Excommunication / Shunning / The Ban

[nett]

The "By Their Words" thread brought up some interesting discussion about excommunication. I didn't want to further derail that thread, but I do want to continue the discussion.

As Josh said, there are only two Mennonite groups that excommunicate anyone who leaves their denomination. That definitely feels extreme, and the doctrine of OTC / Apostolic succession is obviously a completely indefensible position for anyone who is intellectually honest in either of those churches, but that doesn't mean the practice is wrong, or not working.

I don't want to get into a Biblical fundamentalism debate, because I'm not a fundamentalist, and I think there's a reason why the bible doesn't explain excommunication in exacting detail.

With that said, the evangelical standard of letting people leave a church for any reason, EXCEPT for a few hot button issues (gay marriage is basically the only problematic thing left in mainstream christianity) isn't turning out super well.

Our church and the Beachy-Amish church up the road do not under any circumstances practice the ban for members who leave for another church, and I think this creates a very specific problems that I will describe.

The older generation in our church had stable marriages, lived a relatively plain, separate lifestyle as they raised their families, and managed to get their kids married off or at least out of the house without contracting the societal diseases that the rest of mainstream christianity suffered from (divorce, promiscuity, excessive influence from TV / Movies etc). Coming from an Amish background, they reacted strongly against banning anyone who left, even if it was for obviously ungodly reasons.

This created a comfortable drift.

The next generation started marrying, initially each married couple chooses to attend the least conservative church between the two of theirs. The more conservative parents are disappointed, but the strong families remain a source of stability for the younger couples, even as they attend churches that provides none of that stability.

As more young people go through this transition, it becomes increasingly attractive, and less conservative church becomes the de factor church of choice for the younger generation. As the older people scratch their heads about why everyone is leaving, they continue to fellowship with and support their children, even as they drift towards a more and more worldly existence.

The younger generation is COMPLETELY blind to what is happening. They believe they've found a special "freedom in Christ" or "grace", and that they're parent's church is really kind of legalistic, and you know, "a lot of people at that church believe their saved because of their clothes", even though they can't name a single person who actually believes that.

This goes on for a generation, and everything looks fine from the inside. The less conservative church thinks they're special, because they're not having any of the problems other mainstream churches have, ignoring the fact that the previous generation is really sustaining them spiritually. The problems begin when that generation is gone, and all h*** breaks loose, literally.

Coming from the other side of this as a seeker, it's plain as day what is going on, and I can see all these young families heading for the nightmare of their children having no use for Christianity as a whole, and the parents being so confused, not understanding that they trashed every tradition that connected them to their faith, and passed nothing down to their kids except for a vague intellectual state that means your saved, but affects nothing in your life.

I watched this exact thing happen with the homeschool movement, and I'm devastated to see that the CMs are experiencing the exact same trajectory, with the same level of confusion.

With all that said, I see no solution to this drift without the CMs coming back to some kind of ban or disfellowship when members leave the church for no reason but to be more worldly. It's hard for me to even say that, because it feels "wrong", and it's daunting to even consider what it would take to quantify in a church rulebook what it means to leave for a "more worldly" church, but I simply see no alternative.

Sorry for the book, hopefully you can find the time to read it, and discuss.

[silentreader]

The "By Their Words" thread brought up some interesting discussion about excommunication. I didn't want to further derail that thread, but I do want to continue the discussion.

As Josh said, there are only two Mennonite groups that excommunicate anyone who leaves their denomination. That definitely feels extreme, and the doctrine of OTC / Apostolic succession is obviously a completely indefensible position for anyone who is intellectually honest in either of those churches, but that doesn't mean the practice is wrong, or not working.

I don't want to get into a Biblical fundamentalism debate, because I'm not a fundamentalist, and I think there's a reason why the bible doesn't explain excommunication in exacting detail.

With that said, the evangelical standard of letting people leave a church for any reason, EXCEPT for a few hot button issues (gay marriage is basically the only problematic thing left in mainstream christianity) isn't turning out super well.

Our church and the Beachy-Amish church up the road do not under any circumstances practice the ban for members who leave for another church, and I think this creates a very specific problems that I will describe.

The older generation in our church had stable marriages, lived a relatively plain, separate lifestyle as they raised their families, and managed to get their kids married off or at least out of the house without contracting the societal diseases that the rest of mainstream christianity suffered from (divorce, promiscuity, excessive influence from TV / Movies etc). Coming from an Amish background, they reacted strongly against banning anyone who left, even if it was for obviously ungodly reasons.

This created a comfortable drift.

The next generation started marrying, initially each married couple chooses to attend the least conservative church between the two of theirs. The more conservative parents are disappointed, but the strong families remain a source of stability for the younger couples, even as they attend churches that provides none of that stability.

As more young people go through this transition, it becomes increasingly attractive, and less conservative church becomes the de factor church of choice for the younger generation. As the older people scratch their heads about why everyone is leaving, they continue to fellowship with and support their children, even as they drift towards a more and more worldly existence.

The younger generation is COMPLETELY blind to what is happening. They believe they've found a special "freedom in Christ" or "grace", and that they're parent's church is really kind of legalistic, and you know, "a lot of people at that church believe their saved because of their clothes", even though they can't name a single person who actually believes that.

This goes on for a generation, and everything looks fine from the inside. The less conservative church thinks they're special, because they're not having any of the problems other mainstream churches have, ignoring the fact that the previous generation is really sustaining them spiritually. The problems begin when that generation is gone, and all h*** breaks loose, literally.

Coming from the other side of this as a seeker, it's plain as day what is going on, and I can see all these young families heading for the nightmare of their children having no use for Christianity as a whole, and the parents being so confused, not understanding that they trashed every tradition that connected them to their faith, and passed nothing down to their kids except for a vague intellectual state that means your saved, but affects nothing in your life.

I watched this exact thing happen with the homeschool movement, and I'm devastated to see that the CMs are experiencing the exact same trajectory, with the same level of confusion.

With all that said, I see no solution to this drift without the CMs coming back to some kind of ban or disfellowship when members leave the church for no reason but to be more worldly. It's hard for me to even say that, because it feels "wrong", and it's daunting to even consider what it would take to quantify in a church rulebook what it means to leave for a "more worldly" church, but I simply see no alternative.

Sorry for the book, hopefully you can find the time to read it, and discuss.

I see the exact same thing happening with our married children. Two generations is all it took to go from a grandfather who was a charter member of a group that was part of the beginning of the Conservative movement in which the use of the TV was rejected, to grandchildren who have transitioned two steps more liberal, but still "Mennonite", who once again embrace the TV.
They believe they have "liberty", I believe they misunderstand Christian liberty and are mistaking license for liberty.

[Sudsy]

'Being more worldly' was what Jesus was accused of being. He didn't follow the church rules and holiness standards of the religious elite. I think defining what is 'worldly' can easily be a drift also to Christian practise that can be quite a stretch to biblical text.

Some have gone the 'more conservative' (my upbringing) route and the spiritual benefits of this lifestyle was experienced as an unfulfilling life and one their heart was not into living. They felt not in the chains of sin but under the chains of religion. Others experienced a life where they enjoyed serving the Lord more than the attractions of the world. So, for those who leave it is a new sense of freedom but then is that all it is. Perhaps they have never been born again

Well, I'll, break off at this point as my computer is running low.

[Ken]

With that said, the evangelical standard of letting people leave a church for any reason, EXCEPT for a few hot button issues (gay marriage is basically the only problematic thing left in mainstream christianity) isn't turning out super well.

When you "don't let people leave" don't you just wind up with people who no longer take the faith seriously and just "go through the motions? Because actually leaving creates too many problems professionally or within the family?

There was another thread recently that mentioned Mennos who are just sticking around so they can inherit the farm or family business even though they are no longer serious about the faith.

[PetrChelcicky]

My position has always been that churches have to highlight a difference between "worldly" and "not worldly" - a lot of these distinctions are arbitrary (like, buttons are worldly), but not completely arbitrary. The basic aspect is: We do not succumb to the "fashions of our time". Because the "fashions of our time" are ungodly social powers. We may follow the fashions of older times just when they have lost their social power, this cannot be excluded. But it must be understood by outsiders that we are not impressed by actual fashions.
I suppose that a "leaver" should be banned as soon as he tries to instill "the fashions of our time" in the community he has left.

[PetrChelcicky]

To make my position clear:
Personally I have much sympathies for Trumpists. But I would understand and accept when a Mennonite church says: That is too fashionable for us. Please keep your MAGA hat under lock and key for the next fifteen years and thereafter we can have a debate about the pros and cons of MAGA hats. (MAGA hats being, in this view, the "buttons" of our time.)

[JimFoxvog]

In my understanding, voluntarily choosing to follow one's understanding of scripture is the core of Anabaptism. When it is made a social force to make generations conform to past cultural practices I think Anabaptism has abandoned its roots.

That said, the New Testament does teach expelling the unrepentant sinner from the church. Most churches seem reluctant to practice this.

[joshuabgood]

The "By Their Words" thread brought up some interesting discussion about excommunication. I didn't want to further derail that thread, but I do want to continue the discussion.

As Josh said, there are only two Mennonite groups that excommunicate anyone who leaves their denomination. That definitely feels extreme, and the doctrine of OTC / Apostolic succession is obviously a completely indefensible position for anyone who is intellectually honest in either of those churches, but that doesn't mean the practice is wrong, or not working.

I don't want to get into a Biblical fundamentalism debate, because I'm not a fundamentalist, and I think there's a reason why the bible doesn't explain excommunication in exacting detail.

With that said, the evangelical standard of letting people leave a church for any reason, EXCEPT for a few hot button issues (gay marriage is basically the only problematic thing left in mainstream christianity) isn't turning out super well.

Our church and the Beachy-Amish church up the road do not under any circumstances practice the ban for members who leave for another church, and I think this creates a very specific problems that I will describe.

The older generation in our church had stable marriages, lived a relatively plain, separate lifestyle as they raised their families, and managed to get their kids married off or at least out of the house without contracting the societal diseases that the rest of mainstream christianity suffered from (divorce, promiscuity, excessive influence from TV / Movies etc). Coming from an Amish background, they reacted strongly against banning anyone who left, even if it was for obviously ungodly reasons.

This created a comfortable drift.

The next generation started marrying, initially each married couple chooses to attend the least conservative church between the two of theirs. The more conservative parents are disappointed, but the strong families remain a source of stability for the younger couples, even as they attend churches that provides none of that stability.

As more young people go through this transition, it becomes increasingly attractive, and less conservative church becomes the de factor church of choice for the younger generation. As the older people scratch their heads about why everyone is leaving, they continue to fellowship with and support their children, even as they drift towards a more and more worldly existence.

The younger generation is COMPLETELY blind to what is happening. They believe they've found a special "freedom in Christ" or "grace", and that they're parent's church is really kind of legalistic, and you know, "a lot of people at that church believe their saved because of their clothes", even though they can't name a single person who actually believes that.

This goes on for a generation, and everything looks fine from the inside. The less conservative church thinks they're special, because they're not having any of the problems other mainstream churches have, ignoring the fact that the previous generation is really sustaining them spiritually. The problems begin when that generation is gone, and all h*** breaks loose, literally.

Coming from the other side of this as a seeker, it's plain as day what is going on, and I can see all these young families heading for the nightmare of their children having no use for Christianity as a whole, and the parents being so confused, not understanding that they trashed every tradition that connected them to their faith, and passed nothing down to their kids except for a vague intellectual state that means your saved, but affects nothing in your life.

I watched this exact thing happen with the homeschool movement, and I'm devastated to see that the CMs are experiencing the exact same trajectory, with the same level of confusion.

With all that said, I see no solution to this drift without the CMs coming back to some kind of ban or disfellowship when members leave the church for no reason but to be more worldly. It's hard for me to even say that, because it feels "wrong", and it's daunting to even consider what it would take to quantify in a church rulebook what it means to leave for a "more worldly" church, but I simply see no alternative.

Sorry for the book, hopefully you can find the time to read it, and discuss.

Some would say the reason they leave the more conservative churches is because those churches have failed to present a compelling Anabaptist vision. Some would say it isn't even historic Anabaptism. And instead they have focused too much on d efensive ethnic enclave protectionism and religious elitism. Enter FORW or the Reformed folks...

I dont think even more protectionism through disfellowship is the answer.

[ABC 123]

In my understanding, voluntarily choosing to follow one's understanding of scripture is the core of Anabaptism. When it is made a social force to make generations conform to past cultural practices I think Anabaptism has abandoned its roots.

That said, the New Testament does teach expelling the unrepentant sinner from the church. Most churches seem reluctant to practice this.

I agree with this.

I think there are a lot of good things about CA that is worth preserving, but is pretty murky waters to use 1 Corinthians 5 as a means to manipulate people to remain inside a culture.

[nett]

'Being more worldly' was what Jesus was accused of being. He didn't follow the church rules and holiness standards of the religious elite. I think defining what is 'worldly' can easily be a drift also to Christian practise that can be quite a stretch to biblical text.

Some have gone the 'more conservative' (my upbringing) route and the spiritual benefits of this lifestyle was experienced as an unfulfilling life and one their heart was not into living. They felt not in the chains of sin but under the chains of religion. Others experienced a life where they enjoyed serving the Lord more than the attractions of the world. So, for those who leave it is a new sense of freedom but then is that all it is. Perhaps they have never been born again

Well, I'll, break off at this point as my computer is running low.

I think it's pretty obvious when you observe people's behavior after leaving a conservative church, what their desire in leaving was.

I didn't really understand your 2nd paragraph. Are you saying those who leave were never born again?