General MB Conference considers abolishing itself

Fresno, Calif.

As one participant described it, it was time to "think outside of the box" as the boards of the General Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches met for their semi-annual meetings Sept. 26-29 in Fresno, Calif.

The "box" in question was the General Conference structure which has served as a binational identity for Mennonite Brethren churches in the United States and Canada since 1900. The churches of both countries each maintain a national conference as well.

Thinking outside that box began in a formal way with a brainstorming session prior to the boards' meetings. Dubbed the Strategic Evaluation Meeting (SEM), the group of 35 people spent two days identifying the core values the churches of the binational conference seeks to affirm and considering how structural changes could more effectively perpetuate those values. The General Conference Executive Council--composed of the General Conference moderator, assistant moderator, secretary and executive secretary, plus the chairs of the five General Conference boards and the moderators of the two national conferences--designed the meeting to glean ideas about what shape that change might take.

What they heard from participants was a strong message that the work of the binational conference is too far removed from the people in the churches. Models of change were developed in smaller groups at the SEM. Each model indicated a need for a structure that brought ministries as close to the grassroots as possible and eliminated the functions of the General Conference to varying degrees.

Under the direction of meeting facilitator Larry Nickel, a member of First MB Church in Wichita, Kan., the seven models created by the small groups were distilled into three:

  • Model 1: US districts and Canadian provincial conference structures coordinate nearly all denominational ministries.
  • Model 2: US and Canadian national conferences coordinate denominational ministries with a few cooperative ministries--like MB Missions/Services and MB Biblical Seminary--functioning as separate boards which report to both conferences.
  • Model 3: US and Canadian national conferences create separate and independent structures, including mission boards and seminaries.

    Ed Boschman, General Conference moderator, was quick to point out that these models were not firm proposals, but only ideas from which future decisions might be launched.

    As results of the SEM were reported to the Council of Boards, which includes all members of the General Conference boards, a few participants expressed concern that the Conference not be abolished too hastily.

    "Just a few years ago in Kansas there was strong sentiment that the Lord was leading us to strengthen the General Conference, to begin meeting every two years," noted Elmer Martens, a member of the MBM/S board. Others wondered aloud whether theological unity between the United States and Canada could be maintained without a binational structure.

    Many, however, felt the time was right for significant change. "I hear a call in our district for movement in this direction," said Dennis Fast, chair of the US Conference. "We felt a new weight shifted our way (to the national conference). We're ready to embrace something like this."

    "Our concern is that we maintain and enhance effectiveness in ministry," said Ike Bergen, who responded on behalf of the Canadian Conference. "Our people are more concerned about ministry and function than structure."

    Several encouraged the leadership to be bold in making changes that would address the reality of church members' indifference to conference structure. "I don't care about my relationship with a car dealer, but I do care about how my car works," said Ron Toews, chair of the MBBS board. "There are people who don't care much about structure, but they do care about function." He advocated a minimal structure with many opportunities for people to connect directly with functions that spark their interest. "In our churches and in our conference it's like a smorgasbord," he added. "I pick this and that, but I pass up lots of stuff."

    Dan Unrau, also on the MBBS board, agreed that the mindset of the next generation in the churches calls for radical change in the conference. "We're still assuming we can make new converts by passing the baton," he said. "The young leaders I work with are not willing to accept a passed baton. They will only pick up a dropped baton."

    No course for the future was set during these meetings, though it was clear that the board members supported the move toward minimal or no binational board structure. "These shifts seem chaotic," conceded Boschman, noting that the chaos is part of the process.

    Larry Martens summed up the situation with a model of change as "forming, storming, reforming and norming."

    "Once we form ideas, we move to a storming stage," he explained. "It gets chaotic. Reality is all over the place. But it's part of the process--it's not to be pushed aside. The next stage is the reforming stage, where we come to agreement and form a new paradigm." The final stage, said Martens, is the norming stage, where the changes become the norm.

    "If I were to categorize us, we are in the forming/storming stage," he said. "It might be quite a while before we get to a reforming stage."

    Kathy Heinrichs Wiest

    SIDEBAR

    Strategic Evaluation Meeting Participants

    Eleven members of the General MB Conference Executive Council, three agency representatives and 18 individuals participated in the Strategic Evaluation Meetings. About half of the 18 "at-large" participants either represented a national conference or were members of General Conference boards. But, moderator Ed Boschman maintained, these people were not invited on the basis of their conference position. "It's important to note that we were very deliberate about pulling together strategic rather than programmatic thinkers," he said. "Our purpose was to investigate transformative options, not to do transactional planning." For this reason, provincial and district representatives--such as conference ministers and regional executive committee members--were not automatically invited.

    Following is the roster of participants:

  • General Conference leadership: Ed Boschman, moderator, Peoria, Ariz.; Larry Martens, assistant moderator, Fresno, Calif.; Valerie Rempel, secretary, Fresno; Marvin Hein, executive secretary, Fresno; Ron Toews, MB Biblical Seminary board chair, Calgary, Alta.; Lorlie Barkman, Board of Resource Ministries chair, Winnipeg, Man.; Herb Kopp, Board of Faith and Life chair, Winnipeg; Ron Martens, Board of Trustees representative, Vineland, Ont.; Neil Fast, MB Missions/Services board chair, Winnipeg.
  • Agency executives: Harold Ens, MBM/S general director; Michael Dick, Board of Resource Ministries executive secretary; Henry Schmidt, MBBS president.
  • US participants: Chuck Buller, Visalia, Calif.; Verla Dick, Topeka, Kan.; Harold Enns, Reedley, Calif.; Dennis Fast, Hillsboro, Kan.; Pierre Gilbert, Fresno; Jim Holm, Reedley; Lynn Jost, Hillsboro; Fred Leonard, Clovis, Calif.; Stuart Pederson, Henderson, Neb.; Paul Robie, Bakersfield, Calif.; Lyndon Vix, Wichita, Kan.
  • Canadian participants: Arthur Block, White Rock, B.C.; Art DeFehr, Winnipeg; Doug Enns, Victoria, B.C.; Irma Epp, Winnipeg; Randy Friesen, Waterloo, Ont.; Abe Konrad, Edmonton, Alta.; Allan Labun, Kitchener, Ont.; Geoff Neufeld, Kelowna, B.C.; Carlin Weinhauer, Burnaby, B.C.

    Return to the M.B. Herald Vol. 35, No. 21 Home Page