Ernie wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 1:14 pm
Here is an example of why I think using Marpeck as a role model for political involvement is a stretch and even unfair...
Klassen observes that:
Marpeck believed that the church must exist as a social structure in tension with the state. When it was suggested to him that a community which rejects the basis of power on which the state rests, in fact challenges the legitimacy of the state, he replied that obedience to God is more important than obedience to Caesar. Both he and his colleague Scharnschlager, held the position that even if Anabaptists were to become a majority, they would not force their faith on others. Faith must come out of the willingness of the individual to accept it and coercion has no role in promoting faith.
Engaging in politics is forcing the minority to do what the majority wants done, and that is the exact opposite of what Marpeck believed and taught.
Someone should write an article about the moderate and progressive attempts at revisionist history, in which they make Marpeck out to be a supporter of their rightwing and leftwing political involvements.
If you really want to trade barbs on revisionist history, I think that would get ugly.
Especially when you know or should know that I am not advocating for political movements. And that I am pretty careful with facts.
Maybe there are better ways to discuss these things, even when we do sometimes have different understandings of Scripture or history?
Ernie wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 1:14 pm
Here is an example of why I think using Marpeck as a role model for political involvement is a stretch and even unfair...
Klassen observes that:
Marpeck believed that the church must exist as a social structure in tension with the state. When it was suggested to him that a community which rejects the basis of power on which the state rests, in fact challenges the legitimacy of the state, he replied that obedience to God is more important than obedience to Caesar. Both he and his colleague Scharnschlager, held the position that even if Anabaptists were to become a majority, they would not force their faith on others. Faith must come out of the willingness of the individual to accept it and coercion has no role in promoting faith.
Engaging in politics is forcing the minority to do what the majority wants done, and that is the exact opposite of what Marpeck believed and taught.
Someone should write an article about the moderate and progressive attempts at revisionist history, in which they make Marpeck out to be a supporter of their rightwing and leftwing political involvements.
If you really want to trade barbs on revisionist history, I think that would get ugly.
Especially when you know or should know that I am not advocating for political movements. And that I am pretty careful with facts.
Maybe there are better ways to discuss these things, even when we do sometimes have different understandings of Scripture or history?
What's more that's not the definition of engaging in politics. It may be the definition of democracy sans republicanism or a constitution but to boil down political engagement to majority rule is I think a mistake.
My impression is that data often cited is rarely first hand writing from the “author” but rather people’s opinions on what the person meant. Perhaps if one is going to argue Menno held a position, they should provide evidence to support it.
Ernie wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 1:14 pm
Here is an example of why I think using Marpeck as a role model for political involvement is a stretch and even unfair...
Klassen observes that:
Marpeck believed that the church must exist as a social structure in tension with the state. When it was suggested to him that a community which rejects the basis of power on which the state rests, in fact challenges the legitimacy of the state, he replied that obedience to God is more important than obedience to Caesar. Both he and his colleague Scharnschlager, held the position that even if Anabaptists were to become a majority, they would not force their faith on others. Faith must come out of the willingness of the individual to accept it and coercion has no role in promoting faith.
Engaging in politics is forcing the minority to do what the majority wants done, and that is the exact opposite of what Marpeck believed and taught.
Someone should write an article about the moderate and progressive attempts at revisionist history, in which they make Marpeck out to be a supporter of their rightwing and leftwing political involvements.
If you really want to trade barbs on revisionist history, I think that would get ugly.
Especially when you know or should know that I am not advocating for political movements. And that I am pretty careful with facts.
Maybe there are better ways to discuss these things, even when we do sometimes have different understandings of Scripture or history?
I may be wrong but I didn't understand Ernie to be targeting you with that post.
ken_sylvania wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 7:00 pm
I may be wrong but I didn't understand Ernie to be targeting you with that post.
I think that I have seen some questionable history on the Plain Anabaptist side, I'm really uncomfortable with quickly accusing people of bad motives.
In fact, I'd say that a LOT of Mennonite History, across the spectrum, has been written by idealists who see history through a certain lens. I don't believe everything I read in the books that motivated me to become a Mennonite, I don't believe everything I read in The Martyr's Mirror. Maybe a little idealistic revisionism is a common flaw for human beings.
It's all too easy to make sweeping accusations about others instead of taking the time to get the facts right ourselves. It's so, so easy to keep saying that people who disagree with us are morons, deceptive, evil, or whatever. That's rarely a helpful path to understanding the truth.
ken_sylvania wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 7:00 pm
I may be wrong but I didn't understand Ernie to be targeting you with that post.
I think that I have seen some questionable history on the Plain Anabaptist side, I'm really uncomfortable with quickly accusing people of bad motives.
In fact, I'd say that a LOT of Mennonite History, across the spectrum, has been written by idealists who see history through a certain lens. I don't believe everything I read in the books that motivated me to become a Mennonite, I don't believe everything I read in The Martyr's Mirror. Maybe a little idealistic revisionism is a common flaw for human beings.
It's all too easy to make sweeping accusations about others instead of taking the time to get the facts right ourselves. It's so, so easy to keep saying that people who disagree with us are morons, deceptive, evil, or whatever. That's rarely a helpful path to understanding the truth.
I'm not sure I understand how that relates to my post that you quoted???
ken_sylvania wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 7:00 pm
I may be wrong but I didn't understand Ernie to be targeting you with that post.
I think that I have seen some questionable history on the Plain Anabaptist side, I'm really uncomfortable with quickly accusing people of bad motives.
In fact, I'd say that a LOT of Mennonite History, across the spectrum, has been written by idealists who see history through a certain lens. I don't believe everything I read in the books that motivated me to become a Mennonite, I don't believe everything I read in The Martyr's Mirror. Maybe a little idealistic revisionism is a common flaw for human beings.
It's all too easy to make sweeping accusations about others instead of taking the time to get the facts right ourselves. It's so, so easy to keep saying that people who disagree with us are morons, deceptive, evil, or whatever. That's rarely a helpful path to understanding the truth.
I'm not sure I understand how that relates to my post that you quoted???
Even if the sweeping accusations are not aimed at me personally, I don't think they help advance the discussion.
I think that I have seen some questionable history on the Plain Anabaptist side, I'm really uncomfortable with quickly accusing people of bad motives.
In fact, I'd say that a LOT of Mennonite History, across the spectrum, has been written by idealists who see history through a certain lens. I don't believe everything I read in the books that motivated me to become a Mennonite, I don't believe everything I read in The Martyr's Mirror. Maybe a little idealistic revisionism is a common flaw for human beings.
It's all too easy to make sweeping accusations about others instead of taking the time to get the facts right ourselves. It's so, so easy to keep saying that people who disagree with us are morons, deceptive, evil, or whatever. That's rarely a helpful path to understanding the truth.
I'm not sure I understand how that relates to my post that you quoted???
Even if the sweeping accusations are not aimed at me personally, I don't think they help advance the discussion.
I can agree with that. It really would be nice if we could discuss topics without harping on one another about perceived bad motives.
ken_sylvania wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 8:48 pm
I can agree with that. It really would be nice if we could discuss topics without harping on one another about perceived bad motives.
Or the long dead. Let the words written stand for themselves.