Appalachian Mennonite Church

[ken_sylvania]

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.

There's someone I know who has that "gift" of being able to tell when meeting someon if something is "off" with that person. Unfortunately, some who believe they have that gift also tend to suffer from confirmation bias. For this particular individual, from what I can tell, about 5% of the people they meet are "wonderful", 35% are "unrated", 40% are "off" and 20% are "horrible people" (some of their acquaintences kind of rotate through the categories). As you might expect, the 5% of scandals that happen involving people in the "wonderful" category always have mitigating circumstances (typically, the root cause is tied to another person or organization in the "horrible" category). So, this person has basically a 0.999 batting average in reading people (self-rated). And they are so confident in their ability to read a situation they have no problem taking the most mundane of actions and spinning a sordid tale of debauchery and sin - and spreading that tale to others by way of "concern."

[steve-in-kville]

And they are so confident in their ability to read a situation they have no problem taking the most mundane of actions and spinning a sordid tale of debauchery and sin - and spreading that tale to others by way of "concern."

And that would a great example of the first scenario I mentioned

[joshuabgood]

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.

What to say and what not to, in leadership, is one of the great wisdom questions.

[mike]

What to say and what not to, in leadership, is one of the great wisdom questions.

Yes.

[Josh]

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.

Most of my "information" has come from ex-Eastern people who still have relatives there. Their relatives will speak privately a bit more openly about things. In turn, the ex-Eastern people are comfortable talking to me about what they hear.

I would never be able to get an Eastern member to say much of anything to me at all, much as one wouldn't just walk up to a USSR citizen and ask them for details about what they think is corrupt.

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

I had heard rumours about this (somewhat different from your story, though). One thing is obvious: information and facts are not forthcoming. And from what I can tell, this is old Lancaster Conference heritage to run things like a Politburo. I can't imagine what life was like in Lancaster M. C. in 1950 - you just did whatever you were told to do, tried not to think too much, and when your leadership proposed massive lifestyle changes, you just accepted it and did it. It must have been very bizarre to be raised that one must wear a plain coat and a kapp, and then later be told, oh there is actually no need for such things.

[chrisn]

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'm not sure about opinions in the broader Eastern church (dissenting opinions are usually very private for some reason...), but at our church there was definitely some discontent about the ordination practices at our last ordination ~5 years ago.

In one of the services/messages leading up to the ordination, the bishop outright said that they (the bishops & ministry) had a right to reject someone from the lot even if they received the required nominations. Apparently some of the younger members didn't realize this was generally accepted practice (the last ordination at our church was 10+ years before that), so several people shared their feelings about this at counsel services since then. At least one family left shortly afterwards due to not agreeing on this (and other) issues.

Our church has a lot of people from Horning background (it was started by mostly Horning people before Eastern started), so "horror stories" about Horning nomination practices get brought up to show why Eastern's practice is necessary/better - for example only 1 nomination was needed, so people were nominated to "straighten them out", people who couldn't read, etc.

[JayP]

Just to clarify I think my point was misunderstood, probably because I expressed it poorly

I meant there is a difference between having the conclusion there are lot issues based on a single individual sharing a story (I.e one irate meme or of say Easterm) versus having heard multiple sources on the topic.

I asked because I think I have heard enough various things to see smoke but not enoug( to confirm the fire

[cmbl]

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?

"Losing the Trust" is a document written by a member of the Eastern church in answer to a bishop's question of why so many good Eastern families are losing trust and leaving. It identifies the ordination practices as one of several reasons.

Specifically, the names of men who have received the requisite number of nominations are not read out at the end of the nomination service. This is not the same as all the men nominated having their names read out, and men later being disqualified as part of the examination. The anonymous author of "Losing the Trust," and the others who have noticed and been bothered by this behavior, would be OK with the latter practice, but not with the former.

I have heard from at least two current members in Pilgrim about this practice in Eastern.

In Pilgrim, I'm aware of two nominations where a man's name was read out, and the man later disqualified as part of the examination.

[JayP]

I am familiar with the document in question, having a copy. I think overall it was/is a beneficial exercise.
I am always flabbergasted when I see someone in the lot that seems brutally a poor choice but for their family name.
I would suggest that the bishop “override” is a one way street. I have it on y to do list that as I happen to talk to some bishops this year to raise the topic. I would not reach out JUST to discuss that topic but rather will wait until I happen to see or talk to one of them on some other topic.

[eccentric_rambler]

JayP, I'm curious what you mean by "a one way street". Perhaps that the bishops may exercise it but individuals do not have any such recourse?

Would you be willing to send me a copy of Losing the Trust? Send a PM and let me know what works best for you.