Trust of the congregation by the ministry in conservative Mennonite Churches

[ken_sylvania]

....
One of the ways I see a demonstration of trust between ministry and laity is when both feel free to share struggles and difficulties on a personal level and can (generally) count on information not being shared beyond a need-to-know basis. If, for instance, I were dealing with emotional difficulties such that I didn't feel able to teach Sunday School or share a prayer meeting topic, I could share that with my ministry and count on them not broadcasting it to the entire congregation - and my name wouldn't show up on the schedule. Over the time of a recent ordination, a brother who had reason to believe he would likely be nominated talked to the bishops in advance and asked to be excused. The bishops agreed that he had valid reasons for his request, and anyone who put his name in for nomination was advised of that request and given opportunity to give another name instead. Knowing that situation was handled carefully and confidentially gives me confidence and trust in sharing with my ministry.

Of course, that need to be able to maintain confidences can also be abused. A certain individual I know has a tendency to regularly invoke the "confidential sources" argument when challenged about certain wild claims that he makes. In thinking about what makes the difference, I've concluded that when a person is commonly open and transparent with reasons and information that doesn't need to be kept confidential, I'm more likely to give them latitude and actually believe them when they feel they can't go into detailed reasoning for certain items. (Not sure this last paragraph accurately reflects what I'm thinking - it's hard to put into words.)

Would a lot of "unspoken prayer requests" fall into this category, or am I misreading your comment here?

That wasn't what I had in mind, but don't get me started on the whole schtick of "so-and-so needs prayer for a difficult situation they're facing but I'm not at liberty to share the details."
I'm thinking more routine matters, maybe not even church related. "Someone told me that John Henry knew that cow was sick when he sold her but he didn't tell the buyer. Yes, it was someone who had reason to know, but I can't say who it was." That kind of thing. You hear that line often enough, and enough of that "special information" turns out not to be reliable, and you conclude "confidential" is code for "made up."

[Neto]

Sometimes a misunderstanding can be the result of a perhaps unfortunate choice of words. A possible error I made in this sort of thing is that last Sunday in SS (I am currently serving as the teacher - discussion leader) I made a reference to the previous Sunday, when the class was very small. I said that "It was slim pickings last Sunday." I meant that the attendance was low, not intending any negative connotations about those who HAD been there. Maybe I should apologize next Sunday?

It could be interpreted as negative connotations about those who had NOT been there: the excessively portly ones were absent.

Really? Are you joking, or serious? (I would never have thought about that angle. Thanks. It just shows how careful we need to be with our choice of words.)

[Heirbyadoption]

Sometimes a misunderstanding can be the result of a perhaps unfortunate choice of words. A possible error I made in this sort of thing is that last Sunday in SS (I am currently serving as the teacher - discussion leader) I made a reference to the previous Sunday, when the class was very small. I said that "It was slim pickings last Sunday." I meant that the attendance was low, not intending any negative connotations about those who HAD been there. Maybe I should apologize next Sunday?

It could be interpreted as negative connotations about those who had NOT been there: the excessively portly ones were absent.

Really? Are you joking, or serious? (I would never have thought about that angle. Thanks. It just shows how careful we need to be with our choice of words.)

Being on the "portly" side myself, I would have gotten a giggle out of that, but then again, I may have a different sense of humor than some.

[JohnL]

Mike, your post below got me thinking about the different churches I’ve belonged to in my life. None of them were Mennonite just Baptist.
In every single one of them, pastors or deacons would visit the SS or ministry activities and wouldn’t let the lay teachers know when they’d be coming. I understand it to be a kind of monitoring to make sure that participants are safe from funny business if you know what I mean.

JohnH's post reminded me of this topic. One of the things that is a little hard to swallow sometimes in conservative Mennonite conference life compared to what I was used to is what I might call the institutionalized lack of trust of the congregation by the ministry. I say institutionalized because it doesn't seem to be anything intended to be personal or nefarious necessarily, it's just the way the system is.

For a few examples, lay members are not trusted to share sermons in church services, and are often not trusted with information about important church matters. Lay members' participation isn't really sought on important issues except to ratify decisions made by the ministry (and not all decisions of course are considered necessary to be ratified). The ministry is required to be present at youth events, instruction classes, school and other sorts of boards, and other similar things which lay members sometimes are in charge of, giving the impression that lay members are not fully trusted to manage without ministry oversight. Ministry are required to sign off on speakers for Sunday school and Sunday night services.

There are also ways in which the ministry do demonstrate trust in the congregation. I could list some of those as well.

I think the level of trust of the congregation by the ministry varies widely depending on the particular group. I'm speaking strictly of the conservative conference Mennonites that I'm familiar with. I would be interested in hearing how conservative Mennonites you are familiar with institutionalize trust or lack of trust in the congregation.

I'm not talking about individual bad situations or persons where trust has been lost because of some human problem or other, which is common. I'm thinking about 'institutionalized' trust. In what particular ways do churches you are familiar with exercise this sort of trust, or lack thereof? What practices or policies exist that either facilitate or limit such trust? How do different conferences or even individual congregations manage a trusting relationship between ministry and the congregation?

[MattY]

I think that the main thing that would demonstrate respect of the non-ministers by the ministerial team is transparency. Explain how a decision will be made before-hand if possible, and ask for the voice of the church. When this advance action is not possible, explain openly and fully afterwards, and if there is 'push-back' demonstrate humility by either rolling back the decision, or learning from it for future cases.

This is the sort of thing that would demonstrate trust. I’m curious whether this is something that actually happens.

Earlier this year, we had a discussion about how early young girls should begin to wear a covering/veiling. There was nothing written in the standards about when to begin, and some young girls in the church were around 10 or approaching 10 and hadn't begun veiling yet. A couple families, especially one of the wives from a Mennonite (non-Amish) background, were more comfortable with the idea of beginning veiling after they are old enough to understand it, to accept Christ and choose it for themselves. But most of the ministry and the older members preferred to begin earlier. The ministry proposed that the standard be set at age 8. There was significant hesitancy and push-back from the laity, particularly the younger families, and it became clear that there was no consensus for age 8; so the ministry compromised and proposed age 10. This was accepted by the laity, understanding that both sides were compromising to accomodate each other's perspective, and so the new proposal (age 10) was broadly supported and it was added to the standard of practice.

[ohio jones]

Sometimes a misunderstanding can be the result of a perhaps unfortunate choice of words. A possible error I made in this sort of thing is that last Sunday in SS (I am currently serving as the teacher - discussion leader) I made a reference to the previous Sunday, when the class was very small. I said that "It was slim pickings last Sunday." I meant that the attendance was low, not intending any negative connotations about those who HAD been there. Maybe I should apologize next Sunday?

It could be interpreted as negative connotations about those who had NOT been there: the excessively portly ones were absent.

Really? Are you joking, or serious? (I would never have thought about that angle. Thanks. It just shows how careful we need to be with our choice of words.)

I'm not entirely serious, and it wouldn't have been my first thought, but I have trained myself to be alert for possible misinterpretations. It's actually part of my job.

[ken_sylvania]

This is the sort of thing that would demonstrate trust. I’m curious whether this is something that actually happens.

I've had a bishop explain to me how he felt the bishops had made a mistake in how they handled an issue (even though if I understand correctly he had been agreed with the plan of action at the time) and how he would like to handle it differently in the future.

I don't know what sort of issue this was, so maybe my thoughts don't apply. That sort of openness is good. You say "the bishops" so was this a church-wide issue? To me the better path would be to acknowledge the mistake to the congregation/s involved rather than telling the handful of people who might ask one of the more open-to-discuss-the-issue bishops. Openness on a person-to-person level isn't lacking as much. The sort of openness that is missing is on the united-front-ministry to congregation level.

I think there could stand to be more of that sometimes.
The issue I was referring had to do with a certain famous proposed modification to the EPMC discipline sometime around 2016/2017.
Sometimes those kind of situations it's nice to be an observer rather than a participant...
From my point of view by the time the voting was done they were stuck with absolutely no good options.

This has been a real mess for us recently. The congregation had, if not unanimous close to it, support for an idea that had first been floated several years ago. Half the ministry supported the idea, half did not. Officially, the only comment made was "You've been heard". Unofficially, comments were made and plenty of hints were dropped. Rumors were flying. Somehow those related to the ministry always had more information than the rest. There was no transparency about the decision-making process or the status of the idea until the ministry had made a decision. To me it showed a lack of trust in the congregation. Not that I expected we would be involved in the decision, but that we were not kept reasonably abreast of the glacially slow progress of the idea. Sure, you could ask the ministry. You could even ask the ones you knew supported the idea and thus were likely to give you some hints of information instead of telling you it was a bad idea or that the congregation had been heard. But institutionally, as Mike says, it felt like a lack of trust.

Yea, and then if the ministry isn't all on the same page about the level of transparency that there ought to be on a certain issue it can make it even more complicated.

[R7ehr]

I think that the main thing that would demonstrate respect of the non-ministers by the ministerial team is transparency. Explain how a decision will be made before-hand if possible, and ask for the voice of the church. When this advance action is not possible, explain openly and fully afterwards, and if there is 'push-back' demonstrate humility by either rolling back the decision, or learning from it for future cases.

This is the sort of thing that would demonstrate trust. I’m curious whether this is something that actually happens.

Earlier this year, we had a discussion about how early young girls should begin to wear a covering/veiling. There was nothing written in the standards about when to begin, and some young girls in the church were around 10 or approaching 10 and hadn't begun veiling yet. A couple families, especially one of the wives from a Mennonite (non-Amish) background, were more comfortable with the idea of beginning veiling after they are old enough to understand it, to accept Christ and choose it for themselves. But most of the ministry and the older members preferred to begin earlier. The ministry proposed that the standard be set at age 8. There was significant hesitancy and push-back from the laity, particularly the younger families, and it became clear that there was no consensus for age 8; so the ministry compromised and proposed age 10. This was accepted by the laity, understanding that both sides were compromising to accomodate each other's perspective, and so the new proposal (age 10) was broadly supported and it was added to the standard of practice.

I find this detail, and your ordination detail interesting about you. I guess I had assumed incorrectly that you were part of a more liberal church than these two things indicate.

[eccentric_rambler]

The issue I was referring had to do with a certain famous proposed modification to the EPMC discipline sometime around 2016/2017.
Sometimes those kind of situations it's nice to be an observer rather than a participant...
From my point of view by the time the voting was done they were stuck with absolutely no good options.

That possibility crossed my mind. I think there were options but they were likely going to be painful. In my snarky moments I think the issue was an attitude of "Konference über alles". I do seriously think it may have been the hand of God encouraging separating into smaller conferences, but that is heading down a rabbit trail.

Yea, and then if the ministry isn't all on the same page about the level of transparency that there ought to be on a certain issue it can make it even more complicated.

Yes, but that's brotherhood. They need to work that out and submit to each other, just like the rest of the brotherhood. We shouldn't get the sense that the one with the loudest/strongest opinions is nearly always deferred to.

[JohnH]

This is the sort of thing that would demonstrate trust. I’m curious whether this is something that actually happens.

Our leadership team proposed a change relating to church membership for the very young and it was rejected by the members so it faded away.

Perhaps something similar? In our congregation, a person younger than 18 may be baptized and become a member, but voting is restricted to 18 and older.

I have a sense of discomfort with two-tier membership like this.