Farewell, MCUSA

[Ernie]

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.”

This is my question also. I fully support Robert's goal of helping people to wholeness. I'm the advocate for such in my congregation. Sometimes we all agree on what is sin. Other times, we disagree on what is sin. e.g. If a wife separates from her husband temporarily and gets a restraining order against her husband, is this sin? Some think "yes in all situations" others think, "It depends on the situation. The immediate goal is to help this couple find spiritual wholeness and healing so that they can live together again".
When we are dealing with such disagreements, those who are sure that a certain action is sin, have very difficult time believing that those who are working with the situation and not condemning the woman for her action, are really concerned about sin.

As it relates to the LGBT topic, I am willing to be involved in the lives of LGBT who identify as gay, with the hopes that they will eventually see this as sin rather than a God-given sexual identity. Some people would not be willing to be involved in the lives of LGBT folks who do not call what they are doing, "sin".

[Ernie]

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.

And we Plain Anabaptists feel the same way about spouse swapping, not covering one's body in public, sending children to schools that undermine Christian principles, participating in law enforcement, using the weekly church gathering for entertainment, allowing the god of this world to shape our ideas of beauty, goodness, truth, etc.

[Ken]

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?

Yeah, I don't really know. I haven't been paying attention frankly. The few MCUSA churches that I actually know about personally are more or less stable. They aren't growing much but they aren't shrinking either. Obviously what happened with MCUSA is what Mennonites do best, which is schisms. But are the component parts smaller than the whole way before? I have no idea. There might well be individual MCUSA churches that are closing their doors like is happening with the Catholic church. I'm just not really aware if that is the case. And if so, what the geographic footprint looks like when it comes to church closings. If they are closing in rural areas or cities.

As far as urban churches vanishing? I live in a suburb that is surrounded by churches. They are all over the place. There aren't any MCUSA churches here, or any flavors of Menno churches at all. But there are certainly lots of churches. The closest thing we have to plain Mennos are Apostolic Lutheran which is common around here.

[Soloist]

This is my question also. I fully support Robert's goal of helping people to wholeness. I'm the advocate for such in my congregation. Sometimes we all agree on what is sin. Other times, we disagree on what is sin. e.g. If a wife separates from her husband temporarily and gets a restraining order against her husband, is this sin? Some think "yes in all situations" others think, "It depends on the situation. The immediate goal is to help this couple find spiritual wholeness and healing so that they can live together again".
When we are dealing with such disagreements, those who are sure that a certain action is sin, have very difficult time believing that those who are working with the situation and not condemning the woman for her action, are really concerned about sin.

As it relates to the LGBT topic, I am willing to be involved in the lives of LGBT who identify as gay, with the hopes that they will eventually see this as sin rather than a God-given sexual identity. Some people would not be willing to be involved in the lives of LGBT folks who do not call what they are doing, "sin".

There are some who would want nothing to do with someone who calls it sinful yet struggles with it. Then there are those that are willing to help minister to the lost LGBT people while still calling it sin. Most would not see that as wrong or sinful but its a serious difference to be involved with them and calling them fellow brothers and sisters of Christ. Yes I do accept that some of this should be understood with the direction of travel but we would never accept them into the church until they repented of their life style. I doubt you are willing to extend a trans the hand of fellowship of a fellow believer but help them? certainly. I would expect nothing less from you.
At the same time, this isn't a situational argument. Perhaps it is if someone calls themselves gay and refrains from acting on their desires but its not situational if someone is living in sin and we cannot accept them as a brother while they are practicing sin.
Both mercy and justice people are needed in the church but it takes quite a lot of work to work together.

[temporal1]

i wonder ..
while reading these posts that seem to me are about love, how to love correctly and effectively, as Jesus wants,
i keep thinking of part this Voddie Baucham sermon. The sermon is an hour, i think worth it.
There are about 10 minutes when he talks about different types of love, that may be useful here.

At about 39 min, for about 10 min:


In one part of this 10 min, he describes the love he would experience+demonstrate, in the event his small child would run into traffic, .. or in the event his neighbor’s house was on fire.

This is worth thinking about. After all, wouldn’t mortal sin have comparable urgency?!
It’s something to think about.

[Sudsy]

i wonder ..
while reading these posts that seem to me are about love, how to love correctly and effectively, as Jesus wants,
i keep thinking of part this Voddie Baucham sermon. The sermon is an hour, i think worth it.
There are about 10 minutes when he talks about different types of love, that may be useful here.

At about 39 min, for about 10 min:


In one part of this 10 min, he describes the love he would experience+demonstrate, in the event his small child would run into traffic, .. or in the event his neighbor’s house was on fire.

This is worth thinking about. After all, wouldn’t mortal sin have comparable urgency?!
It’s something to think about.

I agree that true love includes tough love. I recall when I was dating after my first marriage broke up over unfaithfulness that a deacon in the church of the girl I was dating asked to come to visit me and explain his understandings of scripture on my situation. I welcomed him to my house and we went through the scriptures related to the subject. In the end, we agreed to disagree and to pray for each other. Many years later I now deliver him and his wife their meal each Monday (meals-on-wheels) and we have shared together how we so look forward to seeing Jesus someday soon. That brother, I believe, showed love as he understood how I could be sinning. Sadly, his own children had marriage breakdowns and remarried and I suspect that was quite a challenge for him in how he dealt lovingly with them.

I have no issue with showing tough love when one believes the Holy Spirit is guiding one to do so. But sometimes what is called tough love is not love at all but a self righteous looking down on others for their sinning. As Jesus said, we need to look closely at our own lives and be dealing with those sins before we deal with the lives of others.

Interesting how so much is mentioned regarding 'church membership' and all these distinct church groups within Christianity. Was this God's intention or was this man's doing ? I believe God is building His Church despite all this warring and division that goes on and if we focused more on building His Church, we will be closer to what ultimately will be as it is in heaven. Someday all this separating and warring will be over, like it or not.

Another thing that comes to mind is how some who major on promoting peace in the world and are against warring end up warring amongst themselves over what is and what is not sinning and split away from each other. Seems to me our battle is one of our own flesh and pride that gets in the way of showing tough love and real heart concern for one another. Not all and I think some do have genuine concerns out of Christ like love but imo, much concern is about church memberships, which, as they have been developed, is not scriptural, in my understanding of the early church.

And speaking of unscriptural , formal church membership with all it's statement of faith, church covenants and rules of conduct is no more scripturally based as is also non-immersion water baptisms and evidence in being baptised in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. So, it isn't hard to find practises today that were not early church practises among Anabaptists and others.

[Soloist]

Another thing that comes to mind is how some who major on promoting peace in the world and are against warring end up warring amongst themselves over what is and what is not sinning and split away from each other. Seems to me our battle is one of our own flesh and pride that gets in the way of showing tough love and real heart concern for one another. Not all and I think some do have genuine concerns out of Christ like love but imo, much concern is about church memberships, which, as they have been developed, is not scriptural, in my understanding of the early church.

And speaking of unscriptural , formal church membership with all it's statement of faith, church covenants and rules of conduct is no more scripturally based as is also non-immersion water baptisms and evidence in being baptised in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. So, it isn't hard to find practises today that were not early church practises among Anabaptists and others.

It is interesting how one can view things in Scripture so profoundly different and can justify their own positions without trouble.
How do you justify your own practices that were not in the early church and directly taught against?
Clearly I disagree with the early church on how far to take church authority, I disagree with the Mennonites on pouring but I would think that isn't very important. The baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is said, but so is being baptized in the name of Jesus so I would see those differences as not important either.

Rules and conduct were certainly in the early church and so was statements of faith.

[temporal1]

Thanks for viewing VB’s exposition. ^^

It’s a L-O-N-G step from (your words, tough love) to accepting+embracing mortal sin.
i did not hear the words, “tough love” in VB’s words, or sense it in his intent.

So much depends on personal experience.
i’m not sure i ever heard “fire+brimstone” teaching, in my experience, the pendulum swung ‘way over to (mostly ignoring Truth) - which, over years, morphed into accepting, then embracing sin. Not just grey-area sin.

And now, to minimize the problem of embracing sin - there is distraction to, “well, let’s join together in political activism,”
which is ‘way more important+sexy+uncontroversial than addressing Jesus/scriptures.

(For me) i return to PREVENTION. How to prevent grave sin?
(For me) first of all is to live+teach Truth to children from early childhood/toddlers. To avoid horrifying SURPRISES after the fact.

Today, it’s illegal to discuss Truth in gov schools. Where not illegal, social, cultural, peer pressures bully Truth out.
Carnal sin is taught, promoted, normalized, funded, supported - even to extremes of children+teens being encouraged+instructed to LIE to their PARENTS! - How many Commandments are broken in these “by force of the sword” policies?? LIE TO PARENTS.

Parents+churches are formally undermined as children are sitting ducks in their trusted schoolrooms. All day long.
Not just in gov schools! Ditto for doctors, healthcare providers.

Look. The lib political activists have been busy bees. They never rest.

Parents+churches have been rendered as useless as humanly possible.

No wonder so many young people are choosing not to have families! Going through all that, only to sacrifice your most precious gifts to humanism, secularism, even satan. I understand how parenting is not an inviting proposition.

There is the horror of school shootings.
Another horror is children targeted for evil in their hearts+minds, without escape. Damage done, with no obvious physical bruises.
Daily fare.

Like men who beat their wives, being careful not to leave marks that would be seen in public.

i believe Truth can be shared without going so far as “tough love.”
Simultaneously, i believe PREVENTION of ignorance of Truth is best begun early+consistently, to avoid disasters. Also, when disasters happen, to avoid the “NOBODY TOLD ME” shock. Humans sin. We should at least have the knowledge, “i am sinning.”

“NOBODY TOLD ME” is a big problem these days. The world is now formally dedicated to ensure ignorance of as many possible.

- - - - - - -

Another factor is varying gifts+abilities. No way do i have gifts VB has in abundance!
i must find different approaches - hopefully, we have the common goal of sharing Truth, regardless of approach/delivery.

Some see with more clarity than others. i appreciate clarity, it’s not my gift. i find a lot of clarity on this forum, expressed in varying ways - no 2 voices are the same! But the message of Truth is what matters, no matter style, delivery, perspective.
That’s what Truth can do. Truth resonates.

Truth is victorious. 1 Cor 15:57
https://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/15-57.htm

[temporal1]

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.

And we Plain Anabaptists feel the same way about spouse swapping, not covering one's body in public, sending children to schools that undermine Christian principles, participating in law enforcement, using the weekly church gathering for entertainment, allowing the god of this world to shape our ideas of beauty, goodness, truth, etc.

THIS IS IT. Living and teaching faith, Truth. Every minute of every day. As a way of being. No surprises.
The world is now formally dedicated to IGNORANCE.

Does prevention guarantee godliness? No.
But, again, to sin and know what sin is, is a different place than to sin while deluded, not knowing. “NOBODY TOLD ME.”

Not just weekly visits to churches for sermons. Daily life. Unspoken messages. Actions. Choices.

It’s a L-O-N-G step from (your the words, tough love) to accepting+embracing mortal sin.

[temporal1]

Page 1 / OP

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

This is unsurprising and terribly sad for me.

Am i remiss to see similarities between this report and the recent SBC report?

SBC / “Southern Baptists lose 1.1 million members in the past 3 years”
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=4752&hilit=sbc