Articles by Asher Witmer

[Ernie]

The other big question still is "What the good news is?"

Yes. This is the big question.

I believe it is the good news Jesus preached, which is the good news of the kingdom. The good news that there is a new reality now and we can live in that new reality. we can be transported out of the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of light. We can begin living this reality before we die in called out kingdom communities where the resurrection power of Jesus transforms us into holy separated people of God.

But of course this new reality doesn't end with death. It continues on as life eternal because death has been conquered by the triumph of Jesus on the cross. The future has been brought into the present. The resurrection came when Jesus arose from the grave. Our life after, after death starts right now in the present!

I agree with this and might add that it is all that Jesus began both to do and teach. If he seems to have taught something that he did not do, I don't think we should include that as part of the good news. (e.g. carrying and using a sword) And vice versa. Doing something that he did not seem to teach. e.g. (Driving money changers out of the temple with a whip.) These things make for interesting cogitations but I would not build doctrine out of these things or promote them as part of the Gospel.

I would also add. "The good news is that Jesus came to set in motion the establishing of small societies of the redeemed [all over the world] who would show the world what it would look like if everybody obeyed the King." (credit: John D. Martin)

[Ernie]

Ernie, can sin be a culture? Or is sin a separate category?

I'm not sure I understand the question.

[joshuabgood]

What I mean is...if a given practice is "sin," then is it ideal to label that sin "culture?" I would idealize calling "sin" sin rather than defining it as a cultural practice. However, using the standard definition of culture, one could say "a regularly occurring" sinful practice, is a cultural practice.

I would see some value though in defining culture as those practices in a society which aren't "sin" but are morally neutral. For instance, whether or not one wears a sari, whether or not one wears a cape dress, whether or not the streets are named or the blocks are named, etc.

These practices I would see as distinct from say the rite of Sati (burning widows on pyres).

[joshuabgood]

As for good news, I agree with the "kingdom coming" aspect of the good news, but there is more I think. I would propose that the Sermon on the Mount is good news. For example, the idea that turning the other cheek is more effective than military force, is good news to those who are so poor and disenfranchised that they will never control the F16s. The idea that a man will be true to a women for life, is good news to a society where women are regularly oppressed. The idea that meekness, poor in spiritness, mourning, etc are things that bring great reward, is good news to those that have no rewards and "blessings" on this earth. The idea that giving is better than receiving, is good news to those who never receive. The idea that those that suffer will rejoice, is good news to those that suffer.

In my view these things are just as much the good news as the traditional protestant angle: men have sinned, God was really mad and was going to burn the sinners forever; he killed his son instead to vent his anger; and now we can get off "scot free" if we pray a "sinner's prayer." Forgive the vernacular language, but it serves to illustrate the difficulty methinks. I should add that their are aspects to the Protestant gospel which are true I think, but it is unfortunately misappropriated too much of the time into primarily "fire insurance" and theological propositions that are devoid of any ethical entailments.

[ken_sylvania]

What I mean is...if a given practice is "sin," then is it ideal to label that sin "culture?" I would idealize calling "sin" sin rather than defining it as a cultural practice. However, using the standard definition of culture, one could say "a regularly occurring" sinful practice, is a cultural practice.

I would see some value though in defining culture as those practices in a society which aren't "sin" but are morally neutral. For instance, whether or not one wears a sari, whether or not one wears a cape dress, whether or not the streets are named or the blocks are named, etc.

This seems to suggest that all cultural practices that are not sinful are morally neutral. Is this a realistic position? Might some cultural practices militate against drawing closer to God even though they are not, strictly speaking, sin? In which case they would not be morally neutral?

[joshuabgood]

Ken -

I think if you would cite some specific examples it might help me understand...

thx,

josh

[ken_sylvania]

Schooling, for instance. Prevailing cultural practice is to send to public school K-12, unless the student drops out before completing. Since the 1970s or thereabouts, conservative Mennonites have strongly endorsed the Christian Day School concept. I wouldn't necessarily say that sending a child to public school is a sin (particularly in the sense that it's not outright forbidden by Scripture), but neither would I say school choice is a morally neutral cultural practice. I think that sending one's child to public school if there are better alternatives would be a violation of the instruction to fathers to bring their children up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

[ken_sylvania]

As for good news, I agree with the "kingdom coming" aspect of the good news, but there is more I think. I would propose that the Sermon on the Mount is good news. For example, the idea that turning the other cheek is more effective than military force, is good news to those who are so poor and disenfranchised that they will never control the F16s. The idea that a man will be true to a women for life, is good news to a society where women are regularly oppressed. The idea that meekness, poor in spiritness, mourning, etc are things that bring great reward, is good news to those that have no rewards and "blessings" on this earth. The idea that giving is better than receiving, is good news to those who never receive. The idea that those that suffer will rejoice, is good news to those that suffer.

In my view these things are just as much the good news as the traditional protestant angle: men have sinned, God was really mad and was going to burn the sinners forever; he killed his son instead to vent his anger; and now we can get off "scot free" if we pray a "sinner's prayer." Forgive the vernacular language, but it serves to illustrate the difficulty methinks. I should add that their are aspects to the Protestant gospel which are true I think, but it is unfortunately misappropriated too much of the time into primarily "fire insurance" and theological propositions that are devoid of any ethical entailments.

I like what you're saying here. Wouldn't you say the concept of putting this good news into shoe leather, trying to live like Jesus, is closer to the historic Mennonite position than the idea of deciding exactly what all cultural practices constitute sin?

[Ernie]

What I mean is...if a given practice is "sin," then is it ideal to label that sin "culture?" I would idealize calling "sin" sin rather than defining it as a cultural practice. However, using the standard definition of culture, one could say "a regularly occurring" sinful practice, is a cultural practice.

I would see some value though in defining culture as those practices in a society which aren't "sin" but are morally neutral. For instance, whether or not one wears a sari, whether or not one wears a cape dress, whether or not the streets are named or the blocks are named, etc.

These practices I would see as distinct from say the rite of Sati (burning widows on pyres).

I would not label a given practice that is sinful as "culture".

Here is an example of what I was trying to say...
Some cultures encourage unmarried men and women to dance together. While I would not call this sin, I would say that such a culture is not as conducive to holiness as a culture that makes no provision for the flesh in this regard.

Other cultures encourage couples to have very little physical contact before marriage. I think this is conducive to holiness. It certainly takes more than this to be holy, but this can be a help.

Why open the cookie jar in front of a child and let him smell it and then tell him not to eat any or even lust after one.

[Josh]

Do you believe the gospel is more suited and easier to accept for ethnic Mennonites than for people from other cultures?

Certain parts of the gospel, yes. Other parts of the gospel, no.

Where is this principle in scripture?

Not sure what principle you are referring to at this point.

The principle that we should raise our kids really well so they will be more likely to accept Christ. And overall, the principle that being raised Mennonite / C.A. means more likely to accept Christ.

(Alongside this is the belief that if not raised Mennonite, it will be difficult to accept Christ, and that even if one does join the church, one will probably eventually fall away and certainly won't ever really figure out how to "live right". Related to this is reluctance for NMB people to inter-marry with ethnic Anabaptists, which basically expects NMBs to adopt a life of celibacy, or try to find one of the other also very rare NMBs to marry.)