Why I came, what I hope: Voices from Open Space

Participants at the Jan. 9-11 gathering in Winnipeg were asked two questions: Why did they come? And what hopes do they have for after the event? Here are their responses. Some requested anonymity in responding.

Why I came: “I came to hear the collective heart of Mennonite Brethren church members from across Canada on this topic, in their lives and in their churches. I also came because it interests me how who is a Mennonite Brethren today is defined, and who gets to decide on the definition. As it turns out, the definition of Mennonite Brethren is all over the map, but this one issue is causing so much consternation. Because of that, a lot of people are discovering they are no longer considered to be Mennonite Brethren, and that is causing a lot of pain.”

What I hope: I hope we can reach a greater degree of understanding that builds bridges between people. The Jesus tide is to create wholeness, not disunity.” Anonymous.

*           *           *

Why I came: “There is a need for conversation in spaces where people feel don’t feel threatened just because they want to talk about this topic. There is a need for us to talk this through and wrestle with it.”

What I hope: “I hope this event gives Mennonite Brethren in Canada permission for more conversations on this topic.”

*           *           *

Why I came: “I came because there are people in my life who are very precious to me who are part of the Queer community. I want to be part of a process that integrates them fully into the Mennonite Brethren church. I also came to hear what others are thinking on this topic, and how I can help us go forward in this area. It’s also a chance for me to show solidarity with the Queer community, to put some skin in the game.”

What I hope: “I have to have hope. I don’t know how long it’s going to take, but I have to remain hopeful.” Joanne Hildebrand, River East Church.

*           *           *

Why I came: “This is an important concern, so it was a no-brainer to come. I want to be part of fostering good relations across the Mennonite Brethren conference on this topic. We all have a part to play in it.”

What I hope: “I have no preconceived ideas, although some have said this could be a milestone event. I hope leaders in the conference get over their fear of talking about this.” Anonymous.

*           *           *

Why I came: “I came because we need to have this conversation.”

What I hope: “I hope this sparks more conversations that include more people from diverse perspectives. I hope it can lead to us finding understanding as Mennonite Brethren, despite disagreements. Kevin Guenther Trautwein, pastor, Lendrum Mennonite Church.

*           *           *

Why I came: “I came because I know almost a dozen people—family, friends and colleagues—who are LGBTQ+. Knowing them has changed my view of this topic. I convinced me we need to inclusive as a church, not exclude some. I also came because I want more wisdom on this topic, and to see what I can contribute to the discussion.”

What I hope: “I hope it results in encouraging others to be more open to talking about this topic and to listen to one another without judgement—to be curious as to other viewpoints.” Anonymous. 

*           *           *

Why I came: “I came because my church is grappling with this topic right now and doing it very poorly.

What I hope: “I hope to bring back some information from this event to contribute to that discussion at my church.” Anonymous.

*           *           *

Why I came: “I want to be attentive to what God is up to at this moment, and to learn from others.”

What I hope: “I have no big hopes for Open Space. It’s unknown where this will lead. I just want to be open to what God is doing.” Ed Willms, former Executive Director of the Ontario Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches.

*           *           *

Why I came: “I came because our church is currently having this discussion about whether to become affirming. We are coming up against roadblocks from our provincial conference because of that.”

What I hope: “I came for ideas about how to process this, to connect with others, and to find out what is going on across the country. I hope this event pushes the conference to be more open. If that doesn’t happen, maybe we can find a way to create a new group or network to work together.” Anonymous

*           *           *

Why I came: “My church had launched a conversation on this topic. For me, this is an opportunity to meet more Mennonite Brethren family members, learn more about the context for this discussion across the country and to be part of a community discernment process—to practice what we preach as Mennonite Brethren.”

What I hope: “I hope this will create momentum for more conversations at the provincial and national levels, create a willingness to dialogue.” Miriam Faulkes, moderator of the Elder’s Board at Jericho Ridge Church in B.C.

*           *           *

Why I came: “I am curious about what others have to say. I agree with the plea of the open letter that we need more conversation about this.”

What I hope: “I hope we can have open conversations about this topic without having the secrecy, that we can have real conversations that lead to real changes. Maybe we can be like Mennonite Church Canada and create space for churches that want to be more affirming, provide room for differences. And I hope we stop treating the Confession of Faith like it’s the Bible and using it like a cudgel against churches. And I hope Open Space will help keep up the gentle, relentless pressure on the conference.” Anonymous.

Time for a Mennonite Brethren Truth and Reconciliation Commission for LGBTQ+? And other breakout group discussions at Open Space

During the Jan. 9-11 Open Space event, participants were invited to suggest topics for discussion.These topics form the basis of the conversation during the time together. Below find a few of the topics and notes from the discussions.

Time for a Mennonite Brethren Truth and Reconciliation Commission?

This group discussed whether or not apologies were owed to LGBTQ+ people and their allies. This could include those who lost jobs because they advocated for LGBTQ+ people.

It was suggested that might only work if it was accompanied by a time of truth-telling, a type of Truth and Reconciliation Commission. (“What’s the body count?”)

Before a TRC-like event could happen, the bleeding has to first stop, people have to stop being traumatized.

Gentle Relentless Pressure

This breakout group met to talk about the best strategy to move the conversation about LGBTQ+ welcome and inclusion forward. It was suggested the best approach is “gentle, relentless pressure” on Mennonite Brethren conference leadership in Canada.  

The most effective way to do that, it was suggested, was through the telling of personal stories, including stories of how members of the LGBTQ+ community have been harmed by the church.

Bringing about change could take a long time, but it was noted the conversation against slavery went on for a long time, too.

At the same time, it was noted nothing can stop this conversation from happening. It is growing across Canada and beyond.

It was suggested this won’t always be effective. Conference leaders feel trapped. And some will interpret it as persecution and see themselves as “defenders of the faith.”

It was also suggested that similar Open Space events should be held across the country, in each province where there is a Mennonite Brethren provincial conference.

In the end, it was concluded a peaceful, gentle approach is best, and to trust that the Spirit is moving when it comes to this topic.

Should the discussion about marriage be limited to same sex marriage?

This group talked about whether the conversation should be broadened beyond the form of marriage to ask about the point and value of marriage is—to move the conversation beyond whether it is traditional or same-sex. What about committed relationships of any kind? Can they be supported and affirmed, too? 

It was suggested that by focusing on the specifics of marriage (who can be married), the church focuses on the wrong thing. It should focus on the value of marriage itself, of mutually fulfilling relationships.

This has implications for the Confession of Faith, which has a focus on the form of marriage. Why not just promote the value of marriage without saying who it should be between?

It might also be time to develop a theology of friendship; the church has bought so much into the nuclear family, putting a lot of pressure on people and on marriage. We need more relations with other people. Can we rethink definition of family? Can it also be about connection, relationship and emotional support?

It was noted that the emphasis on marriage by the church has also led to incidents where abuse in marriage has been tolerated—abuses perpetuated by theology.

It was also noted the Bible itself has different definitions of marriage, including polygamous relationships.

Dealing with Triangles

In this breakout group, the discussion centred around Edwin Friedman’s idea about triangles—the idea that in any discussion there are at least three groups or people present.

In the discussion about LGBTQ+ welcome and affirmation, the three groups present for Open Space are participants in Open Space, conference leadership and LGBTQ+ people and their families. It was noted there is a power differential among the three levels.

It was also noted the term “conference leadership” is more ambiguous than would appear:  conference leadership is not unanimous and contains its own triangles.

The goal is to understand the triangulation and then build trust between the points. This involves finding commonalities, e.g. that all trust Jesus.

Conversation is key. This could be one-on-one or between groups. One idea is to send representatives from Open Space to talk to conference leaders.

In thinking about conference leadership, it was noted the culture is moving at a pace that is difficult for leadership to keep up with.  

Topics for discussion identified at first session of Open Space

God welcomes all, strangers and friends. God’s love is strong, and it never ends.

With that song and a prayer that this “open space” be a place of welcome for all, the Open Space gathering about LGBTQ+ welcome and inclusion in the Canadian Mennonite Brethren church got underway on January 9 at the Canadian Museum for Human Rights in Winnipeg.

“This is a place where no voice is exiled,” said a worship leader. “We close the door of othering, even if it is an unsettling space.”

(Out of respect for the saftety of participants, all comments are anonymous unless otherwise indicated.)

In his opening remarks, David Wiebe, one of the four organizers of the event, asked why the Canadian Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches (CCMBC) is “not tackling the increased presence of Queer people in the church and the world.”

He also wondered why the traditional view marriage gets “so much airtime” in the conference, but not differing views of marriage. 

And why, he asked, did the conference “not respond to a petition from 550 people for a conversation” on this topic?

In the past, the Conference has always gathered together to talk about difficult subjects, he noted. “Why not this time?” he asked.

Open Space, he said, has been created as place to have that dicussion and, like a “rock dropped in a pond,” it is hoped the ripples go out in all directions.

“This event is a start,” he said. Maybe it can lead to more conversations that “leaders can also engage in.”

After opening remarks, participants were invited to suggest topics that will be discussed over the next several days. They include:

• What are we afraid of when we talk about LGBTQ+?
• Are apologies to LGBTQ+ people and their friends and advocates needed?
• Does the Confession of Faith help or hinder this conversation?
• How do we help those who have been traumatized by the church over this topic?
• What are the gifts LGBTQ+ people bring to the church?
• How do we ensure the voices of LGBTQ+ people are included in this conversation?
• What is the role of parents and grandparents of LGBTQ+ people?
• How do we communicate about this topic to people in the pews?
• Who gets to decide who is Mennonite Brethren or not?
• Is it time to create a network of inclusive Mennonite Brethren churches?
• Who has the power and who makes the decisions about LGBTQ+?
• How can we have humble and gentle discussions about biblical interpretation?
• How do we define progress on this topic?
• How can we equip Mennonite Brethren parents to have healthy conversations about this topic?
• How can we support parents of children who come out?
• What is the good news of the Gospel for LGBTQ+ people?
• Is it time for a moratorium on suspending churches that decide to explore this topic?

When the event is over, organizers intend to pass the results of these various conversations on to conference leaders and report about them in other ways.

January 9, 2022

Click here to read the first in this series on Open Space.

Open Space: A Conversation Worth Having to discuss inclusion of LGBTQ+ people in Mennonite Brethren churches in Canada

From January 9-11, about 50 Mennonite Brethren church members from across Canada are meeting in Winnipeg to talk about the topic of LGBTQ+ inclusion, welcome and affirmation in the church.

The goal of the gathering, called Open Space: A Conversation Worth Having, is to explore the question: “How do we faithfully include and love 2SLGBTQ+ people in our lives and churches as Mennonite Brethren?”

The gathering, which is not an official conference event, has been organized by retired Mennonite Brethren pastors and conference leaders David Wiebe and John Unger of Manitoba and James Toews and Danny Unrau of B.C. It is being held at the Canadian Museum for Human Rights.

Participants are coming from Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and B.C. and are a mix of clergy or former/retired clergy, academics, students and other members of Mennonite Brethren churches who have interest in the topic.

Mennonite Brethren conference leaders were not invited to participate. They were, however, directly informed about the event. This included a meeting with Elton DaSilva (National Director of the Canadian Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches) and Ken Esau (National Faith & Life Director). They did not request for it not to occur.

I asked the four organizers to answer a few questions about the event. 

David Wiebe served with the Canadian Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches, including as Executive Director; James Toews retired in 2021 after several decades as senior pastor at Neighbourhood Church, Nanaimo, B.C. (and was a former MB Herald columnist); Danny Unrau served as a pastor for 28 years, including at Fraserview Mennonite Brethren Church in Richmond, B.C.; and John Unger served as a pastor in various Mennonite Brethren churches in Manitoba before serving in leadership at Canadian Mennonite University.

Why did you organize Open Space?

John: In March 2021 we wrote an Open Letter asking conference leaders to "create space for us to speak and listen to each other" on the topic of LGBTQ+. To date it has not happened. In the meantime, pastors, church leaders, parents, and grandparents from across the provinces are asking, urgently looking for a safe place to talk.  

James: The current state of affairs in the denomination is unconscionable. Pastors and leaders trying to engage in a family conversation about LGBTQ+ inclusion are being mistreated and gay people and their families are effectively being pushed out of many Mennonite Brethren churches. This is done both passively and actively. Both must stop. And churches that are trying to be inclusive are being punished. For me, this is goes against the very core of Jesus’ call: “Come to me, ALL who are weary . . . .”

Danny: It seems a “no brainer” to me that if any one person in the family wants to talk, it is incumbent upon the rest of us in the family (and especially the family’s leaders) to make it easy to have that talk. That being said, I participated to hopefully get the talking somehow at long last started. Nothing seems to have happened so far.   

David: It came to me form the open space event I led in 2001 over women in ministry. It bore a lot of fruit. But in addition, the interpersonal dynamic was very strong, and we built a common understanding among participants because of the "thickness" of the dialogue. I thought an opn space approach to this divisive issue could once again bear such fruit.

What do you hope will result from this event?

John: I hope people will have experienced a safe place to ask questions, offer insights, engage with others who are also wrestling with the question of LGBTQ inclusion in their families and churches. Other outcomes have not been predetermined. We'll see what comes up in the conversation.

James: I hope that this proves to be a catalytic and conversation-opening event for the family of Mennonite Brethren churches in Canada. The status quo is not good; change to the status quo almost always happens from the bottom up. But changes to status quo are also rarely easy. This even is another step of a bottom-up conversation that grew out of the Open Letter to the denomination back in 2021.

Danny: That the talking starts. And listening and compassion comes flooding in.

David: I hope the conference will open their minds to innovators who love the Mennonite Brethren family, yet want it to become more creative and open to innovation relative to welcoming and including queer people in the church. More short term, I hope people who are living with queer family members or church members might find real and personal encouragement from "life on life" interaction. 

Why did you not invite any official provincial or national Mennonite Brethren conference involvement?

John: Given that participation could be interpreted in various ways, we did not wish to put anyone into a difficult position.

James: This was a decision that we wrestled with quite extensively and the complexity of the decision remains. I believe the primary ground was safety on at least two levels. First, for participants who have been wounded, many by conference leaders.

Second, that allies within leadership would not be compromised unnecessarily. Inviting selected conference leaders could have led to a variety of other problems.

Danny: We needed to ensure that the “talkers” would feel safe. 

David: Every review of who to invite seemed to suggest that staff members present would be put in awkward positions of knowing what people thought about the issue so we thought for this round, it just wouldn't work. Hopefully in the future with more events like this.

Are you worried about any pushback from the Mennonite Brethren conference?

John: While disappointment was expressed, they did not try to dissuade us from hosting this event.

James: No. Not at all. I hope that this event will clarify our ask, such that pushback would be meaningless. I feel sorry for our conference leaders, many of whom are very conflicted in this matter. I think they are fighting a slow but inevitable “tidal” movement within society. They are the opposite of the legendary King Canute and the tide. It is one thing to resist a tidal force; it is deeply foolhardy to refuse to engage it.

Danny: Not really, I think what we’re trying to do is too important not to do. I often say I’d like to hold onto every friend I’ve ever had, and I already have some strained relationships within our British Columbian and Canadian Mennonite Brethren family. But I hope for these fractures to be one day be reconciled.    

David: Pushback is already in play. I'm not worried about myself. I do worry about pastors and church leaders who might be mistaken for their views and experience unneeded reprisal. And I worry about what the Conference is doing to itself.

What is your personal reason for planning Open Space?

John: So many people have contacted us in recent years saying, "I can't talk to my pastor. Could we meet for coffee?" This family conversation needs to happen.

James: I think that the matter of including our LGBTQ+ siblings in our churches is a matter of basic Biblical justice/injustice, much as the mistreatment of the Gentile widows in Acts 6:1. That was the presenting issue that led to the famous Acts 15 council.

The shift to equal, unambiguous treatment of gay Christians must take place just as slavery and equal rights for women needed to be addressed in the past. Like those two shifts, the needed conversations don’t happen easily or without proactive engagement by those who feel called to do that. I feel a call to that.

David: It's an assignment that found me. I had to respond.  

Danny: Closing the door and refusing conversation breaks relationship, hinders growth and understanding, and, in fact, enhances the advancement of that which we fear. Henry Schmidt (former MB Seminary professor and President) often told me: “Walk toward your critics; face your fears. Anything less only makes things worse.” I found that advice served me pretty well throughout my 38 years of ministry. I think I learned a lot living that way and I believe, too, I made more friends out of potential enemies than I did enemies.

Anything else?

John: I see this event as a potential resource for conference and church leaders. Can we find pathways to "land this thing" without blowing everything apart?

David: This is just one issue among a host of issues facing the Mennonite Brethren conference in Canada today, all of which are testing the character of the church and Christianity as a whole. And it's perplexing to me. Bending or breaking Article 11 of the Confession of Faith (Marriage & Family) puts a pastor or church almost instantly under review and/or suspension. In my decades of Conference work, I have seen plenty of "breakage" of the Confession of faith on Article 13 (Peace) with no discipline whatsoever. Instead, there are "acres" of room for pastors to "grapple with" the "problems" attached to our peace conviction.  Why don't we see refusal to bear arms as a test of faith in the way we do this issue?

But this issue is indeed a test. Some think it's a test from God. That is, to stay pure, and present a "spotless bride" to Jesus on the Final Day. But purity was the Pharisees' solution to the test they thought God was giving them. And Jesus disagreed. Moreover, Jesus was enraged.

So I think it's a test the other way: God has presented the enormously resourced western church with a nice challenge: "Hey you guys, I have provided you with lots of time and money and power to delve deeply into Scripture at your leisure. So, figure out how to offer the gospel of Jesus to a deeply marginalized and culturally hated group in our world. (Yeah, I know you basically failed with Blacks and Indigenous people. I'll give you another/last chance). Do you have the patience and intellectual vigor to pull it off? Can you love one another doing it? Will you exhibit the fruit of the Spirit when things get tough? Do you believe that you are actually My Body - My literal Presence in the world so that you won't damage it while you find a solution?" That's the test God is giving us. 

Meanwhile, we're barely holding together. We're spying on each other. We're gossiping about each other. So it's not going all that well, yet.

My effort in the Open Space event is to offer a practical solution where nervous systems can get close together and we can practice loving each other in close range even when we disagree. This week's experiment might save Mennonite Brethren from our instinct to separate while we're working on a project from God that actually should be entirely manageable by the western church.

This blog will be reporting from Open Space. Check back for more posts.  

Update on On Holy Ground

 

 

In March 2022, the Executive Boards of the U.S. and Canadian Mennonite Brethren conferences ordered Kindred Productions to destroy all 300 copies of On Holy Ground: Stories By And About Women in Ministry in the Mennonite Brethren Church and reprint it without three pages by River East Church pastor Mary Anne Isaak. 

The reason behind the order was how Isaak raised the question in her chapter about whether the silencing and marginalization of women’s voices by the denomination for generations might be similar to what is happening today to members of the LGBTQ+ community. That was deemed unacceptable.  

(The offending pages were published on this blog and have been viewed over 5,000 times.)

That controversy overshadowed the purpose of the book, which was commissioned by the Mennonite Brethren Historical Commission, to share the personal stories of 15 women about their challenges and joys of serving as pastors and leaders in American and Canadian Mennonite Brethren churches.  

Through the stories, the women share about the challenges and joys of ministry along with the struggle to have their gifts and voices recognized and affirmed by the denomination.  

Almost all of the re-printed books have been sold, with only a few copies yet left for sale. 

If there is additional interest in the book, the Historical Commission may consider publishing an e-book. Anyone interested in the book could signal interest in an e-copy by contacting Kindred Productions at kindred@mbchurches.ca.

 

Mennonite Brethren, Mennonite Church cooperation over Columbia Bible College in danger over LGBTQ+?

For 52 years, the Mennonite Brethren and Mennonite Church conferences in B.C. have cooperated to operate Columbia Bible College (CBC). Is that collaboration now about to come apart over LGBTQ+? 

That's the concern among some in that province. Word is that some MB churches in B.C. have said they won’t recommend the school to their students in the future because of LGBTQ+. 

It’s nothing the school has done. It’s because MCBC is part of Mennonite Church Canada, and that national denomination gives its congregations freedom to decide about whether or not to include, welcome and affirm LGBTQ+ people. Some congregations have done that.

Apparently, these MB pastors are uncomfortable with CBC's connection with MC Canada through MCBC over this topic—even though MCBC is one of the more conservative of MC Canada’s provincial conferences when it comes to LGBTQ+ inclusion, welcome and affirmation. 

The MB pastors brought their concern to the school in fall, according to reports. That prompted some to worry CBC's association with MCBC/MC Canada has the potential to hurt the school financially—if those churches follow through on their threats. 

This news comes on the heels of a summary of a recent report by a U.S. consultant about BCMB that recommends it re-evaluate the role of CBC in the conference. No additional details about that were provided.

A request for comment about the situation was made to Rob Thiessen, Conference Minister of BCMB. To date, no reply has been received.

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.

Willow Avenue Church joins Mennonite Church USA after being suspended by the U.S. Mennonite Brethren Conference

Willow Avenue, a California congregation expelled by its U.S. Mennonite Brethren conference for affirming and welcoming LGBTQ people, has joined Mennonite Church USA.

According to Anabaptist World, it is believed to be the first USMB congregation to make that change in affiliation. 

The church was welcomed by MC USA’s Pacific Southwest Mennonite Conference on Nov. 29. 

The MB Pacific District Conference suspended Willow Avenue in 2021 for considering a proposal to affirm and welcome LGBTQ people. The church adopted the proposal in 2022. 

Read more about Willow Avenue’s decision to leave USMB. 

Read the full story in Anabaptist World about Willow Avenue joining MC USA.