In other circumstances I think I might use the word ‘congregationalism’ but I don’t think the term is strong enough in expressing opposition to ordained leadership. The Anabaptist Tradition has a potent memory of multi-voiced community. In my view ordination disfigures this by creating a two-tier church. Now that the Christendom ice cap is breaking up we have an unprecedented opportunity to question and challenge assumptions and practices that have been locked into the Constantinian permafrost for centuries. Anti-clericalism is a stern concept but I believe it’s a key Post-Christendom discipline.

Glad to hear you found this conversation useful. Your use of the term anti-clericalism is new to me, but I can understand where you’re coming from. Mennonites in the US aren’t seriously examining the drawbacks our embrace of institutional (and clerical?) culture carries with it.

I like your image of drawing an Anabaptist line in the Mennonite sand.

As a paid pastor, I’m surely guilty of distorting that understanding and often simply being an employee. But it’s still a helpful place to start from. I’d tend to see the paid positions at a denominational level, or even overseas missionaries, in the same light…..at least I hope that’s the perspective that I try to keep.

Equally obviously, a church that stifles dissent and punishes minority views can quickly drive out the fresh breath of the Holy Spirit.

Its a bit of a conundrum, but I think the core challenge is that people are making money working for the church. Mennonite Mission Network Board agreed that MMN would serve as the fund raising arm for the capital campaign for Mennonite Church USA executive board. These decisions were made by people who are not getting paid, and putatively represent Mennonite Church USA as a whole (the delegate body did approve the building campaign). These decision makers are free to air their dissent. I’m curious as to how we (as a church) think about the proper role of those we pay to serve us and to serve God.

Thanks for your comments. I’m glad my clarification was helpful and that we can agree on the need for openness.

You ask:

What was being defined as the ‘public’ in these situations? Are we talking about dissent among the MCUSA constituency or are we talking about going to the New York Times (or other media)?

I can’t speak precisely to how they meant to define public, but they used it a way that seemed to include our meeting under their definition of “public”. So that suggests they define public dissent as disagreement with the institutional position expressed in any meetings or gatherings that people who are not staff members of MMN. I’m sure they would include internet or paper publishing in that category as well.

Tim - Good posting. I’m with you on these concerns. I think you’re right that you and I were talking about two different things, both with the name professionalism. I would agree with you wholeheartedly that the process needs to remain open and that dissent should be taken seriously and openly.

I have a question for clarification. You said:

During my meeting with Mennonite Mission Network staff that I referred to in the first article, two staff involved with the capital campaign defined professionalism as prohibiting them from publicly dissenting from their institutions public position. As they saw it, their only public option for public dissent was to resign from their organization.

What was being defined as the ‘public’ in these situations? Are we talking about dissent among the MCUSA constituency or are we talking about going to the New York Times (or other media)?

Here’s where I’m coming from with that question. It seems like one thing if a disgruntled employee (and I have no real knowledge of the situation here) is simply wanting to make their organization look bad, especially for people from the outside looking into the Mennonite Church. It’s another thing if that employee is raising concern and real issues to the people who ultimately support and sanction the existence of MMN or MCUSA, or any other organization.

Any church organization exists to build up the church, not to see the church as a threat to the organizations continued existence.

To play the other side of that card, I also understand that in no organization will everyone be completely happy with every decision that’s made and, sometimes, you have to move ahead anyway. That doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be ample time for concerns to be addressed. Openness should be the rule not the exception. Nevertheless, someone will always be unhappy.

Overall, I think I’m with you on the concerns for openness. At least as a general principle.

-alan stucky

good topic BTW