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.
