 |
| Does our 1995 consensus still hold? |
Our current distress is not over typical Anabaptist issues such as nonviolence, believers' baptism, or a simple lifestyle, but over the issue of how to define marriage.
This very important question is one that's threatening to divide conferences, congregations and individual families within the church. And I for one am deeply grieved at the thought of one more issue leading to one more series of divisions in our already sadly splintered denomination.
There have been numerous other church changes in my lifetime that have threatened to wedge us apart, but in most cases we seem to have been able, for better or worse, to be elastic enough to stay together and keep working at our differences--and to practice forbearance toward each other as we do so.
Military service
For example, over the past several decades we've absorbed a small percentage of members, I'll guess 3-5%, who are either members of the military or who would strongly advocate for our giving up our long standing opposition to taking part in warfare.
Historically, peaceful Anabaptists have been consistently opposed to supporting armed conflict, based on our understanding of Jesus' and the early church's life and teaching, and in keeping with our 1995 Confession of Faith, which clearly states, "As disciples of Christ, we do not prepare for war, or participate in war or military service." (Article 22)
For many of us, any compromise on this issue is of deep concern, since the disease of militarism appears to be highly infectious (witness how quickly German Mennonites succumbed to it under the influence of the Nazi regime). My fear is that we are in danger of losing a distinctive and much needed witness as one as one of the historic peace churches (along with Quakers and Brethren).
Material wealth
We have also seen, especially in recent decades, a growing percentage of Mennonites who live in ever larger and more lavish homes and who make no apologies for choosing a luxurious consumer-driven lifestyle. I will make an estimate of some 30-50% of us being guilty of this, and we are all more or less infected by the rapidly spreading epidemic of "affluenza" in our culture.
Many of us agree that Jesus is unmistakably clear on this issue as well, warning us in no uncertain terms about the dangers of accumulating ever more consumer wealth here on earth. And our Confession of Faith clearly reflects and supports that perspective, stating that "As stewards of money and possessions, we are to live simply, practice mutual aid within the church, uphold economic justice and give generously and cheerfully." (Article 21)
So materialism, like militarism, should be a special concern because it has also proven to be highly infectious (witness how rapidly well-to-do Dutch and later Russian Mennonites succumbed to it). Here, too, we are in danger of losing any distinctive witness in our lifestyles in just a generation or two.
Yet amid growing signs of our weakened stand against the twin threats of militarism and materialism we somehow do not appear to be dividing over either of them. Is that a good thing or not?
Same-gender marriage
But what is bringing us to the brink of major schism is the question of whether a minority with a different gender orientation and who are committed to faithfulness in a same sex relationship can ever, under any circumstance, be members of our churches. Or whether we can remain in fellowship with other congregations who receive such as members.
Not surprisingly, it seems clear to most of us Mennonites that the Bible nowhere affirms such unions. In fact, Jesus himself models outright celibacy (remaining unmarried for the Kingdom's sake), and the apostle Paul likewise encourages believers, all of them, to remain single if they can, although both he and Jesus encourage and support marriage for those who do not have the gift or calling of celibacy.
And our current Confession of Faith clearly affirms that "We believe that God intends marriage to be a covenant between one man and one woman for life" (Article 19). And without a doubt this was meant to include the 3-5% of our members and potential members who are differently gendered from the majority of us.
Yet when it comes to dividing versus staying together we seem to be strongly invested in splitting up over this latter issue.
This seems curious in light of the fact that compared to materialism and militarism, same sex attraction is not infectious, and doesn't spread like these other viruses. Which means we are not likely to have any more individuals who are even remotely interested in same sex unions in the future as we have now, and will also likely have exactly the same percentage of people who are absolutely repulsed by the idea of being intimate with someone of the same sex. This seems to be so because of growing evidence that our gender orientation is a part of us from birth, much as some are born left handed rather than right handed. We need to offer all members welcome and warm acceptance, including supporting them in their practice of celibacy if that is their calling.
Meanwhile 100% of us will have to deal with issues like sexual promiscuity, couples living together without being legally married, and couples divorcing and remarrying for a dismaying variety of reasons. And all of those conditions are especially dangerous because they can so easily go viral. But the percentage of same sex unions, even if permitted, would likely never rise above 3-5% of our members at most.
This is demonstrably not true of the infectious diseases of militarism and materialism. Like an aggressive form of cancer they could destroy our church as far as it being recognizable as a community of faithful followers of Jesus.
Here's a link to an earlier post on this troubling subject. https://harvyoder.blogspot.com/2011/10/combining-caution-and-compassion_30.html
8 comments:
Harvey, I absolutely agree that militarism and materialism are the critical issues Mennos ought to be addressing. But I suspect that is not likely to happen since that would implicate most of us, and those that set the agenda for what is addressed.
I'm with you. I think we've lost focus on what Jesus teaches us through his recorded words highlighting the evils around him: hypocrisy, wealth, violence, and oppression. His love for the outcast and the oppressed should be our direction, and instead we follow the secular culture around us and point legalistic fingers just like the Pharisees.
What is infectious about the same sex issue is the idea of accepting it. Compare mainstream attitudes today versus a decade ago. It seems clear that there is an overwhelming trend towards acceptance (see legalized gay marriage this year). I think some feel threatened that their personal belief is simply going to die out. Separation could be a reaction to that threat.
Well said Harvey! Especially the insight that same sex marriage will not "go viral" as militarism and affluenza have.
While I agree with most of what you say, it always confuses me when I read about "evidence that our gender orientation is a part of us from birth", and then I read things like this, which was published in AARP magazine a few months ago: "researchers are discovering a person's sexual orientation is not carved in stone. In Sexual Fluidity, Lisa Diamond chronicled her research on nearly 100 gay women over 10 years. During that time, several of the women changed their sexual orientation. The most frequent cause for the U-turn? The "switchers" had fallen in love with a member of the opposite sex. Other researchers have compiled case studies of gay men who fell in love with women, as well as of heterosexuals, both men and women, who unexpectedly became involved with a member of their own sex." Militarism and materialism and definitely troubling issues that we need to address, but I don't know of people advocating for changes in our confession of faith to accept them.
I'm really open to hearing results of any credible research done in this area, Kevin, so I appreciate what you've shared. And I would love to see people be able to change their sexual orientation to that of the majority if that were possible, and perhaps some people are somewhat "fluid" in their orientation, but I've concluded that most are not, maybe analogous to a small percentage of people being ambidextrous. As a therapist, I have met with, prayed and agonized with gay individuals in my practice who would have given almost anything to become heterosexually oriented, but to no avail. To think of people deliberately (and successfully) choosing to be gay or lesbian in church communities in which there has always been such a huge stigma associated with being so just makes no sense to me. That's how I've concluded that this is not contagious. But I'll be glad to be proven wrong regarding the possibility of change if desired.
Uncle, it is with great trepidation I reply here. You are much older, wiser and more educated than me. But I wonder if you may have overlooked something in your comparisons. You are absolutely right that militarism and materialism are widespread and one or the other (or both) affect most of the population. But just because sexual orientation affects only a small percentage of people doesn't mean it may not also be a slippery slope as well. I realize that your heart of compassion has led you in your thinking and I can identify with that. I've got a strong set of those "merciful genes" as well. I would guess that there are people that due to their unique set of hormones are predisposed to same-sex attraction. I also venture that there are myriad psychological circumstances and life experiences that contribute as well. And I'm all for compassion in either case. But it seems to me that it is bending the tenor of scripture awfully far to go the same-sex marriage route. Same sex attractions may be one of those things (along with many others) that a person just has to realize he (or her) has, but never acts upon. I haven't thought this through, but is it all that much different from the man that has a strong attraction to another woman that is not his wife? Maybe he can't shake the attraction, but he can refrain from acting on it. Just a few humble thoughts here from your nephew!
My good nephew, you need have no trepidation whatsoever, as I consider you wise and thoughtful beyond your years. And I actually agree with you that "it is bending the tenor of scripture awfully far to go the same-sex marriage route". I hear people trying to reinterpret passages in an attempt to do that, but I remain unconvinced, and find myself still preferring celibacy as the most scriptural answer. Having said that, I realize that's easy for me to say, because I've never been faced with that as a lifelong choice. But it must always be an option, for example if no woman would have been willing to marry me, my wife were to pass away or, God forbid, she would leave me. Where I wobble sometimes, in a spirit of compassion, is whether I could disown another congregation that would make some pastoral exception, and who would see themselves as being led to bind or loose, forbid or permit, based on their discernment of what "seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us," as in the case of receiving an uncircumcised person like a Cornelius, something shocking and unheard of to Peter and to every other member of the first century church. But I actually feel torn on this, Merle, and uncharacteristically unsure of myself. My point was simply that we need to be consistent and avoid the tendency to want to constantly focus on the mote in the eyes of a minority who are unlike us and not attend to the beams in our own eyes. Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts.
Post a Comment