From left, Diana Schunn, Linda Ewert and Lois Newcomer discuss a question at the WDC Reference Council. Photo by Laurie Oswald Robinson.

According to the official count, 143 participants representing 29 Western District Conference (WDC) congregations gathered Nov. 15 at Eden Mennonite Church, Moundridge, Kan., to talk about polity in response to a resolution brought to the conference’s delegate assembly in July by Rainbow Mennonite Church, Kansas City, Kan.

That resolution calls for congregations being able to decide for themselves whether or not their pastor can perform same-sex covenant ceremonies.

The WDC Reference Council is a group that meets annually to advise WDC staff.

WDC moderator Richard Gehring, who is pastor at Manhattan (Kan.) Mennonite Fellowship, explained that it is not a decision-making body but seeks to promote dialogue and provide information to WDC congregations.

At the July assembly, delegates agreed to put off voting on the resolution from Rainbow until next year’s assembly, which is now scheduled for October 2015. They also appointed a discernment task force, which sent out a survey to all WDC members. WDC leaders decided to use this reference council—and another one next April—to talk about issues related to the resolution.

Discernment task force report
Jim Schrag, chair of the discernment task force, summarized the results of the survey, which he acknowledged was not scientific. Instead, he said, it “helps form a general portrait of WDC self-understanding.”

One of the questions the survey tried to address was, Who can decide what about matters of faith and practice? Schrag said. The survey looked at four areas related to this question: (1) statements from or about the Confession of Faith in a Mennonite Perspective (COF), (2) Mennonite Church USA Membership Guidelines, (3) polity and unity, and (4) views of same-sex relationships.

Schrag noted that the survey showed that about half the respondents agree that COF is a “standard for judging faithfulness.” And a large majority agree that Scripture is an “authoritative voice and standard” for discerning truth from error.

The survey also showed strong support for conferences having discretion to determine practices, Schrag said, while over half the respondents opposed the disciplining of pastors who perform same-sex covenant ceremonies, and over half said that performing these is like previous changes in the church, such as acceptance of divorce and women in leadership.

“There is clearly a shift going on in views of homosexuality and marriage,” Schrag said.

In terms of polity and unity, Schrag reported that over 80 percent of respondents agree that WDC should be in relationship with Mennonite Church USA, and two-thirds say unity is not uniformity. Two-thirds also believe WDC unity can be preserved if congregations are allowed to choose different practices.

Statement by Hispanic church leaders
Gilberto Flores, who associate conference minister for WDC, reported on meetings he has had with Hispanic leaders in WDC congregations.

Flores said that these leaders said three things: (1) they don’t want to leave WDC, (2) they obviously disagree with same-sex relationships, and (3) they want to express their own views about love, unity, communion and the reason for the church to exist.

These leaders, Flores said, don’t want to talk about the issue of same-sex relationships anymore. They will not try to change churches who want to be more welcoming, and they don’t want to be judged by others. If WDC organizes its assemblies around issues of disagreement, they said, they don’t want to participate. They want to focus on the things we agree on, Flores said.

Table groups
Reference Council participants met in table groups and discussed the results of the survey. In reporting to the larger group, two of the table groups said they felt the statement from the Hispanic churches showed leadership for how to proceed.

Later, the groups discussed the strengths and hazards of congregationalism.

One table reported that the tension between congregational autonomy and a conference-led approach was “necessary for a healthy church.”

Several said that some balance of both is good, combining some guidelines with local autonomy.

Another suggested the need for managing polarities, focusing not on our fears but on what is good in both system.