Was it worth Dividing the Church??

[Josh]

Most “division” in the last 150 years has been due to liberals taking over solid groups with sound doctrine and pushing in the same direction that all liberals push: agitating for more central control, tolerating sexual sin, slavishly serving the desires of the wealthy, and condemning those who dare speak up another such things.

Nonsense.

How many various groups and subgroups of Amish exist today? They all originate from the same theological beginning. Liberals have nothing to do with the fact that 20+ different groups of Amish exist today.

Or for that matter, look at how many different groups of conservative Anabaptists exist. There is basically just one objectively liberal group of Anabaptists and that is MCUSA. All the other dozens upon dozens of Anabaptist groups are just various flavors of conservative.

Amish is about 0.1% of America. In terms of numbers, almost all divisions are modernists pushing out theological conservatives. And yes, that happened in formerly Amish groups too - in fact, it happened to the majority of them. Whom do you think ended up composing the General Conference and other groups?

[Ken]

Most “division” in the last 150 years has been due to liberals taking over solid groups with sound doctrine and pushing in the same direction that all liberals push: agitating for more central control, tolerating sexual sin, slavishly serving the desires of the wealthy, and condemning those who dare speak up another such things.

Nonsense.

How many various groups and subgroups of Amish exist today? They all originate from the same theological beginning. Liberals have nothing to do with the fact that 20+ different groups of Amish exist today.

Or for that matter, look at how many different groups of conservative Anabaptists exist. There is basically just one objectively liberal group of Anabaptists and that is MCUSA. All the other dozens upon dozens of Anabaptist groups are just various flavors of conservative.

Amish is about 0.1% of America. In terms of numbers, almost all divisions are modernists pushing out theological conservatives. And yes, that happened in formerly Amish groups too - in fact, it happened to the majority of them. Whom do you think ended up composing the General Conference and other groups?

There is probably more splintering and division within the Anabaptist world than in any other grouping of Christianity. At least within North America. Anabaptists are famous for it.

If you were to poll all the dozens up on dozens of different Amish and Anabaptist groups other than MCUSA and ask all the members of all those groups whether they viewed themselves as "conservatives" or "liberals" what do you think you would find? My guess is that well over 90% of the non-MCUSA portion of the Anabaptist world would identify as "conservative".

I can promise you that it isn't liberals who are preventing the Holdemans and Beachy Amish and Groffdales and Swartzentrubers and River Brethren from worshiping together in the same church.

[Josh]

By numbers, almost all the divisions in the Anabaptist world are liberal vs theological groups. The MC USA divisions have bled off 100,000s of members. Same with Church of the Brethren.

The pattern is the same: liberals wait until they can control institutions and then seize the church buildings and institutions. They run off with the money, the eventually the church doors close.

[Soloist]

By numbers, almost all the divisions in the Anabaptist world are liberal vs theological groups. The MC USA divisions have bled off 100,000s of members. Same with Church of the Brethren.

The pattern is the same: liberals wait until they can control institutions and then seize the church buildings and institutions. They run off with the money, the eventually the church doors close.

This might be true in some situations, but not the example given. Most of those groups broke off of liberal movements, not each other though.

[Ken]

By numbers, almost all the divisions in the Anabaptist world are liberal vs theological groups. The MC USA divisions have bled off 100,000s of members. Same with Church of the Brethren.

The pattern is the same: liberals wait until they can control institutions and then seize the church buildings and institutions. They run off with the money, the eventually the church doors close.

This might be true in some situations, but not the example given. Most of those groups broke off of liberal movements, not each other though.

There are probably too many different Anabaptist groups to precisely count because the number seems to be constantly changing. But for the sake of argument let's put the number very conservatively at 50. From the Swartzentruber Amish all the way over to MCUSA.

Out of that vast array of different Anabaptist groups there is only one that is objectively liberal using any common meaning of that term. That is MCUSA. The other 49 (or whatever the number is) are all different flavors of conservative and would all self-identify as conservative if polled.

And the theological disagreements that prevent say the Holdemans and Beachy Amish or any other Anabaptist group from finding common ground in one ecumenical Anabaptist faith in the tradition of Jesus, Paul, and Menno Simons have absolutely nothing to do with liberals or liberalism.

[Ernie]

By numbers, almost all the divisions in the Anabaptist world are liberal vs theological groups. The MC USA divisions have bled off 100,000s of members. Same with Church of the Brethren.

The pattern is the same: liberals wait until they can control institutions and then seize the church buildings and institutions. They run off with the money, the eventually the church doors close.

This might be true in some situations, but not the example given. Most of those groups broke off of liberal movements, not each other though.

There are probably too many different Anabaptist groups to precisely count because the number seems to be constantly changing. But for the sake of argument let's put the number very conservatively at 50. From the Swartzentruber Amish all the way over to MCUSA.

Out of that vast array of different Anabaptist groups there is only one that is objectively liberal using any common meaning of that term. That is MCUSA. The other 49 (or whatever the number is) are all different flavors of conservative and would all self-identify as conservative if polled.

And the theological disagreements that prevent say the Holdemans and Beachy Amish or any other Anabaptist group from finding common ground in one ecumenical Anabaptist faith in the tradition of Jesus, Paul, and Menno Simons have absolutely nothing to do with liberals or liberalism.

I suggest there are four main Anabaptist constituencies in the USA and maybe around the world. I don't know that this is that much different than any other faith tradition in North America.

1. MCUSA and other liberal congregations
2. Everybody between headcovering Anabaptists and MCUSA (these folks do lots of things together and benefit from each other)
3. Old Orders and Plain Conservatives (these folks do lots of things together and benefit from each other. The more progressive folks offer counseling and skilled services to the less progressive folks. The less progressive folks provide the more progressive folks with at least 50% of their leaders.)
4. OTC churches - This includes OO German Baptists, Swartzentruber, Some Apostolics, Holdemans, etc. (these folks don't partner much with other folks)

#1 These churches need to stop helping people practice iniquity (lawlessness)
#2 These folks need to understand the siliness of drawing a line in the sand where they have. (by studying their roots)
#3 These definitely need to learn how to work together even better
#4 These need to learn how to begin working with others

[Ken]

This might be true in some situations, but not the example given. Most of those groups broke off of liberal movements, not each other though.

There are probably too many different Anabaptist groups to precisely count because the number seems to be constantly changing. But for the sake of argument let's put the number very conservatively at 50. From the Swartzentruber Amish all the way over to MCUSA.

Out of that vast array of different Anabaptist groups there is only one that is objectively liberal using any common meaning of that term. That is MCUSA. The other 49 (or whatever the number is) are all different flavors of conservative and would all self-identify as conservative if polled.

And the theological disagreements that prevent say the Holdemans and Beachy Amish or any other Anabaptist group from finding common ground in one ecumenical Anabaptist faith in the tradition of Jesus, Paul, and Menno Simons have absolutely nothing to do with liberals or liberalism.

I suggest there are four main Anabaptist constituencies in the USA and maybe around the world. I don't know that this is that much different than any other faith tradition in North America.

1. MCUSA and other liberal congregations
2. Everybody between headcovering Anabaptists and MCUSA (these folks do lots of things together and benefit from each other)
3. Old Orders and Plain Conservatives (these folks do lots of things together and benefit from each other. The more progressive folks offer counseling and skilled services to the less progressive folks. The less progressive folks provide the more progressive folks with at least 50% of their leaders.)
4. OTC churches - This includes OO German Baptists, Swartzentruber, Some Apostolics, Holdemans, etc. (these folks don't partner much with other folks)

#3 definitely needs to learn how to work together better
#4 needs to learn how to begin working with others

The point is not that these various groups don't do things together. Obviously they do.

The point i was making is that all these different groups even exist in the first place. Instead of just one larger Anabaptist church. We are so used to it that we probably don't even see it. There is nothing Biblical about denominations and factions. I'm just pointing out that the reasons why there are such a vast array of different Anabaptist groups is not some liberal plot or the machinations of liberals. These are largely conservative groups by any objective standard, and the differences that divide them are largely over conservative points of theology or practice.

[Ernie]

I'm just pointing out that the reasons why there are such a vast array of different Anabaptist groups is not some liberal plot or the machinations of liberals. These are largely conservative groups by any objective standard, and the differences that divide them are largely over conservative points of theology or practice.

I disagree. Anabaptists who considered each other brethren in the first 50 years had many things in common and represented certain things.
Liberal influences have made the Anabaptists something very different today. And the Old Orders and OTC groups are a reaction to the liberals. Otherwise they would still be with the sort of Anabaptists who considered each other brethren in the mid 1500s.

[Ken]

I'm just pointing out that the reasons why there are such a vast array of different Anabaptist groups is not some liberal plot or the machinations of liberals. These are largely conservative groups by any objective standard, and the differences that divide them are largely over conservative points of theology or practice.

I disagree. Anabaptists who considered each other brethren in the first 50 years had many things in common and represented certain things.
Liberal influences have made the Anabaptists something very different today. And the Old Orders and OTC groups are a reaction to the liberals. Otherwise they would still be with the sort of Anabaptists who considered each other brethren in the mid 1500s.

Which Conservative Anabaptist groups would you consider "liberal"

[Josh]

#4 These need to learn how to begin working with others

These groups don’t want to become like 1, 2 or 3 nor sit in judgment over them. There is no reason for them to start “working with others”. That is the path of liberalism.

I appreciate German Baptists, Apostolic Christians, and my own church very much. In fact I’ve strongly encouraged some of my relatives to go to an AC church and I am blessed since a few of them have been doing so.

But working closely? I can’t see much good coming from it. Our cultures are really different. Holdemans wear beards and don’t have pianos in church. The ACs usually don’t have beards and play piano in church. There is no good way for us to “meet in the middle.

The ACs use public schools and have a unique culture with how their young people feel God’s call, repent, and join the church. The Holdemans do too but the two ways are just different enough that it’s hard for the two groups to even understand each other.

It doesn’t make sense at all to try to reduce Christianity to some lowest common denominator. Instead, we can appreciate what other groups do and bless them as they go on their way and try to set a good example that can be an inspiration to other believers.

I have been inspired and encouraged to be more faithful to my own church from seeing sincere Christian lives in Amish people, other horse and buggy groups, Old Brethren (Petition 1 & 2), New Conference Brethren, Old Conference Brethren, Hutterites, Reformed Baptists, Southern Baptists, Catholics who appreciate the Latin rite, Pentecostals, and I have even been inspired and encouraged by someone who was a sincere Muslim. However, I think finding unity between all those groups and “working together” would be impossible short of the Lord’s return.