Christian Orders and Lessons for Anabaptists and similar groups

[barnhart]

I talk about this model regularly, but so far I can't get much traction...folks have a fundamental mindset.

Is this because most of the lines drawn between conferences, alliances and associations were created defensively?

[Josh]

I talk about this model regularly, but so far I can't get much traction...folks have a fundamental mindset.

Is this because most of the lines drawn between conferences, alliances and associations were created defensively?

It could be because you folks are around people with a fundamentalist mindset. If I’m not mistaken, both your denominations would be classified as a “fundamentalist”.

[Ernie]

I read (or possibly re-read) the articles. There are bits of writing I have come across that if I had my way, everyone I know should read them. These are some of those. I think you do important work. Since 2017, have you seen any of these ideas take hold or make a difference in churches that you are familiar with?

At the time I wrote these articles, I had just started the process of bringing a man from China, who I met at a local park, into our church. Our church was willing to try this gradual entry process with him. After a couple years, he got interested in Orthodoxy and went that direction. So we never really got to the place of him leaving the "provisional membership" status. (We didn't have a formal process, so I am not sure he was even aware or remembered what we had outlined at the beginning. In other words, he thought he was a member, and was good with that. Functionally, he did not enjoy "hashing" meetings where we discussed everything under the sun. So he just avoided such member's meetings.)
Two years ago we did an "Ethiopian eunuch" sort of baptism with a lady who was returning to her home country in about a week. (We had discipled her from atheism in the nine months previous.) So we never got to really complete the process with our church because she left the country a week later. In her mind, she had joined our church. We have frequent virtual discipleship meetings and she is thriving spiritually. Unfortunately, there are no churches in her area that we know of that hold our beliefs and values, so she interacts with an Evangelical church in her city.
Chambersburg Christian Fellowship is the only other church I know of that has experimented with some of these concepts. There are churches like Bradford Mennonite that have functionally done something along this line, without having a formal "provisional membership" type of status.
There are lots of progressive-conservative churches that allow people to commune with them that are not members, but often there is no end date set to this status, and so these folks continue to attend and commune for decades without every committing themselves to a church. In most situations, I don't think this is healthy.

[Ernie]

Any thoughts on why we don't encourage people interested in a plain lifestyle to create their own church instead of trying to join an Anabaptist group? Maybe FotW, is an example of this.

I've had this thought now for about 20 years, ever since realizing that many people are never going to be able to join an Order.

A challenge for plain Anabaptists is that nearly everyone who would go through such a formal process would probably wash out, as well. So then what would we do with all these wash-outs?

Interesting. What makes you think that a formal process would cause wash-outs?

As far as what to do with wash-outs, I think we as Plain Anabaptists should help such folks find a church honors our basic beliefs and values, even if they can't fit into our Order. And as Anderson says above, we can also help them create a church. I think this is where we as Plain Anabaptists have really dropped the ball. If people can't make it into our Order, we don't really have anything to offer them. They are then left to fend for themselves or return to their former Augustinian churches.
The FOTW founders weren't really looking for Anabaptists to help them start their church. They were planning to show Anabaptists and everybody else in the world what church should really look like. (And their experiment has once again allowed the church and the world to observe the results of that oft repeated attitude and worldview.) In contrast, you have folks like The Church at Woburn, who enjoy teaming with Anabaptists in a mutual, respectful manner, even though they would never wish to be Anabaptists themselves. They are glad to admit what they learn from Anabaptists, get advice, and also offer perspectives that they think may be helpful to Anabaptists. I wish Anabaptists could have this sort of relationship with thousands of churches all over the globe.

[Ernie]

I think a "two-tiered" membership would create more problems than it would solve. You say you want them to experience "full fellowship", but if there is a higher tier than most the members of a church have attained, those in the lower tier aren't actually going to experience "full fellowship". Charity and some other more liberal plain Anabaptist groups already experimented with allowing baptism and communion for people who aren't upholding all church standards, and it didn't lead to an improved outcome.

Since MennoDiscuss days, I've moved away from the "two-tiered" vocabulary to "multi-level" vocabulary. My reading of the NT the last ten years has given me the impression that in a diverse church, multiple levels are needed. (and this happens to have some parallels to the process for joining an Augustinian Order)

Here is a more pertinent question: let's say you have a church that has this two-tiered membership. Someone attempts to join the Order, but washes out. They will want to attend church, be baptised, go to communion and so on.

If they wash out, then we help them find or start a faithful church that they can commit themselves to. If you help people from an unchurched or Augustinian church start a non-Augustinian church, it will be a church that is adding value rather than a church that is throwing values out the door. The latter folks would need to be kept away from joining such a church, or they will spoil it for the folks who are trying to add value to their lives.

But what happens when they want to get married? Perhaps they want to get married to someone from a family that is fully committed. So what happens then?

This is a great question. I think it depends on whether parents and influential persons in the congregation are teaching that values and standards and disciplines are a good thing, or whether they are something that are neither here nor there or even a hindrance to spirituality. As Edsel Burdge says, "Some people talk about values and standards as 'baggage' that needs to be gotten rid of. Well... in the normal world baggage is a good thing."
In the spiritual world, many people have a hard time identifying what kind of baggage is detrimental, and what is helpful. Such folks probably wouldn't do well in a church like I am recommending. They should probably stay in a church that tells them what to do. Otherwise, they may trash all the baggage.
I know a pastor who was in a church that did not value baggage at all. They were throwing it all out.
He started dating a lady from a church that was throwing out baggage but not as fast.
The dad of the lady ended the relationship, until this pastor changed churches, and became part of a church that was not throwing out baggage as fast.
The pastor left his pastorate, changed churches, and today he and his father-in-law are the ones in the congregation who are most in favor of keeping good baggage. (the sort of baggage that helps to give people moorings in life and have something to pass on to their children.)
I share this story to say that it is possible for parents and churches to take stands on things and not let their children marry people who are likely to create shipwrecks down the road.

Likewise, let's say some families are seeker families who wash out of joining the "Order". Should their kids attend school or not? What happens with the lifestyle conflicts when eg their children watch TV and talk about TV at school, when the rest of the students and families have a standard against that?

Again, not everybody is suited for being part of a church like this. In some families, peers will have more influence than parents, and they probably need to be part of a church/school where everybody has similar standards. At the end of my article on Christian Orders, I list environments that will not work for what I am proposing.

[Josh]

Any thoughts on why we don't encourage people interested in a plain lifestyle to create their own church instead of trying to join an Anabaptist group? Maybe FotW, is an example of this.

I've had this thought now for about 20 years, ever since realizing that many people are never going to be able to join an Order.

I think the challenge here is that:

#1, many of these people have already tried to start their own church, but they end up with something that is basically just their family. They desire to have more fellowship and have it regularly and are actively seeking it.

#2, many such people are not necessarily someone with the gift of evangelism, so they don't have a way to "recruit" other people to their new church. And a new church started by a seeker might be even harder to join than another plain church. Their new church is going to have all the same challenges of how to induct in new members, teach lifestyle changes, and so forth.

It is not fruitful to have lots of people having "churches" that consist of 1 family.

A challenge for plain Anabaptists is that nearly everyone who would go through such a formal process would probably wash out, as well. So then what would we do with all these wash-outs?

Interesting. What makes you think that a formal process would cause wash-outs?[/quote]

Simply because the current system causes a lot of wash-outs. With multiple tiers, there will be less motivation on the part of the seeker to achieve the higher tiers, and also less motivation on the part of the rest of the congregation to make sure they get accepted into membership. (It seems like a seeker trying to join a church often feels like "hazing", like not being accepted into membership but not being told why, or very strict standards that they have to keep, like wearing a kapp throughout the week consistently for 1 year, that existing members don't comply with.)

[Ernie]

I think the challenge here is that:

#1, many of these people have already tried to start their own church, but they end up with something that is basically just their family. They desire to have more fellowship and have it regularly and are actively seeking it.

I'm aware that there are quite a few such folks, but I think they are a small percentage of those are willing to be part of a disciplined, non-Augustinian church. There are a variety of reasons for why someone maybe wasn't able to launch their own church. Depending on the reason, I may or may not be willing to help them try again.

#2, many such people are not necessarily someone with the gift of evangelism, so they don't have a way to "recruit" other people to their new church. And a new church started by a seeker might be even harder to join than another plain church. Their new church is going to have all the same challenges of how to induct in new members, teach lifestyle changes, and so forth.

Yes, I think the default will be to help people join a church, but there may be a small percentage who can be helped to start a church.

Simply because the current system causes a lot of wash-outs. With multiple tiers, there will be less motivation on the part of the seeker to achieve the higher tiers, and also less motivation on the part of the rest of the congregation to make sure they get accepted into membership. (It seems like a seeker trying to join a church often feels like "hazing", like not being accepted into membership but not being told why, or very strict standards that they have to keep, like wearing a kapp throughout the week consistently for 1 year, that existing members don't comply with.)

This is the very reason that I think they should be included as a full member of the body of Christ for a year or so, while they learn the more nuanced things that what will be expected of them down the road. If they decide at some point during this process that they really don't believe in non-resistance after all like they thought they did originally, well... they can go to an Augustinian church at that point. I've seen this happen.
Once they come to that conclusion, my goal is to help them transition to an Augustinian church while preserving as much relationship as possible. I want them to feel free to return at any point in the future should they decide that the Augustinian route is not what they want after all.

[AndersonD]

Any thoughts on why we don't encourage people interested in a plain lifestyle to create their own church instead of trying to join an Anabaptist group? Maybe FotW, is an example of this.

I've had this thought now for about 20 years, ever since realizing that many people are never going to be able to join an Order.

I think the challenge here is that:

#1, many of these people have already tried to start their own church, but they end up with something that is basically just their family. They desire to have more fellowship and have it regularly and are actively seeking it.

So I know a family like is described. Metaphorically, they are on an island and have been living this way for 20 years. They have tried to join various Mennonite churches but do not feel acceptance. A family down the road joined their fellowship but eventually they parted ways. They live about 1.5 hours from me but a group of us from a 1-2 hour radius fellowship with them every 5th Sunday. We have a wonderful time.