Anabaptist Ordinations By Lot

[Ernie]

3. Friday eve - we drew the lot. This was done on Friday so that the family of whoever was NOT selected would not have to travel this weekend on the chance that their name might be selected.

I advocated for this soon after we were married, for the same reasons, but it was too unconventional, so it never happened. Glad to see others doing this!
Went through the lot twice and our family members all lived over 16 hours away.

Is there a particular reason family members “have to” travel?

They don't have to. They want to. They want to participate in the significant events of their family and friend's lives. It is how Plain Anabaptists maintain community. It is also a chance to visit with people you maybe haven't seen for a quite awhile and catch up with them.

[MattY]

Was this ordination at Pleasant View?

Yes

[mike]

2. Thursday eve - we voted on Thursday eve. Voting was done privately by writing on a piece of paper, every member including the ministers gets a vote (my wife and I voted differently, but both felt fully comfortable with whoever was chosen, and there was no arguing over it). The visiting minister was at hand to observe and help anyone who needed help, and our current ministers were behind a barrier, not watching who voted, but counting the votes. Both candidates were over the threshold which was set at 11 (I think we have 41 members). You could also vote "God bless” if you felt led not to give a name.
...
I think we have used private, written votes in the last few ordinations (during the last twelve years or so). Twenty-two years ago, the first time I voted in an ordination, we went into a room and announced our vote to the ministry in that room, which would have included visiting ministers. But I think that was the last time we did it that way.

Quite interesting. We announce our votes in a room full of ministers. It's a little intimidating of a way to vote. I wonder if people vote differently when it's a secret vote.

I think one of the reasons we do it that way is so if we nominate someone who is disqualified for reasons unknown to us, we have the opportunity to change our nomination. An example of how this could happen is that a person has a sin or failure in his past life that would disqualify him from leadership, but that a newer member might not know about. If the ministry does not accept such a nomination, they would tell you why and let you submit another name.

I kinda suspect that having the nominations non-secret might prevent some from voting for a close friend or family member because of how it would look to others. But I tend to think that sort of thing happens even with our method anyway, so not sure.

That said, I like the idea of a secret vote.

[JohnH]

I get a little bit concerned about the idea of a "politboro" who "pre-screens" the nominees via a completely non-transparent process. The membership should be trusted enough to nominate people.

[mike]

In addition to the sermon, our bishop announced the order of events for the weekend, and also announced the two eligible names for the lot - both of these men had been interviewed by the ministry and consented to be in the lot. There were theoretically two other names who might have been eligible, but were not considered: one of them asked not to be considered, and another name (yours truly) has just gotten married this past summer, and there is a requirement for both the candidate and his wife to have been a church member for at least two years prior to ordination. All of this was announced Wednesday evening and so there was a lot of transparency about who was eligible and who was not.

Could you say more about why and how your ministry narrowed the eligibility down to two men before any input from the congregation?

[MattY]

In addition to the sermon, our bishop announced the order of events for the weekend, and also announced the two eligible names for the lot - both of these men had been interviewed by the ministry and consented to be in the lot. There were theoretically two other names who might have been eligible, but were not considered: one of them asked not to be considered, and another name (yours truly) has just gotten married this past summer, and there is a requirement for both the candidate and his wife to have been a church member for at least two years prior to ordination. All of this was announced Wednesday evening and so there was a lot of transparency about who was eligible and who was not.

Could you say more about why and how your ministry narrowed the eligibility down to two men before any input from the congregation?

Well, first of all, we are a small congregation and had only four non-ordained married men under the age of 60 in the congregation.

One of them - the oldest, who is almost 50 - asked to have his name removed from consideration. The ministry didn't say what his reasons were for that request, but that type of request is usually honored, I believe. I assume he stated his reasons to them. I don't think that changed anything though; he was the least likely to get nominated anyway, as he has never shown much skill in public speaking or teaching.

Second, I was not eligible due to having recently married, because of the rule that both the candidate and his wife must have been members for two years prior to the ordination; my wife came from outside Beachy or Mennonite circles. I was not aware of this rule, but the ministry consulted with leaders from other churches and confirmed that this is a common rule in our circles. They met with my wife and I a month ago to inform us that we wouldn't be in the lot. (They were gracious and tactful in their approach and we are fine with it).

That left the two others, who I think were the most qualified and best candidates for the role anyway.

They did not pre-screen via a non-transparent process. They interviewed the candidates ahead of time to ensure that they would consent to serving in the ministry if called upon, and they did not remove any candidates for their own opaque reasons.

[JohnH]

Second, I was not eligible due to having recently married, because of the rule that both the candidate and his wife must have been members for two years prior to the ordination; my wife came from outside Beachy or Mennonite circles.

I'm a little puzzled by this... she wasn't a member in your specific congregation for the last 2 years, or she wasn't a member in an "acceptable" church of similar affiliation for the last two years, or ... ?

[JayP]

Almost any practice can have pros and cons. We have discussed earlier that on the one hand, ministry may have knowledge of why someone should not be in the lot. And I suppose we can all think of a situation in which it may be right for the ministry to ask someone to not stand for that lot. But on the other hand there is no question, at least on Eastern, they have put the thumb on the scale when they probably should not have. And if the ask to “sit” is not public we lose accountability yet if it is not private we may embarrass someone on a way we should not.

I know of a situation where a very influential and well regarded. Minister became a bishop. The something happened and he became inactive. Eventually he was returned to minister without a charge, preaching here or there, but not reinstated as bishop, I was no longer a member but am completely perplexed what sin lets you be a minister but not a bishop?

[MattY]

Second, I was not eligible due to having recently married, because of the rule that both the candidate and his wife must have been members for two years prior to the ordination; my wife came from outside Beachy or Mennonite circles.

I'm a little puzzled by this... she wasn't a member in your specific congregation for the last 2 years, or she wasn't a member in an "acceptable" church of similar affiliation for the last two years, or ... ?

She was originally from a Christian and Missionary Alliance church. She became a "proving" member earlier this year and was accepted as a full member just prior to our wedding in July.

[JohnH]

Second, I was not eligible due to having recently married, because of the rule that both the candidate and his wife must have been members for two years prior to the ordination; my wife came from outside Beachy or Mennonite circles.

I'm a little puzzled by this... she wasn't a member in your specific congregation for the last 2 years, or she wasn't a member in an "acceptable" church of similar affiliation for the last two years, or ... ?

She was originally from a Christian and Missionary Alliance church. She became a "proving" member earlier this year and was accepted as a full member just prior to our wedding in July.

Okay, that seems reasonable (provided the same treatment if she had come from some other Anabaptist church).