Cons. Anabaptist ordination practices

[Josh]

This is a thread to discuss how CAs ordain leaders.

Thread rules: this is for discussion of conservative and plain Anabaptist groups only, according to Cory Anderson’s definitions.

Thread Participants should not speculate about ordination practices but instead share what they actually know.

[Josh]

According to my understanding, conservative Mennonites (but not Amish nor Amish-Mennonites) conduct ordinations by lot. One source told me 25% or so of ordinations won’t be by lot, but whomever oversees the ordination (typically bishops) will simply choose the nominee(s) they like best. The other 75% or so of the time, multiple nominees will be in the lot, and one will be picked at random.

The overseers may nominate a nominee with just 1 vote. The congregation might have 25 votes, but the overseers have the final say, and may decide to pull out the more popular candidate and keep the candidate they like. A term for this is “the Mennonite church is not a democracy”. An ordination may be for multiple ministers. The overseers will decide how many to ordain. So there may be 4 nominees, and 2 would be ordained if the overseers see fit.

Amish or some Amish-Mennonites always use the lot, and when there is doubt they may have a “blank” Bible or hymnal placed in the lot. The congregation’s nominees are chosen by whomever is nominated. This reflects their more “congregational” nature vs the “conference” model of conservative Mennonites. (There may certainly be exceptions to what I described above for both types of groups; Charity -and “independent” churches will be a random mix of the above two practices.)

German Baptists, Holdemans, and Apostolic Christians simply cast ballots and the majority “wins”. There is no lot. I don’t know more about GB and AC practice. In Holdeman circles, generally a nominee needs to have 60% or more support (maybe more if the congregation is perceived as troubled) to be ordained. In Holdeman elections, multiple candidates can be on a ballot, but an election is either for a minister or a deacon or both, but never more. Holdemans do not have bishops, so elections are overseen by ministers and deacons from other nearby congregations plus 2 ministers who just conducted revival meetings plus a successful communion.

For whatever reasons, the ballot totals and reasons for selection are secret. Holdemans don’t share the totals with the congregation. Conservative Mennonites don’t share the nominee totals or report on reasons why the overseers may have chosen a less popular nominee. The justification is “You should trust us because we are your leaders”.

Please correct any details I have wrong.

[Neto]

Is there a link for this list by Cory Anderson?
Thanks.

[Josh]

Is there a link for this list by Cory Anderson?
Thanks.

See https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/cgi/vie ... ishstudies

I believe your group will be in Mennonite (Swiss) Group A - Unaffiliated. Mine is under Mennonites - Russian/Low German. There are new groups since this was published but the basic ideas are in that pdf.

[Ernie]

According to my understanding, conservative Mennonites (but not Amish nor Amish-Mennonites) conduct ordinations by lot. One source told me 25% or so of ordinations won’t be by lot, but whomever oversees the ordination (typically bishops) will simply choose the nominee(s) they like best. The other 75% or so of the time, multiple nominees will be in the lot, and one will be picked at random.

Conservative Mennonites and Beachy Amish-Mennonites use the lot if more than one candidate receives enough votes. Old Order Mennonites almost always use the lot and may have up to 8 or 10 men in the lot in a big congregation.
Conservative Mennonites and Beachy's have a lot of smaller congregations, and perhaps 25% of the time, only one man is named for ordination.

It depends on the conference/fellowship and the overseeing bishops/ministers as to whether...
1. the presiding bishops/ministers take the votes and simply report to the congregation whether or not there will be a lot based on numbers/percentages that were announced/agreed upon prior to the voting.
or
2. The overseeing bishops/ministers can have some freedom to decide whether or not there will be a lot and who will be in it.

What often happens is that no clear polity is stated to the congregation, the presiding bishops/ministers remove some persons from being eligible, and then some in the congregation call foul play. Bishops or ministers may assume that it is their prerogative to remove some persons from being eligible, but it is never written down anywhere, and since ordinations don't happen that often, a congregation can be caught by surprise whenever names are made ineligible by the presiding bishops/ministers and the congregation may hear what happens by the grapevine.

After one ordination, I was in a harvester combine with a Mennonite bishop who was talking to a bishop or minister in another state. The bishop driving the combine said, "It was really clear. One man had most of the votes. There were a few other scattered votes but it was really clear what the voice of the church was." That was the first I knew that there were other "scattered votes" as this was not announced to the congregation.
I don't have any reason to distrust this bishop, but since no numbers or percentages were shared with the congregation, those who might have reason to distrust the bishop could wonder if everything was handled appropriately.

[Neto]

Is there a link for this list by Cory Anderson?
Thanks.

See https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/cgi/vie ... ishstudies

I believe your group will be in Mennonite (Swiss) Group A - Unaffiliated. Mine is under Mennonites - Russian/Low German. There are new groups since this was published but the basic ideas are in that pdf.

I read carefully through parts of the document, and more or less skimmed other parts.

Although I didn't find a list in the document that would make this clear to me, I suspect that Gospel Haven would not qualify for this thread, so I will confine myself to comments about the paper itself.

Comments:
I was surprised to see "Foster" referenced, but then after checking the bibliography, realized that it is a different Foster, not George Foster, with whose writings I am more acquainted.

His treatment of the Dutch Mennonites, to whom he refers as "Russian Mennonites" (perhaps more properly 'Mennists', or 'Dutch Baptism-Minded') is very brief, and not entirely correct, but mostly due to brevity, or incomplete description.

I found the discussion as to whether 'Plain Anabaptists' can be characterized as a 'Folk Society' of particular interest, as that is a term well-known in traditional anthropology. (Traditional Societies and Technological Change, 1973, by George M. Foster, and a book about cultural change by Arensburg & Smith, the title of which I cannot recall. Also in Missiology works like Customs and Cultures, 1954, & Message and Mission, 1960, both by Eugene A. Nida.)

His charts do not show the Mennonite Brethren at all that I could tell (looking at the landscape oriented charts side ways...).

As to your own group, I would not classify them with "Low German" or "Russian Mennonites", because although a large percentage of members are of Plautdietsch ethnic heritage, they left the Russian Mennonite context when they joined the Church of God in Christ Mennonite.

If his classification in that case is accepted, then groups like many Russian Baptists could be correctly classified as "Russian Mennonite", and more specifically as Mennonite Brethren, because many Mennonite Brethren congregations later affiliated with the Baptists, especially after Soviet control became more and more entrenched. The Baptists somehow managed to gain some sort of recognition under Soviet rule, which the Mennonite Brethren failed to achieve. I have previously referred to Russian immigrants who, after arrival in the USA, around 1980, formally affiliated with the MB conference. (Likewise some Ukrainian Baptist churches.) Some Plautdietsch surnames can be found in their group, and they are also 'conservative' in many elements which Anderson referenced in this work. But while I recognize, as they themselves did, our common heritage and faith, I would still say that while many of them share my ethnic heritage, they are primarily Baptist, not Mennonite Brethren. But actually, in their case, since they ARE officially affiliated with the MB conference, that would be less correct to say than it is in respect to identifying CoGiCM folks as "Russian Mennonite", UNLESS the latter term is being used as an ethnic descriptor. But I do not get that impression from how he is using the term. I do not intend this as an affront to your church group, and I sincerely hope that what I've written here does not come across that way.

Perhaps, however, I am too uninformed regarding areas in which the CoGiCM may have officially adopted beliefs or practices from Dutch Mennonite religious expression at the time of the mass influx of Plautdietsch people, that is, ways in which the CoGiCM became heavily influenced by Dutch Mennonite thought, bringing about fundamental changes in the resulting fellowship as a whole. (Or, did those congregations that were almost totally Plautdietch retain most of their "former" system of belief and practice, things which may have later filtered into the group as a whole, over time?)

These are questions which I have wanted to ask you about, especially if there are written works that outline formal changes that took place, specifically in the realm of doctrine and practice. (I do have other contacts within the CoGiCM with whom I could raise these questions, but I have not done so yet, so will let the inquiry stand here as well.)

[Josh]

Gospel Haven qualifies and is in Cory’s maps. It is a Type A Conservative Mennonite - Unaffiliated. (GH really should count as its own affiliation, though, as it now has a network of several closely related churches.)

Cogicm really is a Dutch Anabaptist group, largely because John Holdeman tried to return to Anabaptism as he read about it in books by early Dutch Anabaptist writers. So, cogicm holds the Dutch position on marriage, the Dutch pattern of ordinations (this one was a new one to me that I just learned about), no lots, and quite a few other aspects of Dutch theology as opposed to Swiss Brethren theology. Coupled with this, Cogicm’s ethnic Mennonites are majority Molosch and Polsch peoples, with Swiss background being a minority. (5% of ethnic Holdemans are German Lutheran background.) Overall, Dutch thinking “prevails”. We would usually refer to it more of “preachers from Kansas” (who would bring a Dutch + Polsch mindset). In Canada virtually everyone is Molosch.

Mennonite Brethren that aren’t plain at all aren’t in Cory’s list. Groups like Kleine Gemeinde are. He would like to add the various “Russian Baptist” groups but it’s hard to get information on them.

[mike]

According to my understanding, conservative Mennonites (but not Amish nor Amish-Mennonites) conduct ordinations by lot. One source told me 25% or so of ordinations won’t be by lot, but whomever oversees the ordination (typically bishops) will simply choose the nominee(s) they like best. The other 75% or so of the time, multiple nominees will be in the lot, and one will be picked at random.

The overseers may nominate a nominee with just 1 vote. The congregation might have 25 votes, but the overseers have the final say, and may decide to pull out the more popular candidate and keep the candidate they like. A term for this is “the Mennonite church is not a democracy”. An ordination may be for multiple ministers. The overseers will decide how many to ordain. So there may be 4 nominees, and 2 would be ordained if the overseers see fit.

In our conference, I believe it takes at least 3 or maybe 5 to qualify. Several of our ordinations have had no lot, because only one person qualified. So that person was ordained. Also, in another recent ordination in the conference, a person was either disqualified or asked to be disqualified because he didn't support certain positions of the church. This was announced not only in that congregation but in others in the conference. I think that's as it should be. I think that if the congregation's voice is going to be disregarded in that way, it is good for the church at large to know that, and the reason why. I don't know if that's common practice, or whether sometimes the church isn't told.

[Josh]

Mike, in your experience, could the presiding bishops basically override the congregation’s choice of nominee?

[Neto]

Gospel Haven qualifies and is in Cory’s maps. It is a Type A Conservative Mennonite - Unaffiliated. (GH really should count as its own affiliation, though, as it now has a network of several closely related churches.)

Cogicm really is a Dutch Anabaptist group, largely because John Holdeman tried to return to Anabaptism as he read about it in books by early Dutch Anabaptist writers. So, cogicm holds the Dutch position on marriage, the Dutch pattern of ordinations (this one was a new one to me that I just learned about), no lots, and quite a few other aspects of Dutch theology as opposed to Swiss Brethren theology. Coupled with this, Cogicm’s ethnic Mennonites are majority Molosch and Polsch peoples, with Swiss background being a minority. (5% of ethnic Holdemans are German Lutheran background.) Overall, Dutch thinking “prevails”. We would usually refer to it more of “preachers from Kansas” (who would bring a Dutch + Polsch mindset). In Canada virtually everyone is Molosch.

Mennonite Brethren that aren’t plain at all aren’t in Cory’s list. Groups like Kleine Gemeinde are. He would like to add the various “Russian Baptist” groups but it’s hard to get information on them.

There are actually varied ordination practices within the "Dutch Mennonite" group, dating back to the differing Flemish and Fresian practices.
I may have mentioned this before, and maybe you did make further explanation, but I have never heard the terms "Polsch" and "Molosch" from anyone of Plautdietsch ethnicity. ["Molosch" I would guess to be referring to those from the Molotschna Colony - as is my dad's side of my family, but "Polsch" remains a puzzle, unless it refers to "Polish". All of my mom's family are from the Chortitsa Colony, and may include some Polish people who joined the Mennonites during the time in Prussia, but the majority of those in both of these two first colonies came from the Mennonite settlements there in Prussia - present day Poland. I never met a CoGiC member until I came here, to Holmes County, Ohio. I knew OF them, mostly through a GCM guy from central Kansas who roomed across the hall from me at Grace Bible Institute, but that was the extent of it.]

I suppose it's logical that John Holdeman would look to the Dutch tradition, since (as was explained to me by someone here) he came out of the group we always referred to as "Old Mennonite", who I understand to be the group from whom the Amish separated, over conflicts of doctrine and practice. Also, of course, apparently most of the early writings are from the Dutch tradition.

One other note about Anderson's cited work - Some Russian Mennonite historians in the mid 1800's believed that the Dutch movement was influenced more heavily by Waldenses than by the Swiss Brethren. I do not know what sorts of "evidence" they had. Perhaps it was more "wishful thinking" than actual fact, a desire to establish the appearance of an independent history.

So, if Gospel Haven is within the requirements of this topic, here is my impression of how the ordination process is carried out. (I say 'impression' because I have never had an "insider's view".)
The voice of the church is taken, generally by the process of each member passing through a room where the ministers and at least one visiting minister are seated at a table. The member may either write a name on a card and hand it to one of the ministers, or may speak the name.
These 'votes' are tallied by the group of ministers, and they look at where there is a major break in numbers. The names on this short list are not disclosed to the congregation.
The top men in the count are visited, at which time they may either accept or decline to be in the lot. I, at least, have never heard that someone declined, although I suspect that other members of the congregation would be more likely to hear of it than I.
If there is a huge gap after a single name, then that person is ordained without use of the lot, after a vote of affirmation by the congregation. (There are established percentages used to determine acceptable gaps. This procedure has been outlined publicly, but I do not recall the exact computations.) That is, there is no requirement that there be a selection by lot. If the lot is used, there are never fewer than 3 men on the list.
A card with a Bible verse printed on it is placed in one of several hymn books (matching in number to how many men are in the lot). The men who are in the lot are seated in the front row of the meeting area. The minister conducting the ordination stands during the entire service. (I mention this facet of the process only because this is one of the differences found within Dutch Mennonite ordination practices, standing or seated.) Each man chooses a hymnal, and hand it to the officiating minister one at a time, until the card is found.

I have heard that consideration might be given regarding the removal of a name from those indicated by the voice of the church, if the ministry feels that it would create a conflicting relationship among the serving ministers. I have no idea if this has ever happened in the 40 plus years of the existence of Gospel Haven.

[If any member of GH reads this, and finds an error in my description here, please speak to me, or leave a note in my box at the church house, and I will add a note of correction here.]