created non-binary, I think, like Jesus, we should begin by affirming that fact- whether they are non-binary at God's "hand" or some other way. Matthew 19:12
DeleteJames, thank you for your openness. I never like using 'Anonymous' as my 'name', and generally feel that if people aren't willing to put their name up, then they shouldn't be posting. However, I did post two comments as Anonymous on Sept 7 (12:09 PM) and Sept 8 (4:31 PM) which I believe was part of a great dialogue between the two of us. I posted as Anonymous as I also come from a very fractured community and have lost relationship with many due to differences of understanding. To post my name would only harm those relationships even further. If I knew how to reach James directly, I would do so. Being able to hold these conversations in a respectful manner is critical. Full kudos to James for being the one person here who is bold in fully identifying himself.
ReplyDeleteThank you for that beautiful statement, "Anonymous".
Delete“There is a time for everything,
and a season for every activity under the heavens”
There is a time for full disclosure-
and there is a time for anonymity.
There is a time to come out-
and there is a time to stay in the closet.
There is a time for being public-
and there a time for deep confidentiality and secrecy.
I strive to learn the wisdom of pressing for openness and also letting sleeping dogs lie.
And I never want be part of outing someone else in this painful conversation.
Blessings on my, my friend.
And you can find me on Facebook. I’d love to talk.