Interested in learning about Holdemans

[Ernie]

The one true church doctrine stretches credulity to the max. The only churches that have any semblance of an argument to this are the EO or RC. And those are frankly not compelling at all to me...even as one who is sympathetic to their traditions. As soon as you get pope's excommunicating eachother it throws major questions into the works.

The Holdeman church would be better off just rejecting that asap.

The Holdeman church and people are not interested in becoming BMA, and most of them would consider BMA’s practice to be apostate.

Are there Anabaptist groups that most Holdeman's do not consider apostate?

[Ernie]

Do you think there are any congregations (other than those who are COGICM) who are part of the united, undivided church of God?

Of course. Any congregation of true hearted believers who are willing to follow the New Testament, accept sound doctrine and practice, and seek fellowship with other congregations and believers doing the same.

And yet, I understand that the Holdemans will excommunicate someone who leaves one of their churches to join a congregation such as you describe. Correct me if I am wrong.

So a congregation can be part of the unified, undivided church of God, but Holdeman's would get excommunicated if they left the Holdeman church and joined one of those?

[Ernie]

Do you think there are any congregations (other than those who are COGICM) who are part of the united, undivided church of God?

Of course. Any congregation of true hearted believers who are willing to follow the New Testament, accept sound doctrine and practice, and seek fellowship with other congregations and believers doing the same.

So you think that joshuabgood's congregation does not meet that criteria if I am understanding correctly.

Are there Anabaptist churches who are not COGICM that you believe meet this criteria?

???

[Ernie]

JohnH, what percentage of Holdeman's would concur with everything you have said in this thread?

[JohnH]

So they accept marriages from other churches but not baptisms?

Churches?

People can get married without a church. The church is not the one that gives the marriage legitimacy. What makes a marriage is the man and woman who decide to marry each other. The church is merely an observer.

[JohnH]

JohnH, what percentage of Holdeman's would concur with everything you have said in this thread?

I would say most (particularly if you talked to people under the age of 70). A handful of people have their own ideas about apostolic succession, for example. There is a bit of freedom to hold different views that are at variance with current church doctrine, and some things are considered a matter for history and are not "settled" doctrines considered to be essential.

A handful of old people still hold to a very exclusive view of salvation. Such a person can hold a view privately, but promoting it would be viewed as pride and would be dealt with. A somewhat-related thing is that, in general, being too enthusiastic about the one true church doctrine as somehow meaning we are "better" than other Christians is also a sign of pride. Instead, the mission of the church should be a light set on a hill to help spread the gospel, more of a view that we are "grafted in" as opposed to feeling pride that we are part of the vine.

So you think that joshuabgood's congregation does not meet that criteria if I am understanding correctly.

I don't consider the BMA alignment to meet the criteria. To help the "rubber meet the road", I would not want my son or daughter to marry into a BMA church, attend there, and adopt their practices. That's not meant to be an insult, but instead meant to be an example of the lack of unity of practice and doctrine.

I also don't enjoy having to just come out and say that. I prefer to not sit around condemning specific congregations or entire denominations. I'd rather focus on things they are doing well, and if I have contact with such people, encourage them to keep doing good. I am hoping they will likewise be inspired by things they see me or our congregation doing well.

I appreciate my local BMA church, for example, because it is composed of people who chose to "come out from among them, and be ye separate" from a frankly quite apostate (former?) Charity type of church. To give an idea, the young couples there were freely using alcohol and vaping and sharing it with youth under 18 there. That is one thing I will come out and openly condemn.

Are there Anabaptist churches who are not COGICM that you believe meet this criteria?

I am open to the idea there might be a few. I have not yet run across one, but I also have not been spending my time the last several years going to all kinds of different churches. I am familiar with the ones in my local area and none meet a criteria I would be willing to be a part of even if I didn't believe in otvc and had nothing to do with the Holdemans. Perhaps that is more of a statement on the very sorry state of Anabaptism in my little pocket of the world, though.

So a congregation can be part of the unified, undivided church of God, but Holdeman's would get excommunicated if they left the Holdeman church and joined one of those?

No, such a congregation would instead want to be united with the Holdemans and vice versa. That almost happened with the Tampico Amish and it happened with a large amount of Russian Mennonites, although the ones that migrated to Canada/U.S. didn't have any ordained people amongst them. (Chester Weaver's history goes into this in a bit more detail.)

Are there Anabaptist groups that most Holdeman's do not consider apostate?

There is a level of appreciation for a few groups. Most Holdemans, though, have contact with fairly troubled or transitional Anabaptist groups, perhaps because most of the are, or else the ones in areas Holdemans are in seem to always be that way. I personally really appreciate some things I see in some Old Order groups, such as the Delano, TN-type of churches. But those will also excommunicate someone who leaves their circles for a non-horse-and-buggy church. I also really appreciated the spirit I felt at the Spencer, TN-type churches. And I have appreciated the Apostolic Christian (Nazarean) churches, particularly the ones in Australia.

[mike]

For purposes of a thread titled "Interested in learning about Holdemans," it does seems like an interested person should know a few basic things that have been true about the COGICM in the past. Whether these things are more nuanced, or might be changing, or the sentiment toward which might be changing within the Holdeman church, I am not aware. So here are a few things that I understand to be true about them.

1. Holdemans require all new members to be baptized, even if they were baptized by another church previously.
2. Holdemans excommunicate all members who leave for another church outside of their denomination.
3. Holdemans, like Old Colonists and some other groups derived from Russian Mennonites/Dutch Anabaptists, allow divorce and remarriage in some cases, contrary to many (most?) other conservative Anabaptist groups.

So, with some editing at the request of JohnH, I would like to present these three points as the primary reasons why there a fairly significant barrier remains between Holdemans and many other conservative Anabaptist groups with otherwise quite similar lifestyles and doctrinal positions.

I think the first two are fundamental, but I think the third is a significant issue as well. People who are re-married with the blessing of the COGICM after a previous marriage where the spouse is still living are considered as living in adultery in many, if not most, conservative Anabaptist churches. These two doctrinal positions are at complete odds.

This is why the vast barrier between Holdemans and other conservative Anabaptists groups persists, and is likely to persist.

[Valerie]

For purposes of a thread titled "Interested in learning about Holdemans," it does seems like an interested person should know a few basic things that have been true about the COGICM in the past. Whether these things are more nuanced, or might be changing, or the sentiment toward which might be changing within the Holdeman church, I am not aware. So here are a few things that I understand to be true about them.

1. Holdemans require all new members to be baptized, even if they were baptized by another church previously.
2. Holdemans excommunicate all members who leave for another church outside of their denomination.
3. Holdemans, like Old Colonists and some other groups derived from Russian Mennonites/Dutch Anabaptists, allow divorce and remarriage in some cases, contrary to many (most?) other conservative Anabaptist groups.

So, with some editing at the request of JohnH, I would like to present these three points as the primary reasons why there a fairly significant barrier remains between Holdemans and many other conservative Anabaptist groups with otherwise quite similar lifestyles and doctrinal positions.

I think the first two are fundamental, but I think the third is a significant issue as well. People who are re-married with the blessing of the COGICM after a previous marriage where the spouse is still living are considered as living in adultery in many, if not most, conservative Anabaptist churches. These two doctrinal positions are at complete odds.

This is why the vast barrier between Holdemans and other conservative Anabaptists groups persists, and is likely to persist.

We were with our dear friend Saturday, from Mennonite heritage- (he’s Orthodox last 15 years). I was sharing that even though I was D & R, my first husband passed away 11 years ago and I said I think that I’d no longer be considered in an adulterous marriage, we’d probably never feel present day Anabaptist would be comfortable with the fact we had married while my first husband was alive (though he remarried before I did).
Anyway, his reply was we wouldn’t need to share all that plus he said early Anabaptists allowed for D & R.
So is Homdemsn’s position more of the original view?

[ohio jones]

When someone commits adultery, we consider the marriage bond to be broken, and the innocent party is free to remarry. This is not something to be done lightly, and is a long process.

What makes a marriage is the man and woman who decide to marry each other. The church is merely an observer.

So the church merely observes the long process if someone decides to remarry?

[Ernie]

JohnH, what percentage of Holdeman's would concur with everything you have said in this thread?

I would say most (particularly if you talked to people under the age of 70). A handful of people have their own ideas about apostolic succession, for example. There is a bit of freedom to hold different views that are at variance with current church doctrine, and some things are considered a matter for history and are not "settled" doctrines considered to be essential.

A handful of old people still hold to a very exclusive view of salvation. Such a person can hold a view privately, but promoting it would be viewed as pride and would be dealt with. A somewhat-related thing is that, in general, being too enthusiastic about the one true church doctrine as somehow meaning we are "better" than other Christians is also a sign of pride. Instead, the mission of the church should be a light set on a hill to help spread the gospel, more of a view that we are "grafted in" as opposed to feeling pride that we are part of the vine.

So you think that joshuabgood's congregation does not meet that criteria if I am understanding correctly.

I don't consider the BMA alignment to meet the criteria. To help the "rubber meet the road", I would not want my son or daughter to marry into a BMA church, attend there, and adopt their practices. That's not meant to be an insult, but instead meant to be an example of the lack of unity of practice and doctrine.

I also don't enjoy having to just come out and say that. I prefer to not sit around condemning specific congregations or entire denominations. I'd rather focus on things they are doing well, and if I have contact with such people, encourage them to keep doing good. I am hoping they will likewise be inspired by things they see me or our congregation doing well.

I appreciate my local BMA church, for example, because it is composed of people who chose to "come out from among them, and be ye separate" from a frankly quite apostate (former?) Charity type of church. To give an idea, the young couples there were freely using alcohol and vaping and sharing it with youth under 18 there. That is one thing I will come out and openly condemn.

Are there Anabaptist churches who are not COGICM that you believe meet this criteria?

I am open to the idea there might be a few. I have not yet run across one, but I also have not been spending my time the last several years going to all kinds of different churches. I am familiar with the ones in my local area and none meet a criteria I would be willing to be a part of even if I didn't believe in otvc and had nothing to do with the Holdemans. Perhaps that is more of a statement on the very sorry state of Anabaptism in my little pocket of the world, though.

So a congregation can be part of the unified, undivided church of God, but Holdeman's would get excommunicated if they left the Holdeman church and joined one of those?

No, such a congregation would instead want to be united with the Holdemans and vice versa. That almost happened with the Tampico Amish and it happened with a large amount of Russian Mennonites, although the ones that migrated to Canada/U.S. didn't have any ordained people amongst them. (Chester Weaver's history goes into this in a bit more detail.)

Are there Anabaptist groups that most Holdeman's do not consider apostate?

There is a level of appreciation for a few groups. Most Holdemans, though, have contact with fairly troubled or transitional Anabaptist groups, perhaps because most of the are, or else the ones in areas Holdemans are in seem to always be that way. I personally really appreciate some things I see in some Old Order groups, such as the Delano, TN-type of churches. But those will also excommunicate someone who leaves their circles for a non-horse-and-buggy church. I also really appreciated the spirit I felt at the Spencer, TN-type churches. And I have appreciated the Apostolic Christian (Nazarean) churches, particularly the ones in Australia.

If I am getting this straight...

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.

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