Readers Write: November 2024

Good people hurt by MCC

I am writing this letter in support of the individuals who wrote and signed the open letter to Mennonite Central Committee (MCC) and in support of the former and current MCC service workers and staff who have been and continue to be hurt by MCC. I personally know of former MCC staff and service workers who have been terminated in a way that, in my opinion, did not allow for due process, discussion, opportunity for understanding, or for questions to be asked and answered.

began working with MCC part-time in 1996 as the Refugee Sponsorship Program Coordinator. This led to full-time work within various MCC programs: Indigenous Neighbours, Peace, Generations at Risk (HIV/AIDS), IVEP, SALT and Human Resources. In the last role, my responsibilities included interviewing and processing applications from folks applying to volunteer locally and internationally as service workers or country representatives.

I travelled in numerous provinces and states across North America over 14 years. I also had the opportunity to visit international HIV/AIDS partners in Kenya, Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador. During my last four years with MCC Alberta, I was a part of the leadership team and was acting executive director.

Many of my visits with workers serving internationally included conversations about their struggles due to a lack of connection and healthy/helpful communication with MCC human resources (HR) and leadership staff who were responsible for their support and well-being.

In many ways, my work with different MCC programs, particularly with local and international partners, strengthened my commitment to MCC. But, over time, it became increasingly difficult for me to feel good about sending folks to an international placement when I was not sure that they would receive appropriate care and support from North American and international MCC HR and leadership.

I found myself wanting to warn applicants about the abuse and neglect that returning or terminated volunteers had spoken to me about. On a few occasions, I did warn people. I encouraged service workers to stay connected with us at MCC Alberta during their term, although very few of them did, as they were told only to communicate with MCC staff who had direct oversight of them. I encouraged applicants to surround themselves virtually and on-site with a support system they could trust.

On too many occasions, we received calls at the office from supporters or family members of service workers who wanted to know why their loved one had been fired by MCC. Or the terminated service workers themselves would visit our office, and it was only then that we would learn about their termination.

Without fail, we would connect with the appropriate HR staff responsible for the terminated volunteers and ask what had happened, and why they were terminated. Not once were we given adequate answers, and, often, we were given no answers at all. In those instances, MCC HR staff and leadership cited confidentiality and privacy issues. Fair enough not to tell us, but I believe withholding that information from those terminated is, at best, unprofessional, and, at worst, cruel.

Too many good people who believed deeply in the vision and mission of MCC gave their time, sacrificed their financial stability, and trusted in an organization whose values, mission and vision aligned with the deepest part of their faith, only to be left hurt, devastated and alone as they tried to pick up the pieces of their sense of self and purpose.

It is easy to weep as I read on MCC’s website: “MCC values just relationships. MCC seeks to live and serve justly and peacefully in each relationship, incorporating listening and learning, accountability and mutuality, transparency, and integrity.”

I am deeply disappointed by the silence of MCC HR and leadership to the petition and open letter: there has not been an adequate response to either. I am navigating conversations with MCC constituents and supporters who are wondering what is going on at MCC. They are asking me why MCC is not addressing the open letter.

I have tried to handle those conversations carefully, but I find myself being more truthful than diplomatic. MCC has yet to meet and talk to the individuals who wrote the open letter and started the petition. They have yet to meet or talk to many of the former staff and volunteers I know personally, to explain the circumstances around their terminations.

They have not responded adequately to the 1450-plus people who have signed and commented on the petition.

We are all calling on MCC to live up to the values it states so clearly on its website and in its communications with donors.

– Kim Thiessen, Winnipeg

Peace and HR

Reading the comments and stories of Mennonite Central Committee workers who have had their employment ended without cause can feel troubling for those of us who have experienced this terrible practice in faith-based organizations. There are too many stories like this, stories of incredible wounding in our faith community.

What I haven’t heard discussed is the financial cost associated with these terminations. Whether a faith-based institution uses money donated toward their good work or a faith-based financial institution uses profits from members’ loans and deposits to cover consultants’ fees, legal costs and severance packages, or, worse, to degrade those they once had a relationship with, the substantial costs are covered by donors and members.

Legal costs can also be high for individuals who have been terminated.

I think financial payouts that silence workers come at a deep cost to the trust that was built with the employee and are also a misuse of funds.

We can and must do better. We are people of God’s peace. There is no faith, compassion or integrity in the wounding of others. Ever.

– Joy Wagler, New Hamburg, Ontario (Steinmann Mennonite Church)

Questioning an olive branch to conservatives

In his editorial, “An olive branch to conservatives,” (September 2024), Will Braun offers his own experience of engaging with conservatives who leave our denomination, often due to issues of sexuality and gender.

While his intention to extend grace and peace is commendable, there’s an important dimension missing from this conversation—an exploration of power and how it operates within these dynamics.

First, I want to say that I deeply appreciate the existence of Canadian Mennonite and the transparency it has shown, particularly in its reporting practices around sensitive issues.

I also value its openness to constructive feedback. My critique is not directed at Will personally, nor is it a challenge to the integrity of anyone involved. My aim is to add nuance to the discussion, grounded in a commitment to the well-being of all people.

In the editorial, Will writes that, “In an age of division, listening is a constructive response.” Will acknowledges his particular interest in conservative voices. While listening is undoubtedly valuable in many contexts, it is not inherently constructive in every situation: as a self-identified cisgender, heterosexual white man, Will can listen to these voices without risking additional harm, but voices that come from positions of privilege can inadvertently retraumatize those who have historically been marginalized.

Asking someone to listen to views that deny their humanity or the humanity of their loved ones is not a neutral request. Are conservative voices truly unheard in these conversations, or are we witnessing a reaction to a perceived loss of privilege they once held?

Framing conservatives as a marginalized group may oversimplify the reality. There’s a significant difference between feeling excluded due to a theological disagreement and being excluded because of one’s gender, sexuality, race or other aspects of identity that are not a matter of choice.

This distinction is crucial when discussing exclusion and the power dynamics involved.

The editorial makes a comparison between churches and businesses or NGOs, suggesting we become stronger by learning from those who leave. While there is merit to this in theory, the voices and experiences of LGBTQ Mennonites must be part of any learning process, as they represent communities that have historically been disempowered.

Power and privilege play a role here, and the lessons we learn should not come at the expense of those who have already been marginalized.

We also need to carefully examine the concept of diversity, distinguishing between diversity of opinion and diversity related to social location—such as race, gender or sexual orientation. We can learn across differences of social location if there is openness and trust. While theological diversity can also enrich a community, we must also recognize that certain perspectives, particularly those that devalue the humanity of others, can cause harm. It’s essential to approach this with sensitivity to the impact of these beliefs on marginalized communities.

Finally, when we consider the vision of of sharing communion together, as Will does, we must be sensitive to the deep hurt this can cause. For those who only see theological diversity, communion might be a beautiful act of unity. For others, taking communion with people who deny their humanity based on gender or sexuality is deeply painful.

Extending an olive branch must be done with care, recognizing the stakes are different for those who face harm. Ultimately, I agree with Will that we are all beloved children of God, interconnected with one another and with creation. Our wellbeing is intertwined. At the same time, we exist within systems shaped by power. A preferential option for those who are marginalized is necessary for our ethics, it reflects the justice and equity central to God’s kingdom. Rather than amplifying voices that call for a return to traditional theologies, let us affirm the belovedness of all people, particularly those who have historically been excluded.

– Kimberly Penner, pastor, Stirling Avenue Mennonite Church, Kitchener, Ontario

We intend to consider related questions further in the magazine over time, examining the pros and cons of different approaches. – Eds.

Listening to good people

I 

agree with the author of “Leaving a church that left” (September 2024) when he talks about the quality of character of the good people at Maple View Mennonite.

I’m a gay man who spent the first 48 years of my life trying to be straight in obedience to personal beliefs about obedience to God, formed in that culture. I’ve spent tens of thousands of dollars on therapies, conferences and books. I attended support groups weekly. I maintained celibacy.

By age 48, my shame and self-hatred were killing me. I needed to come out to save my life.

I can’t throw stones at Maple View’s theology, because I held the same beliefs. However, when Maple View left, I felt personally rejected by people I loved. I hated the word homophobic when I shared Maple View’s beliefs, but I think it is the appropriate term for pre-judging someone’s words and deciding they aren’t worth hearing.

This is not the path to peace.

It is important to listen to those you disagree with. Jesus modeled that courage in his engagement with the religious right of his day.

– John Martin-Holmes, Guelph, Ontario

Reevaluating priorities

Recently Mennonite Central Committee (MCC) B.C. received a windfall of millions (“Kingdom windfall,” June 2024), with those assets managed by HyLand Properties. Wholly owned by MCCBC, HyLand manages these, and other, assets, making related investment decisions.

MCCBC says the money is to be used for the donors’ intentions of helping the “poorest of the poor,” with profits going to MCC, while the HyLand website shows investment in middle-class housing and co-funded housing for university students.

MCCBC has become a property owner involved in real estate development. Since when is student housing consistent with helping the poorest of the poor?

More transparency, openness and constituency involvement in these decisions is needed.

– Henry Neufeld, Delta, B.C. (Point Grey Inter-Mennonite Fellowship)

Corrections: In the October issue (page 34), we said an unnamed Russian pastor in a book we mentioned was executed by the Germans. In fact, it was the Soviets.

The “Moment from yesterday” in the October issue mistakenly referred to a 1996 bus trip to Colorado. The correct date is 1966.