Farewell, MCUSA

[ohio jones]

I don't really have a stake in this.

Given 15% of the posts in this thread, a casual observer would likely assume otherwise.

[Ken]

I don't really have a stake in this.

Given 15% of the posts in this thread, a casual observer would likely assume otherwise.

It doesn't mean I don't have an opinion. Most of my posts are responses to people asking me direct questions.

As for having a stake? Barely anyone here actually has a stake in this issue because barely anyone here is actually a member of MCUSA.

[temporal1]

Mind and hormone altering drugs in the water supply.

New Rule: Along for the Pride | Real Time with Bill Maher (HBO) / 9 min


evidently, Bill M is getting complaints (from the bloc) about this video.
i’m not a fan of Bill M: buyer beware! he can be funny and astute.

[MaxPC]

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

This is unsurprising and terribly sad for me.

Sad for me as well. In my experiences this is a good example of the iconoclastic behavior of those who choose sin over God.

MCUSA is not alone. Church of the Brethren had a large pullout of Biblically faithful fellowships which continues even as I write this. They formed the Covenant Brethren Church. United Methodists are splitting as well. The conservatives formed the Global Methodist Church. CBC and GMC emphasize Biblical fidelity as the Bible is the revealed Word of God.

[Ernie]

I am, however, skeptical that things are always a "healthy" as you suggest.

There are both healthy Plain Anabaptist churches and unhealthy ones.

[Dan Z]

In his article, Schrag notes that "Decisions by the 506 delegates indicated that LGBTQ acceptance has grown during MC USA’s 20-year history..."

I suppose at one level this is true, as the percentage of LGBTQ affirming delegates has increased. Still, since the Mennonite church has lost about half of its membership over the past two decades (in good part due to this issue), I wonder if the "growth in acceptance" is not really a numerical change of minds, but mainly a result of those who would have opposed the changes having already left - taking themselves out of the vote in the process.

[Ernie]

In his article, Schrag notes that "Decisions by the 506 delegates indicated that LGBTQ acceptance has grown during MC USA’s 20-year history..."

I suppose at one level this is true, as the percentage of LGBTQ affirming delegates has increased. Still, since the Mennonite church has lost about half of its membership over the past two decades (in good part due to this issue), I wonder if the "growth in acceptance" is not really a numerical change of minds, but mainly a result of those who would have opposed the changes having already left - taking themselves out of the vote in the process.

This is my conclusion as well.

[Ernie]

In Plain Anabaptist churches, families, congregations, or districts may leave another entity because, "We agreed to _____________, and some in the church are not honoring these agreements." This could be anything from how to dress, what activities are considered appropriate for youth, what music can be listened to, what reading material families have in their homes, what games are played, etc.

In MCUSA, the agreement that was not kept was matters relating to homosexuality.

Regardless of what the issues are, there are people that keep their agreements and people who do not. It would be nice if those who don't keep their agreements would leave. But they don't. They stay, and force their opinions on others. The only thing left for those who want to keep these agreements is to leave.

[MaxPC]

In his article, Schrag notes that "Decisions by the 506 delegates indicated that LGBTQ acceptance has grown during MC USA’s 20-year history..."

I suppose at one level this is true, as the percentage of LGBTQ affirming delegates has increased. Still, since the Mennonite church has lost about half of its membership over the past two decades (in good part due to this issue), I wonder if the "growth in acceptance" is not really a numerical change of minds, but mainly a result of those who would have opposed the changes having already left - taking themselves out of the vote in the process.

Excellent point; the attrition of those who value Biblical fidelity would certainly slant the voting outcomes.

Regardless of what the issues are, there are people that keep their agreements and people who do not. It would be nice if those who don't keep their agreements would leave. But they don't. They stay, and force their opinions on others. The only thing left for those who want to keep these agreements is to leave.

Another excellent point. This same point has been expressed by those leaving the UMC.

[temporal1]

Page 6:

.. 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.