Farewell, MCUSA

[Chris]

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.

The Bible is CLEAR.
Sodomy/homosexuality and other perversions is a sin.
Women do not have a place in clergy.
PERIOD.

Let's not compromise the Bible ever. It's not up to our authority to "evolve" it lest we should just be Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox.

The early church, Ante Nicean writings, all agree that homosexuality is a sin and men are instructors in the church - NOT women.

It's not really that hard. What is hard is how people want to excuse sins they would like to agree with and compromise the scripture.

I can excuse profanity all day long, but it doesn't make it right, and I can't excuse away the fact it is sinful.

[temporal1]

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

This is unsurprising and terribly sad for me.

HK,
Thank you for initiating this thread topic, painful for you, and for countless others, each in their own way.

Sin hurts. No exceptions.
Everyone who lives long enough, will experience stinging pain of sin. Money+power are not sufficient shields.
Sin promises so much, in the end, the price is high, costly to as many possible, sin cannot be contained. Sin wants to hurt.
It’s so deceitful.

This forum can be painful.
For me, the “most valuable moments” are when sincere CMs, CAs, cMs, cAs, followers of Jesus and scriptures, open up about their experiences+insights - often in response to (some form of attack) - to articulate in ways not commonly shared (as above).
The world hungers for Truth, Truth is denied, it’s now rare commodity. Nothing satisfies like Truth.

Sin does not satiate. It can’t. Not possble. By Jesus’ words.

This leaves sinners in a continual frustrated state of seeking: MORE.
It’s why decade upon decade, nothing satisfies them. No win, no negotiation is sufficient. Not possible. It is tragic.

Adrift on salty seas, surrounded by nothing but water, drinking salt water is cruel death.

https://hopechurchfamily.org/sermons/jo ... al-thirst/

[Dan Z]

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.

It seems to be the nature of organizational change...nine times out of ten, activists of one sort or another drive the organization toward liberalization, and conservatives are forced to compromise or leave. {NOTE: This is not always a bad thing - depending on the issues at hand, Conservatism in and of itself is not necessarily a virtue]

I can think of very few examples where the progressives were forced out - perhaps what happened in the Southern Baptist Convention is the exception. Maybe the decision of the Global Methodist Church to uphold the church's traditional teaching on same-sex marriage is another one,

[Ken]

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.

I would suggest it is also largely a generational change.

[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.

This is my conclusion as well.

I would suggest it is also largely a generational change.

I suspect that is part of it - societally as well.

More importantly, in the church context, it is also a change of hermeneutic.

[Ken]

This is my conclusion as well.

I would suggest it is also largely a generational change.

I suspect that is part of it - societally as well.

More importantly, in the church context, it is also a change of hermeneutic.

I would just look at my own large extended family which contains a lot of MCUSA and CMC families. I would venture to guess that you polled all the adults in my extended family, those under 50 would have a dramatically different view on this issue than those over 50. And those under 30 will have even different views. I expect it is the same in most churches and families.

In another 20-30 years today's teenagers will be the adults and those over 50 will largely be gone and the few who remain will have little influence over policy. Some of today's battles might seem quaint in 30 years, but I suspect there will be new ones that we haven't yet imagined.

[Bootstrap]

I would suggest it is also largely a generational change.

I suspect that is part of it - societally as well.

More importantly, in the church context, it is also a change of hermeneutic.

And a change away from the hermeneutic that drew me to an MC-USA church in the first place. Simple obedience to scripture, as read through the lens of what Jesus said and did. Together, in community. I was looking for a place where I could both read Scripture and do what it says.

Even if it makes us look weird and out of place. After all, that's what it looks like if you refuse to fight in a popular war or refuse to pledge allegiance to the flag. Mennonites are OK with being different than mainstream society.

Its one thing to say, "I'm liberal, I think we know better than the Bible today". But there are plenty of churches that do that, and I came to the Mennonites because I didn't want that, I don't think that's the right approach. MC-USA is turning into just one more liberal church. If you accept this resolution, how do you turn around and say that the Bible speaks authoritatively about any aspect of sexual relationships or gender or the body?

I really my local congregation, where I actually live out my life with other Christians. But I just don't know what to do with the denomination.

[Bootstrap]

I would just look at my own large extended family which contains a lot of MCUSA and CMC families. I would venture to guess that you polled all the adults in my extended family, those under 50 would have a dramatically different view on this issue than those over 50. And those under 30 will have even different views. I expect it is the same in most churches and families.

In another 20-30 years today's teenagers will be the adults and those over 50 will largely be gone and the few who remain will have little influence over policy. Some of today's battles might seem quaint in 30 years, but I suspect there will be new ones that we haven't yet imagined.

I don't think polls are the right way to figure out what the Bible teaches. I don't mind looking quaint if I am following what the Bible teaches.

I have talked to people on the other side of this issue to ask how they interpret the main verses that speak to this in the New Testament. Some people I know call them "clobber verses" and say we shouldn't use them because "these verses have been abused". But that doesn't answer the question - stoning the woman caught in adultery isn't Christlike, but that doesn't mean adultery is OK. Others give explanations that don't seem to correspond with the things I think I know about the Greek words and culture, and these explanations often seem forced and dishonest to me.

Others give an answer that I find more honest: they say that they believe that our knowledge evolves and the Holy Spirit's teaching evolves as the church grows - I call that "the liberal assumption". I once had a conversation about this with Fred Danker, who wrote the dictionary most people use for New Testament Greek. He told me that he has no doubt about the meaning of the words and the texts, and that the traditional reading is correct, but that he takes the liberal assumption.

But I take the "conservative assumption", I think that the traditional teaching really is what the Bible teaches and that it is still relevant, even if it is not the way most people think these days. We need to apply it in a loving, Christlike way. But even then, it may not make us popular. Obedience and devotion are not about popularity.

[barnhart]

I can think of very few examples where the progressives were forced out - perhaps what happened in the Southern Baptist Convention is the exception. Maybe the decision of the Global Methodist Church to uphold the church's traditional teaching on same-sex marriage is another one,

Maybe southern abolitionists or supporters of prohibition.

[Ken]

I would just look at my own large extended family which contains a lot of MCUSA and CMC families. I would venture to guess that you polled all the adults in my extended family, those under 50 would have a dramatically different view on this issue than those over 50. And those under 30 will have even different views. I expect it is the same in most churches and families.

In another 20-30 years today's teenagers will be the adults and those over 50 will largely be gone and the few who remain will have little influence over policy. Some of today's battles might seem quaint in 30 years, but I suspect there will be new ones that we haven't yet imagined.

I don't think polls are the right way to figure out what the Bible teaches. I don't mind looking quaint if I am following what the Bible teaches.

I have talked to people on the other side of this issue to ask how they interpret the main verses that speak to this in the New Testament. Some people I know call them "clobber verses" and say we shouldn't use them because "these verses have been abused". But that doesn't answer the question - stoning the woman caught in adultery isn't Christlike, but that doesn't mean adultery is OK. Others give explanations that don't seem to correspond with the things I think I know about the Greek words and culture, and these explanations often seem forced and dishonest to me.

Others give an answer that I find more honest: they say that they believe that our knowledge evolves and the Holy Spirit's teaching evolves as the church grows - I call that "the liberal assumption". I once had a conversation about this with Fred Danker, who wrote the dictionary most people use for New Testament Greek. He told me that he has no doubt about the meaning of the words and the texts, and that the traditional reading is correct, but that he takes the liberal assumption.

But I take the "conservative assumption", I think that the traditional teaching really is what the Bible teaches and that it is still relevant, even if it is not the way most people think these days. We need to apply it in a loving, Christlike way. But even then, it may not make us popular. Obedience and devotion are not about popularity.

I'm not making a judgement about who is right and wrong.

I'm just suggesting that the shifting opinions within MCUSA are not simply the result of more conservative congregations leaving. There is also a very strong generational shift that frankly exists in all denominations. It is exactly the same with the SBC.