To Be Plain or Not to Be Plain

[Ernie]

To Be or Not to Be Plain?: A serious call to Anabaptist cultural integrity. By John D. Martin | 2022

For many years, all Anabaptist groups embodied their Gospel beliefs and values in distinctive cultural norms to which all members were held accountable. We currently hear that such forms are imposed "man-made rules" that militate against a genuine personal experience with Christ. This booklet investigates the following questions:

Has God ever endorsed "man-made rules"?
Do distinctive cultural norms violate the Gospel?
Does a relaxing of distinctive cultural norms lead to greater evangelistic success?
If "the past is prologue," what can we learn from groups that relaxed their distinctive practices?

Answering these questions is important, because decisions have consequences, and wise believers base their decisions on the consequences they desire.

https://www.amazon.com/Be-Not-Plain-Ana ... 1680010360

Read the booklet and then discuss. Only those who have read the booklet may post on this thread.

[Soloist]

I’m mixed on it… on one hand, there isn’t any new argument here. Everything has been said before.
On the other hand, he gives no real room for questioning the authority to dictate anything not contrary to Scripture. He doesn’t use the classic “if it’s not sin to obey, then it’s sin to disobey” unless I missed it.
It’s hard to answer that… logically I can tell my wife things that I would think would be exceeding church authority, but who said the church had limits to extra biblical standards? Obviously the spouse relationship is dependent on love to rein in it, it’s sinful to ask her to do things if it’s unloving. The church is harder to say on.

[Ernie]

I’m mixed on it… on one hand, there isn’t any new argument here. Everything has been said before.
On the other hand, he gives no real room for questioning the authority to dictate anything not contrary to Scripture. He doesn’t use the classic “if it’s not sin to obey, then it’s sin to disobey” unless I missed it.
It’s hard to answer that… logically I can tell my wife things that I would think would be exceeding church authority, but who said the church had limits to extra biblical standards? Obviously the spouse relationship is dependent on love to rein in it, it’s sinful to ask her to do things if it’s unloving. The church is harder to say on.

So Hebrews 13:17 and I Cor. 16-15-16 only allow church leaders to command what is in Scripture. Or could they give commands not in scripture because they were apostles? Maybe I am not getting your point...

Heb. 13:17 Obey your leaders and submit to them—for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account

1 Corinthians 16:15-16
15 I urge you, brethren—you know the household of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have devoted themselves to the ministry of the saints— 16 that you also submit to such, and to everyone who works and labors with us.

[Josh]

I’m mixed on it… on one hand, there isn’t any new argument here. Everything has been said before.
On the other hand, he gives no real room for questioning the authority to dictate anything not contrary to Scripture. He doesn’t use the classic “if it’s not sin to obey, then it’s sin to disobey” unless I missed it.

I didn't pick that up from the book.

What he did say is that there should be a high bar to clear to throw away traditions so that one can, instead, either pursue "personal conviction" (which always made little sense to me; why would the Holy Spirit tell everyone different things?), or else simply be more like the world. The proof is in the pudding: a quick perusal of formerly-plain Anabaptist groups shows that allowing people to question traditions freely seems to be a one-way ratchet to becoming "conformed to the world".

It’s hard to answer that… logically I can tell my wife things that I would think would be exceeding church authority, but who said the church had limits to extra biblical standards? Obviously the spouse relationship is dependent on love to rein in it, it’s sinful to ask her to do things if it’s unloving. The church is harder to say on.

I prefer to think of my congregation as one that loves each other and the love between the brethren should be strong. If that is lacking, then no church structure is really going to function well in the long term.

[Josh]

I have one tiny nitpick with the book: in one place, he criticised those Anabaptists who have a traditional against foreign missions, mission boards, and mission societies. I think the Old Orders had very valid criticisms of such things, particularly when mission societies seemed to be the vanguard for bringing liberalism into the old Mennonite Church. (See the book "A Gentle Wind of God", Herald Press, which documents well how the elimination of the plain coat in the Lancaster Conference was pretty much directly due to influence from overseas missionaries.)

My other tiny nitpick in the same vein is he refers to accumulation of wealth as problematic because it could be being given to "missions" instead, which presumes that it is somehow godly for mission societies to accumulate wealth. I believe there is no evidence this is the case and that the accumulation of wealth by NGOs, mission boards, mission societies, nonprofits, and other such organisations can in fact represent a grave spiritual danger.

Of a somewhat larger scope, he did not talk at all about some of the traditions the Old Orders would like to keep that the evangelical Mennonites tended to want to promote, such as one-part singing being replaced by four-part singing (although John D. Martin has confessed, I believe at AIC, that four-part singing is indeed a manifestation of a current towards conformity with the world in terms of music).

Overall it is an excellent book and a sobering look at things.

[Soloist]

So Hebrews 13:17 and I Cor. 16-15-16 only allow church leaders to command what is in Scripture. Or could they give commands not in scripture because they were apostles? Maybe I am not getting your point...

I don’t know. I guess I view it like a husband wife relationship.
It’s clear that the wife is to submit to all things that do not violate her conscience or higher law.
I would say the same is true for the church. It gets complicated though as I think… just because you have the authority doesn’t give you the right to lord it over either the wife or the laity.
Does a leader have the right to tell you what you can eat?
Does a leader have the right to tell you that you can’t use a bed?
Can I tell my wife to stay up until the dishes are done?
Can I tell my wife to clean the house and she can’t leave the house unless it’s spotless?
Perhaps the answer to these 4 is yes that the authority is there… the lack of love is the problem.
If the answer is no, then we enter into a problem of how one determines and defines authority limits.

[mike]

What sense does this book make to a follower of Jesus who knows nothing of the conservative Anabaptist tradition? Does it have any value to them at all?

[mike]

Of a somewhat larger scope, he did not talk at all about some of the traditions the Old Orders would like to keep that the evangelical Mennonites tended to want to promote, such as one-part singing being replaced by four-part singing (although John D. Martin has confessed, I believe at AIC, that four-part singing is indeed a manifestation of a current towards conformity with the world in terms of music).

Neither does he mention education, which old orders and other conservatives would view as highly suspect, but which he would see as a good thing (he is college educated and at least one of his children is as well).

[Josh]

Of a somewhat larger scope, he did not talk at all about some of the traditions the Old Orders would like to keep that the evangelical Mennonites tended to want to promote, such as one-part singing being replaced by four-part singing (although John D. Martin has confessed, I believe at AIC, that four-part singing is indeed a manifestation of a current towards conformity with the world in terms of music).

Neither does he mention education, which old orders and other conservatives would view as highly suspect, but which he would see as a good thing (he is college educated and at least one of his children is as well).

I would say he ends up summarising the moderate-conservative position well: “the traditions we didn’t keep weren’t worth keeping, but the ones we still have we should absolutely keep and we will lose everything if we lose them”.

One of his points, however, is that things taken for granted in many circles back in the 1940s are now something only conservative Anabaptists can seem to achieve (low levels of divorce, intact families, low levels of domestic violence, drug use, and so on.)

[Ernie]

Of a somewhat larger scope, he did not talk at all about some of the traditions the Old Orders would like to keep that the evangelical Mennonites tended to want to promote, such as one-part singing being replaced by four-part singing (although John D. Martin has confessed, I believe at AIC, that four-part singing is indeed a manifestation of a current towards conformity with the world in terms of music).

His song book, Hymns of the Church, is an interesting/conflicting title in that it includes Hymns from Catholics, Protestants, and Reformers who persecuted our spiritual forbearers.