Appalachian Mennonite Church

[mike]

Can't the congregation vote no confidence in an ordained person? We have that procedure (although I hear it hasn't been used in a long time). Basically if "facts" come to light right after they are nominated via ballot, it's basically a way to withdraw.

Almost no way for that to happen in Mennonite churches, as far as I know. At least I'm not aware of any such procedure. If a group is secure enough to actually have a procedure by which the congregation can call a no-confidence vote, I respect that. I am pretty sure most CA churches don't want such a thing to ever happen, and thus don't provide for it in official policy documents.

If there are problems between a congregation and its ministry, typically a committee of outside ministers come in to straiten things up. Normally to shore up the authority of the local ministry. However, sometimes a committee removes a minister or even a bishop. But that's done by action of other ordained men. The primary way for a member or members to vote no confidence is to leave the church. It does get difficult when the majority of members express no confidence in a leader, but don't leave.

[Josh]

Makes sense. Our nomination and ballot selection (called "election" in Holdeman parlance) happen on the same night, and then the ordination happens later (typically the next night but sometimes an intervening day or two). So there is time for the congregation to suddenly lose confidence. As I understand it, when this has happened, word gets out about the successful election, and someone will come forward with "Ok, you need to know about X," and the next members' meeting quickly votes to withdraw.

We don't have any official "policy documents" about how it's supposed to be conducted. It's just all tradition and custom. Because of that, there isn't much room to change things. They've just "been done this way". My impression of Old Mennonite background people (which includes Lancaster, Eastern, Pilgrim, and so on) is that they like to have a lot more policy written down. The only official thing we have written down is actually the exact text for ordinations, baptisms, and so on which is just a few phrases and is identical to the old Mennonite Ministers' Manual (other than a slight change in one of the baptismal vows).

[JayP]

I would agree I am unaware of any complaints of a lot being rigged. As earlier discussed it is the abuse of the vetting process that dwindles the lot to either a group the bishops can live with or sufficiently stacked so that they take their chances

Someone made reference to the pilgrim break and my earlier comments about the questioned bishop that many feel was a component.

My point simply, and regardless of real truth, is you see how Eastern as an example will talk TO THIS DAY that S. Should never have been ordained as if that alone led to the Pilgrim split. FWWIW I do not think it was a cause. Perhaps a factor simply in that he was outspoken and things floated to the top faster than the might have otherwise

The whole thin though is revealing, in that while the “that district is not conservative enough…blah…blah..blah” argument does indeed seem to have come true. There is no question you would “slot” Pilgrim practices far from Eastern these days. I am NOT saying that justified the original accusations. But as you see folks leave Pilgrim it just amazes me how the splits go on and on and on.

Again, with the bias of an outsider (now), I do feel the role of personality is so prevalent in this splits. Folks talk about issues but history seems to say different men might have reached a different resolution. Well, hide sight is easy,

[ken_sylvania]

The only problem I have with the process is that it places the vetting process completely in the hands of the ministry, but is typically thought and spoken of as being a divinely ordered process of God selecting the leader. In my opinion, if we're going to say that God selects the leader in this process, the lot should include an additional book without a paper (or however it may be done) to give the option of none of the above being chosen. If the lot is viewed as simply a random selection among equally qualified candidates, then I don't really see a problem with the process as it is done. The lot falling on a particular person is no more divinely ordained (nor any less so) than our selection of a Sunday school teacher or janitor.

The only thing that really bothers me about the lot is when/if it is portrayed as completely the work of God, as if men had nothing to do with the selection process, which is pretty far from the truth. And I have no problem with men being involved; in fact, I think there is nothing wrong with simply voting and choosing leaders by a pre-determined process of elimination with no lot at all. At least two of the ordinations in our congregation never involved a lot because there was only one person who reached the numerical threshold required. Transparency and honesty is the key to appointing leaders.

Would you describe the ordiation of Matthias recorded in Acts 1:15-26 as being problematic for the reasons mentioned above?

[mike]

The only problem I have with the process is that it places the vetting process completely in the hands of the ministry, but is typically thought and spoken of as being a divinely ordered process of God selecting the leader. In my opinion, if we're going to say that God selects the leader in this process, the lot should include an additional book without a paper (or however it may be done) to give the option of none of the above being chosen. If the lot is viewed as simply a random selection among equally qualified candidates, then I don't really see a problem with the process as it is done. The lot falling on a particular person is no more divinely ordained (nor any less so) than our selection of a Sunday school teacher or janitor.

The only thing that really bothers me about the lot is when/if it is portrayed as completely the work of God, as if men had nothing to do with the selection process, which is pretty far from the truth. And I have no problem with men being involved; in fact, I think there is nothing wrong with simply voting and choosing leaders by a pre-determined process of elimination with no lot at all. At least two of the ordinations in our congregation never involved a lot because there was only one person who reached the numerical threshold required. Transparency and honesty is the key to appointing leaders.

Would you describe the ordiation of Matthias recorded in Acts 1:15-26 as being problematic for the reasons mentioned above?

Good question. No, I can't exactly say that this ordination was problematic, can I?

Acts 1:23 So they proposed two: Joseph, called Barsabbas, who was also known as Justus, and Matthias. 24 Then they prayed, “You, Lord, know the hearts of all; show which of these two You have chosen 25 to take the place in this apostolic service that Judas left to go to his own place.” 26 Then they cast lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias. So he was numbered with the 11 apostles.

"They" apparently refers to "the brothers":

14 All these were continually united in prayer, along with the women, including Mary the mother of Jesus, and His brothers. 15 During these days Peter stood up among the brothers—the number of people who were together was about 120...

The group of brothers obviously felt that both of the two men they named were qualified to be numbered with the apostles. And although they obviously nominated these men in a transparent process, they did propose two names, not one, and so they left the result up to the Lord and cast lots.

The selection is not presented as something entirely orchestrated by the Lord, and yet the apostles thought of the lot as the Lord showing who he had already decided upon. The two deciding factors in the selecting of leaders (the voice of the church and the casting of lots) clearly aren't mutually exclusive in terms of representing the Lord making his will known.

Where ordinations being thought of as God choosing a leader gets really distorted in my opinion is when leaders disregard the voice of the church in this process, a crucial part in this Acts story. If the apostles thought that God had already selected someone, why didn't they put the whole group into the lot and let the Lord decide? No, I think they understood the role of the church as being at part of how God reveals his will. Somehow, they came to the conclusion as brothers that two people were qualified. At that point, they turned it over to the lot. They trusted BOTH the voice of the church, and the lot. I think it is incumbent on leaders today to trust the voice of the church as well.

If we could overhear the conversations behind closed doors during an ordination, I wonder to what extent we would find that leaders trust the Lord to speak through the voice of the church, and how much they feel like they need to manipulate the list of those qualified before "letting the Lord choose." To what extent can the nomination process be controlled and guided by leaders and it still be said that end result is the Lord's choice?

In Acts 6, it appears that the apostles gave the responsibility for selecting servants of the church (deacons?) completely over to the group of believers, not even being involved in the selection process.

In those days, as the number of the disciples was multiplying, there arose a complaint by the Hellenistic Jews against the Hebraic Jews that their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution. 2 Then the Twelve summoned the whole company of the disciples and said, “It would not be right for us to give up preaching about God to handle financial matters. 3 Therefore, brothers, select from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and wisdom, whom we can appoint to this duty. 4 But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the preaching ministry.” 5 The proposal pleased the whole company. So they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit, and Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolaus, a proselyte from Antioch. 6 They had them stand before the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them.

[JayP]

I know this thread meandered a bit….such is life.

I do wonder, does anyone KNOW, not a single person telling someone here their opinion, but really know on a more wide spread basis, has there been a groundswell of feeling in Eastern about unfair or troublesome ordination practices?

I find, and understand, many of my Eastern friends hesitant so speak on it. Again, the USSR parallels are uncanny. They just will not discuss certain issues. In fact, I know a couple that visited us recently were sort of “checked out” by the ministry on why they visited us.
I guess the commissars do have to check up on party members activities from time to time.

And here is another question that is related. I know of a very well regarded person in EPMC that rose to bishop. The something happened, and they were effectively suspended. A couple of years later that person is back to being a minister, preaching, but no longer a bishop nor appropriately not assigned to their prior congregation. Just a minister at large

Now, on the one hand sins need not be publicizes. I get that. But on tht other hand, I think for someone so in the public eye, members should have some idea of the NATURE of the offense. For example, if he were a child molester as opposed to a drunk, I can forgive bit do NOT want him around my children. It bothers me that these churches cover for ministerial and important people more than rank and file

Am I being harsh?

[ken_sylvania]

I know this thread meandered a bit….such is life.

I do wonder, does anyone KNOW, not a single person telling someone here their opinion, but really know on a more wide spread basis, has there been a groundswell of feeling in Eastern about unfair or troublesome ordination practices?

I find, and understand, many of my Eastern friends hesitant so speak on it. Again, the USSR parallels are uncanny. They just will not discuss certain issues. In fact, I know a couple that visited us recently were sort of “checked out” by the ministry on why they visited us.
I guess the commissars do have to check up on party members activities from time to time.

And here is another question that is related. I know of a very well regarded person in EPMC that rose to bishop. The something happened, and they were effectively suspended. A couple of years later that person is back to being a minister, preaching, but no longer a bishop nor appropriately not assigned to their prior congregation. Just a minister at large

Now, on the one hand sins need not be publicizes. I get that. But on tht other hand, I think for someone so in the public eye, members should have some idea of the NATURE of the offense. For example, if he were a child molester as opposed to a drunk, I can forgive bit do NOT want him around my children. It bothers me that these churches cover for ministerial and important people more than rank and file

Am I being harsh?

How can anyone "KNOW" absolutely, rather than just having an opinion based on what they have seen/heard? And how can one be 100% positive that there is not a groundswell of feeling, vs simply not being aware of it?

[mike]

I know this thread meandered a bit….such is life.

I do wonder, does anyone KNOW, not a single person telling someone here their opinion, but really know on a more wide spread basis, has there been a groundswell of feeling in Eastern about unfair or troublesome ordination practices?

I find, and understand, many of my Eastern friends hesitant so speak on it. Again, the USSR parallels are uncanny. They just will not discuss certain issues. In fact, I know a couple that visited us recently were sort of “checked out” by the ministry on why they visited us.
I guess the commissars do have to check up on party members activities from time to time.

And here is another question that is related. I know of a very well regarded person in EPMC that rose to bishop. The something happened, and they were effectively suspended. A couple of years later that person is back to being a minister, preaching, but no longer a bishop nor appropriately not assigned to their prior congregation. Just a minister at large

Now, on the one hand sins need not be publicizes. I get that. But on tht other hand, I think for someone so in the public eye, members should have some idea of the NATURE of the offense. For example, if he were a child molester as opposed to a drunk, I can forgive bit do NOT want him around my children. It bothers me that these churches cover for ministerial and important people more than rank and file

Am I being harsh?

I have no idea, not being Eastern, but my conference is derived from Eastern and has some similar dynamics. I once asked someone who joined the conference what they liked about it, and was surprised by one thing he said. He said that he appreciates how our leadership remains quiet about situations and issues even when it would benefit or vindicate them to let all the facts be known. So there's that possibility when the leadership is mum about things.

However, I feel sure it is often the case that leaders lack transparency in decision making in order to protect themselves, their reputation, and the general idea that leadership in the church should be a revered office not subject to the same scrutiny as lay members. There is a reason Paul said that elders who sin should be rebuked before all, that others also may fear.

[steve-in-kville]

How can anyone "KNOW" absolutely, rather than just having an opinion based on what they have seen/heard? And how can one be 100% positive that there is not a groundswell of feeling, vs simply not being aware of it?

I see both sides of this. It is no fun being accused of horrible things based on someone's wild assumption or because they don't like you or feel intimidated by you. Been down that road...

On the other hand, live life a bit, be around people enough, and one can tell if something is simply "off" with someone. Been down that road, too! To balance that out, I have recently been completely blindsided as well.

[steve-in-kville]

He said that he appreciates how our leadership remains quiet about situations and issues even when it would benefit or vindicate them to let all the facts be known. So there's that possibility when the leadership is mum about things.

I can appreciate that, to an length. Anyone who has been in any type of leadership position for more than 30 minutes soon realizes that they cannot tell everybody everything all the time