Churches, Dealerships, and Franchises

[Neto]

I'd rather be in a church with considerably different practices, in which nearly everyone in the church respects each other, than in a church with very little difference in practice, but little respect for each other or and little respect for churches who draw the lines a bit differently.

I know of such a congregation, at least that's the way it was the last time I was there (May of 2018) - Zion Mennonite, Pryor, Oklahoma. The most visible of this was that there was everything from coverings to none at all, but mostly veils or other sorts of in-between stuff. It is a small Mennonite community, with people from the original 'Old Mennonite' congregation before the MC-USA union, when this congregation opted out. Then there are former Old Order Amish from the Inola area, some former General Conference Mennonites, and possibly some "outsiders". Back then my Dad's cousin and his wife were there as well, he from Mennonite Brethren background, and his wife from the Inola GC community. (She has since passed away, and he moved into a home in Enid.)

This also describes some MB congregations, partly due to some who didn't personally go along with later changes, but remained in the congregations, but it is also the MB heritage, to have more of an open attitude regarding fellowshipping with Christians outside of one's own exact practice. Some might say that this only works because they have no choice, because they don't have enough people to all split into separate congregations. I know of a group that used to say that the only way to discourage a lot of change is to "Get out of Holmes County". But it didn't work for them; they have since divided, and I suspect that both factions have since seen a general shift. So I think that it works because of an attitude of personal openness and respect toward one another. But I also realize that it's unlikely that everyone in these congregations have that attitude at heart. For those who don't agree with all of the changes, some will stay simply because they still have that core group there, and also because of advanced age.

[Ernie]

Does this change in Pilgrim mean they will stop setting up in other churches “backyard” as you call it?

I doubt it, since a significant portion of growth in Pilgrim churches is transfer growth from more conservative churches. This way of growing the church is a part of their model.

[Ernie]

I also don’t see it working to try to compose a church / school of people with wildly varying practices. It seems such a congregation lacks unity at a fundamental level.

I don't know what you mean by wildly varying, but as I said earlier, there needs to be parameters of course.

I'd rather be in a church with considerably different practices, in which nearly everyone in the church respects each other, than in a church with very little difference in practice, but little respect for each other or and little respect for churches who draw the lines a bit differently.

Somehow I think this has been tried before.

I think most attempts at this, do not establish solid parameters, but rather keep moving the fences, resulting in a bigger and bigger tent.
And I agree that this does not work.

[Soloist]

I don't know what you mean by wildly varying, but as I said earlier, there needs to be parameters of course.

I'd rather be in a church with considerably different practices, in which nearly everyone in the church respects each other, than in a church with very little difference in practice, but little respect for each other or and little respect for churches who draw the lines a bit differently.

Somehow I think this has been tried before.

I think most attempts at this, do not establish solid parameters, but rather keep moving the fences, resulting in a bigger and bigger tent.
And I agree that this does not work.

I’ve seen too many removed bishops and ministers due to holding the line, any established fence held will eventually cause their removal as somehow the flock starts pushing and won’t accept no.

[HondurasKeiser]

I also don’t see it working to try to compose a church / school of people with wildly varying practices. It seems such a congregation lacks unity at a fundamental level.

I don't know what you mean by wildly varying, but as I said earlier, there needs to be parameters of course.

I'd rather be in a church with considerably different practices, in which nearly everyone in the church respects each other, than in a church with very little difference in practice, but little respect for each other or and little respect for churches who draw the lines a bit differently.

Somehow I think this has been tried before.

Lancaster Conference comes to mind...

[Judas Maccabeus]

I don't know what you mean by wildly varying, but as I said earlier, there needs to be parameters of course.

I'd rather be in a church with considerably different practices, in which nearly everyone in the church respects each other, than in a church with very little difference in practice, but little respect for each other or and little respect for churches who draw the lines a bit differently.

Somehow I think this has been tried before.

Lancaster Conference comes to mind...

Are you thinking of the difference between the Martindale District and the rest of LMC?

[Josh]

Does this change in Pilgrim mean they will stop setting up in other churches “backyard” as you call it?

I doubt it, since a significant portion of growth in Pilgrim churches is transfer growth from more conservative churches. This way of growing the church is a part of their model.

It might make sense for Pilgrim to establish districts that line up nicely with Nationwide, Eastern, W/F, and whoever else their “feeder” groups are, if that is where the majority of the membership will come from.

[Josh]

I also don’t see it working to try to compose a church / school of people with wildly varying practices. It seems such a congregation lacks unity at a fundamental level.

I don't know what you mean by wildly varying, but as I said earlier, there needs to be parameters of course.

I'd rather be in a church with considerably different practices, in which nearly everyone in the church respects each other, than in a church with very little difference in practice, but little respect for each other or and little respect for churches who draw the lines a bit differently.

My brother’s church’s school used to try to do this. So one family might watch TV at home, another doesn’t really practice the veiling, and so forth, but they all try to go to the same school. The school has a certain dress code and so forth. Every family was supposed to respect the other families.

In practice, this hit absurd limits. In particular, the grandchild of one of the founding bishops of that church eventually departed for a more liberal church (formerly in BMA, eventually BMA disassociated with them). To repeat quote I heard, “We are such and such’s grandchildren. Nobody is ever going to tell us what to wear.” So they would let their children wear whatever and violate the school’s dress code. School administration seemed powerless to do anything about this, until…

Eventually, the nearby Beachys got fed up with this and started their own school, with stricter rules: basically to attend you needed to be in compliance with some of their church rules (not very difficult but respect for the dress code would be one of them). The the Beachy families stopped sending their kids to that school. My brother also switched, and shortly thereafter, other families switched. So now my brother’s church doesn’t send any of its own members children to its own school.

It has been a far more wholesome environment for my nieces and I feel a lot better about the friendships they are making there.

[Neto]

Speaking of schools run by a congregation, our two oldest attended a Beachy school during one of our furloughs, when we were still attending at a congregation in the Conservative Mennonite Conference, which was considerably less conservative than the Beachy school where they attended. Both our daughter and our son fully complied with all of the dress code requirements, involving a new wardrobe for our daughter, and our son was required to wear only button shirts. (In Brazil he generally wore t-shirts. I personally have never worn t-shirts - a hold-over from my MB upbringing, in those more conservative times.)

My opinion is that it only requires a basic level of respect to have compliance in a situation like that. Our children enjoyed their time there, too, and still have a number of friendships from that time that have remained close.

[HondurasKeiser]

Somehow I think this has been tried before.

Lancaster Conference comes to mind...

Are you thinking of the difference between the Martindale District and the rest of LMC?

That seems to be all that's left of anything resembling what Ernie is talking about and I'm not sure how much longer that can last.

I was thinking though of the slightly broader sweep of LMC history going back to the 1950-60's splits that occurred. The Bishops essentially envisioned something similar to Ernie's vision when they loosened the discipline of the conference that thusly prompted the departure of various proto-Ultra Conservative elements. For a while the vision held even after they abolished the published discipline in 1983 that allowed for more district/congregational autonomy/discernment. I remember as a child in the 80's that much of the conference looked like an average KMF congregation looks today. Indeed, the KMF congregation nearest my home was once a part of LMC and our two churched would host joint youth activities together. Even in my own congregation where the church was well ahead of the rest of the conference in becoming more evangelical in look and style; there were many women with coverings and even older men with the old straight-cut coats. Our pastor wore a straight-cut coat until his retirement in the mid-90's.

The Lancaster (and we could add Franconia) vision was one of a biblically-based, big-tent Church where conservative districts/congregations and families could fellowship with those that drew the lines in more assimilated/evangelical place. Nature abhors a vacuum though, and lacking any uniform standard, more and more families/churches and districts drifted in the assimilated direction causing remaining conservative elements like the KMF and others to break off. As more lines were crossed by the majority of the conference (e.g. Merger, women in ministry, allowance for individuals to join army/police) more groups broke off, leaving behind a theologically, conservative evangelical group that looks fairly uniform and indistinguishable from the local non-denom. church.

Martindale District is of course unique and an outlier and I think they've managed to maintain a different standard in the face of drift by the rest of the conference while at the same time remaining a constituent of the conference because they're a small geographically defined district. They've remained cohesive and united in their small corner of the conference. That compared to my local KMF congregation that was the only conservative congregation in the North-Penn district when they finally decided to leave LMC and join KMF.