The Anabaptist Perspective on... Shoes!

[Neto]

HOWEVER, if we regard these distinctives as matters of culture, then that is all fine (in my opinion). I can respect cultural preferences, and do EXPECT there to be differences in the way of life from one culture to another - the ways in which we each (as different cultures) express and apply the teaching of Scripture. Maybe this is what Ernie means when he uses the word 'orders'. (It is something that I think I do not understand.) But there is also a danger here, the danger of loosing all vestiges of any application of the Scripture.

Most conservative Anabaptists do not see their expectations as being the only scriptural application. (They do view their practices as scriptural applications! And they see their applications as being beneficial spiritually.)
They just view change as dangerous and believe it is impossible, for example, to drop cape dresses and still have some sort of modest dress a couple generations later. They also have a fondness for their particular application and hate to give it up. I think Religious Orders from other denominations see things quite similarly.

So would you say that this would be a part of what you refer to as 'orders'?
I can accept a statement that would maintain that practices such as the specific design of the cape dress, the covering with strings (and wearing them outside of church services or corporate times of prayer), and even the practice of keeping the hair up are valid CULTURAL applications of the Bible principles on which they are based. But I cannot say that I would agree with a statement that claims that these specific ways of applying the Scripture can be seen to 'follow' from a simple reading of the Scripture. If this is simply another area of difference of opinion, I accept that, and I DO RESPECT these practices.
In fact, even when encountering Amish districts where the truth of Scripture is not taught, I no longer automatically think that "someone should start a new congregation there". I now think in terms of encouraging contact with Amish from other districts who DO have a vibrant faith. (I'm still trying to think of ways to bring this about.) I see this as a significant shift for me, and it probably puts me at odds with many in my own congregation, perhaps a majority of the members who are 'former Amish'. (This includes two of our four ministers.) But I know enough Godly ministers and lay people in the Amish churches that I cannot disrespect their faith to the extent that I would think that someone has to leave the Amish to find a vibrant and secure faith. (This position probably also seems to be contradictory to other things I've said here. But I don't tend to follow the same tracks as others, perhaps partly because this is not my 'native culture', and also because of my involvement with or immersion in other "Christianized cultures". Multi-cultural experience brings about more "ego-cultural"-awareness, and in turn, a tendency to evaluate and critique not only one's own own culture, but that of others as well.)

[ken_sylvania]

HOWEVER, if we regard these distinctives as matters of culture, then that is all fine (in my opinion). I can respect cultural preferences, and do EXPECT there to be differences in the way of life from one culture to another - the ways in which we each (as different cultures) express and apply the teaching of Scripture. Maybe this is what Ernie means when he uses the word 'orders'. (It is something that I think I do not understand.) But there is also a danger here, the danger of loosing all vestiges of any application of the Scripture.

Most conservative Anabaptists do not see their expectations as being the only scriptural application. (They do view their practices as scriptural applications! And they see their applications as being beneficial spiritually.)
They just view change as dangerous and believe it is impossible, for example, to drop cape dresses and still have some sort of modest dress a couple generations later. They also have a fondness for their particular application and hate to give it up. I think Religious Orders from other denominations see things quite similarly.

So would you say that this would be a part of what you refer to as 'orders'?
I can accept a statement that would maintain that practices such as the specific design of the cape dress, the covering with strings (and wearing them outside of church services or corporate times of prayer), and even the practice of keeping the hair up are valid CULTURAL applications of the Bible principles on which they are based. But I cannot say that I would agree with a statement that claims that these specific ways of applying the Scripture can be seen to 'follow' from a simple reading of the Scripture. If this is simply another area of difference of opinion, I accept that, and I DO RESPECT these practices.

Most conservative Mennonites would, I think, readily agree that their distinctive practices fall within a spectrum ranging from (1) those practices that will directly 'follow' from a simple reading of the Scripture (ie. nonresistance, non-swearing of oaths, not wearing gold/jewelry, uncovered heads for men while praying, veiling of some sort for the women while praying, avoidance of Sunday work) to (2) those practices that are simply one of a variety of acceptable applications of Bible teachings, that are "the way we have agreed to do things" in an effort to maintain consistency and unity within the group but without judgement against a group that might do things differently (specific covering styles, dress patterns, suit coat patterns, haircut styles, beards/no beards, degree of brotherhood assistance vs. insurance, level of accepted technology, posture and hand position while praying, etc.). Certain individuals will place some of these examples much closer to #1 on the scale than to #2; and certainly many if not most would have opinions regarding certain applications that are not directly spelled out in Scripture, that "our application is one of the best ways to practice this Scriptural teaching." After all, if there was a better way we would adopt that practice instead!

[Ernie]

Yes, Ken-sylvania, you have said it well.

[Ernie]

So would you say that this would be a part of what you refer to as 'orders'?

Correct.

[Neto]

Most conservative Anabaptists do not see their expectations as being the only scriptural application. (They do view their practices as scriptural applications! And they see their applications as being beneficial spiritually.)
They just view change as dangerous and believe it is impossible, for example, to drop cape dresses and still have some sort of modest dress a couple generations later. They also have a fondness for their particular application and hate to give it up. I think Religious Orders from other denominations see things quite similarly.

So would you say that this would be a part of what you refer to as 'orders'?
I can accept a statement that would maintain that practices such as the specific design of the cape dress, the covering with strings (and wearing them outside of church services or corporate times of prayer), and even the practice of keeping the hair up are valid CULTURAL applications of the Bible principles on which they are based. But I cannot say that I would agree with a statement that claims that these specific ways of applying the Scripture can be seen to 'follow' from a simple reading of the Scripture. If this is simply another area of difference of opinion, I accept that, and I DO RESPECT these practices.

Most conservative Mennonites would, I think, readily agree that their distinctive practices fall within a spectrum ranging from (1) those practices that will directly 'follow' from a simple reading of the Scripture (ie. nonresistance, non-swearing of oaths, not wearing gold/jewelry, uncovered heads for men while praying, veiling of some sort for the women while praying, avoidance of Sunday work) to (2) those practices that are simply one of a variety of acceptable applications of Bible teachings, that are "the way we have agreed to do things" in an effort to maintain consistency and unity within the group but without judgement against a group that might do things differently (specific covering styles, dress patterns, suit coat patterns, haircut styles, beards/no beards, degree of brotherhood assistance vs. insurance, level of accepted technology, posture and hand position while praying, etc.). Certain individuals will place some of these examples much closer to #1 on the scale than to #2; and certainly many if not most would have opinions regarding certain applications that are not directly spelled out in Scripture, that "our application is one of the best ways to practice this Scriptural teaching." After all, if there was a better way we would adopt that practice instead!

I agree with your # 1. That is what I would describe as the meaning of Scripture, specifically of the individual passages that deal with these concepts. But that is not the same as what I was referring to; I was talking about how these truths are applied in each cultural setting. My point was in regards to the methods of determining specific forms of 'compliance' with the words of Scripture in these texts. My 'push back' is that these applications have received so much emphasis that in many "declarations of faith" they seem to have displaced the meaning of Scripture in the way in which they are claimed or represented. (I would, however, make a slight 'adjustment' to your statement regarding 'Sunday work'. The Scripture, in respect to the Sabbath, says that one must refrain from all of YOUR work. Both the Law and Jesus recognized exceptions, cases where the purpose of such work was not for personal gain, but for the good of another, or even for the good of an animal. This is compassion at work.)
At the risk of getting long winded again, please allow me to attempt further clarification. Doctrinal truth should be clearly stated as the principle, then the application, the 'Conduct Guidelines", may refer to that principle, stating how the principle is being applied. In other words, Statements of Conduct should NOT contain Scripture references. That part belongs in the section that delineates recognized Scriptural truths (as you have done in your # 1, although w/o the references, which I know you would do in a full presentation or format). I make this distinction because confusion and doubt of Scripture can too easily result when the application is followed by Scripture references, as if these Scriptures as viewed as delineating that exact application. (This happens when changes are made to the guidelines. When, for instance, a congregation changes its specific application of the principle of modesty, and no longer 'requires' the cape dress, or of the straight cut as their expression of proper attire. But I suspect I may still be failing to clearly communicate why I think this is of great importance. So, one more example, in attempt to explain. As I understand, ice skating was never forbidden in this cultural context. It also wasn't specifically spoken of in my own cultural setting, but roller skating WAS, by its characterization as 'dancing', a description which seems equally applicable to ice skating. Whether it was specifically said to be 'sin', that is how it came across to me. So when it became acceptable - actually w/o any statement to such effect - in my young mind it was changing the definition of sin.)

After all, if there was a better way we would adopt that practice instead!

This is, in a nut shell, ethnocentrism. I want to make this VERY clear, however, that this is not a negative statement, or a slam. No culture can survive if they do not believe that their way is "the best' - for them. Where ethnocentrism becomes a problem in the context of Christianity is at the point where there is no longer respect toward the ways in which other cultures adequately and faithfully reflect the same important values. True, some cultures will choose applications of Scripture which reduce or cut into the meaning of the Scripture in question. But within the confines of your "article number 1" there can (or should) be mutual respect, and each differing view or group should make their specific cultural applications in ways which do not displace the meaning with their own cultural permutation.

[Sudsy]

I wonder where attempts at consistency within a group becomes a violation of Romans 14 which seems to allow for inconsistencies to exist within a group based on personal convictions. Any thoughts on this ?

[Ernie]

I wonder where attempts at consistency within a group becomes a violation of Romans 14 which seems to allow for inconsistencies to exist within a group based on personal convictions. Any thoughts on this ?

If a person cannot carry out their convictions that are based on NT principles, that is a problem.
The NT has lots to say about submitting when it comes to preferences.

[ken_sylvania]

So would you say that this would be a part of what you refer to as 'orders'?
I can accept a statement that would maintain that practices such as the specific design of the cape dress, the covering with strings (and wearing them outside of church services or corporate times of prayer), and even the practice of keeping the hair up are valid CULTURAL applications of the Bible principles on which they are based. But I cannot say that I would agree with a statement that claims that these specific ways of applying the Scripture can be seen to 'follow' from a simple reading of the Scripture. If this is simply another area of difference of opinion, I accept that, and I DO RESPECT these practices.

Most conservative Mennonites would, I think, readily agree that their distinctive practices fall within a spectrum ranging from (1) those practices that will directly 'follow' from a simple reading of the Scripture (ie. nonresistance, non-swearing of oaths, not wearing gold/jewelry, uncovered heads for men while praying, veiling of some sort for the women while praying, avoidance of Sunday work) to (2) those practices that are simply one of a variety of acceptable applications of Bible teachings, that are "the way we have agreed to do things" in an effort to maintain consistency and unity within the group but without judgement against a group that might do things differently (specific covering styles, dress patterns, suit coat patterns, haircut styles, beards/no beards, degree of brotherhood assistance vs. insurance, level of accepted technology, posture and hand position while praying, etc.). Certain individuals will place some of these examples much closer to #1 on the scale than to #2; and certainly many if not most would have opinions regarding certain applications that are not directly spelled out in Scripture, that "our application is one of the best ways to practice this Scriptural teaching." After all, if there was a better way we would adopt that practice instead!

I agree with your # 1. That is what I would describe as the meaning of Scripture, specifically of the individual passages that deal with these concepts. But that is not the same as what I was referring to; I was talking about how these truths are applied in each cultural setting. My point was in regards to the methods of determining specific forms of 'compliance' with the words of Scripture in these texts. My 'push back' is that these applications have received so much emphasis that in many "declarations of faith" they seem to have displaced the meaning of Scripture in the way in which they are claimed or represented. (I would, however, make a slight 'adjustment' to your statement regarding 'Sunday work'. The Scripture, in respect to the Sabbath, says that one must refrain from all of YOUR work. Both the Law and Jesus recognized exceptions, cases where the purpose of such work was not for personal gain, but for the good of another, or even for the good of an animal. This is compassion at work.)
At the risk of getting long winded again, please allow me to attempt further clarification. Doctrinal truth should be clearly stated as the principle, then the application, the 'Conduct Guidelines", may refer to that principle, stating how the principle is being applied. In other words, Statements of Conduct should NOT contain Scripture references. That part belongs in the section that delineates recognized Scriptural truths (as you have done in your # 1, although w/o the references, which I know you would do in a full presentation or format). I make this distinction because confusion and doubt of Scripture can too easily result when the application is followed by Scripture references, as if these Scriptures as viewed as delineating that exact application. (This happens when changes are made to the guidelines. When, for instance, a congregation changes its specific application of the principle of modesty, and no longer 'requires' the cape dress, or of the straight cut as their expression of proper attire. But I suspect I may still be failing to clearly communicate why I think this is of great importance. So, one more example, in attempt to explain. As I understand, ice skating was never forbidden in this cultural context. It also wasn't specifically spoken of in my own cultural setting, but roller skating WAS, by its characterization as 'dancing', a description which seems equally applicable to ice skating. Whether it was specifically said to be 'sin', that is how it came across to me. So when it became acceptable - actually w/o any statement to such effect - in my young mind it was changing the definition of sin.)

After all, if there was a better way we would adopt that practice instead!

This is, in a nut shell, ethnocentrism. I want to make this VERY clear, however, that this is not a negative statement, or a slam. No culture can survive if they do not believe that their way is "the best' - for them. Where ethnocentrism becomes a problem in the context of Christianity is at the point where there is no longer respect toward the ways in which other cultures adequately and faithfully reflect the same important values. True, some cultures will choose applications of Scripture which reduce or cut into the meaning of the Scripture in question. But within the confines of your "article number 1" there can (or should) be mutual respect, and each differing view or group should make their specific cultural applications in ways which do not displace the meaning with their own cultural permutation.

Good points. And yes, on the items I listed including Sunday work there are finer details that I didn't mention. I thought I was getting long winded enough.

On the roller skating vs. ice skating - that is an interesting comparison. Was all roller skating forbidden in your experience, or just going to the roller skating rink? In my setting going to an ice rink or roller skating rink would be highly discouraged/forbidden, whereas it would be considered OK for the children to roller skate on the driveway or cul-de-sac with friends, as well as OK for a group of friends to get together for some ice skating at a local pond. The primary concern being that it be done with moderation and with an eye to maintaining good company.

[Sudsy]

I wonder where attempts at consistency within a group becomes a violation of Romans 14 which seems to allow for inconsistencies to exist within a group based on personal convictions. Any thoughts on this ?

If a person cannot carry out their convictions that are based on NT principles, that is a problem.
The NT has lots to say about submitting when it comes to preferences.

I believe Romans 14 makes it clear that we can have unity in a body of believers (a local church) without requiring uniformity to some extra-biblical practises. We are to submit first and foremost to the guidance of the Holy Spirit and allow Him to bring about spiritual growth in each believer in His way and timing. ,

To operate in this way can be quite a challenge as the flesh can interfere and cause one to think every believer should have the same personal convictions as I have. But to force certain norms of required practise (not sins described explicitly in scripture), imo, is a hindrance to freedom to learn personal convictions through a growing relationship with God through the Spirit.

Will this cause the local church to reflect some worldly characteristics ? Yes, as our walk with God is an on-going, individual learning experience as we learn together. A growing church will reflect a variety of holiness characteristics as we all spiritually mature or not and remain as spiritual babies.

We are a glorious church without spot or wrinkle and the perfect bride of Christ. That is our positional state with God. Our present state is one of maturing towards becoming more and more like Jesus. Still lots of spots and lots of wrinkles. Not through some required practises that some believe must be followed but rather through the workings of the Spirit in each person's heart and life,

I was raised in a church with strict rules in various areas, not to retain membership but to reflect what that church thought sanctification required in practise. Today some believers would view this church as quite 'worldly' as there are no enforcement to conform as their once was. To me, this variety of stages of spiritual growth being obvious is a good thing and more reflective of the spiritual reality in people's lives.

But there should be examples of mature believers in leadership roles and when there is not, the church can become more 'worldly' in belief and practise. Mature leaders will encourage and work with less spiritually developed in their walk with the Lord.

Perhaps a separate study on Romans 14 would be interesting.

[Neto]

Good points. And yes, on the items I listed including Sunday work there are finer details that I didn't mention. I thought I was getting long winded enough.

On the roller skating vs. ice skating - that is an interesting comparison. Was all roller skating forbidden in your experience, or just going to the roller skating rink? In my setting going to an ice rink or roller skating rink would be highly discouraged/forbidden, whereas it would be considered OK for the children to roller skate on the driveway or cul-de-sac with friends, as well as OK for a group of friends to get together for some ice skating at a local pond. The primary concern being that it be done with moderation and with an eye to maintaining good company.

We belonged to a rural congregation. Mostly dairy and dirt farmers, then some daily wage earners like my dad. I don't know of anyone who had a cement driveway, or a sidewalk of any length. ("Ya cain't roller skate in a watermelon patch..." Remember that song?) So the only place we ever roller-skated was the rink, and we always rented the entire place, usually with the Mennonite Church ("Old Mennonites") congregation and the General Conf Mennonites. (We only rarely did this. These other congregations were both about 35 miles from us, in different directions. Only place I ever held a girl's hand before my wife was in Bible college, at a roller rink. I could almost stay on my feet, most of the time. More so with her to steady me.)