Why do Swiss Anabaptists practice ethnic separatism from other Anabaptists?

[Southerner]

We don’t judge the validity or lack thereof of other church’s baptisms.

The Holdeman's are judging the validity of a person's baptism every time they re-baptize someone. So it is intellectually dishonest to say they don't judge other's baptisms.

[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.

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

Someone can’t become a member without the congregation affirming it first. The leadership would present the supplicants and the congregation can ask questions. Then a vote is taken in a closed members meeting if need be. Not everyone is passed.

[JohnH]

We don’t judge the validity or lack thereof of other church’s baptisms.

The Holdeman's are judging the validity of a person's baptism every time they re-baptize someone. So it is intellectually dishonest to say they don't judge other's baptisms.

No. They aren’t. The fact other denominations consider it that way is because they view church, membership, and baptism differently.

[Soloist]

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?

Someone can’t become a member without the congregation affirming it first. The leadership would present the supplicants and the congregation can ask questions. Then a vote is taken in a closed members meeting if need be. Not everyone is passed.

I see that as a side point to the baptism aspect but it doesn’t matter. Thanks

[JohnH]

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

Someone can’t become a member without the congregation affirming it first. The leadership would present the supplicants and the congregation can ask questions. Then a vote is taken in a closed members meeting if need be. Not everyone is passed.

I see that as a side point to the baptism aspect but it doesn’t matter. Thanks

Baptism is considered a public sign of membership (like other plain churches).

[Soloist]

Someone can’t become a member without the congregation affirming it first. The leadership would present the supplicants and the congregation can ask questions. Then a vote is taken in a closed members meeting if need be. Not everyone is passed.

I see that as a side point to the baptism aspect but it doesn’t matter. Thanks

Baptism is considered a public sign of membership (like other plain churches).

Yes but 99% of the plain churches don’t make some argument that the laity is baptizing the new members

[JohnH]

I see that as a side point to the baptism aspect but it doesn’t matter. Thanks

Baptism is considered a public sign of membership (like other plain churches).

Yes but 99% of the plain churches don’t make some argument that the laity is baptizing the new members

Well, the leadership can’t just go and decide to baptise someone. So I would say they are not solely in charge of baptisms and membership.

Some plain churches allow leadership to control almost everything. Others are very congregational. Some are a hybrid model.

[Ernie]

Someone can’t become a member without the congregation affirming it first. The leadership would present the supplicants and the congregation can ask questions. Then a vote is taken in a closed members meeting if need be. Not everyone is passed.

I see that as a side point to the baptism aspect but it doesn’t matter. Thanks

Baptism is considered a public sign of membership (like other plain churches).

The difference is that most "other plain churches"
1. Recognize the "baptism" of anyone who was of age and was sincere.
2. Consider baptism as a public sign of membership in a faithful church (not THE Faithful Church) and are willing to transfer that membership to other faithful churches should a person wish to go to a different church.
3. Do not excommunicate those who stay faithful to God but leave the church.

[JohnH]

2. Consider baptism as a public sign of membership in a faithful church (not THE Faithful Church) and are willing to transfer that membership to other faithful churches should a person wish to go to a different church.

Holdemans don’t try to judge what congregations are part of the “faithful church”, unless such a congregation wants full fellowship. There is not some halfway fellowship thing such as how less conservative churches gladly accept members from more conservative churches.

3. Do not excommunicate those who stay faithful to God but leave the church.

Holdemans don’t consider being faithful to God to include leaving church.

However, I assume you meant transfer to another church. Holdemans change congregations all the time. Transfers to another church with different beliefs and practice is not viewed as being faithful to God.

I am open to hearing other beliefs and mechanisms by which the fact conservative Anabaptist churches are composed largely by people from more conservative backgrounds can be avoided. Holdemans view this slide to worldliness as a sign of not being a faithful church.

The “sales pitch” of “You guys are not faithful to God because you don’t make it easy for members to leave to go to a more worldly church, and affirm this as a faithful decision” alongside “You guys are not faithful to God because you don’t uncritically accept baptisms from more conservative churches” is not a very good sales pitch, because Holdemans don’t want either of those things.

[Ernie]

2. Consider baptism as a public sign of membership in a faithful church (not THE Faithful Church) and are willing to transfer that membership to other faithful churches should a person wish to go to a different church.

Holdemans don’t try to judge what congregations are part of the “faithful church”, unless such a congregation wants full fellowship. There is not some halfway fellowship thing such as how less conservative churches gladly accept members from more conservative churches.

3. Do not excommunicate those who stay faithful to God but leave the church.

Holdemans don’t consider being faithful to God to include leaving church.

However, I assume you meant transfer to another church. Holdemans change congregations all the time. Transfers to another church with different beliefs and practice is not viewed as being faithful to God.

I am open to hearing other beliefs and mechanisms by which the fact conservative Anabaptist churches are composed largely by people from more conservative backgrounds can be avoided. Holdemans view this slide to worldliness as a sign of not being a faithful church.

The “sales pitch” of “You guys are not faithful to God because you don’t make it easy for members to leave to go to a more worldly church, and affirm this as a faithful decision” alongside “You guys are not faithful to God because you don’t uncritically accept baptisms from more conservative churches” is not a very good sales pitch, because Holdemans don’t want either of those things.

I wasn't making a sales pitch to Holdemans. The statement was made how we are similar and I was simply stating that it is not really that similar.