MennoNet.com

temporal1 wrote:

Ken wrote:

PetrChelcicky wrote:My qualms are mainly about the "Letters" section. Till now, MennoWorld had a system of "you write it under the article - we only sort out what defies our rules". But "The Mennonite" had stopped comments at all, and I already was afraid that they would not continue the MennoWorld practice. In fact they now have a system of "you write it to the editor and he allows it if he deems it useful". This discourages critical commenters, it also allows to process only critical comments who are seen as safe/harmless, because (a) dull/moronic or (b) over the edge.

I’ve always thought that church would be a MUCH more interesting and engaging place if congregants engaged the ministers by raising hands and asking questions and there was back and forth like in a classroom. Rather than just passively consuming content (and often just tuning it out). In my mind, I imagine that is much more like what the early church was like, meeting in people’s houses and such.

it’s easy to imagine you would prefer this arrangement, but many believe a time of dedicated worship and submission to God is imperative.

possibly the Quaker methods would appeal to you?
i have not experienced, i have read, their meetings (not called church) are based on spontaneous contributions (spirit-led) of members.

I’m not trying to re-invent church. We actually attend Episcopal church more than anything because it is what my former Catholic wife is most comfortable with. And it is more formal/worship oriented than traditional Mennonite services. But I also don’t think there is anything particularly biblical about the structure of most church services. It’s mostly just tradition. I expect most modern church services today would be nearly unrecognizable to early Christians.

My point was that the one-way communication mode that online Menno magazines seem to be taking without comment sections pretty much matches how most church is conducted in real life. And when actual questions are raised it gets done through a carefully curated multi-year “discernment” process that no one except the leaders actually fully understand. Kind of like how they handle comments in these magazines.

Ken wrote:

PetrChelcicky wrote:My qualms are mainly about the "Letters" section. Till now, MennoWorld had a system of "you write it under the article - we only sort out what defies our rules". But "The Mennonite" had stopped comments at all, and I already was afraid that they would not continue the MennoWorld practice. In fact they now have a system of "you write it to the editor and he allows it if he deems it useful". This discourages critical commenters, it also allows to process only critical comments who are seen as safe/harmless, because (a) dull/moronic or (b) over the edge.

I’ve always thought that church would be a MUCH more interesting and engaging place if congregants engaged the ministers by raising hands and asking questions and there was back and forth like in a classroom. Rather than just passively consuming content (and often just tuning it out). In my mind, I imagine that is much more like what the early church was like, meeting in people’s houses and such.

Sounds like you haven't been to a CA church then or I attend a really good one? Because there is a lot of engagement, maybe not during the sermon in particular but during Sunday school and afterward I have been invited and encouraged to give push back if need be by the minister here. He asks questions and even singled me out to answer something recently even if it was a simple question during sermons.
And when they did have church services in our home it was obviously very open to engagement - they were all seemingly more comfortable than any others of us that aren't from a Mennonite background.

Wade wrote:

Ken wrote:

PetrChelcicky wrote:My qualms are mainly about the "Letters" section. Till now, MennoWorld had a system of "you write it under the article - we only sort out what defies our rules". But "The Mennonite" had stopped comments at all, and I already was afraid that they would not continue the MennoWorld practice. In fact they now have a system of "you write it to the editor and he allows it if he deems it useful". This discourages critical commenters, it also allows to process only critical comments who are seen as safe/harmless, because (a) dull/moronic or (b) over the edge.

I’ve always thought that church would be a MUCH more interesting and engaging place if congregants engaged the ministers by raising hands and asking questions and there was back and forth like in a classroom. Rather than just passively consuming content (and often just tuning it out). In my mind, I imagine that is much more like what the early church was like, meeting in people’s houses and such.

Sounds like you haven't been to a CA church then or I attend a really good one? Because there is a lot of engagement, maybe not during the sermon in particular but during Sunday school and afterward I have been invited and encouraged to give push back if need be by the minister here. He asks questions and even singled me out to answer something recently even if it was a simple question during sermons.
And when they did have church services in our home it was obviously very open to engagement - they were all seemingly more comfortable than any others of us that aren't from a Mennonite background.

Yeah, not really my experience in any church, Menno or not. Maybe I’ve mostly just attended bad ones, or perhaps larger ones that are more formal. I haven’t been in any what you would call CA churches in many decades. Closest thing would be CMC churches which I didn’t realize until finding this forum are not actually considered “conservative.” But then as you know, I have a contrarian bent which isn’t always welcomed. So I mostly just keep my lip zipped out of respect and don’t try to make waves where they aren’t wanted. If we lived one place where we had deep roots I would probably be more invested. But we have moved around a lot in the past two decades, mostly or entirely in non-Menno areas. So I’ve always felt more like a guest.

Ken wrote:

Wade wrote:

Ken wrote:
I’ve always thought that church would be a MUCH more interesting and engaging place if congregants engaged the ministers by raising hands and asking questions and there was back and forth like in a classroom. Rather than just passively consuming content (and often just tuning it out). In my mind, I imagine that is much more like what the early church was like, meeting in people’s houses and such.

Sounds like you haven't been to a CA church then or I attend a really good one? Because there is a lot of engagement, maybe not during the sermon in particular but during Sunday school and afterward I have been invited and encouraged to give push back if need be by the minister here. He asks questions and even singled me out to answer something recently even if it was a simple question during sermons.
And when they did have church services in our home it was obviously very open to engagement - they were all seemingly more comfortable than any others of us that aren't from a Mennonite background.

Yeah, not really my experience in any church, Menno or not. Maybe I’ve mostly just attended bad ones, or perhaps larger ones that are more formal. I haven’t been in any what you would call CA churches in many decades. Closest thing would be CMC churches which I didn’t realize until finding this forum are not actually considered “conservative.” But then as you know, I have a contrarian bent which isn’t always welcomed. So I mostly just keep my lip zipped out of respect and don’t try to make waves where they aren’t wanted. If we lived one place where we had deep roots I would probably be more invested. But we have moved around a lot in the past two decades, mostly or entirely in non-Menno areas. So I’ve always felt more like a guest.

My impression is that ultra conservatives might be the most active in church planting and in doing so their congregations don't generally get as big as some other groups.

The Mennonite and MWR were two publications with different functions and purposes. The Mennonite was an official church publication which had significant restraints on what stories they could publish and how they could report them because they were an “official” voice of MCUSA who was paying the bills. Their role was to communicate the position of the denomination.

MWR was an independent Mennonite and Anabaptist centered news source.

It will be interesting to see if they can balance these two competing purposes.

Ken wrote: I’ve always thought that church would be a MUCH more interesting and engaging place if congregants engaged the ministers by raising hands and asking questions and there was back and forth like in a classroom. Rather than just passively consuming content (and often just tuning it out). In my mind, I imagine that is much more like what the early church was like, meeting in people’s houses and such.

At my last Mennonite church, after the sermon there was a sharing time. We often specifically encouraged interaction and commentary on the sermon, but it was fairly infrequent. My current Mennonite church has a similar pattern.

JimFoxvog wrote:

Ken wrote: I’ve always thought that church would be a MUCH more interesting and engaging place if congregants engaged the ministers by raising hands and asking questions and there was back and forth like in a classroom. Rather than just passively consuming content (and often just tuning it out). In my mind, I imagine that is much more like what the early church was like, meeting in people’s houses and such.

At my last Mennonite church, after the sermon there was a sharing time. We often specifically encouraged interaction and commentary on the sermon, but it was fairly infrequent. My current Mennonite church has a similar pattern.

When I was a pastor, I tried to use the sermon to create discussion. I even structured a sermon where I asked people questions during it. Ugh...it’s like pulling teeth.

Szdfan wrote:
At my last Mennonite church, after the sermon there was a sharing time. We often specifically encouraged interaction and commentary on the sermon, but it was fairly infrequent. My current Mennonite church has a similar pattern.

When I was a pastor, I tried to use the sermon to create discussion. I even structured a sermon where I asked people questions during it. Ugh...it’s like pulling teeth.[/quote]

Yes, when I'd give the teaching I'd try that sometimes. It seems most people want to just sit back and listen (or daydream) and not engage in the subject. Had a teaching or two on 1 Corinthians 14.26-32

When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up...

On the other hand, during adult teaching time or teen Sunday School, there was much better participation. Something about it being part of the worship service, I guess.

Wade wrote:

Ken wrote:

Wade wrote:
Sounds like you haven't been to a CA church then or I attend a really good one? Because there is a lot of engagement, maybe not during the sermon in particular but during Sunday school and afterward I have been invited and encouraged to give push back if need be by the minister here. He asks questions and even singled me out to answer something recently even if it was a simple question during sermons.
And when they did have church services in our home it was obviously very open to engagement - they were all seemingly more comfortable than any others of us that aren't from a Mennonite background.

Yeah, not really my experience in any church, Menno or not. Maybe I’ve mostly just attended bad ones, or perhaps larger ones that are more formal. I haven’t been in any what you would call CA churches in many decades. Closest thing would be CMC churches which I didn’t realize until finding this forum are not actually considered “conservative.” But then as you know, I have a contrarian bent which isn’t always welcomed. So I mostly just keep my lip zipped out of respect and don’t try to make waves where they aren’t wanted. If we lived one place where we had deep roots I would probably be more invested. But we have moved around a lot in the past two decades, mostly or entirely in non-Menno areas. So I’ve always felt more like a guest.

My impression is that ultra conservatives might be the most active in church planting and in doing so their congregations don't generally get as big as some other groups.

It is only the ultra-conservative churches in outlying areas that have a vision for church expansion and smaller congregations. In the big Mennonite centers, there congregations are just as big as, or large than the intermediate, moderate, and progressive conservative congregations. (But not as big on the average as the Old Order Mennonite churches in the same areas.)