Are the Turtles Beating us?

[Bootstrap]

Some questions for people who resonate with the message of this video:

He puts a great deal of emphasis on clothing, and avoiding individual choice, treating it as spiritual, the sign of yieldedness to the brethren. The one Scripture he cites is from Leviticus, if I recall. Do you see this same kind of emphasis on clothing and conformity in clothing anywhere in the New Testament? Or do you see this as an application?

Do you see places where Jesus or Paul or any New Testament author teach us to create a group culture based on external uniformity? If so, where?

He talks about this group culture as a way to practice love. Perhaps yieldedness to each other is the aspect of love he is thinking of? Or just an automatic shared sense of belonging? What relationship do you see between love and group culture?

[barnhart]

Some questions for people who resonate with the message of this video:

He puts a great deal of emphasis on clothing, and avoiding individual choice, treating it as spiritual, the sign of yieldedness to the brethren. The one Scripture he cites is from Leviticus, if I recall. Do you see this same kind of emphasis on clothing and conformity in clothing anywhere in the New Testament? Or do you see this as an application?

Do you see places where Jesus or Paul or any New Testament author teach us to create a group culture based on external uniformity? If so, where?

I don't. But I have a lot of sympathy for his position. I understand his emphasis on clothes to be specific to his cultural context. Where I live modest clothing and six children stand out rather dramatically as people with a different value system, perhaps more than plain attire does in his context.

He talks about this group culture as a way to practice love. Perhaps yieldedness to each other is the aspect of love he is thinking of? Or just an automatic shared sense of belonging? What relationship do you see between love and group culture?

I haven't thought this through entirely but the love and relationship paring are deep features to Christian doctrine going back to the trinitarian nature of God. Does love exist that is never expressed or shared.

[Neto]

OK. Wow! I wouldn't have taken the time to listen to this whole deal, but I kinda' over did myself this morning, working outside, and so I guess I'm not as used to the heat as I used to be. (Also not as young.) Anyway, It took me a couple of hours at least, because I was taking notes, and kept stopping it and going back, to transcribe exactly what he was saying. (Not for the entire thing, just for what appeared to be some of his main points, and when he was obviously reading something he had carefully written out. Oral style and written presentation styles are not the same, nor should they be. So I had to listen a couple of times to some of those written statements, because of the more complex sentence structure typical of written style.)

I have two pages of (hand-written) notes. I know that I cannot listen to something, then remember what parts I would like to comment on. I don't know if the OP would want me to post extensive notes anyway, so I'll just comment on a couple of things.

A couple of comments from the 'anthropologist me': Never, in all of my training and reading have I ever heard terms like 'thin culture' and 'thick culture'. He also said that "a cultural group cannot experience a color if they do not have a word for it." If a color exists in the environment a cultural group inhabits, and they do not have a word for it, does that mean they don't "experience" the color? What does it mean to experience a color? (The Banawa have a very simple color system. Basically the only real color word is the one for red. Other colors are described as 'dark' or 'light'. Living in the jungle, do they not 'experience' green?)

I strongly agree with his opinion regarding the need for involvement in a larger group. (That is, each congregation should not be a lone wolf.) However, I think that my reasons are somewhat different than his. I see the benefits of sharing larger projects, especially missionary efforts. He does seem to assume a top-down governance style, while I favor a brotherhood model, even at a conference level. (I say this because he talks about the need for a congregation to 'submit' to a 'higher level'. My focus is more on working together to accomplish more.) He might have touched on this as well, but involvement in a larger conference helps those that move from one area to another find a connection in their new community. (One thing I noticed in my MB background is that members who did not come from MB background were far less likely to seek out another MB congregation if they needed to re-locate, than a person who shared a family history in the same larger group.)

I had no idea what the turtles had to do with anything. He got to that finally at around 53 minutes in. The Old Orders are the 'turtles' who win the race, because they are more widely know in the culture(s) around us. Yes, they are known, but those same people who are very enamored with the Amish are not coming in droves, knocking down the doors to get in.

I'm just skimming my notes, and am only about half way through. But I will stop here. Oh, one more thing, in case I don't come back here -

"[The straight cut coat] has the potential for powerful, on-going, social and spiritual formation." Dying to self, taking up the cross and following Christ. A suit?! I often was embarrassed to be wearing a suit as a child because my best friend (non-Mennonite background, parents never came, etc.) didn't have one. I felt that I was making him feel out of place, not good enough. I was also taken aback because I actually borrowed a straight cut from someone here, and wore it back in the place where I was living at the time (Texas - no 'plain people' around for many miles). I had no idea it was looked on with such disdain by the typical young man in a 'Plain' congregation....

[Josh]

The “plain coat” is, frankly, not a very useful article of clothing for plain people.

Broadfalls, suspenders, and the type of handmade shirts some Amish wear (basically short sleeved shirts, but longer and looser sleeves than you’ll find in store bought shirts) would do well for many plain groups to adopt as part of plain dress.

[MaxPC]

A couple of comments from the 'anthropologist me': Never, in all of my training and reading have I ever heard terms like 'thin culture' and 'thick culture'. He also said that "a cultural group cannot experience a color if they do not have a word for it." If a color exists in the environment a cultural group inhabits, and they do not have a word for it, does that mean they don't "experience" the color? What does it mean to experience a color? (The Banawa have a very simple color system. Basically the only real color word is the one for red. Other colors are described as 'dark' or 'light'. Living in the jungle, do they not 'experience' green?)

I strongly agree with his opinion regarding the need for involvement in a larger group. (That is, each congregation should not be a lone wolf.) However, I think that my reasons are somewhat different than his. I see the benefits of sharing larger projects, especially missionary efforts. He does seem to assume a top-down governance style, while I favor a brotherhood model, even at a conference level. (I say this because he talks about the need for a congregation to 'submit' to a 'higher level'. My focus is more on working together to accomplish more.) He might have touched on this as well, but involvement in a larger conference helps those that move from one area to another find a connection in their new community. (One thing I noticed in my MB background is that members who did not come from MB background were far less likely to seek out another MB congregation if they needed to re-locate, than a person who shared a family history in the same larger group.)

I had no idea what the turtles had to do with anything. He got to that finally at around 53 minutes in. The Old Orders are the 'turtles' who win the race, because they are more widely know in the culture(s) around us. Yes, they are known, but those same people who are very enamored with the Amish are not coming in droves, knocking down the doors to get in.

I agree with your observations, Neto. My perspective is akin to yours regarding the rationale for membership in a larger group. Charitable outreach and missionary work does benefit from a large support base. I would add that there needs to be care in larger groups to avoid too much control of smaller fellowships: balance is a key component.

I would also mention that too much committee work for the sake of equal input is not always effective. Political manipulation within the larger group, even ennui from too many committee meetings can result in apostasy from Biblical teachings. Example: The Church of the Brethren experienced just such issues with their committee-based formats which were taken advantage of by the homosexual lobby. Vigilance, wise leadership, and balanced input from individual fellowships, produce the best format when pursued conscientiously.

I haven't thought this through entirely but the love and relationship paring are deep features to Christian doctrine going back to the trinitarian nature of God. Does love exist that is never expressed or shared.

Spot on, Barnhart. Love does need to be expressed tacitly in both words and deeds just as God has done with us.
Romans 12:10
Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor.

[temporal1]

i’ve viewed the OP video.
i’m thinking it through, would like to view again, or revisit various parts. i wish there were time stamps, or a transcript.
he covers a lot of territory, asking questions around the topic of plain dress.

I haven't thought this through entirely but the love and relationship paring are deep features to Christian doctrine going back to the trinitarian nature of God.

Does love exist that is never expressed or shared.

over my life i’ve learned a lot of deep love goes without word or obvious action.
that sometimes self-sacrificial love is self-restraint. we are spiritual beings.

i do not abide by the simplistic, “love is love.” i believe there are different, distinct types and ways of God created love.
[certainly, lust is not love]

most know, not all love is romantic physical love; before Jesus, Plato delved into it.
Jesus embodies love. He is not limited to human understanding.

recently, i viewed another video Ernie shared awhile back:
Two Gospels -
viewtopic.php?t=211

i appreciate the comparison/history/perspective of Rome (and the ancients) with Christianity as we know it today.
most of us don’t think about the world Jesus experienced on earth, and/or how little has changed.

[Neto]

i’ve viewed the OP video.
i’m thinking it through, would like to view again, or revisit various parts. i wish there were time stamps, or a transcript.
he covers a lot of territory, asking questions around the topic of plain dress.

I haven't thought this through entirely but the love and relationship paring are deep features to Christian doctrine going back to the trinitarian nature of God.

Does love exist that is never expressed or shared.

over my life i’ve learned a lot of deep love goes without word or obvious action.
that sometimes self-sacrificial love is self-restraint. we are spiritual beings.

i do not abide by the simplistic, “love is love.” i believe there are different, distinct types and ways of God created love.
[certainly, lust is not love]

most know, not all love is romantic physical love; before Jesus, Plato delved into it.
Jesus embodies love. He is not limited to human understanding.

recently, i viewed another video Ernie shared awhile back:
Two Gospels -
viewtopic.php?t=211

i appreciate the comparison/history/perspective of Rome (and the ancients) with Christianity as we know it today.
most of us don’t think about the world Jesus experienced on earth, and/or how little has changed.

Your comment regarding those that say "love is [just] love" reminds me of two rather unrelated things I noticed in the past.

One, the discussion in the convergence of linguistics and anthropology, around the question of Which has the most (or formative) influence over the other, culture (world view) or language? Does language shape culture, or does culture shape language?

Two, the observation that the Old Testament Scripture (Hebrew) does not distinguish between love and lust. Samson 'loved a girl'. God loves his people. Where lies the fault line, that the Hebrew world view (based on the revealed word from God) did not influence the Hebrew language in the creation of specific words that would eliminate the confusion between these very different concepts? Does this indicate that the words of God never penetrated their world view? I don't know, but what about Aramaic? Did IT possibly have distinctive terms for these things? (I should look in the LXX, to see if they translated those passages differently, or did they simply maintain 'concordance', which is, incidentally, one of the basic standards for accurate translation?)

[Neto]

Regarding what I understand to be the main question or central idea in the recording, I think that in my note-taking and comments here last night I
"didn't see the forest for the trees" - I fixated on the smaller issues, and missed the central point.

So, tell me, what was his central point? I THINK it was the perceived need to have a visible "group image", a set of things making up one physical identifier for the group as a distinct identity - something that would match or rival that of the Amish - the "turtles"). Am I on track with this?

[Josh]

The LXX is not remotely concordant with the Masoretic text, but then again, I would consider the LXX to be more authoritative.

[Josh]

Regarding what I understand to be the main question or central idea in the recording, I think that in my note-taking and comments here last night I
"didn't see the forest for the trees" - I fixated on the smaller issues, and missed the central point.

So, tell me, what was his central point? I THINK it was the perceived need to have a visible "group image", a set of things making up one physical identifier for the group as a distinct identity - something that would match or rival that of the Amish - the "turtles"). Am I on track with this?

I’ll put it this way, Neto. In an Australian mall I ran across a salesperson who was trying to get me to buy some kind of nail care / makeup sort of thing. I told her I would have no need of such things, and not for a wife or girlfriend either, because “we” never use makeup or manicure type stuff. She asked why, I said, well, we are Mennonites and don’t use makeup.

So she asked what Mennonite even means, and I quickly said “Well we are like Amish but we drive cars”. She instantly understood.

A south Asian Indian girl in Australia knows what Amish are and has a vague idea what they stand for. Barely anyone in the entire continent of Australia knows what a non-conservative Mennonite is.