Editorial

As the Mennonite Church USA Executive Board continues to consider its proposal to dissolve all churchwide agency boards and create one new “Leadership Board,” the Executive Board should assess how these changes affect access points for young adults—and the process used to make these changes.

A strength of the current Mennonite Church USA structure is the variety of access points for people: congregations, conferences, the denominational leadership, agencies and more. These include multiple opportunities for young adults.

Considering that Mennonite Church USA’s membership is shrinking and aging, the value of multiple access points increases. But younger adults who feel a disconnect to the church may feel even greater distance if openings for involvement are reduced.

As I look at the broader church, I see some walls and divisions breaking down. But young adults critique traditional church hierarchies and laud ecumenical relations. Movements like the emerging church pull together people of varying ages and backgrounds and encourage grassroots faith movements.

Regardless of the Executive Board’s intentions, if any changes appear to be more about centralization and control, restructuring will be counterintuitive to Mennonite Church USA’s vision and goals—that includes prioritizing engagement with young adults.

I appreciate that the proposed one-board model includes a requirement that at least one Leadership Board member be under the age of 35 when she or he begins the position. However, I am not convinced this stretches the church very far. That one “young adult representative” could feel like a token and alone in the role. Multiple agency boards—with several young adults serving on each—involve more voices, experiences and thoughts.

During the all-boards meeting in Columbus, Ohio, on June 20, I heard people using the term, “silos.” Someone described the term as people or groups of people working at a similar goal but often unaware of the others’ work.

While too much disconnect between groups in the church can be problematic, I also worry about the blanket assumption that silos are all bad—especially for a denomination wanting to increase the number and breadth of people involved.

Mennonite Church USA is wise to consider duplication, funding issues and multiple messages sent to members and nonmembers, especially seven years after the merger. But follow-up steps that involve structural changes must be taken with care and with input from people from congregations—the very part of the church the one-board proposal is intended to benefit and support.

“Access” can also be blocked by confusion. The Executive Board members cite “confusion” as the fundamental reason for the one-board model. They say they want to achieve a clearer message and “simplify the system.” Church members of all ages should ask themselves: Do we find the organization of Mennonite Church USA too difficult to grasp? Is it too difficult to describe to others? After reflecting on these questions, leaders deserve to hear members’ thoughts and feedback.

Ten percent of the San José 2007 delegates were under age 30. I hope even more young adult delegates weigh in at next summer’s convention. One way to broaden such young adult involvement is through congregations. Each congregation should provide places for members to discuss the Executive Board’s one-board model proposal—in Sunday school classes, small groups and meetings with delegates to Columbus 2009—with efforts to include young adults in the conversations.

While many young people value denominationalism and Anabaptist distinctives, our leaders must take care while making structural changes so church members—especially young adults—are not lost along the way.—AG