Twenty five years of freefall

Christian ethics and theology with an Anabaptist perspective
temporal1
Posts: 16279
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2016 12:09 pm
Location: U.S. midwest and PNW
Affiliation: Christian other

Re: Twenty five years of freefall

Post by temporal1 »

appleman2006 wrote:I guess I need to read more about those years. (1890 to 1915) To describe them as total years of freefall may be using a bit strong language to describe an era where I believe both sides of the church (the OO split off and the "old" Mennonite church) were trying to find their way. I believe there were many very sincere folks on both sides of the equation that were really struggling to determine what serving Christ looked like in the new industrial age.

Certainly there is evidence that both sides had extreme elements to them that really came out some 30 years later in future splits at least here in Ontario. On the liberal side there was an element that was eager to take the liberal critical thinking of the past generations of the mainline protestant churches and make it their own. Unfortunately this element was balanced off by another extreme IMO where some elements of the counteractive fundamentalists were adapted. On the conservative side there were those that were convinced that danger could be averted simply by implementing a culture of no change whatsoever or as some decided since that proved to be impossible at least look on change as probably being bad until it simply cannot be avoided. They simply could not seem to accept the idea of an unchanging God in a changing world.
This era has a lot of personal interest to me as my great great grandfather whose land I still reside and work on was a central figure of that time. I read some of his writings and hear stories of some of what must of been heart wrenching times as he had to make decisions which put him at odds with a brother-in-law of his from another district who he was obviously very close to.
I have often wondered how different the Mennonite church might look today had they been able to compromise and reconcile their differences. I have a theory that the corresponding result could of been one where the extremes would of balanced each other off and the end result would of been something much more in between the two today.
Just a little over a month ago something happened in our church that I like to think would of made both those men smile. One of the great great grandson s of one of those men as the out going superintendent for our Sunday school met along with others, the incoming SS superintendent who happened to be the great great grandson of the other bishop to pick SS teachers and make plans for another year of SS.
I think they would of smiled because I think both would of been wise enough to recognize that some 130 years later one of their fears would of been diminished in that even with all the changes there was still at least a desire among some in the communities they both represented to serve God in the time and place they were called to.
in a nutshell - :oops:
i agree with all above, yours and others.
speaking in generalizations consistently brings exceptions.
i find both pertinent and valuable. when i was young, i loathed generalizations. i've softened on that.

Jesus, alone, speaks flawlessly, the rest of us stumble around, some of using too many words, others maybe too few. but, none of us speaks in whole. we take stabs at it. i'm not even sure why. :)
0 x
Most or all of this drama, humiliation, wasted taxpayer money could be spared -
with even modest attempt at presenting balanced facts from the start.


”We’re all just walking each other home.”
UNKNOWN
User avatar
ohio jones
Posts: 5222
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:23 pm
Location: undisclosed
Affiliation: Rosedale Network

Re: Twenty five years of freefall

Post by ohio jones »

appleman2006 wrote:I guess I need to read more about those years. (1890 to 1915) To describe them as total years of freefall may be using a bit strong language to describe an era where I believe both sides of the church (the OO split off and the "old" Mennonite church) were trying to find their way. I believe there were many very sincere folks on both sides of the equation that were really struggling to determine what serving Christ looked like in the new industrial age.

Certainly there is evidence that both sides had extreme elements to them that really came out some 30 years later in future splits at least here in Ontario. On the liberal side there was an element that was eager to take the liberal critical thinking of the past generations of the mainline protestant churches and make it their own. Unfortunately this element was balanced off by another extreme IMO where some elements of the counteractive fundamentalists were adapted. On the conservative side there were those that were convinced that danger could be averted simply by implementing a culture of no change whatsoever or as some decided since that proved to be impossible at least look on change as probably being bad until it simply cannot be avoided. They simply could not seem to accept the idea of an unchanging God in a changing world.

This era has a lot of personal interest to me as my great great grandfather whose land I still reside and work on was a central figure of that time. I read some of his writings and hear stories of some of what must of been heart wrenching times as he had to make decisions which put him at odds with a brother-in-law of his from another district who he was obviously very close to.

I have often wondered how different the Mennonite church might look today had they been able to compromise and reconcile their differences. I have a theory that the corresponding result could of been one where the extremes would of balanced each other off and the end result would of been something much more in between the two today.
Just a little over a month ago something happened in our church that I like to think would of made both those men smile. One of the great great grandsons of one of those men as the out going superintendent for our Sunday school met along with others, the incoming SS superintendent who happened to be the great great grandson of the other bishop to pick SS teachers and make plans for another year of SS.

I think they would of smiled because I think both would of been wise enough to recognize that some 130 years later one of their fears would of been diminished in that even with all the changes there was still at least a desire among some in the communities they both represented to serve God in the time and place they were called to.
So then the question becomes which time period's practices and values become the chosen frozen? Using the example of Sunday School, is it the 1890s (never had it, never will) or the 1960s ("always" had it, always will)? Can both be faithful servants in the same time and place?
0 x
I grew up around Indiana, You grew up around Galilee; And if I ever really do grow up, I wanna grow up to be just like You -- Rich Mullins

I am a Christian and my name is Pilgram; I'm on a journey, but I'm not alone -- NewSong, slightly edited
appleman2006
Posts: 2455
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 1:50 pm
Affiliation: Midwest Mennonite

Re: Twenty five years of freefall

Post by appleman2006 »

I certainly believe that is possible. As I have stated many times before, there is more than one way to eat your porridge.

As to having Sunday School and always sticking to the exact format and somehow thinking that will be your ticket to spirituality, I think we all know that is phooey. In fact in our preparation for Sunday School this year we talked at length about how Sunday School can and does become just as ritualistic as any other form of church gathering to some people. If a person does not take the time to apply themselves both in study and then in participation and if the teachers simply start to get into an exact mode of how things are done class after class it can lose all it's benefits. I have seen it happen first hand in some groups I have visited.

However I do say that SS done properly does have a very Anabaptist aspect to it. It is a golden opportunity to practice brotherhood of all believers where all believers have an equal opportunity to express what they have learned to each other as well as to directly learn from each other. It gives an incentive to study to many more that might not ordinarily have that opportunity.
My grandfather joined a church that had Sunday School in the last years of his life. One of the last things I remember him saying on Monday morning just a bit before he died was how much he enjoyed Sunday School. I was impressed with how genuinely enthused he was about it and it left quite an impression on me. I had enjoyed the benefits of SS since I was three and kind of took it for granted. He was experiencing it for the first time at 74 and was as excited as I had ever seen him.
0 x
RZehr
Posts: 7027
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 12:42 am
Affiliation: Cons. Mennonite

Re: Twenty five years of freefall

Post by RZehr »

To have SS or not. That was a question that we just decided at our new church. We will have SS.
0 x
Hats Off
Posts: 2532
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 6:42 pm
Affiliation: Plain Menno OO

Re: Twenty five years of freefall

Post by Hats Off »

Well, I was wondering how long I could get by without being chastised for the "Free fall" comment. :hug: When I look at the time period between say 1890 and 1920 it seems to me that the Old Orders could now go back to somewhat of an earlier pattern. Certainly English meetings and Sunday Schools were dropped. My father used to say that in the Lancaster County area, in less than twenty years after the split, both groups had more members than the combined total of members before the split. While most of us don't like the idea of a split, sometimes it appears to be necessary.

To me it always appeared that the Old order were free to hold back the way they wanted while the other side, freed from the restraints that had existed before, didn't really know just how to proceed which resulted in what I called the free fall. After Daniel Kaufman and other fundamentalists took control, much of what had found its way in, was rejected again. What I find most revealing is photos from that era - the drastic change that took place between about 1895 and 1915 in dress, especially in women's dress.
0 x
appleman2006
Posts: 2455
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 1:50 pm
Affiliation: Midwest Mennonite

Re: Twenty five years of freefall

Post by appleman2006 »

Hats Off wrote: My father used to say that in the Lancaster County area, in less than twenty years after the split, both groups had more members than the combined total of members before the split. While most of us don't like the idea of a split, sometimes it appears to be necessary.

To me it always appeared that the Old order were free to hold back the way they wanted while the other side, freed from the restraints that had existed before, didn't really know just how to proceed which resulted in what I called the free fall. After Daniel Kaufman and other fundamentalists took control, much of what had found its way in, was rejected again. What I find most revealing is photos from that era - the drastic change that took place between about 1895 and 1915 in dress, especially in women's dress.
I know this is an older thread but I have not forgot about it and have been thinking about it quite a bit the last while but due to the time of year did not have a chance to respond. Hats Off, I have never really thought about or heard that fact before in regards to the immediate growth after the split. Did anything like that happen here in Ontario.

If this is what happens why? I am wondering if it has to be with the fact that perhaps a higher percentage of the people feel like their concerns and convictions are being heard and therefor there is a bigger buy in the the church and it's programs resulting in young people also choosing to join. '

Conversely with time when people feel they are no longer being heard they loose interest maybe not to the point where they leave but their chi8ldren do. I am wondering if there is a lesson to be learned from this. The more decisions are made or appear to be made by a select few or it appears that certain groups always get their way and there is never any compromise from certain people but others are always expected to give in the more likely people decide to leave. Any truth to that?
0 x
MaxPC
Posts: 9044
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2016 9:09 pm
Location: Former full time RVers
Affiliation: PlainRomanCatholic
Contact:

Re: Twenty five years of freefall

Post by MaxPC »

My experience and observation: I see similar things occurring in multiple places/churches/fellowships. I suspect it's a combination of different reasons in each case. Among all these scenarios there is one rationale that is shared. That of the need to feel a part of a supportive community of believers in the difficult road of discipleship. They express the desire for people to know their name, their story, and their spiritual struggles. They don't desire a dictatorship, a cult, or its opposite the "anything goes, I'm OK, you're OK" approach.

YMMV :D
0 x
Max (Plain Catholic)
Mt 24:35
Proverbs 18:2 A fool does not delight in understanding but only in revealing his own mind.
1 Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is folly with God
Hats Off
Posts: 2532
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 6:42 pm
Affiliation: Plain Menno OO

Re: Twenty five years of freefall

Post by Hats Off »

appleman2006 wrote:
Hats Off wrote: My father used to say that in the Lancaster County area, in less than twenty years after the split, both groups had more members than the combined total of members before the split. While most of us don't like the idea of a split, sometimes it appears to be necessary.

To me it always appeared that the Old order were free to hold back the way they wanted while the other side, freed from the restraints that had existed before, didn't really know just how to proceed which resulted in what I called the free fall. After Daniel Kaufman and other fundamentalists took control, much of what had found its way in, was rejected again. What I find most revealing is photos from that era - the drastic change that took place between about 1895 and 1915 in dress, especially in women's dress.
I know this is an older thread but I have not forgot about it and have been thinking about it quite a bit the last while but due to the time of year did not have a chance to respond. Hats Off, I have never really thought about or heard that fact before in regards to the immediate growth after the split. Did anything like that happen here in Ontario.

If this is what happens why? I am wondering if it has to be with the fact that perhaps a higher percentage of the people feel like their concerns and convictions are being heard and therefor there is a bigger buy in the the church and it's programs resulting in young people also choosing to join. '

Conversely with time when people feel they are no longer being heard they loose interest maybe not to the point where they leave but their chi8ldren do. I am wondering if there is a lesson to be learned from this. The more decisions are made or appear to be made by a select few or it appears that certain groups always get their way and there is never any compromise from certain people but others are always expected to give in the more likely people decide to leave. Any truth to that?
From what I can understand, there were several reasons for this, but I have no doubt that it did occur. First, there were many people not happy with the amount of compromise that was necessary to keep things working. That meant that some on both ends did not join. Some were probably waiting to see what the outcome of all the unrest would be before making a commitment. At time of turmoil some will choose an alternative action like a more liberal or more conservative group. After the split, those people who were undecided, made a choice for one side or the other.

The other, possibly bigger issue, was a general condition of lukewarmness throughout the entire church, among both conservatives and liberals. After the split, when both sides were more free to work the way they desired, this lukewarmness was addressed by both sides of the split. That is a reason they talk of the Great Awakening. Even though we usually don't think church splits are good, I think this one was very effective and needful.
0 x
Hats Off
Posts: 2532
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 6:42 pm
Affiliation: Plain Menno OO

Re: Twenty five years of freefall

Post by Hats Off »

I would suggest that there was some of the same happened in Ontario, but the division in Ontario was much more geographical. The people in the lower areas "die unrah" below Waterloo largely went with the one side while the "Woolwhichers" from the upper area went Old Order. There is less written about Ontario, at least from the Old Order side so I am not as confident. At about the same time as the fundamentalist teaching made inroads among the liberal side, in Ontario there still were issues with some Woolwichers wanting to be more old order which resulted in the David Martin split.
0 x
User avatar
Josh
Posts: 23826
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:23 pm
Location: 1000' ASL
Affiliation: The church of God

Re: Twenty five years of freefall

Post by Josh »

The “church split” in 1525 seems very effective and needful; in Paul’s words, “For in the first place, when you come together as a church I hear there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it. For there must in fact be divisions among you, so that those of you who are approved may be evident.”
0 x
Post Reply