Editorial

Jim Coggins

So what is this Conference restructuring thing all about?

The Mennonite Brethren Church was founded in Russia in 1860. Mennonite Brethren began immigrating to the United States in the early 1870s. However, there were no Mennonite Brethren in Canada until MB "missionaries" from the US made converts in Manitoba in 1884. The General MB Conference was organized in 1899, including both US and Canadian MB churches. Later on, four sub-conferences were formed: the Southern, Central, Northern and Pacific districts.

The Northern District Conference consisted of churches in Canada. It grew faster than the other district Conferences, partly due to immigration from Russia. Eventually, Canadian MBs turned the Northern District Conference into the Canadian Conference, and created further sub-conferences in the provinces (British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and now Quebec). To match the structure in Canada, American MBs created the US MB Conference.

That is how we ended up with our current structure of three levels of Conference: binational (the General or North American Conference), national (the Canadian and US Conferences) and district/provincial.

Conference leaders (partly prodded by local church leaders) have concluded that the system is not working as well as it could be. For one thing, the system is too complex. Three layers of Conference are too many for a denomination of less than 60,000 members.

There is also some overlap of responsibilities between levels of Conference, and this results in confusion. For instance, a local church might ask a theological question of a provincial/district Conference, which passes it to a national Conference, which passes it to the binational Conference, which passes it back to the national Conference. By the time an answer is given, the local church may have long since solved its problem—or worse, not solved it.

Coordinating budgets is another problem. The national Conferences collect money from the churches for both the national and binational programs. However, the national and binational Conferences meet in convention in alternating years. There is one pot of money, but the financial decisions are made in three different forums (one binational and two national). This makes it hard to be flexible and coordinated.

A further complicating factor is the development in the last decade of ICOMB, the International Committee of Mennonite Brethren. This is a gathering of the leaders of the national MB Conferences from around the world—17 of them. If three levels of conference are too much, four will be even worse. As well, if ICOMB is to be a partnership of 17 equal national conferences, it is a hindrance if the two wealthiest conferences act together as the North American Conference. Ironically, in this case, international cooperation in North America stands in the way of broader international cooperation.

"Conferences" are the official organizations. "Conventions" are those occasions when delegates from the local churches get together to discuss proposals by Conference leaders and decide the direction the Conferences should go.

One of the catalysts for change has been that some recent conventions have been less than satisfying experiences.

At the 1993 General Conference convention in Winnipeg, Man., we argued over the role of women in the church. That was a difficult time.

The 1995 General Conference convention in Fresno, Calif. was also difficult. Not as many delegates as expected showed up. Some of the business did not go well (we failed to make a decision on some issues, and some proposals were presented at the last minute). The worship was too traditional for younger delegates, and it seemed the Conference was failing to keep up with the times. Unexpectedly, a key part of the convention was a workshop for "young leaders", who forcefully criticized many aspects of Conference and convention.

As a result of that convention, General Conference leaders gathered a number of representatives from the churches together in Califronia in September 1996 to discuss making changes.

The Conference leaders listened to the criticisms. The 1997 General Conference convention in Waterloo, Ont. was more contemporary in style, and the General Conference leaders formally proposed simplifying things by abolishing the General Conference.

Partly. As I interpret it, responsibility for running the Conferences is being passed on from the Builder generation to Baby Boomers (those born between 1946 and 1964). These are the people who have grown into Conference leadership now, and they are changing the structures in ways that make sense to them. However, I would also like to make clear that people older and younger than Baby Boomers also see the need for change. The point is not to cater to one generation’s whims but to find better ways of doing things. However, what will happen when the Buster generation (those born after 1964) move into Conference leadership (if they choose to do so), no one knows.

The proposal to abolish the General Conference was tabled, after it encountered some opposition. Before proceeding with restructuring, it was decided to establish a Task Force to study the whole issue, consult with the "grassroots" and come up with a more detailed proposal.

The Task Force made some effort to consult the grassroots, attending Conference conventions and putting a survey in the MB periodicals, but received very little response from the people in the pews. The reasons for this lack of response may be varied, but I would like to highlight a few. For one thing, I don’t think most MB church members understand our Conference structures. For another, I don’t think they care. I think they care about the programs of the Conference. I think they care about missions, church planting, theology, training pastors and so on, but I don’t think they care about the administration of the programs. Besides, in my view, the call for consulting the grassroots did not come from the grassroots but from the (former) Conference leaders from the Builder generation, some of whom are reluctant to give up power and sorry to see the structures they put so much effort into, being dismantled.

The Task Force completed its report last December and recommended abolishing the General Conference, but having most of the programs run by binational boards, including some programs previously run by the national Conferences. The binational boards would report to the two national Conferences.

It seems to me that this was a sort of compromise proposal. For the historical reasons outlined above, there is no clear consensus on what should be done. In the US, the General Conference is probably stronger and has more support than the US Conference; however, in Canada, the Canadian Conference is stronger and has more support than the General Conference. To keep everyone happy, the Task Force should have recommended abolishing the General Conference in Canada and the US Conference in the US. It obviously could not do this, so it compromised by proposing that we abolish the General Conference but strengthen binational programs.

This proposal had a number of strengths:

1. It would improve binational cooperation. This is especially important to the US Conference, which is smaller over 20,000 members, compared to over 30,000 Canadian members. The US Conference would have access to programs such as Christian Education Ministries, which the Canadian Conference has but the US Conference does not.

2. Conference could be more efficient with the emphasis on binational boards. For instance, because of economies of scale, it is less expensive to publish one church manual for 350 local churches than to publish two church manuals, one for the 200 Canadian MB churches and the other for the 150 US MB churches. The proposal would eliminate duplication—there would be only one Board of Faith and Life, for instance. There would be fewer boards, meaning fewer people would be doing administration. There would be fewer conventions, which are costly to run.

3. Conference would be more centralized and leader-led. Since it is difficult to make joint decisions in two bodies meeting separately (the national Conference conventions), more decisions would be made by the boards. This would mean that decisions could be made faster, and programs could adjust to new needs and opportunities more quickly.

4. The binational emphasis would demonstrate the international and crosscultural nature of the church.

The Executive Boards of the national Conferences and the General Conference liked part of what the Task Force recommended, but not all. They had several concerns:

1. The binational boards could not easily be accountable to two masters at the same time (the two national Conference conventions) and thus might not be very accountable to the churches at all.

2. While the proposal would improve cooperation between the nations, it could decrease cooperation between the boards. Since there would be no General Conference yet the boards would be binational, there would be no forum for the various boards to get together and coordinate their programs or form a common vision.

3. There are currently growing links between the provincial Conferences and the Canadian Conference and between the district Conferences and the US Conferences. The proposed structure might make this kind of cooperation more difficult.

4. There are significant differences between Canada and the U.S, which call for different programs and approaches. For instance, church attendance is just under 40% of the population in the US and just under 20% in Canada; Canada is a more pagan society. Evangelicals make up a larger percentage of Christians in the US than they do in Canada. Mennonite Brethren are a more influential denomination in Canada than they are in the US. Canada has more developed government social programs (such as universal medicare). The US is a major military power, while Canada is known for its peace-keeping efforts. Canada has a major French population; the US has a major Hispanic population. Because of these differences, it is important that structures can be modified, including creating and dismantling boards, according to national needs.

So the Executive Boards are making a modified proposal.

This new proposal strengthens the national Conferences. The General Conference will be abolished. There will be some binational boards, but most of the boards will be national. However, the national boards will be mandated to cooperate together on varoius projects and programs, the details to be worked out over the next few years.

What will the implications be for the Ministries?

1. Because of national tax and other laws, finances have to be controlled by national boards. The General conference Board of Trustees essentially divided its responsibilities between the national Board of Management a few years ago, and the result has been positive. The binational Board of Trustees has only a very minimal coordinating role now, and even the Task Force did not receommend changing this.

2. The evangelism/church planting boards (Board of Evangelism in Canada, Mission USA in the US) will continue to be national. Again, the Task Force did not recommend changing this. However, if the national boards in other areas of ministry are cooperating, perhaps these two boards will cooperate more too.

3. It does not make sense to have two mission boards (it would be wasteful to have two separate mission outreaches, one Canadian-led and the other US-led, in the same foreign country, for instance), so MBMS International will continue to operate as it does now. It receives no funding from Conferences anyway, its money coming directly from congregations and individuals. If it is allowed to formally report at national Conference conventions, and perhaps even provincial/district Conference conventions, MBMS International might benefit from being closer to its grassroots.

4. The future is less clear for MB Biblical Seminary. Because of economies of scale and because of the high quality required in seminary education today, it makes sense to have one good seminary rather than several inadequate ones. However, it is also clear that most MB students will not travel to one location (currently the main campus is in Fresno, California) for seminary education. Therefore, MBBS is already setting up satellite campuses in Langley, B.C. and perhaps Winnipeg, Man. and Wichita, Kan. I hope that these can continue to be coordinated under one binational board, or at the very least under two national boards that meet frequently together.

Both MBMS International and MBBS will benefit from having a seat on the Canadian Conference Executive Board and probably the equivalent US Conference board.

5. I suspect that there will be national Boards of Faith and Life (the Canadian Conference has one now; the US Conference does not), but that these two boards will meet together frequently to be jointly responsible for the Confession of Faith and some other issues. This cooperation could make the popular Canadian Conference BFL pamphlet series on current issues available to US MB churches.

6. The General Conference Historical Commission (based in Fresno, Calif. and currently under the MBBS Board) and the Canadian Conference Historical Committee (based in Winnipeg, Man. and currently under the Canadian Board of Communications), as well as other MB archival centres (such as those in Hillsboro, Kan. and Abbotsford, B.C.), will need to be coordinated, but this will be complex since so many jurisdictions are involved. Whether the historical commissions will have their own boards or be under some other board is unclear to me.

7. The Canadian Board of Christian Education Ministries will likely continue. The US Conference might set up a Christian Education board to coordinate with this board and make Canadian resources in this area available to US MBs. The question is whether the US Conference has enough money to do this.

8. The Canadian Board of Communications will likely continue to publish periodicals in English (MB Herald), German (Mennonitische Rundschau), French (Le Lien) and Chinese (Chinese Herald). The US Board of Communications will continue to publish its English-language periodical, The Christian Leader. Although some more cooperation is possible, I do not foresee a merger of the two English periodicals, primarily because of the differences between the Canadian and US cultures. However, I would hope that these two boards would meet together regularly. There are a number of areas where these two boards could cooperate: the Chinese periodical, a Spanish periodical, a leadership magazine (perhaps Direction, currently published by MB postsecondary schools and the General Conference Board of Resource Ministries could be adapted for this purpose), the MB presence on the internet, and Encounter (the twice-a-year evangelistic issue of the MB Herald). Each of these projects could be produced by one of the national boards and bought by the other, or they could be administered jointly.

9. One of the most difficult issues is what to do with the General Conference Board of Resource Ministries. It produces books, congregational resources and curriculum. Thus, some of its mandate overlaps with the national Boards of Communications, and some with the Canadian Conference Board of Christian Education Ministries. However, because of economies of scale, it makes sense for book publishing and curriculum development to be binational. The Task Force recommended that the Board of Resource Ministries, the national Boards of Communications and the Canadian Board of Christian Education Ministries be merged into one super-board, but that has been rejected as too large and unwieldy. There might still be some merger of some boards in this area, but what exactly will happen is very unclear. My best guess is that the responsibilities of the Board of Resource Ministries will be divided among the national Boards of Communications and Christian Education Ministries, although it is unclear how much money the smaller US Conference will have to put into this. Some of the book publishing and curriculum development could be handled as binational projects by the national boards.

Hopefully, it will mean that in the long run we will waste less energy in administration, and the agencies and programs will be more efficient and more effective. This could strengthen local MB churches and win more people to Jesus Christ. Restructuring is primarily an organizational question, not a theological one.

Whether the current proposal will be accepted will be decided by the General Conference convention in Wichita, Kan. in July. The MB Conferences are still congregational bodies, with local church delegates making the final decisions on Conference direction.

Return to the M.B.Herald Vol. 38, No. 11 Home Page