MennoNet.com

ken_sylvania wrote:A local minister I know well had some pain and went to the ER. Was sent to a specialist and was diagnosed with a very aggressive type of cancer - given max. six months to live (this was about a year or so ago IIRC). He was anointed and it seems the Lord has healed him. He has not returned to the specialist to be checked out further, as he believes that would be questioning the work of the Lord.
Another individual I know was recently anointed because of a worsening of what I understand to have been an ear/hearing ailment that was causing headaches.
Neither of these cases was anywhere close to "last rites."
"Anointing with oil" is taught in our circles as an ordinance of the church. The point is often made that the purpose of anointing is for the healing of the body, (subject to God's will) and we are warned not to treat this gift of God as a "last resort."

I agree that this is the Biblical way of looking at this. I was just curious how wide-spread the attitude I've seen here is. Also, regarding going back to the doctor after being healed - I would think of this as a way to witness to the power of God, when the doctor has to say that what he knows he saw before, and knowing medicine, that there has been an inexplicable event take place. I have heard of these cases, and I think it does not need to be seen as doubting God to go back to confirm medically what you already know in your body has taken place.

Hats Off wrote:Okay, but I do find that surprising. My sister asked for anointing before she went into hospital to start a bone marrow transplant.

Perhaps this “last rites” thing is more of an Amish or Amish-background thing.

I haven’t run into it at all in Holdeman circles.

Neto wrote:

ken_sylvania wrote:A local minister I know well had some pain and went to the ER. Was sent to a specialist and was diagnosed with a very aggressive type of cancer - given max. six months to live (this was about a year or so ago IIRC). He was anointed and it seems the Lord has healed him. He has not returned to the specialist to be checked out further, as he believes that would be questioning the work of the Lord.
Another individual I know was recently anointed because of a worsening of what I understand to have been an ear/hearing ailment that was causing headaches.
Neither of these cases was anywhere close to "last rites."
"Anointing with oil" is taught in our circles as an ordinance of the church. The point is often made that the purpose of anointing is for the healing of the body, (subject to God's will) and we are warned not to treat this gift of God as a "last resort."

I agree that this is the Biblical way of looking at this. I was just curious how wide-spread the attitude I've seen here is. Also, regarding going back to the doctor after being healed - I would think of this as a way to witness to the power of God, when the doctor has to say that what he knows he saw before, and knowing medicine, that there has been an inexplicable event take place. I have heard of these cases, and I think it does not need to be seen as doubting God to go back to confirm medically what you already know in your body has taken place.

Agree- testimonies are powerful and purposeful- that's altogether different than going to see if God worked-

Neto wrote:

Hats Off wrote:Certainly in our circles, it is not a Last Rites type of thing and I highly doubt that most Old Order Amish would take that view.

OK. I'll put it this way. Very few Amish here will call for anointing unless they feel the end is very near, or should I say, if they are told that a person is having the ministers come for an anointing, their response is: "Oh, I didn't know it was that bad." (I didn't observe this- the information comes from my wife's Amish relatives.) As such, it is viewed as a preparation for death, and not a preparation for healing. An elderly Beachy Amish Mennonite relative recently said that he had asked the ministers to come for an anointing; that he is ready to go, "and maybe it would even help <the health problem he is facing>".

Josh wrote:My guess is that it is a carryover from various Catholic rites that seeped into Anabaptist circles (much like the belief many Anabaptists have that only someone who is baptised may participate in communion - which aligns with Catholic belief certainly, but is not aligned at all with the New Testament.)

Anointing with oil was not practiced much in Anabaptist circles until the late 1800's. The use of this ordinance was initiated as a response to the influence of faith healers who were affecting religious thought in that time period. Mennonite leaders went to the scriptures to see what a proper response should be and realized that had been neglecting to use a NT injunction. Whether or not the Amish in Ohio were influenced by this Mennonite response I do not know.

In the Old Order/Conservative Mennonite world where I grew up, only those with terminal illnesses requested anointing. This gave it a "last rites" feel in that many such people died. In Beachy Amish and other congregations where I've been since then, anointing could be called for for any sickness or condition. I was once anointed for a double hernia situation that required surgery, and by all appearances, I was healed as a result of this. A couple years later a physician said I had no need for surgery as I was in "good condition." Granted, asking for healing for this kind of thing is rare in most conservative Anabaptist circles but it is permitted in the less traditionalist and more intentionalist type congregations.

I suppose its a testament to our historical unAnabaptist side that our folks (Brethren) have used anointing since our organization in 1708. I confess I had simply assumed it was also part of Anabaptist culture in the 1600s/1700s. One can learn something every day. Is there truly no reference to it at all pre-1800s, or is that just when it became much more prevalent/public?

Interesting to me is the way that the Anabaptists were open to ongoing Biblical revelation and adjusted their beliefs accordingly.

Heirbyadoption wrote:I suppose its a testament to our historical unAnabaptist side that our folks (Brethren) have used anointing since our organization in 1708. I confess I had simply assumed it was also part of Anabaptist culture in the 1600s/1700s. One can learn something every day. Is there truly no reference to it at all pre-1800s, or is that just when it became much more prevalent/public?

All the resources I've read about Mennonites say that little to nothing is written about it until the 1800's so it is not known how if and how much it was used. Do you know if it was more popular in Brethren circles at certain times in their history?

Ernie wrote:

Heirbyadoption wrote:I suppose its a testament to our historical unAnabaptist side that our folks (Brethren) have used anointing since our organization in 1708. I confess I had simply assumed it was also part of Anabaptist culture in the 1600s/1700s. One can learn something every day. Is there truly no reference to it at all pre-1800s, or is that just when it became much more prevalent/public?

All the resources I've read about Mennonites say that little to nothing is written about it until the 1800's so it is not known how if and how much it was used. Do you know if it was more popular in Brethren circles at certain times in their history?

It seems the early Anabaptists were very Biblical in their approach- taking everything literal in Scripture, I am not sure how they would skip the anointing of oil- could it be that they were not writing everything down that they were practicing?

Early Anabaptists followed Matthew 5, yet didn’t anoint their hair with oil when fasting. I suspect they approached James the same way.

Josh wrote:Early Anabaptists followed Matthew 5, yet didn’t anoint their hair with oil when fasting. I suspect they approached James the same way.

James 5 was written for the New Testament Church, not specifically to the Jews- it was after the Resurrection, which the Apostles were commissioned to teach led by the Holy Spirit- so it appears to be somewhat a picking and choosing then of what New Testament passages to apply? So if they didn't quite understand something, perhaps it was skipped- but it is something that has been practiced in the Church for 2000 years not limited to this denomination or that- it is part of the Gospel- I am just not quick to assume they didn't do it, none of us (or you) were there at the time to know if everything they did they wrote down (the early Anabaptists)-prayer, fasting, anointing with oil is mentioned more in the NT than headcovering so I am not sure how one could assume it was overlooked or intentionally avoided.