Pilgrim Conference split

[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.

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.

I would not join a church that did that.

[JayP]

I called this a split because that is what it is. Sorry if my pointing out reality and ignoring the spin is inconvenient.

Pilgrim did not split evenly into three groups. There is no equivalence in the sense they are about the same size, equally geographic, equally well heeled, etc. sure, Pilgrim always had “a plan” but funny it was time to split AFTER losing members to new groups like Northeastern

No, I will stand behind the view that Pilgrim became too liberal for some in both practice and theology, especially over things like internet, dress, and IMHO a tad too much Protestant thinking going into the soup.

It will be interesting to see how Northeastern comes out when if has Eastern folks looking for less conservative and Pilgrim folks looking for more conservative. While they end up for now in a place of equality in practice, they got there from two directions.

[JohnH]

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.

Dude what on earth are you talking about

The church dividing into two churches isn't something that is "top down" from the leadership. The congregation as a whole has to decide they want to do it in the first place. It is a multiyear planning process.

If/when it does happen, the congregation likewise agrees on exactly how it will happen. The custom is to assign people to each congregation randomly so that it is fair.

You say "it is abusive to tell people to go somewhere else"... that isn't happening. Formerly there was church A. Church A ceases to exist. Now there is church B and C. The members of church A agree that they don't want to operate that organisation anymore and want to operate church B and C.

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.

You'll be glad to know that's not what goes on at all. In fact, Holdemans are one of the few churches I've been around where it is relatively straightforward for the congregation to vote no confidence in an ordained minister/deacon and actually have them benched, as opposed to simply being stuck with them until they retire or die, which seems to be the norm in many other circles (including the Mid-West church I used to be a part of).

[JohnH]

I called this a split because that is what it is. Sorry if my pointing out reality and ignoring the spin is inconvenient.

Pilgrim did not split evenly into three groups. There is no equivalence in the sense they are about the same size, equally geographic, equally well heeled, etc. sure, Pilgrim always had “a plan” but funny it was time to split AFTER losing members to new groups like Northeastern

No, I will stand behind the view that Pilgrim became too liberal for some in both practice and theology, especially over things like internet, dress, and IMHO a tad too much Protestant thinking going into the soup.

You are talking complete nonsense. Pilgrim basically organised itself into districts. The districts are not organised along more liberal / less liberal lines. They are geographic.

It has nothing to do with Northeastern which was not geographic at all.

[mike]

I called this a split because that is what it is. Sorry if my pointing out reality and ignoring the spin is inconvenient.

Pilgrim did not split evenly into three groups. There is no equivalence in the sense they are about the same size, equally geographic, equally well heeled, etc. sure, Pilgrim always had “a plan” but funny it was time to split AFTER losing members to new groups like Northeastern

No, I will stand behind the view that Pilgrim became too liberal for some in both practice and theology, especially over things like internet, dress, and IMHO a tad too much Protestant thinking going into the soup.

You are talking complete nonsense. Pilgrim basically organised itself into districts. The districts are not organised along more liberal / less liberal lines. They are geographic.

I thought it was that simple, at first. But after talking to a Pilgrim (now Daystar) minister awhile ago, I understood that it was a little more complex. There were tensions within the conference such as the allowance of the mustache, which supposedly ended up being decided by letting each bishop decide for his district. So, some districts allowed it, and some not. With the geographical division, some of these new conferences apparently have differing degrees of openness to changes of this sort, so it is possible that they will continue to drift apart a bit.

However, the rub is that these sorts of differences don't seem hugely significant. I believe the new conferences still have an amicable relationship. In a lot of ways, the geographical division might have been a good way to take care of any minor differences, and yet stay in fellowship with each other. I wouldn't mind at all if our conference (Hope Fellowship) did something similar.

That's just my take. I don't know all that much. My daughter will likely be teaching at a Pilgrim (now Daystar) school this fall.

[barnhart]

There is such a thing as amicable, respectful division even with disagreement.

[mike]

There is such a thing as amicable, respectful division even with disagreement.

Which is what I think the Pilgrim split was. I still think it was a commendable way to manage the conference getting larger and more diverse or whatever. Then again, I think the ideal way of church government is congregational rather than denominational/conference/etc.

[barnhart]

There is such a thing as amicable, respectful division even with disagreement.

Which is what I think the Pilgrim split was. I still think it was a commendable way to manage the conference getting larger and more diverse or whatever. Then again, I think the ideal way of church government is congregational rather than denominational/conference/etc.

I recently had a conversation with someone from Kansas who recalled to division between the Amish and Beechy Amish in the 50's. He said the leadership sensed the division and deciding it was best not to fight it they planned how to accomplish it well. Half of the leadership agreed to stay and half to go with the new group. One Sunday they announced the two different locations for each group to meet the next week without presenting one side as better or more faithful or more spiritual than the other.

[Judas Maccabeus]

I called this a split because that is what it is. Sorry if my pointing out reality and ignoring the spin is inconvenient.

Pilgrim did not split evenly into three groups. There is no equivalence in the sense they are about the same size, equally geographic, equally well heeled, etc. sure, Pilgrim always had “a plan” but funny it was time to split AFTER losing members to new groups like Northeastern

No, I will stand behind the view that Pilgrim became too liberal for some in both practice and theology, especially over things like internet, dress, and IMHO a tad too much Protestant thinking going into the soup.

You are talking complete nonsense. Pilgrim basically organised itself into districts. The districts are not organised along more liberal / less liberal lines. They are geographic.

It has nothing to do with Northeastern which was not geographic at all.

The Northeraster conference was founded in 2012. To say the Northeastern-Pilgrim split is a factor puzzles me. That split is ancient history.

[Judas Maccabeus]

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.

Dude what on earth are you talking about

The church dividing into two churches isn't something that is "top down" from the leadership. The congregation as a whole has to decide they want to do it in the first place. It is a multiyear planning process.

If/when it does happen, the congregation likewise agrees on exactly how it will happen. The custom is to assign people to each congregation randomly so that it is fair.

You say "it is abusive to tell people to go somewhere else"... that isn't happening. Formerly there was church A. Church A ceases to exist. Now there is church B and C. The members of church A agree that they don't want to operate that organisation anymore and want to operate church B and C.

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.

You'll be glad to know that's not what goes on at all. In fact, Holdemans are one of the few churches I've been around where it is relatively straightforward for the congregation to vote no confidence in an ordained minister/deacon and actually have them benched, as opposed to simply being stuck with them until they retire or die, which seems to be the norm in many other circles (including the Mid-West church I used to be a part of).

Considering their history of paneling, I would say it is extremely unlikely a member will oppose a "decree" that has come from the ministry. It is simply a characteristic of a high-control organization.