Cons. Anabaptist ordination practices

[Soloist]

Is it a carryover from Catholicism? The whole idea that the legitimacy of an ordained leader comes from who ordained them.

Maybe, I somehow think the early Protestants did the same.

The Anabaptists are recorded as having immediately ordained another if their leader is killed so I suspect they saw it as less important.

[ohio jones]

Is it a carryover from Catholicism? The whole idea that the legitimacy of an ordained leader comes from who ordained them.

Maybe, I somehow think the early Protestants did the same.

The Anabaptists are recorded as having immediately ordained another if their leader is killed so I suspect they saw it as less important.

But should it happen that through the cross this pastor should be banished or led to the Lord [through martyrdom] another shall be ordained in his place in the same hour so that God's little flock and people may not be destroyed.

So who did the ordaining in this case? Not a bishop, unless one was already there or within close proximity. Apparently the choosing of a pastor by the brothers and sisters of the church was considered ordination.

[Josh]

"Interesting" that #3 wasn't relevant outside of the mission field...

The amount of "hazing" that conservative Anabaptists do of new converts is ridiculous. Like requiring a family that wants to join to wear a cape dress and kapp for a year, consistently throughout the week, before being accepted as members, when their own members don't do that. A friend of mine got subjected to this.

A few years later, that church dropped the kapp, and its women are now sporting smaller and smaller "veils" (more like doilies). My friend is now fond of pointing out that his wife continues to consistently wear an appropriately sized head covering. To use his words, "Our righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees."

[steve-in-kville]

"Interesting" that #3 wasn't relevant outside of the mission field...

The amount of "hazing" that conservative Anabaptists do of new converts is ridiculous. Like requiring a family that wants to join to wear a cape dress and kapp for a year, consistently throughout the week, before being accepted as members, when their own members don't do that. A friend of mine got subjected to this.

It can be like joining a fraternity or secret society, at least it appears that way at times

[mike]

"Interesting" that #3 wasn't relevant outside of the mission field...

The amount of "hazing" that conservative Anabaptists do of new converts is ridiculous. Like requiring a family that wants to join to wear a cape dress and kapp for a year, consistently throughout the week, before being accepted as members, when their own members don't do that. A friend of mine got subjected to this.

A few years later, that church dropped the kapp, and its women are now sporting smaller and smaller "veils" (more like doilies). My friend is now fond of pointing out that his wife continues to consistently wear an appropriately sized head covering. To use his words, "Our righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees."

That kind of thing is pretty annoying. In our church, it appears to me that outsiders may get special considerations and allowances when joining, to the point where some people grumble about it.

[Josh]

That kind of thing is pretty annoying. In our church, it appears to me that outsiders may get special considerations and allowances when joining, to the point where some people grumble about it.

Yes, this appears to be a trait of moderate-conservative Mennonites. My own group was quite refreshing in that it doesn't do these sort of stunts. (They also don't have secret meetings where they decide whether or not to accept a new application for membership, and then not tell them the reasons why they weren't accepted.)

[mike]

That kind of thing is pretty annoying. In our church, it appears to me that outsiders may get special considerations and allowances when joining, to the point where some people grumble about it.

Yes, this appears to be a trait of moderate-conservative Mennonites. My own group was quite refreshing in that it doesn't do these sort of stunts. (They also don't have secret meetings where they decide whether or not to accept a new application for membership, and then not tell them the reasons why they weren't accepted.)

I think the primary cause of that kind of thing is an excessive amount of unwritten rules, or of rules that are arbitrarily enforced. This creates a lot of awkwardness when a new person joins who didn't grow up in the culture, because they have no way of knowing all the nuances. When a group is more straight up about what the requirements are to join, this doesn't really need to happen. In our conference, basically if you're willing to agree to the statement of faith and conform to the discipline, you're in. There isn't a lot of drama about it.

[Soloist]

That kind of thing is pretty annoying. In our church, it appears to me that outsiders may get special considerations and allowances when joining, to the point where some people grumble about it.

Yes, this appears to be a trait of moderate-conservative Mennonites. My own group was quite refreshing in that it doesn't do these sort of stunts. (They also don't have secret meetings where they decide whether or not to accept a new application for membership, and then not tell them the reasons why they weren't accepted.)

I think the primary cause of that kind of thing is an excessive amount of unwritten rules, or of rules that are arbitrarily enforced. This creates a lot of awkwardness when a new person joins who didn't grow up in the culture, because they have no way of knowing all the nuances. When a group is more straight up about what the requirements are to join, this doesn't really need to happen. In our conference, basically if you're willing to agree to the statement of faith and conform to the discipline, you're in. There isn't a lot of drama about it.

I hate rules that say something plainly yet doesn't mean what it says.

[mike]

Yes, this appears to be a trait of moderate-conservative Mennonites. My own group was quite refreshing in that it doesn't do these sort of stunts. (They also don't have secret meetings where they decide whether or not to accept a new application for membership, and then not tell them the reasons why they weren't accepted.)

I think the primary cause of that kind of thing is an excessive amount of unwritten rules, or of rules that are arbitrarily enforced. This creates a lot of awkwardness when a new person joins who didn't grow up in the culture, because they have no way of knowing all the nuances. When a group is more straight up about what the requirements are to join, this doesn't really need to happen. In our conference, basically if you're willing to agree to the statement of faith and conform to the discipline, you're in. There isn't a lot of drama about it.

I hate rules that say something plainly yet doesn't mean what it says.

I guess I would prefer, if anything, to find out that there is more flexibility than what it first appears, than to have the opposite. That's the way it generally is in our conference. For example one finds out that there is a bit of flexibility over when it's OK to wear the hanging veil. For example, traveling, visiting the dentist, around the house, and so forth appear to be unwritten exceptions to the rule. Still, the disparity between what we say and do can be annoying.

[Soloist]

I guess I would prefer, if anything, to find out that there is more flexibility than what it first appears, than to have the opposite. That's the way it generally is in our conference. For example one finds out that there is a bit of flexibility over when it's OK to wear the hanging veil. For example, traveling, visiting the dentist, around the house, and so forth appear to be unwritten exceptions to the rule. Still, the disparity between what we say and do can be annoying.

Flexibility is dependent on which family line you ask or which church leader.

One issue between seekers and MB is very obvious when you think about it. You were raised with a standard. We adopted a standard. Who is more likely to actually have read the standard? The one who believes he knows? Or the one who knows he doesn’t know.
There are several kinds of standards too. The old person standard left for the sake of keeping peace that none of the young people follow.
The leadership standard that no one liked but accepted because the leadership wanted it (they only do it when it’s visible)
The standard everyone agreed on but all have subjective exceptions that don’t agree with each other.
The standard never removed that no one follows
The standard not written down that everyone practiced (in other words, it became a standard when someone didn’t do it)
I’m sure there are others but if the application of standards by the CM is any reflection on how they might treat the teachings of Jesus…