Poll: Is it religious persecution... ???

[MaxPC]

I do not think it is persecution. I think it is a matter of the group's priorities, culture as well as doctrine.

[ken_sylvania]

Is it religious persecution if a group of faithful Christians withholds the right hand of fellowship, the holy kiss, and communion from people who believe and live the following...
...adhere to the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles
...recognize the scriptures as inspired and agree with the Apostles Creed
...walk with God and their neighbors in holiness and love
...eschew violence and political entanglements
...help the widows and fatherless and keep themselves unspotted from the world
...submit to a body of believers (as it relates to matters addressed in the New Testament in contrast to cultural expressions)
???

I'm asking this question in a general way... realizing there may be legitimate exceptions such as not knowing a person well, controversy surrounding an individual, etc.

I think in order for something to be called "religious persecution" the driving factor has to be the religious beliefs or practices of the person being persecuted. The question as presented doesn't provide the motive for the withholding of full fellowship.

That being said, I don't think that withholding of fellowship as you describe it here rises to the level of persecution.

Now, I'm not exactly sure what you're driving at with this question, but I would say that in my experience I have seen very few if any situations that your description here would accurately describe. I have seen, often enough, where a small group (SG) of people criticizes, and separates from, a larger group (LG), and then is distressed because LLG will not exchange pulpits with them, grant communion on a visitors basis, etc. I continue to wonder why, if LG was so sinful that SG had to separate from them, why would SG even want to build fellowship ties and commune with them?

[Josh]

Now, I'm not exactly sure what you're driving at with this question, but I would say that in my experience I have seen very few if any situations that your description here would accurately describe. I have seen, often enough, where a small group (SG) of people criticizes, and separates from, a larger group (LG), and then is distressed because LLG will not exchange pulpits with them, grant communion on a visitors basis, etc. I continue to wonder why, if LG was so sinful that SG had to separate from them, why would SG even want to build fellowship ties and commune with them?

That's a good question. Maybe we can ask Sliceitup to explain more:

In his famous 1995 essay "Bowling alone" which was later expanded into a book, Robert Putnam observed a trend of increasing social isolation in American culture. This was an established trend pre-internet. We are at least 35 or 40 years into a cultural experiment of rejecting broad social contact and finding meaning and purpose in individual expression, (cue Frank Sinatra "I did it MY way" theme song).

I suspect churches have been holdouts against the flow, but the trend has finally caught up there as well. Some saw a big shift during the pandemic, but I only saw an uptick in a long established trend. Here on mennonet, if you read between the lines you can see struggles to socialize in groups like churches, it seems that healthy, long term social groups are rare.

It’s really hard to find a new social circle when you’ve built one around your church, and then for one reason or another, that church is no longer one you attend. It’s very isolating to realize you were friends with those people due to proximity, not some true bond.

[Ken]

Is it religious persecution if a group of faithful Christians withholds the right hand of fellowship, the holy kiss, and communion from people who believe and live the following...
...adhere to the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles
...recognize the scriptures as inspired and agree with the Apostles Creed
...walk with God and their neighbors in holiness and love
...eschew violence and political entanglements
...help the widows and fatherless and keep themselves unspotted from the world
...submit to a body of believers (as it relates to matters addressed in the New Testament in contrast to cultural expressions)
???

I'm asking this question in a general way... realizing there may be legitimate exceptions such as not knowing a person well, controversy surrounding an individual, etc.

Persecution is a strong word. Miriam Webster defines "persecution" as : punishment or harassment usually of a severe nature on the basis of race, religion, or political opinion in one's country of origin.

Nothing you describe fits any sort of dictionary definition of the term "persecution".

Religious discrimination might be a better term. And yes, a church that excludes people based on any standards or criteria at all is engaged in religious discrimination. However it is not illegal discrimination, or even necessarily immoral discrimination. Groups, religious or otherwise, are free to establish their own criteria for membership and as long as they are not engaged in illegal forms of discrimination then it is perfectly fine. Virtually every single religious group does it at some level.

[Sliceitup]

Now, I'm not exactly sure what you're driving at with this question, but I would say that in my experience I have seen very few if any situations that your description here would accurately describe. I have seen, often enough, where a small group (SG) of people criticizes, and separates from, a larger group (LG), and then is distressed because LLG will not exchange pulpits with them, grant communion on a visitors basis, etc. I continue to wonder why, if LG was so sinful that SG had to separate from them, why would SG even want to build fellowship ties and commune with them?

That's a good question. Maybe we can ask Sliceitup to explain more:

In his famous 1995 essay "Bowling alone" which was later expanded into a book, Robert Putnam observed a trend of increasing social isolation in American culture. This was an established trend pre-internet. We are at least 35 or 40 years into a cultural experiment of rejecting broad social contact and finding meaning and purpose in individual expression, (cue Frank Sinatra "I did it MY way" theme song).

I suspect churches have been holdouts against the flow, but the trend has finally caught up there as well. Some saw a big shift during the pandemic, but I only saw an uptick in a long established trend. Here on mennonet, if you read between the lines you can see struggles to socialize in groups like churches, it seems that healthy, long term social groups are rare.

It’s really hard to find a new social circle when you’ve built one around your church, and then for one reason or another, that church is no longer one you attend. It’s very isolating to realize you were friends with those people due to proximity, not some true bond.

I’m not really sure I understand what you’re asking.

[Ernie]

I think in order for something to be called "religious persecution" the driving factor has to be the religious beliefs or practices of the person being persecuted. The question as presented doesn't provide the motive for the withholding of full fellowship.

That being said, I don't think that withholding of fellowship as you describe it here rises to the level of persecution.

Now, I'm not exactly sure what you're driving at with this question, but I would say that in my experience I have seen very few if any situations that your description here would accurately describe.

Scenario 1
I grew up in a community that had a large population of OO/Ultra-conservative Mennonites and a large group of OO/Ultra-conservative Brethren. These groups did not share pulpits, did not practice the Holy Kiss with each other, and did not commune together, even though both groups had basically the same doctrine and the same practice. There was little desire in either group to practice these things together. (That in itself I would call sectarianism.) Now if someone from either group would have wanted to do these things with the other group, they would not have been allowed to do so. In my mind this is religious persecution.

Scenario 2
A person who did not grow up in an Anabaptist or similar church, wants to share pulpits with, wants to practice the holy kiss, the right hand of fellowship, and communion with likeminded believers. But because he is not part of their denomination or fellowship, he is not permitted to do so.

Scenario 3
A person believes that the New Testament teaches that materialism is wrong. He promises the Lord that he will not join a church that permits materialism. (Anabaptists teach against a lot of things but most do not teach against materialism.) Since it is rare to find an Anabaptist or similar church that teaches against materialism, this brother can't join a church, which also means he can't participate in communion with likeminded believers in those churches.

[justme]

Scenario 3
A person believes that the New Testament teaches that materialism is wrong. He promises the Lord that he will not join a church that permits materialism. (Anabaptists teach against a lot of things but most do not teach against materialism.) Since it is rare to find an Anabaptist or similar church that teaches against materialism, this brother can't join a church, which also means he can't participate in communion with likeminded believers in those churches.

but how likeminded are they?
if they don't share the same values/beliefs, just how likeminded are they?

[Ken]

I think in order for something to be called "religious persecution" the driving factor has to be the religious beliefs or practices of the person being persecuted. The question as presented doesn't provide the motive for the withholding of full fellowship.

That being said, I don't think that withholding of fellowship as you describe it here rises to the level of persecution.

Now, I'm not exactly sure what you're driving at with this question, but I would say that in my experience I have seen very few if any situations that your description here would accurately describe.

Scenario 1
I grew up in a community that had a large population of OO/Ultra-conservative Mennonites and a large group of OO/Ultra-conservative Brethren. These groups did not share pulpits, did not practice the Holy Kiss with each other, and did not commune together, even though both groups had basically the same doctrine and the same practice. There was little desire in either group to practice these things together. (That in itself I would call sectarianism.) Now if someone from either group would have wanted to do these things with the other group, they would not have been allowed to do so. In my mind this is religious persecution.

Scenario 2
A person who did not grow up in an Anabaptist or similar church, wants to share pulpits with, wants to practice the holy kiss, the right hand of fellowship, and communion with likeminded believers. But because he is not part of their denomination or fellowship, he is not permitted to do so.

Scenario 3
A person believes that the New Testament teaches that materialism is wrong. He promises the Lord that he will not join a church that permits materialism. (Anabaptists teach against a lot of things but most do not teach against materialism.) Since it is rare to find an Anabaptist or similar church that teaches against materialism, this brother can't join a church, which also means he can't participate in communion with likeminded believers in those churches.

All of these scenarios describe various forms of doctrinal exclusiveness on the part of different religious groups. Which you may or may not agree with.

But none of them meet any sort of definition of the word "persecution"

[AndersonD]

I think in order for something to be called "religious persecution" the driving factor has to be the religious beliefs or practices of the person being persecuted. The question as presented doesn't provide the motive for the withholding of full fellowship.

That being said, I don't think that withholding of fellowship as you describe it here rises to the level of persecution.

Now, I'm not exactly sure what you're driving at with this question, but I would say that in my experience I have seen very few if any situations that your description here would accurately describe.

Scenario 1
I grew up in a community that had a large population of OO/Ultra-conservative Mennonites and a large group of OO/Ultra-conservative Brethren. These groups did not share pulpits, did not practice the Holy Kiss with each other, and did not commune together, even though both groups had basically the same doctrine and the same practice. There was little desire in either group to practice these things together. (That in itself I would call sectarianism.) Now if someone from either group would have wanted to do these things with the other group, they would not have been allowed to do so. In my mind this is religious persecution.

Maybe in your mind it's persecution, but I have seen people from the aforementioned groups greet each other. It's not common but I have witnessed it.

One group is Mennonite, one group is German Baptist, and now there are 3 groups within the GB's. Excluding New Conference, they take a stronger stance on not greeting those in the other GB groups than the Mennonites. Of course, there are exceptions...

I would love to commune with the Brethren but I would have to get dunked... and I don't know how to swim. So I think I would panic.

[Ernie]

but how likeminded are they?
if they don't share the same values/beliefs, just how likeminded are they?

Very likeminded, but they just don't dot the i's and cross the t's the same way. Or you could say that the one prints letters and the other writes in cursive, but both write in English.