MennoNet.com

Josh wrote:

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.

I think it can be good to simply say how things are, being careful not to say any of us have it perfect.

For example: "Early Anabaptists in 1526 lived in a community of goods, mostly out of necessity. They felt this was following a pattern in scripture in Acts 2.

In the modern day, some Anabaptists try to still live this way, but they are often challenged by how easy it is for even a community of believers to accumulate a lot of wealth in the modern era.

Other Anabaptists own private property, and their brotherhoods wrestle with how to deal with individual believers accumulating a lot of wealth, businesses, land, and other possessions."

Josh, I believe it would be better to say "some early Anabaptists lived in a community of goods."

Another thing to note is that just like in the rest of society, some Anabaptists are wealthy while others struggle financially. Certainly not all Anabaptists are wealthy.

Sorry - I meant to say "Some in 1526..."

Josh wrote:

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.

I think it can be good to simply say how things are, being careful not to say any of us have it perfect.

For example: "Early Anabaptists in 1526 lived in a community of goods, mostly out of necessity. They felt this was following a pattern in scripture in Acts 2.

In the modern day, some Anabaptists try to still live this way, but they are often challenged by how easy it is for even a community of believers to accumulate a lot of wealth in the modern era.

Other Anabaptists own private property, and their brotherhoods wrestle with how to deal with individual believers accumulating a lot of wealth, businesses, land, and other possessions."

Yes. There is a difference between keeping the vision alive and trying to clone the early Anabaptists.

I see part of this as simply explaining to attendees what's out there and what to expect; I spend a lot of time talking to seekers about the various wings of conservative and plain Anabaptism. It can be quite confusing. It helped me a great deal when people like Wayne and Ernie explained various things to me, and did so from a very broad perspective.

The other part, of course, is focusing on the things we do all have in common. I had another thread about this that hasn't gotten a ton of attention.

Here are some topics I would like to hear discussed...

I'd like to hear Ernie, Dan, Wayne, or Mike or some other person (maybe Steve Brubaker), give a compelling vision of what conservative Anabaptism can be in the 2018. A sort of Harold Bender for the 2018.

I'd also like to hear somebody speak about the Anabaptist focus on orthopraxis versus orthodoxy?

Or the conservative Anabaptist view of the scriptures...(high, low, in between, inerrant, etc)?

Or something on nonconformity...what does it look like across the various spectrums?

Or the conservative Anabaptist response to gender identity questions...possibly Coblentz?

Or the conservative Anabaptist view of atonement and what is meant by salvation and the Kingdom of God coming?

Josh, those are all great topics - how relevant are they to seekers?

Seekers need to hear and discuss things that are old hat or irrelevant to those well established in Anabaptism.

joshuabgood wrote:Here are some topics I would like to hear discussed...

I'd like to hear Ernie, Dan, Wayne, or Mike or some other person (maybe Steve Brubaker), give a compelling vision of what conservative Anabaptism can be in the 2018. A sort of Harold Bender for the 2018.

I'd also like to hear somebody speak about the Anabaptist focus on orthopraxis versus orthodoxy?

Or the conservative Anabaptist view of the scriptures...(high, low, in between, inerrant, etc)?

Or something on nonconformity...what does it look like across the various spectrums?

Or the conservative Anabaptist response to gender identity questions...possibly Coblentz?

Or the conservative Anabaptist view of atonement and what is meant by salvation and the Kingdom of God coming?

"Conservative Anabaptist" or "Early Anabaptist"?

Wayne - "Yes" to your question. I guess what I am looking for is a discussion of where we were, where we are, and then a compelling vision for 2018. So that would include conservative and early. Generally I used the word "conservative" to distinguish from the "social activism" or "welcoming and affirming" flavor of Anabaptists that you had noted earlier.

Josh - I see what you mean however, I think a few of the things I mentioned are distinctives of Anabaptism that seekers would be interested in (nonconformity, seeing Jesus as the ultimate revelation, etc). Essentially, what are those things that make Anabaptism different from Protestantism, Catholicism, Easthern Orthodoxy, Reformed Presbyterians?

And lastly, I myself am a seeker in a way. I am looking to be part of a movement, and use whatever influence I can, to cast a compelling vision for what it means to be an Anabaptist

I think it would be a good idea to keep this focused on what would help non-Mennonite background seekers, converts, or even those not yet converted.

There are a lot of seminars and conferences out there for MB people (and I am not at all opposed to having another one). The kind of people I would like to bring around will struggle a lot with complex theological topics, for example.

joshuabgood wrote:I'd like to hear Ernie, Dan, Wayne, or Mike or some other person (maybe Steve Brubaker), give a compelling vision of what conservative Anabaptism can be in the 2018. A sort of Harold Bender for the 2018.

I would be much more interested in several such presentations, with time to discuss them together. Instead of being presented with "the answer", I would rather have a chance to hear several possible answers with time to discern.

And ultimately, the question shouldn't be what conservative Anabaptism can be, but what Christianity is (as understood by Anabaptists).

History is useful for seeing how others have understood Christianity. When we look at the early Church or early Anabaptists, we should appreciate the variety of understandings they had, not force them into one mold if they don't quite fit. That's important if we really want to understand the ways they lived out their faith. We can learn from both Dutch Anabaptism and Swiss Anabaptism, from Sattler and Marpeck, and from various Apostolic fathers.

But biblical Christianity is the goal. And figuring out how we should best live it today.