MennoNet.com

steve-in-kville wrote: I don't want to hijack this thread either, but I have to wonder if God is truly happy with what many of our plain circles have become: constant in-fighting over technology, divisions, power struggles. Yes, this has been happening since the beginning of the Christian church. But just in the past decade I feel its gotten worse. Almost every large conference represented in our area has suffered a split in the last 5 years or so.... Pilgrim, EPMC even the Horning church had a splinter group break away.

All over man's opinion of technology!

It's called Täuferkrankheit (Anabaptist disease).

Where is the vision that division is not the answer? It seems to me that the first part of Romans 14 is a call to not let the "non-essentials" become points of division. Have we not taken this "practical application" idea and used it to create "doctrine"? And of course, doctrinal issues require division when you don't agree, unless you want to be like the mainstream Christian churches of the day that agree to meet and fellowship in spite of major differences in understanding of foundational doctrine.

KingdomBuilder wrote:

Bootstrap wrote:How are you using the term "applied doctrine" here?

Church groups that seek to meaningfully, practically apply what they believe. Sturdy examples of groups today might be JWs, CAs, SDAs, and some Holiness groups.

I intend to get back to the other part of your question later.

Like Boot, I'd be interested in your address of the other part of his question as well, when you have time.

CADude wrote:It's called Täuferkrankheit (Anabaptist disease).

Where is the vision that division is not the answer? It seems to me that the first part of Romans 14 is a call to not let the "non-essentials" become points of division. Have we not taken this "practical application" idea and used it to create "doctrine"? And of course, doctrinal issues require division when you don't agree, unless you want to be like the mainstream Christian churches of the day that agree to meet and fellowship in spite of major differences in understanding of foundational doctrine.

I'm not close enough to plain Mennodom to comment, but I've been part of groups that tried to create a black-and-white set of rules that covered everything, and I wonder if the problems we encountered there rhyme with things CAs are facing.

I think the clear essentials are black and white, but with non-essentials, you sometimes need room for pastoral judgment with an individual to find the best path forward for that person's life. If you can only do that by changing the rules for everyone, the rules have to change every time you allow flexibility with non-essentials. And sometimes there are good reasons to keep those rules.

Even when you want to keep rules for non-essentials, it can be helpful to recognize that they are, in fact, non-essentials that can be modified for pastoral reasons.

While I'm not a fan of how fractured Conservative Mennonitism and Conservative Anabaptism are, I think the differences between the groups are often more than just issues of technology, or disputable matters.

Bootstrap wrote:Did Jesus have an applied doctrine? What did it look like?

Sorry for the delay... school has had me very, very busy.
Personally, I don't feel that Jesus had an applied doctrine. To me, doctrine is where the revelation of God through Christ and mans' ability and desire meet.
I don't think that Jesus truly had doctrine, as I'd cite him alone as the author of the inspiration for what we call Christian "doctrine". Doctrine, intrinsically, has a margin of error. It involves humans, thinking, and the Spirit. We know that no doctrine is truly perfected.
On the other hand, the revelation of God through Christ was and ever will be perfect. His every action was divinity incarnated. Therefore, I say that it's not right to call his life and actions "applied doctrine". We strive to emulate this, and we are enabled and helped by God's Spirit.
Hopefully, God's Spirit is what leads us and sustains us in our doctrinal decisions.
To recap, Jesus's actions flowed directly from his divine origin and oneness with the Father, not applied doctrine. Our "applied doctrine" should flow from our desire and prayers to be like Jesus; through the resulting help of the Spirit, though we are not divine like he.

cmbl wrote:While I'm not a fan of how fractured Conservative Mennonitism and Conservative Anabaptism are, I think the differences between the groups are often more than just issues of technology, or disputable matters.

I can only take your word for it. I'm pretty far from this world. There are (obviously) splits in the non-plain world too, and I would say they are not about disputable matters.

cmbl wrote:While I'm not a fan of how fractured Conservative Mennonitism and Conservative Anabaptism are, I think the differences between the groups are often more than just issues of technology, or disputable matters.

I can attest to the truth of this, at least in my experience. Our big bang in 2009 was ultimately more doctrinal than practical.

I'm really sorry for all of you who are experiencing splits in plain Mennodom. I imagine that must be as painful for you as it is for us. I didn't realize that you were experiencing this too. Ouch.

cmbl wrote:While I'm not a fan of how fractured Conservative Mennonitism and Conservative Anabaptism are, I think the differences between the groups are often more than just issues of technology, or disputable matters.

In my personal experiences in this area I am seeing the opposite, but I'm not extrapolating that to include all splits.

KingdomBuilder wrote:

Bootstrap wrote:Did Jesus have an applied doctrine? What did it look like?

Sorry for the delay... school has had me very, very busy.
Personally, I don't feel that Jesus had an applied doctrine. To me, doctrine is where the revelation of God through Christ and mans' ability and desire meet.
I don't think that Jesus truly had doctrine, as I'd cite him alone as the author of the inspiration for what we call Christian "doctrine". Doctrine, intrinsically, has a margin of error. It involves humans, thinking, and the Spirit. We know that no doctrine is truly perfected.
On the other hand, the revelation of God through Christ was and ever will be perfect. His every action was divinity incarnated. Therefore, I say that it's not right to call his life and actions "applied doctrine". We strive to emulate this, and we are enabled and helped by God's Spirit.
Hopefully, God's Spirit is what leads us and sustains us in our doctrinal decisions.
To recap, Jesus's actions flowed directly from his divine origin and oneness with the Father, not applied doctrine. Our "applied doctrine" should flow from our desire and prayers to be like Jesus; through the resulting help of the Spirit, though we are not divine like he.

I'm not sure what you mean by applied doctrine. But Jewish Rabbis tended to have an outline of belief / doctrine / theology that they taught. By using such an outline, they promoted oral teaching and memorization. This would have been partly what made it possible for the apostles to remember Jesus' teachings so many years later, and to pass them on. It would also explain why some details differ from gospel to gospel. Students would memorize the basic points of the teacher's outline, but the discussion about it would vary somewhat. So one person would remember Jesus saying that if you don't hate father and mother you can't follow Him at one time, while another remembered Him stating it as you need to love parents less than God.