Musical Instruments

[Signtist]

Pretty sure the New Testament commands the use of musical instruments, but does not forbid them anywhere.

Exactly where does it command them?

Psalms, hymns, spiritual songs. A psalm is a song played on a stringed instrument.

[Soloist]

Respectfully, no Josh. "conservative" is not a well defined thing. using the terms devised by one converted River Brethern who wrote a book doesn't constitute well defined.

FWIIW, within the context of what he was writing about, I'm well on aboard with his terminology. But to assume it's the baseline for the entire rest of the world is inaccurate.

But I'd stand by what I said. Where ever it is anyone had Pilgrim in 1995 on their 'spectrum mennonite paint chart of conservatism', it's more toward the liberal side now.

Whatever those terms mean!

terms... I would stick them merging into the moderate category myself... I don't think they really are intermediate or at least on the lower end now days. Clothing styles really haven't changed, its more of frame of mind from what I'm seeing.

[Josh]

Respectfully, no Josh. "conservative" is not a well defined thing. using the terms devised by one converted River Brethern who wrote a book doesn't constitute well defined.

FWIIW, within the context of what he was writing about, I'm well on aboard with his terminology. But to assume it's the baseline for the entire rest of the world is inaccurate.

But I'd stand by what I said. Where ever it is anyone had Pilgrim in 1995 on their 'spectrum mennonite paint chart of conservatism', it's more toward the liberal side now.

Whatever those terms mean!

Plain Anabaptist is complex and multifaceted, as a certain large thing might say.

I’m using the definitions found in Stephen Scott’s book and which are generally adopted by people who write articles in things like JAPAS. As an academic term it is well defined.

See the article “Who are the plain Anabaptists?” in JAPAS if you want details of the definition I’m using.

Pilgrim would remain well inside the “plain” camp, although they may be becoming moderate conservative instead of intermediate. There remains the fundamental conservative camp like BMA, and then the theological conservative camp beyond that like RNoC, which isn’t a plain Mennonite church but most reasonable people would consider a “conservative church”, and does have specific congregations which are still plain or conservative Mennonite.

Of course, an Eastern etc person would loudly protest that BMA people are “liberal”, but that is simply their own bias. (By the same standard I could complain that Eastern people are liberal since they do things my own church considers worldly.) I don’t think it’s useful to yield to the bias of people in specific groups, but rather to look at the plain Anabaptist world as a whole.

[Josh]

Respectfully, no Josh. "conservative" is not a well defined thing. using the terms devised by one converted River Brethern who wrote a book doesn't constitute well defined.

FWIIW, within the context of what he was writing about, I'm well on aboard with his terminology. But to assume it's the baseline for the entire rest of the world is inaccurate.

But I'd stand by what I said. Where ever it is anyone had Pilgrim in 1995 on their 'spectrum mennonite paint chart of conservatism', it's more toward the liberal side now.

Whatever those terms mean!

terms... I would stick them merging into the moderate category myself... I don't think they really are intermediate or at least on the lower end now days. Clothing styles really haven't changed, its more of frame of mind from what I'm seeing.

Moderate conservativism was basically defined as holding to the same clothing standards as intermediates but otherwise having a very different mindset. Moderates would have subtle differences in clothes tho like not requiring ¾” length sleeves for church (for women only - long sleeves still required for men), dark hose for women, and generally tolerating much less plain clothing outside of church than an intermediate church would.

[danfreed]

Back to the topic of musical praise to Jesus ...

Sweet hymns of joy in grateful chorus raise we;
Let all within us praise His holy name.

Christ is the Lord! O praise His name forever!
His pow’r and glory evermore proclaim!


The wonder of Christmas is that God loves us, no matter what our past, or the labels others try to place on us.
And He entered into our messed up world, into our lives, and into our communities, with a message of peace, salvation, forgiveness of sins,
and life transformation.

"O Holy night! The stars are brightly shining
It is the night of the dear Savior's birth
Long lay the world in sin and error pining
'Til He appeared, and the soul felt its worth
A thrill of hope, the weary world rejoices
For yonder breaks a new and glorious morn'

Truly He taught us to love one another;
His law is love and His gospel is peace.
Chains shall He break, for the slave is our brother,
And in His name all oppression shall cease.
Sweet hymns of joy in grateful chorus raise we;
Let all within us praise His holy name.

Christ is the Lord! O praise His name forever!
His pow’r and glory evermore proclaim!"

( translated from a French poet, Placide Cappeau, written in 1843)



Can't wait to praise Him with harmony, music and joy, tonight, Tuesday Dec 19, in central Virginia.
PM me and I'll send you directions to the event.

[cmbl]

Respectfully, no Josh. "conservative" is not a well defined thing. using the terms devised by one converted River Brethern who wrote a book doesn't constitute well defined.

FWIIW, within the context of what he was writing about, I'm well on aboard with his terminology. But to assume it's the baseline for the entire rest of the world is inaccurate.

But I'd stand by what I said. Where ever it is anyone had Pilgrim in 1995 on their 'spectrum mennonite paint chart of conservatism', it's more toward the liberal side now.

Whatever those terms mean!

terms... I would stick them merging into the moderate category myself... I don't think they really are intermediate or at least on the lower end now days. Clothing styles really haven't changed, its more of frame of mind from what I'm seeing.

Moderate conservativism was basically defined as holding to the same clothing standards as intermediates but otherwise having a very different mindset. Moderates would have subtle differences in clothes tho like not requiring ¾” length sleeves for church (for women only - long sleeves still required for men), dark hose for women, and generally tolerating much less plain clothing outside of church than an intermediate church would.

Can Josh or Soloist (or others) expand on the difference in mindset between intermediate and moderate groups?

[Soloist]

Can Josh or Soloist (or others) expand on the difference in mindset between intermediate and moderate groups?

It’s a subtle thing and I’m not entirely sure how. It’s some thing I see, but not necessarily something I know how to explain.

[Josh]

Can Josh or Soloist (or others) expand on the difference in mindset between intermediate and moderate groups?

There are some others who might be more qualified to explain the exact details of the differences. Ernie explained it to me a decade ago as that in an intermediate church, there is more openness for one brother to go to another brother and express a concern, although most people would prefer if the ministers shared the concern. In a moderate church, generally speaking, there is no openness for one member of the laity to confront another member of the laity; things always go through the ministers. (In an ultra-conservative church, virtually any brother can confront anyone else in the laity about a concern, and this is normal and happens all the time.)

The net effect of this is that an intermediate church has more "pressure" to not drift because the members keep each other accountable, although not as much as ultras do.

Another different is that intermediates will accept members from ultra backgrounds, but praise their conservatism and think that their very conservative mindset is a good thing. Moderates usually feel they need to "convert" people from more conservative backgrounds into being less conservative and would not be quite as excited about them exerting an influence to uphold church standards.

[JayP]

I politely take issue with the confidence some speak of academic certainty on classification
Scott’s book is widely known. Nothing wrong with that nor with folks leaning toward using his classifications.
That said, to pretend these terms are as rock solid as usages like Jurassic versus Triassic is silly.

Scott wrote his book over 25 years ago. A lot changes. A clear reality is all of these groups are moving all the time, not to mention the splits.
One bishop in Eastern once observed all these groups are at any moment either focused on moving more conservative or liberal all the time.
I think there is some truth in that. Not judging the right or wrong of where they are going…but few are staying where they are.
Several of the Eastern splits really are marked by the group leaving not wanting something new but to stay where current practices are at.

In Mennonite settings too liberal is defined as anything to my groups liberal side. Each group considers themselves conservative. Too conservative is anything more conservative than they are!

IMHO one problem in some of these groups is the focus on a current issue and the NEED to be doing something. I am not dismissing there are real issues, such as what to do with cellphones or internet, but for some of their folks the FOCUS on them, the battle itself is more important than the result. Sort of like how many groups historically (think political movements) end up eating their own in purity purges.

[Josh]

I politely take issue with the confidence some speak of academic certainty on classification
Scott’s book is widely known. Nothing wrong with that nor with folks leaning toward using his classifications.
That said, to pretend these terms are as rock solid as usages like Jurassic versus Triassic is silly.

Scott wrote his book over 25 years ago. A lot changes. A clear reality is all of these groups are moving all the time, not to mention the splits.

Yes. This phenomenon is known as a “transitional Anabaptist church” or as the “Anabaptist escalator”. The former is Ernie’s term and the latter is the academic term.

One bishop in Eastern once observed all these groups are at any moment either focused on moving more conservative or liberal all the time.
I think there is some truth in that. Not judging the right or wrong of where they are going…but few are staying where they are.
Several of the Eastern splits really are marked by the group leaving not wanting something new but to stay where current practices are at.

I think most neutral observers would agree with that.

In Mennonite settings too liberal is defined as anything to my groups liberal side. Each group considers themselves conservative. Too conservative is anything more conservative than they are!

IMHO one problem in some of these groups is the focus on a current issue and the NEED to be doing something. I am not dismissing there are real issues, such as what to do with cellphones or internet, but for some of their folks the FOCUS on them, the battle itself is more important than the result. Sort of like how many groups historically (think political movements) end up eating their own in purity purges.

I prefer to be part of a group that has other focuses (foci?) such as evangelistic work or helping the most needy of our neighbours and congregants. Of course, adherence to Bible doctrines and practices must be maintained.