Appalachian Mennonite Church

[Josh]

The Appalachian folks are more conservative than the Eastern. And the primary issue was the internet. There were policies on the Eastern books prohibiting internet. However, there was a "winking" at internet use in some business contexts. The Appalachian folks felt this was somewhat duplicitous and wanted a complete and true practice of the policy on the books at home and at business. That is my understanding...

As I understand it (almost entirely from second or third-hand scuttlebutt), the Appalachian folks in general want to have their policies on the books actually followed instead of those who are powerful/wealthy enough simply choosing to ignore them, and this goes beyond just Internet. One of the examples I heard was lavish second homes in Sarasota complete with swimming pools and an apparent abandonment of dress standards when on vacation.

[AndersonD]

Are you referring to Appalachian Mennonite Conference?

I'm not 100% clear on the name.

And Josh, I don't think there's such a thing as "congregational approval" in Eastern. Such decisions are made at the conference level. And internet use is allowed in Eastern excluding one district.

However, in this case some bishops simply started using it in their businesses and didn't even confer at a meeting first. They are just used to getting away with whatever they want. If it makes more money, your average wealthy Eastern bishop (I'm sorry to say) will do it.

As I stated in a previous post, my source said that your statement about the bishops "starting" to use the internet is not true. The members were using it in their businesses as were WF members even when official policy in WF is "an internet connection is not allowed".

[Josh]

Are they alleging that individual members not ordained started using, and just managed to get away with it?

[AndersonD]

Are they alleging that individual members not ordained started using, and just managed to get away with it?

Yes sir. I don't know how the aforementioned situation was handled in Eastern but I do know how it was handled in WF. It was a dark time in the conference's history to say the least. Preachers are chosen from very plain stock and overall are not change minded but when the constituency largely embraced the internet, the preachers had to decide if they were going to excommunicate a lot of members.

[AndersonD]

What conference is this, where did they come from?

Where would they place in the “order” of things?

If it’s the one I’m thinking of that perhaps has a slightly different name, it is a split from Eastern (including a bishop)

Are you saying that an Eastern bishop left and helped form the Appalachian group? I was not aware of this. They had a bishop ordination a few years down the road. I will double check but I was under the impression that no Eastern bishops withdrew and went to the Appalachian conference, only a few ministers withdrew. So I would be interested in the name of the bishop. The group is in CLP's church directory.

[Ernie]

As I stated in a previous post, my source said that your statement about the bishops "starting" to use the internet is not true. The members were using it in their businesses as were WF members even when official policy in WF is "an internet connection is not allowed".

Everything needs defining. Are we going for the letter of the law or the spirit of the law. Someone needs to determine that.
Some applied this as "an open internet connection with no filtering or white listing" is not allowed. Others took it very literally meaning no connection at all. In WF, members are supposed to get approval from their deacons regarding internet for business use. I'm not sure how many WF people still do this. If what you care about is accountability and not open internet, then this seems to follow the spirit of the guideline.

In the Weaverland Conference, the "conference report" stands as their statement of practice. But the document is never given to any non-ordained persons. Members are supposed to listen to the report that is read once or twice each year, take it seriously, and make proper application in the spirit of the report. Weaverland Conference is insistent that their report is not a "rule book" or "discipline" or "standards" as termed by more Fundamentalist conferences.

[barnhart]

In the Weaverland Conference, the "conference report" stands as their statement of practice. But the document is never given to any non-ordained persons. Members are supposed to listen to the report that is read once or twice each year, take it seriously, and make proper application in the spirit of the report. Weaverland Conference is insistent that their report is not a "rule book" or "discipline" or "standards" as termed by more Fundamentalist conferences.

I admire the distraction they are trying to make even while wondering how much difference it makes in practice.

[ken_sylvania]

In the Weaverland Conference, the "conference report" stands as their statement of practice. But the document is never given to any non-ordained persons. Members are supposed to listen to the report that is read once or twice each year, take it seriously, and make proper application in the spirit of the report. Weaverland Conference is insistent that their report is not a "rule book" or "discipline" or "standards" as termed by more Fundamentalist conferences.

I admire the distraction they are trying to make even while wondering how much difference it makes in practice.

Distraction????

[barnhart]

In the Weaverland Conference, the "conference report" stands as their statement of practice. But the document is never given to any non-ordained persons. Members are supposed to listen to the report that is read once or twice each year, take it seriously, and make proper application in the spirit of the report. Weaverland Conference is insistent that their report is not a "rule book" or "discipline" or "standards" as termed by more Fundamentalist conferences.

I admire the distraction they are trying to make even while wondering how much difference it makes in practice.

Distraction????

Ha! *distinction* not distraction. You can't trust autocorrect...

[AndersonD]

Members are supposed to listen to the report that is read once or twice each year, take it seriously, and make proper application in the spirit of the report. Weaverland Conference is insistent that their report is not a "rule book" or "discipline" or "standards" as termed by more Fundamentalist conferences.

Do you know who draws up the report?