A chance to “tell our story in our own way.” That was the goal of the November 26 gathering at River East Church in Winnipeg.
The event, titled “River East’s Journey to Inclusion,” was attended by 172 people in person with 173 screens on Zoom.
The meeting was opened by church member Jan Schmidt, who said the event was being held, in part, to dispel some rumours circulating about why River East had decided to become welcoming and affirming of LGBTQ+ people.
This included the ideas that the topic was being “pushed through by one person,” that the church was no longer Christian, that it had ignored the Bible in making the decision and that its guiding principle was the Canadian Charter of Human Rights.
Since there was no other forum to dispel these rumours, the church decided to create its own, she said.
The other goal of the meeting was to share the story with those who will be voting to keep or expel the church at a special meeting of the Mennonite Brethren of Church Manitoba on January 20.
“We are hoping those who will be at that meeting deciding our future will take time to hear our story,” Schmidt said.
Schmidt noted that some people might be wondering why River East just doesn’t leave; why wait for a vote?
“The answer for me is this is my family of faith,” she said. “You all mean a lot to us.”
She went on to say that the decisions made by the church were not done quickly or haphazardly. “It was a process that led us to decision,” she said, adding it was “a slow process.”
The process started informally as far back as 2007, she said, and included Christian education classes on the subject and book studies.
The formal process started in 2019. It led to a vote asking if the church should welcome LGBTQ+ people “into every and all aspects of church life.” Ninety percent agreed.
Members were also asked if the church should place limits on LGBTQ+ congregants. 82 percent said no.
When asked if opposing viewpoints on LGBTQ+ inclusion should be allowed, “choosing unity above our differences,” 72 percent said yes.
That was followed by seven congregational meetings, with representatives from MBCM invited to all of them. The Leadership Commission also met four times to discuss the subject.
At the same time, the congregation asked itself what the Bible said on the subject “and then interpreted the Bible into our context,” she said, along with listening to the stories of people inside and outside of the congregation.
The church also created a document titled Talking Points About from the Bible for Full Inclusion of LGBTQ+ Persons.
The congregation continued to meet to talk about the subject through the pandemic. When finally asked to vote on a full inclusivity statement, almost 94 percent agreed with it.
That statement says that everyone is invited to be part of the church’s mission, “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.” (Click here to read about the statement.)
Also at the meeting, River East pastor Aaron Thiessen explained how the church employed what’s called “the Gentile analogy” from the book of Acts to help it discuss the subject of LGBTQ+ welcome and affirmation.
“When confronted with dilemma, it’s good to see if a case in the past similar,” he said, noting that experience in Acts 15 can be used as a paradigm for approaching questions today.
That chapter describes how the early church was deadlocked over the thorny question of whether to welcome and affirm new Gentile believers, he said.
For some, Gentiles could only be allowed in if they followed Jewish religious customs and laws—especially with regards to circumcision. To bolster their case, they cited verses from the book of Genesis that demanded circumcision to be part of the covenant with God.
After debate and discussion, it was agreed that the Spirit was active among Gentiles, and that Gentile men could be allowed into the church without being circumcised.
Today, Thiessen said, the question isn’t about Gentiles but about whether Queer Christians could be welcomed into the church.
“Is this story sufficiently similar to our dilemma today?” he asked. “Many at River East say yes, having experienced first-hand the Spirit at work in Queer people . . . the book of Acts compels us to take seriously the lives of Queer Christians.”
Also part of the meeting, River East member Don Peters shared a snapshot about the church’s long history of involvement in the Canadian and Manitoba Mennonite Brethren conferences.
In total, current members of River East have given 982 years to the conferences and conference-supported agencies or schools, along with service on conference boards, he said. This includes 173 years of serving as pastors in Mennonite Brethren churches.
As well, about 75 percent of members at a Sunday morning service indicated they had attended a Mennonite Brethren school or one supported by the Conference of Canadian Mennonite Brethren Churches.
“Not only have we been shaped by Mennonite Brethren institutions, but we have shaped them and contributed to them,” he said, adding River East is “a community whose members were nurtured within the Mennonite Brethren family, a community that has contributed to the larger family of Mennonite Brethren and the larger Mennonite faith community.”
Click here for a recording of the event.
The November 26 Sunday evening presentation by River East Church (REC) on how they arrived at their LGBTQ+ inclusivity statement was very informative. Thank you for making it available on zoom!
ReplyDeleteOne of the questions after the presentation was “How does one change one’s mind?” Although this was answered by the whole evening, the response that Pastor Mary Anne Isaak gave was that she changed through a study of the Bible and some others changed through the stories of individuals. And as a group REC changed over many years through a lot of study and talking together (as noted in the post above).
Nicodemus also asks that question of Jesus.
John 3:1 “Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2 He came to Jesus at night . . .”
His question is “How can someone be born when they are old?” (Verse 4)
How does one change? There are many parts to Jesus’ answer - the wind blows where it pleases, he admonishes Nicodemus about why as Israel’s teacher he does not understand, he states the Son of Man must be lifted up and “For God so loved the world . . .” (even all the people of the world?).
Nicodemus next shows up in John 7 when the Jewish leaders were angry that the temple guards didn’t bring Jesus in.
John 7:50 “Nicodemus, who had gone to Jesus earlier and who was one of their own number, asked, 51 ‘Does our law condemn a man without first hearing him to find out what he has been doing?’”52 They replied, “Are you from Galilee, too? Look into it, and you will find that a prophet does not come out of Galilee.”
The leaders are not pleased with the situation and not pleased with Nicodemus!
Nicodemus is advocating for hearing Jesus’ story. The other leaders don’t want to listen, don’t want to hear his story which is sure to unsettle and provoke.
And for the third and final time, Nicodemus shows up in John 19, after Jesus’ crucifixion.
John 19:39 “He was accompanied by Nicodemus, the man who earlier had visited Jesus at night. Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds.”
Lots has happened in Jesus’ life from John 3 to John 19 and it appears in Nicodemus’ life as well.
It is safe to say that during this Christmas season, the story of Jesus’ birth will be retold across all of the Manitoba Mennonite Brethren churches. It seems that the story of Nicodemus is also being re-enacted by the Mennonite Brethren over these months surrounding Christmas. Hopefully there are many like Nicodemus. In Nicodemus’ story however there is a crucifixion. Is one needed in the Mennonite Brethren story? Hopefully not! But if so, it is good to know about resurrection!
Thanks for providing this forum! In days of old (1960’s to 1980’s), my dad contributed articles to the MB Herald and wrote letters to the editor on topics he was passionate about. It’s nice to have this forum.
ReplyDeleteRecently I read Pierre Gilbert’s article criticizing “wokeness” (Oct 27 MB Herald) and listened in on River East Church’s journey towards inclusivity. What is the dilemma and connection?
Charles Taylor may provide some insight in an essay “Perils of Moralism” by shedding light on the limitations of moral codes (one could see “equity, diversity and inclusion” as a moral code in today’s society and a “confession of faith” as a moral code in a church conference). Of note Taylor’s critique is of modern liberal society and its investment “in defining and applying codes of conduct” and what he calls “code fetishism” (but he does not let the Church off the hook).
“Why can’t our moral/ethical life ever be adequately captured in a code?” he asks.
“Dilemmas have to be understood in a kind of two dimensional space. The horizontal space gives you the dimension in which you have to find the point of resolution. The vertical space opens the possibility that by rising higher, you will accede to a new horizontal space.”
He sees Christ as holding a different space than provided by a fixed moral code. “But that means that there aren’t any formula for acting as Christians in the world. Take the best code possible in today’s circumstances, or what passes for such. The question always arises: could one, by transcending / amending / reinterpreting the code move us all vertically? Christ is always doing that in the gospel.”
From Pierre Gilbert’s article, has he experienced “code fetishism” in equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI)? In my profession, to date, I have seen many of the positives of this movement and so did not share Pierre’s stance but Charles Taylor does provide a framework on how “codes” can become malignant in the rest of his essay.
It certainly seems like the MB conference move to eject churches from its midst is also one of these harmful and destructive turns in the application of a code (confession of faith). While the MB conference is claiming to be counter cultural, this action appears to be very much part of the culture, the code fetishism described by Charles Taylor.
“Over against a great deal of pastoral wisdom and charity on the ground, the official pronouncements of the Church today still reflect our own historic forms of code fetishism. We helped create this modern culture, and for a large part we have trouble helping it free itself from its crippling lack of moral vision; because for a large part, we come back at the narrow code with our own counter code. Instead of helping people to move ahead on their own rocky path to sanctification, the official stance often consists in posing a lot of prerequisites they have to pass in order to joint the course. Then when we publicly and lamentably fail to live up to our own prerequisites, we provoke more Schadenfreude than compassionate understanding.”
Moral codes and confessions of faith are created in a context with good intentions and strong belief. Unfortunately this is not enough to immunize us against the possibility of causing harm in the defence of our code. Much good does come from moral codes such as the current “EDI code” or a “confession of faith” but when they are applied in destructive ways as happens from time to time, there are ways to understand how that happens and still not have to give up on the code.
The MB conference should pause their move to eject River East Church and think more deeply on how they are imitating the current culture. The River East Church’s request of the Conference is modest. Could the MB conference work harder at the “vertical dimension” to show the world a different way or will it be one more example of harm through the rigid application of the “horizontal dimension”?
All quoted statements are from Charles Taylor, “Perils of Moralism” in Dilemmas and Connections 2011