By Thy Words

[Abbott]

Why the continued mentioned of Nationwide? I've not seen anything in our years of Rod and Staff books, Christian Contender, Sunday School booklets, and etc. of the things you all speak of. And the references I glanced at from By Thy Words were EPMC - not Nationwide. Are many of you referencing older books that are not even in publication anymore? - like I say I have bookshelves of Nationwide books and am yet to come across even one of these grievances. Was this an issue in the past that has been righted and bitterness just won't let go?

Including Nationwide was a direct response to Soloist's mention of Nationwide publications. I enjoyed many of the R&S books we read growing up.

[Wade]

I've seen prints at every congregation. And barefeet are also something seen when people are at home and have us over. I don't think the thought processes project towards ultras here are the least bit accurate - because they don't resembles things said here in the slightest everywhere I've been. Therefore people certainly make themselves not credible maybe because they aren't current or just untrue. Maybe people who leave ultras have the wrong perspective but just project their own wrong thought processes on them not understanding someone's thought process is different. That's no different than Cory stating certain things mean these perverted things when maybe they just mean that to him and just because they do does NOT mean they do to certain groups of people.

[Abbott]

Cory Anderson promotes Beachyism as he understands it, not Nationwide. Nationwide people tend to wear prints (at least they do around here). Beachy people don’t (at least around here).

You should open your mind at least to the possibility he could be right that we shouldn’t adorn ourselves with complex prints of large, bright designs from nature. Instead of just immediately reacting and calling him a pervert. Whatever you think about Dr Anderson, he doesn’t have a whirlwind of accusations around him as unfortunately many others do in our CA circles. He mostly keeps to himself or spends time in worldly institutions.

I agree that most of what Anderson promotes is in relation to the Beachy-Amish segment of the CA world. But he writes extensively as well about practices among other CA groups (Mennonites).

Calling ideas and statements out as being based on perverted ideas is not the same as calling someone a pervert, and I think it's wrong for you to try to change my statement into something that I didn't say.

He is an accomplished scholar. I disagree with some of his theories and ideas. I believe the outworking of some of those ideas are harmful. You should open your mind at least to the possibility that all three of these statements can coexist.

I reiterate that I enjoy my Nationwide friends and have a lot of respect for them. When I visited the R&S community in KY they were friendly, hospitable, and interesting. We had a great time. None of what I have said is intended to be an attack on Nationwide.

[Soloist]

My Nationwide friends are wonderful, I enjoy talking to them. And I have no desire to mock or slander them. I also have no desire to mock or slander Anderson. Where I, Anderson, my Nationwide friends, or you are wrong in our thinking, we should be open to having those things challenged. Challenging and disputing someone's ideas can be done in a way that doesn't slander them.

You asked for an example of wrong thinking from C. Anderson's book. Here's one from page 90:

"Large flowers are also a much more forward statement of fertility. Just as the large flower in the garden attracts the bees, so do large flowers on dresses catch the eye."

Teaching people (especially young men) to look at a large flower and think of it as a symbol of fertility is a messed up way to look at something God created. Anyone should be able to look at a flower whether it shows up in nature, a painting, or on a dress and say: "Wow, that's a beautiful flower." Not: "Oh, a sign of fertility." That view cheapens and perverts what God has created and our creative expressive (photos/paintings etc) of God's creation.

The reference to examples was referring to the publications this person keeps mocking. I'm not interested in discussing Cory due to context and not having read his book.

[Abbott]

My Nationwide friends are wonderful, I enjoy talking to them. And I have no desire to mock or slander them. I also have no desire to mock or slander Anderson. Where I, Anderson, my Nationwide friends, or you are wrong in our thinking, we should be open to having those things challenged. Challenging and disputing someone's ideas can be done in a way that doesn't slander them.

You asked for an example of wrong thinking from C. Anderson's book. Here's one from page 90:

"Large flowers are also a much more forward statement of fertility. Just as the large flower in the garden attracts the bees, so do large flowers on dresses catch the eye."

Teaching people (especially young men) to look at a large flower and think of it as a symbol of fertility is a messed up way to look at something God created. Anyone should be able to look at a flower whether it shows up in nature, a painting, or on a dress and say: "Wow, that's a beautiful flower." Not: "Oh, a sign of fertility." That view cheapens and perverts what God has created and our creative expressive (photos/paintings etc) of God's creation.

The reference to examples was referring to the publications this person keeps mocking. I'm not interested in discussing Cory due to context and not having read his book.

Thanks for clarifying. Please share your thoughts with us if and when you read the book.

[Josh]

Cory Anderson promotes Beachyism as he understands it, not Nationwide. Nationwide people tend to wear prints (at least they do around here). Beachy people don’t (at least around here).

You should open your mind at least to the possibility he could be right that we shouldn’t adorn ourselves with complex prints of large, bright designs from nature. Instead of just immediately reacting and calling him a pervert. Whatever you think about Dr Anderson, he doesn’t have a whirlwind of accusations around him as unfortunately many others do in our CA circles. He mostly keeps to himself or spends time in worldly institutions.

I agree that most of what Anderson promotes is in relation to the Beachy-Amish segment of the CA world. But he writes extensively as well about practices among other CA groups (Mennonites).

Calling ideas and statements out as being based on perverted ideas is not the same as calling someone a pervert, and I think it's wrong for you to try to change my statement into something that I didn't say.

He is an accomplished scholar. I disagree with some of his theories and ideas. I believe the outworking of some of those ideas are harmful. You should open your mind at least to the possibility that all three of these statements can coexist.

I reiterate that I enjoy my Nationwide friends and have a lot of respect for them. When I visited the R&S community in KY they were friendly, hospitable, and interesting. We had a great time. None of what I have said is intended to be an attack on Nationwide.

Oddly enough that is the community with a reputation for horrendous abuse.

I personally enjoyed my family’s visit there I was around 9 or 10 and my family did as well.

[Abbott]

Oddly enough that is the community with a reputation for horrendous abuse.

I personally enjoyed my family’s visit there I was around 9 or 10 and my family did as well.

That is odd (and tragic). I was only there once as well for about a half day Sunday visit, and other than that know very little about the community and it's apparently complex history.

[ragpicker]

And that is why Cory is nothing like any experience I have had with any Conservative Anabaptists.

Because he doesn't actually think like a Conservative Anabaptist. But his thinking has significant overlap with a segment of ultra-Conservative Anabaptists, among whom he now has a voice. Back in the day Cory loved playing flute, was more than slightly obsessed with opera, and had a massive classical music CD collection. He loved dramatically reciting Dr. Seuss books to captive audiences and, according to his friends, was a great guy to have as a friend. He would lead the charge against CA practices and requirements that were archaic and had become irrelevant. Over time he developed a fascination with CA culture, and shifted into a MO of preservationism at all costs. So while he shares many of the same values as CA, he doesn't actually think like a CA. He has become an insightful scholar, but I take issue with many of the conclusions he reaches as a result of his analysis influenced by his current set of values.

Since I am classified as an ultra and still have never seen such rubbish I'm skeptical of people pinning any such overlap of thinking within ultra CA's. I've only seen attention given to such things by people and groups that are always classified as less conservative than Nationwide. But we are autonomous, so as they say your milage may vary.

Are you saying nationwide is autonomous?

[appleman2006]

Look where "our circles" came from. We bring ourselves with us, annoying as that is. I mean, you might be a charter member, but many of us are not.

yes well. The sad fact is that I am not sure even "charter members" are totally free from some of this thinking.

Being let down by trusted leadership doesn't seem to get easier with age?

well yes and no. I am long past the point where I am tempted to set leadership on a pedestal. But yes it is still disappointing and heart wrenching.

[RZehr]

I find it interesting that most people on here are very critical about how Cory and R&S wrote their ideas and minimize the concern and intentions behind their writings. And then turn around and sort of justify BTW writings, because we ought to focus on the message behind the sarcasm. I don’t think the same measure is being used, which might be something like “R&S and Cory could have wrote a little bit better, maybe their off based on some areas, but the gist of their writings have some truth. And BTW may be sarcastic, and might have some attitude problems, but they are pointing out valid criticisms.”

That is pretty much my opinion on the thread.
BTW sarcasm and wit reminds me a lot of what some in my family could write about some things. I’m no stranger to this style of feelings and writings. But yes, I do think that BTW is not so much about helping anyone see the light and errors of their ways, but is primarily about cathartically and entertainingly for people whom have left those conservative settings.
It wouldn’t have crossed my mind that R&S and Cory’s writings would have ever caused anyone to have messed up thinking. We read some of it growing up, and we never considered R&S to be reflective of real life. But we were one notch removed from that level of conservative thought and now I can see that it could mess some people up in those churches. Particularly if those things were taken literally and not with a grain of salt. And I can read some of the anger here about those results.

I have no negative experience with these writings. But nor have I ever been in a setting that beat this stuff into ones head nonstop.

So here I am again, weighing in with my free opinion on something I know little about, have virtually no experience with, just like I do on racism. Or whatever else strikes my fancy. So I’m not trying to convince anyone on these things one way or another, but instead just adding my thoughts.
I’m just not close enough to racism or off the deep end conservative applications, or to family or friends who have been strongly impacted.

But in accordance with Mennonets generally accepted rules of engagement, I can’t let those things hold me back from tossing my two cents into the pot.