Articles by Asher Witmer

[Mrs.Nisly]

So here is a quote from the second blog post.

For those who are obsessed with preserving Anabaptism, are you surrendered enough to God to let His Holy Spirit do the work in peoples’ lives, and take their confessions of belief at face value? Enough to love those who make different applications than you do? Embracing them as brothers and sisters without emotionally requiring them to conform to your culture?

And for those of you who are tempted to let it all go, are you humble enough to see the valuable and forgiving enough to admit its value and embrace it, even when it reminds you of experiences and people that have hurt you?

I still feel like these questions are being framed as somehow the work of the gospel is versus Anabaptism rather than a first and second thing.

Now do I think that when ever people embrace an Anabaptist Worldview they will figure it out just like the Amish? the Beachys? the non-conference Mennonites? Followers of the Way? the Fellowship Mennonites? the Kleine Geiminde? the Holdemans? The Dunkards? the German Baptists?
Oh wait, none of them even have it figured out like each other! But they share a Worldview that comes out of a first things understanding of the Gospel.

[Wayne in Maine]

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?

I haven't finished reading Steven Brubaker's paper so I can't place what I say in the context of a first-thing, second-thing concept. But I will say that Asher's piece reflects, IMHO, the dominant American Evangelical Christian worldview and understanding f the Gospel. In reading it I underlined many points made in the first article that tells me that. At the same time Asher fails o distinguish between (historic) Anabaptists and (ethnic) Mennonites. I would go so far as to say that a lot of the struggles about being effective, having an impact on our culture, wanting to avoid the name "Mennonite", etc. is really reflective of ethnic Mennonite assimilation into American Evangelical culture.

[Wayne in Maine]

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?

I have not yet listened to Steven Brubaker's presentations so I can't place what I say in the context of a first-thing, second-thing concept. But I will say that Asher's piece reflects, IMHO, the dominant American Evangelical Christian worldview and understanding f the Gospel. In reading it I underlined many points made in the first article that tells me that. At the same time Asher fails o distinguish between (historic) Anabaptists and (ethnic) Mennonites. I would go so far as to say that a lot of the struggles about being effective, having an impact on our culture, wanting to avoid the name "Mennonite", etc. is really reflective of ethnic Mennonite assimilation into American Evangelical culture.

[Mrs.Nisly]

I couldn't agree with you more, Wayne.

In fact, my husband and I just ended a very animated conversation about this, this morning.

I'm sorry you all missed it.

So here is another quote from Asher's second blog post.I think it highlights this exact issue.

But what surprised me the most in all of this is that I began the post with a devastating statement, yet it didn’t seem to faze anyone.

“Church is confusing.”

No one seemed concerned by that comment. No one challenged it. And no one appeared to notice how loud it is when no one challenges it.

But, I would disagree with Asher that no one (in the comments and feedback section of the previous blog to which he is refering) seemed concerned about the comment "Church is confusing". In fact, Chester Weaver did address it quite throughly in the comments. And I did.... yes, my comments are there from 2 years ago as well.

What you will not see are comments that are deleted by the author where He shuts Chester off and I point out that he isn't understanding what Chester is saying, and then I get "put in my place".

I have no ill will toward Asher personally,I really think he just couldn't get his head around what we were trying to say, but he is representing this problem of a disconnect between moderately conservative Mennonites, (and the more they drink from Protestant Revivalism/Evangelicalism) and Anabaptism. It is no wonder Church, meaning their particular Mennonite Church, is confusing.

[Mrs.Nisly]

And I would add, specifically to Ernie's point about surnames, there is something in me that revolts against labeling as well. At one point in my life, when I was in reaction, I hated being labeled, Amish. In my mind I was not Amish, in any way shape or form. Now I recognize it as an emotional reaction against being something that I actually was. Now from a bit of a different perspective I recognize that I grew up in an Anabaptist worldview that was actually fairly Amish in it's application. I also realize that just because I always carried the Mennonite Label I was taught to think more Amish-ly than Mennonite-ly.

Now I am still reacting to these labels because they don't always reflect accurately Anabaptism. And in there I suppose I personally have been corrupted enough by other ways of thinking that I don't really reflect pure Anabaptism either....

Besides that, just listen to those words Amish, Mennonite....they are just very strange words. Why are we not taking about Jacobists or Simonites?

But like someone mentioned earlier, labels are useful in that they can convey a lot of general information in a small amount of space. It's just that problems come up when words are redefined to mean something other than what has typically been understood. Then it's time to change the label.

[lesterb]

And I would add, specifically to Ernie's point about surnames, there is something in me that revolts against labeling as well. At one point in my life, when I was in reaction, I hated being labeled, Amish. In my mind I was not Amish, in any way shape or form. Now I recognize it as an emotional reaction against being something that I actually was. Now from a bit of a different perspective I recognize that I grew up in an Anabaptist worldview that was actually fairly Amish in it's application. I also realize that just because I always carried the Mennonite Label I was taught to think more Amish-ly than Mennonite-ly.

Now I am still reacting to these labels because they don't always reflect accurately Anabaptism. And in there I suppose I personally have been corrupted enough by other ways of thinking that I don't really reflect pure Anabaptism either....

Besides that, just listen to those words Amish, Mennonite....they are just very strange words. Why are we not taking about Jacobists or Simonites?

But like someone mentioned earlier, labels are useful in that they can convey a lot of general information in a small amount of space. It's just that problems come up when words are redefined to mean something other than what has typically been understood. Then it's time to change the label.

Have you ever listened to Don Carlin's Hardcore History podcasts? He has one on Munster entitled "Prophets of Doom." And it illustrates how a label like Anabaptism can get to be misused. I need to write him a letter, if I ever get enough time and energy in the same space together. I have a few books he needs to read.

He's pretty good, actually. And he admits that he can't read the original documents and so had to rely on English source material, and only a few books at that.

[Ernie]

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?

I think a lot of people (including Asher) think that the Gospel can be extracted from a human culture. The fact is that in most cases, God uses a human culture to spread the Gospel and in cases where he doesn't, a human culture forms. (e.g. God may speak to an individual through an angel, but if that individual starts a church, it will be set in a human culture.

Good cultures take a long time to develop but they can be trashed in one generation.

I think there is value in human culture and the more God honoring a human culture becomes, the more effective it can be at transmitting or hosting the Gospel.

[cmbl]

I agree with Mrs. Nisly's and Wayne's assessments. A few thoughts of my own:

When I think about Witmer's articles, I think they are written with an underlying assumption that the principles of Anabaptists and Evangelicals are the same principles, and the applications are just different. I see this, for example, in the titles of the pieces, or even the second line about "All the different denominations and applications to scripture." Or the bit about how the two groups both want "more of Christ," whatever that's supposed to mean.

Ethnic Anabaptists who have adopted Evangelical theology notwithstanding, I don't think that Anabaptist principles and Evangelical principles are the same ones. For example, an important principle in Anabaptism is that the Sermon on the Mount is to be put into practice. Applications of that could include nonresistance, nonaccumulation, no divorce and remarriage, etc. (Maybe those are actually derivative principles which themselves have applications, but I digress.)

At the YRR SBC* church I attended before finding Anabaptism, we were told that it would be dangerous to read the Sermon on the Mount and say "I'm going to do that."

Completely opposite principles.
I have more thoughts, which I'll try to add later.

*Stands for Young, Restless, Reformed (i.e. Calvinist) Southern Baptist Convention. The new face of evangelicalism.

[joshuabgood]

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?

I think a lot of people (including Asher) think that the Gospel can be extracted from a human culture. The fact is that in most cases, God uses a human culture to spread the Gospel and in cases where he doesn't, a human culture forms. (e.g. God may speak to an individual through an angel, but if that individual starts a church, it will be set in a human culture.

Good cultures take a long time to develop but they can be trashed in one generation.

I think there is value in human culture and the more God honoring a human culture becomes, the more effective it can be at transmitting or hosting the Gospel.

The question here is what is "the gospel." Perhaps the protestant gospel can be extracted as you mentioned.

Another question is what do you mean by culture.

[Ernie]

Another question is what do you mean by culture.

Great question.

When I first typed the term, I was thinking of this definition.
"the customs, arts, social institutions, values, and achievements of a particular nation, people, or other social group."

By the time I was finished writing the paragraph, it struck me that this definition might work as well.
"maintain (tissue cells, bacteria, [a living organism such as a spiritual life, spiritual community] etc.) in conditions suitable for growth."