Mainline/Mainstream Anabaptists

[Ernie]

I agree.
He would probably have similar words to say to the person as he said to the woman caught in adultery.
"Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more."

This is the conclusion that most Mainliners/Mainstreamers have been coming to the last while.

Mainstream Anabaptists wouldn’t however accept someone living in a homosexual lifestyle / relationship. The mainline / progressive would.

I guess you are dividing mainstream and progressive in a way that I would not. See OP.

[JohnH]

This is the conclusion that most Mainliners/Mainstreamers have been coming to the last while.

Mainstream Anabaptists wouldn’t however accept someone living in a homosexual lifestyle / relationship. The mainline / progressive would.

I guess you are dividing mainstream and progressive in a way that I would not. See OP.

What would you call LMC (doesn’t accept SS marriages or openly SSA ordinations) vs MC USA Central District Conference (affirms and encourages both)?

I would feel confident calling LMC and friends Mainstream since numerically they are one of the largest constituencies (only outnumbered by the Old Order).

[JayP]

I a, amazed that folks think LMC has any juice left. The difference at best between LMC and their more liberal cousins is 20-25 years.

My GSD was more of a true anabaptist than most folks in LMC.

[JohnH]

I a, amazed that folks think LMC has any juice left. The difference at best between LMC and their more liberal cousins is 20-25 years.

My GSD was more of a true anabaptist than most folks in LMC.

That seems a pretty harsh assessment. LMC has been around in its present form since the late 1960s and has been remarkably consistent. There is zero movement inside LMC towards affirming SSA ordinations or SSM.

If you were referring to a German Shepherd dog, I think that’s a really uncharitable characterization of many faithful believers inside LMC churches. The two LMC affiliates near where I live seem to be solid Christians, even if I disagree with aspects of their practice and belief.

[ken_sylvania]

My own personal opinion is that a 21st Century Jesus would welcome both divorced people and gay people into his church.

I agree.
He would probably have similar words to say to the person as he said to the woman caught in adultery.
"Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more."

This is the conclusion that most Mainliners/Mainstreamers have been coming to the last while.

Is that not the traditional Mennonite position? That a person who has been divorced is welcomed if they repent and if they "sin no more" which is understood to mean that they do not remarry while the former spouse still lives? "Gay" can have a range of meanings but if it simply has to do with an attraction that one feels, wouldn't such a person be accepted if they repent and live a pure life?

[Bootstrap]

This is a thread to discuss Mainline/Mainstream Anabaptists such as Mennonite Church USA, Mennonite Church Canada, Evana Network, LMC (formerly Lancaster conference), Church of the Brethren, Brethren in Christ.

Ernie, do you have a working definition for the kinds of churches you are talking about? Would it be fair to describe the groups you’re referring to as “Anabaptist churches that do not practice plain dress”? Or is there a better way to characterize the distinction?

[Bootstrap]

I think all Anabaptists and Mennonite traditions share this perspective:

A Christ-centered faith that takes seriously what Jesus said and did, and seeks to live that out in daily life—being the hands and feet of Jesus in the world.

This shows up in our emphasis on peace, discipleship, community, and service to others. We value following Jesus in the way we live, relate to each other, and care for others.

I think the non-plain churches are strongly shaped by this question:

What does it mean to follow Jesus here, now, in this situation, among these people?

I suspect the plain churches are more shaped by this question:

How do we follow Jesus as our parents, grandparents, and community have done?

Both questions come from a sincere desire to follow Jesus. They lead to different approaches.

[Bootstrap]

You tend to officially confess things there might be some question about.

That is more or less how we got the Apostle's creed and the Nicean creed.

That makes a lot of sense. A COF is not just a theological or doctrinal document, it is also a political one shaped by the issues and controversies that the church was facing at the time. It’s an attempt to create clarity.

To create both clarity and unity. A COF captures the things we agree on that distinguish us from others.

But we are no longer a denomination with one shared understanding, but three distinct groups:

• Those who want to uphold the 1995 Confession of Faith, seeing it as a faithful expression of biblical teaching and Christian discipleship.
• Those who believe the church should affirm same-sex relationships, often appealing to new interpretations of Scripture, cultural context, or lived experience.
• Those who prefer to keep the COF vague or delay the conversation, hoping to maintain unity by avoiding division.

I’m in the first group. I haven’t seen a new biblical argument that holds up to careful study using the normal tools of interpretation. What I often see instead are redefinitions of Greek words or speculative cultural explanations—ways of reading Scripture that, just a decade or two ago, most of us would have rejected as unfaithful to the text.

Unity built on silence, vagueness, or avoidance isn’t true unity. If we no longer agree on what Scripture teaches or what faithful discipleship looks like, then we need to name that honestly and seek clarity—not preserve institutions or the appearnce of unity when the substance has already eroded.

[JohnH]

I agree.
He would probably have similar words to say to the person as he said to the woman caught in adultery.
"Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more."

This is the conclusion that most Mainliners/Mainstreamers have been coming to the last while.

Is that not the traditional Mennonite position? That a person who has been divorced is welcomed if they repent and if they "sin no more" which is understood to mean that they do not remarry while the former spouse still lives? "Gay" can have a range of meanings but if it simply has to do with an attraction that one feels, wouldn't such a person be accepted if they repent and live a pure life?

Why would a person who’s been divorced have to repent of anything, assuming they weren’t the person instigating it?

[cooper]

I a, amazed that folks think LMC has any juice left. The difference at best between LMC and their more liberal cousins is 20-25 years.

My GSD was more of a true anabaptist than most folks in LMC.

LMC is not going to follow MC USA. The most progressive churches left in 2017 to join Atlantic Coast Conference of MC USA. My LMC church was historically one of the more progressive LMC churches, and it's become more conservative since LMC left MCUSA and their progressive members left. LMC ordains women, even allowing women to serve as bishops on a team, but only about 10% of LMC pastors are women.

LMC has two groups of congregations: heritage Mennonite congregations and African-American and Hispanic congregations. The number of heritage Mennonites is going to shrink. The warning signs are here: lots of small churches that can't find pastors, giving to LMC is down in the last years despite adding a lot of new congregations. I expect a lot of small LMC churches are going to close in the next 20 years. Unlike plain Mennonites, mainstream churches under 100 people are really hard to sustain.

Big box, non-denominational churches are taking a lot of LMC members. Becoming a generic, evangelical denomination is much more of a possibility than becoming MC USA.