Trust of the congregation by the ministry in conservative Mennonite Churches

[eccentric_rambler]

Looks like I didn't say that clearly. There is a minimum age for those who go to the ministry and nominate a potential candidate. That is essentially voting and has a minimum age.

[ohio jones]

Nominating candidates for ordination, or getting married, for two examples.

Nominating candidates for getting married is Yente's job, isn't it?

[eccentric_rambler]

After I posted that I thought OJ might have some comment on it. Werds iz hard sumtimz.

[JohnH]

In Holdeman circles the youth who are members are expected to participate in what is called an "election" (similar to nomination). In theory, a church that had a large population of youth and a small population of anyone else could have the youth capable of controlling the election (can't think of anywhere this is the case), and in practice the youth might be the deciding vote (much more common).

The ballot slips are secret so the deacons who count them wouldn't know if the youth voted, unless they are experts at handwriting analysis.

[mike]

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?

Well, I'm not sure that I can answer that question much better than I could answer a question about policies or practices that demonstrate a lack of trust. We kind of just work together. Lay people are tasked with operating the Sunday School without much monitoring by the ministry. I don't know that I've ever known the ministry to sit in on any class to monitor what is being taught. Same with cottage meetings and singings - ministerial involvement is no different from that of lay members except ministry isn't asked to have devotions or lead singing. We might discuss everyday life and occupational pursuits, but I've never felt like I was being scrutinized or examined to see if I was "up to snuff" in every detail. Opportunity is always given for the congregation to weigh in on membership transfers, baptisms, ministerial transfers, and ordinations among other things.

Thanks. I do appreciate your perspective.

[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.

In regard to lay members 'getting a taste of preaching,' this phraseology seems to imply that preaching is something that lay members generally speaking are sort of licking their chops about. I don't think this is typically the case, and in my 15-20 year experience with lay members sharing in preaching duty, even those who might be naturally more inclined to enjoy public speaking eventually find it is primarily hard work and don't necessarily delight in doing it. I know of churches where all lay men are normally asked to preach, and where some of them can barely be made to participate.

My idea of preaching is that it is extremely good for most/all adult men to be made to regularly share extended biblical and spiritual talks, i.e. sermons, and that churches where men are rarely called on to do so miss not only the development of a person's skills, abilities, biblical knowledge, and so forth, but also the blessing that this brings to the church.

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.

If you zoom out and look at the Mennonite church as a whole in the 20th century, is this actually true? The mainline Mennonite church had strong conference structure and yet it was drifting at a rapid pace by the 1960s, and one of its critiques of the fellowship/non-conference movement was its rebellion against established church leadership.

Our church has a fairly strong conference structure, and yet we drift continually, with our discipline needing to be regularly updated to match our changing practices. Yes, it may be drift at a snail's pace, but it is very clearly drift. I believe this is the case for many other Mennonite churches as will with a lot of structure who would never trust the laity with oversight and preaching. How do 'plain' Mennonite churches with strong leadership and conference structure end up with 'head coverings' that are an odd vestige of what they practiced 100-200 years ago when the whole time they never trusted lay members to preach or run anything? It's a real mystery.

[joshuabgood]

There is also a problem in some circles of laity not trusting the leadership. Sometimes it is well justified and sometimes not.

[barnhart]

In my church background changes have historically most often come from the top.

[mike]

There is also a problem in some circles of laity not trusting the leadership. Sometimes it is well justified and sometimes not.

Yes. This discussion could be about the reverse of the title.

[Ernie]

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?

Churches where laity men take turns preaching, laity men are put in charge of spiritual things without any ordained folks involved, etc. Churches were ministers are not gone every evening of the week and have a much more normal life as compared with churches where ordained men need to attend nearly everything. In the latter types of churches, no wonder there is so much sniffling by relatives and friends and crying on the part of family when someone is ordained. They know that life will never be the same for this family. Dad will be gone or emotionally not present much of the time.