Failure of the Great Amish and Conservative Mennonite Dress Experiment

[JimFoxvog]

On the subject of church "orders", for the last 50 years or so in the US, I've noticed most members no longer wear distinctive dress.

[Ernie]

On the subject of church "orders", for the last 50 years or so in the US, I've noticed most members no longer wear distinctive dress.

Which Orders in which churches are you referring to?

[JimFoxvog]

Which Orders in which churches are you referring to?

Roman Catholic orders are the people I've interacted with. We have a Franciscan Sister who regularly visits our Mennonite Church and I (and some others from our church) went to a special talk at her monastery we were invited to. I've had other occasions to fellowship and work with those in Catholic Orders over the years. (I don't have a great interest in these Orders and do not remember which Orders they were.) Almost all of them did not wear distinctive clothing. The Second Vatican Council of the 1960s allowed this.

[JohnH]

So the Standard A people want the benefit of ancient practices, thick community, personal relationships instead of Facebook relationships, the benefit of sitting in a circle on Sunday afternoon discussing topics and sometimes breaking out their hard-copy Bibles to look at the wording of a passage together. Is it appropriate then for a Standard A family to mostly do things with other Standard A families? It's enough of a tendency toward unintentionally having a two-tiered congregational life without explicitly designing it to create such a thing. Who decides when a person qualifies to be moved up to Standard A status? Will the Standard B people be OK with not having a church workday to replace the roof on their shed? Or will they feel left out when the Standard A people regularly help one another but don't extend the same community to the Standard B people? Then, of course, keeping in mind how that congregations ought to be small enough to meet in homes and whatnot - that gets to be a really small group of Standard A people to try to hold together that community, ancient practice, and church ethos.

Right. So the Standard A people eschew commercial insurance, Social Security and so on, and instead rely strictly on mutual aid. Some new people join the church who opt for Standard B, and nobody quickly goes and condemns them for having a typical homeowner's policy. They are delighted to see how the Standard A people help replace a worn out roof for an older couple who is a bit poorer and couldn't quite afford a new one.

Then a storm hits, and their roof gets damaged. Their insurance company goes round and round with them claiming it had pre-existing damage and tries to get out of paying for it. Should the Schedule A people go and repair the Schedule B person's roof for free, after the Schedule B person has been busy paying into an insurance policy instead of paying into the mutual aid plan - including paying via carrying bundles of shingles up a ladder?

[JohnH]

Which Orders in which churches are you referring to?

Roman Catholic orders are the people I've interacted with. We have a Franciscan Sister who regularly visits our Mennonite Church and I (and some others from our church) went to a special talk at her monastery we were invited to. I've had other occasions to fellowship and work with those in Catholic Orders over the years. (I don't have a great interest in these Orders and do not remember which Orders they were.) Almost all of them did not wear distinctive clothing. The Second Vatican Council of the 1960s allowed this.

Outside of Greek (Eastern) Catholics and fringe groups like SSPX, it's almost extinct, other than a clerical collar peeking out. When I worked at a Catholic university I often went to events and interacted with an order (RSCJ) who lived there, and they did not dress distinctively at all, other than a stereotypical "Episcopalian woman haircut".

[Ernie]

....
Here is another option...
(3) Within a church, have Standard A that people can commit themselves to who want the benefit of ancient practices, thick community, safeguard standards, and church ethos to help them keep from being tossed to and fro by everything that comes along. Have Standard B which is the minimum standard for being part of the church.

I suspect that this is roughly how it works out in most congregations. Some are on the more 'reserved' side of things, while others live at the other edge. Only sort of similar, I suppose, because it's more of a continuum than two distinctive groups.

Yes, many churches have this. And many don't acknowledge it.
In some congregations, the lack of acknowledgement is a source of contention because certain members are asked to do things in the congregation that others are not.
In other congregations, anyone can do anything in the congregation, (with maybe the exception of getting ordained). This gives the allusion that everyone is on the same page. However, those who want to follow a more traditional, disciplined, or principled lifestyle keep trying to pull the church in their direction, while those who want more tolerance keep pulling the congregation in the opposite direction. This tug of war can continue on until a segment leaves or the church splits.

Here is another option...
(3) Within a church, have Standard A that people can commit themselves to who want the benefit of ancient practices, thick community, safeguard standards, and church ethos to help them keep from being tossed to and fro by everything that comes along. Have Standard B which is the minimum standard for being part of the church.

So the Standard A people want the benefit of ancient practices, thick community, personal relationships instead of Facebook relationships, the benefit of sitting in a circle on Sunday afternoon discussing topics and sometimes breaking out their hard-copy Bibles to look at the wording of a passage together. Is it appropriate then for a Standard A family to mostly do things with other Standard A families?

I grew up in a church with significant variation. "A" families tended to hang out with "A" families and B with B. There was some cross-pollination in the middle. A few families like my parents invited people to our house from all across the spectrum. My dad was the type who enjoyed getting out his Bible on a Sunday afternoon. But most in the church preferred discussing church news, community news, and farming.

It's enough of a tendency toward unintentionally having a two-tiered congregational life without explicitly designing it to create such a thing. Who decides when a person qualifies to be moved up to Standard A status?

Plain Anabaptists seem to have no difficulty determining when to accept someone into their Order. So whatever rubric they use for determining such things could continue as usual.

Will the Standard B people be OK with not having a church workday to replace the roof on their shed? Or will they feel left out when the Standard A people regularly help one another but don't extend the same community to the Standard B people?

In the church where I grew up, anyone could announce a building project and anyone in the community could help regardless of where they were at on the spectrum. It was a thing we could all do together.
Those with day jobs typically didn't show up, while those involved in agriculture and construction did. It was a voluntarily thing and no one was judged for not showing up. However, those most committed to community life tended to be the ones who showed up the most.

Then, of course, keeping in mind how that congregations ought to be small enough to meet in homes and whatnot - that gets to be a really small group of Standard A people to try to hold together that community, ancient practice, and church ethos.

That is why it is good, IMO, for small congregations and even larger ones to be committed to a larger Order so that churches are not an island to themselves.
On any given Sunday, we have about 12 (adults and children) who are part of the Order and about 15-20 others who worship with us. On any given Sunday we can have atheists, agnostics, ietsists, Buddhists, Muslims, "people who are coming to God", partial believers, Catholics, Evangelicals, divorced and remarried, etc. in attendance.
All of these folks feel welcomed and included in the social circle. We have quite a number of people who are not yet believers but are great recruiters for bringing people to church.
Once someone is ready to meet our minimum standard, we are glad for them to start communing with us.

If a non-biblicist tries to convince us that Satan is not a "being" but rather a metaphor, he soon learns that we don't decide such matters on our own. We are part of a larger community that believes that Biblical truth is arrived at by reading the Bible and looking for what the author intended the reader to understand. We don't believe that truth is arrived at through rational thought on one's own.
If someone tries to convince us that divorce and remarriage is ok, they soon learn that we are part of a larger community that believes this is wrong.

If a Catholic non-order person visits a monastery and wishes to participate in communion, this is not a problem. There are boundaries for communion and boundaries for being part of the Order. The visitor does not expect the Order to drop its practices, and the Order does not expect the visitor to adopt all the practices of the Order. They may have a minimum dress code for visitors, but visitors do not need to adopt the garb of the Order.
This view of the church is what I see missing in most Plain Anabaptist circles and is one reason why I think our churches are mostly comprised of Swiss/Germans or Dutch/Russians and their cousins.

I'm under no illusion that there won't be challenges with what I am promoting. I think what I am proposing is hard. I think it is also biblical. I don't think we should avoid something just because it is hard.

The two critiques I hear from seekers regarding the Plain Anabaptist view of the church are...
1. Plain Anabaptists tolerate members and persons of influence in the church who keep the outward standard, but whose lives do not reflect the nature and character of Christ.
2. Plain Anabaptists do not treat faithful Christians who are not part of their Order as fully part of the Body of Christ.

As I read the NT, I think both of these critiques are valid.

For more of my thoughts on this subject...

https://towardthebetter.org/wp-content/ ... emnant.pdf

https://towardthebetter.org/wp-content/ ... entury.pdf

[JohnH]

The Rosedale Network of Churches tried to do this, with much lower criteria for baptism/communion and then some expectation people would eventually achieve a higher tier of coverings, mutual aid and so forth.

In practical terms eventually everyone just conforms to the lower criteria, except for a few congregations that become everyone conforming to the higher tier.

[Ernie]

The Rosedale Network of Churches tried to do this, with much lower criteria for baptism/communion and then some expectation people would eventually achieve a higher tier of coverings, mutual aid and so forth.

In practical terms eventually everyone just conforms to the lower criteria,

I think that is because this network as a whole was already on a path toward compromise. When a group is on such a path, all you can do is slow it down. You can't really stop it.

In the Catholic and Orthodox church, not everyone conforms to the lower criteria. The Orders have been in place for at least 1500 years for the very purpose of keeping everyone from conforming to the lower criteria.

If you read the links I posted earlier, you will see that I am not advocating for dropping NT practices or being in communion with those who do. I'm advocating for a basic threshold for communion and for experiencing full fellowship with all those who are willing to meet the minimum threshold that faithful Christians over the centuries have advocated for.
While at the same time also making it possible for those who want more than the minimum to be able to experience the blessings of that in a structured way.

[JohnH]

If you read the links I posted earlier, you will see that I am not advocating for dropping NT practices or being in communion with those who do. I'm advocating for a basic threshold for communion and for experiencing full fellowship with all those who are willing to meet the minimum threshold that faithful Christians over the centuries have advocated for.
While at the same time also making it possible for those who want more than the minimum to be able to experience the blessings of that in a structured way.

Your example quoted earlier exceeded NT practices when it comes to divorce and remarriage, though, so ultimately this is no different than any other conservative Anabaptist church where people decide some set of criteria, think it is biblical, and other people think it exceeds biblical requirements. I simply don't see a benefit from a "two-tier" membership.

[Ernie]

I simply don't see a benefit from a "two-tier" membership.

Anyone who doesn't see any benefit should probably stick with what they've got.