MennoNet.com

YorkandAdams wrote:I just talked to someone today, who happens to be a lot closer to this thing than I am. Bishop support will not be coming from Meadow Springs. Three bishops from Nationwide are going to give oversite. Sorry for the confusion.

It is interesting how obsessive many conservative Mennonites are about the need for bishop oversight when establishing a new congregation.

What is the reason for this?
Is this rooted in a biblical basis?
Is it really necessary in order to properly found a Christian congregation, or for a congregation to thrive?

Some leadership, with authority, is required, it seems, to bring legitimacy to the group. The Ontario Orthodox did not originally have a bishop according to Peter Hoover but they had a Felliger Deiner who served as a bishop. Today they have bishops but in conservative Mennonite circles, it takes 3 bishops to lay hands on when ordaining a new bishop. That would automatically eliminate Meadow Springs from giving oversight to Appalachian since they don't have the requisite 3 bishops.

In my observation, bishops need as much oversight and accountability as anyone. Sometimes even more.

ohio jones wrote:In my observation, bishops need as much oversight and accountability as anyone. Sometimes even more.

I keep insisting that we as lay people have a responsibility here; to be sure not an easy one since we have no official authority from our church; but scripture does make us responsible.

It doesn't really matter what you call them, I guess. The Bible seems to portray a two office leadership, but in most cases things go better if someone is in charge. We tossed the idea around in our congregation of going bishopless. But I noticed that the buck didn't seem to stop anywhere. None of our leaders would step out on their own and make things happen. So we ended up with a bishop ordination.

There is a difference in our fellowship though. In Nationwide and Eastern, a bishop seems to only be accountable to other bishops. In our fellowship, it seems that bishops mostly make themselves accountable to their congregations as well. I think that's a good thing.

lesterb wrote:It doesn't really matter what you call them, I guess. The Bible seems to portray a two office leadership, but in most cases things go better if someone is in charge. We tossed the idea around in our congregation of going bishopless. But I noticed that the buck didn't seem to stop anywhere. None of our leaders would step out on their own and make things happen. So we ended up with a bishop ordination.

There is a difference in our fellowship though. In Nationwide and Eastern, a bishop seems to only be accountable to other bishops. In our fellowship, it seems that bishops mostly make themselves accountable to their congregations as well. I think that's a good thing.

I think that can be a good thing, but it's possible to get into the ditch on that side of the road as well. I'm not comfortable with statements like "the bishop's job is to administer the way his congregation wants him to." There are at least a couple of Nationwide congregations that seem to have taken that position.

With a bishop ordination, it means again that the man is not acting on his own and is therefore required to provide leadership.

Holdemans eliminated the traditional office of bishop and also discarded the term, and they simply ordain ministers and deacons now. They aim to make a minister meet the qualifications of an “elder” or “bishop”.

Deacons and ministers are accountable to their own congregations in the sense a congregation can move to “bench” a minister. This is not an excommunication but simply temporarily relieves him of his duties. The remaining deacons and ministers fill the gap. If none are left, nearby congregations send their ministers and deacons to fill the gap.

Deacons and ministers are also accountable to other ministers and deacons who can also move to bench a minister or deacon. And someone in one congregation can go to another congregation for help if things are really bad.

I think eliminating the strong top down authority of bishops was a good thing.

ken_sylvania wrote:

lesterb wrote:It doesn't really matter what you call them, I guess. The Bible seems to portray a two office leadership, but in most cases things go better if someone is in charge. We tossed the idea around in our congregation of going bishopless. But I noticed that the buck didn't seem to stop anywhere. None of our leaders would step out on their own and make things happen. So we ended up with a bishop ordination.

There is a difference in our fellowship though. In Nationwide and Eastern, a bishop seems to only be accountable to other bishops. In our fellowship, it seems that bishops mostly make themselves accountable to their congregations as well. I think that's a good thing.

I think that can be a good thing, but it's possible to get into the ditch on that side of the road as well. I'm not comfortable with statements like "the bishop's job is to administer the way his congregation wants him to." There are at least a couple of Nationwide congregations that seem to have taken that position.

I'd be curious what Nationwide congregations or bishops would take that position. I spent most of forty years in those circles and that sure wasn't the direction they were going for the last 20 years.

lesterb wrote:

ken_sylvania wrote:

lesterb wrote:It doesn't really matter what you call them, I guess. The Bible seems to portray a two office leadership, but in most cases things go better if someone is in charge. We tossed the idea around in our congregation of going bishopless. But I noticed that the buck didn't seem to stop anywhere. None of our leaders would step out on their own and make things happen. So we ended up with a bishop ordination.

There is a difference in our fellowship though. In Nationwide and Eastern, a bishop seems to only be accountable to other bishops. In our fellowship, it seems that bishops mostly make themselves accountable to their congregations as well. I think that's a good thing.

I think that can be a good thing, but it's possible to get into the ditch on that side of the road as well. I'm not comfortable with statements like "the bishop's job is to administer the way his congregation wants him to." There are at least a couple of Nationwide congregations that seem to have taken that position.

I'd be curious what Nationwide congregations or bishops would take that position. I spent most of forty years in those circles and that sure wasn't the direction they were going for the last 20 years.

That would be my impression of some of the NC churches.