How are churches run?

[Franklin]

I am curious about how Mennonite churches are run. How are decisions made and how is leadership chosen? Obviously Mennonites are doing something right since Mennonite churches seem more stable than many other churches. I would like to know the secret.

[Josh]

I am curious about how Mennonite churches are run. How are decisions made and how is leadership chosen? Obviously Mennonites are doing something right since Mennonite churches seem more stable than many other churches. I would like to know the secret.

This is a broad topic, and Mennonite churches are not all run the same way. A good place to start is a book the surveys different groups and describes their "ecclesiology" (which basically means "how a church is run").

I recommend Stephen Scott's "An Introduction to Old Order and Conservative Mennonite Groups".

[RZehr]

I am curious about how Mennonite churches are run. How are decisions made and how is leadership chosen? Obviously Mennonites are doing something right since Mennonite churches seem more stable than many other churches. I would like to know the secret.

Leadership in our stripe of Mennonite churches are chosen, or "ordained" from the congregation. Decisions are made in a wide range of methods from the Bishop unilaterally deciding something, to the leadership group deciding, to the leadership making a recommendation or bringing several options they approve of, to all the men making decisions, to a committee making decisions, to the membership making a decision.

It all depends on which kind of Mennonite church it is, together with what the decision is about.

[steve-in-kville]

A throwback that caught my eye earlier this week. Perhaps this thread is due for a reboot?

[PetrChelcicky]

Obviously Mennonites are doing something right since Mennonite churches seem more stable than many other churches.

But are they actually more stable?
From historical and geographical comparisons I'd say that Mennonites tend to be "congregational" which means that the local organization is the basical one and above all possesses its own ground and buildings. It figures that "church" in Mennospeak often means the local unit (which is completely unusual with Catholics or mainstream Protestants).
The larger units are rather seen as "confederations" of local units, and it is rather simple for a local unit to shift from one confederation to another. This helps to avoid longtime conflicts with their extreme bitterness. On the other hand it makes the larger units looking rather "unstable", in particular as a historian. It is similar with Quakers and interestingly also with Orthodox - studying Orthodox history is quite as lame as studying Quaker or Anabaptist history because you must learn at first the names and developments of the ever-changing confederations (even more lame because for the Orthodox changing affiliation is above all changing "jurisdiction", subordating oneself under a different patriarch or metropolitan, so you have to know the history of the hierarchy).
In comparison, in studying Catholic theology you can concentrate on the intellectual development, just because you have a fixed and constant frame. You may use the names of the popes as mere temporal markers, like the Brits speak about "Elizabethan" theatre or "Georgian" architecture, but except of that you can widely ignore the hierarchy.

[Neto]

My understanding of the word "congregationalism" is probably heavily influenced by my experiences of having grown up in an MB congregation, where the word would follow definition # 3 as quoted below from the on-line Merriam-Webster dictionary.

Definition of congregational
1: of or relating to a congregation
2 capitalized : of or relating to a body of Protestant churches deriving from the English Independents of the 17th century and affirming the essential importance and the autonomy of the local congregation
3: of or relating to church government placing final authority in the assembly of the local congregation

The key phrase here (in my understanding of the word) is "assembly of the local congregation". This definition encompasses what people in Beachy and other Plain groups mean by the term, but it is more specific than simply saying that the local church is not controlled by a higher level organization, such as by denominational governance. It means that the members of the congregation are the governing body of the church body, not the bishop or a small group of ministers, or even a church board consisting of a group of men. The decisions of the congregation are made through an organized process consisting of congregational business meetings. The church board makes recommendations, but these motions require approval of the membership.
In this sense, none of the Plain congregations I have attended here in Holmes County are truly congregationalist. At its core, the term requires 'rule by the congregation over the congregation'. Here, it's more like the congregation chooses a "ministerial dictator" through the process of 'taking the voice of the congregation for an ordination' who then makes the decisions for the entire group. In my experience, you can never really know what direction this man will take over the period of years in which he "leads" the congregation. This may sound unduly critical, but one important advantage of true congregationalism is that it frees the 'minister' to be a pastor, and not just a preacher. (It separates him from the 'political' governance of the congregation, and allows him to concentrate completely on the spiritual ministry to which he was called. While I would not venture to base doctrine on the narrative of Scripture, we have an example of this in the book of The Acts, when Peter and the other leaders decline to get involved in the controversy over unequal treatment of Hellensitic Jewish widows vs those of the local area, and suggest other men be chosen by the congregation to take this responsibility. This case, however, deserves careful consideration because the results of this choice are demonstrably blessed by God.)

[Ken]

I am curious about how Mennonite churches are run. How are decisions made and how is leadership chosen? Obviously Mennonites are doing something right since Mennonite churches seem more stable than many other churches. I would like to know the secret.

Honestly, I don't think Mennonite churches are more stable as a result of some sort of governing structure. I think a lot of it has to do with geographic luck in that a lot of Mennonite communities themselves are relatively stable by virtue of location. Far enough from major metro areas not to be completely absorbed into suburban sprawl. But also not in economically ravaged rural areas like in Appalachia that are bleeding population due to coal mining decline and that sort of thing. As long as the communities stay intact, it is easier for the churches to stay intact, whether they are Mennonite, Lutheran, or Catholic.

[barnhart]

I agree with PetrC that most american mennonite churches are essentially congregational even when they are within a conference or confederation. But there are some caveats, including the distinction raised by Neto that congregational rule can easily become rule by dictator chosen by the congregation. Another caveat is the longer a confederation structure is in place, the more it resembles presbyterian or rule by the bishops model.

[Neto]

I agree with PetrC that most american mennonite churches are essentially congregational even when they are within a conference or confederation. But there are some caveats, including the distinction raised by Neto that congregational rule can easily become rule by dictator chosen by the congregation. Another caveat is the longer a confederation structure is in place, the more it resembles presbyterian or rule by the bishops model.

How long, typically, from your observations?
I'm curious because the Mennonite Brethren organized as a conference right from the beginning, in 1860. During the time of my memory since my early childhood (when I was 5 or 6, around 1960, or '62, when my dad was chosen as a delegate to the US convention) I recall hearing about District and national conference level business meetings, and also North American conference level meets as well, until the States & Canada split into two separate conferences, sometime around the early 90's, I think. There were discussions of doctrinal issues or questions, and each congregation was asked to contribute a certain amount toward conference missions efforts, but each congregation was still autonomous. The church house belongs to the congregation, not the conference. If they want, they can leave the conference, too. (I know of several congregations in my home state of Oklahoma that did so.)

[barnhart]

Neto, from my experience, one or two generations.