Farewell, MCUSA

[HondurasKeiser]

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.

My wife, who spent her formative years in San Francisco, always echoes that sentiment every time we visit 1st Mennonite Church of SF. She says something like: "But if those gay guys that are members there didn't have a place like this to belong to, how much farther away from God would they be?" I don't buy it. A church that doesn't see sexual ethics as important, a church that celebrates people for engaging in sexual and romantic practices that have, until quite recently, been viewed as destructive, sinful and death-inducing - is failing at its mission.

[HondurasKeiser]

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.

I agree, and that's what I was getting at when I said I am working through some ideas in my head. There's a line that runs through the MC's (including Lancaster's) increasing accommodation to individual lifestyle choices in the name of love and compassion and justice for the marginalized that gets us to MCUSA accepting LGBTQ members. It didn't begin with the gay membership debate at the time of the merger but goes much farther back...to where I'm not sure exactly.

[Ken]

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?

I'm not sure why you are calling me out. I'm not a member of MCUSA. I grew up in the old Mennonite Church before it merged with the General Conference Mennonite Church to become MCUCA. Most of my extended family on my father's side is MCUSA or other more conservative churches. Most of my extended family on my mother's side is CMC. So I've attended both over the years. They both have their issues. I don't pay much attention to MCUSA anymore other than what I read here. My wife and I don't attend one and don't have any connection to it anymore.

The MCUSA church that I'm most familiar with where my parents attend is hardly "ultra-left" It is probably split right down the middle between Republicans and Democrats to the extent that they are political. Most of my MCUSA extended family is probably more Republican than Democratic leaning. I would guess that LGBT politics is a very tiny fraction of the issues they are concerned about. Just because it is an enormous issue for many here doesn't mean it is for everyone or even most.

What is really happening in this country is a growing urban and rural divide and MCUSA is evolving into more of an urban church while more conservative conferences and groups are remaining rural-centric.

[Sudsy]

'Come out from among them', church organizations that is.

Find a group or start a group of believers that will accept one another as being believers who now 'see through a glass darkly' and now only 'know in part'. Forget the 'third way' and try a 'fourth way'. A way of love that doesn't demand everyone to believe and practise their faith beyond what Paul called of 'first importance'. Above all encourage one another to seek the Holy Spirit's guidance in the way that they should go. That 'still small voice'.

Be the Church, not be a church. And with today's means of fellowship using the Internet, one can fellowship without ever meeting one another face to face. For some, this forum may be their church. For me, it is part of my fellowship that involves other means and sources.

So, 'come out from among them' and be separated from all this warring churchianity.

[nett]

The MCUSA website says,



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?

I'm not sure why you are calling me out. I'm not a member of MCUSA. I grew up in the old Mennonite Church before it merged with the General Conference Mennonite Church to become MCUCA. Most of my extended family on my father's side is MCUSA or other more conservative churches. Most of my extended family on my mother's side is CMC. So I've attended both over the years. They both have their issues. I don't pay much attention to MCUSA anymore other than what I read here. My wife and I don't attend one and don't have any connection to it anymore.

The MCUSA church that I'm most familiar with where my parents attend is hardly "ultra-left" It is probably split right down the middle between Republicans and Democrats to the extent that they are political. Most of my MCUSA extended family is probably more Republican than Democratic leaning. I would guess that LGBT politics is a very tiny fraction of the issues they are concerned about. Just because it is an enormous issue for many here doesn't mean it is for everyone or even most.

What is really happening in this country is a growing urban and rural divide and MCUSA is evolving into more of an urban church while more conservative conferences and groups are remaining rural-centric.

MCUSA is heading the same direction as all the other "big-tent" denoms like the Episcopalian Church, which is to say, towards having no members.

Would you say urban churches will eventually not exist due to having no membership?

[nett]

My wife, who spent her formative years in San Francisco, always echoes that sentiment every time we visit 1st Mennonite Church of SF. She says something like: "But if those gay guys that are members there didn't have a place like this to belong to, how much farther away from God would they be?" I don't buy it. A church that doesn't see sexual ethics as important, a church that celebrates people for engaging in sexual and romantic practices that have, until quite recently, been viewed as destructive, sinful and death-inducing - is failing at its mission.

Yeah that sentiment doesn't make a lot of sense to me either. I think all sexual deviants have a much better chance of turning to God, if they are presented with a strong church that tells the truth about their abhorrent lifestyles, and calls them to repentance. Allowing them to feel as if they are ok when they're spiritually dead is really wrong.

[Josh]

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.

I speak as a former MC USA member, although my congregation also did farewell to the Ohio conference, stripped the word “Mennonite” off their sign, joined the FEC, began aggressively church planting, and now has double the attendance of when I went there.

The race is on, although I think numbers are not a measure of a church’s health. But Holdemans are at 26,000 members and MC USA is down to 62,000. (I admit MC Canada should be included in these statistics, but Holdemans have remained a diverse, multi-national denomination.)

When I was a member, I recall total membership being well over 150,000.

[Robert]

My wife, who spent her formative years in San Francisco, always echoes that sentiment every time we visit 1st Mennonite Church of SF. She says something like: "But if those gay guys that are members there didn't have a place like this to belong to, how much farther away from God would they be?" I don't buy it. A church that doesn't see sexual ethics as important, a church that celebrates people for engaging in sexual and romantic practices that have, until quite recently, been viewed as destructive, sinful and death-inducing - is failing at its mission.

I come about this from a position that I think few others do. I think we do accept and condone some things as people are on a journey. I was not in the peace issue as some in the church we joined were, but they let me grow into it. I want to allow people to grow into wholeness. It is not always overnight. I would still speak to the fact that some lifestyles are counter to Scripture. I would easily name what those are. I would also love a person and walk with a person in one of those lifestyles towards wholeness. "I love and accept you, but I do not agree with all your lifestyle choices" or life choices. Some people are gluttons. Some are quite greedy. Some are in sexual sin. I can accept the person and still not accept some of their life choices. If a congregation owns the person and is committed to walking with them in and working to out of sin, I see no reason why they can not formally show that to help validate the person. I do think it is important to honestly speak about the sin or brokenness in their life. Once you know someone really loves you and does accept you, they can hear the critic of their life much better.

[Szdfan]

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 appreciate that. I’m on MennoNet because I appreciate many of the relationships and discussions here.

[HondurasKeiser]

My wife, who spent her formative years in San Francisco, always echoes that sentiment every time we visit 1st Mennonite Church of SF. She says something like: "But if those gay guys that are members there didn't have a place like this to belong to, how much farther away from God would they be?" I don't buy it. A church that doesn't see sexual ethics as important, a church that celebrates people for engaging in sexual and romantic practices that have, until quite recently, been viewed as destructive, sinful and death-inducing - is failing at its mission.

I come about this from a position that I think few others do. I think we do accept and condone some things as people are on a journey. I was not in the peace issue as some in the church we joined were, but they let me grow into it. I want to allow people to grow into wholeness. It is not always overnight. I would still speak to the fact that some lifestyles are counter to Scripture. I would easily name what those are. I would also love a person and walk with a person in one of those lifestyles towards wholeness. "I love and accept you, but I do not agree with all your lifestyle choices" or life choices. Some people are gluttons. Some are quite greedy. Some are in sexual sin. I can accept the person and still not accept some of their life choices. If a congregation owns the person and is committed to walking with them in and working to out of sin, I see no reason why they can not formally show that to help validate the person. I do think it is important to honestly speak about the sin or brokenness in their life. Once you know someone really loves you and does accept you, they can hear the critic of their life much better.

But the church that allowed you to ‘grow into the peace position’ nevertheless maintained the standard and teaching of non-violence or nonresistance and walked with you until you came to see the error of your ways. I doubt they celebrated the use of violence and war a la other denominations. Indeed, you admit that the church must walk with sinners in their struggles but that requires that they name sin for what it is and encourage people to turn towards Christ. That’s very different from SF Mennonites celebrating sin. I’m not sure how we just shrug and say: “Welp, each congregation just does it differently.”