MennoNet.com

Rooting around in the briar patch, I found these (emphasis mine):

joshuabgood wrote:

PeterG wrote:

RZehr wrote:It’s obvious to me that the Kingdom Christian movement is filling a void for Mennonites / Anabaptist, that was filled by Charity in the past.
There are differences, but the similarities are undeniable.

That's a very interesting observation.

There are some common leaders, Dean Taylor/John Martin, etc - however there are very significant differences.

RZehr wrote:Sure. And if someone want to focus on the differences, that is fine. No argument from me there.
But I’m suggesting we take a look at the appeal of each movement for plain people and seekers, and it’s symbiotic(?) relationship to Mennonites.

This is the thread to do as RZehr suggests.

I've been telling Anabaptists that just as the traditional Anabaptist community didn't see the Charity movement coming, so there was no anticipation of the Followers of the Way/Sattler movement. FotW is one of the few groups who self identify as Kingdom Christians (emphasis mine) and teach their people to not identify with any other faith tradition. There are many others who identify as kingdom Christians, but also identify as Mennonite, Brethren, Anabaptist, etc. Kingdom Fellowship Weekend is the largest event where these people gather to provoke each other to love and good works.

One big difference between the two movements is that initial Charity movement viewed the majority of traditional Anabaptists as unsaved and in need of help. Once their own movement began to implode, they began to seek affiliation with traditional Anabaptists and were more ready to consider traditional Anabaptists as saved and maybe have some pieces of the puzzle that they were missing. Charity had a revivalistic, fundamentalist flavor.

Kingdom Christians tend to be more open to fellowship with traditional Anabaptists than what the early Charity people were, but one thing they have in common is that they are glad to help people transition out of more traditional churches into their own churches. Kingdom Christians tend to have a revivalistic, early church flavor. I expect that in the future, the faithful kingdom Christians will mostly be absorbed into the traditional Anabaptist faith tradition.

Something similar happened in the 1800's[???] in the Brethren movement. Quite a few traditional Anabaptists became Brethren. Today the plain Brethren have mostly been absorbed into the traditional Anabaptist faith tradition. The original Brethren tended to have a revivalistic, pietist, restorationist flavor.

I write about the kingdom Christian movement here. https://www.churchplantersforum.org/wp- ... tians-.pdf

The dank memes and support by "Kingdom Christians," was really exposing... I'm more than happy not to take part in another similar situation as the Charity movement. It was fun to read books and listen to many sermons by Kingdom Christians but I'm more than happy to be a kingdom Christian with a more stable but still zealous "traditional" group.

Wade wrote:The dank memes and support by "Kingdom Christians," was really exposing... I'm more than happy not to take part in another similar situation as the Charity movement. It was fun to read books and listen to many sermons by Kingdom Christians but I'm more than happy to be a kingdom Christian with a more stable but still zealous "traditional" group.

I'm with you on this one Wade. Kingdom Christianity of the type Dean Taylor and so on espouse, whilst well meaning, would be better served as movements -WITHIN- the existing groups to help revitalise them and bring new insights to light (for example the Apocrypha being part of the original set of books and not something later made up by the Catholic Church). Their contributions to our understanding of Christianity should be welcomed and dwelt upon for sure. However, I don't think they really need to start a whole new group unless those ideas are completely NOT accepted by the traditional groups and certainly that debate has not been had yet within Traditional groups.

aussieandy wrote:

Wade wrote:The dank memes and support by "Kingdom Christians," was really exposing... I'm more than happy not to take part in another similar situation as the Charity movement. It was fun to read books and listen to many sermons by Kingdom Christians but I'm more than happy to be a kingdom Christian with a more stable but still zealous "traditional" group.

I'm with you on this one Wade. Kingdom Christianity of the type Dean Taylor and so on espouse, whilst well meaning, would be better served as movements -WITHIN- the existing groups to help revitalise them and bring new insights to light (for example the Apocrypha being part of the original set of books and not something later made up by the Catholic Church). Their contributions to our understanding of Christianity should be welcomed and dwelt upon for sure. However, I don't think they really need to start a whole new group unless those ideas are completely NOT accepted by the traditional groups and certainly that debate has not been had yet within Traditional groups.

With so many different personalities within any given group, I think it is likely that all of these groups with their respective approaches can be a means of spiritual support to people. Where one approach and emphasis may not be appealing to a person, another group’s approach may resonate with the individual’s needs. I genuinely feel that God can, and does, use all of these approaches to encourage and correct different people in the discipleship walk.

By the by I am surprised to see mentioned that the Apocrypha (Deuterocanonical books) are now considered a part of the Bible in these groups. Did I understand that correctly?

MaxPC wrote:By the by I am surprised to see mentioned that the Apocrypha (Deuterocanonical books) are now considered a part of the Bible in these groups. Did I understand that correctly?

Anybody who takes Bercot as an authoritative on matters such as these now consider these books to be part of the Bible but not on the same level as the rest of the Bible.

Venn I have a concept like this to explain, I find it helpful to do a diagram. Here's one I did a few months ago as a sidebar to a presentation at church:



It's not intended to be comprehensive of course, but to indicate some of the commonalities and distinctives.

Ernie wrote:

MaxPC wrote:By the by I am surprised to see mentioned that the Apocrypha (Deuterocanonical books) are now considered a part of the Bible in these groups. Did I understand that correctly?

Anybody who takes Bercot as an authoritative on matters such as these now consider these books to be part of the Bible but not on the same level as the rest of the Bible.

How does that work in practice?

I'm no talking about the academic writings of someone like Bercot who I understand to be as much of an historian as a theologian. But in terms of actual religious services and practices in a church?

ohio jones wrote:Venn I have a concept like this to explain, I find it helpful to do a diagram. Here's one I did a few months ago as a sidebar to a presentation at church:



It's not intended to be comprehensive of course, but to indicate some of the commonalities and distinctives.

Interesting. Is it intentional that the characteristics or traits exclusive to conservative Mennonites are basically non-religious customs and traditions? Quilting??? While the similarities are largely theological?

Ken wrote:

ohio jones wrote:Venn I have a concept like this to explain, I find it helpful to do a diagram. Here's one I did a few months ago as a sidebar to a presentation at church:



It's not intended to be comprehensive of course, but to indicate some of the commonalities and distinctives.

Interesting. Is it intentional that the characteristics or traits exclusive to conservative Mennonites are basically non-religious customs and traditions? Quilting??? While the similarities are largely theological?

I would object to that characterizing. There are theological differences and presenting the Mennonites as a rule bound group that quilts... is fairly bias. The mutual aid would be a theological point which the early church also taught but seemed to not be practiced among some of the kingdom Christians. Not accepting governmental money in terms of social security, health insurance are things the Kingdom Christians don't care about. There is a strong social media push coming out of FOTW for instance that you would never see out of a Conservative Mennonite church. Internet is encouraged as necessary, Homeschooling is pushed by the Kingdom movement while church schools are very common among the CM's. These things come out of priorities in life. It doesn't seem like there is any concern about higher education yet history has shown this to be risky. My point is that there is considerable difference that comes from our theological points. Sure its not comprehensive but you could have reduced your sarcasm meter by a few points or your disdain for traditional groups.