Previous | Next 

PERSONAL OPINION
Convention 2000

John H. Redekop

The Canadian Mennonite Brethren Conference convention held at Bethany Bible Institute in Hepburn, Sask. July 6-8 was a fine one. I would give it an 8 out of 10, perhaps even a 9.

The positive aspects were numerous. The facilities were first-rate. The food was consistently impressive, and the hosting couldn’t have been better. Saskatchewan’s reputation for outstanding hospitality was again validated.

The guest speaker, Christian Schwarz, was also excellent. His analyses and biblical prescriptions were important and useful. The workshops I attended were well organized, focused and informative.

Technologically, this convention reached new heights. Even those delegates who had neglected to get stronger prescription glasses had no difficulty with visual perception. Two large screens, at times with different images, gave us all ringside seats as lecture outlines, illustrations, data and stage close-ups seemed to surround us in large, living colour.

Moderator Ike Bergen and assistant moderator Ralph Gliege served with sensitivity, grace, humour and general distinction.

Throughout the entire event, I sensed an atmosphere of warmth, camaraderie, unity and spiritual vitality. It was, in short, an informative, enriching and invigorating experience.

The worship times were inspiring and reflected careful preparation; the leader and worship team members served with enthusiasm, skill and warmth. Some delegates wondered, however, whether the mostly contemporary music was too much of one genre and whether it sufficiently took into account the musical language of most delegates. Others wondered why, apparently for the first time, the denomination’s rich choral tradition was ignored. There was no contribution by a choir or smaller choral group aside from a concert preceding the last session.

The agency reports by MBMS International and MB Biblical Seminary, given during plenary sessions, were effective but too brief. We need to give more time to our major transnational ministries. The brief board reports were also done well, but there was virtually no time for interaction, questioning and affirming.

The workshop format for the major board reports is intended, of course, to allow for intensive interaction, and it does so. But the problem is that any delegate interested in all Conference ministries can only attend a few workshops. I prefer having more time for board reports and discussion in the plenary sessions, with additional workshops for further discussion. We all need to get the full picture. The workshop arrangement, suitable for individual interaction, is not suitable for informing and motivating the entire convention and through it the entire conference.

Let’s turn, now, to some areas of concern. At the 1999 General MB Conference convention in Wichita, and at other times, we have been told that we needed to eliminate the General Conference arrangement because the churches are now interested mainly in national and provincial assemblies. What struck me at the Hepburn convention is that the Canadian Conference arrangement is suffering from the same trends which have weakened the General Conference. The problems, in other words, are not unique to the General Conference but permeate all levels of conference organization. The Mennonite Brethren in North America have not solved the problems, mentioned below, by dissolving the General Conference.

The delegate count was low. Attendance by local residents during daytime and evening sessions was also very low. It is also surely very important that many churches were not represented. In fact, I would guess that of our 208 congregations, only 80 to 90 were represented. Even that number may be high.

Significantly, many leading pastors, including some from our large churches, were not in attendance. Fortunately, some did attend, but the gaps were obvious. When many leading pastors no longer give priority to the national convention and are absent year after year, we have a problem. We need to acknowledge that too great an emphasis on congregational autonomy produces an anemic Conference.

The general financial situation is encouraging, but, again, some key problems must be faced. First, why do many seemingly prosperous congregations, and even entire provincial conferences, contribute to their own Canadian Conference ministries only about half of the suggested norm? Second, why did 61 churches, 10 with at least 100 members, contribute nothing? Surely each could contribute at least $100 annually as a symbol of their support. I challenge all 61 to do so.

In times past, Canadian MB Conference conventions had four key roles or dimensions. First, each was an important social gathering for renewing friendships, building social networks and edifying one other. Second, each was a time of exceptional corporate worship, of inspirational teaching, of motivation and of Christian celebration. Third, each was noted for one or more major decisions, since all major issues facing the denomination were processed by the assembled delegates rather than by boards or executives. In that way, all churches took ownership of the outcome. Fourth, at every Canadian convention, virtually all local, provincial and national leaders met to provide leadership: to reinforce leadership bonds, to strengthen theological and organizational unity, to refocus the denomination’s priorities and to motivate and energize the entire brotherhood.

The first two dimensions were very much in evidence in Hepburn; I cannot say as much for the latter two.

John H. Redekop is on the faculty of Trinity Western University and is a member of Bakerview MB Church in Abbotsford, B.C.

Previous | Next 

Last modified August 20, 2000.

© 2000 Mennonite Brethren Herald.
Published by the Canadian Conference of MB Churches.
Masthead and usage information.