Last month, I posed two questions to Ken Esau, Director of the National Faith and Life Team, asking for a response for this blog.
Ken—who has always been open and responsive to questions from me on the subject of LGBTQ+ welcome and affirmation—asked if he could reply in the MB Herald Digest.
I said yes; you can find his answers in the most recent issue.
Here are the two questions I asked him.
Question #1: I am aware of a family with a trans child who has been in an MB church for a very long time but were struggling with whether they should stay in that church. The last straw for them was Iain Provan being invited to speak at Equip. How do you feel knowing this family has now left the MB conference because of how Provan considers them to be dangerous to the church? (Read about that family here.)
Question #2: Someone asked me a question the other day: Do those who want certain MB churches out of the Conference consider them to be Christians? That is, do they think people in these churches will be in heaven when we all get there? And if we can eat together at the great supper of the Lamb in heaven, why can't we eat together here in on earth as members of the same denomination?
You can find Ken’s answers here. (Starting on page 12.)
Thanks for providing this forum!
ReplyDeleteI am trying to understand the intent behind these 2 questions and Ken Esau’s answers in the Herald Digest - here is one reframing: 1. Do MB Conference leaders consider an individual person or a family as a fruitful and biblical way to think through theology (answer - No!) and 2. Can a church that thinks through theology differently be part of the Conference (answer - No!).
Certainly a main part of the intent of the questions is to open a conversation. Unfortunately, the answers have the effect of closing the conversation down - not out of malice but out of a limitation of what can be considered.
In the Herald Digest article, Ken Esau refers to some of Provan’s concerns - “Follow the Science Cuckoo, where science is given pride of place to tell us ultimate truths about who we are, why we are here, and what a meaningful life looks like, Look inside Yourself cuckoo where we highlight truth as being found within ourselves based on what seems ‘natural’ to us and the Platonic cuckoo, where physical bodies don’t really matter.”
If science is misunderstood for giving us ultimate truths (ultimate truths are not what science is about - science is the study of natural phenomena that uses tools to study these phenomena objectively and reproducibly - a late development in human history), then one can not even begin to have a conversation about science and faith. If engaging with and understanding other people who are different than us is reduced to the criticism of “what seems natural”, then one cannot even begin to listen to a person different than oneself.
When the dominant approach to the Bible is to apply caricatures to the world and then create dualisms from Biblical extractions where one has to choose sides, a conversation takes on the the form of an argument, which is “a militant use of words” (someone must be right and someone must be wrong), and has the strange effect of fulfilling Paul’s warning about the letter that kills. And where there are power structures (leaders and followers), one can’t win an argument if one is lower in the hierarchy.
While the Bible does not prevent itself from being used in this manner (extracting things from the Bible to build something outside of the Bible like a confession of faith), is that really the story the Bible is telling, is that really what Jesus came to give the world? For many the answer is yes.
Most of life and how we live it, fortunately, is not an argument but a web of living, shifting relationships and the Bible is brimming with stories and images of creation, revolution, wisdom, prophecy, gospel and revelation for us to enter in and to form and guide us and is powered by a wild and unconditional love. A far cry from Provan’s polarizing cuckoo analogy.
I’d like to speak to the last anonymous reader who commented in part,
ReplyDelete“Certainly a main part of the intent of the questions is to open a conversation. Unfortunately, the answers have the effect of closing the conversation down - not out of malice but out of a limitation of what can be considered.”
This commenter has (either intentionally or unintentionally) come very close to the heart of the matter of disagreement in the MB church (which is merely a reflection of the church universal).
I understand the commenter to say that Esau is closing down a conversation because Esau limits what can be considered. What is not true is that Esau closes down a conversation. He is very charitable in his answers. In fact, nobody in the MB church is closing down a conversation.
What is true, however, is that Esau “limits what can be considered”. The church is by definition exclusive in its beliefs and practice. It draws limits on what it can consider. This is the same with all churches throughout history. (I would contend that even the most liberal universalist churches draws limits. If they don’t, then God help us all.) This is why Esau, myself, and most MBs find it increasingly pointless to engage with this blog, with REC, with MC Manitoba (and Canada and USA) and, sadly, with MWC. We come from different a priori (starting) beliefs, so a rational and coherent discussion can basically never be productive.
Nobody is shutting down a conversation, our side just can’t have it. Because that means accepting a different set of a priori beliefs, which is akin to denying our faith. Let me throw this back to those in support of the JH blog, how would you feel if a group wants you to give up your fundamental beliefs, and if you don’t, they accuse you of being unloving, unaccepting, and closed minded? Well, that is how most MBs feel, and quite honestly, why should we come to the conversation if that’s how we are treated? Being accused of being hateful without proof, and being forced to defend a position that has never changed throughout history, except in the last few minutes (relatively speaking).
In reality, JH’s two questions to Esau betrays what he thinks. That we are either just fine with families leaving the church because they don’t really belong anyway, or, that we need to apologize and do everything we can to be inoffensive to absolutely everyone. And, that we either consider all members of REC as doomed to hell, or, that we are self-righteous hypocrites for not letting them stay in the denomination.
Those on the side of so-called “inclusion and affirmation” need to start listening to our side too. You keep asking to be heard. Have you stopped and considered the other side?
Questions about inclusion, gay marriage, confession of faith, women in leadership, divorce, slavery, etc., these are all just red herrings.
Our side is completely open to allowing other churches to have different beliefs. They can join a multitude of denominations that share their beliefs. We have no problem with that. Why is there an insistence that the MB church must change?
The reality is that the MB church I attend is extremely loving. Instances of people feeling rejected are very rare. We welcome absolutely everyone to hear the good news message of Jesus. We don’t insist that anyone change. We let the Holy Spirit do his work. It pains me deeply when I hear of people leaving the church for any reason. We don’t label people or put people into categories, and we try our best to not cause divisions.
Very likely I will not be understood, and that is to be expected. I don’t expect to engage in this blog anymore, for reasons already stated. But for those who need more answers, ask a local pastor that is trustworthy and believes in the truth and authority of the entire Bible to unpack the stuff you have questions with. Don’t go to social media, and instead, earnestly search the scriptures and boldly ask the Holy Spirit to give you personal revelation.
re: question 1
ReplyDeleteThe question was "How do you feel knowing this family has now left the MB conference because of how Provan considers them to be dangerous to the church?"
His response seems to imply that this "dangerous to the church" language is based on false narratives about Provan's book, which he goes on at length to summarize.
Late this June Iain Provan, in a conversation with Jake LeFave of Christ City East Vancouver, described people holding “radically different ideas about sexual identity” as “threatening the well being of the Christian community” who should be excluded. Late this October we invited him to deliver a gender keynote at our conference.
I feel this family, other families making similar decisions as well as everyone wishing to seriously engage in these issues are not out of line in expecting more from our NFLT director than a dismissive response to an important question.
Thanks Timothy for putting forward your critique of Anonymous analysis of Ken Esau’s answers.
ReplyDeleteI hope you will not withdraw from engaging with us- because I think you have nailed a vital piece of the challenge we MBs face. It is a the perception ofdifferent “a priori” assumptions. I wish our MB leaders would be as clear on this point as you are.
But until those assumptions are spelled out- we are condemned to speaking past each other. And this is against Jesus' most central command to His followers. On the other hand- if they are accurately spelled out, we can agree, disagree and/or discuss these.
So, the question for you is- can you try to articulate what the relevant a priori assumptions of each side are? I’m deeply intrigued.
(This comment is not meant as a response to James Toews’ comment - just an additional comment on the issue)
ReplyDeleteOne can certainly appreciate Provan’s use of metaphor (the cuckoo metaphor) to help ground a response to LGBTQ+ persons in our midst. This follows the lead of the Bible itself which is full of metaphor and story and Provan’s metaphor takes up the challenge - where does one find oneself and one’s church in this moment in history.
(This is following Northrop Frye’s critique of a static vision of the Bible in “The Great Code”: “In religion there was a fundamentalist response that simply denied the existence of story and metaphor in the Bible, so far as such a denial was possible, and asserted that truth of the Bible was expressed in historical and doctrinal language.” So again, one can appreciate Provan’s move to metaphor to avoid the “static view” of the Bible.)
The core of Provan’s cuckoo metaphor (and the MB conference support of Provan’s stance), if I am understanding this correctly, is that the Church is under threat from the surrounding culture and the cuckoo analogy and how it is applied to LGBTQ+ persons, faithfully extends the Biblical stories and metaphors to our present day situation.
One does have to acknowledge the reality of threats to the church. There are real ways that a threat can come from the outside. But perhaps there is also a threat that can come from within oneself and within a church. To understand someone differently can lead to a changed understanding of oneself (in fact it has been said there is “no understanding the other without a changed understanding of self”) and this interaction is fraught with all the dangers inherent in moving into an unknown, uncontrolled space. It does take a certain capacity and willingness to move into that space, and even where present, there are all the dangers that shifting relationships present - misunderstanding, rejection, division. In contrast, there is a type of security in defining clear boundaries between insiders and outsiders.
One of the dominant and recurrent stories and metaphors of the Bible is that of the outsider. Starting wth Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Israel, Ruth, Esther, Job, the widow, the orphan and the foreigner of the prophets all the way through to Jesus - born in a stable, the calling out of disciples, Jesus’ interaction with outsiders - the woman at the well, the Syrophoenician woman, “whatever you do to the least of these” . . . and on and on the Bible attends to the outsider. And not only is the outsider the saved one but can also be the one through whom salvation comes.
It is not a given that this is the metaphor that should guide interactions with LGBTQ+ persons in the church but it is a possibility to consider and that some may choose.
Interacting with the outsider as if they may be a means of salvation does have a foundational grounding in the Bible.
Thanks for a very thoughtful response. I hope it's OK if I respond even though it wasn't addressed directly to me. And I hope you continue to engage in this conversation.
DeleteIndeed, metaphors are powerful and useful tools for understanding. Provan’s metaphor aids that- to some degree. But it also depends on whose ox is being gored, as it were. Given that we [those asking for CCMBC engagement on the question of LGBTQ+ inclusion and exclusion in MB churches] are the explicit targets in the cuckoo metaphor- it makes me sad. This is so especially because it is our brothers [my use of gender here is intentional btw] in arms of many years- that have directed the metaphor against us.
We are asking for a family conversation. We are however, asking for it without the presupposition built into Provan’s metaphor, that we are the CCMBC’s cuckoo. Test our theses on their Biblical merits- is all we are asking for.
But there is a specific question for you, as well. It is- can you try to articulate what the relevant a priori assumptions of each side are? You can iust start with your own if you like. I certainly will respond with mine.
I think this is where an honest conversation must begin. Your closing statement tells me you are interested in such a conversation.
An aside- it has been many years since I read, “The Great Code” but given my recollection and your summary- I doubt that Provan and his disciples in our MB family think well of his thesis.
Hi James,
DeleteHere is another angle on my previous post - thanks for the invitation to respond. This is nothing definitive and is very compressed and this may not resonate with you, but has been helpful for me.
Northrop Frye, in The Great Code, Words with Power and Double Vision: Language and Meaning in Religion, writes with such an intense honour and knowledge of the Bible and with an unrelenting attention to the centrality of the Bible and how language is used.
While in the previous post, I had given Provan some credit for using a metaphor / story as a way of trying to articulate a response to LGBTQ+ persons, I think you have correctly identified that it is a weak metaphor, through your experience and through how it polarizes. Provan is using a metaphor to make an argument directly to buttress a position - it has that compulsive feel to it. There is no nuance. One must either accept or reject his argument. It is the doctrinal approach and what NF would call rhetoric.
This contrasts with what NF would call kerygmatic language. For example, a person reading from Isaiah may understand that this has something to say about LBGTQ+ persons. There is an invitation to consider the possibilities. Something is opened up. It is not “anything goes” but comes out of the Bible stories we live by.
The doctrinal uses language as compulsion, to accept or reject. The kerygmatic imagines the possibility of freedom to create. It is very difficult for people using these two modes (“a priori assumptions”) to communicate with each other. I think this is contributing to the lack of understanding and communication between MB conference leaders and the River East Church. I very much appreciate the pastoral approach you are taking.
Thank you to everyone contributing to the comments here on this blog. It is helpful to be able to work through things in this way.
ReplyDeleteFor myself, having recently retired from a career helping vulnerable people (not specifically LGBTQ+) who were working at making a new start in life, I feel compelled to always bring conversations back to real people. Even though the conference is working so hard at creating policies and enforcing them - is that really the best way to deal with people that are hurting? I think it is quite literally the opposite of "what would Jesus do". I have come to understand that the basis for the Conference decision is the Confession of Faith. Is there any room for us to develop a "Confession of Compassion" as well? Maybe the Conference team is only trained and narrowly focused on deciding on "right" answers and policies but others of us have more focus on the common good and could be useful in that way.
One other word of caution that comes to mind when I hear a commenter speaking of the unity in their church and how they are completely full of love for one another. I think we are all aware (hopefully) of one of the ways a unity like that can be achieved for a time - and that is by finding a common enemy and uniting against that enemy. This is basically group dynamics 101. Part of me fears that this is what is happening as the conference works to expel churches such as River East. Yes, the conference will find unity for a time, but it won't be lasting. We already know that.
So let's instead work to be a Matthew 25 people and care for the least of these, even if we don't have all the right answers for now.
How does a group of people normalize the exclusion of other people?
ReplyDeleteHow does a group of churches (of all things!) normalize the process of evicting churches from its midst? Certainly not by invoking the power of the gospel!
“There are many approaches to faith, and one would hesitate to condemn any faith unless it's practical results were hatred and cruelty. But we can hardly help noticing how often faith of the type described as orthodox, fundamentalist are pernicious in their social influence whenever they get into a position of secular power.
There are many reasons for this, but the one that concerns this book is that they are based on false linguistic assumptions. Their approach to language has its own area and it's own function but in an age of primary concern the hewers of doctrines and drawers of boundary lines should always be servants never masters.” Northrop Frye - Words with Power
Have the leaders of the MB conference become “hewers of doctrines and drawers of boundary lines”? Are there no artists or poets or writers on leadership? Of course there is a sound logic to the expulsion of churches for the “hewers”. But the gospel is not logical or illogical it is counter logical. This is a tragic irony in the MB conference action. There is little to see that is “gospel” in their action.
“Faith then is . . . working in words and other media toward a peace that passes understanding not by contradicting understanding but by disclosing behind the human peace that is merely a temporary cessation of war, the proclaimed . . . peace, infinite in both its source and its goal.” NF, Words with Power
We know where logic is in the MB conference action. Where then is the faith?