Churches, Dealerships, and Franchises

[HondurasKeiser]

In my mental hypothesis, those who grew up in Plain Anabaptist church would be expected to keep being Plain, and those who grew up in Evangelical churches and other not as disciplined backgrounds would be encouraged/expected to head in the direction of adding more disciplines to their lives, not less.

What existing constituencies would meet the criteria of not being transitional? This would end up being some ultra-conservative groups, some of BMA, some of the Amish groups that left the main OO like the Dan church, Swartzies, Holdemans, the Scottsville-type churches, and so forth. But these groups are already very happy fellowshipping amongst themselves, and furthermore, think it's not a good idea to associate with people who are quite a bit more worldly (or quite a bit less).

They would be uncomfortable working too closely alongside each other. To give an example, Holdemans decided they don't want their young people participating in CAM type of activities, because it was too confusing for the young people to be around people who seemed to have a good spiritual life, yet were doing things like watching movies on their phone, listening to recorded music, and taking lots of photographs.

Likewise, a lot of more conservative Mennonites wouldn't want to associate too closely with Holdemans because they would feel our clothing is too worldly or they would be bothered by differing definitions of prohibited D&R.

The Scottsville-type churches don't want to be around Anabaptists who drive cars because they don't want their people to get into the habit of being comfortable hiring drivers.

In short, to find unity, there is more needed than simply a desire to not be transitional.

True. I am just saying that to have a range of acceptable practices in a church, you need to have a church full of mature, principled people who don't love the world, nor the things of the world.
A few examples:
1. On the conservative side, you might have folks who dress very distinctly but simply. (e.g. straight cut coats that are like a jacket without all the fineries) At the other end of the spectrum, you might have folks who wear thrift store clothing, but everyone in the church is dressing modestly.
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.) On the other side you have someone who drives a good serviceable vehicle, and does not attempt to justify luxurious expenditures.
3. On one side you might have folks who refrain from all internet. On the other side you have folks who have internet as a tool, but don't use it for endless entertainment, social media, movies, and watching sports.

How is this functionally different from Lancaster of the 60’s and 70’s….even the 80’s? Indeed, by degrees your “other side” examples describe my family and nearly everyone I knew in my home congregation when I was young.

I think Lancaster serves as a good object lesson for what happens when a conference or fellowship allows everyone to determine their own standard of conservative practice and enjoins everyone to lovingly and respectfully disagree. It’s not a “love for the world” that led Lancaster to where it is today. That’s a facile and pejorative diagnosis. There may be some of that in Lancaster or Franconia today but that’s not how it started 40 years ago. Rather it’s what comes from being enjoined to fellowship with and tolerate the standards of those more liberal than yourself.

“You’re welcome to maintain the conservatism of 1954 Lancaster Discipline but please recognize that some others may a draw a line somewhere less strict and that shouldn’t keep us from fellowshipping with each other.”

That’s essentially your vision and it’s indistinguishable from the vision the Lancaster bishops had in 1968 and again in 1983. What results is conservative elements breaking off and everyone else drifting towards assimilation.

[Josh]

I’m not sure why this would be an issue for sewing and ministering?

One family thinks they should wear cape dresses.

Another family is influenced by Charity and is anti-cape dress.

So at sewing, they are going to be at odds with each other...

Ministering to worldly people also becomes difficult, because the worldly person will have a very different experience with each family they interact with. Particularly if they ask about a particular case and the family claims doing so is biblical, etc. - the view they get is that this is a confused, inconsistent set of people.

Filtered internet. And why would there be internet in school? I don’t see why anyone needing internet as a work tool or etc. would demand children have it in school?

Well, that's your opinion. The opinion of less-conservative Anabaptists is that Internet is necessary and it's fine to use it in school. So trying to bring people of differing standards together, in a school, is also going to cause conflict.

[NedFlanders]

I’m not sure why this would be an issue for sewing and ministering?

One family thinks they should wear cape dresses.

Another family is influenced by Charity and is anti-cape dress.

So at sewing, they are going to be at odds with each other...

Ministering to worldly people also becomes difficult, because the worldly person will have a very different experience with each family they interact with. Particularly if they ask about a particular case and the family claims doing so is biblical, etc. - the view they get is that this is a confused, inconsistent set of people.

Filtered internet. And why would there be internet in school? I don’t see why anyone needing internet as a work tool or etc. would demand children have it in school?

Well, that's your opinion. The opinion of less-conservative Anabaptists is that Internet is necessary and it's fine to use it in school. So trying to bring people of differing standards together, in a school, is also going to cause conflict.

Thanks Josh, that helps me to see what you’re talking about.

I’ve experienced some of what you’re talking about and it can make tradition a stumbling block but also it can make stability if viewed rightly.

But more importantly an attitude of submitting into the church because it is where God wants me to be - not because it fits me or can be changed for my opinions - but because God wants to stretch my self denial is going to always be more restrictive on my flesh but lively in Spirit. The examples you mention don’t sound like people coming in so they can submit to the church of Christ but so they can build their own version of church and before anything could even be agreed upon it is doomed before it starts…

[Josh]

But more importantly an attitude of submitting into the church because it is where God wants me to be - not because it fits me or can be changed for my opinions - but because God wants to stretch my self denial is going to always be more restrictive on my flesh but lively in Spirit. The examples you mention don’t sound like people coming in so they can submit to the church of Christ but so they can build their own version of church and before anything could even be agreed upon it is doomed before it starts…

The transitional Anabaptist has the opposite attitude. He says, "How can I get church to submit to me?" "God wants me to have more freedom." "Because I have the Spirit, it's okay if my flesh has more freedom." (I actually observed a transitional Anabaptist assert once that it's OK for her 13 year old daughter to be on Instagram, because she has the Holy Spirit, so she won't get into trouble online like a worldly person would.)

In my own fellowship I have found people with such attitudes to be brick walls when it comes to any truly spiritual discussion... you just sort of sit around waiting for them to leave. And inevitably they do. An open question is how such people can be reached to come back into submission to Christ.

[Ernie]

How is this functionally different from Lancaster of the 60’s and 70’s….even the 80’s? Indeed, by degrees your “other side” examples describe my family and nearly everyone I knew in my home congregation when I was young.

“You’re welcome to maintain the conservatism of 1954 Lancaster Discipline but please recognize that some others may a draw a line somewhere less strict and that shouldn’t keep us from fellowshipping with each other.”

That’s essentially your vision and it’s indistinguishable from the vision the Lancaster bishops had in 1968 and again in 1983. What results is conservative elements breaking off and everyone else drifting towards assimilation.

It's one thing for a group of people to get together and agree on parameters and agree on what matters will be left to individual conscience. Every Plain Anabaptist church that I know, does this. I assume most non-Plain, theological conservative Anabaptist churches do the same.

This is quite different from people in the church or people joining the church, insisting that the parameters be extended to form a bigger tent. Those wanting to form a bigger tent should leave and start their own bigger tent group, rather than forcing the present church's parameters to be changed to accommodate more perspectives. This is what happened in Lancaster Conference.

When our church was first started 10 years ago, the founding members drew a circle that had room for a fair bit of variety, as compared with most Plain churches. Later some other people wanted to join the church who were not content with that circle, and they wanted to enlarge it. Because most of the people in our church are in reaction to insisting that people stay within parameters, these folks were allowed to join the church. By them joining the church, the circle is now larger than what it was 10 years ago, and the new folks are happy because they are now part of a church that allows a bigger circle. This is how it happens in most transitional churches. Either folks in the church, or a newer generation, or people coming from more conservative churches want to enlarge the circle, rather than submit to the one they joined.

[Ernie]

I’m not sure why this would be an issue for sewing and ministering?

One family thinks they should wear cape dresses.
Another family is influenced by Charity and is anti-cape dress.
So at sewing, they are going to be at odds with each other...
Ministering to worldly people also becomes difficult, because the worldly person will have a very different experience with each family they interact with. Particularly if they ask about a particular case and the family claims doing so is biblical, etc. - the view they get is that this is a confused, inconsistent set of people.

Filtered internet. And why would there be internet in school? I don’t see why anyone needing internet as a work tool or etc. would demand children have it in school?

Well, that's your opinion. The opinion of less-conservative Anabaptists is that Internet is necessary and it's fine to use it in school. So trying to bring people of differing standards together, in a school, is also going to cause conflict.

I was not aware that there are sewing circles that sew dresses. But if the ladies in our church would get together to sew dresses for themselves, some would sew cape dresses, and others would sew non-cape dresses, and it would not be a problem, because those who wear cape dresses in our church view cape dresses as a preferential issue, not a "we should wear cape dresses in order to be godly". And if the ladies who wear cape dresses in our church, were making dresses to give to poor people around the world, they would likely not make cape dresses, but rather other sorts of dresses.

We have people in our church who do not want their children on the internet, and those who do not care. But they all go to the same school, and there is no internet at school, and no one is demanding or even recommending internet at school.
It is this "demanding spirit", that you refer to, that is causing the issues. Take away the "demanding spirit", and conflicts and wars cease.

[Josh]

I was not aware that there are sewing circles that sew dresses.

This is a thing that seems to exist in more conservative circles including Holdemans. If there is a from-the-world* person who wants to attend and would like to have more modest dresses, and nobody has spares in their closet that fit, etc., they would make some dresses for this person. (Holdemans take the sewing circle so seriously it even gets guaranteed funding just like tracts, missions, etc. do.)

Of course, Holdemans don't sew capes, and the moderate-conservative churches around me don't have functional sewing circles anymore. So someone asked my wife if she could sew dresses for such a from-the-world person. She did but decided to ask ladies from the sewing circle to help too. So they did, except they couldn't make it with a cape. Fortunately the person who was inviting the from-the-world person to their moderate-conservative congregation wasn't too concerned about the lack of a cape, seeing as she is from the world herself.

But if the ladies in our church would get together to sew dresses for themselves, some would sew cape dresses, and others would sew non-cape dresses, and it would not be a problem, because those who wear cape dresses in our church view cape dresses as a preferential issue, not a "we should wear cape dresses in order to be godly". And if the ladies who wear cape dresses in our church, were making dresses to give to poor people around the world, they would likely not make cape dresses, but rather other sorts of dresses.

That would simply be a consequence of the fact that cape dresses are no longer important and the custom is dying out.

We have people in our church who do not want their children on the internet, and those who do not care. But they all go to the same school, and there is no internet at school, and no one is demanding or even recommending internet at school.
It is this "demanding spirit", that you refer to, that is causing the issues. Take away the "demanding spirit", and conflicts and wars cease.

That will change as soon as a teacher is hired (and/or a school board installed) that thinks the Internet is the latest and greatest teaching tool. They will just start using it and will look on parents who don't like that as backwards, uneducated, refusing to get with the times, etc.

In essence I am saying that it is just not in transitional plain peoples' DNA to respect people who are more conservative than they are and really see them as having any value at all. People who are not transitional won't choose to go to a church with mixed practices, and wouldn't want their children exposed to that. For example, I wouldn't want my kids going to school where practices we teach against at home are freely practiced at school.

[Ernie]

That would simply be a consequence of the fact that cape dresses are no longer important and the custom is dying out.

Except that it is not. More people at our church are wearing cape dresses than before.

We have people in our church who do not want their children on the internet, and those who do not care. But they all go to the same school, and there is no internet at school, and no one is demanding or even recommending internet at school.
It is this "demanding spirit", that you refer to, that is causing the issues. Take away the "demanding spirit", and conflicts and wars cease.

That will change as soon as a teacher is hired (and/or a school board installed) that thinks the Internet is the latest and greatest teaching tool. They will just start using it and will look on parents who don't like that as backwards, uneducated, refusing to get with the times, etc.

If you allow such persons to join the church and demand changes.

In essence I am saying that it is just not in transitional plain peoples' DNA to respect people who are more conservative than they are and really see them as having any value at all.

I won't argue with this. But it doesn't mean that such folks should be encouraged to stay at a church with established parameters.

People who are not transitional won't choose to go to a church with mixed practices, and wouldn't want their children exposed to that.

Such folks will need to find a church with the parameters they like. At any given time, there are probably 100,000 Anabaptists who are hoping to be part of a church someday that has the parameters they like.

For example, I wouldn't want my kids going to school where practices we teach against at home are freely practiced at school.

To a degree, correct?
I'm guessing your family has established some practices/habits and is endeavoring to cultivate some attitudes/values that are not shared by everyone at school, correct?

[joshuabgood]

Such folks will need to find a church with the parameters they like. At any given time, there are probably 100,000 Anabaptists who are hoping to be part of a church someday that has the parameters they like.

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.

[Josh]

That would simply be a consequence of the fact that cape dresses are no longer important and the custom is dying out.

Except that it is not. More people at our church are wearing cape dresses than before.[/quote]

That is good to hear. Amongst the transitional groups around me, eventually they just adopt skirts 'n' shirts during the week (or, worse, pants/shorts and shirts), and cape dresses become a "Sunday only" thing. Eventually someone will start to wear skirts 'n' shirts (perhaps disguised with a sweater) on Sundays. This happens long before any written change to their standards.

If you allow such persons to join the church and demand changes.

Well, not allowing transitional persons (or specifically transitional persons who then get away with demanding changed) to join would be a good thing. But I haven't seen any transitional places that are able to actually put this in practice.

In essence I am saying that it is just not in transitional plain peoples' DNA to respect people who are more conservative than they are and really see them as having any value at all.

I won't argue with this. But it doesn't mean that such folks should be encouraged to stay at a church with established parameters.

That could be true. It would be interesting to see a church body that explictly set out to make transitional people uncomfortable. Instead, what I usually see is endeavoring to make transitional people more comfortable, as long as they are coming from a "more conservative" church.

People who are not transitional won't choose to go to a church with mixed practices, and wouldn't want their children exposed to that.

Such folks will need to find a church with the parameters they like. At any given time, there are probably 100,000 Anabaptists who are hoping to be part of a church someday that has the parameters they like.

Yes, but people who aren't transitional usually end up picking a non-transitional group and being fairly happy there and eventually conforming to it. But they won't want any of this kind of mixed practice.

For example, I wouldn't want my kids going to school where practices we teach against at home are freely practiced at school.

To a degree, correct?
I'm guessing your family has established some practices/habits and is endeavoring to cultivate some attitudes/values that are not shared by everyone at school, correct?

Not really, no, because I don't think there is any value in holding up my own family as somehow being holier or more spiritual than the rest of my brethren, nor that thinking my light shines a bit brighter than theirs does. If there is a problem, I would try to address it church or school wide, and if I'm not successful, I will simply have to accept that I'm wrong (or that I didn't win).

So, for example, I have certain opinions but they aren't shared church wide, and once my kids are in school, I won't have any control over that. For example, I don't feed my kids junk food including toxic, unhealthy industrially produced processed foods like Cool-Whip. However, once they go to school and are served things like "hot lunch", they will undoubtedly be served junk food. I am not going to take a special stance that "no, you can't serve my kids the same food everyone else is eating". I accept this even though I think eating such food will have long-term negative effects on their health.

Likewise I think WhatsApp and text/chat groups are very harmful for young people. But (assuming nothing changes between now and then), I would let my kids join the youth chat when they are 15½ or 16, because I don't think isolating them from the rest of the youth group would be a good thing.

I have expressed my opposition to allowing children in school to use any Internet connected computers, and that it is not necessary for typing class, but so far I don't think I will be successful in my opposition to it between now and when my kids are in a grade to take typing class. (There are offline typing programs, but it's easier for a teacher to just get a computer and type in "typing.com" and then ignore the kids for 15 minutes. The problem with those free online ones is that it exposes kids to a lot of questionable advertising.) I don't want my kids exposed to the Internet like that, but I will not demand that they somehow get special treatment compared to the rest of the class.

I have seen what happens when parents think they are "special" and want every little accommodation for their own quirks and preferences. In fact I spend a great deal of my time trying to help rehabilitate a person who was raised such a way. It is something I want no part of the fruit of. If you see the church falling apart, you just have to accept that your family and children and grand-children will fall apart, too.