Who is Your Brother-

[Valerie]

Taken from the Pilgrim topic:

Here is what Bercot has to say about the Pilgrim Church...

"...the phrase "Pilgrim Church" really has no historic meaning. It was a term coined by Broadbent in his book The Pilgrim Church. Broadbent was a Baptist. So the groups that he calls "the Pilgrim Church" don't necessarily hold to kingdom values.
Baptists include themselves as part of the Pilgrim Church, as do the Plymouth brethren. Yet, their values are quite different than ours. In the end, "Pilgrim Church values" simply mean non-Catholic values."

Ken Sylvania said earlier in this thread:
I find the account of Paul and Barnabas interesting. We read that the contention between the two of them was sharp, and that they departed one from the other, but they are not condemned for their actions. I believe they were still united in Christ, which is what allowed Paul to later say of John Mark (who was the object of their contention) that "he is valuable to me for the ministry."

Let us not miss the forest for the trees. There is a lot of unity among God's people, even among those who do not go to meeting together and don't gather at the same annual conferences.

So I am trying to understand- do Anabaptists only see themselves as brothers & sisters in Christ?
I realize this comes up all the time that Anabaptists are "The Kingdom" Christians because they hold a particular 'emphasis' on particular Anabaptist 'interpretations' which cause their own unity-
Do they give the right hand of fellowship to those who may not necessarily agree that they have been infallible in interpretation, so as to consider those with emphasis on 'other' Kingdom teachings, that Anabaptists don't necessarily place emphasis on- or other 'interpretations' of Scripture-which may or may not be correct, but others truly adhere to- is there a recognition that those that may disagree in 'some' areas, may still be considered brethren?
I am trying to reconcile what Ken said, with what Ernie said- maybe I misunderstood-

[ohio jones]

Any question that starts with "Do Anabaptists ... " is dangerously broad.

I would look at it this way: Yes, there are Christians in a variety of denominations; I recognize any faithful believer as a brother or sister, no matter what church they attend. But the closer their belief and practice align with my own, the deeper the fellowship and the greater the degree of unity. I'm likely to feel a closer bond and want to spend more time with a Beachy brother, for example, than an Anglican brother. That does not mean that the Anglican is not a brother, but I do have less in common with him.

[ken_sylvania]

OJ I think that was a good way of putting it.
I think it would be fair to say that most of us aren't really interested in spending a lot of time deciding exactly who is in and who is out of the kingdom of God. Even if we don't find close fellowship with a person, unless that person is in direct opposition to clear direct Bible commands we would be hesitant to say he is not a Christian.

Valerie, I'm not sure what you mean by this statement.

Do they give the right hand of fellowship to those who may not necessarily agree that they have been infallible in interpretation...

Most Mennonites and Amish I know don't consider their interpretation of Bible teaching to be infallible.

[Valerie]

Any question that starts with "Do Anabaptists ... " is dangerously broad.

I would look at it this way: Yes, there are Christians in a variety of denominations; I recognize any faithful believer as a brother or sister, no matter what church they attend. But the closer their belief and practice align with my own, the deeper the fellowship and the greater the degree of unity. I'm likely to feel a closer bond and want to spend more time with a Beachy brother, for example, than an Anglican brother. That does not mean that the Anglican is not a brother, but I do have less in common with him.

Thank you OJ, that makes a lot of sense & I am glad to know this- and also can identify with it as well.

[Valerie]

OJ I think that was a good way of putting it.
I think it would be fair to say that most of us aren't really interested in spending a lot of time deciding exactly who is in and who is out of the kingdom of God. Even if we don't find close fellowship with a person, unless that person is in direct opposition to clear direct Bible commands we would be hesitant to say he is not a Christian.

Valerie, I'm not sure what you mean by this statement.

Do they give the right hand of fellowship to those who may not necessarily agree that they have been infallible in interpretation...

Most Mennonites and Amish I know don't consider their interpretation of Bible teaching to be infallible.

Thank you Ken, as I said to OJ, I can identify with this too-
What I meant by that statement is there are certain dogmas (which I would say is more what Ernie would have eluded to in his statement above) that it seems that, from being on MD & MN are non-negotiable in 'interpretation'- maybe it just came across pretty strong to me that no one waivers at all on these & also that they would see people that disagree with them as 'wrong' or interpreting Scripture wrong- so you're suggesting then that although you hold these beliefs that set you apart from for example- Baptists- as mentioned above- it doesn't mean that you believe you're infallible at these interpretations- you just hold them strongly- or say for example the groups of both the ancient Church and Protestant denominations that believe in infant baptism, or abstaining from serving country, things that set you apart- where Anabaptist conclude otherwise- they don't see this conclusion as infallible? I suppose I may have got the wrong impression about it. So even if people disagree about some of these interpretations, you would still consider them brethren, but apparently feel more comfortable limiting fellowship to like minded Believers- I think what's difficult to accept is to always refer to yourselves as "Kingdom Christians" and those who don't interpret the same, as outside of Kingdom- because I really only hear Anabaptists refer to themselves as Kingdom Christians, but maybe that is just on the forum- (Actually I never heard Amish refer to themselves that way).

[Josh]

Valerie,

I'll put it this way.

Some of my friends who think they are Christians, believers, and Mennonites also believe that homosexual relationships are 100% totally OK, and that sexual activity outside of marriage is OK too - as is a whole range of other behaviours like polyamory.

Needless to say, there is a limit to how close our fellowship can be. I do my best to find common ground. I don't think my interpretation of the Bible is infallible. But I need to follow it faithfully. At some point, I separate myself from someone who claims to be a "brother" yet lives a completely ungodly, immoral lifestyle, and also promotes others who do.

[ken_sylvania]

Thank you Ken, as I said to OJ, I can identify with this too-
What I meant by that statement is there are certain dogmas (which I would say is more what Ernie would have eluded to in his statement above) that it seems that, from being on MD & MN are non-negotiable in 'interpretation'- maybe it just came across pretty strong to me that no one waivers at all on these & also that they would see people that disagree with them as 'wrong' or interpreting Scripture wrong- so you're suggesting then that although you hold these beliefs that set you apart from for example- Baptists- as mentioned above- it doesn't mean that you believe you're infallible at these interpretations- you just hold them strongly- or say for example the groups of both the ancient Church and Protestant denominations that believe in infant baptism, or abstaining from serving country, things that set you apart- where Anabaptist conclude otherwise- they don't see this conclusion as infallible? I suppose I may have got the wrong impression about it. So even if people disagree about some of these interpretations, you would still consider them brethren, but apparently feel more comfortable limiting fellowship to like minded Believers- I think what's difficult to accept is to always refer to yourselves as "Kingdom Christians" and those who don't interpret the same, as outside of Kingdom- because I really only hear Anabaptists refer to themselves as Kingdom Christians, but maybe that is just on the forum- (Actually I never heard Amish refer to themselves that way).

I would say there is a bit of a sliding scale. There are many things that Jesus and the NT writers spoke so clearly about that "interpretation" almost seems like the wrong word to use to describe understanding what he said. Jesus' condemnation of hatred and violence is so clear that I cannot in good conscience call anyone who goes to war my brother in Christ, because war is sin.
My basis for not voting or serving in township or county level government office is based more on an interpretation of Bible principles and the practical effects of voting or holding office. I hold my position firmly, but I wouldn't make a blanket statement that voting or holding office is a sin.
There is a wide range of issues that falls in between these two positions (and maybe on either side as well.) Some issues where people disagree with me I would say they are wrong and sinful, others I would say they are wrong but not be willing to say they are sinning.

[Sudsy]

The way I see it is that each local church can interpret scriptures about what they will tolerate in their fellowship regarding sin to keep out the leaven. And they may have other areas, like closed communion, to also narrow down who they want to fellowship with within their local church.

When it comes to the body of believers that make up 'The Church' that Jesus is building, I think I should be careful who I think qualifies as my brother or sister in the Lord. God is at work in all of us to save us from our sinning and we all do sin. I could draw the line on same sex involvement or icons or child baptism as being problematic for one who calls themselves a Christian and at the same time be overlooking areas like divisiveness, slander, gossip, pride, etc which are also sins. I just don't think I have enough knowledge about what God is doing in lives outside the local church to start casting stones.

I can restrict my fellowship with any professing Christians outside the local church to keep from being judgemental and/or argumentative in areas of disagreement. I have enjoyed the fellowship of many non-Anabaptist Christians and look forward to meeting with them in various settings. Gives me that sense of all belonging to that one 'Church' of Christ. I'm looking forward to that day where all these local church divisions are blown away and we truly will be one in Christ in it's purest sense.

[Valerie]

Thank you Ken, as I said to OJ, I can identify with this too-
What I meant by that statement is there are certain dogmas (which I would say is more what Ernie would have eluded to in his statement above) that it seems that, from being on MD & MN are non-negotiable in 'interpretation'- maybe it just came across pretty strong to me that no one waivers at all on these & also that they would see people that disagree with them as 'wrong' or interpreting Scripture wrong- so you're suggesting then that although you hold these beliefs that set you apart from for example- Baptists- as mentioned above- it doesn't mean that you believe you're infallible at these interpretations- you just hold them strongly- or say for example the groups of both the ancient Church and Protestant denominations that believe in infant baptism, or abstaining from serving country, things that set you apart- where Anabaptist conclude otherwise- they don't see this conclusion as infallible? I suppose I may have got the wrong impression about it. So even if people disagree about some of these interpretations, you would still consider them brethren, but apparently feel more comfortable limiting fellowship to like minded Believers- I think what's difficult to accept is to always refer to yourselves as "Kingdom Christians" and those who don't interpret the same, as outside of Kingdom- because I really only hear Anabaptists refer to themselves as Kingdom Christians, but maybe that is just on the forum- (Actually I never heard Amish refer to themselves that way).

I would say there is a bit of a sliding scale. There are many things that Jesus and the NT writers spoke so clearly about that "interpretation" almost seems like the wrong word to use to describe understanding what he said. Jesus' condemnation of hatred and violence is so clear that I cannot in good conscience call anyone who goes to war my brother in Christ, because war is sin.
My basis for not voting or serving in township or county level government office is based more on an interpretation of Bible principles and the practical effects of voting or holding office. I hold my position firmly, but I wouldn't make a blanket statement that voting or holding office is a sin.
There is a wide range of issues that falls in between these two positions (and maybe on either side as well.) Some issues where people disagree with me I would say they are wrong and sinful, others I would say they are wrong but not be willing to say they are sinning.

Thank you- I think what you probably believe is that not all war is sin, because God called many wars, and Revelation 19 Jesus leads an army in war- so these wars would not be 'sin' but if it's man's idea, it is- I realize the "Just War" belief is not embraced by Anabaptists- and so if a Christian does believe there are reasons for "Just War" then from an Anabaptists perspective, they must be wrong about that- that's a tough one- for me- knowing people who felt 'called' to serve it would be hard to see them as intentionally sinning. There are some former Amish I know of on facebook that have changed their position on this and around Memorial Day was sharing their regrets for not being willing to serve- then we have Dean Taylor, who did the opposite- I guess in both situations I feel they have personal convictions/interpretations where they are trying to discern what God would want them to do-

[Valerie]

The way I see it is that each local church can interpret scriptures about what they will tolerate in their fellowship regarding sin to keep out the leaven. And they may have other areas, like closed communion, to also narrow down who they want to fellowship with within their local church.

When it comes to the body of believers that make up 'The Church' that Jesus is building, I think I should be careful who I think qualifies as my brother or sister in the Lord. God is at work in all of us to save us from our sinning and we all do sin. I could draw the line on same sex involvement or icons or child baptism as being problematic for one who calls themselves a Christian and at the same time be overlooking areas like divisiveness, slander, gossip, pride, etc which are also sins. I just don't think I have enough knowledge about what God is doing in lives outside the local church to start casting stones.

I can restrict my fellowship with any professing Christians outside the local church to keep from being judgemental and/or argumentative in areas of disagreement. I have enjoyed the fellowship of many non-Anabaptist Christians and look forward to meeting with them in various settings. Gives me that sense of all belonging to that one 'Church' of Christ. I'm looking forward to that day where all these local church divisions are blown away and we truly will be one in Christ in it's purest sense.

It seems this is where we feel comfortable- at least now.