Mainline/Mainstream Anabaptists

[JohnH]

I loaned out my book by Stephen Scott so I cannot verify this, but I think he would have classified Mainline/Mainstream Anabaptists as those who permit women pastors, are ok with more variety of scriptural interpretations, and tend to have more emphasis on social issues.

In contrast are Theological Conservatives who only allow male pastors, take a position on divorce and remarriage, are more concerned about correct doctrine, adhering to statements of faith, and more emphasis on preaching, revivalism, and evangelism. They are more likely to emphasize things like biblical inerrancy, substitutionary atonement, and a focus on individual salvation. Theological Conservatives are more likely to believe that wives should submit to their husbands, etc.

Neither group practices Plain dress.

I cannot think of any groups that fit the definition of Theological Conservative. BMA is the closest, but still practices the headcovering so not sure if you consider them practicing Plain dress. CMC/Rosedale would have fit the definition when Stephen Scott wrote his book. There's much less space between LMC and Rosedale than there was. Rosedale does not allow male pastors, but some Rosedale churches allow women to preach "under the authority of elders." MCUSA has become more progressive since Scott's book. I think Scott's categories need updating.

I can. For example, a split off of the Charity church in Muddy Pond is essentially non plain, but certainly wouldn’t ordain women to ministry. It is functional identical to the CMC of yore.

The same is true of the Charity church in Finger. They don’t practice the covering there except “optionally”, but I very much doubt would ordain any women.

[Szdfan]

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.

Other than the disagreement over LGBTQ inclusion, do you see any other substantial disagreements currently In MCUSA over the COF?

[cooper]

In what way does Rosedale not fit Theological Conservative?

You included "takes a position on divorce and remarriage" in the definition, and Rosedale accommodates D/R to some extent. I don't see that much space between Rosedale and LMC on D/R.

[Ernie]

Does LMC take any different position on Divorce and Remarriage than what Rosedale does?

[Ernie]

Does LMC take any different position on LGBTQ than what Rosedale does?

[Ken]

LMC and Rosedale may be on the same page when it comes to gay marriage.

But they differ in a whole lot of other substantive ways from women pastors (and the role of women generally), seminary training and credentialing of ministers to literal interpretation of scripture.

[Bootstrap]

Other than the disagreement over LGBTQ inclusion, do you see any other substantial disagreements currently In MCUSA over the COF?

I don't think that is a disagreement about only the LGBTQ+ issue. I think it involves this question: do we trust what the Bible says about sexual ethics? If we don't trust what it says about sexual ethics, what about other ethics? How do we interpret and apply the Bible to our lives? What do we do when biblical teaching conflicts with the mainstream understandings of society around us?

[Ken]

Other than the disagreement over LGBTQ inclusion, do you see any other substantial disagreements currently In MCUSA over the COF?

I don't think that is a disagreement about only the LGBTQ+ issue. I think it involves this question: do we trust what the Bible says about sexual ethics? If we don't trust what it says about sexual ethics, what about other ethics? How do we interpret and apply the Bible to our lives? What do we do when biblical teaching conflicts with the mainstream understandings of society around us?

OK, I'll bite. What is a specific different example that you have in mind here where MCUSA churches are in conflict with the 1995 COF?

[Ernie]

MCUSA has become more progressive since Scott's book. I think Scott's categories need updating.

Here are some proposed categories. You all can help me flesh this out and even suggest different terms if you like.

Theologically Conservative Anabaptists (non-Plain) - Do not ordain women and do not invite ordained women from other Anabaptist churches to preach or lead in a mixed worship assembly. (In general, women's roles are more defined - more of a complementarian model.) Emphasize things like evangelism, inerrancy (and more literal interpretation of scripture), substitutionary atonement, personal salvation, etc. Do not permit certain types of divorce and remarriage (although not as strict as Plain Anabaptists).

Moderate Mainline/Mainstream Anabaptists - Ordain women pastors and bishops. Do not permit practicing LGBTQ as members.

Liberal Mainline/Mainstream Anabaptists - Accept practicing LGBTQ folks in the church, but do not celebrate LGBTQ or ordain such folks.

Progressive Anabaptists - Celebrate LGBTQ

[Ken]

MCUSA has become more progressive since Scott's book. I think Scott's categories need updating.

Here are some proposed categories. You all can help me flesh this out and even suggest different terms if you like.

Theologically Conservative Anabaptists (non-Plain) - Do not ordain women and do not invite ordained women from other Anabaptist churches to preach or lead in a mixed worship assembly. (In general, women's roles are more defined - more of a complementarian model.) Emphasize things like evangelism, inerrancy (and more literal interpretation of scripture), substitutionary atonement, personal salvation, etc. Do not permit certain types of divorce and remarriage (although not as strict as Plain Anabaptists).

Moderate Mainline/Mainstream Anabaptists - Ordain women pastors and bishops. Do not permit practicing LGBTQ as members.

Liberal Mainline/Mainstream Anabaptists - Accept practicing LGBTQ folks in the church, but do not celebrate LGBTQ or ordain such folks.

Progressive Anabaptists - Celebrate LGBTQ

One thing I notice is that Mainstream/Progressive groups tend to engage in wider Peace and Justice activism: Gaza protests, Anti-apartheid protests, Nuclear freeze, Black Lives Matter, etc. Whereas more conservative groups, if they engage in wider political protest at all, it tends to be anti-abortion related.