In my last column I asked two Mennonite Central Committee (MCC) leaders about the “Wineskins” visioning process and the possibility of sharing MCC ownership with overseas partners. Now I offer my own thoughts on the matter.

During my terms with MCC in Brazil, B.C. and Manitoba, I felt a dual allegiance. On one hand, to the organization I am historically and spiritually bonded to, and on the other, to the people MCC sent me to work with. My split allegiances became most evident when they conflicted, like when the Cree people I worked with in northern Manitoba wanted MCC to advocate boldly on their behalf. The MCC board, after some strong actions, shied away and eventually dropped the program, to the dismay of my northern friends.

Aside from the contentious details of that situation, it demonstrated that it is the people who bring money to MCC (the “constituency,” in MCC lingo), not the people who bring needs (“partners”), who call the shots. As an MCCer, I served “in the name of Christ,” but at the pleasure of a privileged constituency.

[I]t’s time for MCC to abandon the us-helping-them model as its central narrative.

MCC is currently “owned” by North American church conferences. These conferences constitute the primary donor base and appoint the majority of members to the boards that ultimately control the direction of MCC. In this model, the primary relationship between constituency and partners is one of “us helping them.” And, as the Cree found out, “we” have the final say.

While the us-helping-them model cannot be dismissed wholesale, its underside must be acknowledged. It tends to be patronizing and colonial in its assumptions: “We have what they need.” “We know better than them.” “They should be like us.” And it too easily revolves around our money. There is a role for straight-up charity, but it’s time for MCC to abandon the us-helping-them model as its central narrative.

When I was caught between the MCC constituency and a “partner,” I came to believe MCC should consider a two-in-one constituency model. Instead of the constituency-partner hierarchy, maybe MCC could see itself as equally responsible to two constituencies: those who bring cheques and those who bring needs. This two-in-one constituency would ultimately be seen as a single interconnected body.

The northern Cree situation demonstrates the connectedness. There, resource extraction—specifically, a hydroelectric system—results in benefits to “us” and harm to “them.” The solution is not for us to help them, but for all of us to work towards a more equitable economic relationship. The same dynamic exists elsewhere in the world, where poverty is a by-product of an economic system that benefits us at the expense of others. The rich and the poor are both part of the problem and the solution. We all need help.

The us-helping-them model is ill-equipped to acknowledge such realities. It usually casts us as saviours. It hears marginalized people when they say “help us,” or “thank you, you are wonderful,” but is less likely to hear when they say “we need you to stop patronizing and empowering companies that have their hand in our cookie jar.”

The answer to the MCC ownership question is not as simple as including “partners” as decision-makers. We need to own our own responsibilities. We need to nurture an MCC culture that is less about us and our well-meaning money. Money has to have less sway. Humble, collective healing of broken economic relationships needs a more prominent place.

After all, MCC belongs not to the realm of business, where money rules, but to the realm of church, with all the paradox and upside-down values inherent in faith.

Will Braun is editor of Geez magazine and a columnist with Canadian Mennonite magazine. This article first appeared in the December 15, 2008 issue of Canadian Mennonite. Braun can be reached at editor [at] geezmagazine [dot] org.