Replying to Jeanne's comments about the involvement of the "south" in decision-making in a "MCC International/Global" organizational structure. I took it the reference to "Europe" was simply an example of additional ownership beyound Canada and USA. If going global, which our summit discussion recommended strongly, each "region/country" that wished to be included, would be. In our proposed model, we identified Europe, S. America, Mexico, Middle East, Far East, Africa (or any countries within those regions for that matter). Given that, they would each have representation at the International Board. Until that happens, MCC will continue with a paternalistic mindset of "doing unto", rather than of "doing with" which would place primary responsibility for MCC's activities in each country/region where it belongs, with support, guidance, assistance and resources from those regions/countries able to provide it. John

Page 20 has the following senario -

"A third option is to do away with MCC Canada and MCC US and empower the provincial and regional MCCs to carry out all the functions currently carried out by MCC Canada and MCC US. In this scenario, representation on the MCC International Board would be similar to option #1. The nine provincial and regional MCCs would have one or two seats on the International Board, along with other prospective MCCs and at large members selected for their specific expertise or representation."

This makes a lot of sense. I hope it is seriously considered.

My comments are in the form of questions.

1. Is there anything in the document outlining possible MCC structures that couldn't have been written before this entire process occurred?

2. Has this process changed anybody's mind in any significant way?

A couple of comments posted above strongly support an MCC structure that would no longer have a place for an entity like MCC Canada. They are in response to an option presented on page 20 "to do away with MCC Canada and MCC U.S. and empower the provincial and regional MCCs to carry out all the functions currently carried out by MCC Canada and MCC U.S."

My understanding is that the wineskins process is about preserving the best of the past and the present. The MCCs in Canada have grown both in terms of local program and their support of MCC work in the developing world. The six MCCs in Canada are working well together with genuine mutual respect and a sense of common purpose. There is still an enormous amount of goodwill towards MCC among its Mennonite and Brethren in Christ constituents. Government agencies trust MCC with millions of public dollars and MCC's reputation continues to grow among the Canadian public. Among the MCC's in Canada there is a strong sense of potential, that much more can be done.

MCC Canada is an integral part of these good things happening. Instead of dismantling what's working in Canada, let's learn from it!

Although the document on organisational structures was interesting I was surprised by the lack of context for each of the structures. All organisations, even NGOs do not operate in the same environment. They do not have the same mission. Even in the short term, if the focus remains on structure alone, I think MCC stakeholders will be greatly disappointed and frustrated that the structure does not deliver the expected results.

The problem is that there are a number of important conflicting trends in the global socio-economic system that make decision making increasingly difficult. I will suggest two.

First, we tend to organise ourselves at the nation state level. So when we talk of the global south being partners the document probably (though this is not specified) means national church bodies. However, development is not occurring at the nation state level these days. It occurs in geographic clusters (cities or groups of cities). Thus we have cities in India, China and Asia that are as wealthy as any in North America while many areas remain as poor as ever. More problematically we can see that even within cities wealth and poverty cluster (note Vancouver or probably any large modern city). This can create challenges for organisations as to where to place their resources.

The second trend I want to draw attention to is what might be described as the speed of the environment. Development is a long term commitment. It can take decades in some places to make even small amounts of progress. Yet, other factors that impact on development can occur with surprising speed. Over the last few years many resource and food prices rose rapidly and now this recession is occurring with staggering speed. It is not too hard to predict that it is highly likely that whenever the world economies begin to recover prices for commodities will again rise quickly because there are so many more people in the world than ever before who aspire to a consumptive lifestyle.

This 2 speed world must create large amounts of tension within organisations that need to make decisions on priorities to assist development. I suspect that is why so many organisations are trying to think through their structural issues.

However, I would suggest the problem lies elsewhere. The adage ‘form should follows function’ comes from the architectural world where creations can easily last 100 years or more and often enough the use changes little. Form follows function implies a largely stable or predictable world. I think the New WineSkins Committee needs to think very deeply about how to make decisions in a changing environment. Are there models such as scenario planning (used by Shell and others) or others that will help MCC navigate the future.
Best wishes
Brian Wixted

Dear Task Group,

I think I agree with John A. Lapp that the issue is not or at least not primarily structural. Normally "form follows function." I believe we have two problems driving this exercise to get us out of the corner we are in.

1. I doubt we are clear enough about what we want to do together. (Asking the 3 priorities will help)

2. We too quickly divide up responsibilities to do this or that losing the value of the responsibility of all for all.

I suggest we use the early church model, i.e, the congregation, where the entire congregation is responsible for relief, education, spreading the Good News, stewardship, justice and teaching the Jesus way of peace. We will continually revisit the question of who (MWC, MCC, this conference or that one) does what until we can agree that we are all as members of the body of Christ responsible for all of it.

Size, volume, artificial boundaries demand some division of responsibility, but let the debate be around the question of how the global church can own and be involved in it all.

Most of the world is made up of small communities. The congregation is a small community. Let's ensure that we are not imposing a "Western" individualistic model to our work.

Although I joined MCC in 1977 and have not been ‘in’ MCC for almost two decades, I still care deeply about the future of ‘the family’. So, as one who is paid to pay attention to the ‘big picture’, particularly those aspects affecting food and agriculture, allow me to comment on the question of MCC structure from the perspective of the coming days.

There is little doubt we have entered a time of increasing global volatility. The food price crisis, the oil price crisis and the current financial turmoil attest to this. Some of the drivers of this volatility are known – climate change, water shortage, increasing energy costs, species disappearance, interlocking financial arrangements – while other drivers will come ‘out of the blue’ (e.g. transboundary pests and diseases?). This volatility can easily result in increasing international tensions, including tensions between North and South, particularly in the case of climate change. These tensions will result in conflicts. Will the church, especially the peace churches, be able to respond to these tensions? How?

If MCC is to be able to play a role in the church’s response, it will need a structure of genuine international mutuality and solidarity. The time for a Global Forum has come and is urgent. Furthermore, the Global Forum should promote the free will exchange of resources – both financial and non-financial – a real two-way street. It is true that North American supporters of MCC have become accustomed to supporting the calls for high levels of accountability and control in financial transfers but an MCC Global Forum capable of operating in this new world will require new levels of trust and mutuality which will mean some giving up of power.

What structure will most appropriate to this role? It has been pointed out that Mennonites are not historically strong supporters of nationality. And for some, the question about the existence of national MCCs is largely a question of money and power. While Mennonites may be less nationalistic than some other groups, they are profoundly influenced by the culture where they find themselves. In other words, even if nationality doesn’t matter, culture certainly does. And culture is not simply quaint – cultures are the collective resources that we will need to solve the kind of problems that we will be facing globally. And MCC’s structure should ensure that the various cultures found among us are seen as important resources to be shared and employed in finding new answers. The national MCCs are the most practical arrangements to ensure that the different cultures within the Mennonite world are retained and expressed.

Finally there is the question of the degree of centralization. The argument for strong national MCCs as carriers of culture supports the idea of a confederation or federation structure. Yet our calling as church is to a ‘unitary corporate’ structure under the lordship of Jesus Christ. And this must be more than rhetoric – we too rarely act as if everything we have is a gift from the Creator – an important element for genuine mutuality and sharing. Perhaps a federation under a single Lordship will be an appropriate hybrid.

Much is made of the goodness of the status quo – if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. But the status quo world is changing .. and fast. Can we find the clarity and courage to change too?

MCC CANADA AND INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMMING: A THINK PIECE

INTRODUCTIONS:

The MCC Bi-National (BN) Executive Committee made a policy decision within the last year requesting that MCC Canada assume responsibility for some international programming. This decision was in keeping with the Memorandum of Understanding between the 12 members of the MCC family in the United States and Canada.

It appears that, while there may be a reasonable level of understanding of the letter of the Executive Committee’s action, there is substantial variance in the interpretations of the action as well as in the understandings of its implications. This suggests to me that the Executive Committee (of which I am a member) and the MCC BN staff failed to engage in a prior thorough-going policy discussion exploring the potential strategic benefits and dangers inherent in this shift.

While the New Wine/New Wineskins process embraces so much more than this issue, the fact is that this issue was one of several significant issues that gave rise to the New Wine/New Wineskins process.

I write this piece on behalf of no one but myself. However I do write it, at least in part, because I have been encouraged to write it. It’s an attempt to provide some perspective, historical and philosophical, that might serve to build a little more understanding.

SOME ASSUMPTIONS:
• There is nothing inherently sacred about doing international work bi-nationally. Neither is there is anything inherently evil in it.
• There is nothing inherently sacred about doing international work from a national base and there is nothing inherently evil in that.
• There is nothing inherently sacred or evil about asking for change.
• There is nothing inherently sacred or evil about resisting change.
• Both pushing for change and resisting change can be the consequence of either positive or negative motivation or a mixture of the two. The reality is that in most instances, people push for change or resist change with mixed motives.
• It is normally useful to list reasons for and against a course of action under consideration.

SOME HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE:

A. The 1963 MCC Canada (MCCC) decision to do international work through Akron

Prior to 1963 MCC in Canada was largely limited to an MCC branch office in Kitchener. MCCC was created in 1963 by pulling together a variety of existing Mennonite immigration and relief committees in Canada. It is worthy to note that the newly formed MCCC made a unilateral decision in 1963 to do international programming through MCC based in Akron. MCCC could legitimately have made the decision to do international work independent of MCC in Akron. At the time, serious consideration was given to adopting another name, unrelated to MCC. It’s interesting to speculate how a different name might have impacted the discussion of this issue in subsequent years.

In my estimation the 1963 decision to work through MCC in Akron was a good decision, both strategically and politically. Strategically good because MCCC was a fledgling organization with little experience working internationally. MCCC could benefit greatly from the residual experience and knowledge in Akron. Politically good because Ontario Mennonites made joining MCCC contingent on doing international work through Akron.

B. The 1970’s discussions

During the mid to late 1970’s, voices in MCCC began to suggest that it was time for MCCC to assume responsibility for some international programming. There was a strong negative reaction from Akron staff – some suggesting that MCCC was incapable of doing quality international work, some calling motivation into question by levelling accusations of nationalism at those proposing change. Even the old standby ‘If it works, don’t fix it!” was called on to silence the voices for change.

Eventually, after much discussion, the MOU emerged including the clause noting that MCC BN could request one of the national MCCs to assume responsibility for international work. Whether there was then or subsequently any intention on the part of MCC BN to invoke that clause is less than clear. What is clear is that MCCC chose to sign on to that MOU and has unilaterally decided to sign on to every subsequent renewal of that MOU.

C. My experience as MCCC Executive Director – 2000 to 2001

I filled in as MCCC Executive Director for 18 months in 2000-01. Marv Frey had resigned and Don Peters was not immediately available.

During my first one on one meeting with the then Executive Director of MCC BN, I suggested that I would like to see the question of MCCC involvement in international program open for consideration once again. His reaction cleared told me that this was not good news from his perspective. We dropped the subject for that meeting.

It so happened that the MOU between MCC BN and the two national MCCs was scheduled for its periodic renewal during my tenure with MCCC. The renewal process was begun during my time as Executive Director and was completed after I left. In the course of renewal discussions, I requested that MCC BN spell out its understanding of the circumstances and conditions under which BN might request MCCC to assume an international role. When it became clear that there was no willingness on the part of BN to do that, I suggested that the clause be removed from the MOU, thereby clarifying that there was in fact no intention to move in that direction. The clause remained in the MOU without any clarification as to why or how it might be invoked.

The conversations around this theme of the last few years are well enough documented though, as I suggested at the outset, the discussion were largely administrative and perhaps political but unfortunately not sufficiently strategic.

It is perhaps useful to remind ourselves, however, that MCCC made a unilateral decision in 1963 to do international work through Akron and that with every subsequent MOU MCCC unilaterally decided to sign the MOU and maintain the status quo. It is also clear that MCCC could, in the future, unilaterally decide not to sign the MOU and to unilaterally assume international program responsibilities. In my view that would be unfortunate. However the likelihood of that scenario unfolding increases every year a thorough-going strategic discussion concerning program transfer is postponed.

A FEW RELATED ISSUES CALLING FOR STRATEGIC CONSIDERATION:

1. US foreign policy
The example of Cuba is perhaps the most obvious though perhaps not the most pressing. The fact that it is illegal for a US based agency to work in Cuba makes this a ‘slam dunk’ case. Why was it so difficult to come to agreement on a case as obvious as this one?

2. Differing sectors in the constituency with differing passions – one illustration
My parents fled the Soviet Union and were among the very last to leave in 1929 before the doors were slammed shut by Stalin. Throughout my childhood and youth and until they were too feeble-minded to pray, I do not believe that there was a single day in which my parents did not pray for those left behind in the USSR. There were thousands upon thousands of Mennonites in Canada like my parents. I expect there were few like them in the USA. Hence the fall of the Soviet Union in 1990 and access to the ‘homeland’ and those left behind was perceived very differently north and south of the 49th parallel. MCC’s post 1990 efforts in the FSU seemed unjustifiably feeble to many in Canada. Subsequently they found other channels to ‘do program’ in the FSU, without the benefit of MCC’s expertise.
MCC should have invited MCCC to take the initiative.

3. MCC BN – a fortress or an effective united effort?
My guess is that significant Mennonite/BIC church institutions and agencies are organized on a bi-national basis only in Canada and the USA. Even here the move is towards national organizations. What does it look like to the rest of the Mennonite/BIC world to have the two wealthiest constituencies function as one when the issue is, at least in part, the sharing of our wealth?

Dave Dyck
March 2009

Thanks for the chance to pontificate!

When we discussed these things during my years in Akron, I and others sometimes observed that our constituents didn’t care too much about MCC’s structure, as long as MCC carried out good programs and operated efficiently with the resources it received. Now that I live far from the Mennonite Meccas (Denver, CO, USA), I think that we underestimated how little most people care about MCC structures! It’s amazing to me – given how deeply I was involved in these discussions just two years ago – how little these issues affect me and the local Mennonite community today. So let me reiterate: please run excellent programs and use resources efficiently. We trust you on structural issues, but make it as simple and as efficient as possible. Program is king.

There’s lots of references in the paper to MCC’s becoming more international in accountability and governance. Be really careful that MCC’s old wineskin doesn’t get draped over the new wine of God’s spirit moving in the Two Thirds World. MCC is a North American organization to its very core – even the references to MCC Europe in the paper felt incongruous, since that has been tried before and never got far – and it would make an inauthentic, awkward international body. If Mennonite and BIC churches around the world want to work internationally and collegially on things like relief, development and peace, then let’s create something new through Mennonite World Conference. MCC could contribute financially and in other ways, but the new body would not be an extension of MCC. Maybe eventually MCC could provide even the majority of its income to support the work of the new organization. But please don’t try to make the North American leopard change its spots.

The cornucopia of 12 boards in the Canadian and U.S. MCC bodies is a real conundrum. Many people are invested in the provincial and regional operations, and yet the conflicting priorities that these structures produce are gumming up the works too often when broader issues are being considered. Although the howls would be loud, I’d consider a maximum of two national boards and one international board. Establish a bunch of local program committees to give integrity to those important efforts. But the current structure is way too board-heavy.

And here is the solution I promoted during my Akron years for the mutual Canada/U.S. misgivings (and which never got anywhere!): disperse MCC’s international program department so that it is more or less equally represented in the two countries (or at least in Akron/Winnipeg), but under no circumstances do away with the single management structure that IPD currently enjoys. If the IPD Director and the MCC Executive Director need to live in separate countries, so be it, and it would probably strengthen the organization.

However, splitting IPD management along national lines, reporting to more than one ED or board, is an egg that the Save the Childrens and Oxfams of the world are desperately trying to unscramble, after years of confusion and frustration. Please not.

Blessings! I have full confidence that MCC will find its way through this. Just let us know when it’s all over.

-- Bruce McCrae

Sitting here in Zaporozhye, Ukraine, we would just like to say that we resonate with the comments of John Lapp, Dave Dyck and Bruce McCrae!
We pray that, whatever emerges from the process, MCC will continue be a presence for peace and justice and compassion in a world reeling from the effects of greed and corruption and violence.

I forgot to add my name to the above comment. I was the trainee.