Are the Turtles Beating us?

[Heirbyadoption]

I think it would be good for Anabaptists to value their good traditions and culture, but not require this of non-Anabaptists in order for them to be in full fellowship and communion.

Ernie - stepping back a page or so, do you not foresee this creating a two-tiered system in a group, or at least a difficulty explaining to our own Anabaptist children why we expect THEM to embrace or abide by certain traditions and cultural aspects, but not their contemporaries in the group (specifically, the children of our non-Anabaptist background families)...? Or are you anticipating the "non-Anabaptists" to commune but not be actual members of the congregation?

[Sudsy]

This kinda' reminds me of how it was a a member of WBT. We men took turns 'preaching' each Sunday, and there were certain topics which were understood to be off-limits. For instance, preaching Believer's Baptism would have offended some members. So the question is, How far will you go to accommodate variations of belief in an actual congregation?

Good question. I would not try to accommodate those who can't handle sermons about Believer's Baptism. (Unless I was a one-time guest at a church that practiced infant baptism, then I might try to lay low during that one-time interaction, unless they wanted to hear my thoughts on the topic.)

So there does need to be a baseline. This is a baseline that I am comfortable with.

Who We Are
We endeavor to take the teachings of the New Testament seriously and intend to live and teach the doctrine and sound faith that was delivered to the Apostles as described in the New Testament. In general, we believe that churches today should believe and practice what was commonly believed and practiced by the New Testament church.
We are historically orthodox, in that we agree with the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed. We believe that there are two kingdoms, the kingdom of God and the kingdom of this world. Every Christian is simultaneously part of both kingdoms, but must only have allegiance to one of them. We believe it is important to be unspotted from the world and separated unto God. We believe that we must not resist evil persons but rather love our enemies. We believe that we must not store up wealth on earth, but rather store up wealth in heaven. We believe that much harm has affected the Christian church whenever these beliefs have been compromised.
Many other historical practices of the church have been discontinued or discounted by much of Christendom over the centuries, and we believe that these should continue to be practiced. Among these are:
• Stranger and pilgrim living, rather than conforming to the world
• Modest and simple attire, rather than revealing and fashion-following clothing
• Head-covering for women, and not for men
• Not wearing jewelry or adornments, but adorning ourselves with good works
• Not swearing oaths, but radical truth-telling
• Not divorcing and remarrying, but marriage for life
• Self-examination before communion, as well as collective discernment,
• Committed local church life, and church discipline
• A community-based church model that shares with those in need
• Men serving as humble leaders in the home and church

Furthermore, as the cultures continue to change, we believe it is essential that the church continues to conform to Christ rather than the culture of the world, or worldly-minded churches. In most cultures this will make us appear counter-cultural. We believe that churches will experience negative consequences if they permit a person to join the church before that person has fully surrendered to God. We believe that negative consequences can come about if a church requires unnecessary burdens of believers (see Acts 15). We believe that love for one another is the sign by which the world will know that we are followers of Jesus.

If everyone who holds to this baseline would respect each other and be in fellowship with each other, it would make a huge difference in at least one small corner of God's kingdom.

So Ernie have you found a church group that according to your criteria you are 'comfortable' fellowshipping with ? Your level of comfort seems to me to be quite demanding but more in a sanctification way. Is there a specific Anabaptist group that reflects all of this criteria ? What stands out to me as missing is no mention of a believers responsibility to share their faith and pursue reaching the lost. Isn't this the primary way God advances His Kingdom ?

I have trouble with an emphasis on being separate in many ways from the world as if this will be the example Jesus wants and will draw others to Him. Jesus did not live up to the religious expectations of the Pharisees in His time on earth. A prime area that He was criticized for was His mingling with sinners. He resisted the established ways at that time of 'doing church' because they chased people away more than they drew people to becoming Christ followers.

That doesn't mean that He didn't deal with certain practises that honors God. But He was more concerned about the heart issues of man and being born again. Without that, one is just being religious and can't really see the difference between being religious and being a new creation.

When a local church is primarily concerned about all believing and practicing their set apartness from the world, I believe they may have slipped into a form of Phariseeism religion. Life is all about them and their set apartness from the world. And then making it so, to fellowship with them, one must 'yield' to this criteria they establish for fellowship and Christ following.

I don't see the early church quite that way. We don't 'sign on' to a list of rules and expectations when we become believers and join in fellowship. We become a group of Christ followers at varying degrees of sanctification as we grow towards maturity in Christ. We are to encourage one another to pursue being guided by the Holy Spirit but we don't need to insist that fellowship requires a 'yielding' to a certain understanding of a mature believer.
One could say just being on these forums is a sign of our immaturity in how we allow the Spirit to guide us and I suspect some don't frequent here due to this.

Bottom line for me is what beliefs and practises that we have are really producing more believers in the Kingdom ? Either our religious ways are impacting the world to cause them to repent and become Christ followers or it is having little or no impact in this way. Is our concept of being fruitful just about our own spiritual growth and having fellowshipping with those like us or is it one that is more concerned with being a light in the world that draws others to the Lord ? If our Christianity is not drawing people to the Lord by how we live, something is missing. I challenge myself with this same issue. Why am I not being fruitful in this way ? God help us. And we know He will.

[Ernie]

We believe that churches will experience negative consequences if they permit a person to join the church before that person has fully surrendered to God.

How do you know whether someone who has grown up in a plain church, whose home culture is plain, has fully surrendered to God and is not just living out the culture they grew up with?

In my circles, few people who aren’t surrendered to God join, and fewer still stay. It’s just too much work and too much sacrifice.

What is the work and sacrifice in your circles?

[Ernie]

I think it would be good for Anabaptists to value their good traditions and culture, but not require this of non-Anabaptists in order for them to be in full fellowship and communion.

Ernie - stepping back a page or so, do you not foresee this creating a two-tiered system in a group, or at least a difficulty explaining to our own Anabaptist children why we expect THEM to embrace or abide by certain traditions and cultural aspects, but not their contemporaries in the group (specifically, the children of our non-Anabaptist background families)...?

Before I answer the question... I think all churches have more than one tier unless there are no leaders in the group and no expectation that a person who has lived faithfully for the Lord for 40+ years might have more wisdom than a 15-year-old. We generally don't have 15-year-olds leading Bible classes and seminars where more seasoned people are in attendance. There would be nothing wrong with a 15-year-old teaching a marriage seminar, but that isn't generally how we do things. These types of expectations in a church are tiers that most social groups have, and they don't cause a problem as long as everyone is humble and respectful of each other.

Now to answer your first question...
Yes, I think that Jewish dads in the New Testament church had some difficulty explaining to their young men why they and Timothy needed to be circumcised but not all Christian men needed to be. I'm sure it would have been hard to explain this to me as a young man. Hopefully as I matured, I would have better understood the social/cultural dynamics. Unhealthy tier systems between the Jews and the Gentiles only developed in churches where the Jews and Gentiles couldn't respect each other and view each other as equal members of the body of Christ.
So "yes", difficult, but not insurmountable. I think churches have given up trying this because it is hard. Not because it is undoable.

Or are you anticipating the "non-Anabaptists" to commune but not be actual members of the congregation?

First of all, membership as we use the term today is different from how the term was used in the New Testament from what I can understand. The word "member" in the New Testament referred to membership in the body of Christ from what I can understand. And yes, the leaders of the churches did have a definition for what it meant to be part of the body of Christ.

When referring to being part of a local body, the terms "the number" is used as well as "joined unto" and "submitted to".

When I meet someone who wants to interact with me, my first interest is who is he joined/submitted to. Is it the church? Is it the leaders of the church? Is it his wife? Is it himself? Is it his peers? Is it his fellow employees? Is it the Pittsburgh Steelers? Is it ______ political party? In other words, who does he let influence him? When push comes to shove, who dictates his life?
As a person interested in sociology, I'm also interested in knowing what "number" he is part of (21st century church membership) but knowing where he is "part of the number" doesn't really tell me whether or not he is submitted to that group of believers.
I'm not opposed to using the word membership in the context of a local congregation as long as everyone understands how the word is being defined/used and how that differs from how the word is used in the New Testament.

I think it is possible for a person to be submitted to a several groups of believers. Many missionaries are submitted to more than one group of believers. Many church leaders and itinerant speakers who have responsibilities in different congregations submit themselves to more than one group of believers. VS workers often have membership in more than one church while serving away from home, etc. I do think it is good for people to have one group of believers that they are primarily accountable to.

Now here is a concept that might stretch some brains about as far as they can be stretched...
Just like some congregations submit to each other but also submit to another group of congregations, I think it is possible for a group of Christians to submit to their congregation as a whole, but also submit to an Order within the congregation.
This already happens in Plain Anabaptist congregations, but we generally don't think of it this way. For example, some church leaders in a congregation may wear high top shoes or suspenders to church. Some lay members may do the same and expect their children to do likewise. Other lay members in the church who did not grow up with this practice may choose to adopt the practice. In this sense, they are joining an Order within the church.

If you can't appreciate an Order with the above sorts of expectations, then consider churches where some families allow teens coming home at midnight and other families that expect teens to be home by 10:00. Or churches where some families send their children to the church school and others to public school. Or churches where some families give their teens smart phones and others do not. etc. etc.  

Like this or hate this, I suggest that basically all churches who attempt any sort of group non-conformity to the world are going to have these sorts of Orders in the church. (It is a societal norm and not just a Christian one.) But all such churches do have a "test of membership" (baseline) that no one may cross. (and most societies have a baseline as well)

With that long backdrop, and in answer to your question...

I propose that anyone who submits to the baseline should be considered joined to the church (21st century membership) with full fellowship privileges. There may be additional expectations for leadership (which I think is also the case for all non-conformed churches) and there may be additional expectations for Anabaptists, and Messianic Jews, and Wesleyan Holiness folks, etc. The question is whether we can encourage people to adhere to the expectations of their Order, or whether we belittle the expectations of their Order. And the challenge for those who are part of an Order within the church... can they treat those who are not part of their Order, or only following the baseline expectations, as brothers and sisters who are fully part of the Body of Christ.

Within the last few years, a friend of mine asked some brothers in one of your affiliate congregations whether they intended to make their converts conform to the standards of the Old German Baptist Brethren - New Conference. Without a doubt they answered unanimously that "yes", they would expect any converts to conform accordingly. My friend suggested that they consider having a different standard for converts. The brothers weren't interest in that.
Well, it wasn't too long after this that a small group of Christians living nearby began attending at the GB church. They learned that if they wanted to be in fellowship with the church, they would need to adopt the GB practices and they couldn't see themselves doing this.
After discussing this among themselves, they asked the GB church if the GB's would help them develop a non-conformity package that would be more accessible to people from their background. One of the men in this small group was formerly a fashion designer so the small group already had the skills within their group to design suitable clothing.
So what the brother had suggested earlier did not resonate very well with a group of believers who are used to a monolithic Christian Order, but God had other ways of getting them to wrestle with these questions.
I haven't heard a recent update on this story. God bless the GB's if they can help this other fledgling church. But what does it say about us if we have to have every different flavor in separate congregations, because we can't handle some diversity?

[Bootstrap]

Quick side comment: this thread has become very good, I think Ernie's excellent responses have a lot to do with that.

Ernie, I very much appreciate the time and thought you are putting into this, and the manner of your responses to people who see things from a variety of perspectives.

[barnhart]

Ernie, what differences do you see between the model you presented above and the "centered set vs. bounded set" model Ohio Jones mentioned.

[Josh]

What is the work and sacrifice in your circles?

After becoming a member (often in one's teens), the expectations gradually increase. First, as a youth, you are just expected to go to youth group and participate in youth activities. If someone joins before 8th grade is over, when they are still in school, there is also an expectation to see one's conduct towards one's classmates and teachers improve. (When younger ones want to be baptised, teachers are sometimes consulted to help assess if a young person is genuinely converted. A truly converted person often has a marked improvement in how they treat their classmates and teachers.)

As one gets a bit older (17, 18, 19), one is expected to show more leadership including setting a good example to younger converts, participating in the discussion in Sunday school, and having a cheerful attitude about singing in nursing homes, volunteering at the homeless shelter, and so on. A handful of church jobs may be assigned such as youth chorister, snow shoveller, and so on.

Around this time it is not uncommon to get married, and then the work and sacrifice amps up a bit. There are plenty of "church jobs" to be assigned, and over a few years' time span, almost every married member will have one, along with many unmarried members too. You are expected to what is assigned (tract worker, food committee, trustee who takes care of the building, etc.) cheerfully and with a Christian attitude.

Likewise, the rest of the members plus the leadership want to see people growing in spiritual maturity - getting up and giving introductions (this is an area I have failed in for the last 3 or so years), participating in Sunday school discussions, and generally showing signs of a Christian life. As you are no longer a child and it is time "to put away childish things", excusing yourself or making allowances in areas like watching movies, listening to recorded music, and so on is less and less and acceptable. During annual revivals, you will be expected to have a clear testimony - or a sharing of struggles - of how the last year has been for you, spiritually.

I will now describe people I have seen who leave church, either willingly, or who eventually get expelled. Their interests in spiritual things such as talking about God, the Bible, showing an interest in missionaries and mission activity, being willing to drive a tract route, and so on never grow. Instead, their priorities seem to be:

- (for women) discussing the latest MLM they are into, going to the MLM's national conference, getting an award there
- discussing the latest place to go on vacation, Puerto Rico, Sarasota, and so on
- just focused on "getting ahead" in business, making more money
- in your spare time, seeming to have the highest priority of attending new exciting restaurants in the nearest big city, visiting coffeehouses, and so on
- questionable spiritual influences - always busy reading the "latest" trend or fad in evangelical books
- (more for single people) too busy travelling to all kinds of places around the world

I'll give an example of a couple that isn't spiritually shallow. They very much enjoy visiting new coffeehouses. To save money, they get just 1 cup of coffee and share it. There was a need for someone to drive a car stuffed full of boxes of tracts to Chicago, as the freight for this would be hundreds or thousands of dollars. They were willing to drive 6 hours each way to Chicago and back. On the way, they did visit a few coffeehouses and enjoyed each other's company on the trip.

Now I will give you an unfortunate example. A young couple with young children was pleasant and friendly, but their interests didn't seem to extend beyond talking about vacation or business. She was quite generous with herself of recording videos of herself that seemed well-staged where she promoted her MLM and then shared these videos on WhatsApp. She was in a photo of the "top sellers" for Lemongrass in their catalogue, taken at Lemongrass's conference. The family moved to a different state and started a new business to try to make more money, even though they were already prospering in the place where they were. Church attendance slackened, and soon they were busy on social media like Instagram with pictures of their family in worldly clothes. It became obvious they lacked interest in spiritual things.

Now what is interesting to me is - some Anabaptist churches are a very "comfortable" home for the last paragraph above. Other Anabaptist churches are not comfortable at all for such a person. I feel like a church should be an inviting place for the unbeliever to learn about following Jesus, but should be a hostile place for a Christian who is deciding to stop following Jesus.

I believe this is an important part of our Anabaptist heritage. It is a little less convenient to not wear worldly clothes in hot summers. It would be more enjoyable to go to amusement parks and on vacations rather than stay home and focus on spending time at home with family and one's local church brethren. It's fun to watch movies and TV. It takes self denial to choose not to open up YouTube and listen to worldly music. But the spiritual fruit, or lack thereof, becomes quite apparent in such a person.

Many people struggle with becoming such a shallow person throughout the year. A big question is if they "right their ship" during annual revivals and are awakened, or if they simply are content to decay into a spiritual doldrums. When they choose the latter, eventually the lack of any fruit becomes obvious.

[Josh]

First of all, membership as we use the term today is different from how the term was used in the New Testament from what I can understand. The word "member" in the New Testament referred to membership in the body of Christ from what I can understand. And yes, the leaders of the churches did have a definition for what it meant to be part of the body of Christ.

I would partially agree, but membership was also very clearly defined as being a member of a specific, local congregation, or else the concept of being excommunicated would not make any sense. (Some Anabaptist churches are prideful and do not respect the excommunications from other Anabaptist churches, and some indeed rely on a "pipeline" of such people for most of their new membership.)

I am a big believer in things like Christ's body actually being incarnate and visible, as opposed to an abstract concept like Luther's "invisible church", or the Catholic concept that somehow wheat and tares grow in the same congregation.

Now here is a concept that might stretch some brains about as far as they can be stretched...
Just like some congregations submit to each other but also submit to another group of congregations, I think it is possible for a group of Christians to submit to their congregation as a whole, but also submit to an Order within the congregation.

This already happens in Plain Anabaptist congregations, but we generally don't think of it this way. For example, some church leaders in a congregation may wear high top shoes or suspenders to church. Some lay members may do the same and expect their children to do likewise. Other lay members in the church who did not grow up with this practice may choose to adopt the practice. In this sense, they are joining an Order within the church.

I agree with this, but I also don't think there should be multiple "orders" in a congregation. The Anabaptist concept of a specific congregation is concordant with the concept of that congregation being one, specific order. Monastic orders are well-organised and have clear, visible boundaries. A priest I know is also a monk. It is very obvious he is a monk due to his clothing and the lifestyle by which he lives. There are no questions or ambiguity about exactly which order he is part of.

If some lay members don't see value in things like wearing suspenders, it seems reasonable for there to be two Orders organised, one with suspenders and one without. Now, an important concept arises... one who is committed to an Order does not simply jump around orders in a shallow fashion. One remains committed to where they are. This is a very important time in one's life in Catholic circles, for people who choose to join a monastic order. It is a time of much soul searching and reflection and prayer. It is certainly not chosen out of convenience either with "well I like this monastery because in that monastery, I can take as many showers as I want, so I'll choose that one." (Many monastic orders only have time for showers 2 or 3 times a week.) Joining an order is expected to be a decision of sacrifice, showing one's devotion to Christ.

I haven't heard a recent update on this story. God bless the GB's if they can help this other fledgling church. But what does it say about us if we have to have every different flavor in separate congregations, because we can't handle some diversity?

It becomes nearly impossible even with slight differences to be united as a congregation. Consider one of our churches, which has a youth group, a school, and then the overall membership. Could we have a slightly different "flavour" where we have one group of families that avoid smartphones until age 18, another group of families that is OK with their 13 year olds having smartphones, and another group that lets their kids have smartphones at age 16, but stays entirely off of WhatsApp?

It would be disorganised chaos. I guess the youth group could resort to just group texts. But the WhatsApp-users will make their own groups and communicate amongst themselves. School will be chaotic, with some 13 year olds bringing phones to school. Since their families have decided that is OK and that is their "diversity", can the rest of the families expect them not to do that?

Would it not be better for these three factions to simply organise themselves into different congregations, schools, and youth groups?

[Ernie]

Would it not be better for these three factions to simply organise themselves into different congregations, schools, and youth groups?

That is certainly what conservative Mennonites have been doing faithfully since the 1960's.

[Josh]

Would it not be better for these three factions to simply organise themselves into different congregations, schools, and youth groups?

That is certainly what conservative Mennonites have been doing faithfully since the 1960's.

Yes, but I am saying they could recognise each other as different Orders, and part of that is they would not accept or promote transfers between Orders. They would also respect each other's church discipline. They could commune with each other at a very high level, but in practical day to day life they would recognise the challenges created by their different Rules of Life.

Instead, what conservative Mennonites have been doing (and, really, all plain people do this, myself included):

- Sharply criticise those who are two steps less conservative for having almost departed the faith and certainly for having abandoned proper Christian lifestyle
- Mock those who are two steps more conservative as being backwards, silly, having inexplicable and hypocritical rules; allege that such people have a "works based" salvation and imply they are not even born again
- Be very, very willing to recruit new members from groups that are one step (or more) conservative, ignoring any church discipline they may have had in such a group
- Be completely unsuccessful at recruiting much of anyone from groups that are less conservative

Effectively, conservative Mennonites have organised themselves into a "church" that recognises the "true church" as themselves, plus groups that are one step more and one step less conservative. This is a very bizarre way to think and state of affairs, if you really think about it.