Was it worth Dividing the Church??

[Josh]

The “Old Order” tried to remain radical by avoiding any changes, whether liberal, modernist, or marketed to them by conservatives in other denominations. (Conservative Quakers function very much the same way.) They prefer to continue to practice their spiritual traditions and trust in them.

Many felt they had long lost the radicalism of originals. The issue was, for many in their circles, their trusted traditions weren't working to produce a pure church, or even nonresistance. Instead it was felt they were essentially ethnic and economic enclaves that had lost their first love.

Yet the result of these attempts to be “radical” were to become fundamentalists or modernists, and at best became poor imitations of Baptists or Episcopalians.

The Old Orders are, in fact, quite radical. Who else continues to drive a horse and buggy and refuses to drive cars as part of their religion? That is indeed a radical act.

[HondurasKeiser]

I disagree. Anabaptists who considered each other brethren in the first 50 years had many things in common and represented certain things.
Liberal influences have made the Anabaptists something very different today. And the Old Orders and OTC groups are a reaction to the liberals. Otherwise they would still be with the sort of Anabaptists who considered each other brethren in the mid 1500s.

I can see why you say this, but I think modernism and rational fundamentalism play a super important role. It isn't an accident that the churches split like crazy in the modern age. And I don't think it's because the Mennonitr church was healthy before. It seems to me the fire had gone out before liberalism and conservatism wars. In a sense that lack of fire is what opened the doors for the fundamental conservative input into the Menno church.

I like this discussion but it seems odd to think of the roots of anabaptism as conservative and liberalism as a foreign interloper. Wouldn't the real 16th century conservatives be those who stayed with the 1000 year old church States. Anabaptists were the radical liberals of their day, embracing concepts like the priesthood of all believers (flattening of authority hierarchy),sola scriptura (every believer can know God's will by reading the Word) and the division of secular and sacred authority (separation of church and state). These ideas foreshadowed their secular equivalents which form basic planks of secular liberalism. To reimagined anabaptism as essentially a conservative movement is to cut off it's radical nature and limit what it might accomplish in the future. There may come a time when centering authority in the life and teaching of Jesus may force strong critique of the ruling powers and Anabaptists may need to recover some of their radical past.

Not to quibble, but I think it's a mistake to equate radicalism with 'being liberal'. There is often quite a bit of overlap depending on the moverment and issue. Liberalism though is at root, a movement for individual freedom from constraints and the conservative reaction to that push for freedom is, as Josh says, a pumping of the brakes; a desire to maintain the status quo of the dialectic between freedom and constraint. Conservatives are just liberals that like the current freedom from constraints and the current constraints on freedom.
The Anabaptist radicals, as I read them, weren't trying to free themselves as individuals from constraints, to 'live as thou wilt' but rather to implement the teachings of Jesus in their congregations in such a way that defied common sense.

[Sudsy]

I find it interesting how the words 'conservative' and 'liberal' are so often used. Why not use more scriptural words such as 'holy' and 'worldly' ? Isn't most of these splits over sanctification ? Who is more set apart from the world and more submitted in heart, mind, and body in following Jesus ?

To me using the words 'conservative' and 'liberal' are more worldly words most often used regarding the politics of the world.

This church dividing was already happening in the Corinthian church when some were following different teachers. Paul didn't say to go and start your own version of being a church when this occurs. And Jesus last prayer before leaving this earth was that we become one as He and the Father were one. And in Romans 14 we see there is an allowance of varying convictions within a church. Believers are to allow and encourage everyone to grow spiritually and this will require different timings for each person. To me, this is where enforcing rules to obtain unity of practise is not the scriptural way to approach having more unity. This is man's ways not trusting that the Holy Spirit is the One who guides us into holiness. In my youth I experienced these 'sanctification wars' to try to get everyone living the same.

I do think it can come to a point where things get so removed from scripture that a new start is necessary as happened in the Reformation. But it seems once this occured it became a norm to divide on all kinds of issues. Most having nothing to do with salvation, imo.

Anyway, my views. YMMV.

[Neto]

I understand how it did, but o wonder if ot [it] should jave [have] ever happened-
Honestly- we KNOW that everything was not written down in detail in the Gospels & Epistles-
(2 Thessalonians 2:15 "therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which were taught, whether by word or our epistle.)-"word" here indicating Paul and Apostles taught some specifics "orally" that they did not wrote down.
When i read these statements, including Origen staying [saying that] the Apostles taught it, and we know some Reformers did not "discard" infant baptism to this day, I'm greatly concerned there was a HUGE assumption made that may have, even with the best intention, was actually an heir [error] that divided the church at large so badly that it is unrecognizable today.
....

Note: I realize that you "typed" this on a cellular telephone, so I didn't make the "corrections" in order to criticize (I send some pretty crazy text messages myself, not realizing how the "auto-mess-up" app is changing what I have entered. But I also did this in order to show how I am understanding what you posted, just in case I misinterpreted some part of it.

First, I think that the issue of infant baptism vs. believer's baptism is only one part of the reasons for the separation at the time of the Reformation. As you mentioned, the larger part of the Reformers did not change anything in respect to this question, so it basically focuses your question ("Was it worth dividing the church?") on the "anabaptists".
I see two main issues that brought about this separation. (In the case of the 'anabaptists" leaving the Catholic church I don't think it should be called it "dividing the Church", because the true Church was severely obscured by the spiritual condition of the organized church at that time. And I am not just pointing fingers at the Catholic church, because the same thing has happened in my own heritage. Maybe that gives me the "right" to point a few fingers?)
So the first element I wanted to point out is the issue of a Pure Church as opposed to a remnant within the whole 'church', which was recognized as being mostly corrupt. (Not that any were completely pure, but rather that they valued purity, and worked toward it, struggling with the forces of evil that rise up within each of us.)
Then the second main element I see is the focus on the authority of the Scripture vs the authority of members of the clergy.

So, as to the question - Was it worth it? It's a mixed bag, because the tendency of humanity is to corrupt anything and everything they lay their hands on. It just doesn't seem to last. But, as I have said before, "God has no grandchildren." In a sense, the true Church must start over again with each person. When that doesn't happen as God wills it, this "dividing the church" needs to happen again and again, anytime the sinfulness of human kind creeps into it.

Another question often comes up later, out of a hind-sight self evaluation. "Should 'we' have stayed, and attempted to be the messengers of the Kingdom, to bring change from within?" We cannot ever take both forks in the road, and see how each one develops, or "where it takes us", then go back & choose the one that appears to give the best result. This was the feeling of misgiving that eventually came to the founders of the Mennonite Brethren group, after having left the "Big Church" in the colonies. In this case, as in the case of the reformation period, the act of some leaving the group they saw as helplessly corrupt DID bring about reform of the former group. Was it "enough"? In the case of my own people, I would say no. The main group that remained of the Big Church after immigration to North & South America is still mostly corrupt. Does the MB group need to return to some prior convictions? Yes.

[Sudsy]

I understand how it did, but o wonder if ot should jave ever happened-

Are you referring to the Catholics and Orthodox parting ways with each other? If yes, are you suggesting they should have stayed together?

Just curious if you believe it is possible for churches to have their candlesticks removed? If yes, when does this happen and has it happened in the last 2000 years.
The Catholic/Orthodox divide was over doctrines as I understand. IMO, once a church permits its adherents to take up the sword, the church's candlestick is removed. (There may still be faith people who attend the church who retain eternal life.) So whether or not an organization or entity divides after its candlestick is removed is sort of non-issue from my perspective.

I am perhaps mis-understanding this Ernie but do you consider having 'the church's candlestick is removed' if a church supports involvement in wars ? If so, where do you get this from ? Many non-pacifist churches today I believe are leading people to Christ through the light they have. But what does it mean to be a church with it's candlestick removed ?

This phrase is used in Rev 2:5 as written to the church in Ephesus and this was about them leaving their first love for Christ. They were to remember what their life once was when they lived in close relationship with the Lord. I remember those periods in my life when I took time to stop and recall how far I had drifted from fellowship with the Lord. Then it is up to me to repent and return to that kind of relationship. As the Revelation puts it, Jesus is waiting at the door of our hearts to restore that lost fellowship but we must allow that fellowship to be restored.

History seems to indicate this church in Ephesus didn't repent and their light of the Gospel no longer shone in that city. I think churches who are not growing might fit this description that they have left their first love for Christ and have other places they have placed their love. It could even be their love for their denomination/church group. Likely where we focus most of our thoughts and efforts is a good place to consider.

I think forums like this give us opportunity to encourage the focus be kept on Jesus and if we allow the Holy Spirit control in our lives, that is were the focus will be.

But as I first said, I may have mis-understood your link of candlestick removal and pacifism.

[ohio jones]

The “Old Order” tried to remain radical by avoiding any changes, whether liberal, modernist, or marketed to them by conservatives in other denominations. (Conservative Quakers function very much the same way.) They prefer to continue to practice their spiritual traditions and trust in them.

Many felt they had long lost the radicalism of originals. The issue was, for many in their circles, their trusted traditions weren't working to produce a pure church, or even nonresistance. Instead it was felt they were essentially ethnic and economic enclaves that had lost their first love.

Yet the result of these attempts to be “radical” were to become fundamentalists or modernists, and at best became poor imitations of Baptists or Episcopalians.

The Old Orders are, in fact, quite radical. Who else continues to drive a horse and buggy and refuses to drive cars as part of their religion? That is indeed a radical act.

Driving a horse and buggy was not radical 150 years ago when everyone was doing it, so that would not be an example of the OOs remaining radical. It doesn't seem to me that rejecting changes made by others can be called radical; the concept suggests, rather, making changes in a restorationist direction when others are either not changing or changing in a different direction.

[Ken]

Many felt they had long lost the radicalism of originals. The issue was, for many in their circles, their trusted traditions weren't working to produce a pure church, or even nonresistance. Instead it was felt they were essentially ethnic and economic enclaves that had lost their first love.

Yet the result of these attempts to be “radical” were to become fundamentalists or modernists, and at best became poor imitations of Baptists or Episcopalians.

The Old Orders are, in fact, quite radical. Who else continues to drive a horse and buggy and refuses to drive cars as part of their religion? That is indeed a radical act.

Driving a horse and buggy was not radical 150 years ago when everyone was doing it, so that would not be an example of the OOs remaining radical. It doesn't seem to me that rejecting changes made by others can be called radical; the concept suggests, rather, making changes in a restorationist direction when others are either not changing or changing in a different direction.

Yeah.

Horse and buggies are just transportation.

Radical would be to give up all your possessions and follow Jesus as he commanded in Matthew 19:21

[barnhart]

...I think it's a mistake to equate radicalism with 'being liberal'. There is often quite a bit of overlap depending on the moverment and issue. Liberalism though is at root, a movement for individual freedom from constraints ...

I agree. But that is how their actions read to the 16th century authorities.

...Conservatives are just liberals that like the current freedom from constraints and the current constraints on freedom.

Also agree.

The Anabaptist radicals, as I read them, weren't trying to free themselves as individuals from constraints, to 'live as thou wilt' but rather to implement the teachings of Jesus in their congregations in such a way that defied common sense.

Also agree, they weren't stririn' it up because they liked the conflict, but society around them experienced them as radical because of their obedience. I am putting a question mark over the idea that the current status of the dialectic between rights and freedoms is a reliable metric for measuring faithfulness. It was just a few months ago great numbers of Anabaptists were advancing the idea that a temporary mask mandate is an overreach of power and justified civil disobedience. That was a low key protest in support of liberal style individual freedoms. One might debate if that was the right moment for such a protest, but I think the future may hold greater challenges where civil disobedience may be necessary.

[Ken]

In a non-religious context

Conservative: resists change or looks backwards to some previous more ideal time. Perhaps thinks the world is worse now than it used to be and we should go back to old values.

Liberal/Progressive: Wants incremental change. Thinks incremental progress can make the world a better place. Wants to work with existing institutions, not tear them out.

Radical/Revolutionary: Rejects incremental change and wants revolutionary change. Thinks that the only way to see real change is by tearing out the old and replacing it.

In that sense the Amish are not radicals but the early Anabaptists were. As were the early Christians for that matter. In a Reformation context, liberals would have been Catholic reformers who wanted to clean up the church, not replace it. Like Ignatius of Loyola who founded the Jesuits as a more reformed alternative to the existing orders.

[Josh]

Yeah.

Horse and buggies are just transportation.

Radical would be to give up all your possessions and follow Jesus as he commanded in Matthew 19:21

… which is what another branch of radical Anabaptists, the Hutterites and Bruderhof, do.