Allegations of Corruption in Plain Ordinations

[ken_sylvania]

Much elections in a "democracy", the lot can be, and is, gamed. In some settings (from what I hear, moderate-conservatives are more prone to this) this is a more honest process where the presiding bishops over an ordination will simply ignore the nominations (but tell the congregation they are doing this) and choose not to use the lot, or else just put their preferred candidates in the lot. In other settings, there is outright corruption, as some have alleged with Eastern. Given the preponderance of one specific family in Eastern's bishops and ministers, I find this to be a possible explanation.

How far back the family tree do you have to go to get more than half of EPMC bishops and ministers all traced back to a common ancestor? Or is this just another wild JohnH claim?

[cmbl]

Much elections in a "democracy", the lot can be, and is, gamed. In some settings (from what I hear, moderate-conservatives are more prone to this) this is a more honest process where the presiding bishops over an ordination will simply ignore the nominations (but tell the congregation they are doing this) and choose not to use the lot, or else just put their preferred candidates in the lot. In other settings, there is outright corruption, as some have alleged with Eastern. Given the preponderance of one specific family in Eastern's bishops and ministers, I find this to be a possible explanation.

How far back the family tree do you have to go to get more than half of EPMC bishops and ministers all traced back to a common ancestor? Or is this just another wild JohnH claim?

I'm missing where JohnH claimed more than half...Preponderance doesn't necessarily mean more than half...

Situations in which men who received sufficient nominations did not have their names read out are described in the document "Losing the Trust." (I have also heard such accounts in person.)

[ken_sylvania]

Much elections in a "democracy", the lot can be, and is, gamed. In some settings (from what I hear, moderate-conservatives are more prone to this) this is a more honest process where the presiding bishops over an ordination will simply ignore the nominations (but tell the congregation they are doing this) and choose not to use the lot, or else just put their preferred candidates in the lot. In other settings, there is outright corruption, as some have alleged with Eastern. Given the preponderance of one specific family in Eastern's bishops and ministers, I find this to be a possible explanation.

How far back the family tree do you have to go to get more than half of EPMC bishops and ministers all traced back to a common ancestor? Or is this just another wild JohnH claim?

I'm missing where JohnH claimed more than half...Preponderance doesn't necessarily mean more than half...

Yes, maybe he meant "superiority in status or significance" or "the largest portion or number." I'm sure I wouldn't have the slightest clue though which family supposedly makes up the "preponderance" in EPMC's bishops and ministers. Not that I know them or their family trees well enough to know if that was the case. Just that of the ones I do know, I don't know that a certain family is particularly powerful.

Situations in which men who received sufficient nominations did not have their names read out are described in the document "Losing the Trust." (I have also heard such accounts in person.)

As have I. The case that I remember in particular involved a person who is part of a family that has a pretty reasonable number of ordained individuals, so the effect of eliminating him from the class reduced the mathematical chances of that family expanding its influence. I think there might be situations where the practice is warranted, but it shouldn't be used lightly and it certainly does raise questions.

I know of a congregation where a number of the ordained are closely related. I'd have to do some math to say for certain, but my impression of the last number of ordinations was, that that family was not proportionately over-represented in the class, but the one chosen by lot ended up being from that family more often than not. I don't see how that can be blamed on the family involved.

[the-real-steve]

This is Illuminati/Knights Templar material right here

[Soloist]

Wife: if it’s anything like the pilgrim or the western Fellowship church we’ve gone to, there’s only so many family lines to choose from anyway, and all of them are somehow related. My personal opinion with our specific church is that nobody’s bothered rigging it, although we are pilgrim and not EMPC.

I do know that in some churches, someone may not end up being in the lot if they’re not qualified, although I don’t know if that would affect them being mentioned or not. I mean, it’s not like we know everybody’s private struggles that the ministry might know about, and I know somebody actually stepped down from the lot once at one of the churches I heard about.

[cmbl]

I do know that in some churches, someone may not end up being in the lot if they’re not qualified, although I don’t know if that would affect them being mentioned or not. I mean, it’s not like we know everybody’s private struggles that the ministry might know about, and I know somebody actually stepped down from the lot once at one of the churches I heard about.

My understanding is that the way it works in Pilgrim is that every one who receives sufficient nominations is read out at the end of the nomination service. (This is a pretty big deal to some people, due to things mentioned upthread.) If during the examination the bishops determine a candidate needs to be held back, that would be communicated to the congregation on the day of the examination.

Holding a candidate back is not done lightly. I can think of two situations where it was done - and it was good that it was done.

[barnhart]

I do know that in some churches, someone may not end up being in the lot if they’re not qualified, although I don’t know if that would affect them being mentioned or not. I mean, it’s not like we know everybody’s private struggles that the ministry might know about, and I know somebody actually stepped down from the lot once at one of the churches I heard about.

My understanding is that the way it works in Pilgrim is that every one who receives sufficient nominations is read out at the end of the nomination service. (This is a pretty big deal to some people, due to things mentioned upthread.) If during the examination the bishops determine a candidate needs to be held back, that would be communicated to the congregation on the day of the examination.

Holding a candidate back is not done lightly. I can think of two situations where it was done - and it was good that it was done.

This seems like a reasonable process. I can also think of reasons why a candidate who likely should not be ordained might get some nominations.

[JohnH]

Holding a candidate back is not done lightly. I can think of two situations where it was done - and it was good that it was done.

This seems like a reasonable process. I can also think of reasons why a candidate who likely should not be ordained might get some nominations.

That's entirely different from a crooked ordination. A questionable ordination would look more like this:

- The congregation nominates duly qualified men.
- The presiding bishops decide the don't like those nominees, and instead hand pick their own candidates and put them in the lot.
- The congregation eventually figures this out when nobody can find anyone else who says they nominated one of those people.
- Eventually, the ministers themselves learn what happened, and they have a lot less confidence now since they realise they were not nominated by the congregation, but instead were hand picked for various reasons.

A crooked ordination would be one where the same name is simply put in the hymnbooks. One old minister told me he checked the books after an ordination once and found the same name in them (this was many years ago). He let the matter go, but he also told me that sometimes that still goes on in certain circles. I believe him.

My main question is how Anabaptist who claim to hold not telling lies and the truth in high regard can do the above things. In particular, the episcopal nature of a bishop appointing ministers and other bishops is not what Anabapists claim they do, but it is what many of them actually do.

[JayP]

While there are grounds to have concerns about “finagaling” ordinations in Eastern and other churches, John should be careful about the accusations without supplying details or have clear knowledge

Now, is Eastern like many groups a bit too inbreed with the ministry ? Absolutely.
There are multiple aspects to this. First, certain families seem to use their size to constantly put their family members into the lot.
I am speaking from first hand knowledge. I know of one family holding multiple ministry positions in a congregation whose son was in the next lot situation. He was terribly unqualified IMHO with NO quality in any area be it spiritual, intelligence, example, kindness. Etc.
his ONLY qualification was family numbers and family relationship. Now, bear with me. The real issue here was NOT the broader bishops/ministry getting him INTO the lot. The “crime” was that such a person was not REMOVED from nominating by the bishops because it would have made hard feelings. I think this is KEY to understanding this.If just some average Joe had gotten nominated they would have quietly figured out how to withdraw him. IMHO one real improvement in the process would be no one should be allowed a nomination vote from a close relative. IF John Smith is of ministerial quality, then folks outside the Smith family will nominate him.

I do know there have been a number of “squashed” nominations across Eastern over the years and it is IMHO very questionable that they should have been squashed. Does Eastern connive to get the bishops they want? For the most part yes. Is Eastern more concerned with finding ministry that protect the establishment than the right man of God? I think they believe they are doing both…I do not agree

But I would not hang this on Eastern alone. Anabaptists themselves too often put confidence in folks based on family lineage IMHO and help feed these practices by doing so.

In applying life lessons of business and in looking at both secular and church history, I think Conservative Anabaptist groups are failing in not having the right mix of ages, experience, and other qualities. Take Eastern. Too many of the bishops are too old. Does a church benefit from having such experience and wisdom? Of course. And a fair makeup should have such men. But I have also seen a group of men who have NO teenagers failing to understand current issues facing their teens. Or discussing school issues based on their memories of 20 years ago when their children were in school. We quote that there is wisdom on a multitude of councilors BUT not if they are all clones of each other.

Never ignore eternal truths such as power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, that institutions become more concerned with perpetuating the institution rather than the goal that created the institution. It is funny to me that Eastern has revivals in each congregation each year. But what is the method of revival for the group as a group?

[JayP]

I would add separately a pretty controversial topic. In looking back on the Pilgrim split from Eastern there are many who have said Stephen Ebersole should never have been in the lot for bishop or ordained bishop

I am NOT passing opinion on that statement. But it is reality that this thought is out there and I think influenced many in Eastern leadership when giving consideration to nominated individuals.

I do not think there is any way to meaningfully, factually know the impact of that line of thinking, but I believe some impact is real