Trust of the congregation by the ministry in conservative Mennonite Churches

[barnhart]

A close reading of the new testament will reveal women did a lot of church work in that era, from works of service to evangelism, praying and prophesying in meetings, delivering messages and letters to churches and were at times set apart (ordained in current language?) for those roles. It's possible they had more freedom under a culture untouched by egalitarianism and feminism than women do today. Part of the "problem" is the way the protestant church has imagined real church as preaching to gospel and everything else new testament women and men were doing in service of the church as secondary or optional. The real deal is a position of authority behind a pulpit.

I think this reduction and professionalization of official church work cuts particularly hard against women who are by definition excluded from the roles that have become the only or primary work of the church. I've seen this in my own experience, as a boy in a young church I saw women start songs because there were very few capable men, as the church grew, song leader became an official position and thus men only. Twenty five years ago in my current church I served on a compassion committee with women but as the church grew and ordained deacons, thus women were excluded.

I once heard a woman who was part of a group who had taken a survey to clarify what spiritual gifts they might be inclined to develop say, "Why would God give me the gift of prophecy if I can't use it." Aside from a little suspicion I have over such surveys, I thought it was tragic church work had become so small and stratified she couldn't imagine a place for her contribution. This seems counter to the biblical teaching of all members having important gifts and roles.

We have tried to push back on this in small ways like using the same formal mechanism for choosing song leaders as for the person who prepared the snack and the coffee, organizes fellowship meals or homeless food ministry.

[joshuabgood]

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.

Could a woman teach men say, Biblical Greek, or Hebrew Poetry?

[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.

Could a woman teach men say, Biblical Greek, or Hebrew Poetry?

IMO, yes. (there are nuances of course that could be mentioned, as far as how she might teach it, so that it would lean either in the direction of language study vs. expository teaching and instruction, the latter being outside the boundaries according to my understanding of Paul's teaching)

[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?

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.

I'm sorry, I should clarified that I was only loosely using your comment as a starting point for mine and not attributing the position I described to you.

[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.

I'm sorry, I should clarified that I was only loosely using your comment as a starting point for mine and not attributing the position I described to you.

I understand. Thanks.

[ohio jones]

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

I was about to note the personal significance of this bit of trivia, but then realized there are two congregations named Churchtown Mennonite Church (both former LMC) and my grandmother grew up in the other one (now BMA). But they had a similar Sunday evening schedule, thus I exist.

[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 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.

It seems to me that there are options between no lay members preaching and all lay members and ordained men preaching with no one's voice meaning more than another, or being heard more than another.

In my experience and observation, ordained leaders' voices naturally assume more authority than a young, inexperienced man's even though both might share a sermon. This happens in a natural sort of way without the congregation having to be officially informed that one person's teaching and preaching carries more authority than the other. I've heard lay members preaching in churches numerous times and I assume that they are speaking for themselves, and take their thoughts and insights in that light, not assuming that they have some sort of special authority in the church.

[Neto]

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.

Are they simply "unable", or are they made to feel that they should not have or develop close relationships with the 'laity' of the congregation? Or, do they come to this conclusion on their own, to avoid the appearance of favoritism?

There was a change in pastoral leadership in my home congregation (MB) toward the end of the years I spent in Bible college. The new pastor was very supportive of missionary engagement, and was only a few years older than I. (He was fresh out of the MB seminary.) I thought we would become good friends, but that didn't happen, or at least only to some degree after I had moved away, after we were already living in Brazil as Bible translators. There is a prevalent feeling (a problem, I would say) that a pastor cannot have close relationships within the congregation - he has to look to the community for friendships, generally among the pastors of other congregations. Is this an issue in congregations with lay pastors, or is it more common where the pastorate is a paid position? (Now, as a 70 year old, all of our ministers are younger than I. They all 'feel like friends" to me; one perhaps more than the others, due to more shared interests within the general area of Scripture study.)

A bit of a different line of thought, but some others have mentioned the non-ordained 'bringing a topic'. We used to have a pre-Sunday School gathering, and a non-ordained man would give a short devotional. Topics were sometimes done as well, and a few times we had panel discussions on a Sunday evening. (I was asked to organize one of these, as I recall now. It was now many years ago.) But eventually this pre-SS gathering was discontinued, mostly due, I would suggest, to the continuing shortening of the Sunday School 'hour'. There just isn't time to do that anymore. I do feel that Sunday School classes are extremely important. That is the time when the 'brotherhood' fellowship, "iron sharpening iron', takes place. But the SS time is often cut very short to make more time for other things, or cancelled all together, and it becomes more and more easy for some to just skip it entirely, coming only for "the worship service".

[barnhart]

I do feel that Sunday School classes are extremely important. That is the time when the 'brotherhood' fellowship, "iron sharpening iron', takes place. But the SS time is often cut very short to make more time for other things, or cancelled all together, and it becomes more and more easy for some to just skip it entirely, coming only for "the worship service".

I could hardly agree more. As a member of the leadership team I press to keep the testimony/announcement/prayer/Sunday school time as vibrant as possible even when it runs "overtime". In my mind this is real church.

It has it's challenges, there have been times testimonies become preaching and the moderator is left with the uncomfortable role of knowing the difference but everything valuable will be challenged.

[JohnH]

I once heard a woman who was part of a group who had taken a survey to clarify what spiritual gifts they might be inclined to develop say, "Why would God give me the gift of prophecy if I can't use it." Aside from a little suspicion I have over such surveys, I thought it was tragic church work had become so small and stratified she couldn't imagine a place for her contribution. This seems counter to the biblical teaching of all members having important gifts and roles.

We have tried to push back on this in small ways like using the same formal mechanism for choosing song leaders as for the person who prepared the snack and the coffee, organizes fellowship meals or homeless food ministry.

I have also observed women claim God gave them gifts of leadership, and therefore they should be able to exercise them.