Oct. 5, 2009 issue
Southeast Conference takes away pastor’s credentials
Pastor is gay and wants to ‘pursue a covenanted same-sex relationship’
By Celeste Kennel-Shank Mennonite Weekly ReviewSoutheast Conference of Mennonite Church USA has revoked the credentials of a gay pastor.
Spaulding
Randy Spaulding of Covenant Mennonite Fellowship in Sarasota, Fla., had told conference leaders he does not wish to commit to celibacy.
Marco Güete, conference minister, sent a letter Sept. 28 to Southeast’s pastors and credentials leaders regarding the Leadership Board’s decision “in response to Pastor Randy Spaulding’s disclosure of his desire to pursue a covenanted same-sex relationship.”
“On that basis and Mennonite Church USA guidelines regarding human sexuality, which we in Southeast Mennonite Conference affirm, and in order to keep the unity of our conference, they asked that Randy Spaulding voluntarily resign as Pastor of Covenant Mennonite Fellowship” effective Nov. 30, the letter said.
Spaulding met once in July with the Leadership Board, and the board formed a task force, he said in a phone interview.
“It was my understanding that I would begin dialogue with the task force,” Spaulding said.
At his first meeting with the task force, they announced their decision, Spaulding said.
“I think the process dishonored the call from MC USA to respectful dialogue and to walking together in dialogue in the midst of disagreement,” he said.
Spaulding does not intend to resign as pastor of Covenant Mennonite, he said.
“It has never been my desire to convert or convince anyone who disagrees with me,” he said. “This conference is my family. I’ve worshiped with these brothers and sisters; I’ve served beside them, with hurricanes and floods.”
The congregation’s council has committed to responding to the resignation request by Nov. 30, they wrote to the conference in a Sept. 22 letter.
“The decision from the conference came so abruptly that we are not yet prepared to respond to their specific requirements, but we support Randy wholeheartedly and do not want to lose him as our pastor,” Debra Gingerich, Covenant Mennonite’s leadership council chair, wrote in an e-mail.
A year ago, another MC USA conference, Franconia, took away the credentials of a gay pastor. Michael Schaadt of Alpha (N.J.) Mennonite Church had told the conference he could not continue under an agreement that he would be celibate.
Comments
-
A very un-Christlike action against a very Christ-like man.
-
If dialogue is promised it should happen between all parties. It sounds as if the only dialogue that occurred was between the task force members and that it did not include Randy. I'm disappointed with the South East Conference and I hope the larger church will act with greater integrity.
-
This article breaks my heart. Fellow Mennonites, let's find ways to lovingly support our congregations and our leaders instead of destroying them. If only we could quit amputating parts of the body of Christ.
-
Shame on the Southeast Conference leadership for this act of bigotry perversely disguised as "unity". I guess the portion of the statement about encouraging greater dialogue is worthy of being ignored.
Shame on MCUSA leadership for their refusal to act on the pleas in the Open Letter while appealing to a perverse definition of "unity". They have given lip service to dialogue, yet admonished groups such as the Pink Mennos for seeking to give voice to GLBT Mennonites. The ambiguous language and deplorable example of MCUSA leadership perpetuates a situation in which discrimination and harm against GLBT Mennonites is allowed to flourish.
True "unity" does not allow a group of Mennonites to be branded as the Other. "Unity" does not allow the Other to be discriminated against. "Unity" ought never allow Mennonites to define themselves based on who they exclude.
-
Regardless of one's translation surrounding the collection of stories in the Bible, I am saddened to know that our children will inherit the fear, shame and hatred that surrounds a sexual orientation that we did not choose and cannot change. Education. Education. Education.
-
Very disapointing. True dialogue always means doubt about your position and having a chance to talk back back and forth about it. It doesn't sound like that happened.
I complement Randy on his openess, bravery and honesty. I remember him well from my days in active conference activity.
-
Being Mennonite used to mean being in favor of community. Now it seems to mean being for exclusion and bigotry.
-
I did not go to Conference, but from what I heard there was supposed to be some dialogue on GLBTQ in the church... guess that didn't happen, or was obviously ignored.
-
I am also saddened to hear about this continuation of discrimination in the Mennonite church. A church I would like to think of as pushing for radical transformation in the world of justice and acceptance. What happened to "all being welcomed to the table?" I seem to remember that from a Menno conference not too long ago. I implore those who call themselves followers of a radical Jesuso or even simply a world of equality, not to support this decision.
-
Regarding the use of the word "bigotry" in one comment, while many people use the word "bigotry" to mean hatefulness, my dictionary lists it as meaning "intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself." I would deem it an offensive comment to call Southeast Conference leaders hateful.
When I interviewed Randy Spaulding, he said, additionally to the above quotes, “In regard to human sexuality, the hardest thing is remaining in fellowship when we disagree.”
What harm will befall our congregations if we remain in the fellowship of the same conference or denomination amidst different views on the Bible, polity and membership? What harm befalls us when we separate?
-
Would Christ have turned away a homosexual follower?
The Mennonite Church would do well to re-examine its stance. Cherry-picking Bible verses that purportedly forbid homosexual activity (but conveniently ignoring other less convenient prohibitions) is not, in my mind, justification enough for the manner of discrimination befalling Mr. Spaulding - discrimination that Christ himself would never have tolerated. The champions of discrimination understand the weakness of their arguments against homosexuality, and that is why discussion is not an option. They would rather hide behind the obscurity of the Bible, claiming it their own as a delusional barnacle would claim a whale. Advocates of inclusion must persevere, and bring the discussion directly to them. (This open forum is a good start.)
We cannot expect to do anything as a Church but further schism so long as one culture is able to commandeer and appropriate words too broad to have application, but too close to us to abandon.
Thanks for covering this, Celeste.
-
I don't believe they turned anyone away, they asked for a open homosexual to resign a leadership position in the church.
-
For more than 40 years I have sought to change my orientation, with God's help and various so called ex-gay organizations. Whatever change happened had the permanence of a sandcastle built at low tide. Keep the faith brother! You are precious and dearly beloved by God and many others!
-
In reply to Celeste's questions at the end of her comment: What harm will befall our congregations if ...? What harm befalls us if we separate? Firt, Paul teaches that evil in a congregation acts like yeast in bread. In his commentary on 1 Corinthians, Anthony Thiselton writes of the yeast of evil as something that ferments. I think we can look at the "yeast of malice and wickedness" as something that itself will increse unchecked like yeast increases in bread. While the words may specifically refer to an evil of malice, the context of 1 Corinthians, Paul is writing of two things: the sexually immoral person, and the attitude of the Corinthians that said evil was ok in the congregation. I believe that Paul's writing indicates that both of these must be taken care of. What harm befalls us if we separate: In this passage (1 Corinthians 5), Paul indicates that not harm, but good, will come if separation is followed: the spirit of the one who was doing this thing (see v. 1) will be saved on the day of the Lord Jesus Christ. A gentleman from the church where I attended in North Carolina spoke in SS classes of people returning to the fellowship of the church at the point at which they were disciplined. The comments asked about differences in views on the Bible, polity, and membership. What is the church? Our views on the Bible are something that is very important, and this is something that perhaps should be addressed in a full way, and perahps addressed again if it was addressed in a previous generation.
-
Long ago, a Jewish mother of a lesbian said to me, "We would have a lot more time and money for the great needs of the world if it didn't take so much to take care of the people the Church wounds." How sad that injustice and pain inflicted by the Church still exists today!
Jesus didn't exclude people from his fellowship. The outcasts knew he loved them. But his inclusive love made the religious leaders angry.
-
Randy Spaulding is one of the most loving, spiritual, and godly people that I have ever met. At one point, I contemplated suicide, and through his council, I pulled back. I owe alot to this man, actually, my life. It pains me that he is criticized by people who judge him, mostly by people who don't even know him, based on who he loves, not on who love him. When Jesus called us to follow him, he got a peach when Randy answered the call. Anyone who criticizing him should be ashamed.
-
Thank you Daniel Hoopert for your comments on this article.
For those who would have us believe that Jesus would accept same-sex relationships, I believe Jesus indirectly addresses the 'covenanted same-sex relationship' issue in the following scripture: Matthew 19 4) And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5) And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6) Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
Can someone show me in the scripture that God can declare two people of the same sex that enter into a 'covenanted same-sex relationship' that they are no longer twain but now are one flesh as in a man and woman in Matthew 19?
-
If you believe that are all of us, every single one one, is made in God's image, then how can you possibly sit in judgement? God did not give you that right.
-
Dale, you make the same misapplication of scripture here that you have made many times in previous discussions. Once again, Jesus was not even remotely referring to gay marriage. The immediate, implied, and only context dealt with divorce.
-
Jim, before Jesus addresses the divorce question in Matthew 19, he reminds them what marriage consists of as is written in Genesis 2:24.
I chose to address only what constitutes Biblical marriage and not the divorce issue because I think we are all aware before a man and woman can be legally divorced, they must first be legally married.
Because the Old and New Testament clearly state what marriage is, we can clearly conclude what marriage is not. A good bank employee is skilled in knowing legal currency, therefore from that knowledge, they can determine what is counterfeit.
And now I repeat the question that you ignored in my first comments. "Can someone show me in the scripture that God can declare two people of the same sex that enter into a 'covenanted same-sex relationship' that they are no longer twain but now are one flesh as in a man and woman in Matthew 19"? And now I also add in Gen 2:24.
-
Dale, we have discussed your question and your interpretation of Matthew 17 before at length, and the discussions are available online. I see no percentage in rehashing the discussion yet again.
Celeste asks some tough questions that are worthy of discussion concerning risks of remaining together in disagreement, versus the risk of separation. Perhaps we should consider the definitions of "bigotry" and "offensive comment" as a starting point, because they are key to the discussion. To clarify, my usage of the word “bigotry” in my comment above was intended to imply intolerance and not hatred. I do not believe that the Southeast Conference leadership was motivated by anything other than what they thought would be best for the church community. Hate and spite had no role in the decision, although it was quite wrong. The decision is an example of bigotry because it discriminates against a person for a trait he was born with and cannot change.
Nevertheless, perhaps the concept of hatred ought to be analyzed also. As many past experiences have shown, even the best intentioned, loving decision can have hateful outcomes, particularly when it singles out a class of people for traits they cannot alter. Consider missionary efforts in the nineteenth century to separate Native American children from their families for a Godly upbringing and acculturation to European American society in boarding schools. The missionaries and school organizers acted in love and the hope of bringing hope, salvation and a better way of life to Native American children. However, this came at the cost of condemning and destroying family bonds and Native American culture.
The decision was to remove a pastor because of his sexual orientation, and his declared intention to no longer remain celibate. It came because of the perceived dangers that his continued leadership might present to the congregation and to the “unity” of the conference. On the surface, the decision dealt with leadership, but if such a person is banned from leadership, does he or she really have full membership in a church that embraces the priesthood of all believers? Therefore, is it reasonable that someone who is GLBT might find this decision hateful toward him or her? Is it then offensive for said person to express such feelings? I ask this because of forum guidelines, which state that “offensive comments or parts of comments will be removed by the site administrator.” If we then sensor a person’s comment because of its expression of genuine pain, are we closing yet another door to dialogue?
To conclude, I would suggest that we should make every effort to maintain unity despite differences in theology, membership, and polity. The long-term bitterness and hard feelings of separation detract after all from the primary mission of following Christ. However, a unity that discriminates against some and denies them full fellowship is no unity at all.
-
If the members of the Mennonite Church cannot change, nor are the leaders of the Church willing to call for hearts to change, then I think the Church itself will pass away into irrelevance in the next generation.
What percentage of the youth of a community passionate about peace and social justice does the MC really believe have intolerant or fearful views of homosexuality? What percent will be able to rationalize their acceptance and love with their Church's rejection?
I am 25 and already left the Church for this reason years ago. It was painful and I wanted to stay, but the lack of support for my friends and loved ones who are gay was devastating to my view of the Church as a place where love conquered all, and I had to look outside of my religion for answers that made sense. How many more will follow if this continues?
-
I believe Rob's questions may indeed be the most pertinent and practical. Are we even trying to hear our youth on this issue? How long can we remain at a static location, while this issue becomes ancient news to all but a handful?
-
In all the discussion about peace, justice, unity, acceptance, orientation, spirituality, etc. where is the word holiness? I encourage the leaders of the Southeast Conference for taking a stand. This has nothing to do with how good the man is, neither does it have to do with hate. It has to do with biblical authority and the plain words of Scripture.
The church will not slump into irrelevence because of failure to accomodate sin but rather for the failure to lift up the life-transforming power of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the power of the cross, and the authority of the Word of God. I'm deeply saddened by most of the comments of this forum. Unity was lost long ago.
-
Todd, it is simple. If an action is not peaceable; if it is not just; if it does not strive for unity; if it does not strive to accept others as God has accepted us; if it discriminates against and casts aside someone for an immutable trait such as sexual orientation; then how in the world can "holiness" enter the equation?
Now I am sure the status of "holiness" is a matter of debate, but there is nothing so divisive in dialogue as to label the other person "unholy." Paul wrote that all have fallen short of the glory of God, and thus none are holy. Jesus certainly recognized the evil in people around him, but He not consistently placed his strongest emphasis on the Good in people.
To Margaret and Rob. Keep the faith. Do not give up on the Church, but never allow the ink to dry on issues of inequality. Our highest emphasis as Mennonites is not on the Church as an institution, but on a community of faith in which all are believers and all have the authority and accountability of priesthood--hence adult baptism. Therefore, do not allow a conference to define "Christianity" or "Church" for you in a manner you know is wrong. Instead, seek to define these terms through your faith and your life, and in this way you have the power to work for change within the greater Church.
-
Thanks for engaging this conversation, Todd. My two cents: Unity based on biblical literalism and "rules" was lost long ago, leaving room for a better unity to develop, based on love and the priorities of Jesus. I believe this better unity is what will flourish in years to come.
-
"One thing you lack," Jesus said, "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." (Mark 10:26, also Matthew 19:21 and Luke 18:22)
If we will kick out a gay pastor who wants to have a covenanted sexual relationship because we believe in scriptural authority why do we not kick out all the pastors who haven't sold all their possessions and given to the poor?
Does scripture permit us morally to have wealth while so much of the world suffers in poverty?
Frankly, I suspect that the gay issue is all too often but a convenient way for unrepentant sinners to feel self-righteous by accusing others of sin. How many Mennonites live in the sins of materialism (not to mention the sins of creation mis-care, racism, complacency to violence, failure to love our neighbor as ourselves, etc) and still point the finger at gays (let's add failure to remove the log from their eye to the list of sins)? The gay issue is a fabricated moral issue in which it is super easy for a heterosexual to remain righteous. It is a tool for fooling ourselves into believing that we are moral because we are not gay. Ridiculous. Not just ridiculous but fundamentally wrong and violent towards those who are not heterosexual.
We must quit wasting time pointing fingers and start searching our own hearts.
If Jesus came to us in the flesh and examined our church, would he really pat us on the back and say, "good job, you successfully rooted out all the homosexuals; carry on!" ???
Enough of the b.s.! There are too many crushing moral issues at stake today. We know on the basis of simple, obvious observation that some people are heterosexual and some are homosexual (in addition to other possibilities). Using the notion of scriptural authority to accuse homosexuals in monogamous relationships of sin is silly and unGodly (first because scripture is not always right, second because scripture is often contradictary, and third because we rarely follow scripture on moral issues that are difficult for us personally anyway).
Let us struggle for shalom in our neighborhoods. Let us sacrifice for the sake of peace in our world. Let us go out and love the drug addicts and the prostitutes and the gang-bangers and the ex-convicts and the convicts and the foster children and the victims of domestic violence and the immigrants and the veterans and the pregnant teenagers and the single mothers; let us invite all those who are hurting in to a circle of healing and hope. Let us worship God purely and openly together in a way that truly allows the Holy Spirit to work in us, to stir in us, and to move us towards passionate discipleship. Let us challenge ourselves to trust God not money, to worship God not comfort, to love God not self.
Then, after all that, let's imagine Jesus coming down and saying, "well, you've done some good things, but I'm kind of perturbed that you didn't kick out all the homosexuals before you started passionately following me."
Please, please, please! Let's work on personal righteousness and discipleship before we start judging people's sexual orientations.
-
Why does the Mennonite Church have to change? The Amish went their own way when they disagreed with doctrine. Why not make another choice out there for ana baptists? The Spauldinites could be this century's version of the radicals. Turn the division this issue and other neo menno beliefs into a new outlet for those who want to remain ana baptist but need something different than The conservatism of Mennonites.
-
Dear Todd, you asked, "Where is the word holiness? And then said, "This has nothing to do with how good the man is." That is precisely the question. Do you know Mr. Spaulding? Can you judge whether or not he is holy?
When my congregation was disciplined because we accepted gay members, many things were said about us in public, implying that we were "unholy" by people who had never had a single interaction with any of our members. They had no idea how deep was our dedication had to follow Jesus both as a congregation and personally. I'd never claim to be holy myself, but I do aspire to be like Jesus and work every day to that end.
We have sharp differences about what the Bible says about homosexuality. Many Mennonites who ardently follow Jesus and believe in the Bible think the Bible says nothing about homosexuality as we understand it today.
To say that the Bible excludes marriage between two people of the same sex because it says a man and a woman shall become one flesh is a logical mistake. Just because one thing exists does not mean another doesn't. In fact, there is historical evidence of early Christian marriage sacraments between two men.
I grew up believing Jesus was the Author and Finisher of our faith. He lived in a culture surrounded by Romans who had same sex practices. He never said a word about it. He said we are to love our neighbor as ourselves and to love our enemies. Love is the ultimate test of holiness:
Matthew 22:34-40 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets depend on these two commandments."
How does our treatment of gays reflect this commandment?
-
Dear Readers: I see a confusion between the rule of law and the rule of Christ. In the rule of law individual rights are protected by the State (in a law abiding country). Under the rule of law, a person’s choice to exercise his/her rights and/or practices, if law abiding, is to be protected and the person guaranteed inclusion in society. Also, in this realm, what is moral is defined by the law. Homosexuality could be morally right if approved by the law. Ideally, the State is to protect every citizen as stated constitutionally (written or unwritten). In the State, citizens are continuously engaged in making and revising laws. Under the rule of Christ, a person’s inclusion in the Church depends on faithfulness to Christ’s revelation… Love God with all your strength, with all of your soul and with all of your heart (including God's law). Here is where Jesus was in disagreement with the Pharisees and other religious groups who departed from him since they had a different view. A Christian strives to be faithful to God's Law revealed by Christ and willingly lays down his/her life for Christ’s sake (including sexuality). In this realm, tradition is strong. Change is difficult and complex. As opposed to the State, morality is clearly defined and important in the Church. For a self defined Christian like me, the tools for change are the Bible and tradition; I differentiate these from the tools of the State (law making) as a catalyst in the Church.
-
A denomination votes and sets forth its articles of faith so that it will be clear to all that "This Is What We Believe". This is where we choose to "stand firm". For those who find themselves in disagreement, would it not be preferable, for their peace and the good of the Body, for them to quietly withdraw and join a group that believes as they do? For a faction of people to try to force an agenda that is contrary to the belief and conscience of the majority is divisive and painful, totally contrary to the admonitions of Scripture to "make every effort to live in peace with all men".
-
To Roy: I assure you, there is no confusion between the rule of law and the rule of Christ. Homosexuality, however, is no more a matter of morality than a person's race. Lest we forget "God's Law" was also falsely used in the past to uphold racism.
God's law is much less about legality than it is about faith. Christ's harshest statements were consistently against those who excluded people form the Kingdom of God through excessive legalism.To Joan: First, popular vote is neither a clear indicator of morality nor of what is best for a denomination as you imply in your comment. Second, GLBT Mennonites have long been excluded from fellowship in one way or another. GLBT Mennonites and those of us who support them have no agenda other than to be accepted in the Mennonite church just as Christ has accepted them and us, just as we are. In short, we are Mennonites, we are here to stay. Expect no one to "quietly withdraw."
-
To Joan, Roy, Daniel and Todd, I appreciate your thoughtful comments on this issue.
Jim states "Homosexuality is no more a matter of morality than a person's race". Really? Whom should we believe, Jim or God as in the following verses from the Old and New Testament?
Leviticus 18:22 Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. (Jesus did not reverse this command).
Romans 1:26 & 27 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
I Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders. Perhaps Jim could give his interpretation of these verses.
I realize there are religious people who believe scripture is not always right (reliable), or that scripture is often contradictary and that we rarely follow scripture on moral issues that are difficult. To me, these verses indicate clearly that God labels this lifestyle as sinful behavior. Further, these verses do not conflict with the theology of Jesus, because Jesus was God in the flesh.
My request remains open for anyone to provide scriptural evidence that individuals in a same sex 'marriage relationship' are no longer considered two but rather as one flesh in the sight of God who ordained marriage as between a man and a woman.
Does the fact that Jesus never spoke to the unrepentant thief on the cross mean that he did not love him as Jeanne would suggest from her comments? How did Jesus' silent treatment of this dying thief reflect the commandment of love in Matt 22?
-
Good grief, A. Welty, Jesus did not reverse a whole bunch of stuff in the Old Testament! What about slavery? Should we still have slaves since its not prohibited? What about interracial marriage? Should we only marry our EXACT skin tone? These are issues we have learned about in modern day with education..and education has fortunately ended a lot of hate and prevented many deaths.
-
I have a hunch that a lot of this fervor over homosexuality will dissipate as the younger generations are more involved in church leadership. I went to a Mennonite college as a person skewed against homosexuality--I graduated as a changed woman. I was not beaten over the head by pro-LGBT groups or faculty (those that were pro-LGBT on campus had to be underground at the time, anyway)--I merely observed and saw how wrong that assertion had been.
I had grown up in a community that had only shown me how "evil" homosexuals were. Being a child, I accepted their edicts. Once I could see how life was in other places and met and became friends with these "evil" individuals, I shed those negative beliefs.
When I was a student, the issue was the hot topic on campus, but it doesn't seem to be anymore. Why? Because this generation of students has accepted it just like generations post-Brown vs. Board of Education do not question equality in education and beyond.
-
Jim and Debra: Racism/slavery is a great example of confusion between Church and State. Slavery became moral and a law in society out of public support for this institution. The church was able to restore Christ’s view of fullness of life by asserting the immorality of this practice. Many martyrs and prophets –secular and divine- suffered to convince the Church and the public of the need to abandon the State’s view. These days most people in the Church and in society recognize, at least in public, the immorality of slavery/racism. Legalism is different from the rule of law. My comments are not concerned with “isms.” They have to do with the tendency to bring to the Church whatever may be a State’s practice.
From the perspective of the Law, Southeast Conference made a monumental mistake -since the State confers protection to any people regardless of sexual preference; the Church needs to do the same. In this realm the “offended” does not “walk away quietly” there is a political process: public relations campaign, lobbyists, due process, failure or victory and implementation. From the perspective of the Church, the SEC has made an Anabaptist/Christ’s based decision with Ralph walking away from the Church's stated position. The Church is a group of people that strives to be faithful to Christ even if no votes are given and the State has a different perspective. -
I must admit that I have little patience for a line of argument such as Roy’s that seems to deny the good faith of the opposing side. In portraying our stance as manifestation of an artificial “state” ethic, this is precisely what he does, but let us address it. Roy’s argument about the alleged confusion between Church and State would be convincing were it not devoid of historical accuracy. We wind up with an idealized version of the “church” that never existed, a version where the “church” was never hesitant to fight the wrongs of society. One assumes a “church” where the concept of right and wrong has never changed. Finally, we wind up with a society that church and faith played no role in shaping. Neither these images of church nor of society are accurate. (As a side note, perhaps we should avoid using the term “Anabaptist” as a synonym for “Christ-like.” There were many “Anabaptists” who were far from Christ-like. Münster comes to mind, as does the peasants’ rebellion, both of which saw heavy Anabaptist involvement.)
In fact, the “church” has not only failed from time to time to confront societal ills; it has been complicit in the perpetuating them through scripture. The “church” at one time supported antisemitism, racism, sexism, and slavery, for example. As obviously out of line with Christ’s calling as these stances are now, at the time they were anything but. Each instance took a dissenting group of Christians who could no longer reconcile their faith in Christ with these ills, and who were willing to work against the flow to bring a sometimes unwilling church into line with its calling.
Is it then possible that some members of the church believe that the Mennonite Church’s current stance toward our GLBT coreligionists, though derived from good faith, and of which the SEC’s decision is only part, will someday be recognized as akin to the church’s support of racism or sexism?
If the “Church” is a group of people that strives to be faithful to Christ, and if Christ indeed accepts people for who they are and is harshest against those who would exclude others from salvation, as countless examples of His words and deeds in scripture would suggest, then would it follow that some would see exclusion of GLBT Mennonites for their orientation falls short of this calling?
-
Jim: I agree, impatience is a bad advisor on important matters. My comments are more a social analysis than arguments that should be presented in a court of law. I wanted to offer a perspective that a person, and a movement, could use to situate him/herself critically on either side of the conversation. Yes, I present the Church not as an institution but as what I described: people striving to attain fullness (Phil 3:12). Yes, Thomas Munster was Anabaptist. Yes, there is historical evidence to consider. Yes, the words of Christ shall endure forever. Also, the Church is not able to determine who will be saved we just want to offer a faithful interpretation of Christ that may work out salvation and no, I don’t walk on water (yet). Nations and groups of people have used the church, the Bible and any means to carry out their not so good designs. Woodrow Wilson introduced the doctrine of “ethnic nationalism” where ethnic groups have the right to get a home (excluding others). Wars, annihilation and profound injustice have been the results of such a doctrine. In my analysis, those who sponsor homosexuality within the Church are using political action and civil religion as a means to change the Church. I don’t see a lack of good faith but confusion is possible.
Please share your perspective on the following statements…Christ heals, Christ calls to lay down one’s life, Christ is a source of division, and Christ is Lord. Your response would enrich the conversation. -
Why are we so resistant to education that may disprove what was otherwise believed to be true in the Bible? Does it maky us disloyal to God? We don't need to stone women to death anymore for doing the same things men do. We don't need to murder the mentally ill citizen anymore to get rid of their demon-possessed spirits. We don't need to enslave and hang people anymore because they have dark skin. I can go on and on. So, when will we not need to discriminate against a person because they were born with a sexual orientation they did not cause and cannot change? Its OK to use our brain! God created it, too!
-
Roy: I could accept the definition of the church as an assembly of believers faithfully trying to faithfully represent the teachings of Christ. However, since the interpretation has changed from generation to generation, the notion of one mythical and infallible "Church" is bunk. God is infallible, but we humans and our institutions are far from it.
From there, we are talking about methodology and technique in working to bring the church better into line with Christ's teachings. Moreover, Christianity is so a part of the fabric of western civilization that the influences of the two are inseparable. I am afraid I simply do not see the bright division you seem to between techniques of church and techniques of society in bringing about change.
Homosexuality is not a sin. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that sexual orientation is not a matter of choice. I am certainly not convinced that homosexuality ought to give cause for the church to declare someone unfit for membership and thus by extension unfit for the Kingdom of Heaven. This is primarily because I am not convinced that this would be God's stance in the matter.
Yes I am aware of what Paul writes, but I cannot take Paul's statements on the matter without a grain of salt. To be sure, Paul wrote from divine inspiration and sought the best interests of the fledgling church, which was fraught with petty conflict. However, he also wrote as a man of his time and culture. Ergo, while one would today embrace the idea that our one foundation ought to be Christ and that we ought to handle our differences in a manner that preserves our community of faith; we no longer find slavery an acceptable institution; we no longer seek celibate church leadership; and for the most part we no longer believe women incapable of providing church leadership.
As for the statements:
CHRIST HEALS Indeed. Christ spent a great deal of his time among the dregs of society, working to make them whole. Some were sick with leprosy, some were blind, some were lame. He brought forth the message that the humble, the oppressed, the poor, the least have the Kingdom of God in store for them.
CHRIST IS A SOURCE OF DIVISION Christ also brought forth the message that those who feel secure in their own achievement--the wealthy, the legal experts, the scribes, the pharisees--are far from secure in the Kingdom of Heaven. Roy, you may feel I am referring to another "ism" when I say "legalism," but I am not sure what other word to use to describe the scribes and pharisees. They condemned Jesus' performing miracles on the Sabbath, his spending time among the dregs of society, and his declaration that the Kingdom of Heaven belonged to those who the scribes and pharisees had all but excluded as possible.
CHRIST CALLS TO LAY DOWN ONE'S LIFE Also true. Christ calls one to lay down one's life, one's reputation, one's comfort and one's property to see right and justice prevail. Christ angered enough people through his ministry to the least of society that they called for his death. A similar fate often seems to await people who refuse to accept established hierarchies and ideals. Early Christian martyrs, early Anabaptist, Protestant, and Catholic martyrs all come to mind, as do some more recent examples such as Dietrich Bahnhofer and Martin Luther King, JR. (I know there are many who would point out Ghandi, Malcolm X, Yitzhak Rabin, and others were also martyrs who expressed similar ideals, but for the purposes of this discussion, I am limiting my examples strictly to Christian ones.) Consider also those few Belgians, Danes, Dutchmen, French men, Germans, Hungarians, Italians, Poles, and others who put everything on the line to protect Jews from the Holocaust because persecution and murder of other human beings was irreconcilable with their faith.
CHRIST IS LORD Yes. Christ came as the perfect example of how a Godly person ought to live. This is something humans have consistently proved incapable of. He was put to death for it, rose, and will return.
-
This is what I am sending to Marco Guete:
The six (some say seven) biblical texts that mention "homosexuality," "pedophilia," "rape, the hint at "lesbianism" do not mention covenant same-gender relationships. The Scriptures--our guide for faith and life--are silent regarding covenanted same-sex commitments. No biblical text addresses the promises that a same-gender couple makes.
Thus it is the responsibility--and great privilege--for the beloved community, the Body of Christ, to discern a Christlike response to covenant relationships within the gathered community.
Let us re-commit ourselves to responding to our brothers and sisters in a manner consistent with the life and teaching of Jesus Christ.
-
I am so sad for the Mennonite Church!
-
I have read the news regarding Randy and the position of the council to sanction him and remove him from his pastorate. Scripture is that only source that can be used to guide any Christian's way of life and set the course for any local church. Scripture also speaks volumes as to church polity. Church polity was alway biblicaly defined as plurality of elders who were scripturaly qualified to hold that office. Paul took the gospel to the gentiles and wrote vast portions of the new testament to give direction and guidance so there would be unity in the bonds of love. Instead of humbling ourselves in the sight of the Lord it appears that many have gone astray and are doing everything that appears right in their own eyes. I know they are sincere but I believe they are sincerely wrong. What is their agenda. Their agenda can only be that they seem to be living by their feelings instead of by every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord. (Satan always says "God didn't really mean that did he?) Man's original sin and curse is that he did eat from the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil. Now man makes a decision to start deciding what was good and evil in his own eyes. I can therefore now make statements like "I don't believe this or that." The result of this is the death of Christian orthodoxy. Where does it stop? Randy's errogance (boldness) in attempting to live in a homosexual lifestyle (relationship)including divorcing his wife, and continue to stand in a pulpit is anathema. To lead people astray in this manner theologically is desecrating the flock of Christ and scripture tells us that God will hold him accountable for this. I call for Randy's repentance hoping that he may be restored in his walk of faith. How can sin feel so good and be so wrong the world asks? Can someone please help me understand this? I love my children as God loves us but I do spank them and God will spank us hoping to bring us to Godly repentance.
-
Kevin, thank you for your excellent comments. It was awhile in coming but it was well worth the wait. Letters like yours and others are an encouragement to others in church leadership to accept the clear teaching of Scripture on this subject.
I was not aware Randy had divorced his wife and then entered into the same sex relationship. The divorce of his wife should have disqualified him from any ministeral responsibilities.
Comment on the article Southeast Conference takes away pastor’s credentials
The purpose of comments is to engage in dialogue. We expect commenters to treat authors and each other as each would want to be treated. Respectful criticism is welcomed; offensive comments or parts of comments will be removed by the site administrator. Name and comment will be posted; email address is for follow-up only and will not be made public.
Download
Download a free PDF showing the populations of
Mennonite groups and other Anabaptists.
