MennoNet.com

Ernie wrote:

Josh wrote: I think it would be useful to:

1. Focus on things that are the core of Christianity and Anabaptism. Divorce & remarriage is not the core of what we believe in, although reconciliation and loving your enemy are, as is fleeing sexual immorality.

2. Briefly share that there are different conservative/plain Anabaptist groups that live these things out different ways, and acknowledge it can be a source of different groups viewing the other as not quite living up to scripture. I think it's better for seekers to understand this earlier rather than later.

3. Share the blessing of being part of a church with healthy fruit and simply submitting to that group on what seem like controversial issues. Sooner or later everyone is going to run into a bizarre issue where they have to do this. And I think this is actually part of the core of Anabaptism.

Otherwise talk about marriage / immorality becomes a totally useless debate club about the nuances of permanent (Webb) vs covenant (Deu. 24) views of marriage. For me, as a seeker, even being aware of that debate, let alone the nuances of it, was spiritually devastating to me.

This is good!

Josh wrote:I'm going to politely suggest it would be good to have NMB people involved in organising, running the event, and visibly so.

Let's avoid the irony of a seminar like "Reaching Out to people of Non-Mennonite Background" that was almost entirely Mennonite-background speakers.

Ernie wrote:Anyone who is interested in attending to become familiar with what was commonly believed among early Anabaptists, and also become more familiar with conservative Anabaptist thought, would be very welcome. (John D. Roth has done the latter at various conservative Anabaptist events and because of his respectful attitude, he has been very appreciated.)

If most of the MN attendees would like a larger spectrum represented instead of what I am proposing, that is fine, but then I would want someone else to coordinate it, and I would probably not bring my seeker friends who are interested in learning more about the conservative Anabaptist worldview.

Wayne in Maine wrote:

Ernie wrote:Anyone who is interested in attending to become familiar with what was commonly believed among early Anabaptists, and also become more familiar with conservative Anabaptist thought, would be very welcome. (John D. Roth has done the latter at various conservative Anabaptist events and because of his respectful attitude, he has been very appreciated.)

If most of the MN attendees would like a larger spectrum represented instead of what I am proposing, that is fine, but then I would want someone else to coordinate it, and I would probably not bring my seeker friends who are interested in learning more about the conservative Anabaptist worldview.

This seems to imply that "conservative Anabaptist thought" can be equated with "what was commonly believed among early Anabaptists". Is there going to be room to make the distinction between the two?

Wayne in Maine wrote:

Wayne in Maine wrote:

Ernie wrote:Anyone who is interested in attending to become familiar with what was commonly believed among early Anabaptists, and also become more familiar with conservative Anabaptist thought, would be very welcome. (John D. Roth has done the latter at various conservative Anabaptist events and because of his respectful attitude, he has been very appreciated.)

If most of the MN attendees would like a larger spectrum represented instead of what I am proposing, that is fine, but then I would want someone else to coordinate it, and I would probably not bring my seeker friends who are interested in learning more about the conservative Anabaptist worldview.

This seems to imply that "conservative Anabaptist thought" can be equated with "what was commonly believed among early Anabaptists". Is there going to be room to make the distinction between the two?

Don't misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm not suggesting that modern progressive Mennonitism or "Social Justice" relabeled as "Anabaptism" are alternative understandings of early Anabaptism. I'm suggesting that those groups who identify as "Conservative Anabaptists" can be considered Progressives in their own right and have assimilated a lot of religious practices and philosophies that set them apart from the first generation of Anabaptists.

Ernie wrote:Yes, it will be good to make all of these distinctions as long as nobody gets stereotyped.

I would see us talking about what conservative Anabaptists have retained of the original vision, and what early Anabaptists had (that the early church maybe had) that needs to be reclaimed in the 21st century.