Sorry, but that's not the kind of 'anabaptist' I am. I believe in submission to the truth as revealed in Scripture, so if the 'brotherhood' cannot answer the question of "Show it to me in the Scripture, and I will follow it", then I won't be inclined to submit ON THE LARGER ISSUES - doctrine, that is. On smaller issues like being willing to avoid certain activities because a brother has strong convictions about it, then YES. In other words, I submit to the brotherhood w/o any Scriptural proof on matters of conduct (applications of clear Biblical doctrine), but not on matters of doctrine itself (w/o the "show me in the Book" response).Sudsy wrote: Yes, Menno did say we can as individuals know what scripture means. However, as Neto pointed out these individual understandings were to be filtered through the 'brotherhood' to arrive at a consensus on what was the correct interpretation. And, from what I can see, many times there was not this consensus and splits occurred. We have more types of Mennonites in our area where I live than any other major group of Christians. So, as right it may seem to go through a second phase of discernment, through a brotherhood, I don't see where this developed into one pure set of beliefs and practises. It only solidified the beliefs within a local brotherhood. Perhaps someone can explain this to me better if I'm mis-understanding ?
On divisions within anabaptism: Menno's heart desire was to bring unity to the different groups of 'anabaptists' of his day. So if we would follow him in that quest, we would do well, because that is also the heart desire of our Savior. I think if we could clearly describe the underlying doctrine that is the foundation of our differing codes of conduct, and agree first on that, and spend enough time together to allow true Christian love to blossom, then we could possibly do much better at showing respect for our differing APPLICATIONS of those shared DOCTRINES.