To me, this should mean that the individuals we are helping by donating to MCC are fully involved and empowered by our work.

For example, who decides which projects get funded? Do these projects reflect the needs and interests of groups in, say, Guatemala or Haiti? Or do they reflect the ideas of first world MCC leaders?

Who is in charge of those projects? As it stands, it is sometimes unclear what role the "recipients" of MCC's programs are playing in those programs. I'd like to know that MCC (unlike other charity programs) is not only responsive to the needs of those we seek to help, but that it actually enables these individuals to take leadership roles in this work.

I will try to respond by this story: a lady from the local church we attend (not a Mennonite/Anabaptist Church) approached me recently wanting to hear more of my involvement with MCC. She then told me how a while back she wanted to go on mission in Haiti and her church helped her raise the money. She added however that she would not have been able to go to that particular village in Haiti if it weren't for MCC, which helped her both financially and by being in a secular hospital with no church affiliation. She went on to say how grateful she is for MCC's readiness to go where others wouldn't; that she was very positively impressed that MCC reaches out to anybody regardless of their faith life, which her church wouldn't do. She asked me to thank MCC for allowing her to be part of this mission in Haiti.

Maybe to be global means that MCC would truly pay attention and render support to the work that God is doing already through MCC churches/agencies or its affiliates both in the USA and abroad for better coordination/collabotation and effisciency.
For example many of our immigrant churches are doing or are associated with mission initiatives to the orphans, the widows, and others missions in their home lands; and most of the time MCC is also present in these places with little or no collaboration with these immigrants in MCC's midst.

May God continue to grant us all wisdom and discenment as we worship Him through our services to His people.

MCC is already global because it works around the world.  It doesn't need to become "more global."  International work is already the heart and soul of MCC.

"Mennonite Central Committee is a relief, development, and peace agency of the North American Mennonite and Brethren in Christ churches."  I hope MCC maintains primary accountability to churches in Canada and the U.S.  This is an important part of MCC's identity.

MCC has local advisory groups in each country where MCC works.  This helps ensure that MCC does work that is appropriate and empowering.

MCC is one of the first Christian groups that come to mind when I think of Christian service. As well, the Salvation army and my own church's M&S group(United Church of Canada).

Perhaps one way of becoming more global (and local) is to further explore partnerships with other churches and service groups. This might be one way of maximizing impact while minimizing costs. (I'm a big fan of ecumenical and interfaith co-operation.)

Blessings to MCC as you undergoe this discernment process. I pray that each of you will feel the spirit moving in you as you help to forge your future.

Gerald

My comment is greatly influenced by 1) work in the area of org chg and dev.
and 2)experience as an MCC Director (Appalachia) many years ago.

We need a major thinking shift away from the global needs in the world
(this info is at hand) to one that looks at our global response
capabilities. For example, the volunteer structure needs to change to take
advantage of seniors and people who may volunteer for 3 to 6mth stints,
even if they have to contribute to the cost of travel. The Alumni of MCC
volunteers needs to be formalized to ensure endowments/donations and
advice. (I have never been asked for advice or $ or given recognition for
my contribution as an MCC volunteer. The irony is that my life is complete
without this but the org. could be improved with it) The relationship
between your domestic programs and international needs study, especially in
terms of cross-over recruitment.

In summary, we serve more because we love than because there is need.

Peter A Dueck

For MCC to be more truly global it needs to speak truth to power. It needs to speak truth to big government (including but not limited to the United States), big corporations (including but limited to the world's misfortune 500), and big international organizations (including but not limited to the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organization), all of which have the capacity to make miserable or provide help to the six billion plus passengers on our little spaceship earth. Big government, big corporations, and big international organizations are happy to have you "think globally and act locally," because they are both thinking globally and acting globally. It makes no sense to paint the porch while someone is trying to burn down the house.

MCC needs to be more PROACTIVE and ASSERTIVE (in an humble way of course) in preventing conflict by inserting itself early into situations -- as a mediator, bridge builder, facilitator of dialogue, behind-the-scenes relationship-former and the like -- in situations and places where conflict is clearly brewing if something isn't done to address the smoldering coals before they burst into flames. I saw this being done in the case of Iran. That was a good initiative on the part of MCC! I think pro-active conflict prevention has also been done in Nigeria, under the leadership of Gopar Tapkida. But it wasn't done in Bolivia, despite the long-time and large presence of MCC’ers there (in this case, others from the region did step in to facilitate dialogue between the opposing parties, thank goodness, though the coals are still hot).

What about Sri Lanka, or Gaza/West Bank, or Sierra Leone in past years?

MCC does a good job of rushing to disasters after the fact and offering succor to victims (school kits, relief kits, food, medicine, etc.), but not as good a job of identifying looming disasters and helping to prevent them.

My overall impression is that MCC has an excellent reputation for integrity and judicious use of resources in the relief arena. But it lacks vision and assertiveness in helping the world move to a "first do no harm" position. When harm is not prevented, MCC remains stuck in the role of bandaging wounds and offering trauma healing after the harm has been done.

Of course, preventing harm may also require more "speaking truth to power" within the U.S. empire itself, where much harm originates in terms of military interventions, arms sales, and disregard for the interests/needs of the people in such places as Pakistan and Egypt.

In sum, I am advocating a shift to putting as much or more emphasis on preventing destructive conflict and practices as on tending to the results of such destruction.

Written by: Bonnie Price Lofton

I think it ought to start with re-asserting MCC's connections with the church partners around the world. They act as our "intelligence gathering network" (I use that phrase cautiously) around the world. They are much more trustworthy than any news program. It also reminds MCC that they deal primarily with real people not primarily with abstract issues.
LeVon Smoker

For a variety of reasons, many already identified by others, I would be wary of broad, abstract efforts to try to create something completely new from scratch. In my own experience one of the most serious problems at the receiving end of international assistance coming from the "Developed" world is how programs, especially those of NGO's, tend to operate in isolation from each other. I can well understand why that happens; NGO's need to be able to claim results consonant with what is expected by their contributors. And, more often than not, they are even expected to be promoting "their" denomination, organization, whatever, if not actually making converts. So, although doing what I suggest is quite undramatic, it will be hard to do while, at the same time, maintaining and even expanding support networks.

What I believe could be the most important form of "globalization" is to emphasize closer collaboration with and sharing of credit with other players at the receiving end of MCC's programs. It is my impression that MCC is, in fact, already well-known for doing this when possible. I know that it was one of the objectives of the late Dr. Willard Krabill, who gave leadership to the development of the medical program in Viet Nam in the 1950's. It was not easy.

Still, it seems to me that, at the receiving end at least, there could hardly be a more simple and more effective way to move to greater globalization than to be known as the organization which, though retaining its basic structure, is increasingly known for the creative ways in which it not only collaborates with, but even gives leadership to overcoming the isolation that so often exists among the various efforts at emergency relief, as well as "teaching how to fish."

The comment on "explore partnerships with other churches and service groups" is well worth
considering. One such group that could be considered is Kairos.