Institutional revisioning bores me. In too many church institutions, leaders have been replaced with administrators, spirited guidance has been replaced with organizational navel-gazing and new visions often aren’t very new. But the worldwide, 13-month Wineskins re-visioning process Mennonite Central Committee (MCC) is undertaking has my interest.

One participant says the process could lead to a point at which “[MCC Binational director Arli Klassen] might need to resign, along with the entire binational board, to make room for any new possibility.” That’s MCC Alberta director Abe Janzen in a report about a Wineskins consultation in Nicaragua. He says the push there was for MCC to move beyond being a North American-driven organization to a global “priesthood of all believers,” with the possibility of ownership being shared between those who bring funds and those who bring needs.

Aside from whether such resignations ever happen, the suggestion raises an important point. The desire to expand MCC ownership beyond North America has become a key point arising from the consultations, but how much control is actually being put up for grabs by current decision-makers?

Klassen says she is committed to “walking with all of MCC and the churches locally and globally to find new structures,” even if that would require her to resign.

A larger question is whether MCC culture will be permeated by various parties vying for control or by a cooperative focus on the needs of the world. Janzen reports from the Nicaragua meeting: “There is a very strong wish here to make MCC a community and not CEO- and board-driven.”

Another factor that makes the Wineskins process interesting is MCC Canada’s push for more say over international programming, most of which is run by MCC Binational out of Akron, Pa. Currently, two-thirds of the money raised by MCCs in Canada, plus millions in government funding, get funnelled through Akron for international programs. But now, according to MCC Canada board chair Neil Janzen, MCC Canada wants “a more direct say in how those resources are used.” This would include responsibility for programming in places like Cuba, Afghanistan and North Korea, where U.S. foreign relations are problematic.

How does this relate to the Wineskins process? “There are some who see these processes as completely linked, and others who see them as distinct,” Klassen says.

Neil Janzen told me they should be distinct, but on the Wineskins website he writes that if MCC Binational will not accommodate MCC Canada’s wishes, then MCC “can hardly take any further steps towards an MCC Global.”

While one could make a case for MCC Canada taking responsibility for certain programs, it is hard to see why the globalization of MCC ownership would be contingent on MCC Canada first getting expanded powers. When asked, Janzen clarified that he is not saying one is contingent on the other but only that if a new arrangement between MCCC and MCC BN cannot be visualized then how could a new international structure be visualized.

Dan Leonard, the young adult initiative coordinator for MCC Binational, who attended the Wineskins consultation in Winnipeg, says the focus should be on “how to best respond to the needs of the world,” not on “which powerful North American country gets to have control.” Indeed, if groups within MCC advocate for themselves rather than for the poor, it would seem they are headed more toward a jostling of administrators than a priesthood of believers.

On the broader question of ownership and potentially resigning his post, Neil Janzen said the church conferences, which ultimately own MCC, “will have to decide to what extent they are willing to give up ownership,” but he would be willing to step aside if required.

Will Braun is editor of Geez magazine and a columnist with Canadian Mennonite magazine. A version of this article appeared in the November 10, 2008 issue of Canadian Mennonite. Braun can be  reached at editor [at] geezmagazine [dot] org.