Reflections on Iain Provan presentation about a "biblical theology of sexual intimacy, birth sex, and gender expression” at Equip

Some may be wondering about Iain Provan’s presentation at Equip.

Provan—who is known for his idea that there are people with what he considers to be unbiblical ideas who, like European cuckoo birds, sneak into the church’s nest to take it over and destroy its offspring—spoke about “Why the church needs a biblical theology of sexual intimacy, birth sex, and gender expression.”

I wasn’t there. So I reached out to some who attended his presentation and asked for their reactions. This is what they told me. (All were given anonymity in sharing.)

According to one person who heard him speak, Provan was unable to translate his theology and philosophy into pastoral practices. This is growing frustrating to some pastors.

This person, who has heard him speak before, said Provan’s presentation at Equip was more cordial that he has heard him in previous presentations. In his experence, Provan can be quite "dismissive and arrogant at times."

At the same time, he believes Provan is greatly appreciated by some in the Canadian Mennonite Brethren Conference, especially in B.C., since his presentation “told them what they want to hear.”

Another person who heard him noted that, given the title he gave his address, “Why the church needs a biblical theology of sexual intimacy, birth sex, and gender expression,” many there expected an answer. 

It never materialized, in his opinion, although, he noted Provan did not say he was going to provide one, only that the church required one.

This person was critical of Provan’s presentation in two areas.

First, he provided no reference to human sinfulness and to Christians as sinners “saved by Jesus.” That, he said, was an oversight when it comes to defining what it means to be a human being.

That, he said, “surely has to be the honest starting place in reference to communicating anything whatsoever about sexual intimacy, birth sex and gender expression.”

Failing to acknowledge that is a recipe for pride and judgmentalism, he said, noting it has huge implications for building bridges and creating meaningful relationships with the LGBTQ+ community.

Second, Provan failed to acknowledge the importance of “family, clan, tribe, people, and today, a nation-state or nationality,” this person said, and how that shapes people.

For him, this was also a big omission since people are not just individuals but part of grpups that help create identity, purpose and meaning.

A significant “tribe” for LGBTQ+ people, this person said, is what he called the “pride community.” That community provides them with a sense of belonging and identity—the same thing the church seeks to provide, but often doesn’t, for LGBTQ+ people.  

LGBTQ+ Christians who don’t find a home in a church find a home in this new tribe, he said.

From his own experience, this person said he has “witnessed unparalleled sacrificial love, compassion, awareness of other, fierce defending of dignity and honour, a thirst for justice and righteousness” in that LGBTQ+ community.

He described it as “embarrassingly more Christian” than what he has often seen in the Christian community. 

For this person, not recognizing or acknowledging the importance of the LGBTQ+ community to people who are members of it means any efforts to do mission or evangelism is “delusional” since it doesn’t recognize what it means to members of that community.

Another person who attended Provan’s presentation said his involvement in a conference about the theology of the church clearly indicated that the Conference is trying to clarify and strengthen boundaries regarding sexuality and gender.

He also wondered if Provan, as an Old Testament scholar, is qualified to speak about this topic. “I get concerned when scholars make pronouncements on fields outside of their expertise." he said.

He also shared the view of some that Provan’s presentation missed the mark when it came to the practical and on the ground matter of providing pastoral care to people who are exploring their sexual identity.

Did anyone else hear Provan’s presentation? What are your thoughts? Add them in the comment section below.

I should note I asked Provan for an interview before he spoke at Equip. He declined.

Questions about the Confession of Faith posed to the Director of the National Faith and Life Team

 

I was reading the National Faith and Life Team (NFLT) report to the Mennonite Brethren provincial conference assemblies when two things jumped out at me.

One was about whether there might be some wiggle room in the Confession of Faith for LGBTQ+ inclusion and affirmation, based on the 2006 women in ministry decision that allowed churches freedom to involve women as leaders if they wanted.

The other was a comment about the possibility of amending the Confession. Could that include amending the section on same-sex marriage? 

Wanting answers, I reached out to the report's author, Ken Esau, who directs the NFLT.

“You asked several good questions emerging from my report that I'm happy to respond to,” he said.

My first question.

I see from your NFLT report you are "exploring the implications of our 2006 Women in Ministry Resolution in the light of diversity of views in our national family." Care to add some explanation as to what that might mean? Could it create space for churches that want to be affirming and welcoming of LGBT+ people? 

Ken’s response.

This action comes out of questions that people have asked about how different churches within our MB family can better understand and relate to each other over this “non-confessional question.” 

Our 2006 Women in Ministry Resolution spelled out the parameters for our disagreement and how within those parameters we hoped to maintain mutually respectful relationships. 

We may need to be reminded about what was agreed to in 2006 since we have many new leaders in our MB family who know little or nothing about this resolution.

(I know that some have suggested that our treatment of this non-confessional question could be a model for how we navigate disagreements related to other questions, but this is not what prompted our planned work here). 

My second question.

You also noted you will be looking at how and when to possibly amend the COF. What prompted that?  

Ken’s response.

It is clear that amendments to our MB Confession of Faith are possible (see Article 8: Baptism—2021 Revision). We have not, however, provided a clear procedure for what can prompt an amendment, the acceptable rationale for an amendment, the process of community hermeneutic involved in the amendment, and the approval process for that amendment.

While we are presently updating all the Confession of Faith resources (viz. Commentary, Pastoral Application) that presently accompany each article, we do not have plans to amend any article of our Confession of Faith. 

However, we feel it is best to clarify the process related to an amendment so everyone understands what is involved. We believe that our national MB Church family is best served by open and transparent policies and procedures—and this is one more step in that direction. 

We are doing this as well with the creation of our “Collaborative National Credentialing Policy,” and our “Collaborative National Church Affiliation and Review Policy.” We have also articulated some of these questions in the new “Introduction to the MB Confession of Faith” (2023 version) available on our CCMBC website. 

I noted Ken's conclusion, where he said: "The questions that we are facing within our national MB family are both urgent and significant ones affecting the very fabric of our unity."  

Said Ken.

Yes. There is no question that this is an important moment in the history of our Canadian MB family. As I noted elsewhere, some diversity at a local church and a denominational level is normal, healthy, and a stimulus for energetic growth and positive movement, but too much diversity is crippling to the point that no movement and shared mission is possible.

We certainly need much Holy Spirit wisdom to discern together where we are as a church family on this spectrum of diversity. Once that is clarified, we will need the same Holy Spirit wisdom to know the best steps forward.