(Editor's note: some names have been substituted for confidentiality)
Robert Michael Weaver's senior seminar paper for Bethel College, 3/29/07 :
Mennonite communities in Kansas, no matter how conservative, strict, or separate they have tried to remain from the permissive and indulgent American society, have had to address homosexuality.1 A controversy over homosexuality can rip a Mennonite community apart after years of unspoken and unquestionable condemnation of homosexual acts. For example, an intense controversy arose in the 1980s in Lawrence, Kansas when the pastor at the time, John Linscheid, came out. After intense dialogue within the congregation, it split and imploded.2 At Alexanderwohl Mennonite Church, "Jane Doe", whose soprano voice had been a gift to the choir, was driven out in November of 2004 after it was found out she had had a commitment ceremony with her partner "Joan" at Metropolitan Community Church in Wichita.3 In Pretty Prairie, Kansas, "John Doe", a married father of two, was forced out of the closet and driven from the tight-knit community he had lived in all his life. Throughout the last fifty years, homosexuality has been the toughest controversy to deal with across Kansas. So much so that in 2003 Western District Conference delegates, the General Conference district which includes the area of Kansas, fearing that the issue was ripping the church apart, decided to cease debate or the offering of new resolutions on homosexuality. Kansas Mennonites across the political spectrum have conceded that this was a necessary move.4
Preface
I seek to understand how and why Mennonite urban professionals have justified and articulated a theology of acceptance toward homosexuals.5 I also desire to discover if they have formulated this theology in a way that would allow them to persuade Mennonites who hold the traditional view of homosexuality as deviance or sin toward a more accepting position. Studying Mennonite writings and personal reflections, with a special emphasis on Kansas urban Mennonites, during the period of 1968-1999, one can find that progressive Mennonites articulated a well-developed theology justifying acceptance of homosexuals, but this theology is far from being broadly accepted in Mennonite communities. I also studied key differences between the two sides of the homosexuality debate among Mennonites in Kansas. Some factors that have led to a more accepting attitude toward homosexuals among Mennonites were: education level, seeing the Biblical theme of justice as more important than the theme of purity, one’s views on the literalness of the Bible, and the newness of the church attended. However, the most significant factor that has led to an accepting position for Mennonites was positive experience with homosexuals. Despite clear demographic and theological differences between inclusive and traditional minded Mennonites, the debate is more about personal subjective experience than disagreements over grand Biblical truths.6
This study is specifically focused on progressive Mennonites.7 I focused on progressive Mennonites because their views represent a change from traditional Mennonite understandings of Bible passages condemning homosexual acts, and historians study change over time. A historical perspective will help people, especially young Mennonites, understand how much of the current debates over homosexuality is influenced by past and ongoing debates about the meaning of the 1960s “sexual revolution” and various people’s feelings toward the conflicts over changing sexual mores that have been occurring for decades. Currently, the major historians of twentieth century Mennonite history have not addressed homosexuality.8 I began in 1968 because the Mennonite Church held a convention on family, marriage and sexuality in Goshen, Indiana in that year, which started many discussions about sexuality among Mennonites.9
Background on Mennonites
Many of the Mennonites studied here are descendants of families that came to Kansas in 1874 in what is known as the “First Migration.” These were German-speaking Mennonites who started moving to the Ukraine at the beginning of the nineteenth century. They had received favorable conditions under Czarina Catherine II, but faced increased pressure to acculturate and join the military in the 1870s under a variety of programs collectively called “Russification.” These Russian Mennonites, as well as other Mennonites already in America, were staunch pacifists. Other Mennonites, with various Central and Northern European backgrounds, have been in America since the seventeenth century.10 During the American Revolution, Mennonites, who generally refused to participate in government, take oaths or carry weapons, were essentially told to take loyalty oaths, leave, or lose the rights they had previously enjoyed in places like Pennsylvania, which had had strong respect for religious autonomy before the American Revolution. After the Revolution, American Mennonites cast themselves as “the quiet in the land,” and unlike Canadian Mennonites, rarely participated in American politics.
The Russian Mennonites continued this practice of political separation when they came to the United States in the 1870s. Church leaders prohibited voting or running for office. Communities maintained their independence from others by buying land as much as possible in blocks all together while moving to Kansas.11 This maintained both the separation from the world and the communalistic tight-knit aspect of Mennonite culture.
One unique characteristic of these Russian Mennonites was a much more positive attitude toward education than other Mennonite groups. They already had an independent school system in Russia and invested in schools in America earlier than other Mennonites.12 Openness toward education rendered these Russian Mennonites more progressive than other American Mennonites. This progressivism was cemented when they joined the General Conference Mennonite Church (GC), which has had a decreased sense of ethnic identity compared to the Mennonite Church (MC) and at times a more progressive focus.13
In 1860 the GC was formed when a progressive Mennonite named John Oberholtzer quit wearing the required clothing and sought to work with anyone using newspapers and schools to teach Mennonitism. Many of the Mennonites studied here have a GC background, and the theme of decreased emphasis on church discipline is apparent. The GC, unlike the MC, has always had a congregational polity, meaning congregations have been independent of and not subject to the conference body.14
Increased acculturation and urbanization throughout the twentieth century brought many challenges for Mennonites and drove them to find new ways of expressing their identity that were more engaging toward the world.15 Reflection on World War Two led some Mennonites to develop and change their views toward the state and the rest of society. To Beulah Stauffer Hostetler, as well as other Mennonite scholars, the 1950s marked the beginning of a heightened articulation of Mennonite peace and service positions.16 In Civilian Public Service (CPS), as well as other service organizations, Mennonites were exposed to places all over the world.17 Also, many did very tough relief work where absolute pacifism became more complicated as they faced utilitarian life and death decisions. These experiences led the Mennonite participants to recognize the need for more ambiguity on issues, and also the need to pick up on secular ways of speaking and thinking so that they could explain and eventually advocate their pacifist position in a way that made sense to outsiders. Young men who had been through CPS formed the Young Peoples’ Conference and became very successful in pushing the GC and MC to become more comfortable engaging the world. Many had been influenced by Quakers in CPS and brought the idea of “speaking Truth to power” into the Mennonite Church as a strong counterpoint to the Mennonite idea of being the “quiet in the land.” The Young Peoples’ Conference pushed for publishing peace curricula, peace conferences, developing strong relief and service organizations, witnessing to the state, and addressing housing/urban, labor, and prison problems. All these visions were fulfilled in less than fifty years.18
Despite post-WWII progressive movements, Mennonite churches tended to lag behind other churches and American society in general when it came to certain social issues, such as acceptance of divorce and women in ministry. Mennonite churches, in the 1970s and 1980s were some of the most conservative communities in America.19 One unique aspect of the Mennonite conflicts over homosexuality is Mennonite churches have a long history of discipline and strict membership standards.20 This means that while mainstream churches were debating homosexuals in positions of leadership, Mennonites were debating whether to even let them into the church as members. Many progressive Mennonites see the results of this uniqueness as a sign of slowness and conservatism among Mennonites.
History of Churches Studied
Rainbow Mennonite Church in Kansas City and Lorraine Avenue Mennonite Church in Wichita are both rather young churches. Lawrence Mennonite Fellowship is an even younger church, started in the early 1980s. This youngness is especially true when compared to Kansas churches like Alexanderwohl, which has preserved its 300 plus year congregational history from Prussia to Russia to Goessel.21 Lorraine and Rainbow were both started by a Home Missions program (Lorraine in 1932 and Rainbow in the 1950s), which had the goal of gathering together urban Mennonites.22 This was a safe evangelical effort whereby rural Kansas Mennonites, who were not ready for full-scale evangelism, could do smaller efforts in the city by gathering “lost” Mennonites. These Mennonites had moved to urban areas both to find work and often as well to escape the closed and conservative nature of the congregations they grew up in.23 Rainbow, Lorraine and Lawrence have been viewed with skepticism by Kansas Mennonites with a sense of rural pride. One factor in my research that seems special to Kansas Mennonites is that the newness of the church was a significant factor for increasing homosexual inclusiveness. This is something that is not likely true in other places. For example, Germantown Mennonite Church in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the oldest Mennonite congregation in the American continent, was downgraded to associate member status by the Franconia Mennonite Conference of the MC and disciplined by the Eastern District of the GC for their open acceptance of homosexuals.24
Many barriers between the Mennonite community and broader society broke down in churches such as Lorraine, Lawrence and Rainbow. These urban Mennonites developed extensive programs to minister to and help the poor, people of different races, and people in prisons.25 As members of these churches listened to the stories from gay people in their cities, in their own families, as well as from rural areas who had been ostracized for their orientation, they decided that homosexuality was not a sin, or at least not a special, scary, unclean, or unredeemable sin. Encounters with homosexual friends and family members have been a strong influence in these Mennonites’ decisions to accept homosexuals. Every interviewee, except the most conservative one, had had significant contact with at least one homosexual person, and many had homosexuals in their families. One Lorraine interviewee thought that it is likely that each of the regular attendants at Lorraine have had gay friends or family members.26
Rainbow’s progressive identity is partly rooted in members’ reaction to restrictive rural communities, their history of social activism, and a theology centered around peace and social justice. A number of Mennonites strengthened their commitment to peace and social justice during the Vietnam War and the Civil Rights movement. One such person was Leo Goertz, a founding member of Rainbow and a conscientious objector during World War II. After seeing an intense push for conformity to violence and fear of any dissent, Goertz realized the importance of dissent. He learned it was important to listen to others with unique perspectives. This is an ethic that he has applied when he has encountered homosexuals in his lifetime. Goertz was a medical doctor and like many of the professionals at these three churches, he has had homosexual clients. Another such person was Robert Kauffman, who became the pastor of Rainbow in 1998. He grew up in a fundamentalist Mennonite missional church called Crossroads Bible Church, deep in the Mississippi Gulf. Kauffman, a tall man, who speaks loudly and friendly with a hint of an informal Southern style, saw connections between minority groups such as blacks, Anabaptists, and homosexuals whose refusal to go along with the majority status quo resulted in oppression. Kauffman, whose home church worked hard to eradicate racism, stated that Mennonites caught on to the race issue relatively early, and he wished they would be more ready to push for homosexual rights.27
Members at Rainbow have pushed for their church to be “on the cutting edge of the Mennonite world” to the point that they often make other Kansas Mennonites uncomfortable. When pressure was put on them to change their position of acceptance toward homosexuals, they have remained confident that it was the right thing to do. Many, if not most, of the members at these three urban churches grew up in rural Mennonite farming communities. Lorraine and Rainbow, since their founding, have been places for Mennonites to build new theologies after leaving their closed rural communities. Many of the members that left such communities have bad memories of the strictness, some would even say coerciveness of their home congregation.28 These members have become accepting toward homosexuals not only because of a basic set of Mennonite morals which included supporting social justice and following Jesus’ actions toward social outcasts, but have become additionally progressive in spite of their Mennonite upbringing on social issues. They have done so while maintaining traditional worship styles and framing acceptance of homosexuals as part of broader Mennonite positions supporting peace and social justice.
* * *
In 1968 homosexuality was rarely, if ever, talked about among Kansas Mennonites. Everyone simply knew it was wrong.29 Parents and church leaders alike felt little need to address homosexuality directly, possibly because children learned from school or the playground that being a “fag,” or a “queer,” was one of the worst things one could be. It was assumed that homosexuality was an unnatural “problem” that only people “over there” in certain sinful areas had to deal with. Roland Krause, a long-time member of Lorraine Avenue in Wichita, now 80 years old, reflected that when he grew up in Goessel and Hillsboro (Mennonite farming towns in central Kansas) there were single women in the church who lived together and everyone knew that arrangement was economically necessary, but nobody would dare ask either them, or the men who never married, if they were homosexuals.30 While conservative Mennonites have referred to homosexuality as a recent “problem,” many of the progressives, especially older ones at Rainbow in Kansas City, said that sexual acts deemed “deviant” have always been around in all communities and the key difference post-1960s is that people talk about them.31
Growing up homosexual was very difficult in the 1960s and 1970s in Mennonite churches. Homosexuals I interviewed from these conservative communities prayed hard for God to remove their illness and severely suppressed their sexual feelings.32 Many homosexual Mennonites married, thinking that would finally “cure their sickness.”33 One such person was Sonia Andreas, now age 57, who joined Lorraine in 2003. She grew up in the Bruderthal Mennonite Church in Hillsboro. While attending McPherson College to become a nurse, Andreas heard people call others gay, and there was gossip about certain students being gay, but she did not believe there were really homosexuals anywhere. As was expected of her, Andreas pursued her vision of a peaceful married life with kids. However, in her marriage her husband and she discovered that she did not enjoy sex. In response, Sonia convinced herself that she was simply asexual. At the age of twenty-nine, she realized that she was not asexual, but that simply all but one of her attractions and fantasies had been toward women. She had been bitterly repressing her sexuality, which was strongly oriented toward women (she put it numerically at 99% homosexual).34 Andreas’ story is not at all unusual among homosexual Kansas Mennonites, many of whom have tried to be heterosexual, and ended up in nearly impossible marriages with continual sentiments of denial toward self and fear of getting close to others at work and at church.35
In 1978 Rainbow members looked closely at the issue of homosexuality and decided that sexual orientation would be not be an issue for membership in their congregation. Rainbow was the first Mennonite congregation in the United States to fully study homosexuality and the first to come to such a decision. This decision was possibly an impetus for larger Mennonite studies of the issue shortly afterwards.36 The pastor from the mid-1970s until 1999 was Frank Ward, who gave several sermons on the relevant biblical material in the late 1970s and encouraged others to examine how words for “homosexual” have been interpreted by various New Testament scholars. Ward and Rainbow member James Yoder, a counseling psychologist, organized several workshops in 1978, which included storytelling by homosexual persons. During the 1980s Lorraine and Rainbow both had pastors that were very progressive on homosexuality.
Frank Ward saw making Rainbow more open to homosexuals as part of his ministry. As he explained during one of his sermons on the topic, he had ministered to a young homosexual woman who had attempted suicide. This intense personal experience, as well as other encounters during his ministry, increased the sense of urgency with which Frank approached the issue.37
Don Steelberg, the pastor of Lorraine during the 1980s, was also very progressive and willing to push the issue at times. Although nobody ever approached Steelberg with discomfort about his pushing of the issue, at least one interviewee said that his “off-hand” remarks from the pulpit directed toward people who hold the traditional position had made some uncomfortable.38 In 1986, Steelberg gave a sermon on Galatians that compared the intense fears and clawing to tradition that occurred in debates over homosexuality to the early Christian debates over circumcision. He concluded the sermon with openness toward which ever way the congregation would decide to go. Despite Steelberg’s attempts at being gentle and not pushing the too much issue, the members knew where he stood. Steelberg grew frustrated by the bigotry he saw in Mennonite publications and heard about from his wife Elsie as she worked for the Human Sexuality Study Committee (HSSC) in the 1980s. Steelberg discussed the issue many times with the deacons and they asked him not to perform a gay wedding/commitment ceremony and not to use the Lorraine Avenue building. Steelberg did, however, conduct a gay wedding at Metropolitan Community Church while pastor at Lorraine, something most members remained unaware of.39
Although Steelberg was more progressive than most in the congregation, this is not to say that Lorraine was exclusive. Elsie Steelberg described Lorraine as an “exceptional church” due to its ability to welcome a variety of people and she believed that “Lorraine Avenue, on a whole, has been much more accepting [than other Mennonite churches toward homosexuals].” In the early and mid 1980s, when most Mennonite churches were ignoring the HSSC’s recommendations for Mennonites to discuss homosexuality and seek positive interactions with homosexuals, Lorraine invited and listened to gay persons in their Sunday school classes.40
It is especially interesting that Rainbow and Lorraine were not only addressing homosexuality far earlier than other Mennonites, but that they came to an inclusive position in a very conservative denomination that had actually become more conservative during the 1970s and 1980s. Although Mennonites can relate to the more liberal churches on issues of nationalism and war, they have been one of the most socially conservative denominations in America.41 For example, in a 1989 sociological survey, Mennonite attitudes on abortion, homosexuality and premarital sex were more conservative than any other group studied in an 1987 survey of American religion. In the 1989 survey 92% of the Mennonite respondents said that homosexuality was always wrong, compared to the most conservative 1987 group labeled “Conservative Protestants” where 89% said that homosexual acts were always wrong.42 If one compares the 1989 survey of Mennonite attitudes in which 92% unequivocally disapproved of homosexual acts to a 1972 survey in which only 86% of Mennonites responded in the same way, one can see that Mennonites became slightly more conservative during this time.
Homophobia was rampant in the MC and GC. Despite the fact that the Bible only addresses same-sex acts and not homosexuality itself, 48% and 51% respectively of the 1989 MC and GC respondents would not allow a celibate homosexual to be a member of their congregation. The percent allowing a celibate homosexual to be a pastor was only 8% for both the MC and GC, revealing in 1989 an atmosphere with intense anxiety about homosexuality among Mennonites.43 It seems that as sexuality increasingly moved into the public sphere and became a political issue in the 1980s, Mennonites found themselves firmly and increasingly conservative.44 Meanwhile, Rainbow and Lorraine headed in the opposite direction.
The MC and GC Study Homosexuality, 1978-1987
As sexuality became increasingly politicized in the late 1970s and early 1980s, Mennonites sought to better understand homosexuality.45 Several driving forces were operant in this push. One likely force was the 1978 decision at Rainbow to allow people to be members regardless of their sexual orientation. Another force was the general American anxiety about sexual values that led to an increase in sexual politics and subsequent successes by right-wing activists. While feminists and gay liberationists had won key victories in the early 1970s, by 1977 the tide was turning and right-wing activists had racked up nearly three dozen victories against local anti-discrimination clauses that included sexual orientation.46 Beginning with Ronald Reagan’s 1980 campaign, Republicans have solidified support from social conservatives by talking about traditional family values and topics such as sexuality which had previously been mostly left to the personal sphere of life, rather than the national political stage.47
Another driving force behind Mennonites’ interest in homosexuality in the 1970s was the founding of the Brethren Mennonite Council for Gay and Lesbian Concerns (BMC) in 1976. BMC was started by Martin Rock. Rock faced clear discrimination when his contract was not renewed by Mennonite Central Committee (MCC) due to his sexual orientation, after what he described as eleven years of enthusiastic and successful service.48 Since its founding BMC has kept in contact with Mennonite leaders, distributed literature and newsletters, and worked to keep the issue of homosexuality in the Mennonite spotlight.49
During the late 1970s professionals in the kind of jobs that are predominant at urban Mennonite churches-- teachers, doctors, psychiatrists, lawyers, nurses, social workers, etc.-- felt tension between their denomination, which had long taught that a member’s first allegiance was to the church, and their professional duties to their clients. Applying the traditional position of the Mennonite churches to their homosexual clients would either be illegal, violate ethics codes, mean an economic loss, or simply be embarrassing in a professional setting. It is out of this tension that Mennonite professionals sought practical answers as to how Christians should act toward homosexuals.
The Mennonite Medical Association (MMA) set out to better understand homosexuality in 1978 and 1979. MMA sponsored four symposiums on human sexuality with an emphasis on homosexuality. Presenters included medical doctors, psychologists, and top Mennonite theologians from across the political and theological spectrum. The questions that MMA members asked reflected questions medical professionals had been asking throughout the 1970s about homosexuality. In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from their manual of mental and emotional disorders. The American Psychological Association followed suit in 1975.50 At the MMA symposium Mennonites mirrored trends in the larger professional American society.
But they were clearly behind the broader American society in their conclusions. There was still a strong push for the idea that homosexuals could change, and that the church should encourage them to change through guilt and loving support.51 By the end of the sessions, debate over whether it was possible for someone to choose their orientation came to a standstill. Noting a lack of consensus on many issues, the MMA Task Force on homosexuality wrote in their findings report that, “While persons are not totally responsible for their sexual orientation, both heterosexuals and homosexuals are responsible... for their behavior,” and “Many homosexuals have struggled to change their orientation by means of therapy or religious experience. A significant number have experienced such change and a significant group have not experienced change; others have no interest in changing.”52 Although the discussion proved promising, Mennonite pastors and congregations were still without clear guidelines on how to minister toward homosexuals. Perhaps this was because many of the scholars, especially the more open-minded ones were left with key scientific questions about homosexuality. Repeatedly, presenters urged others to keep an open mind because the data were very scarce and often unreliable.53 Despite the lack of consensus at the symposium, the format of studying and discussing homosexuality was far ahead of what most Mennonite communities were comfortable with. There was clear advocacy for full respect toward homosexual persons and a statement deploring homophobia.
Continuing the trend of discussing issues of sexuality, both the GC and the MC general boards called for a major study of sexuality and homosexuality in the early 1980s. The two critical driving forces for the formation of a Human Sexuality Study Committee (HSSC) were the many unanswered questions after the MMA symposium and a strategy to divert an anti-homosexual resolution from coming to a vote in the 1980 GC assembly in Estes Park, Colorado. The GC hierarchy, realizing the conservatives had a clear majority to pass such as resolution, and fearing how a reactionary resolution would divide (and potentially embarrass) the church, successfully pushed for a major study to be done on homosexuality instead.54 In 1981 the MC followed suit and decided to support a joint study between the GC and the MC on sexuality and homosexuality. The HSSC was formed and over the next five years sixteen Mennonites engaged in intense study, writing, debate and received criticism about issues of sexuality.55 The goal was to produce a document that would guide Mennonites on sexual standards in the modern world.
The result of the HSSC was a 168 page book called Human Sexuality in the Christian Life, completed in 1985 and labeled as “A Working Document for Study and Dialogue.” The conclusions of the HSSC were cautious and varied. It offered and explained its various positions, including that homosexuals should change, should be celibate, and that they should be in committed monogamous covenantal unions. It did not pick one specific advocacy over others. The schizophrenic character of the document is likely due to the influence of Enos Martin, who advocated for change therapies, as well as inclusive writers such as Elsie Steelberg, a psychiatrist from Lorraine, who was arguably the chief contributor to the section on homosexuality.56 The GC and MC adopted resolutions in 1986 and 1987 supporting the findings of the book. Debates arose over whether the document represented the official position of the Mennonite Church, and also over whether the denomination, rather than individual congregations, even had to power to declare one “official position”. Many congregations were confused as to how resolute the findings in the book were, and this debate remained unsolved. This was not only due to the dual-minded nature of the conclusions in the document, but also because the document referred to itself as “a document for study and dialogue. It is not a reference guide on sexual issues. Rather, it is a study paper to assist the church in looking at our attitudes toward human sexuality.”57
The HSSC did conclude, however, that the Mennonite church’s traditional prohibition of premarital, extramarital and homosexual genital relations was justified. Fearing backlash from conservatives who were angry that homosexuality was even being studied, the MC General Board gave formal instructions to the HSSC as it was first being formed that it would uphold the church’s traditional stance. This frustrated BMC and inclusive Mennonites who questioned the value of a study in which at least one major conclusion was predetermined. Elsie Steelberg was frustrated that the MC members of the HSSC constantly called the MC General Board asking for guidance and permission to change things along the way. She observed that the GC members were much more free from control and used a wider variety of sources.58 Many from the inclusive side have been frustrated that traditional Mennonites cite the HSSC document and subsequent resolutions as the official position of the Mennonite church, while ignoring the apologies for past homophobia, condemnation of current homophobia, acknowledgment that homosexuals do not choose their orientation and repeated calls for further dialogue on the issue.59
Mennonite scholarship on homosexuality during the 1980s often followed broader academic work on the issue. For years the University of Chicago funded major studies as part of the Chicago Series on Sexuality, Gender, and Culture. One such work published by the University of Chicago was John Boswell’s 1980 National Book Award-winning Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality. Boswell’s book, as well as Robin Scrogg’s 1983 The New Testament and Homosexuality, were mentioned frequently by BMC members and were influential in the HSSC’s findings.60 By showing accepted, even exalted, gay unions in premodern Europe, Boswell challenged the very idea of a “traditional” Christian view toward homosexuality. Boswell and others challenged interpretations of verses condemning homosexuality and argued that Biblical writers were addressing deviant sexual behaviors such as pederasty and rape rather than contemporary homosexuality.61 This is especially true considering that homosexuality itself is etymologically (and arguably conceptually) a late nineteenth century construction and the word “homosexual” did not appear in an English Bible until the RSV in 1947.62 Mirroring broader academic trends, many Mennonite scholars, both inclusive and traditional, concluded that the words translated as “homosexual” were ambiguous.63
John Linscheid and the Lawrence Mennonite Fellowship
In the 1980s there was much anxiety and ignorance about homosexuality. Mennonites have been repeatedly unsure on how to proceed when the homosexuality issue has been thrust into their lives. Just as Mennonite scholars and professionals scrambled to find answers when the American Psychiatric and Psychological Associations changed their official understandings of homosexuality, members at Lawrence Mennonite Fellowship scrambled to figure out what to do when their pastor, John Linscheid, admitted he was gay in 1983.
Linscheid grew up in Goessel, Kansas and graduated from Bethel College in North Newton, Kansas in 1975. After completing his Masters of Divinity degree at Mennonite Biblical Seminary in Elkhart, Indiana he became the first pastor of the newly formed Lawrence Mennonite Fellowship in 1980.64 Longtime Lawrence member Anne Bailey recalled that few people discussed homosexuality in the early 1980s and AIDs was just entering the American consciousness.65 The congregation was quite surprised, and most even dismayed, when Linscheid came out to the congregation in the fall of 1983.
The event began when an eight person prayer group was meeting in a house of one the members of the budding congregation. All had been sharing their spiritual journeys, but Linscheid remained unusually quiet until near the end of the session. He then calmly said that he was a homosexual and did not want to remain silent about it anymore. News of Linscheid’s orientation quickly spread throughout the congregation and the Western District Conference (WDC).
Soon after, the congregation held an important meeting in one of the members’ living rooms to discuss what this meant for them. Linscheid went upstairs as members discussed whether to keep him as their pastor. There was an overwhelming majority who believed their congregation could not support homosexuality. Bailey recalled that the liberals were in the minority and did not speak up.66 Those with small children were especially fearful.67 Many said that they did not want their children growing up with a gay pastor.68 Carl Edwards recalled that about seventy-five percent of the congregation were opposed to keeping Linscheid as their pastor throughout a long discernment process involving many meetings and study sessions. They opposed keeping him for two reasons: first, anxiety about homosexuality, and second, fear of losing WDC monetary support. At the time, the vast majority of the Lawrence Fellowship’s money was coming from the WDC, and in meetings with the congregation, WDC leaders made it clear that if they kept Linscheid as pastor, they would lose their subsidy. The conference does not have to power to outright fire a pastor, but in this special case, they had extra leverage because the congregation was so financially reliant upon the district. The congregation kept him on an interim basis while they debated how to respond, but Linscheid left Lawrence in May 1984 and relocated to Philadelphia.69 This event was a key force, along with general political and ideological disagreements that led to a split in the Lawrence Fellowship. Conservative members broke off shortly afterwards, and what remained of the congregation formed Peace Mennonite Church. This small group has scraped by with a part-time pastor, and have met in the Ecumenical Christian Ministries building near Kansas University’s campus in Lawrence.
The Listening Committee, 1990-1992
After continued frustration among inclusive-minded Mennonites over the lack of dialogue and open-mindedness among Mennonites, and rising anxiety on the traditional side, the MC and GC appointed a joint committee in 1990 to listen to homosexuals and others with strong opinions on the matter. This Listening Committee was instructed to “care for gay and lesbian persons and their families … by listening to their alienation and pain … to encourage and facilitate dialogue between persons of various perspectives … [and] to make recommendations … regarding policy, program, and church life.”70 In 1991 the MC General Board issued a statement that urged continued study, called for celibacy on the part of homosexuals, and condemned harsh attitudes toward homosexual persons.71
In 1992 the Listening Committee submitted their findings and recommendations to the GC and MC hierarchies. The committee recommended that the churches intensify their efforts in encouraging further study of homosexuality at all levels, from the congregation to graduate study, while providing further support staffing on the denominational level. Neither the GC nor the MC General Board accepted the committee’s recommendations, and both suppressed the release of those recommendations to the broader church.72
Lorraine and Rainbow Become More Inclusive in Different Ways, 1990-1998
From 1990 to 1995, Stew Graber, a gay man in a committed relationship, was a member of Lorraine Avenue Mennonite Church. A leader in the formation of the Lorraine Avenue Mennonite Pantry, an outreach program which has provided goods to people in need, Graber was an active force in the congregation. While some members knew he was gay, overall it was simply not a huge issue. Elsie Steelberg, a psychiatrist who has worked with gay patients, recalled that although Graber did not bring his partner to Lorraine, he “had felt really accepted.” Graber’s death from AIDS in the mid-1990s convinced Don Steelberg, and others at Lorraine, of the important of both the compassion that can be given and the torment that can be received by homosexuals and their loved ones.73
At the same time, Rainbow was becoming more inclusive in a much more overt and public way. In the business meeting of January 1990, Rainbow joined the Supporting Congregations Network (SCN) as an “Accepting” congregation; meaning they were part of SCN, but their name would not be made public by BMC. It was not until March of 1996 that the Rainbow church council decided to be a “Publicly Affirming” congregation in the SCN.74 Rainbow interviewees recalled that 85 to 98 percent of the congregation was in favor of the various decisions to be inclusive.75 Since 1996 Rainbow has had a statement in their bulletin that welcomed people regardless of sexual orientation. In the same year Mennonite Weekly Review published a list of “Supporting Congregations.” This led to disciplinary action toward Rainbow and several other Mennonite congregations.76 While the Western District Conference, the GC area conference, did not formally discipline Rainbow, the MC affiliated South Central Conference expelled Rainbow by a majority vote due to its willingness to accept homosexuals. Rainbow members who were involved in the many meetings during the long expulsion process felt that they had little power and that they “were not treated very lovingly,” or very “Christianly.”
Homophobia, Expulsion and Frustration 1990-1999
During the 1990s the issue of homosexuality dominated the Mennonite media.77 Muriel Stackley, a current member of Rainbow and the editor of The Mennonite at the time, felt that the arguments over homosexuality really “introduced us to ourselves” and she was “amazed at the anger” and homophobia displayed.78
Progressive Mennonites lost repeated votes on homosexuality during the 1990s and increasingly realized that acceptance or rejection of homosexuals would be decided by conference and denominational politics and power. Mennonites wanting an accepting church for homosexuals were in the minority during the entire period I studied. Toward the end of the millennium many progressives shifted from trying to convince others of being inclusive to simply addressing homophobia in the church as recommended by multiple resolutions. Addressing homophobia for John Linscheid meant shifting the focus away from discussion bounded by sexual behavior and towards addressing issues of rejection and prejudice. In Linscheid’s words that type of shift “wrenches the discussion out of the safe deliberation over those sins and sinners and drops it uncomfortably into the personal lives of the majority.”79 Homophobia was successfully addressed once in 1998 when the aid organization MCC issued a statement against the anti-gay Hefley amendment to H.R. 4104, which would have allowed gender-orientation discrimination in the federal government. This was the first time that MCC, an organization that had discriminated against BMC founder Martin Rock, supported gays in any formal way.80
By the late 1990s, while not agreeing on the proper application of Bible verses relating to homosexuality, the Mennonite hierarchy was at a point where they could agree that the biblical writers did not have an understanding of the modern idea of homosexually orientated persons. Much of the early activist scholarship on homosexuality, however, was rejected by the late 1990s, and agreement emerged that Bible passages do clearly condemn homosexual acts, especially pederasty and homosexual rape. Tom Harder, pastor at Lorraine Avenue Mennonite, has felt the strain between Mennonite ethics of justice and acceptance versus purity and discipline. In his words, he has chosen to be “willing to err on the side of love.”81 Progressives have also realized that change did not come as easily or as naturally as they had wished. Being in the minority, progressives had to respect that conservatives Mennonites, as long as they acted with love and humility, did have legitimate theological ground, but progressives wanted to at least fight homophobia in American society and in the Mennonite church.
Homosexuals and inclusive congregations after expulsions and failed dialogue have become weary. Progressive Mennonites feel that the majority of Mennonites have been too caught up in the homosexuality issue and have “vote[d] for Bush and forgot about social justice.”82 While conservative Mennonites insist that progressives have lost their way in a dangerous post-1960s urban relativistic morality, and the progressives are responsible for dragging the church into damaging homosexuality debates.83 Many progressive Mennonites have become dismayed at the slowness and lack of what they perceive as progress including what they call the “evolution of theology.” Elsie Steelberg has been frustrated because she believed in the 1980s that when everyone realized and agreed that homosexuality was not a choice, homophobia and exclusion from congregations would quickly disappear. Some remain hopeful and continue to publish articles urging acceptance of homosexuality, such as the hundreds of Mennonites who have backed the “Welcome Committee” formed in 1998. Others have focused on change in their home congregations and avoided the larger conflicts. Still others, such as gay Rainbow member "John Doe", age 60, have predicted that small Kansas Mennonite communities simply will not change. He viewed rural Mennonite communities, not as part of some grand narrative of inevitable progress, but as cyclical communities where members are indoctrinated with ancient homogeneous values with little or no outside opinion.84 John Linscheid reflected upon his early enthusiasm and recent loss of hope:
In these years of struggle, I took the role of a “Christian soldier marching as to war” in the fight for justice and the vision of an inclusive church. I battled for understanding and unity in diversity. But now I look over the field and mostly see the casualties. I look around at those who lived by these visions and we seem to be shell-shocked survivors of a spiritual genocide. The right-wing victories mount in the campaign to rid the church of gay, lesbian, and supportive believers. And we are left disillusioned and confused about how to proceed. The visions I lived by, of a flawed but basically good church and of a united though diverse body of Christ, have faded. My conviction that integrity in one’s journey of discipleship will triumph seems disproved.85
By the end of the 1990s, Mennonites were locked in a battle between an ethic of purity/church discipline versus an ethic of love, acceptance, and social justice. Both of these ethics have long histories in Mennonite thought and practice. It seems that the various groups often operated from different histories and talked past each other. Mennonite writers who have urged acceptance of homosexuals have described homosexuality as a natural gift from God and have reduced the Bible to an ethic of love and hospitality. Meanwhile, conservatives have felt a threat to their more literal reading of the Scriptures and have been hesitant to accept homosexuals, fearing that following God’s second commandment to love others is in this case likely breaking God’s first commandment to love God and follow God’s will.
Being located in the middle of Wichita, Lawrence and Kansas City has given members at Lorraine, Lawrence, and Rainbow increased opportunities to break down many of the barriers that previously separated Mennonites from the broader American society. The Sunday school environments at these three churches have been places where progressives and homosexuals have been able to feel accepted. These churches have been on the radical fringe of the Mennonite world. Especially Rainbow members very explicitly saw themselves as pushing the edge and have been comfortable being in the minority. Lorraine has been more cautious, but has been able to involve gay persons for years. Members of these three churches are typically highly educated and have developed complex, well thought out biblical and theological positions on why homosexuals, like eunuchs, lepers, the blind and the uncircumcised, all once previously viewed as inherently sinful, should be accepted into their churches. These progressive Mennonites have not been able to persuasively articulate this inclusive theology to conservative Mennonite communities and have remained the minority despite many quality studies on homosexuality. A key difference between the two sides has been that so many in the inclusive camp have had the ability to have positive interactions with gay friends, clients, coworkers, family members and church members. By the end of the 1990s, the proper interpretation and application of words and verses related to homosexuality was unclear to Mennonite scholars. Those in the inclusive crowd, due to their personal positive experience with gay persons, have chosen an ethic of compassion and acceptance, even when it has meant discipline and expulsion.
Bibliography
Interviews by Author
Andreas, Sonia, Lorraine Avenue member. Interview by author, 7 June 2006, Wichita. Tape recording. MLA, North Newton, KS.
Bailey, Anne, Lawrence Mennonite Fellowship members. Interview by author, 27 Feb, 2007, Lawrence, KS. Tape recording. MLA, North Newton, KS.
Beachey, Bonnie, Rainbow member. Interview by author, 12 June 2006, Kansas City. Tape recording.
Beachey, Jake, Rainbow member. Interview by author, 12 June 2006. E-mail.
Boyts, Bernita, Rainbow member. Interview by author, 13 June 2006. Kansas City.
Darcy, Cathy, Rainbow member. Interview by author, 12 June 2006, Kansas City. Tape recording. MLA, North Newton, KS.
Ebersole, Willard, Lorraine Avenue member. Interview by author, 3 June 2006, Camp Mennoscah. Tape recording. MLA, North Newton, KS.
Edwards, Carl, Lawrence Mennonite Fellowship member. Interview by author, 27 Feb 2007, Lawrence, KS. Tape recording. MLA, North Newton, KS.
Fetters, Ann, Lorraine Avenue member. Interview by author, 5 June 2006, Wichita. Tape recording. MLA, North Newton, KS.
Fetters, Mike, Lorraine Avenue member. Interview by author, 5 June 2006, Wichita. Tape recording. MLA, North Newton, KS.
Gerbert, Linda, Lorraine Avenue member. Interview by author, 15 June 2006. E-mail.
Goertz, Leo, founding member Rainbow. Interview by author, 11 June 2006, Kansas City. Tape recording. MLA, North Newton, KS.
Graber, Duane, Rainbow member. Interview by author, 11 June 2006, Kansas City. Tape recording. MLA, North Newton, KS.
Graham, Dale, Rainbow member. Interview by author, 9 June 2006, Kansas City. Tape recording. MLA, North Newton, KS.
Harder Lois, Lorraine Avenue pastor 1999-present. Interview by author, 5 June 2006, Wichita. Tape recording. MLA, North Newton, KS.
Harder, Tom, Lorraine Avenue pastor 1999-present. Interview by author, 5 June 2006, Wichita. Tape recording. MLA, North Newton, KS.
Hostetler, Karen, Rainbow member. Interview by author, 11 June 2006, Kansas City. Tape recording. MLA, North Newton, KS.
Kaufman, Robert, Rainbow pastor 1998-present. Interview by author, 8 June 2006, Kansas City. Tape recording. MLA, North Newton, KS.
Kaufman, Krista, Rainbow member. Interview by author, 10 June 2006, Kansas City. Tape recording. MLA, North Newton, KS.
Krause, James, Lawrence Mennonite Fellowship member. Interview by author, 27 Feb 2007, Lawrence, KS. Tape recording. MLA, North Newton, KS
Krause, Roland, Lorraine Avenue member. Interview by author, 8 June 2006, Wichita. Tape recording. MLA, North Newton, KS.
Nickel Friesen, Dorothy, Western District conference minister, e-mail communication, 6 June 2006.
Page-Goertz, Sallie, Rainbow member. Interview by author, 11 June 2006, Kansas City. Tape recording. MLA, North Newton, KS.
Rhoads, Marsha, Rainbow member. Interview by author, 9 June 2006, Kansas City. Tape recording. MLA, North Newton, KS.
Schmidt, Erica, Lorraine Avenue member. Interview by author, 1 June 2006, Wichita. Tape recording. MLA, North Newton, KS.
Seibel Wallace, Lorraine Avenue member. Interview by author, 4 June 2006, Camp Mennoscah. Tape recording. MLA, North Newton, KS.
Stackley, Muriel, Rainbow member and former editor of The Mennonite. Interview by author, 8 June 2006, Kansas City. Tape recording. MLA, North Newton, KS.
Steelberg, Don, Lorraine Avenue member, former pastor . Interview by author, 14 June 2006, Wichita. Tape recording. MLA, North Newton, KS.
Steelberg, Elsie, Lorraine Avenue member, psychiatrist, served on HSSC. Interview by author, 14 June 2006, Wichita. Tape recording. MLA, North Newton, KS.
Stucky, Brian. Alexanderwohl Mennonite Church member. Interview by author, 17 Feb 2007, Goessel, KS. Tape recording. MLA, North Newton, KS
Swartley, Willard, professor emeritus, Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminaries, Elkhart, Indiana. Interview by author, 7 November 2006, Hesston, KS. Tape recording. MLA, North Newton, KS.
Swartz, Karl, Lorraine Avenue member. Interview by author, 3 June 2006, Camp Mennoscah. Tape recording. MLA, North Newton, KS.
Troyer, Regina, Rainbow member. Interview by author, 8 June 2006, Kansas City. Tape recording. MLA, North Newton, KS.
Published Primary and Secondary Sources
Bush, Perry. Two Kingdoms, Two Loyalties: Mennonite Pacifism in Modern America. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1998.
D’Emilio, John. Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities, The Making of a Homosexual Minority in the United States, 1940-1970, 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998.
--- and Estelle B. Freedman. Intimate Matters, A History of Sexuality in America. New York: Harper and Row, 1988
Garber, Lin. “Mennonites and the ‘Homosexual’ Issue: A Recent History.” In Booklet 2: Historical Perspectives, part of the “Welcome to the Dialogue Series, A Search for Inclusiveness.” Ruth Conrad Liechty, ed. Goshen, Indiana: Welcome Committee, 2001.
Gascho, Rob. “The Journey Is Our Home: A Brief History of Brethren/Mennonite Council for Lesbian and Gay Concerns.” Dialogue, 13(1): 1991 March.
Haury, David A. A People of the City, A History of Lorraine Avenue Mennonite Church, 1932-82.
Hostetler, Beulah Stauffer. “Midcentury Change in the Mennonite Church.” Mennonite Quarterly Review 60, no. 1 (1986): 60-82.
Kauffman, J. Howard, and Leo Driedger. The Mennonite Mosaic. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1991.
Kniss, Fred. Disquiet in the Land. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1997.
Krabill, Anne Hershberger. Sexuality, God’s Gift. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1999.
Kreider, Roberta Schowalter, ed. The Cost of Truth: Faith Stories of Mennonite and Brethren Leaders and Those Who Might Have Been. Kulpsville, PA: Strategic Press, 2004.
---, ed. From Wounded Hearts, Faith Stories of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered People and Those Who Love Them. Gaithersburg, MA: Chi Rho Press, 1998.
Kraus, C. Norman, ed.. To Continue the Dialogue: Biblical Interpretation and Homosexuality. Telford, PA: Pandora Press, 2001.
Linscheid, John. “Profile: John M. Linscheid.” The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Religious Archives Network. 4 March 2004.
<www.lgbtran.org/Profile.aspx?A=L&ID=30> (13 March 2007).
Johns, Loren L. Resources on Homosexuality, www.ambs.edu/ljohns/glbmenu.htm (18 July 2006).
Miller, Keith Graber. Wise as Serpents, Innocent as Doves. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press, 1996.
Myers, Darlene. “Sexual Attitudes in the Mennonite Church, 1940-1985: a Survey, Analysis and Critique.” Undergraduate thesis, Bethel College, 1986.
Mumaw, John R., ed. Consultation Papers, A Symposium on Human Sexuality. Harrisonburg, VA: Mennonite Medical Association, 1979.
Schlabach, Theron F. Peace, Faith and Nation. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1998.
Schrag, Dale R. “The Founding of Lorraine Avenue Mennonite Church.” Department of History, Paper for Special Topics in History 810, Wichita State University, 1978.
Smith, C. Henry. The Story of the Mennonites, 4th ed. Newton, Kansas: Mennonite Publication Office, 1957.
Swartley, Willard. Homosexuality: Biblical Interpretation and Moral Discernment. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 2003.
Ward, Frank. “A Brief History of the Rainbow Mennonite Church and Its Acceptance of Persons Regardless of Sexual Orientation, [1997].” Typewritten. Rainbow Mennonite Library. Revised 28 Oct, 2000 by Mitch Kaufman.
Working Document for Study and Dialogue, Human Sexuality in the Christian Life, Responses from the Mennonite Church and the General Conference Mennonite Church. Newton, KS: Faith and Life Press, 1985. (Also available in full online at <www.ambs.edu/ljohns/HSCL/hscl-cl.htm>).
Zuercher, Melanie. “The Story of the Listening Committee.” In Booklet 2: Historical Perspectives, part of the “Welcome to the Dialogue Series, A Search for Inclusiveness.” Ruth Conrad Liechty, ed. Goshen, Indiana: Welcome Committee, 2001.
Appendix A: Members of Human Sexuality Study Committee (HSSC)
From the MC: Howard Charles, David Helmuth (first two years), Willard Krabill, Naomi Lederach, Enos Martin, Wilmer Martin (co-chair), Wayne North (general board), Lois Janzen Preheim (secretary), Lavon Welty (second two years).
From the GC: Vern Preheim (General Secretary of the GC), Kenneth Bauman, Sue Flickinger, Sue Goerzen (co-chair), Herta Funk (first two years), Maynard Shelly, Elsie Steelberg (Elsie is from Lorraine and married to Don, who was the pastor there during the 1980s).
Appendix B: Members of the Listening Committee (1990-1992)86
From the MC: Delphine Martin, Vern Rempel, Ann Schowalter, Ed Stolzfus (co-chair), Clare Shumm (represented both GC and MC)
From the GC: Sue Goerzen, Dorothea (Dotty) Janzen, Earl Loganbill, Bernie Wiebe
Same-sex oriented people added for their perspective: Doug Basinger and Ruth Wenger
Appendix D: Questions
1. Name?
2. Age?
3. How long have you been a member of this congregation? Before that? In the church that you grew up in, was sexuality or homosexuality ever addressed? What about your parents?
4. Occupation?
5. Education?
6. How active have you been in your congregation? How regular is your attendance and have you served on any committees?
7. How do you view the Bible?
8. How do you view Jesus? Who do you think Jesus is?
9. How do you define church? Where should authority lie when there is conflict: the pastor, congregation, conference, denomination?
10. What are some important shaping influences on your theology? Especially in relation to sexuality or homosexuality.
11. What are appropriate Christian standard for sexuality? Pre-marital sex, living together?
12. Do you believe that homosexuality, in general, is a choice?
13. Do you feel that sexually actively homosexuals should be allowed membership into your congregation?
14. Non-practicing?
15. When a person has a sexual urge toward a member of the same sex, is that or can that be a sin?
16. When they act upon it?
17. How have your views changed over your lifetime?
18. What are your feelings or perceptions toward the level of acceptance and Lorraine Avenue? What direction do you feel your congregation is moving in?
19. MCUSA as a whole?
20. Do you see any connections between your position on this issue and your identity as a Mennonite?
21. How important is being Mennonite to you?
22. Have you ever felt or been made to feel less Christian or less Mennonite for your position or orientation? Describe those experiences.
23. Are those who disagree wrong? Why do they feel the way they do? What are the key differences between accepting Mennonites and non-accepting ones?
24. What are your feelings toward conservative activist groups who very publicly hold anti-homosexual sentiments and policies to be central to Christian identity?
25. Have you taken positions before or do you now take positions that you feel are outside of the thinking of the majority of Mennonites?
26. How would you feel about a gay wedding in your congregation?
27. How would a gay wedding go over in your congregation?
28. What do the children learn in your congregation? Has homosexuality been addressed in the children’s time or in Sunday school?
29. Have you been part of debates or discussions about homosexuality in your congregation? How do they play out?
30. (L) David Haury, who wrote the history of Lorraine Avenue, wrote that “Serious disagreements among the members of Lorraine Avenue have been unusual, and the congregation has usually accommodated a wide variety of opinions. The ability of the diverse membership to work together is a major strength of Lorraine Avenue and explains the almost complete lack of significant disputes... Member are vocal and opinionated, but they also respect each other and the integrity of different viewpoints?” That was written in 1982, has it been true for you?
31. (L) Were you there for Don Steelberg’s 1986 sermon on Galatians that addressed circumcision and homosexuality? What do you remember of Don’s approach and position toward homosexuality?
30. (R) Were you part of discussions leading up to the welcoming statement? What were the reactions? Did anybody leave?
31. (R) What were the reactions from other groups? Other Mennonite churches? Other groups in the area?
32. Do you know of any other denominations or congregations whose approach to this issue you admire?
33. What are your thoughts on the recent legislative debates over homosexual? What is your position on gay marriage, gay unions, the constitutional amendment in Kansas?
34. In your life time, have you seen a culture of permissiveness? What should be the church’s response?
35. What does it mean for Lorraine/Rainbow to be an urban church? Do you think Lorraine/Rainbow has a vision and/or a mission here and are they living up to it? How are the needs of Lorraine/Rainbow different than rural Mennonite churches?
Appendix E: Glossary
Anabaptist – Term meaning “re-baptizer” used to describe the sixteenth century groups that formed the radical wing of the Protestant Reformation. Includes groups today such as various Mennonites groups, various Amish groups, Hutterites, and the Brethren in Christ. Radical left-leaning Mennonites today are especially apt to want congregations to fulfill the vision (parts both real and mythical) of these urban dwellers who were radical, loud and executed by both the Catholics and the Lutherans.
BMC – Brethren/Mennonite Council for Gay and Lesbian Concerns
CPS - Civilian Public Service. An organization created during World War II for conscientious objectors who refused to do active or noncombatant military service. Participants did a variety of domestic service projects.
GC – General Conference Mennonite Church, especially important among Kansas Mennonites. The Western District Conference is the GC area conference for Kansas.
HSSC – Human Sexuality Study Committee. Joint MC and GC effort in 1980s
MC – Mennonite Church. Largest Mennonite denomination. Merged with GC in 2001 to form MCUSA. Also called “Old Mennonites.” In addition to the many GC Mennonites, there are also many MC Mennonites in Kansas, including an MC owned school Hesston College, in Hesston, KS. The South Central area is the MC district which covers Kansas. Lorraine and Rainbow were both members of the South Central district until Rainbow was loosed in 1996 after putting a welcoming statement in their bulletin and not backing down from it.
MCC – Mennonite Central Committee. Aid organization that received support from dozens of different Mennonite-related denominations. Also has had a lobbying office in Washington, D.C. since 1968
MCUSA – Formed after the two largest Mennonite denominations in America (GC and MC) merged in 2001. Canadian Mennonites thus became more separate than they had previously been from American Mennonites.
MLA – Mennonite Library and Archives, located on the Bethel College campus in North Newton, Kansas
MMA - Mennonite Medical Association
Muppies – Slang term for Mennonite urban professionals. Not really used at all, outside of Emerson L. Lesher’s humorous book The Muppie Manual: The Mennonite Urban Professional’s Handbook for Humility and Success. Intercourse, PA: Good Books, 1985. This book is focused partly on helping older rural Mennonites and their urban fast-paced children relate to each other after twentieth century urbanization.
WDC - The Western District Conference is the GC area conference for Kansas. Both Lorraine and Rainbow are strong parts of WDC.
The reader should know that sources published by by Herald Press in Scottdale, PA are going to be from the Mennonite Church (“Old Mennonite”) and sources published by Faith and Life Press in Newton, KS are likely focusing more on the General Conference.
(Footnotes)
1 Lois Harder, personal interview by author, 5 June 2006. Lois points out that rural churches have been sucked into the controversy because their children are gay and lesbian. Those children then often go to the cities to find acceptance.
2 John Linscheid’s tells his version of this story in “Two Faithful Congregations,” in Cost of Truth: Faith Stories of Mennonites and Brethren Leaders and Those Who Might Have Been, ed. Roberta Schowalter Kreider (Kulpsville, PA: Strategic Press, 2004), 242-250.
3 The Metropolitan Community Church denomination was founded largely to minister to Gays, Lesbians, Bisexual and Transgendered persons.
4 Dorothy Nickel Friesen, personal communication, 6 July 2006.
5 “Mennonite” is used in this essay to describe the two largest American Mennonite denominations, the General Conference (GC) and the Mennonite Church (MC), unless noted otherwsie. The MC and the GC merged to form Mennonite Church USA in 2001. The three churches studied here, Lorraine, Rainbow and Lawrence Fellowship, have in the past had dual membership with conferences in the GC and the MC.
6 When I speak specifically about the two sides of the homosexuality debate, “inclusive” and “traditional” will be used.
7 In this essay “progressive” and “conservative” will be used to describe persons or groups of people in the context of social policies. Someone who is “conservative” (socially) would be one who is more likely to oppose legalized abortion, feminism, and gay civil unions. Progressives are those more likely to see the effects of modernization in sexual mores on the Mennonite community over the last 50 years as a positive change, or necessary corrective.
8 For example Fred Kniss, Disquiet in the Land (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1997), a book completely devoted to conflict in the MC sees homosexuality as the “latest disquiet,” but leaves it for “later analysts.” Keith Graber Miller’s Wise as Serpents, Innocent as Doves (Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press, 1996), Perry Bush’s Two Kingdoms, Two Loyalties, Mennonite Pacifism in Modern America (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998) and Paul Toews’ Mennonites in American Society 1930-1970 (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1996) leave the issue uncovered. Jim Junke’s People of Two Kingdoms: Political Acculturation of Kansas Mennonites (Newton, KS: Faith and Life Press, 1975) ends at 1948.
9 Additionally, 1968 is near the Stone Wall Riots of 1969, which was a major turning point for the modern gay rights movement.
10 C. Henry Smith, The Story of the Mennonites, 4th ed. (Newton, KS: Mennonite Publication Office, 1957), 529-530.
11 Theron F. Schlabach, Peace, Faith and Nation (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1998), 231-294.
12 Bethel College in North Newton, Kansas, founded in 1887 is the oldest Mennonite College in America. Bethel as well as Tabor College in Hillsboro, KS which was founded in 1908, were formed by Russian Mennonites.
13 J. Howard Kauffman and Leo Driegder, Mennonite Mosaic (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1991), 149. Kauffman and Driedger noted that the MC has had a larger focus on traditional ethnic culture because many of the new converts come from Amish backgrounds, whereas GC Kansans have been more ethnically pluralistic.
14 Toews, Mennonites in American Society, 30.
15 Bush, Two Kingdoms, Two Loyalties, 129, passim.
16 Beulah Stauffer Hostetler, “Midcentury Change in the Mennonite Church,” Mennonite Quarterly Review 60, no.1 (1996): 60.
17 Ibid., 63.
18 Stauffer Hostetler, “Midcentury Change,” 60-1.
19 Driedger and Kauffman, Mennonite Mosaic, 192-9. Dreidger and Kauffman focused on churches in the MC, GC, Mennonite Brethren, Brethren in Christ, and Eastern Mennonite Conference. This paper focuses only on the first two, which both were shown to be a bit more progressive on social issues such as acceptance of homosexuality and legalized abortion than the last three groups in Driedger and Kaffman’s large sociological survey.
20 Lin Garber, “Mennonite and the ‘Homosexual’ Issue: A Recent History,” in Booklet 2: Historical Perspectives, part of the “Welcome to the Dialogue Series, A Search for Inclusiveness,” Ruth Conrad Liechty, ed. (Goshen, Indiana: Welcome Committee, 2001), 25-7.
21 Brian Stucky, interview by author, 17 Feb 2007.
22 David A. Haury, A People of the City, A History of the Lorraine Avenue Mennonite Church, n.p. 1982, 48, 50-1. Dale Schrag, “The Founding of Lorraine Mennonite Church,” Department of
History, Paper for Special Topics in History 810, Wichita State University (1978), 48-9. Although the idea of a Wichita Mennonite church had had some official support since at least 1911, construction of Lorraine began 5 August 1932 and the first business meeting was 9 October 1932. This history of Rainbow is less well-documented, but page 51 of Haury’s book as well as multiple interviews put the founding of Rainbow in the 1950s, likely a long process.
23 The economic incentive was analyzed in Dale Schrag, “Founding of Lorraine Mennonite Church,” 20. Schrag noted that while the Mennonite leadership, including E.G. Kaufman and J.W. Kliewer had a strong pro-rural bias, some of the best Mennonite stock, especially young girls, were headed to Wichita throughout the first half of the 20th century. Escaping closed rural communities, as well as the anti-urbanism mindset of many Kansas churches, was noted in an interview by author with Don Steelberg, 14 June 2006, Wichita.
24 Garber, “Mennonites and the “Homosexual” Issue,” 24.
25 Mennonites have been instrumental and abundant in the Arts in Prison program both in the Newton/Hutchingson area and the Kansas City area. Mennonites from Rainbow have been crucial in programs such as the East Hill Singers in Johnson County, KS. The East Hill singers have been active since 1996, perform multiple concerts every year, and have a reputation for memorable performances. For more see,
www.volunteersolutions.org/vcjc/org/15008886.html26 Ann Fetters, personal communication, 25 June 2006.
27 Robert Kaufman, personal interview, 8 June 2006.
28 Interviewee Willard Siebel, age 72, used to term “coerced” to describe treatment toward many Mennonite conscientious objectors to war. Leo Goertz, age 84, described his youth community as “rigid” and many others had similar reflections. Robert Kaufman and Don Steelberg both described this flight of rural “disenfranchised” Mennonites to Rainbow and Lorraine.
29 Roberta Schowalter Kreider, ed., Cost of Truth: Faith Stories of Mennonite and Brethren Leaders and Those Who Might Have Been (Kulpsville, PA: Strategic Press, 2004), 84. Also all the interviews done by author clearly show that homosexuality was typically never addressed publicly, such as from the pulpit or a similar medium during the 1960s or earlier. Most never had to think about homosexuality beyond schoolyard homophobia, and at least one was doubtful as a youth whether homosexuals really existed. Garber, “Mennonites and the ‘Homosexual’ Issue,” 32. Garber wrote that “Before 1969 Mennonites simply subscribed to the attitude of the general population on the subject of same-gender affection: they pretended it did not exist.” Garber also described that “The prevailing mood was “don’t ask, don’t tell”--as it was with such subjects as premarital cohabitation, abortion and even birth control.”
30 Roland Krause, interview by author, 8 June 2006.
31 Duane Graber, interview by author, 11 June 2006. Roland Krause, a more conservative interviewee at Lorraine repeatedly used the word “problem,” whereas progressive Mennonites used the term “issue” instead.
32 Sonia Andreas, personal interview by author, 7 June 2006. Kreider, ed., Cost of Truth, 59-64, 85, et al. Roberta Schowalter Kreider, ed., From Wounded Hearts (Gaithersberg, MD: Chi Rho Press, 1998), 59, et al. Many of these stories are from people who grew up in Kansas.
33 Garber, “Mennonites and the ‘Homosexual’ Issue,” 30.
34 Sonia Andreas, personal interview by author, 7 June 2006.
35 Sonia Andreas, personal interview by author, 7 June 2006. Kreider, From Wounded Hearts, 59-67, 154-161, et al.
36 Garber, “Mennonites and the ‘Homosexual’ Issue,” 35.
37 Leo Goertz, personal interview, 11 June 2006. Leo described Frank as the “primary promoter” of the push for inclusiveness and as “sensitized very early in his ministry by a young woman” who attempted suicide. Frank has been very public about his inclusiveness and his views can be found in Kreider, Cost of Truth, 233-241.
38 Don Steelberg, personal interview, 14 June 2006. A short statement by Don and his wife Elsie, who served on the HSSC in the 1980s, can be seen in Kreider, Cost of Truth, 305.
39 Don Steelberg, personal interview, 14 June 2006. It is my impression that most members did not know about this ceremony.
40 Don and Elsie Steelberg, personal interview, 14 June 2006. See early in interview, after question 9.
41 Kauffman and Driedger, Mennonite Mosaic, 212-213. Again to emphasize this point, 78% of the 1987 Conservative Protestant group would favor legalized abortion in the case of rape, whereas only 31% of the 1989 Mennonite group would.
42 Ibid., 199. “Mennonites” in this study included five groups: the MC, the GC, the Mennonite Brethren, the Brethren in Christ, and Eastern Mennonite Conference. Although the two groups studied in this paper, the GC and MC, were the most progressive of the five groups, the percent difference was usually only about 3-7 percent for the various homosexuality questions. The “Conservative Protestant” group consisted of Nazarenes, Pentecostals, Baptists, Mennonites, Salvation Army, etc.
43 Kauffman and Driedger, Mennonite Mosaic, 198.
44 Ibid., 196. Kauffman and Driedger also warn scholars against assumptions of liberalization (or some sort of constant “progress”) over time.
45 John D’Emilio, and Estelle B. Freedman, Intimate Matters, A History of Sexuality in America (New York: Harper and Row, 1988), 346-7.
46 Ibid.
47 Ibid.
48 For more see Martin R. Rock, “Rejected by the Church – Chosen by God,” in From Wounded Hearts, 1-7. Also, Rob Gascho, “The Journey Is Our Home: A Brief History of Brethren/Mennonite Council for Lesbian and Gay Concerns” Dialogue, 13(1): 1-2; 1991 March.
49 Letters between BMC leaders and Vern Preheim, General Secretary of the GC and member of the HSSC, are available in Human Sexuality Study Committee Box 1 of 2, MLA VII DD.1, North Newton, KS.
50 American Psychological Association, Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality, 2006,
www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html#mentalillness (June 17, 2006).
51 Enos Martin, and Ruth K. Martin, “Homosexuality: Development and Ethical Issues-- Implications for the Church,” in Consultation Papers, A Symposium on Human Sexuality, John R. Mumaw, ed. (Harrisonburg, VA: Mennonite Medical Association, 1979),174-187. See also Ewert, David, “The Bible and Homosexuality,” in Consultation Papers, 143-145.
52 Mumaw, Consultation Papers, 198.
53 Mumaw, Consultation Papers, 15, 23. This was often due to the small numbers of homosexuals that had participated in studies at the time, and the fact that many of the studies had been done on non-standard groups, such as prisoners or psychiatric patients.
54 Don and Elsie Steelberg, personal interview by author, 14 June 2006.
55 For a list of HSSC members, see appendix A.
56 Don Steelberg should also be given credit for helping Elsie write her paper on homosexuality for the HSSC (especially with the theological parts). A simple readings of the document will quickly reveal its dual-minded nature. Like the MMA, there were many issues that people could not agree upon. Papers and letters taken from Vern Preheim’s desk show that there were three initial documents gathered: a lecture/paper from Howard Charles, Elsie’s contribution and the Martin/Martin article seen in note 55. Also influential was John Linscheid’s detailed Febuary 1983 critique of draft 7, in which, among other things, John critiqued the HSSC for looking at homosexuality as a “problem” brought on by a certain group of people instead of focusing on homophobia and how the church’s response has been unloving. Human Sexuality Study Committee Box 2 of 2, Mennonite Library and Archives VII DD.1, North Newton, KS
57 Working Document for Study and Dialogue, Human Sexuality in the Christian Life (Newton, KS: Faith and Life Press, 1985), 11, 13.
58 Elsie Steelberg, personal interview by author, 14 June 2006.
59 Garber, “Mennonites and the “Homosexual” Issue,” 29-31. Loren L. Johns, “Homosexuality and the Mennonite Church,” Resources on Homosexuality, www.ambs.edu/LJohns/H&MC.htm (18 July 2006) noted that “the [HSSC] was disappointed with how few congregations actually studied their document.”
60 Letters between BMC leaders and Vern Preheim, other communications as well, available in Human Sexuality Study Committee Box 1 of 2, Mennonite Library and Archives VII DD.1, North Newton, KS.
61 Willard M. Swartley, Homosexuality, Biblical Interpretation and Moral Discernment (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 2003), 179n. Swartley lists Schrogg’s and Boswell’s books among the three influential revisionist works that brought forth wider theological study of homosexuality.
62 See John D’Emilio, Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities, The Making of a Homosexual
Minority in the United States, 1940-1970, 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1998), 4. Also Kenneth Plummer, ed. The Making of the Modern Homosexual (London 1981).
63 Tom Harder, personal interview by author, 5 June 2006. Tom recognized that humanity’s understanding of homosexuality, both scientifically and theologically, is limited at this point and could move in many directions. For the time being, he has told several members of Lorraine that he is willing to err on the side of acceptance and love. Reading Swartley’s Homosexuality, Biblical Interpretation and Moral Discernment reveals that the traditional and inclusive sides of the homosexuality debate among Mennonites are not nearly as radical or polarized as in the broader American political atmosphere. Although Swartley is clearly on the traditional side, he has been very humble in his approach and has been willing to listen to all sides.
64 John Linscheid, “Profile, John M. Linscheid,” The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Religious Archives Network, 4 March 2004, www.lgbtran.org/Profile.aspx?A=L&ID=30 (13 March 2007)
65 Anne Bailey, interview by author, 27 Feb 2007.
66 Ibid.
67 Carl Edwards, interview by author, 27 Feb 2007.
68 Anne Bailey, interview by author, 27 Feb 2007.
69 Linscheid, “Profile.”
70 Johns, Homosexuality and the Mennonite Church. Thorough coverage of the Listening committee was provided by Melanie Zuercher, “The Story of the Listening Committee,” in Booklet 2: Historical Perspectives, part of the “Welcome to the Dialogue Series, A Search for Inclusiveness,” Ruth Conrad Liechty, ed. (Goshen, Indiana: Welcome Committee, 2001), 25-7. For a list of Listening Committee members, see appendix B. It should be noted that Kansans are more than represented. The first meeting was in Newton, KS on November 16-17, 1990. Also, to my knowledge two members were longtime Kansans (Dotty Jantzen and Earl Loganbill), one grew up in Kansas (Vern Rempel), and one has moved to Kansas since (Ann Schowalter).
71 Johns, Homosexuality and the Mennonite Church.
72 Ibid.
73 Elsie Steelberg, personal interview by author, 14 June 2006.
74 Frank Ward, “A Brief History of the Rainbow Mennonite Church and Its Acceptance of Persons
Regardless of Sexual Orientation, [1997].” Typewritten, Rainbow Mennonite Library, revised 28 Oct, 2000 by Mitch Kaufman, 1.
75 Kreider, Cost of Truth, 240. Here Frank lists the supporting percentage as more than 85% throughout the process. Others have noted higher amounts on specific votes.
76 Johns, Homosexuality and the Mennonite Church.
77 The “Mennonite media” here includes The Mennonite, Mennonite Weekly Review, Gospel Herald, and Mennolink, a public listserv for Mennonites.
78 Muriel Stackley, personal interview by author, 8 June, 2006. So much so that the editor of the Gospel Herald declared a moratorium on printing letters about homosexuality in 1995.
79 John Linscheid, Letter to Vern Preheim and HSSC members, Human Sexuality Study Committee Box 2 of 2, Mennonite Library and Archives VII DD.1, North Newton, KS.
80 Loren L Johns, Statements of Mennonite Conferences, Boards, and Committees on Homosexuality (1985–2004), www.ambs.edu/LJohns/ChurchDocs.htm (18 July 2006).
81 Tom Harder, personal interview by author, 5 June 2006.
82 Sonia Andreas, personal interview by author, 7 June 2006.
83 Swartley, Homosexuality, 142-146. Swartley sees homosexuals as victims of postmodern relativism in moral values. Affirming this paper’s earlier idea of a 1990s focus on addressing homophobia, Swartley agrees that discrimination and hatefulness is the worst sin in relation to this issue.
84 Duane Graber, personal interview by author, 11 June 2006.
85 John Linscheid , “An Undaunted Hope,” in Kreider, From Wounded Hearts, 100-1.
86 Zuercher, “The Story of the Listening Committee,” 5-6.
____________
Addendum: Letter from John Linscheid, 6/19/07:
Dear Rainbow blog keepers:
A couple of days ago, my partner, Ken, ran across Robert Michael Weaver's amazing senior seminar paper regarding Urban Kansas Mennonites and Homosexuality on your blog. Since I seem to figure prominently in what Robert wrote, I thought you and he might be interested in a slightly alternative account of the Lawrence church portion of that interesting history. I hope you will have some way to pass my notes along to him. I commend him on his effort and a truly astute analysis. I don't think my differing memory of events substantially changes the analysis. And I suppose that, after almost twenty-five years, each person who was part of those events now remembers them somewhat differently.
I am struggling to remember which Anne was Anne Bailey (for some reason the last names faded faster than the first). I do remember Carl Edwards--but probably because we have periodically been in touch since those days. The question arises whether I have colored the history, in my memory, to make it a beautiful example of Christian discernment and process in the face of institutional pressure. Maybe I have made things sound better than they were to justify what I put the Lawrence congregation through. On the other hand, I suppose it is possible that Carl Edwards and Anne Bailey have colored the process a bit more bitter because they lived through the subsequent conflict and split in the Lawrence Fellowship that was so destructive. (I had long since moved to Philadelphia by that time.)
An historical detail: The Lawrence Mennonite Fellowship started long before 1980, although documentation may make its genesis seem to stem from that time. It existed for a while as just an occasional fellowship group for Mennonites (mostly KU-related) in Lawrence. But for several years in the late 1970s, it was meeting every other week for worship in homes (because John and Reinhild Janzen, who were major organizers, traveled to church in Elbing, Kansas, on the "off" weeks). Indeed, that was the pattern when I was called to be its first pastor. But I soon began an "off" Sunday gathering that led to an every-Sunday meeting plan.
At least 80 percent (if not more) of the congregation's funding came from the Western District Home Missions Committee.
My coming out to the congregation in my fourth year there was actually a long process. In early 1983, I wrote an article on sexual ethics for BMC's Dialoge. One couple in the Fellowship objected to my views. They raised objections with church leadership. However, because there was no official Mennonite position on the issue at that time (pre-Saskatoon, pre-Purdue), it was generally argued that I was free to argue positions as long as I argued them biblically.
Later that Spring, I authored the BMC response to the draft report of the HSSC presented at Bethlehem '83 and I became closely associated with BMC as a "supportive pastor" (BMC leaders were aware I was gay).
With the topic hot in the denomination, it got raised more and more. As the debate grew, I became increasingly uncomfortable arguing in the third person something that was first-person for me. So I wrote a spiritual journey paper that I shared with a small study group. Anne remembers the meeting being unusually quiet and it probably was because, instead of an oral presentation, I handed around written copies to be read.
I then took the information to the congregation's leadership and we decided to share it with everyone in the congregation through a letter. As I recall, individuals in the study group were very good about keeping it confidential prior to distribution of the letter.
A congregational meeting was called. Not of one mind, the congregation decided it needed time to study and pray and so decided to meet again in a month. They also agreed to ask the conference pastor of Western District to attend.
Agree or disagree, everyone was open with me. People were open about talking with one another--there was no talking behind my back. I experienced nothing but great respect and love from both those who agreed with me and those who disagreed with me.
One month later (in December of 1983), the congregation reconvened. Some did not know how they could explain to their children that their church had a gay pastor. Others would not know how to explain firing a pastor just because he was gay. Some thought they might need to leave if I stayed. Others if I would go. All seemed terrified that it would split the congregation. No one wanted anyone else to leave. Finally, someone noted that it appeared that the one thing they all agreed on was that they didn't want to split up over this.
After considerable discussion, they decided that they did not have to make a decision immediately and could continue the discernment process. They would invite the Western District Home Missions Committee and Ministerial Committee into a study process and work toward a decision. But their primary goal would remain to stay unified.
Uncertain what to do with me, they decided to keep me on as pastor for five more months and then revisit the question of my employment. They would take as long as they needed to discern where God was leading.
I was asked to write to the Ministerial Committee to give some information about my point of view. The church chair would arrange with District leader for a the joint discernment meeting.
But several months later, at the meeting the congregation understood would start the discernment process with Western District, the district representatives isntead announced that my credentials had been revoked and that all funds to the congregation would be cut off if I was not fired immediately. The congregation was stunned and requested time to respond.
After several weeks, the congregation responded to the District in several ways.
First, it pointed out that there was no official denominational position on homosexuality upon which to base the action that had been taken. They requested that at least the District hold a meeting to discuss the topic of homosexuality. (The District agreed and about a year later held a meeting on homosexuality was held in Hutchinson, Kansas--I was invited as one of the resource people.)
Second, the congregation noted their promise to keep me on through May and requested District funds continue at least through then as a matter of integrity. The district agreed.
Third, they promised to give the District a final decision before the end of May.
In April, about five months after I came out to the entire congregation, the meeting was held that Anne Bailey describes as "in one of the members' living rooms". Although there was still not unity in views, there was in practicality. Some felt I should leave on principle. Some felt I would have to leave once the money was cut off anyway. Some felt that having to continue to process the issue forever would be debilitating to the congregation. A general consensus (I think one person "stepped aside" so as not to block consensus) was achieved. I had left the room and I believe that I joined the general consensus when I returned to demonstrate my agreement that it was best for the community.
I stayed a few more Sundays until the end of May. Then I moved to Topeka, having met my partner, Ken White, early in the process of coming out to the church.
Ironically, the following October, I was elected a member of the Peace Committee of the Western District Conference without objection by the same delegates who received the Ministerial Committeee report that noted the action removing my credentials and my removal from ministry because I was gay. Even in 1984, the issue had not yet become as polarizing as it would eventually become. I'm guessing that I was the first openly gay man elected to a district position in the Western District Conference (maybe the only one so far). But I had to resign the position when I moved to Philadelphia several months later.
I can't shed any light on the subsequent conflict that split the Lawrence Fellowship. Even after I came out, I got along very well with the "conservatives." There had always been some tensions there between more progressive and more conservative views. I actually think that I held the two together quite well because I was very liberal in my thinking but very very biblical. I think my biblicism made my liberalism less threatening and my liberlism made my biblicism less threatening. The spiritual encounters I'd had with Jesus were sufficiently familiar to be trusted by evangelicals but questioning, agnosticism, atheism, and interfaith dialogue never freaked me out. If my ouster contributed to the subsequent split in some way, that's ironic, because I think that in many ways, I was probably exactly the sort of pastor they needed to keep the factions together.
Although I have to leave it to others to tell what happened after I left and what caused the subsequent splits, I find myself reluctant to believe it happened. When we got into conflict, everyone treated me with absolute love and respect. I can't remember being mistreated by anyone. I felt more mistreated by the WDC "moderate" leaders who kept doing what was "practical" and "necessary" than by the Lawrence people who genuinely opposed my views but respected me and confronted me face-to-face. It saddens me. I remember them all, supporters and opponents, very fondly.
Robert Michael Weaver is sadly correct. The Mennonite Church has hardened over the years. It has become more exclusive, more conservative (in a bad way).
So if you have a way to get this message to Robert Michael Weaver, please send it along with my thanks for his good work and the reminder of my time in Lawrence. And thanks to all of you for posting his paper on your blog--your work is of God.
Peace in Christ,
John Linscheid
