Pilgrim Conference split

[Soloist]

Maybe we should use the terminology they prefer and call it branching rather than split. I was a part of a conference that did this in the 90's. As far as I know there was no rancor and the division was strictly geographic. Why does this deserve a negative connotation like split?

Wife: I actually thought the beginning of the video did justice to it because I was talking about how they planned this out at the very beginning, so it wouldn’t get too large/unwieldy and they wanted it to split geographically. It seems to me to have gone smoothly so far, although it means having to reapply for the social security exemption for some of the people.

[Judas Maccabeus]

Maybe we should use the terminology they prefer and call it branching rather than split. I was a part of a conference that did this in the 90's. As far as I know there was no rancor and the division was strictly geographic. Why does this deserve a negative connotation like split?

I vote to change the title of this thread to "Pilgrim Conference Branching".

The author of this thread has spent time in EPMC and in Catholicism and the concept of "branching" understandably seems like a foreign concept, in his experiential ecclesiology.

This is not unprecedented in conservative Mennonite circles. South Atlantic was formed from the southernmost Southeastern Conference churches. More than it had become unwieldy than a theological division. I would not want my own conference (Keystone) to get much more geographically spread out. If you cannot get from one end to another in a day's drive, it is a problem.

[JohnH]

This is not unprecedented in conservative Mennonite circles. South Atlantic was formed from the southernmost Southeastern Conference churches. More than it had become unwieldy than a theological division. I would not want my own conference (Keystone) to get much more geographically spread out. If you cannot get from one end to another in a day's drive, it is a problem.

"Split" is a term with dual meanings. In Holdeman circles, a "church split" means that the congregation got too big to function properly (> 200 members, basically, although a size closer to 120 is preferred), so they divide it in half, build another church building elsewhere, and people get randomly assigned to go to one or the other.

Nobody wants to go through this so the motivation to start a new congregation, or else find a small congregation to move to, is quite high.

I like being spread out geographically though. You can go to Haiti (or should I say, used to be able to), Israel, the UK, Canada, California, Pennsylvania, etc. and run into fundamentally the same overall doctrine and practice and pretty much a similar lifestyle. I would feel comfortable moving to any of those places (as far as church goes).

There are slight differences, eg, the standards for clothes in Haiti are a good bit different. In some countries the covering styles are different due to local customs.

[Judas Maccabeus]

"Split" is a term with dual meanings. In Holdeman circles, a "church split" means that the congregation got too big to function properly (> 200 members, basically, although a size closer to 120 is preferred), so they divide it in half, build another church building elsewhere, and people get randomly assigned to go to one or the other.

Our leadership simply does not have the authority to tell someone to go to a new church, and I would regard that as excessive. If a church gets too big, we ask and look for volunteers to start a new congregation. We have several churches that have started churches in this manner. The latest trend is to look for an empty building, look for the people willing to start in a new area, and with 4-5 families, you have a church from day 1. I have seen 2-3 churches formed in this way.

My own congregation is somewhat unusual as it did not start from another church. Most do.

[ohio jones]

"Split" is a term with dual meanings. In Holdeman circles, a "church split" means that the congregation got too big to function properly (> 200 members, basically, although a size closer to 120 is preferred), so they divide it in half, build another church building elsewhere, and people get randomly assigned to go to one or the other.

Our leadership simply does not have the authority to tell someone to go to a new church, and I would regard that as excessive. If a church gets too big, we ask and look for volunteers to start a new congregation. We have several churches that have started churches in this manner. The latest trend is to look for an empty building, look for the people willing to start in a new area, and with 4-5 families, you have a church from day 1. I have seen 2-3 churches formed in this way.

My own congregation is somewhat unusual as it did not start from another church. Most do.

On the other hand there's the Ambassador A.M. churches, where the leadership does tell people to go elsewhere. Once a church reaches a predetermined population (not sure what the number is, but it's smaller than the Holdeman limit), they choose a new location that's far enough away to require moving, preferably with no other conservative Anabaptists nearby, and the people to go there are selected by lot. Of course when one joins they are aware of the model and the possibility that they would be selected.

[mike]

"Split" is a term with dual meanings. In Holdeman circles, a "church split" means that the congregation got too big to function properly (> 200 members, basically, although a size closer to 120 is preferred), so they divide it in half, build another church building elsewhere, and people get randomly assigned to go to one or the other.

Our leadership simply does not have the authority to tell someone to go to a new church, and I would regard that as excessive. If a church gets too big, we ask and look for volunteers to start a new congregation. We have several churches that have started churches in this manner. The latest trend is to look for an empty building, look for the people willing to start in a new area, and with 4-5 families, you have a church from day 1. I have seen 2-3 churches formed in this way.

My own congregation is somewhat unusual as it did not start from another church. Most do.

Our church is outgrowing its building, and we just voted to divide the congregation. The new church will be located within a 20-mile distance so we can keep using the same school. At this point, no one is planning to move that I'm aware of, and the selection of which church to attend will be voluntary. There are some goals and recommendations from the leadership, such as wanting a wide range of ages among those who go to the new church. It'll be an interesting process to participate in.

[Soloist]

"Split" is a term with dual meanings. In Holdeman circles, a "church split" means that the congregation got too big to function properly (> 200 members, basically, although a size closer to 120 is preferred), so they divide it in half, build another church building elsewhere, and people get randomly assigned to go to one or the other.

Our leadership simply does not have the authority to tell someone to go to a new church, and I would regard that as excessive. If a church gets too big, we ask and look for volunteers to start a new congregation. We have several churches that have started churches in this manner. The latest trend is to look for an empty building, look for the people willing to start in a new area, and with 4-5 families, you have a church from day 1. I have seen 2-3 churches formed in this way.

My own congregation is somewhat unusual as it did not start from another church. Most do.

Wife: I think RZehrs church asked for volunteers and maybe there was a lot held to decide who stayed and who went. I suppose he can answer that better than we can.

[JohnH]

"Split" is a term with dual meanings. In Holdeman circles, a "church split" means that the congregation got too big to function properly (> 200 members, basically, although a size closer to 120 is preferred), so they divide it in half, build another church building elsewhere, and people get randomly assigned to go to one or the other.

Our leadership simply does not have the authority to tell someone to go to a new church, and I would regard that as excessive. If a church gets too big, we ask and look for volunteers to start a new congregation. We have several churches that have started churches in this manner. The latest trend is to look for an empty building, look for the people willing to start in a new area, and with 4-5 families, you have a church from day 1. I have seen 2-3 churches formed in this way.

My own congregation is somewhat unusual as it did not start from another church. Most do.

Nobody is told to go to a “new church”. The prior congregation ceases to exist with the membership halved and assigned to each new congregation. To make it fair it is done by random except for some leeway given if people live fairly far away and are significantly closer to one congregation.

[Judas Maccabeus]

"Split" is a term with dual meanings. In Holdeman circles, a "church split" means that the congregation got too big to function properly (> 200 members, basically, although a size closer to 120 is preferred), so they divide it in half, build another church building elsewhere, and people get randomly assigned to go to one or the other.

Our leadership simply does not have the authority to tell someone to go to a new church, and I would regard that as excessive. If a church gets too big, we ask and look for volunteers to start a new congregation. We have several churches that have started churches in this manner. The latest trend is to look for an empty building, look for the people willing to start in a new area, and with 4-5 families, you have a church from day 1. I have seen 2-3 churches formed in this way.

My own congregation is somewhat unusual as it did not start from another church. Most do.

Nobody is told to go to a “new church”. The prior congregation ceases to exist with the membership halved and assigned to each new congregation. To make it fair it is done by random except for some leeway given if people live fairly far away and are significantly closer to one congregation.

It is linguistic gymnastics to cover up what is really going on. In our form of church government, we simply don't have the authority to do that, and I personally don't think anyone should have that authority.

It strikes me as abusive to tell people of an existing church to leave and go somewhere else. The language is a cover for what is happening. It means that leadership can say "Jump" and the only acceptable answer is "how high"? Leadership with that sort of authority is likely to abuse it.

[Judas Maccabeus]

"Split" is a term with dual meanings. In Holdeman circles, a "church split" means that the congregation got too big to function properly (> 200 members, basically, although a size closer to 120 is preferred), so they divide it in half, build another church building elsewhere, and people get randomly assigned to go to one or the other.

Our leadership simply does not have the authority to tell someone to go to a new church, and I would regard that as excessive. If a church gets too big, we ask and look for volunteers to start a new congregation. We have several churches that have started churches in this manner. The latest trend is to look for an empty building, look for the people willing to start in a new area, and with 4-5 families, you have a church from day 1. I have seen 2-3 churches formed in this way.

My own congregation is somewhat unusual as it did not start from another church. Most do.

Wife: I think RZehrs church asked for volunteers and maybe there was a lot held to decide who stayed and who went. I suppose he can answer that better than we can.

We could not do that, and there is no precedent for that in either our history or within our governing documents. We look for those who believe God is calling them.