Interested in learning about Holdemans

[JohnH]

I would counter that with the fact the rest of plain Anabaptism doesn't want the Holdemans and goes out of its way to exclude us.

JohnH,

This is not true. I have Holdeman friends and as a Swiss Brother I don't exclude them. I, at times, do feel like their mission field but that is another topic.

All Anabaptists considered anyone more conservative than they are their “mission field”, and sometimes anyone more liberal too, although usually only the former is interested in “converting”. I am opposed to this practice but don’t expect to be listened to anytime soon.

I was speaking more of Anabaptist institutions as a whole being very uncomfortable with Holdemans, as opposed to specific individuals.

And regarding Anabaptist Financial...isn't the largest "plain" Mennonite group capable of creating a similar organization?

Yes, but we just use “banks”. We viewed AF as another bank. Someone I go to church with used it to finance buying a grocery store from some Beachy type of person where they transferred the loan.

AF got upset when they learned the transferee was Holdeman and and they negotiated for a quick payoff. Someone had raised a stink that they didn’t want Holdemans obtaining loans from AF anymore, I guess.

Does Shenandoah Music Camp allow Holdeman Menno's to attend? I noticed recently that they are not in attendance.

The Shenandoah Music Camp would conflict with our values on music and would be considered a spiritual danger.

It is also considered a spiritual danger to go and associate with people and try to treat them as “brothers” who engage in practices that our church teaches against.

(I also am very grumpy one of their instructors has a very poor history involving abuse of teenage girls and gets to use the place as her happy hunting grounds, but that’s a different topic. If you want details, PM me. I wish the leadership there would do something about it.)

Fundamentally, other young Anabaptists don’t make a wholesome environment for our young people, so we don’t want them involved with CAM anymore. Our young people are encouraged strongly not to do these things:

- video games beyond a basic puzzle type phone game
- watching media, movies, entertainment, short form videos etc
- listening to professionally prerecorded music or anything with instruments
- playing instruments
- using photography, taking pictures, sharing them
- engaging on social media, posting pictures, selfies, etc.
- conduct small group Bible studies and prayer meetings outside of church

Most young people other than some Amish come from settings where at least 1 of those things is perfectly acceptable. People from our setting are accustomed to not having this level of confusion about what conduct is taught by the Bible and what is not.

[ken_sylvania]

I would counter that with the fact the rest of plain Anabaptism doesn't want the Holdemans and goes out of its way to exclude us.

JohnH,

This is not true. I have Holdeman friends and as a Swiss Brother I don't exclude them. I, at times, do feel like their mission field but that is another topic.

All Anabaptists considered anyone more conservative than they are their “mission field”

Poppycock

[Judas Maccabeus]

- engaging on social media, posting pictures, selfies, etc.

Gimme a break here!

[Judas Maccabeus]

JohnH,

This is not true. I have Holdeman friends and as a Swiss Brother I don't exclude them. I, at times, do feel like their mission field but that is another topic.

All Anabaptists considered anyone more conservative than they are their “mission field”

Poppycock

totally! I regularly engage and work with more conservative groups. that is total nonsense.

[ken_sylvania]

All Anabaptists considered anyone more conservative than they are their “mission field”

Poppycock

totally! I regularly engage and work with more conservative groups. that is total nonsense.

You're not trying to convert them!!! Shocker!

[Judas Maccabeus]

Poppycock

totally! I regularly engage and work with more conservative groups. that is total nonsense.

You're not trying to convert them!!! Shocker!

Actually, they have been most helpful....to us. I know a number of W-F and Eastern deacons. Everyone seem willing to share the insight we have. I will tell you, that more conservative groups are way ahead of us on Child safety policy.

[Judas Maccabeus]

Actually, when listening to the discourse here on the Holdeman movement here, an interesting parallel emerged.

One true church groups are actually fairly uncommon among non-catholic, non-orthodox groups. There is however, an exception, and an interesting one at that. During the 1850s, a rather interesting Baptist ecclesiology emerged. It is commonly called landmarkism, or less commonly Baptist bride theology. It holds that the only valid churches are Baptist churches and view all non-Baptist churches and forms invalid. They regard the Baptist Church most particularly their variety of it as the one true church. Theologically how they do this, which, without doing this is almost impossible, is they deny the existence of the universal church. The true church, is a composite of all valid, local churches. They do not believe in one invisible, overarching church that includes all Christians, but that just those churches that are, in their eyes, true, part of the Baptist bride compose the church.. hence they would view Baptist churches of their stripe to be the one true visible church.

Now, where have we seen this theology before? The Holdeman movement, has what is effectively the exact, same theology, just remove the Baptist bride and insert their movement. The most telling point would be if they rejected the notion of a universal church, and believe that the church consisted of the aggregate of true local churches. I have been unable to find this out. If the Church of God in Christ, Mennonite, denies the existence of the universal Church then we have a match.

Of note is that the Church of God in Christ, Mennonite was formed and founded at the exact same time that the landmark movement was also forming, and was also a reaction against religious progressivism at the time, and a bit earlier. If this is the case, then we know where it came from. What I am saying here is that this movement is essentially landmark doctrine translated into a Mennonite group.

The landmark movement also asserts unbroken continuity back to the apostles. I suspect something similar will arise with enough study. Unfortunately, it is relatively difficult to get extremely detailed information on the theological workings of the Church of God in Christ Mennonite, I guess it exists somewhere.

[JohnH]

totally! I regularly engage and work with more conservative groups. that is total nonsense.

I have heard multiple people in your denomination describe the Old Order Mennonites are not believing in the new birth and describing testimonies of people who "leave" them in order to join a less-conservative, less-plain group.

Back when the denomination was just an association of pastors, the parent denomination (Lancaster Conference) conducted "revival meetings" to reach out to the Amish, and if we want to back a bit more, large tent revival meetings were conducted with the aim to "convert" Old Order Amish & Old Order Mennonites.

This is a long-standing problem.

[JohnH]

Actually, when listening to the discourse here on the Holdeman movement here, an interesting parallel emerged.

One true church groups are actually fairly uncommon among non-catholic, non-orthodox groups. There is however, an exception, and an interesting one at that. During the 1850s, a rather interesting Baptist ecclesiology emerged. It is commonly called landmarkism, or less commonly Baptist bride theology. It holds that the only valid churches are Baptist churches and view all non-Baptist churches and forms invalid. They regard the Baptist Church most particularly their variety of it as the one true church. Theologically how they do this, which, without doing this is almost impossible, is they deny the existence of the universal church. The true church, is a composite of all valid, local churches. They do not believe in one invisible, overarching church that includes all Christians, but that just those churches that are, in their eyes, true, part of the Baptist bride compose the church.. hence they would view Baptist churches of their stripe to be the one true visible church.

Not the same. In particular, Landmarkism believes they hold an exclusive door on salvation, similarly to what "one-cupper" church of Christ believes. Holdemans do not hold this view.

Holdemans do not hold an apostolic succession view.

Holdemans do not hold some kind of view of a lineage of churches going back to the very beginning that were the "true" church, either. They hold to the Menno Simons view that sometimes the true faith can be extinguished, but when this happens, God will take care to re-light it.

Now, where have we seen this theology before? The Holdeman movement, has what is effectively the exact, same theology, just remove the Baptist bride and insert their movement. The most telling point would be if they rejected the notion of a universal church, and believe that the church consisted of the aggregate of true local churches. I have been unable to find this out. If the Church of God in Christ, Mennonite, denies the existence of the universal Church then we have a match.

What is a "universal Church"? Do you mean it as a term meaning "the set of all believers, regardless of if they are in a faithful church or not?" Holdemans obviously believe in that; they just don't called it "the church", because we don't believe it can do things the church is called to do, such as "rebuking someone in front of the whole church". You obviously can't assemble a conference of 2 billion+ people for a meeting.

Of note is that the Church of God in Christ, Mennonite was formed and founded at the exact same time that the landmark movement was also forming, and was also a reaction against religious progressivism at the time, and a bit earlier. If this is the case, then we know where it came from. What I am saying here is that this movement is essentially landmark doctrine translated into a Mennonite group.

\

There is no connection at all to Landmarkism. John Holdeman got his ideas from John Herr (who started the Reformed Mennonites movement in 1813 or 1817, but quickly become exceedingly sectarian), John Stauffer who dates to 1845 ("Pikers"), and from early Anabaptist writers who believe in a one-true church concept.

The landmark movement also asserts unbroken continuity back to the apostles. I suspect something similar will arise with enough study.

Holdemans explicitly rejected a succession view around 20-30 years ago.

Unfortunately, it is relatively difficult to get extremely detailed information on the theological workings of the Church of God in Christ Mennonite, I guess it exists somewhere.

You can order a copy of "Bible Doctrines & Practice" anytime you want to. You can also order copies of the conference decision reports.

If you want to know more about inner workings, there are a number of aggrieved ex-Holdemans who provide copies of ministers' and deacons' council meetings, etc. online. (Are your own non-public deacons' meeting minutes and agendas etc. published online?)

The idea that Holdemans are some secret society with secret doctrines is complete nonsense.

[JohnH]

Poppycock

Other Anabaptist certainly treat Holdemans as a mission field. This does not lead, long term, to good or fruitful relations between the two. To give an example, one person invited a Holdeman to their Charity church and told them they would be happy if they switched because then they would "allow" a bunch of things that Holdemans encourage members not to do (I think the specific thing was looser dress standards).