Web exclusive opinion

How do you save a conference from destroying itself? We are facing potentially grim times in the Mennonite church in the second decade of the 21st century. Homosexuality and church process, once thought to be dealt with, is rearing its head again in mystifying ways, with dust kicked up from both progressive and traditional camps.

Once again there are threats that if someone’s ideas aren’t followed, there will be splits. So what else is new among Mennonites? Can this be solved? I say yes, we may have a chance.

Conventional wisdom goes something like this: “If everyone would just agree on everything, then we would have unity and peace in the church.”

Another angle on unity I’ve heard is, “If those people who are raising a fuss would just leave, then everything would be back to normal again, because those who stay will be all in agreement. So who cares? Let ’em leave. We’ll be healthier afterward anyway.”

Hmm. Maybe there’s some truth to that, perhaps, but it sounds like we don’t care about those who leave.

I don’t want the church to split. It hurts me when that happens. It’s like amputating a finger. It hurts because it’s a wound in the fellowship, one of the three principles of H.S. Bender’s Anabaptist Vision.

It leaves me wondering what we did wrong or they did wrong and whether or not it could have been avoided. The thought of the threat of splitting the church causes me stress.

I ran across some material that flips conventional wisdom upside down. I had often heard rumors that in the days of the old General Conference Mennonite Church (GC), churches had quite a bit of autonomy, compared to those in the Mennonite Church (MC).

But is that really true or just a myth? The GC mode of operating, I was told, was this way from the very beginning. I found History of the Mennonite General Conference by H.P. Krehbiel (1898). It goes into much detail of what led up to the beginnings of the General Conference and each meeting until 1898.

Krehbiel refers to earlier Mennonite meetings: “At that conference an attempt was made to secure a union of certain churches by adopting a common creed … Erroneously it was held that union must rest on an absolute likeness in doctrines and customs. This led to strict laws to secure external uniformity. But instead of being the means to bring the churches into more fraternal relation, it multiplied prejudices and increased divisions. The thing striven for—absolute uniformity—can be approximated only in very small organizations. When sought to be realized among larger numbers it inevitably leads to ruinous factionalism.

Had the Mennonites not entered upon this disastrous course, in all probability but few schisms would have occurred and they might rank among the leading denominations of this country. For in the main tenets of faith and doctrine there is substantial unity among all Mennonites in America. Menno and his co-laborers had advocated freedom from man-made laws and forms. However, in America this position was yielded, with the result that factionalism multiplied and threatened to annihilate the denomination.”

Krehbiel says the conventional wisdom of trying to make everyone believe the same thing virtually guaranteed splits. Even so, another attempt was made.

“The idea of a union of all Mennonites of America was first proposed in 1856 in the editorial columns of the Christliche Volksblatt. … no doubt that J.H. Oberholtzer was the author.”

He proposed five points. Points 3-5 included a proposal to make a creed, and “all those will accept this creed and unite upon it shall be considered the real Mennonite denomination. However, had the attempt been made to effect a union on the plan proposed, it would not only have gained the desired result, but it would have led to further divisions. It would have been utterly impossible to formulate a creed which in all its details would have embodied the peculiar traditions and practices of the various factions to the satisfaction of all. The weakness of the plan lay in the fact that it was based on the erroneous assumption that there existed a difference in doctrine and that, in order to make union possible, this difference must be removed.”

Then came another effort, and this time it succeeded.

“The first General Conference was held at West Point, Lee County, Iowa, on May 28-29, 1860. The plan to effect a union of all Mennonites was something entirely new.”

Six points: They passed a resolution with six broad and basic points with what could be called “Unconventional wisdom.”

1. “That all branches of the Mennonite denomination in North America, regardless of minor differences, should extend to each other the hand of fellowship.
2. That fraternal relations shall be severed only when a person or church abandons the fundamental doctrines of the denomination; namely those concerning baptism, the oath, etc. (wherein we follow Menno Simons), as indeed also all those principal doctrines of the faith which we with Menno base solely upon the gospel as received from our Lord Jesus Christ and his apostles.
3. That no brother shall be found guilty of heresy unless his error can be established on unequivocal Scripture evidence.
4. That the General Conference shall consider no excommunication as scripturally valid, unless a real transgression or neglect, conflicting with the demands of Scripture, exists.
5. That every church or district shall be entitled to continue, without molestation or hindrance and amenable only to their own conscience, any rules or regulations they may have adopted for their own government; provided they do not conflict with the tenets of our own general confession.
6. That if a member of a church, because of existing customs or ordinances in his church, shall desire to sever his connection and unite with some other church of the General Conference, such action shall not be interfered with.”

Krehbiel says, “The strength of the conference was not to be wasted in disputes over nonessentials. To this position the conference has since steadfastly adhered to her great gain. In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, [in all things love]. The relation of the individual church to the conference as provided for by article five, is fortunate and appropriate. The conference is not set up as a superior authority which may dictate to the churches. Each church retains its independent self-government. This is the relation in which churches stood toward each other in apostolic times. After having agreed upon the plan for union the conference directed its attention to the object for which as an organization it should exist. This object is expressed in the one word—mission.”

The conference then adopted four resolutions dealing with missions, financing, publishing and education.

Imagine that. The conference purpose in 1860 was to be “missional.” Sound familiar?

But one more thing. It is clear that from the beginning of the General Conference, not just an emphasis but the very mode of existence was to allow congregational autonomy as long as a few core beliefs were shared.

The question was then and is especially today, Which beliefs are core beliefs and which are not? Everyone will have a different angle on that, too. The Fundamentalists had their list of five Fundamentals, with the exclusive approach, for one example, that “if you don’t believe in the Virgin Birth, you’re going to Hell.” (George Marsden, Notre Dame, Fundamentalism in America.)

Another way to look at core beliefs is that of Mennonite World Conference, whose representatives came up with a list of “Shared Convictions” in 2006. This is an inclusive approach and lists shared convictions of diverse groups of people as a common bond.

So we already agree on a lot of things. If a group as diverse as Mennonite World Conference can agree on a few “Shared Convictions,” surely Mennonite Church USA can.

A story I have shared about how to look at core and noncore beliefs comes from a 2000 conference at Bethel College in North Newton, Kan., on “Mennonite Identity in the New Millenium.” For four days, 28 speakers expounded on this theme.

At lunch, one person told me, “Do you know the difference between herding cattle in Australia and in the United States?” I grew up on a dairy farm and herded cattle many times, but I said I did not know that difference.

“In the United States,” he said, “cattle are always in fences. We’ve got to make sure they don’t get out. And, if they do, we have to hurry and get them back in and fix the fences. But in Australia, there are no fences, just wide open spaces. At the center, the ranch, are food and water. The cattle may wander off, but they know that if they don’t want to starve, they know where the food and water is.”

Then comes the merger of GC and MC into the Mennonite Church USA in 2001. There is no doubt that compromises were made on both sides; some more, some less.

Revisiting the words of H.P. Krehbiel: “The thing striven for—absolute uniformity—can be approximated only in very small organizations. When sought to be realized among larger numbers it inevitably leads to ruinous factionalism. Menno and his co-laborers had advocated freedom from man-made laws and forms. However, in America this position was yielded, with the result that factionalism multiplied and threatened to annihilate the denomination.”

Now I have to wonder, If “uniformity leads to ruinous factionalism,” was Mennonite Church USA doomed from the start? Were we set up to fail from the beginning?

Conventional wisdom says uniformity leads to peace in the church. But history says otherwise. Is there still time for “unconventional” wisdom to be restored, and reinstall a system of congregational autonomy with agreement on essential beliefs? Can it be done without a complete overhaul of the membership guidelines? But is this the only way to save the Mennonite Church USA from destroying itself?

Unless and until the faith community really understands the quote: “In essentials, unity, in nonessentials, liberty, in all things, love,” we will be functioning at less than capacity.

A way forward

It may be that the only way this situation can be resolved is that the faith community will have to come to a perspective to clarify that the issue of homosexuality as a nonessential, not a core Christian belief.

It is not theology about the basics of God, Jesus, Holy Spirit, forgiveness of sins. It is not mentioned in the Ten Commandments. It is not mentioned in the teachings of Jesus. It is peripheral, like a lot of other things are peripheral. The issue needs to be re-framed.

You don’t split churches, or throw people out of conferences, or even leave over noncore beliefs. With all the emotion, it will be hard. With all the politics in the nation and religious media distorting the discussion, it will be hard. We have overblown and distorted the importance of homosexuality far out of its proper place in Christian theology. You can certainly still argue whether or not it is a sin, but either way, it is not a core value.

• If we can put homosexuality into proper perspective, we may have a chance.
• If we can understand that giving up such untrusting control is not giving in to sin or “going down a slippery slope” but doing exactly what the early church did at the Jerusalem conference in Acts 15 in focusing on core values, then we may have a chance.
• If we can treat homosexuality as any other situation and let local churches deal with it the same as any other nonessential issue, like divorce or premarital sex or drug abuse or abortion, and let pastors do what they do–pastoring–we may have a chance.
• If we can understand that “uniformity leads to ruinous factionalism,” but congregational autonomy with agreement on essential beliefs leads to unity, we may have a chance.

Therefore, I propose the following pledge for the Mennonite Church USA:
The issue of homosexuality:

• does not describe our faith
• does not define our faith
• does not divide our faith.”
  Now more than ever we need Matthew 19:26: “Jesus looked at them and said, ‘With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.'”

In essentials, unity, in nonessentials, liberty, in all things, love.

Brian D. Stucky is a former church chairman and deacon, and member of the Alexanderwohl Mennonite Church, Goessel, Kan.