Churches, Dealerships, and Franchises

[Josh]

Interesting. Will your kids go to a Holdeman school?

Yes. It is nearly universal that children go to a church school. (If missionaries and the mission is too small to establish even a tiny school, then the mission board will send a teacher for that mission family.) The only exception is (a) someone with very severe special needs where a public school can provide better services, and (b) a family has decided to move to a new area and there are no other Holdeman families nearby and other congregations/schools are well over an hour away. Even then, it would be preferred to try to find an experienced teacher to come in and as part of establishing a new settlement/church, get a school established too.

I think you have indicated that there is a range of behavior in the Holdeman church. I assume that you are ok with parents holding to the more conservative side of the group if they wish, as long as they don't insist on something that even the conservatives aren't doing?

Yes, I mean that I would not hold a standard that basically creates a wall of separation between me and everyone else. An example would be insisting my family not use WhatsApp. Another would be deciding we should wear more plain clothes, eg if I decided my sons should be wearing broadfalls and suspenders.

In most OO and ultra-CA churches, there are the conservatives, the middle of the road folks, and the fence pushers. (And some folks in between.)
There is some migration between the groups, (a conservative teen might not like always being on the conservative side and heads for the middle or the fence; or a person in a fence pushing family or middle of the road wants something more principled than what his parents gave him and ends up as a conservative). But in general, the next generation typically ends up about where their parents and grandparent's are/were.
Families in transitional churches don't have this luxury, as they often need to change churches if they want their children to end up at about the same place as themselves.

Yes, there are conservatives, middle of the road folks, and fence pushers. "Conservatives" are relatively rare. People who get ordained tend to try to become more conservative particularly in matters of how they raise they children. A ordained man whose children are the more wild ones will be looked down on. Nearly all people are middle of the road.

I have so far existed in a few of the more "conservative" congregations, where fence-pushers are not very popular and in particular don't have an easy time in the youth. From narratives I have had of more "wild" congregations, the youth group would tend to diverge into the "saints, the sinners, and the singers". The "sinners" are expected to eventually be expelled / choose to leave the church (although some might eventually repent and return). The bulk of people are the "singers", who try to be middle of the road, but sometimes have struggles. A key distinction is that they don't think their struggles (such as eg with listening to music, taking photos, watching movies, and so on) are areas the church should be allowing.

There is a bit of an animus against overly "conservative" families, particularly if it is paired with a father who is angry or controlling. It is expected that all children rebel a bit and then see a need to repent and choose to live a more Christian life. A household where children are obedient because they live in a state of fear is not considered a good thing and can actually be an impediment to a Christian life.

I suspect that other OO groups are somewhat similar, and I also suspect that other stable Russian Mennonite groups (Kleine Gemeinde perhaps?) operate in a very similar way.

[joshuabgood]

I am not convinced that the movement in Anabaptist churches is primarily driven by "what we are allowed to do." That is a factor...however their are larger sociological and ecclesiological issues at play I think that are sector wide in the western/protestant churches that have folks lacking church stability. Vanishingly few people are in the churches their grandparents or great grandparents are in. That applies to basically every plain ordnung out there including Eastern, Pilgrim, Groffdale, Weaverland, etc...none of which existed 140 or so years ago...

I fundamentally think we have a major ecclesiology problem that needs to be fixed for a change that matters in 500 years. I feel we are on the cusp of something...and folks across the sector are realizing the western structures, including all aspects of CA churches, are not quite working.

Could you express a bit of self-insight why you chose to move to a much more transitional church group that has a much larger list of things you are "allowed to do"?

I am saying this because I rarely see folks such as yourself ever choose a group that is more "strict". This shows to me that the heart of the person who leaves a church group is usually a heart that seeks to be closer to the world. We can judge it by its fruits - their children and grandchildren often end up much, much closer to the world, if not deeply embedded in it.

There actually aren't any differences for me between what was allowed for me where I was at a bma conservative church and the church I grew up in. Though for what it is worth I am currently kind of between churches...

[joshuabgood]

Vanishingly few people are in the churches their grandparents or great grandparents are in. That applies to basically every plain ordnung out there including Eastern, Pilgrim, Groffdale, Weaverland, etc...none of which existed 140 or so years ago...

I don't know what you are seeing that I am not...
The far majority of Plain Anabaptists are in a church that is very similar to their church of 150 years ago, even if it had a different name at one point.

There are many things...from straight cuts to teetotaling to no ties to fundamentalist creeds, etc etc...

[Judas Maccabeus]

Vanishingly few people are in the churches their grandparents or great grandparents are in. That applies to basically every plain ordnung out there including Eastern, Pilgrim, Groffdale, Weaverland, etc...none of which existed 140 or so years ago...

I don't know what you are seeing that I am not...
The far majority of Plain Anabaptists are in a church that is very similar to their church of 150 years ago, even if it had a different name at one point.

There are many things...from straight cuts to teetotaling to no ties to fundamentalist creeds, etc etc...

do you think that any group of people are absolutely unchanged after 150 years? All groups adapt and define. Controversy forces definition.

I would suggest that what you are misidentifying as "Fundamentalist Creeds" are actually restatements of what the church ACTUALLY believed all along. For example, very few would have doubted things like the inspiration, historicity and authority of the Scripture in 1830. By 1920 it was common currency in some circles, and highly controversial to say the least. At that time it was necessary to state what the church believed all along, but had not thought necessary to state. By 1930, it became necessary to state that, even though your belief had not changed.

Are you really thinking that Mennonites in 1880 would have believed what some of the churches in the 1930s came to believe? I doubt it. I have all of the LMC "standards" books, dating back to the first ones published in English. I see some subtile shifts, but nothing that is earth shaking.

[ohio jones]

2. On one side, you might have folks who live very simply, and engineer their own way of getting their van started such as a push button to run the fuel pump for 15 seconds prior to trying to start the car, and a metal rod sticking out of the dash that adjusts the vent. (I rode in such a vehicle recently.)

Okay, I have to ask about this one. Is there an actual objection to starting the vehicle normally, or did something stop working and they rigged up a cheap fix instead of repairing it?

The latter. But this family would encourage everyone to do this, so as to live a more simpler life and not feel a need to keep up with the Jones's. And if I did not have the time or know how to do what he did, the husband in this family would offer to do it for me for free if I would let him.

About a year ago, this husband (a man not raised Christian or Anabaptist) was encouraged by an Old Order Mennonite, to stop charging labor for his work and simply accept donations. The idea is to trust God more and not be so capitalistic. So this brother took the OO man serious and started doing so.
I asked whether he gets as much income as he did before switching to donations and he said, "I do not. But I have enough to meet our needs. Things do get a little tight sometimes. But if I made more money, then I'd have to think about what to do with it. I don't have that worry anymore."

If I was in his shoes, I would charge labor and buy myself a van that is 10 years old, and get rid of my 28 year old van. But his values are different than mine, and I actually admire him for being radical. He is currently building himself a house out of 4 shipping containers.

Sounds like my grandpa (the non-Menno one). When the starter on his tractor stopped working, he ripped out the electrical system and used the hand crank thereafter. I'm not convinced that doing that, or running the fuel pump for 15 seconds before "trying" to start the car, is actually simpler. As one of my friends put it, "The simple life sure is a lot of work."

My Menno grandpa, on the other hand, had a brother who owned a dealership.

[joshuabgood]

I don't know what you are seeing that I am not...
The far majority of Plain Anabaptists are in a church that is very similar to their church of 150 years ago, even if it had a different name at one point.

There are many things...from straight cuts to teetotaling to no ties to fundamentalist creeds, etc etc...

do you think that any group of people are absolutely unchanged after 150 years? All groups adapt and define. Controversy forces definition.

I would suggest that what you are misidentifying as "Fundamentalist Creeds" are actually restatements of what the church ACTUALLY believed all along. For example, very few would have doubted things like the inspiration, historicity and authority of the Scripture in 1830. By 1920 it was common currency in some circles, and highly controversial to say the least. At that time it was necessary to state what the church believed all along, but had not thought necessary to state. By 1930, it became necessary to state that, even though your belief had not changed.

Are you really thinking that Mennonites in 1880 would have believed what some of the churches in the 1930s came to believe? I doubt it. I have all of the LMC "standards" books, dating back to the first ones published in English. I see some subtile shifts, but nothing that is earth shaking.

I think we are mostly agreeing. Yes the churches in 1930 were different than 1880. That was sort of what I was saying.

Besides the teetotaling and straight cuts, there was also views on divorce and remarriage that shifted as Dwight G documented, and beards, views on evangelism, Sunday School, singing, language of worship, and quite a few other things some important and some not. However the current ultras that were birthed the 60s bear little resemblance to their grand fathers in 1880.

[Judas Maccabeus]

There are many things...from straight cuts to teetotaling to no ties to fundamentalist creeds, etc etc...

do you think that any group of people are absolutely unchanged after 150 years? All groups adapt and define. Controversy forces definition.

I would suggest that what you are misidentifying as "Fundamentalist Creeds" are actually restatements of what the church ACTUALLY believed all along. For example, very few would have doubted things like the inspiration, historicity and authority of the Scripture in 1830. By 1920 it was common currency in some circles, and highly controversial to say the least. At that time it was necessary to state what the church believed all along, but had not thought necessary to state. By 1930, it became necessary to state that, even though your belief had not changed.

Are you really thinking that Mennonites in 1880 would have believed what some of the churches in the 1930s came to believe? I doubt it. I have all of the LMC "standards" books, dating back to the first ones published in English. I see some subtile shifts, but nothing that is earth shaking.

I think we are mostly agreeing. Yes the churches in 1930 were different than 1880. That was sort of what I was saying.

Besides the teetotaling and straight cuts, there was also views on divorce and remarriage that shifted as Dwight G documented, and beards, views on evangelism, Sunday School, singing, language of worship, and quite a few other things some important and some not. However the current ultras that were birthed the 60s bear little resemblance to their grand fathers in 1880.

Some of the window dressing is a bit different, Sunday School, Youth Groups, Evangelism and Ties (Yes, I have seen the little bow ties). Some of this is a result/cause of the Old Order split. While important, those are little more than window dressing, small things. The core has remained much the same. While it may look somewhat different, the distinctives have remained Nonresistance, Nonconformity and Biblicism. As soon as great-great grandpa adjusted to the language and some of the appearance , he would be right at home.

Alcohol is an interesting story. I don't have time right now, but it reflects the changes in society and the beverage being consumed. There is quite a difference between cider and "Old Oberholt." Cloths change, and your Great Great grandma of 1910 would walk into a church that does not require cape dresses and escape notice. My wife has worn on occasion, 1910 replica clothes, and as far as I know, the only question was "where did you get the jacket?" It meets our conference standards. Men would have more issues.

[barnhart]

...All groups adapt and define. Controversy forces definition.

I would suggest that what you are misidentifying as "Fundamentalist Creeds" are actually restatements of what the church ACTUALLY believed all along. For example, very few would have doubted things like the inspiration, historicity and authority of the Scripture in 1830. By 1920 it was common currency in some circles, and highly controversial to say the least. At that time it was necessary to state what the church believed all along, but had not thought necessary to state. By 1930, it became necessary to state that, even though your belief had not changed.

I think this what the Fundamentalists hoped to accomplish but there is question in mind if that is what happened.

If we go back to an earlier era, the church generally taught the earth was the center of the universe because that was the common European belief, but to restate that belief as doctrine after the telescope was invented and the construction of the solar system became clear is not the same as believing before contrary evidence was brought to light. Similarly there is a difference between wearing suitable clothing commonly available in your era and freezing the standard to preserve that style in perpetuity. Having confidence in God's word is not quite the same as having confidence in a doctrine on paper concerning confidence in God's word.

Like you I sympathize with the motivation of fundamentalism but I also evaluate to outcomes.

[Ernie]

Similarly there is a difference between wearing suitable clothing commonly available in your era and freezing the standard to preserve that style in perpetuity.

I take it that you do not think this is a good idea. Do you feel the same way about monasteries and nunneries that do this very thing?

And a few questions about wearing "clothing commonly available".
Does being able to sew uniforms in one's community on behalf of the community, make that uniform commonly available?

When Anabaptists first started detailing what uniforms should look like, and speaking out against certain fashions, the industrial revolution had not yet happened. So nearly all clothing was tailored. Either at home or by tailors. Now that most clothing is not tailored, does that make any difference in how you think about it today vs. 300 years ago?

What if Anabaptists ordered particular styles of clothing to be made and shipped here from Asia so that it would be commonly available? Is there any real reason why Christians should buy clothing designed by non-Christians, over clothing designed by Christians?

Is there any difference between legislating a particular uniform vs. legislating that there should be no uniform?

Many cultures try to preserve their clothing styles (even if they need to make the clothing themselves) in order to keep their culture alive and let their posterity have some connection to the past. Can you appreciate this at all, or do you think they should be wearing what is "commonly available"?

[joshuabgood]

A few notes on clothing.

I had a friend once that scoffed at the idea of a "suit off a rack" that was mass produced. Too plebian...

I had another friend once, NMB, who felt that "dressing up for church" with suits, and dress pants, and white shirts, and such was an extravagant culture that he was deliberately moving away from.

I had other friends that felt like white pants and dress pants at church signified respect for God and others.

The current CA menno clothing uniform practice strikes me as primarily a Prussian cultural more.

I don't care for the idea of legislating uniforms if it means those that don't wear the uniform are not given the kiss of fellowship or permitted to be in community, that is communion, with the saints.