What can credentialed Mennonite Brethren leaders communicate about LGBTQ+ and same-sex marriage? The National Faith and Life Team director explains

In 2021, the National Faith and Life Team (NFLT) updated the Code of Personal and Ministry Ethics for the Canadian Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches (CCMBC).

Assenting to the Code is a requirement for credentialed pastors/leaders in the denomination, and also for CCMBC board members and staff. 

According to NFLT Director Ken Esau, there were two main reasons for this update. 

First, the previous code was “primarily a list of sinful behaviours to avoid rather than a code of positive commitments and aspirations appropriate to leading in the way of Jesus.” 

Second, the updated version “makes explicit what was assumed to have been obvious. It is clear that we can no longer make assumptions like that.” 

Among those things CCMBC can no longer make assumptions about is the topic of LGBTQ+ and same-sex marriage. 

In the pre-2021 version, the Code asked pastors and leaders to commit themselves to “reserving sexual expressions of intimacy exclusively for the context of a covenantal marriage between a man and a woman” and to “upholding the sanctity of marriage by not solemnizing, officiating, co-officiating, or otherwise affirming any marriage other than between one man and one woman.” 

In the updated version, pastors and leaders are now asked to commit themselves to “living out my sexuality in the way of Jesus’ Kingdom by limiting sexual expressions of intimacy exclusively to the context of covenantal marriage between a man and a woman. This also means avoiding any communication or actions (e.g., solemnizing or officiating in a marriage/civil ceremony) which is in conflict with this understanding of God’s vision for the expression of human sexual intimacy.” 

For me, an interesting addition to the updated Code on this topic is the word “communication.” What does that mean? I asked Ken that question. 

“In terms of your question, communication and actions do need to be consistent if one claims a posture of affirmation of the MB Confession of Faith,” he said, adding accountability in relation to these commitments is to the respective provincial conference office. 

As for the word “communicate” itself, Ken said that “would primarily involve preaching and teaching, speaking and social media.” 

What about attending a same-sex wedding—would that violate the Code? After all, a pastor who attended one would be “communicating” something by his or her presence. 

Said Ken: “When it comes to making decisions about actions not clearly articulated in the Code of Personal and Ministry Ethics, I'm assuming that the individual would seek discernment from both their local church leadership and from provincial conference leadership. I would want to leave these decisions to the prayerful wisdom of individuals who can discern with full knowledge of the situation.” 

I had another question for Ken. Would the prohibition on communicating about LGBTQ+ and same-sex marriage also apply if a pastor or leader wanted to hold a discussion about the topic in his or her church—a discussion that allowed for discussion of different sides of the topic? 

Ken replied: “A credentialed pastor is expected to facilitate important conversations within the local congregation that encourage the fulfillment of the church's mission. The question is more about the nature and purposes of those discussions. A local MB congregation should be practicing ‘community discernment,’ taking the scripture-based convictions in the Confession of Faith and exploring how these can be applied more effectively in the local church context. Credentialed leaders should certainly lean into this sort of community discernment process.” 

That would be different, he said, “from a local MB congregation (or a local credentialed leader) that begins with a blank slate and explores the possibility of adopting new ethical convictions in conflict with our existing convictions (even if the church employs a ‘community hermeneutic’). This objective and this process disregards and violates the church's mutual obligations to the larger MB family provincially and nationally.” 

(He added a link about the difference between “community discernment” and “community hermeneutic.”) 

I also asked Ken whether the Code might also be applied to others in leadership in Mennonite Brethren churches—for example, those on leadership commissions or church councils. 

He replied: “The NFLT did notice that, unless a local church deliberately crafts something, there are many leaders in MB churches who do not have any explicit code of ethics. This includes pastors who have not yet gone through the credentialing process (something that should happen within two years of job start), pastors who are less than half-time, and lay leaders of various kinds. 

“This does not seem to fit with best practices, so a version is available for local churches who want to have a more consistent approach with all of their leaders—credentialed and non-credentialed. In this case, the non-credentialed leaders would be accountable directly to the local church itself. As far as I am aware, this is a voluntary option for local churches.” 

As for the updated Code itself, it is being implement ed across all the provincial Mennonite Brethren conferences on different schedules. 

B.C. and Saskatchewan have already posted the updated Code on their websites. 

The Mennonite Brethren and me: River East Church awaits the January 20 special session vote on expulsion

Forty-nine years ago, I became a member of the Canadian Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches.

It was in St. Catharines, Ont. I was 18. I had recently emerged from a difficult and traumatic experience in the Jesus movement.

Feeling lost and hurt, I stopped going to church. Then a friend said there was a local pastor who was good at talking to people in my situation.

One day I went to his church and simply wandered inside. (There were no locked doors and doorbells/intercoms in those days.) I knocked on his office door and said I needed to talk. He dropped whatever he was doing and invited me in.

The church was Grantham MB Church, and the pastor was Aaron Schmidt. (Thanks, Aaron!) 

After our meeting, he invited me to visit his church. And that’s how I became Mennonite Brethren.

At the time, I didn’t know it was a Mennonite Brethren church. In fact, I knew almost nothing about Mennonites at all. I couldn’t tell an MB from a GC from an EMC or any other acronym.

My becoming Mennonite Brethren had nothing to do with the Confession of Faith, the peace position, which mode of baptism was best.

It was all about a pastor and congregation saying: “You are welcome here.”

Over time, I found a home in the denomination, being part of the Grantham, Elmwood (Winnipeg) and River East congregations. 

I graduated from Mennonite Brethren Bible College, was associate editor of the MB Herald for a year, and served a year with Mennonite Brethren Missions/Services (now Multiply) as a writer.

Later, during the financial and other fiascos of the Sea-to-Sea and Multiply years, including its movement away from traditional Anabaptism and a community-style of decision making to a more top-down Reformed direction, the Conference and I had a falling out.

But as I like to say, I never left the MB Conference. It left me.

In two weeks, all of that will be history. On January 20, I will cease to be a member of the Mennonite Brethren Conference.

That’s when my congregation, River East Church, will be expelled from the Mennonite Brethren Church of Manitoba (MBCM) at a special session for its stance on LGBTQ+ people and affirming of same-sex marriage.

Unless, that is, something completely unexpected happens and it fails to get the over two-thirds of the votes needed to keep it in.

That is very unlikely.

I hope to attend that special session as a reporter, to be present when my membership in the denomination is ended.

There’s no guarantee I will be able to; when Jubilee Mennonite Church was expelled in March 2023, I was not allowed to attend as media.

(Not the first time that has happened; I have been prevented from attending an online meeting in B.C., and I’ve been told someone was dedicated to watching to see if I attended other online Mennonite Brethren conference meetings.)

Either way, I will provide a report about the event—even if I have to depend on interviews with those who attended it. (As I have done in the past.)

But after that? I’m not sure whether I will keep reporting about the topic of LGBTQ+ in the Canadian Mennonite Brethren Conference. After all, I will no longer be a member of that Conference.

But even if I stop writing about the topic on this blog, it won’t go away. At least three other Mennonite Brethren churches in Manitoba are exploring the subject of LGBTQ+ welcome and inclusion. I’m sure it is on the agenda for other churches across Canada, too.

As for the special meeting itself, here is the resolution delegates will be voting on:

We, the Assembly of Congregations of the Mennonite Brethren Church of Manitoba, do resolve that, unless River East Church returns to an active embrace of MBCM member church expectations by May 30, 2024, River East Church’s official membership in the Mennonite Brethren Church of Manitoba will end effective May 31, 2024.

We finally resolve that should River East Church’s MBCM membership end as of May 31, 2024, MBCM extends an ongoing invitation for REC to return to MBCM if they choose to embrace and live in accordance with our shared member church expectations.

MBCM has posted some materials about the resolution you may want to read.

Special Assembly: Why Are We Here

MBCM Board Letter to River East Church (REC), notice of Special Assembly

Timeline of Process with REC

Contextualizing the MBCM PFLT’s Theological Report regarding REC

PFLT Report: Theological Concerns for REC

REC’s Talking Points

In The Margins: Listening to other cultures and ethnicities within MBCM

For more information, including about eligibility for voting delegates, visit https://www.eventbrite.ca/e/mbcm-special-assembly-2024-tickets-775818482967

River East Church to tell the story of its biblical and theological foundations for inclusion

How does River East justify its decision to become welcoming and affirming of LGBTQ+ people theologically? And what about the Bible? 

To answer those questions, the church is inviting people to come hear its “Story of our Biblical and Theological Foundations for Inclusion” on January 14. 

According to Janet Schmidt, who helped organize the November 26 event where the church shared its story about its journey to inclusion, they are holding the January 14 meeting because it has been asked both publicly and privately to explain its thinking on those topics. 

It also wants to do it because “we value transparency and would like to share our thinking with those in our family of faith,” she said. 

The meeting, which takes place a week before the Mennonite Brethren Church of Manitoba votes on its membership in the conference (on January 20), is both in person at the church and on Zoom. It starts at 7:00 PM CST. 

To attend by Zoom, visit click on this link. Meeting ID is 868 1605 7044 and the passcode is: story. 

To learn more, visit: River East Church creates Talking Points from the Bible for Full Inclusion of LGBTQ+ Persons, and also about the Confession of Faith and Full Inclusion of LGBTQ+.

Questions for the Director of the National Faith and Life Team about LGBTQ+

Last month, I posed two questions to Ken Esau, Director of the National Faith and Life Team, asking for a response for this blog.

Ken—who has always been open and responsive to questions from me on the subject of LGBTQ+ welcome and affirmation—asked if he could reply in the MB Herald Digest.

I said yes; you can find his answers in the most recent issue.

Here are the two questions I asked him.

Question #1: I am aware of a family with a trans child who has been in an MB church for a very long time but were struggling with whether they should stay in that church. The last straw for them was Iain Provan being invited to speak at Equip. How do you feel knowing this family has now left the MB conference because of how Provan considers them to be dangerous to the church? (Read about that family here.)

Question #2: Someone asked me a question the other day: Do those who want certain MB churches out of the Conference consider them to be Christians? That is, do they think people in these churches will be in heaven when we all get there? And if we can eat together at the great supper of the Lamb in heaven, why can't we eat together here in on earth as members of the same denomination?

You can find Ken’s answers here. (Starting on page 12.)

River East Church tells the story of its journey to inclusion

 

A chance to “tell our story in our own way.” That was the goal of the November 26 gathering at River East Church in Winnipeg. 

The event, titled “River East’s Journey to Inclusion,” was attended by 172 people in person with 173 screens on Zoom. 

The meeting was opened by church member Jan Schmidt, who said the event was being held, in part, to dispel some rumours circulating about why River East had decided to become welcoming and affirming of LGBTQ+ people. 

This included the ideas that the topic was being “pushed through by one person,” that the church was no longer Christian, that it had ignored the Bible in making the decision and that its guiding principle was the Canadian Charter of Human Rights. 

Since there was no other forum to dispel these rumours, the church decided to create its own, she said. 

The other goal of the meeting was to share the story with those who will be voting to keep or expel the church at a special meeting of the Mennonite Brethren of Church Manitoba on January 20. 

“We are hoping those who will be at that meeting deciding our future will take time to hear our story,” Schmidt said. 

Schmidt noted that some people might be wondering why River East just doesn’t leave; why wait for a vote? 

“The answer for me is this is my family of faith,” she said. “You all mean a lot to us.” 

She went on to say that the decisions made by the church were not done quickly or haphazardly. “It was a process that led us to decision,” she said, adding it was “a slow process.” 

The process started informally as far back as 2007, she said, and included Christian education classes on the subject and book studies. 

The formal process started in 2019. It led to a vote asking if the church should welcome LGBTQ+ people “into every and all aspects of church life.” Ninety percent agreed. 

Members were also asked if the church should place limits on LGBTQ+ congregants. 82 percent said no. 

When asked if opposing viewpoints on LGBTQ+ inclusion should be allowed, “choosing unity above our differences,” 72 percent said yes. 

That was followed by seven congregational meetings, with representatives from MBCM invited to all of them. The Leadership Commission also met four times to discuss the subject. 

At the same time, the congregation asked itself what the Bible said on the subject “and then interpreted the Bible into our context,” she said, along with listening to the stories of people inside and outside of the congregation. 

The church also created a document titled Talking Points About from the Bible for Full Inclusion of LGBTQ+ Persons. 

The congregation continued to meet to talk about the subject through the pandemic. When finally asked to vote on a full inclusivity statement, almost 94 percent agreed with it. 

That statement says that everyone is invited to be part of the church’s mission, “whatever their ability, age, ethnicity, family status, gender identity, income level, race, sexual orientation, or other identity distinctives. All are welcome to full participation in the journey of discipleship.” (Click here to read about the statement.) 

Also at the meeting, River East pastor Aaron Thiessen explained how the church employed what’s called “the Gentile analogy” from the book of Acts to help it discuss the subject of LGBTQ+ welcome and affirmation. 

“When confronted with dilemma, it’s good to see if a case in the past similar,” he said, noting that experience in Acts 15 can be used as a paradigm for approaching questions today. 

That chapter describes how the early church was deadlocked over the thorny question of whether to welcome and affirm new Gentile believers, he said. 

For some, Gentiles could only be allowed in if they followed Jewish religious customs and laws—especially with regards to circumcision. To bolster their case, they cited verses from the book of Genesis that demanded circumcision to be part of the covenant with God. 

After debate and discussion, it was agreed that the Spirit was active among Gentiles, and that Gentile men could be allowed into the church without being circumcised. 

Today, Thiessen said, the question isn’t about Gentiles but about whether Queer Christians could be welcomed into the church. 

“Is this story sufficiently similar to our dilemma today?” he asked. “Many at River East say yes, having experienced first-hand the Spirit at work in Queer people . . . the book of Acts compels us to take seriously the lives of Queer Christians.” 

Also part of the meeting, River East member Don Peters shared a snapshot about the church’s  long history of involvement in the Canadian and Manitoba Mennonite Brethren conferences. 

In total, current members of River East have given 982 years to the conferences and conference-supported agencies or schools, along with service on conference boards, he said. This includes 173 years of serving as pastors in Mennonite Brethren churches. 

As well, about 75 percent of members at a Sunday morning service indicated they had attended a Mennonite Brethren school or one supported by the Conference of Canadian Mennonite Brethren Churches. 

“Not only have we been shaped by Mennonite Brethren institutions, but we have shaped them and contributed to them,” he said, adding River East is “a community whose members were nurtured within the Mennonite Brethren family, a community that has contributed to the larger family of Mennonite Brethren and the larger Mennonite faith community.” 

Click here for a recording of the event.

 

Update on family that shared their journey with a trans child

In May 2023 I shared the story of Barb and Thomas and their child Sam, who is trans.

The family of six—Barb, Thomas and their four children—had been long time members of a Mennonite Brethren church in Canada. In the post, they spoke about how challenging it was to be part of that church and denomination, considering its stance on LGBTQ+ people.

At the time of the interview, Barb and Thomas were struggling with the decision about whether to stay or leave that church. “Increasingly, we just don’t feel we fit in the Mennonite Brethren conference anymore,” Barb said.

After taking time to think about it over the summer, Barb and Thomas have left that church and the Mennonite Brethren denomination. Here’s an update on their story.

While they would like to use their real names, there are people who could be negatively impacted by their association to this family’s story. As a result, they have chosen to still remain anonymous.

By June, we felt we had got to the point where we knew we needed to leave. It was a not a matter of if, but when. 

The way the denomination was handling the conversation about LGBTQ+ people—basically, not permitting an honest discussion about it—left us feeling deeply conflicted. 

How could we be part of a denomination where our child felt they didn’t belong or matter for who they are?

We thought we’d take the summer away to think about the best time to go. The new year seemed a possibility.

But then the Mennonite Brethren Conference announced that Iain Provan would be speaking at its Equip Conference in October, describing people like us who have a different view of welcome and affirmation of Queer people as being like cuckoo birds out to destroy the denominational nest. That was the final straw.

We thought: If the Conference is not willing to have a conversation about this, but only describe people like us as those who are dangerous and need to be expunged from the denomination, was it possible for us to stay?

At the same time, it was discouraging to think that all the conversation that had happened earlier at Open Space seemed to have fallen on deaf ears.

And so we left earlier than we planned. We stopped going to our church in early fall.

While we are sad to have left the relationships we had built in that congregation over the last decade of attending, we feel such a freedom on Sunday mornings now—we don’t have to hide or pretend about our family. I didn’t realize how freeing it would be to let go of that burden.

As for Sam, they found a new home at a local affirming church. They also find it freeing to be at a church where they feel totally accepted—“my church is fantastic! I love it there,” they said of how they feel accepted and affirmed.

Life, they said, “is much better now.”

As for us, we are attending a local evangelical church with two of our four children. (Sam and another sibling go to the affirming church) Our new church isn’t affirming, but the pastor is very open and welcoming of conversation on this topic—the church invites everyone to come just as they are. That includes us; we feel welcome there.

What we like about it is that the music and worship style is engaging and heartfelt and the teaching is deep and relevant. Everyone there is welcoming and intentionally relational; it is one of the core values of the church. It is amazing how we have been welcomed, integrated, and connected.

Although we aren’t attending an affirming church, we stay in touch with friends who are parents of LGBTQ+ children. We have also met other parents of queer children at our new church. That is an important connecting point for us.

While we would ideally like to be at an affirming church, all I can say is that, right now, it feels like we are where we are supposed to be. All of us feel freer than before, and feel our spirits are being renewed and reawakened.

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. 

Iain Provan on marriage, inclusion, hospitality, boundaries and "protecting the sheep"

 

Normally, it wouldn’t be important for Canadian Mennonite Brethren who are interested in LGBTQ+ welcome and inclusion to pay much attention to Iain Provan and his idea about cuckoos in the Christian nest. 

But since he was invited to be a feature speaker in October at the national Equip conference put on by the Canadian Conference on Mennonite Brethren Churches, it can be assumed his views are important to Conference leadership. 

Not only that; Provan was profiled in the MB Herald, which is the official organ of the conference. Nothing gets published there without the blessing of the Conference. 

Another signal of his importance came October 30 when he was interviewed by British Columbia Mennonite Brethren Conference Minister Rob Thiessen for the BCMB Pastor to Pastor podcast. The title: A biblical response to the lies of our time.

During the interview, which ranged over several topics, Provan was asked to share some of his thinking in the area of inclusion. The quotes below are taken from that podcast transcript. 

Thiessen asked him about his view on marriage. 

He stated that the scriptures are “very clear that a marriage is between one man and one woman for life, till death do us part . . . no matter what other people may say. So that gives us our fundamental orientation point, really, for thinking about marriage, the place of sex in human relationships, sexual intimacy, and so on.” 

Later, Thiessen asked Provan about inclusion, one of the “prevailing cuckoos in the nest,” as he put it. 

Christians, said Thiessen, want to be hospitable and welcoming, since that’s what Jesus was like. But, he asked, is this “the deceptive lie that's jumping into the church under this framework?” 

Provan responded: 

“Well, I think the fundamental problem here is that once you remove Jesus in the Gospels from the Old Testament before it and the New Testament after it, you can almost make Jesus stand for anything that you like. And there's been a long history, in fact, of doing that, not least in the modern period where the liberal Jesus turns out to be a Jesus who's much like me. 

“No matter what the search for Jesus may involve, it always turns out that Jesus is much more conveniently available to me, and not somebody who challenges me or questions my assumptions and so on. 

“And so you get a situation here on this hospitality issue where somehow, because Jesus ate with sinners from time to time, somehow that becomes therefore the church should not have any hard boundaries with regard to the culture roundabout. And the problem is that when you look at both the Old Testament and the New Testament, the remainder of the New Testament, that's not what you find at all. 

“And there's a good reason for that. And that is that if you're going to have a discipleship community holding to a very distinctive countercultural idea of what it means to be a human being, you're going to have to protect the sheep from the wolves who want to destroy those ideas and the community that holds them.” 

He went on: 

“You're going to have to make sure that the boundaries there are actually quite hard. Not because you don't respect people, not because you don't treat other people with dignity, but simply because you recognize that they don't believe what you believe. 

“And if you want to protect your people, particularly your young people, from what they believe, and get them to continue to believe what you think is true, you're going to have to take steps to make sure it happens. 

“I don't think there's a more dangerous recent idea in the church than this idea of hospitality, as it is currently being articulated. I don't think it's a biblical idea of hospitality. I think it's a postmodern philosophy from France kind of view of hospitality. And in that view of hospitality, even holding strong beliefs is held to be oppressive. Right. You can't even articulate strong beliefs. That is a form of violence in the philosophy of Derrida and the quasi Christian people who are following Derrida. But it's coming from French philosophy. It's not coming from the Bible.” 

Thiessen then asked: “How would you describe a more biblical view of hospitality then? How would a church practice be biblically welcoming, or what would be some of the markers of that?” 

Said Provan: 

“Well, I think communities of any kind, typically, unless they're very close communities, typically have ways of welcoming other people into their midst that don't compromise their fundamental integrity. So, for example, I wouldn't be having and I don't think the Bible permits us to have people inside the discipleship community who are not actually walking as disciples, because that undermines the whole viability of the enterprise. 

“But does that mean that we can't invite people to church services? Does it mean that we can't invite people to lunch? Does it mean that we can't work with them? No, it doesn't mean any of those things. So having a hospitable posture in terms of friendliness and welcoming and, you know, and being a human being together, that's all fine and good and proper and all of that. But when you get confused about which level of thing you're dealing with, that's when the problems arise. 

“And there's something of a cry now, a demand now, that the church ought to be inclusive in a way that actually in any community, if you were to adopt that same view, would destroy the very nature of the community.” 

“It's always dangerous giving other examples, because they can sound trivial. So let me just take a very foolish example in a way, a silly example. If I'm a member of a golf club and I have somebody wanting to join my golf club on the basis of inclusion and diversity, who wants to play rugby on my putting greens, likely, I don't imagine there's any golf club in the world that would allow that to happen. Why? Because the person is asking for something that destroys the fundamental point of the community they're demanding to join. It's no different, really, by analogy, when people with very different views of what it means to be a human person want to become core members of our Christian discipleship community.” 

Replied Thiessen: “Yeah, that's good. And it reminds the pastors listening of their role of protecting the flock that's a serious command that we're accountable for as shepherds with the church.” 

Said Provan: 

“Well, I would say that's a primary command. I shake in my boots when I hear people being casual about this issue. There's so much about protecting the sheep, looking after the sheep and all that. And I think that's our primary duty as church leaders. Our primary duty lies not in the direction of the culture at large. I would suggest our primary duty is to make sure the church remains the church, and therefore able then to preach the gospel to the culture to be salt and light. If there's nothing there in the first place to go and do those tasks, the tasks can't be done. So if we get confused about this, we not only risk destroying the church, we also risk destroying the witness of the church in the world.” 

You can listen to the whole podcast and read the transcript here.

Read some reflections on Provan's presentation at Equip here.

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.