New structure of the Mission Commission – 2020
New structure of the Mission Commission – 2015
-
-
Triennial Goals (2018-2021)
1. The MC and its networks (GASN and GMF): the MC and the two networks it facilitates have a special challenge because of their organizational structures, the staggering of member terms, and relationships between the members of the MC. We have been learning how the different delegates of our two networks can work side by side as peer members of the MC, and how every member of the MC can engage in the life of the networks. We will work in this triennial to find ways to consolidate the sense and spirit of teamwork.
2. Missional Frontier: in this triennium, we will identify three missional frontiers and will share every year one missional frontier with the members of GMF and GASN networks. The idea is to inform, learn, and inspire about the work and challenges that Anabaptist churches are facing in a particular country. Some basic parts of the report are: short description and challenges of the country, situation and challenges of the Christian church and/or Anabaptists, and some initiatives as Anabaptist churches-organizations.
3. Website: MC website seeks to facilitate and provide resources, readings, and conversations related to mission. Our challenge for the next triennium is to find creative-affordable ways to keep the information updated and to promote the use of our available resources on mission.
4. GASN &GMF communication/consultation: every three years we have global consultation of GASN&GMF members where we seek to promote and create spaces to pray for each other, encourage each other, and collaborate as God guides us. As the Global Consultation happens every three years, the challenge between these consultations is to keep the information flowing and the level of communication-response from the GASN & GMF organizations members. We will work in this triennium with Jos Arrais, Coordinator of Networks, to find ways to improve and expedite the process of communication between the MC and the networks.
5. MC book on Mission: The vision for this book initiated in the Mission Commission based on the Mission Theology Statements. The main idea was to bring together diverse voices and experiences from our MWC global family and inviting them to think-react-reflect about some aspects of the ÔMission Theology Statements’. The book aims to provide basic biblical-theological-ministerial foundations-models-examples on mission from Anabaptist perspectives. We will work to finish in this triennium the translation of the book in Spanish, French and other languages.
Stanley Green, Chair
Rafael Zaracho, Secretary
-
Strengths of Consensus (“becoming of one mind”) Decision-Making
Consensus, a way of making decisions without voting, can enhance the participation of all members in General Council meetings, provide a collaborative and harmonious context for making decisions, and enable representatives to discern together the will of God (Eph. 5:17) for the church and for MWC.
- Coming to agreement through honest, respectful discussion is a widely understood and accepted procedure.
- It encourages consultation, exploration, questioning and prayerful reflection (not adversarial).
- It values and seeks to utilize the experience and perspective of all members.
- It seeks to hear, understand and respect all concerns and points of view.
- It encourages participation by all churches in shaping the decision.
- It facilitates churches learning from each other and deepening their communion with one another.
Steps in Coming to Consensus
These guidelines describe typical steps that are used in making decisions by consensus. Not every step may be appropriate for every meeting or decision but it will be helpful to follow these guidelines as closely as possible. Often one step merges with the next without a clear break in the flow of the meeting. Nonetheless, each step is part of the progression towards reaching consensus.
1. Information
1.1 Presenting an issue: Background information on why an issue is being raised, information that will help understand the issue, information that shows the range of possible perspectives and a proposed course of action are provided to GC members and are generally sent prior to the meeting.
1.2 Clarification of the issue: When an issue is introduced at a meeting, members of the Council are free to seek clarification, to ask questions on the issue and to seek information from differing viewpoints.
2. Deliberation
2.1 Open discussion, deliberation: Discussion of the various viewpoints and vigorous debate around different opinions are encouraged. At the conclusion of a speech or a period of discussion, those in general agreement will display orange cards while those in general disagreement display blue cards. If cards are not easily visible to all present, the chairperson advises the Council on the proportion of each being shown. As an indication of opinion that the Council should move on to the next step in the business procedures, members may display their orange and blue cards crossed, so the chairperson can see both together. This indication may be given both during and after speeches. These indications help avoid repetitious speeches, enable the chairperson to gauge the strength of feeling for various ideas, or indicate whether consensus is emerging.
2.2 Developing proposals: As open discussion proceeds, several specific proposals may emerge or general agreement with the initial proposal may be expressed. Small group work, either formally structured or through brief buzz groups with immediate neighbors, is often a fruitful way of drawing on individual insights to resolve the issue. Small group work enables participation of all members in the deliberations. If the issue is straightforward and the number of ideas for its possible resolution is small, the chairperson or any other member of the Council may summarize a firm proposal for discussion. However, it may be necessary to refer all the ideas to a Facilitation Group to draw together responses and to negotiate a firm proposal for the Council to consider.
3. Decision
3.1 Discussion of a specific proposal: In this step, various speakers speak to the benefits and disadvantages of the proposal. It is important to hear from those with enthusiasm for the proposal as well as from those indicating disquiet or disapproval. Members are encouraged to indicate their agreement or disagreement by use of the colored cards. Minor changes of wording may be agreed by the Council from time to time as viewpoints are heard and considered.
From time to time, the chairperson may check whether the Council is nearing consensus by summing up where it seems the Council is heading and asking: ÒWhat is your response to this proposal?Ó Colored card response will indicate whether more discussion is desired by the Council.
3.2 Checking for consensus: When the chairperson believes that consensus has been reached (to support or to not support), the Council is asked to affirm this. The chairperson states an understanding of the position reached and asks for an indication of agreement or disagreement (raised cards, voices or show of hands). Typical questions could be:
- “Do you believe we have consensus in support of this proposal?” or
- “Do you believe we have consensus to not support this proposal?”
If there is no strong response to this checking for consensus, discussion may continue to enable doubts and questions to be raised and further viewpoints to be shared. If there is unanimity to support or to not support the proposal, then consensus has been reached and the Council proceeds to the declaration of the consensus result (see paragraph 3.3).
However, there is a third possibility. After vigorous sharing of ideas, there may be strong but not unanimous support for the proposal. In order to estimate the strength of opinion, the chairperson may ask questions such as:
- “Who supports the proposal?”
- “Who does not support the proposal as your first option, but is prepared to accept it?”
- “Who is not prepared to accept the proposal?” If there is no response to this question, the chairperson may ask the Council:
- “Is further discussion needed?”
- “Are you prepared to have the issue declared resolved by consensus?”
If all agree that consensus has been reached the Council moves to step 3.3.
If some are still not able to accept the proposal the chairperson invites these people to share their misgivings directly with the whole Council and discussion can continue. Where a small number is unable to agree with the majority after a reasonable time, the Council may move on to the procedures outlined in paragraph 3.4. Skillful chairing is necessary here, to enable the Council to avoid undue delay.
There may be some who are uneasy about a proposed way forward, yet not able to verbalize their concerns. The prompting of the Spirit may be expressed in disquiet as much as in creative suggestions for wording a proposal. All people are worthy of respect as they indicate their position, and no one should feel pressured into agreeing with a position against their better judgment.
3.3 Declaration of consensus: On the affirmation of consensus, by whatever means is considered appropriate (cards, voices or show of hands), the chairperson declares the proposal resolved (either approved or disapproved) by consensus.
3.4 If objections persist: Sharing misgivings about the proposal may clarify concerns or result in minor changes that bring support or acceptance of the proposal. The Council may express its support or disapproval for any minor wording changes, and the process can proceed towards a declaration of consensus. If concerns expressed indicate that further discussion is required the process proceeds as indicated in paragraph 3.1. If objections or disagreements surface that affect the wording of the proposal in a major way it may be possible for an amended proposal to be considered by the Council (see paragraph 2.2), or a Facilitation Group may need to rework the proposal and bring it back to the Council. In this case, the process returns to the steps outlined in paragraph 2.2.
At this late stage in the process it is possible that a major consideration may be aired which was missed by everyone. Where the chairperson considers this to be the case, the process returns to the clarification of issues stage (paragraph 1.2), allowing development of the new point and appropriate discussion of the attendant issues.
3.5 Agreement – not unanimity: If (after careful attempts to work towards consensus) there is a small number who are unable to support or accept the majority position, the chairperson may ask:
- “Do those unable to support the proposal and not prepared to accept it, believe your point of view has been listened to, even though you don’t agree with the proposal and are not able to accept it?”
- “Do those who support or who are prepared to accept this proposal believe you have heard what the others of our Council are saying?”
If there is assurance that dissenting views have been both expressed and understood, the chairperson may ask for an indication of viewpoints on these two questions:
- “Are those who are in the minority on this proposal prepared to live with the majority view and allow the Council to record an agreement?”
- “Does the Council therefore wish to record agreement on this proposal?”?Ó
If no person indicates against these two questions, then agreement is recorded. If one or more indicates against either of the two questions, then the Council proceeds to the next step (paragraph 3.6).
3.6 Need for a decision now: If consensus on the issue is not reached the Council discusses by consensus procedures the need for a decision at this meeting. If there is no consensus after a reasonable length of time that a decision must be made at this meeting the chairperson implements the formal voting procedure (paragraph 3.7). If the Council does not agree that a decision is required at this meeting, there is opportunity for further work and the process may continue in accordance with the options in paragraph 3.8.
3.7 Decision by formal majority: If there is consensus that a decision is necessary now, or the chairperson implements the formal voting procedure, the Council moves immediately to final discussion of the proposal and decides the matter by formal majority vote.
3.8 Further possibilities: In any decision session where the Council has not reached consensus or agreement on a proposal, or where it has resolved that a final decision on a proposal is not needed at this meeting, options that may be considered include: a) referring the issue to the Executive Committee for determination; b) referring the issue back to the original party or to another special group for further consideration and later re-submission to the Council; or c) deciding that the matter be no longer considered.
In one of these ways, the issue is dealt with and is not left pending. Even a decision that the matter be no longer considered must indicate the reason for its lapsing, perhaps leaving the door open for further research and presentation, or closing the door firmly and stating the reasons for so doing.
In cases where consensus is difficult it is incumbent on those with concerns to work closely with those who initiate the issue to find creative ways of moving forward, not just exert veto power by refusing to cooperate.
Based on “A Manuel for Meetings”, The United Church in Australia Assembly, 2001, Callingwood, Australia, pp. 25-30.
MWC Reference Notebook 6.0 Guidelines / 6.2 Making Decisions by Consensus Guidelines
-
The Global Anabaptist Peace Network (GAPN) is a network that seeks to connect and support peace organizations (agencies, schools, training programs, research projects, think-tanks, activist-focused initiatives, activists, scholars) that have emerged from and serve our global Anabaptist-Mennonite church communion. Our hope is to provide a supportive community as we work together at making our world a better and more just place. We want to help one another in embodying and witnessing to justice, peace, and reconciliation.
In our pursuit of these goals, the GAPN seeks to:
- Connect the “fruit” of our Mennonite World Conference related churches and walk in solidarity with, and support, one another.
- Strengthen the church and communities of peace and justice in our world and for the world.
- Create opportunities to explore what it means to be dedicated to Jesus’ way of peace.
- Nourish our Anabaptist-Mennonite Christian identity and our peace consciousness.
In seeking the above goals, the GAPN provides the following in our ongoing communal effort in being agents of peace and justice:
- Sharing news and resources: we share and provide information, prayer requests, and resources (such as training and educational material) among member organizations.
- Connect: we want to connect and learn from one another. In order to foster this connection, we help to provide and map organizational presence and activity and share that with member organizations.
- Create spaces: we create spaces whereby member organizations can connect, learn, and be transformed through gatherings and opportunities to come together. The GAPN supports and facilitates spaces for members to meet, share, learn from one another, and connect, both incarnationally (i.e., in face-to-face gatherings) as well as virtually.
We welcome your involvement in the GAPN! Please fill out this form and return it as indicated.
-
Global Anabaptist Peace Network -GAPN
Facilitated by the Peace Commission
Mennonite World Conference
Terms of Reference
Vision and Purpose of the GAPN
As Christians and members from the Anabaptist-Mennonite Family, we recognize that peace is at the very center of the Gospel, and that by witnessing to justice and peace (Just-Peace) we anticipate and participate in the already-inaugurated but yet-to-be-fulfilled Kingdom of God. As we seek to walk in the ways of peace, we need companions, fellow sojourners, to support us on the road, and we them. In doing so we can walk and journey together in witnessing to God’s Just-Peace.
Mennonite World Conference (MWC) is a global communion comprised of 107-member churches from 57 countries around the world. These church bodies, which comprise approximately 10,000 local congregations, have produced much fruit – many peace-related organizations, programs, schools, training programs, research projects, activist-focused initiatives, activists, and scholars.
As an envisioned Global Anabaptist Peace Network (GAPN), we want to support and connect organizations and agencies that have emerged from and serve our church communion. Our hope is to foster an alternative consciousness – a consciousness of peace – as a witness to the realities and mechanisms of death and violence in the world. As such, we want to nurture an imagination built on the kingdom of God and it’s all encompassing and all-embracing vision of shalom.
In light of this, the GAPN seeks to becomes a space in which it is possible to:
- Walk in solidarity with and support one another as we pursue, promote, and build peace in the world;
- Have the fruit of our churches –i.e. the organizations, programs, schools, training programs, research projects, think-tanks, activist-focused initiatives, activists, and scholars – connected and to explore ways in which to walk with one another in mutually supportive, transformational, and interdependent ways;
- Strengthen the church and communities of peace and justice in our world and for the world;
- Create opportunities to explore the meaning (theological and philosophical) and impact (ethical and practical) of peace (i.e. shalom) as we seek to be a Peace Church in the world, which includes exploring and addressing the root causes of conflict, violence, injustice, and oppression;
- Strengthen our Anabaptist-Mennonite Christian identity and our peace consciousness.
Relation with Mennonite World Conference and the Peace Commission
The GAPN has grown in close relation with MWC, more specifically with the Peace Commission (PC). One key decision over time has been to translate this relationship into the structure: the GAPN is hosted and will be organized within the MWC’s coverture. In this framework, we see the PC as the entity/space representing and connecting the MWC members churches while the GAPN as a network oriented towards the different organizations that have emerged as result of the ministry of the churches, which in some cases are not members themselves of MWC or one of its existing networks. While the primary addresses of the PC and the GAPN are different, by rooting the GAPN in the PC (and more widely in MWC) we envision a way to sustain and/or re-connect the fruits of the Mennonite/Anabaptist “tree” to the “tree” itself (i.e., the church).
Structurally, this means that the PC will host the GAPN and seek to make the connections between the network, the other parts of MWC and, ultimately, the fellowship of churches. The fact that the GAPN is hosted by the Peace Commission and MWC does not mean limiting the action of the GAPN – especially if, as described, the goals of the network involve working with agencies and organization in multiple directions and levels – but rather grounding it.
Another way in which the MWC/Peace Commission and GAPN relation is translated into practice is by being able to use the opportunities offered by the MWC meetings (such as the Assembly, Commissions Meetings, and the MWC’s Networks meetings) to facilitate and promote face-to-face meetings of the GAPN.
Membership and Structure of the GAPN
- Facilitate the sharing of information and resources:
Share with one another urgent prayer and advocacy requests, news, stories, resources, perspectives, studies, expertise, and experiences of network members. This exchange may also include member related or driven opportunities for learning exchanges, internships, bursaries, funding, learning tours, and so forth, that may exist or arise.[2]Sharing in such a way would enable: - Membership Directory:
In order to promote the exchange between the different agencies and organizations, one key step is to develop a membership directory which responds to the needs of the GAPN. This means going beyond simply submitting or sharing “contact details” about different Anabaptist-Mennonite organizations. It would seek to explore the context and the kind of work in which organizations are involved. This will enable the members of the GAPN to explore and consider more concrete forms of exchange with other members. - Creating spaces:
In order to create interdependent relationships, we want to enable the creation of spaces whereby such connections, synergies, and friendships can emerge.
Guidelines for the GAPN
Given its vision, we have identified certain ways in which the GAPN should operate:
- The GAPN will focus on providing the infrastructure that supports and nourishes its members. This does not exclude encouraging urgent actions, campaigns and prayer requests, among others, that can be motivated from the network. Yet, at the center of the GAPN is the idea that the member organizations (and not the network) are at the center of the process. This can be done in different forms:
- The GAPN will seek to establish multidirectional engagement:
- Toward each other (other GAPN members).
- Toward MWC and MWC related churches.
- Toward other agencies outside of the Anabaptist-Mennonite family of faith.
- The GAPN will seek to foster spaces for interdependent relationship, building from the local to the global level. In this sense, the GAPN will seek to promote different levels of engagement:
- at a micro level (e.g., encouraging local/regional involvement and/or action, such as local gatherings, conferences, advocacy involvement, etc.).
- at a macro level (e.g., international relations; responding to political, economic, systemic realities; global gatherings, etc.).
- Every voice matters in the life of the GAPN: we want to make sure that the different voices are heard, acknowledged, and respected in the actions and processes of the GAPN. This implies that:
[1] This disposition that the GAPN will initially search for agency/organization as potential members does not mean that in the future some changes of could be possible, considering specifically the potential interest and involvement of persons/individuals. However, it was thought that initially working on the base of agencies and organizations as members would help the start and consolidation of the network. In the meantime, what could be considered is different forms of relationship, endorsement or support from individual or agencies, organization or churches (non-members) and the GAPN.
[2] Note that GAPN is not a funding organization. Our desire is to create opportunities for members themselves to share information about such funding opportunities as they exist, which is not granted by the GAPN itself.
-
Global Anabaptist Service Network Terms of Reference in response to network meetings at St. Chrishona in Basel Switzerland
-
Global Mission Fellowship of Anabaptist-related churches vision statement
-
Global Mission Fellowship of Anabaptist-related churches vision statement.
