Do Numbers Matter ?

[Neto]

Thanks. From what I know of them, I consider David Bercot and Dean Taylor to be quite good.

They are definitely not mainstream. They are much more like the early Anabaptists than what either the conservative Anabaptists or the mainstream Anabaptists are.

I don't disagree with that.

I'd be interested to hear how Paul may clarify his meaning with the word "mainstream", because I didn't take it with the meaning like "mainstream in the sense of their place on the continuum of conservative to liberal", but in the sense that they are in the mainstream of anabaptist thought, ie, good examples of what it means to be anabaptist. I know nothing of Dean Taylor, and I've only read a bit of David Bercot, and heard him speak once or twice, but I wouldn't consider him in the mainstream of anabaptist thought, either. I think that a lot of people claim him as their spokesperson, but I wouldn't. I would see him as representative of a certain branch of modern anabaptism (I mean 'modern' in the sense of 'belonging to the modern era'), but I don't think that that group is representative of early anabaptism. I do not think that some criticism of Evangelicals (like a chart I saw that was purported to have been written by Bercot) that gets repeated over & over is fair. I agree that there are dangers for "Kingdom Christians" in the Evangelical world, but we should deal with the real issues, not paint them with too wide of a brush, or attempt to create contrasts where there should not be any.

[Paul]

I am equally blessed to hear this kind of faith exists in the Netherlands-
It would be great if Paul would share much more of his own background in the faith, and also about the Netherlands- all I know is 'hearsay' but I really wondered after reading his (your's, Paul) faith how he got to know about, and study about the Anabaptists, how introduced to them there in the Netherlands, and also about the faith in that part of the world presently.
Purty please??? Paul???

Well about your question how I first got acquainted with the Anabaptists. I think I already knew a little bit about the Amish before I came to faith. When I came to faith, the text that really pierced my heart was 'Be ye Holy, for I am Holy.' My eyes were opened to my own unholiness, and I desperately longed to live a holy life, and so after I came to faith I just went searching about the Amish/anabaptists because I wanted to know more. I have to say my initial interest was mainly about the Amish, I guess the appeal of a seperate, simple and pure life was really big.

I come from a calvinist background, the 'frozen chosen' as I call them sometimes. Here in Holland we have a 'Bible belt' aswell, and there is one large group of conservative calvinists in that 'belt' that dress a certain way and don't own a tv, have seperate 'reformed' schools, their own newspaper, and by appearance live somewhat apart from the world. They stand in the reformed tradition, usually have a very solid theoretical understanding of the faith, and are pretty much all infant baptisers, but they do appreciate Spurgeon and Bunyan for instance (even though they were for credo-baptism). However they also put alot of emphasis on election, and that is where the term 'frozen chosen' comes from. They often know alot of things about the faith theoretically, but that doesn't mean they know the Lord or they attend the Lords Supper. Sometimes in a very hyper-calvinist congregation of 3000, there might be 20 or 30 that share in the Lords Supper. Many congregations do not have a Minister, and some barely have elders and deacons, because so few members are actually believed to be soundly converted. This stems from the strong belief we are so depraved that we are unable to come to Christ, it has to be Gods work, and there is nothing we can do towards our own salvation. But there is alot of judgment and condemnation preached, so it really makes for an impossible spiritual situation, on the one hand the need is shown, on the other hand the cure is withheld. Also many things must happen before a person is truly converted, and he must give a solid account of his conversion aswell. There is alot of wariness from these congregations towards more 'lighter' congregations, Evangelical for instance, where there is much "easy believism".
On the other hand, there is another large group of "lighter" reformed Churches (splintered in many different denominations - we have many denominations here in Holland) that are sadly going with the world. They are increasingly allowing gay marriages and women as Elders or ministers. There is hardly any true Biblical discernment left in these churches, and liberal theology is conquering it's thousands I'm affraid.
I myself used to go to one of the conservative Calvinist churches in which I grew up (though not hyper-calvinist), but because I moved to a different part of the country, and strongly believed believers baptism to be Biblical I went to a somewhat conservative Baptist congregation that is completely seperate from these reformed denominations.
In the Netherlands the population in general is quite hostile towards the faith, when I go to help my friend Evangelise on the street I usually face 99% rejection, people are very much hardened. But regardless, the Lord is still drawing people to Himself, especially from among those extremely conservative calvinists. And I am glad to say there are definitely more than 7000 who have not bowed their knee to Baäl. Alot more could be said, but I hope this helps getting a little bit of a picture. God bless!

[Paul]

I'd be interested to hear how Paul may clarify his meaning with the word "mainstream", because I didn't take it with the meaning like "mainstream in the sense of their place on the continuum of conservative to liberal", but in the sense that they are in the mainstream of anabaptist thought, ie, good examples of what it means to be anabaptist. I know nothing of Dean Taylor, and I've only read a bit of David Bercot, and heard him speak once or twice, but I wouldn't consider him in the mainstream of anabaptist thought, either. I think that a lot of people claim him as their spokesperson, but I wouldn't. I would see him as representative of a certain branch of modern anabaptism (I mean 'modern' in the sense of 'belonging to the modern era'), but I don't think that that group is representative of early anabaptism. I do not think that some criticism of Evangelicals (like a chart I saw that was purported to have been written by Bercot) that gets repeated over & over is fair. I agree that there are dangers for "Kingdom Christians" in the Evangelical world, but we should deal with the real issues, not paint them with too wide of a brush, or attempt to create contrasts where there should not be any.

Yes I meanth mainstream in Anabaptist-thought, and I think I put a question mark there, because I wasn't entirely sure if they are representative of historical Anabaptism. Who or what would you consider to be more representative in that way?

By the way, I feel guilty towards Sudsy for going so far off-topic.. do not mean to derail your thread brother. If you'd like me to, I can create a new thread? Just let me know.

[Valerie]

Thank you Paul for sharing your journey! I was so blessed to read about it. I hear that part of the world is in such darkness, but then I would say here in the U.S. the same could be said (increasingly) but yet I too recognize more than 7000 have not bowed their knew to Baal.

I love how the Holy Spirit is guiding you into Truth and your hunger for holiness- actually it is similar to my own journey in some ways and God used the Amish (which I actually moved to the area where there are many) to cause me to seek the Anabaptist faith & a more separated & holy life (using the same passage, to be holy- and had opened my own eyes to areas where the world was still in my life even if it wasn't sin-

I really enjoyed reading about your faith and the people of faith in your Netherlands- interesting! Sharing it with my sister (she was a missionary in Amsterdam in 1981) so she would find your post interesting too-

God bless!

[Valerie]

In my time in theologically conservative evangelical Protestant circles, I think there was an undercurrent of pride to which I succumbed: "I thank you God that I am not like other men, like this liberal welcoming unrepentant homosexuals into an almost-empty church. Our churches and campus ministries are growing. We teach the right stuff."

There may be some of that, I do not know- I have not been exposed to the 'pride' like you convey here-
What I have experienced in the "Evangelical/Pentecostal" churches is a concern that the truth in the Word of God, has been tampered with and by that I mean that many are conveying that homosexuality is not a 'sin' and that people are born that way and cannot help it. What I am accustomed to then is Christians who are not 'thank You that I am not like 'them'- but a true concern for souls being lost by the tampering of the Truth, and a desire to keep the Truth, defend the Truth, so souls will not be lost to the enemy of our soul, and true repentance from the gay lifestyle may happen and not be endorsed by the denominations that now welcome the homosexual lifestyle and have believed science (man) instead of God. I do not see 'pride' but grief over this-

[Neto]

I'd be interested to hear how Paul may clarify his meaning with the word "mainstream", because I didn't take it with the meaning like "mainstream in the sense of their place on the continuum of conservative to liberal", but in the sense that they are in the mainstream of anabaptist thought, ie, good examples of what it means to be anabaptist. I know nothing of Dean Taylor, and I've only read a bit of David Bercot, and heard him speak once or twice, but I wouldn't consider him in the mainstream of anabaptist thought, either. I think that a lot of people claim him as their spokesperson, but I wouldn't. I would see him as representative of a certain branch of modern anabaptism (I mean 'modern' in the sense of 'belonging to the modern era'), but I don't think that that group is representative of early anabaptism. I do not think that some criticism of Evangelicals (like a chart I saw that was purported to have been written by Bercot) that gets repeated over & over is fair. I agree that there are dangers for "Kingdom Christians" in the Evangelical world, but we should deal with the real issues, not paint them with too wide of a brush, or attempt to create contrasts where there should not be any.

Yes I meanth mainstream in Anabaptist-thought, and I think I put a question mark there, because I wasn't entirely sure if they are representative of historical Anabaptism. Who or what would you consider to be more representative in that way?

By the way, I feel guilty towards Sudsy for going so far off-topic.. do not mean to derail your thread brother. If you'd like me to, I can create a new thread? Just let me know.

I guess I have played apart in hijacking the thread as well....
So briefly, some here seem to use the term "historical anabaptist" to refer to the early American period, so when I say early anabaptists, I mean those of the early European period, before it became rather ethnic. So, for instance, I would not include my own people's history after they moved to The Russian Empire. (I am Dutch Mennonite.) They (the early anabaptists) had to be careful, because something like street witnessing would have quickly ended their ability to reach anyone at all (through their martyrdom), but they were deeply motivated to evangelize. Not that I am saying that the men whose names you mentioned are not interested in evangelism, and I also recognize that they are both from outside of the ethnic tradition, but I think that Bercot at least draws on the early American belief system in such a way that creates unnecessarily negative conclusions about the American "Evangelicals". While I did grow up in the anabaptist tradition, more importantly I am drawn to it because I see it as being Biblicist (becoming Biblicist in my approach to faith is what drew me back to anabaptist teaching - I was a Patriotic American Mennonite). In that sense they are people whose lives I can look to as examples, and concern for the souls around them is a primary thread in the Scripture, so it should be a primary thread in our lives as well. (In that sense, I don't think we're that far off the topic.)

[Sudsy]

By the way, in thread's I open, I don't mind us wandering around into other related areas as discussion unfolds. I wander a fair amount myself. I realize that this bothers some folks more than others. If I care to have it brought back to the original OP, I just post something referring us back. Continue on and often one thread does lead to another new thread when we care to explore a diversion more extensively.

[Ernie]

So briefly, some here seem to use the term "historical anabaptist" to refer to the early American period, so when I say early anabaptists, I mean those of the early European period, before it became rather ethnic.

I don't know who you are referring to but when I speak of historic Anabaptism, I am referring to that which was commonly believed, valued, and practiced by the early Anabaptists and has continued to be believed, valued, and practiced since then. Mainstream, Conservative, and Old Orders still adhere to various pieces of this. I'll let someone else start a thread to talk about which pieces each one has preserved.

[MaxPC]

I've really enjoyed the discussion this thread. It's a pleasure to see authentic discernment and charitable exchanges.

[Neto]

So briefly, some here seem to use the term "historical anabaptist" to refer to the early American period, so when I say early anabaptists, I mean those of the early European period, before it became rather ethnic.

I don't know who you are referring to but when I speak of historic Anabaptism, I am referring to that which was commonly believed, valued, and practiced by the early Anabaptists and has continued to be believed, valued, and practiced since then. Mainstream, Conservative, and Old Orders still adhere to various pieces of this. I'll let someone else start a thread to talk about which pieces each one has preserved.

I wasn't referring to anyone in particular, and I couldn't point to any certain comments that have given me this impression, except to say that, for example, distinctive dress is not a characteristic of the early anabaptists, and that is what sometimes at least seems to be implied in posts here.
[I should perhaps frame this statement in the context of the Dutch "baptism minded" people. Menno Simons, for instance, says that it's OK to wear "an honest rapier". In the context of that statement (as I recall), I interpret that as not a call to have a sword on hand for defense, but as a disguise of sorts. I don't know enough about the early history of the Swiss Brethren to make any claim about them.]
Regarding the term "Mainstream", I was pretty sure I knew how most people here were using the term, and that MN member Paul was using it in the sense of "not a fringe movement". In the context of the very early anabaptists, the Munsterites, for example, would be considered a fringe group, and not in the mainstream of anabaptism (if considered anabaptist at all). Other Dutch groups could be named that were basically fringe groups as well. (Maybe the Swiss Brethren consider all of the Dutch anabaptists as "fringe", I don't know. It all started among the Swiss, so I guess they can define the term. This is, as was MennoDiscuss, basically a Swiss Brethren forum; I consider myself a guest, and am immensely glad that such a forum exists.)