Comments on James Toews' post about affirmation and inclusion: What about biblical passages against LGBTQ+? How is his view not in conflict with the Confession of Faith? Toews responds.

There was a back-and-forth between James Toews, author of the post about what he believes about inclusion and affirmation, and some anonymous commenters.

 

Since it’s easy to overlook comments, which appear at the bottom of a post (and really, who comes back to an old post, anyway?), I’ve decided to post them here.

 

If you have a comment about his post, or this exchange, feel free to share it as well.

 

Anonymous, September 6, 2023 at 1:39 PM

 

James conveniently skips over other biblical passages that list LGBTQ+ sins as ones that will exclude them from entering the kingdom of heaven. Does he think we should rewrite the Bible to agree with him.

 

James Toews, September 7, 2023 at 9:55 AM

 

Fair comment. Here’s my response for you to test.

First, “All Scripture is God-breathed . . .” 2 Timothy 3:16. Full stop. The Bible is not subject to rewriting or “conveniently skipping over.” So here is how I read Scripture on the matter of inclusion.

Second, all Scripture is read through two centres: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” Matthew 22:37-40.

 

Third, all Scripture must be interpreted and applied through the lens of mercy. “On hearing this, Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” Matthew 9:12-13.

Fourth, judgmentalism—natural as it is—is fundamentally the wrong paradigm through which to read and apply Scripture. Hence, I take this injunction as Biblically centrist: “Therefore, let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister.” Romans 14:13.

Therefore, I believe that in their practice of excluding LGBTQ+ people and their allies, our MB leaders are on the wrong course.

These points are not to be seen as a kind of “final word,” but are intended to lead to a family conversation in the pattern of Acts 15.

I hope that helps.

 

Anonymous, September 7, 2023 at 12:09 PM

 

James, this is very helpful information. Can you clarify how your understanding is not in conflict with the MB Confession of Faith that calls for sexual intimacy only in a marital relationship, which is between a man and a woman.

 

I agree that churches should not exclude LGBTQ+ people, yet I struggle with their involvement in leadership roles if they are not committed to this aspect of the Confession, or if the teaching of the church endorses marital relationships outside of that described in the Confession. Thank you for your insightful comments as we journey on this.

James Toews, September 7, 2023 at 10:47 PM

Thanks for those kind words I will do my best to answer your questions. This is to be a conversation not a declaration.

Part of the challenge is that this is a multi-dimensional issue and answers can get long :). I will try to both break it down and keep my response as short as possible.

#1. I believe that the question of the inclusion and affirmation of LGBTQ+ people in the church is first a pastoral imperative and then a theological challenge. That order is important as Jesus demonstrates. LGBTQ+ people are real people to be cared for by us, not a theological puzzle for us to solve.

I say this because I began my journey some 14 years ago trying to answer theological questions. Then I met and got to know LGBTQ+ people. Theology is important, but only if it begins “on the right foot,” as it were. When it doesn’t, theology can be destructive.

I’m happy to engage theological questions, but my primary qualification is pastoral, having been a pastor for the past 37 years.

#2. With that, let me step into what has become a litmus test of confessional orthodoxy for MBs: Same Sex Marriage [SSM]. A theology of marriage, in this context, is a relatively new challenge given that SSM was only recognized in Canada in 2005.

Our 1975 MB CoF was composed only 7 years after homosexual behavior was decriminalized in Canada. For most of history, Confessional articles on marriage were almost entirely focused on the problem of divorce and its implications. Now that SSM is recognized as a legal entity, the church must wrestle with what that means pastorally.

I and others in the Open Space group, have been pressing for a truly open CCMBC family conversation on this matter. That call has been rejected.

#3. I believe that what I have proposed, in defining inclusion and affirmation, is entirely in keeping with our CoF. I believe that these must themselves be affirmed. As important as the theology of SSM is, I don’t believe it can precede inclusion and affirmation in church practice.

In the New Testament church, the parallel challenge was first the Samaritan and then the Gentile problem. Both groups were excluded in practise because of their unclean identities and presumed behaviour—even after the Acts 15 council that was supposed to settle the matter.

I believe that if Jesus were to tell the story of the Good Samaritan in our context the hero would be the Good Lesbian.

I have not addressed the leadership question you asked, because I suspect that a theology of SSM lies at its core. If I’ve missed your query, tell me.

Anonymous, September 8, 2023 at 4:31 PM

More good information again. Thanks James. I understand your pastoral heart and see where this is critical in our relationship with all people. There are a few really difficult areas that we get hung up on:

First, we never really seem to define what 'inclusion' and 'affirmation' actually mean. Are they different? We seem to live in a world of polarities where if you don't accept something in its entirety, you are deemed to fully reject it. This is unfortunate.

Second, we also tend to group LGBTQ2S+ as all one community when really they do consist of different groups. Our COF would seem to not be in agreement with SSM, which is where I find the conflict. Yet this does not mean that we don't love our LGBTQ family members and friends or want them to worship with us.

Third, it is very true that SSM only became legal in Canada recently, but the legislation cannot drive our beliefs, otherwise the same could be said about abortion and MAID. Legislation certainly demands a response from us as we deal with a very real situation, but not necessarily a change in our beliefs. Imagine the implications in the U.S. where every state determines its own legislation governing some of these areas.

Wish I had more time, but these discussions can go on forever. I'm sure Open Space has many ongoing dialogues and is much farther ahead on this topic than many of the rest of us. Thanks.

James Toews, September 9, 2023 at 11:02 AM

Thanks for engaging with me. Imo, inclusion and affirmation are related and go together—but are quite different. Defining terms and agreeing on the definitions is both the most vital and energy consuming part of fruitful conversations. I’ve put forward my definitions. I hope they make sense.

Agreeing on terms, definitions and their history is especially vital in the matter of SSM. So far, we MBs have not yet had the conversation. The easy default is to make declarations and then talk past each other about this biblically complex institution.

I think how you are I are engaging is a model for how to talk through vexing matters. Imo the biggest need in our MB family is for open respectful talking to each other.

I hope this has been helpful and I’m happy to carry the conversation forward both privately and publicly as time permits.

And the good news is we want to have another Open Space event. We’ll keep you posted. I’d love to see you there. 

“Come all you who are weary and burdened.” Former MB pastor shares what LGBTQ+ inclusion and affirmation means to him

 
James Toews (r), speaking with CCMBC Executive Director Elton DaSilva in 2019.

James Toews, former pastor of the Neighbourhood Bible Church in Nanaimo, B.C., was recently asked by the British Columbia Mennonite Brethren Conference (BCMB) Pastoral Ministries Committee to explain his support for LGBTQ+ people. He was asked four questions, which he answered below. Toews offered to share his responses on this blog. 

What is inclusion and affirmation to you? 

My definition of “inclusion” is captured in Matthew 11:28-30: “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.” 

For me, Jesus’ call to “all” is to be taken literally. This is the very centre of the Gospel. There is no “but” in Jesus’ call to wounded people [all of us]. I think the Mennonite Brethren conference in Canada has added a big “but” to Jesus’ open invitation to join His family. To me, this is a deep distortion of the Gospel. 

My definition of “affirmation” comes from Psalm 139:13-14: “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful; I know that full well.” 

Or, to put it another way, everyone is created uniquely by God. They are God’s creation, given their identity by God. This includes all those who God created LGBTQ+. They deserve our unequivocal affirmation—not systematic exclusion.  

How should these important values (inclusion and affirmation) be built up in the church?  

To put it simply: Stop putting roadblocks in front of those who want to be part of the church. As we know, Jesus was very hard on those who cause those wanting to join the church to stumble. 

As he bluntly put it in Matthew 18:6-7: “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble! Such things must come, but woe to the person through whom they come!” 

I believe that the Canadian Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches is in danger of Jesus’ “woe.” 

Paul addresses the same issue in Romans 14:13: “Therefore, let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister.” 

Where and how are Mennonite Brethren churches getting it wrong when it comes to the issue of inclusion/acceptance?  

BCMB and the Canadian Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches (CCMBC) are not listening to those who see things differently than a small group of leaders who are aggressively teaching and promoting exclusion and who are effectively making a narrow theology of inclusion into THE sole litmus test of Confessional orthodoxy. This is a very serious problem. By their actions, BCMB and CCMBC are doing terrible spiritual harm to gay Christians and their supporters. 

What role should BCMB and CCMBC play in equipping and training our family of churches on this important topic? 

It can start by actually listening to voices like the Open Space group, to LGBTQ+ people, and to their parents, siblings, cousins, friends, allies and others. Until listening happens, there is no next step. Is there really a willingness to listen to various inclusion theologies? 

Those are my answers. I think they are complete and are not in conflict with our Mennonite Brethren Confession of Faith.  

Fall Canadian Mennonite Brethren conference to feature plenary session on biblical ethic of sexuality, birth sex, and gender identity

“Fire and Ashes: Why Church? Why MB?” is the title of the Oct. 26-28 Equip conference being put on by the Canadian Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches (CCMBC). 

The event will feature a number of plenary sessions, including one titled “Why the Church needs a biblical ethic of sexuality, birth sex, and gender identity” with speaker Iain Provan of The Cuckoos Consultancy. 

“For many, sexuality and gender questions are at the forefront of whether participation with church itself (or an MB church in particular) is worth the effort,” according to the plenary’s description. “How should the church respond to the highly esteemed cultural values of justice and inclusion embraced almost universally in our world?”

Provan, who formerly was a professor of biblical studies at Regent College in Vancouver, founded The Cuckoos Consultancy in 2022. Its goal is to equip Christians “to recognize the non-Christian roots of the powerful, competing ideas of ‘the human’ that they encounter every day and to have the courage to reject them.”

Why that name? According to Provan, it comes from the behaviour of the European cuckoo, a bird that does not raise its own young. 

Instead, it sneaks into another bird’s nest and deposits an egg that looks very much like the host’s eggs. The host goes on to raise the cuckoo chick believing that it is one of its own.

“Unfortunately, the cuckoo is, from the moment of birth, an assassin. It goes around systematically pushing any other eggs or chicks out of the nest. It grows as a consequence to two or three times the size of the original chicks. In all of this the cuckoo is a superb master of misdirection.”

For Provan, who attends an MB church in Vancouver, “unbiblical anthropological ideas are like cuckoo chicks in the Christian nest. They have been smuggled into it by birds whose natural habitat is elsewhere. They are foreign bodies in our nest, and they are a threat to the survival of the family. They can ‘misdirect’ us to our doom, such that the Church is no longer really the Church.”

Provan also has published a book on this topic, titled Cuckoos In Our Nest: Truth and Lies About Being Human.

I asked Ken Esau, National Faith and Life Team director, some questions about the plenary session.

Why did you decide to offer this plenary session? 

Mostly because this topic has become so important in our CCMBC family. Churches have been asking for resources to assist them as they navigate these questions.

How do you choose the plenary speakers? (Originally I asked Ken why someone who was not MB was selected, since I saw nothing in Provan's bio suggested otherwise. He responded to that question.)

The Equip conferences have not chosen plenary speakers firstly based on their affiliation with our MB church family—so membership was not our primary concern this year either. However, all of our Plenary speakers (and all of our Workshop presenters) are either members of or attenders of an MB church. I don't think this has happened in any recent Equip conference. As noted in the advertising, we are trying to make this year's event more of an MB family conversation—which also means that we will be holding three Table Discussion Group sessions.

Are you worried that his metaphor about the Cuckoo bird—killing the other birds in the nest—might feel unwelcome and offensive to MBs who want to see the denomination become more open to LGBTQ+ people? (Comparing them to baby killers and nest destroyers.) 

Iain's book is not comparing people to baby killers and nest destroyers, but describing how widespread cultural ideas are sneaking into the nest of Christian faith communities that have been orthodox in their histories. 

Any speaker addressing the topic of sexuality and/or gender from one perspective or another will result in someone in our family feeling unwelcome and the presentation experienced as offensive.  There is no neutral ground to stand on that will be inoffensive to all. 

CCMBC's Collaborative Unified Strategic Plan expresses that CCMBC leaders will plan and make all of our decisions in order to keep with our seven key values. This means that we will "weigh all our decisions in light of scripture, theology, and the MB Confession of Faith" (CUSP, p.7). These seven values and the commitments that grow out of them are guiding our planning for Equip 2023.

Will you provide opportunity for people who hold a different view to speak on this topic? Or respond to the speaker?

There will be Table Discussion Group time first thing on Friday morning for participants to respond to Iain's presentation. We hope to collect responses electronically. 

What do you hope to achieve by holding this session?

Everything about Equip and all of our NFLT (and CCMBC) activities are geared toward moving our churches closer to our mission: "To cultivate a community and culture of healthy disciple-making churches and ministries, faithfully joining Jesus in his mission." 

That mission statement is how we will measure the effectiveness of all of our Equip sessions—including this one. 

"Love Beyond Belief" is the guiding principle for Southridge Community Church

It’s been six months since Southridge Community Church in St. Catharines, Ont. was expelled from the Ontario Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches over its stance on welcoming and affirming LGBTQ+ people and same-sex marriage. 

Since I had done a follow up with Estuary Church, formerly Cedar Park, about how they were doing after leaving the British Columbia Mennonite Brethren Conference, I thought I would check in with Southridge pastor Jeff Lockyer to see about an update. 

“Nothing much to report on our end,” he replied. “We enjoyed a terrific ‘Love Beyond Belief’ celebration service the Sunday after our denominational expulsion, being able to fully and equally include followers of Jesus who hold both convictions on the biblical definition of marriage.” 

Since then, he said, “things have been rather quiet on that front, allowing us to stay focused on embodying Jesus and incarnating His love to a greater degree.” 

“Love Beyond Belief?” I was intrigued. What was that all about? How did they arrive at it? And how has the congregation responded? So I asked Jeff. In reply, he pointed me to a message he gave in February 2023 on this topic. A summary of that message is below. 

In the message, Lockyer began by telling the story of Tony and Michelle, a couple who used to attend another church before coming to Southridge. 

At their previous church, the two were required to sign a statement of beliefs in order to be part of the congregation. 

One of those beliefs was a statement opposed to same-sex marriage. Tony and Michelle couldn’t sign it—their son is gay. 

When they came to Southridge to inquire about being part of that church, Lockyer told them there were members who also believed in a traditional definition of marriage along with those who had an affirming view. 

But that was OK, he said, because the church had worked to create space for both points of view through its approach of “love beyond belief.” 

The two circles were distinct, but through that approach overlapped to stay together.  

That, Lockyer said, “represents the journey our community is on . . . people who hold both views are one family.” Tony and Michelle were invited to be part of it—an invitation they accepted. 

Southridge’s journey goes back early to mid 2000s, Lockyer went on to say. 

We had a problem to solve . . . the negative impact the Christian faith and their own church had, and was having, on LGBTQ+ people

“We had a problem to solve,” he said. That problem was the negative impact the Christian faith and their own church had, and was having, on LGBTQ+ people. 

That impact, he said, was different from the impact “Jesus had on people when he walked the earth.” 

The church committed itself to solve that problem by bridging what it called “the impact gap” between who Christ was and how the Christian faith was experienced by LGBTQ+ people. 

But soon the church realized it had another problem: The  radioactive division that came with trying to talk about these issues among Christians

That seemed all fine and good. But soon the church realized it had another problem on its hands: “The intensity of polarization and the radioactive division that came with trying to talk about these issues among Christians,” as Lockyer put it. 

Christians, he said, were “harshly divided” about this matter, a division that seemed insurmountable. 

“We wondered how God would be able to neutralize these divisions to create a safety of space that we could see the impact on LGBTQ+ people changed,” he said. 

That’s when God directed them to passages in scripture they had not paid much attention to, he said. 

It’s in the book of Romans, in chapter 14, where Paul addresses an issue dividing the church in Rome: Whether it was acceptable to eat meat offered to idols and whether it was OK not to observe the sabbath. 

Those two issues were tearing the church apart. 

Eating meat offered to idols and keeping the sabbath were tearing the church apart. Paul called these disputable matters

Paul’s response was to call them “disputable matters,” not foundational to whether or not someone was following Christ, Lockyer said. 

Paul, he said, was trying to bring together these two independent circles so they could “co-exist as people of diverse convictions in the same community.” 

Paul did not say that people on both sides have to give up their convictions,  Lockyer noted. In fact, he urged them to continue to hold them.  

But he also said one other thing: While it was OK for them to hold their positions for and against eating meat offered to idols and observing or not observing the sabbath, they should not judge those who don’t hold the same convictions. 

“Your job is not to force them on other people, and not judge other people who hold different convictions than yours,” Lockyer said, interpreting Paul. 

“Be a bridge builder, pursue oneness . . . Let us make every effort to do what leads to peace and mutual edification. Don’t destroy the work of God for the sake of food.” 

Those passages in Romans opened up a new way for Southridge to view same-sex marriage

Those passages opened up a new way for Southridge to view the topic of same-sex marriage, Lockyer said. “We see it as a disputable matter,” he said, adding the goal is to “build a bridge of love and oneness” between the perspectives. 

Ah, but that’s the challenge. What for some might be seen as disputable is, for others, a matter of absolute bedrock Christian faith. Not disputable at all, in other words. 

For Lockyer, the answer to that is in the foundation of Christian faith going back to the Reformation. “Our belief is in grace and faith alone, in Christ alone,” he said. “Anything added to that dilutes the purity and simplicity of the message and person of Christ.” 

Southridge also found support in Matthew 22, where the religious rulers of Jesus’ day tried to trip him up by asking what would happen to a woman who married seven times—whose husband would she be in the afterlife? 

Jesus, he said, refused to be backed into a corner. In eternity, Jesus said, people will not be married or given in marriage. 

If marriage wasn't a big deal to Jesus in his reply to the religious rulers, why are Christians today making it a bigger deal?

Or, as Lockyer put it, if it wasn’t a big deal to Jesus, “we wondered if we were making a bigger deal” of marriage than Jesus intended. “It was not essential or eternal.” 

That, he concluded, is the “journey God had us on . . . this is the way we feel we want to be as a community. This is the disputable matters framework. We want to live in peace, not judge each other. It is love beyond belief.” 

That doesn’t mean it’s been easy, he said. But it is doable. “People are not asked to change their views, but they are asked to develop a spirit to live in unity and harmony with people of different views.” 

That goes for people on both sides, both traditional and affirming views of marriage, he said, adding “we feel we have neutralized that polarization in our church by inviting people from both views to a safe environment.” 

For Lockyer, God has led Southridge to a place where they are “one community united around ‘love beyond belief.’” 

Read more posts on this blog about Southridge here.

Role of LGBTQ+ in causing people to leave their faith groups: New research

Why do people leave their religious tradition? A recent study by the Public Religion Research Institute in the U.S. has some answers.

 

The number one reason for leaving, according to the research, is because people stop believing what their faith group teaches (56%).

 

The number two reason? The negative way a group teaches about and treats LGBTQ+ people. (30%)

 

Other reasons for leaving included scandals involving religious leaders or divides caused by politics.

 

For those who left evangelicalism, the number one reason for leaving was they stopped believing what their churches taught. Negative attitudes towards LGBTQ+ people was number two, prompting 45% to leave.

 

The research did not break those findings down by age. But one area where it did include an age range was about whether LGBTQ+ people should be welcomed into church leadership.

It found that younger people (ages 18-29) are most likely to express a desire for more LGBTQ church leaders (33%), compared to 22% of churchgoers ages 30–49, 21% of churchgoers ages 50–64, and 17% of churchgoers age 65 and over. 

It also found that younger churchgoers 18–29 are more likely (30%) to say they wished their church talked more about transgender rights than those ages 30–49 (18%), 50–64 (15%), and 65 and over (14%). 

Another study, done by Brandon Flannery and reported in Baptist News Global in 2022, found similar results.

 

According to Flannery, negative attitudes towards LGBTQ+ caused almost 28% of Christians to walk away from their church. 

He acknowledged some of his respondents were queer, and not being accepted by their congregations was a critical motive for leaving. 

But there were also straight and cisgender people who responded, “and they ultimately started doubting Christianity when they were told they couldn’t support their queer friends and family. Unable to rectify their love of LGBTQ people with the church, they chose LGBTQ acceptance,” he said. 

“The first thing was noticing how what Christians preached/practiced didn’t seem to align with that I knew to be the character of God, including views on the LGBTQ community, immigration, adoption, mental health issues, ‘mission work,’ and just general treatment of others.”

LGBTQ+ welcome and affirmation: One of the biggest issues facing many denominations today

Canadian Mennonite Brethren aren’t the only ones dealing with the topic of LGBTQ+. Other denominations are facing it.

Some are becoming more accepting and affirming, others are becoming more hardline. In both cases, denominations are being split apart as churches leave or are forced out.

I wrote about this in my July 23 column in the Winnipeg Free Press, with a bonus reference to author and theologian Phyllis Tickle and the idea of western Christianity’s pattern of having a garage sale every 500 years—when it sells things it doesn't need. 

100 Posts

I guess it’s appropriate that post number 100 on this blog would be about my own church (River East). 

One hundred posts! That’s a lot in just 13 months; over seven a month, on average. 

To date, the posts have been viewed over 84,700 times. 

The occasion is a good time to recall why I started this blog in the first place.

On my first post, on March 4, 2022, I noted if a denomination is to be healthy it needs to be transparent with its members. This includes about the topic about LGBTQ+ welcome and inclusion. 

 

One of the best ways for a denomination to do that is through a healthy publication that operates according to the best practices of Christian journalism.

 

Not being a mouthpiece or cheerleader only for the denomination, but also a place where hard issues and topics can be discussed, pro and con, in a way that allows members to make up their own minds.

 

It’s also a place where Conference leaders can hear the thoughts and concerns of members through an active letters section.

 

Currently, the only way for Canadian Mennonite Brethren to hear a fulsome discussion about welcome and inclusion of LGBTQ+ people is through this blog. That’s one reason why it exists.

 

This means also enabling people on both sides to have their say. Although, for the most part, Conference leaders have been reluctant to speak to me about it.

 

Another reason it exists: Some day in the future a researcher will write a book on this topic, just as was done about the change in the Conference to accepting women as leaders in ministry.

 

When that happens, this blog will provide that author with the rough first draft of this history, so to speak—original source material written at the time that can help him or her with the writing of that book. 

As for the future, I have no idea how many more posts there will be. As long as there is a need for this discussion, I suppose. 

All I know is this topic will not go away. Offhand I can think of seven other Mennonite Brethren churches in three provinces that are exploring the topic of LGBTQ+ welcome and inclusion.

That's in addition to the six that have been shut down, expelled or suspended to date.

Each of those churches will also have a story to tell. Maybe this blog can tell them.

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+

 

“You don’t care about the Bible." 

That’s the comment members of River East Church in Winnipeg were hearing from their family and friends as they discussed REC’s decision to be welcoming and affirming of LGBTQ+ people. 

“We do care about the Bible,” they would respond, according to pastor Mary Anne Isaak. “We have taken it very seriously throughout our journey to full inclusion.” 

And then, she said, they turned around and asked church leaders for a tool to help in these conversations. They couldn’t always remember the info from the deep dives into Scripture, or quickly recall the adult education sessions on the topic a year or two ago. 

“It’s a pastoral response, a resource for our members, and also for anyone else who wonders how the Bible can lead to an inclusive posture,” Isaak said of the document, called “Talking Points from the Bible for Full Inclusion of LGBTQ+ Persons.” 

The document doesn’t answer every objection some may have, she noted, and it isn’t apologetics—an argument in favour of a position. 

According to the Isaak, it is "intended for use in a conversational setting where there is mutual and respectful listening. It’s intended to help people think about this topic and ask questions." 

The document itself is the result of work by leaders in the congregation, working together with the Leadership Commission. 

“It went through many iterations,” Isaak said. “It is owned by many people in the congregation.” 

While the Leadership Commission voted to approve it, they are also respectful of that fact that not everyone agrees with every point in the document, she explained. 

“And we may want to update it again in the future,” she said, “as we continue to be influenced by our on-going conversations and growing understandings. We don’t need to agree on every point or interpretation. But as a church we do agree that being faithful to Jesus includes an invitation to everyone who wants to join us in the journey of discipleship.” 

The church has decided not to promote the Talking Points document on its website, but it agreed to make it available through this blog. Click here to read it. 

The Mennonite Brethren Confession of Faith and Full Inclusion of LGBTQ+ Persons at River East Church 

As with the Bible, River East Church members have heard questions about how it views the Confession of Faith (CoF). Do they take it seriously? 

And just as how they created a document to show they took the Bible seriously, the congregation created a document to show how they examined and explored the COF, and its role, in their journey towards full inclusion of LGBTQ+ people. 

The result is a document that explains how the church feels it is working within the historical way Mennonite Brethren have approached, changed and updated the CoF—how it has been adapted many times since to reflect the changing conditions and mission of the church.

As the document notes, it is often the articles that touch on lifestyle that experience the most pressure to evolve, especially if a case can be made that the move promotes a missional impulse, increase the contemporary relevance of the church, or highlights an individual's spiritual experience.

As with the Talking Points from the Bible document, this document about the CoF went through several iterations before being approved by the congregation, Isaak said. And like that other document, it is also intended as a resource to help members, and others, answer the question of whether they take the CoF seriously. 

The church has not promoted this document on its website. It has agreed to share it with this blog. Click here to read it.

River East has also created an inclusivity statement. Click here to read it.