When your Mennonite job hurts you

The workshop was 90 minutes and there were 18 participants.

We began by creating a safe environment in which participants were also prepared for encountering emotion-filled issues. In a small-group activity, we introduced ourselves and said why we had come to CMERK. In the large group we then agreed on how to participate in an open conversation. We mentioned concepts like respect, confidentiality, trust and being present. As a symbol of commitment to these agreements we each put down a stone in the middle of the circle.

Naomi Enns provided an introduction to restorative justice as a framework for the whole workshop -grounding it in both peacebuilding practice and the Mennonite faith tradition.† She said that “for some this word can be a trigger but I use it as a lens to look at harm and how we might deal with it.” Setting a tone that was neither accusatory nor abstract- this invited the community into honest self-examination. Some important insights gained from Naomi’s presentation: i) Justice is not monolithic; it has many facets. ii) Everyone is affected by abuse, those who are harmed, the community, those who caused the harm. Each party carries distinct needs that a community of faith is called to hold. iii)  The highest priority is the pain of those who are harmed. iv) Re conciliation moves in steps – and cannot be rushed. To see, listen, to repair, to restore, and to move toward new relationship: each step matters, and skipping steps produces reconciliation that is performed rather than real. The large posters that Naomi had prepared were very insightful-five visual charts which covered who is affected when harm occurs, the four core questions restorative justice asks, the distinct justice needs of each affected party, the steps of reconciliation, and the central question the whole workshop carried: “How do we practice peace genuinely- not just keep the peace quietly”, and many of the participants took photos of them.

I then presented MCC Abuse Survivors Together (MAST). I showed the figures from the website, adding some explanatory information. We then heard from Kathryn Smith Derksen and Douglas Enns. Via two short sections of a video in which she is interviewed Kathryn described the sorts of reports MAST is getting. She also talked about Mennonite culture and how MCC is part of Mennonites’ sense of identity. This is unhelpful for fostering MCC’s need to be accountable; loyalty to one’s cultural identity may compromise a true sense of justice. Douglas told about his painful experiences in Christian churches and organizations. First as a Mennonite minister fired by the church and then being terminated by MCC. He also addressed the hurt experienced by European Mennonites by the way MCC closed the office based in Europe, saying that MCC doesn’t seem to be interested in a relationship with Europeans. MCC’s attitude seems to be: ‘Look, they are donating, even without any office.’ This despite an MCC commissioned report about the important work needing to be done in Europe.

Then we divided up intosmall groups of three with the assignment to share our thoughts on what we had heard, e.g., what strikes you, what emotions or questions are raised for you? Each small group then reported back to the whole group. Several things of note were reported:

• The stories of abusedworkers are overwhelming.

• It made me think of how we deal with conflicts in our church.

• To us as European Mennonites, MCC looks like a North American style corporation.

• What can we do? (I referred them to the MAST website.)

• When this abuse happens in Christian-organisations it is worse than it would be in a ‘normal’ organisation.

• We need a kind of leadership that is not grounded in fear but in trust.

• Why do we think Mennonite organizations would be above doing harm?

As a way of closure andtransition back to the rest of the CMERK, we threw a ball of yarn around from person to person, each one holding on to the thread at their position, thus symbolically connecting us all with each other via the one long yarn. The playful body movement helped to underline that sense of connection and unity. Each participant, before passing on the ball, shared their hope for the future in light of the abuse happening in our midst.

After the workshop I had a number of personal conversations with participants. Some were triggered in relation to their own trauma. “After the workshop I had to leave the conference venue and take a rest in my car.” For others the workshop inspired them to get to know more about the abuse people have experienced. Others were made more aware that their own role as pastor can be to create safe spaces in their communities for sharing about abuse and pain. One person would have liked to have a time for prayer for each other.

Personally I found the workshop to be very meaningful. It opened up an important learning space for me and the group. Sadly, I could also could sense a distance between Europe and North America. Nevertheless, I do think we created awareness that things are seriously wrong at MCC. The next day I wore the teal ribbon and I had a lot of comments and questions. I hope that from this greater awareness people will visit the MAST website or contact you.

Sending this with my prayers and support,

Ds. Annegreet van der Wijk