The NEW Non-conformity Poll

[Dan Z]

Here is a thread (and poll) devoted to the topic of Non-conformity

Non-conformity has long been a central doctrine within the Anabaptist faith community that encompasses ideas like holiness, piety, obedience, gelassenheit, and discipleship.

When I first came into the Anabaptist faith community some 35 years ago, the doctrine of non-conformity was a hot topic. Large parts of the main-stream Mennonite world were nearing the end of a generation-long transition away from more overt expressions of dress and living, and other groups (from within and without the Mennonite Church) were reacting to these rapid changes, sometimes in heavy-handed ways, by breaking off and/or teaching and staking out their own expressions of non-conformity.

Now that the larger battle is over and the lines have been drawn, I don't seem to hear as much about the doctrine or its application. Maybe we became fatigued with the topic. Maybe I'm not in the right circles anymore. Maybe it has become a negative idea to us. Maybe we just talk about it in different terms.

Is it still a central doctrine within Anabaptism? How do we understand and apply it?

The poll is meant as a discussion starter. I tried to stake out some of the main approaches to the topic, but there certainly is overlap long the way. Don't get hung up on the details of the poll, but simply pick the description that comes closest to how you understand and apply the doctrine of non-conformity.

Here is your chance to discuss (and vote for) what non-conformity means (or doesn't mean) to you.

[Hats Off]

No. 1 is how our church would typically respond, in my opinion but I chose No. 2 as a more modest approach to non-conformity.

[Ernie]

In the Ultra-conservative and Intermediate-conservative constituencies, non-conformity and non-resistance are two doctrines that are heavily emphasized and taught regularly in new believers instruction classes and winter Bible schools.
I've not heard the non-conformity word much in Moderate-conservatives settings. Non-resistance, yes.
Ultras have pointed out that the first one to go is non-conformity, and then non-resistance follows soon thereafter. They would not consider the pacifist stance of more progressive Anabaptists to be similar to their non-resistance beliefs at all.
Some have pointed out that non-conformity comes from the first great commandment, and non-resistance comes from the second great commandment. Love for God and love for man.


As a sideline... I'm waiting for the day when churches also add non-accumulation to their list.

[ohio jones]

I went back in my audio archives to locate a quote that has stuck with me from a symposium that the OP may have present at

Non-conformity is not a doctrine. Doctrines are positive; non-conformity is negative. We are called to a life of holiness. Holiness is the doctrine – partnering with God in expressing God’s holiness in the world. When we attach ourselves to the holiness of God we will be different from the world.

We tend to become what we focus on. If we focus on the world so as not to be conformed to it, what will we become? If we focus on God so as to be transformed into his likeness, what will we become?

This approach does not require that applications traditionally associated with non-conformity be abandoned. It does require that they be intentional rather than reactionary or perfunctory, and that they be viewed in relation to the doctrine of holiness they support rather than as an end in themselves.

[JimFoxvog]

It was hard for me to choose between #3 and #4. I agree with both. I almost chose #4 because how I understand "modesty" and how conservative Christians often understand "modesty" are different, but I also think modesty important. Other than that I really like the emphasis in #3, but the discernment of #4.

The statement in #4 I think has the right attitude.

With the Spirit's help, and the church's guidance, each of us must discern how to live and bear witness to our saving faith in Jesus - not in a prescribed/rule-oriented way, but rather as an outgrowth of a regenerated life..

I also agree with #5. So often "nonconformity" means conformity to a specific subculture.

[steve-in-kville]

This is a hard question for me... there are at least three options I could vote on. Our church is very diverse and does not spell out a lot of physical applications, which one thing I appreciate about them, as they feel Christians should have conviction for what they do or not do.

We all need to know where our line is.

[Martin]

As a sideline... I'm waiting for the day when churches also add non-accumulation to their list.

It doesn't work in a capitalistic society. Also, it's an amoral issue.

[Dan Z]

No. 1 is how our church would typically respond, in my opinion but I chose No. 2 as a more modest approach to non-conformity.

Hi Hat's off - your response makes sense to me.

Choice #1 was meant to reflect the more prescriptive approach to non-conformity that many of the old-orders and ultra-conservative groups use,. #2 was written to reflect a more moderate yet unambiguously Anabaptist approach to non-conformity that is more common among the moderately conservative groups. I understand how one might defer to the church's approach on the one hand, yet hold to something slightly different at personal level - I've been there. Geleassenheit at work.

By the way, I don't see your selection of #2 showing up in the poll.

[Dan Z]

I went back in my audio archives to locate a quote that has stuck with me from a symposium that the OP may have present at

Non-conformity is not a doctrine. Doctrines are positive; non-conformity is negative. We are called to a life of holiness. Holiness is the doctrine – partnering with God in expressing God’s holiness in the world. When we attach ourselves to the holiness of God we will be different from the world.

We tend to become what we focus on. If we focus on the world so as not to be conformed to it, what will we become? If we focus on God so as to be transformed into his likeness, what will we become?

This approach does not require that applications traditionally associated with non-conformity be abandoned. It does require that they be intentional rather than reactionary or perfunctory, and that they be viewed in relation to the doctrine of holiness they support rather than as an end in themselves.

Yes I remember that quote Ohio Jones. It is interesting that one of our main doctrines in the Mennonite context is defining what we are NOT (non-conformity). I think this is in good part the legacy of the Mennonite world of 100 years ago, and it's reactionary push-back to the cultural threats of modernism and the WW1 - building on the reactionary confessions of the 16th century.

That's in good part why I prefer option #3 in the poll (an approach more common in the Kingdom movement churches). Rather than framing the doctrine in reaction (non-conformity) to "the world," it is framed as conformity to the image and likeness of Jesus (his teachings and example). In other words, it is more about who we are to be relative to Christ than who we are not to be relative to the world.

[gcdonner]

I chose none of the above, since that would be conforming to the mindset of this world, ...by voting...

I noticed a glaring omission was the rejection of the internet as being a part of non-conformity