A few observations from the special session to remove River East from membership in the Mennonite Brethren Church of Manitoba

 

(I wasn't at the special session where the vote was taken to remove River East from membership in Mennonite Brethren Church Manitoba. The following is taken from notes about the event.)

In 2023, when the Mennonite Brethren Church of Manitoba voted to remove Jubilee Mennonite from membership, the vote was 74.2% in favour. When River East was voted out, the vote was 83.3%. 

Noting the vote difference, someone asked me: What happened? Why was it higher this time, despite River East’s efforts to share its story and its biblical and theology rationale for inclusivity? 

The short answer is: I don’t know. But I have a few ideas. 

One reason for the change is River East members were not allowed to vote at the special session. That removed as many as 15 votes. But that still wouldn’t have made a huge difference. (79.5%) 

Another reason might have been the presence of large numbers of members from ethnic churches—Chinese, Eritrean, Congolese and others. 

I was told there were more delegates from these churches at the special session than at the March annual assembly where Jubilee was voted out. (But I can’t independently verify that.) 

That would have meant more people at the special session to vote in favour of the resolution. 

One thing that was clear from the comments by delegates from those churches was they were in favour of removing River East. 

Those who spoke talked about the need to “stay true” to the Bible and resist culture, citing Bible verses opposing same-sex relations. 

But they had an impact beyond the meeting itself. 

Prior to the session, MBCM sent delegates a document containing comments from leaders of these churches—comments where they made their opposition to inclusivity very clear. 

A few examples of what they said: 

“To our culture, same-sex marriage is nonsensical, it’s an attack against creation.” 

“We are subject to Jesus and His Word, not culture. God’s word is unchangeable.” 

“This is a time to stand, unite and face societal pressure with the truth. We face an effort to erase Christianity.” 

“We are in total agreement with MBCM leadership. We must obey the Word. We must go back to Biblical clarity, same-sex marriage is wrong. REC has chosen their own path.” 

“There are different conferences. REC wants to change the conference from the inside. REC is coming up with something new.” 

”Let’s not worry about the few that might leave because of our determination to stand on truth and walk the narrow path.” 

“Discipline leaders who compromise the confession. We need discipline to prevent decline.” 

It's possible comments like that helped sway how some voted.

Along with that, there was the threat these churches would leave MBCM if River East was allowed to stay.

Commenting on what he heard while interacting with ethnic church leaders, Jason Dyck, Director of Church Ministries, said: 

“There were certainly themes in common within these conversations. One stood out to me, and when I heard it repeated in my first and second conversations, I tested this to see if it was a commonly felt experience. It was. I did not prime this statement; it was offered in each conversation.” 

He then shared that statement: 

“If MBCM has room for a church who embraces same-sex marriage, in theology and practice, MBCM will not have room for us.” 

If that was true, it could have meant the loss of between 8 to 10 churches—something that would have weighed on the minds of some delegates.

(There were rumours that some other churches planned to leave, as well, if River East was not removed; the number is unknown.) 

Another reason for how the vote came down is it was made clear by MBCM that delegates were not to vote as individuals—but as representatives of their churches. 

As the Conference put it: Delegates to the special session were to be people “appointed by their church leadership who have been chosen to represent the church as a whole.” 

I know at least three churches had meetings to discuss how to vote. I expect others did, too. 

That’s why at the session one Winnipeg church noted their congregation was divided over the resolution. For that reason, they announced they had decided to grant them freedom to vote “their consciences.” 

Also, one or two people who spoke indicated they were sharing as individuals, not as representatives of their churches. 

Another reason for the increase might have been how delegates were prevented from hearing River East’s story. 

On January 14 the church held a meeting to share the story of its biblical and theological foundations for inclusion. 

The church asked MBCM to send an announcement about that event to all of its member churches so delegates to the special session could vote with all the relevant information about River East’s decision in hand. 

I'm told MBCM decided against sharing that information and the link to the event. 

As a result, delegates did not get an opportunity to hear River East's rationale, with the result that some—many?—of them would have gone into the meeting without the full story from the church. 

They would have cast their votes without having access to River East’s rationale for why it made its decision to be inclusive.

Perhaps it might not have made any difference, anyway. But we will never know. 

If you attended the special session, do you have thoughts about the vote? Share about it in the comments.