Aaron Shank, PMC Formation

[cooper]

But what strikes me is that some of the men who help create EPMC, I mean the young men in the trenches, not the bishops at the time, went on to become influential and themselves ministry. Yet, the excellent thinking they brought to the table, and I confess were significant in my choosing to join, is sliding away, as their prodigy are the product of their limited education systems and group think.

I thought this was an excellent point. It made me think about a letter written by Aaron Shank to his fellow Eastern bishops in 1988.

Or maybe we do have a similar problem of understanding how to relate properly and when to apply Old Testament principles to New Testament church life. For example--with the exception of the occasions when the early church assembled on the first day of the week for fellowship, the New Testament is completely silent on the sacred observance of the Lord's day. We go to the Old Testament for our convictions on keeping the Lord's day holy. We do the same for the principle of spanking or for the using of the rod in child-training, for dress distinction of the sexes, for specific identification dress for God's children, for our use of the lot (which practice was never even alluded to after the birth of the church), etc.

Just when is it right to profit by and base our practice on Old Testament principles and when is it right to make authentic change where the New Testament does not require such a change? Maybe we should have a "Jerusalem Conference" on this problem sometime.

It seems Aaron Shank is committed to the practices he mentions, but is also committed to fundamentalism. So I find it surprising he's admitting an interpretative (extra-biblical?) framework is necessary because it's not obvious from the Bible which practices are binding to New Testament believers. John D.'s book is an answer to this question, but it's not an answer that fits with the fundamentalism that Aaron Shank and Steve Ebersole were using to critique certain Eastern practices they disagreed with.

I am curious if PIlgrim actually came up with a framework to make these determinations about Old Testament practices the New Testament is silent about. My sense is (could be wrong) that Steve Ebersole and Aaron Shank were asking big questions (destabilizing to conservative Mennonite practice) that when they actually started their own conference they stepped away from. It seems like PMC is somewhat more intellectually honest and humane than EPMC, and is not fundamentally different.

[JayP]

Let me challenge you Cooper. Your closing comments on EPMC and Pilgrim.
How many people do you know in each group, how often have you listened first hand to preaching in each group?

I merely suggest if that number is low do not be too sure about your conclusions.

I am not down on Pilgrim, but I admit it was probably overly provocative when I once said in mixed group of Eastern and Pilgrim folks (after a funeral) that at least in the RCC we needed a LOT of cardinals to elect a Pope…..Pilgrimgot Steve with a lot fewer votes.

[JayP]

On a more serious reply, I wonder how critical Aaron Shank was in the creation of Pilgrim. One can debate the historical differences of the Lebanon district, how significant Stephen Ebersole’s role and ordination to bishop was. Was it inevitable? I think so. The factors were factors. I think in a different time and place neither Aaron nor Sidney would have left.

I think Stephen was significant but on,y in that he was that moments catalyst. Had he never been borne there would have been issues.

The absolute biggest ironies to me, is that in retrospect Pilgrim did slide in the liberal direction that many foretold for the Lebanon district, and the claims of legalism and unfair ministerial actions also proved true. The subsequent Northeastern creation, pulling both Pilgrim folks leaning right and Eastern folks leaning left supports that, IMHO.

[cooper]

Let me challenge you Cooper. Your closing comments on EPMC and Pilgrim.
How many people do you know in each group, how often have you listened first hand to preaching in each group?

I grew up in Wash Franklin and heard a lot of visiting ministers from Eastern and a lot of relatives and friends went Pilgrim so I hear some of the church politics.

I’m curious which part of my last statement you disagree with. I think broadly Pilgrim is more gentle with church discipline but I’ve also heard horror stories about Steve Ebersole telling mentally ill people to stop taking drugs here meds.

[JayP]

I think your example touches on my comment. From some perspectives it is very easy to say Pilgrim is less disciplining. But then I wonder are we talking about a less restrictive discipline (the rules themselves) or a less active disciplinary action.

And finally, as you have pointed out, sometimes Pilgrim seems more lax in both items until……you touch one of Stephen’s pet topics. Then he turns into the reincarnation of Ben Eshbach and Aaron Sensenig rolled into one!

This was my point questioning your conclusions. I am not saying you are wrong, just I am never sure it’s as simple as, well Eastern is tougher in discipline.

Free confession. I met Stephen E. And was exposed to him LONG before I ever thought of joining an Anabaptist church.
He always sort of gave me the willies. I absolutely do not have the answers for Eastern or Pilgrims issues. But at least in Eastern there are enough bishops that it’s not a one man band. I belong to a church with a Pope. No anabaptist group needs one, but some have one nonetheless.