Thanks for adding the perspective on the value of face-to-face interactions. I didn’t mean to suggest that gathering at all is ill-conceived, but rather that we might do well to avoid assuming that gathering is wise regardless of who attends, what the topic is, or if what benefits are planned for the sending communities.

As for what might improve some current shortcomings, one idea would be for a diverse planning group to consider criteria like those above when considering a gathering.

We might decide to focus energy on more local or conference-level gatherings…

hold national gatherings only every six years…

do more accountable caucus work for historically oppressing groups (white people, affluent churches)…

encourage white people to attend open sessions and learn at people of color gatherings…

suggest that church members get to know and learn from poor people in their home community…

What do you think?

Glad to hear you’re in conversation with leadership on the Canadian side about making more ties to practical living and connections with folks on the margins. I’d love to hear more about how that discussion goes and what emerges — perhaps a future post on YAR?

I’m not sure I follow you where you said, “I suspect we would have our criteria for when to hold conferences pretty quickly if the poor were given a say.”

Are you suggesting that the poor would prioritize basic needs above holding conferences? That we should hold practical conferences with more urgency? Could you clarify?

Thanks for this helpful post. It raises essential questions without simiply “meeting bashing.”

My (white person) understanding, based on anti-racism work and experience serving alongside people of color in Menn Church organization groups, is that people of color often prefer face-to-face interaction rather than other, more distant forms of connection. I grant all your points but would want to hear from Anabaptist people of color before suggesting that gathering at all is an ill-conceived idea.

Clearly current gatherings are not serving as vital foundations for practical, at-home ministry/activism or relationship building across color lines. What might change that?

However, the great sharing of ideas and dreams that happened informally was invaluable. As we work locally, it is comforting to know their is a wider church we are a part of.

How do we make our gatherings less tiring and more liberating? I’ve begun conversations with our leadership in Canada on just that. What will be essential is less theology that isn’t rooted in practical living. Plus, if the church’s role is to bless the marginalized, then it’s high time we start inviting the marginalized into the planning! I suspect we would have our criteria for when to hold conferences pretty quickly if the poor were given a say.

I suspect the frequency of our national gatherings will decrease in the future. The question is whether that’s a conscious decision to build something better…or simply because oil prices make it too expensive to fly.

I think these are great observations and questions. I, too, wondered what was to be gained from the San Jose 2007 conference when I attended. Since I had not really been a Christian that long - and didn’t grow up in a Mennonite church - the conference was very helpful for me. Yet, I wasn’t sure if it would have been helpful for others; I wondered if it was useful for those who had been in the church for a while. I wondered if the gathering was just for the sake of gathering, for the sake of showing that we are doing something as a church/denomination.

I think the criteria for meeting that you have established are the first step in challenging traditional conference models.