Interested in learning about Holdemans

[Judas Maccabeus]

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.

I have not seen such. And historically, the Lancaster conference has never been "just an association of pastors" never. If you want more insight on that, read "The Earth is The Lord's." It has always been a connectional group, with a three office ministry. You would have been more accurate if you said, "an association of Bishops" but even that would have been inaccurate.

If you were talking about the big tent, Brunk revivals there while I know there are some, but believe many old or Amish and old order Mennonites are not rightly converted, that is not an official position. I work side-by-side with Weaverland people fairly regularly, and I have never gotten the notion that any of them would need to be converted. The targets of the Brunk revivals were more likely Mennonites that were drifting towards the larger, apostate protestant church.

[ken_sylvania]

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).

I thought Holdemans aren't "conservative". So how does this even apply.

..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).

Now that you mention it, it does seem like some Holdeman women wear tight dresses. I think it would be fine for them to wear looser dresses, but I'm not about to try to convert them to that.

[JohnH]

I have not seen such. And historically, the Lancaster conference has never been "just an association of pastors" never.

I was referring to Keystone before it formally separated.

If you want more insight on that, read "The Earth is The Lord's." It has always been a connectional group, with a three office ministry. You would have been more accurate if you said, "an association of Bishops" but even that would have been inaccurate.

If you were talking about the big tent, Brunk revivals there while I know there are some, but believe many old or Amish and old order Mennonites are not rightly converted, that is not an official position. I work side-by-side with Weaverland people fairly regularly, and I have never gotten the notion that any of them would need to be converted. The targets of the Brunk revivals were more likely Mennonites that were drifting towards the larger, apostate protestant church.

It's nice that you have a charitable view; generally speaking, less-conservative Anabaptist groups obtain most of their growth in membership from more-conservative groups, particularly groups that are having trouble retaining their young people. This is a well-documented phenomenon. The least-conservative groups are the most guilty of it.

And as I said earlier, I think the Holdemans have had a problem with this too. We just don't have the problem of people leaving our church for a less-conservative group, so that makes our group not "transitional".

[Judas Maccabeus]

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.

I would say there is a very clear connection.

In the Church of God in Christ, Mennonite, is the most sectarian church I have ever heard of or seen, the reformed Mennonite excepted.

There is a whole lot of difference between believing in the idea that there is one true church, and actually implementing it in practice. You will see a fair amount of, one true church, concept, particularly in the writings of Hubimayer, but he did not believe that he was leading the one true church.

One true church as an abstract theory is very different from putting one true church into actual practice.

[JohnH]

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).

I thought Holdemans aren't "conservative". So how does this even apply.[/quote]

To most plain Anabaptists, they are. (Holdemans don't have a "conservative Mennonite" identity, but to anyone else observing them, they would generally think of them as being conservative Mennonites.)

Now that you mention it, it does seem like some Holdeman women wear tight dresses. I think it would be fine for them to wear looser dresses, but I'm not about to try to convert them to that.

I figured someone would make this joke.

Overall, the story of trying to have relationships with other conservative Mennonite groups is pretty much the same old story for Holdemans: if we try to do something together, like have young people go to a CAM type of service-oriented mission, the other people express shock that "your church doesn't let you do X thing", and then say if you joined our church, you'd be allowed to do X and Y thing. Then the other people express more shock that "your church doesn't let you leave".

This is a general mindset that does not lead to spiritual fruit and one that, as a whole, we have decided we don't want to participate in. If other plain people decide that's how they want to do things, they may do so. I would note that the most thriving Anabaptist groups at this point in time are the ones who are erecting fairly high walls around such things. The future of Anabaptism is not figuring out how to get on a slow-moving escalator that still ultimately leads to the world.

[Judas Maccabeus]

I have not seen such. And historically, the Lancaster conference has never been "just an association of pastors" never.

I was referring to Keystone before it formally separated.

If you want more insight on that, read "The Earth is The Lord's." It has always been a connectional group, with a three office ministry. You would have been more accurate if you said, "an association of Bishops" but even that would have been inaccurate.

If you were talking about the big tent, Brunk revivals there while I know there are some, but believe many old or Amish and old order Mennonites are not rightly converted, that is not an official position. I work side-by-side with Weaverland people fairly regularly, and I have never gotten the notion that any of them would need to be converted. The targets of the Brunk revivals were more likely Mennonites that were drifting towards the larger, apostate protestant church.

It's nice that you have a charitable view; generally speaking, less-conservative Anabaptist groups obtain most of their growth in membership from more-conservative groups, particularly groups that are having trouble retaining their young people. This is a well-documented phenomenon. The least-conservative groups are the most guilty of it.

And as I said earlier, I think the Holdemans have had a problem with this too. We just don't have the problem of people leaving our church for a less-conservative group, so that makes our group not "transitional".

In my experience, most of the "moving" seems to be people moving both ways from similar Beachy groups, and to similar mennonite groups. Marriage and employment seem to be the largest factor. I would personally discourage transfers from someone in conflict with their church, and I know most others would do likewise.

[JohnH]

I would say there is a very clear connection.

That's not a clear connection to Landmarkism. There is almost no connection at all.

Someone who spends a lot of time reading early Anabaptist writers will eventually pick up OTC dogmas from those writings (which also have no connection at all to Baptist thinking, considering it didn't exist back then).

In the Church of God in Christ, Mennonite, is the most sectarian church I have ever heard of or seen, the reformed Mennonite excepted.

It is not. Most specifically, Holdemans don't believe our church holds an exclusive door of salvation. There are many, many other church groups that do, such as Orthodox Mennonites, some (not all) Swartzentruber Amish, "one cup" church of Christ, and many more.

There is a whole lot of difference between believing in the idea that there is one true church, and actually implementing it in practice. You will seel a fair amount of, one true church, concept, particularly in the writings of Hubimayer, but he did not believe that he was leading the one true church.

This is ahistorical, JM. Dutch Anabaptism has always had a strong notion of a pure church, and the first divisions of this in the Flemish churches happened in the mid-1500s. Part and parcel of a "pure church" doctrine is the idea that there is a true church, and a not-true church. There is no escaping that.

One true church as an abstract theory is very different from putting one true church into actual practice.

To know one's actual doctrines, show me his practices.

[JohnH]

In my experience, most of the "moving" seems to be people moving both ways from similar Beachy groups, and to similar mennonite groups. Marriage and employment seem to be the largest factor. I would personally discourage transfers from someone in conflict with their church, and I know most others would do likewise.

If that's been your experience, I'm glad for you that you haven't had to deal with transitional Anabaptism, although your perspective may need to be mediated with the fact you are in one of the least-conservative Anabaptist groups that is still plain at all.

My experience has been the opposite. The church I first started going to has attendance and membership half of what it was when I started. The people who left are either not plain at all anymore, mostly going to a Rosedale (CMC) church that doesn't practice the covering, a formerly BMA church that eventually broke fellowship with BMA, or a former Charity church that is no longer visibly plain (women wear jeans now etc.). Most of the exodus is with younger people.

The church's membership since its founding was primarily composed of people who were King Amish or Old Order Amish if you went 1 - 3 generations back.

The local Beachy church is the same story.

The local Charity churches are the same story.

My local Pilgrim affiliate is the same story. Most their membership has matriculated out of a Nationwide church or a nearby Old Order Mennonite church, with a handful of Wislers. Meanwhile, people from that background are tending to end up at the first church I described above.

My local Nationwide affiliate has the same source of people.

As far as "marriage" goes... when my wife lived in PA, she worked with a guy who was with the Horning Old Order Mennonites, and a girl who went to some Charity church. They said they were going to attend each other's church to pick which one to attend. I laughed and said we all know exactly which church they'll end up at. They ended up at the Charity church.

At my brother's church, a fellow grew up a conservative offshoot of Beachys (Marnatha, I think?) in New Jersey. He married a girl from that church. He relocated to Ohio and transferred his membership to that church. It is much less conservative (e.g. adopting the smartphone).

There was recently a wedding here. A girl from that church married a guy from Belleville from another conservative Mennonite church that still practices the kapp. They both agreed that would be "too conservative" for them (despite the fact her church had kapps 5 years ago, and indeed a good friend of mine who was a seeker was blocked from membership because his wife objected to wearing see-through kapps), so they are evaluating which of the less-conservative churches in Belleville to choose from.

Quite a few people, either men or women, in the Beachy church here married people at the Rosedale/CMC church. All of them moved over to the Rosedale/CMC church. Eventually the covering was dropped.

I do not think any of this is good.

[Judas Maccabeus]

I would say there is a very clear connection.

That's not a clear connection to Landmarkism. There is almost no connection at all.

Someone who spends a lot of time reading early Anabaptist writers will eventually pick up OTC dogmas from those writings (which also have no connection at all to Baptist thinking, considering it didn't exist back then).

In the Church of God in Christ, Mennonite, is the most sectarian church I have ever heard of or seen, the reformed Mennonite excepted.

It is not. Most specifically, Holdemans don't believe our church holds an exclusive door of salvation. There are many, many other church groups that do, such as Orthodox Mennonites, some (not all) Swartzentruber Amish, "one cup" church of Christ, and many more.

There is a whole lot of difference between believing in the idea that there is one true church, and actually implementing it in practice. You will seel a fair amount of, one true church, concept, particularly in the writings of Hubimayer, but he did not believe that he was leading the one true church.

This is ahistorical, JM. Dutch Anabaptism has always had a strong notion of a pure church, and the first divisions of this in the Flemish churches happened in the mid-1500s. Part and parcel of a "pure church" doctrine is the idea that there is a true church, and a not-true church. There is no escaping that.

One true church as an abstract theory is very different from putting one true church into actual practice.

To know one's actual doctrines, show me his practices.

A "Pure" church does not equate to "One True Church." And saying that there is a true church and a not true church is not saying that one particular church group is the "one true church." You are conflicting concepts here.

And I have avoided specifically relying on the testimony of people that leave. Uniformly. I have heard it said that what is preached from the pulp it is that the Church of God in Christ, Mennonite is the only way to salvation, and its baptism is the only true baptism. You just can't escape that.

[barnhart]

JohnH, I don't often converse with you on MN but I think you should reconsider putting your thoughts about this on a public forum. I don't want to be a part of a conversation that you might regret at a future date.