This morning's Delegate Assembly introduced the "statement for discussion" that was added to the agenda just before the conference. The statement was originally submitted as a resolution for the Assembly to vote on, but the leadership decided that an outright vote would be too divisive. This is perhaps obvious given the key passage:

Therefore, we call upon the leaders of Mennonite Church USA to discourage, and member conferences to end, the practice of disciplining or expelling congregations based on differing interpretations of the Confession of Faith in a Mennonite Perspective.

The question is, essentially, should area conferences have the ability to expel whole congregations when their members act or teach a stance that opposes the broader conference's understanding of the COF?

We opened the discussion with presentations for and against the statement, then had discussion at our tables. The argument for the resolution essentially was that (1) the COF was never intended as a prescriptive, binding creed, but as a description of shared Mennonite faith, (2) that disciplining whole congregations at the conference level (rather than individuals at the congregational level) creates "collateral damage", effectively disciplining people for going to church in a particular group, and (3) that expelling congregations at variance with the COF cuts off dialog, and is inconsistent with MCUSA's principles of Agreeing and Disagreeing in Love [PDF]. The argument against held that (1) it is entirely appropriate to use the COF as a guide to our shared Mennonite identity, and (2) that the power to expel congregations is both necessary to maintain that identity and duly granted to area conferences by MCUSA's bylaws [PDF].

Our table discussion failed to come to any conclusion (as might be expected), but the sense of the table I got is that we were torn between the need to somehow maintain Mennonite identity by disciplining around our shared beliefs, and our discomfort at the inherent ugliness and un-peacefulness of congregational expulsion. Broader-level discussion at an open-microphone time that followed showed that this was a pretty widespread tension.

Personally, I think the statement is a good thing, and should be considered for real action. My feeling, which I expressed in the table discussion, is that expulsion is a kind of weapon, and, like all weapons, people want to hang onto it primarily out of fear and distrust. And when I think about situations in which I might want a congregation to be expelled, I sense that my thinking is colored by fear. Letting go of weapons takes courage, in this case the courage to say, "I disagree with you, but the differences between our beliefs are not a threat to my faith." I think that ending the practice of expelling congregations would be a deeply courageous demonstration of peaceful living within the church.

Labels: church, San Jose 2007