Editorial

When we have fights about various matters in the church, the expectation is that we will self-mediate our way to resolution through dialogue. But the problem is that we do not agree on the meaning of dialogue.

In a remarkable column that drew no reader responses, Mennonite Church USA executive director James Schrag pointed out the four ways we define dialogue (June 2). This delineation is worth repeating. Here are the definitions of “dialogue” in first-person language:

• Dialogue is a sign that we have weak convictions about matters that I believe are nonnegotiable.
• Dialogue is a means for me to promote my point of view to you.
• Dialogue is what we do to stay in fellowship—to “keep the peace”—but don’t expect me to change my mind.
• Dialogue is how we are mutually accountable; through God’s Spirit it may lead me to change my mind.

I have found this taxonomy helpful as readers press me on the moratorium we’ve had in place since 2000: We do not publish letters and articles that address our church’s teaching position on sexuality. The moratorium was put in place by former editor J. Lorne Peachey; I have continued it for nearly nine years.

We believe Mennonite Church USA needs to have meaningful dialogue about the matter. But polarizing letters on our pages do not foster appropriate dialogue. They are serial monologues.

Our moratorium, however, is misunderstood on both sides of the divide.

“I … see The Mennonite’s moratorium as an attempt to stop the constituency from having anything printed that is against the homosexual lifestyle,” said one reader in a letter we published on Aug. 18.

Actually, a major reason for the moratorium was the opposite of this. Most of the letters we published in 1999 and 2000 were calling for the church to change its statements on human sexuality. The letters were so distressing to so many people that people quit reading. From 1998 until 2000, circulation fell from 22,000 to 16,000.

During my first years as editor, many people told me that they dropped their subscriptions “because of all the letters on homosexuality.”

This demonstrated to us that the forum function of this magazine, now codified in Mennonite Church USA bylaws, has its limits. So we have the moratorium.

“But Everett,” wrote Helen Lapp, a long time church leader from Harleysville, Pa., “to cut off all dialogue on any subject does not seem to serve the church well either.”

I agree—if we can agree on what dialogue is. But we’re pretty sure dialogue is not people spraying verbal toxins on each other in the letters section of this magazine.

“Could The Mennonite set a standard,” Helen continued in a letter too long for Readers Say, “and print only letters with a different tone of, ‘This is how I see it’ or, ‘This is how we see it,’ with the group identified? That could then be true dialogue, as those with differing views try to learn from each other.”

Each time our board of directors meets, we discuss the moratorium. It will be on our agenda next week when we gather at the all-boards meeting Sept. 24-26. We are interested in hearing from you on this matter.

It may be possible for us again to publish articles and letters on this divisive subject. Now, nearly nine years later, we may be more capable of addressing each other with a different tone. But to do so would require clear understandings about the purpose: to help the church dialogue.

Doing so is dangerous, however, because when we dialogue with each other in a way that has integrity, God’s Spirit may move in our minds and hearts. Regardless which side of a divide, genuine dialogue can be dangerous because it may lead us to places we do not now want to go.