The Church of God Movement

[Josh]

I claim St Thomas as being one of the progenitors of my own church as well, so it is just as sensible to view everyone else as in schism from my own denomination. (See how that works?) And there is indeed an Orthodox Mennonite Church - from what I understand, it has never had any schisms and has so far had exactly one person leave it since its founding (the notable Peter Hoover, actually).

I have it on good authority that he is a heretic so he doesn’t count.

To be fair, Mr Hoover hasn't started any other schisms, so he isn't a heretic by the strict definition.

[Sudsy]

1. Cor. 5.13 first half speaks of the unbelievers, second half you capslocked speaks of the Church (i.e. only believers).

By thw way, I didn't capslock this. This is directly from the Amplified version of scripture.

HAVE YOU LOOKED INTO GETTING HEARING AIDS INSTEAD OF USING THE AMPLIFIED VERSION?

I'm not a KJV only bible reader and I used the AMP here as, to me, these capitalized words were inferring that this was a 'no debating' issue', (the issue being whether to allow the wheat and the tares to grow up together or not in a local church). It appeared to me to be the most opposite to what Jesus said in Matthew 13:30 that reads 'Let both grow together until the harvest'.

However, since I hadn't made much investigation on using the AMP bible I found this that helps me to consider my use of the AMP version -
https://www.google.com/search?q=what+is ... 8anyw,st:0

[Neto]

Sudsy,

Mat 13:36  Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.
Mat 13:37  He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;
Mat 13:38  The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;
Mat 13:39  The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.
Mat 13:40  As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.
Mat 13:41  The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
Mat 13:42  And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Mat 13:43  Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

What does Jesus tell the disciples the field is?

Sudsy, the Inference I draw from Soloist's question is to point out that Jesus said that the field is the world. Incidentally, that is also the meaning when he says "The fields are white unto harvest." But the Matthew text is (in my understanding) speaking of a final and EARLY harvest - before the wheat is fully ripened. (Having grown up with wheat fields on three sides of our house, I am familiar with what the root system of wheat is like. And having seen what we called cheat growing amongst the wheat, I know that if you attempted to pull up the cheat, it would also uproot any wheat near it. However, I've never seen a wheat field sown by broad-casting seed, only that planted using machinery, in continuous rows. I also do not know if cheat & tares are the same thing.)

As for the MBs, my experience is that the goal is still a pure church, so there would not be tolerance for obvious unbelievers in the congregation. Admittedly this could vary from one congregation to another, and probably does for any church affiliation.

[Sudsy]

As for the MBs, my experience is that the goal is still a pure church, so there would not be tolerance for obvious unbelievers in the congregation. Admittedly this could vary from one congregation to another, and probably does for any church affiliation.

One thing I did not hear any preaching on when I attended our local MB church is a goal to have 'a pure church'. The goal was more to evangelize and was very welcoming to have unbelievers in the congregation. Even taking communion this was left open to the individual to determine if they considered themselves worthy to participate.

I'm not sure what they would say is a 'pure church' as it obviously does not involve a standard of dress requirement (some instrumentalist guys even wear hats, short pants and ladies wear whatever they care to and none wear head coverings). The last three pastors come from a Christian & Missionary Alliance ordination, a Pentecostal ordination and the new one to begin this month, another Pentecostal ordination.

So, it would seem to me that this local MB church does not do any study on the lives of those seeking baptism and membership and has considerable tolerance in the area of sanctification. Actually, even surprising to me, last Sunday they had a Baptist minister fill in.

I suppose this is why many here would label it a 'liberal' church versus a 'conservative' one. One thing that stands out is that of all the Mennonite churches in the area, this church has the most non-ethnic Mennonite attenders. My guess is that in the MB world, this church is considered by some as borderline MB.

[Josh]

In Dutch Anabaptism a "pure church" means having a communion that does not have people in unrepentant sin regularly partaking. In the 1600s, I don't think very many people were worried about women wearing pants.

[Neto]

As for the MBs, my experience is that the goal is still a pure church, so there would not be tolerance for obvious unbelievers in the congregation. Admittedly this could vary from one congregation to another, and probably does for any church affiliation.

One thing I did not hear any preaching on when I attended our local MB church is a goal to have 'a pure church'. The goal was more to evangelize and was very welcoming to have unbelievers in the congregation. Even taking communion this was left open to the individual to determine if they considered themselves worthy to participate.

I'm not sure what they would say is a 'pure church' as it obviously does not involve a standard of dress requirement (some instrumentalist guys even wear hats, short pants and ladies wear whatever they care to and none wear head coverings). The last three pastors come from a Christian & Missionary Alliance ordination, a Pentecostal ordination and the new one to begin this month, another Pentecostal ordination.

So, it would seem to me that this local MB church does not do any study on the lives of those seeking baptism and membership and has considerable tolerance in the area of sanctification. Actually, even surprising to me, last Sunday they had a Baptist minister fill in.

I suppose this is why many here would label it a 'liberal' church versus a 'conservative' one. One thing that stands out is that of all the Mennonite churches in the area, this church has the most non-ethnic Mennonite attenders. My guess is that in the MB world, this church is considered by some as borderline MB.

As Josh suggests, the focus was not on dress styles (either men's or women's). In the early Dutch baptism-minded era, there were some directives to avoid ostentatious styles - the clothing of the wealthy. By the time the MB church started, the setting was completely different. All of the people in the whole community (or nearly so) were members in either the 'Big Church", or the "Little Church" (Kleine Gemeinde). There probably were those of the landed class who dressed quite fancy, but the focus of the MBs was on moral living. That was the primary need at that time.

But as you suggest, in the present day concerns over these things may well vary widely. I do not know what it's like now, in the congregation I grew up in. I have only been there twice in well more than 5 years, once only for adult Sunday School, after which I left to return to Ohio, and once for my Dad's funeral. When we were there the time before 5 years ago, we all went to service at the Zion Mennonite church, about 35 miles away. (This congregation was "Old Mennonite", then went independent when their conference joined the General Conference Mennonite church, to form MC-USA.)

I no longer feel comfortable there in that MB church, but from what my Mom tells me, the current pastor, although not from Mennonite background at all, is very interested in the spiritual heritage of the MB church, and of the larger Dutch Mennonite group. The previous pastor, who was there when the congregation reached the 100 year mark (2013) - he did nothing to commemorate that milestone at all. I just recently heard the current pastor preach for the first time (via internet), at my cousin's wife's funeral.

[Sudsy]

I no longer feel comfortable there in that MB church, but from what my Mom tells me, the current pastor, although not from Mennonite background at all, is very interested in the spiritual heritage of the MB church, and of the larger Dutch Mennonite group. The previous pastor, who was there when the congregation reached the 100 year mark (2013) - he did nothing to commemorate that milestone at all. I just recently heard the current pastor preach for the first time (via internet), at my cousin's wife's funeral.

I wonder why both the MB church you mentioned above and our local MB church have went for pastors outside a Mennonite background. Are these the exceptions or a trend ?

One doctrine I don't recall any sermons on was on non-resistance although it remains in the MB confession stated as 'In times of national conscription or war, we believe we are called to give alternative service where possible.' What did surprise me the first time it showed up was our MB pastor wearing a poppy for Remembrance Day and both pastors since that time, as well as guess speakers, wear a poppy around this time. We even had a spot in the service to stop for a few minutes of quiet reflection on those who died in wars. Is this a common thing in other non-resistance Mennonite churches or is this more an exception ? I'm not aware of how other Mennonite churches respond to what others call Remembrance Day Sundays.

My uncomfortable feeling in our local MB church is primarily the music which is quite similar to that of the Pentecostal church just down the street. My wife would wear ear plugs until the music stopped.

[Soloist]

One doctrine I don't recall any sermons on was on non-resistance although it remains in the MB confession stated as 'In times of national conscription or war, we believe we are called to give alternative service where possible.' What did surprise me the first time it showed up was our MB pastor wearing a poppy for Remembrance Day and both pastors since that time, as well as guess speakers, wear a poppy around this time. We even had a spot in the service to stop for a few minutes of quiet reflection on those who died in wars. Is this a common thing in other non-resistance Mennonite churches or is this more an exception ? I'm not aware of how other Mennonite churches respond to what others call Remembrance Day Sundays.

I always dread Veterans Day, Memorial Day or any patriotic holiday… I would be mortified if a visiting speaker or a regular have praise to the men who had died to defend our country. I’d far rather give praise to the martyrs of ours who died in prison or were persecuted for nonresistance. I’d rather see the white feather worn then a poppy.

[Neto]

I no longer feel comfortable there in that MB church, but from what my Mom tells me, the current pastor, although not from Mennonite background at all, is very interested in the spiritual heritage of the MB church, and of the larger Dutch Mennonite group. The previous pastor, who was there when the congregation reached the 100 year mark (2013) - he did nothing to commemorate that milestone at all. I just recently heard the current pastor preach for the first time (via internet), at my cousin's wife's funeral.

I wonder why both the MB church you mentioned above and our local MB church have went for pastors outside a Mennonite background. Are these the exceptions or a trend ?

One doctrine I don't recall any sermons on was on non-resistance although it remains in the MB confession stated as 'In times of national conscription or war, we believe we are called to give alternative service where possible.' What did surprise me the first time it showed up was our MB pastor wearing a poppy for Remembrance Day and both pastors since that time, as well as guess speakers, wear a poppy around this time. We even had a spot in the service to stop for a few minutes of quiet reflection on those who died in wars. Is this a common thing in other non-resistance Mennonite churches or is this more an exception ? I'm not aware of how other Mennonite churches respond to what others call Remembrance Day Sundays.

My uncomfortable feeling in our local MB church is primarily the music which is quite similar to that of the Pentecostal church just down the street. My wife would wear ear plugs until the music stopped.

re: non-resistance doctrinal fidelity in the MB conferences:
Yes, there is a general softening or deterioration of doctrine in many MB congregations (not all), and unfortunately at the conference level, regarding this doctrine. (At least I know that it is in the US MB conference, and from what you say, probably also in the Canadian conference. The old North American conference divided in, I think, 1991, perhaps mainly over the issue of women in the ministry. Canada wanted it, and the US not as much - not enough for it to pass in the joint conference.) The Peace & War section of the confession was re-worked some years ago, maybe 7 or 8? 'Softened', some would say, while others would say 'eroded'. Each side gave up a bit, and thus avoided a possible split (which there has never been in the MB church, since its beginning).

re: outside pastors:
I think that the feeling of affinity with Baptists goes back to the Russian Empire era, when MBs were ostracized by the Big Church Mennonites, and where the Baptists in that setting were not really much like Baptists here in North America. This gets over-looked. (An example: When many Russians and Ukrainians were able to leave the USSR in around 1980, and then again during the Gorbachev era, many immigrated to the US (and probably Canada as well). At first they formed their own groups, but later decided to affiliate with an already existing conference here in North America. Surely they considered American Baptist groups, but chose to affiliate with the MB conference (at least those in the US). I do not think any Russian Baptist groups that are older than the collapse of the Soviet Union are Calvinists. This might be one of the doctrinal considerations that lead them to the MBs. The other thing is that the MB church was not able to maintain a legal church in the USSR, whereas the Baptists somehow were (maybe because they were never non-resistant..).

So when the MBs organized in the US, they didn't immediately form their own Bible schools, were not accepted by the Mennonites already here in the US, so they sent men to the Baptist training schools. (In the Russian Empire era, they had typically gone to institutions farther west in the main part of Europe, if there was a desire for higher level education.)

But basically, I see this trend (getting non-Mennonite background pastors) as a part of a move toward Evangelicalism. For MBs (at least where I grew up), the amil position is considered 'liberal', so there was also resistance on the part of MBs to go to any institution run by other Mennonites here in North America. Then it got into the MB seminary in Fresno, and I remember how upset my dad was about this 'liberal influence'. (This was in the later 80's or maybe into the 90's.)

The US 'Forth of July' - Yes, that became an uncomfortable Sunday for me, after I became (first a pacifist, then) non-resistant. [I was in around JR High when the first young man to go into the military was "sent off with honors" from the pastor and the congregation. But I was still very patriotic at that time, or maybe that was part of what lead me in that direction. Hadn't thought of that before.]