Farewell MC-USA: Mosaic's Departure from the Denomination

[cooper]

HK mentioned this on the MCUSA abortion thread, but I thought it deserves its own thread. I don't have deep institutional knowledge of MC-USA, but I think this is a really significant decision that shifts the future of MCUSA. Mosaic Conference (formerly Franconia) will vote on whether to withdraw from MC-USA. https://anabaptistworld.org/mosaic-conf ... th-mc-usa/. It seems very likely this will pass since generally people are more concerned about maintaining the unity of their conference over the denomination.

I assumed Mosaic would stay after the Virginia Conference voted to stay with such a wide margin. Mosaic is pretty progressive, but apparently, SSM is a bridge too far. Perhaps the difference between Franconia and Virginia is Mosaic has a larger percentage of churches that are non-majority white. However, I did observe a church transfer from Atlantic Coast to Mosaic which didn't make a lot of sense if Mosaic was going to stay so this isn't entirely surprising. From the article, it seems that an important factor in leaving was their relationships with their partners in Mexico. What does this mean?

Some thoughts
- I would assume there will be a significant number of progressive churches that will leave to maintain connection to MC-USA. Mosaic remains less conservative than Lancaster (more women in leadership, etc) but becomes more conservative after losing progressive congregations
- MC-USA gets a lot whiter. Mosaic is ethnically and racially diverse.
- The loss of Mosaic shifts the center of gravity in MC-USA leftward, making it less appealing for more traditional MC-USA conferences to stay long-term
- They pick up a lot of churches from other churches dissatisfied with MC-USA that weren't keen on joining Lancaster
- The remaining denominational agencies likely become independent of MC-USA. The demise of denominational agencies is part of a wider trend in American denominations
- More consolidation of Mennonite conferences. There are a lot of conferences that are marginal and absorbed by larger conferences.

[JayP]

I wish folks would be honest and just changer the name to namby pamby vaguely Protestant overly focused on peace.
They believe so little compared to historical Anabaptism they should be ashamed.

[Bootstrap]

I wish folks would be honest and just changer the name to namby pamby vaguely Protestant overly focused on peace.
They believe so little compared to historical Anabaptism they should be ashamed.

I disagree. I think the 1995 Confession of Faith is very much historical Anabaptism. A different strain than plain Mennonites and Amish, more like Menno Simons or Pilgram Marpeck. Without so much influence from the Hutterites.

People like me simply wouldn't feel comfortable in a vaguely Protestant congregation overtly focused on peace. Or with the social justice liberal bent that much of MC-USA is headed. Or in a plain congregation. There's going to be a lot of realignment in coming years. It's hard to foresee exactly what will happen. I don't think MC-USA can continue long-term in its current form.

But I think we need new wineskins. And a renewed call to the core of the Gospel - seeking first the Kingdom of God. I see a lot of people who are hungering for that.

Pray for us.

[Josh]

Mosaic is a significantly bigger institution than MC USA itself and is far more significant than other area conferences like Central District, in terms of budget, staff, membership, and highly engaged members who can actually get things done. It’s also significantly more multicultural.

Mosaic is particularly interesting since it’s not quite Lancaster Conference and it’s not Evana either; it’s slightly different (essentially culturally different), perhaps very slightly more progressive, but not full blown mainline Protestant leftist-liberal-progressive.

The real question is just what value trying to have any kind of denominational cooperation with the extremists controlling Central District, Pacific Northwest, and Mountain States Conferences, who frankly don’t seem to value much unity with the non-extremist conferences and congregations. Looser affiliations via shared interests in eg EMM or MMN or Everence such as Mosaic is pursuing reflect trends in other denominations as well.

Overall, “radical” leftist Anabaptist is currently not looking like it has much of a future. Bruxy Cavy’s problems collapsed his churches in Canada and Circle of Hope’s infighting ended what was once a very interesting experiment in Kensington. And the endless infighting in a group like MC USA ends up being a distraction from overall mission.

The best path forward is for those who want SSM to form their own denomination and then part ways with the people who don’t want it. Some institutional cooperation such as eg Everence may be possible.

[Ernie]

I disagree. I think the 1995 Confession of Faith is very much historical Anabaptism. A different strain than plain Mennonites and Amish, more like Menno Simons or Pilgram Marpeck. Without so much influence from the Hutterites.

Am I understanding you to say that you think the 1995 Mennonite churches resemble Menno Simons and Pilgram Marpeck more than what Plain Anabaptists do?

[Ernie]

The best path forward is for those who want SSM to form their own denomination.

In other words, go back to being General Conference?

[Josh]

The best path forward is for those who want SSM to form their own denomination.

In other words, go back to being General Conference?

That would be one way to put it. The fault lines here are essentially the GC versus Old MC lines.

It is interesting that the pathways of Russian Mennonites in America and Canada was either to become the present day General Conference / Central District / MC Canada, the Mennonite Brethren, Old Colonists south of the border, or the Holdemans.

It is notable the only group of Russian Mennonites in North America that ended up at the destination of plain Anabaptism were the Holdemans. I have heard the older generation (those age 80s - 100s) express sorrow at the path their relatives that sided with the General Conference ended up on. (There are Kleine Gemeindes in North America now but they generally migrated back from south of the border.)

[Neto]

The best path forward is for those who want SSM to form their own denomination.

In other words, go back to being General Conference?

That would be one way to put it. The fault lines here are essentially the GC versus Old MC lines.

It is interesting that the pathways of Russian Mennonites in America and Canada was either to become the present day General Conference / Central District / MC Canada, the Mennonite Brethren, Old Colonists south of the border, or the Holdemans.

It is notable the only group of Russian Mennonites in North America that ended up at the destination of plain Anabaptism were the Holdemans. I have heard the older generation (those age 80s - 100s) express sorrow at the path their relatives that sided with the General Conference ended up on. (There are Kleine Gemeindes in North America now but they generally migrated back from south of the border.)

In some ways the General Conference in North America was a continuation of the main Mennonite group in the colonies. The Mennonite Brethren, the Kriemer Mennonite Brethren, and the Kleine Gemeinde all started in the colonies, so that was more of a 'direct transfer of location'. I don't know a lot about the KG, but my understanding is that some congregations joined together under the name Evangelical Mennonite. But there are also Evangelical Mennonite Brethren (by actual name), and I know even less about them. In our area of Oklahoma there was only MB, GC, and 'Old Mennonite', the latter not our ethnic people, but there was some mixing, and some other friendly association (for instance, our youth groups occasionally did things together). There was also intermarriage between MBs and GC, at least back in the 50's and 60's. (Two of my Dad's brothers married GC girls, and one of his cousins as well. Of these three women, two became thoroughly MB, and one of my aunts influenced my uncle in that direction, although they didn't attend a GC congregation. I say that because one of their sons, my cousin, married a woman from a liberal "old state church group", and they support their daughter in a SSM situation. One of my other cousins from that family is, however, firmly MB. So I don't know really what happened there.)

[Neto]

In respect to MC-USA, I see two terms used as distinct references, 'Conference' and "Denomination". In the MB context, these terms are synonymous, except (now that I think of it) PERHAPS used differently after 1991 or so, when the General Conference of the North American Mennonite Brethren separated into the US and the Canada groups, but both still being of the same 'denomination'. I do not know enough about all of these different MC-USA groups mentioned here to be able to say that's the same sort of usage of the two terms, but it doesn't sound like it is to me.

I'm not 'arguing' about how the terms are being used here, but would like some clarification as to the implied distinctions between the two terms.

[ohio jones]

In respect to MC-USA, I see two terms used as distinct references, 'Conference' and "Denomination". In the MB context, these terms are synonymous, except (now that I think of it) PERHAPS used differently after 1991 or so, when the General Conference of the North American Mennonite Brethren separated into the US and the Canada groups, but both still being of the same 'denomination'. I do not know enough about all of these different MC-USA groups mentioned here to be able to say that's the same sort of usage of the two terms, but it doesn't sound like it is to me.

I'm not 'arguing' about how the terms are being used here, but would like some clarification as to the implied distinctions between the two terms.

If I may use this example without veering into Politics, the federal government is the denomination and the states are the conferences.

MC-USA and MC-Canada, and their MC and GC predecessors, are denominations. They are composed of multiple conferences, most of which are at least nominally regional, such as Virginia, Ohio, Indiana-Michigan, Central District, etc. There is some geographical overlap though, such as Atlantic Coast and Mosaic (and Mosaic was itself formed in response to the overlapping footprints of Franconia and Eastern District), and Virginia Conference has churches outside Virginia, and so on.

LMC is an example of a conference that is now essentially its own denomination after withdrawing from MC-USA, and Mosaic may become that as well. The Menno version of Brexit.

And of course CMC, though a conference in name, was always its own denomination. So there are exceptions to confuse the casual observer.