MENNONITE CENTRAL COMMITTEE
CANADA  
Report to Board of Directors

New Wine, New Wineskins: Philippines
Summit

August 16, 2008   Neil Janzen, Chair

This report provides some initial
personal reflections arising from my participation in the Wineskins
Summit in Manila, Philippines. About seventy ‘delegates’ from around
the world joined in this first summit held July 23-30, 2008.

It was a good exercise. There was great
participation. The group encountered some difficulty because of language
(for many it was a stretch to work primarily in English) and culture
(the Latin America delegates would have wanted more pre-process discussion
on the context). Overall, however, the Summit provided the opportunity
for broad engagement in the process and a forum for everyone to be heard.

There were two major ‘findings’ as
far as I was concerned. The first was an overwhelming affirmation that
MCC must be a global organization (a structural, ownership issue); the
second that it must remain church-based (which will define the nature
of its mission). In her blog, Arli Klassen makes the following assessment
of the Summit,

I was very pleased with the engagement
of all participants in the strengths and future of MCC.  I was delighted
to see that all 8 table groups presented similar visions of a truly
global MCC in the future, rooted in, sent by, and ministering in partnership
with the global church. Arli Klassen
Blog

Those ‘conclusions’ are not surprising
given that the participants were primarily from countries in which MCC
provides ‘resources for meeting human need’ and that the dominant
representation was from M/BIC connected conferences and congregations
around the world. Partner representatives, including those with Hindu,
Muslim and Buddhist roots, were also present, participated actively
and contributed helpfully to the process.

My personal assessment of the outcome
is that the value of the Summit lay in the participation of representatives
around the world in discussing the future of MCC in the 21st
Century. The ‘conclusions’ are essentially in line with what I’ve
been hearing at the MCC Executive Committee, Board and Roundtable sessions.
The Summit allowed external voices to express their views and allowed
us (Inquiry Task Force (ITF) members particularly) to assess if what
is being said within MCC is on track with ‘global’ thinking.

There were two ‘surprises’ coming
out of the sessions. The first was the extent to which the focus was
on structure and the second was how little attention was given to program
(and mission, vision, priorities). The outcome seemed to reverse the
interest in working at ‘function before form’. That outcome perhaps
also illustrates that in using the appreciative inquiry process the
direction taken by participants is determined by their interest and
not necessarily the organization’s need. That assessment may also
reflect my gravitating towards structural discussions rather than program
related ones.

Though the Summit identified key issues
(structure; church-based) it did not further define these items and
it is assumed that the task of doing so is left to the Inquiry Task
Force (ITF). The ITF meets in October following the Winnipeg Summit
and there is some concern (on my part and others) that not only will
the task be ‘huge’ but given the schedule of regional meetings and
the final Summit in June 2009 that the attempt to conclude the process
in June 2009 is very optimistic. As well, it is clear that if there
are structural changes (i.e. the globalization of ownership) that an
additional year or more may be devoted to that process.

ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS

1. Mission/Vision/Values

It still seems to me that we need to
more thoroughly address the function/program issues, that is ‘our
purpose’ (as per Wineskins document). In my view it is not so much
what ‘God wants us to do’ as it is to examine, as followers of Jesus,
what it is that makes sense for MCC in the 21st Century,
given the current and projected ‘state of the world’. I see charting
a course as an urgent and fundamental need.

The session we had on global trends was
helpful in giving us an understanding of how issues in different decades
were similar for people of different age, gender, culture, etc. Though
this was in a sense a ‘warm-up’ exercise it might have been good
to have a similar exercise that helps us understand those trends which
affect how international aid is carried out or how authentic ‘development’
occurs.

The world has indeed changed and in some
respects is ‘flat’. A recent article on World Trade Organization
(WTO)1 notes the benefit of ‘freer trade’ and suggests
a decline in the level of poverty. Whether the analysis is accurate
or not we need to be informed by global trends as we chart a course
for MCC’s development work in the 21st Century.

The Philippines Summit did not address
this issue. Will the Winnipeg Summit or subsequent gatherings allow
us to get to this issue?

1. MCC Global: Expectations
   and Strategies

As indicated earlier in this report there
seemed to be a not-so-surprising consensus on the need to shift to a
global structure. My concern is that the AI process did not push us
to define more clearly what was meant (is it global ownership?) nor
do I see the future Summits and regional meetings moving us toward a
broad-based consensus on a definition unless the process is structured
(questions, table groups, etc.) to achieve that end.

Another concern, is that the globalization
of MCC (or MCC Global) will already have raised expectations world-wide
of the outcome. That expectations arises in part because of the participation
(which was a good thing) but also because the nature and scope of such
a structure was left undefined (or left up to each person to define
as they reflect on the discussion). That latter outcome is perhaps not
so good.

All of which is to say we need to carefully
manage the process … including the communication that arises from
the Summit (s).

1. The MCCBN/MCCC Issue

I took note of two comments about MCCC’s
interest in direct engagement in international program management. One
comment, made by an African participant in the small working group that
I happened to be a part of at the time, was that this issue should not
be discussed at the Summit but left to MCCBN and MCCC to work out. The
second was that the discussion about MCCC’s interest had been ongoing
for 20 plus years and was ‘boring’ but the underlying assumption
seemed to be to leave things as they are. That comment was left ‘hanging’
though I was in the group, since I did not feel the Summit was an appropriate
venue to solve this matter. The discussion went no further nor did the
issue surface formally at any other time as far as I know.

My personal view on this matter is that
the issue should be resolved in dialogue between MCCBN and MCCC. In
fact, we are already on the path towards resolution with the action
taken by the EC in April and that anticipated at its September session
and the subsequent (October) MCCC Board meeting.

It would seem that we can move with relative
ease towards an authentic partnership if there is indeed genuine interest
in program transfers, recognition of MCCC’s accountability for national
resources and flexibility in approaches to development initiated in
different centres. If we (MCCBN & MCCC) can’t arrive at that accommodation
we can hardly take any further steps towards an MCC Global.