Fundamentalism-Chester Weaver-Anabaptist Perspectives

[barnhart]

I like his analysis a lot. Especially the simultaneous rejection of fundamentalism and liberalism as failed approaches to co-existing with modernism. I'd like to hear more of his thoughts on how to that path looks. Its an empty path for the most part, the bulk of Mennonites retreat to the edges of fundamentalism or liberalism and the security and answers they find there.

Side note: He may be right that the drive for political involvement for the majority of Mennonites centered around anti-communism/liberalism, but my ancestors in Virginia were drug in much earlier by voting for Lincoln as an expression of their anti-slavery doctrine.

[appleman2006]

I think his history lesson is accurate.

I hear him talking pretty strongly against rules, but at the same time strongly promoting community and individual brokenness in favor of brotherhood. I’m a bit perplexed because I don’t see how you can realistically separate them. I mean sure, you can avoid writing them down or call them something else, or tinker around the edges. But rules/consensus is a reflection, or a direct outcome of the local church working out real matters for themselves - which I think he promotes.

At the end of the day, you are either going to have a church that honors what each other thinks and believes, or you won’t. If you don’t, you really are no different than the liberalism he is against.

Is he only against conference style, or top down rules? Does he make a distinction between that and a local church coming to agreement within itself? I’m curious.

I have more to say about this when I get to a better keyboard. But I think one of the points he might be trying to make is that once a group has to depend on a bunch of rules to maintain a Christlike environment they have already lost the battle. Rules may bring about uniformity but they do little to turn hearts toward God. There is no fence high enough to keeping a wandering soul from walking away from God.

[DrWojo]

Rules may bring about uniformity but they do little to turn hearts toward God. There is no fence high enough to keeping a wandering soul from walking away from God.

Well said

[Wade]

Rules may bring about uniformity but they do little to turn hearts toward God. There is no fence high enough to keeping a wandering soul from walking away from God.

Well said

I agree, but the strangest thing is that I have found is the most faithful, loving, God honouring people, close to God exist in ultra CA's. It seems the people within don't focus on those fences - in a healthy setting anyway.

[RZehr]

I think his history lesson is accurate.

I hear him talking pretty strongly against rules, but at the same time strongly promoting community and individual brokenness in favor of brotherhood. I’m a bit perplexed because I don’t see how you can realistically separate them. I mean sure, you can avoid writing them down or call them something else, or tinker around the edges. But rules/consensus is a reflection, or a direct outcome of the local church working out real matters for themselves - which I think he promotes.

At the end of the day, you are either going to have a church that honors what each other thinks and believes, or you won’t. If you don’t, you really are no different than the liberalism he is against.

Is he only against conference style, or top down rules? Does he make a distinction between that and a local church coming to agreement within itself? I’m curious.

I have more to say about this when I get to a better keyboard. But I think one of the points he might be trying to make is that once a group has to depend on a bunch of rules to maintain a Christlike environment they have already lost the battle. Rules may bring about uniformity but they do little to turn hearts toward God. There is no fence high enough to keeping a wandering soul from walking away from God.

That could be his position.

[barnhart]

I agree with Chester's critique of fundamentalism. But I'm left with a lot of questions. I think fundamentalism addressed a real problem. Anabaptism wasn't formed in a secular zeitgeist. I'm not aware of any Anabaptist apologetics. More tools are needed today besides Early Anabaptism.

Apologetics may be a little overrated. I doubt the key to impacting the culture at large is better arguments. There is a place for such things but I imagine more "doing" (creating lives, families and communities based in the reality of Jesus' kingdom) will be more powerful. In that sense the early Anabaptists were on point.

I wonder sometimes if the term "secular" is used too easily. I'm not so willing to accept the sacred/secular divide with all its implications. This duality only became possible in the enlightenment with the rise of science as a source of knowledge. I'm not against science, but I'm not ready to give scientific secularism the high throne of authority it demands when it claims to be beyond the subjectivity of other human philosophies. So to respond to your point about existing in a secular zeitgeist, I wonder if there is such a thing. In my worldview Secularism occupies the same space as religion, both are competing kingdoms vying for the heart. I suspect the "tools" of early Anabaptists may be as effective today as then.

[Josh]

Rules may bring about uniformity but they do little to turn hearts toward God. There is no fence high enough to keeping a wandering soul from walking away from God.

Well said

I agree, but the strangest thing is that I have found is the most faithful, loving, God honouring people, close to God exist in ultra CA's. It seems the people within don't focus on those fences - in a healthy setting anyway.

I've had the same experience, in particular how people in those settings can relate to and accept seekers.

It's nearly impossible for a group transitioning to being less-conservative to really understand or embrace a seeker, since the path of all of those people is to become "more worldly", and there's logistically speaking no way for a seeker to join them on that journey. So it is, essentially, a completely closed group to outsiders, yet worse than that, it masquerades as a group that is open.

[appleman2006]

I want to add this. I do not have a problem with rules so much as long as true brotherhood principles are involved in the making and enforcing of them.
Let me try to explain. Chester at least alluded to the Anabaptist position of community and brotherhood. The idea where we do not do things simply from the idea of what is best for us but for the community. This is a great practise and one I admire very much in theory. My problem is that I have seldom seen it really worked out in any community over a long period of time.
If we really believed and practised that then we would have no problem letting each generation decide how they can best live out their faith in God in practical ways in their time. We would not be so terrified of little changes automatically leading to a downward slope of apostasy. Rather we would see the importance of each generation choosing for themselves. All members would be listened to and given valid consideration and extra weight would not necessarily be given to those that hold up a certain form of traditionalism. I believe that were this truly practised that the overall slide into apostasy would actually be slower. As it presently exists certain groups may be quite effective at staving off change for some time especially in tight cultural settings where it might actually be easier to just shut up and stay than to leave but eventually the dam always breaks and the casualties are many along the way.
And sadly often in the ensuing generations that stay simply because it is easier hidden sins continue to build and true spirituality is lost simply hidden by an outward form. There must be a better way and it gives me courage to see men like Chester attempt to address it.

[Josh]

I really like Chester Weaver and there’s much I really like here. I wonder though about his explanation for how theological liberalism crept into the MC. Is really just because we were becoming wealthy, acculturated and thinking like American Protestants? I’m not sure, I don’t have an answer but I’d like to go deeper into that.

That's certainly the case right now in the CMC.

It really is striking that the only vehicles capable of preserving the doctrine of nonresistance are Old Order spirituality, or else an extremely rigid copy of Old Order-ism with an overlay of fundamentalism.

[Josh]

Is he only against conference style, or top down rules? Does he make a distinction between that and a local church coming to agreement within itself? I’m curious.

That's a good question. I don't think I've heard him take a particular stance and he accommodates an Anabaptist vision with both conference structure, fellowships, and completely independent congregations.