A Call to Gelassenheit The Nemesis of Fundamentalism — Chester Weaver

[Neto]

If there is supposed to be this unbreakable tie between the individual and their congregation, then what is the "Gelassenheit-ed" Christian supposed to do when their congregation changes ("drifts") to the extent that the fellowship has become strained, to the point that the person has become a pariah, nothing but a thorn in the collective flesh of the congregation?

This is a very good question.

I was out on a service call for around 6 hours today, and during part of the process we were just waiting on a program download to expand, so I asked him about 'gelassenheit'. He called in one of his employees whom he said would know. He said that he'd heard it used a lot, but didn't have a definition for me. (He was, of course, dealing with a language barrier.)
We talked about this for some time, and when I asked him the question above, he said that the promise is to the ordnung, and so if a congregation has drifted away from that, then a person who finds himself to be more conservative than the congregation is free to find a congregation that still follows the original ordnung. When I explained about the situation a person can end up being just a thorn in the flesh to the rest of the group, he said that if a person like that remains there, he can (even silently) be a prophetic voice calling the group back. (This is more or less my own terminology, but I think it accurately expresses his meaning.) They then talked about the time when the Dan church left the larger Amish group, that if they had stayed, the more liberal group might not have changed so much. The conservative voice would have restrained the most liberal among the entire group. There is some talk about this same thing in respect to my own background - that if the group that left the 'Big Church' (in the Molotschna colony in Russia in 1860) and became the Mennonite Brethren had remained longer, and stayed to be a force of revival of spirituality in the main church, that the revival that eventually swept through the Big Church might have come sooner, and there would still be unity.

[Ms. Izzie]

The desire to have a "pure" church may stand in the way of this idea of staying in a church and being a prophetic voice calling the group back. I have wondered about how gelassenheit and maintenance of a "pure" church interact with each other.

"You don't like it here, go somewhere you can like it," seems to be a refrain given by both those who want a "pure" church and those who don't want to hear a "prophet" who sees the group straying. (Just an observation of mine.) Maybe neither are practicing gelassenheit.

[Neto]

The desire to have a "pure" church may stand in the way of this idea of staying in a church and being a prophetic voice calling the group back. I have wondered about how gelassenheit and maintenance of a "pure" church interact with each other.

"You don't like it here, go somewhere you can like it," seems to be a refrain given by both those who want a "pure" church and those who don't want to hear a "prophet" who sees the group straying. (Just an observation of mine.) Maybe neither are practicing gelassenheit.

I have found that I know a lot less about the Swiss Brethren history than I thought I did (I assumed that the Swiss & the Dutch were much more similar than I seem to be finding evidence for), so I don't know how central the idea of a pure church was for the Swiss, but it seems to me that it was regarded as very important in my own background (Dutch). I have always assumed that this was the reason for practicing 'closed' communion in the 'Swiss' background congregations with which I have associated here in Ohio, so I thus assumed that it was a central idea. Maybe this practice sprung from some other concern, but I don't know what that might have been.

[Josh]

The Swiss Brethren were focused on this as well, although it's not clear how much of this, theologically speaking, ended up being things they copied from the Dutch Mennonites.

John Holdeman was Swiss background, but he ended up being inspired by the pure-church writings of early Dutch Mennonites to decide that it was worth doing again. The writings of Claes Ganlof ended up being influential, although via a roundabout way as that writer influenced others. Generally speaking, the Dutch Mennonites did not see a purpose in maintaining an impure church since then there was no reason to separate from the Roman Catholic church in the first place.

[ohio jones]

My impression is that the pure church was more of a concern for the Amish, who may have learned it from the Dutch, than for the pre-Amish Swiss. By the late 17th century the Swiss were slow to condemn the halb-Taüfers who compromised in various ways, such as attending Reformed services to keep up appearances or having children baptized in the state church. It seems they had more of a centered-set than a bounded-set concept.

I have always assumed that this was the reason for practicing 'closed' communion in the 'Swiss' background congregations with which I have associated here in Ohio, so I thus assumed that it was a central idea.

I'm guessing these would have been congregations from an Amish Mennonite, rather than non-Amish, background.

[Neto]

I have always assumed that this was the reason for practicing 'closed' communion in the 'Swiss' background congregations with which I have associated here in Ohio, so I thus assumed that it was a central idea.

I'm guessing these would have been congregations from an Amish Mennonite, rather than non-Amish, background.

Yes. My experience here in Holmes County has been almost exclusively in congregations related in some way to the Beachy Amish-Mennonite. Back home in Oklahoma I had some limited exposure to the Old Mennonites. (I had some older relatives there, but we didn't visit there often at all.)

[Bootstrap]

Maybe that discussion would be more relevant in this thread:
Gelassenheit: Your definitions? Your praxis?

...which would allow this thread to utilize Chester's definition beginning on p. 4 of the linked PDF.

What is the power of powerlessness? You see, whenever we box ourselves in with all the right formulas, all the right doctrines, all the right interpretations, all the right practices. We have everything nuanced just perfectly. Human power is at work. God restrains Himself. He stands outside the box.

He basically is a gentleman who says "Okay, if you people think you have it and you want to do it that way, go ahead." God is very much of a gentleman, he will never force himself on anybody. So he stands back and he lets us run into the wall, like we are running into the wall today. But if we remove the box and let God do it His way, even though it doesn’t seem to work in our human minds, if we become humanly powerless; then God goes to work. There is something divine here. I can hardly explain this and put this into words.

This is on your handout. I get this from the book entitled Amish Peace It has a whole chapter on Gelassenheit. We would like to spend some time on this. This word gelassenheit is not an English word and there is no English word that is parallel to this. This word gelassenheit has much packed into it. The most common way to understand it is in terms of yieldedness. But listen, it’s not just yieldedness. It’s this package all packed together in one word: yieldedness, humility, calmness, composure, meekness, aplomb, tranquility, imperturbability, serenity, poised, sedateness, letting go, the opposite of self-assertion, a gentle spirit, submitting to God’s will, brokenness, esteems others above self. It’s the union and agreement of inner experience with outward response. It is caught, not taught.

In gelassenheit there are 2 dimensions. There is a relationship with God and I. The vertical relationship is between the believer and God. And there is a horizontal relationship between believer and believer.