Interested in learning about Holdemans

[JohnH]

The Swiss Brethren and their descendants believed a true, visible church. It doesn't seem accurate to call them "non-true" church groups, much as you would like to believe they are not true churches.

The Swiss and Dutch Anabaptist concepts were significantly differently, particularly around the concept of a "pure church".

I don't think they were all that different. None of the disperate groups that developed proclaimed themselfs the 'ONE TRUE VISAVLE CHURCH®."

Yes, they did; that was one of the major issues that arose from the Flemish-Frisian division: both sides declared themselves correct and excommunicated the other.

Whether or not one things a one true church belief is good or not should not affect one's view of history of whether or not our priors believed in that. It is pretty obvious from reading early Anabaptists that many of them did. The idea of a 'one, true church', was pretty much taken for granted at the moment in time in 1525 when Anabaptism began.

[Judas Maccabeus]

The Swiss and Dutch Anabaptist concepts were significantly differently, particularly around the concept of a "pure church".

I don't think they were all that different. None of the disperate groups that developed proclaimed themselfs the 'ONE TRUE VISAVLE CHURCH®."

Yes, they did; that was one of the major issues that arose from the Flemish-Frisian division: both sides declared themselves correct and excommunicated the other.

Whether or not one things a one true church belief is good or not should not affect one's view of history of whether or not our priors believed in that. It is pretty obvious from reading early Anabaptists that many of them did. The idea of a 'one, true church', was pretty much taken for granted at the moment in time in 1525 when Anabaptism began.

NO. We are right and you are wrong differs considerably from the view that “we are the one true visible church.” Everyone draws limits on what they can accept. Few baldly declare we are the “One true visible church”. The former is almost universal. The other unsupportable by scripture,

[JohnH]

NO. We are right and you are wrong differs considerably from the view that “we are the one true visible church.” Everyone draws limits on what they can accept. Few baldly declare we are the “One true visible church”. The former is almost universal. The other unsupportable by scripture,

Have you read the history of the Flemish-Frisian divisions?

[Judas Maccabeus]

NO. We are right and you are wrong differs considerably from the view that “we are the one true visible church.” Everyone draws limits on what they can accept. Few baldly declare we are the “One true visible church”. The former is almost universal. The other unsupportable by scripture,

Have you read the history of the Flemish-Frisian divisions?

Yes. I teach that material and I think you misunderstand much of it. I can recall any of them saying that they group was the only church in existence, only that they were right and say the Waterlanders were wrong . There is a big difference between saying “we are the one and only true church ”.

[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.

Not that I like to beat a dead horse, but I think about this post once in a while. I think I would rephrase point 3 a little more strongly to reflect how different the Holdeman position is from that of other conservative Anabaptists.

Something like this.

Holdemans, contrary to most other contemporary conservative Anabaptists, hold the fundamentally different belief that divorce breaks the marriage bond. This view is aligned with that of many other Christian churches, and makes them appealing to seekers in certain situations, but in addition to the ‘one true church’ view, the Holdeman view of divorce ensures they will remain separate and out of fellowship with the vast majority of conservative Anabaptism for the foreseeable future.

Edit: see this post for a correction of this statement.

[JohnH]

Not that I like to beat a dead horse, but I think about this post once in a while. I think I would rephrase point 3 a little more strongly to reflect how different the Holdeman position is from that of other conservative Anabaptists.

When you say. "other conservative Anabaptists", I think you mean "North American conservative Anabaptists from Swiss Brethren backgrounds". The Holdeman position isn't different at all (for example) from Old Colonists, although in practice divorce & remarriage is exceedingly rare there, as is seekers joining who have divorce in their past.

Holdemans, contrary to most other contemporary conservative Anabaptists, hold the fundamentally different belief that divorce breaks the marriage bond. This view is aligned with that of many other Christian churches, and makes them appealing to seekers in certain situations, but in addition to the ‘one true church’ view, the Holdeman view of divorce ensures they will remain separate and out of fellowship with the vast majority of conservative Anabaptism for the foreseeable future.

I think it's specious to say "vast majority" when it it is not so. Between Central and South America you're looking at 250,000 people, which is far more than North American conservative Anabaptists, and comparable in number to Old Order Amish.

The Holdeman view is also "not aligned" with other Christian churches, and Holdemans do not believe that "divorce breaks the marriage bond". So before penning such a statement, please ensure it agrees with actual facts. I get very tired of the lies repeated about my group, such as that we don't recognise or honour marriages outside of our church, or that we expect incoming members to always divorce their spouse. I seem to recall you were hoodwinked into believing this kind of pernicious falsehood, although I don't think you had any malicious intent.

Finally, I would like some recognition of how many seekers get referred to the Holdemans the second they meet a divorced person. The Charity & Beachy affiliates in my area consistently do this. I personally find it a little frustrating - they have a position they claim is right, but they refer seekers to another church they're then willing to slander as being some kind of evil institution? How does that make any sense?

[ohio jones]

Finally, I would like some recognition of how many seekers get referred to the Holdemans the second they meet a divorced person. The Charity & Beachy affiliates in my area consistently do this.

Must be a local thing. The Charity & Beachy affiliates in my area do not have a practice of referring divorced persons to the Holdemans.

[mike]

Not that I like to beat a dead horse, but I think about this post once in a while. I think I would rephrase point 3 a little more strongly to reflect how different the Holdeman position is from that of other conservative Anabaptists.

When you say. "other conservative Anabaptists", I think you mean "North American conservative Anabaptists from Swiss Brethren backgrounds". The Holdeman position isn't different at all (for example) from Old Colonists, although in practice divorce & remarriage is exceedingly rare there, as is seekers joining who have divorce in their past.

Holdemans, contrary to most other contemporary conservative Anabaptists, hold the fundamentally different belief that divorce breaks the marriage bond. This view is aligned with that of many other Christian churches, and makes them appealing to seekers in certain situations, but in addition to the ‘one true church’ view, the Holdeman view of divorce ensures they will remain separate and out of fellowship with the vast majority of conservative Anabaptism for the foreseeable future.

I think it's specious to say "vast majority" when it it is not so. Between Central and South America you're looking at 250,000 people, which is far more than North American conservative Anabaptists, and comparable in number to Old Order Amish.

The Holdeman view is also "not aligned" with other Christian churches, and Holdemans do not believe that "divorce breaks the marriage bond". So before penning such a statement, please ensure it agrees with actual facts. I get very tired of the lies repeated about my group, such as that we don't recognise or honour marriages outside of our church, or that we expect incoming members to always divorce their spouse. I seem to recall you were hoodwinked into believing this kind of pernicious falsehood, although I don't think you had any malicious intent.

Finally, I would like some recognition of how many seekers get referred to the Holdemans the second they meet a divorced person. The Charity & Beachy affiliates in my area consistently do this. I personally find it a little frustrating - they have a position they claim is right, but they refer seekers to another church they're then willing to slander as being some kind of evil institution? How does that make any sense?

If someone asks me whether they can be conservative Anabaptist and be divorced and remarried, I will tell them that the Holdemans are the only such group I know of that might accept this. This does not mean I recommend them to do this.

Holdemans believe that the marriage bond can be broken, and a person can be married to a different partner while their original partner is still living. Yes, this statement could be qualified, but it is true. One can quibble about details and statistics, and whether this is the majority view of conservative Anabaptists. Whether it is divorce, or adultery, or something else improper about a marriage that Holdemans believe breaks the marriage bond and frees a person to remarry, I am not entirely sure, but the real-life effect is that divorce and remarriage is permissable in certain cases, and this is fundamentally opposed to the view of marriage that most plain Anabaptists in North America adhere to, which is that marriage can be dissolved only by death.

My primary concern here in this discussion is to emphasize how great and important this difference is. Most plain Anabaptists in North America will never fellowship or commune with other churches, even if they are plain Anabaptists with many other commonalities, who have the Holdeman view, or any other view that allows for divorce and remarriage. And yes, it is my opinion that the Holdeman view of marriage has more in common with other Christian traditions than with contemporary conservative Anabaptist tradition. I can't speak for conservative Anabaptists outside the US.

Holdeman Mennonites will continue to be an insular group within North American conservative Anabaptism because of their one true church view but also because of other things, such as their doctrine of marriage. This is just the way it is, and our discussion here doesn't change this.

I believe in pointing out where I believe the Holdemans are wrong, and it is up to God to judge as he sees best. I have not said they are an evil institution. I believe they are a badly mistaken group of people according to the Christian-Anabaptist worldview I adhere to. Many people are mistaken. I may be mistaken. It is God's position to judge who is "evil," not mine.

[JohnH]

If someone asks me whether they can be conservative Anabaptist and be divorced and remarried, I will tell them that the Holdemans are the only such group I know of that might accept this. This does not mean I recommend them to do this.

I would acquaint yourself with the Apostolic Christians at the very least, since the Holdemans are by far not the only "conservative Anabaptist" group that doesn't hold to one of the two specific views on divorce and remarriage held by Easterns and by Beachys, respectively (sometimes known as the "covenant" and "permanent" views).

If you want to define "conservative Anabaptist" as "holds to the covenant or permanent view of marriage", then yes, it would be true that no conservative Anabaptist groups don't hold to those views.

Holdemans believe that the marriage bond can be broken, and a person can be married to a different partner while their original partner is still living. Yes, this statement could be qualified, but it is true. One can quibble about details and statistics, and whether this is the majority view of conservative Anabaptists. Whether it is divorce, or adultery, or something else improper about a marriage that Holdemans believe breaks the marriage bond and frees a person to remarry, I am not entirely sure, but the real-life effect is that divorce and remarriage is permissable in certain cases, and this is fundamentally opposed to the view of marriage that most plain Anabaptists in North America adhere to, which is that marriage can be dissolved only by death.

Mike, what you stated earlier was a falsehoold. Holdemans do not believe that "divorce breaks the marriage bond". I would appreciate it if you did not repeat falsehoods about other plain groups. I try to do the same thing myself.

If the standard is "what certain groups of plain Anabaptists in America believe, excluding Apostolic Christians, Holdeman Mennonites, and various Old Colonist and Russian Mennonite groups", then your latter statement is correct. I find it needlessly sectarian to do that. I think Apostolic Christians, Old Colonist-origin groups, Bruderhof (who I understand now have a "nuanced" view of divorce for outsiders joining their group, although I don't know the particulars) do count as Anabaptists, even if I find I have some significant differences of opinion, doctrine, and practice from them.

My primary concern here in this discussion is to emphasize how great and important this difference is. Most plain Anabaptists in North America will never fellowship or commune with other churches, even if they are plain Anabaptists with many other commonalities, who have the Holdeman view, or any other view that allows for divorce and remarriage. And yes, it is my opinion that the Holdeman view of marriage has more in common with other Christian traditions than with contemporary conservative Anabaptist tradition. I can't speak for conservative Anabaptists outside the US.

You keep saying "most", but by numbers, "most" should include Holdemans and Apostolic Christians, whose numbers rival the rest of the conservative Anabaptist world if we exclude the Old Order groups. And let's be frank: the Old Order groups don't exactly fellowship and commune with the non-Old Order groups. They are, for all intents and purposes, a separate sphere.

The Holdeman view of marriage doesn't have much in common with the typical evangelical Christian view, either. I think it would be good to actually speak truthfully about what it actually is, as opposed to the repeated falsehoods you keep bringing up. Would you be willing to dialogue and do that fairly and honestly?

Holdeman Mennonites will continue to be an insular group within North American conservative Anabaptism because of their one true church view but also because of other things, such as their doctrine of marriage. This is just the way it is, and our discussion here doesn't change this.

I don't have some agenda to change this. I just don't like it when Anabaptists speak falsehoods about each other. (I often correct falsehoods I hear spoken about Amish people, who probably have much more nonsense said about them than Holdemans do.)

I believe in pointing out where I believe the Holdemans are wrong, and it is up to God to judge as he sees best. I have not said they are an evil institution. I believe they are a badly mistaken group of people according to the Christian-Anabaptist worldview I adhere to. Many people are mistaken. I may be mistaken. It is God's position to judge who is "evil," not mine.

mike, a while ago you stated that Holdemans require anyone who is married and joins their group to get divorced because the church doesn't recognise their marriage. You and I spoke about it privately and you agreed to correct the record, but I think with an error that egregious you should probably stand down that you don't know much about actual Holdeman beliefs on marriage at all, and it would be productive to dialogue about them and reach a consensus about what they actually are.

I think it's very, very important to speak truth about other plain groups other than our own.

[JohnH]

Finally, I would like some recognition of how many seekers get referred to the Holdemans the second they meet a divorced person. The Charity & Beachy affiliates in my area consistently do this.

Must be a local thing. The Charity & Beachy affiliates in my area do not have a practice of referring divorced persons to the Holdemans.

You probably don't have a Holdeman affiliate nearby. I think they closed up shop 70+ years ago.