What do you think would happen in Lancaster Mennonite Conference if the thing in contention, “ordination” was temporarily and voluntarily laid down by the 2/3 of the men who voted to include women?

Fascinating challenge, Curt. I think there’s a seed of some creative action with real transformative potential there. Have you considered proposing this idea in a more visible venue where some Lancaster conference pastors might read it?

But I want to test another perspective with Katie and her readers here… When I get honest about this “love your enemy” stuff I have to remember the anger that I feel and the “caricature” I make up of the “men” who filled out their ballet with a no vote in Lancaster Conference fully convinced that the Bible tells them that in order to be faithful they needed to vote that way. I can psychoanalyze this caricature of a man and pass all kinds of judgments about him, judgments which I would find hurtful if someone did the same to me. I can dismiss his intellect and think of him only has dangerous and destructive to the community I love…At the honest bottom of things I think of him as enemy!

So here is a new thought. What if Lancaster Conference, of which basically 2/3 wants to express the same inclusion of gifts from men and women, has quietly been doing some rather difficult peacemaking work in recent history? I mean these people have actually been committed to working with and being in process with their enemies in a way that most of the rest of us wouldn’t dream of doing. I put this out there simply because I often see Lancaster Conference lumped together as one big thing but from the results of the vote, it clearly is not!

One more question. What do you think would happen in Lancaster Mennonite Conference if the thing in contention, “ordination” was temporarily and voluntarily laid down by the 2/3 of the men who voted to include women? A case could be made that the Biblical interpretation that produces the NO vote in Lancaster Conference also is being used to define what ordination means. If I was ordained in such a culture I would want to revisit what ordination means before deciding that it was something that could be used to define my role and calling.

Yes, we have reason to be angry. The Mennonite church is not a place where all are welcome–yet. So, the choice is–take your marble and go home (the the UCC church maybe? My congregation talked about it for a minute…), or stay and be that annoying voice of reason.

Being a church that accepts all of God’s people, my church makes other pastors and churches very uncomfortable. I was just at a pastor’s luncheon the other day, where the WASA (White Anglo Saxon Anabaptist!) ministers asked me several times, “How are you in Germantown?” in that worried, concerned-looking way. I was happy to report to them that our “out there” congregation is growing and that the spirit is moving with us. Our church is full of young people and babies. So there, pastors!

Whatever choice y’all make, it impacts the future of the Mennonite church. Leaving sends a message, and so does staying, and being that annoying, persistant voice, working to change the Mennonite church, returning it to a true peace church.

But to bring it back to GLBT issues (as you started to), put this together:

The denominational guidelines — adopted in 1996 by MC USA’s predecessors, the Mennonite Church and General Conference Mennonite Church — also state that “cultural/ethnic origin, race, class and gender are not criteria for determining who is acceptable for ordination.”

From Mennonite Weekly Review

I remember a time that some other congregations attempted to set their own guidelines, different from those of broader church. Those congregation were allowing GLBT members, and the church responded with harsh punitive measures. This time they whimper and take no action? those who are really concerned go as far as to have pained dialogs?

where is the fiery wrath from on high this time? no need for anger, this time we have to remember that “equally sincere and faithful people understand Scripture differently.”

I’m sorry, did I miss something? This is disgusting.

Sure, I love community and consensus, moving forward in unity, but when is it just too damn big? When is the range of beliefs too broad to call it a church under one name? The Mennonite church split apart from Catholicism and then again from the other protestants over what main issue? infant baptism. Why do we suddenly now feel like unity is more important than anything else? Now we can watch the church exclude one group after another - years behind secular culture - and remain members ourselves for the sake of unity?

Unity with who? Why? If we’re serious about that, why not just rejoin all the Christian churches of the world under one umbrella? Why not? Or even all the faiths of the world. Which beliefs are important enough for us to split over? baptism, sola scriptura, mustaches and buttons but not gender equality? Not GLBT equality?

Shame on the entire Mennonite Church.

And the thing is . . . I know of at least one church where a bunch of the people supporting this decision are young folks. So this vote doesn’t make the church irrelevant for them; it might make them happier with the church.

I’m not agreeing with the vote. And I’m not disagreeing with this post. At all. I just feel burdened by all these complications.