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

[Sudsy]

My views fwiw -

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.

In my mind, this is sad. I would never be a member of any church that had this kind of attitude toward others in God's family. God accepts them but I guess they have bigger criteria to be met before they will fellowship with them. That is not true religion. True religion is neither rules-based nor ritual-based. True religion is a relationship with God.

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.

Show me any scripture that supports that. Denominationalism is sourced in man not God.

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.

Then he is going to have to live with the consequences of his conviction. However, he can participate with other believers in communion who will participate with him in a home study group or wherever two or three meet in Jesus name. Even if this means doing this remembrance with just his wife. I believe communion is first and foremost a remembrance practise of what Jesus did to save us from our sins. Jesus didn't tell His disciples at the first communion to first go and formally join a local church so you can participate. And according to some scriptures on the first communion, Jesus did not prevent Judas from participating. Judas may have but wasn't told he couldn't.

To me it sounds like you're saying that you will separate yourself from these people because they are separating themselves from other Christians, which is wrong.

My suggestion was that if he was going to make such a promise, then there is a way to still participate with another if he can find someone with that same conviction. However, before that, I think he should consider what kind of situation he has put himself in by doing something that I believe scripture says not to do. Matthew 5:33-37

“Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’ But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil.

I tend to believe what Jesus said about allowing the weeds and the good crop to grow up together and God will sort these out in the end. Others seem to follow Paul more in this and with weeding out things before the end. I sometimes think some left over Phariseeism comes up in Paul's writings when compared to some things Jesus said.

[Ernie]

#2 can simply join a church. Close communion and church membership linked to baptism are an integral part of Anabaptism and have been since 1525.

If he thinks church membership and close communion are invalid concepts, he can go to communion, share pulpits etc with other people who feel likewise.

#2 is already part of a church. He is just not part of the "right" church.

[Ken]

The word "persecution" actually means something in a New Testament context.

For example, from 2 Timothy 3:11–12

my persecutions and sufferings that happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium, and at Lystra—which persecutions I endured; yet from them all the Lord rescued me. Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Jesus Christ will be persecuted

What is Paul talking about when he uses the term persecution? From Acts 14:19–20 we find description of what actually happened to him at Lystra:

19 But Jews came from Antioch and Iconium, and having persuaded the crowds, they stoned Paul and dragged him out of the city, supposing that he was dead. 20 But when the disciples gathered about him, he rose up and entered the city, and on the next day he went on with Barnabas to Derbe.

For Paul, "persecution" meant being stoned, dragged out of the city, and left for dead.

Virtually every church on earth has some sorts of standards and criteria for participation, membership and behavior. Catholics do, Mennonites do, Amish do. Choosing not to meet those standards and then being excluded from full participation some denomination's practices is hardly "persecution"

One can certainly discuss and criticize the exclusionary practices of various denominations and groups. But they hardly represent religious "persecution" in any Biblical sense.

[Ernie]

Virtually every church on earth has some sorts of standards and criteria for participation, membership and behavior. Catholics do, Mennonites do, Amish do. Choosing not to meet those standards and then being excluded from full participation some denomination's practices is hardly "persecution"

Unless churches should not exclude people from things that Jesus intended for anyone who is not sinning.

[Josh]

#2 can simply join a church. Close communion and church membership linked to baptism are an integral part of Anabaptism and have been since 1525.

If he thinks church membership and close communion are invalid concepts, he can go to communion, share pulpits etc with other people who feel likewise.

#2 is already part of a church. He is just not part of the "right" church.

Can’t he commune with his own church and other like minded believers in his church fellowship?

[Szdfan]

Virtually every church on earth has some sorts of standards and criteria for participation, membership and behavior. Catholics do, Mennonites do, Amish do. Choosing not to meet those standards and then being excluded from full participation some denomination's practices is hardly "persecution"

Unless churches should not exclude people from things that Jesus intended for anyone who is not sinning.

Rejection and exclusion isn’t necessarily persecution.

[ken_sylvania]

To me it sounds like you're saying that you will separate yourself from these people because they are separating themselves from other Christians, which is wrong.

My suggestion was that if he was going to make such a promise, then there is a way to still participate with another if he can find someone with that same conviction. However, before that, I think he should consider what kind of situation he has put himself in by doing something that I believe scripture says not to do. Matthew 5:33-37

“Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’ But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil.

I tend to believe what Jesus said about allowing the weeds and the good crop to grow up together and God will sort these out in the end. Others seem to follow Paul more in this and with weeding out things before the end. I sometimes think some left over Phariseeism comes up in Paul's writings when compared to some things Jesus said.

I was referring to your comment about scenario #1 - " I would never be a member of any church that had this kind of attitude..."

[Ernie]

#2 can simply join a church. Close communion and church membership linked to baptism are an integral part of Anabaptism and have been since 1525.

If he thinks church membership and close communion are invalid concepts, he can go to communion, share pulpits etc with other people who feel likewise.

#2 is already part of a church. He is just not part of the "right" church.

Can’t he commune with his own church and other like minded believers in his church fellowship?

Yes, if he has any in his church. What if he wants to commune with all the faithful in the body of Christ?

But IMO, the oneness and the one church concept we read about in the NT, doesn't make any room for churches withholding communion from everyone except their particular flavor. (Again, I'm talking about people who have basically all the same doctrines and principles, but have slightly different applications or denominational titles.
And... I am only talking about people who are headed in the direction of greater faithfulness to Christ, not those who have abandoned the historic faith or are in the process of abandoning it.)

[ken_sylvania]

#2 is already part of a church. He is just not part of the "right" church.

Can’t he commune with his own church and other like minded believers in his church fellowship?

Yes, if he has any in his church. What if he wants to commune with all the faithful in the body of Christ?

But IMO, the oneness and the one church concept we read about in the NT, doesn't make any room for churches withholding communion from everyone except their particular flavor. (Again, I'm talking about people who have basically all the same doctrines and principles, but have slightly different applications or denominational titles.
And... I am only talking about people who are headed in the direction of greater faithfulness to Christ, not those who have abandoned the historic faith or are in the process of abandoning it.)

What if he also wants to share in feetwashing and practice the Holy Kiss with "all the faithful in the body of Christ." Would you find that acceptable? Or would you say that he should be limited to around 50% of the faithful, due to western notions of what constitutes appropriate social interaction between men and women?

What Bible basis do you have for believing that a faithful believer has a right to share in communion and full fellowship with every other faithful believer?

Do we learn anything from Jesus example of choosing to share in the first communion with only the very small circle of his closest followers? There were hundreds of disciples of Jesus by this time - why were they not all invited to partake?

[Ernie]

What if he also wants to share in feetwashing and practice the Holy Kiss with "all the faithful in the body of Christ." Would you find that acceptable? Or would you say that he should be limited to around 50% of the faithful, due to western notions of what constitutes appropriate social interaction between men and women?

Good question...
We don't know that Jesus kissed and washed the feet of any women, but he did allow women to do this to him. Is this something only the Son of God should allow or is this an example for all men to follow? Because these women were worshipping him, that does change the situation a considerably...

What Bible basis do you have for believing that a faithful believer has a right to share in communion and full fellowship with every other faithful believer?

The admonition regarding about one faith, one Lord, one baptism and Jesus prayer that Christians would all be one seems to indicate this. It seems to me that the Apostles and others would have had full fellowship, communion, holy kiss with Christians wherever they went. I know I can't prove this in every case, due to silence, but it did happen at least some of the time.

The church in Acts and the Epistles did have tests for who was faithful and who was not... (Christianity was not defined by whoever claimed to be a Christian)... However both Jesus and Paul did address
the sorts of things we should and should not be allowing to separate us...

Do we learn anything from Jesus example of choosing to share in the first communion with only the very small circle of his closest followers? There were hundreds of disciples of Jesus by this time - why were they not all invited to partake?

What I learn from this is that communion should not be practiced indiscriminately, and we should know well who it is that we are communing with.
There of course is the debate by scholars over the last two millennium as to whether Judas was part of the communion service. I wish I could prove that he was not... but in the case of silence, and in light of other teachings in the NT regarding communion, I think it is good for the church to have boundaries for communion. My only question in this thread has to do with where those boundaries are set and on what sorts of issues and whether setting the boundaries at a very wrong place can be considered persecution.