Gentle strategies toward unity on the "h-issue":
Where Mennonite Church USA is now, and what should happen next
    (July 10, 2003; revised November 10, 2006 )

This article analyzes a denomination (Mennonite Church USA) that has had its vitality sapped and its future threatened by the "h-issue." It doesn't address the issue itself (whether homosexual sex is sin), but the dynamics going on as the church grapples with the issue. It analyzes the situation in MC USA [as of 2006], outlines huge potential for harm, and lists gentle strategies for good.

TWO VERITIES
Here are two verities concerning MC USA and this issue:
    1) There is absolutely no possibility that MC USA's "teaching position" on homosexuality will change. It's not on the horizon. There are no conference or denominational leaders pushing for a change. Even if a few in Executive Board or Constituency Leaders Council sympathize with the idea (I'm not saying any do), everyone knows we couldn't do so without there being a huge split.
    2) A few of our conferences (there are 21 district conferences in MC USA) have one or two congregations who are at variance with MC USA in their teaching and practice regarding homosexuality. Most conferences in MC USA have acted to discipline such at-variance congregations, but these few conferences have not. The second verity: there is absolutely no way that the denomination will act to force those conferences to discipline the variant congregations (ie, remove the congregations from the conference). None of the national MC USA leaders have the will to do that. Though those in Executive Board or Constituency Leaders Council would say that all homosexual sex is sin, they will not say there should be a legislative fiat forcing conferences to discipline regarding homosexuality. We Anabaptists (Mennonites) go very slow in forcing someone to do something.
    MC USA has chosen to live between the parameters of those two verities: a clear teaching position describing "homosexual, extramarital and premarital sexual activity as sin," yet toleration of member congregations in variance with that teaching position.

DISMAYED BUT STAYING
I am dismayed at these "at variance" congregations and their conferences. Yet I remain fully committed to MC USA. Here's why I don't yet see it as something to break fellowship over.
    1) While it is true that some conferences have chosen to not discipline their "at variance" congregations, this does not necessarily mean that those conferences are softening their stance on homosexuality. It is possible that they are quite firm on this issue but are choosing to focus conference attention and energies toward engaging in vigorous mission, rather than being sidetracked onto the homosexual debate. It is also possible that they are showing patience and grace to these congregations as a way of keeping the opportunity for mutual address.
    2) If denominational leaders believed that an "essential" belief was at stake ("in essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity"), then I'm sure they would be willing to force the issue and work for more consistent practice across MC USA. For instance, if Rainbow Mennonite Church was saying "Buddha, not Jesus, is Lord," we would (after dialogue, of course, doing all we can to appeal to them!) make it clear that they have removed themselves from membership in MC USA. [Later I say a little more on what beliefs should be "essentials".]

MURKY CHURCH DOCUMENTS
Our foundational church document, the Membership Guidelines, reflects the above verities. How else could it have been approved in Nashville in 2001 by a 90% vote?! In other words, it is appropriately murky -- it succeeds at embodying the tension present within the denomination. It maintains a firm teaching position on homosexuality while allowing "at variance" practice.
    The Guidelines say that homosexual sex is sin. But then immediately go on to call for continued dialogue between those of differing views. And then to warn against abuse of power -- which in this context can only mean "don't be hasty to rule against those who believe differently from the church's teaching position." The Guidelines allow any congregation, even if they have a view different than the church statements on homosexuality, to still be a full member, as long as they are part of a member conference. Further, the Guidelines are deliberately ambiguous as to whether church leaders who teach the holiness of same-sex partnerships can remain in full relationship with their conferences. The April 2000 draft of the Guidelines said that pastors "are expected to uphold the wider church's discernment as the teaching points of the church." But that line was dropped between then and Nashville. The final form of the Guidelines only says that a pastor who performs a same-sex covenant ceremony will have his or her credentials reviewed -- note, it doesn't say automatically revoked.
    Because of this ambiguity or murkiness, different persons could say they "support" the Membership Guidelines, meaning different things by it. One could support the document because it calls homosexual sex as sin; another could support it because it calls the church to continue dialogue with those of a differing view and tolerates those of differing practice.
    This dynamic may be present in the situation of Atlanta Mennonite Fellowship, who left Southeast Conference which would not affirm their practice of accepting gays in same-sex partnerships as members, and applied for membership in Central District Conference. Central was cautious, wanting reassured that Atlanta supports the Membership Guidelines and will not teach against the Confession of Faith. Atlanta affirmed that this is the case, and became a member of CDC. Does this mean that Atlanta has shifted their position from a couple years earlier so that they are no longer "at variance"? Or can they affirm support of the Membership Guidelines because, though the document calls homosexual sex as sin, it also tolerates those who have a differing view and practice?

WHAT SHOULD WE DO?
So far this paper has looked at things that are "givens," at the way things are. As I said, much of it dismays me. But I can "live with" it.
    Now let's shift and look at the future.
    There are three basic courses of action available. The easiest option is for MC USA to continue as it is (ie, remain murky). But I pray that we will not continue in this uncertain mode. As long as we remain murky on homosexuality, MC USA will continue down the same troubled road as the mainline churches: the h-issue will be a continual drain of time and energy. The Left will continue pushing the envelope, exerting pressure for gay and lesbian "marriage" ceremonies and then ordination. And each new push will stir a new outcry from those on the Right, and further diminish their sense of affinity with the denomination.
    A second option is to reduce murkiness by moving toward the Left. But as I said earlier, no one in leadership is advocating this position. We cannot change MC USA's teaching position on homosexuality without there being a huge split (the first verity).
    I invite the church to consider the remaining option: reduce murkiness by moving toward the Right. In the next section I suggest several ways for moving Right. I hasten to say that none of them are un-Anabaptist. None forcibly restrict the Spirit of God from ever speaking through the minority. You can trust that our denominational leadership bodies will only choose to do that which values gentleness, a culture of congregational autonomy, and an awareness that God sometimes speaks through the minority voice. We won't work to end the murkiness over homosexuality through some legislative act that tries to settle the issue by fiat. MC USA would never have the two-thirds majority needed to do that (the second verity).
    (Let me pause to again reassure persons that if an issue was an "essential," then hopefully we would be able as a denomination to say what we believe and then -- after much listening and appeals! -- discipline any who violate the "essential.")

SEVERAL GENTLE STRATEGIES
There is hope! There are several strategies which can make things less murky and which do not rely on powers-that-be acting to enforce conformity -- ways that allow us to be gentle with those who are "at variance" on homosexuality (saving boundary-tending for issues like the authority of Scripture) yet put us on a trajectory toward unity on this issue.
    Below are four such courses of action, each of which, if tried by themselves, wouldn't be sufficient to end the murkiness or to reassure the theologically-conservative congregations perched on the edge. But if we choose to do most or all of them together (plus some others that you think of!), then we might lessen the damage of murkiness.

1) Shine the light - We can search for fresh ways to uphold our church's "teaching position" on homosexuality, to shine the "light" of our collective discernment -- not with "in your face" confrontation but simply by speaking clearly. This strategy of speaking the truth in mutual dialogue, can give us hope for MC USA, because this approach can lead to unity -- not a unity through the powers-that-be acting to enforce conformity but as the result of truth acting. Walk in the light and light will overcome darkness -- both the darkness on the Left and on the Right!
    This light must be subdued to some extent: we must not talk about the "teaching position" on homosexuality so much that we take the focus off mission.
    Also we must not trumpet the church's teaching position so loudly that we can no longer hear the possibly-prophetic minority voice. Nonetheless, the church's position is what should be presented with singular clarity. Surely the collective discernment of the gathered church is something that matters. When our church at the end of several years of study at the congregational- and conference-level says that the "teaching position" of the church is that homosexual sex is sin, shouldn't we let that have an impact on us and shape our public teaching? The framers of our Membership Guidelines were wise in choosing the term "teaching position," for it safeguards the minority voice while honoring the counsel of the gathered denomination. The term basically says, "you can be part of the church if you disagree with this position, but please don't teach against this position." It doesn't end vigorous debate in appropriate contexts; it only calls us to not preach or teach against this discernment of the church.

2) Accountability through credentialing - Conferences can choose to hold pastors accountable for upholding the teaching position of the church. The fact that conferences hold ministerial credentials gives them a natural means for exercising this accountability.
    Our past approach to accountability tended to focus on "who congregations receive as members." This can hinder mission by causing congregations to hesitate in welcoming sinners. A group should be not judged by the sins of its new believers and members but by what it teaches and strives for. So a focus on "what credentialed congregational leaders teach" is appropriate. It is also more compassionate to a gay or lesbian who the congregation discerns is moving toward Christ, keeping them out of the spotlight of conference discipline.
    Central Plains Conference articulated this as a polity. Some conferences may not embrace such a polity. But many will -- all our conferences have a culture that has allowed for discipline by decredentialing.

3) Honor clear essentials - We can call the "at variance" congregations (and the conferences that choose not to discipline these congregations) to at least express a commitment to honor the authority of Scripture and to resist society's siren call of sexual fulfillment by lifting up standards like monogamy. [Below I say a little more on these commitments as "essentials". And cite examples of groups abandoning these commitments.]
    We conservatives have a hard time imagining that someone could both call MC USA to bless same-sex partnerships and be committed to not compromise the authority of Scripture and not adopt the world's sexual values, but such persons do exist. Each time an "at variance" congregation (or their conference) affirms essentials like Scripture and monogamy, it will make it a bit easier for the conservatives to "live with" the variance.

4) Prophetic liaison - Congregations who are "at variance" could take some form of liaison association with their conference, choosing a status of less than full membership for themselves to acknowledge their variance. (Surely congregations actively working to change the teaching position of the church on a high-profile issue -- so high-profile that other congregations are leaving MC USA over it -- should be willing to acknowledge that they are at variance with the church.) They would use their relationship with the conference as an opportunity to give a prophetic witness of the change to which they believe the Spirit of God is calling the church.
    At the March 1999 Kansas City consultation on membership, John Zimmerman first suggested this idea which he now calls "prophetic self-marginalization." (He might want to tweak my description of it.) We saw it affirmed by our table group which included a welcoming church pastor and a conference elder from North Central.

PRAY
Pray that MC USA can take some significant steps toward reducing the murkiness, perhaps through encouraging some of the above steps, perhaps by something that you see and I don't yet. I'm confident that the Spirit of God has many ways of improving on and adding to that list of gentle strategies, setting us on a trajectory toward unity regarding homosexuality.

Harold Miller
pastor, Trissels Mennonite Church - Broadway VA (formerly Community Mennonite Fellowship - Corning NY)
member, Executive Board of Mennonite Church USA, 1999-2005

my GayMatter web site