MWR : Building decision questioned

Last updated November 24.

Send letters to the editor, or suggestions for our stories or Web site, to MWR‘s editors.

May 24, 2010 issue

Print this article.

3 comments on this article.

Tags: New Directions by Thompson Mennonite Church USA

Building decision questioned

By Sarah Thompson and Hilary Scarsella

Page:

There is nothing quite like writing for a church paper while sitting across from a large photo of John F. Funk.

Thompson

Funk (1835-1930) was “the most outstanding leader of the Mennonite Church in the 19th century,” according to Donald Durnbaugh in Mennonite Quarterly Review, a scholarly journal, in the July 1997 issue, which addresses church-related institutions.

Here we are, in the Prairie Street Mennonite Church library in Elkhart, Ind., typing on a machine Funk never dreamed of when he was working in Elkhart for Mennonite mission, education and publication efforts.

During Funk’s lifetime, the church wrestled with whether or not to institutionalize Mennonite-Anabaptist ways of being, teaching and organizing. The direction to go was not clear. There were differences of opinion. Funk was often involved in these discussions.

Right now, Mennonite Church USA and Mennonite Mission Network are fundraising for a large new office building they plan to build this summer on the Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminary campus in Elkhart. They are promoting this building as a key part of the identity and future of MC USA.

Spark Renewal is a group of people who believe MC USA is in a critical moment. The decision about where to locate a central office requires a space for exploring visions from the broader church. We are asking that that space be made.

In order for this project and our denomination to truly reflect our core convictions and embody our witness, the input of people from all age, gender and racial-ethnic backgrounds, and across other dividing lines, must be integral parts of the decision-making.

We believe, based on hearing building campaign leaders describe the process, that their decision-making gave undue weight to the concerns of potential big donors, staff in top leadership positions and a building contractor. By the time the building campaign leaders began communicating about the building plan with marginalized communities and the broader church, the decision to build had essentially been made.

We question this decision, and see it as falling short of promoting the stated priorities of MC USA: witness, anti-racism, leadership development and global connections. Building on the AMBS campus clusters traditional Mennonite institutions together and limits opportunities for witness.

The history page of our website details our ongoing dialogue with grassroots and administrative leaders — including Stanley Green, MMN executive director; Marty Lehman, MC USA director of churchwide operations; and Ervin Stutzman, MC USA executive director — in the spirit of Matthew 18.

continued on next page »

Page:

Comments

While I am certainly not convinced that a "people of God" need a large bureaucratic institution or a 10 million dollar building to be effective in their mission, I choose not to protest this current building project.

The implication here that building in Elkhart sends an unwelcoming message to racial/ethnic groups in coastal/urban areas does not resonate with me. It's a reality that the Mennonite Church has certain population dense areas where it is most practical to locate central offices (Elkhart is one of these places). My feeling is that if you are affiliating with MC USA in the first place, then in a sense you are embracing a vision that has largely emanated from these population cores, and you probably wouldn't object to the common sense approach of locating offices there. The location of the office is not so important as who is represented in the office, as far as racial/ethnic issues are concerned.

If "big donors" are willing to be generous and support a project that ultimately is for the good of the church (not their own personal interests) then I'd say that's probably something to take advantage of. I just read that in 2007 and 2008, 300 donors gave $2.6 million towards this project. That's a lot of generosity going back a long ways to turn around on them now. I feel like the people we've put in leadership have done a lot of work researching possible alternatives to the current rented facility and have garnered a lot of affirmation for this project; personally I'm okay trusting the work and judgement that's been put in.

Also, it doesn't seem to me that a 10 million dollar investment in something permanent is all that much for a large denomination, especially when it is projected to save at least $2 million in the first 15 years. I'd be interested in seeing how MC USA's administrative costs compare to other denominations, or how this building compares to other denomination's central offices.

It's good that there seems to be a vital grassroots contingency in our denomination working to keep leadership accountable. I find the Spark Renewal group to be very credible, respectful, and invested in the mission of the church and I will certainly continue to listen to their input. At this point, however, I don't think I agree with trying to stop the building project.

- Joseph Penner (may 20 at 5:43 p.m.)
To Joseph,

"It doesn't seem to me that a 10 million dollar investment in something permanent is all that much for a large denomination"

Mennonites are not a "large denomination." We are shrinking in fact, and so is the Mission Network. They apparently just laid off workers, yet want to raise money for this building that accommodates far more people than they have.

Second, this building project is connected with a drive to "identity." It is a huge mistake for the unaccountable leaders of this denomination to connect a multimillion dollar building project with the identity of Mennonites at large. Ron Byler's piece in the latest Mission Network publication, Beyond Ourselves, talks about how great it is that we can come together and build a building and how it shows what great things we are capable of.

No. It shows that we know how to waste money, how to put people in charge and not be able to hold them accountable, and that we know how to accumulate things we do not need with an immodesty and hubris about it.

I am not very keen on being "identified" by this building as the denominational leaders would like it.

- Ray (may 30 at 12:01 p.m.)
It's difficult for me to sort through all the information on this issue and come through with a clear opinion.

I feel like that the MCUSA website does a clean, honest job of answering the "tough questions" about this project and making a good case for it: http://www.mennoniteusa.org/Portals/0/JoiningTogether/faq.html

Meanwhile, I hear a lot of sincere, visionary voices speaking out against it. But how do you compare 100 "prophetic" voices on an internet petition with dozens of implicit voices from administrators and board members who approved the project, not to mention factoring in 100,000 silent voices and a few hundred who have already spoken with their pocketbooks?

I don't feel like the outcome of this will impact me very much, nor have I bothered to pay much attention to the process, so I am mainly trying to ask myself, "Who do I trust?"

I confess that over the years I've developed a tendency to side with leadership on issues like this. I feel like leaders sort through a lot of tough issues and make the best decisions they can, but inevitably get flak from people who were never in their shoes.

One thing I wonder is if there is not a large gulf in the church between a relatively small group of visionary vocal radicals and the docile (but tithing) mainstream. I am fairly new to thinking about issues of church bureaucracy, but it seems like there are those who do link their religious identity to the bureaucratic institution of the church; and then there are those who link their identity to an abstract conception of mission and purpose, which they in turn expect to be embodied by the institution. I wonder if the institution is not inherently antithetical to the latter group's values and if they're not fighting a useless battle.

Anyway, I guess that I am neutral on the issue of building or not building. I am only posting comments here to sort through my own thoughts. I will stand my by point that $10 million is not an extreme amount for MC USA to spend until I see some comparative numbers to what other denominations spend.

I admit that I strongly affirm at least one post on the Spark Renewal petition, from Carl Meyer, who wrote: "The time spent slowing down, deeply discerning the movement of the spirit in a gathered body, especially by honoring voices of dissent when the momentum has already gathered in one direction, is time repaid many-fold in mistakes avoided and unity gained."

- Joseph Penner (jun 1 at 1:49 p.m.)

Comment on the article Building decision questioned

The purpose of comments is to engage in dialogue. We expect commenters to treat authors and each other as each would want to be treated. Respectful criticism is welcomed; offensive comments or parts of comments will be removed by the site administrator. Name and comment will be posted; email address is for follow-up only and will not be made public.