I'm wondering if the only way for the Mennonite Church USA to stay together is if its local congregations become solely responsible for the discipling--and as they deem necessary, for the discipline--of individual members, and to have conferences and the denomination primarily give direction to congregations as they carry out those God-ordained responsibilities.
This would not make us any more diverse than we already are, but could help us maintain some kind of bond in spite of our differences, perhaps through our becoming more like a close fellowship of Anabaptist-minded churches than a well organized denominational institution. Otherwise, we face the prospect of a tragic kind of splintering and splitting such as we have never seen.
According to a recent piece by historian John D. Roth in the Mennonite, "When most of the various branches of the Dutch Mennonite church merged in 1811, the basis of of the union was a general appeal to the unity of the Spirit and the explicit assurance that 'every congregation kept its freedom to make such decisions about doctrine as it wished, without the right to bind others to its convictions.'"
In the ongoing controversy over how to address the issue of homosexuality, Mennonites have become expert at divorcing themselves from other whole districts and conferences. But surprisingly I know of no example of Mennonite congregations having actually removed individual LBGTQ members from their fellowship. In fact, I haven't even heard many conversations on how we practice grace-based pastoral care of such members, in spite of the fact that we all know plenty of fellow believers who are gay, and in spite of our convening many solemn conference assemblies on the subject of same sex attraction.
As a result, individual gay members have usually just quietly removed themselves or remained silent about their sexual orientation. We've created an unspoken policy of Don't ask, Don't talk and Don't tell.
I find this response on the part of the church unloving, inconsistent and unacceptable.
I propose we focus on congregations dealing pastorally and prayerfully with individual members as they are led by the Spirit and as they understand the Bible. There is ample scriptural precedent for this kind of Spirit-driven pastoral care. But I find no New Testament precedent for our excommunicating whole congregations--as in, for example, a Jerusalem Council deciding to no longer be associated with churches like those at Corinth or Laodicea. Nor are there any Biblical examples of congregations leaving the larger body of believers and going out on their own.
How can we defend or approve our wholesale "divorces" of whole churches or conferences--even over an issue as controversial as same sex marriage--when one of Jesus' most fervent prayers is "that they may be one, even as we are one"?
Jesus makes no exceptions in that prayer. He does give instructions (Matthew 18:15-18) for dealing with individual members, but not for excommunicating whole congregations.
15 comments:
Thanks Harvey for this wise and pastoral reflection. I have long believed that church discipline is the grace-filled responsibility of local congregations in a context where we know and love each other. I have also been long aware of how often the larger church debate about the sexuality of our LGBTQ brothers and sisters rarely includes them. They, their friends, and their family members often quietly walk away and become estranged from the larger church. One lesbian woman I know even finds it too painful to participate in a welcoming Mennonite congregation because this is always the topic of discussion.
How true. How sad.
Thanks for this, Harvey. I strongly agree with you about seeing "discipling" as local. In many ways, this is pretty much how the old General Conference Mennonite Church operated. In fact, it was impossible to kick congregations out. Too bad MC USA didn't adopt that practice.
I'm not sure about what seems to be your notion of linking "Christian unity" with structural unity, though. It seems to me, for example, that MCC and MDS are expressions of sustained Mennonite unity even as various denominational splitting has happened.
Did you see my blog post: "Will Mennonite Church USA Survive? Reflections on Thirty Years of Struggle"
Yes, I did read it, Ted, with much appreciation. For what it's worth, I'm not sure I can see "Christian unity" as not involving some kind of structural unity as well, as in some experience of actual community together, breaking bread, spending time in meaningful fellowship, worship and discernment, supporting each other in doing Jesus work together, etc. Otherwise, it would seem to me to be kind of like believing in the concept of the "invisible church", something that requires no real down to earth, everyday connections with each other. Or like a married couple who are "one" but don't actually live together.
This from an email by Berry Friesen, posted with his permission:
"I’ve spent much of the morning today reading your post, Ted’s paper (as linked in his comment to your post) and the student paper linked in Ted’s paper related to his wife’s ordeal. It’s been an education, prompting in me an appreciation for the harm done over the past 20 years by using delegate actions (which I tend to respect highly) as a means to close down further discussion."
Thanks Harvey for your pastoral comments. I hope the denominational leadership will consider your perspective. It's been many years since our days in the high school dorm at EMHS but that was a life changing experience for me. I'm so grateful for it.
I agree with this proposal wholeheartedly. Denominational discipline feels so abrasively authoritarian.
Harvey--Thanks for the insights here. I think this makes the most sense Biblically and practically that discipline and discipling are congregational and local. However, it leaves us with a struggle to identify our own "catholicity," the giving and receiving counsel beyond the local. We are in a time where our communities are both local and global (and sometimes national, probably unfortunately). The move toward localism takes the missional impulse seriously, the turn toward context. But, I have to admit that it seems yet inadequate as a totality. I'm stuck between the violent hierarchal impulse of even our Anabaptist/Mennonite past, the global connectivity (and isolation) of our present and knowing that we must find a way to be both local and global, to hear the voice of the Spirit in our context and from our neighbor, enemy, friend from afar who beckons us toward transformation too. There is something in the struggle of discernment together across geographies (localities) that I am yet unwilling to abandon. My sense is that your suggestion of "structural unity" might seek to embody that kind of giving/receiving counsel and transformative beyond the local encounter. I know from my own experiences that the local can also be violent, oppressive, misguided. At our healthiest, the local cultivates faithful communities were "none among us lack anything." I keep hoping we will find ways to get there and to extend that generosity of Spirit, goods and care to communities and individuals where healing and wholeness are not yet.
Is there any concession whatsoever that there may be a point at which it is legitimate to separate? Is there any issue where Paul's injunction to put out the immoral man applies? Is there any recognition that the prayer for unity by Christ only applies to those who are actually His and that there is some standard whereby we can discern whether those that say "Lord, Lord" are actually following Jesus Christ? A policy of live and let live severely undermines a claim to a belief in objective truth. Your proposal is a de facto acceptance of what has been considered for thousands of years as gross immorality, not an obscure issue of application of principle. Given this willingness to jettison a near universal Christian doctrine, the question naturally occurs as to whether there is anything truly objectionable, any barrier we dare not cross. It appears that the organizational integrity of MCUSA has taken precedence over faithfulness to Scripture.
having attempted to comment without success, it is not clear if I am a Luddite of such intensity I am incapable or if my comments are so objectionable as to not merit posting. It would be helpful if this could cleared up, should you find time to send some clarification.
Great to hear from you. Sorry for the delayed response!
Sorry I'm so late in responding, Gene. Your points are all well taken. I certainly agree that church discipline is important, my point being that it is to be a careful and surgical process regarding individual members, and that there is no actual precedence in the New Testament for shunning or excommunicating whole congregations. But I'm glad for your input.
My sincere apologies, Gene. Actually, I'm the Luddite here, in that I only recently changed my settings to preview responses before they are published and was expecting email notifications as I had received when things were posted, which isn't the case with the new setting. I do have this figured out now, and I'll certainly do better from now on!
I know local congregational discipline can go awry as well, but ironically we hardly do any of that anymore, but are so quick to excommunicate whole congregations and conferences.
Excellent points, so well stated. I do hope we can find the right blend of local and "catholic"! One of my concerns is that we have almost given up on any congregational kinds of discipline but are increasingly free to excommunicate whole groups of people.
Post a Comment