Do “Transitional Anabaptist churches” fulfil the purpose of the church?

[joshuabgood]

The NT model of the church as I see it is a church that provides everything a Christian is supposed to receive from the church. Sectarian churches limit the good that a Christian can receive from that church.[/qoute]

Could you elaborate more on this, by what you mean by "sectarian churches"?

I think the Anabaptist concepts of a defined membership and close communion are very valuable concepts. There are many churches that don't care about membership and have "open" communion, but they also don't seem to do anyone much good - whether their own frequent attenders or members or outsiders.

I am interested in the idea that "There are many churches..." Perhaps there aren't many churches. There is only one church. And "the many" to which you refer are all orders. I am continuing to see this view more sympathetically for a lot of reasons. And the idea then of "club" or "order" membership and communion and foraging only for said order/club seems to lose some luster, as opposed to embracing one holy communion.

I would immediately ask if you would be open to Catholics coming and participating in your communion.

And I would ask what you would say if I said yes, so long as they are fruit bearing disciples?

[RZehr]

Fruit bearing disciples…

What is the identifiable difference between good fruit born of God, and seemingly good fruit not of God?

Is there an important identifiable difference between the visible -
“good fruit” of an unbeliever;
the “good fruit” of, oh I don’t know, a Mormon; or someone that believes in and wants to obey God, but not correctly;
and the “good fruit” of a hypocritical Mennonet poster; and the good fruit of a child of God?

[Soloist]

I think good fruit on Menno is posting less than once a day

[Sliceitup]

This whole conversation feels really gross.

My spouse and I both grew up in Old Order churches. But not the same one. If we had both stayed then neither would have been allowed to marry each other. Not to mention that neither of us would be able to do our current jobs with either of the churches we were born into.

We attended a church that most definitely would be considered transitional by the standards set forth, although it did trend slightly away from that in recent years. Basically the people that came in were greater than the number that trickled out. To say that they didn’t adequately disciple seems so very dismissive.

If you want an excellent idea of what it looks like when a church has very high boundaries in place to prevent people from leaving, and little to no pipeline to allow people to gradually change, then I invite you to take a look at Lancaster County Amish. They have rules but it’s basically accepted that many will not follow. Most do not believe in the importance of the rules. It’s basically a sham.

Contrast it with Old Order Mennonites. They believe in what they do. And rules are followed. The culture difference is wild. But yeah, a percentage does leave every year to go to the Horning church.

[Ernie]

The NT model of the church as I see it is a church that provides everything a Christian is supposed to receive from the church. Sectarian churches limit the good that a Christian can receive from that church.

Could you elaborate more on this, by what you mean by "sectarian churches"?

I think the Anabaptist concepts of a defined membership and close communion are very valuable concepts. There are many churches that don't care about membership and have "open" communion, but they also don't seem to do anyone much good - whether their own frequent attenders or members or outsiders.

I'm sure there are people who would consider me sectarian.
I understand that any church that draws a line is going to be considered sectarian by churches I and my associates exclude from fellowship/communion.

If a church takes positions on non-violence, divorce and remarriage, oath taking, etc. and practices church discipline with those who sin and do not repent, and if the members show evidence of being transformed by the Spirit of God, I am fine fellowshipping/communing with them. To not do so seems sectarian to me.

[Ernie]

Part of the problem is that some churches that get labeled as sectarian CAN see the transitional issue happening and so that is why they draw fellowship lines. They get called sectarian while the goal is about stopping such a direction of travel, and so they go misunderstood by many who are transitional.

I think this applies to all Old Order and Conservative groups. They all draw lines and are concerned about drift. But they all draw the line at a different place. The problem in my mind is that the leaders of all these churches are not meeting together and talking about the transitional things going on. With 50 different options to choose from, we can find folks that think like us and not need to relate to the folks who think differently from us. If people in transition knew that the leaders would all be in communication with each other, the non-sincere transitionals would go directly to Evangelical churches rather than stopping at other churches in between.

[Marylander]

They simultaneously do not know how to disciple and train sincere new believers who aren’t familiar with how to practice things like nonresistance, the covering, how to resolve disputes peacefully and so forth.

What are those of us to do.who don't have "disciplining" in our vocabulary? And to "train new believers"????? Are you saying this is something you are doing?

And regarding the "do transitional churches fulfill the purpose of the church?".I have friends in many transitional congregations who came to the faith there. I also have a friend who left his Plain upbringing about 5 years ago and joined the Holdemans. He is happy and I am happy for him. So maybe transitional churches are needed and necessary.

[ken_sylvania]

They simultaneously do not know how to disciple and train sincere new believers who aren’t familiar with how to practice things like nonresistance, the covering, how to resolve disputes peacefully and so forth.

What are those of us to do.who don't have "disciplining" in our vocabulary? And to "train new believers"????? Are you saying this is something you are doing?

And regarding the "do transitional churches fulfill the purpose of the church?".I have friends in many transitional congregations who came to the faith there. I also have a friend who left his Plain upbringing about 5 years ago and joined the Holdemans. He is happy and I am happy for him. So maybe transitional churches are needed and necessary.

Josh did say disciple, not discipline.....

[Marylander]

They simultaneously do not know how to disciple and train sincere new believers who aren’t familiar with how to practice things like nonresistance, the covering, how to resolve disputes peacefully and so forth.

What are those of us to do.who don't have "disciplining" in our vocabulary? And to "train new believers"????? Are you saying this is something you are doing?

And regarding the "do transitional churches fulfill the purpose of the church?".I have friends in many transitional congregations who came to the faith there. I also have a friend who left his Plain upbringing about 5 years ago and joined the Holdemans. He is happy and I am happy for him. So maybe transitional churches are needed and necessary.

Josh did say disciple, not discipline.....

Haha, disciple-ing then

[Josh]

And I would ask what you would say if I said yes, so long as they are fruit bearing disciples?

In that case at least you are consistent - but then the next question is why you aren’t Catholic. Why would you choose to be part of a church which has undergone numerous divisions and sectarian splits, if you think we should all be in ecumenical fellowship?

I spent most my life in “open communion” sort of circles but have yet to see it bear good fruit and I believe the Bible says not to partake of communion with unrepentant sinners. Basically, I hold the original Dutch Anabaptist view.