Apostasy of the 1960s-Chester Weaver-Anabaptist Perspectives

[Ernie]

I think the idea that we need to find churches which have the qualities we want could be part of the problem. Maybe we once again are at a place in history, at least here in America, where there are no good options for a church. If the early Anabaptists would've waited for a whole group to follow Christ before following Christ themselves, it would've been a long wait. I think we lose sight of how counter-church they were at the time. They were perceived as heretics because they didn't follow accepted church norms--the norms which told a person they were accepted by God, infant baptism,etc. The norm now in CA churches is so strong on needing a community in order to validate our faith that it keeps us (at times) from actually obeying/following Christ.

Yes, this is a good point. I don't feel like I need a church that has the qualities I think churches should have. But most people on MN have their list of reasons for why they don't like their church or why they struggle with Anabaptists churches. Gary and I have the same struggles. And yes, we can look to individuals who are following Jesus well and we can receive inspiration from them. But we are wondering if those with "complaints" (including ourselves) have any alternatives for us to model. I don't.
I do know of groups who are following Jesus well in particular ways, and I like to hear about them. When I compile all the good points of these various groups, I get a picture in my mind of what the ideal looks like. That gives me incentive to keep following Jesus as these groups follow Jesus.

[GaryK]

I think the idea that we need to find churches which have the qualities we want could be part of the problem. Maybe we once again are at a place in history, at least here in America, where there are no good options for a church. If the early Anabaptists would've waited for a whole group to follow Christ before following Christ themselves, it would've been a long wait. I think we lose sight of how counter-church they were at the time. They were perceived as heretics because they didn't follow accepted church norms--the norms which told a person they were accepted by God, infant baptism,etc. The norm now in CA churches is so strong on needing a community in order to validate our faith that it keeps us (at times) from actually obeying/following Christ.

Yes, this is a good point. I don't feel like I need a church that has the qualities I think churches should have. But most people on MN have their list of reasons for why they don't like their church or why they struggle with Anabaptists churches. Gary and I have the same struggles. And yes, we can look to individuals who are following Jesus well and we can receive inspiration from them. But we are wondering if those with "complaints" (including ourselves) have any alternatives for us to model. I don't.
I do know of groups who are following Jesus well in particular ways, and I like to hear about them. When I compile all the good points of these various groups, I get a picture in my mind of what the ideal looks like. That gives me incentive to keep following Jesus as these groups follow Jesus.

Well said, Ernie.

[appleman2006]

I like the way you put that Ernie. And I am long past the place where I am looking for a church that is perfect in every way. Even if I found it I probably would not join as I would be sure to mess it up.
What I look for and desire in a church are people who are striving for perfection. People who are willing to come along side of each other and love and care for each other. They do not have to all think like I do. They do not all have to look like I do. In fact I might actually prefer they do not.
I really do love my present church. It is not perfect. But I do think they really try. I do feel loved. Perhaps I should just be quiet and count my blessings.

[Ms. Izzie]

And yes, we can look to individuals who are following Jesus well and we can receive inspiration from them. But we are wondering if those with "complaints" (including ourselves) have any alternatives for us to model. I don't.

I wasn't talking about looking to individuals. As for looking for group models, if you can't find any good one is the answer to try to make up a new model?

What I look for and desire in a church are people who are striving for perfection. People who are willing to come along side of each other and love and care for each other. They do not have to all think like I do. They do not all have to look like I do. In fact I might actually prefer they do not.
I really do love my present church. It is not perfect. But I do think they really try. I do feel loved. Perhaps I should just be quiet and count my blessings.

I hope everybody feels the love in your church and may it continue if they do! Many times though, there are people in our churches who don't feel loved. Being quiet and counting my blessings while I know others are being pushed around is no longer an option for me. I did it for years and yes, people are more comfortable with you if you’re quiet, but I have seen too many people spiritually damaged by the CA church. Of course, even now, there is a time to speak and a time to be silent, but I have found the Holy Spirit is able to prompt with the words that need said at the right moment. There is a bigger picture than simply what I feel about how I fit into my church. The CA structure is broken—all the evidence you need is the sexual abuse scandals and the way it is dealt with—and that is just a tip of the brokenness.
Reminds me of this quote:

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

We might squirm about “the triumph of evil” being associated with a church, but sexual abuse, backbiting, hypocrisy, hatred of brothers, lording over others are all sin. May we have the courage to take a costly stand for Jesus and His teachings.

[RZehr]

In any quixotic quest for a group of any size that displaying as a group the upstanding characteristics that have been listed - where are the broken?

In other words, any church that is made up of “wonderful” Christians, or as has been said, churches that don’t only have a few individual great Christians displaying, that by definition disqualifies in my mind the greatness of that group.

A mark of a true church is that it has Christians of all maturity levels and sinners of different struggles. This IS a church that is doing the necessary things. That is why there isn’t a group to be found that is “ideal”. Because if you are doing the right things as a church, there will be messed up people there getting help.

Yes, I’m all for disciplined life and church. I’m for pushing people to better things etc.
But a church only full of great Christians is by definition hardly doing a great job.

However if the leaders aren’t examples, that seems like an upside down church.

[RZehr]

Are mission churches just “mission churches”, or are they just churches? Are the “missions” more or less honored or respected, if they are full of “perfect” people? Most N. American Mennonites view an outreach or mission as unsuccessful if it doesn’t have any converts and more successful if it has more.
They are considered more successful if they are predominantly made up of non-ethnic Mennonites, maybe especially non-ethnic Mennonites whose stories can really be compellingly told to donor churches?

I think we do typically in one way or another have one set of performance expectations for ethnic Mennonites and another lower one for non-ethnic people. We are much quicker to be disappointed by the MB and more likely to extend grace to the NMB.

[Wayne in Maine]

As always, the road is narrow, and there are few that find it. Groups that match what you described, are a small small minority...I can think of a few that I would think perhaps belong in that category, but I am hesitant to post them re the fear of it feeling like comparison.

I can't off hand think of any particular group that meets the criteria Ernie has set out. I've been in several attempts at House Church and "community" and it is usually the expectations of the individuals and their own sacred cows that lead to failure (even failure to start!) In my humble opinion all of those things have to become very, very small, and the tangible needs of others has to become very, very big. That, in my experience, is a very hard path to tread. I think the narrowness of the road and the few who find it is certainly at play here. The greatest "saints" serve quietly and remain unknowns, by the same token the truest churches are minuscule and obscure.

My "vision" has long been for a group of people who love Jesus and each other to come together and, quite simply, practice that love and to guard that love. When I think of the way the "widows and orphans" at the Brderhof were treated when I lived there and how much I had to practice dying to myself daily, then I see a good example of how it has been done (we will not talk about its undoing). The place to start is to find others who "get it" and join with them and then, (if I might paraphrase): "Ask not what your brotherhood can do for you, ask what you can do for your brotherhood".

[GaryK]

In any quixotic quest for a group of any size that displaying as a group the upstanding characteristics that have been listed - where are the broken?

In other words, any church that is made up of “wonderful” Christians, or as has been said, churches that don’t only have a few individual great Christians displaying, that by definition disqualifies in my mind the greatness of that group.

A mark of a true church is that it has Christians of all maturity levels and sinners of different struggles. This IS a church that is doing the necessary things. That is why there isn’t a group to be found that is “ideal”. Because if you are doing the right things as a church, there will be messed up people there getting help.

Yes, I’m all for disciplined life and church. I’m for pushing people to better things etc.
But a church only full of great Christians is by definition hardly doing a great job.

However if the leaders aren’t examples, that seems like an upside down church.

Maybe here is a place to start...

James says that pure religion looks like this:
" Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world."

Gary and I are asking for examples of churches full of people who really concerned about both of these things.
1. Churches that are pouring themselves out to the disadvantaged.
2. And churches that are not drifting in the direction of allowing divorce and remarriage, homosexuality, women teaching men in the assembly, materialism, suing for one's rights, following after trends and fashions, using authority to pressure people to conform to the group, using societal expectations as an ethical standard, loving pleasure more than loving God, minced oaths, dabbling in the dark spirit world, disrespect for others in the body of Christ, etc.

I think what Ernie lays out here includes the broken. I have long been saying that when a church unites around Jesus' call to make disciples of all nations and is actively involved in attempting to expand His Kingdom, you will see a healthy, vibrant church.

[GaryK]

"Ask not what your brotherhood can do for you, ask what you can do for your brotherhood".

Amen x 1000!

[Ms. Izzie]

Serving God will result in us serving people, both believers and unbelievers, but we can’t assume that when we serve in the community of faith it proves that we are serving God. It is possible to serve God by serving in the faith community, but it doesn’t necessarily mean we are serving God; we might be serving others so that we benefit, which seems like a selfish way to serve others.

There is a difference here that seems small, but in actuality is large enough that we can end up with the community being our idol—we sacrifice to it; we get our identity from it; we need it to validate our faith; if we lose the affirmation of the group, we assume we have lost faith in God. These are all signs the community has replaced God in our lives. Being in a faith community does not equal faith in God. If we have the community as a god, we end up feasting on each other and sapping spiritual life out of each other.

Jesus is the Vine and the Bread. Our sustenance is from Him. If he gives us the gift of a faith community after He has given us life, then thank Him for it, but keep going to Him for life and identity, not the community.

The place to start is to find others who "get it" and join with them

We can spend our life in pursuit of community instead of in knowing Jesus. Brotherhood is a gift, not the goal.

and then, (if I might paraphrase): "Ask not what your brotherhood can do for you, ask what you can do for your brotherhood."

This sounds trite to anyone who has suffered abuse within the community, although it was probably said in sincerity.