Farewell, MCUSA

[HondurasKeiser]

Delegates repeal Membership Guidelines, pass LGBTQ-affirming resolution
‘Repentance and Transformation’ passes with 55.7% support

What do you think the 44.3% will do?

I hope they leave en masse and affiliate with an already existing conference. What I think they will do is something more like try to stick it out for a while before slowing dropping off at an individual, member level. At the congregational-level, this may result in some churches leaving but I think most have already found ways to rationalize their continuing affiliation. I have a planned phone call this evening to a good friend at the Franconia congregation to find out his (and the congregation's plans). I have honestly been surprised that the Franconia Conference (now Mosaic) has been able to stay in MCUSA this long.

[HondurasKeiser]

With the loss of Lancaster Conference and many conservative churches, I am not surprised. I am surprised it took this long. This is the proper process. The delegate body needed to decide this. What is left, anyway. My biggest struggle is the churches that ignored the guidelines. It showed great disrespect for the others and the process needed to enact change.

I am no longer in MCUSA, so I watch from afar. They chased me out.

Where are you these days? (in terms of congregation/conference)

[HondurasKeiser]

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.

[mike]

Although 62,000 is about half the size of its membership in 2001, they still apparently are the largest Mennonite denomination in the US. Whether that remains the case depends on the rate of its continued decline.

The history of Mennonites is division, not unification. You can’t resolution your way into keeping people together that don’t want to be together.

I am not sure there is a huge problem here. All Anabaptist groups of course exist as a result of schism with institutional Christianity. I am skeptical about the value of denominationalism, and of conferences, alliances, fellowships, etc. within denominations. It would be my preference that connections between local congregations be organic rather than structural. I don't think Christianity should have popes, powerful bishop boards, or other institutional controls over large numbers of local congregations. I don't think there is biblical basis for it. The apostles did not need successors. They appointed elders in local churches. Local congregations have all the authority they need to live and function as the bride of Christ. There are advantages to denominations and other alliances, not saying there aren't any, but there are also big problems.

[nett]

The MCUSA website says,

Mennonite Church USA is an Anabaptist, Christian denomination with roots in the Radical Reformation of 16th-century Europe. It is the largest Mennonite denomination in the United States with 16 conferences, approximately 530 congregations and 62,000 members.

Although 62,000 is about half the size of its membership in 2001, they still apparently are the largest Mennonite denomination in the US. Whether that remains the case depends on the rate of its continued decline.

Where is Ken to assure us that the decline in membership has nothing to do with ultra left-wing ideologies?

[nett]

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'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.

[Robert]

Where are you these days? (in terms of congregation/conference)

I am in Texas where no conservative/moderate Mennonite churches or conferences are. I could even deal with a slightly progressive group if they were honestly living out their faith and being sensitive to others of differing positions.

I may be wrong, but I always felt there was a "tolerable" way of dealing with this. If a church wanted to accept a person not living within the Membership Guidelines, they could accept them as in church membership but not include them into conference or denomination membership.

If I was setting up a congregation right now, I would set up a two step membership process. One for the local church, then after that, another step to join the conference. This would then encourage those who wanted to hold conference positions like delegate or other offices to live within the membership guidelines, whatever those were. I would not count local members towards delegate representation, only those who have "joined" the conference.

I presented this to some in MCUSA and no one seemed interested. Both sides were determined to force the other side to accept everything they felt was needed for membership, both inclusion and exclusion.

[HondurasKeiser]

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'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.

[nett]

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'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?

[nett]

Where are you these days? (in terms of congregation/conference)

I am in Texas where no conservative/moderate Mennonite churches or conferences are. I could even deal with a slightly progressive group if they were honestly living out their faith and being sensitive to others of differing positions.

I may be wrong, but I always felt there was a "tolerable" way of dealing with this. If a church wanted to accept a person not living within the Membership Guidelines, they could accept them as in church membership but not include them into conference or denomination membership.

If I was setting up a congregation right now, I would set up a two step membership process. One for the local church, then after that, another step to join the conference. This would then encourage those who wanted to hold conference positions like delegate or other offices to live within the membership guidelines, whatever those were. I would not count local members towards delegate representation, only those who have "joined" the conference.

I presented this to some in MCUSA and no one seemed interested. Both sides were determined to force the other side to accept everything they felt was needed for membership, both inclusion and exclusion.

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.