Reflection: Who speaks for the Mennonite Brethren Conference? And a wandering discourse on the history and current state of the MB Herald

An anonymous writer had a set of questions after my post about the River East Borderland proposal getting a negative reply from the Canadian Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches. 

He asked: 

I'm confused by the headline. Does this associate professor represent the Canadian Conference? If so, why would the CCMBC be responding on behalf of the MBCM? If not, why are you describing his opinion piece as "the answer"? 

It’s a fair set of questions, one that many might be wondering. So let’s unpack it, shall we? 

Does Brian Cooper represent CCMBC? Before answering that, it’s worth noting that little to nothing has been officially said by CCMBC leaders on the topic of LGBTQ+ welcome, inclusion and affirmation. 

The Conference’s silence on this topic means there is little to no information or insight into its position. 

As a result, we need to infer or deduce what they think. And that’s where the Herald comes in. 

It is the official publication of the CCMBC and carries the official news and opinions for the Conference. Nothing gets published in it unless it is approved by the Conference (at some level). 

As a result, we can infer and deduce that Brian Cooper’s articles reflect the position of the Conference on this topic. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be published there. 

But there’s more. Cooper is also because a member of the National Faith and Life Team (NFLT), the body that “exists to articulate and safeguard Mennonite Brethren theological convictions” and identify and address “areas of concern and significant issues impacting the MB churches in Canada.”

It is the official voice of the Conference on theological matters, in other words.

As a member of that body, it is unlikely Cooper didn’t confer about it with other NFLT members, or at least its Director, Ken Esau, to make sure it represented the opinion of that group.

As for why CCMBC should be replying instead of MBCM, I don’t know. But I do know that MBCM has not responded to the proposal from River East. Maybe that’s why CCMBC decided to step in, via Cooper’s article. (Whether at the request of the Conference or the NFLT, or at Cooper’s own initiative, I can’t say.) 

And that, to answer the questioner, is why I said the answer had been given to the Borderland proposal. 

Sure, I could be wrong. But here’s another thing to consider; to date, CCMBC has not challenged me on the post.

A few thoughts about the Herald

 

Before ending this post, a few thoughts about the history of the Herald, and the role it currently occupies in CCMBC.

There was a time when it was an independent denominational magazine—or as independent as a denominational magazine could be. (There is a long and solid history of independent Christian journalism in Canada.)

It used to be the editor had the final say on what was selected to be published, and a variety of perspectives were carried on various issues. (I know this because I once was the associate editor of the Herald.)

For example, during the controversy over women in leadership, the Herald carried articles for and against, letting readers decide and respond through letters to the editor.

Ah yes—letters to the editor. We used to joke when I was there that the letters section was the first place most readers went when the new issue arrived. (Obituaries were the second!)

It was the place where you could find a lively selection of opinions and ideas, not all of which would pass Conference muster. But as editors, we believed it was important to let members have their say, both pro and con. Those were their pages, the place where Conference leaders could hear what the average member was thinking.

Today the Herald doesn’t have a letters section. (Although comments can be left on articles on the website—if they are approved.)

That change dates back to when Willy Reimer became Executive Director of the CCMBC in 2011. (He served in that position until 2017.) Under his leadership, the Herald became what I called a “cheerleader” for the Conference.  

Many of the articles were written by Conference leaders or pastors, and topics hewed closely to official Conference positions—nothing controversial permitted.

(I know first hand because, soon after Laura Kalmar became editor in 2005, she asked me to write an “edgy” kind of column for the Herald. My first column was published in February 2006. It was titled “Do we need a ceremony for divorce?” I wrote it after attending just such a ceremony, asking the question if many marriages begin in the church, should they end their, too? After it ran, Laura called to say that Willy had told her such an edgy column was unacceptable, and my services would no longer be required.)

Under Reimer’s leadership, the Herald committed the worst sin of journalism: It became boring and predictable. That was evidenced by the lack of letters; there simply was nothing to write about, nothing to contest, nothing to spark discussion, nothing to disagree over—nothing that challenged anyone’s way of thinking.

(In 2016, the lack of letters prompted Carol Penner, then pastor at Lendrum Church in Edmonton, to start a blog titled “Dear MB Church.” Penner thought, erroneously, that the Conference was suppressing letters and wanted to provide a place for people to post them. The truth of the matter was nobody was sending any letters—something confirmed to me by an editor at that time.)

Today, the Herald still very much functions as a cheerleader for the CCMBC. Its role is to support and promote the Conference and its positions, not allow them to be challenged.

That’s why we get articles like the one by Cooper, and why we may never see a response that challenges him in the pages of the Herald. 

One final thing: The current state of the Herald is the reason this blog exists at all.

If the editor had freedom to carry views contrary to the Conference position on LGBTQ+ welcome and affirmation, or to carry news about things like the Open Space gathering in Winnipeg in January, or even just news about the suspension and expulsion of churches, including responses from members and pastors from those suspended churches—this blog might not be necessary.

The fact it exists is testimony to the current state of affairs with the Conference and the Herald. Until and unless the Herald changes its editorial position, I guess it will continue to be needed.