Who is the piper? Who pays the bill?

A few months ago, Henry Schmidt, president of Mennonite Brethren Biblical Seminary, wrote a thoughtful article calling for a theology of institutions. I agree. Our ecclesiology (our theological understanding of the church) should include the institutions which the church has established. There are some very practical reasons why this is urgent now.

As Mennonite Brethren, we are in the middle of an immense transition in how we support and govern our institutions. Consider the following:

  • Canadian and provincial conference conventions used to be occasions for business, debate and Bible teaching. The institutions and programs of the conference were discussed, held accountable and given direction. Conference leaders addressed theological or ethical issues by preaching about them. Today those conventions focus much more on celebrating the life of local congregations, and devote considerable time to inspirational singing and testimonies.
  • Mennonite Brethren institutions--schools, colleges, camps, senior citizens' homes--used to report directly to the conferences that elected their board members. Now most of these institutions have very active boards or separate annual meetings at which their business is done. Reports at national or provincial conventions are limited to a few minutes--time for an anecdote, a testimony and a brief request for continued prayer and financial support.
  • We are selective in our commitments. Each person and each congregation makes choices based on interests or a sense of personal involvement. There are constituencies within a constituency, interest groups within a congregation. There are the camp enthusiasts, the Bible institute loyalists, the seminary supporters and so on. The individualism of our culture is expressed in how we support causes and institutions.
  • Fundraising is one of the highest priorities of most Mennonite Brethren institutions. The amount of the budget met through fundraising has grown in almost direct proportion to the decline of annual conference grants. The amount of money spent on fundraising activities has increased dramatically in the past decade.
  • The common wisdom about fundraising is that it is good for institutions because it tells them who their real supporters are. Conference grants make institutions complacent and inward-looking, not sensitive enough to the needs and wishes of the supporting constituency; but when support becomes voluntary, institutions pay more attention to the interests of their donors.

    This is the transition we are in. We are searching for new ways to establish a relationship between setting the priorities and direction of our institutions, and supporting them financially. Should those who support an institution be those who govern? Or should those who govern be obliged to support the institution?

    It used to be that way. Conferences provided financial grants, and conferences elected board members. There was no program fundraising, and there were no appointed board members. Financial support and governance were symmetrical. The conference paid, and the conference governed.

    Now it's more complicated. Conferences still elect most, if not all, board members, but conferences provide a much smaller proportion of financial support. As financial support of our institutions has shifted from conference grants to voluntary support, there has been a modest corresponding shift in governance. Some institutions now may appoint a small number of members to their boards in addition to those elected by conferences.

    What happens when individuals or congregations become strong supporters and advocates of institutions and have a more direct role in setting institutional priorities? Often the institutions thrive. But they also face criticism. The common wisdom about the virtues of establishing close relationships with donors is often set aside, and people worry that a few individuals or groups may have too dominant an influence on the institution. They are uncertain whether it is right to accept the new cabins that a contractor is going to donate to a camp, the new atrium in a seniors' home that a family is prepared to build in honour of their mother, the new program that a donor is eager to fund at a college.

    How should we select board members? Is it right that an enthusiastic and effective board member should be ineligible to continue serving after two terms? Term limits may have made sense when the conference guaranteed support, but now that boards have to raise most of the support themselves and conferences have little time to carefully discuss institutional goals and programs, why should the role of effective board members be limited?

    These issues are important for the Mennonite Brethren Church, and also for other denominations. In addition, leaders of nondenominational institutions are observing this process with great interest. They doubt that denominational schools and camps and other institutions will survive unless they become more free-standing, following the needs of the "market" and the priorities of their major supporters. They cannot imagine a successful institution in which governance and financial support are not closely linked.

    Each of our Canadian Mennonite Brethren institutions is dealing with this issue. We will each develop a practical solution that suits our circumstances. I believe it would be helpful if we talked about this openly, acknowledging that we are in the middle of a larger cultural transition which shapes our attitudes and options, but also agreeing that we want to move ahead in a way that reflects a deeper theological understanding of the church and its institutions.

    James Pankratz

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