The Reformed Churches Promoting...

[joshuabgood]

I strongly disagree, at least on the Old Order, Holdeman, more conservative, etc. end of things.

I have fairly wide experience with the more plain variety of CA's... Amish in several different communities, Daviess and Lancaster and they are, nearly without fail, staunchly Republican in leaning, whether they vote or not. Same with the OOM communities that I am close to in Lancaster. I can't speak for Holdeman...

[JohnH]

I strongly disagree, at least on the Old Order, Holdeman, more conservative, etc. end of things.

I have fairly wide experience with the more plain variety of CA's... Amish in several different communities, Daviess and Lancaster and they are, nearly without fail, staunchly Republican in leaning, whether they vote or not. Same with the OOM communities that I am close to in Lancaster. I can't speak for Holdeman...

I mean, it is basically impossible for a sincere Christian to support the Democratic Party in its current incarnation due to their very vocal support for a lot of anti-Christian things.

I think you may be confusing lack of support for the Democratic party with support for the Republican party. Overall, in plain groups who do vote, turnout for the Republicans is quite poor.

[joshuabgood]

I strongly disagree, at least on the Old Order, Holdeman, more conservative, etc. end of things.

I have fairly wide experience with the more plain variety of CA's... Amish in several different communities, Daviess and Lancaster and they are, nearly without fail, staunchly Republican in leaning, whether they vote or not. Same with the OOM communities that I am close to in Lancaster. I can't speak for Holdeman...

I mean, it is basically impossible for a sincere Christian to support the Democratic Party in its current incarnation due to their very vocal support for a lot of anti-Christian things.

I think you may be confusing lack of support for the Democratic party with support for the Republican party. Overall, in plain groups who do vote, turnout for the Republicans is quite poor.

What I hear are comments made affirming Republican values and talking points often with the assumption that I will agree and affirm them.

As a person who desire to be a sinceres Christian, I agree, I can't support the Democratic Party or the Republican Party as a political solution. I can only support Jesus for President and his Kingdom Come. I don't hear CA's supporting Democrats (I do hear progressive A's supporting them). I hear CA's supporting Republicans to the tune of about 90 to 10. I actually can't think of a single Amish or OOM that I have ever heard voice support for Democrats. I can think of many that I have heard support Republicans.

Thing is, Jesus didn't come to take sides, he came to take over.

[Nomad]

I have fairly wide experience with the more plain variety of CA's... Amish in several different communities, Daviess and Lancaster and they are, nearly without fail, staunchly Republican in leaning, whether they vote or not. Same with the OOM communities that I am close to in Lancaster. I can't speak for Holdeman...

I mean, it is basically impossible for a sincere Christian to support the Democratic Party in its current incarnation due to their very vocal support for a lot of anti-Christian things.

I think you may be confusing lack of support for the Democratic party with support for the Republican party. Overall, in plain groups who do vote, turnout for the Republicans is quite poor.

What I hear are comments made affirming Republican values and talking points often with the assumption that I will agree and affirm them.

As a person who desire to be a sinceres Christian, I agree, I can't support the Democratic Party or the Republican Party as a political solution. I can only support Jesus for President and his Kingdom Come. I don't hear CA's supporting Democrats (I do hear progressive A's supporting them). I hear CA's supporting Republicans to the tune of about 90 to 10. I actually can't think of a single Amish or OOM that I have ever heard voice support for Democrats. I can think of many that I have heard support Republicans.

Thing is, Jesus didn't come to take sides, he came to take over.

Can you give some examples of comments that you've heard that are "affirming the Republican values"?

[Judas Maccabeus]

]

If they use the “Three Forms of Unity “ as their statement of faith, there is a specific anathema directed towards us therein.

What is the Three Forms of Unity?

The term used for the three documents used for the theological basis of European Calvinism. Most of the reformed churches that originate out of continental Europe, use these as their basis of faith they are:

The Heidelberg catechism
The Belgic Confession
The cannons of the Synod of Dort

The Belgic Confession, in particular, is troublesome for any Anabaptist that wants to get anywhere close to these kinds of groups. Article 34, in particular, casts an anathema against us. It is as follows:

For that reason we reject the error of the Anabaptists
who are not content with a single baptism
once received
and also condemn the baptism
of the children of believers.
We believe our children ought to be baptized
and sealed with the sign of the covenant,
as little children were circumcised in Israel
on the basis of the same promises
made to our children.

How do I know about this stuff? A Chinese initiated evangelistic Christian group worked out of a large row house adjacent to the Johns Hopkins University Homewood campus, it is called ambassadors for Christ. They had an English Bible study going for approximately 15 years, the last 13 years or so of it I was one of three rotating teachers. RUF or reformed university Fellowship wanted to graciously merge with us, I think so they could use the facility that we had. Ours was much more convenient to campus than their own. During the discussion, they basically said that if this merger went through all of the people that taught or worked in the ministry would have to subscribe to either the Three Forms of Unity, or the Westminster Confession of Faith. None of the three people who were teaching at that point of time could, only two of the non teaching workers, one of which was a little bit surprised to see that kind of position being demanded. The Chinese groups statement of faith was silent on the matter of baptism, which was fine by us. They probably should've told us about this right up front before any discussions began, but as soon as that became clear the discussions ended. Of the three people who were teaching at that time one was Grace Brethren, one was Plymouth Brethren, and one was myself who during that period moved from the Christian and Missionary Alliance to the Mennonite Church. None of us could sign such a document.

I think they thought that the Chinese would sign it without really understanding what they were signing, since it was their building, they were the ones that could make the decision, fortunately this did not happen.

[joshuabgood]

I mean, it is basically impossible for a sincere Christian to support the Democratic Party in its current incarnation due to their very vocal support for a lot of anti-Christian things.

I think you may be confusing lack of support for the Democratic party with support for the Republican party. Overall, in plain groups who do vote, turnout for the Republicans is quite poor.

What I hear are comments made affirming Republican values and talking points often with the assumption that I will agree and affirm them.

As a person who desire to be a sinceres Christian, I agree, I can't support the Democratic Party or the Republican Party as a political solution. I can only support Jesus for President and his Kingdom Come. I don't hear CA's supporting Democrats (I do hear progressive A's supporting them). I hear CA's supporting Republicans to the tune of about 90 to 10. I actually can't think of a single Amish or OOM that I have ever heard voice support for Democrats. I can think of many that I have heard support Republicans.

Thing is, Jesus didn't come to take sides, he came to take over.

Can you give some examples of comments that you've heard that are "affirming the Republican values"?

Comments affirming a strong second amendment for example. Or in favor of their immigration policies. Or of restricting welfare. Etc...

[Heirbyadoption]

Note in these churches, headcovering is for MARRIED women only, for the most part. Reflects the distorted translation of the ESV of 1 Cor 11...

I suppose you're aware that distortion goes back a bit further than the ESV translators. Tertullian wrote "On the Veiling of Virgins" a good while ago.

Eccentric Rambler, I'm not necessarily looking to derail the OP, but I saw this hanging on page 1 and had a quick question. If I understood your response correctly to Judas, your implication seems to be that Tertullian similarly taught that headcovering was only for married women in his De Virginibus Verlandis (Veiling of Virgins). I got the rather distinctly opposite impression when I read it; rather that he considered the veiling to be for married women AND also girls once they hit puberty. The novelty of the ESV position as promoted by Wallace, Packer, Grudem, Winter, etc doesn't seem to be supported by Tertullian as far as I could tell, but maybe you read something different than that?

[JohnH]

Eccentric Rambler, I'm not necessarily looking to derail the OP, but I saw this hanging on page 1 and had a quick question. If I understood your response correctly to Judas, your implication seems to be that Tertullian similarly taught that headcovering was only for married women in his De Virginibus Verlandis (Veiling of Virgins). I got the rather distinctly opposite impression when I read it; rather that he considered the veiling to be for married women AND also girls once they hit puberty. The novelty of the ESV position as promoted by Wallace, Packer, Grudem, Winter, etc doesn't seem to be supported by Tertullian as far as I could tell, but maybe you read something different than that?

I was under the impression Tertullian wrote his treatise to challenge what had become a commonplace interpretation that it was only for married women. The fact he had to write about it so much is generally believed to mean that that practice had become common.

[eccentric_rambler]

The novelty of the ESV position as promoted by Wallace, Packer, Grudem, Winter, etc doesn't seem to be supported by Tertullian as far as I could tell, but maybe you read something different than that?

JohnH covered it. I was saying the position is not novel, Tertullian wrote opposing it. I'm not familiar with the modern argument, but assume it is similar to what Tertullian was countering.

[JohnH]

The novelty of the ESV position as promoted by Wallace, Packer, Grudem, Winter, etc doesn't seem to be supported by Tertullian as far as I could tell, but maybe you read something different than that?

JohnH covered it. I was saying the position is not novel, Tertullian wrote opposing it. I'm not familiar with the modern argument, but assume it is similar to what Tertullian was countering.

Oddly enough, we have very few written records from that time actually supporting the "married women" view, but it does seem to have been predominant. There are quite a few historical things we only know because someone who opposed it bothered to write a treatise on the matter.