Failure of the Great Amish and Conservative Mennonite Dress Experiment

[JohnH]

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.

Which appears to be what the entire Anabaptist world has decided to do, other than very liberal groups that decide to have open baptism/communion without real membership.

[ken_sylvania]

....
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

Thank you for taking the time to respond. I don't have the time right now to continue the discussion but I can respect your position even if I don't fully agree with it.

[Ernie]

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.

Thank you for taking the time to respond. I don't have the time right now to continue the discussion but I can respect your position even if I don't fully agree with it.

And for the record, I think there are two discussions that need to be had in relation to these two critiques.

One is,
What does God want the church do about standards/membership/communion in the church? The same as they've always done or something different?

What qualifies a person to be given a position of influence in the church? Their pedigree? Their conformity to the church ethos? Their character? Their doctrine? Their orthopraxy?

[Praxis+Theodicy]

"Options" don't exist as much for everyone as you might expect. Sure, in places like Lancaster, Shippensburg, or Holmes County OH might have a plethora of anabaptist "options", but in most places, there really isn't a buffet of options like that.

I suspect most places have plenty of options of other churches. One could go to a Baptist church, a megachurch, a Catholic church, etc.

Correct. I was saying that if you don't want to be part of an Order, most people have the option of attending an Augustinian church very near to them without driving very far.

I'm not sure the dichotomy between "church as church order" versus "Augustinian church" holds up. For one thing, there is a church Order named after Augustine, so placing such a sharp dichotomy between the two seems misleading. Where would the Order of Augustinian Monks fall in that dichotomy? Are they a church order or an Augustinian church?
Secondly, from what I am assuming you mean by an "Augustinian church," I think many of them would fail to meet the criteria of carrying out the Great Commission, which to some of us is key to being a church whose lamppost is not snuffed out.
Orders runs into the difficulty of the fact that they will refuse to commune with anyone outside their Order. This is fundamentally not how church Orders have ever existed. A member of the Augustinian Order or Benedictine Order would never refuse communion to someone who was a member of their church but wasn't a part of their order. They wouldn't say "If you don't want to join the monastic lifestyle, you can feel free to take the Lord's Supper with the Mormons down the street."

There are 2 ways of doing a church Order properly. Either (1) form a multi-congregational church that is way more of a "denomination" than most anabaptists would be comfortable with, and start church Orders within that larger structure, or (2) acknowledge the ecumenical church of Christ and welcome anyone into communion, whether Catholic, Lutheran, Pentacostal, whatever, and make it known that your local assembly is a sort of "Ecumenical Church Order" with higher standards of holiness than you expect from other local assemblies.

Who determines what is proper?

Jesus, as preserved to us through the writings and teachings of His apostles.

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 like this idea, or at least a version of it. I don't like the implication that one can only be kept from being "tossed to and fro by the inventions of man," but that's more the presentation of the idea than the idea itself. Thick Community and Church Ethos are often found in urban Evangelical churches who do not really have safeguard standards as we are talking about them now.
I like the idea of church standards, but dislike the the idea of "safeguard standards". The first seems to me to be in line with the "obedience of faith" that Paul claimed was the mission of the apostles to promulgate (see the introduction and concluding remarks of his letter to the Romans), while the other is more an obedience of fear, to hold onto something through ways which the apostles several times warned against.

I think the idea of church orders an more radical, higher-than-0Biblical standards of living and conduct is a good thing. I'm inspired by the stories of radical ascetics like Simon the Stylite, who was looked up to and sought out because that sort of radicalism told the Christian church of his day (he possesses something that the rest of us lack, and there is something to learn there). However, if I were to say "our church safeguard standard is that we all have to live on top of poles for the rest of our lives," I'm way off base. Surely, if the church 1500 years ago could make church orders that promoted the obedience of faith without resorting to the obedience of fear or the inference of "options" (heresies).

[Ernie]

I'm not sure the dichotomy between "church as church order" versus "Augustinian church" holds up. For one thing, there is a church Order named after Augustine, so placing such a sharp dichotomy between the two seems misleading. Where would the Order of Augustinian Monks fall in that dichotomy? Are they a church order or an Augustinian church?

The Augustinian Order is part of an Augustinian church.

Secondly, from what I am assuming you mean by an "Augustinian church," I think many of them would fail to meet the criteria of carrying out the Great Commission, which to some of us is key to being a church whose lamppost is not snuffed out.
Orders runs into the difficulty of the fact that they will refuse to commune with anyone outside their Order.

Are you referring to Anabaptist Orders?

This is fundamentally not how church Orders have ever existed. A member of the Augustinian Order or Benedictine Order would never refuse communion to someone who was a member of their church but wasn't a part of their order. They wouldn't say "If you don't want to join the monastic lifestyle, you can feel free to take the Lord's Supper with the Mormons down the street."

But a Benedictine Order would be fine with a person communing at another congregation down the street that is part of The Church. That is also what I am advocating for. I define "The Church" differently than what a Benedictine would, but we both have the same concept.

There are 2 ways of doing a church Order properly. Either (1) form a multi-congregational church that is way more of a "denomination" than most anabaptists would be comfortable with, and start church Orders within that larger structure, or (2) acknowledge the ecumenical church of Christ and welcome anyone into communion, whether Catholic, Lutheran, Pentacostal, whatever, and make it known that your local assembly is a sort of "Ecumenical Church Order" with higher standards of holiness than you expect from other local assemblies.

Who determines what is proper?

Jesus, as preserved to us through the writings and teachings of His apostles.

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 like this idea, or at least a version of it. I don't like the implication that one can only be kept from being "tossed to and fro by the inventions of man," but that's more the presentation of the idea than the idea itself. Thick Community and Church Ethos are often found in urban Evangelical churches who do not really have safeguard standards as we are talking about them now.

No disagreement on this point. I question the longetivity of a church in our current environment that does not have safeguard standards."

I like the idea of church standards, but dislike the idea of "safeguard standards". The first seems to me to be in line with the "obedience of faith" that Paul claimed was the mission of the apostles to promulgate (see the introduction and concluding remarks of his letter to the Romans), while the other is more an obedience of fear, to hold onto something through ways which the apostles several times warned against.

I think the idea of church orders an more radical, higher-than-0Biblical standards of living and conduct is a good thing. I'm inspired by the stories of radical ascetics like Simon the Stylite, who was looked up to and sought out because that sort of radicalism told the Christian church of his day (he possesses something that the rest of us lack, and there is something to learn there). However, if I were to say "our church safeguard standard is that we all have to live on top of poles for the rest of our lives," I'm way off base. Surely, if the church 1500 years ago could make church orders that promoted the obedience of faith without resorting to the obedience of fear or the inference of "options" (heresies).

David Bercot describes safeguard standards this way...

"3. “Safeguard standards/traditions” (Standards against certain things that are not wrong in themselves, but place people in places of temptation.)"
a. Examples: Don’t watch Television, Don't frequent bars except to preach the Gospel. Choose more wholesome recreation rather than going to amusement parks, etc.

Are you saying you dislike these?

notes from Bercot lecture
1. “Standards/traditions based on direct scriptural teaching”
a. Example: Scriptural command – “Love your enemies.” Application/church standard/tradition “Don’t go to war.”
2. “Standards/traditions based on ancient practices”.
a. Examples: A-cappella singing in church, segregated seating,
b. “Before stopping an ancient practice, consider carefully why Christians in earlier centuries practiced it.”
3. “Safeguard standards/traditions” (Standards against certain things that are not wrong in themselves, but place people in places of temptation.)
a. Examples: Don’t watch Television, Don’t got to amusement parks, etc.
4. “Denominational or congregational ethos” – (Practices/traditions that were begun with a specific purpose, at a particular time, in a particular denomination or congregation.)
Churches should know why these practices were originally started (if that can be known) and if and why the practice should be continued. Churches should be open to evaluating whether or not the practice serves a useful purpose or whether the practice violates other principals. Is this a practice worth keeping?

[Praxis+Theodicy]

David Bercot describes safeguard standards this way...

"3. “Safeguard standards/traditions” (Standards against certain things that are not wrong in themselves, but place people in places of temptation.)"
a. Examples: Don’t watch Television, Don't frequent bars except to preach the Gospel. Choose more wholesome recreation rather than going to amusement parks, etc.

Are you saying you dislike these?

notes from Bercot lecture
1. “Standards/traditions based on direct scriptural teaching”
a. Example: Scriptural command – “Love your enemies.” Application/church standard/tradition “Don’t go to war.”
2. “Standards/traditions based on ancient practices”.
a. Examples: A-cappella singing in church, segregated seating,
b. “Before stopping an ancient practice, consider carefully why Christians in earlier centuries practiced it.”
3. “Safeguard standards/traditions” (Standards against certain things that are not wrong in themselves, but place people in places of temptation.)
a. Examples: Don’t watch Television, Don’t got to amusement parks, etc.
4. “Denominational or congregational ethos” – (Practices/traditions that were begun with a specific purpose, at a particular time, in a particular denomination or congregation.)
Churches should know why these practices were originally started (if that can be known) and if and why the practice should be continued. Churches should be open to evaluating whether or not the practice serves a useful purpose or whether the practice violates other principals. Is this a practice worth keeping?

While I don't have a great love for these, I should say a few things to clarify:
1) I assumed in correctly that "safeguard standards" were things put in place to preserve a culture that people are comfortable in, a culture which helps to better build up a reliance on God and an identity found in Him. Things like horse-and-buggy instead of cars safeguard a culture even if they aren't forbidding directly "sinful" things. I guess my assumption was that you were referring to something closer to #4, the "ethos" that any self-described "conservative church seems intent on safeguarding. My thinking tends to be a bit less individualistic and more collectivistic than Bercot's. Going off of the context of this conversation, and being unfamiliar with that lecture by Bercot, I assumed incorrectly, and the fault there is mine.
2) I like how much Bercot has thought about this, but I think he list is lacking a few distinct categories that would make the whole discussion over church standards more understandable.
3) I'm not sure I would categorize those examples ("TV" and "amusement parks") in #3, but that might be because I think there are more distinct categories than Bercot lists here.
4) To be clear, it's not that I dislike church standards such as these because I really just want to have my cake and eat it too (go to the amusement park on Saturday and church on Sunday). I think everyone ought to be steered in these directions, and I'm happy to live my life as an example to others by practicing these sorts of standards myself.
5) It's not that I dislike these practices. I just think they can be implemented in a better way. The apostles talked in no uncertain terms about casting out an unrepentant sinful person. I think we come dangerously close to neglecting our duty of church discipline if we use the same tools for casting out, say, an unrepentant adulterer as, say, someone who drives a car that wasn't given a black paint job. I think there are great examples historically and contemporary that show how Christians can be discipled toward greater love and unity with Christ, rather than just barred entry from His Kingdom until they accept some standards which aren't apparent to a newly born-again believer. John Mark Comer's church has taken steps that are almost shocking and scandalous to the Evangelical world in how they implement Spiritual Disciplines to bring people deeper into Christ and further from the world. But that's one of the tools that are needed in the church: Spiritual Disciplines and other tools are alternatives to excommunication that help with discipleship which we would all do well to embrace.

[Neto]

When I saw the term 'safeguard standards" I thought of Eve telling the lie to the Satan that God said not to touch the fruit of the tree of good and evil. The Satan is the liar, and I suspect he recognized that one immediately, and made use of it to challenge Eve with his reply - "Did God really say that?"

The commands of God do need to have fences built around them. They are strong enough in themselves. I also think that if/when I am tempted to watch a nasty movie, the real temptation started well before that, the temptation that created the desire to find a movie of that sort. Nip it in the bud - stop it before it gets that far. Treat the underlying cause, don't wait until a person needs to treat the symptom.

[Ernie]

5) It's not that I dislike these practices. I just think they can be implemented in a better way. The apostles talked in no uncertain terms about casting out an unrepentant sinful person. I think we come dangerously close to neglecting our duty of church discipline if we use the same tools for casting out, say, an unrepentant adulterer as, say, someone who drives a car that wasn't given a black paint job.

Exactly. And that is why I promote the Christian-order-as-part-of-the-larger-church concept vs. the Christian-order-as-a-church concept.

[Ernie]

John Mark Comer's church has taken steps that are almost shocking and scandalous to the Evangelical world in how they implement Spiritual Disciplines to bring people deeper into Christ and further from the world. But that's one of the tools that are needed in the church: Spiritual Disciplines and other tools are alternatives to excommunication that help with discipleship which we would all do well to embrace.

Yes, I believe strongly that Plain Anabaptists should be focusing more on spiritual disciples rather than congregational ethos with little scriptural support. Butt again, I think expecting certain spiritual disciplines should be on the "order" level rather than on the "church" level. When churches put the practice of certain spiritual disciplines on the level of "church", and one is not able to experience the full blessings of communion and spiritual fellowship unless they do the spiritual disciplines in a prescribed way, I see it as no different than requiring women to wear a certain color head covering in order to commune.

[Ernie]

When I saw the term 'safeguard standards" I thought of Eve telling the lie to the Satan that God said not to touch the fruit of the tree of good and evil. The Satan is the liar, and I suspect he recognized that one immediately, and made use of it to challenge Eve with his reply - "Did God really say that?"

The commands of God do need to have fences built around them. They are strong enough in themselves. I also think that if/when I am tempted to watch a nasty movie, the real temptation started well before that, the temptation that created the desire to find a movie of that sort. Nip it in the bud - stop it before it gets that far. Treat the underlying cause, don't wait until a person needs to treat the symptom.

I assume you think it is fine to build fences for children but not for adults?

For our children, we apply "set no evil thing before your eyes" by keeping certain books out of the home, choosing what videos they watch, etc. I think adults who struggle to do the right thing have often benefitted from similar restrictions. Many people have been spared from po*n because they didn't have a smart phone or didn't have open access to the internet.

I have no problem with fences for adults as long as adults can voluntarily choose to adopt the group's agreed upon restrictions.