That brings up another question. Obviously in your case the leaders know who is casting the votes. Is it always the case among CAs that votes in an ordination are cast in such a way that the ministry knows who is voting for who?
I was going to suggest paper ballots in a box, and counted by a few laity would, or at least could, certainly change the outcome.
In my experience, leaders always know who is casting votes. I figure if we truly believed in the lot, every eligible man would have to draw a songbook.
That brings up another question. Obviously in your case the leaders know who is casting the votes. Is it always the case among CAs that votes in an ordination are cast in such a way that the ministry knows who is voting for who?
I was going to suggest paper ballots in a box, and counted by a few laity would, or at least could, certainly change the outcome.
In my experience, leaders always know who is casting votes. I figure if we truly believed in the lot, every eligible man would have to draw a songbook.
Would you say that the method the early church used to elect Matthias showed that they did not truly believe in the lot?
An independent CA church where I have three in-laws does ordinations simply by the elders and deacon strait up choosing the new leader. No votes take place. Although I don't like it, it's at least a strait-up honest process, rather than one where the fiction is that the congregation's vote determines the qualified nominees.
A year or so ago, for the first time, the leaders' hand-picked nominee received so much backlash from the congregation that the leaders withdrew him from consideration. The nominee was the son of one leader, son-in-law of the other, and brother-in-law of the third. Apparently this was just too much for the congregation and the leadership saw they had totally lost the trust of the church. So they tried again recently, and this time the nominee was still a son of one of the leaders. The church seemed to accept him a lot better than the other one, although I don't entirely understand why. It is one thing for a church to elect leaders in successive family generations. It's another thing entirely for leaders to essentially create the dynasty themselves.
Signtist wrote: ↑Mon Jan 08, 2024 10:53 am
Midwest Fellowship.
Everyone votes, husbands and wives are a separate vote. But, if you and your dad and your brother vote for the same guy, or your best friend and your brother-in-law and you vote for the same guy, that's one vote.
It goes without saying, in my opinion, that one shouldn't vote for himself. Maybe a good thing about voting in the presence of the leaders is that it prevents things like that from happening.
Now, I have heard men who were ordained (Charity church) say after the fact that they and their family were moved to vote "the Lord's will be done" instead of giving a name. In my view, doing this and telling people about it, smacks of the same sort of pride as voting for oneself.
Even voting for a family member seems a little suspect in some ways. If a church is so small that there's not much choice, maybe that's one thing. But it seems a little off for larger families in a church to have the ability by sheer numbers to vote in someone from their own family circle.
ken_sylvania wrote: ↑Mon Jan 08, 2024 11:13 am
Would you say that the method the early church used to elect Matthias showed that they did not truly believe in the lot?
The book of Acts isn't to be followed literally today in almost every other case, so why do we cherry pick this story as being the prescribed method? If we were being totally biblical, only Apostles can nominate. Also, if you read the whole chapter instead of verse 26 only, I think this case is fulfilling previous scriptural prophecy. Something I'm not quite prepared to say every ordination is doing these days.
Josh wrote: ↑Sun Jan 07, 2024 6:47 pm
According to my understanding, conservative Mennonites (but not Amish nor Amish-Mennonites) conduct ordinations by lot. One source told me 25% or so of ordinations won’t be by lot, but whomever oversees the ordination (typically bishops) will simply choose the nominee(s) they like best. The other 75% or so of the time, multiple nominees will be in the lot, and one will be picked at random.
The overseers may nominate a nominee with just 1 vote. The congregation might have 25 votes, but the overseers have the final say, and may decide to pull out the more popular candidate and keep the candidate they like. A term for this is “the Mennonite church is not a democracy”. An ordination may be for multiple ministers. The overseers will decide how many to ordain. So there may be 4 nominees, and 2 would be ordained if the overseers see fit.
Amish or some Amish-Mennonites always use the lot, and when there is doubt they may have a “blank” Bible or hymnal placed in the lot. The congregation’s nominees are chosen by whomever is nominated. This reflects their more “congregational” nature vs the “conference” model of conservative Mennonites. (There may certainly be exceptions to what I described above for both types of groups; Charity -and “independent” churches will be a random mix of the above two practices.)
German Baptists, Holdemans, and Apostolic Christians simply cast ballots and the majority “wins”. There is no lot. I don’t know more about GB and AC practice. In Holdeman circles, generally a nominee needs to have 60% or more support (maybe more if the congregation is perceived as troubled) to be ordained. In Holdeman elections, multiple candidates can be on a ballot, but an election is either for a minister or a deacon or both, but never more. Holdemans do not have bishops, so elections are overseen by ministers and deacons from other nearby congregations plus 2 ministers who just conducted revival meetings plus a successful communion.
For whatever reasons, the ballot totals and reasons for selection are secret. Holdemans don’t share the totals with the congregation. Conservative Mennonites don’t share the nominee totals or report on reasons why the overseers may have chosen a less popular nominee. The justification is “You should trust us because we are your leaders”.
Please correct any details I have wrong.
In our conference:
If a new minister/deacon is needed the ministers/deacons of the congregation will make a request to the bishops who will take the request to the district ministers meeting. It might also go to a churchwide ministers meeting. If approved, the counsel of the congregation will be taken, and again if there is clear support for moving ahead with an ordination then nominations will be taken. There is a standardized procedure that is followed, and it is read and explained during the nomination service. It is common, possibly standard, for this explanation to include the statement that the bishops will exercise discretion in receiving nominations - ie. they are not expected to ordain an individual who they believe to be unfit for the office.
Nominations are received from all the brethren age 21 and older, by a group consisting of the ministers and bishops responsible for the congregation as well as at least one bishop from another district (for a minister ordination the deacon(s) would not be in this group as they would be eligible to be nominated for minister). Names are announced immediately afterward. It is my understanding that if an individual is nominated who the ministry and bishops immediately deem unqualified his name would not be announced. If an individual is later disqualified during the nomination process the reason(s) might not necessarily be stated. I am aware of at least one situation where a brother requested to the bishops in advance that he not be considered for ordination - in which case if anyone nominated that brother he was advised of that request and given an opportunity to nominate someone else.
Number of nominations for each nominee are not shared publicly. There is no "extra book" and also no opportunity to "rig" the actual lot process to ensure a certain individual in the class is chosen.
ken_sylvania wrote: ↑Mon Jan 08, 2024 11:13 am
Would you say that the method the early church used to elect Matthias showed that they did not truly believe in the lot?
The book of Acts isn't to be followed literally today in almost every other case, so why do we cherry pick this story as being the prescribed method? If we were being totally biblical, only Apostles can nominate. Also, if you read the whole chapter instead of verse 26 only, I think this case is fulfilling previous scriptural prophecy. Something I'm not quite prepared to say every ordination is doing these days.
I'm not saying I think this is the only way to do it. I was just wondering whether or not you think they believed in the lot?
