The vote is in: River East Church has been removed from membership in the Mennonite Brethren Church of Manitoba.
The vote in favour of the special resolution at the January 20 special session to remove the church from the Conference was 261 for and 52 against (83.3%).
To read more about the special session, click here.
The vote to dismiss was even higher than for Jubilee at the last Assembly (75%? or so). It is tragic to see the Mennonite Brethren drill further into its rabbit hole of "standing on the Bible" without any engagement with culture. I believe the vote count was higher for dismissal because our international churches were much more represented this round than last, who are fully on sticking with a traditional approach to this issue. Unfortunately, missionaries, who had no practice or training in negotiating Bible, culture and confession simply taught the indigenous people they met that to follow Christ was to dump all their culture (dance, drums, polygamy, etc etc). So our international churches have had no teaching or practice in this careful negotiation - even though we all do it all the time. So no surprise that they "stand on the Bible" and vote to kick out anyone that has done more careful Bible study while negotiating the matrix we're in....
ReplyDeleteIs this satire?
DeleteNot satire but an attempt to assess some historical data. A Bishop from Kenya speaking at Urbana 2006 wondered whether the "chalice that held the gospel" brought by missionaries might have held poison instead of the "gospel of peace/Kingdom". Also Richard Twiss in "Saving the Gospel from the Cowboys" itemizes a number of scenarios where white missionaries - even from the 21st century - were going out unequipped, both in critiquing their own culture and the one they were going into. In one case the would-be missionary told Twiss "I don't have to learn anything about the culture I'm going to - they will learn mine (my American Christian one)." Twiss devotes a large portion of his 240 pages to the problem of missionaries' cultural assumptions as they pertained to evangelizing NA First Nations. Just a short excerpt: "For colonialism this involved two aspects of the same process: the destruction of the deliberate undervaluing of a people's culture, their art, dances...[lots more listed]...and the conscious elevation of the language of the colonizer." This is personally experienced and studied evidence. Twiss quotes an African theologian who speaks of the "cultural bomb" detonated by missionaries and colonizers in Africa.
DeleteLet's say someone like me - who has worked as Director of the International Community of Mennonite Brethren - takes this kind of observation seriously. I reflect on it and think about the international churches that make up the Manitoba conference of churches. This is their historical Christian heritage. So isn't it possible to reflect on that and suggest that they merely reflect the lack of training and experience in negotiating the Bible, culture and our faith practices. It's evident in this issue perhaps most poignantly but it's reflected in all kinds of topics. In the 8 years of international church work I observed that a lot as people shared their thoughts about medicine and sickness or environmental science and so on. My comment is not a critique of our international sisters and brothers. My comment is an observation that the NA church sowed seeds decades and centuries ago that make it hard to have any conversation about LGBTQ inclusion in the church.
I don't see our conference leaders taking this seriously. Maybe they do - certainly one of them visited the international church leaders - but we just got a one-dimensional take on their thoughts which simply reinforced what our faith and life people wanted to do anyway. Our Japan Mennonite Brethren people are trying to work with this issue - I was consulted in some small ways when I was ICOMB Director, essentially to gain "permission" to even talk about it. I had/have no control or input in their discussions. They are a mature 75 year old conference.
These are some of the thoughts running thru my mind when our international delegates were bringing their votes to the table. I don't hold it against them or denigrate their position - I just say "it's no surprise" from a culture-Bible-negotiation point of view.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteIt seems rather hubristic to assert that our international churches think this way because of lies told to them by the West, as if they do not have the same Bible, same capacity of reason, and same access to God, and likely better access their own history, compared to Mennonite Brethren who reside in the West and/or have ethnic Mennonite roots. I'm confused as to how international churches would be at a disadvantage in seeking Biblical truth, especially in the light of their faith journey, than MBs who reside in the West.
DeleteWho knew standing on the Bible was a rabbit hole.
ReplyDeleteWell, I wanted them to stay & I voted against. But it wasn’t enough. And as a Mama Bear to 2 young adults, (who don’t attend our church anymore), I considered speaking up & saying something, but it didn’t feel safe.
ReplyDeleteIt wasn't safe
DeleteIf it doesn’t feel safe, why do you stay there?
DeleteI wonder, David, if you could perhaps give a more generous description of those with whom you disagree? I suspect there are intense emotions at play right now, and I understand that. But let's be careful about assuming that if a church, or a group of churches, or leaders choose to hold to positions long held, that they are not engaging the culture. That seems unfair. As for our missionaries, let's be counter cultural for a moment, and give these folks at least some benefit of the doubt. Unless you have very specific examples, sweeping all of them with such a wide brush seems unkind.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your comments Harvey. I'm willing to nuance my "sweeping" statements about engaging culture. But I've read indigenous Christian theologians like Twiss, Randy Woodley, and Christian indigenous philosopher Taiaiake Alfred's takes on the Christian cultural incursion via colonialism, and heard African theologian Rothney Tshaka outline his taxonomy of "acceptance" by whites (from "they are not human" to "maybe we can have a dialogue but they cannot bring up past offenses or we'll walk away" to "maybe they have a point - we'll see, though"). I referenced these in public at the ICOMB Mission Consultation and got decent traction from internationals on the "problem of white power in mission efforts." To me, that underpins my musings, and are some data. Again, I'm happy to nuance and discuss because I've seen that if we put some points into play for reflection, our international friends will engage and affirm or push back - whatever. We really need to do that.
DeleteOverall, though, I do think we haven't dealt with the challenge of "negotiating the Bible" vis a vis the culture or ethics yet, like we did with slavery. The Bible has 7 or so verses restricting "homosexuality". The Bible has a multitude of verses that condone slavery/owning other human beings: laws in the OT, and "slaves obey your masters" in the NT. Yet today we say "owning another human being is wrong/evil." How did we get there? We negotiated the Bible, culture and our faith.
All I'm saying is - we should be able to negotiate the Bible and culture on including LGBTQ people in a different and new way, and not be accused of "not standing on the Bible" as logically implied by many comments at the Assembly quoting Scripture and saying "we stand on the Bible".
I'll grant that some will negotiate Bible and culture and come out with a lot of restrictions for including LGBTQ people. Others will come out like REC. The fact that we cannot countenance a River East coming to the conclusion they did is, for me, evidence that we as a MB body are not taking the "culture" - I mean the landscape of quite a myriad of factors - seriously.
The vote is higher toward removal because it's my understanding that members of River East Church could not vote as their church was suspended. They were able to vote for/against Jubilee's removal and probably voted against Jubilee's removal in significant numbers.
ReplyDeleteI’m not denying that missionaries brought their cultural views to the countries in which they served. My husband and I witnessed it first hand and to some degree we must have been guilty of it ourselves. I recall how my husband was challenged by his Congolese co-translators when they read about Old Testament patriarchs with several wives, which is common in Congo, especially for chiefs.
ReplyDeleteHowever, from our observation, homosexuality was taboo in Congo not from a biblical perspective but entrenched in their own culture. I would say from observation of teaching Asian students that this is true of their cultures as well and is not necessarily tied to missionary teaching of scripture, It would be good to have some insight from people native to these countries instead of drawing our own conclusions without consulting them.
David you say that we need to enage our culture on this issue and then you blame the outcome largely on the international Churches and their faith formation. Yet in the document that they shared with us they state that 'in our culture same-sex marriage is nonsensical its an attack against creation'. They engages their culture which helped inform their Biblical interpretation. They are doing what you are suggesting the rest of us havent done and need to do. Perhaps your issue is that you are at odds with the culture that our international brothers and sisters come from and secretely you belive your culture is better, your culture (or how you udderstand it) is what the international churches need to engage with so that they can have a proper understanding of theology and God. In that case Dwvid you are no different and have the same mindset as the missionaries that you also want to blame for the sin of disagreeing with you. It seems like your biggest issue is that you believe that our international churches need to ignore thier culture and learn to be more like you. Perhaps you are more like those mentioned in Jesus and John Wayne then you would like to admit.
ReplyDeleteCommenting here anonymously as a queer person in their 20s that has recently started to come out and has decided to leave the MB conference. To those that are not LGBTQ+ identifying, on either side of the argument (but especially those on the non-affirming side), please remember that this deeply impacts individuals' lives, wellbeing, self-perception, and future choices. Your debate is not just about doctrine, or words on a page, or on what makes you look better to other churches. People's lives and mental health are seriously on the line with these debates and my observation of the conference's handling of this situation is utterly fruitless. It leaves LGBTQ+ individuals feeling like a burden to the conference in ways that I don't think straight/cis/etc. members can really understand, whether these LGBTQ+ people decide to live "openly" or "actively" or not. Having to be a constant topic of debate is not welcoming or loving. Being used as an argument piece (because I would certainly make a good argument piece if I wanted to, given my long-time connection and investment in the conference) does not feel productive. I have a ton of respect for the affirming members in the MB conference that have been trying to push for inclusivity despite the controversy. But for me, it feels like this fight is never going to end (or at least it won't end for the next several years) and it's in my own best interests to find a church where I'm not constantly being pulled into debates by affirming people, or being constantly questioned and critiqued by non-affirming people. Is fighting to keep churches in the conference worth it when so many high-up members are probably never going to change their minds? I'm not totally sure. Maybe we just need to let the dead bury their dead and move on. But this is just my opinion; maybe I've become too cynical. But given the current state of things in the conference, the endless bickering and unrest, I don't think many LGBTQ+ people are going to feel very drawn into anything that bears the name "MB conference". I certainly don't anymore.
ReplyDeleteI very much appreciate these thoughts. A few years ago I read "Undergoing God: Reports from a Break In" by James Allison, a gay Roman Catholic priest who has fought a long time for recognition within his Communion. His book was so insightful and amazing, I thought "It's the fact he's gay that gives him the insights that are so powerful." At the time I was not affirming, but it was one of those moments that opened my eyes to the absolute necessity of queer people in the church. It changed the entire picture for me, and it was only a matter of time before I came around altogether.
DeleteI've been increasingly sensitive to the marginalized in the church, and so when River East released their statement I was so appreciative of the care with which they sought to include *all*. That's the direction I wish we could go - and leave behind the arguments "about" people, and simply move toward each other and into God's kingdom together - in love and in Christ.
This issue is obviously a significant one for both sides of this dispute. If the River East membership fundamentally disagrees with what other member churches consider to be non-negotiable they shouldn’t hesitate to leave. If it is a matter of principle they should stick to it and see where it takes them. My only observation is why is it that those churches - not just Mennonite - that adopt a more traditional evangelical approach to this question continue to grow while those (eg the United Church of Canada) who want to grow by becoming more “inclusive” see a continued and precipitous drop in membership. It will be interesting to see if being “ inclusive “ results in a larger membership or not in so far as this church is concerned.
ReplyDeleteIs larger membership the key measurement of success for a church? A measurement of faithfulness? A measurement of following the "narrow path"?
DeleteNumerical comparisons are a bottomless pit of speculation. First, not all affirming churches are declining. Home Street Mennonite in Winnipeg is bursting at the seams - they have 100 children. REC is full. Southridge church in St. Catharines is packed and growing, especially since they were kicked out of the Ontario MB Conference. The United Church of Canada is really not a legitimate point of comparison, as they were suffering decline for a host of other reasons long before their decision to affirm SSM. Second, the "traditional evangelical" types are not all growing - they are also suffering decline as the post-Christendom forces around them create downward pressure. Like the other "anonymous" comment notes - numbers are not the key measurement of success for a church, but faithfulness to Christ. Choose faithfulness and the narrow path - in this case choose to remove barriers that stand in the way of people discovering the love of God for them - even if it means temporary decline.
Delete