Conservative forum

[barnhart]

In my mind,
A. There are some conversations that it makes sense to have at home, but not in the church.
B. There are some conversations that it makes sense to have in the church but not in settings of people with similar religous persuasions.
C. There are some conversations that it makes sense to have among people of similar religious persuasions, but not in the public forum.
D. There are other conversations that it makes sense to have in the public forum.

Do you agree with me? Or is there some part of what I say above that you do not agree with?

That sounds right. There are many things I don't want to discuss in a public forum, so I don't join those discussions. What bothers me is ease, enthusiasm and unexamined embrace of authoritarian programs to silence dissent. This is troubling because it points to a deeper understanding of how authority works, how churches should be led, what changes people, ect... To me it feels appropriate for winning culture wars and controlling organizations but those goals should be foreign to anabaptism.

[Robert]

To me it feels appropriate for winning culture wars and controlling organizations but those goals should be foreign to anabaptism.

Anabaptists used to meet in secret in private caves. I would not call it foreign.

[Ernie]

In my mind,
A. There are some conversations that it makes sense to have at home, but not in the church.
B. There are some conversations that it makes sense to have in the church but not in settings of people with similar religous persuasions.
C. There are some conversations that it makes sense to have among people of similar religious persuasions, but not in the public forum.
D. There are other conversations that it makes sense to have in the public forum.

Do you agree with me? Or is there some part of what I say above that you do not agree with?

That sounds right. There are many things I don't want to discuss in a public forum, so I don't join those discussions. What bothers me is ease, enthusiasm and unexamined embrace of authoritarian programs to silence dissent. This is troubling because it points to a deeper understanding of how authority works, how churches should be led, what changes people, ect... To me it feels appropriate for winning culture wars and controlling organizations but those goals should be foreign to anabaptism.

I once joined a forum that was intended for Puritans. Somehow I missed the memo that I needed to be Puritan to post and I was banned. I have no problem with this. I think it is fine for Puritans to discuss matters amongst themselves without having Anabaptists confusing things. As long as they also interact with non-Puritans in other ways, I have no problem with them discussing things among themselves that the rest of the world can read. Your take on this?

[barnhart]

In my mind,
A. There are some conversations that it makes sense to have at home, but not in the church.
B. There are some conversations that it makes sense to have in the church but not in settings of people with similar religous persuasions.
C. There are some conversations that it makes sense to have among people of similar religious persuasions, but not in the public forum.
D. There are other conversations that it makes sense to have in the public forum.

Do you agree with me? Or is there some part of what I say above that you do not agree with?

That sounds right. There are many things I don't want to discuss in a public forum, so I don't join those discussions. What bothers me is ease, enthusiasm and unexamined embrace of authoritarian programs to silence dissent. This is troubling because it points to a deeper understanding of how authority works, how churches should be led, what changes people, ect... To me it feels appropriate for winning culture wars and controlling organizations but those goals should be foreign to anabaptism.

I once joined a forum that was intended for Puritans. Somehow I missed the memo that I needed to be Puritan to post and I was banned. I have no problem with this. I think it is fine for Puritans to discuss matters amongst themselves without having Anabaptists confusing things. As long as they also interact with non-Puritans in other ways, I have no problem with them discussing things among themselves that the rest of the world can read. Your take on this?

I'm not surprised a group with the theology and history of the Puritans would operate that way, and I try not to judge them for it, but is it the Anabaptist way. Is it true to Anabaptist history and theology, or is it borrowed from another tradition whose goals include the seizure and control of the cultural landscape.

I think Steve in Kville had the right response, "why are we setting up a bishop?"

[Josh]

When I go to church, or visit church people, there is no room for a debate about, for example, the merits of fornication - at least with people who were born and raised in church.

I am surprised there is so much militancy against conservatives having their own forum. Of course, liberals expect to barge in on any place conservatives are and then force changes they want. It is notable that conservatives do not do this to liberals. I don’t barge in to the Lutheran or liberal Mennonite church down the street and start demanding they accept the conservative point of view.

Why do liberals feel like that can do this?

[Soloist]

I'm not surprised a group with the theology and history of the Puritans would operate that way, and I try not to judge them for it, but is it the Anabaptist way. Is it true to Anabaptist history and theology, or is it borrowed from another tradition whose goals include the seizure and control of the cultural landscape.

I think Steve in Kville had the right response, "why are we setting up a bishop?"

I don't understand why the anti-conservative stance comes out so strongly when a few seekers advocate for a separate area for conservatives. Then the talk is focused on CM culture despite the problem people have in this thread is and was started by seekers.
The idea that a separate area with restricted posting is not the same as an authoritarian bishop nor is it somehow a sign of a deep seated problem with historic conservatives. The historic conservatives that actually posted in this thread didn't even vote for yes or no.

When a group starts being exclusive, it never ends well.

Who gets to be supreme manager of the universe and decide who is allowed in this sub-forum?

I would much rather see a "seekers/transplant" sub-forum. A place where such people can have their questions answered in a safe environment away from the rest of the discussions that tend to get heated. We have a lot of new people who don't post and I often wonder if we come off as border-line hostile.

A seeker posted this thread (me) other seekers supported the idea.

I have charted my life around the pursuit of faithful Anabaptism that does not fall back on an authoritarian defensive posture when challenged. I don't think Blaurock, Sattler, Hubmier or other early Anabaptists would hide behind a document and anoint gatekeepers to fence out ideas they disagree with. I think those lit souls did the opposite, seeking out forums to engage the unconvinced.

I don't think the desire for a separate group is hiding behind a document and I don't see debating liberal positions endlessly is productive. The few conservative voices get frustrated with getting ganged up on and eventually leave. The only reason to keep responding to liberals is for the lurkers so they see that there is another way represented here rather then just liberalism.

enthusiasm and unexamined embrace of authoritarian programs to silence dissent. This is troubling because it points to a deeper understanding of how authority works, how churches should be led, what changes people, ect... To me it feels appropriate for winning culture wars and controlling organizations but those goals should be foreign to anabaptism.

While I disagree with some of the political talk here from even conservative minded, I chose to withdraw from those discussions. Why is the idea of a separate forum viewed as silencing dissent? Generally silencing dissent starts out with deriding a position and through active posting surround and push out opposing views. Why is it surprising that the worldly culture of that practice is playing out here to? a separate forum doesn't have to be private, it could still be viewable just a separate area so established historical doctrine by these people such as Menno Simons, Sattler and the other early Anabaptists doesn't get constantly debated and silenced by people who rejected it a long time ago.

Perhaps if the born and raised conservatives were arguing for this you could have more of a case but as its seekers, you should really reevaluate your negativity and ask the question "why are converts advocating for this?"

[Ken]

When I go to church, or visit church people, there is no room for a debate about, for example, the merits of fornication - at least with people who were born and raised in church.

I am surprised there is so much militancy against conservatives having their own forum. Of course, liberals expect to barge in on any place conservatives are and then force changes they want. It is notable that conservatives do not do this to liberals. I don’t barge in to the Lutheran or liberal Mennonite church down the street and start demanding they accept the conservative point of view.

Why do liberals feel like that can do this?

Who are all these liberals who are barging into conservative Mennonite churches down the street and demanding the right to fornicate?

Strawman much?

[Szdfan]

When I go to church, or visit church people, there is no room for a debate about, for example, the merits of fornication - at least with people who were born and raised in church.

I am surprised there is so much militancy against conservatives having their own forum. Of course, liberals expect to barge in on any place conservatives are and then force changes they want. It is notable that conservatives do not do this to liberals. I don’t barge in to the Lutheran or liberal Mennonite church down the street and start demanding they accept the conservative point of view.

Why do liberals feel like that can do this?

Who are all these liberals who are barging into conservative Mennonite churches down the street and demanding the right to fornicate?

Strawman much?

For the record, I don’t care if there is a conservative-only forum and if one does get started, I hope it’s everything you want it to be.

I didn’t vote in the poll, so my guess is that the opposition comes from other self-identified conservatives. It’s certainly not coming from me.

[Ken]

When I go to church, or visit church people, there is no room for a debate about, for example, the merits of fornication - at least with people who were born and raised in church.

I am surprised there is so much militancy against conservatives having their own forum. Of course, liberals expect to barge in on any place conservatives are and then force changes they want. It is notable that conservatives do not do this to liberals. I don’t barge in to the Lutheran or liberal Mennonite church down the street and start demanding they accept the conservative point of view.

Why do liberals feel like that can do this?

Who are all these liberals who are barging into conservative Mennonite churches down the street and demanding the right to fornicate?

Strawman much?

For the record, I don’t care if there is a conservative-only forum and if one does get started, I hope it’s everything you want it to be.

I didn’t vote in the poll, so my guess is that the opposition comes from other self-identified conservatives. It’s certainly not coming from me.

Me either. Although I am rather bemused at Josh's support for carving out conservative "safe spaces" where he can be free of dissenting opinions. Since he is probably the most aggressively antagonistic person on this entire forum.

[Szdfan]

Who are all these liberals who are barging into conservative Mennonite churches down the street and demanding the right to fornicate?

Strawman much?

For the record, I don’t care if there is a conservative-only forum and if one does get started, I hope it’s everything you want it to be.

I didn’t vote in the poll, so my guess is that the opposition comes from other self-identified conservatives. It’s certainly not coming from me.

Me either. Although I am rather bemused at Josh's support for carving out conservative "safe spaces" where he can be free of dissenting opinions. Since he is probably the most aggressively antagonistic person on this entire forum.

I remember there was a bunch of drama a while back when someone suggested that the forum collectively ignore Josh.