briar patch

[ken_sylvania]

It would be nice to know sometime what is driving what seems to be an obsession with pointing out over the last 18??? years that the Plain Anabaptist tradition of wearing distinctive, traditional, hand sewn clothing was not practiced by early Anabaptists nor is it commanded in the New Testament.

I think many plain Anabaptists assume that non-plain Anabaptists have nothing in common with the early Anabaptists. I think that is partly because of clothing - we don't LOOK like what they expect Mennonites to look like. I think that a lot of what we have in common with plain Anabaptists is precisely what the early Anabaptists taught and did. Not just on clothing, but on many other things.

And just as plain clothing is an identity issue for many plain Mennonites, the teachings of the early Anabaptists is an identity issue for me.

In any discussion on clothing, or many other topics, most people are saying things they have said before. I wouldn't call that an obsession. Why not respond to the content of what I am saying, agree with it or disagree with it, add to it, clarify where I got things wrong, etc?

If your men are running around shirtless and in short shorts we think they are not displaying the kind of fruits the early Anabaptists expected. If your ladies dress in mini skirts with bare shoulders and plunging necklines designed to show off their “assets” then we think an early Anabaptist preacher would have rebuked such harlot’s attire. But if you think most plain people think that any person who dresses simply and modestly has little in common with early Anabaptists simply because they don’t wear Plain attire, I think you are badly mistaken. I don’t think you understand the Plain People’s mindset well at all and it leads to erroneous assumptions about how they feel about a lot of things.

[Bootstrap]

If your men are running around shirtless and in short shorts we think they are not displaying the kind of fruits the early Anabaptists expected. If your ladies dress in mini skirts with bare shoulders and plunging necklines designed to show off their “assets” then we think an early Anabaptist preacher would have rebuked such harlot’s attire.

That's not what the people in my church are like.

But if you think most plain people think that any person who dresses simply and modestly has little in common with early Anabaptists simply because they don’t wear Plain attire, I think you are badly mistaken. I don’t think you understand the Plain People’s mindset well at all and it leads to erroneous assumptions about how they feel about a lot of things.

I don't think I am claiming to represent Plain people at all. There's a reason I created a thread about the Early Anabaptists, that's what I wanted to focus on.

I hope Plain people will represent their own views. I don't think you are representing mine accurately in what you said above. You seem to be riffing off of this:

I think many plain Anabaptists assume that non-plain Anabaptists have nothing in common with the early Anabaptists. I think that is partly because of clothing - we don't LOOK like what they expect Mennonites to look like. I think that a lot of what we have in common with plain Anabaptists is precisely what the early Anabaptists taught and did. Not just on clothing, but on many other things.

That clearly says "partly because". I gather you don't think that appearance is even a factor?

[ken_sylvania]

If your men are running around shirtless and in short shorts we think they are not displaying the kind of fruits the early Anabaptists expected. If your ladies dress in mini skirts with bare shoulders and plunging necklines designed to show off their “assets” then we think an early Anabaptist preacher would have rebuked such harlot’s attire.

That's not what the people in my church are like.

I wasn't saying that they are. I said IF. Those are the kind of clothing choices that make me question where someone's heart is at.

But if you think most plain people think that any person who dresses simply and modestly has little in common with early Anabaptists simply because they don’t wear Plain attire, I think you are badly mistaken. I don’t think you understand the Plain People’s mindset well at all and it leads to erroneous assumptions about how they feel about a lot of things.

I don't think I am claiming to represent Plain people at all. There's a reason I created a thread about the Early Anabaptists, that's what I wanted to focus on.

Well you sure fooled me. You said:

I think many plain Anabaptists assume that non-plain Anabaptists have nothing in common with the early Anabaptists. I think that is partly because of clothing - we don't LOOK like what they expect Mennonites to look like. I think that a lot of what we have in common with plain Anabaptists is precisely what the early Anabaptists taught and did. Not just on clothing, but on many other things.

And just as plain clothing is an identity issue for many plain Mennonites, the teachings of the early Anabaptists is an identity issue for me.

If you weren't trying to tell us what you think Plain people believe and feel than maybe you could choose other language.

I hope Plain people will represent their own views. I don't think you are representing mine accurately in what you said above.

Because I said "simply because" or because of something else. You can replace "simply" with "in part" and I think my statement is still accurate.

You seem to be riffing off of this:

I think many plain Anabaptists assume that non-plain Anabaptists have nothing in common with the early Anabaptists. I think that is partly because of clothing - we don't LOOK like what they expect Mennonites to look like. I think that a lot of what we have in common with plain Anabaptists is precisely what the early Anabaptists taught and did. Not just on clothing, but on many other things.

That clearly says "partly because". I gather you don't think that appearance is even a factor?

Read what I said again. I stated very clearly that appearance can be a factor. But in general the wearing of plain garb instead of Plain garb among those not from Plain background isn't likely to be a factor whether we think someone has anything in common with the early Anabaptists.

I think there is a difference between "not assuming whether a person has anything in common with early Anabaptists" and "assuming that a person has nothing in common with early Anabaptists." If I meet you in passing on the street somewhere and you are dressed like any other Joe Blow I'm not likely to assume that you have anything in common with early Anabaptists. But that is something totally different from assuming that you have nothing in common with them.

[Bootstrap]

Well you sure fooled me. You said:

I think many plain Anabaptists assume that non-plain Anabaptists have nothing in common with the early Anabaptists.

That's something several Plain people or ex-Plain people have said on MN and MennoDiscuss. And we also seem to agree that appearance can be a factor.

Here's the most recent example of someone saying we have nothing to do with historical Anabaptism:

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.

I'm not sure if you are implying that here or not:

But in general the wearing of plain garb instead of Plain garb among those not from Plain background isn't likely to be a factor whether we think someone has anything in common with the early Anabaptists.

Would you like to nominate another topic about what the early Anabaptists were like? I think most people here consider the early Anabaptists to be an example to learn from, though I suspect none of us considers them infallible or perfect.

I'd rather focus on that and avoid anything remotely like a quarrel, and I would appreciate your help with that. To me, anything that approaches "who are the real followers of the early Anabaptists" or "what does that other group think of people like us" or "what is it you think we don't understand that prompted you to say that" is just turning it away from discussion and toward a quarrel.

[ken_sylvania]

Well you sure fooled me. You said:

I think many plain Anabaptists assume that non-plain Anabaptists have nothing in common with the early Anabaptists.

That's something several Plain people or ex-Plain people have said on MN and MennoDiscuss. And we also seem to agree that appearance can be a factor.

I said that if people are running around dressed like harlots then appearance lends its weight toward a conclusion they have little or nothing in common with early Anabaptists. If that's what you're agreeing with then yes, we seem to agree. That wasn't what you said initially though, and I think I was clear in saying that if we think a modestly dressed person has little in common with early Anabaptists, it's not because they lack "Plain" clothing.

Here's the most recent example of someone saying we have nothing to do with historical Anabaptism:

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.

Do you think that MCUSA as a whole is an accurate reflection of historical Anabaptism? I don't think it is, but it's not because they dress in modest clothing that isn't "Plain." It's because of a whole lot of other things. How do you conclude that JayP's comment was about clothing, anyway.

I'm not sure if you are implying that here or not:

But in general the wearing of plain garb instead of Plain garb among those not from Plain background isn't likely to be a factor whether we think someone has anything in common with the early Anabaptists.

You're not sure if I'm implying what? This was a statement, not an implication. I don't know how I could say what I wanted to say more clearly, and it wasn't in any way an indictment of you or your group. I don't know you or your group.

Would you like to nominate another topic about what the early Anabaptists were like? I think most people here consider the early Anabaptists to be an example to learn from, though I suspect none of us considers them infallible or perfect.

We can no doubt learn some things from them, but I don't think they had a better handle on the Scriptures than my grandpa or my father. I enjoy history, and so I enjoy studying some things about practices and beliefs in prior years, but I place a much higher priority on what the Scriptures say about how to live life and what my Christian brothers have to say about practical application of Bible truths to everyday life, compared to what the early Anabaptists believed, practiced or wrote. I find the most value in Anabaptist history in seeing how their choices affected them and their children and in being encouraged to do what is right regardless of the cost - not necessarily in believing that their interpretation of Scripture is better than that of faithful brethren today.

I'd rather focus on that and avoid anything remotely like a quarrel, and I would appreciate your help with that. To me, anything that approaches "who are the real followers of the early Anabaptists" or "what does that other group think of people like us" or "what is it you think we don't understand that prompted you to say that" is just turning it away from discussion and toward a quarrel.

No need to try to gaslight me. You accused plain Anabaptists of judging you based on your clothing. I simply responded to correct what I believe is a gross misrepresentation of the majority viewpoint of plain Anabaptists in that regard. You brought up the subject of "what does that other group think of people like us." So if you think that bringing up things like that turns things away from discussion and toward a quarrel - by all means, stop doing it. Don't try to pretend that I am somehow in the wrong by not preventing you from doing that. You don't have any right to smear other people and then accuse them of quarreling when they rebut your accusation.

[Bootstrap]

No need to try to gaslight me.

Let's be clear about gaslighting.

In the thread this came from, as in many threads, there is a pattern to what you post.

1. It draws away from the topic of the thread, which is Early Anabaptists.
2. It picks a fight.
3. It brings in all kinds of loaded emotional language, but you will assure me, if asked, that you are not remotely emotional.
3. It blames the fight on me.

And while you continue to avoid discussing the actual topic, you accuse me of gaslighting. I am not going to respond to a post like that in the thread.

I also ask you, as a brother and a Christian, to stop. This is classic gaslighting. If you do not want to discuss the topic of the thread, please just drop out of the thread.

[JohnL]

SMH. I’m hearing the pot calling the skillet black.

[ken_sylvania]

No need to try to gaslight me.

Let's be clear about gaslighting.

In the thread this came from, as in many threads, there is a pattern to what you post.

1. It draws away from the topic of the thread, which is Early Anabaptists.
2. It picks a fight.
3. It brings in all kinds of loaded emotional language, but you will assure me, if asked, that you are not remotely emotional.
3. It blames the fight on me.

And while you continue to avoid discussing the actual topic, you accuse me of gaslighting. I am not going to respond to a post like that in the thread.

I also ask you, as a brother and a Christian, to stop. This is classic gaslighting. If you do not want to discuss the topic of the thread, please just drop out of the thread.

1. Oh, but in that particular thread I did stay on topic until you veered off topic - then I followed you off-topic.
2. If correcting an unfair accusation constitutes picking a fight, then I guess I'm guilty. Somehow though it seems odd to blame the defender for picking a fight. It's like accusing Ukraine of picking a fight with Russia.
3. I wouldn't have called it a fight, but if it was a fight I'm sure I wasn't fighting with myself.

Ah, but I wasn't avoiding discussing the actual topic. I participated in the discussion about the early Anabaptist viewpoint. Once you moved on to discussing how Plain Mennonites today view people who don't dress like them I followed you to that topic.

Of course I accused you of gaslighting. That's exactly what you are doing. Trying to tell us we didn't see what we just saw, accusing other people of doing the things that you are doing, while pretending that you are the victim.

If you make unfair accusations, the place to address them is in the thread where they are made.

[Bootstrap]

I think there's a simple test. Does it bring attention to the topic, or does it provoke a fight. If we want to discuss a topic, that's pretty easy to do.

I'm not interested in the fight. I am interested in the topic.

As for gaslighting ... it's interesting how you bring in all that inflammatory emotional language, then insist that you are not emotional and the other people are. That's classic gaslighting.

I don't think we are having a substantive fight about anything that matters. When I try to respond to the fight, the ground keeps shifting. Classic gaslighting.

It's really not that hard to either:

1. Drop the fight, or
2. Focus on the subject

If you choose not to ... well, I can't help that.

[Bootstrap]

If you make unfair accusations, the place to address them is in the thread where they are made.

Oh, but just about everything becomes an unfair accusation. What you imagine I am thinking about some group of people, whether or not I am saying it, you write it down, take offense, and blame me.

Or if I misunderstand you, instead of clarifying, you call that an accusation. And pretend it has great moral weight, and must be addressed there in the thread, instead of discussing the subject. That technique allows you to hijack the thread.

We aren't fighting about anything interesting or useful or important. It's often hard to figure out what we are fighting about at all. And it never ends.

Gaslighting.

It really is as simple as:

1. Are we discussing the topic? Good.
2. Are we going around and around in a fight? Let's stop doing that.
3. Is there some serious wrongdoing that needs to be addressed? Or some serious relational injury? Let's find a way to do that, probably not in public and certainly not for show.