Governance Differences between Mennonite Brethren and Swiss Brethren?

[MaxPC]

Neto brought up intriguing information in another thread:

Another major difference is that the church governance in at least the MB conference is markedly different than that of any Swiss Brethren background congregation to which I have been exposed (admittedly, almost entirely Beach Amish-Mennonite and its off-shoots, of which our congregation is an example). I also do not know how far this goes back in even the MB history, let alone in the larger "Russian Mennonite" fold. (However, I suspect that the early MBs - which started in 1860 - were a bit more like your typical top-down authority structure, with some mix of congregationalism. Then I would also suspect that the Colony Gross Gemeinde was basically purely authoritarian, like the typical Amish-Mennonite congregations here in Holmes County, but this is not something I have studied in particular.)

I am interested in a listing of the differences between these two heritages. Is there more information on this topic?

[Neto]

Neto brought up intriguing information in another thread:

Another major difference is that the church governance in at least the MB conference is markedly different than that of any Swiss Brethren background congregation to which I have been exposed (admittedly, almost entirely Beach Amish-Mennonite and its off-shoots, of which our congregation is an example). I also do not know how far this goes back in even the MB history, let alone in the larger "Russian Mennonite" fold. (However, I suspect that the early MBs - which started in 1860 - were a bit more like your typical top-down authority structure, with some mix of congregationalism. Then I would also suspect that the Colony Gross Gemeinde was basically purely authoritarian, like the typical Amish-Mennonite congregations here in Holmes County, but this is not something I have studied in particular.)

I am interested in a listing of the differences between these two heritages. Is there more information on this topic?

Max, I missed this question until right now, when I accidentally clicked on "Unanswered Topics" instead of "Active Topics". I am not aware of any comparative works or studies. I wrote the above based strictly on the basis of my personal experience in both settings. But I am unaware of ANY Swiss Brethren groups that have a congregationalist governance model. If there are such groups, I would love to hear about it. (As a committee member for an outreach group from our congregation, we were in the process of writing up a proposal for the new constitution that was structured along these lines, but the leadership decided not to support the prospect of creating the new congregation when they found out that we were also creating a stricter set of conduct guidelines than that in place in the "mother congregation".)

[MattY]

Neto brought up intriguing information in another thread:

Another major difference is that the church governance in at least the MB conference is markedly different than that of any Swiss Brethren background congregation to which I have been exposed (admittedly, almost entirely Beach Amish-Mennonite and its off-shoots, of which our congregation is an example). I also do not know how far this goes back in even the MB history, let alone in the larger "Russian Mennonite" fold. (However, I suspect that the early MBs - which started in 1860 - were a bit more like your typical top-down authority structure, with some mix of congregationalism. Then I would also suspect that the Colony Gross Gemeinde was basically purely authoritarian, like the typical Amish-Mennonite congregations here in Holmes County, but this is not something I have studied in particular.)

I am interested in a listing of the differences between these two heritages. Is there more information on this topic?

Max, I missed this question until right now, when I accidentally clicked on "Unanswered Topics" instead of "Active Topics". I am not aware of any comparative works or studies. I wrote the above based strictly on the basis of my personal experience in both settings. But I am unaware of ANY Swiss Brethren groups that have a congregationalist governance model. If there are such groups, I would love to hear about it. (As a committee member for an outreach group from our congregation, we were in the process of writing up a proposal for the new constitution that was structured along these lines, but the leadership decided not to support the prospect of creating the new congregation when they found out that we were also creating a stricter set of conduct guidelines than that in place in the "mother congregation".)

In the past, I have thought of Beachy churches as being "congregationalist" because we are a loose association of churches, with a lot of autonomy for the individual churches, as opposed to something with centralized governance like a conference-style group, Presbyterian regional assembly, or Catholic hierarchy. But I suppose individual churches being autonomous doesn't mean they have an internal congregationalist governance.

That being said, I have heard that most Beachy churches are less authoritarian (the congregation has more say over things) than is typical in stricter groups that broke off from the old Mennonite Church, like EPMC.

But regarding early Swiss Brethren churches, I've just read an article that says the exact opposite was true about them. I bought this article from JSTOR the other day (I recommend it, it's very interesting). https://www.jstor.org/stable/3164732?seq=2

James Stayer, the author, says that the Swiss Anabaptists "came to permit wide lay participation in reading the Bible, teaching and even administering the ban." This was due to the anticlerical sentiment which was very significant in early Anabaptism and other radical reform movements of that time. It was apparently not uncommon for the congregation to administer the ban against its leadership - which might be one reason that Swiss Anabaptist leaders after the 1520s did not become as prominent as the earlier leaders like Grebel and Sattler, or as later leaders from other regions like Menno and Pilgram Marpeck. Marpeck actually noticed it, writing to a Swiss congregation, "it is contrary to the manner of Christ that the flock should punish the shepherd, rather than the shepherd pasture the flock."

I don't know when it changed, perhaps later in the century - Menno and the Dutch Anabaptists had changed as well, taking an authoritarian leadership style, by the 1550s. Or perhaps after the Jakob Amman split.

[Neto]

Neto brought up intriguing information in another thread:


I am interested in a listing of the differences between these two heritages. Is there more information on this topic?

Max, I missed this question until right now, when I accidentally clicked on "Unanswered Topics" instead of "Active Topics". I am not aware of any comparative works or studies. I wrote the above based strictly on the basis of my personal experience in both settings. But I am unaware of ANY Swiss Brethren groups that have a congregationalist governance model. If there are such groups, I would love to hear about it. (As a committee member for an outreach group from our congregation, we were in the process of writing up a proposal for the new constitution that was structured along these lines, but the leadership decided not to support the prospect of creating the new congregation when they found out that we were also creating a stricter set of conduct guidelines than that in place in the "mother congregation".)

In the past, I have thought of Beachy churches as being "congregationalist" because we are a loose association of churches, with a lot of autonomy for the individual churches, as opposed to something with centralized governance like a conference-style group, Presbyterian regional assembly, or Catholic hierarchy. But I suppose individual churches being autonomous doesn't mean they have an internal congregationalist governance.

That being said, I have heard that most Beachy churches are less authoritarian (the congregation has more say over things) than is typical in stricter groups that broke off from the old Mennonite Church, like EPMC.

But regarding early Swiss Brethren churches, I've just read an article that says the exact opposite was true about them. I bought this article from JSTOR the other day (I recommend it, it's very interesting). https://www.jstor.org/stable/3164732?seq=2

James Stayer, the author, says that the Swiss Anabaptists "came to permit wide lay participation in reading the Bible, teaching and even administering the ban." This was due to the anticlerical sentiment which was very significant in early Anabaptism and other radical reform movements of that time. It was apparently not uncommon for the congregation to administer the ban against its leadership - which might be one reason that Swiss Anabaptist leaders after the 1520s did not become as prominent as the earlier leaders like Grebel and Sattler, or as later leaders from other regions like Menno and Pilgram Marpeck. Marpeck actually noticed it, writing to a Swiss congregation, "it is contrary to the manner of Christ that the flock should punish the shepherd, rather than the shepherd pasture the flock."

I don't know when it changed, perhaps later in the century - Menno and the Dutch Anabaptists had changed as well, taking an authoritarian leadership style, by the 1550s. Or perhaps after the Jakob Amman split.

The normal concept of what 'congregationalism' means in the Swiss Brethren (from my observations) is exactly as you describe it - the "lack" of a conference structure that controls the congregations, which are largely (again, according to my observation) very authoritarian. But in the MB governance model, the conference is also congregationalist in governance, in that (in contrast to the Biblical Mennonite Alliance, for instance) the gathering of the conference for decision making is not a convention of the ministers, but rather the delegates to the conference are themselves lay people, selected by vote of each congregation. Issues or questions are discussed and decisions made in open meetings, except where a special committee is chosen (by nominations from the floor, and by vote) to discuss certain issues, and the committee then presents a motion (recommendation) to the conference chairman, who reads it to the entire conference, and leads the discussion by the entire group. The motion can be amended and revised, and then voted on by the entire group of delegates, or, when it is finally brought to a vote, either passed or defeated. If the requirements for making a decision are not met, then very likely the question will be passed to a study committee, and opinions taken from each congregation in the conference.

[An example: A decade or so ago the "peace position" was reconsidered and eventually rewitten. This took, as I recall hearing (no longer being an MB member myself) a full 4 year conference cycle. Incidentally, the position was "softened", to allow for church members to participate in some level of the civil police force. Please don't anyone make this thread about this change. Start a different one if it is desired to discuss further - I will not answer any questions in this thread about this. I only put it in here as an example of a national conference level decision. The MB national conference is then divided into different districts and regions.)

[barnhart]

Neto, what do you mean by internal congregationalism. Is that where all decisions are on the table for majority vote, or all decisions made by committees chosen by the congregation?

[MaxPC]

Thank you, Neto and MattY. These answers enlighten much in my understanding.

Max, I missed this question until right now, when I accidentally clicked on "Unanswered Topics" instead of "Active Topics". I am not aware of any comparative works or studies. I wrote the above based strictly on the basis of my personal experience in both settings. But I am unaware of ANY Swiss Brethren groups that have a congregationalist governance model. If there are such groups, I would love to hear about it. (As a committee member for an outreach group from our congregation, we were in the process of writing up a proposal for the new constitution that was structured along these lines, but the leadership decided not to support the prospect of creating the new congregation when they found out that we were also creating a stricter set of conduct guidelines than that in place in the "mother congregation".)

In the past, I have thought of Beachy churches as being "congregationalist" because we are a loose association of churches, with a lot of autonomy for the individual churches, as opposed to something with centralized governance like a conference-style group, Presbyterian regional assembly, or Catholic hierarchy. But I suppose individual churches being autonomous doesn't mean they have an internal congregationalist governance.

That being said, I have heard that most Beachy churches are less authoritarian (the congregation has more say over things) than is typical in stricter groups that broke off from the old Mennonite Church, like EPMC.

But regarding early Swiss Brethren churches, I've just read an article that says the exact opposite was true about them. I bought this article from JSTOR the other day (I recommend it, it's very interesting). https://www.jstor.org/stable/3164732?seq=2

James Stayer, the author, says that the Swiss Anabaptists "came to permit wide lay participation in reading the Bible, teaching and even administering the ban." This was due to the anticlerical sentiment which was very significant in early Anabaptism and other radical reform movements of that time. It was apparently not uncommon for the congregation to administer the ban against its leadership - which might be one reason that Swiss Anabaptist leaders after the 1520s did not become as prominent as the earlier leaders like Grebel and Sattler, or as later leaders from other regions like Menno and Pilgram Marpeck. Marpeck actually noticed it, writing to a Swiss congregation, "it is contrary to the manner of Christ that the flock should punish the shepherd, rather than the shepherd pasture the flock."

I don't know when it changed, perhaps later in the century - Menno and the Dutch Anabaptists had changed as well, taking an authoritarian leadership style, by the 1550s. Or perhaps after the Jakob Amman split.

The normal concept of what 'congregationalism' means in the Swiss Brethren (from my observations) is exactly as you describe it - the "lack" of a conference structure that controls the congregations, which are largely (again, according to my observation) very authoritarian. But in the MB governance model, the conference is also congregationalist in governance, in that (in contrast to the Biblical Mennonite Alliance, for instance) the gathering of the conference for decision making is not a convention of the ministers, but rather the delegates to the conference are themselves lay people, selected by vote of each congregation. Issues or questions are discussed and decisions made in open meetings, except where a special committee is chosen (by nominations from the floor, and by vote) to discuss certain issues, and the committee then presents a motion (recommendation) to the conference chairman, who reads it to the entire conference, and leads the discussion by the entire group. The motion can be amended and revised, and then voted on by the entire group of delegates, or, when it is finally brought to a vote, either passed or defeated. If the requirements for making a decision are not met, then very likely the question will be passed to a study committee, and opinions taken from each congregation in the conference.

[An example: A decade or so ago the "peace position" was reconsidered and eventually rewitten. This took, as I recall hearing (no longer being an MB member myself) a full 4 year conference cycle. Incidentally, the position was "softened", to allow for church members to participate in some level of the civil police force. Please don't anyone make this thread about this change. Start a different one if it is desired to discuss further - I will not answer any questions in this thread about this. I only put it in here as an example of a national conference level decision. The MB national conference is then divided into different districts and regions.)