Trust of the congregation by the ministry in conservative Mennonite Churches

[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.

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 experience is the opposite. But maybe that has to do with the sort of people I hang out with.

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.

I agree with this and think men should get some of this experience when suitable. But at the same time I would advise thorough vetting before giving the congregation the idea that a person's teaching and preaching carries some sort of authority. Otherwise, the most persuasive speakers become the authorities.

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.

I agree that only letting certain people preach and pastor will not keep a church from drifting. It wasn't just the Old Mennonite Church. This has been the pattern in most mainline and Evangelical denominations.
So I guess I should say, "Congregations that don't trust the laity with oversight, coupled with strong Old Orderish or Ultra-conservative values."

And drifting at a snails pace provides much more stability in a congregation than drifting at the pace of a porcupine or a rabbit or a race horse.

[JayP]

This will sound more critical than I mean it. I was always puzzled that while ministry preached on Sunday often on Wed night a lay person (that term seems silly when using it in Mennonite circles) would be asked to “speak on a topic”. So, the question is was the Sunday message more authoritative than the Wed one? And why? I mean the answer a man ordained to preach is more directed by God makes some sense. It speaks though to one of the real differences between the Catholic.and Orthodox versus Protestants and Anabaptists.

We do believe the Priest is ordained but NOT primarily for preaching. For the homily (sermon) is a tiny part of the Mass. for the Prod/Anabaptists he really has nothing else BUT preaching.

[Ernie]

This will sound more critical than I mean it. I was always puzzled that while ministry preached on Sunday often on Wed night a lay person (that term seems silly when using it in Mennonite circles) would be asked to “speak on a topic”. So, the question is was the Sunday message more authoritative than the Wed one? And why?

The Wed vs. Sunday or Sunday school vs. sermon is conservative's way of designating which people have more authority and which ones have less or none.

I mean the answer a man ordained to preach is more directed by God makes some sense. It speaks though to one of the real differences between the Catholic.and Orthodox versus Protestants and Anabaptists.
We do believe the Priest is ordained but NOT primarily for preaching. For the homily (sermon) is a tiny part of the Mass. for the Prod/Anabaptists he really has nothing else BUT preaching.

I thought Mike was saying the opposite. That there are all sorts of things that many ordained Anabaptists are trusted with and responsible for that laity are not. (Be it serving communion, sitting in on or chairing committee meetings, marrying people, teaching instruction class to new believers, baptizing, pastoring, and administering other ordinances.)

[ken_sylvania]

This will sound more critical than I mean it. I was always puzzled that while ministry preached on Sunday often on Wed night a lay person (that term seems silly when using it in Mennonite circles) would be asked to “speak on a topic”. So, the question is was the Sunday message more authoritative than the Wed one? And why? I mean the answer a man ordained to preach is more directed by God makes some sense. It speaks though to one of the real differences between the Catholic.and Orthodox versus Protestants and Anabaptists.

We do believe the Priest is ordained but NOT primarily for preaching. For the homily (sermon) is a tiny part of the Mass. for the Prod/Anabaptists he really has nothing else BUT preaching.

You've probably noticed that the Wednesday evening prayer meeting is slightly less formal than the Sunday services, which I think has to do with its origin as a supplemental service. Prayer meetings came into vogue in a time when there was a lot of mainstream and "revival" pressure for more "spiritual life" and participation by non-ordained persons.

The type of topics assigned to a lay member for prayer meeting topic in our setting are different from those assigned to a minister - more history topics, expository topics, or topics on how to handle finances, etc where doctrinal topics would get assigned as sermons to be preached by an ordained brother.

[ken_sylvania]

If the purpose of preaching is for the edification of the preacher then by all means let's share it out so that everyone can be edified.
If sharing in the preaching is important for the development of a person's skills, abilities, biblical knowledge, and so forth then it hardly seems fair to hold back our sisters from being allowed to develop their abilities and biblical knowledge. Right?

[cooper]

If the purpose of preaching is for the edification of the preacher then by all means let's share it out so that everyone can be edified.
If sharing in the preaching is important for the development of a person's skills, abilities, biblical knowledge, and so forth then it hardly seems fair to hold back our sisters from being allowed to develop their abilities and biblical knowledge. Right?

From 1900 - 1953, Churchtown Mennonite Church (today an EPMC congregation), offered sisters an opportunity to share with the congregation in a lay capacity.

Sunday evening services have been held at the Churchtown Mennonite Meetinghouse from its very beginning. The first evening service in conjunction with the Dedication Service was held February 7, 1886 with Bishop Jacob N. Brubacher of Mount Joy, PA, as the speaker.¹

Brother Gabriel Heatwole of Virginia preached at Churchtown, Sunday evening, January 8, 1888 using I Peter 4:17b as his text.²

Brother Samuel G. Shetler of Johnstown, PA, preached at Churchtown, Friday evening, September 2, 1898.³

Sunday evening services were likely held every four weeks, alternating with the Slate Hill congregation.

From around 1900 to 1968, Sunday evening services consisted of Young People’s Meeting and a preaching service.

Until 1953, Young People’s Meeting consisted of lay members, brethren and sisters, speaking on various topics. From 1954 to 1968 only brethren spoke on topics. After 1968, topics discussed by lay members were discontinued.

From about 1960 through 1984, Sunday evening services were alternated between Churchtown every two weeks and Mountain View every four weeks. Since January 1985, Sunday evening services are held every two weeks; alternating between Churchtown and Mountain View Meetinghouses, once every four weeks at each place.

Source: Churchtown and Mountain View Mennonite Church history, 1835-1985, page 13.

[Ernie]

If the purpose of preaching is for the edification of the preacher then by all means let's share it out so that everyone can be edified.
If sharing in the preaching is important for the development of a person's skills, abilities, biblical knowledge, and so forth then it hardly seems fair to hold back our sisters from being allowed to develop their abilities and biblical knowledge. Right?

I've long advocated for giving sisters preaching and teaching opportunities with other sisters as their audience.
In addition, I've advocated for "older women" who meet the scriptural qualifications to be given "authority". i.e. "Ladies, especially young ladies, listen up. The church has vetted these sisters as possessing the Spirit of God and as having worthwhile things to share."
As it is, if sisters speak to sisters, it often feels like the listeners are welcome to take it or leave it since it is just a woman speaking and not an ordained brother.

[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?

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.

The strange and somewhat sad thing about churches where ordained men are extremely busy with official tasks is not only that they will be absent from their family much of the time, but also that they often do not seem to have the time to develop normal social relationships in the congregation. The effect of this is that when a person is ordained as a pastor, they often end up knowing and relating to the rest of the congregation less, not more. I feel this is not the way it should be.

[mike]

If the purpose of preaching is for the edification of the preacher then by all means let's share it out so that everyone can be edified.
If sharing in the preaching is important for the development of a person's skills, abilities, biblical knowledge, and so forth then it hardly seems fair to hold back our sisters from being allowed to develop their abilities and biblical knowledge. Right?

I've long advocated for giving sisters preaching and teaching opportunities with other sisters as their audience.
In addition, I've advocated for "older women" who meet the scriptural qualifications to be given "authority". i.e. "Ladies, especially young ladies, listen up. The church has vetted these sisters as possessing the Spirit of God and as having worthwhile things to share."

I agree with Ernie. My wife has had various speaking opportunities in ladies' groups. This kind of thing happens fairly often actually.

[mike]

If the purpose of preaching is for the edification of the preacher then by all means let's share it out so that everyone can be edified.
If sharing in the preaching is important for the development of a person's skills, abilities, biblical knowledge, and so forth then it hardly seems fair to hold back our sisters from being allowed to develop their abilities and biblical knowledge. Right?

It seems like my statement is being twisted here. I don't recall making the argument that the edification of the preacher is the purpose of preaching. Only that where lay members do not share in the responsibility, the benefits for the speaker himself is one of the things that the congregation misses out on.