Farewell, MCUSA

[barnhart]

Reading through this thread I see two sentiments, anabaptism is prone to schism and this issue is important enough to justify a parting of ways. I haven't been following this closely but why shouldn't this be viewed as a success. Those who objected did so with a lot of patience and have done their part, now they are free to leave in good conscience.

[temporal1]

Reading through this thread I see two sentiments, anabaptism is prone to schism and this issue is important enough to justify a parting of ways. I haven't been following this closely but why shouldn't this be viewed as a success. Those who objected did so with a lot of patience and have done their part, now they are free to leave in good conscience.

(cough)

If i understand correctly, judging from HK’s OP, posts, and others with similar experience, your analysis is a bit backward.
imagine if a man came into your home, welcomed and appreciated, but over time he seduced your wife and won the hearts of your children, then, sitting back comfortably on your sofa, offered to you, “barnhart, you are free to leave in good conscience.”

Part of it is a matter of who should leave.
In former times, it was widely understood, those coming in with divisive beliefs would, naturally, set off to begin a new path.
This has happened over+over in history, in churches and in the secular world.

Today, that’s for chumps!
Today, it’s all about movng in, methodically pushing others out, while appropriating the spoils of war.
Including valuable marketing labels. The contents have changed! No disclosure.

Please correct if i’m off on this.

[Szdfan]

(cough)

Considering that you’re an outsider, perhaps you should not lecture anyone about Mennonite institutional and relational dynamics.
The perspectives here are overwhelmingly conservative and view the conflict that was in MCUSA from that side.

The advocates for LGBTQ inclusion were not outsiders who seduced the church, they were largely people born and raised within the Mennonite Church. (It turns out that Mennonites also have queer children). MCUSA didn’t just belong to the theological conservatives, it also belonged to the progressives and I think they had every right to advocate for change.

I think there were some deeply unhealthy power dynamics in the old Mennonite Church that exploded in MCUSA. Short of kicking out all the liberals, I feel MCUSA bent over backwards to try to accommodate the conservatives (looking at you Lancaster Conference) who left anyway when they didn’t get what they wanted. Part of the problem was that the denomination believed we could use polity and resolutions to solve conflict, which ended up not solving anything.

Over a past few days, I’ve seen posts in social media that share some of my ambivalence about the resolution. There is both happiness and relief that the motions passed, but also a deep anger about the harm and trauma that the denomination has inflicted on the queer people in there midst. I’m also deeply cynical that resolutions mean anything in the actual life of the church, other than for their symbolic power.

[temporal1]

(cough)

Considering that you’re an outsider, perhaps you should not lecture anyone about Mennonite institutional and relational dynamics.
The perspectives here are overwhelmingly conservative and view the conflict that was in MCUSA from that side.

The advocates for LGBTQ inclusion were not outsiders who seduced the church, they were largely people born and raised within the Mennonite Church. (It turns out that Mennonites also have queer children). MCUSA didn’t just belong to the theological conservatives, it also belonged to the progressives and I think they had every right to advocate for change.

I think there were some deeply unhealthy power dynamics in the old Mennonite Church that exploded in MCUSA. Short of kicking out all the liberals, I feel MCUSA bent over backwards to try to accommodate the conservatives (looking at you Lancaster Conference) who left anyway when they didn’t get what they wanted. Part of the problem was that the denomination believed we could use polity and resolutions to solve conflict, which ended up not solving anything.

Over a past few days, I’ve seen posts in social media that share some of my ambivalence about the resolution. There is both happiness and relief that the motions passed, but also a deep anger about the harm and trauma that the denomination has inflicted on the queer people in there midst. I’m also deeply cynical that resolutions mean anything in the actual life of the church, other than for their symbolic power.

sorry. HK has not restricted his topic, mods have not acted.
i’m quite aware of your personal preferences.

i mourn also.
when i was new to this forum, i had no idea of libs/conservatives, conferences, etc., i wasn’t a quick learner.
at that time i was quite interested in MCUSA for myself and my family - there were/are convenient groups, i made some contacts, did some reading, etc. i considered moving to Indiana to attend Robert’s church there. i’m not sure he knows.

well. things unfolded in various unexpected ways. across the board. plenty of pain. including my own.
i won’t deliberate.

now, this doesn’t actually matter. i don’t need to justify my interest in this thread. definitely, if HK or mods request, i will respect their wishes. no questions asked.

but. outsiders.
outsiders are interested and invested, that’s not really your call to determine. outsiders are invited here.
seekers. complainers. friends+neighbors. not just for myself, but i enjoy lots of others’ input here, comparing+contrasting is quite useful in helping determine one’s own stance.

i hope that helps you in particular understand my pov.
you have a right to your opinion. as others have recently communicated to you. i agree with them.

[temporal1]

Jeremy:
The advocates for LGBTQ inclusion were not outsiders who seduced the church, they were largely people born and raised within the Mennonite Church. (It turns out that Mennonites also have queer children). MCUSA didn’t just belong to the theological conservatives, it also belonged to the progressives and I think they had every right to advocate for change.

i’m not the best one to pose this question, but, i have the impression, most on this forum agree to something-like,
“God has no grandchildren.”

Your words here confuse that idea.
i realize, there is confusion on that idea. It’s normal to very much WANT our children+grandchildren to be convicted believers.
And, it’s not uncommon for people to reverse or turn away from their beliefs, based on what they witness in their families.

But, if we believe God has no grandchildren, then, our babies+children are outsiders to be brought into the fold.

Here you seem to be describing the opposite. You describe inherited rights.

We should hope the church belongs to Jesus Christ.

[Josh]

The advocates for LGBTQ inclusion were not outsiders who seduced the church, they were largely people born and raised within the Mennonite Church. (It turns out that Mennonites also have queer children). MCUSA didn’t just belong to the theological conservatives, it also belonged to the progressives and I think they had every right to advocate for change.

Yes, Szdfan, after forcing all the theological conservatives out, the progressives had a majority (although barely, given by what slim margins the resolution passed).

Would you have preferred all the conservatives stayed? Going back to Eastern Conference in the 1950s running through Lancaster Conference? If they had, progressives simply wouldn't be a majority - if the prevailing winds of Eastern had remained, the progressives would have been excommunicated.

[Ken]

The advocates for LGBTQ inclusion were not outsiders who seduced the church, they were largely people born and raised within the Mennonite Church. (It turns out that Mennonites also have queer children). MCUSA didn’t just belong to the theological conservatives, it also belonged to the progressives and I think they had every right to advocate for change.

Yes, Szdfan, after forcing all the theological conservatives out, the progressives had a majority (although barely, given by what slim margins the resolution passed).

Would you have preferred all the conservatives stayed? Going back to Eastern Conference in the 1950s running through Lancaster Conference? If they had, progressives simply wouldn't be a majority - if the prevailing winds of Eastern had remained, the progressives would have been excommunicated.

Not one single person or congregation was forced out of MCUSA. Or even encouraged to leave. In fact, to the extent that I have paid any attention over the past decade it seems that they were always encouraged to stay.

Yet here you are talking about excommunication of progressives.

[Ernie]

Reading through this thread I see two sentiments, anabaptism is prone to schism and this issue is important enough to justify a parting of ways. I haven't been following this closely but why shouldn't this be viewed as a success. Those who objected did so with a lot of patience and have done their part, now they are free to leave in good conscience.

Anabaptism started as a schism. Its founding premise was freedom of conscience. One foundational tenant is that the church should be kept pure and free from sin. Anabaptists understood sin to keep the same definition, no matter which century one lived in.
Seems to me that if someone doesn't want to call sin, what the early Anabaptists/Mennonites commonly called sin, and if someone doesn't think that Anabaptists/Mennonites should schism over some members no longer calling something sin, that such folks should choose a different name than Anabaptist/Mennonite.

[barnhart]

Reading through this thread I see two sentiments, anabaptism is prone to schism and this issue is important enough to justify a parting of ways. I haven't been following this closely but why shouldn't this be viewed as a success. Those who objected did so with a lot of patience and have done their part, now they are free to leave in good conscience.

Anabaptism started as a schism. Its founding premise was freedom of conscience. One foundational tenant is that the church should be kept pure and free from sin. Anabaptists understood sin to keep the same definition, no matter which century one lived in.
Seems to me that if someone doesn't want to call sin, what the early Anabaptists/Mennonites commonly called sin, and if someone doesn't think that Anabaptists/Mennonites should schism over some members no longer calling something sin, that such folks should choose a different name than Anabaptist/Mennonite.

As I read it, a substantial minority agree more or less that same sex relations are sin, and they have born that witness as far as they can in that church. Now they should leave.

[Neto]

For what ever it is worth (probably not much, considering that I am an outsider to all of the groups here, even the outsiders.... ), the MBs (Mennonite Brethren) never considered the General Conference to be anything but 'liberal' (in terms of Christian principles and conduct). That is why we ('they') left the "big church' 160 + years ago. I remember hearing about expressions of opinion (repeated to me in my childhood) that go back to the 50's, and I've since done enough study of the history of the Dutch (or 'Russian') Mennonites - my people - to know that while the MBs are also not perfect , and they probably could have handled the split (the one in 1860) in a better way, the main Mennonite church in the colonies was in such poor spiritual condition that it was clearly time to get out of it. So I'm rather curious what the description of a "conservative" would be in MC-USA. From my limited experience with "the Old Mennonites" I was really surprised that they went with the GCs at all. I imagine that the congregations I had visited must not have been typical of the entire group, because they struck me as quite 'conservative' (in the Swiss Brethren usage of the term), vastly more so than most of the GC people I knew and worked with. But they varied even within the same congregation as well (GCs, I mean). So maybe there is the answer to my question. (I have two aunts who came from the same GC congregation in Kansas, and one is much more 'conservative' than the other, and it shows in their children & grandchildren as well. And, they were best friends to boot.)