mike wrote: ↑Mon Jan 09, 2023 8:25 am
This of course is in contrast with many churches where there is hardly any disciplinary process in place at all. For example, a friend of mine's father was a known firebug and arsonist who served prison time for it. His wife divorced him and married someone else from the church they attended. In all of the years this happened, all of the above persons remained members of the same Church of the Brethren congregation, and were not disciplined by the church. In part due to this background, I believe, my friend has very strong views about the need for church discipline and excommunication.
Maybe we should discuss what discipline action should look like. Withhold the holy kiss? Hold back from communion? Worse? Obviously this will vary from church to church and the offense in question...
Traditional Anbaptist churches have the following as part of its "corporate rule of life".
1. Actions that are a test of membership.
2. Actions that result in being held back from communion and/or holy kiss.
3. Actions that are protested against.
4. Actions that are encouraged.
5. Higher expectations for church leaders and other influential positions in the church.
And yes, traditional Anabaptists are all over the map on what types of things fall in each category.
Neto wrote: ↑Mon Jan 09, 2023 9:37 amI started to ask this question the other day already, but it seems like a stupid or sarcastic one. I do not mean it that way. What is meant by "church" & "churches" in the context of these statements above? I'm asking what you all think of when you read these comments.
Specifically, I think of the "church" as being the congregation. But from what I know of the typical Swiss Brethren congregational management model, I suspect it really means "leadership". When Paul wrote to the different congregations in the Greek world of that time about necessary disciplinary actions, was he appealing to or speaking to only the leadership, or to the congregation as a whole, the assembly of individual believers? (I suspect I'm experiencing another clash of ideology or understanding here - the contrast between a congregational governance model and a top-down governance model. If so, it is another symptom of my own religio-cultural heritage in conflict with the Swiss Brethren one.)
In many traditional Swiss/German Anabaptist churches, "church" does mean the leaders who were nominated for the office by members of the church. (think representative democracy)
In many less traditional churches, most matters are voted on by the whole church. (think direct democracy)
And then there are churches in between in which the leaders have more say than the average member but the members do get to give input along the way.
It feels to me that weightier matters of the law, gossip, slander, lack of love/submission/deference, etc - due to an avoidance of conflict ethic - are often not particularly effectively discipled/disciplined in the conservative Anabaptist setting.
In a counter intuitive way, I think this is partly the cause of the resulting schismatic tendencies in our groups that have been on full display now for 150 years or so. We are a far cry from what Jesus prayed for in John 17.
Neto wrote: ↑Mon Jan 09, 2023 9:37 amI started to ask this question the other day already, but it seems like a stupid or sarcastic one. I do not mean it that way. What is meant by "church" & "churches" in the context of these statements above? I'm asking what you all think of when you read these comments.
Specifically, I think of the "church" as being the congregation. But from what I know of the typical Swiss Brethren congregational management model, I suspect it really means "leadership". When Paul wrote to the different congregations in the Greek world of that time about necessary disciplinary actions, was he appealing to or speaking to only the leadership, or to the congregation as a whole, the assembly of individual believers? (I suspect I'm experiencing another clash of ideology or understanding here - the contrast between a congregational governance model and a top-down governance model. If so, it is another symptom of my own religio-cultural heritage in conflict with the Swiss Brethren one.)
In many traditional Swiss/German Anabaptist churches, "church" does mean the leaders who were nominated for the office by members of the church. (think representative democracy)
In many less traditional churches, most matters are voted on by the whole church. (think direct democracy)
And then there are churches in between in which the leaders have more say than the average member but the members do get to give input along the way.
Amongst Holdemans whom I presume carry influences from Russian Mennonites/the Klein Gemeinde, generally issues are address by the whole membership. The leaders do make recommendations, and sometimes the membership simply prefers leaders to confer and come to a decision.
So, for example, there are no bishops, and at the general conference the membership is on equal footing with the delegates (who are usually ordained men, but congregations with no ordained men choose a delegate).
This caused serious clashes in the 1950s when a lot of Swiss background people joined the church and then were ordained. A few notorious cases involved recently ordained men who then planned to rule like they were accustomed to being ruled over by leaders n the CMC church they left.
joshuabgood wrote: ↑Mon Jan 09, 2023 9:59 am
It feels to me that weightier matters of the law, gossip, slander, lack of love/submission/deference, etc - due to an avoidance of conflict ethic - are often not particularly effectively discipled/disciplined in the conservative Anabaptist setting.
The idea that this would be due to an "avoidance of conflict" ethic seems odd to me, in light of the fact that discipline of any kind is essentially a precursor for conflict. It seems to me that an avoidance of conflict ethic would actually lead churches to relaxing discipline of every kind. It does seem strange that churches who have no issue with the use of violence and force are generally more lax in church discipline. In other words, stealing from them will get you shot or reported to police, while cheating on your wife won't get you removed from their church.
joshuabgood wrote: ↑Mon Jan 09, 2023 9:59 am
It feels to me that weightier matters of the law, gossip, slander, lack of love/submission/deference, etc - due to an avoidance of conflict ethic - are often not particularly effectively discipled/disciplined in the conservative Anabaptist setting.
The idea that this would be due to an "avoidance of conflict" ethic seems odd to me, in light of the fact that discipline of any kind is essentially a precursor for conflict. It seems to me that an avoidance of conflict ethic would actually lead churches to relaxing discipline of every kind. It does seem strange that churches who have no issue with the use of violence and force are generally more lax in church discipline. In other words, stealing from them will get you shot or reported to police, while cheating on your wife won't get you removed from their church.
I get it...which is why I said counter-intuitive. But, for instance, when slander, gossip, lack of yieldedness, etc aren't addressed directly, rather than preserving peace, it results in actually bigger schisms. It is easier to "disciple" how long a skirt should be, than it is to disciple gossip and slander.
Sort of the conflict is avoided until it blows up...
Neto wrote: ↑Mon Jan 09, 2023 9:37 amI started to ask this question the other day already, but it seems like a stupid or sarcastic one. I do not mean it that way. What is meant by "church" & "churches" in the context of these statements above? I'm asking what you all think of when you read these comments.
Specifically, I think of the "church" as being the congregation. But from what I know of the typical Swiss Brethren congregational management model, I suspect it really means "leadership". When Paul wrote to the different congregations in the Greek world of that time about necessary disciplinary actions, was he appealing to or speaking to only the leadership, or to the congregation as a whole, the assembly of individual believers? (I suspect I'm experiencing another clash of ideology or understanding here - the contrast between a congregational governance model and a top-down governance model. If so, it is another symptom of my own religio-cultural heritage in conflict with the Swiss Brethren one.)
In many traditional Swiss/German Anabaptist churches, "church" does mean the leaders who were nominated for the office by members of the church. (think representative democracy)
In many less traditional churches, most matters are voted on by the whole church. (think direct democracy)
And then there are churches in between in which the leaders have more say than the average member but the members do get to give input along the way.
Within the Swiss/German context there can be variations, of course. My church would fit the "in between" description, where disciplinary action would be presented by the leaders as a recommendation, and input would be encouraged. My parents' church, which I would ordinarily think of as more traditional (certainly more conservative, anyway), seems to fit the "less traditional" description, where a matter of discipline would result in two or three Mens MeetingsTM with hours of discussion and debate.
ohio jones wrote: ↑Mon Jan 09, 2023 12:38 pm
Within the Swiss/German context there can be variations, of course. My church would fit the "in between" description, where disciplinary action would be presented by the leaders as a recommendation, and input would be encouraged. My parents' church, which I would ordinarily think of as more traditional (certainly more conservative, anyway), seems to fit the "less traditional" description, where a matter of discipline would result in two or three Mens MeetingsTM with hours of discussion and debate.
Ah, men's meetings. Where the patriarch tries to get everyone to agree with his opinion on matters
joshuabgood wrote: ↑Mon Jan 09, 2023 12:01 pmIt is easier to "disciple" how long a skirt should be, than it is to disciple gossip and slander.
Sort of the conflict is avoided until it blows up...
That's the whole thing, in my opinion; it's easier. I wonder if it isn't more due to that than some governing ethic. I have heard people say it's "easier to be a Christian" in a particular ultra-conservative Mennonite church than it was in their previous church. They were used to having a church elder get in touch with them when they saw issues in their lives, holding them to the person he felt they should be. In contrast the CM church certainly appeared to be stricter in discipline but in reality if you checked off all the boxes of the the church's expectations, it was quite easy living.
I know my own leadership tendencies gravitate strongly toward avoiding conflict until a situation blows up. It's not good.
I think that one cannot have more than 2 levels of quotations, so I am not quoting anyone, but responding in relation to the last few interactions by Mike & Josh G.
re: conflict:
When I finally fully realized that when God confronts sinners about their sinfulness, he is doing it out of love, out of a desire to restore a relationship with his children, it really changed my attitude toward communion time, and provided a question I need to ask before I confront anyone about anything at all. Is it out of love? Am I feeling I need to do this in order to restore a relationship (either between myself and the offender, or between the offender and the victim)? If not, then I'm on shaky ground, and had better back off until I can change my own attitude.
Look at the Genesis account of the "garden encounter", where it ended with the "excommunication" of Adam & Eve. I now firmly believe that God called out to them "Where are you"", and then confronted them about their sin in order to restore the relationship he had had with them. But they made excuses, and blamed others. (Adam even had the gall to blame God himself.) God confronts us in order to restore communication, through which he desires to draw us back into relationship. This is also why he sent the prophet to king David, about Bathsheba. In that case, David responded correctly, and his relationship with God was restored.
I'm not a "church leader", so I may be over-stepping my rightful bounds here, but I would think that a church leader ought to do the same (ask the same question). (And the same of a congregation that is actually "congregationalist" in governance structure.)
