Ahead of vote to expel it from the Mennonite Brethren Church of Manitoba, River East Church invites people to learn about its journey to inclusion

Before delegates to the January 20 Mennonite Brethren Church of Manitoba (MBCM) special session vote about whether to expel River East Church from that denomination, members of that church would like them to learn more about their journey to inclusion. 

For that reason, the church is inviting Mennonite Brethren church members in Manitoba (and beyond) to an in-person and online meeting titled “River East’s Journey to Inclusion” on November 26, 7 p.m. 

At the meeting, people from River East will explain how—after years of conversation and study—they decided to welcome and include people regardless of their gender identity and sexual orientation. 

For those attending in person, the church is located at 755 McLeod in North Kildonan. Those who want to attend online can do so at this link. The passcode is journey and the meeting ID is 854 7662 3489. 

In preparation for the meeting, the church invites people to read its inclusivity statement. 

Dispelling rumours, taking Scripture seriously

Jan Schmidt is a River East member who is organizing the meeting. When asked why the church is inviting people to this meeting, she said the intent is “to share our journey that led to the inclusion statement. We have heard many rumours about how we undertook this process, some of which inaccurately suggest we took the decision lightly.” 

Along with that, Schmidt said “we would like to share our journey to individuals and churches who also are embarking on this conversation.” 

For River East Church member Don Peters, the goal is to “express our thoughts on a topic that is crucial to the life of our church community and to the wider Mennonite Brethren church family. 

"We also want the wider church family to know that we take Scripture seriously and that we have been deliberate, methodical, and prayerful in our discernment process.” 

As a result of the meeting, “we hope that the larger Mennonite Brethren family will understand the seriousness with which we’ve approached our study and our conclusion,” he said. 

When asked if this was an attempt to sway the vote, Peters replied: “It is an effort to present a perspective. As members who are currently suspended from MBCM membership, we know we do not have voting rights. We know that with a meeting at our invitation, we will have the opportunity to express our views.” 

Said Schmidt: “Members of Manitoba Mennonite Brethren churches will decide whether we can remain within the Mennontie Brethren family based on our commitment to live into the inclusivity statement. We would hope that everyone who will participate in this decision would do so with knowing and understanding our journey.”

You can read more about River East's journey to inclusion on this blog. 

River East Church in Winnipeg formally suspended by the Mennonite Brethren Church of Manitoba

River East Church in Winnipeg has been formally suspended by the Mennonite Brethren Church of Manitoba (MBCM). 

The suspension took effect on May 3.

It follows a notice of suspension sent to the church in March and follows a meeting between the MBCM board and River East leadership.

On May 10, MBCM sent a letter to all Mennonite Brethren churches in Manitoba announcing the suspension. The letter is below.

This letter is a follow-up to the March 1 2023 communication you received from us regarding River East Church.

The MBCM Board recognizes that LGBTQ+ persons, along with their friends and families, have experienced exclusion and rejection in churches. While this is not everyone’s story, we understand that it is the story of many. We are committed to a future where better stories are experienced. Each MBCM church is invited to join in this journey, where LGBTQ+ persons and their families experience inclusion and care.

As well, we recognize that some of the implications of working to include and care for LGBTQ+ persons can bump up against our convictions and practices. The MBCM board continues to affirm our shared confession, in all of its aspects.

The MBCM board is moving River East Church’s membership in MBCM to a status of suspended, as of May 3, 2023. This suspension involves a change in River East’s ability to serve and provide representation. 

Members of River East Church will be unable to hold a representative position within MBCM or CCMBC structures and affiliations while this suspension is active. This does not include REC members who are employed by institutions of said structures and affiliations. Additionally, River East Church members will be ineligible to vote on decisions or resolutions considered by the Assembly of MBCM churches.

As per the process outlined in MBCM’s constitution, the MBCM Provincial Faith and Life Team will conduct a review of the circumstances that have led to this suspension. They will report their findings to the MBCM board.

The desire of the MBCM board is to work toward the restoration of REC membership in MBCM. Should this intention find success, the board will then resolve to reinstate River East Church upon the board’s satisfaction that the concerns have been adequately rectified.

Should those efforts prove ineffective, the board will provide recommendation to the Assembly of MBCM churches for removal of membership.

We invite you to be in prayer for all involved as we journey through this process. May God work in and through us as we seek to be faithful in following him.

On behalf of the MBCM board, Dave Ens MBCM Board Moderator

Mennonite Brethren Church of Manitoba sends response about vote to remove Jubilee Mennonite Church from membership

 

I received the following from Jason Dyck, Director of Church Ministries for the Mennonite Brethren Church of Manitoba, on behalf of himself and Provincial Director Cam Priebe. It came in response to my request for a comment in response to the March 4 vote to oust Jubilee Mennonite Church from membership.

Before anyone comments, please note the following.

First, unlike other provincial Mennonite Brethren conferences (or the national conference), Jason and Cam have shown themselves to be ready to comment and respond on the topic of LGBTQ+ inclusion and welcome. As a reporter, I appreciate that. (ONMB has not responded to my request for comment about the removal of Southridge of FreeChurch.)

Second, they have also shown themselves to be approachable, pastoral and willing to listen and engage with churches that are exploring LGBTQ+ welcome and inclusion. 

Third, I don’t envy them! They are caught in a tough situation between opposing views. 

Just thought I'd say that . . . 

Response from Mennonite Brethren Church of Manitoba

The Mennonite Brethren Church of Manitoba (MBCM) Leadership Board, Provincial Faith and Life Team, and staff recognizes that LGBTQ+ persons, along with their friends and families, have experienced exclusion and rejection in churches. 

While this is not everyone’s story, we understand that it is the story of many. We as MBCM Leadership are committed to a future where better stories are experienced. Each MBCM church is invited to join in this journey, where LGBTQ+ persons and their families experience community and care. 

We recognize that some of the implications of working to include and care for LGBTQ+ persons can come into tension with our shared confession. Each MBCM church has voluntarily joined the MBCM and committed themselves to the convictions outlined in our shared nationally held Confession of Faith. 

Our task, as MBCM leadership on a provincial level, is to maintain theological alignment among member churches. 

We also recognize that we operate from a place of perceived power. Power is often experienced as force, and there are ample examples of church institutions applying power in ways that fail. 

We strive to understand power through the life and person of Jesus. Our shared confession states that “The church is a covenant community in which members are mutually accountable in matters of faith and life.” We recognize that we serve from a position of authority and remain determined to function from a place of humility and kindness as members of that covenant community. 

Jason Dyck, Director of Church Ministries
Mennonite Brethren Church of Manitoba

Report from the meeting of Mennonite Brethren Church of Manitoba where Jubilee Mennonite Church was removed from membership

 

I did not attend the March 3-4 Mennonite Brethren Church of Manitoba (MBCM) convention where delegates voted on the resolution to remove Jubilee Mennonite Church from membership. (I did not think I would be welcome as media.) Some who did attend sent shared with me what happened at the meeting. Below find a summary of that event.  

Prior to the vote, a delegate proposed an amendment to add River East Church to the resolution about removing Jubilee Mennonite Church; to remove that church as well. 

It was ruled out of order since the constitutionally mandated process for revoking RiverEast’s membership has not yet been completed.

Also prior to the vote, a delegate from Fort Garry Mennonite Brethren Church moved that the vote be deferred for at least a year to provide time for more discussion about the topic.

He said the request from deferral was coming from a majority of that church’s members.

Some delegates spoke against the motion, saying what Jubilee had done was “clearly against the Bible;” that there had already been enough talk about the topic; that the Conference needed to "hold to the authority of the Word;" that due process had already been followed; and that a postponement was just “delaying the inevitable.”

Others spoke in favour of it, noting that people read the Bible differently, that more time was needed to discuss it as a conference (in keeping with the Mennonite Brethren commitment to a "community hermeneutic"), and to listen to each other’s views.

One delegate indicated he would have spoken against the motion the day before. But that same evening he learned a teenage girl in his church had just come out as LGBTQ+ and wanted to know if the church would marry her in the future.

Now, he said, he was in favour of taking more time to talk. 

A member of Jubilee also spoke in favour of taking more time, saying they wanted to continue to be part of the Conference.

Another member of Jubilee said in becoming welcoming, affirming and inclusive of LGBTQ+ people, the church knew it was going against the Confession of Faith. Despite that, the church hoped the Conference would still “embrace” them as they “dared to imagine” it might work to stay together.

The motion to defer the vote in favour of more conversation was defeated, with an announced 71% of delegates voting against it.

After that motion was defeated, the vote on Jubilee’s membership was taken. A total of 74.2% of the votes were favour of removing the church. This met the threshold of two-thirds majority needed to pass. 

(Unlike in Ontario, the vote totals were officially shared at the Manitoba gathering.)

After the vote, Jubilee’s former pastor Ken Warkentin offered a blessing to the Conference and then indicated members of the church at the meeting would like to leave.

As members of Jubilee left the meeting, everyone was asked to stand so they would not be so conspicuous in leaving.

Members from at least two other churches exited with them into the foyer to offer personal words of care and farewell.

One observer noted that MBCM Moderator Dave Ens and Parliamentarian Marvin Dyck managed the sessions well, conferring on occasion to clarify rules of order.

Although comments were generally respectful in tone, there was a clear difference of opinion/conviction among delegates on both the amendment regarding River East and the main resolution regarding Jubilee, he said. 

A member of the MBCM Faith and Life Team concluded at the end: “There are no winners today.” He then led the Assembly in prayer.

A request for comment has been made to MBCM leadership and to Jubilee Church.

March 6 addendum: In an e-mail recieved today, Fort Garry Church's moderator confirmed the motion to postpone the vote on Jubilee in order to have a year for study and dialague. The motion was made to reflect Fort Garry's view "that a different path would be preferable to the mutually exclusive options of a 'yes' or 'no' vote" on Jubilee's membership. 

Fort Garry, he said, "saw a different path forward as desireable because the question of how we are to be inclusive of of LGBTQ+ people will continue long after" the vote on Jubilee was taken. 

Jubilee Mennonite Church voted out of membership in the Manitoba Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches

 

Jubilee Mennonite Church has been voted out of the Mennonite Brethren Church of Manitoba (MBCM). The vote was taken the afternoon of March 4 at the annual MBCM convention in Winkler. 

A total of two-thirds of the votes cast was required to approve the motion. The vote total in favour of removing Jubilee was 74.2%.

A motion to defer the vote to remove Jubilee from membership was defeated before the vote to remove the church was taken. 

Read a report about the meeting. 

River East Church proposes new process for Mennonite Brethren churches in Manitoba living on the "borderland" of the Confession of Faith

Delegates to the March 3-4 convention of the Mennonite Brethren Church of Manitoba (MBCM) will vote on whether to remove Jubilee Mennonite Church from membership. 

Prior to this vote, River East Church invited MBCM to consider its Borderland Proposal to interrupt the process to suspend and remove churches that want to welcome and affirm LGBTQ+ people in order to provide more time and space for further conversation. 

The Proposal was sent to MBCM in January. River East has not received a response. 

Borderland Congregations Proposal for MBCM Board 

Overview 

River East Church is proposing a 5-7 year period in which churches such as REC could remain part of MBCM and yet pursue understandings and practices that may border on the edges of common interpretations of the Confession of Faith. 

River East feels led by the Holy Spirit to cultivate an inclusive community that would create space for a number of marginalized and underrepresented groups/persons in the MB community. 

We have expressed our desire to pursue radical inclusion in a statement that includes many categories, but the one which we feel we need leeway to explore is that of full participation of LGBT persons. This may include marriage and church leadership. 

Perhaps, not unlike Philip in Acts 8, we are being called to leave the center (Jerusalem) and move to the edges (a wilderness road). 

Our view 

We would like to remain a part of MBCM and we believe the Board would wish REC to remain a part of the conference. We hear the teaching of Christ encouraging REC to be more expansive by making space for same-sex marriage, but we are not at this point suggesting a change in the Confession of Faith or in the traditional interpretation of Scripture held by others. 

Instead, we are requesting that the MBCM Board grant permission to REC, and any others that would like to join us, in a flexible posture of 5-7 years where LGBTQ+ members would be invited into full participation which may include leadership and/or a life of committed marriage.

REC has seriously considered scripture, tradition, reason, and experience in coming to our inclusivity understanding. We believe we follow in the path of Jesus who was the welcoming Presence of God. We understand the Biblical trajectory as moving over time and experience from Law to Grace, exclusion to inclusion, punishment to mercy. 

We have no desire to judge others, but we cannot deny the movement of the Spirit among us, leading us into a more generous posture of inclusion of any person eager to be on a path of following Jesus and loving the God who loves us all. 

We understand that the Confession of Faith changes from time to time as noted in #4 of the Nature and Function of the Confession. This process of community hermeneutics is partly explained in item #3. 

River East would like some time to work on this position as we have learned so much more about what it means to be LGBTQ+ and what those persons have to offer a congregation. 

Also, in #6 in the Nature and Function of the Confession, it states that “the Board of Faith and Life also recognized that there may be times when leaders embrace a ‘principled confessional integrity’ rather than a ‘legalistic confessional rigidity.’” 

In other words, struggles with particular statements in the confession are not incompatible with affirming the confession in principle. 

Process 

1.    Borderland Congregations could be defined as: A respectful acknowledgment that there are those in the MBCM family of Christ (congregations and individuals) whose careful study of scripture and prayerful journey of discernment has led them to a different understanding. An example would be covenanted same-sex relationships differing from a commonly understood stance of reading Articles 10 and 11 in our Confession of Faith.

2.    MBCM Board would consider and approve the concept of a ‘Borderland Congregations’ framework.

3.    REC requests that the MBCM board regard this negotiation as a matter of governance appropriate for the MBMC board and not, at this point, a matter requiring a vote of the MBCM assembly.

4.    A time period of 5-7 years be allotted for this initiative during which churches would maintain an active conversation with the Board and PFLT.

5.    At the end of the specified time there would be a complete evaluation of how the inclusion process is working in both Borderland and non-Borderland congregations as both seek to live out our mission for the world. At this point changes to the CoF could be suggested or the Borderland Congregation be asked to change or leave.

6.    REC may reach out to other congregations who are having similar conversations.

7.    MBCM could invite ONMB to participate as well.

8.    River East would remain in relationship with MBCM and its congregations, seeking to learn from one another.

Conclusion 

What we ask of conference leadership is this: That we be allowed to stay within the Mennonite Brethren church family in Canada as member churches that seek to faithfully interpret scripture, acknowledging the theological differences among us. We believe that this is a reasonable request. 

While several MB-affiliated churches in Canada are, by their stated positions and actions, challenging Article 11 (Marriage, Singleness, Family) and by extension Article 10, of the Confession of Faith, there are other MB affiliated churches in Canada that by their positions, actions, or inactions, have challenged other articles of the Confession yet remain in good standing in the conference. 

For some MB-affiliated churches, Article 13 (Love and Nonresistance) is treated as an historical peculiarity of the Mennonite Brethren rather than a core conviction. For some MB-affiliated churches, a significant component of Article 3 (Creation and Humanity) is expressly ignored or countered in church policy in terms of women in leadership.

As the MB Conference already occupies diverse theological space, we ask that room be given to churches whose practices are on the borderland of the Confession of Faith.

Open letter to the Mennonite Brethren Herald from a pastor about the upcoming vote on Jubilee Mennonite Church

By Janessa Nayler-Giesbrecht 

The letter was composed as I lay sleepless at night, thinking of my apprehension about the upcoming Mennonite Brethren Church of Manitoba (MBCM) assembly where delegates will vote on whether or not to remove Jubilee Mennonite Church from Conference membership over its decision to welcome, include and affirm LGBTQ+ people and same-sex marriage.

The apprehension has shifted from the vote about Jubilee to the defensive posture I have sensed us all growing in over my time as a pastor in MBCM. I couldn’t help but reflect on the marriage advice analogy; without that intentionality in assuming the best while acting our best we don’t stand a chance at unity. How can we overcome any difficulty if we are constantly trying to protect ourselves from each other? 

The most difficult part of this, which was hard to nuance in the letter itself, is that too often it’s those who are NOT holding seats of power who will try to close the gap, while those who do hold power will not. And when that happens there is abuse. And then rinse and repeat the cycle as more hurt comes forward. 

This letter was me daring to imagine a world where we could mutually care for each other and turn to each other in hope.  

To my Mennonite Brethren family, 

I am worried about us. In a big way. 

When I do premarital counselling with couples, I am known to give the following advice: "assume the best of one another, and always be someone the other can assume the best of."

By this, I mean that at our BEST in a relationship, we expect that the other is working with us, acting in love and integrity; and to make that true, we in turn must consciously embody that.

When both of these things are being actively lived out, there will be a beautiful unity that can sustain all the ups and downs life can offer. This is true of all of our meaningful relationships in life. 

However, when that is not lived out—when we cease thinking the best of one another's intentions—we begin to build walls and guards to protect ourselves from the other. We try to gain leverage for ourselves to make sure we are protected, leaving our commitment to the relationship to suffer. 

The longer we do this, the more distance exists between us. The more distance between us, the harder it is to return to that place of mutuality that is essential to the thriving of any relationship. 

Perhaps you see where I might be going with this, but if you do not here it is: it does not take much of a leap for us to see that we are a Conference living in that second scenario. 

I have been a part of you since middle school, and I have been a pastor with you for a decade. And if I reflect on the state of our relationships over that time, I sense the widening gap between us. Not just as an outside observer, but as one who also feels it deeply. 

The reasons and motivations are complex and plentiful, of course. I don't actually know a specific fix for it, but naming it feels important. Naming it feels like it can give us a chance to stop walking in opposite directions, turn around, and take steps to close the gap again.  

In Manitoba, specifically, we have a big meeting coming up. And there's lots to say (and lots that will be said) about that. But before that, can we name this thing? This mistrust that has seeped into who we are? There is no instant fix for it, it always takes time to repair. But we have to start somewhere, somehow. And I want that for us.  

When Jesus prayed for his disciples, he prayed that we would be one as the trinity is one. When Paul prayed for the church, he begged for us to keep the unity. May the Spirit be with us and help us find a way. 

Janessa Nayler-Giesbrecht is a pastor at Fort Garry Mennonite Brethren Church in Winnipeg. She posted this letter to the Herald, MBCM and the Canadian Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches on Twitter. 

"The Confession of Faith is not written in stone." Thoughts from a Jubilee Mennonite Church member about the upcoming vote to remove their church from the Mennonite Brethren conference

 

Elfrieda and Hardy Schroeder are members of Jubilee Mennonite Church. They came to the dual-conference congregation (both Mennonite Brethren and Mennonite Church Canada) from the Mennonite Brethren side of things.

 

For them, the ability to live together with differences is a hallmark of healthy Christian life. Now they lament being removed from the Mennonite Brethren conference over Jubilee’s decision to welcome and include LGBTQ+ people and affirm same-sex marriage.

 

Elfrieda provided a few thoughts for delegates to the March 3-4 assembly where they will vote on a resolution to remove Jubilee from membership.

 

Both my husband Hardy’s and my family were refugees after WWII. We both experienced homelessness and trauma at an early age. As children, we knew what it is like to be different and we haven’t forgotten.

 

In 1947, my family ended up in Paraguay where my father helped build the village of Einlage and became a pastor there. The school in the middle of the village turned into a house of worship on Sundays. Our village was made up of both Mennonite Brethren and General Conference Mennonites. They worshiped together. It was more important to talk about the things that united us than what separated us 

 

When I was nine years old, we emigrated to Canada. The small Albertan town in which we settled did not have a Mennonite church. We attended an Evangelical United Brethren church, founded originally by Pennsylvania Dutch Mennonites.

 

Our family was treated with love, kindness and respect. We did not have to change to belong there. Everyone was welcome!

 

My family eventually moved again and I was baptized at Springfield Heights Mennonite church by sprinkling. When I met Hardy, who was preparing to go to Congo with Mennonite Brethren Missions, Pastor Quiring of Brooklands Mennonite Brethren church, where Hardy was a founding member, asked if I would consider being rebaptized by immersion.

 

I declined, and the church voted to accept me. The mode of baptism had been an ongoing debate for at least 20 years in the Mennonite Brethren conference.)

 

When we returned from Congo, the debate among Mennonite Brethren was about women in ministry.

 

To those of us who worked long and hard with this issue, it was disappointing to have it defeated in the early 1990s. After 20 years, there is now no problem; it is left up to individual churches to decide.

 

In 2023, we at Jubilee Mennonite church are being denied membership in the Mennonite Brethren Conference because of our decision to fully accept LGBTQ+ in a committed relationship. 

 

Hardy and I were so happy when we moved to Winnipeg to discover a church that had membership in both conferences. Now this will be taken from us. 

 

The Confession of Faith is not written in stone. It will have changed twenty years from now. That will be too late for us.

 

Is there a pattern here? Please think about the significance of your decision!

 

Read an interview with Elfrieda and Hardy titled “I hope the MB conference would give us their blessing” from 2022.

River East pastor Mary Anne Isaak summoned for a review of her pastoral credentials

On January 25, Mary Anne Isaak, pastor of River East Church in Winnipeg, appeared before the Provincial Faith and Life Team (PFLT) of the Mennonite Brethren Church of Manitoba (MBCM) for a review of her pastoral credentials. 

More information to follow. 

Living into challenge or opportunity: Jubilee Mennonite Church's journey to becoming inclusive of LGBTQ+ people

 

On November 19, 2022, Chris Friesen, congregational chairperson at Winnipeg’s Jubilee Mennonite Church, shared the following with the Mennonite Brethren Church of Manitoba (MBCM) Council of Representatives.

Written following consultation with the church council and our congregation. Its purpose is to explain the process by which Jubilee decided to become inclusive of LGBTQ+ people.

The hope is that other Mennonite and Mennonite Brethren churches might read this story and understand difficult conversations are possible—regardless of the content of the conversation—without splitting apart. 

In late September, Jubilee's membership in MBCM was suspended over its decision to be inclusive, the first step in being expelled from the conference.

Thought experiment: Think of your own congregation, the people and personalities, the overall character of it.

Think also of an issue or question that if addressed and discussed, has the real potential to be controversial and divide your congregation into antagonistic sides.

It could be a doctrinal issue, or a matter of scriptural interpretation, it could be an ethical question, or maybe one of church practice (like worship music or use of face masks).

How hard was it for you to think of something like this in your congregation?

For Jubilee Mennonite Church (JMC), one of these questions was about LGBTQ inclusion.

Questions about this had been percolating at JMC for many years and finally got to the point where a broader congregational conversation about it was needed. Members of JMC had friends, neighbours, and family members that were part of the LGBTQ community. We had members of JMC that came out as LGBTQ. JMC’s community ministry programs regularly connected with LGBTQ people.

As biologists continue to better understand the science of sexuality, the social and scientific context in which we live, work, and minister has changed much in recent decades. It was time for conversation. We needed to talk.

Mennonite history, of both distant past and recent memory, offers far too many examples of churches being unable or unwilling to engage with such questions without divisiveness.

It’s scary as church leaders to address these kinds of questions. Mennonite history, of both distant past and recent memory, offers far too many examples of churches being unable or unwilling to engage with such questions without divisiveness—how many church splits and excommunications have there been? How many good and sincere Christians, including pastors and church leaders, have been shown the door? At the same time, we the divisiveness in society more broadly.

In short, we could see all that could go wrong—hurt feelings, broken relationships, people leaving the congregation, impacts to our community ministry, tension with our denominations (JMC is a member of both MBCM and MCM). We certainly had these concerns at JMC, both among church leadership and within the congregation in general.

We knew that there was a diversity of perspectives present at JMC regarding LGBTQ inclusion. But we, both leadership and congregation, knew that a conversation could no longer be avoided and ignored. The focus for us as a church council then became ensuring that the framing and structure of the conversation was such that the opportunity for constructive conversation was maximised and the opportunity for divisive conversation was minimised.

We wanted to welcome diverse perspectives, but not divisiveness.

Notice my choice of words here: minimize the opportunity for divisiveness. We wanted to welcome diverse perspectives, but not divisiveness.

Before our intentional discussions began in earnest, our pastor (Ken Warkentin) held one-on-one conversations with all JMC congregants to see where we were as individuals. These conversations were structured around several questions that Ken asked each member to help us get a more detailed understanding of people’s thoughts, perspectives, and questions about LGBTQ inclusion.

The challenge for us as church leadership was then to find a way to have a congregational conversation that drew out and gave space to the diversity of perspectives we knew existed within JMC in a way that promoted mutual understanding; a way that would help us live into one of our mission statements: to know one another in loving community.

We started by talking about talking. At the leadership level this meant many hours at council meetings discussing how to meet this challenge (or was it an opportunity?).

At the congregational level, many members read and discussed the book ‘How the Body of Christ Talks’, which discusses the theory and practice of having hard but healthy conversations in the church.

These were valuable exercises in that they helped us as a congregation focus not on arriving at a particular outcome regarding LGBTQ inclusion, but rather on developing a process that welcomed diverse perspectives in a way that built up rather than tore down.

We all recognized that what we needed and desired was a conversation, not a debate.

In addition, since it focused on the process rather than the issue itself, it helped establish an ethos and atmosphere of listening, learning, and understanding. It helped bring us to the place where we all recognized that what we needed and desired was a conversation, not a debate.

The goal of a debate is to win, to convince and persuade; it encourages entrenchment instead of openness. A debate was not what we wanted.

We also didn’t want a conversation with a constrained or pre-determined outcome; why bother having a conversation if you know what the outcome is going to be? No, we needed to have an open conversation. This was true for both the form of the outcome and the substance of the outcome.

We didn’t start these conversations with a plan to issue a statement at the end.

Regarding the form, this meant we didn’t start these conversations with a plan to issue a statement at the end—we didn’t know what, if anything, we would do. Regarding the substance of the outcome, we didn’t know where these conversations would lead us in regards to LGBTQ inclusion. And, importantly, we as leadership were very intentional about not leading or pushing the congregation toward a particular outcome.

The board of Mennonite Brethren Church Manitoba (MBCM) has expressed dissatisfaction that JMC did not invite conference representatives to have a bigger part in our conversation. It was quite intentional that we did not issue such invitations to either of the conferences to which we belong.

Both of our conferences have confessions of faith with similar perspectives on marriage and sexuality. One of our concerns with conference involvement was that, as participants in the conversation, conference representatives could not be truly open to different outcomes and may feel the need to adopt a posture of defensiveness and/or a posture of persuasion regarding the confession of faith.

Such postures tend to foster debate rather than an open conversation where participants must be willing to at least entertain the possibility of a change in understanding. This was what we asked of ourselves at Jubilee.

Uniformity of thought was an unrealistic expectation.

Just as important as being open to different outcomes, it was important to have realistic expectations. Critically, this meant acknowledging that no matter how the conversation went, there would still be a spectrum of perspectives at the end. Uniformity of thought was an unrealistic expectation. We were entering this conversation with a diversity of perspectives and in all likelihood would be finishing this conversation with a diversity of perspectives.

The importance of recognizing this is hard to overstate. Knowing that there would always be a diversity of perspectives freed us from the burden and pressure of trying to get everyone to agree on everything. It allowed us to have a truly open conversation instead of a debate. It helped each of us individually recognize that we had, for many years, already been worshipping and serving alongside those who had different perspectives.

While the particular question of LGTBQ inclusion remained directly in front of us, the question in the background now came into focus, and centred on the relationship between unity and uniformity. Was unity without uniformity possible? And if so, what did it look like in the context of LGBTQ inclusion at JMC?

The first step we took was to look to the Bible.

It was against this backdrop that we entered intentional congregational conversations. The first step we took was to look to the Bible. Both within our congregation and Christendom at large, there are various understandings of the Biblical message when it comes to LGBTQ inclusion in the church. We wanted to explore and understand these different perspectives and have a forum in which people could ask questions about the Biblical text.

We invited professor Dan Epp-Thiessen of Canadian Mennonite University to provide us with this biblical background. He graciously spent three evenings with us, describing the various ways in which people understand the biblical message in this context. He made it clear that the writers of the Bible understood heterosexuality to be the cultural and moral norm, and that in those instances where the biblical authors explicitly discuss sexuality, they do so from this perspective, and that this has been the traditional perspective of the church.

It’s important to recognize that there are sincere, Bible-believing Christians on both sides of this issue.

He then discussed how some Christians see this traditional perspective to be in tension with the broader biblical themes of love of neighbour, welcome, non-judgementalism, and humility. He emphasized that it’s important to recognize that there are sincere, Bible-believing Christians on both sides of this issue (or perhaps more accurately, along the full spectrum of perspectives). This was, and still is, true of JMC.

We then held a series of conversation events that each focused on different aspects of the question of LGTBQ inclusion at JMC. The structure and questions of a given event were discussed and approved by council, and often modified based on the outcomes of previous events.

We didn’t pre-determine how many events we would need, or how long this process would take. We knew that this conversation was challenging for many people—it was emotional at times, it pushed and pulled each of us in various ways and directions. As leadership we were aware of the tension between the desire to let the conversation take as long as it needed to take, while also respecting the emotional and relational energy it took for people to engage in it.

We sensed that the congregation was ready to move beyond conversation and was wanting to distill our collective understanding into something like a statement.

After several of these events, we sensed that the congregation was ready to move beyond conversation and was wanting to distill our collective understanding into something like a statement. We conducted an anonymous poll of the congregation to determine if our sense was correct. This poll showed unanimous support for moving towards full inclusion of members of the LGBTQ community at JMC.

I want to remind you that a diversity of perspectives on LGBTQ inclusion is still very much present at JMC. And, as expected, we did not end up at a place of uniformity of thought on this. However, the congregation was unanimous that JMC, as a congregation, should move forward in this particular way.

We achieved unity for our direction as a collective, but not uniformity of thought as individuals.

We achieved unity for our direction as a collective, but not uniformity of thought as individuals. We have decided how we as JMC will move forward together, while ensuring there is room for a diversity of individual perspectives. We are now living into the challenge (or is it an opportunity?) of figuring out how this looks in our particular time and space.

JMC was born out of the union of two congregations: Northdale Mennonite Fellowship and Valley Gardens Mennonite Brethren Church. Even before the MB’s and GC’s came together to found Canadian Mennonite University, the two conferences had come together in the form of this little congregation.

While I wasn’t around at the time, I’m told by those who were that there was much conversation and introspection. This was new and different—could something like this work? What did it look like to be part of two conferences? Was unity possible despite diversity?

The conferences were bold and took a chance, letting their respective congregations take their first steps as a united congregation. Since its founding in 1995, JMC has lived out this experiment. By no means has the path always been clear and easy, but we’re still here.

Mennonite Brethrenness is baked into who JMC is.

There are still some at JMC who were part of Valley Gardens MB and there are others who have joined JMC along the way that are MBers. Mennonite Brethrenness is baked into who JMC is. It is a part of who we are. And being part of the larger body is important to us.

We have benefitted immensely from the resources and wisdom of MBCM. And we strive to contribute where we can, whether that’s helping fund missionaries like Richard and Hazel Funk, which we did for many years, joining with our neighbouring MB churches to put on Christmas dinners for our local community, sharing our experiences of community ministry with other MB churches, or lending our unique voice to conference conversations. Being part of the larger MB body is important to us, and there is much we have in common.

We recognized at the outset that by having an open-ended conversation about LGBTQ inclusion JMC might end up at a place that wasn’t entirely consistent with our conferences’ confessions of faith. For example, both of our conferences have confessions of faith that define marriage as exclusively heterosexual. It was certainly not our intention to cause friction with our conferences, though we weren’t ignorant of that possibility, either.

Like we did 27 years ago, JMC is again embarking on an experiment.

Like we did 27 years ago, JMC is again embarking on an experiment, testing our discernment, trying to live out our unity in Christ despite our diversity of perspectives. Our hope is that MBCM will once again be bold and continue to journey with us. It is part of our history, it is part of our present, and we certainly hope it will be part of our future.

I’ll end today with some questions. Throughout this conversation with the MB conference, we’ve invited our members to bring us their thoughts, concerns, and questions. These are the questions Jubileers are asking.

Questions for the MBCM from JMC are:

1) Has there been enough talking about talking? Has the response process been intentional and well-thought out? What’s the rush?

2) What are the goals of the process? Persuasion in order to achieve compliance? Is discipline the best lens with which to view this process?

3) Is uniformity of thought consistently practised and/or a realistic expectation? Does it exist presently? Consider the thought experiment at the beginning, think of your congregation, think of the conference as a whole.

4) Is uniformity of thought and practice desirable? To what degree is such uniformity a liability rather than an asset?

5) Is this a question of authority of scripture as opposed to authority of Confession of Faith (CoF)? Scriptural interpretation has been shown to have relativity to it over the centuries. What is the role of the CoF—to centre or box in?

6) Is there an opportunity for true and open-ended conversation with MBCM? One without a pre-determined outcome? An opportunity to explore what unity without uniformity? What might look like within MBCM?

Shared with this blog with permission from Jubilee Mennonite Church.