An observation from a seeker.

[Ernie]

Those who are transitioning out of traditional Anabaptist churches (whether in their generation or in the second or third) are rarely consistent in the way they go about it. It is almost always mind-boggling. I find it most mind-boggling/confusing whenever they view themselves as not-reactionary and appreciative of their traditional Anabaptist heritage.

I think it is perfectly understandable in context.

What you are largely talking about is young people who grew up in plain churches through no actual choice of their own. They were born into it. And over time they come to question and chafe at certain rules, restrictions, and/or beliefs that were not beliefs or rules that they came to on their own. But mostly a set of often arbitrary rules handed down to them no questions asked. It is the nature of young people to question things, and there are some plain churches that are not particularly good at giving reasonable answers.

And so they chafe at those particular rules or restrictions that they happen to run up against the most. It might look "confused" or inconsistent when viewed from the outside. But from the inside it is perfectly understandable for young people to chafe against rules that affect them directly but not so much against rules or beliefs that do no. For girls or young women it might be one set of rules they chafe against, perhaps related to dress, women's roles, speaking your mind, questioning things, etc. And for boys or young men it might be an entirely different set of rules related to technology, transportation, professions, etc.

Ken,

Most of the people I have experienced this with are middle aged, often with children already into adulthood. One example I can think of was a youth person.

Particularly baffling is such a person often identifies as politically conservative. One of the biggest “tells” I am dealing with such a person is they want to talk about the latest culture war issue or latest popular Republican candidate.

Yes Ken, I can understand that not all young people will want to keep the beliefs and practices of their parents and yes, some can be a bit fickle.

But like Josh, the most mindboggling/confusing scenarios are those who are middle aged or even older who start adhering to some really jagged lines in the sands. (and yes, young people can be some of the first to notice jagged lines in the sand)

Although the following anecdote from the OP appears to be a young person, I see many older people arriving at similar positions.

At the same time, they might hold on to some bits of "legalism" or stricter church practices. One of the silliest examples, to me, was someone who was comfortable being physically intimate with someone they were dating (and even spoke about coming out of "legalism" that they grew up to and "earning salvation via works") yet also still felt absolutely no divorce and remarriage is an important stance to take. The mind boggles at the kind of person who worries about D&R but is comfortable with fornication.

I just shake my head and wonder how they arrive at the conclusions they do. For example, I know some people who promote having adolescent boys (including ones who are not living for the Lord at all and rather living after the flesh) to have an assigned role of reading the scriptures at the Sunday meeting. When confronted with the wisdom of doing something like this, they say such things as, "Well some of us adults have had roles in the church when we were not living for the Lord either, so what is the big deal." (Having roles in the church while not living for the Lord does happen at these folks' church and everyone knows it... but not until they tell the church a couple months later or ten years later.)

I just shake my head and think, "Why would you this as a justification? Didn't Anabaptists die for the privilege of having a pure church?" (We all sin, and need to repent, but use this as a justification for having unconverted people participating in the church service? God forbid. I think any member who decides not to live for the Lord should remove themselves from roles in the church and even from membership until they repent and begin living for the Lord again.

[Ken]

I think it is perfectly understandable in context.

What you are largely talking about is young people who grew up in plain churches through no actual choice of their own. They were born into it. And over time they come to question and chafe at certain rules, restrictions, and/or beliefs that were not beliefs or rules that they came to on their own. But mostly a set of often arbitrary rules handed down to them no questions asked. It is the nature of young people to question things, and there are some plain churches that are not particularly good at giving reasonable answers.

And so they chafe at those particular rules or restrictions that they happen to run up against the most. It might look "confused" or inconsistent when viewed from the outside. But from the inside it is perfectly understandable for young people to chafe against rules that affect them directly but not so much against rules or beliefs that do no. For girls or young women it might be one set of rules they chafe against, perhaps related to dress, women's roles, speaking your mind, questioning things, etc. And for boys or young men it might be an entirely different set of rules related to technology, transportation, professions, etc.

Ken,

Most of the people I have experienced this with are middle aged, often with children already into adulthood. One example I can think of was a youth person.

Particularly baffling is such a person often identifies as politically conservative. One of the biggest “tells” I am dealing with such a person is they want to talk about the latest culture war issue or latest popular Republican candidate.

Yes Ken, I can understand that not all young people will want to keep the beliefs and practices of their parents and yes, some can be a bit fickle.

But like Josh, the most mindboggling/confusing scenarios are those who are middle aged or even older who start adhering to some really jagged lines in the sands. (and yes, young people can be some of the first to notice jagged lines in the sand)

Although the following anecdote from the OP appears to be a young person, I see many older people arriving at similar positions.

At the same time, they might hold on to some bits of "legalism" or stricter church practices. One of the silliest examples, to me, was someone who was comfortable being physically intimate with someone they were dating (and even spoke about coming out of "legalism" that they grew up to and "earning salvation via works") yet also still felt absolutely no divorce and remarriage is an important stance to take. The mind boggles at the kind of person who worries about D&R but is comfortable with fornication.

I just shake my head and wonder how they arrive at the conclusions they do. For example, I know some people who promote having adolescent boys (including ones who are not living for the Lord at all and rather living after the flesh) to have an assigned role of reading the scriptures at the Sunday meeting. When confronted with the wisdom of doing something like this, they say such things as, "Well some of us adults have had roles in the church when we were not living for the Lord either, so what is the big deal." (Having roles in the church while not living for the Lord does happen at these folks' church and everyone knows it... but not until they tell the church a couple months later or ten years later.)

I just shake my head and think, "Why would you this as a justification? Didn't Anabaptists die for the privilege of having a pure church?" (We all sin, and need to repent, but use this as a justification for having unconverted people participating in the church service? God forbid. I think any member who decides not to live for the Lord should remove themselves from roles in the church and even from membership until they repent and begin living for the Lord again.

My only point is that it isn't necessarily reasonable to expect some sort of uniform theological consistency from young people (or older) who are seeking a less restrictive environment from the one they were born into.

Women and girls, for example, might object to certain dress codes and expectations for women's roles in the church, family, workplace.
Boys and young men might pay little attention to dress or women's roles but object to technological restrictions.

Everyone seeking a different and more "liberal" church environment is going to have a different of issues with their existing church with which they are in conflict or disagree with. And they might all have different things that they are seeking in a different church. That is perfectly normal. The world (and Anabaptism) isn't some 2-dimensional linear spectrum where you step up and down a single conservative/liberal scale where all the churches are lined up along one single axis. Despite attempts here by some to sort things that way. It is far more complex and 3-dimensional than that.

[Josh]

Most of the people I have experienced this with are middle aged, often with children already into adulthood. One example I can think of was a youth person.

Particularly baffling is such a person often identifies as politically conservative. One of the biggest “tells” I am dealing with such a person is they want to talk about the latest culture war issue or latest popular Republican candidate.

my perception is plenty are politically liberal. is it just that they have an established place to go? or?

Your perception is wrong. I can count on one hand the number of plain background people I have met who have liberal political opinions. It is just not very common.

On the other hand, a common reason for leaving plain circles is getting too into mainstream, worldly politics: a desire to vote, campaign, run for office, watch TV news, and carry firearms.

[Josh]

My only point is that it isn't necessarily reasonable to expect some sort of uniform theological consistency from young people (or older) who are seeking a less restrictive environment from the one they were born into.

Women and girls, for example, might object to certain dress codes and expectations for women's roles in the church, family, workplace.
Boys and young men might pay little attention to dress or women's roles but object to technological restrictions.

Typically. Men are more likely to leave than women. If a young woman does leave it’s most often in the context of marrying a guy in a more worldly church.

And young men are just as likely to gripe about dress issues as women are as a reason for leaving.

Everyone seeking a different and more "liberal" church environment is going to have a different of issues with their existing church with which they are in conflict or disagree with. And they might all have different things that they are seeking in a different church. That is perfectly normal. The world (and Anabaptism) isn't some 2-dimensional linear spectrum where you step up and down a single conservative/liberal scale where all the churches are lined up along one single axis. Despite attempts here by some to sort things that way. It is far more complex and 3-dimensional than that.

Actually, the progression is surprisingly two dimensional; academics call it the “Anabaptist escalator”.

[Sudsy]

Perhaps this has been shared somewhere before and I can't recall but what is a 'seeker' ? The Bible says that “no one seeks for God” (Romans 3:11) so it must be seeking something else. Is a 'seeker' a believer or an unbeliever ?

Someone who is already a believer, but is seeking to find a conservative/plain Anabaptist congregation to be a part of.

Sudsy, temporal1, and Ken, with respect, none of you are seekers or seem to even have much experience at all with plain churches. I’m not sure why you (collectively) feel the need to give so much input about what experiences are like for seekers.

As can be seen here, I asked what a 'seeker' is and then you defined what you meant by a 'seeker'. I would not have guessed that definition was what a 'seeker' is and having to do with someone looking to be part of 'a conservative/plain Anabaptist congregation'.

I believe there are seekers who want the benefits of God but without God. They may want to belong to a church (perhaps to be part of a choir or go where some of their friends go, etc) but they are not seeking to become a Christ follower. We have many 'seeker-sensitive' churches today that, to a degree, are giving people what they want but what they want is not always to be a Christ follower.

I think of the word 'seeker' more as one who is not yet a believer and the Holy Spirit is working on getting their attention to seek to know God. But Christians also are to be 'seekers' as Jesus was when He came 'to seek and to save those who are lost'. Luke 19:10. So, we are to be seekers like Him to seek or look for those who will give an ear to hear of salvation.

But the way you are using the word 'seeker', then yes, I am not a seeker in that sense you described and I have no idea on what seekers of that sort are really seeking in a plain church. My input was more with regard to seeking to know God, not looking for a church to fellowship in.

[steve-in-kville]

For those that are new, I am an ex-transplant, so I will have some views that some may find strange.

Josh made a lot of good points. I stopped trying to understand conservative folks ability to justify something in their life (like technology) and yet shun something else. Case in point: I used to get into our local library pretty often. Ours has a pretty extensive inventory of DVD's to loan. On more than one occasion I've seen a plain women get a handful of DVD's that I know are not appropriate for a family (anyone, actually). But yet, they do not have TV in the home.

The last 20 years of internet debates also baffles me. Who should be allowed to have access, where they may access it, etc. I could go on...

[JayP]

Josh, You indicated a couple of folks are neither seekers nor particularly familiar with Anabaptist churches. I think that is an issue across this board.

I just posted on another thread I was confused where you sit on that?

Likewise Steve in wherever posts constantly yet mentioned in the thread on wine he had never taken communion in such a setting.

I hardly consider myself the Anabaptist poster boy but wonder sometimes feel like I am one of the few with any real experience.
I freely confess that while no longer identifying as such, I carry some of Eastern’s bias that groups more than a few steps to the left of them are not really Anabaptists! Lol

For myself, my main goal in coming here is simply trying to give better, more accurate information for seekers that ask questions.
Where they go and what they choose is their choice.

[steve-in-kville]

Likewise Steve in wherever posts constantly yet mentioned in the thread on wine he had never taken communion in such a setting.

For the record, I've sat through two but we were visitors that happened to show up on Communion Sunday. Ooops....

[JayP]

Thanks. Again, I am not taking a shot at anyone. Just saying there is a lot of conversation without a lot of experience in some areas going on here sometimes.

I realized when some topics like ordination issues, or communion preparations, or how bishops work were discussed a lot of folks only have slight knowledge. And the different groups are, well, obviously different. I know how a congregation handles a new ordination in Eastern or Pilgrim, but only a little in NWF, and not at all among the Beachy. I know more about how my local Jewish Synagogue works than the Beachy.

[Josh]

Thanks. Again, I am not taking a shot at anyone. Just saying there is a lot of conversation without a lot of experience in some areas going on here sometimes.

I realized when some topics like ordination issues, or communion preparations, or how bishops work were discussed a lot of folks only have slight knowledge. And the different groups are, well, obviously different. I know how a congregation handles a new ordination in Eastern or Pilgrim, but only a little in NWF, and not at all among the Beachy. I know more about how my local Jewish Synagogue works than the Beachy.

It’s quite helpful to have the Eastern perspective (especially from someone who can speak “freely” about it).