We don’t claim to represent any age group or demographic, but it is because of the many interactions that we have had, and the times that we have felt/been on the margins feel compelled to speak up.

Your last paragraph of the “yeses” and “nos” seems variant to some of the histories that we’ve heard, but it is good to read yet another version. Maybe this was “too little” “too late” as Nekeisha said in her blog post on http://www.sparkrenewal.org. But it was/is worth it. I’ve learned SO much.

Peace

But I do wonder about the ways in which you speak from the margins. As you mentioned, Spark Renewal started in Elkhart, one of the core locations of Mennonite Church USA, not in the periphery either socially or geographically. The primary spokespeople for spark renewal, those Mennonite media have quoted on the subject, are not really marginal figures-they are famous names of influential Mennonite leaders-people I recognize as employees of AMBS, contributors to the Mennonite, and Leaders in the Global Anabaptist movement. In fact, I’d argue that part of Spark Renewal’s appeal is because of who is doing the shouting now, and their very much non-peripheral status.

In terms of what the margins actually think, I remember when the Delegate Assembly approved having the new denomination centered in Elkhart in Nashville in 2001, and overwhelmingly reaffirming a building there as a delegate body since then, including at the delegate assembly in Columbus. This building plan has been in motion for a long time, and has involved a lot of people. It is hard to change now, because of how many people have said yes, and how few have said no. This may be a ‘vast lumbering institution’ as Paco says, or it could be a tiny institutional structure reflecting the will of a very small denomination facing a number of dissidents who are honored for their wisdom, listened to carefully, but also faithfully and prayerfully disagreed with.

I too have been in meetings with silliness, prayer, and singing in the institutional structure of Mennonite Church USA.

Its interesting to hear that Roth talks about this issue in “Stories: How Mennonites Came to Be”. I hadn’t heard of the book until you mentioned it. I’ll have to see if I can find a copy.

I think you name the role of dollars as decision makers very well in your last paragraph. One specific story along those lines: after the economic down turn, the planners knew they needed to revisit the project. But the people they talked to were the major donors. The planners said that they trusted them because they were philanthropists with lots of experience giving to big charitable projects. So the frame work used to evaluate people’s worthiness as decision makers at that point in the project was based on access to capital.

On one level I feel very much in league with that group and on another level not. I affirm their goals of good stewardship and mission, but I sense a tinge of irony in combining anti-institutionalism with a focused effort to define and influence the institution.

As I’ve read your commentary on instutionalism and bureaucracy, Tim, I keep mulling over a theme from John D. Roth’s book “Stories.” He describes church history as a cycle of spirit-led renewal movements springing up, then forming structures to give them stability and keep them from going a hundred directions. The structures, Roth says, are necessary for keeping a movement alive but eventually can become ends in themselves. When the structures (institutions) betray their original mission, renewal movements spring up again and the cycle repeats. I don’t know where MC USA is at in this cycle.

Another issue that institutions face is maintaining a clear and consistent purpose amidst an increasingly diverse constituency. In this particular case I understand that a lot of money has already been donated to the building project from constituents who support it. How do board members balance the voices of protest with the voices (and dollars) of affirmation?