Revisiting MB Conference structures

Paul Toews

Next month, Canadian and US delegates will be asked to consider a recommendation that would lead to the dissolution of the binational MB Confernence. This radical proposal has generated almost no response from the constituency. In order to assist in defining the issue and opening up dialogue, the Herald is publishing the following opinion piece, which has already appeared in The Christian Leader.

There is considerable talk about the need to alter Mennonite Brethren conference structures. Some feel that our current three-tiered structure (regional, national and bi-national) is too much to sustain. A proposal to substantially reduce the scope of the General (North American) Conference will be brought to the General Conference convention in July in Waterloo, Ont.

How we got here

The General Conference began with an unofficial meeting in 1878 and an official one in 1879. The General Conference has met annually 1879-1909, triennially 1909-1991 and biannually since 1991. The 1909 General Conference decided to establish regional conferences. By 1913, four were in place: the Northern, Central, Pacific and Southern Districts. Since the Northern District included all of the churches in Canada, it became the first national conference. The provincial conferences, within the Canadian Conference, emerged subsequently. In 1954 the Canadian Conference withdrew support of a common educational program (Tabor College in Hillsboro, Kan.), which necessitated the formation of a US Conference. The current three-tiered structure thus has been in place for over 40 years.

The weakest sector

After 40 years, it is good to review and determine whether this structure is still appropriate. Last September, 35 participants were called together for a "Strategic Evaluation Meeting" by the Executive Committee of the General Conference. They proposed three models for change (see MBH Nov. 8, 1996); all were variations of dismantling the General Conference, with the district/provincial or national conferences picking up the General Conference ministries.

The problem with the proposal is that it looks only at the General Conference and fails to take into account the strength or weakness of the other conference levels. We need to look at the entire three-tiered system and analyze what can be consolidated, realigned, discarded or added. When you downsize, you downsize the weak sector, never the strong.

The accomplishments of the General Conference are considerable: a strong program of theological education (MB Biblical Seminary); writing and rewriting the confession of faith; a worldwide mission program (MB Missions/Services); and the recently-established Board of Resource Ministries (for the first time in decades we have a distinctly denominational church school curriculum--a vital ingredient in maintaining denominational cohesion). The strength of those programs was recognized by the Strategic Evaluation Meeting, which called for dismantling the General Conference structures but continuing its ministries. Oh, that life were so simple, that ministries and structures could so readily be segregated.

I agree that we currently have too many conference levels, too many overlapping programs and staffs. But we should begin with the premise that we cut out the weakling. The General Conference is programmatically the strongest of the existing conference levels. Many of the district/provincial conferences are also strong; they benefit from proximity, have traditionally carried church planting work and are also the carriers of the colleges and Bible institutes.

It is the national conferences that are in trouble. The US Conference has never quite found itself. It was forced into existence in 1954 because Canada withdrew its support from US-based higher education institutions. The US Conference had some kind of glue as long as it managed these schools. The 1979 decision to regionalize Tabor College and Fresno Pacific College, and the 1982 "Deer Creek massacre", which gutted the Christian Service Program, the MB Publishing House and the Words of the Gospel radio program, left the US Conference with precious little. Since 1988, the Conference has been trying to reorganize itself around "Mission USA", a proposed program of church planting and church revitalization. While this has been the subject of discussion for a decade, it is only now becoming operational. That lag time is its own commentary on the ability of the Conference. The April, 1997 issue of The Christian Leader already indicates funding problems for Mission USA. Mission USA may eventually invigorate the US Conference, but it is too early to assume that we can dismantle other conference structures because we hope for its future success.

The Canadian Conference has been stronger than the US Conference, but there are mixed signals. That is partly because Canadian national unity is itself weakened by powerful regional forces. Nowhere is that more evident than in the Canadian Conference decision to turn over higher education to the provincial conferences. The decision of the Canadian Conference to move to bi-annual conventions instead of annual conventions, which had been the practice since 1912, is its own comment on the significance of the national conference.

The strength of the national conferences lies in their communication (The Christian Leader and MB Herald) and trustee work. (The trustee functions which formerly were bi-national have been nationalized to accommodate the US Internal Revenue Service and Revenue Canada.) In addition, Canada has a strong Christian Education Board, and the US Conference has a program of church adoption. Both national conferences have Boards of Faith and Life, but that work has largely been transferred to the district/provincial conferences. Canada also has a national Board of Evangelism, but it is the provincial conferences that carry most of this work. Neither national conference has as full a program as the General Conference.

So why the rush to embrace national conferences? The worldwide trends are localism and globalism. National boundaries are increasingly less significant in economics, culture and religion. By proposing to strengthen the national conferences, we are opposing much of the conventional wisdom as to how structures are evolving.

One of the major reasons in this proposal to disband the General Conference is the emergence of the International Committee of Mennonite Brethren (ICOMB). We all are interested in moving away from North American domination of worldwide Mennonite Brethren relationships, but ICOMB is at this point only a distant dream. Furthermore, the inability of the US and Canada to work together effectively is hardly a downpayment on any kind of internationalism.

Another reason given to dismantle the General Conference is that it is too far removed from the people in the churches. ICOMB is not going to be too far removed? And are the national conferences really any closer? With modern communication, distance is not an issue. One concrete question we ought to ask is whether support for the national conferences has been stronger than for the General Conference. On the US side, the answer would be no.

Another issue at work in the proposal is anti-institutionalism. One of the participants in the General Conference Council of Boards meetings said, "The young leaders that I work with are not willing to accept a passed baton. They will only pick up a dropped baton." That is a form of generational arrogance that can only lead to institutional chaos. Where is the church if recreated from scratch every generation? If we grant legitimacy to such thinking, then we will soon have to pack in all our conferences and institutions.

I recommend that the General Conference, in concert with the national and district/provincial conferences, appoint a "Blue Ribbon Task Force" to objectively examine the work of all three conference levels and then decide how best to streamline, downsize and reinvigorate, rather than begin with the assumption that it is best to do radical surgery on the General Conference.

Convention format

Part of our problem is that we have not been served well by General Conference convention planners for some time. Too much of the planning has relied on local committees, including planning worship and music. Hence these have not always been as strong or as representative as they might be.

Our conventions have also had schedules that tried to do too much in a short time. The convention needs time for work, worship, fellowship and even play, so that we can bond together. Many other denominational conventions now last five-to-six days instead of the three days that we have usually allotted.

We should also consider differing locations for our conventions. Many denominations meet at large camps or resort locations that provide an inviting setting for families.

I recommend that we do the General Conference convention differently for several times, plan a really inspiring event and then see how we feel about the necessity of dissolving.

Denominational identity

Finally, let's get to the real issue. Will dismantling empower the witness that God has entrusted to us? Denominations can be thought of as the failure of Christianity or as a gift, as resources that point to the richness and vastness of the Kingdom of God. If we think of denominations as gifts, then we need to recognize our responsibility to preserve and witness to our distinctive contribution within the fabric of Christianity. Why has the Anabaptist-Mennonite tradition survived for nearly 500 years? What is the role that Mennonite Brethren are called to play?

Mennonites have historically been called to the prophetic function, even when that may be unpopular with the surrounding culture. Our call has been the call for costly discipleship, for radical obedience to the commands of Christ, for a church that is a community of standards and discipline, for ministries of compassion and reconciliation.

My real fear is that dismantling will erode the core values of our Anabaptist-Mennonite Brethren identity. Denominations are agencies for common work. They do not survive on the basis of occasional fellowship. If we divide into two smaller groups, we will increasingly find fellowship and association with others in the evangelical world. That is not all bad, but it will corrode the distinctive core values of our identity. I understand that some wish for that, but the Mennonite elements of our identity are the truly strong ones. Many thoughtful observers in the North American religious scene are turning toward our Anabaptist understandings. It would be a tragedy if we were to make structural moves that diminish our witness just when our time has come.

I recommend that we think carefully about what dismantling the binational conference will do to the identity of our denomination.

Paul Toews is Director of the Center for Mennonite Brethren Studies in Fresno, Calif.

Return to the M.B.Herald Vol. 36, No. 12 Home Page