From the editor

The 2011 convention in Pittsburgh generated no denominational statements or resolutions. That was by design. But perhaps the 2013 gathering should consider a resolution that establishes what the Mennonite Church USA confession of faith, denominational statements and resolutions mean—and what they don’t mean.

Executive director Ervin Stutzman surprised many delegates on July 8, when he cited some past statements establishing membership protocols and then said after each citation, “This is what the church has said, and this is what I believe.”

That such affirmation from our top denominational leader should come as a surprise to so many reveals deep differences about the authority of statements made by the church—even if those statements emerged after long periods of discernment, prayer, Bible study and sensitive word smithing.

Confession of Faith in a Mennonite Perspective, for example, was approved overwhelmingly in 1995 after years of careful sharing and feedback across the former General Conference and Mennonite Church denominations.

But there remains a lack of agreement about how to understand what this critical document means for accountability and discipline. Some members of Mennonite Church USA believe it is a “teaching document”—holding out for us what our best discernment has produced. In this view, the ideals framed by the confession set a direction toward which we are all called.

Others, however, understand the confession of faith to be a set of beliefs that define who we are as a communion. In this view, those beliefs can appropriately be used to decide whether leaders and congregations are in compliance. If not, such non-compliance is grounds for discipline for those with ministerial credentials or for congregations.

This difference creates mischief. The most recent example: Western District Conference leaders and, subsequently, the conference gathering decided that a pastor’s ministerial credentials were in order after she performed a same-sex marriage ceremony (“Decision Not to Discipline Pastor Stands at WDC,” September).

This example reveals a fault line within our denomination that cannot be ignored for long. For leaders, congregations and conferences that believe church statements establish rules, such an action by another area conference appears to be a clear case of noncompliance. But some in Western District—and others—do not understand denominational guidelines to be binding on an area conference. Their big-tent model of inclusion allows for significant freedom for congregational discernment and autonomy. This model also claims significant autonomy for a conference.

Why call now for discernment regarding church statements when the Phoenix 2013 convention is nearly two years away?

One of the reasons given for no resolutions at Pittsburgh 2011 was that some delegates did not want to vote on resolutions—especially controversial ones—without their congregations processing them first. Some delegates represent area conferences; such delegates may also want to know what the conference thinks about such resolutions before voting.

Given the amount of time needed for crafting such a resolution, distributing it for discernment, collecting responses and revising the language, 20 months is not a lot of time.