Previous | Next 

EDITORIAL
Two modest proposals

Jim Coggins

I’ve been thinking. One of the results was that I came up with two “modest proposals”, two off-the-wall suggestions that may be fodder for other people’s thinking.

Coming together

When I first joined the Herald, the Canadian MB Conference held a convention every year, and the General (North American) MB Conference held a convention every three years. That was too many conventions. With annual provincial Conference conventions, that meant that we were asking churches to send delegates to two and sometimes three conventions every year. Consultation is important, but that schedule placed heavy demands on time and money.

On the other hand, even that heavy schedule was not enough. The General Conference, meeting in convention only once every three years, was too far from its constituency and took too long to make decisions. Some decisions just couldn’t wait three years. Therefore, about 10 years ago, we decided to have the General Conference convention meet every two years and have the Canadian Conference meet only in the in-between years. That did reduce the number of conventions to two a year, and it helped solve a problem for the General Conference, but it created a problem for the Canadian Conference. Now the Canadian Conference met its constituency less often and was taking too long to make decisions.

Two years ago, we decided to abolish the North American Conference. However, the Canadian Conference has continued to meet in convention only every two years, rather than go back to meeting annually. This has had the effect of reducing the number of conventions even further, to an average of 1.5 per year.

The Canadian Conference still has a problem. It does not meet often enough with its constituency, the people it is accountable to. Moreover, it is more difficult to make decisions quickly. The Canadian Conference has gotten around this difficulty by making more decisions at the Board level. Senior staff appointments are often not ratified at conventions (it is unreasonable to wait a-year-and-a-half to make an appointment). And when those appointments come up for renewal, again between conventions, they are often again ratified by Boards rather than the constituency. For the last few years, the Canadian Conference has been operating with two-year budgets, approved at the biennial conventions. The problem with two-year budgets is that they cannot be adjusted quickly to start new projects, respond to new needs, accommodate income shortfalls, etc. Therefore, the Board of Management recently proposed that the Canadian Conference return to one-year budgets, with one year approved by the convention and the second year approved only by Boards. The problem with this is that it really removes accountability from the constituency.

Now, here is my proposed solution: In the off years, when the Canadian Conference is not having a convention, the Canadian Conference should also report to the provincial Conference conventions, perhaps on the Friday before the provincial convention starts. The Conference Boards could report new developments, feedback could be given to the Boards, and proposals could be ratified by the accumulated votes at the various provincial conventions. This would have several advantages.

It would make the Canadian Conference more accountable to its constituency and allow the Canadian Conference to make decisions more quickly. It would bring the Canadian Conference into contact with more of its constituency than happened even when it had annual conventions. More people collectively attend provincial Conference conventions (due to the shorter travel involved) than attend the Canadian Conference convention. It would link the national and provincial Conferences closer together, thus improving communication and coordination. It would give delegates an additional reason to attend provincial Conference conventions.

Name change

Now for my second proposal.

The question of changing the name of the Mennonite Brethren Church has been debated, sometimes hotly, sometimes calmly, for the past 15 years or so (maybe longer, but I can’t remember back any further than that).

Some people want to drop “Mennonite” because it is often confused with the “Mennonite” ethnic group (there are “Mennonite” writers who are atheists, for instance) or with the “horse and buggy” Old Order Mennonites. It thus hinders evangelism and church growth. Others want to keep “Mennonite” because it reminds us of our Anabaptist/Mennonite theology (such emphases as peace and covenant community) and because the work of Mennonite Central Committee and Mennonite Disaster Service make the name an asset to evangelism.

Others want to drop the “Brethren” since that is a sexist term that excludes females. Others want to keep “Brethren” because it reminds us that we are a church family, a covenant community.

One of the reasons the desire to change the name has not progressed very far is that no one has been able to suggest another name that doesn’t have similar problems and which will receive broad support.

At the risk of re-igniting a fruitless debate, I have a suggestion. My proposed name is simply “MB Church”. This might satisfy those who want to keep the old name (they will remember MB stands for Mennonite Brethren), as well as those who want to drop “Mennonite” and those who want to drop “Brethren” (the name will no longer contain the actual words “Mennonite” and “Brethren”). There is some precedent for this. The Sudan Interior Mission, when it expanded far beyond Sudan, became known simply as SIM International. Similarly, Mennonite Brethren Mission and Service now usually uses the title MBMS International.

“MB” will carry meaning for some people (we have been using this shorthand for years), but it will be a name without content for many other people. Thus, “MB” will come to mean whatever we make it, whatever we in fact are. If we are a loving fellowship, that is what MB will mean. If we are bearers of the good news in Jesus Christ, that is what MB will mean. If we are an argumentative, narrow-minded, graceless group, that is what people will think of when they hear “MB”. Hmmm. Maybe what we really are is more important than what we call ourselves.

Previous | Next 

Last modified October 5, 2001.

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