Progressive/Conservative threshold?

[Ernie]

Nice writing Josh!

Then there are many Moderate-Conservative churches who have standards, such as cape dresses and plain suits, but most of the members don't read or listen to much Anabaptist literature or podcasts. They listen to Evangelical podcasts, read Evangelical books, devour Evangelical political worldviews, etc. So while they wouldn't go to war, and they do have church standards, they react negatively to presentations about The Gospel of the Kingdom, because it sounds too much like a "work's religion". As one such brother told me fairly recently, "What those folks are teaching is not the Gospel. They are teaching that 'obedience' is the Gospel". This is not a fair assessment, but it tells us what they are hearing from what the kingdom folks are saying.

And yes, Praxis, unfortunately, most have adopted the "Save Me Gospel".

[Sudsy]

ADC is more congregational and has a more "Beachy" feel..and is influenced by "kingdom" theology.

One of the founders of ADC tells me that only about 5% of ADC is influenced by "kingdom theology".

Could you (or someone else) elaborate on what is meant by "Kingdom Theology"? It seems surprising to me that 95% of an anabaptist organization can be influenced by what I would think of as "Kingdom Theology", seeing as how central it is to the gospel. Are they fully giving themselves over to the "save me" gospel of the Evangelical movement which focuses on a personal ticket to heaven and sidelines the Kingdom?

I would disagree with your statement that I underlined. As within Anabaptism, Evangelicals differ considerably in their way of understanding a Kingdom way of living. And some differ too about what a "save me" gospel involves. I view some Anabaptists as a 'works religion' who seem to play down the need to be born again while others have no problem agreeing with some Evangelicals that entering into a Kingdom way of life following Jesus as our King begins with a born again point where the Holy Spirit first comes to live in those who put their faith and trust in Jesus for their salvation. This begins a new life where Jesus reigns in the hearts of believers.

This is the problem, imo, with judging anyone that takes on an Anabaptist or Evangelical label. All Anabaptists are not into a religion of works alone. All Evangelicals are also not into a religion that is just about getting a personal ticket to heaven. In my youth in Pentecostalism and later in the Mennonite Brethren group, they both believed strongly in a Gospel that includes personal salvation not only from ultimate hell but also the power over sin now. People “get saved” not just seeing Jesus as my personal Savior or best friend but as the one who embodied and inaugurated God’s Kingdom, and who is currently gathering around Him followers who will live for Him as both Saviour and Lord.

I don't disagree that there is some "save me" gospel being presented and some might not use this term but they are really depending on their good works (some water baptism) or perhaps saying a 'sinner's prayer' for their salvation. God knows the commitment we are making to further His Kingdom. An Evangelical might look at some Anabaptists and judge them to not be very Kingdom minded people when they don't emphasize the need to be born again to enter into a Kingdom way of life. On the other hand, an Anabaptist might look at an Evangelical and judge certain sanctification areas in their lives and question if they are Kingdom people at all. I believe there are all kinds of people at various stages of spiritual growth in God's Kingdom and rather than any of us thinking we are 'more spiritual' than others for where we put emphasis on Kingdom life, we leave this in God's hands and follow the Holy Spirit as He guides us in the way we, as individuals, need to go. Not that easy to do at times as our old flesh likes to get in the way of this.

[Josh]

I have yet to meet an Anabaptist anywhere that doesn’t think you need to be born again.

[Praxis+Theodicy]

One of the founders of ADC tells me that only about 5% of ADC is influenced by "kingdom theology".

Could you (or someone else) elaborate on what is meant by "Kingdom Theology"? It seems surprising to me that 95% of an anabaptist organization can be influenced by what I would think of as "Kingdom Theology", seeing as how central it is to the gospel. Are they fully giving themselves over to the "save me" gospel of the Evangelical movement which focuses on a personal ticket to heaven and sidelines the Kingdom?

I would disagree with your statement that I underlined. As within Anabaptism, Evangelicals differ considerably in their way of understanding a Kingdom way of living. And some differ too about what a "save me" gospel involves. I view some Anabaptists as a 'works religion' who seem to play down the need to be born again while others have no problem agreeing with some Evangelicals that entering into a Kingdom way of life following Jesus as our King begins with a born again point where the Holy Spirit first comes to live in those who put their faith and trust in Jesus for their salvation. This begins a new life where Jesus reigns in the hearts of believers.

This is the problem, imo, with judging anyone that takes on an Anabaptist or Evangelical label. All Anabaptists are not into a religion of works alone. All Evangelicals are also not into a religion that is just about getting a personal ticket to heaven. In my youth in Pentecostalism and later in the Mennonite Brethren group, they both believed strongly in a Gospel that includes personal salvation not only from ultimate hell but also the power over sin now. People “get saved” not just seeing Jesus as my personal Savior or best friend but as the one who embodied and inaugurated God’s Kingdom, and who is currently gathering around Him followers who will live for Him as both Saviour and Lord.

I don't disagree that there is some "save me" gospel being presented and some might not use this term but they are really depending on their good works (some water baptism) or perhaps saying a 'sinner's prayer' for their salvation. God knows the commitment we are making to further His Kingdom. An Evangelical might look at some Anabaptists and judge them to not be very Kingdom minded people when they don't emphasize the need to be born again to enter into a Kingdom way of life. On the other hand, an Anabaptist might look at an Evangelical and judge certain sanctification areas in their lives and question if they are Kingdom people at all. I believe there are all kinds of people at various stages of spiritual growth in God's Kingdom and rather than any of us thinking we are 'more spiritual' than others for where we put emphasis on Kingdom life, we leave this in God's hands and follow the Holy Spirit as He guides us in the way we, as individuals, need to go. Not that easy to do at times as our old flesh likes to get in the way of this.

Are there really Anabaptists that do not emphasize the new birth? Why are they still anabaptists? Is that not the point of beleiever's baptism as opposed to infant baptism? That the church only baptized those who show a genuine faith to evidence the new birth?

I know Anabaptism is 500 years old, and I'll admit I probably know more about its roots than the state of every church that claims the anabaptist tradition and legacy, but... emphasizing "being born again" seems like the ONE disagreement that led to all other differences between the anabaptist and the rest of Christendom at the time.

[Sudsy]

Could you (or someone else) elaborate on what is meant by "Kingdom Theology"? It seems surprising to me that 95% of an anabaptist organization can be influenced by what I would think of as "Kingdom Theology", seeing as how central it is to the gospel. Are they fully giving themselves over to the "save me" gospel of the Evangelical movement which focuses on a personal ticket to heaven and sidelines the Kingdom?

I would disagree with your statement that I underlined. As within Anabaptism, Evangelicals differ considerably in their way of understanding a Kingdom way of living. And some differ too about what a "save me" gospel involves. I view some Anabaptists as a 'works religion' who seem to play down the need to be born again while others have no problem agreeing with some Evangelicals that entering into a Kingdom way of life following Jesus as our King begins with a born again point where the Holy Spirit first comes to live in those who put their faith and trust in Jesus for their salvation. This begins a new life where Jesus reigns in the hearts of believers.

This is the problem, imo, with judging anyone that takes on an Anabaptist or Evangelical label. All Anabaptists are not into a religion of works alone. All Evangelicals are also not into a religion that is just about getting a personal ticket to heaven. In my youth in Pentecostalism and later in the Mennonite Brethren group, they both believed strongly in a Gospel that includes personal salvation not only from ultimate hell but also the power over sin now. People “get saved” not just seeing Jesus as my personal Savior or best friend but as the one who embodied and inaugurated God’s Kingdom, and who is currently gathering around Him followers who will live for Him as both Saviour and Lord.

I don't disagree that there is some "save me" gospel being presented and some might not use this term but they are really depending on their good works (some water baptism) or perhaps saying a 'sinner's prayer' for their salvation. God knows the commitment we are making to further His Kingdom. An Evangelical might look at some Anabaptists and judge them to not be very Kingdom minded people when they don't emphasize the need to be born again to enter into a Kingdom way of life. On the other hand, an Anabaptist might look at an Evangelical and judge certain sanctification areas in their lives and question if they are Kingdom people at all. I believe there are all kinds of people at various stages of spiritual growth in God's Kingdom and rather than any of us thinking we are 'more spiritual' than others for where we put emphasis on Kingdom life, we leave this in God's hands and follow the Holy Spirit as He guides us in the way we, as individuals, need to go. Not that easy to do at times as our old flesh likes to get in the way of this.

Are there really Anabaptists that do not emphasize the new birth? Why are they still anabaptists? Is that not the point of beleiever's baptism as opposed to infant baptism? That the church only baptized those who show a genuine faith to evidence the new birth?

I know Anabaptism is 500 years old, and I'll admit I probably know more about its roots than the state of every church that claims the anabaptist tradition and legacy, but... emphasizing "being born again" seems like the ONE disagreement that led to all other differences between the anabaptist and the rest of Christendom at the time.

To your questions and I basically am answering from my own personal experiences with local Mennonite friends.

Yes, I have friends who are a certain brand of Mennonite that do not emphasize the new birth. This brand puts emphasis more on water baptism and formal joining the local church. They still consider themselves Anabaptists because they do not baptise babies but rather only those old enough who agree to a certain set of beliefs. When I ask these buddies about being born again they immediately refer to their sprinkling water baptism and joining the church. They are very reluctant also to talk about spiritual things and their conversations are very much on carnal worldly activities. They seem to be relying on certain obligations they feel to be part of their local church. They have no interest in sharing their faith with anyone and quite unconcerned about the eternal state of others. Being 'born again' is not a phrase I have ever heard them use.

I think the not baptising babies was what gave them the label Anabaptist, meaning re-baptizers. Outsiders viewed them as baptising twice. I do think the original Anabaptists emphasized the need for both the indwelling Holy Spirit as well as the written word in their Christ following. They believed that true faith in Christ results in a new birth, a spiritual regeneration by God's grace and power. The Anabaptist church I attended, the Mennonite Brethren, do emphasize and give opportunity for attenders to make an initial commitment of faith similar to what other Evangelicals do with altar calls, instructions and saying a 'sinner's prayer'. Others here would know more about what other Mennonite churches do in this regard but those buddies I mentioned do not have this practise in their Mennonite church.

The practice of having a bench at the front of the church was instituted by John Wesley, the founder of the Methodist Church. Individuals would kneel at the mourners' bench to experience the new birth and some of those who have already had the new birth go there to receive entire sanctification, while others, especially backsliders, use the mourners' bench to confess their sins and receive forgiveness, in order to continue the process of sanctification. In our Salvation Army church we have a similar bench called the 'mercy seat' which was similar to the Methodist 'mourner's bench' or 'anxious seat'. In the MB church people just came to the front of the church at meeting end and a counselor would speak and pray with them regarding why they had come.

[steve-in-kville]

In regards to your own personal standards and applications, what is liberal/progressive in your opinion? What is conservative in your opinion?

My wife wears a headcovering. I don't wear shorts outside the house, maybe if I started doing 5K's again. We don't have *real* TV, but we can livestream and we watch DVD's within reason. In some ways we are conservative but not in everything.

[Sudsy]

In regards to your own personal standards and applications, what is liberal/progressive in your opinion? What is conservative in your opinion?

My wife wears a headcovering. I don't wear shorts outside the house, maybe if I started doing 5K's again. We don't have *real* TV, but we can livestream and we watch DVD's within reason. In some ways we are conservative but not in everything.

Curious - does the scripture say anything about men wearing shorts ? Seems to me the dress mode for peasant men in NT times was a tunic which was white and knee-length and to work or run he tucked it up into the girdle round his waist – an action known as 'girding up the loins'. I think if we are going to be real NT followers in dress, we men better band our long pants with buttons or zippers and pockets. If it has to do with modesty then I believe long robes are much less revealing of a man's form than pants. And sandals would be our foot wear.

[Ernie]

I know Anabaptism is 500 years old, and I'll admit I probably know more about its roots than the state of every church that claims the anabaptist tradition and legacy, but... emphasizing "being born again" seems like the ONE disagreement that led to all other differences between the anabaptist and the rest of Christendom at the time.

Old Orders, probably ninety percent of Plain Anabaptists, do not use the term "born again" very much. This doesn't mean that they don't think new birth is necessary. (most of them anyhow) They just don't see a need to emphasize certain words from the New Testament that Evangelicals think should be emphasized. They might talk about having the nature of Christ, or being changed from an old life to a new life, etc.

I tend to use the terms "born of the Spirit, born of God's spirit, or spiritual rebirth" with a goal of not being labeled something that I don't represent, to those who have negative associations with the term "born again".

[Ernie]

We don't have *real* TV, but we can livestream and we watch DVD's within reason. In some ways we are conservative but not in everything.

You are watching DVD's?

[ohio jones]

Are there really Anabaptists that do not emphasize the new birth? Why are they still anabaptists? Is that not the point of beleiever's baptism as opposed to infant baptism? That the church only baptized those who show a genuine faith to evidence the new birth?

I know Anabaptism is 500 years old, and I'll admit I probably know more about its roots than the state of every church that claims the anabaptist tradition and legacy, but... emphasizing "being born again" seems like the ONE disagreement that led to all other differences between the anabaptist and the rest of Christendom at the time.

I suppose it depends what you mean by "emphasize." Anabaptists (with possible exceptions on the far ends of the continuum) generally do believe and teach the new birth. It is absolutely foundational, but there is life after birth. Sometimes nurturing and preserving life gets more emphasis. Both are necessary.

On the other hand, some fundamentalists (not all) seem to emphasize being born again to the extent of having an evangelistic altar call at every service, while having very little to say about discipleship. That seems just as unbalanced as neglecting to teach the new birth.