—Laura Kalmar

Amid much talk about trials and judgment, it was BFL’s turn to be on the hot seat Saturday morning. Ready for cross-examination, board members sat on stage to field questions from delegates. Surprisingly, not much conversation focused on the topic of the atonement.

Talk centred around the structure, role, and future of the board:

• When the Canadian conference moved to its current governance model of leadership, the BFL was charged with the task of “spiritual watchcare” over the executive board (EB). Perhaps it was a way to keep the BFL distinct from the EB, or perhaps the structure was intended to quell potential abuse of power…. Regardless, things are going to change.

“The two boards aren’t speaking into each other’s work enough,” said executive director Willy Reimer. “We need to formalize lines of communication. Structurally, the roles will stay the same. But we’re building a stronger functional connection.”

What implications does this have for the autonomy and “authority” of the BFL in the future? And what does it mean for the EB? There’s certainly a sense that EB members will be expected to be more involved in “spiritual matters” of the conference.

• What’s happening with our confession of faith (CoF) in light of our family ties with the U.S. and other international brothers and sisters (ICOMB)? Conversation between Canada and the U.S. has already begun: “We’re looking to give the national conferences the liberty to flesh out their own CoFs, in order to reflect the different contexts in the U.S. and Canada,” said chair Brian Cooper. “The commitment to a joint process may not do justice to our unique contexts.”

It’s another big change. If we’re going to craft a distinctive Canadian MB confession, what posture will we take toward the global ICOMB confession?

• Oh my, what big teeth you have! Or not. How much authority does the BFL actually wield? “We don’t want to be a top-down type of board,” said board member Ralph Gliege. “The best place to resolve difficulties is at the local church level.” Overall, the BFL’s authority depends on each province’s constitution.

This “lack of teeth” causes concern for some, as they anticipate controversial theological issues coming down the pipe (such as homosexuality). Will the BFL become more directive/prescriptive in the future? According to vice chair Terrance Froese, the BFL remains optimistic about the general health of the conference (85% or higher), and about the board’s ability to deal with issues as they arise.

Other comments of note from the floor:

• “We need to encourage structure to allow for the possibility of prophetic voices coming from outside of structure,” Andrew Dyck, Highland Community Church, Abbotsford, B.C.
• “1979. It was a very lonely convention for me because I didn’t have the right last name. I’m glad things have changed,” Ralph Gliege, Saskatchewan.
• “There are some faces I don’t see here – other Chinese churches, Vietnamese faces…. How is the BFL working at bringing these other churches out?” Mike Nishi, South Hill Church, Vancouver
• “The BFL feels encouraged. There is a healthy diversity within our fellowship, as we proclaim the fullness of the cross,” Brian Cooper, BFL chair