Articles by Asher Witmer

[RZehr]

I was a big proponent of dropping the name Mennonite from the church sign. I still think it would be technically preferable. Because its one thing to be called something by society, but why do we need to adopt it?

I've come to terms with it in my mind by thinking of "Mennonite" as a cultural descriptive, and not a religious sect. Just like when I see a churchs sign that says Korean Christian Church. Korean isn't a description of their faith, it is a description of who they are culturally.

Maybe I'm just bending my mind to justify it.

What does the sign say now? Christian Church Meetinghouse? I used to be a lot more opposed to identifiers than what I am now.

Halsey Mennonite Church. We were Tangent Mennonite Church. When we sold that property, and moved from the town of Tangent to the town of Halsey, we had to decide on a new name.
Clearly, I did not get my way.

[lesterb]

There is a group, based on a Norwegian group, I think, that doesn't have a denominational name. One of their strong points of doctrine is that are Christians, not a denomination.

We got to know a family from that group when we lived in the Brantford area of Ontario. We were in their home for meals and they were in ours. Our daughter baby-sat for them. It was a good relationship, and they were genuine Christians. They even came to church once in a while.

But they never had a name to tie them together as a group. In a sense they didn't have an identity. That always troubled me because it left me floundering, in a sense. We did talk a lot about what we believed and what they believed, and if I would have had no regular options for church, I would have considered theirs, though some weaknesses showed up in their family when they moved to one of their regular church communities (they home churched in our area).

But I can't even explain to you who or what they are, because they don't have a name. You won't know if one of your neighbors is part of the same group, without doing a lot of research. I don't think that is going to do what we think it should. Even if if you put up a sign that says, "Christian Church" add a statement something like "Worshipping Christ from a Mennonite frame of reference." Or what ever, I didn't think that through very much, so I'm sure that there is a better way to say it. Or do like the Holdemans, and add the word Mennonite to the end. The Church of God in Christ - Mennonite. It narrows things down a lot and gives people a bit of a frame of reference.

[lesterb]

I was a big proponent of dropping the name Mennonite from the church sign. I still think it would be technically preferable. Because its one thing to be called something by society, but why do we need to adopt it?

I've come to terms with it in my mind by thinking of "Mennonite" as a cultural descriptive, and not a religious sect. Just like when I see a churchs sign that says Korean Christian Church. Korean isn't a description of their faith, it is a description of who they are culturally.

Maybe I'm just bending my mind to justify it.

What does the sign say now? Christian Church Meetinghouse? I used to be a lot more opposed to identifiers than what I am now.

Halsey Mennonite Church. We were Tangent Mennonite Church. When we sold that property, and moved from the town of Tangent to the town of Halsey, we had to decide on a new name.
Clearly, I did not get my way.

You mean left out the word CONSERVATIVE?

I've noticed that in the Western Fellowship. We do the same. And I'm fine with that.

[Ernie]

If we need a "surname" so that seekers know where we are coming from and how we are different from other professing Christians, (something they often want to know) why not point them to a document or a descriptive term that points to our shared beliefs and values?

Just for the record, when people ask if I am Mennonite,
I say, "Yes. We are something very similar. I was raised Mennonite."
If they ask, "Are you Amish?" I say. "We believe a lot of the same things, but we would be more like Mennonites."
I then might say, "We would like for folks to think of us as followers of Jesus."

If they have more time to talk, I start explaining the terms Anabaptist, pilgrim church, kingdom Christian, and so forth.

Or do like the Holdemans, and add the word Mennonite to the end. The Church of God in Christ - Mennonite. It narrows things down a lot and gives people a bit of a frame of reference.

I like this also!

[appleman2006]

I was a big proponent of dropping the name Mennonite from the church sign. I still think it would be technically preferable. Because its one thing to be called something by society, but why do we need to adopt it?

I've come to terms with it in my mind by thinking of "Mennonite" as a cultural descriptive, and not a religious sect. Just like when I see a churchs sign that says Korean Christian Church. Korean isn't a description of their faith, it is a description of who they are culturally.

Maybe I'm just bending my mind to justify it.

What does the sign say now? Christian Church Meetinghouse? I used to be a lot more opposed to identifiers than what I am now.

Halsey Mennonite Church. We were Tangent Mennonite Church. When we sold that property, and moved from the town of Tangent to the town of Halsey, we had to decide on a new name.
Clearly, I did not get my way.

Bunny trail here but Tangent rings a memory bell for me. I think my Dad preached for a week there by in the dinosaur age.

[cmbl]

I agree with what Josh and Lester have said.

Anecdote: when in New York City to sing in subway stations, etc., my group was eating at a restaurant there. A man and his wife from the city asked us what we were. "We're Christians," said the group leader. Having seen how our young women dressed, the couple weren't satisfied with that answer.

The dominant form of Christianity in this country is evangelical Protestantism; if we want to be associated with something different than that, I think it's OK to say so.

One can say so with the mindset that we are the remnant, or one can say so with the mindset that we are a called-out order of disciples of Jesus who hold and practice pilgrim church/Kingdom values.

[appleman2006]

I am wondering if Asher were reading this thread if he would wonder if we are even coming close to the main points he was trying to communicate. Or maybe that was not even the attempt here.

[cmbl]

I am wondering if Asher were reading this thread if he would wonder if we are even coming close to the main points he was trying to communicate. Or maybe that was not even the attempt here.

My reply was to the OP's question about "Paul, Apollos, Cephas" and Menno Simons, not to deal with Asher's articles more generally. I would not be opposed to other threads about the main points of the articles.

[Hats Off]

We have been involved in some conversations lately about the so-called 2 by 2's. They are a group that just call themselves "Brethern". We would also like to be called by that name but it means nothing. When the name Brethern is used, we would think of the Plymouth Brethern or what we call the Bible Chapel. I would be happier just calling myself Mennonite but Robert's brand of Mennonites also call themselves simply Mennonites. I would hate to be confused with them and don't expect that Robert and others like him would want to be confused with our type of Mennonite.

[Mrs.Nisly]

So I'm going to post an excerpt from the blog here,

Does changing the physical help bring about spiritual fruit?

I don’t think what keeps Mennonites from being relevant to culture are applications, but the inability to differentiate between what is sin and what are just differences in those applications.

We like to make eternal judgments of people based on what they do physically. And that gets exhausting. Especially when we see spiritual fruit coming from people who are doing physical things differently than we are, like not wearing the veiling.

But don’t we have that same mindset when we then decide that we don’t need to wear the veiling or dress the way our church says in order to follow Christ? Aren’t we still unable to differentiate between different applications? We’re still focused on the physical. Nothing has actually changed, we’re just now choosing to look at different parts of the physical.

My church may have a good application of scripture. And just because someone else has an equally good application that is different from ours doesn’t mean I need to change, does it? If it’s a better application maybe it would be good to change. But it doesn’t always feel like we’re pursuing better as much as we are different.

I think it would be helpful to frame Asher's questions in relation to what Steven Brubaker had to say in the thread I posted: Anabaptism as Worldview.
Steven described two opposing views that seem to come up together giving the example of when we talk about the sovereignty of God, the question of the free will of man comes up, and so on, and so forth.
It seems to me that this question of Mennonite distinctives or Anabaptist worldview versus being relevant to culture is one of these questions.
It is the tension of "faithfulness" versus "outreach" that I recall DanZ identified a long time ago.

But what if this question can be put in Steven's first things and second things model?

He says the first thing is the first thing.
But the second thing matters too, its just not the first thing.

What if the gospel is the first thing?
The power of the gospel is that thing that transforms a sinner out of the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of his dear Son, the kingdom of light. This must absolutely be the "first thing"

But as Steven says, it's not the only thing. Very quickly we begin to understand that the gospel affects our lifestyle, our affections, and how we view the world around us.This is the second thing.

I believe Mennonite distinctives or worldview, fall into the second things circle around the first things core.

So my question is, if Asher's first things gospel core doesn't seem to be relevant to his second things circle, what is his gospel?