A Congregant and Her Pastor Dialogue About Pathways

By Brenda Shelly and Jeff Wright

Subject: A question 

I guess I don’t have a clear understanding of what denominational membership “does” for a conference or a church. Other than the feeling of belonging to something larger (which makes me a little nostalgic and wistful when I recall the many impactful weeks I spent at conventions shepherding teens as a sponsor or being part of an uncomfortable table of strangers in delegate sessions who somehow become sweet friends by the end of the third day of forced conversation).  

Can you define for me exactly what would change if Mosaic became a partner with MC USA rather than a member? What is lost? What is gained?  

I feel like I understand the third way approach. How could we do anything else in this situation without amputating limbs from this body we call the church? If only all our anatomical parts would agree which direction to walk, right?  

-Brenda Shelly (Blooming Glen [PA] Mennonite)  

Subject: Re: A question

Brenda: 

I appreciate being asked this question, and particularly appreciate how it has been asked.  You have a wonderful spirit, getting to tough issues with tender care. Thanks. 

I was a participant in the efforts to bring the Mennonite Church and the General Conference Mennonite Church (which had a strong Canadian contingent and numerically bigger and more spread-out U.S. contingent) together into a binational merger. In the early days (1989-1997), we wanted three church bodies to become one. Unfortunately, Revenue Canada and by their own admission, the Canadian Mennonite leadership in Winnipeg, did not agree with that vision, and so by 1999 the three bodies began to become two national churches. “Amputation” was part of the organizational solution when merger took place in 2001. Even then, there were those of us serving on General Boards who found the language of “realignment” more descriptive and meaningful than “integration” or “merger.”   

Amid this realignment as national churches, there also began almost immediately realignment of local congregations from one conference to another. Churches withdrew from Ohio Conference and Indiana-Michigan Conference to join Central District Conference. The Iowa-Nebraska Conference and the Northern District Conference realigned as Central Plains Conference. The churches on the West Coast in three conferences had already merged into two conferences in 1994. Churches in various smaller conferences in the deep south, the Great Lakes, Maryland, and New York realigned with what we then knew as Lancaster Mennonite Conference (which was as early as 1971 ambivalent about connecting with other Mennonites in a denominational system). The Puerto Rican Mennonite Conference ultimately decided not to participate in this realignment as a part of the MC USA system. Other churches, in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Oklahoma, Missouri, and Florida joined more “conservative” Mennonite Conference or became independent. So, the realignment process was always a bit shaky, as congregations in both the former GCMC system and the former MC system struggled to navigate a new denomination that was chronically underfunded from day one. 

On your question of purpose, I would say that MC USA has been unable to provide the value of large conventions for over a decade. Issues of cost, demographics, and purpose for denominational conventions have been in flux for several convention cycles. What I think a denominational body can do today is pool limited resources for efforts that require a larger, deeper scope of work. Hymnals, curriculum, commentaries, missionaries, primary, secondary, and higher education, and other projects are examples of that which require collaboration and pooled investment.  

As for the question of change, I would begin by saying exactitude isn’t as possible as one might hope. One thing that is lost is Mosaic Conference’s place at the MC USA decision-making table. One thing that is likely gained is the capacity and the mandate to cultivate a global community of local congregations and ministries with a different freedom to respond to diverse contexts relationally and effectively. Where this might take us is not yet fully known, but the current status quo is not effective for enhancing a global community of local congregations and ministries. 

Personally, I think the church press is focused on compromise and human sexuality – as if these issues are somehow new. In the 2019 merger of Eastern District and Franconia, which gave birth to Mosaic, we knew the question of affiliation would need to be addressed – but then COVID hit. While LGBTQIA+ inclusion is an issue, it is not the singular driver of this conversation.  

I don’t believe that Mosaic is seeking to create more schism and division. It is useful for me to remember that the New Testament has various metaphors for the church; the body image is one of several. In the case of Mosaic, I think we are seeking to be a more grown-up part of the household of faith, able and willing to respond to things unique to our experience. 

I look to Mennonite Central Committee (MCC) or Everence as future models of Mosaic Mennonite Conference and its potential relationship to MC USA. There are significant differences within MCC’s constituency about women in ministry, divorce, LGBTQIA+ inclusion, the scope of the peace witness, and more. Yet somehow, MCC finds ways for disparate groups of Mennonites to do relief, development, and peacebuilding in the name of Christ. I can foresee Mosaic Conference working with MC USA…and LMC, Brethren in Christ, and the even the Mennonite Brethren and plain Mennonite communities to do good in the world, collaborating with agencies like MennoMedia, Mennonite Mission Network, Eastern Mennonite Mission, Virginia Mennonite Mission…and Mennonite World Conference (maybe especially MWC). 

What is being proposed, in my opinion, is not a severing of relationships, but a continued adaptation and realignment. Speaking personally, I think MC USA will find itself returning to a more General Conference Mennonite Church polity point: dual membership. If I can be forgiven some prognostication, I think MC USA will ultimately be membered by local congregations, not area conferences. Local congregations may (or may not) be members of MC USA, and by separate action may (or may not) be members of a specific conference. Being a member of one might provide an access point to collaboration, but not necessarily to specific assemblies of decision-makers. 

I hope I haven’t wandered in the tall weeds too much. My reply comes to you as a pastor and in no way seeks to speak for Mosaic Conference. As it might be said: “The opinions expressed in this email are the opinions of the author alone, and does not represent Mosaic Conference, MC USA, or Blooming Glen Mennonite in any official capacity, and are subject to change without notice.” 

Thanks again, Brenda, for asking.

-Jeff Wright