Interested in learning about Holdemans

[JohnH]

I find it interesting that Holdman's supposedly believe that they are not the only church that is part of the one, undivided, unified church, but when it really comes down to it, the non-Holdeman churches that can be part of this are basically non-existent.

Well, if they united with us then you'd just think there were even more Holdeman churches, right? Because it would just be 1 church.

Meanwhile, there are thousands of Plain Anabaptist churches who practice nearly everything that Holdeman's do, and recognize each other as being part of Christ's one church,

My chief objection is that many of these plain churches seem to think that a wide variety of other churches are also part of "the church", despite not doing a great deal of the things we see the NT says a church does.

but these folks are supposedly not part of Christ's body.

I would counter that with the fact the rest of plain Anabaptism doesn't want the Holdemans and goes out of its way to exclude us. For example, Anabaptist Financial, any other mutual aid societies, etc., all exclude Holdemans. The only exception to that I can think of are things from mainstream/progressive Mennonite origins (eg Everence) or things eager to find more participants (eg the Mount Eaton Care Center/birth centre).

In any case, I think the "folks" are certainly Christians and followers of Jesus, as Jesus said:

And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

Many Christians aren't in a church at all, or are in an obvious flawed or even false church. But there are still many sincere Christians out there.

[eccentric_rambler]

I would counter that with the fact the rest of plain Anabaptism doesn't want the Holdemans and goes out of its way to exclude us. For example, Anabaptist Financial, any other mutual aid societies, etc., all exclude Holdemans. The only exception to that I can think of are things from mainstream/progressive Mennonite origins (eg Everence) or things eager to find more participants (eg the Mount Eaton Care Center/birth centre).

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

[JohnH]

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

The Holdemans pulled away from the "mainstream" Mennonites in 1859.

The rest of the conservative Mennonites pulled away from the "mainstream" Mennonites in the 1950s.

So it's not like one cleanly divided from the other. They are in essence two parallel streams.

[ohio jones]

I would counter that with the fact the rest of plain Anabaptism doesn't want the Holdemans and goes out of its way to exclude us. For example, Anabaptist Financial, any other mutual aid societies, etc., all exclude Holdemans. The only exception to that I can think of are things from mainstream/progressive Mennonite origins (eg Everence) or things eager to find more participants (eg the Mount Eaton Care Center/birth centre).

Wouldn't the Holdeman restrictions on usury limit participation in organizations like AF and Everence anyway?

[ken_sylvania]

I would counter that with the fact the rest of plain Anabaptism doesn't want the Holdemans and goes out of its way to exclude us. For example, Anabaptist Financial, any other mutual aid societies, etc., all exclude Holdemans.

Well isn't that something like. The COGICM intentionally separated themselves from other Mennonites, officially claim that these other churches are not part of Christ's true church, and you want to claim that it's these other churches that are going out of their way to exclude the Holdemans?

[MattY]

This doesn't seem to follow. I and joshuabgood can believe our churches are part of the true church - and so is yours - without negating criticism of a doctrine of a one true church held by any specific group of churches. The Biblical unity of the true church of Jesus Christ does not consist of belonging to the same parachurch organization (denomination), nor of being visibly the same, or having a visibly impressive outward unity.

I don't think the same Holy Spirit tells two different congregations to follow two different sets of doctrine, and the Bible doesn't teach us that either. I also think that "one baptism" actually means that; I don't think one can claim to have "Biblical unity" when one can't share pulpits, communion, excommunications, and so forth.

We are not promised that we will understand the Holy Spirit infallibly to the extent that we will all agree and have the same doctrine. This search for a pure church with infallible authority seems to drive your thinking. If then we have infallible authority, all those who are not in communion with us must not be a true church (never mind that the doctrine of close or closed communion does not demand such a OTC doctrine nor infallible authority), and all true churches must uphold all of our excommunications and cannot disagree and say that we were wrong and accept our former member. It's very black-or-white. But in reality, Scripture is above the church. The church is not infallible. The church is promised that it will never die (the gates of hell will not prevail against it). But we are not promised that errors - even serious errors - will not enter into the church.

When Paul began his letter to the Corinthians, he said, "To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be his holy people, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ—their Lord and ours." ...
There was no organizational unity or denominational structure connecting all of these believers everywhere as of yet. But they were all united by their faith in same Lord. That's Biblical unity.

There most certainly was - Paul kept sending them letters telling them to align with the rest of the congregations in other places, and we also know from history how quickly episcopal structures emerged and mandated uniformity in both doctrines and practices.

Yes, the apostles sent out letters instructing the churches in various places. No, that doesn't prove organizational oversight or any sort of bureaucratic structure above the local churches. Denominations are man-made institutions that can serve the church by providing structure, discipline, oversight, etc., but they are not THE church. And those types of episcopal structures began to emerge in the second century, as far as we can tell. They were not there in the 1st century church.

To get back to basics, I consider part of being "one church" sharing the same excommunications, which is something I simply do not see other Anabaptists doing, and in my opinion they do so to their detriment. But being able to share them means entering into much closer fellowship.

I don't see "we excommunicate anyone who leaves our fellowship" or "we excommunicate anyone who decides to buy a car," as a valid reason to excommunicate anyone, nor is it valid to demand that such excommunications must be ”honored" or else only one of our fellowships is a "true church." One might be more biblical and have better doctrine and practice; one might have made mistakes or excommunicated someone unscripturally. That doesn't mean only one of them is a true church, necessarily.

[barnhart]

At our church when we take in members from other churches we ask for contact information for the previous church and follow up. To my knowledge there has never been an excommunication involved but that would certainly trigger some investigation and stall the membership application.

Nonetheless, there is no One True Church doctrine involved. It is possibly motivated by the opposite belief, that the visible church is not restricted to a single entity and a desire to cooperate with fellow believers.

[Ernie]

I would counter that with the fact the rest of plain Anabaptism doesn't want the Holdemans and goes out of its way to exclude us.

Every Plain Anabaptist group that I know of is inclusive of other Anabaptist groups, with the exception of groups like:
-Reformed Mennonites
-A Minority of Old Order Mennonites and Amish
-A Minority of Apostolics
-Some German Baptists
-Some Hutterites
-Holdemans

These groups exclude other Anabaptist groups and operate independently.

The rest of Plain Anabaptist groups including the majority of Old Order Mennonites and Amish, work together in providing schools, counseling facilities, relief efforts, etc.

In the conservative world, many share pulpits and commune in each other's churches and if a member is faithfully serving the Lord, they can change to a different church and not be excommunicated or be required to be rebaptized. Even many ultra conservatives will fund the evangelistic and humanitarian aid efforts of more progressive groups.

To say that "the rest of plain Anabaptism goes out of its way to exclude Holdeman's seems really rich.

"A man that has friends must show himself friendly." I think this same attitude holds true with churches.

In this thread we are talking about what Holdemans believe.
I really question whether the majority of Holdeman's believe that "the rest of plain Anabaptism doesn't want the Holdemans and goes out of its way to exclude us".
Based on what you have said in this thread about how Holdeman's view other Anabaptists, Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that most Holdeman's are fine with being independent of the rest of plain Anabaptism and that they don't really want greater fellowship with us for fear that we will have a negative effect on them?

[barnhart]

Why would the One True Church be unsettled by being separate from the apostate churches.

[Southerner]

I would counter that with the fact the rest of plain Anabaptism doesn't want the Holdemans and goes out of its way to exclude us.

JohnH,

This is not true. I have Holdeman friends and as a Swiss Brother I don't exclude them. I, at times, do feel like their mission field but that is another topic.

And regarding Anabaptist Financial...isn't the largest "plain" Mennonite group capable of creating a similar organization?

Does Shenandoah Music Camp allow Holdeman Menno's to attend? I noticed recently that they are not in attendance.