The Holdemans held a special meeting where over 3000 attended and thousands more listened in by conference call where they officially canonized their founder John Holdeman.This call was a secret number and they were told not to give it out so any Holdeman detractors could not listen in and use it for internet fodder.Schools were closed in a 3 state area so members could attend this meeting.


Canonization (or, canonisation) is the act by which a particular Christian church declares a deceased person to be a saint and is included in the canon, or list, of recognized saints. Originally, individuals were recognised as saints without any formal process.
Canonization, whether formal or informal, does not make someone a saint: it is only a declaration that the person is a saint and was a saint even before canonization.

Yea, canonize is like the opposite of what they usually do. They usually make saints to be sinners by the declaration of their witchcrafts.

"Canonization (or, canonisation) is the act by which a particular Christian church declares a deceased person to be a saint and is included in the canon, or list, of recognized saints."

I'm no JH worshipper, but I'm a little puzzled. I listened to the meeting but I didn't come away with the impression that JH's status was elevated or changed in any official way from what it had been in the minds of Holdemans. Admittedly, he is held in high regard (way way too high in my opinion) - but I didn't catch where he was officially recognized as a saint or canonized. Must have missed it. But then, maybe the H confer sainthood differently than the Catholics. Can you fill me in on exactly what you are referring to?

Newsman: Well first of all, if you are a typical news reporter, you report what you want to report and not necessarily what happened. I was not at the meeting or even listened on the phone, but somewhat of the consensus I have heard from others is that the meeting was more on the historical background of the H mennonites and why John Holdeman felt he must leave the Old Mennonites to preserve a faith that he felt was dying out. I'm not sure exactly all that was included in the agenda, but the "Canonization" of John Holdeman was not part of it. Actually I was somewhat fearful of that before hand and that is one reason I refused to take part. Visiting with my son-in-law over the weekend he stated that it had been a very interesting, historical, presentation by numerous speakers. I also think that the phone number security had more to do with the amount of lines that were available as I think every congregation was given a number to call and apparently this was not totally inflexible as I know somebody who listened from his home. This is just my understanding of what took place, other H may have a different outlook.

I believe it is fine to consider our roots and honor our heritage. What's the saying; "If you don't know where you came from, you don't know where you are at ??"

No doubt everything John Holdeman wrote is not in agreement with everyone, but he has contributed to the American church scene. My favorite lines of JH are (paraphrased, from his chapter in MOT on Justification):

"We are not saved by our faith, but by the object of our faith, Christ. Faith is the hand that clasps the hand of Christ."

"...the meeting was more on the historical background of the H mennonites and why John Holdeman felt he must leave the Old Mennonites to preserve a faith that he felt was dying out."

This is what I always find so interesting. The true faith cannot die out. Now, a way of life can, and from what I can see, it is. There is nothing that can be done to change that. No amount of remembering the past, pondering the reasons for JH leaving, nothing will bring back the past. Let it go. Move on. This is 2009. Address the problems facing people in 2009 instead of living in the past. JH was a strange man who made many false claims. Let him go. There is much to be done, and it won't be done by trying to hold on to this moldy old prophet. For no matter what anyone says, that is what they want to do.

Here is what really happened as I remember it. A central Kansas minister gave the history of John Holdeman and a brief history going back to the 1500's and the lineage up to JH. The events into why and how he left the old church. All the turmoil through the time he was self-ordained(explained)until the 1930's when a number of people, staff and not staff, got together and resolved the issue and put it to rest. The speaker talked about Jh's personality, a very kind hearted man. The people that knew him said they never heard him laugh. When someone would call for help he wwould drop everything and go. His children made a comment that it was like they were raised by their mother as JH was gone so much.
The next speaker was a minister that years ago left the old order mennonites and had years of sruggling in trying to find the truth as he understood it. Tried various churches but there was always something that didn't line up with the Bible in those that claimed to be the one true church. In the holdeman church it all came together. I don't remember the particulares of it, if some one would like to fill that in. Something about the seven churches of asia, that they were all unified and yet separate churches.
They made it very clear in all the cong. not to put the meeting on any conference lines, only to be piped in to all the churches.

Tech meeting
Regarding the use of the internet, it was decided that it is not necessary to ask for permission to have it. A minister said that there were two members talking together and mem.1 told mem.2 that he would like to have the internet but he would have to ask permission and he likely would be denied. Then he said that what he needed to do was be elected minister and then he wouldn't have any problem having it. It was said there that [percentage wise] there are more staff that have the internet that all the laity, 2 to 1. So they said that it didn't make much sense to deny it to others when most of them had it. But still it was advised for everyone to have a church approved filter although they recognised that if someone really wanted to see the forbidden they could turn off the filter or take it out or whatever. So it was emphasised that it is a heart matter that if we are just letting the filter be our guidline then whatever we do in life we are still not living our life according to Christ Jesus. If we are living that way we are ultimately going to lose out totally. It was said that there is nothing wrong with technology but it's how we use it and that we can be free before God. That we are responsible how we use it and that we should be able to use it freely before the brotherhood and that it doesn't have to be done secretly. If we need to draw the curtain first then we are not free.

more later

>> If we need to draw the curtain first then we are not free. <<

I agree!

Now, isn't that kind of like having a celebration of JH and 150yrs of conference that can only be heard or seen by members on 'approved' phone lines?

 

I know my parents were shocked and aghast that i even KNEW there was a service about this. They had been told to keep it "amongst themselves" and wondered how I heard about it. (so of course I blamed Steven and said he had told me about it )

We Holdemans should be very glad, that John Holdeman did not need to vow like our ministers and deacons must vow today when ordained, because that vow would have not allowed him to stand in the gap as he did, and we could not celebrate him as a preserver of truth as we now can. If Holdeman had vowed to teach and preach the Word of God according to the interpretation of the conference and councils of his named church and to abide in them with unchanging fidelity unto the end, as Holdeman ministers and deacons must vow today, how could he be our elder as today. Thus it does not appear we Holdemans can expect any Holdeman minister or deacon to stand in the gap as did John Holdeman, and thus it appears we will have look to others then ministers and deacons to be like our hero John Holdeman.

Amos: I've had the same thoughts as your last post. Do you by any chance have relatives in Fountain Run, Kentucky? I met several Benders several years ago in that area.

"That we are responsible how we use it and that we should be able to use it freely before the brotherhood and that it doesn't have to be done secretly. If we need to draw the curtain first then we are not free."

Sad.

When I was a young child, I was sure my mother had eyes that could see through walls - she always seemed to know when I had instigated an argument with my younger brother.

When I became a Christian at the age of 8 - I understood even then that the God that I served was all seeing - all powerful. I knew that he cared about a sparrow that fell - so he for SURE cared about me and what I was doing.

Does the 'brotherhood' need to keep watch in case Jesus MISSES something??? How ARROGANT.

It really doesn't matter what happens behind a curtain if we're comfortable that God is part of - and guiding - our lives. What's next? Take down the bedroom drapes?

Freedom in Christ - THAT'S what I see missing in this picture.

Well, surely the Holdemans can now have tv and radios. If there is nothing wrong with technology, and the important thing is that it is used correctly, and the members are being allowed to use their own discretion regarding this, then I can't see how they can forbid or punish for the use of any technology. As long as it is used appropriately. And brought out from behind the curtain. Hey, all of those tv's can come out of the closet!

First off, praise God that they are trusting the Spirit more in the area of technology. I do hope they are still careful, though, as I think a lot of them depend on the church for their conscience rather than the Spirit so if they are not strong in the Spirit first they will easily fall. I'm glad, though, they are getting rid of the rules and the ministers being less hypocritical.

AJ says: "Tried various churches but there was always something that didn't line up with the Bible in those that claimed to be the one true church."

My question is, why was he searching only among those who claimed to be the one true church. That's where the whole problem lies with Holdemanism. They can't grasp that maybe there isn't one true church as they understand the church.

Also, I'd like to hear what the explanation was for JH's self-ordaination.

**And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.**

Forreal,
I have two brothers living at Fountain Run. Jason my younger brother is not a Mennonite. My older brother Daniel is a Holdeman Mennonite and has several married girls quite close to Fountain Run.

Sophia,
Regarding this statement about the internet >>"That we are responsible how we use it and that we should be able to use it freely before the brotherhood and that it doesn't have to be done secretly. If we need to draw the curtain first then we are not free."< what I get from it is that they simply were saying that they should use the internet responsibly and should and could use it openly before their church or brethren, rather than in secret. And saying if they have to hide their use of it then they were not free. <br>
Is that statement actually official?

Amos - I would have no idea if it was official or not. But it was a statement of somebody posting here - and is certainly in the language of Church of Godism. I'm certainly not planning on contacting the minister's council with my comments - but will certainly stand behind my comments to the original poster of that statement - and anybody else who would agree with that statement or sentiments. Life in Christ brings FREEDOM!! Praise the Lord.

More on the technology meeting
The general feeling there was that asking the staff for permission to use the internet was good for a time until there was a better understanding what it was all about. But there was an ongoing and increasing discomfort in doing so and that it began to feel more unscriptural. Do we do that in our daily life, ask permission to buy some machinery or automobiles? No. Technology is a much broader issue than the internet and the greater concern and burden is with cellphones and other devices that are carried on the person. There was a resolution that was voted on and had a very strong vote in the affirmative. Resolution: 'We accept the reality of the growing need for careful and conscientious use for church approved filtered internet. However we remain deeply concerned that inner spiritual guidance is maintained teaching us morality, temperance in it's use and carefulness to abide by conference decisions. There needs to be open communication between the staff and the brotherhood. Don't pull curtains or drapes on internet use. Remembering our accountability to God and one another. We feel keenly the need for greater effort and ongoing teaching in separation of worldly involvement and practices.'
There was a great burden and need on the ministry on where they can find God's way in the technology issues.

AJ - is the portion in quotes the official, published (within coG) version?

Hmm - still stand by my statement. Why must I be accountable to my brethren? Because Jesus might miss something? To put another human being in such a position is - as Fred would say I'm sure - idolatry. Let no man - nor woman - hold that position in my life that belongs to God. And may all man - and woman - be granted freedom in Christ.

Sophia, do you not agree with accountability partners? We are human and have a hard time understanding the Spirit at times and being accountable to another human is helpful. In our human thinking we often think we can 'hide' from the Spirit because we can't actually 'see' him, but an accountability partner is someone we can see, talk to and physically hear.

**And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.**

Tirone - explain 'accountability partner' more, please.

Is this somebody that I pick out? For example - could I ask you to be my accountability partner? And can I then be yours? Or is this 'somebody' a minister - one who has no human higher authority over them? Is there equality?

I think accountability is a good choice to make. When it's a choice. Choice does not bring fear. Choice does not bring law without a voice. If, by closed ballot, the majority of people in a society choose a particular accountability/law - then that is the accountability/law of that society. I buy into - and am accountable for - certain behaviors and activities because I choose to be a United States citizen (yes - I was born into it by chance - but I stay - therefore I choose). But then we're back around to the question of 'what if I wish to LEAVE that society?' Does the society attempt to enforce its accountability beyond its' borders?

We have a choice to accept the gift that Christ offers to all. And through exercising that choice (which in itself is an act of freedom) - we then experience even greater freedom in Christ. I may wish to ask for additional accountability in my walk with God (and in fact do) - but that request has never subjected me to fear or drawing curtains or admonishments the like of which I see above.

eta:
When human authority steps outside of God's authority in my life - or attempts to become more important than His authority - any accountability I have to man is eliminated - immediately. A fully accountable human to God would accept that as well - even if it bruises his/her ego and the temptation exists to label me as rebellious or deceived.

Sophia, I guess once again we are in agreement! I should have considered the context of your writing before I questioned you. I too believe it should not be a forced accountability such as ministers often enforce. In fact that is detrimental accountability.

I haven't been around here much recently so I probably missed when you started posting again but I'm glad to see you here again. I can't promise I'll be around much, though.

AJ, I'm still wondering how the H's explained JH's self-ordaination.

**And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.**

Tirone - I'm actually glad you asked. If a belief doesn't hold through questions - that creates a question in itself, does it not?

I'm not around here much myself. I have a very addictive personality and throw myself into whatever I'm doing 100% - and the internet has proven to be an area that I sometimes must step completely away from lest it take over my life with interesting forums and chats. I love to talk - to think - to share - to hear - but even too much of a good thing is bad!

I hope AJ comes back with more info as well. Or perhaps somebody has a recording of the meeting that could be transcribed. yeah - I know recordings are still off limits. Though ironically - the internet IS made up of recordings! hmmmm

Sophia wrote: "I'm not around here much myself. I have a very addictive personality and throw myself into whatever I'm doing 100% - and the internet has proven to be an area that I sometimes must step completely away from lest it take over my life with interesting forums and chats. I love to talk - to think - to share - to hear - but even too much of a good thing is bad!"
Yeah I hear you, Sophia! I feel the same way. It is good to see you again tho!