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.
