Revisiting the our past stories: Learning from the reflections of John E. Lapp

Forrest Moyer, Blooming GlenAt the Mennonite Heritage Center, we preserve and share the heritage of eastern Pennsylvania Mennonites. Some of the history is well-known. Some is forgotten or unclear. Daily we revisit, discover and share stories of life as it was in this Mennonite community, so that we may know where we come from, learn from the past and hold out hope for the future.It has been my privilege to work with the papers of John E. Lapp, a leading bishop in Franconia Conference through the middle of the twentieth century. Lapp was ordained to the ministry in 1933, as a 27-year-old grocer. Four years later he was ordained bishop, becoming one of five men appointed for life to lead and spiritually govern a community of 4,000 Mennonite souls between Allentown and Philadelphia.Lapp’s time as bishop saw greater change in this community than anyone expected. Through three wars, the radical 1960s, and swift advances in technology and suburbanization, Franconia Conference Mennonites became increasingly educated, exposed to new cultures and ideas, and thoroughly integrated with the world around. By 1972, when Franconia Conference restructured and discontinued the office of bishop, there was no longer a covenant discipline requiring distinctive dress or avoidance of worldly attachments. There was a new effort to break down barriers between Mennonites and their neighbors, and decision making in congregations had become more democratic.In 1974, John Lapp shared his memories of authority and discernment in the Mennonite community. His words provide a window into patterns of discernment now largely forgotten. According to Lapp, this is the way things were:

“In the congregations, there were four groups of leaders…1) The ‘bench’ [those who sat behind the long pulpit in our old meetinghouses] – the ordained ministers, bishops and deacons, chosen by lot.2) The trustees, who were selected by an older man at the end of his lifetime of service as a trustee…3) The song leaders. These were usually chosen by the song leaders of the congregation from younger men who were gifted…4) The Sunday School superintendents. These were usually elected at an annual meeting…Congregational decisions were made by the bench. If the bench wanted some broader counsel, they would speak to either the trustees or one of the other groups of leaders…These persons were usually persons of good judgment, so the members of the congregations trusted their decisions……Sunday afternoons [for lay and ordained members alike] were always spent in visiting after a dinner in one of the homes. Four families or even more would be together in one home, and the discussions would be centered around the Word, or on some important question that was before the people. There was much discussion about the eternal things. Questions of relations to the government, doings of the president and governors were talked about. But the Word of God was always the final authority on any question. A reverent attitude toward God was maintained. Personal piety was subjected to the scrutiny of the group and together they became better persons…Out of these visits and special occasions there was much discernment for persons, families and for the community. There was often personal heart-searching resulting from these discussions.”

There is much more to Lapp’s memories than I have room to share, and you are welcome to stop by the Heritage Center and learn more! But even in this small portion, there are notable things:

1) Discernment was communal, relational and anchored in spiritual conversation. Members and leaders shared together about their world and community life while visiting casually in one another’s homes after a good meal.2) Usually, the leaders described were in office for life or at least many years, and remained in the congregation where they were called to office. They were committed to those people and relationships until death. This must have contributed to a sense of trust between the congregation and decision makers.

Criticism could be brought against the old patterns described above. Certainly there were problems. But we benefit by looking back and seeing also the good in old ways. In reading Lapp’s words, we can ponder: What from the past might be relevant to our 21st century journey?