MennoNet.com

JohnH wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2026 2:22 pm

GaryK wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2026 1:54 pm

JohnH wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2026 1:38 pm But you don't have to win me over; it's the rest of the Anabaptist world who is starting to view Anabaptist Perspectives (and everything else in the same universe) with deep suspicion.

Really? The rest of the Anabaptist world? Do you speak for everyone?

I don't, but I am observing that, generally speaking, it's being viewed with suspicion by anyone more conservative than the usual ADC/BMA/Keystone etc. level of "conservatism".

That seems a shame to me.

It seems common for people to view a person or organization less conservative than they are with deep suspicion. I've done that myself at times; perhaps less frequently now than in the past. I've been trying to cultivate shallow suspicion, if any at all, rather than deep suspicion.

How can we avoid practicing and promoting this shameful behavior?

ohio jones wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2026 2:38 pm

JohnH wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2026 2:22 pm

GaryK wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2026 1:54 pm

Really? The rest of the Anabaptist world? Do you speak for everyone?

I don't, but I am observing that, generally speaking, it's being viewed with suspicion by anyone more conservative than the usual ADC/BMA/Keystone etc. level of "conservatism".

That seems a shame to me.

It seems common for people to view a person or organization less conservative than they are with deep suspicion. I've done that myself at times; perhaps less frequently now than in the past. I've been trying to cultivate shallow suspicion, if any at all, rather than deep suspicion.

How can we avoid practicing and promoting this shameful behavior?

Well, barely-conservative Anabaptists could do themselves a lot of favours if they stopped proving the Old Orders et al. right, who view them as people who simply want to "harvest" their own members, young people, etc. and persuade them to more liberal-progressive views.

I don't see the ADC/Keystone/BMA/Charity/et al. crowd having much self-insight about this, though.

JohnH wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2026 2:58 pm

ohio jones wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2026 2:38 pm

JohnH wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2026 2:22 pm

I don't, but I am observing that, generally speaking, it's being viewed with suspicion by anyone more conservative than the usual ADC/BMA/Keystone etc. level of "conservatism".

That seems a shame to me.

It seems common for people to view a person or organization less conservative than they are with deep suspicion. I've done that myself at times; perhaps less frequently now than in the past. I've been trying to cultivate shallow suspicion, if any at all, rather than deep suspicion.

How can we avoid practicing and promoting this shameful behavior?

Well, barely-conservative Anabaptists could do themselves a lot of favours if they stopped proving the Old Orders et al. right, who view them as people who simply want to "harvest" their own members, young people, etc. and persuade them to more liberal-progressive views.

I don't see the ADC/Keystone/BMA/Charity/et al. crowd having much self-insight about this, though.

It is true that a good amount of Old Orders come over, but I am not sure how much of the reason is because of the effort of the above folks. In older decades I heard more language about Old Orders needing to be "saved" but I don't hear that much anymore. But they still come...

joshuabgood wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2026 4:06 pm It is true that a good amount of Old Orders come over, but I am not sure how much of the reason is because of the effort of the above folks. In older decades I heard more language about Old Orders needing to be "saved" but I don't hear that much anymore. But they still come...

One wonders if we'll ever see any repentance for all those who made the false allegation that Old Orders aren't "saved".

I’ll admit I view them and Ernie’s news site with suspicion.
I don’t view them as evil but having a specific agenda and not actually being open to views they don’t like. Which is their right.

Soloist wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2026 4:42 pm I’ll admit I view them and Ernie’s news site with suspicion.
I don’t view them as evil but having a specific agenda and not actually being open to views they don’t like. Which is their right.

Off topic. But Ernie has a news site? Wouldn’t mind seeing it.

Grace wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2026 5:28 pm

Soloist wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2026 4:42 pm I’ll admit I view them and Ernie’s news site with suspicion.
I don’t view them as evil but having a specific agenda and not actually being open to views they don’t like. Which is their right.

Off topic. But Ernie has a news site? Wouldn’t mind seeing it.

It’s subscription based https://www.plainnews.org/

Soloist wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2026 5:31 pm

Grace wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2026 5:28 pm

Soloist wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2026 4:42 pm I’ll admit I view them and Ernie’s news site with suspicion.
I don’t view them as evil but having a specific agenda and not actually being open to views they don’t like. Which is their right.

Off topic. But Ernie has a news site? Wouldn’t mind seeing it.

It’s subscription based https://www.plainnews.org/

Thanks.

Soloist wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2026 4:42 pm I’ll admit I view them and Ernie’s news site with suspicion.
I don’t view them as evil but having a specific agenda and not actually being open to views they don’t like. Which is their right.

I don't know of any publishers who don't have a specific agenda and who publish anything and everything. I'd be glad to know about any that do.

I think that publishers and readers both have agendas. It's just part of being human.

Plain News provides filtered news and we are fine with those who don't like our filter choosing a publisher with a different filter that better fits the readers' agendas.

Ernie wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2026 7:41 pm

Soloist wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2026 4:42 pm I’ll admit I view them and Ernie’s news site with suspicion.
I don’t view them as evil but having a specific agenda and not actually being open to views they don’t like. Which is their right.

I don't know of any publishers who don't have a specific agenda and who publish anything and everything. I'd be glad to know about any that do.

I think that publishers and readers both have agendas. It's just part of being human.

Plain News provides filtered news and we are fine with those who don't like our filter choosing a publisher with a different filter that better fits the readers' agendas.

Its the bias that isn't being stated that I objected to. Particularly surrounding vaccines but it doesn't overly matter. When you put yourself in a position of informing the uninformed and then selectively provide information that is deceptive to the scope and refuse to publish a contrasting article, that tells me the issue is important enough to you to refuse showing a conservative position thus, I don't trust your agenda to promote conservative values fairly.