RZehr wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 11:20 pm
Question only for current members at a plain, conservative Mennonite church. If you are not currently a member at a Mennonite church that requires women to wear a covering, please don’t post for a week.
Did you mean to say Mennonite or is Anabaptist ok?
Whatever. I guess Amish and Beachy and Hutterites are close enough. Charity too probably. Might as well throw in FOTW. You require women to wear a covering?
I'd like to add one more restriction for this first week. Besides the head covering, official membership and close communion is necessary. Particularly if we are expanding the qualified groups.
GaryK wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 4:21 pm
I would ask the question - if the individuals involved sincerely desire to become a part of a CA church, what are the alternatives? What model gets to the bottom of the big question of who God has joined together?
I wish there were easy answers. There aren't. I tend to think that every marriage "matters" on its own terms without depending on other relationships before or after (or concurrent). But that probably results in even fewer people eligible to join a CA church than under your model.
GaryK wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 4:21 pm
I would ask the question - if the individuals involved sincerely desire to become a part of a CA church, what are the alternatives? What model gets to the bottom of the big question of who God has joined together?
I wish there were easy answers. There aren't. I tend to think that every marriage "matters" on its own terms without depending on other relationships before or after (or concurrent). But that probably results in even fewer people eligible to join a CA church than under your model.
To be honest, I feel we as CAs have been so focused on taking a right stand on this issue that we have at times inadvertently kept people from joining our churches who perhaps could have in God's view. I feel we should be as lenient as possible in this matter. This is why I'm willing to explore all options before saying no.
So there are basically two viewpoints among conservative Anabaptists.
1. Covenant or Consequential View - All marriages involve covenants and therefore have consequences. There is no way to untangle marriage situations once there is remarriage (while a former partner is still living) so the only way to make things right is to repent and separate from all marriages and live celibately (caring for all former partners) until there is only one living partner. If the remaining partner is willing to live with the one who had multiple marriages, they can live together. Otherwise they need to keep living celibate.
2. Permanent View - God only recognizes one marriage. All subsequent marriages are not marriages and a person should return to their first partner. If you marry a divorced person, that is not a marriage, and you are free to marry a person who is not married.
In between these two viewpoints is the Old Mennonite position which basically says, "First spouses should always be inclined to reunite. But if someone marries a divorced person, they should separate and remain celibate until one of them dies." (People have claimed that this position is not very logical, so it has fallen out of favor in many places in favor of one of the above two positions.)
So how might the Old Mennonite position (which I subscribe to) work through the scenario in the OP?
How might the Permanent position work it out?
And why is it called the Old Mennonite position? I never hear it called that before. What other churches hold this viewpoint other than we out here in the far west?
Dwight Gingrich is doing good work on this. I would recommend perusing his blog and forthcoming work for a well thought out position from a conservative head veiling Anabaptist position.
RZehr wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 8:14 pmSo how might the Old Mennonite position (which I subscribe to) work through the scenario in the OP? How might the Permanent position work it out?
The person should return to the first partner if the first partner is still living. I'm not sure what it would say in the case of a second and third marriage. Maybe remain celibate but I am not sure. The "Old" Mennonites rarely if ever faced such situations prior to 1957. (the date of the GAMEO article below)
RZehr wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 8:14 pmAnd why is it called the Old Mennonite position? I never hear it called that before.
RZehr wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 8:14 pmWhat other churches hold this viewpoint other than we out here in the far west?
I'm guessing the Old Order Mennonites (Groffdale and Weaverland Conferences) Intermediate-conservatives such as Cumberland Valley Mennonite Conference and some unaffiliated congregations take this position I am guessing. Southeastern is somewhat divided between the Old Mennonite position and the Permanent position from what I understand. Beachy Amish-Mennonites are also divided on this from what I understand.
Washington/Franklin, Eastern, Northeastern, Pilgrim, FOTW all take the covenant/consequential view.
ohio jones wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 2:07 pm
Do we really want to do the marital equivalent of a title search in cases like this? With the possibility always lurking that we could have told someone to separate (or not) in error, after new facts come to light?
Starting with the legality search is getting it backwards, I believe. Is the question based on church membership and fellowship? Or has the mess already been entered and the individual is pursuing these questions as their heart’s desire to live to their best possible compliance to Christ’s teachings?
The most common solution I’ve seen in our churches, for those who choose to enter the mess, is to recommend they find fellowship at a church that doesn’t make as big a deal out of the legality. It seems to me there’s something fundamentally flawed in that approach.
ohio jones wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 2:07 pm
Do we really want to do the marital equivalent of a title search in cases like this? With the possibility always lurking that we could have told someone to separate (or not) in error, after new facts come to light?
Starting with the legality search is getting it backwards, I believe. Is the question based on church membership and fellowship? Or has the mess already been entered and the individual is pursuing these questions as their heart’s desire to live to their best possible compliance to Christ’s teachings?
The most common solution I’ve seen in our churches, for those who choose to enter the mess, is to recommend they find fellowship at a church that doesn’t make as big a deal out of the legality. It seems to me there’s something fundamentally flawed in that approach.
Indeed. I started telling such people to seek the Holdemans, Apostolic Christians, or the CMC. Eventually I questioned why I was doing that.