MennoNet.com

Ernie wrote:This is a thread to discuss Fundamental-Conservative Mennonite Churches as categorized by Stephen Scott in his book, An Introduction to Older and Conservative Mennonite Groups.
I've titled this thread "Progressive Conservatives" since many people are confused by the term "Fundamental". Stephen Scott calls them Fundamental since they like to think of themselves as sticking with fundamental Biblical values and don't like to have extra-biblical standards.

This designation would include churches who would be similar to Biblical Mennonite Alliance (BMA).

What other churches would be part of this constituency? (Similar standards, sharing pulpits, partnering in ministries and Bible Schools, etc.)

Many Charity type churches and the fringes of moderate groups like Midwest share pulpits with people from BMA, send their kids to EBI, sponsor missionaries through DNI, etc. I can think of two that fit the above within a 35 minute drive of me.

ohio jones wrote:

joshuabgood wrote:Regarding the shorts issue... This actually is swinging the other way. BMA is taking a firm stand on shorts. It used to be that the large influential congregations all permitted them. However they are now open about stopping that...and no new church entering may allow shorts. In a matter of time they will be completely gone. Also regarding dominant pressure, in the LC area they also face some pressure to be more conservative like the Keystones.

A friend-of-a-friend facebooked this a while back. Not entirely accurate in all respects, but it does seem to hit the important points as he sees them.

BMA Distinctives.jpg

Ohio Jones, that diagram of yours is far easier to understand than the other ones I've come across!

Does anyone have any information on Anabaptist Mennonite Fellowship or Bible Mennonite Fellowship? I found a little info on BMF but not much, and I couldn't find anything about AMF. I believe both of theses groups fall under progressive/fundamental.

Haystack wrote:Does anyone have any information on Anabaptist Mennonite Fellowship or Bible Mennonite Fellowship? I found a little info on BMF but not much, and I couldn't find anything about AMF. I believe both of theses groups fall under progressive/fundamental.

AMF was formerly known as Sharing Concerns Bible Conference; Stephen Scott's entry on that is googleable, though incomplete and a bit dated. The "conference" originally referred to a semi-annual meeting rather than an organizational structure; over time that developed into a greater relationship between the participants, but still not a formal affiliation. I would classify some of the congregations as fundamental (they would not embrace the "progressive" label ) and others as moderate. Where there are AMF and BMA congregations in close proximity, the AMF would be the more conservative. Not all of them are listed in the Pilgrim Ministry Church Finder; those that do have entries there are labeled Unafilliated [sic].

ohio jones wrote:

Haystack wrote:Does anyone have any information on Anabaptist Mennonite Fellowship or Bible Mennonite Fellowship? I found a little info on BMF but not much, and I couldn't find anything about AMF. I believe both of theses groups fall under progressive/fundamental.

AMF was formerly known as Sharing Concerns Bible Conference; Stephen Scott's entry on that is googleable, though incomplete and a bit dated. The "conference" originally referred to a semi-annual meeting rather than an organizational structure; over time that developed into a greater relationship between the participants, but still not a formal affiliation. I would classify some of the congregations as fundamental (they would not embrace the "progressive" label ) and others as moderate. Where there are AMF and BMA congregations in close proximity, the AMF would be the more conservative. Not all of them are listed in the Pilgrim Ministry Church Finder; those that do have entries there are labeled Unafilliated [sic].

Thank you, OJ.

ohio jones wrote: I would classify some of the congregations as fundamental (they would not embrace the "progressive" label ) and others as moderate.

Sociologists and historians don't generally ask permission from various groups as to what adjectives they may use in describing them.

Few ultra's would embrace the term "ultra-conservative" as describing themselves, just like many moderate-conservatives would not like to be called moderate-conservatives, etc.

I remember how it felt many years ago when I was an ultra and read Stephen Scott's description of us. I was living in a bubble at the time and did not think of my group as ultra-conservative. His term to describe us smarted a bit.
We knew of people who were truly ultra-conservative and we did not wish to be identified with them at all.
But in the decades since then, as I've interacted with many different conservatives, I now see the differences between us and the people we considered ultra-conservative as being rather minuscule, and that the worldview driving both of us was basically the same.

Ernie, your response is a “diamond,” wish MN had a diamonds thread.
(i believe “diamonds” was one of justme’s brainchilds on MD.)

Ernie wrote:

ohio jones wrote: I would classify some of the congregations as fundamental (they would not embrace the "progressive" label ) and others as moderate.

Sociologists and historians don't generally ask permission from various groups as to what adjectives they may use in describing them.

Few ultra's would embrace the term "ultra-conservative" as describing themselves, just like many moderate-conservatives would not like to be called moderate-conservatives, etc.

I remember how it felt many years ago when I was an ultra and read Stephen Scott's description of us.
I was living in a bubble at the time and did not think of my group as ultra-conservative.
His term to describe us smarted a bit.
We knew of people who were truly ultra-conservative and we did not wish to be identified with them at all.

But in the decades since then, as I've interacted with many different conservatives, I now see the differences between us and the people we considered ultra-conservative as being rather minuscule, and that the worldview driving both of us was basically the same.

in my young life, in a very different setting, i experienced similar.
“things that smart,” can end up being valuable life lessons, helpful for one’s broadened world view.

i believe your words here could be slightly modified to improve many threads on this forum.
esp the most contentious.

interesting how frequently Jesus used “words that smarted,” not to hurt, but to enlighten.

the most important factor for the lesson to become a helpful one, not just a wasted uncomfortable moment, is the willingness to inwardly consider,
“could that be true ~ (of me?”)

end bunny trail.

Since I would identify myself under this label as a progressive Conservative Mennonite, I will share some of my thoughts here.

I have long pondered the question of why conservatives from Amish background seem to be the least stable when they give up the Old Order.

This is true of the Amish Mennonite schism of 1865 as it is of every Amish Mennonite group since then as it is of individual formerly Amish families that have left scattered through out the history of the last one hundred fifty years. Of course, how fast they move varies quite a bit. The 'why' of that is interesting as well.
But I think I am beginning to understand some things about being Amish that has never been articulated very well to me before.
Recently I have been reading a book called "The Amish Way" by Donald Kraybill, Steven Nolt, and David Weaver-Zercher.
It really takes a deep look at the beliefs and practices of the Old Order Amish faith, and to my surprise there is nothing in their understanding of salvation or the Christian life that I would disagree with.
This book portrays them as deeply spiritual people who take their faith very seriously.

But as I read on and the authors described their disciplines, schedules, rhythms, and habits of family life, basically practicing Ora et Labora (Pray and Work) I realized that both my husband and I whose parents both grew up Amish then went Beachy or Conservative, grew up with those practices in their family life, but relaxed them through out their life to the point that since both my husband and I are youngest born, we remember only a few of those disciplines and now in our family we practice them even less. Our lives are even less scheduled and more relaxed then when we grew up.

I really think this might be a significant factor in the movement of conservative groups toward assimilation. Families that keep a very discipline family structure, that is supported and expected by the community they are in, will maintain a stability.
I think Progressive Conservative groups and other open-minded groups would do well to think about this and make teaching and discipleship on home life in the Anabaptist tradition a priority in their church.

Mrs.Nisly wrote:But as I read on and the authors described their disciplines, schedules, rhythms, and habits of family life, basically practicing Ora et Labora (Pray and Work) I realized that both my husband and I whose parents both grew up Amish then went Beachy or Conservative, grew up with those practices in their family life, but relaxed them through out their life to the point that since both my husband and I are youngest born, we remember only a few of those disciplines and now in our family we practice them even less. Our lives are even less scheduled and more relaxed then when we grew up.

I really think this might be a significant factor in the movement of conservative groups toward assimilation. Families that keep a very discipline family structure, that is supported and expected by the community they are in, will maintain a stability.
I think Progressive Conservative groups and other open-minded groups would do well to think about this and make teaching and discipleship on home life in the Anabaptist tradition a priority in their church.

Very interesting! These observations resonate with me.