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 18th 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.