July/August 2007:
Gospel Evangel
Listening/Redesign proposal affirmed [coverage of Conference Assembly 2007]
“We need this [worshipful work] time to focus on who we are
and on where we need to make changes in our life together as God’s people in
the 21st century,” Moderator Mary Swartley told
delegates at the beginning of the first session. Delegates voted in favor of
significant change for the conference by affirming the revised system redesign
proposal by 96 percent (155 “yes” votes, 6 “no” votes and 2 abstentions).
The Listening and Redesign (L/R) Team
had revised the proposal in response to counsel from delegates at last spring’s
cluster meetings and from Executive Committee and staff.
Changes included using “Vision: Healing
and Hope” as the vision statement, a new mission statement, no increase in the
staff FTE, no new staff person for stewardship/development, and contracting the
“Keeper of the Vision” function (rather than having it be a staff position).
(View the proposal online: im.mennonite.net/Conf_Assembly/Listening_and_Redesign)
Presenting the revised proposal, Martha
Yoder Maust, L/R Team chair, read from John 15,
explaining, “Jesus is the vine. We, the believers in the congregations, are the
branches, and it’s our job to be bearing fruit. The conference structure is
like a trellis for that vine, on which the branches can grow. The question
before us today is whether this proposal represents a trellis that can be
helpful for our growth over the next number of years.”
Dan Miller, L/R Team member and a
transitional pastor, said that the proposal would
require some shifts in thinking. “We see the life of conference being in the
congregations,” he said. “For example, if congregations plant churches, then
conference will be planting churches. If congregations don’t plant churches,
then conference will not be planting churches.
“We might think that congregations are
the building blocks, but I really think that relationships are the building
blocks of conference,” he continued, noting the importance of being part
of something larger than oneself in following Jesus -- for individuals,
congregations, conferences and denominations.
To link congregations, the L/R Team
proposes an organization in which relationships can be more flexible and less
centralized. “Conference is not the relationships; it is like a trellis that
supports the relationships,” Dan said.
“One of the things I tell congregations
is that nothing is perfect,” he said. “We choose the set of strengths and
weaknesses that we want to live with. This is the set of strengths and
challenges that we are encouraging us as a conference to work with.”
Martha invited each table group to
discuss the proposal and to write down one question or comment, as well as
thoughts to pass on to the Executive Committee for after the vote. Later in the
worshipful work sessions, she and Dan addressed these questions and comments.
“One of the things that is clear from reading through the questions is that you
grasp exactly what the issues are,” Martha told delegates. The table groups
asked questions about the forms of accountability, the role of the Keeper of
the Vision and of the lead conference minister, decentralization, and how the
proposal could strengthen relationships among congregations, among other
things. Some concerns were expressed about the loss of the commissions and
about having adequate representation on the Missional
Leadership Team.
Martha and Dan noted that several
questions would have to be answered by those doing the work of implementation.
Dan also reminded delegates of the
importance of the spiritual component of their work. “We’re laying out some ideas,
but we can’t predict [what will happen]. The point for me is not that we create
some kind of good structure that we think is going to take care of us, but that
this is one step in our ongoing conversion and repentance. This is part of our
work to become the people that God wants us to be.
“We want to reflect the good news of
Jesus to the world, and I’m excited about some of the possibilities and the
flexibility that we’re potentially creating for us to respond to the Spirit’s nudgings.”
Delegates voted to approve the direction
of the system redesign proposal and to refer it to a team who will begin making
decisions about phasing in the new organizational design, engaging delegates as
appropriate. Those who have agreed to serve on the Transition Team are Gene Hartman, chair, Emma Mennonite,
Topeka, Ind.; Dan Miller (continuing
from the L/R Team); Phil Mininger, Paoli (Ind.) Mennonite Fellowship; Sarah Rohrer, Howard-Miami Mennonite,
Kokomo, Ind.; Bill Scott, Ninth
Street Mennonite, Saginaw, Mich.; Klaudia Smucker, College Mennonite, Goshen; John Troyer, Clinton Frame Mennonite,
Goshen; and Sherm Kauffmann, staff.
Thank you to the L/R Team, whose hard
work is now complete: Martha Yoder Maust, chair, and Lydie Assefa, Shalom Mennonite, Indianapolis; Brent Eash of
the Executive Committee; Dan Miller,
transitional pastor; Tim Miller, Rexton (Mich.) Mennonite and Naubinway
(Mich.) Christian Fellowship; Rolando
Sosa, Iglesia del Buen
Pastor, Goshen; Vic Stoltzfus,
College Mennonite, Goshen; Sherm Kauffman,
staff; Don Garber, recording
secretary; and Gil Rendle,
senior consultant with the Alban Institute.