At what point do you consider a professing Anabaotist NOT to be one

[JayP]

I do not mean this critically. I am just curious because my experience is most Anabaptist consider the definition of “liberal” is anyone or group to the left of them.

When I was in Eastern they considered groups like Mennonite USA to just use the name and not really in any way reflect historical anabaptism. Obviously you are where you are on the spectrum because you are comfortable there, but at one point or on what beliefs do you consider “more liberal cousins” lost.

[Ernie]

I do not mean this critically. I am just curious because my experience is most Anabaptist consider the definition of “liberal” is anyone or group to the left of them.

When I was in Eastern they considered groups like Mennonite USA to just use the name and not really in any way reflect historical anabaptism. Obviously you are where you are on the spectrum because you are comfortable there, but at one point or on what beliefs do you consider “more liberal cousins” lost.

I consider folks lost, (whether to the right, to the left, or close to where I am) whenever they do any of the following...

1. Persist in disobeying God
2. Persist in going against better knowledge (know to do good and don't do it)
3. Hide their sin from those who should know about it
4. Call good, evil; and evil, good
5. Pervert the ways of justice
6. Work against and demean those who are doing right
7. Water down or dismiss the teachings of Christ
8. Pretend to be righteous when they are not
9. Believe that they can do the right things to earn salvation
10. Become satisfied with lukewarm Christianity

[Neto]

"Lost' and "non-anabaptist" are completely different questions. (At least for me, since I recognize that not all Christians are 'anabaptists', or 'Mennonites'.)

There are other important distinctives of 'anabaptism', but the two that immediately come to my mind are
1) Baptism based on a personal faith, one grounded in a confession that is not only a 'right confession' doctrinally.
2) No use of legal or physical force through an active union with government.

(I realize that these statements can be picked apart to make them say something different than I intend, but I accept that possibility. I am not going to write out a long description of sub-points and illustrations.)

[barnhart]

I agree with Ernie and Neto.

One category I might add to Ernie's list is directionality. I can feel close to someone who's belief and practice might be quite different from mine depending on which direction they are turned any conversely those very close in practice but who are turned away feel distant.

[JohnH]

I do not mean this critically. I am just curious because my experience is most Anabaptist consider the definition of “liberal” is anyone or group to the left of them.

When I was in Eastern they considered groups like Mennonite USA to just use the name and not really in any way reflect historical anabaptism. Obviously you are where you are on the spectrum because you are comfortable there, but at one point or on what beliefs do you consider “more liberal cousins” lost.

I would disagree with Eastern on that. The old Mennonites and General Conference Mennonites, who have generally congregated in their most liberal form as MC USA, certainly are “progressive” but still have a very strong stance against war.

Whereas I’m not sure Eastern embodies historical Anabaptists. Historical Anabaptists did not:

- Teach that attire like kapps, cape dresses, and plain coats is the sign of a Christian
- Tolerate unbridled pursuit of wealth
- Ordain their leaders from principal families and usually from wealthy members of those families
- Consist of an ethnic clan with very few flowing in from their neighbours
- Consist of a different ethnic group than the society around them

MC USA is better at some of the above things.

[Soloist]

I do not mean this critically. I am just curious because my experience is most Anabaptist consider the definition of “liberal” is anyone or group to the left of them.

When I was in Eastern they considered groups like Mennonite USA to just use the name and not really in any way reflect historical anabaptism. Obviously you are where you are on the spectrum because you are comfortable there, but at one point or on what beliefs do you consider “more liberal cousins” lost.

I would disagree with Eastern on that. The old Mennonites and General Conference Mennonites, who have generally congregated in their most liberal form as MC USA, certainly are “progressive” but still have a very strong stance against war.

Whereas I’m not sure Eastern embodies historical Anabaptists. Historical Anabaptists did not:

- Teach that attire like kapps, cape dresses, and plain coats is the sign of a Christian
- Tolerate unbridled pursuit of wealth
- Ordain their leaders from principal families and usually from wealthy members of those families
- Consist of an ethnic clan with very few flowing in from their neighbours
- Consist of a different ethnic group than the society around them

MC USA is better at some of the above things.

wife:Yes, but I think MC USA can go to other extremes, such as female pastors, no modest dress taught, and dabbling with homosexuality and some congregations even performing same-sex marriage now. I do appreciate some of the things they do like sharing of goods, etc..

Trying to figure out which one better embodies historical anabaptists would probably be a little difficult since there was such a wide variety, but I think that winking at or openly endorsing sin is never good, whether conservative or liberal.

I personally would look at a person based off of them as an individual versus their denomination, although I’m not an expert as to who’s saved or not.

[Praxis+Theodicy]

1) If a church would baptize someone who cannot give informed consent on a decision to join God's Kingdom here on Earth with the rest of their temporal life, I would not consider that church to be an anabaptist church.

2) If a church taught and lived out a version of 2-Kingdom theology similar to Martin Luther's teaching, or in practice similar to the Roman Catholic church, I would not consider them to be an anabaptist church.

So church needs to have both those two things, at minimum, to be an anabaptist church. The 2-Kingdom theology of Anabaptists is the unique stamp they have that makes them different from Baptists, who share the first listed criterium.

I like to study and consider what is COMMON among all Mennonite/Anabaptist churches across the spectrum from Old Orders to MCUSA, rather than what makes them different (which is a bit more apparent). I think it's "incarnationality", but I'd have to elaborate on that in another post when I have more time.

[Praxis+Theodicy]

Also, I'll say that I would consider someone to not be "Anabaotist" if they brought Chinese steamed buns to the church potluck.

Sorry, JayP. I couldn't pass up the opportunity, and if I resisted, Ohio Jones would've come in and said it anyway.

[joshuabgood]

I agree with Ernie and Neto.

One category I might add to Ernie's list is directionality. I can feel close to someone who's belief and practice might be quite different from mine depending on which direction they are turned any conversely those very close in practice but who are turned away feel distant.

Does directionality mean coming over to your viewpoints? Demonstrating things like love, joy, peace, holiness, etc. Or how do you adjudicate "direction?"

[joshuabgood]

I would add to Ernie's list...an inability to get along with others, or in honor prefer them. Divisiveness, quarreling, etc...