Transitional Anabaptist churches

[Ernie]

In my view, “transitional” means it primarily gets its members from a more conservative or plain or strict group. As far as I know, Hornings (Weaverland) doesn’t do that. The fact a group is liberalising is a different topic.

The above list looks correct but a few notes:

#1. A consensus developed in this thread that Hornings (Weaverland) are transitional.

I don't think that Weaverland (Hornings) primarily get their members from more conservative groups. They do get some (but not primarily), and they are liberalising in some localities.

[Josh]

I don't think that Weaverland (Hornings) primarily get their members from more conservative groups. They do get some (but not primarily), and they are liberalising in some localities.

I guess we could say they are transitioning to becoming transitional. Maybe a "percentage" could be assigned.

A good question is how much "transitional" activity it takes until it transforms the culture and character of a church. One of the effects of being in a transitional church is it is very difficult to build long term relationships, since everyone is always coming and going.

[Josh]

As a seeker exits a broader way of life into a more strait and narrow way their view and direction is changing. Where on the other hand many so called CA churches to choose from have an aspect of transitional or at least people raised in a more restricted environment coming to a looser one. I’m not saying this is always negative but for a seeker even who is still quite carnal the direction difference will eventually cause difficulties and disillusionment.

This is probably the #1 challenge I see seekers face (as most seekers I've known, seem to end up in transitional churches).

So HumbleDan, this is why my experience with my wife not moving as quickly as me went much worse in less conservative churches then compared to more conservative churches. She didn’t want anything to do with the more conservative churches but it actually went much much better because of this aspect.
Churches where people told us they left the ultras to be more seeker friendly - were transitioning and weren’t so helpful in the end.

This is an underappreciated point. A truly "seeker friendly" conservative Anabaptist church would be interesting, as opposed to one that is merely accommodating to "seekers" who are already conservative Anabaptists.

An example would be some of the Hoover Mennonites who keep a very strict order of life yet seem to have absorbed a lot of seekers, right down to their current bishop at one of their districts being from a seeker background who became a full member around 5 years ago. This would be almost unheard of in a group like BMA or RNoC.

[Soloist]

#3. Holdemans may have been transitional on the “intake” side at one point, sourcing significant expansion from OO Amish and from Wengers. They didn’t ever have a culture settle of being transitional on the “outflow” side, which is part of what transitional means to me. See more notes below

I disagree with this, Holdeman do lose members and are transitional by the litmus of members leaving for more liberal positions.
Of course, we have argued about the liberal aspects of your group before.

As for simply arguing that a sign of transitional churches is leaving for more liberal camps then I would postulate that there are no non-transitional churches.
In my mind a better argument is the amount of change over the years and outside of old order groups… seems like everyone is changing but some deny it by not changing the standards while practice changes.

[Soloist]

A church that doesn’t change isn’t open to the difficulties of outsiders.
A church that changes is not good for outsiders.

The issue is what changes and not the standards, but the practice.

Seekers see acutely the inconsistencies of those who argue for the standards. Give and take counsel often is take counsel and rarely if ever is the seeker’s counsel taken.
Ultimately, drift is in every church and it’s how it’s addressed that dictates the opening to the world or the closed nature for seekers.

[NedFlanders]

#3. Holdemans may have been transitional on the “intake” side at one point, sourcing significant expansion from OO Amish and from Wengers. They didn’t ever have a culture settle of being transitional on the “outflow” side, which is part of what transitional means to me. See more notes below

I disagree with this, Holdeman do lose members and are transitional by the litmus of members leaving for more liberal positions.
Of course, we have argued about the liberal aspects of your group before.

As for simply arguing that a sign of transitional churches is leaving for more liberal camps then I would postulate that there are no non-transitional churches.
In my mind a better argument is the amount of change over the years and outside of old order groups… seems like everyone is changing but some deny it by not changing the standards while practice changes.

There is no doubt everyone is transitioning if you consider in the Christian life to never be a plateau but moving one direction or the other.
Because of Holdemans practice, typical I would consider a move from OO to Holdeman as a move closer to Christ. And then because of the Holdemans view on the church a transition to another church carries a stronger idea of apostasy than others that stops the idea of accepting them as a any type of transitional church that does effect how they relate together with some positive implications.

Ultras also care about direction of travel that help them relate better. It can seem like they ask a lot but a higher “demand” is really just a greater commitment. Lesser conservative groups don’t have a leg to stand on to say they are less transitional as there is a greater mix in them.

[Soloist]

Because of Holdemans practice, typical I would consider a move from OO to Holdeman as a move closer to Christ. And then because of the Holdemans view on the church a transition to another church carries a stronger idea of apostasy than others that stops the idea of accepting them as a any type of transitional church that does effect how they relate together with some positive implications.

I can’t really say, my very little experience with old order has been good while not that good with Holdeman.

Ultras also care about direction of travel that help them relate better. It can seem like they ask a lot but a higher “demand” is really just a greater commitment. Lesser conservative groups don’t have a leg to stand on to say they are less transitional as there is a greater mix in them.

I really appreciate the Nationwide I know, I couldn’t ever be part of them though while they reject my job skill from being acceptable.
I’m not a farmer or a very handy sort of guy and I know what would happen if I switched and then struggled to pay my bills.

[Josh]

#3. Holdemans may have been transitional on the “intake” side at one point, sourcing significant expansion from OO Amish and from Wengers. They didn’t ever have a culture settle of being transitional on the “outflow” side, which is part of what transitional means to me. See more notes below

I disagree with this, Holdeman do lose members and are transitional by the litmus of members leaving for more liberal positions.
Of course, we have argued about the liberal aspects of your group before.

There are very few people who leave for other conservative Anabaptist groups. Nearly all go straight into the world, perhaps to an evangelical church. There is the occasional person who ends in at a RNoC type of church.

This is a rather stark difference. In my old type of church, it was basically expected that young people would go to a BMA or liberal Charity church. I can’t think of a single young person in Holdeman circles who has done that. One person goes to a Church of Christ, which is neither plain nor Anabaptist.

As for simply arguing that a sign of transitional churches is leaving for more liberal camps then I would postulate that there are no non-transitional churches.
In my mind a better argument is the amount of change over the years and outside of old order groups… seems like everyone is changing but some deny it by not changing the standards while practice changes.

“Transitional” means a few things:

- The church leadership is comfortable sourcing the majority of its members from more conservative Anabaptist churches, as opposed to people who become members because the grew up there, new converts, people from Catholic, evangelical, etc. backgrounds, or people from less plain backgrounds.

- The church membership is comfortable with many people leaving for a less conservative, but still Anabaptist, church, particularly young people, and continues to see them as “Christians” and fellowship with them. For example, a family grows up in a Mid-West church. Their daughter decides she wants to watch movies, wear makeup etc so she starts attending a BMA church and ends up having her wedding there. Later on, her and her husband decide to attend an RNoC church. All of these institutions are “transitional”. Everyone stays in fellowship with each other through the entire transition. (Her own grandmother may have grown up Old Order Amish, but married someone who went to an Amish-Mennonite church that transitioned to Nationwide and then disaffiliated with them and affiliated with Mid-West.)

- Nobody breaks fellowship lines over someone going to a less conservative church. OTC churches like Holdemans don’t do this.

- Another thing I have seen in transitional churches is “spiritual concern for people becoming more conservative”. They would be extremely concerned if someone started talking about going to a more conservative church and may even question if the person really is born again, or has fallen into “works”. The same concern does not extends to people becoming LESS conservative.

The reason I am interested in this topic is because transitionalism is a serious impediment to reaching the lost, evangelism, mission work, and discipling the weaker brother, which is what I see the church’s entire mission as being. (And no, persuading Amish people to buy cars and attend your church does not count as “mission work”, “reaching the lost”, “evangelism”, or “discipling”),

Transitional churches are, in effect, canker sores or cancerous growths on the body of Christ: they are still alive, but if left untreated, they will eventually cause parts of the body to become dead which will need to be amputated. Transitional churches are in need of a visit with the Great Physician, that they may be either cold or hot. They should buy gold refined in the fire and clothes that they might stop being naked.

[ohio jones]

An example would be some of the Hoover Mennonites who keep a very strict order of life yet seem to have absorbed a lot of seekers, right down to their current bishop at one of their districts being from a seeker background who became a full member around 5 years ago. This would be almost unheard of in a group like BMA or RNoC.

It's unheard of because neither BMA nor RNOC have bishops. I can't speak to BMA, but I know of at least a half dozen senior pastors of RNOC churches who come from a seeker or unchurched background.

[Josh]

An example would be some of the Hoover Mennonites who keep a very strict order of life yet seem to have absorbed a lot of seekers, right down to their current bishop at one of their districts being from a seeker background who became a full member around 5 years ago. This would be almost unheard of in a group like BMA or RNoC.

It's unheard of because neither BMA nor RNOC have bishops. I can't speak to BMA, but I know of at least a half dozen senior pastors of RNOC churches who come from a seeker or unchurched background.

It would be unlikely to see someone go from initially attending and joining to being in a senior leadership role in 5 years, particularly in the wings of RNoC that think leaders need to be seminary trained.