Progressive/Conservative threshold?

[Sudsy]

Are there really Anabaptists that do not emphasize the new birth? Why are they still anabaptists? Is that not the point of beleiever's baptism as opposed to infant baptism? That the church only baptized those who show a genuine faith to evidence the new birth?

I know Anabaptism is 500 years old, and I'll admit I probably know more about its roots than the state of every church that claims the anabaptist tradition and legacy, but... emphasizing "being born again" seems like the ONE disagreement that led to all other differences between the anabaptist and the rest of Christendom at the time.

I suppose it depends what you mean by "emphasize." Anabaptists (with possible exceptions on the far ends of the continuum) generally do believe and teach the new birth. It is absolutely foundational, but there is life after birth. Sometimes nurturing and preserving life gets more emphasis. Both are necessary.

On the other hand, some fundamentalists (not all) seem to emphasize being born again to the extent of having an evangelistic altar call at every service, while having very little to say about discipleship. That seems just as unbalanced as neglecting to teach the new birth.

Interesting as I have not run across any church who 'emphasize being born again to the extent of having an evangelistic altar call at every service, while having very little to say about discipleship.' The Pentecostal, Mennonite Brethren, Baptist and Salvation Army churches I have attended all have much teaching on discipleship. They just expect that in their church services there may be those who attend that are ready to turn their life over to the Lord and they want to be available to assist them. However, I believe these would consider themselves more as Evangelicals than as Fundamentalists.

[Sudsy]

I know Anabaptism is 500 years old, and I'll admit I probably know more about its roots than the state of every church that claims the anabaptist tradition and legacy, but... emphasizing "being born again" seems like the ONE disagreement that led to all other differences between the anabaptist and the rest of Christendom at the time.

Old Orders, probably ninety percent of Plain Anabaptists, do not use the term "born again" very much. This doesn't mean that they don't think new birth is necessary. (most of them anyhow) They just don't see a need to emphasize certain words from the New Testament that Evangelicals think should be emphasized. They might talk about having the nature of Christ, or being changed from an old life to a new life, etc.

I tend to use the terms "born of the Spirit, born of God's spirit, or spiritual rebirth" with a goal of not being labeled something that I don't represent, to those who have negative associations with the term "born again".

I see. I have a similar attitude about the identification of Christians being some degree of 'conservative' or 'liberal' when these terms are used in our world when talking about politics. I'm surprised that some Anabaptists use these words, especially those who try not to associate their faith with political parties. I had never heard these words used regarding types of Anabaptists in the MB church I attended. They would at times refer to other believers using scriptural words of 'holy' and 'worldly' with regard to sanctification.

My view would be that Anabaptists should regard their sanctification in degrees of being 'holy' or 'worldly' and 'come out from among them' and not use worldly terms of 'conservative' and 'liberal' so they don't appear to represent some worldly political party. If we are to protect ourselves from being mis-represented by certain terms such as 'born again' then why would we not also protect ourselves from being associated with a political party and avoid the terms 'conservative' and 'liberal' ?

I thought that perhaps the lack of using the term 'born again' was that it often referred to a definite start point in one's faith in Jesus and for many of us, especially Anabaptists, who grew up in a church, there was not some obvious start point to being a Christian that reflected a sudden change of life. In churches where the majority of attenders came from non-religious backgrounds and had an obvious conversion experience, this 'born again' term best reflected the changes that they experienced. My father would often use the phrase 'when I got converted' when speaking of his born again experience. I do agree that the expectation in what being 'born again' means is very watered down by some and could be causing some false beliefs about salvation.

Another term I hear used is 'in our circles'. I don't want to be in a circle because a circle is going nowhere. Just kidding.

[Soloist]

I see. I have a similar attitude about the identification of Christians being some degree of 'conservative' or 'liberal' when these terms are used in our world when talking about politics. I'm surprised that some Anabaptists use these words, especially those who try not to associate their faith with political parties. I had never heard these words used regarding types of Anabaptists in the MB church I attended. They would at times refer to other believers using scriptural words of 'holy' and 'worldly' with regard to sanctification.

My view would be that Anabaptists should regard their sanctification in degrees of being 'holy' or 'worldly' and 'come out from among them' and not use worldly terms of 'conservative' and 'liberal' so they don't appear to represent some worldly political party. If we are to protect ourselves from being mis-represented by certain terms such as 'born again' then why would we not also protect ourselves from being associated with a political party and avoid the terms 'conservative' and 'liberal' ?

Perhaps it’s an effort to be less offensive. Christians understand what being “worldly” means generally. Perhaps liberal means the same thing to “conservatives” but to “liberals” it doesn’t.
Being holy should be every Christian’s goal and calling someone worldly is saying they are failing to put Jesus first and instead putting their flesh first.
So, would you prefer I call you liberal for your views on Christianity? Or worldly?

It’s a perspective issue generally.

Conservative in the strictest sense is about less change or refusing change.
Liberal is the opposite.

Worldly is caring for matters of this world, the flesh.

Holy is caring for matters of God.
Liberal doesn’t necessarily mean caring for flesh and we all really are a mix of liberal and conservative. Likewise, conservative doesn’t mean necessarily caring for things of God.

I can say you are liberal for your views on D/R but if I called you worldly for the same, would you not be offended?

[Praxis+Theodicy]

Conservative in the strictest sense is about less change or refusing change.
Liberal is the opposite.

"Progressive" is the opposite of "conservative." Conservativism is a strong defence against change based on a belief that what we have currently is the best option, or at least good enough, and certainly better than the potential of any efforts to change.

Progressivism is the belief that there are better things and better ways of doing things and we should try to be responsible to do the best we can, and that includes pursuing change in areas where it's needed.

Liberalism is a bit of a middle ground. It's dropping the defensive posture of conservatism, and allowing individuals, as opposed to communities or society at large, to determine what is "best". That means change for some, refusal to change for others, and probably a mix of both for most everyone.
I say liberalism is "a bit of a middle ground" because it's a bit off the spectrum, since it is an ideology that promotes individualism, and therefore isn't easily categorized alongside conservatism or progressivism. An interesting note in this regards is that, politically, staunch conservatives and staunch progressives both see liberalism as a bit of a threat to what they perceive as good. Since many here are conservative, it makes sense that many percieved liberalism as a threat and therefore it's easy to see it as the opposite of conservatism; but it's not. It's just an alternate ideology that falls in the middle between conservatism and it's true opposite.

[Soloist]

"Progressive" is the opposite of "conservative." Conservativism is a strong defence against change based on a belief that what we have currently is the best option, or at least good enough, and certainly better than the potential of any efforts to change.

Progressivism is the belief that there are better things and better ways of doing things and we should try to be responsible to do the best we can, and that includes pursuing change in areas where it's needed.

Liberalism is a bit of a middle ground. It's dropping the defensive posture of conservatism, and allowing individuals, as opposed to communities or society at large, to determine what is "best". That means change for some, refusal to change for others, and probably a mix of both for most everyone.
I say liberalism is "a bit of a middle ground" because it's a bit off the spectrum, since it is an ideology that promotes individualism, and therefore isn't easily categorized alongside conservatism or progressivism. An interesting note in this regards is that, politically, staunch conservatives and staunch progressives both see liberalism as a bit of a threat to what they perceive as good. Since many here are conservative, it makes sense that many percieved liberalism as a threat and therefore it's easy to see it as the opposite of conservatism; but it's not. It's just an alternate ideology that falls in the middle between conservatism and it's true opposite.

Yes, I was intending liberal as a permissive stance, I guess I’m not particularly knowledgeable about the difference between progressive and liberal.
There is considerable cross over I guess, liberals might be fine with women pastors where as progressive would push for it?

[Sudsy]

I see. I have a similar attitude about the identification of Christians being some degree of 'conservative' or 'liberal' when these terms are used in our world when talking about politics. I'm surprised that some Anabaptists use these words, especially those who try not to associate their faith with political parties. I had never heard these words used regarding types of Anabaptists in the MB church I attended. They would at times refer to other believers using scriptural words of 'holy' and 'worldly' with regard to sanctification.

My view would be that Anabaptists should regard their sanctification in degrees of being 'holy' or 'worldly' and 'come out from among them' and not use worldly terms of 'conservative' and 'liberal' so they don't appear to represent some worldly political party. If we are to protect ourselves from being mis-represented by certain terms such as 'born again' then why would we not also protect ourselves from being associated with a political party and avoid the terms 'conservative' and 'liberal' ?

Perhaps it’s an effort to be less offensive. Christians understand what being “worldly” means generally. Perhaps liberal means the same thing to “conservatives” but to “liberals” it doesn’t.
Being holy should be every Christian’s goal and calling someone worldly is saying they are failing to put Jesus first and instead putting their flesh first.
So, would you prefer I call you liberal for your views on Christianity? Or worldly?

I would prefer I not be judged by other believers as to how sanctified/set apart I am from non-believers and given a label of being
liberal' or 'conservative'. If I am called 'liberal' due to the perspective of another believer that I am not set apart from the world as they think I should be, to me, this is a holier-than-thou attitude and does not fit with the scriptures that talk about being humble and not to regard ourselves better than others. Pride is a major sin God hates and this can come out in these comparisons of how we judge others in their sanctification.

It’s a perspective issue generally.

Conservative in the strictest sense is about less change or refusing change.
Liberal is the opposite.

Worldly is caring for matters of this world, the flesh.

Holy is caring for matters of God.
Liberal doesn’t necessarily mean caring for flesh and we all really are a mix of liberal and conservative. Likewise, conservative doesn’t mean necessarily caring for things of God.

I can say you are liberal for your views on D/R but if I called you worldly for the same, would you not be offended?

No, I would rather you not directly past judgment on my views as wrong and if you think my understandings are a hindrance to my salvation or growing in my walk with God, then take them to God in prayer for me. I have no problem of reading your understanding of scriptures on a topic but do have a problem if you use your understandings to pass judgment on me as if you have the one and only possible truth. We all need to be careful in any judging of others and as Jesus said to those ready to cast stones, he who is without sin let him be the first to cast one. I believe there is a difference in standing for what we believe is truth and doing that without passing judgment on those who disagree with us.

[Soloist]

I would prefer I not be judged by other believers as to how sanctified/set apart I am from non-believers and given a label of being
liberal' or 'conservative'. If I am called 'liberal' due to the perspective of another believer that I am not set apart from the world as they think I should be, to me, this is a holier-than-thou attitude and does not fit with the scriptures that talk about being humble and not to regard ourselves better than others. Pride is a major sin God hates and this can come out in these comparisons of how we judge others in their sanctification.

Honestly, we’ve discussed it before. Although, it’s interesting that you say I’m prideful and have a holier then thou attitude and say it’s a major sin.
I agree pride is a sin, but I disagree with your accusations as you disagree with mine.

No, I would rather you not directly past judgment on my views as wrong and if you think my understandings are a hindrance to my salvation or growing in my walk with God, then take them to God in prayer for me. I have no problem of reading your understanding of scriptures on a topic but do have a problem if you use your understandings to pass judgment on me as if you have the one and only possible truth. We all need to be careful in any judging of others and as Jesus said to those ready to cast stones, he who is without sin let him be the first to cast one. I believe there is a difference in standing for what we believe is truth and doing that without passing judgment on those who disagree with us.

Sin requires being addressed just like Paul did with Peter and We are called to judge those in the church, but not those outside the church.
You are standing for truth by saying I’m prideful but not judging? Or are you yourself guilty of what you say we shouldn’t do?

Either you are in, or out. If you are in, you are subject to the laws God gave us. If you are out, it doesn’t matter.

[Sudsy]

I would prefer I not be judged by other believers as to how sanctified/set apart I am from non-believers and given a label of being
liberal' or 'conservative'. If I am called 'liberal' due to the perspective of another believer that I am not set apart from the world as they think I should be, to me, this is a holier-than-thou attitude and does not fit with the scriptures that talk about being humble and not to regard ourselves better than others. Pride is a major sin God hates and this can come out in these comparisons of how we judge others in their sanctification.

Honestly, we’ve discussed it before. Although, it’s interesting that you say I’m prideful and have a holier then thou attitude and say it’s a major sin.
I agree pride is a sin, but I disagree with your accusations as you disagree with mine.

I didn't say that you are one with this perspective if you read it carefully.

No, I would rather you not directly past judgment on my views as wrong and if you think my understandings are a hindrance to my salvation or growing in my walk with God, then take them to God in prayer for me. I have no problem of reading your understanding of scriptures on a topic but do have a problem if you use your understandings to pass judgment on me as if you have the one and only possible truth. We all need to be careful in any judging of others and as Jesus said to those ready to cast stones, he who is without sin let him be the first to cast one. I believe there is a difference in standing for what we believe is truth and doing that without passing judgment on those who disagree with us.

Sin requires being addressed just like Paul did with Peter and We are called to judge those in the church, but not those outside the church.
You are standing for truth by saying I’m prideful but not judging? Or are you yourself guilty of what you say we shouldn’t do?

Either you are in, or out. If you are in, you are subject to the laws God gave us. If you are out, it doesn’t matter.

Again, I did not directly address you as being prideful. I don't believe these forums are a place to do the judging of sin in other believers but rather this judging is a practise for the local church and it has specific format to be carried out. It is not for a forum setting.

Regarding the 'in' or 'out'. If you are using these words as meaning either 'saved' or 'unsaved' and you believe judging can be done by any believer on any other professing believer, am I 'saved' or 'unsaved' / 'in' or 'out' with my situation of being remarried ? Some comments appear that I am 'in/saved' while others that I am 'out/unsaved' in your view.

[Soloist]

I didn't say that you are one with this perspective if you read it carefully.

What you said

If I am called 'liberal' due to the perspective of another believer that I am not set apart from the world as they think I should be, to me, this is a holier-than-thou attitude and does not fit with the scriptures that talk about being humble and not to regard ourselves better than others. Pride is a major sin God hates and this can come out in these comparisons of how we judge others in their sanctification.

You may not have directly said I was sinning, but it was obvious to the English language you were referring to me by “another believer” and equally obvious that you thought what I was saying was prideful.
Aka, word play.

Again, I did not directly address you as being prideful. I don't believe these forums are a place to do the judging of sin in other believers but rather this judging is a practise for the local church and it has specific format to be carried out. It is not for a forum setting.

Ah yes, these vague hand wave generic responses to one specific user about a specific point they make that isn’t at all addressed to the specific user.
You have expressed before your opinion that this forum is a church of sorts and you have also expressed the ideals of a universal church in lieu of belonging to a local body. I really think you don’t have consistency.
Besides, that stance you expressed means no one can address sin in your life as you avoid being part of a body.
So, are you part of a body? Do you recognize a local body has having any authority over you? Do you recognize any other believer as part of the same body able to judge those (you) in the church?

Regarding the 'in' or 'out'. If you are using these words as meaning either 'saved' or 'unsaved' and you believe judging can be done by any believer on any other professing believer, am I 'saved' or 'unsaved' / 'in' or 'out' with my situation of being remarried ? Some comments appear that I am 'in/saved' while others that I am 'out/unsaved' in your view. [/color]

I believe as stated before that you are a brother in sin who I am attempting to address. As you rejected any authority of any Christian here, I write not to you, but to others so that your views are clear.
Scripture is clear to your state before God, you dispute this as a flawed understanding but reject the notion that the Spirit always agrees with Scripture as our understanding is flawed meaning whatever you think it means is what the spirit tells you. Very dangerous when the spirit you listen to has no testing on teaching.

[steve-in-kville]

We don't have *real* TV, but we can livestream and we watch DVD's within reason. In some ways we are conservative but not in everything.

You are watching DVD's?

I honestly haven't watched a DVD in a long time. I had a Norfolk Southern DVD on their history and watched that. But that's been some time now.