Mennonite Church USA

In 36 years of congregational and churchwide leadership I have observed that all of us are human in our behaviors, especially in church. I have often questioned whether congregational life is dominated by sociology more than theology. We tend to underrate our fallen, fragile natures in addressing spiritual issues. I don’t want to create a false dichotomy between the human and the spiritual. I don’t want to be flippant in labeling our behaviors. Let me explain the sociology, not the theology, I have seen.

Take our understanding of “dialogue” in the church. The New Testament does not commend dialogue as a fruit of the Spirit. It tells stories about it, like the Jerusalem Conference in Acts.

I hear people wonder if we have too much dialogue in the church. They say we need more proclamation. Others fret that dialogue has disappeared altogether. If you feel something needs changing, you naturally want to talk about it. If you believe things should stay put, you may feel uncomfortable or even threatened by exchanges of viewpoint. This is about biblical interpretation, too. This is not new. We might dust off our churchwide statement on agreeing and disagreeing in love: www.MennoniteUSA.org/disagreeing.

I see four expectations of dialogue. Depending on the issue, we may switch categories.

1. One group expects dialogue to air their minority viewpoint. Dialogue, they hope, will be a platform to promote their point of view or interpretation of Scripture. They aim to convince others by their conviction, logic or display of numbers.

2. Another group views dialogue as a tool to preserve fellowship in the church. If we just keep talking about it, we will stay in relationship with each other. Preserving community is important. It’s biblical, too. They listen well and are accepting but don’t often change their minds. For this group, dialogue may be an end to preserve relationships.

3. A third group claims high ideals about dialogue. It is a way to take seriously the work of the Holy Spirit, who chooses to speak through anyone, minority or majority, revealing what Scripture means. This group believes in “mutual accountability”: that we all acknowledge our different beliefs and biblical interpretations, that everyone agree to be open to changing their viewpoint as a result of dialogue, that we even remain open to conversion to what we now say we disagree with. I have not met many of this group.

4. Another group feels that dialogue is suspect at best and unfaithful at worst. There are beliefs and behaviors, based in Scripture, that we need to uphold, not question. Dialogue exposes our weakness of conviction or uncertainty about what Scripture says. What’s more, the consequences of certain viewpoints or actions are all too obvious.

Everyone in these groups loves Jesus and the church. All value Scripture. But in our humanity we hold different views of dialogue, and sometimes we switch groups. When we overlook our human tendencies, exchange of sincere views can misfire. Then we may be tempted to resort to other means to protect the church from error or encourage change, both of which are always based on high purposes and often on Scripture. Human frailty is present in our attempts to communicate, perhaps especially about the beliefs we hold dear.

When you find yourself in a conflict about convictions, ask yourself to which group you belong and to which the other belongs. Ask the Holy Spirit to be a voice in your conversation. Then it is more likely our human natures can move us closer to what we want to practice: a spirituality that is a winsome and effective witness for Jesus.

James Schrag is executive director of Mennonite Church USA.