Least Common Denominator of being Anabaptist. [Archive]

ZiSunka

1st May 2007, 10:26 PM

I doubt if you will get a consensus on that Wayne.

Anabaptism is a very wide spectrum of practices. Some Anabaptist churches are very liberal and don't even practice the peace witness. Some are even Calvinistic.

Others are very conservative and even legalistic.

Some preach that salvation is open to all people, by grace through faith in Christ. Others preach that there is no salvation outside their own church and that faith is only one part of salvation, that salvation must be "completed" through rigid adherence to rules.

Some Anabaptists have all the latest technology, some don't allow even modern butter churns.

Some value education, some prohibit education beyond basic 6th grade literacy.

Some are proactive members of their communities, some close themselves off from their surroundings to "keep themselves pure."

Some feel that wearing certain clothing is essential to salvation, others feel that clothing is external and not an indication of a person's soul.

I doubt if there is even one single doctrine that every Anabaptist can agree to.

And in this forum, anyone can use the Anabaptist icon without having to ever have any contact with a single anabaptist in their entire life. Several people who use the icon read a book or website about Anabaptists and claimed the icon as their own without really knowing what it's all about. All that's needed is a desire to acquire the icon and it's handed out like candy around here.

As you are undoubtedly aware, we had this discussion a month or so ago in an attempt to determine who can use the icon to prevent non-anabaptists and pseudo-anabaptists from thwarting the forum and chasing away the people who are at the liberal end of the spectrum. All of Anabaptism should be accepted here, not just the conservatives and the ones who idolize the Amish.

In the past, this forum chased away the wider Anabaptists to make room for the bullies who adhere to conservative practices, even though those people didn't live the anabaptist life themselves. Someone who once drove by a Hutterite community and bought a book about them at a gas station should not be allowed to chase away the liberal anabaptists and Quakers who rightfully belong here. A man who dresses his daughter in a demin sack is not more anabaptist than a man with gender identity issues who has been a life-long Mennonite. But that man with the gender-identity issues was chased away by the man who thinks he's anabaptist because he makes his daughter wear a denim sack to exert control over her.

Instead of focusing on who to exclude, maybe it would be good to examine ways we can be more inclusive of the wider spectrum of anabaptist practice around here.

WayneinMaine

2nd May 2007, 06:11 AM

I would agree that in the 21st century there are many groups that have descended from Anabaptist origins, but some of these have only a historical or ethnic connection to Anabaptism. I find the minimum commonality among most Anabaptists (liberal to conservative) to at least be non-resistance (or pacifism). There are Calvinistic and ecumenical minded members of historically linked Anabaptist churches, but I don't think that necessarily makes them Anabaptists. Can a Presbyterian disagree with everything Calvin wrote and still be a Calvinist?
__________________________________

I think Anabaptism at a minimum is a belief in and commitment to discipleship, church community and selflessness.

I see the original Anabaptists as a Restorationist movement who applied a literalistic hermeneutic to the New Testament scriptures, which they held as the fullest revelation of God, with the words of Jesus at the pinnacle of their scripture hierarchy.

Out of that three distinctives developed.

Nachfolge Christi: Following after Jesus, the essence of Christianity is discipleship, Jesus taught plainly what he wants his people to do and commanded his followers to teach all men to do the same.

Gemeinde (koinonia): The church is a gathering of God's people who function as one body, exhibiting in their separated society the character of the Kingdom of God. The church community is in fact a manifestation of God's kingdom on earth which Christ established at his coming.

Gelassenheit: Selflessness, personal submission to God's will, peaceful resignation and a hopeful expectation of salvation; the renewed mind and patient character of person born of the Spirit whose values and concerns span not a mere lifetime, but eternity.

ZiSunka

2nd May 2007, 07:10 AM

Why the interest in excluding people who should be welcomed in this forum?

Isn't it empty enough?

I guess by buttoning down an tight definition of who is and isn't Anabaptist, the forum would be left to only the most conservative groups, or to the people, whether they are Anabaptist or not, that fancy themsevles to be the rightful owners of the title "Anabaptist."

It would be great if, instead of figuring out who to exclude, we would look at ways to be more inclusive of the entire Anabaptist experience and practice.

It's funny, because the original Anabaptists were considered very liberal and very inclusive. Their doors were open to everyone, sinner and saint alike. Sure there were groups that wanted to filter out the people they didn't like, but by and large, the Anabaptists made room at the foot of the cross for every believer.

It's only in the 19th and 20 centuries that exclusion started to define the Anabaptists. Even among the Amish, the way they conducted business and their devotion to each other defined them as Anabaptists. Now they are so like the world inside they have to define themselves by their clothing, their mode of transportation and their language. They don't go into the world to make disciples, they share the good news only among themselves, and the good news they share comes with conditions they have attached to salvation. All others who don't follow those conditions are excluded and discounted as hopeless sinners. Not what God had in mind for his church, Biblically speaking.

So I guess I would say the lowest common denominator would be that Anabaptists are all people who are saved by grace through faith in Christ, who exhibit compassion and love for each other and to all people, and who conduct themselves in a manner reflective of Christ.

Any other conditions or provings is to add something to the good news that was never intended by Christ.

I would say that true Anabaptists don't focus on defining themselves because they are defined by the teachings of Christ.

Christ didn't filter out the drunks, the prostitutes, the fallen people, the people from foreign religions who came to him in faith. Sure, he didn't just let them sin with impunity or continue to worship their idols, but he didn't toss them away as refuse, he welcomed their faith and rewarded it in ways unknown to the self-righteous.

I would say that if you want to know the Anabaptists, you need to go out and find the people who live in love of the Lord, no matter what they wear or who they associate with.

I would also say the people who profess faith in Christ but live like Pharisees are belying their true master.

WayneinMaine

2nd May 2007, 07:11 AM

I doubt if you will get a consensus on that Wayne.

I suppose you are right, but it would be good to find out what people think.

Anabaptism is a very wide spectrum of practices. Some Anabaptist churches are very liberal and don't even practice the peace witness. Some are even Calvinistic.

Others are very conservative and even legalistic.

So you see Anabaptists as any church with a lineage to the 16th century Anabaptistsd, regardless of what they believe? If someone is not a member of one of these churches can he be Anabaptist? Can a person believe in the Dortrecht Confession or the Schleitheim confession and not be Anabaptist?

I doubt if there is even one single doctrine that every Anabaptist can agree to.
Let's discuss it then.

And in this forum, anyone can use the Anabaptist icon without having to ever have any contact with a single anabaptist in their entire life. Several people who use the icon read a book or website about Anabaptists and claimed the icon as their own without really knowing what it's all about. All that's needed is a desire to acquire the icon and it's handed out like candy around here.

As you are undoubtedly aware, we had this discussion a month or so ago in an attempt to determine who can use the icon to prevent non-anabaptists and pseudo-anabaptists from thwarting the forum and chasing away the people who are at the liberal end of the spectrum. All of Anabaptism should be accepted here, not just the conservatives and the ones who idolize the Amish.
Yes, I read that thread. You proposed eliminating the forum. Why not instead determine what is distinctively Anabaptist (the links Mr Jim provided when starting the group give some indication of what defines Anabaptist) . I know you do;'t like excliusiveness, but CF is divided into a number of exclusive forums, all with distinguishing characteristics. Anabaptist, for the sake of CF forums, certainly have some distinctions.

this forum chased away the wider Anabaptists to make room for the bullies who adhere to conservative practices, even though those people didn't live the anabaptist life themselves. Someone who once drove by a Hutterite community and bought a book about them at a gas station should not be allowed to chase away the liberal anabaptists and Quakers who rightfully belong here. A man who dresses his daughter in a demin sack is not more anabaptist than a man with gender identity issues who has been a life-long Mennonite. But that man with the gender-identity issues was chased away by the man who thinks he's anabaptist because he makes his daughter wear a denim sack to exert control over her.

Hmmm... it actually seems that the conservative minded folks, including the man who started this forum, were the ones driven away, looking at the posts since January.

And by the way, Quakers are not Anabpatists. Our commonality is as "Historic Peace Churches" -both groups refuse miliary service. Historically and doctrinally they are quite different movements and I imagine it is very confusing for people outside Anabaptist circles to see the two associated with each other.

Instead of focusing on who to exclude, maybe it would be good to examine ways we can be more inclusive of the wider spectrum of anabaptist practice around here.
That of course has to include a respect for Conservative Anabpatists and a manner of representing them fairly, or letting them represent themselves without facing ridicule and personal attacks.

BTW, you are interested in credentials.

My wife and I joined a Lancaster Conference Mennonite church in Massachusetts in 1989 (we were old "Radical Evangelicals of the Ron Sider, John Howard Yoder "Politics of Jesus" crowd previously), which we left later when we became novice members of the Bruderhof communities until they split with the Bruderhof. We settled in Lancaster county where we fellowshipped with the River Brethren (our neighbors were OO Amish, OO River Brethren, MC Mennonites, Church of the Brethren and Horning Mennonites -quite a mix of Anabaptist groups!). We returned to New England and attend a conservative Church of the Brethren congregation (our choices are limited here in Maine). I won't detail our friendships and contacts and cooperative efforts with other groups -they are numerous.

So you see, we did not merely drive through a Hutterite community or read a few books. In fact I turned aside an effort to recruit me (by John Oyer and J. C. Wenger) to study church history at Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminary in Elkhart. I told them that I wanted to "do" Anabaptism rather than merely study it, and went off to the Bruderhof instead.

ZiSunka

2nd May 2007, 07:18 AM

ZiSunka

2nd May 2007, 07:41 AM

So you see Anabaptists as any church with a lineage to the 16th century Anabaptistsd, regardless of what they believe? If someone is not a member of one of these churches can he be Anabaptist? Can a person believe in the Dortrecht Confession or the Schleitheim confession and not be Anabaptist?

I see anabaptist as any person who is devoted to living out the teachings of Christ.

Historic confessions don't make an anabaptist an anabaptist. Living the anabaptist life makes an anabaptist an anabaptist.

Yes, I read that thread. You proposed eliminating the forum.

No, I proposed that if the forum could not be open to the totality of true Anabaptist experience without the domination of the pharisaicals and the people pretending to be anabaptists so they could dominate and exclude, then the forum ought to be done away with. Do you understand the difference?

Hmmm... it actually seems that the conservative minded folks, including the man who started this forum, were the ones driven away, looking at the posts since January.

The man who started this forum was a baptist who wished he was catholic or orthodox. He was not anabaptist and would not have passed your test because he was a member of the military, actively carried a gun in his ordinary life for the purpose of shooting anyone who would threaten him, and supported all military actions by the government. At one time he attended a mennonite church, but that was many years ago and he openly refused to attend any other anabaptist churches (although he lives in an area lousy with all kinds of anabaptist churches) because he disagreed with anabaptist doctrine and practice. If that would be an anabaptist by your definition, then it would seem the definition is wide open and should include people who attend historically anabaptist churches that you say aren't really anabaptist. It would seem that if we can't exclude someone who reviles everything anabaptism stands for, then there is no one who can be excluded and your definition, and any discussion of a definition, becomes moot.

And by the way, Quakers are not Anabpatists. Our commonality is as "Historic Peace Churches" -both groups refuse miliary service. Historically and doctrinally they are quite different movements and I imagine it is very confusing for people outside Anabaptist circles to see the two associated with each other.

Duh. Really? :scratch:

That of course has to include a respect for Conservative Anabpatists and a manner of representing them fairly, or letting them represent themselves without facing ridicule and personal attacks.

Yes, and those conservative anabaptists need to respect that their experience with conservative groups may have been different and less harmful that some other people's experiences. They are welcome to express themselves, but not to hurt people who had toxic experiences with the Amish or other groups. Although it's nice to think that no anabaptist could do anything harmful or criminal, in reality, it ain't so. Beating the victim to give support and honor to the criminal will not be premitted.

So you see, we did not merely drive through a Hutterite community or read a few books.

It wasn't you I was refering to. It was BrotherDan who identified himself as an anabaptist after driving by a Hutterite community and buying a book at a nearby gas station. From that, he determined to be a "neo-anabaptist" (his term) who wanted start a new denomination that would return anabaptism to what he determined to be its original state--flatly exclusive to only those people who held him up as the founder and demigod of the faith and who would follow his extensive list of rules. Profession of faith in Christ was not one of his rules. All the rules were totally external and directed at gaining honor from his "disciples." The only reason he didn't follow through with his plan was that he couldn't find people who would worship him the way he expected his followers to do. He was actively travelling around the country looking for a congregation of people who would meet him, instantly make him their pastor, and abandon everything they knew about the Bible and take up his personal interpretations and doctrines.

If you took what I said personally, it's totally your decision because it was not directed at you.

In fact I turned aside an effort to recruit me (by John Oyer and J. C. Wenger) to study church history at Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminary in Elkhart. I told them that I wanted to "do" Anabaptism rather than merely study it, and went off to the Bruderhof instead.

How totally big of you. I'll send you a medal later.

ZiSunka

2nd May 2007, 07:54 AM

I suppose you are right, but it would be good to find out what people think.

Wayne, unless you are open to getting answers you don't agree with without an argument, I doubt you'll get any responses. People in this forum are sick of being argued with and dominated by people who think they know what everyone else should believe.

Most of the people who were beginning to identify with this forum since the big meltdown are lurking, watching to see if the domination is resumed or if the forum will stay open to them, too.

WayneinMaine

2nd May 2007, 08:25 AM

Whether the conservative, German-speaking Anabaptists like it or not, there needs to be room in this forum for the totality of Anabaptists.

I don't find anything in the Bible that says German-speaking people are more holy or that German is the holy language, although the Pharisaical churches certainly seem to believe that.

It's interesting though, that German was the language of the people, and Latin was the language of the exclusionary church those people had come out of. Some Anabaptist groups now define who is and who isn't a true Christian by whether or not the speak the "holy" language of 17th century low German.

My question would be, when did Anabaptists close the doors and start to be exclusionary?
You say there has to be room for the totality of Anabaptists, yet you do not seem especially welcoming of conservative/traditional Anabaptists. If people are interested in Pentecostalism or Eastern Orthodox or Fundamentalism or Baptist or Catholic or Reformed or liberal they can participate in the CF forums for those groups. Someone set up a group to include (exclusively) Anabpatists. There are people whose beliefs do not fit in with the other groups but who share a commonality identified as "Anabaptist". This forum should not exclude Anabpatists in order to be inclusive, don't you agree?

Now, does "Anabaptist" by your definition include Amish, Hutterite, Conservative Mennonites and Conservative Dunkards/Brethren?

ZiSunka

2nd May 2007, 08:48 AM

You say there has to be room for the totality of Anabaptists, yet you do not seem especially welcoming of conservative/traditional Anabaptists. If people are interested in Pentecostalism or Eastern Orthodox or Fundamentalism or Baptist or Catholic or Reformed or liberal they can participate in the CF forums for those groups. Someone set up a group to include (exclusively) Anabpatists. There are people whose beliefs do not fit in with the other groups but who share a commonality identified as "Anabaptist". This forum should not exclude Anabpatists in order to be inclusive, don't you agree?

It shouldn't include anabaptists who demand exclusivity of their own point of view as the only valid Anabaptist point of view.

I agree that the man who attends a baptist church and identifies with catholic/orthodox faith, who doesn't accept anabaptist doctrines and refuses to participate in any of the many anabaptist churches in his location should not be considered an anabaptist for purposes of this forum.

A man who is inventing his own church for the purpose of self-worship but who holds anabaptist churches up for ridicule because they disagree with his personal interpretation of the Bible should not be considered an anabaptist for the purposes of this forum.

A man who once attended an anabaptist fringe-group church consisting entirely of one man and his family, who now doesn't attend any anabaptist church even though there are many in his area because he disagrees with anabaptist doctrine and practice should not be considered an anabaptist for the purposes of this forum.

Any person who discounts and ridicules the larger practice of anabaptism in order to maintain "purity" of only those people who agree with his interpretation of what an anabaptist is, should not be allowed to post harmful, hurtful things in order to maintain an illusion that one anabaptist group is holier than all others or that people who commit and/or condone sexual crimes against women and children within an anabaptist group because they have the reputation of being spiritual and holy people should not be considered to be anabaptist for the purposes of this forum.

I feel like we are going in circles, Wayne.

Now, does "Anabaptist" by your definition include Amish, Hutterite, Conservative Mennonites and Conservative Dunkards/Brethren?

It could. But it would not include members of Amish meetings where open sexual sin and battery against women is allowed. Nor would it include men who consider women and children to be property of men who can then assault and abuse them as they please without fear of censure and punishment from the church community.

It would not include people who, confronted with the reality that this is a widespread occurance in Amish community, victimize the victims by saying that the Amish can do no wrong because they are living out the purist form of Christian faith.

Just because a person attended an anabaptist meeting at one time and holds to the historic confessions of faith doesn't make that person a Christian or an Anabaptist.

ZiSunka

2nd May 2007, 10:39 AM

You win Wayne.

The least common denominator of what makes an anabaptist is anything you say it is.

Good luck and enjoy the forum!

MrJim

2nd May 2007, 07:36 PM

The man who started this forum was a baptist who wished he was catholic or orthodox. He was not anabaptist and would not have passed your test because he was a member of the military, actively carried a gun in his ordinary life for the purpose of shooting anyone who would threaten him, and supported all military actions by the government. At one time he attended a mennonite church, but that was many years ago and he openly refused to attend any other anabaptist churches (although he lives in an area lousy with all kinds of anabaptist churches) because he disagreed with anabaptist doctrine and practice.

:D :wave:

Thanks everyone for giving me credit-actually while I did solicit some mods about this, it just appeared one day.

Yeah, still got a soft spot for Catholicism & Orthodoxy:blush:

To clarify-I've not carried concealed in public for a couple of years now. I do keep my license current. And I've said a few times that I deal with the hypocrisy of keeping a loaded gun for defense of my family but would refuse to serve military service again. We've even talked about this over at MD.

Nope, never ever said I supported all military actions-what I have said is that the gov't is given right by God to use the sword.

Yeah, guilty on the anabaptist church not attending thing. I was a member for about 3 years I guess in the Franklin Conference. Disagreed with all the strife I found in the ones I looked and the one I was a member-it was a lot like the "conversation" going on in this thread.

The anabaptist thing is a slippery critter. But I changed my username and icon and I guess the baptist thing is a better fit. Meeting with the pastor Sunday.

Y'all have fun now, hear? Remember, you can't choose your relatives--brother and sister ;)

WayneinMaine

7th May 2007, 06:38 AM

Joykins

8th May 2007, 01:35 AM

Well, I just stop by because I grew up in a church that was historically Anabaptist although now I guess it's more like regular evangelical, and because I like some of the posters here. If I still went there, I would consider myself Anabaptist by virtue of not being anything else nor having another CF home forum (as it is, I wonder as I wander :) )

One of the historical weak points of Anabaptist movements is that there seems to be a dearth of constructive ways of responding to differences that don't involve splits. I think one historic split was over buttons vs. hook-and-eyes on men's garb (ironic moment--my maiden name actually MEANS hook-and-eye in a dialect of the holy language of German ^_^ )

It would be lovely if this little forum could be large enough to hold people who disagree.

Notrash

8th May 2007, 03:44 AM

I asked this question in a number of different forums, and have received responses from, Mennonites, Beachy Amish, even a Hutterite man as well as people outside of but interested in Anabaptism. The following are the clear "winners", being mentioned most often:

Non-conformity to (separation from) the world
Non-resistance
Separation of Church and State (non-participation in government)
New Testament primacy / literal understanding of NT teachings
Believer's (mature individual) baptismHow these are understood or worked out in the details varies among those who responded, but these seem to be the consensus doctrines that distinguish Anabpatism.

Some other interesting ones mentioned were:

Understanding of church as community/family
Corporate discernment and interpretation of scripture
Submissive spirit
Simple living
Hope, rather than assurance of salvation

Pretty good analysis I think. I work among them as a driver/hauler/trucker. Originally the name implied baptized again with believers baptism (after infant baptism from the catholic church) But now they would be more of a sect of the Baptist's theology with works of conservativism thrown in.

The idea of their interpretation of understanding the 'church' as family/community is rather puzzling. They will I think recognize other plain groups as fellow churchmembers, but do not recognize others saved by grace as easily. At least the group that I work among. It's difficult for them to reach out to help individuals in need unless it is organized, approved and done through their church as a "Work" of helps.

The other one that concerns me is the hope rather than assurance of Salvation and I think/feel this is a result of their feeling of Salvation by keeping not only the words of Christ as guidance and instruction but also turn the words of the apostles into a new letter of the law. In a sense some of them (and other denominational churches) have turned christianity into a judaic type of works religion.

Overall, a good summary.

TG

WayneinMaine

8th May 2007, 05:15 AM

The idea of their interpretation of understanding the 'church' as family/community is rather puzzling. They will I think recognize other plain groups as fellow churchmembers, but do not recognize others saved by grace as easily. At least the group that I work among. It's difficult for them to reach out to help individuals in need unless it is organized, approved and done through their church as a "Work" of helps.
Church as family/community expresses the depth of the meaning of being a church, not the breadth. A member of an Anabaptist church is not likely to experience want, and there is always help at hand. There is no such thing as an Amish nursing home -the church bends over backwards to care for its own. In the extreme are the Hutterites who practice full community of goods as a tangible expression of the kingdom of God among us.
The other one that concerns me is the hope rather than assurance of Salvation and I think/feel this is a result of their feeling of Salvation by keeping not only the words of Christ as guidance and instruction but also turn the words of the apostles into a new letter of the law. In a sense some of them (and other denominational churches) have turned christianity into a judaic type of works religion.
This is a counter to the modern Evangelical Protestant doctrine of "assurance of salvation". Old Order groups see in this doctrine the sort of cheap grace Bonhoffer addressed. They plainly believe that one can stop following Jesus and can therefore lose one's salvation.

WayneinMaine

8th May 2007, 07:08 AM

One of the historical weak points of Anabaptist movements is that there seems to be a dearth of constructive ways of responding to differences that don't involve splits. I think one historic split was over buttons vs. hook-and-eyes on men's garb (ironic moment--my maiden name actually MEANS hook-and-eye in a dialect of the holy language of German ^_^ )
There was never such a split over hooks and eyes.
It would be lovely if this little forum could be large enough to hold people who disagree.
I don't think it is a matter of disagreement that has created tension in this forum. I suspect there's plenty of room for civility in disagreement within the parameters of historic Anabaptism. The real difficulty is in the understanding of what Anabaptism is and is not. A definition of Anabaptism that excludes Old Order and Conservative Mennonites, Amish, Hutterites and Brethren can't be very accurate. I don't think it's fair to these groups (about whom people come to the forum to find information) to represent Anabaptism as something it never has been, as some would like it to be. I don't think its valuable to CF or to have an Anabaptist forum that is just an inclusive place for anyone who does not fit into another forum.

Maybe the moderators will consider refining the description of the group.

There is an inclusive forum on CF: http://www.christianforums.com/f401-whosoever-will-may-come-liberal.html

Joykins

8th May 2007, 09:43 AM

But by your definition above you're excluding the Brethren church I grew up in! :confused:

WayneinMaine

8th May 2007, 09:53 AM

But by your definition above you're excluding the Brethren church I grew up in! :confused:
First off, I haven't given my definition, I posted the tabulated results of a query I made of a number of Anabaptist church members. Secondly, in what area would a Brethren church not accept these common Anabaptist distinctives? I attend a Brethren church and our congregations would certainly agree to the 5 points on which I have found consensus among a diversity of Anabaptist church members (liberal and conservative, BTW).

tulc

8th May 2007, 12:50 PM

Hmmm... it actually seems that the conservative minded folks, including the man who started this forum, were the ones driven away, looking at the posts since January.

Actually this forum was started when the Baptists threw us out of the forum we shared with them. To my knowlege? We never were consulted, just woke up one day in our little ghetto. :(
tulc(that's when most of us got the hint) :cool:

WayneinMaine

8th May 2007, 01:46 PM

Actually this forum was started when the Baptists threw us out of the forum we shared with them. To my knowlege? We never were consulted, just woke up one day in our little ghetto. :(
tulc(that's when most of us got the hint) :cool:
Given how some of the discussions have gone here... I'm not surprised.;) I know Menno changed his ID and went back to the Baptists.

Who set up the intro stuff and stickies? I'm still puzzled at "Mennonite, Anabaptist and Quaker" as the designation for the Anabaptist forum.

tulc

8th May 2007, 02:42 PM

Who set up the intro stuff and stickies? Who evers name is listed in the OP.

I'm still puzzled at "Mennonite, Anabaptist and Quaker" as the designation for the Anabaptist forum.Well the Mennonites and Anabaptist share common theological ancesters and I think they stuck the Quakers in with us because they have a common anti-war history. Like I said, no one actually discussed anything with us, it was just presented as a "best for everyone here" sort of thing.:)
I will add I think it's cool we have the Quakers with us, I just wish it had been handled better. :)
tulc(actually, being whitetrash, I'm kind of used to getting thrown of of places) ;)

WayneinMaine

8th May 2007, 02:54 PM

...I think they stuck the Quakers in with us because they have a common anti-war history... I will add I think it's cool we have the Quakers with us, I just wish it had been handled better.
Then there should be an "Anti War" forum. Was that the issue that got this group started?

I used to be part of a plain dressing group. It's wearying to have people come up addressing me as "thee" and of course asking me about Quakers and Shakers. The association of Quakers with Anabaptists, while "cool" (I know some cool Quakers, I also know atheist Quakers) is a little misleading.

WayneinMaine

8th May 2007, 03:00 PM

So Tulc, what do you think the least common denominator is among Anabaptists?

tulc

8th May 2007, 03:01 PM

Was that the issue that got this group started?

Who knows? Again, no one talked to us.
The association of Quakers with Anabaptists, while "cool" (I know some cool Quakers, I also know atheist Quakers) is a little misleading.
Not to me. :)
tulc(hasn't posted this much in here for quite a while) :cool:

tulc

8th May 2007, 03:07 PM

So Tulc, what do you think the least common denominator is among Anabaptists?
Not sure there is one. Maybe an unwillingness to subject their concience to anothers authority? :scratch:
tulc(just a thought) :)

CelticRose

8th May 2007, 03:10 PM

Hi tulc. Nice to see you round.

tulc

8th May 2007, 03:23 PM

Hi tulc. Nice to see you round.

Nice to be round.
tulc(built for comfort, not for speed!) ;)

Joykins

8th May 2007, 03:36 PM

Fellowship of Grace Brethren Churches has no non-resistance or peace stand and in fact has many active military servicemembers as members.

Floodnut

9th May 2007, 07:56 PM

Notrash

10th May 2007, 01:15 AM

Anabaptist seems to me to be an issue of heritage and identification with groups which share that common heritage. Quakers certainly are not in that group, regardless of whether or not they should be disallowed from a present fellowship. Many people join an anabaptist communion without any sort of history in that heritage, but because they share the burdens for non-conformity, non-swearing of oaths, or non-resistance (and by the way historically anabaptists are not so much anti-war as we are NON-RESISTANT and pro peace).
My mother was Scotch-Irish but her family way back joined the Mennonites. My father's side goes way back to Melchior the Exile who was expelled from Switzerland, and then Melchior the Pilgrim who wandered homeless in Eastern Europe, and finally there was Melchior the Pioneer who came to Pennsylvania.
I was raised in the Mennonite Church in Scottdale till about 1961 or so, when I was 6 or 7 years old, and since them I have been in a Grace Brethren Church (anabaptist with Dunkard roots) and then Church of the Brethren (same roots), and then Charismatic with an emphasis on the Sermon on the Mount essentials of anabaptist ethics, then PRO-WAR pentecostalism, and a few others. Now I am in a "worldly" community church, but I MYSELF am anabaptist and will always be such. It is in my blood, and in my spirit. I will always see my Psyche as founded in Peter Waldo and George Blaurach and Dirk Philips and Menno Simmons, and my father and mother and grandfather and greatgrandfather, and other ancestors like John M. Brenneman and Daniel Brenneman.

We're starting to break ground. :) Several posts have said mouthfuls.

Tulc says: Not sure there is one. Maybe an unwillingness to subject their concience to anothers authority? :scratch:
But the groups I know do subject it to the authority of that church 'group'. They believe what their told that their church believes for the most part.

Floodnut says:Anabaptist seems to me to be an issue of heritage and identification with groups which share that common heritage. Very insightfull.... but then you have sight from the 'inside'.

How often have I heard about not doing this or not doing that because it would offend the older generation or because that's not how my Grandpa used to do it and I wouldnt' want to offend him. One time I asked a fellow why he used a pen then since obviously his Grandpa or one of his ancestors would have used a pencil.
Sometimes this 'offending your brother idea' is simply behaving in a fearful way of that brothers accusations of jelousy or bitterness that things may be going better or easier for the 'offending' brother than they are for the offended brother.

I was just thinking today about weather or not there is a connection between some of the groups anabaptists and the Jews. Not neccessarily theologically speaking, but rather socialogically and consciously speaking. They are a family church. Those groups which share a common idea of creating manmade rules or guidelines are part of their identity. Jews have a similar "church' of common helps and common rules/order.
Not to take the coorelation too far, but it seems to be there sometimes.

Another thing I've noticed is that they seem to disbelieve election and predestination. I guess that falls in with assurance of salvation, Dont' think this is the forum for that debate, but there is some differences between anabaptists and other (calvin, luther,) type of reformers. Some of the diffences I can appreciate, some I find unfounded or of incorrect interpretation biblically.

TG

WayneinMaine

10th May 2007, 07:10 AM

Anabaptist seems to me to be an issue of heritage and identification with groups which share that common heritage.

I find ethnic Mennonites, Amish and Hutterites use the term "Anabaptists" more in reference to either the historical movement of the 16th century or a set of theological / spiritual ideas, and less as a "heritage" that is inherently part of who they are. Mennonite, Hutterite. Amish are all used in reference to a heritage or ethnic identity, quite separate from spiritual beliefs. I know many Mennonites who will say that they are not "Anabaptists" -they do not believe and practice the same strand of Christianity as the Anabaptists and are not interested in doing so -but they are still Mennonite.

I was just thinking today about weather or not there is a connection between some of the groups anabaptists and the Jews. Not neccessarily theologically speaking, but rather socialogically and consciously speaking. They are a family church. Those groups which share a common idea of creating manmade rules or guidelines are part of their identity. Jews have a similar "church' of common helps and common rules/order.
Not to take the coorelation too far, but it seems to be there sometimes.

I think there is a similarity between Jews and Mennonites in the relationship that any ethnic group and subculture has to its religion. The "manmade rules or guidelines" are not arbitrary -they are the stuff of culture and sub-culture. American culture has plenty of "man-made" rules, as do any religious subculture in America.

Another thing I've noticed is that they seem to disbelieve election and predestination. I guess that falls in with assurance of salvation, Dont' think this is the forum for that debate, but there is some differences between anabaptists and other (calvin, luther,) type of reformers. Some of the diffences I can appreciate, some I find unfounded or of incorrect interpretation biblically.

Well of course. Anabaptists are not Protestant. For the most part Christian religious debate outside of Catholic/Orthodox circles in North America seems always to be in the Protestant framework. Some key Protestant doctrines are irrelevent to Anabaptists, as I'm sure some key Anabaptist doctrines, which arre reasonable and biblical in the context of the basic Anabaptist hermeneutic, are weird to Protestants. One could as easily say Baptists don't believe in discipleship or the church or obeying God when viewed from, say, a Hutterite perspective as Baptists are Protestant and many of their ideas are unfounded or of incorrect interpretation biblically.

RenewedbyFaith

10th May 2007, 04:59 PM

I find ethnic Mennonites, Amish and Hutterites use the term "Anabaptists" more in reference to either the historical movement of the 16th century or a set of theological / spiritual ideas, and less as a "heritage" that is inherently part of who they are. Mennonite, Hutterite. Amish are all used in reference to a heritage or ethnic identity, quite separate from spiritual beliefs. I know many Mennonites who will say that they are not "Anabaptists" -they do not believe and practice the same strand of Christianity as the Anabaptists and are not interested in doing so -but they are still Mennonite.

I happen to have been born Amish, to Amish parents who were offspring of Amish parents. Through family history and records, we can trace our heritage back 16 generations, every one of them Amish. Although I do not practice the Amish way any longer, I am and always will be, by heritage and genetics, Amish.

Amish heritage is Anabaptist heritage. The culture, the practice, everything about it was born out of Anabaptism. It is impossible to separate the Amish from the Anabaptists and the Anabaptists from the Amish, just as it would be impossible to separate the blue from the sky or the green from the frog. The Amish are one group of Anabaptists, they know it and embrace it as a lifestyle, a spiritual practice and a heritage.

For you to claim that people who are ethnically Amish or Mennonite can stop being that because they go to a different church or no church at all shows me that you don't have a good understanding of Anabaptism or it's peculiar culture. It's part of the identity of every Amish person whether they practice the faith or not.

If I went to a Presbyterian church or a mosque, I would still be an Anabaptist by heritage and genetics. If you looked at a picture of me, you would see the physical characteristics that are associated with the Amish. If you saw my lifestyle, you would know that I am Amish. The only thing that changed about my parents when they left the community was that they found a new expression of that heritage.

Although my family left the community before I was old enough to be aware of it, I am nonetheless Amish.

That's why there are so many Amish and ex-Amish that identify themselves like, "Rachel Miller Yoder Stolzfus Horst." They want you to understand that being Anabaptist is much more to them than just the church they go to, it is who they are as people and as a people. In fact, in the Mennonite churches I have gone to, if you don't have a long Anabaptist heritage, you aren't really Anabaptist at all. But if you do, you will always be Anabaptist no matter what.

And in fact, my Amish grandparents would say that unless you are Amish, you aren't really Anabaptist at all, you are just pretending to be.

tulc

10th May 2007, 05:07 PM

And in fact, my Amish grandparents would say that unless you are Amish, you aren't really Anabaptist at all, you are just pretending to be.Intersting idea, since the Anabaptist predate the Amish by about 100 years. :)
tulc(just a thought)

WayneinMaine

10th May 2007, 05:40 PM

Intersting idea, since the Anabaptist predate the Amish by about 100 years. :)
tulc(just a thought)

It is.

Many Hutterites abandoned the faith in the 1600's and are known today in Slovakia as the Habaner. They are Catholic -are they Anabaptists? How many generations of not believing and practicing what the Anabaptists believed and practiced does it take before one is not longer Anabaptist? Can one only be born Anabaptist? Would Jacob Ammen consider a Presbyterian whose grandparents were Anabaptists to be one of them?

One can define Anabaptism as a purely ethnic identity, but in the context of a Christian discussion group is it really reasonable to define a group purely by ethnicity? Are Mennonite and other church scholare wrong to identify Anabaptism in theological and historical terms?

tulc

10th May 2007, 05:45 PM

Are Mennonite and other church scholare wrong to identify Anabaptism in theological and historical terms?Nope. Being Anabaptist has nothing to do with what our family believes/or is from. And the early Anabaptists would be appalled at the suggestion. :sorry: (IMHO)
tulc(otherwise why did they get called "anabaptists"?) :)

RenewedbyFaith

10th May 2007, 06:05 PM

Intersting idea, since the Anabaptist predate the Amish by about 100 years. :)
tulc(just a thought)

Yes, but the Amish believe they are the purist form of Anabaptist. They believe that all other Anabaptist groups are far afield from doctrines and precepts that are truly Anabaptist and that they alone know, understand and practice true Anabaptism.

In fact, among themselves, they say that no other group is even really truly Christian. They believe the logical conclusion to a true understanding of the Bible is to live like they do.

My aunt was mortally injured in a car-pedestrian accident. She was in the hospital for a few days before she died, and by some twist of administration, she was put in the same room as the woman who was driving the car that hit her, who had ht a pole after hitting my aunt. The woman who hit her was Beachy, and my aunt was Amish. My aunt was fully clothed in Amish nightwear, with her headcovering and a shawl over her shoulders to protect her modesty. The woman who hit her took off her headcovering and wore a hospital nightgown, no shawl or anything other than covers to protect her modesty. And she cried when the drugs wore off and she felt pain.

At my aunt's funeral, the pastor, my uncle, preached on the evils of being anything but Amish. He called the Beachy woman a harlot and said she might as well be Catholic as Amish. The Amish believe Catholicism is the embodiment of evil, and with every new pope, someone preaches a sermon or writes a pamphlet about how this pope is going to turn out to be the antichrist.

But back to my story. The preacher said that my aunt, dying as she was, stayed faithful to the one true faith, Amish, and that the Beachy woman, for all their plain-dressing, show themselves to be reprobates when they are put to the test by suffering. When she allowed herself to be "uncovered" in the hospital, she might as well have been naked and without proper Amish garb and lifestyle, no one can hope to please the Lord unto salvation. And when she cried in pain, she was showing that God was punishing her for her wicked lifestyle.

He said that no one can be saved outside the Amish church, and that Beachys and other plain people are pretenders, people who wish they were Amish but are unwilling to separate themselves from the world as they properly ought. And by doing so, they miss out on salvation.

Maybe that's just one pastor's opinion, but I have read several booklets my parents had about the evils of the world and how to live in the world is to make alliance with Satan and to kill any hopes of seeing paradise.

Whatever else the Amish believe, they do not believe you or anyone outside their communities, to be their true brethren in Christ, even me if I never return.

WayneinMaine

10th May 2007, 06:05 PM

I happen to have been born Amish, to Amish parents who were offspring of Amish parents. Through family history and records, we can trace our heritage back 16 generations, every one of them Amish. Although I do not practice the Amish way any longer, I am and always will be, by heritage and genetics, Amish.
Amish heritage is Anabaptist heritage. The culture, the practice, everything about it was born out of Anabaptism.

They are not co-equal. Members of Mennonite and Hutterite and Brethren and Amish churches all have claim to being Anabaptist, but not all Anabaptists are Amish, not all Anabaptists are Hutterites, etc.

It is impossible to separate the Amish from the Anabaptists and the Anabaptists from the Amish, just as it would be impossible to separate the blue from the sky or the green from the frog. The Amish are one group of Anabaptists, they know it and embrace it as a lifestyle, a spiritual practice and a heritage.

My point is that not all who are ethnically Amish are spiritually Anabaptist.

For you to claim that people who are ethnically Amish or Mennonite can stop being that because they go to a different church or no church at all shows me that you don't have a good understanding of Anabaptism or it's peculiar culture. It's part of the identity of every Amish person whether they practice the faith or not.

Which culture? There is no Anabaptist culture, there is Amish culture, of which Anabaptism is a part; there is Hutterite culture, of which Anabaptism is the spiritual element, there are Mennonite cultures, in which Anabaptism plays a spiritual part. Anabaptism is not monocultural –it wasn’t in 1527 and is not today.

If I went to a Presbyterian church or a mosque, I would still be an Anabaptist by heritage and genetics. If you looked at a picture of me, you would see the physical characteristics that are associated with the Amish. If you saw my lifestyle, you would know that I am Amish. The only thing that changed about my parents when they left the community was that they found a new expression of that heritage.

Although my family left the community before I was old enough to be aware of it, I am nonetheless Amish.

You are ethnically Amish, the religion of your Amish ancestors was “Anabaptist”. I would not deny that there is an Amish ethnicity that transcends religion. I would deny that being ethnically Amish makes a person automatically spiritually Anabaptist. When your parents (or grandparents) left the Amish church, did the Amish still consider them to be of the same Anabaptists faith as them?

That's why there are so many Amish and ex-Amish that identify themselves like, "Rachel Miller Yoder Stolzfus Horst." They want you to understand that being Anabaptist is much more to them than just the church they go to, it is who they are as people and as a people. In fact, in the Mennonite churches I have gone to, if you don't have a long Anabaptist heritage, you aren't really Anabaptist at all. But if you do, you will always be Anabaptist no matter what.

I still think you are talking about Amish and Mennonite and Hutterite as the ethnic identifiers, not Anabaptist.

And in fact, my Amish grandparents would say that unless you are Amish, you aren't really Anabaptist at all, you are just pretending to be.

They may have said that, would they say you are Anabaptist? And what would they say of the non-Amish Hutterites and Mennonites and Brethren?

RenewedbyFaith

10th May 2007, 06:09 PM

It is.

Would Jacob Ammen consider a Presbyterian whose grandparents were Anabaptists to be one of them?

I have often been told by the elders of my parents' community that I can always return to them, even my children and their children's children, because we will always be rightfully Amish, no matter what.

One can define Anabaptism as a purely ethnic identity, but in the context of a Christian discussion group is it really reasonable to define a group purely by ethnicity? Are Mennonite and other church scholare wrong to identify Anabaptism in theological and historical terms?

No it's not just an ethnic identity, but it's not just a spiritual identity, either.

It is a spiritual identity, an ethnic identity, a heritage identity, and a personal identity, individually and altogether. It's a lot more complex that you are understanding it to be.

RenewedbyFaith

10th May 2007, 06:13 PM

Which culture? There is no Anabaptist culture, there is Amish culture, of which Anabaptism is a part; there is Hutterite culture, of which Anabaptism is the spiritual element, there are Mennonite cultures, in which Anabaptism plays a spiritual part. Anabaptism is not monocultural –it wasn’t in 1527 and is not today.

There is an over-reaching culture of Anabaptism that transcends sect or denomination, but it is practiced in a variety of expressions.

But, clearly you have your mind made up and it's a waste of time to try to educate you or persuade you. I've abstained from this forum for many months because of vain and selfish agendas like this one.

God bless you in your search for whatever answer it is that you want everyone to believe in lieu of reality!

WayneinMaine

10th May 2007, 06:24 PM

Yes, but the Amish believe they are the purist form of Anabaptist.

So do some Mennonite, notably the Reformed Mennonites, and of course so do some Hutterites, who probably come closest to being true in their claim!

In fact, among themselves, they say that no other group is even really truly Christian. They believe the logical conclusion to a true understanding of the Bible is to live like they do.
Unless they were been insincere, the Amish I have gotten to know never pressed that claim.

...Maybe that's just one pastor's opinion, but I have read several booklets my parents had about the evils of the world and how to live in the world is to make alliance with Satan and to kill any hopes of seeing paradise.
That may be the opinion of several pastors. I don't think it characterizes the whole of the Amish church any more than a Presbyterian pastor holding the same opinion of his faith estalishes that this is a doctrine of Presbyterianism.

Whatever else the Amish believe, they do not believe you or anyone outside their communities, to be their true brethren in Christ, even me if I never return.

Again, based on your experience, that is how you believe, based on my experience with different Amish in differetn circumstances than yours, that is not how I see it.

RenewedbyFaith

10th May 2007, 07:13 PM

Unless they were been insincere, the Amish I have gotten to know never pressed that claim.

You do realize that the Amish are not themselves around outsiders and they say and do things differently when outsiders are around. If you want to know who the Amish really are, you have to be one of them for several decades, and even then they put on a different face for non-family members. And even then, the Amish in Lancaster put on a different face for family members from Ohio than they do for family members from PA.

You can know some Amish people for many years without knowing any Amish people at all.

RenewedbyFaith

10th May 2007, 07:15 PM

Again, based on your experience, that is how you believe, based on my experience with different Amish in differetn circumstances than yours, that is not how I see it.

It's based on their doctrine and teachings. You have to get to know them very well before they will admit they feel that way, and even then they will not admit it to people outside their own community. What the Amish really believe stays among the Amish.

RenewedbyFaith

10th May 2007, 07:19 PM

That may be the opinion of several pastors. I don't think it characterizes the whole of the Amish church any more than a Presbyterian pastor holding the same opinion of his faith estalishes that this is a doctrine of Presbyterianism.

You are completely misunderstanding the Amish. There is no "Amish church" in which every Amish person is a member, like every Presbyterian is a member of the Presbyterian church. Each Amish community is independent and determines its own doctrine, standards, teachings, governance and precepts. Being a member of one community does not entitle a person to be a member of every Amish community. Even people born Amish may have to go through a proving period in order to be accepted by another community.

Even if you were completely accepted by one Amish community and knew everything about who they are and what they believe, it is going to be completely different from what the next Amish community believes. No one person can claim to know what the Amish believe from knowing one or several Amish communities.

WayneinMaine

10th May 2007, 07:55 PM

You are completely misunderstanding the Amish. There is no "Amish church" in which every Amish person is a member, like every Presbyterian is a member of the Presbyterian church.
I've been making that point for a long time. I'm using the term "church" in a broader sense. If you prefer: "Mennonite churches, Amish churches, Hutterite churches".

WayneinMaine

10th May 2007, 08:12 PM

There is an over-reaching culture of Anabaptism that transcends sect or denomination, but it is practiced in a variety of expressions.

But, clearly you have your mind made up and it's a waste of time to try to educate you or persuade you. I've abstained from this forum for many months because of vain and selfish agendas like this one.

God bless you in your search for whatever answer it is that you want everyone to believe in lieu of reality!

Why are you so hostile to me?

Is your point that only ethnic/genetic Amish (no matter what they believe) are Anabaptists? If so I will find a dozen Hutterites and Mennonites (ethnic and non-ethnic) who disagree? Never once in answer to my queries about what constitutes the irreducible doctrines of Anabaptism has anyone suggested ethnicity.

Are you suggesting that we can only discuss Anabaptism in terms of ethnic Amish?

Why the hostility to my query and my discussion points?

What is your point?

RenewedbyFaith

10th May 2007, 08:21 PM

Why are you so hostile to me?

I'm not the least bit hostile to you. Why do you interpret my post as hostile? :confused:

If by hostility you mean "why do you disagree with me?" then the only thing I can say is, I have to tell the truth about what I know. Although you may be knowledgable for a non-Amish, you cannot begin to know or speak for the Amish. It doesn't mean you don't know anything, it just means you don't know everything. Nor do I know everything. By listening to each other's viewpoints and experiences, we both end up knowing more than we did before.

Is your point that only ethnic/genetic Amish (no matter waht they believe) are Anabaptists? If so I will find a dozen Hutterites and Mennonites (ethnic and non-ethnic) who disagree? Never once in answer to my queries about what constitutes the irreducible doctrines of Anabaptism has anyone suggested ethnicity.

No, and I didn't say that one has to be ethnically Anabaptist to be Anabaptist, but Anabaptist can be an ethnicity. That's all I said.

It's certainly possible to become Anabaptist by conviction and conversion and it happens all the time. That's one way to be Anabaptist, but not the only way. A person doesn't have to have "Anabaptist genes" but some Anabaptists do.

Are you suggesting that we can only discuss Anabaptism in terms of ethnic Amish?

No, but I have a unique perspective on the ethnically Amish, which I am sharing here. Since this is a discussion thread concerning, in part, statements that were made about the Amish, I am contributing about the Amish to this thread. I'm contributing what I know to the discussion, just as you are contributing what you know.

Why the hostility to my query and my discussion points?

I feel no hostility toward you or your discussion points and have exhibited no hostility. Disagreeing is not hostility.

It seems to me that you are reacting to something you are inferring into my posts, something that was never intended or expressed. By giving information that I received first hand through experience, I am in no way negating the validity of information you received first hand through experience.

tulc

10th May 2007, 08:25 PM

What the Amish really believe stays among the Amish.

LOL! They sound like a theological Las Vegas! :D
tulc(sorry, these things just slip out before I can stop them) :sorry:

RenewedbyFaith

10th May 2007, 08:30 PM

LOL! They sound like a theological Las Vegas! :D
tulc(sorry, these things just slip out before I can stop them) :sorry:

LOL!:D

Trust me, you are a lot more likely to find out what a married man did on a weekend in Vegas than you are to find out what happens inside the Amish community! ^_^ Most banks would like to have vaults as impenetrable as the divide between Amish and Englishers!

Anna Beth (The things that just slip out of tulc are usually very clever and true!)

WayneinMaine

10th May 2007, 08:47 PM

I'm not the least bit hostile to you. Why do you interpret my post as hostile? :confused:
This was a friendly thing to say?:
But, clearly you have your mind made up and it's a waste of time to try to educate you or persuade you. I've abstained from this forum for many months because of vain and selfish agendas like this one.
God bless you in your search for whatever answer it is that you want everyone to believe in lieu of reality!

If by hostility you mean "why do you disagree with me?" then the only thing I can say is, I have to tell the truth about what I know. Although you may be knowledgable for a non-Amish, you cannot begin to know or speak for the Amish. It doesn't mean you don't know anything, it just means you don't know everything. Nor do I know everything. By listening to each other's viewpoints and experiences, we both end up knowing more than we did before.

You are not the only Amish to put pen to paper. You are relating your persopective, I have different experiences and I know people (Amish and Ex-Amish) who report differently from you.

Read John Hostetler, read Peter Hoover, read Elmo Stoll, they are every bit as ethnically "Anabaptist" as you are and their opinions about what constitutes Anabaprtism (and about the Amish) is different from yours.

Is your point that only ethnic/genetic Amish (no matter waht they believe) are Anabaptists? If so I will find a dozen Hutterites and Mennonites (ethnic and non-ethnic) who disagree? Never once in answer to my queries about what constitutes the irreducible doctrines of Anabaptism has anyone suggested ethnicity.

No, and I didn't say that one has to be ethnically Anabaptist to be Anabaptist, but Anabaptist can be an ethnicity. That's all I said.

Then I add that to the results of my query.

It's certainly possible to become Anabaptist by conviction and conversion and it happens all the time. That's one way to be Anabaptist, but not the only way. A person doesn't have to have "Anabaptist genes" but some Anabaptists do.

I appreciate that acknowledgement. Maybe we can discuss what constitutes the Anabaptism that one converts to. That's what I'm interested in.

...I have a unique perspective on the ethnically Amish, which I am sharing here. Since this is a discussion thread concerning, in part, statements that were made about the Amish, I am contributing about the Amish to this thread. I'm contributing what I know to the discussion, just as you are contributing what you know.

I appreciate your perspective within its reach -that is, it is your experience with a limited set of Amish churches nd does not represent all Amish churches or individuals, nor does it represent Anabaptism in the broader sense of the term.

RenewedbyFaith

10th May 2007, 09:40 PM

Good night Wayne.

I think you might be too tired to have a civil discussion tonight.:yawn:

If I thought you were making a serious query, I would continue to participate in this discussion, but it is apparent that you have your heart set on being right, regardless of what others contribute. You say you want input, but you've done nothing but argue with the people who have given you input. And when people don't just accept what these mysterious "other" Anabaptists say from unknown sources, you get hostile. That's a sign of a sleepy person. :sleep:

Good night and don't let the bedbugs bite!

WayneinMaine

11th May 2007, 06:01 AM

I still don't understand your slam. I recognize Amish ethnicity, I do not recognize that only those with Amish or Mennonite "blood" are Anabaptists, or that Anabaptist spirituality is so intrinsically linked to ethnicity that only those with that heritage know anything about Anabpatism.

I'm a little surprised you don't at least know John Hostetler. He was a Mennonite sociologist; his parents left the Amish when he was you. Peter Hoover is a Mennonite (from a horse and buggy group) who authored "The Secret of the Strength", Elmo Stoll was an Amish bishop in the Aylmer Ontario district and editor of "Family Life" until he started "the Christian Community" in Tennessee.

Joykins

11th May 2007, 10:10 AM

Is it actually harder to become Amish than it is to become Jewish :confused: :eek:

RenewedbyFaith

11th May 2007, 09:37 PM

I still don't understand your slam.

There was no slam.

I recognize Amish ethnicity, I do not recognize that only those with Amish or Mennonite "blood" are Anabaptists, or that Anabaptist spirituality is so intrinsically linked to ethnicity that only those with that heritage know anything about Anabpatism.

I never said that.

I'm a little surprised you don't at least know John Hostetler. He was a Mennonite sociologist; his parents left the Amish when he was you. Peter Hoover is a Mennonite (from a horse and buggy group) who authored "The Secret of the Strength", Elmo Stoll was an Amish bishop in the Aylmer Ontario district and editor of "Family Life" until he started "the Christian Community" in Tennessee.

I know about Hostetler. Everyone knows about Hostetler. Everyone knows about Hoover and Stoll, too. So what? Although they wrote books about the Amish, they don't necessarily speak for every Amish person.

RenewedbyFaith

11th May 2007, 09:49 PM

Is it actually harder to become Amish than it is to become Jewish :confused: :eek:

I don't know what it takes to become Jewish, so I can't really answer that.

To become Amish is no easy task. Even if you are willing to give up everything to join them, there is still a proving period that can last 10 years or more before you are accepted as a member, and even then you will always be considered "that Englisher" who joined the community, and your children and children's children will always be viewed as being Englisher.

A friend of mine tried to join about 10 years ago. He had to give up his job, give up his parents, give up finishing high school, give up his car, give up almost everything he owned.

He's still waiting to complete his proving period. He can't marry, be a member of the church or a full member of the community until he is approved, and it doesn't look like he ever will be. Several times he has met with the elders and asked for baptism, and every time they say the same thing, not yet, maybe next year.

He speculates that the reason he hasn't been baptized yet is because he would be eligible to marry afterwards, and none of the men in the community want their daughter to be the one to marry an Englisher.

Joykins

11th May 2007, 11:08 PM

Conversion to Judaism, especially Orthodox, is similarly difficult. It takes years of study, immersion in the community, active perseverance (conversions are not encouraged), and appearance before a religious court. It's a little easier to convert to Reform, but not all Jews accept Reform conversions as valid. I know 2 who have converted and it took about 3 years for each of them, that was Reform, and both of them were marrying Jewish people.

RenewedbyFaith

13th May 2007, 04:44 PM

It does sound similar.

The Amish do not encourage conversions, either and will actively discourage people and can become downright exclusionary if a person persists in attempting to approach them after it has been determined that the community would not welcome them.

It is impossible for a non-Amish person to marry an Amish person. The Amish person would have to leave the community in order for that to happen.

An older Amish man I know was seriously injured in a farming accident when he was a young man and had to spend many weeks in a nearby hospital. He met a young student nurse there, and because she was assigned to his care and they were together a great deal over a long period of time, they got to know each other and fell in love.

After the Amish man was released from the hospital, he would walk two miles into the nearest town to use the pay phone to call the student nurse, and they arranged to meet several times in places he wouldn't be known. After many months, they wanted to get married. He went to the elders of his community, as a man has to do in order to get permission to marry, and told them that she was willing to convert and learn to live as an Amish woman. The elders forbid the marriage because the woman had an education and they didn't want her talking to the Amish woman about what life was like outside the community because they feared it would mean the women would want to leave the community and get educations and jobs for themselves.

Ultimately he realized that he had no choice but to break off the relationship, since she could not join him in his world and with his fifth-grade education, he knew he could never get a job in her world.

He lost the love of his life because the elders feared an outsider would impact the community.

Notrash

13th May 2007, 06:30 PM

As working among Amish Mennonite cultures as a driver/transporter, I also have some re pore with them and insights. I was just thinking today about the similarities between their religion and that of the Jew or Judaism. Both have some focus on family and heritage as their religion. A Mennonite man/woman can probably go back 5-7 generations about his Mennonite heritage. But he might not be able to quote John 3:16 or other common verses. Some of them are biblically versed, but the majority are not.
GA

RenewedbyFaith

13th May 2007, 09:15 PM

I've found that's true with many ethnic Amish and Mennonites I know. Their heritage is very important to them, but they may not understand the spiritual roots of that heritage or be able to relate it to their lives today.

Others are very learned about the Bible and their spirituality is as important to them as their heritage.

It's hard to separate Anabaptists from their heritage. It's even important to those who weren't born Anabaptist. It sort of becomes their adopted heritage. Many people can keenly feel the injustice when they read Martyr's Mirror and identify with the persecutions, even if they never experience it themselves.

Floodnut

14th May 2007, 02:42 PM

If ya wanna get technical, ANABAPTIST just means someone who rejects a previous baptism (usually their own infant baptism as a papist), and submits to a subsequent baptism in another Christian group.

But traditionally, historically in most of the literature on the subject and amongst groups that are considered "anabaptist," the term is used to refer to those groups or doctrines which originated with the German Brethren, or with the Mennonites. I would say that some groups that have anabaptist roots are not really anabaptist any longer as to their particular doctrinal and ethical positions.
The usual anabaptist position on the incarnation is called by most protestants, "the heresy of the anabaptists," (That Mary contributed NOTHING to the substance of Christ). Yet many mainline groups with anabapitst roots have no idea what is involved in this controversy. The old position of all anabaptists was NEVER pacifism or an anti-War attitude, as much as it was Non-Resistance, a demeanor and attitude apparently not so important in some here who see themselves as anabaptist.
Regardless of roots or origin and culture and ethicity, can a black person from Africa or a Chinese person be anabaptist?
What is the essence, the shared value that would make a new believer, a convert out of Islam or Taoism an anabaptist?

RenewedbyFaith

14th May 2007, 05:17 PM

That's a point I had thought about making, too, Floodnut. An Anabaptist literally is a person who was re-baptized out of Catholicism by a believer's baptism.

In that sense, anyone who was once Catholic can be an Anabaptist.

What is the essence, the shared value that would make a new believer, a convert out of Islam or Taoism an anabaptist?

I don't think anyone can say there is a common or shared value among all Anabaptists. American Anabaptism is completely different than world Anabaptism.

One of the values that Wayne brought up is simple living, but European Anabaptists do not necessarily feel a commitment to simple living. That's one of the things that drove the Amish to America. They were being persecuted by their non-Amish Anabaptist brethren for maintaining a simple lifestyle for spiritual reasons.

And simple is a relative term, anyway. Is a three bedroom home more or less Anabaptist than a shack. Is a leather wallet more or less spiritual than a plastic bag for a wallet? Is chicken more or less spiritual than beans? These are the things people tend to obsess over when they talk about simple living, but it's really all just a matter of degrees. To a Caribbean Anabaptist, a three bedroom house is a luxury, but to an America Anabaptist, a three bedroom house is simple living. To an American Anabaptist, prime rib is a rich meal, but to an African Anabaptist, chicken is a rich meal. In Haiti, cat stew is served at celebrations or when an honored guest comes to visit. Around here, it's unthinkable to eat a house pet. Who really knows what simple living really is?

The Mennonites of Russia do not universally hold to the peace witness. Many Mennonites served in the Russian army because as religious people, most jobs were closed to them under the communists. They then reasoned that they were being servants of God by serving in the army of the God-annointed government and that it was better to serve in the army than to let the faith die out through starvation.

In China, where there is no choice but to serve in the military if you are called, Anabaptists compartmentalize their lives into "soul life" and " body life." The body serves in the army rather than be executed or die in a political prison, but the soul maintains a commitment to peace.

I personally wonder how many of us American Anabaptists do more than lip service to the fundamentals Wayne picked out anyway.

Do any of us practice all of them, is there any body of Anabaptists anywhere than adheres to their adamant practice, and if not, are we really hypocritical when we say, "You can't be an Anabaptist because you don't subscribe to this list of fundamental denominators?

I guess my point is that there is a wide spectrum of theological and spiritual doctrines among the Anabaptist groups. No list can capture what it means to be Anabaptist anymore than a list can capture what it means to human. It's too big of a picture to itemize in a bulleted list.

RenewedbyFaith

14th May 2007, 05:45 PM

I really question whether someone can be considered Anabaptist if they refuse to participate in the local Anabaptist church, if one is available.

A person can't thumb their nose at the body of Anabaptist believers and still think they are Anabaptist can they?

WayneinMaine

14th May 2007, 09:27 PM

I personally wonder how many of us American Anabaptists do more than lip service to the fundamentals Wayne picked out anyway.

Do any of us practice all of them, is there any body of Anabaptists anywhere than adheres to their adamant practice, and if not, are we really hypocritical when we say, "You can't be an Anabaptist because you don't subscribe to this list of fundamental denominators?

I guess my point is that there is a wide spectrum of theological and spiritual doctrines among the Anabaptist groups. No list can capture what it means to be Anabaptist anymore than a list can capture what it means to human. It's too big of a picture to itemize in a bulleted list.

So you seem to be saying now that Anabaptism is simply a designation for any one of a number of churches with a common historic origin, and nothing else. That would suggest that to leave one of those churches one is no longer "Anabaptist" even if they were born Hutterite or Mennonite or...

The list I gave is not my own, by the way, it was compiles from a couple dozen responses to the same question I asked here. The secend set were the "also rans", simple living was only mentioned by a couple people. The primary distinctives were:

Non-conformity to (separation from) the world
Non-resistance
Separation of Church and State (non-participation in government)
New Testament primacy / literal understanding of NT teachings
Believer's (mature individual) baptismI guess I will go on now and ask on thos same forum if someone can be considered Anabaptist and not hold to these.

I really question whether someone can be considered Anabaptist if they refuse to participate in the local Anabaptist church, if one is available.

A person can't thumb their nose at the body of Anabaptist believers and still think they are Anabaptist can they?

That all depends. I'm sufficiently committed to the ideas listed above as biblical elements of what God desires of us that I could not be comfortable in an assembly of military families who practice infant baptism, even if they call themselves "Mennonite" or have names like Yoder and Mast and Stoltzfus.

Floodnut

14th May 2007, 10:08 PM

RenewedbyFaith

14th May 2007, 11:18 PM

So you seem to be saying now that Anabaptism is simply a designation for any one of a number of churches with a common historic origin, and nothing else. That would suggest that to leave one of those churches one is no longer "Anabaptist" even if they were born Hutterite or Mennonite or...

I'm always amazed by your ability to read something that isn't there.

You have an ability to twist what's been said into what you want to hear.

The list I gave is not my own, by the way, it was compiles from a couple dozen responses to the same question I asked here.

Please provide the source(s). Who was included in your research and where was this research done. Do you think a couple dozen responses are enough to come up with an absolute list?

The secend set were the "also rans", simple living was only mentioned by a couple people. The primary distinctives were:

Non-conformity to (separation from) the world
Non-resistance
Separation of Church and State (non-participation in government)
New Testament primacy / literal understanding of NT teachings
Believer's (mature individual) baptismI guess I will go on now and ask on thos same forum if someone can be considered Anabaptist and not hold to these.

We really need to know what forum that is. I wonder how fair it is for people in another forum to be deciding things that may become definitions and policies in this forum. It may well be that you asked one dozen traditionalists, ignoring the Anabaptists who have left tradition but are nonetheless Anabaptist. I'm not sure that outsiders should have any say in what happens here.

Also, non-participation in government is hardly a practice among all Anabaptists. The very separatist ones, yes, but not the more mainstream ones. Even the Amish vote and participate in local government when they feel they need to. In the 2004 general election in Ohio, over 1000 Amish registered to vote and voted on the marriage amendment. And around here, the Amish participate in zoning meetings whenever a proposed change abuts their land or affects their business. They even participate in town meetings when the agenda has something they are interested in.

And I was wondering if you could give us an example of non-conformity (separation) from the world and how you practice that in real life.

That all depends. I'm sufficiently committed to the ideas listed above as biblical elements of what God desires of us that I could not be comfortable in an assembly of military families who practice infant baptism, even if they call themselves "Mennonite" or have names like Yoder and Mast and Stoltzfus.

I'm not sure, but I didn't realize this thread was about what YOU are comfortable with. I thought it was about OUR (the posters in this forum) find to be the irreducible foundations of Anabaptist doctrine. I hope you are not using us to settle some kind of argument in that other forum or baiting us to get involved in someone else's fight.

It's very interesting that your list doesn't even mention saving faith in Jesus Christ. Is that at all necessary to Anabaptism, or has He been replaced by adherence to doctrines?

WayneinMaine

15th May 2007, 06:42 AM

good list.
Non-conformity can be applied in any culture. And in various cultures it may be applied differently. But there is a world and the New Testament teaches that we are not to be conformed to it. A former Taoist or Muslim could obey this principle, but it would look different than non-conformity in America.
There are certainly many modernist Mennonites who do not hold to the supremacy of the NT and they would admit as much. They would also understand that they are anabaptist in roots only, not in present belief and practice.

Though the list was not generated by asking what 16'th and 17'th century Anabaptists believed, I think it reflects the early Anabapatist confessions of faith. These are the ideas that separated the Mennonites, Amish, Hutterites and Brethren in Europe, Russia, and North America from Protestantism in particular up until the late 19th century. Many Mennonites and Brethren, even groups that are self-identified as conservative Anabapatists, seem to have shifted tracks in the early 20'th century, adopting Evangelical Protestantism and following its divisions and trends into the modern era.

Floodnut

15th May 2007, 03:38 PM

renewedbyfaith really cannot speak for the AMISH. She can only speak for the groups she has been with -under particular bishops, and she can speak for herself, but she cannot speak for the Amish. She herself has made it clear that every local congregation is independent and secretive (in spite of their avowed opposition to secret societies). Since each congregation is unique, then some could be raving patriotic militarists and we wouldn't know for sure. But we all know that such a group could be "anabaptist," if we accept danjudge as representing some brand of anabaptist (Muensterites). But we are not pursuing the question in this thread, WHAT IS AN AMISH, rather the question is what is the fundamental distinctive or set of distinctives that constitutes the essence of anabaptist belief and practice?

tulc

15th May 2007, 03:50 PM

RenewedbyFaith is a sister, not a brother :sorry:
tulc(just a thought) :)

WayneinMaine

15th May 2007, 04:42 PM

renewedbyfaith really cannot speak for the AMISH. He can only speak for the groups he has been with -under particular bishops, and he can speak for himself, but he cannot speak for the Amish. He himself has made it clear that every local congregation is independent and secretive (in spite of their avowed opposition to secret societies). Since each congregation is unique, then some could be raving patriotic militarists and he wouldn't know for sure. But we all know that such a group could be "anabaptist," if we accept danjudge as representing some brand of anabaptist (Muensterites). But we are not pursuing the question in this thread, WHAT IS AN AMISH, rather the question is what is the fundamental distinctive or set of distinctives that constitutes the essence of anabaptist belief and practice?
I'm not touching, DAN JUDGE's posts!

I don't know where he gets his material from but it's pretty imaginative and it's a far cry from anything called "Anabaptist" I've ever run into.

RenewedbyFaith

15th May 2007, 10:10 PM

RenewedbyFaith is a sister, not a brother :sorry:
tulc(just a thought) :)

Thanks tulc. :)

RenewedbyFaith

15th May 2007, 10:20 PM

Though the list was not generated by asking what 16'th and 17'th century Anabaptists believed, I think it reflects the early Anabapatist confessions of faith. These are the ideas that separated the Mennonites, Amish, Hutterites and Brethren in Europe, Russia, and North America from Protestantism in particular up until the late 19th century. Many Mennonites and Brethren, even groups that are self-identified as conservative Anabapatists, seem to have shifted tracks in the early 20'th century, adopting Evangelical Protestantism and following its divisions and trends into the modern era.

True.

Some established Anabaptist groups have adopted evangelical modernism. But that in itself is an attribute of Anabaptism.

Conservative Anabaptism is no more the "true" or "original" Anabaptism than mainstream Anabaptism is. Anabaptism isn't one line unbroken in thought, teaching, doctrine or theology. From the very beginning, there were many forms and practices of Anabaptism. Even the earliest Anabaptists didn't agree on everything.

So it's impossible for anyone to hold up any group and say, "These are the true Anabaptists in its purest form." Amish, Hutterite, Moravian, they have all been produced out of factionalism, not out of unity. Anabaptism is splintered and has been from the foundations of the faith.

Because of that, it's never going to happen that every Anabaptist can agree on everything unless you systematically exclude those who disagree you with, which is exactly how the Amish, Hutterites, etc, came into being.

RenewedbyFaith

15th May 2007, 10:45 PM

CelticRose

15th May 2007, 10:59 PM

That is an excellent point RenewedbyFaith. Not being Anabaptist myself I already feel excluded yet this forum is meant for those of my denomination as well. I thought being Christian was more important than the denomination we adhere to, or were born into . Perhaps the question should have been the Least common denominator of being a Christian? Just a thought.

RenewedbyFaith

15th May 2007, 11:26 PM

Excellent thought Celtic!

When the early Anabaptists were writing their confessions of faith, they weren't defining what it meant to be Anabaptist, they were defining what it meant to be Christian.

All this endless arguing about who is and who isn't, who should be and who shouldn't, the truist form of this and that, it all doesn't amount to a heap of beans. It's just creating more divisions and accentuating the divisions and making this little forum more exclusionary.

Did you ever hear the joke about the man who died and went to heaven and Jesus showed him all around the place, introducing him to all the people they met. The man and Jesus walked over a hill and in the distance, they saw a village. The man asked Jesus who lived in that village and Jesus said, "Those are the Mennonites. They think they are the only people here."

Do we really think that only the "true" Anabaptists as defined by some outside group's definition should be used as the litmus test of who should be allowed to post here...

Or do you think that we as a group should decide to throw open the doors to this forum and invite in every Anabaptist, every Quaker, and everyone else who promises to behave themselves?

CelticRose

16th May 2007, 02:20 AM

Christ was not exclusive. He included many in his inner cirlce others excluded. shrugs. I would not exclude any who wished to come, but I'm Quaker & we sorta have a history that way.

CelticRose

16th May 2007, 02:23 AM

Oh, & I've heard the joke, only it was the Catholics who thought they had heaven to themselves. We need to be able to laugh a little at ourselves. Sometimes we are very silly.

WayneinMaine

16th May 2007, 05:04 AM

There are 21 distinct subgroups in CF’s Congregations section. These groups are divided up by broad denominational or theological categories. I know that Anabaptist was part of the Baptist group at one time, if it does not suit for folks to post in a distinctly Anabaptist subgroup they can post in the original Baptist group or find a groups more suitable or explicitly open. There area groups suitable for the sort of open-door ecumenism you advocate:
Whosoever Will, May Come - Liberal (http://www.christianforums.com/f401-whosoever-will-may-come-liberal.html), The forum for liberal christians of all denominations.
Deeper Fellowship (http://www.christianforums.com/f715-deeper-fellowship.html),A Christians-only fellowship area for deeper general Christian sharing.
Non-denominational (http://www.christianforums.com/f11-non-denominational.html), The forum for non-denominational Christians

I am not the moderator of this forum. I have simply asked some questions and tried to engage in some discussion about what Anabaptist means. Such a discussion might be useful in refining what the discussion group is all about –something other than Catholicism, Presbyterianism, Baptists or Fundamentalists. Renewed and Celtic are the second and third discussion participants who do not want any definition of Anabaptism that excludes anyone. There are really just two reasonable courses to follow: people who don’t want to participate in a narrowly defined group should participate in a broader group or another group should be formed that has the ecumenical openness that can’t be found in any other group. There really is not good reason to avoid discussion of historic Anabaptism as a distinct theology or branch of Christianity just because it is “exclusive” All forums in CF are defined to exclude someone so as to channel discussion along common interests and lines of understanding.

WayneinMaine

16th May 2007, 07:22 AM

Some established Anabaptist groups have adopted evangelical modernism. But that in itself is an attribute of Anabaptism.
Could you explain?
Conservative Anabaptism is no more the "true" or "original" Anabaptism than mainstream Anabaptism is. Anabaptism isn't one line unbroken in thought, teaching, doctrine or theology. From the very beginning, there were many forms and practices of Anabaptism. Even the earliest Anabaptists didn't agree on everything.
I would agree that many groups that call themselves "conservative Anabaptists" would not even welcome Menno Simons in their pulpit for his "liberalism" and unorthodoxy. But conservative in the sense of resisting change has validity when you are talking about a group's historic origins. Your Amish grandparents can make a legitimate charge against those calling themselves Anabaptist who have abandoned certain fundamentals that their ancestors in the 16th and 17th century held to and died for. Some Old Order groups have preserved that spiritual heritage, not accepting changes that others have. The wide diversity of beliefs ranging from Protestant Fundamentalism to Liturgical neo-catholicism is much more modern in origin, it does not stem from the diversity of beliefs and practices of the early Anabaptists who were much narrower in their range of practices and who had more common fundamental spiritual outlook than their modern descendents.
So it's impossible for anyone to hold up any group and say, "These are the true Anabaptists in its purest form." Amish, Hutterite, Moravian, they have all been produced out of factionalism, not out of unity. Anabaptism is splintered and has been from the foundations of the faith.
The question is not "Who are the true Anabaptists in its purest form?" it is, "What are the common, core ideas that make a group Anabaptist? What threads of belief and practice start at Zurich in 1525 and continue to distinguish Anabaptist to the present?".
Because of that, it's never going to happen that every Anabaptist can agree on everything unless you systematically exclude those who disagree you with, which is exactly how the Amish, Hutterites, etc, came into being.
Of course every Anabaptist won't agree on everything. But most who claim to be Anabaptist agree on some things. What are those somethings?

WayneinMaine

16th May 2007, 07:37 AM

Please provide the source(s). Who was included in your research and where was this research done. Do you think a couple dozen responses are enough to come up with an absolute list?

We really need to know what forum that is.

Here are links to a couple other open discussion groups where this was discussed:

http://mennodiscuss.com/viewtopic.php?p=133439#133439 (http://mennodiscuss.com/viewtopic.php?p=133439#133439)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Anabaptist_Seekers/message/5940 (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Anabaptist_Seekers/message/5940)

I found it interesting that Mennohof listed four of the five distinctives in the list I compiled as defining Anabaptism (they left out separation from the world):
http://www.mennohof.org/php/who.we.are/

It's very interesting that your list doesn't even mention saving faith in Jesus Christ. Is that at all necessary to Anabaptism, or has He been replaced by adherence to doctrines?

Nobody I queried mentioned it. I think the Anabaptist concept of faith and salvation is different enough from Protestant and Catholic ideas that it's just not something that pops up prominently in a discussion oif Anabaptism. My thought on it is that the practices and beliefs common to Anabaptism presuppose faith and define saving faith differently than American Evangelicals are accustomed to thinking of it. An Anabaptist view of "saving faith" might read: "If you have faith you will believe and strive to obey the commands of Christ and He will save you."

Floodnut

16th May 2007, 03:00 PM

I have to wonder if when we stand before God when it is out time, if we won't be ashamed of how much time we spent arguing about who does and who doesn't belong in this forum and how little time we spent actually being the hands and feet of Christ to the world.
I for one am not involved in a discussion about who should "belong" to this forum. I am discussing the topic of the original post, the essential elements of what constitutes anabaptist.

RenewedbyFaith

16th May 2007, 03:01 PM

Nobody I queried mentioned it. I think the Anabaptist concept of faith and salvation is different enough from Protestant and Catholic ideas that it's just not something that pops up prominently in a discussion oif Anabaptism. My thought on it is that the practices and beliefs common to Anabaptism presuppose faith and define saving faith differently than American Evangelicals are accustomed to thinking of it. An Anabaptist view of "saving faith" might read: "If you have faith you will believe and strive to obey the commands of Christ and He will save you."

That's interesting because I work at an inner city Mennonite mission at lot and it's brought up all the time.

You don't really believe that believing in Christ and striving to obey his commandments will lead to salvation, do you?

RenewedbyFaith

16th May 2007, 03:03 PM

I for one am not involved in a discussion about who should "belong" to this forum. I am discussing the topic of the original post, the essential elements of what constitutes anabaptist.

The reason Wayne started this thread is to create standard by which the Anabaptist "sheep" can be separated from the non-Anabaptist "goats." So although you didn't know it, you have been discussing who should belong to this forum.

WayneinMaine

16th May 2007, 03:23 PM

I for one am not involved in a discussion about who should "belong" to this forum. I am discussing the topic of the original post, the essential elements of what constitutes anabaptist.
I think the issue was brought up at one time (I wasn't participating on the group at the time) about the icon for this group. SOmeone even suggested eliminating the group. I don't know how all that works on these forums, I just don't want to see a discussion forum about Anabaptist focusing on ideas that either have nothing at all to do with Anabpatism or that spread misinformation about or denegrate historic Anabaptist churches.

But I most heartily agree with you, the topic at hand is what's important.

WayneinMaine

16th May 2007, 03:29 PM

The reason Wayne started this thread is to create standard by which the Anabaptist "sheep" can be separated from the non-Anabaptist "goats." So although you didn't know it, you have been discussing who should belong to this forum.
That's not true.

I find it an interesting topic. I brought it up on other forums and brought it up here as well.

RenewedbyFaith

16th May 2007, 04:37 PM

That's not true.

I find it an interesting topic. I brought it up on other forums and brought it up here as well.

Yeah, right.

Read back over your earlier posts and look at how they read. It is apparent to me and to others in this forum that you are looking for a definition that will exclude those who don't agree with your very narrow definition of Anabaptism.

If it were not so, you would be more open to amendments to your definition that people here suggest, but so far, all you've done is argue that nothing we suggest should be added to it.

It really wouldn't be fair for you to take a definition that come from outside this forum and apply it to the people in this forum without allowing us to amend it to suit our beliefs and situations.

As far as denigrating and spreading disinformation about historic Anabaptist churches, you've done your share of grousing and complaining about the non-conservative branches, often without having any evidence to back up your statements. I don't need to mention the libelous statements you made against MCC that you refused to take back even when it was proven that the statements were false and inflammatory, do I? If you want to banish flaming and denigration, you must start with your own posts. Be the first to "love one another."

AND, these forums are open for discussion of any topic, not just the ones you like. Whether or not the topics are outside the realm of traditional Anabaptist doctrine, we can discuss anything we like. If you are unhappy with the content of some threads that other people are enjoying, there is no law that says you have to participate. You can join in or ignore threads according to your pleasure. You don't have to get threads closed down by reporting every post you disagree with. You might actually learn something about the wider Anabaptist church by allowing others to have discussions that have nothing to do with traditional conservative Anabaptism.

The rules of this forum state that you have to respect other faiths, including other denominations within your own sect. Although you may disagree with what some Anabapstists and Quakers believe, this forum gives them the right to believe and express whatever beliefs they have. Respecting those beliefs would be reading what people post without getting mad and reporting them for posting something that makes you mad because you disagree with it.

For instance, this is flaming (only an example, not directed at you, but used only for emotional effect to make the point): "Your church is all wrong and your soul is in danger because you believe lies." This is not flaming: "My mother was raped by an Amish elder when she was a teenager and the Amish community did nothing to punish or discipline the rapist." It is not flaming because it actually happened to MY mother. I am not flaming, I am reporting a fact. You may not like that I posted that, but it's not flaming or denigrating because it is s truth that is part of my family history.

Now you are going to say again that I am being hostile to you, but it's just plain wrong for you to force a person to edit the truth to suit you, or to report someone for flaming when you are mad because someone disagreed with you.

Floodnut

16th May 2007, 04:44 PM

The reason Wayne started this thread is to create standard by which the Anabaptist "sheep" can be separated from the non-Anabaptist "goats." So although you didn't know it, you have been discussing who should belong to this forum.
No, I have not been discussing who should belong to this forum. I have been discussing the essence of what it means to be "Anabaptist." You have been discussing who should belong, and I have not been. Simple.

RenewedbyFaith

16th May 2007, 05:03 PM

No, I have not been discussing who should belong to this forum. I have been discussing the essence of what it means to be "Anabaptist." You have been discussing who should belong, and I have not been. Simple.

I haven't either.

I, like others who have tried to participate in this thread, have been trying to amend Wayne's statement based on what be believe and observe, and Wayne is unwilling to accept those amendments. Whenever someone makes a suggestion, he shoots it down because it doesn't jibe with what a dozen other people on a whole different website that is populated mostly by people who lean toward conservatism have suggested.

This discussion has gotten to the point where it's like a bunch of spoiled children pointing fingers and saying--"I don't stink, you stink! No you stink! I don't stink you stink!" It's silly childishness already.

That being said, I have no wish to make a fight out of this. As Zi Sunka said, Wayne, the definition of Anabaptism is anything you say it is, and we who have been active participants in this forum while you stayed away in a hissy fit, have no right to disagree with you. You win.

WayneinMaine

16th May 2007, 06:26 PM

I, like others who have tried to participate in this thread, have been trying to amend Wayne's statement based on what be believe and observe, and Wayne is unwilling to accept those amendments. Whenever someone makes a suggestion, he shoots it down because it doesn't jibe with what a dozen other people on a whole different website that is populated mostly by people who lean toward conservatism have suggested.
:scratch: Amend?

It would be fine to have other people state what they think are the irreducibles of Anabaptism. I posted a list of the distinctives mentioned most often when I asked the question elsewhere. There's nothing to amend, the distinctives you mentioned (which I'm still not clear on) are unique -also rans like several others I didn't mention.

That being said, I have no wish to make a fight out of this.
I think you did make a fight out of this, like ZiSunka made a fight over the Amish, a very personal fight for which I still can't comprehend the motive.

Let's drop it and get on with some discussions about Anabaptism

RenewedbyFaith

16th May 2007, 06:35 PM

You take every disagreement as a personal attack Wayne. That's why everyone else has dropped out of this "discussion."

Good luck and see ya around.

Floodnut

16th May 2007, 11:14 PM

SSSSSSSssnaaaaAAAAArrrrl!!! What was that all about?

Are we here trying to write a document about the irreducibles of anabaptist essence? Or are we sharing with each other what we feel are the keys in our hearts to our identity? And you want to make it in to a fight? This is strange for an anabaptist and strange for a Christian. Peace.

I spent 10 years among the Mennonites (my heritage by birth) and then I spent another 10 years among the Brethren. Then I spent ten years doing business with Amish craftsmen. And I spend 20 years as part of a neo-anabaptist group, sort of Schwenkfeldian (who was criticized by other anabaptists of his day for manifesting the gifts of the Holy Spirit to excess.)

Anabaptist covers a pretty wide range of beliefs.

Floodnut

17th May 2007, 07:33 PM

Then, if it is about who should be allowed to post here, the CF moderator has already pronounced on that:
Welcome to the New Fourm

This is the New forum for the Anabaptists, Mennonite, and Quaker members of CF.

So, it is a pretty big tent then. It is a waste of time to have a discussion about who to include and who to exclude. That is already established. Quakers know that they are not anabaptists, but this is their forum, as much as it is the Mennonites.

This thread is a discussion about the essence of being anabaptist, not about who is allowed in here. I feel like I am anabaptist, even though I believe the government should kill all the terrorists. Personally I am a lamb and as a dove so I could not do it myself, but I thank God for those who bear the sword and they do not bear it in vain, but they are God's ministers.
I think the original establishment of this section was perhaps intended for those who hold to a peace witness, but clearly the Meunsterites and Balthasar Hubmaier were not pre-eminently non-resitant. Nevertheless it seems that the general understanding of anabaptist amongst most Christians has come to include the idea of pacifism and opposition to the war (any war).

WayneinMaine

18th May 2007, 06:18 AM

I think the original establishment of this section was perhaps intended for those who hold to a peace witness, but clearly the Meunsterites and Balthasar Hubmaier were not pre-eminently non-resitant. Nevertheless it seems that the general understanding of anabaptist amongst most Christians has come to include the idea of pacifism and opposition to the war (any war).

That is what I thought I would find as the least common denominator among Anabaptists, but even some of the more liberal folks I know expanded their boundaries into areas shared with conservatives. From outside Anabaptism, looking at the externals of the whole scope of Mennonite groups, that seems to be the "loudest" distinction. Of course even that expresses itself across the whole scope from leftist active pacifism (ala CPT) to what I call cheerleading on the conservative sideline: actively encouraging the government to do its God appointed duty by weilding the sword as a terror to evil.