That is absolutely amazing to me. Essentially that is disqualifying votes. I wonder if this practice is widespread in CA churches. I have never heard of it.
I had never heard of it either. I don't trust it. There. I said so publicly. Now I guess I should also let my leaders know how I feel about it.
That brings up another question. Obviously in your case the leaders know who is casting the votes. Is it always the case among CAs that votes in an ordination are cast in such a way that the ministry knows who is voting for who?
This is also the case at our congregation (Gospel Haven, Benton, OH, Holmes Co.). This was totally new to me, coming from the secret (written) balloting procedure in the MB conference.
Why is it this way?
Does anyone know when this became (apparently) standard procedure among Swiss Brethren derived groups?
Has anyone heard the reasoning behind it?
0 x
Congregation: Gospel Haven Mennonite Fellowship, Benton, Ohio (Holmes Co.) a split from Beachy-Amish Mennonite.
Personal heritage & general theological viewpoint: conservative Mennonite Brethren.
ken_sylvania wrote: ↑Mon Jan 08, 2024 11:13 am
Would you say that the method the early church used to elect Matthias showed that they did not truly believe in the lot?
Signtist wrote: ↑Mon Jan 08, 2024 10:53 am
Midwest Fellowship.
Everyone votes, husbands and wives are a separate vote. But, if you and your dad and your brother vote for the same guy, or your best friend and your brother-in-law and you vote for the same guy, that's one vote.
The leadership is very open about "looking for patterns" not numbers. First time I heard that I was surprised. Next time I heard that, I was disgusted. It seems to me like that is opening things up pretty far to just trust leadership, and allows them a little more freedom than I'm comfortable with.
Our church, at least, does not believe in the lot. We say we do, but we don't. The lot is nothing more than the final vehicle to choose between leader approved candidates, if there happens to be 2 or more acceptable candidates. We do not trust the Holy Spirit to guide people to nominate according to God's will, though there are plenty of sermons surrounding ordinations that say we do and need to.
I am sorry to report that my experience with Mid-West is exactly the same as you described above.
I am curious if this is the norm in other moderate conservative churches. (Ernie shared with me that he thinks it may be, and would be found in ultra churches as well.)
mike's input about an intermediate church is interesting. Intermediates may be deviating from the pattern of moderates and ultras a bit.
ken_sylvania wrote: ↑Mon Jan 08, 2024 11:35 am
In our conference:
So - EPMC?
ken_sylvania wrote: ↑Mon Jan 08, 2024 11:35 am
There is a standardized procedure that is followed, and it is read and explained during the nomination service. It is common, possibly standard, for this explanation to include the statement that the bishops will exercise discretion in receiving nominations - ie. they are not expected to ordain an individual who they believe to be unfit for the office.
The question is two-fold:
1. Should this be allowed to happen in secret or not? Names would not have to be named, but transparency that someone was held back would be better, in my opinion. Or better yet, if EPMC, let them continue through to examination as called for by the discipline. Which brings us to point 2 -
2. Do we believe that a few ordained men are expected to have a better sense of God's will than a congregation of church brethren? Or can we perhaps see that allowing those who will be expected to work with the newly ordained leader to veto his continuing to examination is quite open to allowing personality or personal perception to block someone who may have been God's will?
Signtist wrote: ↑Mon Jan 08, 2024 10:53 am
Midwest Fellowship.
Everyone votes, husbands and wives are a separate vote. But, if you and your dad and your brother vote for the same guy, or your best friend and your brother-in-law and you vote for the same guy, that's one vote.
The leadership is very open about "looking for patterns" not numbers. First time I heard that I was surprised. Next time I heard that, I was disgusted. It seems to me like that is opening things up pretty far to just trust leadership, and allows them a little more freedom than I'm comfortable with.
This seems a little problematic to me too. Both the idea of family members voting for their own family, and the idea that the leadership operates the procedure in this manner. But I guess it is good that they are very open about what they are doing, so I guess there is that.
mike wrote: ↑Mon Jan 08, 2024 10:27 am
In our conference, I believe everyone of a certain age votes in an ordination. Are there any CA churches where voting is restricted in any way other than by age?
Our church allows all baptized members to vote. Same as Old Conference German Baptists. I expect that all members could vote on ousting a leader as well.
I don't think this is wise as I know a church that attracted a lot of youth. With the youth in a majority, the youth basically ousted a leader.
0 x
The old woodcutter spoke again. “It is impossible to talk with you. You always draw conclusions. Life is so vast, yet you judge all of life with one page or one word. You see only a fragment. Unless you know the whole story, how can you judge?"
mike wrote: ↑Mon Jan 08, 2024 11:04 amThat brings up another question. Obviously in your case the leaders know who is casting the votes. Is it always the case among CAs that votes in an ordination are cast in such a way that the ministry knows who is voting for who?
In Washington/Franklin, votes are given in person.
Our church does not have a set way of doing it. At the first ordinations, the elder went around to the various brothers in the church and asked them who they thought should be ordained.
At our third ordination, secret ballots were used.
At our fourth ordination, emails were sent to two elders.
0 x
The old woodcutter spoke again. “It is impossible to talk with you. You always draw conclusions. Life is so vast, yet you judge all of life with one page or one word. You see only a fragment. Unless you know the whole story, how can you judge?"
mike wrote: ↑Mon Jan 08, 2024 11:04 am
That brings up another question. Obviously in your case the leaders know who is casting the votes. Is it always the case among CAs that votes in an ordination are cast in such a way that the ministry knows who is voting for who?
This is also the case at our congregation (Gospel Haven, Benton, OH, Holmes Co.). This was totally new to me, coming from the secret (written) balloting procedure in the MB conference.
Why is it this way?
Has anyone heard the reasoning behind it?
The reasoning is that the under-shepherds need to give account for everything that happens in the church under their watch. They feel they need to weigh who is voting for whom and take that into consideration.
0 x
The old woodcutter spoke again. “It is impossible to talk with you. You always draw conclusions. Life is so vast, yet you judge all of life with one page or one word. You see only a fragment. Unless you know the whole story, how can you judge?"
The local ministry invites a preacher from a different church to come and help.
The congregation is reminded not to just nominate your family or your buddy. Congregation is encouraged to give a nomination instead of just wishing the Lords blessing on the process. But you are free to do either. There would be a problem if no one receives enough votes to hit the minimum threshold.
The ministry considers the amount of possible voters, and decides and announces the number of votes required for a person to be nominated. A large congregation may have this number set at 13 or a small half size congregation may be as low as 5. Members must be 18 years old in order to vote.
The ministry and the visiting preachers are in a private room. Each single voter, or each married couple walks into the room and verbally tells the ministry the name of their vote. Husband and wife are free each give different nominations, or the same nomination, each spouse is 1 vote.
The ministry does not ever privately disqualify a person who has been nominated. I would find that to be highly scandalous and problematic if they tinkered with the vote totals or anything like that without prior ratification of such a thing by the congregation. Never has one in my memory ever been disqualified at all. But I do reckon that the ministry would publicly disqualify someone if that happed. The threshold for disqualification though would probably be very high.
After the votes are taken, the ministry emerges from the room, and publicly reads the names of the nominees. We are never given vote total at all. So we don't know if someone got the majority, or if someone got the minimum threshold.
Then the nominees are interviewed by the ministry the next day. Sometimes a nominee will for personal reasons, remove himself at this point from the ordination process. In this case, the church is notified that the nominee has with drawn his name. I know one man that did this, and then the next ordination he was nominated again by the church, and this time went through with it and was ordained. He felt more at peace the second time.
We use the same number of songbooks as there are candidates. No "extra book". This is because we aren't asking God to decide if any of the men should or shouldn't be ordained. We are asking God to show us which of these qualified men it should be. The lot isn't more sacred than the voice of the church, but rather it is the deciding factor that causes contentions to cease.
If there is only one nominee that reaches the set number of votes, that man is ordained and no lot is necessary in any way to prove or confirm that he is Gods choice. We believe that Gods people should be able to discern qualified men. It's only when there is multiple qualified men, that the lot is used, and that is because we have an overabundance, and we only need one.
Last edited by RZehr on Mon Jan 08, 2024 3:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
