Why All the Acronyms?

-Micah Peters Unrau

Until I was 11 or 12, I thought “MEC” stood for “Mennonite Equipment Co-op.” MEC is not, in fact, related to Mennonites in any way. It’s a company that sells outdoor gear.

The mistake is understandable though, considering I grew up swimming in acronyms the likes of MCEC, MCC, MDS, CPT, CMU, MSCU, MCRS, AMBS, and MEDA. Alongside the acronyms stood blue or green logos, bulletin notes, special speakers, donation collections, pictures of international work, and racks overflowing with leaflets in the church lobby. To my childhood self, it all churned together as one expansive sea of Mennonite activity.

These days, I’m aware that most of these entities also share common origins in the missional arms of the church. The sea of acronyms is all I’ve ever known, but my elders watched several joint missions transition into independent, albeit church-affiliated, organizations in real time. They still treat these (legally) distinct entities as organic extensions of the church’s life.

I appreciate that congregational meetings and member votes can slow down time-sensitive projects. I also admire how independent institutions have often brought out the gifts of ecumenical and interreligious cooperation.

I suspect we can attribute some of my acronym-filled world to growing government regulation and religious diversity. It’s fine for churches to have the odd fundraiser, but now if you want to do something collective, long-term, and resource-intensive, registering a new charitable organization is simply the most donor-friendly option. These organizations generally don’t need to wait on church consensus either. I appreciate that congregational meetings and member votes can slow down time-sensitive projects. I also admire how independent institutions have often brought out the gifts of ecumenical and interreligious cooperation.

At the same time, several of the institutions named above have been wrestling with their Mennonite or Christian identities for decades. Likewise, calls for more church justice work suggest that not everyone feels the projects of church-connected organizations count toward the church’s ministries. For those of us who have grown up in a sea of acronyms, I wonder if we, like our elders, will continue identifying these organizations as the church’s missional arms. In turn, I wonder whether we will keep imagining the church as a fundamentally collaborative, intercongregational organism.

I hope we don’t get too comfortable siloed in our home congregations. I hope we stay interested in each other.

No matter how things develop on the organizational end, I hope the impulse that initiated these incredible acts of teamwork stays alive in the church. I hope we keep forming partnerships between groups of believing strangers at the congregational, regional, denominational, and ecumenical levels. I hope we don’t get too comfortable siloed in our home congregations. I hope we stay interested in each other.

My past three months as church engagement associate have fed this hope. I’ve watched run-ins at conferences turn into long-term working relationships. I’ve heard from over a dozen churches who want their stories to encourage ministry around MCEC. I’ve seen congregations sharing worship services, youth programs, and building ownership. There are ample signs that God’s grace still turns us toward each other, not just through proxy organizations, but in living connections that help us face new challenges as a church.

My invitation is simply to embrace the gift of belonging to a wider church family, however that looks for you. Follow the impulse to come together that generated, and in many cases sustains, the acronym-ed projects around us. Welcome that impulse when you encounter it, whether in praying for another congregation, exchanging stories, or coming to an interchurch event. May we find ourselves woven together as one body by the love of Christ.