Least Common Denominator of being Anabaptist.

[RenewedbyFaith]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[WayneinMaine]

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.

It's not so much a pretty big tent as it is a rather odd shaped one: Anabaptists and Mennonites and Quakers. I really wonder why the moderators who created the group decided to call these three groups collectively "Anabaptist"? Maybe they could post a response to this thread, what is the common denominator of Anabatism as they perceive it? Actually, that might be a good question to ask on the Baptist forum.

 

[MrJim]

I suggested it be called "The Historic Peace Churches" and that would then encompass the Quaker folks along with the mennos and brethren-there are so few that it was a way to group them together.

 

[Floodnut]

I suggested it be called "The Historic Peace Churches" and that would then encompass the Quaker folks along with the mennos and brethren-there are so few that it was a way to group them together.

Yes, Much better name for this group and what seems to be the intent of the "founders."

But they could also make a "simple life" or "old order" or plain dress, but do these folks have computers hooked up to the phone at the end of the lane, or powered by the generator in the milch haus? Or do they go to the Library of the "English" and log on to the computer there? How does that work?

 

[WayneinMaine]

I suggested it be called "The Historic Peace Churches" and that would then encompass the Quaker folks along with the mennos and brethren-there are so few that it was a way to group them together.

That's interesting, but that focuses on a single issue common to a few groups under a designation given by the US government to make it easier to classify contentious objector. If you were a member of one of these churches you were pretty much automatically exempt from military service.

But the two major brances of the Historic Peace churches (Mennonite/Brethren and Friends) have very differenttheologies that only draw close on a few issues. The Jehovah's Witnesses are also opposed to military service, they were theonly significant group of COs in Nazi Germany (Mennonites served in Germany's army).

 

[tulc]

If you were a member of one of these churches you were pretty much automatically exempt from military service.

Not strickly true, it got better after WW1 but it also depended how far you took the command to not kill, some would take non-combat positions (ie medic,or support personel), other found the command not to kill to include not helping others to kill and they went to jail for it also. Some even died here in America because of it.
tulc(there were some tragic stories that came out of WW1)

 

[WayneinMaine]

Not strickly true, it got better after WW1 but it also depended how far you took the command to not kill, some would take non-combat positions (ie medic,or support personel), other found the command not to kill to include not helping others to kill and they went to jail for it also. Some even died here in America because of it.
tulc(there were some tragic stories that came out of WW1)

Well I did say pretty much automatically, not automatically.

Some folks had to establish that their opposition to killing was not politically motivated by an affinity for the enemy or as a political objection as opposed to a spiritual motivation. That had to be tough situation for a government facing Nazi Germany with German Mennonites giving their "Heil Hitler" and in Eastern Europe their welcoming Nazi troops as liberators.


I met the granddaughter of one of the Hutterite men tortured to death in an American prison for not wearing a military uniform. For some Anabaptists the memory of atrocities committed in the name of religious intolerance by the state is quite vivid.

 

[Floodnut]

Not strickly true, it got better after WW1 but it also depended how far you took the command to not kill, some would take non-combat positions (ie medic,or support personel), other found the command not to kill to include not helping others to kill and they went to jail for it also. Some even died here in America because of it.
tulc(there were some tragic stories that came out of WW1)

There was no official CO (Conscientious Objector) status during WWI. My parents used to take our family to visit an elderly couple, Mabel and Kenneth, who were sort of surrogate grandparent figures for us, since our grandparents were deceased.
Kenneth was one of the "boys" who was persecuted during WWI, a friend of Lroy Kniss, who wrote "I couildn't Fight" (during WWI), and "Why I couldn't Fight". There were about 7 of these Non-resistant boys during WWI, and at least one of them died from his suffering at Leavenworth Prison in Kansas, in AMERICA. They refused to wear the uniform of an organization whose purpose is to kill. And they were deprived of all their clothing except their civies so the suffered horribly from the cold.

 

[RenewedbyFaith]

If you were a member of one of these churches you were pretty much automatically exempt from military service.

Totally not true.

Each man still had to go before his draft board and defend why he should be granted CO status, and even then, many were turned down.

In my present church, there are five men who have been lifelong Anabaptists who were drafted into WW2 and Vietnam. Their applications for CO were denied not because they didn't belong to the right church, but because they couldn't inidvidually defend their beliefs to the satisfaction of the board. One of them was Amish at the time and the other was Old Order.

The current pastor of my church was a Presbyterian when his number came up for Vietnam and he was able to defend his CO beliefs so he didn't have to go. He did Alternate Service as the only teacher in a tiny town in Maine.

Being a member of a historic peace church doesn't automatically entitle anyone to anything, as far as the government is concerned. Each person is responsible for their own conscience and must defend their beliefs in their own words.