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

[ken_sylvania]

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?

I would not.

[Josh]

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?

I attended my church and then my churches prior to that that didn’t have open communion and did not feel persecuted. In fact I appreciated at my current church that they let me attend a closed members’ meeting (with the members’ consent).

[Ernie]

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?

For the record, I'm not criticizing the church in Colombia. They made some exceptions for people of other cultures, and I applaud them for this!

Many Anabaptist churches simply make no cultural exceptions. I can't imagine most conservative Anabaptists fully including Christian men in red shirts and white pants. (men who have basically the same beliefs and NT practices)

[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?

For the record, I'm not criticizing the church in Colombia. They made some exceptions for people of other cultures, and I applaud them for this!

Many Anabaptist churches simply make no cultural exceptions. I can't imagine most conservative Anabaptists fully including Christian men in red shirts and white pants. (men who have basically the same beliefs and NT practices)

I'm just pushing back on the notion that internal church rules (even harsh ones) represent any sort of religious persecution.

Pretty much every religious group on the planet has standards and rules of some sort. The fact that they are free to practice their religion as they see fit is the very definition of religious freedom not religious persecution.

[silentreader]

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.

I am more inclined to call it partiality perhaps. Probably at least some of this passage, whether we like it or not, is relevant.

1 My brothers, show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory. 2 For if a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in, 3 and if you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, “You sit here in a good place,” while you say to the poor man, “You stand over there,” or, “Sit down at my feet,” 4 have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? 5 Listen, my beloved brothers, has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, which he has promised to those who love him? 6 But you have dishonored the poor man. Are not the rich the ones who oppress you, and the ones who drag you into court? 7 Are they not the ones who blaspheme the honorable name by which you were called?

8 If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. 9 But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. 10 For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it. 11 For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. 13 For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.

James 2:1-13 (ESV)

There is not a big gap between separation and elitism, at least in the Canadian Mennonite culture with which I am most familiar.

[QuietlyListening]

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.

When I read this it makes me sad that anyone would consider this persecution. Partiality, elitism, unwilling to acknowledge we are one in Christ anything but persecution. If anyone of us ever experienced persecution as our brothers and sisters did in biblical times and since- being stoned, burned, imprisoned in harsh conditions, losing your job and family, having children kidnapped, facing death or having to choose Christ over the lives of your family- would be even begin to call this persecution? I think the church in this country has no idea of what true persecution is.

[steve-in-kville]

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.

When I read this it makes me sad that anyone would consider this persecution. Partiality, elitism, unwilling to acknowledge we are one in Christ anything but persecution. If anyone of us ever experienced persecution as our brothers and sisters did in biblical times and since- being stoned, burned, imprisoned in harsh conditions, losing your job and family, having children kidnapped, facing death or having to choose Christ over the lives of your family- would be even begin to call this persecution? I think the church in this country has no idea of what true persecution is.

I agree 100% with QL.

The above referenced "persecution" is found in areas that have a high ratio of Anabaptism, I have learned. Such as my area, Ohio, etc. Once one gets into an area there is very little representation, one would find such behavior is non-existant. Not saying that is the case the world over, but that is a trend I have noticed.

Just my $2.

[Ken]

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.

When I read this it makes me sad that anyone would consider this persecution. Partiality, elitism, unwilling to acknowledge we are one in Christ anything but persecution. If anyone of us ever experienced persecution as our brothers and sisters did in biblical times and since- being stoned, burned, imprisoned in harsh conditions, losing your job and family, having children kidnapped, facing death or having to choose Christ over the lives of your family- would be even begin to call this persecution? I think the church in this country has no idea of what true persecution is.

Exactly.

If excluding someone from fellowship or rites over doctrinal issues constitutes "religious persecution" then by definition, churches who exclude gay members or refused to conduct gay marriages would also be engaged in "religious persecution"

Religious freedom means being able to determine for yourself the doctrines and rules of your faith.

[Ernie]

Religious persecution is on a spectrum from rolling one's eyes at someone else because of his beliefs, to mental bombardment to get people to weaken their faith, to being torn apart limb by limb, burnt at the stake, or crucified.

It is all wrong but the latter is much, much more evil.

[Szdfan]

Religious persecution is on a spectrum from rolling one's eyes at someone else because of his beliefs

So when people here call another faith a "false religion" and disparage it, are they also engaging in religious persecution?