Right and wrong, is it about morality or power?

Mennonite Church USA is going through a difficult time focused on the inclusion or exclusion of persons with same-sex attraction. There is a lot of talk about “the truth” or “what the Bible teaches.” I would submit that those are red herrings serving to lure us away from the real issue. 

The Bible, after all, does not discuss homosexuality. The concept didn’t exist when the scriptures were written down. This means that all arguments from the biblical text really boil down to “I think this is what the Bible would have said if the writers were aware of the concept.” That is a bit like speculating about what Jesus’ carbon footprint would have been if he was born in 1970. Would Jesus drive a Prius? The Bible writers lived at a time when people were worried about the environment killing them, not vice versa.

Masochists aside, most of us don’t willingly devote ourselves to congregations which don’t share our world view. We will stick with a congregation that has a few uncomfortable quirks, but the congregation needs to mostly fit our understanding of our religion. It is not surprising that relatively homogeneous congregations prefer to join with others of like mind in larger conference groupings. MCUSA area conferences have traditionally provided this fellowship outlet. Area conferences have personalities, just as their constituent congregations do, and have tended toward homogeneity.

Immigrant congregations over the past 30 years have commonly joined area conferences to access resources, and have not worried much about theological fit. Those congregations have started to be more self-sufficient, and are waking up to differences in world view between them and the other congregations in their conference. They often feel more comfortable with conservative expressions of morality, theology and authority.

One of the big questions facing MCUSA is the amount of centralized authority it should have. Should congregations be able to gather together in area conferences that suit them, leaving questions of biblical interpretation to those voluntary groupings, or should MCUSA dictate to area conferences how the scriptures are to be understood? This question was just posed to the Constituency Leadership Council meetings. Unsurprisingly, there wasn’t much support for centralized authority.

As I have written elsewhere, the real issue is whether MCUSA congregations should be free to align themselves with others of like mind in area conferences, leaving MCUSA as a coordinating and resourcing entity. Some area conferences and congregations would prefer to be part of a more centralized structure which speaks authoritatively on matters of morality and theology, and a couple of new groups have formed for that purpose. These new groups are de facto affinity groups, something MCUSA is accustomed to. The new groups are leading the charge away from geographically-defined conferences, something that has been happening ever since the MCUSA merger.

Conferences based on affinity rather than geography have what may be a fatal flaw, the inability of their members to form relationships due to distance. This problem is one we on the west coast are already familiar with, having our congregations scattered over a vast area. Without face-to-face relationships, conferences won’t be given much authority. This leaves the new affinity groups in the same pickle we started with.

Congregations need geographically-based conferences where trust can be built to handle things like licensing of ministers, assisting congregations in conflict or in need of resources, and to do local mission. These geographical groups can’t be expected to be homogeneous, requiring members to grant a good bit of grace to one another. Some congregations may also need to join affinity groups, where homogeneity is more important, for mutual support. This has long been the case for black, Hispanic and Native American congregations. These affinity groups speak to special needs. Congregations also need to be part of a national body which coordinates, communicates and provides resources, but does not purport to set standards for congregations. A national body provides a space for discussion, not control.

Congregants and congregations need to be able to meet their own needs without blocking others trying to do the same thing. I am hopeful that the delegates in Kansas City this July will be able to move in that direction.

Mennonites stirring the stew

Duane Ruth-Heffelbower

My friend Steve Penner just posted a blog entry about the current stirrings among the members of Mennonite Church USA. The image he used was a stirring of waters. The situation is fluid, not unlike those days just before the US Civil War when Mennonites in Russia had a renewal movement that launched the Mennonite Brethren denomination. People and congregations want to find a group to relate to that fits them. The result is a constant stirring of the waters.

I see the MCUSA as a stew. There are recognizable chunks, and then there is the broth in which they all float. The stew has been simmering for a long time, and the chunks are tender, ready to fall apart if prodded.

One big difference between MCUSA and stew is that in the MCUSA new chunks are able to form. Church people want to be part of a congregation in which they can feel at home, and congregations want to be part of larger groups in which they can feel at home. It is inevitable that, over time, some people will leave their congregation and join another. It is also inevitable that some congregations will want to change their affiliation.

When MCUSA was formed the Mennonite Church and General Conference conferences in the west merged and split again to form true area conferences based on geography. We have been hanging out together as a mixture of former MC and GC churches ever since, and the former lines have blurred. In the Midwest and east there was little of this re-forming of conferences, leaving very distinct MC and GC chunks. The farther east you travel, the more MC chunks there are in proportion. MC conferences also overlap geographically with each other, and with former GC area conferences in the east.

As I have written before, former MC congregations were accustomed to authoritative leadership, while GC congregations were usually more egalitarian. The former Mennonite Church was a conference of conferences, with correspondingly powerful conference leaders, while the General Conference was a conference of congregations. GC area conferences were based on geography, and had very little authority.

Individuals who wanted power in church politics could find it in the Mennonite Church, but there was little power to be had in the General Conference above the congregational level. This resulted in very different leadership styles in the two former denominations, and there has been little effort to create a new leadership culture in the MCUSA. Older leaders continue to operate as they did before the merger. New leaders have the confusing task of trying to navigate this historical agglomeration of styles. Not being aware of the source of differences in leadership styles, there is a tendency for them to follow the older leaders with whom they resonate, regardless of their politics.

Adding to the confusion is the situation of immigrant churches and congregants. Immigrants are rarely generated by egalitarian societies, and the default position of most immigrants is to look for a strong, preferably charismatic leader. The pastors of immigrant churches generally fill this bill. This being the case, leaders of immigrant churches are attracted to the more hierarchical style of older MC leaders. The current calls for the MCUSA Executive Board to exercise “strong leadership” largely come from former MC and immigrant church leaders.

There is now an effort to form new affinity groups of MCUSA churches. It is not clear whether these groups will try to become conferences, or even denominations with some authority, or will continue as affinity groups for those of like mind. There is also talk, but no visible action, among those who are most inclusive of people on the edges of the church about forming an affinity group for those people and congregations.

People who are not comfortable with strong, hierarchical leadership favor structures which allow freedom at the local level and cooperation at the national level on those things not much in dispute. Those who prefer authoritative leadership are not very comfortable cooperating with people who don’t agree with them on everything. As others have pointed out, it is the difference between seeing the church as a centered set, or a bounded set. Former MCs tend to be more comfortable with bounded sets, where you know who is in, and who is out. Former GCs are more comfortable being focused on how we relate to the center, usually understood to be Jesus.

As MCUSA prepares for its convention this summer, figuring out how, or whether, these different preferences can be contained within a single structure is the goal. Those who care about local autonomy would not agree to create a single hierarchical church body, so the conversation is really about how willing those who favor authoritative leadership are to be connected to those who desire more autonomy.

Back at the end of the 18^th century the new United States solved this same problem by having a bicameral legislature. The House of Representatives would be apportioned based on population, and the Senate would have two members from each state. This allowed the less populous states to prevent the more populous states from running roughshod over their interests.

A new nation born out of a violent revolution was able to find a way to cooperate enough to make being together worthwhile. I would hope that a group of Mennonites could do the same.

Where Mennonite Church USA went wrong

Where Mennonite Church USA went wrong

Duane Ruth-Heffelbower October 25, 2014

Back in the 1980’s the Mennonite Church and the General Conference Mennonite Church began thinking about taking their historic cooperation to the next level. The differences between the two groups were largely historical and cultural. There wasn't much difference on theology. So the two groups decided to collaborate on a new confession of faith. I was on the board that appointed the GC delegates to the committee.

One big difference between the two groups was their view of authority within the church. MC people mostly traced their heritage to migrations during the 1700s. By the time they got around to forming what we now recognize as a denomination around 1860 they had a long history of vesting considerable authority in bishops who oversaw groups of churches.

GC people formed their denomination at about the same time, but they had just come to North America, with the bulk of their members arriving in the late 1800s. Many of these later-arriving people had left the Ukraine, while others took the same Germany to Holland route earlier MC people had taken. These people vested their authority in the local congregation, not in bishops. This resulted in the General Conference having congregations as members while the Mennonite Church had groups of churches called Conferences as members, with decision making resting with gatherings of bishops.

This difference in church polity resulted in very different ways of thinking about church. As with any immigrant group, cultural changes happened rapidly within the groups, and the culture around them was also changing as the industrial revolution began changing post-civil war North America. One result was that GC congregations dealt with culture change in a pastoral way, taking into account all the personal and local issues that led people to do things differently than they had been done. At conference meetings congregational representatives could compare notes and work at some semblance of uniformity, but no one had the right to tell a congregation it was wrong.

The Mennonite Church approached culture change differently. Bishops were much more concerned with preserving uniformity of practice, and believed that by conforming to the mores approved by the bishops an individual or congregation demonstrated true Christian humility. Congregations and individual members were expected to abide by the understandings of the persons in authority over them.

In many areas of cooperation, differing church polity did not matter. Providing disaster relief and resources for development were supported by all through Mennonite Central Committee. Insurance companies could be formed and used by all. Even joint hymnals were possible, since songs rarely touch on polity. The new Confession of Faith in a Mennonite Perspective was successfully adopted. Things went so well that the two denominations merged. Since merging the two businesses required describing the polity of the new organization, lots of effort went into understanding differences and finding ways to work with them. In MC style, conferences had to decide whether to be part of the new entity, while in GC style, the bylaws said that everyone was in unless they said no.

As it turns out, leaders of both groups thought that in time the wisdom of their approach to church polity would prevail. That didn't happen. Former MCs craved authoritative pronouncements from the new Executive Board whenever culture shifted. They also believed that the Confession was a rule book, not an aspirational guide. GCs had been assured that the new Confession would not be used to test who was in or out. A rule book would not have been acceptable to GCs. These different understandings set the stage for trouble as the surrounding culture came to accept same-sex couples as a legitimate expression of family.

This is the sort of culture change that is difficult for many social conservatives, and most churches have a bit of social conservatism in their DNA. The process played out something like this: “Should same-sex couples be allowed in our church? Well, ok,” said many Mennonite churches, so long as they don’t flaunt their status or try to recruit our children. Can someone in a same-sex relationship be in congregational lay leadership? Well, ok, said some Mennonite churches, so long as they don’t keep rubbing our noses in their lifestyle choices. Can someone in a same-sex relationship be credentialed as a minister? “Yes,” said a few Mennonite churches. “Absolutely not,” said many churches.

This is where MCUSA finds itself now. The presenting issue is same-sex relationships in the church, but the real issue is polity. At MCUSA conventions every two years congregations and conferences send delegates who elect the Executive Board and speak to policy issues. These meetings have been firmly structured to prevent unprocessed issues from emerging at the convention, a former GC practice unacceptable to MCs.

The position being taken by mostly former MCs is that the Executive Board must discipline congregations and conferences who credential people in same-sex relationships. Former GCs are quick to point out that the Executive Board has no power to discipline anyone. Discipline is exercised by congregations, and to some extent by area conferences who actually hold ministerial credentials. If an area conference credentials a pastor and others around the country don’t like it, the only avenue available for discipline is cancelling the conference’s membership in MCUSA.

Simply put, the mistake MCUSA has made is not working deliberately at unifying members’ understanding of church polity. This has left MCUSA with poor tools to deal with culture change as it applies to same-sex relationships.

In the run-up to the MCUSA convention in July 2015 an effort is being made to correct this error, by devising a new structure. The question is whether there can be a denominational structure which allows cooperation in things on which we agree, without forcing us into the appearance of approving that on which we disagree. The immediate example is an area conference licensing a person in a same-sex relationship for ministry. Is there a structure which can allow one conference to do this while allowing other conferences to disapprove, yet remain in fellowship? At what level can we agree to disagree? How loosely must we be connected to avoid appearing to approve actions of which we disapprove? At what point is the structure so loose that it ceases to be a structure?

All this is playing out at a time when denominations, as a breed, are not doing well. Mennonites are not the only ones caught up in responding to culture change. Whether or not denominations are a useful thing is an open question, particularly for religious groups that are congregational, not hierarchical. It may be time for houses of worship to relate to others of like mind locally or regionally, while allowing non-denominational organizations like Mennonite Central Committee, educational institutions or publishing houses to do larger work on behalf of whoever wants to support them.  We are on the hunt for a Goldilocks structure: not too tight, not too loose, but just right.

Hobby Lobby and Religious Freedom | Martin Marty

Hobby Lobby and Religious Freedom | Martin Marty:

Can corporations have religious beliefs? The US Supreme Court has decided that they have first amendment rights as to freedom of speech, so why not as to religion? This is a reprise of the war tax debates of the Vietnam era, the birth control debates of the time since Vietnam and the Social Security debates of another time. Individuals who start companies and do well, incorporate but continue to operate as a sole proprietorship are understandably confused that their own idiosyncrasies don't translate well to the public arena.

The corporate form grants tax advantages and protection from personal liability. It is a gift from the government to the business community, and there are corresponding responsibilities. The most uncomfortable responsibility for entrepreneurs is having to act like a business instead of an extension of the entrepreneur's personality. Businesses have mission statements, not religious beliefs. Religious beliefs are personal, and the corporate form is inherently impersonal.

In United States v. Lee - 455 U.S. 252 (1982) an Old Order Amish carpenter and farmer hired others to work for him, but relied on the exemption for people like himself and did not withhold Social Security from their wages or pay the employer's share. The Supreme Court held, in part, that the exemption is for self-employed persons, and that to create the myriad of exemptions to accommodate everyone like Mr. Lee would be unworkable. It also held that it is not unconstitutional to burden religious belief for an overriding government purpose. The Hobby Lobby and Conestoga cases are even further from being personal. These current cases are asking to overturn 30 years of settled law and create a nightmare of exceptions to many government programs. Businesses seeking exemptions would certainly be job creators, for attorneys.

The current Supreme Court has shown just today in McCutcheon vs FEC that it is willing to overturn decades of settled law in favor of corporations. Today's case eliminates aggregate giving limits in an election cycle, extending Citizens United in favor of protecting corporate freedom of speech. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga may be the cases the 5-4 majority uses to extend first amendment protection for corporations into the realm of religious beliefs. That would not be good news for employees.

If not that, then what? Thoughts on Syria and US intervention

A group of us Mennonites was talking about Syria yesterday, and all agreed that US bombing was a bad thing. This led to the question: if not that, then what should be done? Doing nothing avoids making matters worse, but also runs the risk of letting the situation get worse. All of us have served in relief and development roles, and ought to have some ideas, it would seem.

Everyone quickly suggested helping the many refugees created by the situation in Syria, something that Mennonite Central Committee is already doing. There is a lot more to be done, and helping in this way is something all of us could happily advocate.

But what should be done about the situation that is creating the refugees? That question did not get such a ready response. If the concern is to stop creating refugees and allow those in camps to return home, the goal should be political and economic stability in Syria. The US has a history of helping to create stability by propping up dictators, and, by definition, stability is achieved when one group has the ability to exert political influence and control over all other groups. The logical way to help is to pick a side and assist them in stabilizing the country under their rule. This course of action doesn't sound very good these days, particularly in light of recent US efforts along that line in Iraq and Afghanistan. That course didn't serve the US well in Iran either, and there are many other examples.

Where various factions are killing each other, the help they want is military. Diplomacy is nice, but when the shooting is ongoing on you mostly want ammunition and heavier weapons. Fighters keep dying while diplomats talk. In a multi-faction civil war with outsiders involved, diplomacy doesn't stand much of a chance until either one of the factions shows clear signs of winning, or everyone is exhausted.  Neither of those scenarios applies in Syria just now.

A limited attack to degrade the government forces sounds simple enough, but who benefits and who is deterred? The government is fighting for its life, and if it gives up there is no sanctuary to which its leaders can safely retreat. Deterrence doesn't work in that situation, so the only useful outcome is strengthening opposition forces by degrading government forces.

The opposition is fragmented in its allegiances and goals. Islamists of the Shia faction appear to be mostly concerned with achieving hegemony in a portion of the former Syria, something they are already accomplishing in the north. Alawites need to keep the present government in power. Sunnis would like to replace the current government with their own people. And on it goes. All that unites the opposition is opposition to the regime. Its fall would signal the start of the new civil war among the surviving factions.

Back in 1941 a world power was having its interests interfered with by another world power. It chose to use a limited air strike on purely military targets to degrade the opposition’s ability to meddle in its affairs. We all know how well that worked out for Japan, at least in the short term. History does keep repeating itself if we don’t pay attention. In the meantime, I will focus my advocacy on the refugees from the Syria battleground.

Federal sentences still vary widely - fresnobee.com

AP Enterprise: Federal sentences still vary widely - National Politics - fresnobee.com:


One of the big arguments against restorative justice processes is that they result in different consequences for similarly situated people. Fairness, many think, equals equality. This is not how we operate in our own lives. We know that different people have different needs, and that to treat everyone the same is actually unfair.

I have two granddaughters nearly three years apart in age. The younger 5th grader thinks that fairness means equality, and that she should have the same rights, privileges and things that the 8th grader has. The 8th grader, looking back on her 5th grade years, thinks fairness means the younger sister having the same rules, restrictions and things she had at that age. I know that a younger sibling will have things and privileges an only child would not, simply because she is present where the older child exercises the privileges of being older.

What we want in sentencing, as in the rest of life, is equity. My reasonable needs are met, and so are yours. Our needs will vary depending on our circumstances. Restorative justice seeks to make victims as whole as possible, and to identify the needs that caused the offense in the first place. It has both a reparative and a preventative agenda.

The article on disparities in sentencing by federal judges exposes the dirty little secret that our criminal justice system does not, nor has it ever, treated people equally. Human behavior is too complex to reduce to a formula. Judges and prosecutors are always working with too little information. What sentence is appropriate given everything about the offender, the crime, and the mores of society? Actions considered heinous crimes in one era become somewhat acceptable in another. The California Penal Code used to have an offense called "the infamous crime against nature." Now the perpetrators of this crime are being given the right to marry.

Crack and powder cocaine sentencing disparities are notorious and efforts are being made to bring them into line with each other. There are many ways in which prejudice affects sentencing. Any time one person has the power to make another person do something the act is fraught with the possibility that prejudice will have too much to do with the outcome.

Restorative justice processes are less likely to be abused in this way since the outcomes are collaborations of the affected parties. If the offender doesn't agree there is no agreement. This fact alone pushes the process more towards equity. That this good result is accompanied by the risk of disparity does not bother me, since disparity is a straw man trotted out when convenient rather than something that guides daily practice. Now that we have the data to back this up it is time to get serious about restoring equity to our criminal justice process so that victims can be made whole, and the community can be protected by identifying and meeting the needs that led to the offense in the first place.


Prison realignment in California moves more prisoners from state institutions to local jails. One of the opportunities that comes along with this change is that prisoners can receive treatment services closer to home, and there can be continuity of care as they are released and re-enter the community. The state system has provided no significant rehabilitation services to the vast majority of prisoners, and what services were provided ended abruptly upon release.


Realignment is a wonderful opportunity to enhance community safety through assisted reintegration of prisoners upon their release. Unfortunately, local jails and probation departments need to gear up to receive an influx of prisoners, and that has absorbed all the money made available for the transition.


It is not too late to take advantage of the opportunity we have. Successful reintegration of prisoners into the community is the single best way to enhance community safety. We have proven over the last decades that we cannot arrest our way to safety. What we can do is make sure that offenders have a way to create a productive life for themselves after their release. We can also use the same restorative mindset to close the school to prison pipeline by offering students with difficulties the services they need to be successful. 


We have proven that mass incarceration does not work. It is time to try something that does. Restorative justice practices offer that possibility.

Start paying for war - The Washington Post

Start paying for war - The Washington Post

Buying cool new shoes with a credit card may not be all that wise, especially if you don't pay the card off every month, but at least you have the shoes while you are paying them off. Tomahawk missiles are different.The Navy stocks up on missiles over time, paying for them out of current budget. This means that a president can use Tomahawks without any impact on current spending. Replacing the inventory will be done over time, maybe even by a later administration. Sending troops, on the other hand, is like buying shoes with a credit card. By the time you have to pay the bill you already know whether buying the shoes was a good idea or not, but you have to pay even if the shoes don't fit.

The intervention in Libya takes advantage of these economic facts of life. The submarines with Tomahawks are already loitering around the Mediterranean. The missiles were paid for by one of the presidents Bush, or maybe even Reagan.Firing off 122 of the missiles has no current financial impact.

Guarding a no-fly zone does cost current dollars. The fuel and additional spare parts required by an increase in flight time come out of the current budget. Most costly of all, in current budget terms, is sending ground troops. US troops in Afghanistan cost about $1 million each per year.

Ezra Klein suggests that pay-as-you-go war would be better. If I want to fire a missile, I must first add revenue or cut some other expense to pay for it. This sounds reasonable to me. Lots of planning had to go into firing those Tomahawks at Libya. There's no reason that White House staff couldn't also be identifying the new revenue sources or cuts necessary to pay for them at the same time. To make it more true to life a president sending troops into harm's way should also budget the death benefits and medical care necessary for those who are injured and pay that amount out of current income. The military plans ahead to preposition body bags, so prepositioning the money necessary to fill them shouldn't be too difficult.

What military operation could survive having to do a cost-benefit analysis prior to engaging in it? Who would have thought that invading Afghanistan and then Iraq was a good idea if they had to pay for it up front? The National Priorities Project estimates the cost of wars since 2001 at $1.171 trillion. There are about 311 million Americans. That mans each American has paid something like $376 per year for the last ten years just for those wars. The Tax Policy Center says 47% pay no income tax, so double the amount if you are someone who does pay. This means the bill for a tax paying family of four has been $3,008 a year for the last ten years just for these wars.

Pay as you go wars would be a good way to help presidents think before they launch.