Anabaptist Perspectives and liberalism

[Jaran]

I occasionally read discussions on this forum and find significant overlap with my personal interests and the things contributors here are interested in. Occasionally my work at Anabaptist Perspectives has been in focus on this forum.

Welcome Jaran. I'm imagine you've been quite intrigued to find out that you are in fact a closeted liberal camel trying to worm your nose into the tents of conservatism.

Thank you for welcoming me into this discussion, Ken. I decided to create an account here when I saw some of the clearly false (though interesting) speculations being stated about Anabaptist Perspectives, its founders, and Wellspring Mennonite Church.

I just want to affirm, and communicate appreciation for, the perspectives that joshuabgood and barnhart offered about us and politics. From our standpoint, we’ve seen Anabaptist folks being enticed by the political rhetoric of America’s right. We believe that the New Testament and the Anabaptist tradition offer an alternative vision to both left and right political activism. That’s why we’ve consistently discouraged voting. Our staff don’t vote or participate in protests.

I also want to affirm Ernie and Judas Maccabeus’ response to JohnH’s assertions and questions about Wellspring Mennonite Church, the church behind Anabaptist Perspectives.

JohnH, to clear up a few misimpressions, Wellspring Mennonite Church is an unaffiliated Mennonite congregation planted 30 years ago. The founding members came from a variety of backgrounds including Mid-Atlantic, Beachy, and CMC (remember, this was 30 years ago). Fair Play Christian fellowship comissioned the church plant. The impression that it's a "formerly Beachy" church or tied to ADC isn't accurate.

For outside accountability, Wellspring has an advisory committee of ministers. This committee has had members from from Keystone, South Atlantic, Beachy, and BMA churches. Wellspring adheres to the 1921 Christian Fundamentals.

You’ll notice that my account here calls me “Mod/Fund.” I include Fundamental (Progressive) in my church identity to recognize that our policies are both a bit more flexible than the large fellowships in Ernie/Ready To Harvest’s “Moderate” category and also to the right of the Fundamental (Progressive) groups like BMA and ADC. Wellspring’s self-perception and choice of institutions that it patronizes would situate it better in “Moderate” than “Fundamental (Progressive). My generation is largely plainer than our parents (and the church that commissioned the church plant) due to influence from where we’ve attended Bible school, volunteered with missions, found spouses, etc..

Ernie’s words about Wellspring being principled and historically Anabaptist are kind. Wellspring would see this as an affirmation of success.

[cmbl]

I occasionally read discussions on this forum and find significant overlap with my personal interests and the things contributors here are interested in. Occasionally my work at Anabaptist Perspectives has been in focus on this forum.

Welcome Jaran. I'm imagine you've been quite intrigued to find out that you are in fact a closeted liberal camel trying to worm your nose into the tents of conservatism.

Thank you for welcoming me into this discussion, Ken. I decided to create an account here when I saw some of the clearly false (though interesting) speculations being stated about Anabaptist Perspectives, its founders, and Wellspring Mennonite Church.

Welcome, Jaran. I appreciate what I've listened to of Anabaptist Perspectives. The recent episode on Doug Wilson I thought was well done. (I grew up in pietist evangelicalism and had some exposure to Neo-Calvinism when I was in college, though not quite the Doug Wilson, "Moscow Mood" variety, before becoming Anabaptist.)

[JohnH]

You’ll notice that my account here calls me “Mod/Fund.” I include Fundamental (Progressive) in my church identity to recognize that our policies are both a bit more flexible than the large fellowships in Ernie/Ready To Harvest’s “Moderate” category and also to the right of the Fundamental (Progressive) groups like BMA and ADC. Wellspring’s self-perception and choice of institutions that it patronizes would situate it better in “Moderate” than “Fundamental (Progressive). My generation is largely plainer than our parents (and the church that commissioned the church plant) due to influence from where we’ve attended Bible school, volunteered with missions, found spouses, etc..

Ernie’s words about Wellspring being principled and historically Anabaptist are kind. Wellspring would see this as an affirmation of success.

What are traditions you would hold, to church restrictions, rules, etc. that your parents and grandparents would not have had?

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I think when you are in a church whose constituency is on the level of about as least-conservative/traditional as it can be whilst still being recognisably plain Anabaptist at all (which is, unfortunately, true of every fundamentalist-progressive-conservative or moderate-conservative Mennonite or Amish-Mennonoite church), one does have to do some reckoning with where one came from, where one is, and where one is going.

I would also note that it is quite typical for moderate-conservative churches to be in the process of transitioning to being fundamental-conservative, but also often being in denial that this is happening. Moderate-conservative churches used to be defined by sticking to things like plain coats, cape dresses, not allowing fashion veils, etc. - I'm going to hazard a guess that your church isn't anywhere close to such a position.

[Jaran]

You’ll notice that my account here calls me “Mod/Fund.” I include Fundamental (Progressive) in my church identity to recognize that our policies are both a bit more flexible than the large fellowships in Ernie/Ready To Harvest’s “Moderate” category and also to the right of the Fundamental (Progressive) groups like BMA and ADC. Wellspring’s self-perception and choice of institutions that it patronizes would situate it better in “Moderate” than “Fundamental (Progressive). My generation is largely plainer than our parents (and the church that commissioned the church plant) due to influence from where we’ve attended Bible school, volunteered with missions, found spouses, etc..

Ernie’s words about Wellspring being principled and historically Anabaptist are kind. Wellspring would see this as an affirmation of success.

What are traditions you would hold, to church restrictions, rules, etc. that your parents and grandparents would not have had?

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I think when you are in a church whose constituency is on the level of about as least-conservative/traditional as it can be whilst still being recognisably plain Anabaptist at all (which is, unfortunately, true of every fundamentalist-progressive-conservative or moderate-conservative Mennonite or Amish-Mennonoite church), one does have to do some reckoning with where one came from, where one is, and where one is going.

I would also note that it is quite typical for moderate-conservative churches to be in the process of transitioning to being fundamental-conservative, but also often being in denial that this is happening. Moderate-conservative churches used to be defined by sticking to things like plain coats, cape dresses, not allowing fashion veils, etc. - I'm going to hazard a guess that your church isn't anywhere close to such a position.

Two examples:

- Wellspring has made a policy against attention professional sports games. Several in my parents generation found their level of fascination with following sports to be harmful, so they set a different trajectory for my generation. I and my peers are mostly ignorant of what's going on in the NFL, etc..

- Dress has adapted to the institutions we patronize. For example, the church doesn't require cape dresses or a certain color or style of headcovering for the women, but my peers and younger mostly wear cape dresses and a more limited range of headcoverings and operate comfortably at institutions, missions, etc. with more strict dress policy than my parents' and their peers established when they started the church.

[JohnH]

Two examples:

- Wellspring has made a policy against attention professional sports games. Several in my parents generation found their level of fascination with following sports to be harmful, so they set a different trajectory for my generation. I and my peers are mostly ignorant of what's going on in the NFL, etc..

That's good to hear, although it's simultaneously shocking to hear that there would need to be a rule about that at all. I can't imagine ever having a serious discussion about that in our own circles; sort of like how my denomination has never actually made a rule against owning or watching a TV; it is simply an expectation that every member knows better than to go buy a TV and hook it up and start watching it.

- Dress has adapted to the institutions we patronize. For example, the church doesn't require cape dresses or a certain color or style of headcovering for the women, but my peers and younger mostly wear cape dresses and a more limited range of headcoverings and operate comfortably at institutions, missions, etc. with more strict dress policy than my parents' and their peers established when they started the church.

Adapting to institutions you patronise doesn't seem like it's setting a higher standard; if anything, it reveals one as a chameleon who will do whatever is necessary to gain influence and credibility in order to influence other institutions. I consider this a questionable thing. In my denomination, we don't dress up special for other people in terms of Anabaptist plain clothes. We were consistently the same clothes in the same settings; we don't try to pretend to be something we are not.

I suppose I could repeat my shock at finding out teachers who seemed quite plainly dressed when at school could later be spotted over the summer in what can be charitably described as extremely worldly attire. This is the reality of how the silliness of dressing up in a cape dress and a kapp to attend an institution is.

Again, I'm not trying to be argumentative or dismissive of you. I am, however, trying to reconcile some of the quite negative things I have heard about AP from the very constituencies you think you are trying to reach (unless you're only trying to reach people more worldly than you are, in which case I would commend your efforts there, as that would be a brand-new thing for moderate-conservative Anabaptists to be trying to do). Overall, most of the "Anabaptist" world has united against the influence of people who are very skilled at social-media marketing who put together high production quality podcasts and video series.

[Jaran]

You’ll notice that my account here calls me “Mod/Fund.” I include Fundamental (Progressive) in my church identity to recognize that our policies are both a bit more flexible than the large fellowships in Ernie/Ready To Harvest’s “Moderate” category and also to the right of the Fundamental (Progressive) groups like BMA and ADC. Wellspring’s self-perception and choice of institutions that it patronizes would situate it better in “Moderate” than “Fundamental (Progressive). My generation is largely plainer than our parents (and the church that commissioned the church plant) due to influence from where we’ve attended Bible school, volunteered with missions, found spouses, etc..

Ernie’s words about Wellspring being principled and historically Anabaptist are kind. Wellspring would see this as an affirmation of success.

What are traditions you would hold, to church restrictions, rules, etc. that your parents and grandparents would not have had?

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I think when you are in a church whose constituency is on the level of about as least-conservative/traditional as it can be whilst still being recognisably plain Anabaptist at all (which is, unfortunately, true of every fundamentalist-progressive-conservative or moderate-conservative Mennonite or Amish-Mennonoite church), one does have to do some reckoning with where one came from, where one is, and where one is going.

I would also note that it is quite typical for moderate-conservative churches to be in the process of transitioning to being fundamental-conservative, but also often being in denial that this is happening. Moderate-conservative churches used to be defined by sticking to things like plain coats, cape dresses, not allowing fashion veils, etc. - I'm going to hazard a guess that your church isn't anywhere close to such a position.

Two examples:

- Wellspring has made a policy against attention professional sports games. Several in my parents generation found their level of fascination with following sports to be harmful, so they set a different trajectory for my generation. I and my peers are mostly ignorant of what's going on in the NFL, etc..

- Dress has adapted to the institutions we patronize. For example, the church doesn't require cape dresses or a certain color or style of headcovering for the women, but my peers and younger mostly wear cape dresses and a more limited range of headcoverings and operate comfortably at institutions, missions, etc. with more strict dress policy than my parents' and their peers established when they started the church.

Speaking personally (and I'm not alone among my peers) I'm transitioning from norms set by Adventures in Odyssey, Rush Limbaugh, and John MacArthur to soteriology that more congruent with the Anabaptist tradition, making the folks in Martyrs' Mirror my heroes, and increasingly catching a vision for the way of Jesus that is fundamentally at odds with politics of power and empire.

I get what you're saying about transitional churches and the move toward fundamental-conservative, but applying this to a thread about Wellspring and Anabaptist Perspectives is, to put it charitably, not true.

[Jaran]

Two examples:

- Wellspring has made a policy...

That's good to hear...

- Dress has adapted to the institutions we patronize. For example, the church doesn't require cape dresses or a certain color or style of headcovering for the women, but my peers and younger mostly wear cape dresses and a more limited range of headcoverings and operate comfortably at institutions, missions, etc. with more strict dress policy than my parents' and their peers established when they started the church.

Adapting to institutions you patronise doesn't seem like it's setting a higher standard; if anything, it reveals one as a chameleon who will do whatever is necessary to gain influence and credibility in order to influence other institutions. I consider this a questionable thing...

Are you saying the 18-20 year olds finding belonging in church circles a step more conservative then their parents' and thereby developing new habits of dress that they carry into adulthood is best explained as chameleons seeking influence and credibility?

[JohnH]

Speaking personally (and I'm not alone among my peers) I'm transitioning from norms set by Adventures in Odyssey, Rush Limbaugh, and John MacArthur

I'm sorry you grew up in an environment that tolerated that.

But isn't that part of the reason that Christ-following churches had a stance against the radio, and still do? Wasn't part of the problem accepting the radio, which allowed those worldly influences into our homes (and minivans, and work trucks)?

to soteriology that more congruent with the Anabaptist tradition, making the folks in Martyrs' Mirror my heroes, and increasingly catching a vision for the way of Jesus that is fundamentally at odds with politics of power and empire.

I don't know how to say this politely, but long-term, a theological podcast is simply not going to be able to catch up with the allure of worldly podcasts, shows, influencers, and so on. You are never going to have the broad appeal of something like Candace Owens or Matt Walsh or whoever it is people listen to now.

Shouldn't the stance be, "We aren't going to allow ourselves to be influenced by streaming media, social media, videos, podcasts, and influencers"? What do you do when another Anabaptist Perspectives comes along, but with an ever-so-slightly corrupted message?

I get what you're saying about transitional churches and the move toward fundamental-conservative, but applying this to a thread about Wellspring and Anabaptist Perspectives is, to put it charitably, not true.

I suppose I should ask what direction you're going in, then.

Do you foresee a time when you will teach against the radio?

Podcasts? Influencers?

Watching long videos?

[JohnH]

- Dress has adapted to the institutions we patronize

Adapting to institutions you patronise doesn't seem like it's setting a higher standard; if anything, it reveals one as a chameleon who will do whatever is necessary to gain influence and credibility in order to influence other institutions. I consider this a questionable thing...

Are you saying the 18-20 year olds finding belonging in church circles a step more conservative then their parents' and thereby developing new habits of dress that they carry into adulthood is best explained as chameleons seeking influence and credibility?

Perhaps I need to understand what you mean by "Dress has adapted to the institutions we patronise."

Do you mean that young people go off to something like i58 and follow the dress code there?

Or do you mean that they voluntarily choose to hold themselves to a higher standard when they come home, and aren't being told they have to dress a certain way in order to have a teaching job, be at a mission outpost, or whatever?

[nett]

I find the focus on Christian Nationalism very odd, since a very important aspect of the problem seems to go unaddressed. People on social media WILL become polarized. This has been proven over and over. Especially middle-aged and older people who are somewhat naive to the algorithm pandering to their attention. Younger people tend to become jaded, which is a slightly different problem.

What is the point of talking about the symptom, Christian nationalism on the right, but never talking about the root problem? I guess I shouldn't expect much out of an online media outlet that I assume supports itself from social media, but the whole thing just seems laughably inconsistent to me.

Considering what we know of transitionalism, it does seem time would be better spent focusing on the problem of drift, of which social media use is a symptom itself. Drift is undoing anabaptist churches much faster and effectively than Christian nationalism.

To be consistent GET OFF OF THE INTERNET.

I couldn't have said it better myself.