Fundamentalism-Chester Weaver-Anabaptist Perspectives

[appleman2006]

It's nearly impossible for a group transitioning to being less-conservative to really understand or embrace a seeker, since the path of all of those people is to become "more worldly", and there's logistically speaking no way for a seeker to join them on that journey. So it is, essentially, a completely closed group to outsiders, yet worse than that, it masquerades as a group that is open.

I know this is not always the case but is it possible that many of these seekers are actually heading to a degree of fundamentalism and see that as the answer to the church's problems. Which would explain why they feel more comfortable in an ultra conservative setting that at least has the outward appearance of things being all good. My observations is that even in these settings they almost always leave eventually once they actually see that rules by themselves do not work too well.

[Josh]

It's nearly impossible for a group transitioning to being less-conservative to really understand or embrace a seeker, since the path of all of those people is to become "more worldly", and there's logistically speaking no way for a seeker to join them on that journey. So it is, essentially, a completely closed group to outsiders, yet worse than that, it masquerades as a group that is open.

I know this is not always the case but is it possible that many of these seekers are actually heading to a degree of fundamentalism and see that as the answer to the church's problems. Which would explain why they feel more comfortable in an ultra conservative setting that at least has the outward appearance of things being all good. My observations is that even it these settings they almost always leave eventually once they actually see that rules by themselves do not work too well.

Are you sure? The typical seeker who is already quite religious usually is coming from a background of a large degree of fundamentalism, and is just looking for another place as committed to fundamentalism as they are.

I was talking more about a seeker or outsider like myself who comes to a conservative Mennonite church (such as yours) when they are not living a Christian lifestyle at all, or else are in a nominally Christian but quite worldly lifestyle. When I started going to church, I was not a fundamentalist, although I probably had a vague belief system that to be a "good Christian" one had to be a fundamentalist, simply because I'd never been around anything else that was not irreparably worldly.

Imagine my confusion at arriving at your church and speaking with someone like you, who only talks about how it's very important to not care about one's outward appearance and not to care about rules.

Then imagine my confusion when the people at your church are constantly disappointed with me because I keep breaking their rules, which I don't even know what they are.

Exactly how do you want a seeker (particularly one who is a new Christian) to become part of your church, particular to ascend to a level where you would be comfortable accepting them as a member and be comfortable with them marrying someone from your church?

[MaxPC]

A whole package with nothing left out - I think when the gospel is incomplete or my focus is more on my salvation that we become so unbalanced that liberalism and/or rules take over in a form of hidden reactionism instead of a joyful obedience to His word and the leading of His Spirit.

Sometimes the reactionaries are not so hidden as in some of the cases the RCC is having to deal with since Vatican 2.

So, I'm thinking that what I'll call "Group-Think" makes comprehensive drift possible.

I agree. Group Think can lead to an undesirable drift if the group has no strong anchor in Biblical teaching. An "anything goes" ethos can emerge and I have seen it happen in RCC subgroups.

We either fall into a situation where we have the "remnant" within the false church, or we revert to rules to try to keep it right. But judging from Scripture, neither of these is acceptable. In the first case we make all of the suffering of our people for nothing (they could have just stayed in the State Churches), and in the second we loose the relationship with the Living Christ by attempting to "legislate the new birth", even within the congregation.

The valuable point I take from Mr. Weaver's history less is that human nature will tend to extremes and cause a reactionary counter-movement in any group, thus creating a pendulum swing between those extremes. It seems to me that once again balance is key to slowing that "pendulum swing" between secularism and legalism. Discipleship is a balanced state between a personal relationship with Christ and expressing that relationship in service with, and to others.

[Neto]

I've had the same experience, in particular how people in those settings can relate to and accept seekers.

It's nearly impossible for a group transitioning to being less-conservative to really understand or embrace a seeker, since the path of all of those people is to become "more worldly", and there's logistically speaking no way for a seeker to join them on that journey. So it is, essentially, a completely closed group to outsiders, yet worse than that, it masquerades as a group that is open.

As a "Russian Mennonite" that grew up in the Mennonite Brethren context, I didn't even come from completely outside, and I was already a believer, so not really a "seeker" in that sense. But at the same time I can really identify with this statement of the "journey" that the congregation that an "outsider" comes to is actually on, the constant changes that the new-comer doesn't see. I've often compared this to our concept of "the good old days", which, if we think about it, is often our memories of childhood. It's just a small window on life, restricted to a very short period of time, one without memories of the past, or consciousness of the fact that one's own parents also have a memory of "the good old days", but one that is very different, because it is a picture of a much different time. So we come to a conservative congregation thinking of its present state as static, unchanging. It looks that way to us, because it is so different from what we came from. We expect no changes, certainly not major ones, like I have seen in the 25 years we have been at our current congregation.

But this discussion, and some uneasy thoughts I've been having over the last 5 years or so, make me think that we came there for the wrong reasons, that there are no right reasons to join such a congregation. Rather a strong statement, this last, but what I mean is that if the group's focus is on rules as the answer in the quest for spiritual life, then it's just not going to end well. But while our current congregation has changed in ways that disguise this (in that it looks like we are no longer living by rules), it seems to me that we (my congregation) has just exchanged the written rule book for what they call "accountability partners". I simply do not understand why anyone who knows God would be more "afraid" of what another person thinks than what God thinks. That, to me, is nothing more than "fear of man", switching the "authority" in one's life from the bishop to a friend. Let's think more about our relationship with the Holy God, Jesus the Living WORD, The Spirit of God in us, and not focus on a fear about what our fellow believer would think.

[appleman2006]

Are you sure? The typical seeker who is already quite religious usually is coming from a background of a large degree of fundamentalism, and is just looking for another place as committed to fundamentalism as they are.

I was talking more about a seeker or outsider like myself who comes to a conservative Mennonite church (such as yours) when they are not living a Christian lifestyle at all, or else are in a nominally Christian but quite worldly lifestyle. When I started going to church, I was not a fundamentalist, although I probably had a vague belief system that to be a "good Christian" one had to be a fundamentalist, simply because I'd never been around anything else that was not irreparably worldly.

Imagine my confusion at arriving at your church and speaking with someone like you, who only talks about how it's very important to not care about one's outward appearance and not to care about rules.

Then imagine my confusion when the people at your church are constantly disappointed with me because I keep breaking their rules, which I don't even know what they are.

Exactly how do you want a seeker (particularly one who is a new Christian) to become part of your church, particular to ascend to a level where you would be comfortable accepting them as a member and be comfortable with them marrying someone from your church?

I want to be careful not to put people in boxes here because I do recognise that every case is different to some extent.

But my experience has been this. The majority of people coming into our churches from a non Anabaptist background are from at least some sort of church background. In some cases they are from a liberal high church setting but have already been influenced by fundamentalism and see the conservative Mennonite church simply living out that fundamentalism better than most. As someone else stated what they see is so different from what they are used to they simply assume it has always been like this and are sometimes disappointed to find a difference of opinion among the group despite the apparent uniformity they might see on a Sunday morning. Other times they might actually be from a very fundamentalist setting (KJV only and the works) and they assume that the reason their church is slowly, or quickly as the case may be, apostatising is because they are losing that fundamentalist flavour. And so they bring their old belief system into our setting and are surprised when even though we may still use the KJV and have some dispensationalism among us that we do not all buy into that stuff and it is really not a part of our heritage. Added to that they often do have a hard time understanding the long term effects of dead legalism.
My experience has been a bit different than some of you. I have seen a surprising number of newcomers that have started out in some very conservative or even OO settings and then discovered it was not quite what they had in mind and moved to a more moderate setting.
Ironically often it is either those with no religious background or those with a very high church background but also have a good understanding of how people work and are often quite educated that seem to make the transition the easiest. I am not sure why that is.
I can assure you of one thing. We keep far more people away from our churches because we are to insistent on form than we scare away because we are too open to change. Of that I am totally sure. But I am not sure as to what the answer is to that other than encouraging each other to each aspire to be more Christlike in our daily walk.

[appleman2006]

But this discussion, and some uneasy thoughts I've been having over the last 5 years or so, make me think that we came there for the wrong reasons, that there are no right reasons to join such a congregation. Rather a strong statement, this last, but what I mean is that if the group's focus is on rules as the answer in the quest for spiritual life, then it's just not going to end well. But while our current congregation has changed in ways that disguise this (in that it looks like we are no longer living by rules), it seems to me that we (my congregation) has just exchanged the written rule book for what they call "accountability partners". I simply do not understand why anyone who knows God would be more "afraid" of what another person thinks than what God thinks. That, to me, is nothing more than "fear of man", switching the "authority" in one's life from the bishop to a friend. Let's think more about our relationship with the Holy God, Jesus the Living WORD, The Spirit of God in us, and not focus on a fear about what our fellow believer would think.

Some really good thoughts here Neto

[Josh]

Ironically often it is either those with no religious background or those with a very high church background but also have a good understanding of how people work and are often quite educated that seem to make the transition the easiest. I am not sure why that is.

Well, I fit this "mold", so I guess that's why I've been a "success".

[Wade]

Are you sure? The typical seeker who is already quite religious usually is coming from a background of a large degree of fundamentalism, and is just looking for another place as committed to fundamentalism as they are.

I was talking more about a seeker or outsider like myself who comes to a conservative Mennonite church (such as yours) when they are not living a Christian lifestyle at all, or else are in a nominally Christian but quite worldly lifestyle. When I started going to church, I was not a fundamentalist, although I probably had a vague belief system that to be a "good Christian" one had to be a fundamentalist, simply because I'd never been around anything else that was not irreparably worldly.

Imagine my confusion at arriving at your church and speaking with someone like you, who only talks about how it's very important to not care about one's outward appearance and not to care about rules.

Then imagine my confusion when the people at your church are constantly disappointed with me because I keep breaking their rules, which I don't even know what they are.

Exactly how do you want a seeker (particularly one who is a new Christian) to become part of your church, particular to ascend to a level where you would be comfortable accepting them as a member and be comfortable with them marrying someone from your church?

I want to be careful not to put people in boxes here because I do recognise that every case is different to some extent.

But my experience has been this. The majority of people coming into our churches from a non Anabaptist background are from at least some sort of church background. In some cases they are from a liberal high church setting but have already been influenced by fundamentalism and see the conservative Mennonite church simply living out that fundamentalism better than most. As someone else stated what they see is so different from what they are used to they simply assume it has always been like this and are sometimes disappointed to find a difference of opinion among the group despite the apparent uniformity they might see on a Sunday morning. Other times they might actually be from a very fundamentalist setting (KJV only and the works) and they assume that the reason their church is slowly, or quickly as the case may be, apostatising is because they are losing that fundamentalist flavour. And so they bring their old belief system into our setting and are surprised when even though we may still use the KJV and have some dispensationalism among us that we do not all buy into that stuff and it is really not a part of our heritage. Added to that they often do have a hard time understanding the long term effects of dead legalism.
My experience has been a bit different than some of you. I have seen a surprising number of newcomers that have started out in some very conservative or even OO settings and then discovered it was not quite what they had in mind and moved to a more moderate setting.
Ironically often it is either those with no religious background or those with a very high church background but also have a good understanding of how people work and are often quite educated that seem to make the transition the easiest. I am not sure why that is.
I can assure you of one thing. We keep far more people away from our churches because we are to insistent on form than we scare away because we are too open to change. Of that I am totally sure. But I am not sure as to what the answer is to that other than encouraging each other to each aspire to be more Christlike in our daily walk.

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

Some people are tricked by dualism but not all. Some people see a rule against something as obvious since our time is spent building the kingdom of God of course we would be too busy serving others, visiting the fatherless and widows, helping a neighbour fix his car, or whatever than having a Harley Motorcycle or going to the local sporting events or shopping the latest stores and clothing styles. This is what attracts committed seekers and turns them off to what may seem to be a more restricted group. It is about what people are doing not about they are not but the wrong focus blinds people from seeing that when they look at standards - I'm sad for them.

It does seem that churched people can carry by far the most baggage in not letting go of all the "good things" they learnt that brought freedom to the flesh...

[barnhart]

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.

[barnhart]

[Aside: David Kauffman = fundie. Interestingly, when I found a "Doctrines of the Bible" in a local used book store, I enthusiastically bought it, and was then VERY disappointed to discover that it was a Systematic Theology, something I had completely rejected in my late teen years & early 20's - my time of "anabaptist awakening".]

I began to question Kauffman about that time in my life as well but from a slightly different angle. I noticed it was written and published by people who no longer believe it. This made me suspicious his approach/doctrine/theology might be dangerous on some level.