IN-MI Transition Team Responds

April 25, 2008

 

At the cluster meetings this spring, the Transition Team sought delegate feedback about how best to describe the adaptive and technical leadership desired from a Lead Conference Minister. Along with feedback came questions about the timeline and details of the new structure. Leading up to our June 19-21 sessions at Westview High School, we will address some of those questions.

 

1.     “What is the underlying reason for the reorganization of the IN-MI Conference?”

      In a word, things have not been working as well as people desired. Different people emphasize different reasons for the change, and others are suspicious any real change is possible. The detailed answers are as varied as the people answering.

 

      Internally, for a decade conference has decreased in size as congregations closed or chose to withdraw, and few new churches have been planted. We have had extended debate over controversial issues such as women in ministry and homosexuality. In the midst of conflict, the large leadership body (Executive Committee) was not able to respond quickly to questions. In addition to declining membership, other congregations reduced giving—some in frustration, others to invest more in local staff and ministry.*  Conference Regional Minister positions were reduced to deal with the lack of funds, and present staff have carried large responsibilities. Some hoped a proposal to merge four conferences (Illinois, Indiana-Michigan, Ohio and Central District) into a Great Lakes Conference would address some of the challenges. The proposal did not get enough votes to be implemented. Since that vote, each conference has been redefining itself. Conference ministers had encouraged some process like this for several years before the Listening and Redesign Team was put in place in 2005.

 

      Externally, the world in which IN-MI Conference exists has changed. Our society is moving from a centralized warehouse mentality to a dispersed network mindset. People feel less institutional loyalty.  The theological diversity that formerly existed between denominations now exists within most congregations. Conference congregations face complex challenges, so that it is no longer adequate to think about doing better what they do. Some of the changes delegates listed at cluster meetings point to the challenges: mobility, role of women, increased wealth and decreased giving, rise of spiritual hunger and diverse spiritualities, decreased denominational loyalty, children’s extra-curricular and school activities, one-parent families or both parents working, technology (internet, email, smart phones, text messages), racial diversity, war on terror, . . .  A more nimble structure, with multiple layers of relationships, has the potential to help congregations imagine creative responses and experiment with new mission-shaped activities.

 

      These challenges mean congregations must engage scripture and their missional context in new and experimental ways. We must listen carefully to the Spirit as we attempt to discover how God is at work in this new environment. Congregations do not have resources or loyalty for a conference that asks loyalty yet seems irrelevant to so many of their people. In addition to credentialing and search processes, conferences must experiment with new ways of cultivating missional imagination in congregations, connecting congregations with similar interests, and coaching leadership on a tighter budget than before.

 

      Yet in many ways we stand at the doorway of a fertile and adventurous time.  We believe the changes we are making now can help us successfully meet the opportunities God is offering us.

 

      * Congregational giving seems to be up significantly at this time, for which we are grateful.

 

 

2.     “Please clarify the MLT, AC, LCM, EC, etc.”

Wrapping our minds around an organizational structure is always challenging. Trying to do that before the organization exists stretches us even more. Here are brief descriptions of major roles.

 

The Missional Leadership Team (MLT) will be the conference governing body. This group, consisting of seven members, fulfills legal and oversight functions for the organization. The Moderator and Moderator-elect are two of the seven members.

 

In Mennonite Church USA, conferences credential and oversee ministry by all credentialed leaders.  Ministry Credentialing Teams (MCT) will carry out this function on behalf of the MLT. The plan is to have three MCTs, one each in the north, central and southern regions. Leadership Enhancement Teams (LET) will work alongside the MCTs to encourage continual growth by congregational leaders.

 

Advisory Council (AC) is a place for extended conversation and discernment about issues of import.  The AC is a representative group, with two representatives from each cluster, plus several others.

 

The Lead Conference Minister (LCM) provides significant leadership for the conference—along with the MLT—in achieving our mission of cultivating a missional imagination in every congregation. More information about the job description will come in the near future.

 

Conference Ministers will be most closely involved with congregations and their leadership.

 

Executive Committee (EC) is the governing body in the old structure. The EC continues to function as the new emerges. When the new is in place, the EC will cease to function. Hopefully this brief sketch of positions is helpful. Additional detail is available in the Listening and Redesign proposal, especially pages 4-5. Contact the conference office or click on the following link to view the proposal on the conference web site:

http://im.mennonite.net/who_we_are/transition_team/documents/lrt_proposal_appr_by_delegates_06_16_2007.pdf

 

 

Transition Team

Gene Hartman, chair

Bill Scott

Dan Miller

John Troyer

Klaudia Smucker

Phil Mininger

Sarah Rohrer