Do “Transitional Anabaptist churches” fulfil the purpose of the church?

[Josh]

This whole conversation feels really gross.

My spouse and I both grew up in Old Order churches. But not the same one. If we had both stayed then neither would have been allowed to marry each other. Not to mention that neither of us would be able to do our current jobs with either of the churches we were born into.

The kingdom of heaven does not consist of “doing our current jobs”.

We attended a church that most definitely would be considered transitional by the standards set forth, although it did trend slightly away from that in recent years. Basically the people that came in were greater than the number that trickled out. To say that they didn’t adequately disciple seems so very dismissive.

If you want an excellent idea of what it looks like when a church has very high boundaries in place to prevent people from leaving, and little to no pipeline to allow people to gradually change, then I invite you to take a look at Lancaster County Amish. They have rules but it’s basically accepted that many will not follow. Most do not believe in the importance of the rules. It’s basically a sham.

Contrast it with Old Order Mennonites. They believe in what they do. And rules are followed. The culture difference is wild. But yeah, a percentage does leave every year to go to the Horning church.

Sliceitup, to be frank, being someone who openly advocates for Christians to accept homosexual marriage, trans sexuality, and abortion is exactly the outcome I am trying to avoid and you are, unfortunately, an excellent example of the bad fruit transitional Anabaptist churches eventually produce.

One need look no further than MC USA to see the sad end: people who have lost any semblance of Christian life, shrinking, elderly membership, and a denomination that pumps out political statements whilst much of their membership proudly carries guns.

[Josh]

And regarding the "do transitional churches fulfill the purpose of the church?".I have friends in many transitional congregations who came to the faith there. I also have a friend who left his Plain upbringing about 5 years ago and joined the Holdemans. He is happy and I am happy for him. So maybe transitional churches are needed and necessary.

As I keep repeating myself, Holdemans (and Stauffers, and other OTC groups) are not “transitional” because they explicitly teach against anybody leaving their group, including for a less conservative type of group. So the overall transitional “pipeline” doesn’t happen; when someone does leave for a less conservative group, it is much less likely to have a toxic effect on the overall body.

Most people who do leave either go to an evangelical sort of church or just stop being Christian / going to church at all, as opposed to taking 30 years or 1-2 generations to accomplish the exact same thing, which lulls everyone into complacency that this is ok.

[Soloist]

Transitional churches also serve as a pipeline to more conservative as well.
Holdemen are too acculturated and the otc teaching prevents as many people from leaving does the exact same thing as what was happening in the general conference prior to eastern leaving and the fellowship movements.

[Szdfan]

So is this concern about “transitional” churches about control and ensuring that people stay in a particular church and think and believe in a particular way?

[NedFlanders]

So is this concern about “transitional” churches about control and ensuring that people stay in a particular church and think and believe in a particular way?

It’s about direction. Either a person is growing closer to Christ or further away. The most conservative doesn’t automatically mean growing closer but as people leave more conservative to less typically this is one of the most unhealthy experiences for a seeker to come into. Some churches can be a stopping spot for seekers that are transitioning but they also carry wrong thought patterns that easily disillusion seekers in understanding biblical principles incorrectly from a more worldly directed defined view as opposed to a more looking for God’s view and will in the matter.

It’s crazy because a new born Christian doesn’t understand the conflict going on at first. And those transitioning don’t see their direction very well or they think it is okay. To me a person who is new and has confused doctrine and even sin in his life that he doesn’t grasp yet, and who isn’t showing much fruit but is open and seeking is moving toward Christ. The Christian who is bearing much fruit but is looking for more personal freedom is moving away from Christ.
They are excited when they meet and the one moving away from Christ has much experience and wisdom to share - so it is exciting. But the seeker is forsaking all in the process and the other is slowly doing the opposite.

[Josh]

Transitional churches also serve as a pipeline to more conservative as well.

Hardly. A few seekers may join a transitional church and end up very disillusioned after a few years. A few of those might in turn seek a more conservative church (which usually ends up still being a transitional one, albeit more conservative and more stable).

Holdemen are too acculturated and the otc teaching prevents as many people from leaving does the exact same thing as what was happening in the general conference prior to eastern leaving and the fellowship movements.

Well, there are valid criticisms of Holdemans, but perhaps those can go in another thread. Holdemans aren't part of the transitional Anabaptist "pipeline". My concern in these threads is discussing the problem of transitional Anabaptism and how it might be fixed; in particular, I am open to discussing ways to fix it other than adopting OTC ecclesiology, which is so far how the most stable Anabaptist groups have dodged this problem.

[Josh]

So is this concern about “transitional” churches about control and ensuring that people stay in a particular church and think and believe in a particular way?

At the very core, I want to see people who are Anabaptists retain their non-resistance stance and not decide they have the "freedom in Christ" to pick up guns, conceal them, and carry them around with them, intending to shoot their neighbour if they feel threatened. I think this is a reasonable expectation.

I think calling this "control" or "believe in a particular way" is intellectually dishonest. The members of a church are supposed to admonish each other to love and good deeds. Transferring to a church that is more worldly so you can partake more of worldly things that are wrong is not love and good deeds. That's not controlling each other, either.

My express wish is that plain Anabaptists who don't want to be plain anymore or be less plain would simply leave the Anabaptist circles and go join the evangelical circles they really wish to be a part of. Then they can confidently hoist their flags, carry their guns, vote Republican (or Democratic, as the case may be), participate in all manner of things in the world, attend R rated movies, drink, wear indecent, immodest clothes, purchase multi million dollar homes, go on expensive vacations, work on occupations that a Jesus follower shouldn't work in, and send their children off to elite universities to play professional sports. We would simply all be a lot better off. I harbour no ill will towards the mainstream evangelical, but I would prefer that mainstream evangelicalism stop polluting plain Anabaptism.

[Soloist]

Well, there are valid criticisms of Holdemans, but perhaps those can go in another thread. Holdemans aren't part of the transitional Anabaptist "pipeline". My concern in these threads is discussing the problem of transitional Anabaptism and how it might be fixed; in particular, I am open to discussing ways to fix it other than adopting OTC ecclesiology, which is so far how the most stable Anabaptist groups have dodged this problem.

Well so far I have an opinion that they are transitional churches but you believe they are not. I will agree to disagree.

[Josh]

Well, there are valid criticisms of Holdemans, but perhaps those can go in another thread. Holdemans aren't part of the transitional Anabaptist "pipeline". My concern in these threads is discussing the problem of transitional Anabaptism and how it might be fixed; in particular, I am open to discussing ways to fix it other than adopting OTC ecclesiology, which is so far how the most stable Anabaptist groups have dodged this problem.

Well so far I have an opinion that they are transitional churches but you believe they are not. I will agree to disagree.

The definition of transitional is a steady stream of people out the door to less-conservative, but still retaining somewhat of a conservative and Anabaptist identity.

Can you point to where that is happening in Holdemanism? I have yet to observe that. (There are plenty of people streaming out the door for evangelical churches or no church at all, but that is a very different phenomenon and indeed one that I think some of us have agreed is more desirable.)