How does a denomination deal with conflict or disagreement, especially when the disagreement is over core theological beliefs and established institutional policies? That might be the primary question at the heart of this edition of Brethren in Christ History and Life. Rather than explore various aspects of the “history” of the previous 246 years of the Brethren in Christ Church, this edition focuses on its current “life,” invites dialogue—even when the issues are difficult, controversial, and personal—and calls for a real-life test of the meaning of our core values, “belonging to the community of faith” and “pursuing peace.
In these pages, the journal begins a long-overdue discussion of a topic that has been and will continue to be highly controversial: human sexuality and gender identity. To what extent should we welcome and include LGBTQ+ believers in our faith communities? We at the Historical Society believe that the church must address the topic in a way that allows for multiple voices to be heard. We know and understand the official position of the church on human sexuality, and we are aware that the church has addressed the issue in seminars and through discussion in conjunction with revisions to the Manual of Doctrine and Government. Yet we also know that there are many among us who feel like they haven’t been heard. They would like to be part of the Brethren in Christ Church but have either been de-credentialed or left the church because of their disagreement, or feel abandoned, shunned, or excluded from full participation in the church because of their beliefs and/or practices.
The conversation in this edition is between three people representing three different points of view: 1) the traditional position of the Brethren in Christ Church as clearly articulated in the “Articles of Faith and Doctrine”; 2) a pastoral approach that recognizes the traditional position on human sexuality and marriage and also leaves room for ministers to make accommodations for LGBTQ+ people; and 3) the case for the full inclusion of LGBTQ+ individuals and couples in the church. All three authors have similar education and experience, including experience as pastors and professors at the college/university level. All three authors was given the same template for their essays, so that equivalent/parallel information is offered on behalf of each position. Each author has also written a response to the other two essays. This format provides an opportunity for each person and his position to be fully “heard.” It’s one model for how conversations on difficult issues can begin—and, to be clear, it is only a beginning.
Of course, there are limitations to a conversation like this among three individuals. The authors are all straight white men, and there are no voices from the LGBTQ+ community, although we may include some of those voices in a future edition of the journal. Further, the conversation is confined to words on a page without the give and take of in-person conversations. We hope, however, that these essays can be a catalyst for a more full-throated conversation, where more voices and perspectives and experiences can be included. The Historical Society is committed to the Brethren in Christ Church, and we deeply desire that the church will continue to reflect Jesus’s love and compassion for all people. We want a conversation that is open, honest, healthy, and more inclusive. How can that happen?
This edition of the journal also addresses another sometimes controversial belief of the Brethren in Christ Church, namely, its so-called “peace position”: “preparation for or participation in war is inconsistent with the teachings of Christ.” In the April 2024 edition of the journal, Randy Basinger explored at some length the “qualifying clause” to that position: “While respecting those who hold other interpretations, we believe that. . . .”1 Randy considered how the qualifying clause came to be and its implications in the life of the church. As I said earlier, the question at the heart of this edition is how we deal with different views in a denomination that holds to specific beliefs. How do we continue the conversation Randy’s article invited? Therefore, in that spirit, several people have written brief responses to Randy’s article: two who were there in 1990-1992 when the qualifying clause emerged at General Conference, one who at this point “holds other interpretations,” and two younger people who came to denomination in part because of the peace position, qualifying clause and all.
Finally, in a serendipitous confluence, the 2024 Schrag Lecture at Messiah University in March was on “Peacefully Resolving Conflict in Our Polarized Society.” Regular readers know that we generally publish Schrag Lectures in the journal. Lorraine Stutzman Amstutz and her husband Jim Amstutz, with many years of experience in conflict management, teaching, and pastoral ministry between them, spoke about how to have these often difficult and polarizing conversations. Their suggestions and examples are relevant to the conversation we need to have in the Brethren in Christ Church about human sexuality and gender identity, as well as conversations about other issues about which we sometimes disagree, like the peace position.
The journal ends with the usual book reviews.
- Randall Basinger, “The Brethren in Christ and the Peace Position: Brethren in Christ Statements of Faith and Their Significance,” Brethren in Christ History and Life 47, no. 1 (April 2024): 3-53. [↩]
Is there any provision for folks (BIC) who don’t have a high income to afford such costs for this 3x per year publication? I would very much like to be kept abreast of these issues.