Why Obey ?

General Christian Theology
Valerie
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: Why Obey ?

Post by Valerie »

Adam wrote:
In your church, would you invite people from the TV Show "The Bachelor" to be special guest speakers? (The Bachelor is a show where a man starts out dating 20 or so different women and then slowly eliminates women to try to find the woman he wants to marry.) Would you hire a magician and a water tank torture chamber escape artist to be the featured part of the Sunday Easter service? Would you invite a Miss USA participant to be the featured speaker of a service, wearing very tight clothes on stage and then have her pose for pictures in a tight dress in the lobby after the service? These are things that are happening in popular Evangelical churches right now to try to make the gospel attractive to non-Christians.

I see these things as important, fundamental differences, not just matters of emphasis. Nevertheless, I recognize that there are Protestant and Evangelicals who truly demonstrate an obedient love/faith relationship with Jesus Christ (as well as Catholics, Orthodox, etc.). Similarly, I recognize that there are those within the Conservative Anabaptist faith who probably do not demonstrate an obedient love/faith relationship with Jesus Christ. My point is in no way to say that all Protestants or Evangelicals are off base. But I am looking at larger trends and concerns in general. From my experience in the Evangelical Church, I am quite concerned about the direction it is heading, and I think it stems from a theology that doesn't take obedience to the words of Jesus seriously. Rather, since we can't 'earn' our salvation, we don't need to worry about obedience, because if you are worried about obedience you are legalistic. But the New Testament seems to teach that obedience is a vital part of faith.
Heartbreaking- I cannot imagine these things happening in Evangelical churches- we would be out the door. We visited one church to hear a particular young man who had just become a pastor- his message was EXCELLENT- his hearts cry was to affect the hearts of his listeners to really convert- to die to self, etc- he had an altar call (I realize not all on here believe in these) to pray at the altar for God to do a work in their heart in many of these areas- as large as that congregation was, only 2 responded. It made me feel really sad- the setting was like a disco scene, colorful lights, etc- 30 years ago at this large denomination that would have seemed ridiculous- in fact- when contemporary Christian music entered in the late 60's and 70's, parents from this denomination didn't let their youth even visit churches where there was contemporary Christian music- and now they are one of them. Within this large church in Ohio- there are 3 services- one like we were in (like a concert) one for older folks who didn't like the concert setting but did like more contemporary songs for worship and then another service going on for those who liked traditional hymns. 3 services, going on at once- I found this strange even if I understand the intent-
0 x
User avatar
Josh
Posts: 23826
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:23 pm
Location: 1000' ASL
Affiliation: The church of God

Re: Why Obey ?

Post by Josh »

I'm not sure why people get worked up about music / lights in church that are the same as a concert they would go to outside of church or the same as music they'd listen to on the radio.
0 x
GaryK
Posts: 2281
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2016 6:24 pm
Location: Georgia
Affiliation: Unaffiliated

Re: Why Obey ?

Post by GaryK »

buckeyematt2 wrote:
GaryK wrote:I grew up Beachy and was under that umbrella for 50 + years.

I remember in 2009, while teaching a class on Anabaptist history at CBS, it saddened me to discover that less than 100 years (if I'm remembering correctly) after the beginning of the Anabaptist movement they began retreating into the "quiet in the land" mode. I think this is where things started to go wrong. What followed produced the Amish split from the Mennonites and a further departure from the genius of the early Anabaptist movement. I believe the "evangelical" revivalist movements were attempts to "fix" the natural outcome of the "quiet in the land" worldview that seemed to have become very inward focused.

I wonder how well Beachys and others of that day knew early Anabaptist history because it puzzles me that they would adopt an approach that had its roots in a movement that in many cases violently persecuted the early Anabaptists. I think they would have been much better served to try to rediscover the early Anabaptist vision that promoted the kind of Kingdom Christianity Bercot writes about rather than adopting the "theology from Mennonite evangelists who in turn borrowed from Protestants." I'm doubtful that such an approach would have remained very Old Order in nature but I do believe it would have produced a much different result than we see today because the premise for change would have much more solid.
Thoughtful reply, thanks. Two points come to my mind.

(1) Persecution profoundly influenced Anabaptist and shaped how we think. But is it okay, or will it be okay, to sometime let go of the past suspicion of Lutherans and Presbyterians/Reformed - not to unite or agree with them on our fundamental and distinctive disagreements like infant baptism, predestination, eternal security, and going to war, but to evaluate the things they do or say simply on the merits? They have changed their views on church and state, religious liberty, etc. Not everything has to tie in to the sins of their ancestors - at least, I don't view them that way.

(2) More directly relevant, Billy Graham was a Baptist. Baptists have never been persecutors and always advocated religious freedom and a moderate form of church/state separation (e.g. Roger Williams).
I don't view them primarily through the lens of the past neither do I disagree with everything about their view of salvation. But when I see what Protestantism/evangelicalism/revivalism has produced, generally speaking, I don't see the kinds of disciples of Jesus being produced today or in Protestant history that I see in the early church or in early Anabaptism.

Don't you think the "fundamental and distinctive disagreements like infant baptism, predestination, eternal security, and going to war" are directly connected with their view of the gospel and discipleship?
0 x
MattY
Posts: 236
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 5:36 pm
Location: Ohio
Affiliation: Beachy
Contact:

Re: Why Obey ?

Post by MattY »

Neto wrote:I mentioned a Lutheran friend myself, and may have muddied the waters here, so I will briefly respond to this. I cannot speak for all anabaptists, or all Mennonites, but I will say in general that we do not consider Lutherans to be Evangelicals, nor the Reformed Church of America, or any other main denomination that baptizes infants. (They are Protestants, but not Evangelicals.) But I think the term 'Evangelical' may have changed in meaning in recent years or even decades, & I could have been 'left behind'. These media-related events you mentioned, was that in one of the mega-churches (that do somewhat defy classification)?
Josh wrote:Do you consider the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America to be evangelical?

What about the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod?
I think traditional, orthodox Lutherans don't consider themselves to be "Evangelicals" because they stand apart from mainstream evangelical subculture, and they avoid membership in the National Association of Evangelicals. One site said they would consider themselves "evangelical", i.e. gospel-centered, but not part of "American Evangelicalism".

The ELCA would in no way be evangelical though, not even in the sense of "conservative Protestant":
"How the ELCA left the Great Tradition for Liberal Protestantism"
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/200 ... -31.0.html

The WELS and the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod are conservative Protestant.
0 x
Almighty, most holy God
Faithful through the ages
Almighty, most holy Lord
Glorious, almighty God
Paul
Posts: 112
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2017 12:33 pm
Affiliation:

Re: Why Obey ?

Post by Paul »

Adam wrote: But there are a lot of places where you can discuss the Scriptures. Why have you chosen MennonNet to do so? I imagine that it is either (1) to learn more about Anabaptist belief and practice or (2) to try to correct Anabaptists where you believe they are wrong. (Or maybe a bit of both.)

As for me, I am definitely open and have changed or clarified a lot of what I believe through interactions with people on this forum. For example, when I was first came to this forum, I could not understand why Conservative Anabaptists dress the way they do, since, from my perspective, it prevented outsiders from coming to the church. But through interaction on this forum and particularly through some comments that Ernie and Wade made, I have come to see and understand (and increasingly support) the Conservative Anabaptist perspective. Also, just recently, I asked some questions about the Sabbath, and Josh and Bootstrap both gave my good insight that Gentiles were never told to obey the Laws of Moses and they also helped me to reconsider what Galatians had to say on the matter. I have learned and grown in many other ways as well. My views have been radically challenged and altered over the past year, and I am so thankful for this forum in helping me work through my understanding of the Scriptures.

The reason we discuss Luther and Calvin is because their views are the foundation of the type of Scriptural interpretation that you are promoting in this thread and that you have promoted in other threads. For example, when you talked about the gospel on this thread, you naturally went to John (and only John). That springs directly from Luther who promoted John to the exclusion of the other gospels. You may not have been doing so with a conscious recognition, but that is the point, Luther's influence is so ingrained in Protestantism, that we don't even realize it when he is influencing us. But interpretation coming from Luther's perspective is at odds with Anabaptist interpretation and practice. That is why I asked you if you are here to learn about Anabaptism or convert people to Protestant views. If you are here to learn, this will be a great place to discuss things. If you are here to convert, then you will probably find yourself bumping heads with people a lot.
I don't have to give an account to you why I choose to post here, and you don't need to tell me why and what I should or should not post here either. Great that you found so many posts and insights helpful for you, but I am just curious who exactly made you the spokesperson for anabaptism? Because you act like you are the manager here on the forum, and you seem to think that your way of doing things should be the standard?

@Josh I am just curious why - instead of responding to the actual content of the Scriptures in John (or any others) that I shared - you simply dismiss it as "Protestant Theology". It's still Gods Word, and it still says what it says. The way you unfairly put me in some corner of a theological belief system that you paint in a way that does not nearly represent what I actually believe and how I live, and try to drive a wedge between my view of the Scriptures and "anabaptism", comes across to me like a hostile way to evade an honest discussion of the actual Scriptures.
0 x
Valerie
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: Why Obey ?

Post by Valerie »

I think that if we are not careful- it can come across as there is one Church who has become 'infallible' while at the same time, these Churches were against 'infallibility' claims- just something to think about.
It's easy for me in these topics to agree with Orthodox Christians who say that each of the Protestant 'sects' has a piece of the pie, and they all have some things right and some things wrong.
It keeps me from feeling like all Churches are doing what my husband gets so disgusted at- being firing squads at each other. Some have given up on the faith completely just for this reason- or are choosing to just stay home & study/pray/worship alone.
Lord come quickly, our witness as "The Church" seems very 'resistant' in our attempts to teach non-resistance- to one another-
0 x
User avatar
Josh
Posts: 23826
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:23 pm
Location: 1000' ASL
Affiliation: The church of God

Re: Why Obey ?

Post by Josh »

Outside of MennoNet, I spend extremely little time discussing other churches or groups or other people's theology. There is a time and place for such discussion but it's not my focus.

At the same time, that means things like the Bible study I'm part of are not an open forum for debate on issues my church considers settled. So for example if someone is against nonresistance or against Paul's books of the Bible, I can discuss it with him but ultimately either he has to decide to believe, be silent, or not be part of the group anymore.

We have so much to focus on in our own lives - like helping each other with financial or organisational challenges - theology doesn't have much need to be talked about. Part of
my theology is to hold all things in common, sharing with any who have need. So that means we ask each other what our needs are and then go meet them.

My experience is that doing this leads curious seekers or people with evangelical background much closer to Anabaptism.
0 x
MattY
Posts: 236
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 5:36 pm
Location: Ohio
Affiliation: Beachy
Contact:

Re: Why Obey ?

Post by MattY »

Adam wrote:I was speaking with a Lutheran friend of mine just a couple of months ago. He believes that God arbitrarily predestines people to heaven or hell. If you go to heaven, it is through nothing that you have done (i.e. a person's obedience doesn't play any role at all). If you go to hell, it is, and I quote, "your own d*mn fault" (even though God arbitrarily predestined you to hell). I pressed my friend on these issues and he admitted that they don't make sense to the human mind, but it is received by faith. Is that fairly consistent with what you believe? Or do you see fundamental differences in his view of salvation as compared to your view of salvation?

In your church, would you invite people from the TV Show "The Bachelor" to be special guest speakers? (The Bachelor is a show where a man starts out dating 20 or so different women and then slowly eliminates women to try to find the woman he wants to marry.) Would you hire a magician and a water tank torture chamber escape artist to be the featured part of the Sunday Easter service? Would you invite a Miss USA participant to be the featured speaker of a service, wearing very tight clothes on stage and then have her pose for pictures in a tight dress in the lobby after the service? These are things that are happening in popular Evangelical churches right now to try to make the gospel attractive to non-Christians.

I see these things as important, fundamental differences, not just matters of emphasis. Nevertheless, I recognize that there are Protestant and Evangelicals who truly demonstrate an obedient love/faith relationship with Jesus Christ (as well as Catholics, Orthodox, etc.). Similarly, I recognize that there are those within the Conservative Anabaptist faith who probably do not demonstrate an obedient love/faith relationship with Jesus Christ. My point is in no way to say that all Protestants or Evangelicals are off base. But I am looking at larger trends and concerns in general. From my experience in the Evangelical Church, I am quite concerned about the direction it is heading, and I think it stems from a theology that doesn't take obedience to the words of Jesus seriously. Rather, since we can't 'earn' our salvation, we don't need to worry about obedience, because if you are worried about obedience you are legalistic. But the New Testament seems to teach that obedience is a vital part of faith.
Sorry about my communication deficiencies. I don't mean to say there are no serious differences between various evangelicals and us - obviously there are. No, I don't think the differences you describe are just matters of emphasis. I disagree strongly with your Lutheran friend's view of predestination - I think it's conditional and probably corporate rather than individual. That's not incompatible with evangelicalism. I would say early Anabaptist theology was basically Arminian (in contrast to both Calvinism and Pelagianism), whether or not it distinctly or clearly espoused Arminianism (same for modern CA theology, if properly understood and espoused). As for what I meant by emphasis, take the following statement: We are saved by the grace of Christ through faith that works. Agree? A lot of evangelicals would agree, but often they forget to emphasis the last part, "that works" (i.e. sanctification). One of the Anabaptist distinctives is an emphasis on sanctification.

As for churches that did those things that you describe in the second paragraph, what are their teachings? Lutheran? Baptist? Pentecostal? Prosperity gospel? I agree too many "evangelicals" don't take obedience seriously. But I suspect many of those churches who do those things also teach a confused theology - probably giving members/attendees a Pelagian view of human nature. So when they preach things to the effect that, "All you have to do is believe, and you will never lose your salvation no matter what you do", combined with "God loves you, you are basically good", with little or no teaching against sin, of course there will be a lack of discipleship and obedience.
Last edited by MattY on Wed May 17, 2017 11:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
0 x
Almighty, most holy God
Faithful through the ages
Almighty, most holy Lord
Glorious, almighty God
MattY
Posts: 236
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 5:36 pm
Location: Ohio
Affiliation: Beachy
Contact:

Re: Why Obey ?

Post by MattY »

GaryK wrote:
buckeyematt2 wrote:
GaryK wrote:I grew up Beachy and was under that umbrella for 50 + years.

I remember in 2009, while teaching a class on Anabaptist history at CBS, it saddened me to discover that less than 100 years (if I'm remembering correctly) after the beginning of the Anabaptist movement they began retreating into the "quiet in the land" mode. I think this is where things started to go wrong. What followed produced the Amish split from the Mennonites and a further departure from the genius of the early Anabaptist movement. I believe the "evangelical" revivalist movements were attempts to "fix" the natural outcome of the "quiet in the land" worldview that seemed to have become very inward focused.

I wonder how well Beachys and others of that day knew early Anabaptist history because it puzzles me that they would adopt an approach that had its roots in a movement that in many cases violently persecuted the early Anabaptists. I think they would have been much better served to try to rediscover the early Anabaptist vision that promoted the kind of Kingdom Christianity Bercot writes about rather than adopting the "theology from Mennonite evangelists who in turn borrowed from Protestants." I'm doubtful that such an approach would have remained very Old Order in nature but I do believe it would have produced a much different result than we see today because the premise for change would have much more solid.
Thoughtful reply, thanks. Two points come to my mind.

(1) Persecution profoundly influenced Anabaptist and shaped how we think. But is it okay, or will it be okay, to sometime let go of the past suspicion of Lutherans and Presbyterians/Reformed - not to unite or agree with them on our fundamental and distinctive disagreements like infant baptism, predestination, eternal security, and going to war, but to evaluate the things they do or say simply on the merits? They have changed their views on church and state, religious liberty, etc. Not everything has to tie in to the sins of their ancestors - at least, I don't view them that way.

(2) More directly relevant, Billy Graham was a Baptist. Baptists have never been persecutors and always advocated religious freedom and a moderate form of church/state separation (e.g. Roger Williams).
I don't view them primarily through the lens of the past neither do I disagree with everything about their view of salvation. But when I see what Protestantism/evangelicalism/revivalism has produced, generally speaking, I don't see the kinds of disciples of Jesus being produced today or in Protestant history that I see in the early church or in early Anabaptism.

Don't you think the "fundamental and distinctive disagreements like infant baptism, predestination, eternal security, and going to war" are directly connected with their view of the gospel and discipleship?
I think they can be inter-connected, though not necessarily. Why do denominations exist that take different views on all of the above, sometimes agreeing with our view, sometimes not? I think their views on infant baptism and going to war come from their ecclesiology and their view of church and state. Eternal security and predestination are connected to the gospel and discipleship - but people who agree on the former can disagree on the latter. Classical Calvinists (Covenant theology) disagree with Lutherans on law and gospel, for example.

While people can logically interconnect their whole theology, that doesn't mean every part is necessarily related to the other, imo. Otherwise, I'd have to agree with a friend who says amillennialists are closet Augustinians who are in danger of sliding into union of church and state because they believe like Augustine that the millennial kingdom of Christ is occurring in the present age - that we are ruling with Christ on earth right now. But I trust that amillennial Mennonites can separate their eschatology from their ecclesiology. :)
0 x
Almighty, most holy God
Faithful through the ages
Almighty, most holy Lord
Glorious, almighty God
GaryK
Posts: 2281
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2016 6:24 pm
Location: Georgia
Affiliation: Unaffiliated

Re: Why Obey ?

Post by GaryK »

buckeyematt2 wrote:
GaryK wrote:
buckeyematt2 wrote:
Thoughtful reply, thanks. Two points come to my mind.

(1) Persecution profoundly influenced Anabaptist and shaped how we think. But is it okay, or will it be okay, to sometime let go of the past suspicion of Lutherans and Presbyterians/Reformed - not to unite or agree with them on our fundamental and distinctive disagreements like infant baptism, predestination, eternal security, and going to war, but to evaluate the things they do or say simply on the merits? They have changed their views on church and state, religious liberty, etc. Not everything has to tie in to the sins of their ancestors - at least, I don't view them that way.

(2) More directly relevant, Billy Graham was a Baptist. Baptists have never been persecutors and always advocated religious freedom and a moderate form of church/state separation (e.g. Roger Williams).
I don't view them primarily through the lens of the past neither do I disagree with everything about their view of salvation. But when I see what Protestantism/evangelicalism/revivalism has produced, generally speaking, I don't see the kinds of disciples of Jesus being produced today or in Protestant history that I see in the early church or in early Anabaptism.

Don't you think the "fundamental and distinctive disagreements like infant baptism, predestination, eternal security, and going to war" are directly connected with their view of the gospel and discipleship?
I think they can be inter-connected, though not necessarily. Why do denominations exist that take different views on all of the above, sometimes agreeing with our view, sometimes not? I think their views on infant baptism and going to war come from their ecclesiology and their view of church and state. Eternal security and predestination are connected to the gospel and discipleship - but people who agree on the former can disagree on the latter. Classical Calvinists (Covenant theology) disagree with Lutherans on law and gospel, for example.

While people can logically interconnect their whole theology, that doesn't mean every part is necessarily related to the other, imo. Otherwise, I'd have to agree with a friend who says amillennialists are closet Augustinians who are in danger of sliding into union of church and state because they believe like Augustine that the millennial kingdom of Christ is occurring in the present age - that we are ruling with Christ on earth right now. But I trust that amillennial Mennonites can separate their eschatology from their ecclesiology. :)
I think where you and I differ is that after all these years of Protestantism/evangelicalism/revivalism I am taking note of the end product and think it's time to take a different approach rather than trying to tweak our existing theology. That's not to say that ALL of our existing theology is problematic but results do matter and if you see similar negative results from one denomination to the other I believe it's safe to conclude that there is something wrong at the core.
0 x
Post Reply