A conflict resolution perspective on the vote to remove River East from Mennonite Brethren Church Manitoba

 

How did the process leading up to the removal of River East from membership in the Mennonite Brethren Church of Manitoba (MBCM) look from a conflict resolution perspective? That was the question on my mind after the denomination removed River East from membership. 

So I asked Janet Schmidt for her view. Janet has been working in the field of conflict resolution and mediation since 1986. She has a Masters of Education Degree (1987) with a focus on organizational behaviour, and a Certificate in Mediation Skills (1996). She regularly works with churches and organizations to help them address conflict and different points of view, and has facilitated conversations about many difficult and contentious issues. 

She is also a member of River East, and was able to see close-up how the process leading to the church’s removal played out. Now that River East is out of the denomination, she feels free to share her thoughts. 

My questions are in bold. 

How did you feel about the process leading up to the removal of River East? 

I was deeply disappointed in how MBCM managed the process. Yes, River East made a decision outside the Confession of Faith when it came to same-sex inclusion. The problem is the history of the Mennonite Brethren denomination shows that is exactly how the COF ends up getting changed. A church starts acting outside the Confession, conversations happen and then changes are made. 

As Jon Isaak, who directs the Centre for Mennonite Brethren Studies in Winnipeg, noted on this blog, Mennonite Brethren have seen many changes to things once considered to be "standard" in the denomination's 162-year-old history—things such as accepting modes of baptism other than immersion; allowing those who weren't baptized to participate in communion; enabling women to be involved in leadership; and not speaking against cremation. 

When it comes to the Confession of Faith, there have been two changes since 1999. In 2014, the American Mennonite Brethren church decided to change Article 13, the one on love and non-resistance, to say now that “historically” many Mennonite Brethren have chosen to do alternative service in times of war; non-resistance is no longer the default expectation. And in 2021, the Canadian church decided to change Article 8, the one on baptism, softening the covenantal language with the church but keeping all the rest. 

As Isaak put it, “the evidence for changes over time is clear. This should not surprise us. Usually, there are some social or cultural realities that eventually convince the majority of Mennonite Brethren on whatever topic that a change is needed.” 

In other words, is the Confession prescriptive of the way things always have to be or descriptive of how they are at this moment in time when an article was written? For some reason, on this issue the Conference is treating it as the former.

Why does that disappoint you from a conflict resolution point of view? 

It disappointed me because the subject of the Confession—which was at the heart of the conflict—was never allowed on the table. The idea of changing the Confession to reflect the new reality on the ground for the six churches in B.C., Manitoba and Ontario that have been removed from membership was never permitted. That discussion could not be had. All that was said was “the Confession says no” so the discussion was ended. The two study conferences in the past were more teaching events than study events where true exploration was not permitted.  That is no way to deal with a conflict. 

What about the process itself—any thoughts about that? 

My concerns with the process was that efforts to engage in meaningful dialogue were not permitted. We knew the church was out of line with the Confession. But we also said River East did not want to leave the Conference. 

There was never any serious conversation about making space for River East in the Conference. River East asked the MBCM Board to consider the Borderland proposal, where we offered to sit on the edge for five years while a conversation took place. The MBCM board rejected this proposal. 

The first rule of resolving a conflict is there must be dialogue. The Anabaptist way is to talk, to dialogue, to hear each other, to respect differences. We asked for this multiple times and such a conversation was not organized. 

A quick aside: I’m not talking about leaders from River East and from MBCM having a coffee to stay in touch and keep each other informed. That’s good. But it doesn’t replace a full and open conversation among members of the church and the Conference, gathering together, where all can have their say and hear each other. 

But the church did hold two open meetings where it shared it story, right? 

Yes, we did. But we did that on our own because there was no other way for River East to share our story. We built these events based on what other conference members were asking us individual. For our first event, sharing about our journey, we asked MBCM to share the notice with their pastors requesting that they share the information with their community.  This was granted, although we don’t know many pastors shared it with their congregations. 

For our second event, where we shared about the biblical and theological foundations for inclusion, we asked MBCM to again share the invitation with the pastors and the pastors to share it with their church communities. They refused. 

One of my concerns about that, from a conflict resolution perspective, is about gatekeeping. MBCM prevented people from hearing about our convictions. Delegates (we are not sure how many) went into that meeting on January 20 not knowing what we thought or the work we had done to arrive at our conclusions. 

In fact, the only thing MBCM included in the package to delegates was our Talking Points Document, not links to our two events on November 26 and January 14. The Talking Points document was created for our members as a way to help them have conversations with their family and friends, not a coherent rationale about who we are and what we thought. In, addition they included their rebuttal to our talking points document criticizing on gaps that it was never intended to fill.  

It all makes me curious to know how many delegates knew our story, not just what pastors and others had told them or what MBCM leaders had shared with them. We have heard many things about what we did and why we did it that could not be further from the truth. When you don’t allow people to hear directly from people, it becomes a fertile ground of rumours and innuendos.  

I suspect most delegates voted based on what they were told, not on their own informed belief. If delegates still voted to remove River East after attending or watching our two events, and having had a conversation with us, fair game. But not having those opportunities is not OK from a conflict resolution perspective. And it is a travesty of the way Anabaptists are supposed to engage each other. Many churches make decisions this way that are hierarchical in structure; but that is losing our Anabaptist distinctive. 

It all makes me wonder: What was MBCM so afraid of? Why did they have to keep that information from delegates? That’s a question only they can answer. 

What did you think of the resolution itself? 

As written, the resolution did not allow for conversation around the point of difference on the matter of inclusion. In addition, the conference floor is not the place to have dialogue. The most that you get is people exchanging different points of view. That is not dialogue. In addition, River East guests (no longer delegates) and could only speak if permission was granted.  

I am not saying this question didn’t need to come to the larger community at some point. I am simply saying from a conflict resolution lens it needed to happen after there was actual dialogue.  

Any final thoughts? 

I don’t think the vote reflects the feelings of people in the pews. Some delegates were told to come and vote not as individuals, but as representing what their church councils and leaders had decided. At least one church did not select delegates who disagreed with REC being voted out. If that’s the case, people from these congregations should be outraged. 

I’ll admit the way River East engaged in the process wasn’t perfect, either. Our pastors and members had many conversations with people who reached out to us. This took a lot of time in addition to being the church in our community. There just wasn’t enough time to pursue every request. That is why larger group processes are so important.  

What happened was s not the way to do good conflict resolution, and it’s not the Anabaptist way. The Anabaptist way is to talk, wrestle, debate and struggle with issues. To hear each other. I’m very disappointed with how things transpired. 

My final thought is this. MBCM played their hand well, given their goal was to have River East removed (what we call win/lose paradigm). They designed a process, shared information and made a resolution that was bound to have them win. But at what cost? 

Processes that silence voices, that force people to vote with inaccurate or limited information do not bring health to institutions. The unintended consequences of this and other events like this will not bring life and vibrancy to the Mennonite Brethren Conference in the long run. And this just makes me sad, that the conference that I have lived my entire life in would act in this way. 

I would invite every person at the conference who voted for the resolution to at least watch our two taped events “Our Journey Towards Inclusion” and “Our Theological Story of Inclusion” found on the REC’s website at https://rivereastchurch.ca/sermons-category/our-journey-towards-inclusion. I believe REC deserves this act of respect.