Mennonite Doctrine of Separation/Nonconformity

[Neto]

....

My church uses the 1921 Garden City confession, which has an article titled "Of Separation."

Article X - OF SEPARATION

We believe that we are called with a holy calling to a life of separation from the world and its follies, sinful practices, and methods; further that it is the duty of the Church to keep herself aloof from all movements which seek the reformation of society independent of the merits of the death of Christ and the experiences of the new birth. I Pet. 2:9; Tit. 2:11-14;2:15; Mt. 28:19, 20; 18:15-18; Eph. 4:11-16; Heb. 13:17; Acts 14:21-23; 1:15-26.

Additionally, the concept of separation from the world comes up in our rules of discipline, in the section on dress and maybe elsewhere.

I'm curious what your thoughts are on the topic. In your church, how prominently does this idea feature in your church literature, teaching, practical applications, and real-life discussions?

I would understand the idea expressed in that statement to mean that the totality of one's personal (and congregational) motivations should flow out of their relationship to the death and resurrection (they don't mention the resurrection specifically, either) and the new life in Christ, not out of 'social altruism" (which would amount to a solely 'social gospel', not the true Gospel of Jesus Christ). In other words, caring for people in the way that Jesus himself cared for people, and as Paul says, "Always being ready to give an explanation for the Hope that is within".

In a recent 'small group' meeting, we were discussing Lesson 12, 'The Anabaptist Witness', in the book If Anyone Would Follow Me (John Coblentz), and we talked a bit about what should be the motivation for holy living. Should it come from the desire to leave a witness, or from the determination to live according to what God requires? If the latter (as I suggested in that discussion), then the witness is 'just' a natural result from that way of life, but yet being ready to explain why.

I am reminded of an incident years ago in Brazil, when we had just gotten back into the mission's Kombi, to go to the next store. I had looked behind the vehicle before I got in, but while getting ready to leave, someone had parked a motorcycle right up behind it, sideways. I backed up, and knocked it over, breaking a light or something. I set it back up, and then went back into the business where we had been, and asked for the owner. We then followed him to the motorcycle shop, where I paid for the repairs. The store clerk asked if I was American, and said that "A Brazilian would have just left the scene - only an American would take responsibility." I said that yes, I'm American, but that I couldn't just leave, because I am a Christian. I didn't do it to 'leave a witness' - I did it because that is what Christ requires of me. (Not bragging, but just a real-world example of what I'm attempting to describe here.) I think that a lot of the things we do that DO 'leave a witness' are things like that - our automatic reaction and interaction with people based on who we are, or, as some put it, WHOSE we are.

[barnhart]

I'm curious what your thoughts are on the topic.

I sometimes hear Christians say that Christianity should infiltrate the world at all levels. Politics, Art, Business, Education, Science, Entertainment, Military, etc.
This has not been the stance of Plain Anabaptists throughout the centuries. We have tried to stay aloof.

Some of us are trying to infiltrate all but the first and last, but it is really hard going. Others of us are trying to live our lives adjacent to the people serving in these fields, or are trying to provide good alternatives in these arenas (Art, Business, Education, Science, Entertainment) but the systems surrounding these fields are so tied into the world's philosophies that it can be hard to really hard to "not be a friend of the world" in these arenas.

I'm not quite convinced that Five Mountains are better than Seven. Maybe it's better to be nonconformed to NAR theology, and stick with one mountain and the Sermon preached thereon.

It's hard to argue with that but the question remains, do you think a robust doctrine of separation and nonconformity requires followers to Jesus to avoid the remaining five mountains entirely?

[JohnH]

It's hard to argue with that but the question remains, do you think a robust doctrine of separation and nonconformity requires followers to Jesus to avoid the remaining five mountains entirely?

Experience shows us that Anabaptists who scale five of the mountains eventually consider the next two to be of utmost importance.

[joshuabgood]

In its purest form I am for scaling all 7 mountains. But the end goal is to fundamentally shift the *system* not operate them per worldly norms. And obviously the lever is the way of the cross, not the means of the Kingdoms of this world.

[ohio jones]

I sometimes hear Christians say that Christianity should infiltrate the world at all levels. Politics, Art, Business, Education, Science, Entertainment, Military, etc.
This has not been the stance of Plain Anabaptists throughout the centuries. We have tried to stay aloof.

Some of us are trying to infiltrate all but the first and last, but it is really hard going. Others of us are trying to live our lives adjacent to the people serving in these fields, or are trying to provide good alternatives in these arenas (Art, Business, Education, Science, Entertainment) but the systems surrounding these fields are so tied into the world's philosophies that it can be hard to really hard to "not be a friend of the world" in these arenas.

I'm not quite convinced that Five Mountains are better than Seven. Maybe it's better to be nonconformed to NAR theology, and stick with one mountain and the Sermon preached thereon.

It's hard to argue with that but the question remains, do you think a robust doctrine of separation and nonconformity requires followers to Jesus to avoid the remaining five mountains entirely?

Not avoidance necessarily, but our relationship to them will be transformed rather than conformed. Dominion and infiltration seem difficult to reconcile with the way of Jesus and his example of suffering love.

[JohnH]

The devil took Jesus up on a high, literal mountain, and then showed him the figurative 7 mountains, and offered all of them to Jesus if he would but bow down and worship him.

Jesus rebuked the devil and rejected the premise of somehow "taking over the world". If our saviour decided not to do this, then why would we?

[barnhart]

I'm not quite convinced that Five Mountains are better than Seven. Maybe it's better to be nonconformed to NAR theology, and stick with one mountain and the Sermon preached thereon.

It's hard to argue with that but the question remains, do you think a robust doctrine of separation and nonconformity requires followers to Jesus to avoid the remaining five mountains entirely?

Not avoidance necessarily, but our relationship to them will be transformed rather than conformed. Dominion and infiltration seem difficult to reconcile with the way of Jesus and his example of suffering love.

Domination isn't Jesus' way in general, whether on the seven mountains or anywhere else.

[ken_sylvania]

Article X - OF SEPARATION
it is the duty of the Church to keep herself aloof from all movements which seek the reformation of society independent of the merits of the death of Christ and the experiences of the new birth.

I find this interesting.
This would preclude involvement in politics which most Plain Anabaptists teach to at least some degree.

Some organizations seek to teach good character to children, good community habits and skills, better ways to have conversations, etc. (without injecting Christianity into it) with the hope of making a difference in their communities.
If the above is taken literally, Christians should not be involved in such endeavors.

During the years immediately prior to the Garden City COF being written the Mennonite church was facing increased pressure to join other civic minded groups in building and maintaining organizations that would better society - education, life skills, improved housing, humanitarian relief, etc. Secret societies including the Masonic Lodge/Shriners were increasing in popularity. The "Separation" article addresses this pressure.

There are still conservative Mennonite groups who actually believe and practice this. They prefer to serve in their own mission and humanitarian organizations rather than working for the Salvation Army or secular aid organizations.

[ken_sylvania]

I find this interesting.
This would preclude involvement in politics which most Plain Anabaptists teach to at least some degree.

Some organizations seek to teach good character to children, good community habits and skills, better ways to have conversations, etc. (without injecting Christianity into it) with the hope of making a difference in their communities.
If the above is taken literally, Christians should not be involved in such endeavors.

I wonder what movements or societies the writers had in mind. If taken literally I suppose it would disallow blood drives, volunteer firefighter brigades, picking up trash along the road, teaching in a public school, drilling public wells in dry areas, establishing health clinics in impoverished areas...

I don't think that's a correct interpretation.

I've don't think that blood drives, firefighting, picking up trash, or drilling wells are an attempt to reform society. They are an attempt to provide aid and assistance.

Things like protest marches, WCTU meetings, Temperance Pledges, Labor Unions, etc on the other hand were in fact aimed at reforming society.

[JayP]

I am flabbergasted. Discussing the Seven Mountains within a historically critical Anabaptist position like separation demonstrates how many who claim Anabaptist are indeed infected with fundamentalist thinking.

Why even refer to that phrase? Anabaptist churches that do NOT maintain Separation and Non Conformity are not Anabaptist

Separation comes not just from being Separate based on rejecting worldly habits and positions but also that following Christ inherently makes you different and separate. I will repeat that. One is separate sometimes solely by being Christian. It may not require deliberately trying to be different from the world. It is a characteristic in a sense rather than an action. An effect not a cause.