To Be Plain or Not to Be Plain

[cooper]

I then asked John why institutions like Faith Builders, that are providing some of the best attempts at helping people understand their history, philosophy, and culture, are losing so many of their alumni to other faith traditions or no faith tradition. He lauded Faith Builders for what they have done and are doing, but he believes that the rhetoric from outside of Plain Anabaptist settings (and that influences many Plain Anabaptists) is so strong that once students get back to their home communities, the worldview that they have been developing gets overpowered by the rhetoric that they hear from the surrounding culture as well as the rhetoric they hear from people in their own churches.

Here's a metaphor:

There are these two young fish swimming along, and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says, “Morning, boys. How’s the water?” And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes, “What the [expletive] is water?”

Old Orders are the fish in the water who are often criticized for being unable to articulate their history, philosophy, and culture. In Old Order culture, these things are so deep that people often can’t articulate them. To be able to articulate them, you have to have a perspective larger than your own context. I am better able to appreciate the history, philosophy, and culture of Old Orders as an outsider who has partially rejected some of these than I was to appreciate as an insider. The people at Faith Builders are able to articulate these well because they have spent time physically or intellectually outside conservative Anabaptism.

A theory - The people who appreciate the sociology defense of tradition are well-educated and aren't so traditional themselves. Or they were NMB.
- John D. went to college and has done lots of independent learning to be able to publish a hymnbook and preach like he does
- Brandon Byler went a Holiness Bible College, NMBish - grew up conservative Brethren in Christ with strong evangelical influence
- Cory Anderson has a PhD (he's not so traditional - he recruited a lawsuit in defense of the Amish), NMB
- Edsel Burdge has a master's degree in history, NMB

I don't think using sociology to defend/bring back tradition will work. The medium is the message - using modernity (sociology) to reinforce tradition is stilling using the tools of modernity. I think of John D. as a similar figure to Daniel Kauffman. John D. isn't a fundamentalist, but I see a similarity in using reason to reinforce tradition. Daniel Kauffman was also well-educated and tried to defend the Mennonite tradition with reason, writing Doctrines of the Bible.

Traditionalism has problems that modernity seems like it can solve. How does traditional Anabaptism respond to modernity? There's no good answer. The Old Order approach of isolation is unappealing to many.

Here is how I am using modernity. This definition was created with ChatGPT

Modernity is characterized by a shift in human consciousness towards individualism, rationality, and secularism, where people prioritize autonomy, reason, and scientific understanding over tradition and religious explanations. It emphasizes the growing importance of written communication and rational thought over oral transmission and communal belief systems, reflecting a broader move towards self-expression and authenticity. While modernity offers greater freedom and progress, it also often leads to alienation and fragmentation in human life.

[Bootstrap]

What sense does this book make to a follower of Jesus who knows nothing of the conservative Anabaptist tradition? Does it have any value to them at all?

To me, with limited knowledge of the conservative Anabaptist tradition, it is helpful in one way ...

I’m mixed on it… on one hand, there isn’t any new argument here. Everything has been said before.

I have heard a lot of phrases that show up in this booklet, and have generally been a little baffled by them. This booklet tells me what at least one person means when he uses these phrases.

I read it and added notes to my copy. It's interesting to read the conversation here and see how plain Mennos respond to it, in various directions.

[Bootstrap]

In the section on the Pharisees, John Martin never addresses the passages that actually talk about man-made rules. And he says that the man-made cultural rules were a good thing, calling them "wholesome cultural norms".

The hand washing rules that Jesus and his disciples violated were clearly examples of these "wholesome cultural norms". Martin starts the section on the Pharisees with this question:

But didn't Jesus oppose the Pharisees with their many man-made rules?

But Martin does not actually address the Bible passages that use that phrase. Did Jesus approve of these hand washing rules or not? Did he tell his disciples they must follow them?

Matthew 15

That Which Defiles

Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”

Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:

“‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules.’”

Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen and understand. What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.”

Then the disciples came to him and asked, “Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this?”

He replied, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots. Leave them; they are blind guides. If the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit.”

Mark 7

The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus and saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. (The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.)So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with defiled hands?”

He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:

“‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules.’

You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.”

And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is Corban (that is, devoted to God)— then you no longer let them do anything for their father or mother. Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”

[Ernie]

I think it is important to distinguish between traditions that hinder people from following Jesus and traditions that assist people in following Jesus. The traditions Jesus addresses are the former.

[barnhart]

Would you agree with him?

...
However, when it comes to the value of obedience to Christ and the teachings of the New Testament, and the building of cultural habits and communal societies, and the multigenerational aspects of building Christian community, and the importance of living a life free from sin, and the importance of having pure churches that are dealing with sin (as they become aware of it.) And then there is non-resistance, non-political involvement, non-conformity, non-accumulation, enemy love, etc. These things are considered trivial and hardly worth mentioning in many Augustinian settings...

This is a debate my wife and I have at least once a week. I insist, perhaps wrongly, that Faith and Works are not exclusive ideas, that they're deeply interconnected, bordering on synonymous and that taken together they lead to salvation. She insists, being influenced by the late Tim Keller, that Faith leads to Salvation leads to Works...but that Works are not necessary for the previous 2 ideas to be extant. I see the value in both paradigms and also the pitfalls. My biggest concern from her argument is the pitfall of easy-believism which infects evangelicalism and you stated well the pitfall from mine (though I didn't grow up with OO mindset).

The problem raised by Ernie is real, I've known people who caught in that vortex, but I also know people damaged by the Reform tradition as well. I know a man here in NYC who was a member of 5 evangelical churches, several of them affiliated with Keller's Redeemer network, who told me he was addicted to p*rn (not spelled out to discourage bots) since adolescence. He has a sensitive conscience so at each church he confessed his struggle with the leadership. All five gave the same answer, God doesn't "see" your sin because it is covered by the blood of Jesus. Finally he asked for prayer from a street preacher who asked, "First, have you repented?" This was the first time confession and forgiveness were tied to repentance and that was the beginning of freedom for him. Simply adopting a strong reform soteriology doesn't solve this.

[ken_sylvania]

I then asked John why institutions like Faith Builders, that are providing some of the best attempts at helping people understand their history, philosophy, and culture, are losing so many of their alumni to other faith traditions or no faith tradition. He lauded Faith Builders for what they have done and are doing, but he believes that the rhetoric from outside of Plain Anabaptist settings (and that influences many Plain Anabaptists) is so strong that once students get back to their home communities, the worldview that they have been developing gets overpowered by the rhetoric that they hear from the surrounding culture as well as the rhetoric they hear from people in their own churches.

A rough draft of a hypothesis:
The core values of Anabaptist faith and practice cannot be fully taught or learned in an academic setting. Humility, self-sacrifice, love, patience, long-suffering, fellowship with God - these are learned only through their practical application in everyday life as one works with his family and neighbors, cares for the children at all hours of the night, lends a helping hand to a church brother even when there is an overwhelming workload at home.
In an academic setting, there is a tendency to measure a person and their teachings based on eloquence and logical argument. When we consider that God says that he reveals His truths to babes and the unlearned rather than to the rich, sophisticated, and wise perhaps it should be no surprise that attempts to build up the Gospel by using the world's methods of rational thought and inquiry have consistently fallen flat.

[ken_sylvania]

This is a debate my wife and I have at least once a week. I insist, perhaps wrongly, that Faith and Works are not exclusive ideas, that they're deeply interconnected, bordering on synonymous and that taken together they lead to salvation. She insists, being influenced by the late Tim Keller, that Faith leads to Salvation leads to Works...but that Works are not necessary for the previous 2 ideas to be extant. I see the value in both paradigms and also the pitfalls. My biggest concern from her argument is the pitfall of easy-believism which infects evangelicalism and you stated well the pitfall from mine (though I didn't grow up with OO mindset).

James says that any faith that isn't coupled with Works is a dead faith.

In my experience I would say Faith and Works exist together in a symbiotic relationship. Either one without the other is dead. Much is made of the fact that Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness, but to stop there is to ignore Hebrews 11 which talks about everything that Abraham did "through faith." In fact, none of the heroes of faith are celebrated because of Faith that wasn't coupled with Works.

[Bootstrap]

I think it is important to distinguish between traditions that hinder people from following Jesus and traditions that assist people in following Jesus. The traditions Jesus addresses are the former.

How would I distinguish one from another? Why does washing hands hinder people from following Jesus?

[mike]

A theory - The people who appreciate the sociology defense of tradition are well-educated and aren't so traditional themselves. Or they were NMB.
- John D. went to college and has done lots of independent learning to be able to publish a hymnbook and preach like he does
- Brandon Byler went a Holiness Bible College, NMBish - grew up conservative Brethren in Christ with strong evangelical influence
- Cory Anderson has a PhD (he's not so traditional - he recruited a lawsuit in defense of the Amish), NMB
- Edsel Burdge has a master's degree in history, NMB

I don't think using sociology to defend/bring back tradition will work. The medium is the message - using modernity (sociology) to reinforce tradition is stilling using the tools of modernity. I think of John D. as a similar figure to Daniel Kauffman. John D. isn't a fundamentalist, but I see a similarity in using reason to reinforce tradition. Daniel Kauffman was also well-educated and tried to defend the Mennonite tradition with reason, writing Doctrines of the Bible.

This is exceptionally insightful, in particular your point that sociology won't work to bring back traditions. Cory of course is a sociologist, and his book on the head covering included a sociological argument in favor of the kapp style covering over the cloth veil which I thought was particularly bad. I don't believe his general perspective has been well received by the church he was associated with at that time, and I have heard he is no longer Beachy Amish. The Beachys of course have in many or most cases switched from the kapp style to the cloth veils.

At John's church, where I have many friends and acquaintances, it is not surprising to me that some of his arguments are not working either. For many years, Shippensburg has differentiated itself from traditional conservative Mennonites by its focus on ideas such as following Christ, Kingdom Christianity, community, and non-accumulation of wealth. Some of the traditional Mennonite emphases such as outward conformity and traditional Mennonite garb haven't been as much in focus. SCF has seen a lot of its membership leave in recent years for more liberal churches, and there is an impulse among some of the folks to re-identify more closely with conservative Mennonite tradition. I don't think it is going over well with many of the folks who are good with being the sort of church they have always been. I consider John a personal friend and I can understand both sides of the issue to some extent.

I wear a plain suit myself in cold weather due to our current church's rules, but I sympathize with the idea that while obviously being a cultural marker, it is difficult to justify from a biblical perspective. Most of my adult life I did not own a suit coat. One can dress plainly without needing to wear a conservative Mennonite plain cut suit, or a suit at all. For those who never wore the suit, what value does it add to their faith in Christ to start wearing it? Essentially it becomes a matter of the value of submission to a group, which isn't altogether a bad thing. I've had to do some of that in joining a conference Mennonite church. It is an ability that is well-developed in many of the plain churches, and is less well developed in many other churches. I see it as one of our strengths. But does submission to a group or maintenance of a culture trump everything, and what value if any does it have outside of biblical basis for the issues at hand?

[Ernie]

I think it is important to distinguish between traditions that hinder people from following Jesus and traditions that assist people in following Jesus. The traditions Jesus addresses are the former.

How would I distinguish one from another? Why does washing hands hinder people from following Jesus?

Anything that helps a person keep himself unspotted from the world and look after fatherless and widows, is an aid in following Jesus. Anything that hinders people from doing these things is a detriment.

Many of the Jews were obsessed with their handwashing, due to their belief about the traditions of the elders, and this kept them from entering the new covenant and following Jesus.