Previous | Next 

EDITORIAL
Communicating the vision

Jim Coggins

In both local MB churches and the MB Conference, most formal proposals for change come from the leadership. (This makes sense since they are the leaders.) In many cases, these proposals are then presented to the membership for processing in a church business meeting or to the Conference as a whole for processing in a Conference convention.

Now something strange sometimes happens when such a proposal meets questions or opposition from the congregation/convention. Leaders sometimes feel that because questions or opposition have arisen, it must mean that they have not “communicated the vision” adequately. This may be true, but sometimes the problem is the reverse. Sometimes there has been so much one-way communication from leaders to people that there is no room for communication from people to leaders. Perhaps leaders have not been listening closely enough to understand what the real questions are, and perhaps they have not given their people enough opportunity to process an issue.

At such times, it is important that we go back and think about how people learn and make decisions.

Consider the following advice from some education experts on how to teach “middle schoolers”: “Allow for plenty of group interaction time. . . . Create an atmosphere where every student is valued and included. . . . Encourage the exchange of ideas and much discussion – find out what they’re thinking. . . . Don’t do all the talking and expect students to listen. . . . Don’t give students all the answers.” (Steve Wamberg and John Conway, Faith Teaching, Cook Communications Ministries)

Church planters say that they need to allow space for their work to be “messy”. Seekers need freedom to ask awkward questions, express doubts and dump baggage. God apparently gives us the gospel and then allows us the freedom to choose whether to accept it or not.

Why is it then that increasingly in the church some leaders assume that the leaders should decide the vision and direction and the people should just accept it? Generally, people come to accept a direction in the same way that the leaders established the direction in the first place – by praying, studying, seeking God, discussing, thinking, asking questions, raising doubts and examining options. The goal, after all, is not to gain formal approval for a direction but to get people committed to the direction, to the point that they will support it with their money, time and work.

The Canadian MB Conference Board of Communications has begun the process of developing a “comprehensive communications strategy” for the Conference. In that process, the Board began with a basic question: Who needs to communicate what to whom? As part of that process, this summer, the Board is re-examining the role and purpose of the MB Herald. One of the issues in that discussion is who should be communicating what to whom through the pages of the Herald. At one extreme on this question are some leaders who think the Herald should be a “promotional magazine”, that its prime purpose should be communicating the vision of the Conference leadership to the members. At the other extreme are people who think the Herald should be a free forum where anything can be said. Traditionally, the Herald has taken a position somewhere in between. The Herald is a vehicle for communicating the vision of the Conference leadership to the people. However, the Herald is also a vehicle for other forms of communication. The Herald is a forum where members can give feedback to leaders. It is a place where the members and leaders together can discuss issues. It is a place where leaders and members can provide teaching to each other (feature articles are written by pastors and Conference leaders, but also by laypeople). On the other hand, the Herald is not a forum where absolutely anything can be said. Our policy is that feature material must be in agreement with the Bible and the MB Confession of Faith. However, occasionally we allow feature material to question other decisions and policies of the Conference. In letters to the editor, we even allow readers to occasionally question the Bible and the Confession of Faith – not because we think those letters’ opinions are true, but because we think it is important to find out what the people are really thinking and because questions can be answered only when they are heard.

Allowing wide-ranging discussion in the Herald need not threaten Conference unity but can be one avenue through which members come to accept the vision of the Conference.

Previous | Next 

Last modified April 26, 2001.

© 2001 Mennonite Brethren Herald.
Published by the Canadian Conference of MB Churches.
Masthead and usage information.