With the theme of this year’s Council on Church and Media conference focusing on “Shaping the future of church and media,” participants were asked to discuss a number of questions in small groups and corporately.  Here’s a sampling of what was shared.

Connections – As clichéd as it may seem, networking was the most valuable reason for people to participate in CCM.  Meeting with counterparts in similar organizations, learning what others are doing, exploring collaborative projects, and the unique connection with other Anabaptist communicators were the primary reasons cited.

Sharing – However, many felt time could be better utilized for other meetings and agency sharing.  Affinity group sessions could be enhanced with more advance preparation of group leaders to discuss conference themes, technology labs, or other discussion groups for those who perform similar tasks.  Others said they can get professional development elsewhere.  Of course, there’s a desire for strong speakers, but the input needs to be geared to the scale in which CCM members work.

Tools – Participants were asked what tools might CCM provide that would help them better perform tasks in their particular work area?  Responses ranged form the micro to the macro. 

n      Research – what are people looking at and how do they get it? 

n      Forums for similar projects, for example, AIDS/HIV-related projects. 

n      Sharing resources such as photo databases. 

n      Identifying big picture trends.

Mission/Name – Is CCM’s mission statement sufficient?  “Enhancing connections and providing professional development for communicators from Mennonite and other Anabaptist traditions.”  Some felt this statement needed to be tightened and focused on the ultimate goal of the organization.  There were also many who felt it was high time to take a closer look at the name “Council on Church and Media;” that it doesn’t reflect the group’s mission or its Anabaptist identity.  A brainstorming session during the final session produced a whole host of alternatives.  (I’m reluctant to list those.  The executive committee is preparing a recommendation, so presenting the list would just confuse the issue.)

Membership/Recruitment – The Cleveland group clearly defined the parameters of people CCM should target for membership recruitment – communication and marketing professionals (and students) from Anabaptist groups from Canada and the U.S.   Going too broad denominationally or professionally dilutes CCM’s identity and mission.  “We need to go deeper, not broader,” said Jon Unger Brandt, communications director for Eastern Mennonite Missions, meaning there are many within our existing channels that we have not tapped into.  Plus, the core participation in CCM has been declining. 

If we want to get more students (and their professors) involved in CCM, we need to meet in closer proximity to their campuses.  These institutions could also provide significant content from their own faculty.  Concretely acting upon that, the members agreed during the business meeting Wednesday to accept an invitation from John Longhurst, communications director at Canadian Mennonite University , to meet on their Winnipeg campus.  For 2008, a group will explore holding the conference in Kansas – within reach of Bethel , Hesston, McPherson and Tabor colleges. 

Other Benefits – What other events, activities and forums could be explored by CCM?  Ideas included becoming a reference group for others within Anabaptist circles who need communications assistance, as well as posting job and volunteer opportunities.  Finding ways to enhance year-round connections through the web and regional groups was seen as key to increasing value.   However, Unger Brandt emphasized, “This event needs to fly first before we try to do too much more.”

Expectations from the Conference – Almost everyone agreed that opportunities for networking are a crucial ingredient of CCM conferences, but the group has to be deeper to be beneficial to a more diverse range of specialties.  However, there were differing opinions on where the content should come from.  Some felt seminars should be led by outside experts, although some saw value in offering mentor-style workshops from veteran members geared toward those that are younger and less experienced.  While it’s great to have big-name speakers, some felt the topic was more important than the name recognition of the speaker.  It is also hoped there can be more coordination of the conference theme, speaker topic, affinity groups, as well as an allowance for more interaction with speakers.  And while people enjoy visits to media outlets in host cities, seeing the environments where other members work might be of greater value.

Timing – CCM conferences have typically been held in the spring.  This has been a problem for college staff in the throes of commencement coverage and does not leave much room for professors to bring students to the conference.  For Mennonite Church USA-related agencies, it is also a busy time in biennial assembly years, with the churchwide convention taking place around July 4.  So this year, the members voted to move the meeting to the fall, preferably mid-to-late October.  More students can attend (especially if it’s on campus) and at least MC USA agencies are in a slightly lighter production mode.