Affiliation

[MaxPC]

Is that what the PC part stands for? Persecuting Catholic?

Persecuted Catholic more like.
I changed mine to something a bit more descriptive since there are 24 "flavors" of Catholic Churches (who are in communion with each other by the by); they are divided into 6 Rites. As with anything with the label "Catholic", it can be complicated.

Yea you did get the hot seat for a while, didn't you?

No worries, Ken_S. At my age I can honestly say that in every organization or group, there is at least one who, for reasons of personal and emotional issues, will target a newcomer and try to stir up the rest of the group; especially when that newcomer is perceived as a threat. Even if the newcomer is not a threat in reality, misconceptions will perseverate inside the thought processes of the persecutor.

Plain Catholics are persecuted by other Catholics too, especially when the other sees the plain lifestyle and simple clothing. We are sometimes perceived as a threat by individuals who have their own problems; even though we say little and simply attend to our prayers. We cannot control how others react and overreact.

Most mature individuals will recognise those behavior sets of the agitator for what they represent and will engage the newcomer in a reasonable manner. There are many reasonable and mature individuals here on MN as well as MD. Many have even become stalwart friends.

I came because I was invited to clarify certain misconceptions about Catholic doctrine that were being repeated. I am not interested in stealing converts. Misconceptions about any group can abound for any reason: historical, hysterical, bitterness and lack of forgiveness, etc. The important thing is for reasonable and mature men to get past those issues and to simply talk to clarify any misconceptions. As mature and reasonable men, we can hold to different opinions as well as avoid holding grudges.

All in all, Robert has done a stellar job of MN. It is one of the more peaceful and reasonable forums for civilised conversations on the internet.

[temporal1]

I could only get 21 characters, not enough to make any meaningful change, so I added a "by-line" as someone else suggested.

Are there any churches left that would be "conservative Mennonite Brethren"?

I don't know, but it is questionable. Possibly in some small town some place. My impression is that my brother's congregation was until around 5 years ago. (At that time they still held strong to non-resistance, but probably not any longer. From what my brother has told me, they moved away from MB distinctives "in order to survive in their community", the OKC area.) I defined what I mean in some post somewhere, qualifying it as 'conservative' in the sense as it was in the 1960's. Theologically speaking, the changes started gaining ground around 30 years ago. I remember it because we were home on furlough in 1991, and I wrote a letter to the editor of the Christian Leader, the US MB conference periodical.

The issue was women in leadership roles.
A woman from my own home congregation (I was still an MB member at that time) sent in a reply,
and completely misconstrued what I had written.

I did not respond further, but the month after that someone commented how I had been blown out of the water by this other letter.
People do not carefully read what someone else has written before responding, it seems.

I remember that the editors had titled my letter as standing for "tradition", a word I never used in my letter, appealing only to Scripture. I know because I told my dad that they had used it as something of a slur against me,
and he said "No, tradition is good." (It is true, however, there had been a liberal voice in the Christian Leader for a long time then already, the editorial column of Katie Funk Wiebe.)

Reading comprehension is so important.
As well, reading while looking for bias or agenda, is a related problem, probably worse than simply not comprehending.
(But, i think of you as a bit of a master with language.) i only say “a bit of” because i anticipate you would protest otherwise.

[Neto]

Are there any churches left that would be "conservative Mennonite Brethren"?

I don't know, but it is questionable. Possibly in some small town some place. My impression is that my brother's congregation was until around 5 years ago. (At that time they still held strong to non-resistance, but probably not any longer. From what my brother has told me, they moved away from MB distinctives "in order to survive in their community", the OKC area.) I defined what I mean in some post somewhere, qualifying it as 'conservative' in the sense as it was in the 1960's. Theologically speaking, the changes started gaining ground around 30 years ago. I remember it because we were home on furlough in 1991, and I wrote a letter to the editor of the Christian Leader, the US MB conference periodical.

The issue was women in leadership roles.
A woman from my own home congregation (I was still an MB member at that time) sent in a reply,
and completely misconstrued what I had written.

I did not respond further, but the month after that someone commented how I had been blown out of the water by this other letter.
People do not carefully read what someone else has written before responding, it seems.

I remember that the editors had titled my letter as standing for "tradition", a word I never used in my letter, appealing only to Scripture. I know because I told my dad that they had used it as something of a slur against me,
and he said "No, tradition is good." (It is true, however, there had been a liberal voice in the Christian Leader for a long time then already, the editorial column of Katie Funk Wiebe.)

Reading comprehension is so important.
As well, reading while looking for bias or agenda, is a related problem, probably worse than simply not comprehending.
(But, i think of you as a bit of a master with language.) i only say “a bit of” because i anticipate you would protest otherwise.

I'll just say thank you for the compliment, and that I do try to write clearly, but I know that I do not always succeed. For me, at least, the main thing is to read back through what I've written, and try to anticipate where there are possibilities of misunderstanding, and then add clarifications. But the downside of this is that it tends to get too long, something my wife tells me I should avoid. (I have noticed this especially in emails, that if I ask more than one question or bring up more than one issue, generally only the first will be dealt with.)

I also realize that not everyone can follow my thought processes, which are probably sometimes somewhat convoluted.

[temporal1]

I don't know, but it is questionable. Possibly in some small town some place. My impression is that my brother's congregation was until around 5 years ago. (At that time they still held strong to non-resistance, but probably not any longer. From what my brother has told me, they moved away from MB distinctives "in order to survive in their community", the OKC area.) I defined what I mean in some post somewhere, qualifying it as 'conservative' in the sense as it was in the 1960's. Theologically speaking, the changes started gaining ground around 30 years ago. I remember it because we were home on furlough in 1991, and I wrote a letter to the editor of the Christian Leader, the US MB conference periodical.

The issue was women in leadership roles.
A woman from my own home congregation (I was still an MB member at that time) sent in a reply,
and completely misconstrued what I had written.

I did not respond further, but the month after that someone commented how I had been blown out of the water by this other letter.
People do not carefully read what someone else has written before responding, it seems.

I remember that the editors had titled my letter as standing for "tradition", a word I never used in my letter, appealing only to Scripture. I know because I told my dad that they had used it as something of a slur against me,
and he said "No, tradition is good." (It is true, however, there had been a liberal voice in the Christian Leader for a long time then already, the editorial column of Katie Funk Wiebe.)

Reading comprehension is so important.
As well, reading while looking for bias or agenda, is a related problem, probably worse than simply not comprehending.
(But, i think of you as a bit of a master with language.) i only say “a bit of” because i anticipate you would protest otherwise.

I'll just say thank you for the compliment, and that I do try to write clearly, but I know that I do not always succeed.

For me, at least, the main thing is to read back through what I've written, and try to anticipate where there are possibilities of misunderstanding, and then add clarifications.

But the downside of this is that it tends to get too long, something my wife tells me I should avoid. (I have noticed this especially in emails, that if I ask more than one question or bring up more than one issue, generally only the first will be dealt with.)

I also realize that not everyone can follow my thought processes, which are probably sometimes somewhat convoluted.

[temporal1]

i miss Knight-light.
he not only read what i wrote, he understood it. often better than i. then he helped me understand what i meant, and why.
from a completely new (to me) perspective. he never mentioned my capital letters laziness. .. but i don’t mind that, because, it’s true.

beyond question, this forum has some great readers, and writers. for reading comprehension, Knight gets an “A.”

[Robert]

Even the simple affiliation of Seeker, Protestant, Anabaptist, Catholic or Eastern Orthodox would suffice.

This is not that hard. Not sure why it is so challenging. I still see some slow to better define their ideology. What are you ashamed of or hiding?

[steve-in-kville]

I think it would be helpful to have their locations as well as gender.

[Sudsy]

Even the simple affiliation of Seeker, Protestant, Anabaptist, Catholic or Eastern Orthodox would suffice.

This is not that hard. Not sure why it is so challenging. I still see some slow to better define their ideology. What are you ashamed of or hiding?

Hi Robert and I also want to thank you and your team for what you people do to maintain this forum. A couple thoughts before moving on.

I have thought lately about what kind of Christianity best represents what I believe and give up trying. I put 'Charismatic Evangelical Anabaptist' in my signature area but after thinking this over, there are things associated with all 3 of these that I don't believe in as they are often understood by some. And a 'Seeker' is not an affiliation that means anything to me as I see it as an affiliation. People can come here seeking all kinds of things that I would not care to be affiliated with (trolls are seeking something).

To me, this can interfere with just sharing as Christians as there are some very divisive things that we think before ever listening to what others say. Imo, if we followed Paul's advice, we wouldn't have these divisions in the first place. But here we are, so do we play down these differences or make them into big deals for arguments ?

One area, I'm quite convinced of lately, is I don't want to be associated with being an Anabaptist any longer due mainly to the what I see professing Anabaptists have interest in. I don't share many of those concerns with those who post most frequently and need to ignore a number of threads to try to find something of spiritual interest to me.

So, thanks again to your team with all the help given when I had trouble with forum features. It is time for me to, not only accept it is what it is, but to move on to find Christians somewhere with similar interests, if that is possible. I likely have tried to make more of this forum than I should have and apologize for trying to steer it more in my interests.

The main thing is to focus on Jesus and the abundant Kingdom life He offers here and now, imo. God bless !!!

[steve-in-kville]

One area, I'm quite convinced of lately, is I don't want to be associated with being an Anabaptist any longer due mainly to the what I see professing Anabaptists have interest in. I don't share many of those concerns with those who post most frequently and need to ignore a number of threads to try to find something of spiritual interest to me.

Honestly, I always felt there was something here for everyone

[Ken]

I put “former MCUSA”

I actually grew up in the old Mennonite Church or MC before it merged with the GC Mennonite Church to become MCUSA. But for the past several decades, living in Alaska, Texas, Chile, and Washington we haven’t lived anywhere particularly near a MCUSA church. My wife grew up Catholic and when her mother is visiting (which can be frequent and for extended stays) we follow the path of least resistance and take her to Catholic mass because it is super important to her. When my mother-in-law isn’t staying with us my wife prefers the local Episcopal church because it is familiar but not as conservative or political as the Catholic Church has become, and isn’t so tainted with endless sex abuse scandals. We also have close friends who attend so it is familiar. But we aren’t official members. And my wife doesn’t like the cultural clannishness and plainness of most Mennonite churches. She doesn’t come from the Northern European Mennonite background. And she likes beautiful churches so overtly and deliberately plain Menno meeting houses are not really her thing.

I honestly prefer churches that are diverse and largely a-political and that are thoughtfully intellectual in their approach. So I disliked the repetitive politically-slanted dogma I would hear when we attended SBC churches at times in Texas. And I find the overly-liberal stuff in some urban MCUSA churches tiresome and divisive as well. There has actually been a LOT of sorting going on within Christianity in the past several decades, both inside and outside of the Mennonite faith. And I generally resist being “sorted” into one camp or the other.

I have also come to question some of the rigid 2-kingdom theology in Anabaptism which I think was largely developed in a different time and place where government was either imperial Rome, or theocratic monarchies during the 14th century. In a democratic society that depends on good people to engage at every level from school boards and volunteer fire departments on up to state and federal government I’m not convinced that disengagement is the right approach. So while I come from an Anabaptist background, I’m not sure the label accurately describes me anymore. But at the same time, I haven’t found any better new labels. I’m not really “seeking” anymore because I’ve just come to realize I probably won’t fit in perfectly anywhere. So I’m willing to take the good and ignore the bad wherever I am. And I’ve found that there’s usually something of value within every faith but also something to criticize or take issue with as well. So it is easier for me to put a label on where I am coming from than where I am going.

As for the affiliation labels? I don’t actually look at them very much. It is easy enough to figure out where people are coming from based on their actual words.