[amc] The Politics of the Mennonite Central Committee
- From: "Ray Gingerich" <RGingerich@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "Austin Mennonite Church" <amc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 14:58:18 -0600
This article may help allay the notion of modern Mennonites as "passive" or
"nonparticipatory." Ray
The Politics of the Mennonite Central Committee
John H. Redekop
The intent of this essay is to ascertain the extent to which the Mennonite
Central Committee (MCC) has become political in its activity.
In expanding its mandate, MCC has moved not only to political analysis and to
indirect politicking, but increasingly to direct political action.
Two terms need to be clarified. In this essay the designation MCC incorporates
the binational, national, and subnational entities in the organization. Because
of the intent of the paper, the research focuses almost entirely on the
policies, activities, and publications of MCC itself and not on those of the
umbrella agencies to which it belongs. The time period in view will be the past
decade, especially the last five or six years.
The second term to be defined is "politics." As used here, "politics" refers to
the structures, processes, and impact of governments at various levels, as well
as attempts to influence governments, agencies of government, or political
decision-makers. The term includes affirmation and criticism of governments,
because expression of such stances has political consequences; it also refers
to attempts to support, endorse, or defeat governments.
At the outset we need to inquire whether MCC's mandate includes political
activity. The undated Handbook of the Mennonite Central Committee (Akron,
Penn., c. 1976) spells out as one objective a commitment "to follow the {64}
example of Christ in striving for justice, in identifying with the weak and
oppressed and in reconciling the oppressor and the oppressed." Another
objective is: "To attempt to influence, out of our experience, public policy
decisions which affect victims of war, hunger and injustice. . . ." (27). The
1991 pamphlet, Mennonite Central Committee: Principles That Guide Our Mission
(Akron, PA: 1991), states, "Our service cannot escape the realities of power in
the world system. . . . Responsible action in today's world includes humbly
'speaking truth to power' which includes a concern for the public policies of
government but especially of Canada and the United States." The 1991
Constitution of the Mennonite Central Committee Canada refers in its "Purpose"
section to "peace witness, alternative service, government contacts,
immigration, and such other matters as may be designated to it by the member
conferences or organizations." It appears that MCC's mandate includes attention
to political matters.
Two additional preliminary matters must be addressed. First, part of the
substantial MCC political agenda results not only from an expansion of MCC
interests, but also from an expansion of governmental agendas, including the
giving of financial assistance and a greater regulation of service. Second,
while some critics lament the presumed increase in MCC's political activity,
others strongly affirm what is being done. Many observers also correctly point
out that for centuries Mennonites have not hesitated to negotiate with
governments to secure not only rights, but also special privileges for
themselves. The question of political activity being a dubious undertaking
seems to arise only when the issues being addressed deal mainly with other
groups.
In searching for evidence relating to the following questions, the intent will
not be to demonstrate that all levels and agencies are involved, but that
significant activity of a political nature has occurred.
TO WHAT EXTENT DOES MCC COMMENT ON OR DISCUSS POLITICAL PHENOMENA?
Because the head office in Akron, Pennsylvania, still has overarching
responsibility, and because the Washington Office, established in 1968, is
substantially larger than the Ottawa Office, established in 1974, I will focus
mainly on data associated with Akron and Washington. We should note, however,
that MCC Canada, established in 1963, and the Ottawa Office have produced many
hundreds of political articles, statements, position papers, and reports as
will be described later.
Some discussion of political affairs developed naturally as the initial "relief
mandate" was implemented. Knowledge of political settings was {65} important.
It became even more important as additional kinds of activities were
undertaken. At various times, especially in recent years, MCC spokespersons
have discussed the interaction of politics and practical Christianity. For
example, in MCC's Annual Report published in MCC Contact (February, 1994), MCC
Executive Secretary John A. Lapp states (5):
In our 1991 statement of mission we say our primary concern is 'to
demonstrate God's love through committed men and women who work among people
suffering from poverty, conflict, oppression and natural causes. . . . MCC
strives for peace, justice and dignity of all people by sharing our
experiences, resources and faith in Jesus Christ.'
The stated Biblical basis for such an inclusive stance includes the Sermon on
the Mount (Matthew 5) and Paul's admonition to overcome evil with good (Romans
12). Matthew 25 and Micah 6:8 are also frequently cited as justification for
increased political involvement. Lapp acknowledges, "It is always a temptation
to reduce peacemaking to a political activity," but adds: "While Jesus was an
intensely political figure, he nonetheless approached the human condition
through the synagogue rather than through the state-house."
In the same report (6), Lapp explains the theological rootage of MCC's
political commentary and analysis:
Because peace has been so essential to the Mennonite and Brethren in Christ
sense of obedience to God's call, the churches asked MCC to administer
alternative service programs in the United States and to address government as
appropriate in Ottawa and Washington. The work of our Peace and Justice
Ministries, Peace Office and Peace and Social Concerns program has been an
important vehicle for articulating our theology of peace and extending our
peace witness.
Implying a need for a greater political presence than the founders had probably
anticipated, Lapp adds:
The arena of peace concerns and witness has grown as we discover our own
involvement in structures that create much of the world's violence. We now know
that if we are to 'overcome evil with good', we must promote new strategies for
making peace.
Given such an orientation, it is hardly surprising that theological, political,
and social analyses blend into one another, and that the advocacy to which Lapp
refers has come to include extensive amounts of political commentary. In many
articles the focus has shifted from discipleship of Christians to politics of
government. Significantly, the twelve-page July-August, 1993 MCC Peace Office
Newsletter (hereafter PON) which dealt almost entirely with "Spirituality and
Peacemaking," focused on peacemaking mainly in reference to political and
military matters. {66}
Many MCC statements refer to the Christian gospel as "Good News." The
November/December 1993 Peace Section Washington Memo (hereafter PSWM) extended
the meaning of "Good News" beyond the usual incarnation celebrated at
Christmastime. Keith E. Gingrich, senior Washington Office staff person, writes:
In applying the Gospel (Good News) standards of peace and justice to
history's unfolding events of our times, positive or progressive movement is
not self-evident. All too often governmental authority and policymaking tends
to undermine the welfare of the poor and the environment, on whose behalf we
are called to advocate.
A series of articles in this issue of PSWM illustrates the broad, largely
political, perspective being espoused: "Hope in Africa; A Vision for the
Future"; "Change Coming to the Middle East; Hopeful Signs for a New Beginning";
"Good News for the Poor: US Budget Offers Some Relief"; "Small and Large
Miracles; Healing Old Wounds in Southeast Asia"; "Good News on Nuclear Testing,
But Will the Moratorium Hold?"; "Good News Mixed with the Bad: 1994 Military
Budget"; "Dissecting Health Care Reform; President Clinton's Plan v.
Single-Payer"; and "Environmental Justice for Toxic Communities."
Another example of how theology and politics intermingle in the MCC lexicon is
found in the November-December 1980 Peace Section Newsletter. The lead article,
"Symposium on Anabaptism and East European Expressions of Marxism," sets the
tone. An August 6, 1993 MCC News Service story was entitled, "MCC Commentary:
Is New Law Restraining Foreign Missions in Russia a Cause for Concern?" A May
20, 1994 News Service release was entitled, "Land Mines and Cluster Bombs Keep
on Killing, MCC Testifies to US Congress." Such articles raise basic questions
about bridging theology and politics.
Explanations of American issues given to the supporting constituency cover most
of the national political agenda. For example, the lead article in the
January/February 1994 PSWM deals with "Being a Peace Church in a Country
Obsessed with Violence." It is followed by a survey describing the legislative
status of eleven major bills. Other articles include "1994 Military Budget
Synopsis," "Militarism Top Priority," and "The Balanced Budget Amendment-Why
This Cure is Worse Than the Problem." A cursory survey of the PSWM and MCC News
Service releases during the past decade indicates that on average, about 60 to
70 percent of the PSWM and about 10 to 15 percent of the News Service stories
deal with American politics. Reading this material for several hours at a time,
I find it easy to see how a theology stressing Biblical peace can evolve first
to become a Biblical critique of secular politics and then become, at times, a
virtually secular critique of the military, the budget, social policy, free
{67} trade, and health care.
Increasingly, MCC publications also help readers to understand political
realities in other countries: Somalia ( PSWM, January/February, 1992), the
deteriorating situation in Zaire (News Service, January 14, 1994), Serbia and
ethnic cleansing (PSWM, March, April, 1993), military intervention in Haiti
(News Service, July 22, 1994), austerity in Cuba (News Service, January 7,
1994), "Hot Spots in East Asia" (PON, July-August, 1994), and "Middle East
Peace Accords" (PON, January-February, 1994).
Perhaps the most advanced type of political comment is typified by Jalene D.
Schmidt's leading essay, "Searching for the Common Good; Building Community in
the U. S." (PSWM, July/August, 1993). In her brief but excellent essay, Schmidt
writes poignantly:
Justice is human action in history that joins God's active involvement in
history. It is the structure of human rights and responsibilities that best
express God's covenantal love in society. Shalom, the potential of mutual
welfare, health, wholeness, harmony and ultimately peace, is God's gift in
community and in all its relationships.
Shalom cannot be legislated, of course, but MCC tries to promote policies
which further the common good. MCC's work in Washington is to advocate for
those who cannot afford lobbyists-to "speak out" for "the least of these"
(Proverbs 31:4-9; Matthew 25:40). The ethical questions of judgment found in
the biblical text are addressed to individuals and nations.
One can see how some observers, perhaps not fully cognizant of the fact that
constituent conferences never delegated "mission" activity to MCC, might
conclude that MCC is committed only to a social gospel.
Clearly, as we reflect on our original question we must conclude that MCC
discusses, analyzes, and communicates views about political affairs to a degree
and in ways obviously not anticipated by the founders seventy-five years ago.
DOES MCC PUBLICLY EXPRESS SUPPORT FOR OR OPPOSITION TO GOVERNMENT POLICIES?
Not surprisingly, we find a long-standing and continuing rejection by MCC of
all militaristic policies. A strong argument can be found in the January 27,
1979 MCC pamphlet, An Agenda on Militarism and Development. One section states,
"We call upon all people and nations to renounce the research, development,
testing, production, deployment and use of nuclear weapons." In the
January/February, 1992 issue of the PSWM, Delton Frantz is extremely critical
of expenditure for "Star Wars." {68} He also rejects "[our] countries' national
priorities and foreign policy. . . . still determined by the
victory-at-all-costs logic of war," and insists as well: "It is also time to
bring US troops home from Europe and South Korea." Frantz concludes his advice
to Washington by saying:
The new administration must develop a coherent view of the new era. The new
government's challenge is not to pursue U.S. dominance or status as the world's
police force, but rather to seek creative and effective means of peacemaking,
conflict resolution and community building.
The MCC stance on military matters is consistent and predictable. "We believe
the military spending level proposed by the President for 1995 and those likely
to be approved by Congress are unacceptably high," wrote Keith Gingrich in the
PSWM, May/June, 1994. At an MCC-sponsored consultation, one observer termed
such responses "prophetic opposition" (MCC News Service, November 12, 1993).
In recent decades, MCC responses to public policies have proliferated to cover
many, perhaps most, major policy areas. For example, a May 14, 1993 News
Service report is entitled, "MCC U.S. Endorses Publicly Financed Health Care
Reform." The story quotes MCC U. S. chairperson Richard Garber: "The executive
committee took a fairly bold step in stating a preference for the single-payer
plan." The May/June, 1994 PSWM carried an article by Le Anne Zook, "Public
Prayer and Politics," which asserted: "Although some lament the loss of
Christian school prayers, this wall between church and state is particularly
important for minority denominations like Mennonites." Significantly, the
article then quotes a January 13, 1994 Mennonite Weekly Review editorial which
says: "Christians should accept the sacrifices that must be made to protect
everyone's religious freedom." This raises a fundamental question. When MCC
supports or opposes certain policies dealing with racism, feminism, the
environment, or balanced budgets, is it out of step with its constituency, is
it prophetically leading the constituency, or is it wandering away from its
mandate?
A telling measure of how much the MCC political agenda has moved beyond
traditional, often self-serving, peace concerns is evident in a feature page
called "Sound the Trumpet," now carried frequently by the PSWM. In chart form,
the page presents some four to six political issues with information provided
under four headings: Issue, Legislation, Status, Advocacy Needed. Some 1993
pages discussed the following items: "Central American Foreign Aid Bill,"
"Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban," "Ecojustice in the Department of the
Environment," "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" (PSWM, May/June, 1993);
"Handgun Bill," "Economic Conversion," "UN Peacekeeping Funding," "Sudan,"
"Ending the Draft" (PSWM, July/August, 1993); "Health Care Reform," "Nuclear
{69} Test Ban," "Environmental Justice," (PSWM, November/December, 1993).
In the area of foreign affairs, MCC has severely criticized President Mobutu of
Zaire (MCC News Service, January 14, 1994), denounced violence in Somalia (MCC
News Service, October 15, 1993), and analyzed the human rights situation of the
Chiapas in Mexico (MCC News Service, January 21, 1994). A complete list would
be lengthy.
While MCC Canada has a much more limited array of communication vehicles, it
has also taken numerous stands for or against government policies. It has
stated many views in numerous letters to the Prime Minister, e.g., to Prime
Minister Jean Chretien on January 25, 1994. Two MCC Canada News Service
releases on June 16, 1994 noted that MCC welcomed the Canadian move towards
rescinding sanctions against South Africa and stated, "[The] Review of Canadian
social programs must include agencies working with poor, MCC in Canada says." I
conclude that MCC publicly and extensively expresses support for or opposition
to government policies.
DOES MCC INDIRECTLY SUPPORT ACTIVITY TO CHANGE PUBLIC POLICIES?
The basic question here is whether MCC utilizes the standard pressure-group
practice of requesting others to put pressure on political decision-makers in
order to achieve that group's goals. MCC moves in this direction would probably
have perplexed its founders in the 1920s.
We must consider the entire situation. If an organization decides to analyze
political affairs extensively, and if that agency has strong moral views as MCC
does, then it follows logically that not only will that agency find itself
evaluating public policies, but also encouraging activity to change certain
policies. The record of MCC illustrates such evolution. Over time, an agency
which decides to address political affairs cannot remain neutral about
political affairs.
MCC's increasing activity in indirectly working to achieve policy changes can
be illustrated in several ways. In the first place, many articles and stories
put out by MCC now end with a clear challenge. Several articles in the
March/April, 1994 issue of PSWM make the point. An article on arms sales ends
with "Action: . . . We urge our readers to contact your representative and
senators and request them to co-sponsor the House bill (H.R. 3538) and Senate
bill (S. 1677)." An article on the Five-Year Military Budget Plan concludes:
"Action: Urge your members of Congress to: 1) challenge the 'two-war strategy'
of the Bottom Up Review; 2) call for major reductions in the Clinton military
budget; and 3) request increased funding for economic conversion and domestic
programs {70} in the 1995 budget." An article on Jewish settlements on the West
Bank concludes with: "Action: Ask President Clinton to reaffirm publicly the
U.S. administration's opposition to Israeli settlements and infrastructure
building in the occupied territories, with specific mention of East Jerusalem."
Such calls to action--addressed to third parties--abound, especially in
Washington Office publications.
Increasingly, Akron publications also contain calls for grassroots pressure.
The practice has a considerable history. For example, the 1979 MCC pamphlet, An
Agenda on Militarism and Development, states: "We call upon the supporting
churches to work for a moratorium on all military expenditures." It also notes
the "new urgency" of "attempts to influence public policies of the United
States and Canada."
A similar trend towards encouraging letter-writing and other forms of
grassroots pressure can also be found in the material produced by MCC Canada.
The 1982 pamphlet, A Better Way, concludes with these lines:
Call on the Canadian government to move courageously in the direction of
disarmament and alternative global security policies. Let people in public
office know that there are individuals and groups who are thinking, praying and
working peaceably for peace.
On June 18, 1993, MCC Canada circulated a statement dealing with the proposed
"Peace Trust Fund." It included comments by Ray Funk, a Mennonite Member of
Parliament from Saskatchewan:
. . . (I)t now looks like the debate on the Peace Trust Fund (Bill C-414),
which was scheduled for June 18, will not take place during this Parliament. .
. . I have received many more letters and petitions than I ever expected to
receive. I want to thank everyone who has responded for their support and
encouragement.
Both the U. S. and the Canadian branches of MCC have urged grassroots action.
Anabaptist/Mennonite theology may not have changed, but the traditional
withdrawal from political affairs, or at least very limited involvement, has
undergone a major metamorphosis. Instead of grappling with the questions of
whether to vote and how to avoid military service, Mennonites, through MCC,
have become extensively involved in pressing for public policy changes by
urging targeted segments of the public to become politically active. A
rationale for such a stance was provided in the January/February, 1994 issue of
PSWM:
For a church which distinguishes itself as a 'peace church', our witness
should be a clear and poignant contrast to the ethos of violence that surrounds
us. One arena needing to hear that witness is Congress. Currently a variety of
legislation is pending which addresses the violence in our land. Whether it be
gun violence or TV violence, violence against women or executing prisoners,
choose one area of concern and let your representative in Washington hear your
convictions. {71}
DOES MCC ITSELF ENTER THE POLITICAL ARENA IN AN EFFORT TO ACHIEVE CHANGES IN
PUBLIC POLICY?
In defining and expanding its mandate, MCC has moved not only to extensive--and
excellent--political analysis and evaluation, as well as to indirect
politicking, but also, increasingly, to direct political action. In other
words, MCC has itself become an actor in political arenas. This action has been
undertaken in at least three ways. First, advocacy of policy changes is
included in mailings sent to an array of readers, including government
officials. This action is used frequently because it puts pressure on
decision-makers by spelling out what one wants, while simultaneously
communicating the fact that a significant organized group and many voters have
been informed of the issue at stake. Of the hundreds of examples which could be
cited, the March/April, 1993 PSWM's call for government to "Repeal Mandatory
Minimum Sentences" for prisoners is typical.
Second, by preparing written submissions delivered or mailed specifically to
political officials, MCC personnel function as participants. Governments expect
to receive many such submissions and give them considerable weight in
formulating policies. Two recent examples document this type of activity. At a
May 13, 1994 Congressional hearing moderated by U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy,
"Mennonite Central Committee (MCC) submitted written testimony supporting a
land mine ban and urging that restrictions be widened to include a ban on
cluster bombs. . . Two MCC Washington staff, Ken Martens Friesen and Keith
Gingrich, attended the hearing" (MCC News Service, May 20, 1994). In the second
instance:
The MCC Peace Office, in conjunction with the MCC Washington Office, prepared
a statement on military intervention in Haiti, and sent it July 19 to US
President Bill Clinton with copies to six other senior officials, including the
secretary of state, and members of congressional subcommittees handling
Caribbean affairs (MCC News Service, July 22, 1994).
This News Service report adds, significantly: "In a similar vein, John Dyck,
Canada Executive Director" sent a letter on July 15 "to Andre Ouellet, Canada's
minister of foreign affairs. He also sent copies to the Prime Minister, the
minister of national defence and the secretary of state for Latin America."
A third way in which MCC enters the political arena is by appearing before
legislative committees and otherwise directly interacting with individual
political decision-makers or groups of political decision-makers. (In quite a
few instances, at least in Canada at both provincial and national levels, this
includes meeting with Mennonite legislators and civil servants.) Other recent
kinds of direct political involvement include participation in {72}
demonstrations; actively campaigning for or against certain candidates; making
financial contributions to politicians; and joining with other groups to form
more powerful umbrella or "peak agencies," which MCC in both Canada and the U.
S. has done quite frequently.
An early experience in demonstrating publicly occurred on November 15, 1969,
when close to one million people went to Washington to protest against the
Vietnam War. About 350 of these protesters were Mennonites. John A. Lapp, then
secretary of the MCC Peace Section, met with these Mennonites in a church
gymnasium. Secondary accounts suggest that he spoke words of encouragement (MCC
News Service, August 6, 1993).
In a May, 1994 circular distributed by the Peace Section, we read the following:
Unlike any other newsletter, the Washington Memo tries to inform its readers
about public policy issues from an Anabaptist faith-based perspective. In
addition to publishing the Memo the Washington Office advocates directly to
government officials on behalf of those in need.
Direct Political Advocacy
Such direct advocacy, as practiced by MCC, deals with a variety of issues. For
example, "The MCC Washington Office has been contacting legislators asking them
to co-sponsor bills which provide universal (health insurance) coverage" (PSWM,
May/June, 1994). Interestingly, at the same time another Mennonite umbrella
agency, Mennonite Mutual Aid, was actively "garnering Congressional support for
an amendment to exempt it from regional health alliances" (PSWM, May/June,
1994). Thus we have the intriguing spectacle of two Mennonite "ecumenical"
agencies arguing their differences in the national U.S. legislative arena. That
must be a "first"!
Person-to-person contact is a common and often successful lobbying technique,
especially if the political person involved has substantial rank. On September
26, 1977, the Washington Post carried a front-page story about Old Colony
Mennonites facing deportation from Texas. Shortly thereafter, Delton Frantz,
the Washington Office director, "met with Senator Lloyd Bentsen,
Democrat-Texas, who then introduced legislation to grant the Mennonites
permanent residence status" (MCC News Service, August 6, 1993).
The Canadian MCC practice in direct action closely parallels the American.
Political advocacy publications are extensive. For example, on April 4, 1993,
the MCC Canada (MCCC) News Service announced, "The MCCC Executive urges
Resumption of Lubicon Negotiations" concerning native land claims. On January
18, 1992, MCCC adopted a constitutional view as set out in an 8-page booklet
entitled "Supporting Canadian {73} Constitutional Reform."
Written perspectives targeted specifically at government officials are also
numerous. For example, in September, 1993 MCCC sent a letter to the Department
of External Affairs urging it to:
encourage the Tanzanian government to release the result of an investigation
into the plight of the Barabaig, a nomadic tribe of 30,000 to 50,000 cattle
herders who were driven from their land 20 years ago by a wheat project
financed and managed by the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA).
In another instance, Daniel Zehr, MCCC Executive Director, sent a letter on
February 5, 1990, to the Right Hon. Joe Clark, Minister of External Affairs, in
which he urged the government not to reduce foreign aid to "the two-thirds
world." On October 31, 1990, William Janzen, Director of the Ottawa Office,
wrote Clark urging Canada not to go to war over Iraq's actions against Kuwait.
One of MCC Canada's key means of trying to influence policy directly via
written material targeted specifically at government is to write letters to the
Prime Minister. These carefully reasoned letters, often several pages long, are
typically sent several times a year. In a December 15, 1969 letter to Prime
Minister Pierre Trudeau, MCCC presented numerous requests: exemption for the
Amish and Old Order Mennonites from participation in the Canada Pension Plan,
continuation of governmental ties with Taiwan, permission to send above-quota
shipments of wheat as foreign aid, less spending for military purposes, and
reduction of NATO and other defence commitments. Subsequent letters raising
numerous issues were sent, for example, to Prime Minister Brian Mulroney (March
28, 1989, September 23, 1989, January 11, 1991), and to Prime Minister Jean
Chretien (November 8, 1993, January 25, 1994). Significantly, the September 23,
1989 letter, which dealt with abortion, was actually a joint effort by 25
religious groups, including the Brethren in Christ Churches, the Canadian
Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches, and the Evangelical Mennonite
Conference. Perhaps equally significant, the November 8, 1993 letter to Prime
Minister Jean Chretien described MCCC as "the relief, development and advocacy
arm of the Mennonite and Brethren in Christ Churches in Canada."
In addition to the hundreds of submissions to individuals and committees-the
1993 Governmental Communications Register (September 1, 1992 to August 31,
1993) lists 40 items sent by MCCC and 92 sent by coalitions of which MCCC is a
member or associate-, MCCC has made numerous direct presentations to
parliamentary committees and other governmental bodies including regulatory
agencies and courts. For example, during the March 21-22, 1994, National Forum
on Canada's {74} International Relations, sponsored by the Departments of
Foreign Affairs, International Trade, and Defence, MCCC made a presentation
entitled, "Don't Forget the Poor of the World." MCCC was the only church-based
relief agency invited to the forum (MCC Canada News Service, April 7, 1994).
Given MCCC's numerous direct submissions to political bodies, it is not
surprising that as early as September 12, 1987, William Janzen wrote to his
Ottawa Advisory Group that: "In Canada we may think of MCCC as a service agency
but in reality many MCCC portfolios are actively involved in speaking to
government."
How should one view such direct MCC political advocacy in the U. S. and Canada?
In a lead article in the September/October, 1993 PSWM, Delton Frantz presents
one perspective: "Advocacy: A Biblical Calling." Earlier, referring to the
relative significance of political advocacy, Frantz observed that his office
"currently spends about 70 percent of its time as a 'listening post'. . . . The
rest of the time is spent in advocacy of specific causes. Secular groups call
this 'lobbying', consultation participants encouraged the MCC office to see
this as witnessing" (Mennonite Reporter, February 9, 1989).
IN CARRYING OUT ITS WORK, DOES MCC COOPERATE WITH GOVERNMENT OR AGENCIES OF
GOVERNMENT?
The answer to this question must be an unequivocal "yes." At home and abroad,
the cooperation is both extensive and at times intensive, especially with
Canadian governments. The far-reaching assistance by Canadian provincial and
national governments given to the Foodgrains Bank is an impressive example. Of
course, the many millions of dollars of CIDA money which has been entrusted to
MCC Canada is another. There has also been much cooperation in the sponsorship
of refugees, especially the "boat people" who came from refugee camps near
Vietnam in the late 1970s and early 1980s.
Additional examples include the large-scale Edmonton recycling program
established by MCC Canada and MCC Alberta in cooperation with the City of
Edmonton, the construction of a British Columbia housing project with
government assistance (MCCC News Service, October 27, 1993), the partial
government funding of the Victim Offender Mediation Program (Accord; April,
1993), a Calgary 42-week job-training course funded by Employment and
Immigration Canada (MCCC News Service, November 1, 1993), and cooperation by
MCC with the Laos Mines Advisory Group. Many other examples could be mentioned.
Such recent cooperation, while extensive, is hardly novel. For generations,
Mennonites {75} have cooperated very closely with governments in negotiating
many benefits-exemption from military service, resettlement, block land
purchases, family reunification, educational privileges, language privileges,
etc.-for themselves. Interestingly, John A. Lapp notes that following World War
II, MCC "found ways to work with the military in reconstruction efforts" (MCC
News Service, July 2, 1993).
CONCLUSION
MCC, in both Canada and the U. S., has expanded its mandate to the point where
it is heavily involved in political commentary and analysis. This comment and
analysis, in turn, has led to extensive evaluation of political policies and,
logically, to indirect as well as direct efforts to have governments change
public policies. It has also led, especially in Canada, to extensive
MCCC-government cooperation. While the traditional self-serving relations with
government have been undertaken by MCC for generations, interaction with
governments to help others and to advance the general political well-being of
society evolved gradually after World War II and expanded greatly after the
opening of the Washington Office in 1968 and the Ottawa Office in 1974. The two
respective and long-serving directors, Delton Frantz in Washington and William
Janzen in Ottawa, must be given much of the credit, or other assessment, for
giving focus and direction to the more extensive and more other-oriented new
"politics of MCC." For better or for worse, large numbers of the erstwhile
largely apolitical, separated people are now at least knee-deep in politics,
including what someone has termed "engaged institutionalism."
In moving into its new role, has MCC exceeded its mandate? The answer depends
largely on whether one adopts a rigid constructionist view of that mandate or
whether one adopts a broader interpretation which emphasizes its spirit. Has
MCC, in addressing questions ranging from the national debt to free trade and
from sanctions to the "Endangered Species Act" (January/February, 1992 PSWM),
secularized and unduly politicized the traditional Anabaptist peace teaching,
which focused more on the atonement (peace with God) and on living peacefully
(nonresistance)? A person's theological beliefs will largely shape one's
answer. Whether MCC should be praised or faulted for dealing with a host of new
political issues and utilizing new methods, the evidence clearly suggests that
the political analysis and the strategies of pressures and cooperation have
been undertaken much more for others than for MCC. The marginalized, the needy,
and the exploited have been the main beneficiaries. It needs to be said that in
practicing its new politics, MCC has, with very few, if any exceptions, sought
influence but not power.
In recent decades numerous critics have said that MCC is lopsided in {76} its
emphasis, not making much of the atonement or sin. It should be noted, however,
that MCC was not established as a missions agency; that task was retained by
the constituent conferences for themselves. Nor was MCC established to be a
church-planting agency, although some churches have, in fact, been organized
because of MCC activity.
The problem, as I see it, is that though the MCC mandate never incorporated the
full Christian gospel, some MCC people have seemingly been reluctant to
acknowledge that fact. When they fail to affirm publicly, at least
occasionally, that the atonement must also be emphasized by the church, then
they may come across as theologically liberal, as near-social activists.
The MCC mandate did not, in the traditional sense, include soul-care. Not
surprisingly, it is therefore always easy to demonstrate that MCC stresses the
physical, the social, the economic, and the political needs of people without
emphasizing their spiritual needs. The literature is rife with such evidence.
To point out that MCC is not particularly evangelistic is hardly valid
criticism in light of its mandate.
Finally, there is some truth, however, in the criticism that in its peace
emphasis, MCC has in recent decades focused heavily on a more secular
definition of peace and less on peace advocacy for the benefit of historically
pacifist Anabaptists. Whether such a shift involves commendable practical
theology or a deviation from what the founders and the constituent conferences
had in mind, may be an open question. What is more Christian, to advocate for
others or for self? The new politics of MCC can be interpreted as moving into
the worldly realm, or it can be interpreted as an implementation of that which
Jesus commended in Matthew 25. Is the latter view one which Menno Simons had in
mind when he said that "true evangelical faith cannot lie dormant"?
Other related posts:
- » [amc] The Politics of the Mennonite Central Committee
