Stephen Russell: Why I left the Catholics, and How We Misunderstand Them

[mike]

Interesting interview with Stephen Russell, where he tells the story how how and why he left the Catholic church around 20 for the Beachy Church, why he almost went back, and the things Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Protestantism, and Anabaptism have in common. He answered some questions about the appeal of high church groups to some Anabaptists these days, and clarified some points where he thinks Catholics are misunderstood by Anabaptists and others. Obviously he also discusses the unique things about Anabaptism that drew and kept him in that tradition for over 50 years.

I enjoyed it.

https://anabaptistperspectives.org/epis ... n-russell/

[barnhart]

I saw it but didn't get a chance to listen yet.

[seinetsodumm]

I look forward to listening to that. I’m currently working on the previous episode with Bercot.

[temporal1]

i began viewing, it’s interesting! He’s a good speaker.

To me, Catholic to Mennonite is classic Anabaptism. Please explain if i misunderstand.

“A most unusual Amishman” ..

In my understanding, “Catholic, reluctantly to Anabaptist” was where it began.
i question the word, “unusual”.

2024 / Catholic to Anabaptist
https://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.php?t=6684

Also:

Video: A Lamp in the Dark
https://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.php?t=3138

[mike]

A comment Stephen made was that the Catholic and EO typically have numerous well-trained people to explain their theology and traditions, where Anabaptist often have nobody who is really able to do so. For example, when he was talking with his Beachy friends about (if I remember correctly) the differing view of how Christ's body was present in the communion bread and wine, they just said, why would you worry about such a thing?

He wasn't saying this as a critique necessarily, just observing; in fact, he cautioned the way that many Anabaptists are critical of the old orders when often they hold the same ideas but just aren't as articulate.

[JohnH]

He wasn't saying this as a critique necessarily, just observing; in fact, he cautioned the way that many Anabaptists are critical of the old orders when often they hold the same ideas but just aren't as articulate.

I have learned that the Old Orders often actually have as good or even a better understanding of such things as, for example, moderate Beachys; a difference is that they simply don't enter into discussion or debate with random people about it, and often say something humorous or dismissive. For example, someone I know once asked a Tobe Amishman why they don't use pneumatic tyres, and he responded, "Because Satan is the prince of the air."

There is a Charity group in TN or KY that has its members aggressively go up to Amish women in public places and demand an answer for why they wear head coverings. It should be obvious that the Old Order way is not to engage with people who do this. This does not mean that the Old Orders don't actually have good reasons and understand them. But you have to get to know them first, establish a certain level of trust, and convince them you aren't just some Charity person who's out to try to "convert" them.

[Ernie]

A comment Stephen made was that the Catholic and EO typically have numerous well-trained people to explain their theology and traditions, where Anabaptist often have nobody who is really able to do so. For example, when he was talking with his Beachy friends about (if I remember correctly) the differing view of how Christ's body was present in the communion bread and wine, they just said, why would you worry about such a thing?

He wasn't saying this as a critique necessarily, just observing; in fact, he cautioned the way that many Anabaptists are critical of the old orders when often they hold the same ideas but just aren't as articulate.

I am actually glad to make a case for why we should not make conclusions about Christ's connection to the bread and wine. I think we should let this be a mystery. So if Stephen is saying that we should be able to articulate well why we don't make conclusions about things like this and why we don't worry about things like this, I'm on board. But if he wants us to take a position or a conclusion on how Christ is involved in the bread and wine, I am opposed. I feel the same way about many other unclear biblical topics in which positions are staked out to no good purpose, IMO.

Many early Anabaptists also felt that taking positions on unknown matters seemed to distract people from their purpose in this world.

[mike]

A comment Stephen made was that the Catholic and EO typically have numerous well-trained people to explain their theology and traditions, where Anabaptist often have nobody who is really able to do so. For example, when he was talking with his Beachy friends about (if I remember correctly) the differing view of how Christ's body was present in the communion bread and wine, they just said, why would you worry about such a thing?

He wasn't saying this as a critique necessarily, just observing; in fact, he cautioned the way that many Anabaptists are critical of the old orders when often they hold the same ideas but just aren't as articulate.

I am actually glad to make a case for why we should not make conclusions about Christ's connection to the bread and wine. I think we should let this be a mystery. So if Stephen is saying that we should be able to articulate well why we don't make conclusions about things like this and why we don't worry about things like this, I'm on board. But if he wants us to take a position or a conclusion on how Christ is involved in the bread and wine, I am opposed. I feel the same way about many other unclear biblical topics in which positions are staked out to no good purpose, IMO.

Many early Anabaptists also felt that taking positions on unknown matters seemed to distract people from their purpose in this world.

He was only talking descriptively, and not saying whether we should make any conclusions, only observing that Anabaptists just don't have trained people to explain their traditions and theology like other denominations do.

[Ernie]

A comment Stephen made was that the Catholic and EO typically have numerous well-trained people to explain their theology and traditions, where Anabaptist often have nobody who is really able to do so. For example, when he was talking with his Beachy friends about (if I remember correctly) the differing view of how Christ's body was present in the communion bread and wine, they just said, why would you worry about such a thing?

He wasn't saying this as a critique necessarily, just observing; in fact, he cautioned the way that many Anabaptists are critical of the old orders when often they hold the same ideas but just aren't as articulate.

I am actually glad to make a case for why we should not make conclusions about Christ's connection to the bread and wine. I think we should let this be a mystery. So if Stephen is saying that we should be able to articulate well why we don't make conclusions about things like this and why we don't worry about things like this, I'm on board. But if he wants us to take a position or a conclusion on how Christ is involved in the bread and wine, I am opposed. I feel the same way about many other unclear biblical topics in which positions are staked out to no good purpose, IMO.

Many early Anabaptists also felt that taking positions on unknown matters seemed to distract people from their purpose in this world.

He was only talking descriptively, and not saying whether we should make any conclusions, only observing that Anabaptists just don't have trained people to explain their traditions and theology like other denominations do.

So, the Beachy friends were not "trained", and yet they were trained every Sunday whenever their pastors told them what they should worry about. (and by implication, what they should not worry about)

The only reason we need to give a theological defense of why we don't worry about such things is because people of other denominations expect us to care about the same sorts of things they do... i.e. doctrinal dissection and delineation.

[barnhart]

I am actually glad to make a case for why we should not make conclusions about Christ's connection to the bread and wine. I think we should let this be a mystery. So if Stephen is saying that we should be able to articulate well why we don't make conclusions about things like this and why we don't worry about things like this, I'm on board. But if he wants us to take a position or a conclusion on how Christ is involved in the bread and wine, I am opposed. I feel the same way about many other unclear biblical topics in which positions are staked out to no good purpose, IMO.

Many early Anabaptists also felt that taking positions on unknown matters seemed to distract people from their purpose in this world.

He was only talking descriptively, and not saying whether we should make any conclusions, only observing that Anabaptists just don't have trained people to explain their traditions and theology like other denominations do.

So, the Beachy friends were not "trained", and yet they were trained every Sunday whenever their pastors told them what they should worry about. (and by implication, what they should not worry about)

The only reason we need to give a theological defense of why we don't worry about such things is because people of other denominations expect us to care about the same sorts of things they do... i.e. doctrinal dissection and delineation.

I think it was a minor point in passing, he also called for more understanding for groups who don't put emphasis on explaining their theology such as old orders.