Lancaster Online: web usage among Amish & Mennonites

[steve-in-kville]

https://lancasteronline.com/opinion/col ... eaee7.html

If this is paywalled, let me know.

[MaxPC]

This is an insightful article, Steve. Thank you for posting it. The internet question is never simple, is it?

[Josh]

This is an insightful article, Steve. Thank you for posting it. The internet question is never simple, is it?

Back in 2007, most plain people (by numbers) still aren’t on the Internet. My own affiliation barely used it. There was definitely very little blogging going on.

[Verity]

Thanks for posting, Steve. Despite the ruffled feathers over Appalachian pulling out of Eastern, many Eastern folks have a lot of respect for the stand Appalachian is taking. The Appalachian members I know take their commitment to the standards very seriously, even avoiding asking others to order online for them, not using email, etc.

I've wondered at times if Eastern's justification of the internet (after the church wide vote was overwhelming negative) has more to do with the Swiss/German "efficiency is equal to godliness" mindset. My own roots are Swiss, so I see this mindset clearly in my non-Mennonite relatives as well.

[eccentric_rambler]

I've wondered at times if Eastern's justification of the internet (after the church wide vote was overwhelming negative)

My memory of the announcement is that the vote was close (within a few percentage points?), but I don't have any record of that. That the final decision overrode the agreed upon procedure makes me uncomfortable. Do you remember what the difference was between the required percentage and the actual?

[mike]

I've wondered at times if Eastern's justification of the internet (after the church wide vote was overwhelming negative)

My memory of the announcement is that the vote was close (within a few percentage points?), but I don't have any record of that. That the final decision overrode the agreed upon procedure makes me uncomfortable. Do you remember what the difference was between the required percentage and the actual?

A convert family in our local Eastern church left at that time because of the way the Eastern bishops overrode their agreed upon procedure in order to bring in the Internet. It was really hard for a lot of lay members to stomach that, and it isn't surprising that a number of people eventually left because of it.

[Verity]

I've wondered at times if Eastern's justification of the internet (after the church wide vote was overwhelming negative)

My memory of the announcement is that the vote was close (within a few percentage points?), but I don't have any record of that. That the final decision overrode the agreed upon procedure makes me uncomfortable. Do you remember what the difference was between the required percentage and the actual?

Sorry, I do not have the exact number in front of me. The required percentage was 75% from the laity. The bishops carried the remaining 25%. Checking with some others, the general consensus was the laity vote was in the low nineties, but I do not have proof. The bishop's original vote was also majority against the internet, but again, I do not have that number, only record that "the church wide vote concerning the internet was negative and we will be working to align our practice with this vote".

[steve-in-kville]

Dare I ask, what is EPMC's position on the web? My former employer was EPMC and back then it was a pretty hot topic. And that was 17 years ago!

[Josh]

I've wondered at times if Eastern's justification of the internet (after the church wide vote was overwhelming negative)

My memory of the announcement is that the vote was close (within a few percentage points?), but I don't have any record of that. That the final decision overrode the agreed upon procedure makes me uncomfortable. Do you remember what the difference was between the required percentage and the actual?

Sorry, I do not have the exact number in front of me. The required percentage was 75% from the laity. The bishops carried the remaining 25%. Checking with some others, the general consensus was the laity vote was in the low nineties, but I do not have proof. The bishop's original vote was also majority against the internet, but again, I do not have that number, only record that "the church wide vote concerning the internet was negative and we will be working to align our practice with this vote".

Now I'm confused... that was the vote against Internet... and yet it started to be used anyway?

[mike]

My memory of the announcement is that the vote was close (within a few percentage points?), but I don't have any record of that. That the final decision overrode the agreed upon procedure makes me uncomfortable. Do you remember what the difference was between the required percentage and the actual?

Sorry, I do not have the exact number in front of me. The required percentage was 75% from the laity. The bishops carried the remaining 25%. Checking with some others, the general consensus was the laity vote was in the low nineties, but I do not have proof. The bishop's original vote was also majority against the internet, but again, I do not have that number, only record that "the church wide vote concerning the internet was negative and we will be working to align our practice with this vote".

Now I'm confused... that was the vote against Internet... and yet it started to be used anyway?

In my conference, a change in policy requires a 75% approval vote by the ministry, followed by a 75% approval vote by all conference members. Eastern operates similarly, and as I understand it, the vote carried by the ministry (or the bishops, not sure), but was then voted down by the members at large. Normally this would mean a policy change does not carry. But the bishops overrode the vote of the membership and decided to allow the Internet anyway. It was a power move, because they could.

My assumption is that this is because the Eastern bishops/ministry had invested a lot of time and support over a number of years for developing an Internet filtering solution that would enable their membership to use it according to their guidelines. (Compass Foundation, I believe.) They weren't about to have the membership undo all that work and negate the whole thing.

Those of you from Eastern can correct me where I'm wrong here.