Progressive/Conservative threshold?

[ohio jones]

The denomination is now the United Church of Christ, but some of the churches are still Congregational. That's congregationalism.

[Neto]

re: What is 'Congregationalism'?

Decided to see what the 'intertubes' have to say.

Wikipedia:

Congregationalism (also Congregationalist churches or Congregational churches) is a Protestant, Reformed (Calvinist) tradition in which churches practice congregational government; where each congregation independently and autonomously runs its own affairs.

I never.

EDIT:
So, Looks like I have the wrong word. (But I would have taken this definition - other than the naming of Calvinism - be describe "congregational autonomy". I'll have to think of a different word for what I have always thought of as 'congregationalist'.)

The term is confusing, because it sounds like, and is sometimes used in, the way you describe.

But it is also the official name of a church "denomination". That denomination is basically what the Puritans formed when they moved to America. They didn't call themselves Puritans as a denominational label. Hence, in New England you'll see "First Congregational Church of So-and-So Town" but not "First Puritan Church of So-and-So Town".

I searched on various phrases that include the word "lay', or 'laity', but all that came up pertained to Catholicism or Episcopalian. In my own background, the term is used in two senses, that the congregation is self-governing (that is, not controlled by a district or conference body - - apparently what most here mean by it), and secondly, that the local congregation is governed by the members of the congregation, not by some smaller hierarchical group, whether appointed by some entity outside of the congregation, or held by a permanent leadership entity (single person or a group). But in particular, and here is where my main thoughts lie, the pastor is tasked with the SPIRITUAL leadership, and is freed from other duties, which are all administered by the laity. The pastor is also not above the 'power' of the congregation itself, often vested in a church board, which is selected by the congregation at large, and is also ultimately under the direction of the congregation as a whole. All such offices are chosen through a process on nominations from the floor (followed by a written, secret ballot), in congregational business meetings. The church board will generally have composed motions to be presented to the congregation, but these motions are subject to review, discussion, amendments, and finally, approval or defeat by a vote of the congregation as a whole in a scheduled business meeting. But it seems that this type of congregational organization and governance is totally unknown in the Swiss Brethren environment, so there is no point in my continued participation in this "bunny trail" that I may have provoked. Sorry for the interruption, carry on. Thank you to those who have tried to understand what I've been saying here.

[Ernie]

An open question I have is differences between BMA and ADC.

ADC is more congregational and has a more "Beachy" feel..and is influenced by "kingdom" theology.

One of the founders of ADC tells me that only about 5% of ADC is influenced by "kingdom theology".

[Ernie]

If the local church here that is considering ADC is typical, my guess is that ADC is probably already more liberal than BMA and is headed further in that direction, and that BMA is more stable in theology and practice.

That is correct. A couple ADC churches recently began allowing wedding rings.

[Josh]

An associate of mine (who had posted here before) informs me that BMA is experiencing a heavy Reformed influence… some members are leaving to join Reformed churches. Other members see no problem at all in even 5 point Calvinism.

Meanwhile, BMA itself has taken strong stances against Reformed doctrines. I suspect this may be a reaction to what is happening amongst the laity and some of the individual leaders.

[Neto]

An associate of mine (who had posted here before) informs me that BMA is experiencing a heavy Reformed influence… some members are leaving to join Reformed churches. Other members see no problem at all in even 5 point Calvinism.

Meanwhile, BMA itself has taken strong stances against Reformed doctrines. I suspect this may be a reaction to what is happening amongst the laity and some of the individual leaders.

I have a good friend who had to deal with these doctrinal differences in the congregation where he serves as one of the ministers. (The influence was coming from a Sunday School teacher, apparently a rather eloquent one - not someone I know.)

[joshuabgood]

An open question I have is differences between BMA and ADC.

ADC is more congregational and has a more "Beachy" feel..and is influenced by "kingdom" theology.

One of the founders of ADC tells me that only about 5% of ADC is influenced by "kingdom theology".

Interesting. That must be the group of folks that I know...

[Josh]

I believe Dean Taylor is in an ADC institution nowadays and involved with setting up their missions programs; perhaps he'll influence them in the 'kingdom' direction.

[Praxis+Theodicy]

An open question I have is differences between BMA and ADC.

ADC is more congregational and has a more "Beachy" feel..and is influenced by "kingdom" theology.

One of the founders of ADC tells me that only about 5% of ADC is influenced by "kingdom theology".

Could you (or someone else) elaborate on what is meant by "Kingdom Theology"? It seems surprising to me that 95% of an anabaptist organization can be influenced by what I would think of as "Kingdom Theology", seeing as how central it is to the gospel. Are they fully giving themselves over to the "save me" gospel of the Evangelical movement which focuses on a personal ticket to heaven and sidelines the Kingdom?

[Josh]

Could you (or someone else) elaborate on what is meant by "Kingdom Theology"? It seems surprising to me that 95% of an anabaptist organization can be influenced by what I would think of as "Kingdom Theology", seeing as how central it is to the gospel. Are they fully giving themselves over to the "save me" gospel of the Evangelical movement which focuses on a personal ticket to heaven and sidelines the Kingdom?

I will assume that you mean "is not" instead of "can be".

Many conservative Anabaptist groups are "transitional". Teleologically speaking, their purpose is to receive in members who are both "more" Anabaptist and who are "more conservative", and then assist them in a transition to being "less" Anabaptist and "less conservative". This transition may take place in a single generation, or may be accommodated by facilitating a family's children being less Anabaptist and less conservative.

To give an idea of a general pipeline:

Old Order Amish -> conservative Beachy group -> less conservative Charity type of group -> ADC type of church -> CMC/RNoC type of church -> evangelical, non-plain, non-Anabaptist type of church

To give an idea of the steps of becoming less conservative:

The first transition involves embracing driving cars, alongside with teaching that driving cars is actually more spiritual. The transition from Old Order Amish to a conservative Beachy would involve the teachings that "the Old Order Amish don't believe in concepts like being born again or studying their Bibles, so it is spiritually good to become a conservative Beachy". It also involves teaching such as "the Bible doesn't teach against driving cars, so it's actually a good thing to get a car and drive it since it means it's easier for revival teachers to drive to churches, for missionaries to get to airports and go to mission fields," and so on.

The next transition involves abandoning various conservative Beachy practices, such as the cape dress, kapps, avoiding worldly/luxury cars, using an obsolete technology of flip phone or only using land line phones, and so on. The transition from conservative Beachy to less conservative Charity would include the idea that the conservative Beachys are stuck in a lot of "dead religion" and "traditions", and that the Charity way is better because Charity is all about "spiritual revival" and "just obeying the Bible instead of man's rules".

The next transition to ADC or the less-conservative wings of BMA would likewise have a heavy spiritual emphasis, but be accompanied by a sharp increase in worldliness: for example, young people watching movies and professional sports games, adopting smartphones with no church requirement to install a filter, no limits at all on what kind of luxury or sports car you can have, women wearing obvious cosmetics like eye makeup, and so on. Yet the entire transition is accompanied by an idea that the Charity movement was too strict and lacking in love and lacking in spiritual focus, but the new context is more spiritual. At this point, men no longer dress distinctively at all, but women still do.

The transition to (non-conservative) CMC/RNoC is essentially identical to the above, except the things that become optional would be the head covering and "plain dress" in the sense of requiring women to have some kind of distinctive attire, such as women wearing skirts or dresses to the exclusion of pants and shorts. At this point, the group remains theologically conservative, and still has the same essentially orthodox doctrine as it did when its members were Old Order Amish; women wouldn't be ordained as leaders, for example, and they would still teach a literal hell.

The final transition is away from anything appreciably Anabaptist at all. At this point, new doctrines such as ordaining women into leadership or into senior leadership; teaching that hell is not literal conscious eternal torment or perhaps teaching universal salvation or annihilationism; or perhaps other non-Anabaptist sectarian leanings such as (for example) Church of Christ full-immersionism/salvation via immersion, or 5-point Calvinism, or charismatic Pentecostalism, to name just a few.

Key concepts of transitional Anabaptism are:

"It is good to become more spiritual. Becoming more spiritual is accompanied by being less plain."

"Being plain is good, but it's better to become just slightly less plain."

"It is good to become less plain, but is bad to quickly become much less plain."