Fundamentalism-Chester Weaver-Anabaptist Perspectives

[Neto]

Exactly. Talking of two kingdoms and searching the New Testament for instructions on how to relate to both, does shift the focus from living in absolute compliance with the one Kingdom that truly matters.

As soon as you say "the one Kingdom that truly matters" you are automatically implying there is at least another one and so maybe talking of "two kingdoms" - so it can easily sound like you are contradicting yourself...?

Colossians 1:13 would suggest two such dominions

For he has rescued us from the kingdom of darkness and transferred us into the Kingdom of his dear Son,

I probably didn't express my thoughts very well. I never pretended that that other kingdom was not out there - I after all had been deeply dedicated to it. I tried, but I cannot really explain, so I erased it, and just replaced that attempt with this closing sentence.
Blessing to all, in the Name.

[AnthonyMartin]

We've had a lot of discussion on here about what Two-Kingdom Theology really means. I've struggled to communicate my understanding of those Kingdom's as well. I believe allegiance to the Kingdom of God is by far the most important thing to focus on. Blessings in His name!

[Wade]

I think learning about the kingdom of God and living it out - is what is critical.
Part of the mystery of seeing it is that it has to do with being born again according to Christ in John 3.

- Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Without continued growing in Christ to further see His kingdom, we cannot (I believe) accurately see the line between the two kingdoms. So it is in my experience that it is in fact the focus on the kingdom of God that leads to "Two-Kingdom talk."

Without a better understanding of the kingdom of God it is easy to be reactionary against Fundamentalism, Pietism, Liberalism, or any-ism.
So as we point out wrongs of each ism without providing a picture of the kingdom of God I believe it stirs an "Amen" in people who can relate but yet fails to point to a solution and again falls short just the same as the other ism's and it is distracting us from again further seeing the kingdom of God... I think Chester understood this from this video but in his use of these words did a bit of this himself - but I think it was meant for our benefit not for us to go down that road again.

Romans 14:17 - "For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost."

[barnhart]

2.

Around the nine minute mark...

Lies of Fundamentalism
1. Christianity is performance, perfectionism based.
2. Pride, shame fear and despair characterize normal Christian experience.
3. Others who do not do it our way are threats to us.
4. Being argumentative critical and judgmental of others is OK.

I definitely think these are bad things. But at what point does this cease to be about Fundamentalism as a historical movement in American Christianity (which had and has significant problems) and start to just be piling on bad things under the label Fundamentalism? Is Fundamentalism the new Pietism?

Good point. Perhaps it should have been titled, "Potential problems of Fundamentalism".

[appleman2006]

Is it possible your view of others is tainted by your experiences and reactions and therefore struggle to understand their actually feelings and views?

For sure that is possible. Not only possible but very probable. In fact that is partly the point I am trying to make albeit quite badly I am afraid. We all have our outlook on things clouded by experience and one of the challenges in merging any cultures is for people to be open and understanding of where others are coming from. And it almost never works unless both parties extend a certain amount of grace towards each other in recognition of this.
But I also agree that if we spent less time focusing on ourselves and more on focusing on being the hands and feet of Jesus to this around us we would all be better off. There is a time for that but there is also a time for simply listening to each other and really getting to know each other's hearts.
Our church recently branched out and about half started a new group due to the fact that our small church building had reached capacity. That was exactly a year ago. In that past year we have had so many people start attending at the original church that at this point over half of us have been here for less than 2 years and we do not know each other well.
This past weekend about 25 of us men got together for a 24 hour period of intense sharing. I was leery of the idea because I was afraid it would feel forced. But the organisers made it very clear that there would be no judgement of anyone that did not share or vice versa and that this was a totally safe space. This type of thing is way out of my comfort zone but as we shared and prayed over each other I started to feel like these brothers were a part of me. I started to get them and understand where they were coming from. We sang, we laughed, we cried together and I was given a renewed hope for the church of the future.
And no our church is not perfect. A long way from it. But maybe it is us realizing it that will actually help us.

[appleman2006]

I agree with RZehr's comment and question. On the one hand, we do basically want the rules to be a reflection of what the church values. On the other, I will definitely need to just submit to my brother and just follow the standard sometimes. This latter thing doesn't always "feel spiritual," but it's good for me.

For a good part of my journey this was exactly where I was at. But I am starting to see the danger in this type of thinking. The key I think is in your first comment that we basically want the rules to be a reflection of where the brotherhood is really at. Of course submission to each other is an integral part of brotherhood but is it brotherhood anymore if the same people are always submitting to others? I say it is not and then becomes authoritarianism. And it may very well not be the ordained leadership that is really calling the shots behind the scenes, either.

If we are really honest too many of our churches from the ultra to the more moderate are run this way and I predict that if we do not soon recognise the danger of this it will destroy us. And I am guessing it is that realization that is giving men like Chester the courage to speak up.

[Wade]

Is it possible your view of others is tainted by your experiences and reactions and therefore struggle to understand their actually feelings and views?

For sure that is possible. Not only possible but very probable. In fact that is partly the point I am trying to make albeit quite badly I am afraid. We all have our outlook on things clouded by experience and one of the challenges in merging any cultures is for people to be open and understanding of where others are coming from. And it almost never works unless both parties extend a certain amount of grace towards each other in recognition of this.
But I also agree that if we spent less time focusing on ourselves and more on focusing on being the hands and feet to this around us we would all be better off. There is a time for that but there is also a time for simply listening to each other and really getting to know each others hearts.
Our church recently branched out and about half started a new group due to the fact that our small church building had reached capacity. That was exactly a year ago. In that past year we have so many people start attending at the original chuck that at this point over half of us have been here for less than 2 years and we do not know each other well.
This past weekend about 25 of us men got together for a 24 hour period of intense sharing. I was leery of the idea because I was afraid it would feel forced. But the organisers made it very clear that there would be no judgement of anyone that did not share or vice versa and that this was a totally safe space. This type of thing is way out of my comfort zone but as we shared and prayed over each other I started to feel like these brothers were a part of me. I started to get them and understand where they were coming from. We sang, we laughed, we cried, together and I was given a renewed hope for the church of the future.
And no our church is not perfect. A long way from it. But maybe it is us realizing it that will actually help us.

Sounds like what happens somewhat with our house church.

[Ms. Izzie]

Starting at 6:32 on the posted video, Mr. Weaver talks about dualism and Gnosticism. Are there any thoughts on this?

Often churches aren't just one school of thought. It seems a church would be on especially dangerous ground if it mixed Fundamentalism with dualism and Gnosticism. I am interested in knowing what the signs would be of this happening. Here again, it seems like dualism and Gnosticism may need to be defined before continuing. I don't have enough of an understanding of them myself to do a good job defining them.

[Josh]

Starting at 6:32 on the posted video, Mr. Weaver talks about dualism and Gnosticism. Are there any thoughts on this?

Often churches aren't just one school of thought. It seems a church would be on especially dangerous ground if it mixed Fundamentalism with dualism and Gnosticism. I am interested in knowing what the signs would be of this happening. Here again, it seems like dualism and Gnosticism may need to be defined before continuing. I don't have enough of an understanding of them myself to do a good job defining them.

Dualism

Gnosticism

Gnosticism is interesting - for example, there are quite a few gnostic religious groups still around in the Middle East. The leader of Syria (Bashar Assad) happens to be part of one of them.

[barnhart]

Starting at 6:32 on the posted video, Mr. Weaver talks about dualism and Gnosticism. Are there any thoughts on this?

Often churches aren't just one school of thought. It seems a church would be on especially dangerous ground if it mixed Fundamentalism with dualism and Gnosticism. I am interested in knowing what the signs would be of this happening. Here again, it seems like dualism and Gnosticism may need to be defined before continuing. I don't have enough of an understanding of them myself to do a good job defining them.

I think he is using a narrow definition of Gnosticism when he says it is expressed as "separating salvation from ethics and church." I think that means salvation has become philosophical or doctrinal concern entirely apart from behavior or brotherhood. In other words Jesus saves your immaterial soul, but the rest of you, the part that relates to the material world of atoms, need not look to Jesus.