MennoNet.com

The biggest pro for me is the feeling of fitting in. I live in an area with a decent number of conservative Mennonites (not one of the big three), but most in my area would be from the ultra-conservative sect. While I am not in that group, it is nice to know that you are not the only plain Mennonite in the area. I personally enjoy the collective identify aspect that conservative Mennonites often have. That desire to "fit in" is maybe due to the fact that I am a from a NMB.

The biggest con that I have seen is that it there is often less fellowship with people of other conservative levels. My observation is that the more people in your group (that live within a relatively short distance away), the less likely you are to fellowship with the bracket up or down the conservative ladder. Washington and Franklin members virtually never participate in fellowship with Cumberland Valley Church’s, and support of each other’s activities is virtually nonexistent. It seems then when there is only two small conservative churches in an area, they are more likely to work with each other on missions/outreach even when they are not in the same conservative bracket. I have seen this with Mid-Atlantic and Hope churches recently.

YorkandAdams wrote:The biggest pro for me is the feeling of fitting in. I live in an area with a decent number of conservative Mennonites (not one of the big three), but most in my area would be from the ultra-conservative sect. While I am not in that group, it is nice to know that you are not the only plain Mennonite in the area. I personally enjoy the collective identify aspect that conservative Mennonites often have. That desire to "fit in" is maybe due to the fact that I am a from a NMB.

The biggest con that I have seen is that it there is often less fellowship with people of other conservative levels. My observation is that the more people in your group (that live within a relatively short distance away), the less likely you are to fellowship with the bracket up or down the conservative ladder. Washington and Franklin members virtually never participate in fellowship with Cumberland Valley Church’s, and support of each other’s activities is virtually nonexistent. It seems then when there is only two small conservative churches in an area, they are more likely to work with each other on missions/outreach even when they are not in the same conservative bracket. I have seen this with Mid-Atlantic and Hope churches recently.

A common enemy produces some strange friendships. Mid-Atlantic and Hope both separated from Eastern at different times years ago, whereas Cumberland Valley and Washington-Franklin had a separation from each other some 50 years ago. At that time Washington-Franklin taught animosity toward Cumberland Valley. That lesson was well learned as, with the exception of a small segment of the younger generation, some of that animosity still exists. Perhaps animosity is a bit strong, but being a teenager in the Washington-Franklin (South) at the time of the division was difficult. At times you were not allowed to go to cousins weddings etc. It was preached that those folks had "left the church" and it was implied that their salvation was in question as a result. It was difficult as a teenager to feel that perhaps your grandparents had walked away from God

Biblical Anabaptist wrote: A common enemy produces some strange friendships. Mid-Atlantic and Hope both separated from Eastern at different times years ago, whereas Cumberland Valley and Washington-Franklin had a separation from each other some 50 years ago. At that time Washington-Franklin taught animosity toward Cumberland Valley. That lesson was well learned as, with the exception of a small segment of the younger generation, some of that animosity still exists. Perhaps animosity is a bit strong, but being a teenager in the Washington-Franklin (South) at the time of the division was difficult. At times you were not allowed to go to cousins weddings etc. It was preached that those folks had "left the church" and it was implied that their salvation was in question as a result. It was difficult as a teenager to feel that perhaps your grandparents had walked away from God

I was recently talking to a gentleman from Washington and Franklin about the animosity. He openly admitted that he would never allow his children to work for a Cumberland Valley man, and would "forbid" his kids from marrying outside their bracket (WandF, Eastern, exc). I understand the reason for the marriage restrictions, but can't imagine having a list of "acceptable" employers that consists of only business owned by men in your conference. I have heard that the ministry will sometimes "check up" on those employed by employers outside of the conference's influence. In my opinion that is bordering on a cult.

The concept of "leaving the church" is one that is hard for me to fathom, but I do understand why it persists. Fearing for the salvation of one's friends is probably a little over the top, but we all have our cut off where we would say they have forsaken god. Hopefully, it is not simply a slight difference in dress, car color, or covering style. But, it certainly could be forsaking the biblical doctrine of nonresistance.

YorkandAdams wrote:Hopefully, it is not simply a slight difference in dress, car color, or covering style. But, it certainly could be forsaking the biblical doctrine of nonresistance.

Which the Franklin Mennonite Conference basically has.

YorkandAdams wrote:

Biblical Anabaptist wrote: A common enemy produces some strange friendships. Mid-Atlantic and Hope both separated from Eastern at different times years ago, whereas Cumberland Valley and Washington-Franklin had a separation from each other some 50 years ago. At that time Washington-Franklin taught animosity toward Cumberland Valley. That lesson was well learned as, with the exception of a small segment of the younger generation, some of that animosity still exists. Perhaps animosity is a bit strong, but being a teenager in the Washington-Franklin (South) at the time of the division was difficult. At times you were not allowed to go to cousins weddings etc. It was preached that those folks had "left the church" and it was implied that their salvation was in question as a result. It was difficult as a teenager to feel that perhaps your grandparents had walked away from God

I was recently talking to a gentleman from Washington and Franklin about the animosity. He openly admitted that he would never allow his children to work for a Cumberland Valley man, and would "forbid" his kids from marrying outside their bracket (WandF, Eastern, exc). I understand the reason for the marriage restrictions, but can't imagine having a list of "acceptable" employers that consists of only business owned by men in your conference. I have heard that the ministry will sometimes "check up" on those employed by employers outside of the conference's influence. In my opinion that is bordering on a cult.

The concept of "leaving the church" is one that is hard for me to fathom, but I do understand why it persists. Fearing for the salvation of one's friends is probably a little over the top, but we all have our cut off where we would say they have forsaken god. Hopefully, it is not simply a slight difference in dress, car color, or covering style. But, it certainly could be forsaking the biblical doctrine of nonresistance.

It takes these kind of measures to retain membership in a setting such as this at times. There are folks who are members there simply because they are afraid to "leave the church" and face the ostracism that would accompany leaving.

YorkandAdams wrote: I was recently talking to a gentleman from Washington and Franklin about the animosity. He openly admitted that he would never allow his children to work for a Cumberland Valley man, and would "forbid" his kids from marrying outside their bracket (WandF, Eastern, exc). I understand the reason for the marriage restrictions, but can't imagine having a list of "acceptable" employers that consists of only business owned by men in your conference. I have heard that the ministry will sometimes "check up" on those employed by employers outside of the conference's influence. In my opinion that is bordering on a cult.

Was he referring to not allowing his pre-teens and teenagers to work for anyone from Cumberland Valley? If so, it seems to me the employment thing makes about as much sense as the marriage thing.
I wouldn't think it appropriate for him to tell his married son that he can't work for an employer who isn't W&F.

I'm curious what you mean by "checking up" on those employed by outside employers. Does it consist of a visit to the workplace once in a while? If so, that's the kind of thing I think ministry would be well advised to do for everyone. The difference is if working with similar minded believers, there's a bit of accountability that is missing when working for an employer who doesn't hold the same values your church holds dear.

Biblical Anabaptist wrote:

YorkandAdams wrote:

Biblical Anabaptist wrote: A common enemy produces some strange friendships. Mid-Atlantic and Hope both separated from Eastern at different times years ago, whereas Cumberland Valley and Washington-Franklin had a separation from each other some 50 years ago. At that time Washington-Franklin taught animosity toward Cumberland Valley. That lesson was well learned as, with the exception of a small segment of the younger generation, some of that animosity still exists. Perhaps animosity is a bit strong, but being a teenager in the Washington-Franklin (South) at the time of the division was difficult. At times you were not allowed to go to cousins weddings etc. It was preached that those folks had "left the church" and it was implied that their salvation was in question as a result. It was difficult as a teenager to feel that perhaps your grandparents had walked away from God

I was recently talking to a gentleman from Washington and Franklin about the animosity. He openly admitted that he would never allow his children to work for a Cumberland Valley man, and would "forbid" his kids from marrying outside their bracket (WandF, Eastern, exc). I understand the reason for the marriage restrictions, but can't imagine having a list of "acceptable" employers that consists of only business owned by men in your conference. I have heard that the ministry will sometimes "check up" on those employed by employers outside of the conference's influence. In my opinion that is bordering on a cult.

The concept of "leaving the church" is one that is hard for me to fathom, but I do understand why it persists. Fearing for the salvation of one's friends is probably a little over the top, but we all have our cut off where we would say they have forsaken god. Hopefully, it is not simply a slight difference in dress, car color, or covering style. But, it certainly could be forsaking the biblical doctrine of nonresistance.

It takes these kind of measures to retain membership in a setting such as this at times. There are folks who are members there simply because they are afraid to "leave the church" and face the ostracism that would accompany leaving.

Has anyone ever tried to make peace between these groups? It would be nice to see them get rid of the animosity.

MaxPC wrote:

Biblical Anabaptist wrote:

YorkandAdams wrote:
I was recently talking to a gentleman from Washington and Franklin about the animosity. He openly admitted that he would never allow his children to work for a Cumberland Valley man, and would "forbid" his kids from marrying outside their bracket (WandF, Eastern, exc). I understand the reason for the marriage restrictions, but can't imagine having a list of "acceptable" employers that consists of only business owned by men in your conference. I have heard that the ministry will sometimes "check up" on those employed by employers outside of the conference's influence. In my opinion that is bordering on a cult.

The concept of "leaving the church" is one that is hard for me to fathom, but I do understand why it persists. Fearing for the salvation of one's friends is probably a little over the top, but we all have our cut off where we would say they have forsaken god. Hopefully, it is not simply a slight difference in dress, car color, or covering style. But, it certainly could be forsaking the biblical doctrine of nonresistance.

It takes these kind of measures to retain membership in a setting such as this at times. There are folks who are members there simply because they are afraid to "leave the church" and face the ostracism that would accompany leaving.

Has anyone ever tried to make peace between these groups? It would be nice to see them get rid of the animosity.

As long as they are both right, there is no starting point.

MaxPC wrote: Has anyone ever tried to make peace between these groups? It would be nice to see them get rid of the animosity.

How I wish there could be peace. I think many of the members, especially of the younger generation, would be OK with making peace, but it seems some of the leadership feel to make peace would be to somehow compromise. Also W-F is allied with Eastern and Cumberland Valley associates with Pilgrim and Eastern and Pilgrim are at enmity with one another. Church politics Ggggrrrrrrrrrrr

Biblical Anabaptist wrote:

MaxPC wrote: Has anyone ever tried to make peace between these groups? It would be nice to see them get rid of the animosity.

How I wish there could be peace. I think many of the members, especially of the younger generation, would be OK with making peace, but it seems some of the leadership feel to make peace would be to somehow compromise. Also W-F is allied with Eastern and Cumberland Valley associates with Pilgrim and Eastern and Pilgrim are at enmity with one another. Church politics Ggggrrrrrrrrrrr

Why are some nonresistant believers so resistant of other believers even other nonresistant ones ? Heaven sure is going to be a different place than what goes on here.