To Be Plain or Not to Be Plain

[Ernie]

A big one is how much Jesus had a problem with the Pharisees "fencing the torah".

I have a problem with refusing communion and full fellowship to "kingdom Christians".

However, the individual who introduced "fence around the Torah" to Anabaptists 10 years ago, built one of the biggest fences I have seen yet in Anabaptist and kingdom Christian churches. People who joined his church felt they were baited/switched and one told me that he now has appreciation for those who simply state their fences up front, rather than sneaking it in after people have joined the church.

So the "fence around the Torah" concept is interesting but so far there are very few churches who claim to not have a fence, (and actually don't have one) yet actually stand for something. I have some friends who lead a church like this, but very few people can lead this way and be honest about it.

[Josh]

It's a big theme in the New Testament, and it's taken seriously in many evangelical churches.

It has been a rather serious theme of Protestantism since Luther, who extended Augustinian Christianity to now basically expect you to be a habitual sinner (including in serious moral areas). I consider this a grievous failure of the evangelical churches - they claim to be about the gospel, but the gospel should include freedom from sin, not falling into habitual sin the rest of your life.

Now, my opinion on evangelical churches isn't so much what they choose to enforce, but how they choose to enforce (or not enforce) the convictions they DO have. It's a slippery slope from:
"we won't teach it, but if pressed about it, we'll admit that some Christians do make a choice to follow that teaching, but it's not a salvation issue,"
to
"okay, just forget it."

As soon as the words "salvation issue" escape someone's lips, all hope is lost. The truth is that every aspect of a Christian's life is actually a salvation issue - right down to whether or not I want to choose to speak a kind word to a transfer or I decide to be a bit selfish and be a little gruff and rude instead.

The reality is that Jesus expected us to follow him in every area of life, and that the New Testament is not a law book. But we are expected, as individual believers and as the church, to discern exactly how we should follow Jesus in every area of life, today.

It is extremely obvious to me that a sincere Christian does not choose to buy hard street drugs and spend the rest of his life sitting around getting high, yet the New Testament doesn't really dictate this anywhere at all.

[Praxis+Theodicy]

... the gospel should include freedom from sin, not falling into habitual sin the rest of your life.

I agree with this, but we are talking about habits and cultures that are built around separation from the world, not separation from sin. If we are debating whether it's right for a church to enforce only black-colored vehicles for its members, phrases like "falling into habitual sin for the rest of your life" are unhelpful because that is just NOT in the same realm as vehicle color. Only owning black vehicles isn't "freedom from sin". The merits or setbacks of discipline in vehicle color (or other plain practices) can be discussed, but equating these specific practices to "freedom from sin" vs "lifelong habitual sin" is where the discussion breaks down. It gives evangelicals the ammo they need to claim "legalism" because they've just heard someone explicitly equate certain vehicle colors with "sin".

The reality is that Jesus expected us to follow him in every area of life, and that the New Testament is not a law book. But we are expected, as individual believers and as the church, to discern exactly how we should follow Jesus in every area of life, today.

Amen!

The reality is that Jesus expected us to follow him in every area of life, and that the New Testament is not a law book. But we are expected, as individual believers and as the church, to discern exactly how we should follow Jesus in every area of life, today.

Amen! (It bears repeating).

[Josh]

I agree with this, but we are talking about habits and cultures that are built around separation from the world, not separation from sin. If we are debating whether it's right for a church to enforce only black-colored vehicles for its members, phrases like "falling into habitual sin for the rest of your life" are unhelpful because that is just NOT in the same realm as vehicle color. Only owning black vehicles isn't "freedom from sin". The merits or setbacks of discipline in vehicle color (or other plain practices) can be discussed, but equating these specific practices to "freedom from sin" vs "lifelong habitual sin" is where the discussion breaks down. It gives evangelicals the ammo they need to claim "legalism" because they've just heard someone explicitly equate certain vehicle colors with "sin".

When evangelicals can demonstrate that their approach results in a church full of spirit-filled people who follow Jesus' instructions to us in the New Testament and also follow the apostles' doctrine, including nonresistance, the head covering, and dressing modestly, simply, and discreetly, I will be interested in hearing more about their approach. Until they do, I don't think they have any credibility to talk about such issues. The amount of rampant
immorality in evangelical circles these days is frankly disturbing and renders their criticism of, say, the Amish null and void.

Ultimately, I find myself not really caring what evangelicals think too much (other than needing to when someone in my church starts reading a book written by an evangelical or starting to get bad ideas from then). They're embrace of low-quality, low-brow right wing subculture is frankly disappointing and the embrace of evangelical elites of left-wing progressive thinking is even more disappointing. None of it has to do with following Christ, but all of it has to do with finding ways to conform to the world.

It is entirely reasonable for a church to decide that it is necessary to ensure that vehicles (which are very expensive) not lead us into sin by violating the New Testament's clear teaching on wealth, simplicity, thrift, and humility. The real question is why evangelicals think they can't talk about vehicles at all.

[RZehr]

I liked the pamphlet, To Be Plain or Not To Be Plain.

[Ernie]

I recently talked with John D. Martin about his booklet. He mentioned that his own church has little appreciation for the booklet. The same is true for his son-in-law’s topics on the importance of culture. (aka: are the turtles beating us) viewtopic.php?f=22&t=6931

Others around the country seem to appreciate both his booklet/sermons as well as his son-in-law’s sermons.

John referenced Ben Shapiro's "How to Destroy America in Three Easy Steps" and says the same is true for a Christian society. Destroy any people group's history, philosophy, and culture, and you can destroy the society.

John says that Plain Anabaptists came into the 21st century not knowing their history, their philosophy (doctrine), and the reasons for their Christian culture. The result has been a wholesale rejection of their faith tradition. I reminded him that many Anabaptists, including the church he used to be part of, have kept these three things alive and well. He agreed.

I then asked John why institutions like Faith Builders, that are providing some of the best attempts at helping people understand their history, philosophy, and culture, are losing so many of their alumni to other faith traditions or no faith tradition. He lauded Faith Builders for what they have done and are doing, but he believes that the rhetoric from outside of Plain Anabaptist settings (and that influences many Plain Anabaptists) is so strong that once students get back to their home communities, the worldview that they have been developing gets overpowered by the rhetoric that they hear from the surrounding culture as well as the rhetoric they hear from people in their own churches.

John believes that moderate-conservative Anabaptists don't realize and they underestimate how damaging Augustinian laced rhetoric has been and continues to be.

[Heirbyadoption]

John believes that moderate-conservative Anabaptists don't realize and they underestimate how damaging Augustinian laced rhetoric has been and continues to be.

Would you agree with him?

[Heirbyadoption]

John believes that moderate-conservative Anabaptists don't realize and they underestimate how damaging Augustinian laced rhetoric has been and continues to be.

Would you agree with him? And on a random side note, did we lose Josh?

Sorry, double posted somehow...

[Ernie]

John believes that moderate-conservative Anabaptists don't realize and they underestimate how damaging Augustinian laced rhetoric has been and continues to be.

Would you agree with him?

I'm a bit mixed.

There are things that I have learned from Augustinians. e.g. In my early 20's, I learned that our significance is not based on what we can do and perform, but rather our significance is based on what God thinks of us. I did not hear this much in an Old Order setting. Up until that time, I was on a search for personal significance and learning this truth was very significant for me. My life has not been the same since. I didn't understand the standing of a believer in God's eyes, and that a person does not lose his salvation ten times a day if he sinned or flubbed up 10 times a day. I didn't understand the forgiveness and advocacy that is available to those who are "in Christ."

However, when it comes to the value of obedience to Christ and the teachings of the New Testament, and the building of cultural habits and communal societies, and the multigenerational aspects of building Christian community, and the importance of living a life free from sin, and the importance of having pure churches that are dealing with sin (as they become aware of it.) And then there is non-resistance, non-political involvement, non-conformity, non-accumulation, enemy love, etc. These things are considered trivial and hardly worth mentioning in many Augustinian settings.

So yes, I agree with John that most moderate-conservatives underestimate how powerful the dominant Augustinian rhetoric in the surrounding society, really is, in shaping the worldview of their church peers and posterity.

[HondurasKeiser]

John believes that moderate-conservative Anabaptists don't realize and they underestimate how damaging Augustinian laced rhetoric has been and continues to be.

Would you agree with him?

I'm a bit mixed.

There are things that I have learned from Augustinians. e.g. In my early 20's, I learned that our significance is not based on what we can do and perform, but rather our significance is based on what God thinks of us. I did not hear this much in an Old Order setting. Up until that time, I was on a search for personal significance and learning this truth was very significant for me. My life has not been the same since. I didn't understand the standing of a believer in God's eyes, and that a person does not lose his salvation ten times a day if he sinned or flubbed up 10 times a day. I didn't understand the forgiveness and advocacy that is available to those who are "in Christ."

However, when it comes to the value of obedience to Christ and the teachings of the New Testament, and the building of cultural habits and communal societies, and the multigenerational aspects of building Christian community, and the importance of living a life free from sin, and the importance of having pure churches that are dealing with sin (as they become aware of it.) And then there is non-resistance, non-political involvement, non-conformity, non-accumulation, enemy love, etc. These things are considered trivial and hardly worth mentioning in many Augustinian settings.

So yes, I agree with John that most moderate-conservatives underestimate how powerful the dominant Augustinian rhetoric in the surrounding society, really is, in shaping the worldview of their church peers and posterity.

This is a debate my wife and I have at least once a week. I insist, perhaps wrongly, that Faith and Works are not exclusive ideas, that they're deeply interconnected, bordering on synonymous and that taken together they lead to salvation. She insists, being influenced by the late Tim Keller, that Faith leads to Salvation leads to Works...but that Works are not necessary for the previous 2 ideas to be extant. I see the value in both paradigms and also the pitfalls. My biggest concern from her argument is the pitfall of easy-believism which infects evangelicalism and you stated well the pitfall from mine (though I didn't grow up with OO mindset).