Interested in learning about Holdemans

[Judas Maccabeus]

December 13, 1976: Full excommunication meeting held in Kansas. No member of Majestic View present. Minutes never released, despite being promised.

Time from the revival ministers being sent home to the excommunication: about three weeks.

The excommunication letter itself: four paragraphs, no dates, no cited history of warnings or prior refusals. Just "a foreign and deceptive spirit" and two doctrinal charges. About 85% of the congregation was excommunicated at that meeting and sent notices afterwards.

85% of the congregation excommunicated in a single closed meeting, with no member present to speak for themselves, is not the outcome of a gradual, years-long mutual estrangement. The timeline doesn't support that claim.

However is this consistent with the following?:

"I am not arguing against institutions, but am arguing in favour of the supremacy of the local congregation, followed by a collection of churches (i.e. a "denomination") as an institution."

How does this exhibit the "supremacy of the local congregation?" Looks more like top down high control to me. No minutes, no one present to speak for the accused.

Who are these "revival ministers" how are they appointed, and how do they derive their authority, except it be from a top-down high control organization.

I rest my case.

[JohnH]

However is this consistent with the following?:

"I am not arguing against institutions, but am arguing in favour of the supremacy of the local congregation, followed by a collection of churches (i.e. a "denomination") as an institution."

The congregation has complete autonomy to decide whether they want to remain part of the group of churches, or to exit.

For example, in the case of Greeley, the denomination did not try to snatch their building from them. It remains the property of the congregation.

How does this exhibit the "supremacy of the local congregation?" Looks more like top down high control to me. No minutes, no one present to speak for the accused.

Every congregation has a secretary who takes notes of what happens in meetings. So the congregation's secretary would have noted what was going on with the visiting revival preachers.

The secretary's notes belong to the congregation and are obviously somewhat secret, open to members of that congregation only. So the Greeley church has those notes and isn't obligated to share them with me. But I'm sure they do exist.

Who are these "revival ministers" how are they appointed, and how do they derive their authority, except it be from a top-down high control organization.

Holdeman congregations enter into voluntary association with other Holdeman congregations, and set up committees to do various things. But in the case of revival meetings, one congregation simply calls around to other congregations' leaders until they find someone who is willing to come and preach revival services.

A minister from another congregatino could also come in unannounced and visit, although in practice this hasn't happened since the 1970s. It would be up to the local congregation if they want to have an "impromptu" revival service or not.

Again, the local congregation makes all the choices. In the case of Greeley, they decided to associated with MC USA instead of the Holdemans. They were free to do so. The members of that congregation were free to stay, or to leave (although most who wanted to stay associated wtih Holdemans left in the 1960s).

[Kenny1995]

So I feel fairly unbiased on this topic, but my question is this. How did the churches in the Bible do? Why is it so hard to understand that? The apostles obviously held a high office in the all the churches, I believe Paul even talks about bishops which is obviously a higher ranking minister which would have a higher ranking and more power than a typical preacher. To me, this sort of bears out more the one unified church idea which is more similar to the Holdeman’s belief.

I find it very interesting though, Jesus himself only used the word church twice in all the gospels. Once in Matthew 16 verses 17-18 where he says upon this rock I will build my church. The next verse he uses his normal term of Kingdom of Heaven. Debatably they were almost used as synonyms.

The other place Jesus used the word church was in Matthew 18 verse 17. He says if a brother doesn’t hear you to take it to the church. At the end of His talk He says “where to or three are gathered there I am in the midst of them.”

Again, probably debatably, Jesus refers to the church as possibly being a small group of only two or three people which to me agrees more with the general Anabaptist view of each church having control over its self without so much government over the group as a whole?

I was raised Holdeman. I now don’t know what I believe. I have read the New Testament a couple times, much of the Old Testament, and the gospels and many of the early church books of the Bible I’ve read many times. At the end of the day, there is many interpretations. All seem to have some scriptural backing for their belief. Somehow I feel man has greatly complicated the simplicity of the gospel. Yet to understand what truth really is amid the hubbub of all the ideas out there is probably nearly impossible.

[barnhart]

So I feel fairly unbiased on this topic, but my question is this. How did the churches in the Bible do? Why is it so hard to understand that? The apostles obviously held a high office in the all the churches, I believe Paul even talks about bishops which is obviously a higher ranking minister which would have a higher ranking and more power than a typical preacher. To me, this sort of bears out more the one unified church idea which is more similar to the Holdeman’s belief.

I find it very interesting though, Jesus himself only used the word church twice in all the gospels. Once in Matthew 16 verses 17-18 where he says upon this rock I will build my church. The next verse he uses his normal term of Kingdom of Heaven. Debatably they were almost used as synonyms.

The other place Jesus used the word church was in Matthew 18 verse 17. He says if a brother doesn’t hear you to take it to the church. At the end of His talk He says “where to or three are gathered there I am in the midst of them.”

Again, probably debatably, Jesus refers to the church as possibly being a small group of only two or three people which to me agrees more with the general Anabaptist view of each church having control over its self without so much government over the group as a whole?

I was raised Holdeman. I now don’t know what I believe. I have read the New Testament a couple times, much of the Old Testament, and the gospels and many of the early church books of the Bible I’ve read many times. At the end of the day, there is many interpretations. All seem to have some scriptural backing for their belief. Somehow I feel man has greatly complicated the simplicity of the gospel. Yet to understand what truth really is amid the hubbub of all the ideas out there is probably nearly impossible.

You raise good points and I agree to a large extent. I might offer a little resistance to your observation that the existence of an office translated Bishop automatically authorized a ranking system. The "overseers" could be seen more as a monitoring/mentoring role than a ruling class. Paul's example can be seen in that light, he appealed more to persuasion, teaching and relationship than authority or rank although I admit at times he did claim apostolic authority.

Fortunately the Bible doesn't seem to indicate we all need to have exactly the same views on church structure, when the nations stand before the great king they are not judged by theology or ecclesiology but on serving Jesus in practical ways. I think it is wise to allow other churches their views as long as they are firmly based in Scripture and carry on where God has put you.

[JohnH]

Note that Holdemans don’t have bishops; just ministers, deacons, and members (for lack of a better term). Most leadership committees are filled with both ministers and deacons.

[Ernie]

Note that Holdemans don’t have bishops; just ministers, deacons, and members (for lack of a better term). Most leadership committees are filled with both ministers and deacons.

Do they have senior ministers who function with more authority than others?

[JohnH]

Note that Holdemans don’t have bishops; just ministers, deacons, and members (for lack of a better term). Most leadership committees are filled with both ministers and deacons.

Do they have senior ministers who function with more authority than others?

No. There is a chairman (if there is more than one minister) which rotates.

If there aren’t any ministers, deacons and members do the preaching. Usually a minister from another congregation will occasionally visit.

If there aren’t any ministers or deacons, members just do the preaching. A new congregation cannot be initiated by a minister or deacon; it has to be established first although that can be as small as 2 families, but is usually 3 - 5.

From what is told to me, things function much better now that there isn’t a two-tier ministerial heirarchy. In terms of biblical offices, realistically, every minister functions as a bishop/elder. I don’t see a distinction in the scripture of ministers and bishops/elders being different.

[Judas Maccabeus]

However is this consistent with the following?:

"I am not arguing against institutions, but am arguing in favour of the supremacy of the local congregation, followed by a collection of churches (i.e. a "denomination") as an institution."

The congregation has complete autonomy to decide whether they want to remain part of the group of churches, or to exit.

For example, in the case of Greeley, the denomination did not try to snatch their building from them. It remains the property of the congregation.

How does this exhibit the "supremacy of the local congregation?" Looks more like top down high control to me. No minutes, no one present to speak for the accused.

Every congregation has a secretary who takes notes of what happens in meetings. So the congregation's secretary would have noted what was going on with the visiting revival preachers.

The secretary's notes belong to the congregation and are obviously somewhat secret, open to members of that congregation only. So the Greeley church has those notes and isn't obligated to share them with me. But I'm sure they do exist.

Who are these "revival ministers" how are they appointed, and how do they derive their authority, except it be from a top-down high control organization.

Holdeman congregations enter into voluntary association with other Holdeman congregations, and set up committees to do various things. But in the case of revival meetings, one congregation simply calls around to other congregations' leaders until they find someone who is willing to come and preach revival services.

A minister from another congregatino could also come in unannounced and visit, although in practice this hasn't happened since the 1970s. It would be up to the local congregation if they want to have an "impromptu" revival service or not.

Again, the local congregation makes all the choices. In the case of Greeley, they decided to associated with MC USA instead of the Holdemans. They were free to do so. The members of that congregation were free to stay, or to leave (although most who wanted to stay associated wtih Holdemans left in the 1960s).

If the local congregation is supreme, how could this happen:

""December 13, 1976: Full excommunication meeting held in Kansas. No member of Majestic View present. Minutes never released, despite being promised.

Time from the revival ministers being sent home to the excommunication: about three weeks.

The excommunication letter itself: four paragraphs, no dates, no cited history of warnings or prior refusals. Just "a foreign and deceptive spirit" and two doctrinal charges. About 85% of the congregation was excommunicated at that meeting and sent notices afterwards.""

IF the local church is supreme, then it, and it alone, has the authority to discipline its members. Here, we have an example of some central authority, in another state, disfellowshipping members selectively, reaching past the "supreme" authority of the local church, and claiming authority that, if you believe the local church is supreme, it does not have. This sort of thing indicates in this group, the local church is not supreme, and that top-down authority is excessive, in a manner that bypasses the local church entirely. This is the general sense I have gotten.

""For example, in the case of Greeley, the denomination did not try to snatch their building from them. It remains the property of the congregation.""

Almost certainly, they could not even if they wanted to. Unless both the articles of incorporation and/or the property deed are drawn up in a certain, specific way, a denomination cannot seize local property. In my former group, the denomination had a practice of doing that. Sometimes it worked; frequently it did not. The difference is frequently in the deed and the articles of incorporation.

[JohnH]

JM,

Greeley decided to abandon things like the head covering.

How would Keystone handle a congregation that does that?

[Judas Maccabeus]

JM,

Greeley decided to abandon things like the head covering.

How would Keystone handle a congregation that does that?

I know the answer to this. The local church as a whole would be asked to leave the fellowship, but they would almost surely take a congregational vote to leave before it ever got to that point. If the vote carries, they are now an independent church. The fellowship would not disfellowship anyone individually. It can't; that power rests with the local congregation. While the church would leave, members would still be members of the church that has left the fellowship. Members wishing to remain with the fellowship would be assisted in joining another church, if they wish. Nobody is shunned, and in the case closest to me, relations remain cordial.

You should know this. Churches have left, churches have joined. It is a voluntary association.