Video of Virginia Mennonites from 1980

[HondurasKeiser]

Is there data that supports that the attrition rate was significantly higher in the 60s and 70s?

No. I was suggesting a hypothetical in which the attrition would have maintained had the bishops chosen to hold the line on conformity in nonconformity.

Maybe I am misunderstanding. What I am asking is do we know that attrition wasn't maintained?

I don’t know but perhaps someone else does.

[Ernie]

If you like that hypothesis, wait till you hear this one: It's really flimsy and I'm probably wrong but hear me out. Over Christmas my siblings and I were comparing stories of the many MCUSA and MCUSA adjacent churches that we're personally familiar with around the country that have gone all in on being Welcoming and Affirming of LGBTQ+ ex. SF First Mennonite, Pittsburgh Mennonite, Frazer Mennonite, Denver Mennonite, Cedar Falls Mennonite (IA), Germantown Mennonite, Salford Mennonite, Circle of Hope (COB). Even 15 years ago, half of these churches were not fully Welcoming and Affirming. My sisters were particularly astounded as they've been out of the Mennonite world for almost 20 years. They asked me what the catalyst for the change was among the MCUSA churches. Why were so many changing their stance on LGBTQ acceptance? I didn't have a great response and while we all recognized the emphasis on justice that is so important to the acculturated Mennos as being a factor, that didn't seem satisfying to me as an answer.

The more I thought about it and reflected on what I'd observed in those churches I came to the conclusion that while a host of factors may be at play, one of the driving motivations is something like love for our children and grandchildren and a desire that they continue to be counted among the Mennonite flock. That love or care for them far outweighs concerns about sin...until perhaps the sin is no longer seen as sinful.

This is where my theory gets a little flimsy as I can't possibly know what was in the minds of the Mennonite bishops in the 50's and 60's. I wonder though if a similar motivation wasn't at play in their minds back then as well. Namely, the overwhelming love for their relatives and the desire that they continue to be counted with the Mennonites, even if that means changing the church's practices to keep them there. Over time, former plain clothes Mennonites could develop all sorts of justifications, biblical and otherwise for why the dropped the practices but in the beginning, I wonder if it wasn't something as simple as wanting to avoid painful loss.

Sounds very plausible to me. I hear this all the time from folks I frequently fellowship with.

[mike]

If you like that hypothesis, wait till you hear this one: It's really flimsy and I'm probably wrong but hear me out. Over Christmas my siblings and I were comparing stories of the many MCUSA and MCUSA adjacent churches that we're personally familiar with around the country that have gone all in on being Welcoming and Affirming of LGBTQ+ ex. SF First Mennonite, Pittsburgh Mennonite, Frazer Mennonite, Denver Mennonite, Cedar Falls Mennonite (IA), Germantown Mennonite, Salford Mennonite, Circle of Hope (COB). Even 15 years ago, half of these churches were not fully Welcoming and Affirming. My sisters were particularly astounded as they've been out of the Mennonite world for almost 20 years. They asked me what the catalyst for the change was among the MCUSA churches. Why were so many changing their stance on LGBTQ acceptance? I didn't have a great response and while we all recognized the emphasis on justice that is so important to the acculturated Mennos as being a factor, that didn't seem satisfying to me as an answer.

The more I thought about it and reflected on what I'd observed in those churches I came to the conclusion that while a host of factors may be at play, one of the driving motivations is something like love for our children and grandchildren and a desire that they continue to be counted among the Mennonite flock. That love or care for them far outweighs concerns about sin...until perhaps the sin is no longer seen as sinful.

This is where my theory gets a little flimsy as I can't possibly know what was in the minds of the Mennonite bishops in the 50's and 60's. I wonder though if a similar motivation wasn't at play in their minds back then as well. Namely, the overwhelming love for their relatives and the desire that they continue to be counted with the Mennonites, even if that means changing the church's practices to keep them there. Over time, former plain clothes Mennonites could develop all sorts of justifications, biblical and otherwise for why the dropped the practices but in the beginning, I wonder if it wasn't something as simple as wanting to avoid painful loss.

Sounds very plausible to me. I hear this all the time from folks I frequently fellowship with.

And just as inexplicably, those bent on change and acceptance and normalization of sin are often intent against losing the Mennonite identity for themselves as well. I don't know why they don't just separate and form a new group or join one that will accept them. I think I see some very small shadows of this sort of thing even in my conservative Mennonite church, where some people seem to constantly push the lines and work for various kinds of change. I don't know why we don't just leave if we don't want to be what our congregation represents. There's something really powerful either about the ethnic or cultural ties, or honor, or pride, or something else, that makes us need and want to stay, and yet push for changes we want.

[HondurasKeiser]

There's something really powerful either about the ethnic or cultural ties, or honor, or pride, or something else, that makes us need and want to stay, and yet push for changes we want keep our pride of place as Mennonites.

I didn't want to come out and say this in my last post but I think this is the dark side of the "love hypothesis" I mentioned above. There's pride at being Mennonite, your last name carries the weight of history and rootedness and there's a sense of sadness and loss when "one of our own" leaves the fold or is pushed out. I mean I feel it when I meet someone of Mennonite background and find out they're no longer Mennonite - I feel a sense of sadness and loss because at some level I've imbibed the notion that we Mennonites are special. This is wrong of course but that pride of place definitely lingers just below the surface.

[mike]

There's something really powerful either about the ethnic or cultural ties, or honor, or pride, or something else, that makes us need and want to stay, and yet push for changes we want keep our pride of place as Mennonites.

I didn't want to come out and say this in my last post but I think this is the dark side of the "love hypothesis" I mentioned above. There's pride at being Mennonite, your last name carries the weight of history and rootedness and there's a sense of sadness and loss when "one of our own" leaves the fold or is pushed out. I mean I feel it when I meet someone of Mennonite background and find out they're no longer Mennonite - I feel a sense of sadness and loss because at some level I've imbibed the notion that we Mennonites are special. This is wrong of course but that pride of place definitely lingers just below the surface.

Yeah. And I think this pride of place is common in many other groups as well.

Although I've been conservative Anabaptist my whole life, and Mennonite for most of it, I'm brand new to the conservative Mennonite conference world and I just don't have the loyalty to that system that a lot of people around me seem to have. And oddly enough it's not a loyalty to keeping all the same values that the previous generation had, because we're obviously changing and leaving some of those behind. It's a loyalty and pride of place that really is just to the thin nomenclature and rigid organizational structure of our conference but not to the precise opinions, lifestyle, and values the founding generation held to. It's kind of strange.

[Ernie]

I don't know why we don't just leave if we don't want to be what our congregation represents. There's something really powerful either about the ethnic or cultural ties, or honor, or pride, or something else, that makes us need and want to stay, and yet push for changes we want.

Because we think our congregation would be better off if it allowed for a bit more diversity and not so much rigidity.
It is either embarrassing, or uncomfortable to start over in a different congregation, so we would rather the congregation adjust to become more "Biblical". It is hard work to relocate or start a new congregation/gain credibility if there isn't already a church of our flavor in the area.

[Ernie]

Yeah. And I think this pride of place is common in many other groups as well.

Although I've been conservative Anabaptist my whole life, and Mennonite for most of it, I'm brand new to the conservative Mennonite conference world and I just don't have the loyalty to that system that a lot of people around me seem to have. And oddly enough it's not a loyalty to keeping all the same values that the previous generation had, because we're obviously changing and leaving some of those behind. It's a loyalty and pride of place that really is just to the thin nomenclature and rigid organizational structure of our conference but not to the precise opinions, lifestyle, and values the founding generation held to. It's kind of strange.

Strange indeed.

In what ways do you hear loyalty to the conference structure among those who are slightly shifting away from the original values?

[mike]

Yeah. And I think this pride of place is common in many other groups as well.

Although I've been conservative Anabaptist my whole life, and Mennonite for most of it, I'm brand new to the conservative Mennonite conference world and I just don't have the loyalty to that system that a lot of people around me seem to have. And oddly enough it's not a loyalty to keeping all the same values that the previous generation had, because we're obviously changing and leaving some of those behind. It's a loyalty and pride of place that really is just to the thin nomenclature and rigid organizational structure of our conference but not to the precise opinions, lifestyle, and values the founding generation held to. It's kind of strange.

Strange indeed.

In what ways do you hear loyalty to the conference structure among those who are slightly shifting away from the original values?

I think the loyalty is expressed more by what you don't hear. You just don't hear leaving the conference as an option that is spoken out loud. It's a thought you just don't voice. One of our conference churches recently lost about half of its membership, and even such a significant division was really not talked about, even when our congregation was called upon to provide oversight and support for what was left. There is just no talk of such a thing - leaving conference.

[joshuabgood]

I don't know why we don't just leave if we don't want to be what our congregation represents. There's something really powerful either about the ethnic or cultural ties, or honor, or pride, or something else, that makes us need and want to stay, and yet push for changes we want.

Because we think our congregation would be better off if it allowed for a bit more diversity and not so much rigidity.
It is either embarrassing, or uncomfortable to start over in a different congregation, so we would rather the congregation adjust to become more "Biblical". It is hard work to relocate or start a new congregation/gain credibility if there isn't already a church of our flavor in the area.

Is stasis in a church of conference really the ideal?

[Wesleyb]

I don't know why we don't just leave if we don't want to be what our congregation represents. There's something really powerful either about the ethnic or cultural ties, or honor, or pride, or something else, that makes us need and want to stay, and yet push for changes we want.

Because we think our congregation would be better off if it allowed for a bit more diversity and not so much rigidity.
It is either embarrassing, or uncomfortable to start over in a different congregation, so we would rather the congregation adjust to become more "Biblical". It is hard work to relocate or start a new congregation/gain credibility if there isn't already a church of our flavor in the area.

Is stasis in a church of conference really the ideal?

Good point. We look back 150 years and see the ones who stayed in the church and pushed changes such as Sunday School, revival meetings, foreign missions, etc. as the good guys. Why wouldn't we want to stay in the church today and push it toward what we feel is a better direction for the future?