Inside and Outside the Cup

[GaryK]

It seems clear to me that you assumed I hadn't read the entire pamphlet, going as far as telling me "When you have read the pamphlet...". These kinds of assumptions and habits get quite tiring and make having productive conversations quite difficult.

At the end of page 6, you said you had not read the pamphlet that this thread is about. That was Wednesday afternoon. I assumed you were telling the truth, and asked people to read the pamphlet before participating in this thread. If you want people to know you have now read the pamphlet, you could simply say so.

I did precisely what you asked and read it and referenced the pamphlet twice in my response to you. I think anyone reading my response would have concluded that I had read it. And now it's this: "If you want people to know you have now read the pamphlet, you could simply say so." That's pretty much saying it was my fault that you either assumed wrongly that I hadn't read it or that you overlooked the references to the pamphlet in my response.

I looked back in the original thread to see if you told everyone that you had read the pamphlet and you didn't that I could find. But I think it was clear to everyone by your first post in that thread that you had read it. It would be nice to have the same courtesy extended to others that are extended to you.

[Bootstrap]

Do you think that is how things are actually taught though? Specifically that the New Testament provides the freedom to be interpreted in a whole bunch of different ways and that this is just the particular way that WE are interpreting it?

That hasn't been my experience on the topic of dress or any other.

I've always heard it taught that way in a wide range of conservative Anabaptist churches.

Same here. That is exactly the way it is taught and understood.

In my framework, I would call this application rather than interpretation. Interpretation is about what they did back then and why, application is about what we do today and why. If we don't live it out today in some real way, that's a problem.

And clearly there needs to be room for multiple applications. Even for multiple interpretations when more than one interpretation is reasonable.

Martin explains this part well, and I agree with what he says here:

So then, let’s be honest. All conservative Anabaptists maintain any number of practices that they value because, although not commanded by Scripture, they provide good cultural soil for a genuine Gospel experience. The insistence by some that they obey only clear biblical mandates is a very thinly disguised fiction. We actually all agree that some ways of doing things are just wholesome practices learned from a long look at experience and history. That long view helps us maintain highly commended Gospel principles by practices not explicitly commanded in the Bible.

I think Jesus is clear that some things are more core than others. Justice, mercy, and the weightier matters of the law. Loving the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength, and our neighbor as ourselves. Trusting God with our lives and not living for mammon.

Those things all need to be lived out, to be applied in our setting. And that application will be different in different settings.

[ohio jones]

This thread is about the pamphlet

To be plain, I thought the original thread was the one about the pamphlet. You asked this thread to be split off so that those who hadn't read the pamphlet (like ken_sylvania) could participate. Now you want to limit this thread to those who have read the pamphlet, and poor
ken_sylvania has to start yet another thread. If we keep this up it will soon become confusing.

[Bootstrap]

This thread is about the pamphlet

To be plain, I thought the original thread was the one about the pamphlet. You asked this thread to be split off so that those who hadn't read the pamphlet (like ken_sylvania) could participate. Now you want to limit this thread to those who have read the pamphlet, and poor
ken_sylvania has to start yet another thread. If we keep this up it will soon become confusing.

Actually, I had no idea why Ken responded in Bunny Trails rather than the original thread, and I did not realize that neither Ken nor Gary had read the pamphlet. I had assumed we were still discussing the pamphlet all along, and that people had read it. I did not ask for a thread where people who had not read the pamphlet could discuss it.

[R7ehr]

This thread is about the pamphlet

To be plain, I thought the original thread was the one about the pamphlet. You asked this thread to be split off so that those who hadn't read the pamphlet (like ken_sylvania) could participate. Now you want to limit this thread to those who have read the pamphlet, and poor
ken_sylvania has to start yet another thread. If we keep this up it will soon become confusing.

I guess that answers the title question plain enough. The apparent Mennonet answer is, no we are not going to keep the it plain, we are going to make many threads to keep the conversation not plain to follow.

[Ernie]

So, I reject the following characterization of John Martin's pamphlet and it further confirms in my mind that starting with inaccurate preconceived beliefs about plain people leads to such inaccurate characterizations. There are so many things Martin writes in the beginning of the pamphlet that should have dispelled the notion that he believes the following.

I am, however, disagreeing with John Martin's pamphlet, which implies that the New Testament is largely about creating an externally visible culture based on outside-the-cup cultural markers.

I agree. Somehow all the disclaimers don't mean anything if a person has tunnel vision on one particular thing.

And in defense of John, he has spent most of his life doing expositional teaching from the New Testament. And I don't know that I have ever heard giving the impression that "the New Testament is largely about creating an externally visible culture based on outside-the-cup cultural markers." He has begun talk about this the last decade as a side topic on occasion, but this side topic is not what he focuses on.

[Ernie]

It's my opinion that part of the reason you don't get more vigorous participation in your quest to "just discuss what the Scriptures say" is these kind of control tactics where you try to make everyone else do things the way you want them done.

It seems clear to me that you assumed I hadn't read the entire pamphlet, going as far as telling me "When you have read the pamphlet...". These kinds of assumptions and habits get quite tiring and make having productive conversations quite difficult.

Yes, it is because of things like this that I have avoided entering into many discussions on MN with this poster the last decade.

[Bootstrap]

I guess that answers the title question plain enough. The apparent Mennonet answer is, no we are not going to keep the it plain, we are going to make many threads to keep the conversation not plain to follow.

I would prefer one thread - the one Ernie started. I did not start either of the others. But that ship has sailed ...

In either thread, I would prefer to discuss the subject. And not spend a lot of energy on why we aren't doing that.

[ohio jones]

Read the booklet and then discuss. Only those who have read the booklet may post on this thread.

Posting here to avoid violating OP terms and conditions.

Actually, I had no idea why Ken responded in Bunny Trails rather than the original thread, and I did not realize that neither Ken nor Gary had read the pamphlet.

If you want people to know you have no[t] read the pamphlet, you could simply say so.

You're right, this thread was split from Bunny Trails at your request, rather than from the original thread; thanks for reminding me. But this is why the thread is separate, and not recombined with Ernie's original. If y'all who have read the pamphlet want to go back to the original thread, have at it.

[Bootstrap]

Perhaps this thread can simply be locked, then? I see no need to continue here.