July 2003
|
Dan Nigh- swander |
WHY DID PEOPLE VOTE “NO” TO RESOLUTION #6 AT THE ST. CATHARINES
ASSEMBLY?
Resolution # 6 was presented to the delegates at MC Canada’s assembly
in St. Catharines by the Resolutions Committee at the request of two delegates
from Niverville Mennonite Church (Manitoba) who had to catch their flights
before the resolution was presented on Saturday afternoon. With discernment
by the Resolutions Committee and in consultation with the Niverville delegates,
the final resolution presented to delegates read as follows:
Since we believe that marriage is the joining of one man and one woman
in a life-long covenant of love, and
Since the Prime Minister has indicated his intention to have the Federal
Government redefine marriage in future legislation;
Be it resolved that the General Board communicate to the Federal Government
Mennonite Church Canada’s understanding of marriage and our encouragement
that, whatever action the government should take to redefine marriage,
all religious groups be guaranteed the freedom to practice and proclaim
their understanding of what marriage is.
At the end of a long day and the end of the assembly with no background
and limited time for discussion, this resolution drew a number of comments
from the floor. A ballot vote was called for and the resolution passed
by a vote of 131 to 130, with 16 spoiled ballots. (Note that this total
is substantially lower than the 372 delegates registered.)
What does this vote mean? Only that the delegates were not of one mind
as to whether the General Board should write such a letter. Any further
interpretation is a projection of what particular delegates may have meant
with their vote. The following notes offer some interpretations.
In conversations with a number of delegates, the following reasons for
voting no to the resolution have been named:
- Some people felt that those who brought the resolution should have
been available to speak to their intent;
- Some people didn't see the need for the resolution, given the fact
that the Canadian government has never forced us to perform marriages
we don't want to perform;
- Some people would like to engage in a conversation about church/state
matters before making representations to the government (i.e., - should
we as a church be in the marrying business at all, or might it be better
for the state to do the legal act and churches/denominations to bless/not
bless unions as we see fit, according to our beliefs);
- Some people felt the resolution was poorly worded and were unclear
about its meaning;
- Some people perceived the motion to be a request to re-affirm something
that the church has already said in its Confession of Faith and resented
being asked to do that;
- Some people expressed concern that the reference to "all religious
groups" might include people who believe in polygamy, same-sex
marriages etc. and that we might be unwittingly promoting their freedom
to do so;
- Some people do not agree that our understanding of marriage cannot
include same-sex couples.
There may have been other factors not yet identified. It is impossible
to determine what proportion of delegates was influenced by which factors
or combinations of factors.
The following excerpts are from a letter by an individual who spoiled
their ballot because of the confusion. These excerpts illustrate the confusion
many experienced:
“This resolution was difficult to interpret for the following
reasons:
“1) There was little time to review the implications of the motion.
Many of us did not read it before Saturday morning and even afternoon.
This issue is complex and we need more time to process it.
“2) Those who submitted the resolution were not in attendance
to respond to questions raised during the question period.
- Are we being asked to make a negative statement about homosexual
marriage?
- Are we being asked to decide an issue before we realize what we
are deciding?
- Was this motion suggesting that our understanding of marriage was
under attack from our federal government?
- Does this resolution support the government’s proposed changes
to the definition of marriage?
- Does this resolution suggest that the government’s proposed
changes to the definition of marriage are supported by MC Canada?
Under this interpretation this would enable MC Canada and other churches
to more easily change their own definitions of marriage in the future.
“3) The determination of how to vote was difficult. If one planned
to vote against the motion, it might appear that we were opposed to
the definition of marriage given in the first sentence or opposed to
the federal government’s proposed future legislation or both.
If we planned to vote for the motion, we may be understood to be planning
to change our own definition of marriage in the future or trying to
protect our current definition. These are quite different interpretations
of the motion.
“Does the government want to know our understanding of marriage?
Was this freedom ever at risk?
“Maybe it would be wise for us to understand our own views –
do some discerning. The notion of civil marriage is not as old as the
New Testament. State recognition is a relatively recent phenomenon,
whereas family and community recognition is ancient. The Constantinian
synthesis is one of the key elements in the transition to our present
state of affairs.
“How old is church recognition in the formal legal sense? What
part does the church or the state have in defining marriage? Is there
confusion caused by the use of the one word ‘marriage’ in
two distinct contexts – ecclesial and political? By answering
these questions, we may find a way through this morass. How does a missional
church think this through?”
In spite of the confusion the delegates did vote to pass the resolution.
(Some have argued that the mandate was weak, but it met the standard of
a simple majority of votes cast [bylaw 11.3] and it is not appropriate
for the Board to change the threshold nor to set aside the majority vote,
since those are the rules we have agreed to follow.) The following letter
has been drafted to be sent to the Prime Minister and copied to The Honourable
Martin Cauchon, Minister of Justice:
Dear Mr. Prime Minister:
Together with other religious groups in Canada, Mennonite Church Canada
has followed with interest the public debates, the Justice Committee
task force tour and the several provincial court cases regarding the
changing legal definition of marriage.
The definition in our denominational Confession of Faith is that “We
believe that God intends marriage to be a covenant between one man and
one woman for life. Christian marriage is a mutual relationship in Christ,
a covenant made in the context of the church.” Although we disagree
with the direction it is taking, we understand that the societal and
legal definition is changing. It is our intention to retain the practice
of blessing and sanctifying marriages according to our convictions.
We are encouraged by the reported intention of the government to include
in the legislation the protection of religious leaders who refuse to
sanctify same-sex marriages. We believe this is a significant issue
of religious liberty and urge you to be forceful in the wording of this
protection in the legislation that will be presented to parliament.
This letter is consistent with other representations made by Mennonite
Church Canada in concert with other churches in the Canadian Council of
Churches, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada and Mennonite Central Committee.
It is also consistent with a pastoral letter sent by denominational minister
Sven Eriksson to pastors on June 27, 2003 — a letter that provides
clear and wise guidance to pastors for reflecting on the church’s
response to the government initiative (copies available). And it is consistent
with our confession of faith and denominational statements on marriage,
family and sexuality (copies available).
Sincerely,
-Dan Nighswander, general secretary |
