Why do Swiss Anabaptists practice ethnic separatism from other Anabaptists?

[barnhart]

Anabaptist Financial? I'm not sure why they are the gold standard though...

[mike]

Anabaptist Financial? I'm not sure why they are the gold standard though...

They're just an institution that broadly serves conservative Anabaptists and they aren't the gold standard, it's just interesting to note where an org like them draws the line.

[Soloist]

Anabaptist Financial? I'm not sure why they are the gold standard though...

No, I'd rank them more as straw.

[ohio jones]

CA churches (defined as recognized by say AF).

It's a reference to their definition, not to Anabaptist Financial as a gold standard or other reserve currency.

Here's the definition:

Participation in AF programs is limited to church members in good standing in the Conservative Anabaptist constituency, defined as churches which support the 1963 Mennonite Confession of Faith or earlier confessions, including the Dordrecht Confession of 1632 or the Schleitheim Confession of 1527, which have ordained church leaders, and provide brotherhood accountability for their members.

I guess those who subscribe to the 1964 Hartville document are out of luck.

[JohnH]

So just so we are all clear,
1. If someone leaves a Holdeman church to go to a "Swiss Anabaptist" church, they will be excommunicated.

Anyone who leaves and departs the church is expelled, yes. It is virtually nonexistent anyone ever leaves to go to another conservative Anabaptist church. I am not aware of any current ex members who are currently members at another CA church.

Someone who wants to join and then leave a church probably shouldn’t pass through the Holdemans. It is not a church set up to facilitate sliding towards a less conservative church when a member feels a desire to do so.

2. If someone from a "Swiss Anabaptist" church wishes to join a Holdeman church, They will need to be rebaptized.

Any incoming new member is always baptised. No special preference is given towards other CA groups. We don’t judge the validity or lack thereof of other church’s baptisms.

I keep coming back to the question "Who is excluding whom?"
If I'm going to direct a seeker toward a church, I'm not going to direct them toward a church that creates more confusion.
I'm quite convinced this has nothing to do with ethnicity. (FWIW, I only used the term "Swiss Anabaptist" since it was posed in the original post. This is not a term I've been accustomed to using in description of churches.)

Holdeman churches generally have more seekers than other CA groups, for whatever reason.

We don’t exclude Swiss background people but also don’t “prefer” them over Baptists, Pentecostals etc

[JohnH]

CA churches (defined as recognized by say AF).

It's a reference to their definition, not to Anabaptist Financial as a gold standard or other reserve currency.

Here's the definition:

Participation in AF programs is limited to church members in good standing in the Conservative Anabaptist constituency, defined as churches which support the 1963 Mennonite Confession of Faith or earlier confessions, including the Dordrecht Confession of 1632 or the Schleitheim Confession of 1527, which have ordained church leaders, and provide brotherhood accountability for their members.

I guess those who subscribe to the 1964 Hartville document are out of luck.

Despite affirming the 1527 and 1632 confessions, AF excludes the Holdemans.

[seinetsodumm]

2. If someone from a "Swiss Anabaptist" church wishes to join a Holdeman church, They will need to be rebaptized.

Any incoming new member is always baptised. No special preference is given towards other CA groups. We don’t judge the validity or lack thereof of other church’s baptisms.

On the contrary, such statements have judged all baptism as invalid unless performed by Holdeman ministers. A judgement that simply doesn't add up to Scripture.

I keep coming back to the question "Who is excluding whom?"
If I'm going to direct a seeker toward a church, I'm not going to direct them toward a church that creates more confusion.
I'm quite convinced this has nothing to do with ethnicity. (FWIW, I only used the term "Swiss Anabaptist" since it was posed in the original post. This is not a term I've been accustomed to using in description of churches.)

Holdeman churches generally have more seekers than other CA groups, for whatever reason.

We don’t exclude Swiss background people but also don’t “prefer” them over Baptists, Pentecostals etc

False. Again, the Holdeman Church's positions exclude believers outside of their church, unless said believers choose to bite Holdeman doctrine hook line and sinker.

Look I get it; there is much you and I don't agree on. That's ok. But would you at least stop pointing fingers without acknowledging your personal and church's bias?

[JohnH]

On the contrary, such statements have judged all baptism as invalid unless performed by Holdeman ministers. A judgement that simply doesn't add up to Scripture.

A baptism is performed by the entire congregation, not just ministers. The ministers are just a representative.

However, Holdemans are not focused on judging if a baptism from another group is acceptable or not, because they explicitly do not judge if a church that isn’t united with them is “true” or not - it is impossible to do so without first being part of it.

It is not a condemnation of other Christians. Many other Christians are out there outside of Holdeman circles.

False. Again, the Holdeman Church's positions exclude believers outside of their church, unless said believers choose to bite Holdeman doctrine hook line and sinker.

Exclude them in what way? All plain churches practice exclusion expressed in marriage and communion to some degree. It’s just a question of where the circles are drawn.

Look I get it; there is much you and I don't agree on. That's ok. But would you at least stop pointing fingers without acknowledging your personal and church's bias?

No, because what is said about Holdemans is often simply not true. It is helpful to try to see things from someone else’s perspective. As far as worrying about being “exclusive” I believe groups that are almost entirely ethnic should probably focus on themselves before other groups.

I can fellowship with and affirm the Christian belief and good practices I see in Apostolic Pentecostals, Amish, Catholics and so forth. I prefer to find what we have in common versus find reasons to exclude. Nonetheless I don’t get torqued up that if I go to Mass the priest wouldn’t want me to take the host and cup.

[R7ehr]

CA churches (defined as recognized by say AF).

It's a reference to their definition, not to Anabaptist Financial as a gold standard or other reserve currency.

Here's the definition:

Participation in AF programs is limited to church members in good standing in the Conservative Anabaptist constituency, defined as churches which support the 1963 Mennonite Confession of Faith or earlier confessions, including the Dordrecht Confession of 1632 or the Schleitheim Confession of 1527, which have ordained church leaders, and provide brotherhood accountability for their members.

I guess those who subscribe to the 1964 Hartville document are out of luck.

No we aren’t. I specifically asked Herr about that some years ago. He handwaved it off, to the effect that of course the 1964 is fine too.

[Soloist]

On the contrary, such statements have judged all baptism as invalid unless performed by Holdeman ministers. A judgement that simply doesn't add up to Scripture.

A baptism is performed by the entire congregation, not just ministers. The ministers are just a representative.

Well, that’s interesting. Can you support this position through any documentation?