Szdfan wrote: ↑Mon May 30, 2022 10:18 am
I have ambivalent feelings about this resolution that I’m not prepared to talk about here.
I do find the “Farewell, MCUSA” of this thread to be a bit disingenuous because many on this forum have never been a part of MCUSA, have never seen it as legitimate and are highly critical of it. You can’t say “farewell” to something you never said “hello” to.
I have my own disillusionment with MCUSA that I’m not going to talk about here, but it was home for a long time.
Inasmuch as I am the progenitor of this thread and was a member of MCUSA for as long as Lancaster was a constituent conference, I guess I am able to say farewell to a denomination that I was once truly hopeful about and now deeply saddened by their decisions.
I stand corrected.
More broadly speaking, I get tired of the MCUSA bashing here by people who were never invested and would never invest in the denomination. I don’t have the same criticism towards Robert or Bootstrap or yourself.
Szdfan wrote: ↑Mon May 30, 2022 1:13 pmMore broadly speaking, I get tired of the MCUSA bashing here by people who were never invested and would never invest in the denomination. I don’t have the same criticism towards Robert or Bootstrap or yourself.
Could conservative Mennonites have reason to feel the same way when it feels like their churches get "bashed" by people who were never invested and would never invest in their groups?
Szdfan wrote: ↑Mon May 30, 2022 1:13 pmMore broadly speaking, I get tired of the MCUSA bashing here by people who were never invested and would never invest in the denomination. I don’t have the same criticism towards Robert or Bootstrap or yourself.
Could conservative Mennonites have reason to feel the same way when it feels like their churches get "bashed" by people who were never invested and would never invest in their groups?
Certainly. I’ve tried to back off from posting criticisms here and I’m less likely to post direct criticisms of conservative groups and churches than I was in the past. I’m not perfect, but I’m trying.
Szdfan wrote: ↑Mon May 30, 2022 1:13 pmMore broadly speaking, I get tired of the MCUSA bashing here by people who were never invested and would never invest in the denomination. I don’t have the same criticism towards Robert or Bootstrap or yourself.
Could conservative Mennonites have reason to feel the same way when it feels like their churches get "bashed" by people who were never invested and would never invest in their groups?
Certainly. I’ve tried to back off from posting criticisms here and I’m less likely to post direct criticisms of conservative groups and churches than I was in the past. I’m not perfect, but I’m trying.
I don't feel like conservatives are bashed here, probably routinely critiqued, which isn't all bad. I think probably you and other non-conservative Mennonites really are interested in what is happening among conservatives to some extent, and that's exactly where I'm at with the liberals. I was born Amish, but spent most of my life in conservative Mennonite or similar groups, so I've never been a part of the big Mennonite conferences. I did go to a Lancaster Mennonite Conference run elementary school through 5th grade so I'm not totally disconnected. And, broadly speaking, I am aware I have shared history with MCUSA, and some (increasingly few, probably) theological connections such as objection to war.
Part of why I'm on MennoNet is to listen to differing opinions, so don't feel like you can't post direct criticism.
I'm curious what you saw that allowed you to feel hopeful. As a CA, I find almost any group that is gradually becoming more liberal as entirely hopeless.
I'd like a reason to feel differently.
I was young, in college, and every Mennonite my age that I knew was like me, from either Lancaster or Franconia, theologically conservative and interested in outreach beyond our traditional enclaves...it seemed an exciting prospect that of a merger with the GC, Pink Menno wasn't a thing yet, congregations that deviated from the membership guidelines were routinely disciplined in places like Virginia and Allegheny, Lancaster hadn't even begun to ordain women yet and I honestly thought that 'theologically conservative' minded folk outnumbered those pushing the boundaries. I thought our church, the Mennonites, would be different from others like the PCUSA and the Episcopalians (who at the time of the merger were having their own moments of 'gay celebration') - that'd we'd find a way to hold together without slipping into apostasy. I saw the writing on the wall though back in 2007, when the congregation that I was a part of both during and after college, a very old, Lancaster congregation (that has since decamped to the Atlantic Coast), first called a female pastor and then promptly began a process of 'congregational dialogue' about LGBTQ membership. The dialogue never stopped, until those pushing for change, got their way. What happened at that little, mildly conservative church (many of the older ladies wore coverings yet) is emblematic of the process that unfolded in MCUSA - the constant 'dialogue' and the institutional capture, until the Pink Mennos...those fighting for 'justice' for our gay and trans brothers and sisters ('siblings' is the new, non-binary way to say it now) finally won.
In retrospect, what would the right response have been? That's primarily what I'm interested in now.
How can churches that are still conservative, but being tempted to engage in the "dialog" respond in a way that will prevent this from happening?
I have no idea. I know that Robert Conquest's old maxim: "Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing." seems to apply here...as well as to every other church that has refused to explicitly circumscribe a 'gay lifestyle' for its members. Indeed, engaging in 'dialogue' seems to admit that the other side has a point. That maybe the scriptures allow for loving, monogamous relationships between the same sex. They don't. Or that perhaps gender really is just a social construct and God is non-binary. It isn't and He isn't.
I'm working around in my head though how our church, the main body of Mennonites in the U.S. (and Canada) ended up here and what might be some lessons to draw for those in conferences that are in close proximity to us e.g. CMC, BMA, Keystone, etc.
nett wrote: ↑Mon May 30, 2022 1:11 pm
What problem would this solve? What is the point in accepting someone who is not living by the membership guidelines. They clearly, by their actions do not want to be a member.
Different churches have areas they see as important for membership. It allows differing choices within a larger body.
0 x
Try hard not to offend. Try harder not to be offended.
I think I am funnier than I really am.
HondurasKeiser wrote: ↑Mon May 30, 2022 3:26 pm
I have no idea. I know that Robert Conquest's old maxim: "Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing." seems to apply here...as well as to every other church that has refused to explicitly circumscribe a 'gay lifestyle' for its members. Indeed, engaging in 'dialogue' seems to admit that the other side has a point. That maybe the scriptures allow for loving, monogamous relationships between the same sex. They don't. Or that perhaps gender really is just a social construct and God is non-binary. It isn't and He isn't.
I'm working around in my head though how our church, the main body of Mennonites in the U.S. (and Canada) ended up here and what might be some lessons to draw for those in conferences that are in close proximity to us e.g. CMC, BMA, Keystone, etc.
As someone of the conservative side, I find that the conservatives split over superficial things supposedly, but underneath there generally is deep seated theological disagreements. I would find the liberals to be in a similar stance to a certain degree.
I see the membership as equating to saying someone is or is not saved and thus this is a rather important thing for people to agree on for membership requirements. That being said, I don't see a difference between some of the progressive things they allowed that the conservatives would say Scripture teaches against and the things the liberals say are wrong.
In other words, why is it okay to allow D/R but not gays? or why is it okay to allow woman pastors but not ftm/mtf? I mean thats not really something worth answering here but it makes a point.
