We as a Christian church might one day decide our Spirit-inspired Bible allows for same-sex partnerships -- though I have my doubts. Here is my journey so far.

I have been vocal in my denomination against leaders such as Weldon Nisly and his "pastoral action in violation of the larger Church." (Weldon, pastor at Seattle Mennonite Church, had his pastoral credentials suspended by Pacific Northwest Mennonite Conference because he presided at a union ceremony involving two women who are members of his church.) God knows that I would prefer to be quiet. Every fiber within me screams to join with those voices embodying the value our society holds most dear: tolerance. I shrink from confrontation. Each of my pastoral evaluations over more than 25 years has seen the congregation rank me lowest in my ability to confront persons when needed. (One year the congregation had fun weighing whether they preferred such deficiency in a pastor!).

Yet I invested much time in dialogue concerning those at variance with church teaching on this issue, especially during my years on denominational boards. The impetus for my action sprang from convictions arising out of two lifelong quests -- ultimately, I believe, one quest -- "What does the Bible teach?" and "What is the life that works?"

What the Bible teaches
People of God through the centuries have witnessed the voice of God in Scripture. For Jesus, "Scripture says" and "God says" were interchangeable. As a result, I draw confidence to stand and defend the ethical stances which the church discerns the Bible to be teaching.

Weldon Nisly cares about Scripture. He told denominational (conference) leaders, "If I didn't believe my pastoral action was grounded in Scripture and in the church, I wouldn't consider doing it" (October 28, 2004 letter to PNMC leaders). Those leaders disciplined him for that action because they also care about being faithful to Scripture. All of us want the Bible on our side.

So what does the Bible say regarding homosexuality?

In his letter to denominational leaders, Weldon wrote about a "possible consensus" that the biblical texts on homosexuality "condemn sexual abuse, perversion, and violation" rather than homosexual practice that is faithful and loving.

Perhaps one could say that in decades past. Persons who think the biblical text does not address the issue of loving homosexual relations generally are building on arguments from the books of John Boswell and Robin Scroggs published in the early 1980s. But, as Willard Swartley states, "Numerous scholarly essays have considered the exegetical work of these contributions and have found them both flawed and unconvincing." After listing some of the critics of Boswell and Scroggs, he notes that "These dozen authors span the Christian communion and cannot be dismissed as grinding a conservative ax." His summary is that careful scholarly work on the biblical texts "does not support dismissing them as irrelevant to today's issue of same sex relationships."[Willard Swartley, Homosexuality: Biblical Interpretation and Moral Discernment. Herald Press, 2003. p30-31]

In a review of Swartley's book in the July 2005 Mennonite Quarterly Review, Richard B. Gardner cites Swartley's assessment that "same-sex genital practices were considered morally wrong by Scripture" and then comments,

"A broad spectrum of scholars concurs with this assessment, viewing attempts to limit the biblical proscriptions to particular types of homosexual practice as tenuous at best." [p420; also http://www.goshen.edu/mqr/pastissues/july05.html]

Since all of us in the church view Scripture as important, I will briefly sketch some of the salient discussion on biblical texts that explicitly address same-sex practices. My presentation of these passages does not necessarily carry particular weight -- I am a pastor, not a professional scholar, and am sure to miss crucial nuances here and there. My purpose is simply to sample some of what leads interpreters toward an understanding that the Bible condemns all forms of homosexual sex.

Leviticus
The only outright ban on same-sex erotic behavior in Scripture is found in the Holiness Code of Moses: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination" (Leviticus 18:22 NRSV; also 20:13). The fact that this proscription is found in Leviticus leads many to release Christians from it, since much of the Mosaic code is devoted to ritual impurity or "uncleanness" rather than immorality. But we must go slowly here. This section of Leviticus also contains much moral law including, for instance, injunctions on theft, injustice to the poor, vengeance, and so on.

One clue as to whether this particular Old Testament law still applies to us today is to see if it is carried over into the New Testament. Indeed there is a passage in which the Apostle Paul might do just that: "Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites [Greek: arsenokoitai], thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers--none of these will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Corinthians 6:9-10 NRSV). The Greek word translated as "sodomites" or "homosexual offenders" (NIV) was extremely rare, not occurring in any literature prior to the New Testament and then not occurring again for 200 years. It is a compound word formed from the two Greek words "male" and "to lie," both of which appear in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 in the Greek translation of the Old Testament from which Paul usually quoted. From the list it is in, obviously the word describes some wrong behavior. From the two words that form it, we see that it refers in some way to homosexual behavior. In fact, its very rarity limits its range of possible meaning -- it could not, through use, have acquired a meaning other than the simple and obvious one.

Romans and Jesus
The other oft-cited biblical text on homosexuality is part of a passage presenting a series of behaviors illustrating what happens when persons abandon God. Paul places same-sex relations at the head of his description of the fallen human condition: "For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural [Greek: para physin], and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error" (Romans 1:26-27 NRSV).

Many point out that this passage may not be as straightforward as it appears. Though without doubt it shows Paul's negative evaluation of some type of same-sex conduct, did Paul have in view all same-sex behavior? Is it possible that he censured same-sex conduct because, when he thought of it, he thought of exploitive forms like pederasty or idolatrous forms like cultic temple prostitution, rather than the committed, long-term, same-sex relationships that we now know in our day? If Paul had known that such relationships can exist, some argue, he would have realized that same-sex behavior can be holy and good.

Such conjecture ignores elements of the text. If Paul had in mind acts connected with violence and exploitation, why did he lead with the reference to female-to-female sexual relations (v.26)? Further, the words "consumed with passion for one another" (v.27) suggest something consensual rather than something exploitative or something connected with idolatry. Paul was unique among ancient writers in that he (1) linked female and male same-sex relations and (2) used the language of mutual desire. He described a practice that is virtually indistinguishable from homosexuality as we know it today.

Another point often raised as we seek to understand Romans 1 is that perhaps Paul was referring solely to heterosexual people who engage in homosexual acts. Paul says these persons abandoned their "natural relations." Does this mean they knew and experienced heterosexual affections but abandoned them? If this is true, the passage is not condemning those who are homosexual by nature, but only individual heterosexuals who deny their natures by performing homosexual acts.

This line of thought clashes with linguistic realities. Paul was not thinking of an individual's "natural relations" but of humanity's "natural relations." Yes, a thoroughly modern person with our emphasis on the individual would use "unnatural" to mean "contrary to what a person feels is natural" but Paul and his contemporaries would have meant "contrary to the natural order in creation." The Greek expression para physin ("unnatural") is the standard terminology in dozens of ancient texts for referring to homoerotic acts. Paul is talking about homosexual acts per se.

Any review of the Bible on homosexuality must touch on yet one more item: Jesus never mentioned homosexuality. Yet Jesus also did not mention incest, rape, or pedophilia, and we do not view his silence in those areas as significant. The simple fact is that there was no need to teach on any of those -- all those he met already abhorred such acts.

Such a brief tour of the Bible on homosexuality is far from decisive. But I trust it fulfills a goal of illustrating some of the considerations that lead persons across the theological spectrum to agree that the Bible censures all forms of homosexual sex.

Way to overturn biblical teachings
If the Bible disapproves of homosexual sexual activity, does this mean the matter is forever settled for persons who cling to a high view of Scripture, that the only way to say same-sex relations can be holy is to say that the Bible errs or has limited authority? Not at all. It is entirely possible that I could change my view that homosexual sex is sin and still have a high view of the Scripture. I doubt that this will happen -- read on! Nonetheless, I can conceive of ways that we as a church might decide our Spirit-inspired Bible allows for same-sex partnerships. There are paths that faithful people of God have followed in choosing to no longer observe certain specific instructions of Scripture.

For instance, even when we know what Scripture says, we still have a further question: how should we apply what Scripture says? Almost all biblical instructions are limited in scope -- intended to apply to persons in a certain set of circumstances. We intuitively take this into account as we read instructions in the Bible such as "bring the cloak" (2 Timothy 4:13). We even pass over commands that are repeatedly given to the whole church: five times in the New Testament the church is commanded to "greet one another with a holy kiss;" yet we don't preach or teach that people in our congregations should kiss each other. It's not that the teaching was somehow wrong as written or not Spirit-inspired; it's just that, because of a change in culture, we must apply the principle behind it ("show warm affection to one another") differently now than then. If our situation is different from that of the original audience, the biblical command is still in force only in part or in a modified fashion through its underlying principle.

Therefore, as we read the biblical passages on same-sex conduct, Norman Kraus rightly calls us to be careful as we apply those passages "to vastly different cultures today." He holds open the hope that there may be a line of study that reveals that these biblical texts do not apply to the same-sex covenant relationships we have in our churches today. [C. Norman Kraus, "Pandora's Box or Fibber Mcgee's Closet?" --a chapter in Part One of Stumbling Toward a Genuine Conversation on Homosexuality, Michael A. King, editor.]

This is indeed a path that might lead those of us maintaining a high view of Scripture to conclude that we can stop preaching about the sinfulness of same-sex conduct. Kraus has not done this study, nor does he point to someone who has. But many persons have given hints as to how it might be done. Below is the approach that has struck me as having the most force.

The Cornelius paradigm
In the story of the Roman centurion Cornelius in Acts 10-11 and the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, we see the church overturning a long-held understanding: Gentiles no longer need to be circumcised before inclusion in the people of God. Though the Scriptures taught that uncircumcised persons could not be included in God's covenant community, the early church agreed together that those teachings no longer applied.

If the apostles who honored Scripture could overturn its teaching on circumcision, surely we must be open to the possibility that persons who honor Scripture today could do the same on homosexuality. We reversed our stance on the uncleanness of the Gentiles; perhaps we can also change our stance concerning two men or two women loving one another.

There were two factors that combined to lead the apostles and the Jerusalem church to overturn the Mosaic understandings about the Gentiles. First, they were led by the broader, more basic themes of Scripture. Though many Scriptures taught that uncircumcised persons could not be included in the people of God, at the Jerusalem council James cited a prophecy of Amos that was one of many Old Testament passages containing seeds of the truth that God's purposes would one day encompass all peoples. It's not that the church concluded that those earlier passages were somehow not inspired; rather they concluded that the passages no longer applied to them in the new situation in Christ. Second, the Holy Spirit falling upon the Gentile Cornelius and his household shook the Jerusalem church and opened their eyes to see the significance of this broad theme about the inclusion of Gentiles.

This gives us two questions to consider at length:
- Does the activity of the Spirit in the lives of gay and lesbian believers call us to reexamine the Scriptural teaching against their lifestyle?
- Are there broader themes and principles of the Bible with a bearing on same-sex partnerships that now need a different application in our time than they did in biblical times?

Spirit of God in gays and lesbians
Sexually-active homosexuals witness God's Spirit shaping and empowering their lives. Richard Hays writes, "There are numerous homosexual Christians...whose lives show signs of the presence of God, whose work in ministry is genuine and effective." [The Moral Vision of the New Testament, HarperCollins, 1996, p399] If this action of the Spirit is authentic and real, does it challenge us to cancel the Scripture's witness against homosexual conduct? Does it mean that God approves of these persons' lifestyle, and that we must be willing to change on the issue unless we want to oppose God?

Gardner, after noting scholarly agreement that Scripture considers all types of homosexual practice as morally wrong, goes on to give a reason to go slowly in how we apply Scripture's assessment:

What shall we make of what we read in the lives of committed same-sex partners whose quest for faithful discipleship is as genuine as our own, and who exhibit the Spirit's gifts and empowerment for ministry? It is clear that their witness has been experienced as authentic and validated accordingly by some believing communities.

He adds that

the story of the early church is one in which the lived experience of God's salvation led repeatedly to fresh assessments of the claim and applicability of any number of biblical texts. It is this biblical paradigm that prevents us from treating the lack of biblical support for homosexual practice as final or conclusive. [p421; also http://www.goshen.edu/mqr/pastissues/july05.html]

Peter and the early church saw God speaking to Cornelius and his household, calling them, placing the Spirit on them; and so they knew that God was overturning their understanding on the uncleanness and unacceptableness of the Gentiles. Can our understanding of the unacceptableness of homosexuality similarly be changed as we see God giving the Spirit to our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters?

I would agree that the case can be made that everyone the Spirit is on is in the church and can be baptized. When it appears that the Spirit is upon a lesbian or gay believer, I greet them as my sister or brother. However, persons such as Gardner are making a further assumption that is troubling. They seem to presume that when the Spirit is on someone, we can conclude that all their behavior is holy.

No. The presence of the Spirit in someone's life does not mean that all his or her life is approved by God. We do not decide whether Cornelius' occupation as centurion was affirmed by God by looking at whether God filled him with the Spirit. Many of us know church leaders who have been disciplined for sexual sin, and during the time the sin was occurring we often discerned the Spirit's ministry. This does not mean that the leaders' sexual relations were somehow holy. God in grace places the Spirit even on us sinners. God meets us where we are at and comes into any area of our life we open to the Spirit. We must not confuse God's grace with God's approval.

We still have a second broad question to consider. The activity of the Spirit does not lead us to cancel Scripture's teaching on homosexuality; but what about the other factor that led the apostles and the Jerusalem church? Specifically, do some of Scripture's broader themes align with the idea of same-sex covenants?

Broader biblical themes
The broad, basic themes in the Bible are more important than a few proof-texts or specific rules; the larger themes at times override the more minor themes. For instance, we no longer follow the prohibition against usury (taking money at interest - Exodus 22:25, Lev 25:36-37, Deut 23:19). Instead we give priority to the broad theme behind the regulation (the rich should not take advantage of the poor) rather than to the regulation itself -- in today's complex economy, money borrowed at interest can benefit everyone rather than only enrich the lender. Clearly, a larger, more basic theme of Scripture can lead the people of God to disregard a teaching of Scripture that previously seemed quite strong. This happened in Acts 15. Can the same dynamic happen with regard to homosexuality?

The most basic theme of the Bible is, of course, that love is the fulfilling of God's law (Romans 13:8-10). Most, if not all, of the New Testament's ethical instructions are subordinate to the principle of love. So if today's gay and lesbian relationships can be according to an ethic of love, then perhaps a life partnership between two persons of the same sex can be good and be blessed by God.

Mary Schertz may have this in mind as she suggests an approach which she believes is faithful (reading the Bible "with integrity, strong exegesis, and sound theological judgment") and one that can lead us to "a conclusion that the Mennonite church does not espouse." She writes, "I would begin with the texts that admit eunuchs and Gentiles to the covenant. I would then relate this dynamic both to the larger thematics of the canon (holiness, love, reconciliation, atonement, and so on) and to the specific texts on sexuality." [Mary H. Schertz, "We've Come This Far by Faith," --a chapter in Part One of Stumbling Toward a Genuine Conversation on Homosexuality, Michael A. King, editor]

If I understand Schertz' brief sketch (two sentences), I believe that she indeed does delineate a way, perhaps even the key way, that those studying the Bible could come up with what she is looking for: a way that "would lead us to recognize that sexual union between covenanted, monogamous same-sex partners may also glorify God."

So let us examine whether same-sex partnerships are in accordance with the most basic of biblical themes, that of love. Many persons have same-sex desires and lack desires for the opposite sex by no apparent choice of their own. Is it for their good to satisfy that same-sex desire? Do covenanted same-sex partners have a "life that works"?

Love in same-sex partnerships
It's not sufficient to look for signs of love within lesbian and gay relationships, because we can find marks of love in an extramarital affair or a polygamous marriage. Rather, we must note whether we see distorted elements and harm that flows from the nature of those relationships. If so, we know that the relationships are ultimately wrong even though many things may be right. Wolfhart Pannenberg writes, "Can love ever be sinful? The entire tradition of Christian doctrine teaches that there is such a thing as inverted, perverted love" ["Revelation and Homosexual Experience," Christianity Today, Nov 11 1996]

As church leaders such as Weldon Nisly follow their conscience in blessing the love and life together of a same sex couple, I agonize over whether that action is for the couple's good, as well as the common good. I see indications that same-sex relations involve a distorted love rather than a God-intended love. May I never make such an assessment in a casual or cavalier attitude; agonized soul-searching is called for when people's lives and well-being are at stake.

Many areas could be considered as one examines the love present in gay and lesbian sexual relationships. For instance, a simple understanding of human anatomy immediately raises questions concerning the physical wholeness of these relationships. But I will only look at the area of relational wholeness.

Relational wholeness?
Some persons talk of relationships of same-sex love "between consenting adults who are committed to each other as faithfully and with as much integrity as any heterosexual couple." [Walter Wink, Homosexuality and Christian Faith, p36] However, that kind of experience is foreign to most male homosexuals.

Very few gays are in committed, long-term relationships; promiscuity is the norm. Even more troubling, those who are in long-term committed relationships do not tend to be sexually monogamous. As John Stott writes, "the concept of lifelong, quasi-marital fidelity in homosexual partnerships is largely a myth, a theoretical ideal which is contradicted by the facts" [Same-Sex Partnerships?; Revell, 1998, p51]

Researchers McWhirter and Mattison, themselves a gay couple, studied gays in long-term relationships in the years before AIDS came on the scene. They interviewed 156 male couples and reported that two-thirds of the couples began their relationship with the expectation of sexual exclusivity, but that the partners became more permissive with time. In fact, they found that, of the 100 couples that had been together five years or more, none had remained sexually exclusive. The authors concluded that "the single most important factor that keeps couples together past the ten-year mark is the lack of possessiveness they feel. Many couples learn very early in their relationship that ownership of each other sexually can become the greatest internal threat to their staying together." [McWhirter, D. P. & Mattison, A. M. The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop. Prentice Hall, 1984. p256. Their study of 156 couples is cited in, for instance, John Stott, Same-Sex Partnerships? p52; and Amy Fagan, "Study finds gay unions brief," The Washington Times, July 11, 2003 (online at http://listserv.episcopalian.org/wa.exe?A2=ind0307c&L=virtuosity&P=1803). McWhirter and Mattison's work is also summarized in the professional volume, Textbook of Homosexuality and Mental Health, ed. Robert P. Cabaj and Terry S. Stein; American Psychiatric Press, 1996]

National gay leaders acknowledge that this pattern continues.

Two Harvard-trained gay men wrote a book giving a blueprint for using the mass media to normalize the homosexual lifestyle. The book acknowledges that "the cheating ratio of 'married' gay males, given enough time, approaches 100%....Many gay lovers, bowing to the inevitable, agree to an 'open relationship.'" [After the Ball, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen. 1989. p330] Conservative gay writer Andrew Sullivan contrasts male-female marriages with same sex relationships and explains, "there is more likely to be a greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman." [Virtually Normal. 1996. p202]

In 2002 Barry Adam, a gay professor at the University of Windsor in Canada, conducted a limited study of gay men in relationships lasting longer than one year. Only 25 percent reported being monogamous. "Those who were monogamous were more likely to be younger," Adam said. "One of the reasons I think younger men tend to start with the vision of monogamy is because they are coming with a heterosexual script in their head and are applying it to relationships with men. What they don't see is that the gay community has their own order and own ways that seem to work better." [Washington Blade, August 22, 2003 "Gay couples likely to try non-monogamy, study shows." Online at http://www.washblade.com/2003/8-22/news/national/nonmonog.cfm]

Even gay leaders in the Christian community do not uphold sexual exclusivity. Troy Perry, head of the Metropolitan Christian Church, the largest gay church in America, said in an interview that his community uses the word fidelity rather than monogamy. "Some would say that committed couples could have multiple sexual partners as long as there's no deception. Each couple has to decide" [Dallas Morning News, July 5, 2003; cited in http://www.marriagedebate.com/mdblog/2003_08_10_mdblog_archive.htm, http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/107/41.0.html]

One could almost endlessly multiply citations of this lack of sexual exclusivity among long-term gay couples. The data indicates that there is something about male same-sex relationships which is lacking and not satisfying -- otherwise we would not see so many outside sexual partners. Few would claim that relational wholeness is present in a covenanted sexual relationship if monogamy is not also present.

This pattern is not proof that all same-sex partnerships are inherently wrong. Some, especially lesbian couples, are monogamous. However, the number of Christian gay couples who uphold sexual exclusivity, and not some kind of "emotional monogamy," is much lower than their straight supporters tend to expect. If relational wholeness is so seldom attained, it does skew us toward wondering if something is inherently wrong. The general pattern we observe contributes to a sense that there is a lack of wholeness in the homosexual lifestyle.

If the Christian gay community would publicly express some support for sexual exclusivity in committed covenant relationships, that would affect me greatly, as I have repeatedly told them. I would be much less vocal on this issue. Reality is complex, and I know better than to place great trust in my assessment of their relational wholeness -- we can often make ourselves see what we expect to see. But the community's stark lack of standards on exclusivity makes everything somehow clearer and more definite and urgent.

Did same-sex relations change since Paul's day?
There is yet one further obstacle faced by a "Cornelius paradigm" or any other appeal to broad scriptural themes for the rightness of same-sex covenant relations.

Why didn't these broader themes lead Paul and the early church to recognize same-sex covenant relations as holy? What essential change has happened between then and now that requires these broader themes to have a radically different application today?

In the case of Cornelius, the new situation in Christ changed the way God's purposes could be applied to the Gentiles. Is there likewise some change, whether in culture or redemptive history or same-sex relations, that affects how we apply the truths of love or reconciliation or atonement to the lives of gays and lesbians today?

To my knowledge, no general agreement has emerged to say that same-sex relations in our time are radically different from the ones in biblical times. Rather, the opposite seems true. The fact that Paul in Romans 1 writes about female same-sex relationships and uses terminology denoting mutual desire seems to confirm that he was aware of behavior similar to forms of homosexual conduct we see today. [Eva Cantarella in her book Bisexuality in the Ancient World (Yale University Press) gives instances of homosexual marriage occurring in Greece and Rome.] If so, to conclude that love or another major motif in Scripture calls us to modify these biblical assessments necessitates that we also conclude that these texts on homosexuality were already wrong when written. I cannot do that. I do not approach this discussion irrevocably committed to any particular view on homosexuality -- I would not be appalled if the church changed its view in ten or twenty years. Shaken, but not appalled. I do, however, have one bias to which I am fully committed: a high view of Scripture. I would be appalled if the church changed its mind on this issue by saying that the biblical texts on homosexuality no longer apply to us because all along they were uninspired and wrong.

People of God through the centuries have had confidence that biblical instructions flow from our God of love and lead humanity in the way of wholeness and well-being. Out of that confidence in the Bible, we should resist "correcting" any of its ethical teachings unless a compelling case is made that some sort of situational change necessitates it -- as we do for usury or the holy kiss.

Continue the dialogue
We have looked at key ways that biblical scholars who are committed to a high view of Scripture could come up with an understanding that affirms same-sex covenants as holy. And have seen why I view these attempts as inadequate. I pray that my assessment is not just due to a bias toward defending the church's discernment through the centuries but that it flows from honest and careful inquiry.

Perhaps one day I will see differently. Maybe someone will point out crucial nuances that I have not yet adequately considered. Or perhaps one day some truly new paradigm might begin generating a new current of consensus.

I am glad that the framers of the membership guidelines of Mennonite Church USA found a way to not only honor the counsel of the gathered denomination but also to safeguard the presence of the possibly-prophetic minority voice. The framers wisely refer to the denomination's position on homosexual activity as a "teaching position." That concept is a helpful tool that basically says, "You can be part of the church if you disagree with this position, but please don't formally teach against this position." This does not end vigorous debate in appropriate contexts, but only calls our leaders not to preach or teach against this discernment of the church. When a denomination at the end of several years of study at congregational and conference levels says that homosexual sex is sin, surely we should let that have an impact on us and shape our public teaching. Yet the church allows a space for dialogue, such as this book represents; persons such as myself can continue to hear viewpoints challenging us to move beyond our current understandings.

The concept of a "teaching position" also wisely places the focus of accountability on credentialed leaders such as Weldon Nisly. For many years my denomination's approach to accountability focused on who congregations receive as members. But a group should not be judged by the behavior of its new believers and members, but rather by what it teaches and what its pastors call members to strive toward. It shows insight as well as compassion to keep the spotlight of discipline off the gay or lesbian individuals whom the congregation may discern are moving toward Christ and to place the spotlight on the actions and teaching of credentialed leaders.

Weldon is a winsome brother. I admire greatly his commitment to Christ and the way of peace. I am sure he was led by the Spirit in his ministry to the same-sex couple in his congregation, for ministry is never an all-or-nothing situation -- totally Spirit-led or totally devoid of the Spirit. But was the union ceremony for the two women a movement of the Spirit? Or was it an example of Weldon going beyond what the Spirit was leading, an action subject to discipline by the church?

Here is how we as a Mennonite Church arrive at an answer: We pray, study the Scriptures, and listen to each other. Our assemblies speak. And then we let the denominational (conference) leaders, ones in whom the congregations have chosen to place deep trust, act on the light they have.