In its brief history, Mosaic Mennonite Conference has been a unifier. Founded in 2019 as a union of Franconia and Eastern District conferences, it bridges historic differences that Mennonite Church USA has sought to overcome.
Mosaic now faces the question of whether to be a divider. To its credit, it wants an amicable separation — if, indeed, it chooses that path — and to collaborate, in any case.
At their annual assembly Nov. 2 in Souderton, Pa., Mosaic delegates voted to “establish a robust partnership” with MC USA — a paradoxical intention, since the conference is already a member.
By avoiding any mention of the possibility of declaring independence, Mosaic leaders kept a laser focus on their hope to work things out with MC USA and establish a new status as a partner.
It seems MC USA needs Mosaic — one of its largest conferences — more than Mosaic needs MC USA. But to look at it this way would be to view the relationship as transactional. And relationships within the body of Christ are more than transactions.
Do we need one more tiny Anabaptist denomination? Mosaic is as viable as any. It could join the list alongside LMC (the former Lancaster Mennonite Conference), Evana Network, Rosedale Network (the former Conservative Mennonite Conference), the Alliance of Mennonite Evangelical Congregations or any other MC USA-adjacent affiliation.
Having suffered serious losses already, MC USA needs to keep Mosaic. To do this, it must quash the perception that membership imposes too many burdens. In one of its documents for delegates, Mosaic cites a need to reduce “the time spent struggling with MC USA structure and policies.”
Mosaic acknowledges the need to do its own internal work. It admits a redefined relationship with MC USA “will not solve the differences in our congregations around human sexuality.”
Mosaic could rise above the separatist trend and take a stand for Anabaptist unity. Already it presents a contrast with conferences that have withdrawn. Its desire for a partnership with MC USA shows a collaborative spirit we’ve not seen in recent splits.
Mosaic’s vision for a partnership should resonate within MC USA, whose leaders have spoken of the need to “reimagine” church structures. Yet progress has been slow. The one-year deadline to create a partnership plan with Mosaic might be the spark the process needs.
The plan will need to benefit any conference. Mosaic may indeed have special needs, but it is not the only one with members in other countries, significant racial/ethnic diversity and congregations that want to be members of the conference but not the denomination.
Keeping Mosaic within or closely connected to MC USA is motivation enough. Yet the project might gain even greater significance as a model for North American Anabaptists to rethink the church at all levels.
Mennonite Church Canada, after examining its structures and trends, in 2017 downsized national work with an emphasis on regional churches and local congregations.
If church structures have become burdensome — as MC USA leaders admit that they have — it is time for the church to become less organizational and more relational.
As secularism increases and trust in institutions declines, the church struggles to retain loyalty and maintain relevance. The more distant the institution, the less people trust it or even care about it.
Locally, regionally and nationally, the church needs less structure and more freedom. Just as people weren’t made for the sabbath but the sabbath for people (Mark 2:27), structures and rules that impede rather than strengthen relationships and ministry need to be revised or cast aside.
At the same time, the splintering of North American Anabaptism calls for better connections among our small denominations. The time may have come for an alliance with a minimum of structure and an abundance of ecumenical spirit.
Myron S. Augsburger, a former college president and pastor, promoted the idea of an alliance in 2016 in The Mennonite, a predecessor of Anabaptist World. He called for “an association of mutual faith and mission without organizational control” that would “enhance conversation without pressure for conformity” and offer “a united witness while respecting differences.”
Partners, allies — choose your word. Mosaic wants to be a partner, as all of us can be.
Have a comment on this story? Write to the editors. Include your full name, city and state. Selected comments will be edited for publication in print or online.