Standards vs Reality

[Dan Z]

Hats off to Hatsoff! You speak with the wisdom of one who has been around for a while - and who has lived reflectively. Allow me to add a bit to Hatsoff 's comments.

First, I agree that inconsistency of church standards might be a sign of spiritual lukewarmness or even rebellion - and I appreciate Josh's admonition to discern the spirit of a group. However, look not just to church standards, but to the fruit of the Spirit at work in the group and their verbal and practical commitment to following the way of Jesus for signs of spiritual vitality.

But there may be another dynamic at stake as well...let me see if I can explain it.

Often when an NMB family comes into a plain community, they come because they are attracted by what they see as a radical expression of faith and a rejection of worldliness. Thus, they arrive with a zeal for plainness - wrestling with the significance of each act of non-conformity (dress, covering, relationship to entertainment, relationship to instruments, etc.). Their move toward plainness is front and center in their lives, and each life choice is significant because it represents a major change for them. In fact, they often face opposition from family and friends, who feel judged or rejected as a result of these choices. The NMB family takes comfort that they are not walking this difficult path of non-conformity alone, but that they are doing so as a part of like-minded brethren. That's one reason why they are disheartened when they see that the standards are being adhered to loosely.

• Like a conscientious teen learning to drive for the first time, they are fixed on every road rule and every speed limit sign - thinking through every driving action (and analyzing the actions of others) in order to earn their rightful place as a safe and courteous driver. They are focused primarily on driving.

For those born and raised in a plain church, the relationship to church standards is much different. They are not necessarily less committed to the validity of church standards, but they follow them intuitively rather than deliberately - focusing on the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law. Rather than seeing the standards as a rule book prescribing each action, the standards are understood more as guidelines that affirm how they try to live their lives. Unless a person is in rebellion or spiritual distress, the church standards are quite comfortable and are followed unconsciously - more or less.

• Like a driver who has safely driven cars for many years, the rules of the road and the mechanics of driving become intuitive - second nature. They are generally aware of the speed limit, but also of the flow of traffic and what feels like a safe speed and conduct on a given road in given conditions. They are not a rebellious or aggressive driver (those are easy to pick out), but by now they have grown beyond the need to be fixated on the minutia of driving. They are focused on the journey.
  
  Can experienced drivers become too complacent? Sure.
  Can they develop bad or lazy habits? Definitely!
  
  In fact it is a good idea for them to be reminded regularly of what the rules are, an even attend a drivers safety course now and then to remain sharp....and they can learn a few things about being conscientious from that teen driver as well.
  
  Oh...and eventually the teen driver becomes more experienced and more intuitive in their driving, and they will get to a point where their focus is more on the journey than the act of driving.

Sincerely,

An NMB whose journey toward non-conformed Anabaptism started about 30 years ago.

[RZehr]

In our situation I don't think it is a double standard but one that is not well articulated. If a church excommunicates because of something like a dress standard, I would suggest it was because the person being excommunicated showed a bad attitude such as unwillingness to comply. The problem them becomes disobedience rather than failing to keep the dress standard.

Unfortunately, at this church it was not. Certain people were not disciplined because of who they were.

Unfortunately you are correct. We have a tendency to cover up or overlook a) because of an unreasonably high view of ordained leadership and b) because of respect of persons "they are blue bloods."

As a "blue blood" (I guess I am. I grew up at my current church, father was bishop, our family was one of the large, influential families at church. Is that blue blood?) myself, I'll add something here regarding pushing the rules and/or areas where there is no rule, but rather the church simply "knows" we don't/do that.

When you grow up at the same church your father grew up in, and your father or brother or uncle or grandparent is a preacher there, by virtue of proximity, experience and access, you have much finer, nuanced understanding of what the preachers and the church feel about certain issues.
Because you know where the fine lines of enforcement are, you (since you are young and immature) are able to push right to the fine line and not get in trouble for crossing the line. Others (since they are young and immature also) can't see those fine lines as clearly, and so they either stay back further out of caution and can't figure out why the PK is left alone, or they see the PK being left alone so they do pretty much the same thing, and cross the line and get in hot water.

I absolutely agree that there are times favoritism is in play, and I detest it. But I know that the situation I've described has happened sometimes, and I do not think any of the parties are even able to explain themselves. The preacher is blamed for favoritism, and is hard pressed to explain himself. And I'm not saying that this is fine.
I think as PKs grow up, they begin to intuitively know this, and then they have a choice to make: Will I selfishly milk this advantage for all it is worth, with no regard to the carnage, or will I not?

Edited: I must have been typing as Dan Z was, his post wasn't there when I was typing. I guess since I went to the bother of typing, might as well leave mine. Saying similar things I suppose.

[RZehr]

Where the rules are clear, cut and dried, I don't think there should be any debate by anyone as whether or not to abide by them. We should live up to our agreements. Sometimes there are situations where a person may ask for and be granted exemptions by the leaders, or the church. But it is extremely unhealthy for a church when people consider the rules as optional.

Sometimes a churchs standards get outdated. For example, our church standard says a specific kind of filter is required for internet use. After a few years, that company was either bought out, or changed the filter, or something. And so I asked the deacon what filter I was supposed to use to be in compliance. He explained to me that he knows of no filter existing that matches what our standard requires. So he said to just find a good filter and use it for now. I'm guessing that standard will eventually be reworded, but in the meantime, everyone in our church that has internet (which is most if not all) is out of compliance with the standard.

[Josh]

Where the rules are clear, cut and dried, I don't think there should be any debate by anyone as whether or not to abide by them. We should live up to our agreements. Sometimes there are situations where a person may ask for and be granted exemptions by the leaders, or the church. But it is extremely unhealthy for a church when people consider the rules as optional.

Sometimes a churchs standards get outdated. For example, our church standard says a specific kind of filter is required for internet use. After a few years, that company was either bought out, or changed the filter, or something. And so I asked the deacon what filter I was supposed to use to be in compliance. He explained to me that he knows of no filter existing that matches what our standard requires. So he said to just find a good filter and use it for now. I'm guessing that standard will eventually be reworded, but in the meantime, everyone in our church that has internet (which is most if not all) is out of compliance with the standard.

At one particular church, the standard says cape dresses will be worn, kapps, no movie theatres will be attended.

In reality, members in good standing wear skirts/shirts or pants, veilings are optional during the week, and movie theatre attendance is regular.

It's hard for an outsider to grapple with how exactly they're supposed to approach that.

[Josh]

Like a driver who has safely driven cars for many years, the rules of the road and the mechanics of driving become intuitive - second nature. They are generally aware of the speed limit, but also of the flow of traffic and what feels like a safe speed and conduct on a given road in given conditions. They are not a rebellious or aggressive driver (those are easy to pick out), but by now they have grown beyond the need to be fixated on the minutia of driving. They are focused on the journey.

...

Oh...and eventually the teen driver becomes more experienced and more intuitive in their driving, and they will get to a point where their focus is more on the journey than the act of driving.[/list]
[/i]

A better analogy is that experienced drivers in their 20s and 30s often think they are "good" drivers and that rules like speed limits don't apply to them.

Then they are surprised when they get speeding tickets, get in an accident that is their fault, or get a DUI.

"But I only had 2 beers. I know I was just right at the edge of the .08 limit. I can't believe I'm going to have a DUI on my record!"

Meanwhile the person who is the new driver is sitting puzzled why someone would choose to drink and then immediately drive.

[RZehr]

Where the rules are clear, cut and dried, I don't think there should be any debate by anyone as whether or not to abide by them. We should live up to our agreements. Sometimes there are situations where a person may ask for and be granted exemptions by the leaders, or the church. But it is extremely unhealthy for a church when people consider the rules as optional.

Sometimes a churchs standards get outdated. For example, our church standard says a specific kind of filter is required for internet use. After a few years, that company was either bought out, or changed the filter, or something. And so I asked the deacon what filter I was supposed to use to be in compliance. He explained to me that he knows of no filter existing that matches what our standard requires. So he said to just find a good filter and use it for now. I'm guessing that standard will eventually be reworded, but in the meantime, everyone in our church that has internet (which is most if not all) is out of compliance with the standard.

At one particular church, the standard says cape dresses will be worn, kapps, no movie theatres will be attended.

In reality, members in good standing wear skirts/shirts or pants, veilings are optional during the week, and movie theatre attendance is regular.

It's hard for an outsider to grapple with how exactly they're supposed to approach that.

That would be confusing to me as well. I guess the newcomer should ask the people what is going on. Written standards should be periodically updated to reflect what the group believes and practices.

But there are times a church is faced with an issue such as you mentioned, and they have an meeting and may decide to accept what you described. So they have now made a new decision, and may all be in agreement, but they don't bother changing the written standard; they just all know the new position.
For example, about 10 years ago our church had a meeting and decided that we would accept short sleeve shirts (We previously required long sleeves). I think we didn't change the written standards for another 3 years, at which point we updated it.

[temporal1]

Hats Off, i just want to take a moment to say how much i appreciate your posts. you have a gift for communicating a perspective that is not often available to (us, who are NMB.) so helpful, and important. it takes time to understand in context, and in perspective. life is a journey, eventually, a sum of all parts; somehow, no two identical.

so glad you found this forum and are willing to share.

Unfortunately, one of the reasons I have the perspective that I do, is because of some significant disappointments we have had with our own church. We have also walked fairly closely with several NMBs who spent some time with us but left without having membership. And then like several others on the forum I am an "older" man who has experienced a lot of life.

yes. i enjoy all your posts, not on this topic, alone. they are consistently useful and helpful. and encouraging.

[Josh]

That would be confusing to me as well. I guess the newcomer should ask the people what is going on. Written standards should be periodically updated to reflect what the group believes and practices.

But there are times a church is faced with an issue such as you mentioned, and they have an meeting and may decide to accept what you described. So they have now made a new decision, and may all be in agreement, but they don't bother changing the written standard; they just all know the new position.
For example, about 10 years ago our church had a meeting and decided that we would accept short sleeve shirts (We previously required long sleeves). I think we didn't change the written standards for another 3 years, at which point we updated it.

It would be good to tell newcomers what is actually expected from them. "Don't worry about changing anything, just do what the Lord tells you" isn't really an acceptable answer.

[TeleBodyofChrist]

Their move toward plainness is front and center in their lives, and each life choice is significant because it represents a major change for them.

Exactly, it is was a major change and adjustment. We were raised in the church, and were not used to another set of standards outside of the Bible. We came to the Mennonite church because of the baptismal belief, divorce & remarriage views, and a people that were trying to do the will of God.

It would be good to tell newcomers what is actually expected from them. "Don't worry about changing anything, just do what the Lord tells you" isn't really an acceptable answer.

We actually suggested that the church have someone from a NMB sit in on the proving meetings or just be a guide, for others after us. We felt it would be really beneficial to avoid the confusion we went through. As far as we know, they have not done it yet.

[RZehr]

If you would have asked me a few months ago if our church allowed western wear, I would have said no. Growing up, I instinctively knew that cowboy clothes were just something we didn't do. I assumed it was part of our written standards.
In the last few years, I knew a few people wore cowboy boots, but I figured they either didn't know they shouldn't, or they were just doing it anyway. I found out a few months ago that our standard says nothing about western wear. These people were newcomers, and had no way of knowing that we traditionally didn't wear such things.