Pilgrim Conference split

[mike]

Our conference is supposed to be a stable and safe structure and yet our oldest congregations are full of elderly people whose children aren’t around and whose membership is only sustained by an influx of people from other groups. I don’t view a history like this as being that much more admirable or stable than some of the independent Anabaptist churches I am familiar with.

That's a fair criticism.

I don't like a conference that is a hierarchical, top-down behemoth.

But I also don't like a loose "fellowship" model where churches effectively end up just supporting whatever the new, cool movement is (which is usually 1 or 2 notches less conservative than they are), instead of coming together to support something that they all agree on.

A congregation that seems to be losing its young people needs to take a cold, hard look at itself and ask itself why this is happening. Unfortunately that level of self-insight is difficult. It's not an issue in my group so I guess I don't think about it too often, but it's really frustrating to witness it happen in one of my relative's churches... I don't know how I could comfortably stay in a place like that.

My thoughts too.

Our congregation in contrast is a relatively young (17 years), sorta outlying (couple hours from any other church in the conference), and fast growing outreach with a small minority of charter members from the conference. The majority of our group are former Pilgrim, Washington-Franklin, Eastern, Horning and one independent (my family) who joined in the years since. There is also a former Nationwide fellow and a former old order Mennonite couple. Our church building is maxed and there’s talk of splitting the congregation.

Essentially it’s an experiment in whether this sort of mix can get along and have common goals and values in the long run. There was a bit of unrest in the early days from what I understand, where about half the church left.

Sometimes the mix of people and ideas in our church feel like a bit of a powder keg waiting to be lit. The thing is that although the conservative Mennonite conference style of administration seems like a really resilient structure, the reality is that it is a very porous system and it is fairly easy for people to slip in and out. The bar for joining isn’t that high and the consequences for leaving are few. So in the end to call the conference or fellowship model something more stable is a little questionable in my view.

I don’t really consider a church’s way of doing things to have proven all that much until after a generation or two.

[Ernie]

I don’t really consider a church’s way of doing things to have proven all that much until after a generation or two.

This is a good point.

[Ernie]

The thing is that although the conservative Mennonite conference style of administration seems like a really resilient structure, the reality is that it is a very porous system and it is fairly easy for people to slip in and out. The bar for joining isn’t that high and the consequences for leaving are few. So in the end to call the conference or fellowship model something more stable is a little questionable in my view.

The difference is that in a working conference, life goes on whether you like it or not. Youth and young adults don't have to worry whether there is going to be an operating church in 10 or 20 or 30 years. The system does not depend on one or two people. (This is what JayP is talking about when he says Pilgrim acknowledges the same model as the Catholics, just on a different scale)
In contrast, non-conference congregations, (including fellowship churches, Amish churches, and autonomous congregations) can have poor leadership that can stall a congregation for years or decades and there is nothing that can be done about it except call in a bishop committee and that won't necessarily resolve the issues.

[Ernie]

Or Ernie, how a form of centralization cannot work in too large a model.

One could view what Pilgrim is doing as an argument our structure of governance works, but only within a certain scale.

I would argue Pilgrim is not de centralizing here, but rather splitting so that the “form” is preserved not changed.

The amoeba is splitting into three amoebas because if it grows any larger while it would technically still be an amoeba, it’s size would place the bishops too far from the grassroots or too many additional bishops changes the nature of governance such that the form remains the same but the functional aspect would be something new and different.

You make a good point. Is there a term for this amoeba thing in organizations or churches?

[mike]

The thing is that although the conservative Mennonite conference style of administration seems like a really resilient structure, the reality is that it is a very porous system and it is fairly easy for people to slip in and out. The bar for joining isn’t that high and the consequences for leaving are few. So in the end to call the conference or fellowship model something more stable is a little questionable in my view.

The difference is that in a working conference, life goes on whether you like it or not. Youth and young adults don't have to worry whether there is going to be an operating church in 10 or 20 or 30 years. The system does not depend on one or two people. (This is what JayP is talking about when he says Pilgrim acknowledges the same model as the Catholics, just on a different scale)
In contrast, non-conference congregations, (including fellowship churches, Amish churches, and autonomous congregations) can have poor leadership that can stall a congregation for years or decades and there is nothing that can be done about it except call in a bishop committee and that won't necessarily resolve the issues.

Yes, this is true.

[JohnH]

As I understand the history. Pilgrim which is now breaking up, split off as a faction from Eastern, which itself split off from Lancaster Mennonite Conference, which itself more recently split off from MCUSA. That brings us back to the 1960s. Before that I'm not sure. But there is a whole lot of factions and divisions involved in the world of Anabaptism.

Pilgrim is not "breaking up" and this has nothing to do with factions. This is simply a set of districts of a conference organizing themselves into multiple conferences which than have districts of their own due to sheer size.

It would be more accurate to say that MC USA split off of Lancaster Mennonite Conference; LMC never fully joined MC USA and preferred to do things on their own terms, and LMC is now a denomination rivalling MC USA in size and influence.

As always, people read what they want to read into scripture to confirm their own beliefs and priorities. Paul definitely warns Christians about breaking up into factions here and elsewhere. But Mennonites tend to ignore this and focus on other teachings.

Ken, can you explain to us what's wrong with regional conferences? You do know MC USA has multiple regional conferences plus a few ideological conferences such as Central District, right?

[JohnH]

Our congregation in contrast is a relatively young (17 years), sorta outlying (couple hours from any other church in the conference), and fast growing outreach with a small minority of charter members from the conference. The majority of our group are former Pilgrim, Washington-Franklin, Eastern, Horning and one independent (my family) who joined in the years since. There is also a former Nationwide fellow and a former old order Mennonite couple. Our church building is maxed and there’s talk of splitting the congregation.

How do the people from the various more-conservative groups feel about the future (other than the former Pilgrim folks, and yourself)? Will they be surprised when their own children decide that this kind of church is too "conservative" for them?

I am just amazed at the lack of self-insight about this, when a church is almost entirely composed of people from more-conservative backgrounds.

[JohnH]

The difference is that in a working conference, life goes on whether you like it or not. Youth and young adults don't have to worry whether there is going to be an operating church in 10 or 20 or 30 years. The system does not depend on one or two people. (This is what JayP is talking about when he says Pilgrim acknowledges the same model as the Catholics, just on a different scale)

This is a very good way to put it. I don't have to worry about my own leadership going off the rails or even the entire congregation. We would just go to another congregation in our group, of which there are hundreds to choose from. But it probably wouldn't happen in the first place, because if there were those kind of major problems, help could be summoned from ministers in other congregations.

In contrast, non-conference congregations, (including fellowship churches, Amish churches, and autonomous congregations) can have poor leadership that can stall a congregation for years or decades and there is nothing that can be done about it except call in a bishop committee and that won't necessarily resolve the issues.

Yes, and that is exactly the problem currently dogging the Old Order Amish. A few families decide they want to live their own lifestyle - have a huge business, electrify it, park trucks in their driveway and so on, and then simply stonewall the local leadership when challenged to stop doing this and demand a bishop committee. This process takes years, and if just 1 bishop on the resultant committee is lenient, they basically "get away" with it.

[Ken]

As I understand the history. Pilgrim which is now breaking up, split off as a faction from Eastern, which itself split off from Lancaster Mennonite Conference, which itself more recently split off from MCUSA. That brings us back to the 1960s. Before that I'm not sure. But there is a whole lot of factions and divisions involved in the world of Anabaptism.

Pilgrim is not "breaking up" and this has nothing to do with factions. This is simply a set of districts of a conference organizing themselves into multiple conferences which than have districts of their own due to sheer size.

It would be more accurate to say that MC USA split off of Lancaster Mennonite Conference; LMC never fully joined MC USA and preferred to do things on their own terms, and LMC is now a denomination rivalling MC USA in size and influence.

As always, people read what they want to read into scripture to confirm their own beliefs and priorities. Paul definitely warns Christians about breaking up into factions here and elsewhere. But Mennonites tend to ignore this and focus on other teachings.

Ken, can you explain to us what's wrong with regional conferences? You do know MC USA has multiple regional conferences plus a few ideological conferences such as Central District, right?

I was simply citing Paul's criticism of churches breaking into factions. Which is a particular affection of Anabaptists. This Pilgrim split is but one small example. In fact, in Galatians he lists it up there with sexual immorality, witchcraft, and drunkenness as sins to be avoided.

We all read into the Bible what we want to see, and conveniently ignore what we don't want to see. Or explain it away in various ways. I'm no different to be sure and will plead guilty to doing that too.

[JohnH]

I was simply citing Paul's criticism of churches breaking into factions. Which is a particular affection of Anabaptists. This Pilgrim split is but one small example. In fact, in Galatians he lists it up there with sexual immorality, witchcraft, and drunkenness as sins to be avoided.

We all read into the Bible what we want to see, and conveniently ignore what we don't want to see. Or explain it away in various ways. I'm no different to be sure and will plead guilty to doing that too.

The Pilgrim division is not "churches breaking into factions".

The Pilgrim division is more about how a church in one end of Pennsylvania is quite along way away from a church in Florida, and it would simply make more sense for them to be organized into different conferences now.

It is no different than how MC USA has Mosaic Conference, Mountain States Conference, etc.

Are you able to understand that?