For those concerned about Mennonite Church USA and homosexuality.
Several questions that get at the crux of things. How I answer them for myself and my friends.

Why stay with MC USA?
Why leave?
What is the leaven being brought into MC USA?

Background for this page. Non-Mennonites especially might need this.
Mennonite Church USA is the merger of the two largest Mennonite or Anabaptist denominations; Feb 1, 2002 was its birthday.
    Each congregation in MC USA belongs to one of 21 area conferences; and through membership in that conference it has membership in the denomination. Conferences are quite autonomous in determining which congregations can join them, though there is much mutual address between conferences, and common values and common mission.
    The merger hit a major snag over the issue of homosexuality. Mennonites are a people who work hard at Jesus' teaching on loving the "enemy." So we have a "bent" toward valuing and listening intently to those who oppose us. This high tolerance for diversity has resulted in, well, diversity. One instance is a small handful of congregations who believe that committed same-sex partnerships can be holy. Some MC USA conferences have disciplined these congregations for diverging from the denomination's "teaching position" on homosexuality. But not all have -- we tend to hesitate to have the powers-that-be silence a minority voice. This diversity was, of course, present long before Feb 1, 2002. But creating a new denomination and new bylaws (includes membership guidelines!) placed it front and center. There has been a huge hemorrhage of theologically-conservative congregations from the new denomination.


Why I'm staying with MC USA.

A close friend asked: "Why is it so important that our conference be a part of Mennonite Church USA?"

I think the first answer is that it's definitely not of highest importance. Not like "Jesus is Lord" or "all Scripture is the Word of God." I can see no scenario where I would abandon those things. But I can see scenarios where I would abandon MC USA.

As far as the value of our conference being part of MC USA, I think the main ones who can properly answer this are the handful of persons who have personal contact or interaction with the denomination in some way.
- There are the Constituency Leaders Council meetings where the leaders of each conference or constituency group (includes the black and Hispanic associations) gather for mutual encouragement and to give counsel to each other on common issues they are facing. Each of us who have ever gone to a CLC meeting have been energized and helped tremendously by the interactions there.
- The denomination provides persons who basically "pastor" the main conference staff persons. I know our Conference Minister values the one over him and consults with him often.
- Our youth who have gone to the biennial Youth Conventions have loved it; I think all the 30+ youth who went from our congregation recently made commitments or recommitments to Christ.

The main denomination-wide pushes percolating down to the congregations from the denominational staff persons are an emphasis on first-fruits giving and on being a "missional" or outreach-oriented church. There is also a consistent encouragement toward loving the people of Afghanistan and Iraq. A different denomination would be giving us different "nudges" and some of the other groups or denominations might give us more in other areas that we need. And as part of a consumer society, we often jump to a different provider; although doing that in a highly relational setting like the church results in ripping of relationships with sister congregations.

Perhaps the main draw for me to MC USA is the many persons within it who I respect and value and who I would personally miss. I think for instance of the folks at Eastern Mennonite Missions. I marvel at how they are able to consistently combine spiritual passion with administrative efficiency -- no small feat.

The central vision of the Mennonite church is so rich! It calls us to evangelism and to working for social justice. It encourages the community of believers to gather around the Word in mutual discernment, and to take seriously even the "hard sayings" of Jesus.

I so much want my church to be able to move beyond being stuck on the one issue of homosexuality. It will be so much more worthwhile when we can get on with grappling with how we as rich Christians should live in a poverty-stricken world, when we can put our shoulders without distraction into the mission of the Mennonite church and fully focus on sharing Christ's healing and hope across the street and around the world, when we can once again be a worldwide witness to the spirit of Jesus in the area of reconciliation and peace.

MC USA's vision statement says it well:

God calls us to be followers of Jesus Christ and, by the power of the Holy Spirit, to grow as communities of grace, joy, and peace, so that God's healing and hope flow through us to the world.

Why I might leave MC USA.

To me some questions seem easy. For instance: "should congregations discipline noncelibate gays?" The answer is clear. In particular when they flaunt their sin. We must allow space for pastoral compassion in working with members who are weak and fall short of God's ideal (which includes all of us in some way). But the congregations must be encouraging gays and lesbians to be transformed by the Gospel and be moving away from homosexual sex.

Another relatively easy question: "what do we do with our sister congregations who don't discipline noncelibate gays?" To me that is clear: I would work to get that congregation disciplined and removed from my conference. And if my conference disagreed with this, I would have a hard time trusting and respecting that conference and remaining a member of it. I see too much "leaven" associated with the "Christian gay community."

But this question is much more difficult: "Am I somehow polluted by being in the same denomination as a conference which does not discipline member congregations who teach that same-sex committed partnerships can be holy?" I don't belong to such a congregation or conference. I disagree strongly with them; but I'm not a member of either of them. I am only in the same denomination as that conference. Am I polluted just by being in the same denomination?

Here's my answer: I don't think that I am immediately polluted. Particularly when this other conference is still teaching that homosexual sex is sin (all our 21 conferences do, I believe). And when the reason the conference is refraining from the discipline is because it wants to be gentle and forbearing and not engage in a power-play in which the powers-that-be silence the minority voice. I question their tactic: is forbearance appropriate with something so dangerous and insidious -- the lies surrounding homosexuality are making deep inroads in our culture and in our churches. This, to me is a weakness in the Mennonite Church: we overuse the peace ethic and end up making peace with that with which God does not want us to be at peace. We as conferences and a denomination allow the voices of the spirit of this age to continue speaking again and again and again in the church and hesitate to discipline those who persist in sin, even though Jesus in Matthew 18 clearly teaches that there are some persons who must be precluded from the church, as does Paul in 1 Cor 5. Peace, which is one of our greatest strengths, when overplayed, can become a great weakness.

We can overplay peace.
A pastor-friend told me: "people with peaceful temperaments tend to make peace with more things than they should. So do 'peace churches'."
    A few days later I read a report of the Western District Conference July 2000 delegate meeting. The previous year their delegates had commended the issue of partial-birth abortion to the conference's Peace and Social Concerns Committee for possible action. The committee's recommendation to the delegates in their July 2000 meeting was no action. They chose not to take any action on partial-birth abortion, because "we are not all in agreement about what to do about the problem of abortion," committee chair Gay Kauffman said (The Mennonite July 18, 2000).
    Has this conference given us a prime example of over-playing peace by even making peace with voices supporting partial-birth abortion? I'm worried because this conference has made more peace with same-sex covenants than any other conference.

I would say that as long as a conference's motive for not disciplining those congregations is gentleness -- rather than a desire to waffle on homosexuality -- I don't believe I am "immediately polluted" by being in the same denomination as that conference.

But is there a chance I might be "eventually polluted"? Might I be eventually polluted by being in the same denomination with a conference whose church polity is off? What if their polity lets our denomination end up with many persons (serving on churchwide committees and writing church magazine articles) who are poisoned by the spirit of this age and are spreading those toxins to the whole denomination, including my conference and my congregation? A little bit of leaven can have all too big of an impact on the soul of the denomination down the road. In a church that values consensus, even one voice has quite an impact. Even more so when we are surrounded by a culture that is dominated by such voices, and pulling us toward their values.

And that is precisely the crux of the matter as I wrestle with why I might leave MC USA. Pray for all of us who are trying to sort through this. Especially pray for Ervin Stutzman, moderator of MC USA these two years. And for all of us on the MC USA Executive Board. Are we setting a trajectory that pushes back the spread of the spirit of this age? Or are we overplaying a Mennonite value and making peace with the spirit of this age? We as leaders must not be heavy-handed with minority voices. But we also must not fail to give leadership on this issue which, if not handled well, can result in further hemorrhage of congregations. For instance, we as MC USA Executive Board could make a statement (see box) clarifying the mutual address that we want to be taking place within MC USA on homosexuality.

CALL TO UPHOLD AN ESSENTIAL
"In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity."
--a founding principle of the General Conference Mennonite Church
We acknowledge that Christ's church must tolerate a certain amount of diversity. But we also acknowledge that at some points the church must remain firm. In our understanding, one of the "essentials" for our time and place is sexual holiness. There are many ways in which the church in America succumbs to the spirit of this age, for instance, in our rationalizations for materialism and greed, and our glorification of state-sanctioned violence. Thankfully, no group within Mennonite Church USA is actively working to change our teaching positions on those things, positions seeking to be faithful to the Bible. But there is a concerted effort to change our position on homosexuality. And perhaps the starkest indications that the spirit of this age is indeed in this lifestyle is the support of bisexuality by the Anabaptist gay community and their hesitation to publicly affirm monogamy. In a spirit of mutual address, we call the leaders in Mennonite Church USA (in congregations, conferences, and denominational offices) to uphold our church's teaching position on sexuality.
--adapted from statement by Coordinating Council of NY Mennonite Conference, April 27, 2002


A little leaven leavens the whole lump.
--Galatians 5:9 1 Corinthians 5:6

Some leaven is being brought into MC USA.

Here is a brief summary of why I see homosexuality bringing some "leaven" that can destroy the soul of our whole denomination.

For me, the presence of gays or lesbians in our Mennonite congregations is not the leaven we should be concerned about. Their presence might rather be a sign that, like Jesus, we're eating and drinking with those we need to be eating and drinking with. A more important issue is: what do the leaders of our Mennonite congregations teach? Do they teach the "holiness" of same-sex committed relationships (something which churchwide assemblies identified as contrary to the Mennonite church's discernment)?

Yet that does not capture the leaven that concerns me most. This fact that a few congregational leaders might be trying to change a denominational teaching position does not seem weighty enough to merit all the energy we (conservatives) are sinking into this issue. How is it that such a discussion can sidetrack us from focusing on mission and making disciples? After all, we as a church do change our position on things from time to time. So why shouldn't we allow those who differ with the prevailing biblical interpretation to express their views without fear of reprisal?

So what makes me think that this "h-issue" discussion is bringing so much leaven in our church?

Some of it is the low view of Scripture held by those who support same-sex covenant relationships. For several decades these persons argued that the biblical texts forbidding same-sex genital unions were not addressing loving, caring homosexual relationships but only abusive or cultic forms of homosexuality. But in recent years numerous scholars have considered the exegetical work of these scholars and have "found it both flawed and unconvincing" (Willard Swartley). More and more, persons who assert that some forms of homosexual activity can be holy are also asserting that Paul was not inspired by the Spirit of God when he penned part of Romans 1. I know that many of these persons would try to maintain that they do indeed take the Bible seriously. It strikes me that they do not, as I look at their biblical arguments.

But the Anabaptist gay community itself is bringing obviously pernicious leaven into our church. This community which longs for membership in MC USA -- amazingly -- hesitates to affirm monogamy for same-sex partnerships. The silence is deafening because there are many persons within that community who question the need for sexual exclusivity between two persons in a committed relationship. Further, the Anabaptist gay community includes bisexuals in the ones they are working to support (for instance, see the masthead of their Dialogue newsletter). Bisexuality is not a justice issue (we can't say that bisexuals are losing out on a basic human experience if they are denied same-sex intimacies) but part of our culture's fixation on fulfilling sexual desires.

Let these three things be very clear:
- I am not identifying homosexual behavior itself as the leaven. Rather I'm pointing to the Anabaptist gay community's willingness to abandon a standard of monogamy and their choice to support bisexual individuals, stark indications of the spirit of this age.

- I am not saying that if the Anabaptist gay community would publicly affirm monogamy for same-sex partnerships, then we as a church should accept them. I believe homosexual sex is wrong because of my understanding of the Bible.

- I am not viewing homosexuality as worse than sins like greed or violence. The Apostle Paul not only warns us against "Christians" who are sexually immoral, but also against "Christians" who are greedy or abusive (1 Cor. 5:11). So why focus on homosexuality? It's very simple: there are no groups within MC USA actively trying to overturn our churchwide statements on greed or injustice, but there is a group making a concerted effort to change our position on homosexuality.


Harold N Miller
Broadway VA (formerly Corning NY)
June 18, 2002