MennoNet.com

This is a thread to discuss Fundamental-Conservative Mennonite Churches as categorized by Stephen Scott in his book, An Introduction to Older and Conservative Mennonite Groups.
I've titled this thread "Progressive Conservatives" since many people are confused by the term "Fundamental". Stephen Scott calls them Fundamental since they like to think of themselves as sticking with fundamental Biblical values and don't like to have extra-biblical standards.

This designation would include churches who would be similar to Biblical Mennonite Alliance (BMA).

Bible School: Elnora Bible Institute

Progressive (Fundamental) Conservatives
These folks require little more than what can be extracted from scripture.
These folks allow store-bought skirts and dresses for the ladies and some would have TV in their homes.
Ladies where some kind of doily or small head covering. (these folks emphasize the "covering" rather than the "covered head" being the sign.)
Ladies mostly wear skirts and men would not typically wear short pants in public although this is changing.
Men in some churches are permitted to wear suits and ties.

The dominant peer-pressure in a fundamental-conservative setting is to be Biblical and have church with no extra-biblical requirements.

Progressive Conservatives 1

Progressive Conservatives 2

Progressive Conservatives 3

Regarding the shorts issue... This actually is swinging the other way. BMA is taking a firm stand on shorts. It used to be that the large influential congregations all permitted them. However they are now open about stopping that...and no new church entering may allow shorts. In a matter of time they will be completely gone. Also regarding dominant pressure, in the LC area they also face some pressure to be more conservative like the Keystones.

joshuabgood wrote:Regarding the shorts issue... This actually is swinging the other way. BMA is taking a firm stand on shorts. It used to be that the large influential congregations all permitted them. However they are now open about stopping that...and no new church entering may allow shorts. In a matter of time they will be completely gone. Also regarding dominant pressure, in the LC area they also face some pressure to be more conservative like the Keystones.

Interesting.

joshuabgood wrote:Regarding the shorts issue... This actually is swinging the other way. BMA is taking a firm stand on shorts. It used to be that the large influential congregations all permitted them. However they are now open about stopping that...and no new church entering may allow shorts. In a matter of time they will be completely gone. Also regarding dominant pressure, in the LC area they also face some pressure to be more conservative like the Keystones.

A friend-of-a-friend facebooked this a while back. Not entirely accurate in all respects, but it does seem to hit the important points as he sees them.

joshuabgood wrote:Regarding the shorts issue... This actually is swinging the other way. BMA is taking a firm stand on shorts. It used to be that the large influential congregations all permitted them. However they are now open about stopping that...and no new church entering may allow shorts. In a matter of time they will be completely gone. Also regarding dominant pressure, in the LC area they also face some pressure to be more conservative like the Keystones.

Is this political like the wedding band issue was?

joshuabgood wrote:Regarding the shorts issue... This actually is swinging the other way. BMA is taking a firm stand on shorts. It used to be that the large influential congregations all permitted them. However they are now open about stopping that...and no new church entering may allow shorts. In a matter of time they will be completely gone. Also regarding dominant pressure, in the LC area they also face some pressure to be more conservative like the Keystones.

I would find at least 3 of the BMA churches in my neck of the woods to be almost indistinguishable from a Keystone church.

J.M.

ragpicker wrote:

joshuabgood wrote:Regarding the shorts issue... This actually is swinging the other way. BMA is taking a firm stand on shorts. It used to be that the large influential congregations all permitted them. However they are now open about stopping that...and no new church entering may allow shorts. In a matter of time they will be completely gone. Also regarding dominant pressure, in the LC area they also face some pressure to be more conservative like the Keystones.

Is this political like the wedding band issue was?

How would the wedding band issue be "political."

J.M.

The whole Progressive Conservative Mennonite Churches idea sounds political to me. In Canada the one major political party is/was called the Progressive Conservatives.

Lancaster Mennonite Conference experienced a departure of a number of congregations in the early 1990s.

In the beginning, there was just a group of pastors who called themselves "Keystone Mennonite Fellowship". They remained affiliated with LC, but sought to discern (along with their congregations) how to handle the changes happening in other LC congregations. Eventually, they requested to be released from LC.

Their deal with LC was that in exchange for their release, they agreed not to recruit or accept other LC congregations and pastors into Keystone. A number of other congregations were also looking to leave, however, and so those congregations chose to affiliate with BMA.

That wing of BMA is virtually identical to Keystone, given their shared common heritage in LC. Other wings of BMA have an Amish-Mennonite background, and thus have a fundamentally different culture and outlook.

In a sense, that wing of BMA plus Keystone is essentially the "Old Order" of the spirit of the Lancaster Conference as it exists in the 1950s and 1960s. It remains highly evangelistic and outreach-focused to this day, at least compared with other conservative constituencies, and it also has not experienced a great deal of change in terms of standards or lifestyle. I consider this group of churches one of the most stable in the Progressive/Fundamental or Moderate Conservative Mennonite world.

Judas Maccabeus wrote:

ragpicker wrote:

joshuabgood wrote:Regarding the shorts issue... This actually is swinging the other way. BMA is taking a firm stand on shorts. It used to be that the large influential congregations all permitted them. However they are now open about stopping that...and no new church entering may allow shorts. In a matter of time they will be completely gone. Also regarding dominant pressure, in the LC area they also face some pressure to be more conservative like the Keystones.

Is this political like the wedding band issue was?

How would the wedding band issue be "political."

J.M.

The whole flip flop thing to get the support of people who would not support without the ban.