Trust of the congregation by the ministry in conservative Mennonite Churches

[mike]

JohnH's post reminded me of this topic. One of the things that is a little hard to swallow sometimes in conservative Mennonite conference life compared to what I was used to is what I might call the institutionalized lack of trust of the congregation by the ministry. I say institutionalized because it doesn't seem to be anything intended to be personal or nefarious necessarily, it's just the way the system is.

For a few examples, lay members are not trusted to share sermons in church services, and are often not trusted with information about important church matters. Lay members' participation isn't really sought on important issues except to ratify decisions made by the ministry (and not all decisions of course are considered necessary to be ratified). The ministry is required to be present at youth events, instruction classes, school and other sorts of boards, and other similar things which lay members sometimes are in charge of, giving the impression that lay members are not fully trusted to manage without ministry oversight. Ministry are required to sign off on speakers for Sunday school and Sunday night services.

There are also ways in which the ministry do demonstrate trust in the congregation. I could list some of those as well.

I think the level of trust of the congregation by the ministry varies widely depending on the particular group. I'm speaking strictly of the conservative conference Mennonites that I'm familiar with. I would be interested in hearing how conservative Mennonites you are familiar with institutionalize trust or lack of trust in the congregation.

I'm not talking about individual bad situations or persons where trust has been lost because of some human problem or other, which is common. I'm thinking about 'institutionalized' trust. In what particular ways do churches you are familiar with exercise this sort of trust, or lack thereof? What practices or policies exist that either facilitate or limit such trust? How do different conferences or even individual congregations manage a trusting relationship between ministry and the congregation?

[Neto]

I may have never said it here, but I have sometimes commented with the statement that
"The ministry does not have enough trust in the congregation, and the congregation is not trust worthy enough."

It's a sort of circular problem a "catch-22" (if I understand the expression correctly).

In our congregation, a very high percentage of our new members are coming from Amish congregations. Some come as believers (I think this is increasingly the case), but in the past most came as unbelievers. (That has very often been the case with young unmarried 'couples', and was the case with one of our ministers when they started coming. They 'knew' that they should be in a church somewhere, but they also knew that they did not want to be Amish. So many come, thinking that they already ARE Christians. Then they find out that there is more to it than just 'doing what the bishop says'. But they have grown up sort of thinking like their own ministers may have told them "You don't need to worry about those things, like your salvation, etc. We are taking care of that for you." (This statement is pretty much a quote, as told by a former Amish woman in our congregation. It's what she was told, and also what her dad told her that he had been told when he was a young man.)

So the problem comes that they have been trained to not think or discern from the Scriptures, and develop real personal convictions. (Several months ago I read an article written by an Old Order Amish friend of mine. He was talking about the importance of personal conviction. But he stopped with the thought that each member should have the personal conviction to obey the church standards.)

I DO agree that anyone who joins a congregation should have a real intention - a conviction - that they will carry out what they have promised. But it goes beyond that. If a minister 'goes off the rails' and starts advocating thing that are against Scripture, will the membership have their own understanding and convictions that will tell them that they should not just follow along? That can then end in a cult-like heresy. So there MUST be personal conviction, as well as submission to the brotherhood.

I've been thinking a lot about this recently, how sometimes a tension or conflict can develop between personal devotion ('piety') and brotherhood. There are 'ditches' on either side: the "Me & Jesus got our own thing going" vs blind submission that involves no personal relationship with God, with everything dependent on a 'go between'. I've realized that this same tension exists in many other areas of Christian life as well, and have been thinking of starting a discussion on this topic, to explore how to find the proper balance in each case. The issue in this topic is one of these.

[Ernie]

JohnH's post reminded me of this topic. One of the things that is a little hard to swallow sometimes in conservative Mennonite conference life compared to what I was used to is what I might call the institutionalized lack of trust of the congregation by the ministry. I say institutionalized because it doesn't seem to be anything intended to be personal or nefarious necessarily, it's just the way the system is.

For a few examples, lay members are not trusted to share sermons in church services, and are often not trusted with information about important church matters. Lay members' participation isn't really sought on important issues except to ratify decisions made by the ministry (and not all decisions of course are considered necessary to be ratified). The ministry is required to be present at youth events, instruction classes, school and other sorts of boards, and other similar things which lay members sometimes are in charge of, giving the impression that lay members are not fully trusted to manage without ministry oversight. Ministry are required to sign off on speakers for Sunday school and Sunday night services.

There are also ways in which the ministry do demonstrate trust in the congregation. I could list some of those as well.

I think the level of trust of the congregation by the ministry varies widely depending on the particular group. I'm speaking strictly of the conservative conference Mennonites that I'm familiar with. I would be interested in hearing how conservative Mennonites you are familiar with institutionalize trust or lack of trust in the congregation.

I'm not talking about individual bad situations or persons where trust has been lost because of some human problem or other, which is common. I'm thinking about 'institutionalized' trust. In what particular ways do churches you are familiar with exercise this sort of trust, or lack thereof? What practices or policies exist that either facilitate or limit such trust? How do different conferences or even individual congregations manage a trusting relationship between ministry and the congregation?

If you've ever been in congregations where the leaders did trust the laity to oversee things without them for extended periods of time, it is easy for the congregation to head in a wrong direction. In such congregations, there can be drift in the church and the leaders ring their hands and make sorrowful comments to ministers from other congregations but once they've delegated oversight of events and programs to lay members for years, it is highly unlikely that they will ever get it back. Let lay members get a taste of preaching and will be nigh impossible to pull back should they ever start taking the congregation in a drifting direction. I like being part of congregations where lay people are trusted, but I do understand the logic of those who don't trust the laity to be overseers or preach.
Interestingly, it is the congregations that don't trust the laity with oversight and preaching that in a general way are the ones who maintain nonconformity and nonresistance for the long haul.

[ken_sylvania]

JohnH's post reminded me of this topic. One of the things that is a little hard to swallow sometimes in conservative Mennonite conference life compared to what I was used to is what I might call the institutionalized lack of trust of the congregation by the ministry. I say institutionalized because it doesn't seem to be anything intended to be personal or nefarious necessarily, it's just the way the system is.

For a few examples, lay members are not trusted to share sermons in church services, and are often not trusted with information about important church matters. Lay members' participation isn't really sought on important issues except to ratify decisions made by the ministry (and not all decisions of course are considered necessary to be ratified). The ministry is required to be present at youth events, instruction classes, school and other sorts of boards, and other similar things which lay members sometimes are in charge of, giving the impression that lay members are not fully trusted to manage without ministry oversight. Ministry are required to sign off on speakers for Sunday school and Sunday night services.

There are also ways in which the ministry do demonstrate trust in the congregation. I could list some of those as well.

I think the level of trust of the congregation by the ministry varies widely depending on the particular group. I'm speaking strictly of the conservative conference Mennonites that I'm familiar with. I would be interested in hearing how conservative Mennonites you are familiar with institutionalize trust or lack of trust in the congregation.

I'm not talking about individual bad situations or persons where trust has been lost because of some human problem or other, which is common. I'm thinking about 'institutionalized' trust. In what particular ways do churches you are familiar with exercise this sort of trust, or lack thereof? What practices or policies exist that either facilitate or limit such trust? How do different conferences or even individual congregations manage a trusting relationship between ministry and the congregation?

I suppose I don't think of most of those items as a lack of trust, just like I don't think it's a lack of trust if a shop foreman is regularly present on the shop floor and the schoolteacher is regularly present on the playground with the pupils.
Feel free to try to convince me otherwise.

The practice of ordaining ministers to preach the gospel is a 2,000 year old tradition, although I will concede that in the early church there were instances of un-ordained people teaching and possibly preaching in the gatherings (Apollos, for instance). Are we to also conclude that the majority of the congregation isn't trusted to act as janitor since there are three men assigned to do that work?
I'm not sure what all information about important church matters you are referring to, but I feel like our ministry discusses major items with those interested in discussing them.
I don't think our ministry is always present at youth singings, etc but I think it's good if they often are - it helps them keep in touch with the youth and be aware of what's happening at these types of gatherings. I think parents should be free to attend as well.
Our ministry does look over the names of Sunday School teachers and those taking part in Sunday evening or prayer meeting services, and I see that as a good thing. Not because the person putting the list together can't be trusted, but because he might not be aware of reasons a person should perhaps not be used - reasons that may not be necessary to be broadcasted to everyone or maybe just reasons that are public knowledge but not known to the person putting the list together. If the idea is to bring in a speaker from another congregation, it does seem to me that having one of the ministry check with the ministry from the other congregation to verify the person is in good standing there is a bit more appropriate than one of the lay members doing that checking.
Even the ministry doesn't just operate on their own - a list of potential speakers might be circulated and others in the ministry might be aware of reasons why it might be better not to ask a certain individual (set back from preaching for some reason, illness in the family, etc). I just never felt like the ministerial review of the names on the schedule was due to lack of trust.
We do try to arrange our cottage meeting groups so that ministry are scattered among the groups, but there's not ministry in every group. And it's not because they don't trust the rest of us - they don't show nearly all the time anyway. It's lay brethren in charge of everything relating to cottage meetings.
I don't really see a Biblical pattern for the idea that church ought to be run by consensus or that it ought to be a democracy. There seems to be this idea in some circles that the congregation should second-guess everything the church leaders do and I think it's corrosive to solid brotherhood.

[JayP]

As always, there are, well not two sides, but aspects one could view as different sides that have some merit. I think one thing Inliked about Eastern was it’s formality of structure. Coming from a Catholic setting authority of ordained leadership was familiar to me. As an aside most parishes have a Parish council so that views of the laity can be understood, or lay folk assigned to “pedestrian” tasks such as the roof repairs instead of asking the pastor to oversee everything. I remember someone asking a Priest what happens if it comes to a vote. He said “I have won many votes, 1 to 8.”


I do think that on the spectrum of ministerial authority verses “trust the laity” Eastern is pretty much at one end of the spectrum.
But they do pay a price. Their bishop body would rather “wing it” themselves even on secular matters on which they lack knowledge or expertise before over involving lay members.

[mike]

JohnH's post reminded me of this topic. One of the things that is a little hard to swallow sometimes in conservative Mennonite conference life compared to what I was used to is what I might call the institutionalized lack of trust of the congregation by the ministry. I say institutionalized because it doesn't seem to be anything intended to be personal or nefarious necessarily, it's just the way the system is.

For a few examples, lay members are not trusted to share sermons in church services, and are often not trusted with information about important church matters. Lay members' participation isn't really sought on important issues except to ratify decisions made by the ministry (and not all decisions of course are considered necessary to be ratified). The ministry is required to be present at youth events, instruction classes, school and other sorts of boards, and other similar things which lay members sometimes are in charge of, giving the impression that lay members are not fully trusted to manage without ministry oversight. Ministry are required to sign off on speakers for Sunday school and Sunday night services.

There are also ways in which the ministry do demonstrate trust in the congregation. I could list some of those as well.

I think the level of trust of the congregation by the ministry varies widely depending on the particular group. I'm speaking strictly of the conservative conference Mennonites that I'm familiar with. I would be interested in hearing how conservative Mennonites you are familiar with institutionalize trust or lack of trust in the congregation.

I'm not talking about individual bad situations or persons where trust has been lost because of some human problem or other, which is common. I'm thinking about 'institutionalized' trust. In what particular ways do churches you are familiar with exercise this sort of trust, or lack thereof? What practices or policies exist that either facilitate or limit such trust? How do different conferences or even individual congregations manage a trusting relationship between ministry and the congregation?

I suppose I don't think of most of those items as a lack of trust, just like I don't think it's a lack of trust if a shop foreman is regularly present on the shop floor and the schoolteacher is regularly present on the playground with the pupils.
Feel free to try to convince me otherwise.

The practice of ordaining ministers to preach the gospel is a 2,000 year old tradition, although I will concede that in the early church there were instances of un-ordained people teaching and possibly preaching in the gatherings (Apollos, for instance). Are we to also conclude that the majority of the congregation isn't trusted to act as janitor since there are three men assigned to do that work?
I'm not sure what all information about important church matters you are referring to, but I feel like our ministry discusses major items with those interested in discussing them.
I don't think our ministry is always present at youth singings, etc but I think it's good if they often are - it helps them keep in touch with the youth and be aware of what's happening at these types of gatherings. I think parents should be free to attend as well.
Our ministry does look over the names of Sunday School teachers and those taking part in Sunday evening or prayer meeting services, and I see that as a good thing. Not because the person putting the list together can't be trusted, but because he might not be aware of reasons a person should perhaps not be used - reasons that may not be necessary to be broadcasted to everyone or maybe just reasons that are public knowledge but not known to the person putting the list together. If the idea is to bring in a speaker from another congregation, it does seem to me that having one of the ministry check with the ministry from the other congregation to verify the person is in good standing there is a bit more appropriate than one of the lay members doing that checking.
Even the ministry doesn't just operate on their own - a list of potential speakers might be circulated and others in the ministry might be aware of reasons why it might be better not to ask a certain individual (set back from preaching for some reason, illness in the family, etc). I just never felt like the ministerial review of the names on the schedule was due to lack of trust.
We do try to arrange our cottage meeting groups so that ministry are scattered among the groups, but there's not ministry in every group. And it's not because they don't trust the rest of us - they don't show nearly all the time anyway. It's lay brethren in charge of everything relating to cottage meetings.
I don't really see a Biblical pattern for the idea that church ought to be run by consensus or that it ought to be a democracy. There seems to be this idea in some circles that the congregation should second-guess everything the church leaders do and I think it's corrosive to solid brotherhood.

I agree with your last statement, and I also agree with it in the reverse.

So how would you answer the questions? What practices or policies exist that demonstrate trust of the congregation by the ministry in your church?

[mike]

I suppose I don't think of most of those items as a lack of trust, just like I don't think it's a lack of trust if a shop foreman is regularly present on the shop floor and the schoolteacher is regularly present on the playground with the pupils.
Feel free to try to convince me otherwise.

I don't think I will try, but I think these analogies reveal a reason why something that doesn't look like a lack of trust to you might to someone else from a different background. I think that in our circles, minsters vs. congregation relationships are often characterized in ways like teacher vs. student, or employer vs. employee, or parent vs. child. Where in other congregations I have been familiar with there is more the view that the brotherhood is on one level. When the ministry views the congregation as pupils, or children, or employees, and themselves as the teacher, parent, or employer, I think they can easily slip into treating them in the patronizing way that one relates to a child, student, or employee as opposed to an equal in Christ.

Again, what I am looking for is the ways churches you are familiar with demonstrate a trust between the two.

[mike]

If you've ever been in congregations where the leaders did trust the laity to oversee things without them for extended periods of time, it is easy for the congregation to head in a wrong direction. In such congregations, there can be drift in the church and the leaders ring their hands and make sorrowful comments to ministers from other congregations but once they've delegated oversight of events and programs to lay members for years, it is highly unlikely that they will ever get it back. Let lay members get a taste of preaching and will be nigh impossible to pull back should they ever start taking the congregation in a drifting direction. I like being part of congregations where lay people are trusted, but I do understand the logic of those who don't trust the laity to be overseers or preach.
Interestingly, it is the congregations that don't trust the laity with oversight and preaching that in a general way are the ones who maintain nonconformity and nonresistance for the long haul.

What do you mean when you talk about congregations where lay people are trusted? What I am trying to get at in this discussion is how exactly that works. What sorts of things are you seeing in such a congregation that demonstrates the ministry trusts the congregation?

[mike]

I may have never said it here, but I have sometimes commented with the statement that
"The ministry does not have enough trust in the congregation, and the congregation is not trust worthy enough."

It's a sort of circular problem a "catch-22" (if I understand the expression correctly).

Very astute observation. Real trust is a two-way street.

[Neto]

I think that the main thing that would demonstrate respect of the non-ministers by the ministerial team is transparency. Explain how a decision will be made before-hand if possible, and ask for the voice of the church. When this advance action is not possible, explain openly and fully afterwards, and if there is 'push-back' demonstrate humility by either rolling back the decision, or learning from it for future cases.

The other side is the "laity's" (this term seems incorrect, if the congregation claims to have 'lay pastors') respect for their leaders (as is instructed in the Scripture). Pray for them, be friends to them, and extend grace whenever it seems they have erred. Further, develop and live by strong convictions, even if the congregation as a whole is no longer living in the same space. Hold to the guidelines to which *you* agreed. Give scriptural reasons where *you* differ with decisions made after *you* made your promise to abide by the fellowship standards, and live by them as closely as you can, without violation of personal conscience.

Respond to points they make in sermons in personal conversation, and let them know how their comments have helped you in your own Christian 'walk'.

[NOTE: by *you* I mean an unspecified person, one who is not a minister or pastor.]