Poll: Is it religious persecution... ???

[Josh]

Yes, basically every ultra church is in C. In fact I would say it is one of the defining characteristics of ultra conservatives.

[MaxPC]

Max, it has certainly had an impact in some areas and certain congregations. I noticed this the last few times I went to visit my old home congregation in California - Covid has had a noticeable impact on the frequency of using the Kiss (our strain of Brethren tend to use it more frequently than most Mennos, by way of disclosure) in that congregation, especially among the youth and those who joined the church in the last few years (and who, as a result, would have had significantly less attachment to the practice). They also met outside their meetinghouse for several months with significant distancing, masking, etc. Whereas, on the other hand, with the exception of a few members for a short time, my home congregation here in PA barely skipped a beat on using the Kiss and congregating in some form all the way through Covid, and rarely masked except when ill. Not looking to start a right/wrong/moral discussion on THAT again, just giving context.

But my observations (and resultant question to Ernie) go back over the last decade or two, as relates to a general decline, particular among Anabaptist youth, and especially living in an area where half of the Kiss-using Anabaptists are pretty strict about only greeting their own members (a nod to the early part of this thread, if you will), but have historically used the Kiss consistently (even if mostly among themselves.

In both my fellowship and in other fellowships around here, many elected to "suspend" the greeting due to concerns about COVID... and this "concern" seemed to last for quite a while, well into 2021. When votes were taken on SurveyMonkey the response was strong (over 80%) to continue such "suspensions".

Now, I know for a fact that many people (indeed a majority) were flouting all the other advice from the establishment about COVID, such as wearing facemasks, maintaining 6' of social distancing, avoiding unnecessary travel, closing workplaces and transitioning to working from home as possible instead of requiring employees to come in, and so on... in fact, it is a mathematical certainty that some of the people protesting against such government requirements and claiming COVID was some kind of conspiracy did, indeed, seem perfectly happy to suspend the greeting indefinitely. (This attitude also extended to temporarily using individual communion cups instead of the common cup.)

Eventually our leadership instructed us that we needed to return to "what has been our custom" and restore common cups, the breaking of a load of bread instead of pre-portioned individual pieces, and engaging in the Christian greeting. But I feel something has been revealed in the laity - both in Mennonite, Brethren, and other circles.

Heir and Josh, thank you for that information: it is helpful.
Do you feel that perhaps the culture within your groups may be changing?
I have noticed a decline of the Continental greeting (peck or graze on both cheeks) in the past two decades.

[Josh]

Things are basically back to the way they were pre-covid. Generally speaking in ultra conservative groups, certain things just don't change.

The subset of people who would have preferred to discard the greeting don't have enough numbers to cause a difference.

[ken_sylvania]

It's interesting how different Christian cultures develop.

In Colombia, S.A., there is a Christian group that practices non-violence, modest dress, head-covering for women, disciplined church life, etc. I don't think they have much written down. (And yes, believe it or not, they never had any influence from Anabaptists.

In most disciplined churches with these sorts of convictions, there is an invisible fence around the communion table. At communion time, a visitor finds out who is inside the fence and who is outside unless they find out through inquiry ahead of time.

At the church in Colombia, there is an actual waist-high chain link fence about 3/4 of the way back through the auditorium. Members sit in front of the fence, non-members and the excommunicated sit behind the fence. This may seem really bizarre but I have no problem with it.

Only Christians from other churches who meet the dress code can sit in front of the fence. The dress code for men is a red shirt and white/light pants and no red socks. (wearing red socks could give the impression that one is trampling underfoot the blood of Jesus.)

Some Nationwide Fellowship Mennonites visited the church and were allowed to sit in front of the fence wearing dark pants, since they were foreigners and unused to the church's customs.

Other neat things about this group of churches is that one of pastors try to check in with each member of the flock each day to make sure they are doing ok. Westerners might think this is overboard, but I love it. It is the opposite of what most pastors do that I am familiar with.

Isn't it religious persecution for them to refuse to allow other Christians to sit in front of the fence?

[Ken]

It's interesting how different Christian cultures develop.

In Colombia, S.A., there is a Christian group that practices non-violence, modest dress, head-covering for women, disciplined church life, etc. I don't think they have much written down. (And yes, believe it or not, they never had any influence from Anabaptists.

In most disciplined churches with these sorts of convictions, there is an invisible fence around the communion table. At communion time, a visitor finds out who is inside the fence and who is outside unless they find out through inquiry ahead of time.

At the church in Colombia, there is an actual waist-high chain link fence about 3/4 of the way back through the auditorium. Members sit in front of the fence, non-members and the excommunicated sit behind the fence. This may seem really bizarre but I have no problem with it.

Only Christians from other churches who meet the dress code can sit in front of the fence. The dress code for men is a red shirt and white/light pants and no red socks. (wearing red socks could give the impression that one is trampling underfoot the blood of Jesus.)

Some Nationwide Fellowship Mennonites visited the church and were allowed to sit in front of the fence wearing dark pants, since they were foreigners and unused to the church's customs.

Other neat things about this group of churches is that one of pastors try to check in with each member of the flock each day to make sure they are doing ok. Westerners might think this is overboard, but I love it. It is the opposite of what most pastors do that I am familiar with.

Isn't it religious persecution for them to refuse to allow other Christians to sit in front of the fence?

Apparently they aren't being persecuted for their faith. They are being persecuted for their lack of it.

[Ernie]

Isn't it religious persecution for them to refuse to allow other Christians to sit in front of the fence?

If the Christians have the same basic NT beliefs and practices, but are barred from sitting in front of the fence (or being given the right hand of fellowship, the holy kiss, and communion) because they aren't of the same cultural Order, than "yes", I consider that religious persecution.

[Ernie]

I know that in the other thread, there were other names for this than religious persecution and I'm not stuck on this particular term. That is just how it appears to me.

At the same time, I think it is fine for churches to ask visitors to comply with certain cultural norms, for the sake of courtesy and respect for the local congregation. I see that as different than saying, since you are not part of our clan or tribe, we can't recognize you as full members of the body of Christ.

[Ken]

Isn't it religious persecution for them to refuse to allow other Christians to sit in front of the fence?

If the Christians have the same basic NT beliefs and practices, but are barred from sitting in front of the fence (or being given the right hand of fellowship, the holy kiss, and communion) because they aren't of the same cultural Order, than "yes", I consider that religious persecution.

By this definition, women are religiously persecuted in many Anabaptist churches (forced to sit on one side of the church, barred from full participation in some church functions, etc.)

[Josh]

I do not feel persecuted because I am prohibited from sitting on the ladies’ side or entering their nursery.

[Ken]

I do not feel persecuted because I am prohibited from sitting on the ladies’ side or entering their nursery.

Would you feel religiously persecuted if as a non-member you were not allowed to sit in the members section or participate in communion at the church that Ernie is criticizing?