Television

Christian ethics and theology with an Anabaptist perspective
Sudsy
Posts: 5854
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:32 pm
Affiliation: .

Re: Television

Post by Sudsy »

Ernie wrote:Sudsy,

Then why do you keep hanging out with the small percentage of Christians in the world who do have the "order" mindset if according to your view we are not following the NT model and have so many "cons" to our approach.
Why not hang out with the 99.9% (who have received Jesus according to your definition) and are seeking to "reach the world for Jesus" your style? Just curious. :-|
Because I am of Anabaptist belief and part of an Anabaptist congregation that has a very limited "order" mindset. I'm not the only one here who has reservations on how far this "order" mindset should be taken. I believe within Anabaptism there is quite a range of evangelism styles and some here are more engaged with the world than others. There is also quite a range of belief in the area of sanctification that I have read here. If we Anabaptists are to follow Jesus as we claim we should, then don't you think we need to look at all the areas that Jesus and the apostles demonstrated and check them out against our practises ? That is what I am here to do and to learn from others.

It may be that some here do not care to regard our type of Mennonite Brethren as Anabaptist, I'm not sure. But this is how we identify ourselves.

Hope that clarifies why I gave the response I did to your questions.
0 x
Pursuing a Kingdom life in the Spirit
User avatar
Josh
Posts: 23813
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:23 pm
Location: 1000' ASL
Affiliation: The church of God

Re: Television

Post by Josh »

I would like to see more evidence of this "anything goes" approach to sanctification actually producing sanctification.

Like it or not, if your group is full of fornicators, it is not a place where people are filled with the Spirit.
0 x
User avatar
Josh
Posts: 23813
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:23 pm
Location: 1000' ASL
Affiliation: The church of God

Re: Television

Post by Josh »

Sudsy,

The New Testament clearly lays down very specific practice for Christians in 1 Co. 11 at odds with the surrounding culture at the time.

How do you reconcile this?
0 x
Sudsy
Posts: 5854
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:32 pm
Affiliation: .

Re: Television

Post by Sudsy »

Josh wrote:I would like to see more evidence of this "anything goes" approach to sanctification actually producing sanctification.

Like it or not, if your group is full of fornicators, it is not a place where people are filled with the Spirit.
"Anything goes" and "fornicators" ? I don't think what I posted suggests an environment of either. Where did this remark come from ?
0 x
Pursuing a Kingdom life in the Spirit
Ernie
Posts: 5445
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 2:48 pm
Location: Central PA
Affiliation: Anabaptist Umbrella
Contact:

Re: Television

Post by Ernie »

Sudsy wrote:
Ernie wrote:Sudsy,

Then why do you keep hanging out with the small percentage of Christians in the world who do have the "order" mindset if according to your view we are not following the NT model and have so many "cons" to our approach.
Why not hang out with the 99.9% (who have received Jesus according to your definition) and are seeking to "reach the world for Jesus" your style? Just curious. :-|
Because I am of Anabaptist belief and part of an Anabaptist congregation that has a very limited "order" mindset. I'm not the only one here who has reservations on how far this "order" mindset should be taken. I believe within Anabaptism there is quite a range of evangelism styles and some here are more engaged with the world than others. There is also quite a range of belief in the area of sanctification that I have read here. If we Anabaptists are to follow Jesus as we claim we should, then don't you think we need to look at all the areas that Jesus and the apostles demonstrated and check them out against our practises ? That is what I am here to do and to learn from others.

It may be that some here do not care to regard our type of Mennonite Brethren as Anabaptist, I'm not sure. But this is how we identify ourselves.

Hope that clarifies why I gave the response I did to your questions.
Fair enough. I don't spend much time thinking about who rightfully can call themselves Anabaptist and who shouldn't.
If someone wants to call themselves something that I don't want to be identified with, I can us a different term. So far professing Anabaptists who represent something I don't want to be identified with haven't created much difficulty for me, so I am fine with still being identified by this term.

If you are saying that you think there may be something to learn from us "order" folks about following Christ in spite of our wrong way of looking at many things, that is fine. I'm not saying you should not be on MN.
I was just curious about your way of thinking and you explained. :up:
0 x
The old woodcutter spoke again. “It is impossible to talk with you. You always draw conclusions. Life is so vast, yet you judge all of life with one page or one word. You see only a fragment. Unless you know the whole story, how can you judge?"
Sudsy
Posts: 5854
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:32 pm
Affiliation: .

Re: Television

Post by Sudsy »

Josh wrote:Sudsy,

The New Testament clearly lays down very specific practice for Christians in 1 Co. 11 at odds with the surrounding culture at the time.

How do you reconcile this?
1 Cor 11 is specifically talking about issues within their fellowship meetings. Paul corrects their practise on the head covering and taking communion. I have no problem with this. And there is no indication that if anyone disobeys what Paul directed, they should be banned from fellowship. I also think a head covering is not a cap, especially a see through cap. If the hair is to be covered it would require something like a shawl. Whatever, there are Anabaptist churches like ours that do not think the head covering is necessary today. Myself, I would leave this up to each person's convictions on how this is to be interpreted and teach there should be no 'holier-than-thou' attitude between those who do and those who don't.

It was also a practise that men pray with hands lifted up. Is this mandatory for men or was this something that can be explained away ? Paul put it this way - "Therefore I want the men everywhere to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or disputing." Was this just something Paul personally wanted or was this what God expects of men whenever they are praying ?

In my view these practises of worship are quite different than mandating no short pants and short sleeves and no gold wedding rings and shirt tails in or out, and no TV and no radio etc, etc. When Paul goes on to talk about women's adornments I believe the point being made is not to be noticed by those outward adornments but rather be noticed for your godly spirit. This, too, would be our MB practice within modest limits. Is it encouraged enough to focus on the godly spirit ? Imo, no. I just don't think making rules is the answer either. I think older men and women believers should play a more active role in teaching what texts like this are getting at.

I am more of a Greg Boyd and Buxy Cavey follower of Anabaptistism and I realize this will be at odds with some others here. I like how they challenge traditions to see how they hold water to the scriptures.
0 x
Pursuing a Kingdom life in the Spirit
Ernie
Posts: 5445
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 2:48 pm
Location: Central PA
Affiliation: Anabaptist Umbrella
Contact:

Re: Television

Post by Ernie »

Sudsy wrote: 1 Cor 11 is specifically talking about issues within their fellowship meetings. Paul corrects their practise on the head covering and taking communion. I have no problem with this. And there is no indication that if anyone disobeys what Paul directed, they should be banned from fellowship. I also think a head covering is not a cap, especially a see through cap. If the hair is to be covered it would require something like a shawl. Whatever, there are Anabaptist churches like ours that do not think the head covering is necessary today. Myself, I would leave this up to each person's convictions on how this is to be interpreted and teach there should be no 'holier-than-thou' attitude between those who do and those who don't.

It was also a practise that men pray with hands lifted up. Is this mandatory for men or was this something that can be explained away ? Paul put it this way - "Therefore I want the men everywhere to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or disputing." Was this just something Paul personally wanted or was this what God expects of men whenever they are praying ?

I am more of a Greg Boyd and Buxy Cavey follower of Anabaptistism and I realize this will be at odds with some others here. I like how they challenge traditions to see how they hold water to the scriptures.
This week a neighbor asked to eat lunch with me. We've met before.
He has been leading a house church the last few years and likes Anabaptist theology and Greg Boyd better than typical Protestant theology. He has come to the conclusion that gay marriage is a Romans 14 type issue - not something that Christians should be dividing over. He doesn't even think this is a doctrinal issue.
He thinks that the tenor of scripture and the example of Jesus would leads him to believe that he should affirm gays who want to be married. If there are folks with same-sex attraction who think they should live celibate, then we should respect their conscience on the issue and not encourage them to live the gay lifestyle. The only separation he is comfortable with is a separation between those who are willing to confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh and those who are not. He would like if all other believers, including me, would consider him a brother in the Lord. I assume you don't go this far???
0 x
The old woodcutter spoke again. “It is impossible to talk with you. You always draw conclusions. Life is so vast, yet you judge all of life with one page or one word. You see only a fragment. Unless you know the whole story, how can you judge?"
User avatar
Josh
Posts: 23813
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:23 pm
Location: 1000' ASL
Affiliation: The church of God

Re: Television

Post by Josh »

Over on MennoNerds it is considered divisive to argue about whether Christ came in the flesh or was just a historical figure. That's where this "anything goes" thinking leads to.

Fundamentalism was a reaction to this. Instead of making excuses for how someone who blatantly disobeys the Bible can be in fellowship, why can't I just fellowship with people who agree with Paul - "Every woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered dishonours her head."
0 x
Sudsy
Posts: 5854
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:32 pm
Affiliation: .

Re: Television

Post by Sudsy »

Ernie wrote:
Sudsy wrote: 1 Cor 11 is specifically talking about issues within their fellowship meetings. Paul corrects their practise on the head covering and taking communion. I have no problem with this. And there is no indication that if anyone disobeys what Paul directed, they should be banned from fellowship. I also think a head covering is not a cap, especially a see through cap. If the hair is to be covered it would require something like a shawl. Whatever, there are Anabaptist churches like ours that do not think the head covering is necessary today. Myself, I would leave this up to each person's convictions on how this is to be interpreted and teach there should be no 'holier-than-thou' attitude between those who do and those who don't.

It was also a practise that men pray with hands lifted up. Is this mandatory for men or was this something that can be explained away ? Paul put it this way - "Therefore I want the men everywhere to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or disputing." Was this just something Paul personally wanted or was this what God expects of men whenever they are praying ?

I am more of a Greg Boyd and Buxy Cavey follower of Anabaptistism and I realize this will be at odds with some others here. I like how they challenge traditions to see how they hold water to the scriptures.
This week a neighbor asked to eat lunch with me. We've met before.
He has been leading a house church the last few years and likes Anabaptist theology and Greg Boyd better than typical Protestant theology. He has come to the conclusion that gay marriage is a Romans 14 type issue - not something that Christians should be dividing over. He doesn't even think this is a doctrinal issue.
He thinks that the tenor of scripture and the example of Jesus would leads him to believe that he should affirm gays who want to be married. If there are folks with same-sex attraction who think they should live celibate, then we should respect their conscience on the issue and not encourage them to live the gay lifestyle. The only separation he is comfortable with is a separation between those who are willing to confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh and those who are not. He would like if all other believers, including me, would consider him a brother in the Lord. I assume you don't go this far???
I know Buxy and Greg are not into condemning gay people in gay relationships but rather to support them in following Jesus and allow the Holy Spirit to work in them and convict them of sins in the Spirit's timing. Their churches do welcome gays and yet they do not approve of gay sexual relationships. I could consider them a brother who is learning about sinning just as I am learning about my sinning. If they had an unrepentant attitude toward all sinning, then I would think they fit into the 1 Cor 5 category and should be dealt with as Paul explains.

Here is a couple short clips on Buxy and Greg on this issue -



0 x
Pursuing a Kingdom life in the Spirit
Adam
Posts: 168
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2017 10:35 pm
Location: Papua New Guinea
Affiliation: Kingdom Christian

Re: Television

Post by Adam »

Sudsy wrote:
Ernie wrote:
Sudsy wrote:I don't know about these Anglican Orders but just read about the different types on Wikipedia. I don't see such a thing in NT scriptures involving making vows but I do see where it says things like not getting married, if you can, to be more fully focused on serving God.

I believe under the New Covenant we can be a community of believers allowing for the Holy Spirit to develop sanctification and give ministry gifts in each individual's life and our role amongst believers is to encourage and pray for each other to draw close to God as He works in us to do our part in the body. As in giving, nothing needs to be out of obligation to anyone or anything except to God. Whatever we do, do to the glory of God. Basically, keep out of the way for the Spirit to work in and through us. I think man has tried to improve on this and attempted to force spirituality and has crossed into the Spirit's working area.
So lets skip the vow part. Do you think it is ok for a group of believers to agree follow certain disciplines so that they can better serve the Kingdom of God, as long as they let anyone else join their "order" who agrees to the same disciplines, and as long as they make it easy for a person to leave if they want to leave the "order"?
Firstly, those that have required disciplines to be part of their group are still being used of God in ways to further His Kingdom so who am I to say it is not ok. I believe God works inspite of our traditions. So, I'll just provide my reservations on establishing and agreeing to certain disciplines, fwiw.

I do not find any indication in the NT of establishing a group set of disciplines, mainly involving sanctification, to better serve the Kingdom of God. I think the earliest church who had all things in common did so as it reads - "Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common." The oneness was to ensure there was no needy person among them. This should be the heart and soul of every community of believers to look after their own first and foremost.

What I mainly object to is how these disciplines so often involve the on-going process of sanctification. Sanctification, I believe, is an individual conviction that is on-going but develops in a group environment. We are warned to not 'force feed', so to speak or 'give meat' to a babe in Christ. And some will remain babes for years but may agree to comply with standards to be part of the group. I think creating sanctification standards is really messing with the work of the Holy Spirit in the spiritual growth of each individual. It may look good for everyone to follow these disciplines but agreeing to them does not mean they are a heart belief. The Pharisees had very detailed disciplines they followed but it had not changed their hearts. And I know some believe to follow the rules first and you will adopt them as personal convictions later. And some say this worked for them and I have no reason to doubt them.

It also seems to me that these sets of disciplines are too often used as special identifiers of how godly a group is compared to other groups. You can see comparisons made here on this forum all the time. There is a certain 'snobbish' attitude that comes across at times about how sanctified one Anabaptist group is over another.

Also, it seems to me that checking out each other's performance against these standards is a high priority with some groups. More attention is given to judging one another than focusing on reaching the world for Jesus.

Another con I think about sanctification disciplines is that some establish and enforce fellowship criteria based on performance as a believer whereas the excommunicating in the NT had to do with outright unrepented sinning of someone claiming to be a believer. I don't read where anyone was shunned or excommunicated for something like owning a TV, for instance. Or back then for a woman wearing a gold wedding band or etc, etc. Imo, fellowship should not be based on this type of criteria. And this gets back to a more Romans 14 view.

Myself, I prefer open communion and open fellowship. That is what our MB church follows so I fit in best there. Others here feel they operate best committing to a group's defined set of disciplines. Above all, we are still brothers and sisters in Christ including Evangelicals and Charismatics and Calvinists and Salvationists and others who have received Jesus as their Lord and Saviour. None of us have or will have it all figured out in how best to further the Kingdom. But we can examine ourselves to see just how the Kingdom life described by Jesus and the apostles is evident in our lives and for me, I have lots of surrendering still to allow the Holy Spirit opportunity to work on various areas.
Having come to a Kingdom Christian approach to my Christian faith more recently, and being quite isolated from people who share a similar approach to faith, I find it to be a constant struggle. This is especially true since my wife is not quite on the same page (although the two of us are certainly more in alignment than I am with most of the community around me). I would see great value in having a community around me who were committed to upholding certain standards that were mutually agreed upon as being beneficial for the outworking of our faith. On the one hand, that community could mentor me over gray areas. On the other hand, living out those standards in the context of a community would be easier, I believe, than trying to go it alone.

In some communities, perhaps the original reasons for the standards have been lost, and that is unfortunate. But I know that there are others participating in this thread who are very intentional in clearing tying their standards to the outworking of their love for the Lord, and who make evangelism an important priority. Those same people would not claim that their particular standards are the only acceptable outworking of faith, but rather that they are what they have chosen as a community. Those who disagree are not required to join or required to remain in the community.

I have been trying to adopt many of those standards in my own life, not because I can even be part of those communities from where I am, but because I see value in them. Nevertheless, it is hard to do so without community support. It is also hard to do so when my family has become used to certain ways of life, such as watching DVDs of television shows and movies. A big part of me would like to do away with such things, but rather than mandate it as a father, I am trying to influence my kids to come to wise decisions on their own so as not to turn their hearts away and make them bitter about the Christian faith. And I have seen some fruit from this, but it is slow going.

It would have been much easier to have never gone down the track of TV, movies, etc. than it is to try to change directions now. The consequence is that I find myself watching TV and the occasional movie because I have to choose between spending time with my family or trying to follow my convictions. And since what we are watching are general old TV shows from the B&W era (and not the modern stuff that is so blatantly inappropriate), I choose to spend time with the family. And because I do that I myself become more lax, which I don't like. But it is a struggle. In fact, any advice that anybody has regarding this situation would be appreciated either as a continuation of this thread or as a private message.

One area that I have given up, for example, is watching professional football. I did so for a number of reasons: the types of commercials and products that are sold through the sport, the behavior of people attending such events, the fact that men are seriously injured through this sport to the point that many former football players walk with a limp, and the fact that many of these players are held up as role models yet set a horrible example with their lives. Not only that, but the desire to follow the sport consumed too much of my time and energy. I was way too concerned about how a particular team was doing. However, I know myself, and I know that if I were to spend my time in a community of rabid football fans, it would be much more likely that I would be drawn back into watching football than that I would somehow convince the rest not to watch it. Not that I judge them for watching it. (I as a professing Christian also did so until very recently, so who am I to judge?) But I would prefer to be in a community who shares the same convictions about not watching professional sports. (Fortunately my wife and kids are not big football fans, and we can't even really access such broadcasts here in Papua New Guinea.)

So I see a lot of value in having community standards although I have never lived under them. And even though some groups have lost sight of the reasons for some of their standards, I don't think it is good to throw the baby out with the bath water.
0 x
Post Reply