A Shared[?] Understanding of Church Leadership

Ervin Stutzman is executive director of Mennonite Church USAErvin Stutzman is the Executive Director of Mennonite Church USA. 

Last month, I wrote about a new polity statement of particular interest to church leaders, A Shared Understanding of Church Leadership: Polity Manual for Mennonite Church Canada and Mennonite Church USA. It is intended to replace the current guidelines, A Mennonite Polity for Ministerial Leadership: A Statement by the Joint Committee on Ministerial Leadership, adopted in 1996. Both the old and new polities address some of the questions that congregations ask, particularly at times of leadership change: How do we go about calling church leaders? Are our models of leadership consistent with Anabaptist Mennonite belief and practice? What is the relationship of ministerial leaders to congregations, area conferences, and denominations? How do we respond to pastoral misconduct?

The ministerial polity is held jointly with Mennonite Church Canada, who has already adopted this new statement. The Executive Board have yet to decide if and how the document will be approved in Mennonite Church USA. Normally, a change of ministerial polity wouldn’t draw much attention, particularly after the statement was so carefully vetted by area conference ministers, pastors, scholars and other church leaders. The statement we’ve been using was approved in 1996 by the leadership boards of the General Conference Mennonite Church and the Mennonite Church, and then adopted a few years later by the newly configured denominations, Mennonite Church Canada and Mennonite Church USA.

The adoption of the updated polity is freighted with some controversy, primarily because it contains a short section on human sexuality, added at the request of area conference ministers in the United States in 2011. They recommended that the ministerial polity restate a sentence that is currently in our denominational Membership Guidelines, because it has to do with ministerial leadership polity, not membership per se. It says: “Pastors holding credentials in a conference of Mennonite Church USA may not perform a same-sex covenant ceremony. Such action would be grounds for review of their credentials by their area conference’s ministerial-credentialing body.”

This short section on sexuality is the only part of this polity document that differs between the U.S. and Canada. The part written by Canadians refers to the process of discernment they call Being a Faithful Church.

Members of the Constituency Leaders Council (CLC) who met in early October were unsure whether or not the sentence from the Membership Guidelines should be included. Some felt that it would become a flashpoint of controversy that could stall approval of the entire document.

The CLC was also divided in its counsel regarding the level of approval that was needed for this document. Some thought it should have approval of Mennonite Church USA delegates at the biennial meeting. Others felt that delegates should have an opportunity to give feedback without voting. Others thought that the CLC could simply approve the statement without further discussion. Still others thought the Executive Board could approve it. So, up to this point, the new polity statement does not represent a fully shared understanding of church leadership when it comes to same-sex marriage (thus the question mark in the title of this column).

The differences in the CLC largely reflect the variety of leadership practices within the 21 area conferences across our church who currently hold the credentials for their leaders. They do not all agree on what it means to be recognized as a minister across Mennonite Church USA, not just within the confines of a local church or area conference. Many believe that while area conferences have authority to grant leadership credentials, they must do so in keeping with the written agreements made on the national level. In the current environment, that will affect the credentialing policies for persons who perform same-sex unions, or who are part of such a union. Others believe that area conferences should have freedom to interpret national polities as guidelines, not rules that govern practices regarding same-sex unions.

The feelings that accompany these differences of opinion are so strong that this matter will not easily be resolved. Most likely, the delegates at Kansas City in 2015 will speak to this question in one way or another.

Therefore, this column is a call to prayer and respect for each other, not only for the resolution of the matter at hand, but that we may all be prepared to seek God’s voice for the future of our church, and find a way forward in which we can all share ownership.

Official comments policy for users of Mennonite Church USA’s websites and other social networking tools. We reserve the right to remove any comment that violates this policy.

  • The purpose of comments is to engage in constructive dialogue.
  • Please provide your own full name.
  • Be respectful. If you’re offering criticism, focus on others’ ideas — not their motives, person, character or faith. Consider the log in your own eye before pressing ‘Enter.’

Comments are moderated. Comments with any content that is deemed obscene, libelous, defamatory or hateful toward an individual or group will not be approved. Comments will remain open for 10 days.

5 thoughts on “A Shared[?] Understanding of Church Leadership

  1. I read this article, and think that if that sentence is removed that it will be the death of the Mennonite Church across the board. The Virginia Conference of Mennonite Church is very conservative and may will withdraw from th Mennonite Church USA.

  2. The sentence should not be included. Why would the church endorse hatred? Justice and love should trump all.

  3. I just read Gary Cummings comment. I am a member of the Faith and Life Commission of the Virginia Mennonite Conference and have not heard of any thought of withdrawing from the Mennonite Church USA. In fact the leadership is very committed to MCUSA. Ervin Stutzman is of course a member of our Conference and he knows the talk or lack of talk better than I do. Maybe I am not one to respond to this.

  4. Ervin:
    To me you have clearly articulated the environment in which we find ourselves as a church. Your openness in relating the divisions within CLC provides a picture, a description of being honest and forthright with the church. It also indicates very clearly the status the significance that homosexuality plays in our church. It has polarized the church and for that I cry. I pray that God through his spirit will bring the spirit of God upon you, leaders of the church, and upon all of us. I also pray a special blessing of wisdom for you, Ervin; the executive board, and CLC members as you prepare for Kansas City.
    Bob Gerber

  5. Could I suggest that the description of the differences between viewpoints on the CLC be clarified by removing the bias it currently expresses? I expect BOTH viewpoints would like to be described as “in keeping with written agreements made on the national level.” Is not the difference between the viewpoints that one wishes those national level agreements to be seen as rules to be enforced by some “higher” authority while the other wishes those national level agreements to be understood as guidelines each area conference will consider carefully as they exercise their authority to offer or rescind credentials?

Comments are closed.