nett wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2026 1:06 pm
I thought Ernie had a post that defined "transitional", and had a pretty lengthy explanation of how he got there.
It's possible that I did. If so I would like to read it.
That thread has some good posts but I question the benefit of a focus on the taxonomy Mennonites. I put a certain amount of the blame on Steven Scott for his book with the rubric for comparing conservative mennonites. I had never heard of such categories before that and had not thought in those ways. I'm not sure it is good to encourage churches to think of their identity in relationship to other churches rather than thinking of their identity in relationship to God.
Steve Scott simply identified constituencies that share pulpits, do missions together, publication work, etc. Are you objecting to this?
Or are you saying he should not have used labels, and simply referred to the constituencies as A, B, C, D etc.?
0 x
A wee little man can’t say, I’m sorry. A big man owns his mistakes and apologizes.
A wee little man trusts himself and his own discernment. A big man is humble enough to know that he needs the counsel and input of others.
Ernie wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2026 9:24 pm
Steve Scott simply identified constituencies that share pulpits, do missions together, publication work, etc. Are you objecting to this?
Or are you saying he should not have used labels, and simply referred to the constituencies as A, B, C, D etc.?
I recall a little chart that lined up each group according to categories that I had never heard of before, ie intermediate conservative. I had never thought of the relationships between groups this way. I think it encouraged a certain way of creating identity by looking side to side rather than up.
Ernie wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2026 9:24 pm
Steve Scott simply identified constituencies that share pulpits, do missions together, publication work, etc. Are you objecting to this?
Or are you saying he should not have used labels, and simply referred to the constituencies as A, B, C, D etc.?
I recall a little chart that lined up each group according to categories that I had never heard of before, ie intermediate conservative. I had never thought of the relationships between groups this way. I think it encouraged a certain way of creating identity by looking side to side rather than up.
Steve Scott simply identified constituencies that share pulpits, do missions together, publication work, etc. Are you objecting to this?
Or are you saying he should not have used labels, and simply referred to the constituencies as A, B, C, D etc.?
0 x
A wee little man can’t say, I’m sorry. A big man owns his mistakes and apologizes.
A wee little man trusts himself and his own discernment. A big man is humble enough to know that he needs the counsel and input of others.
Ernie wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2026 9:24 pm
Steve Scott simply identified constituencies that share pulpits, do missions together, publication work, etc. Are you objecting to this?
Or are you saying he should not have used labels, and simply referred to the constituencies as A, B, C, D etc.?
I recall a little chart that lined up each group according to categories that I had never heard of before, ie intermediate conservative. I had never thought of the relationships between groups this way. I think it encouraged a certain way of creating identity by looking side to side rather than up.
Steve Scott simply identified constituencies that share pulpits, do missions together, publication work, etc. Are you objecting to this?
Or are you saying he should not have used labels, and simply referred to the constituencies as A, B, C, D etc.?
Perhaps it is the spirit of the age and had he not done it, someone else would have done something similar. The fact the book sold well indicates a hunger or quest to create identity which I question, including this whole thread. It's understandable from a scientific perspective but I don't think that is why this thread was started not why it carries on. As the Bible says "they who compare themselves among themselves are not wise."
I recall a little chart that lined up each group according to categories that I had never heard of before, ie intermediate conservative. I had never thought of the relationships between groups this way. I think it encouraged a certain way of creating identity by looking side to side rather than up.
Steve Scott simply identified constituencies that share pulpits, do missions together, publication work, etc. Are you objecting to this?
Or are you saying he should not have used labels, and simply referred to the constituencies as A, B, C, D etc.?
Perhaps it is the spirit of the age and had he not done it, someone else would have done something similar. The fact the book sold well indicates a hunger or quest to create identity which I question, including this whole thread. It's understandable from a scientific perspective but I don't think that is why this thread was started not why it carries on. As the Bible says "they who compare themselves among themselves are not wise."
I'm sorry but I am still not getting what you are getting at.
Steve Scott simply identified constituencies that share pulpits, do missions together, publication work, etc. Are you objecting to this?
Or are you saying he should not have used labels, and simply referred to the constituencies as A, B, C, D etc.?
0 x
A wee little man can’t say, I’m sorry. A big man owns his mistakes and apologizes.
A wee little man trusts himself and his own discernment. A big man is humble enough to know that he needs the counsel and input of others.
As far as I know Scott approached his work from a scientific, outside perspective, he assigned no intrinsic value to his categories. It was like arranging categories of butterflies. My critique is the hunger for identity that pressed mennonites to assign value judgements to his categories. The more we look to God and the scriptures for identity, the less we need Scott.
barnhart wrote: ↑Thu Sep 17, 2026 7:38 am
As far as I know Scott approached his work from a scientific, outside perspective, he assigned no intrinsic value to his categories. It was like arranging categories of butterflies.
Ok. That helps me understand where you are coming from.
barnhart wrote: ↑Thu Sep 17, 2026 7:38 amMy critique is the hunger for identity that pressed mennonites to assign value judgements to his categories.
Can you explain more how you see Mennonites assigning value judgments to his categories?
0 x
A wee little man can’t say, I’m sorry. A big man owns his mistakes and apologizes.
A wee little man trusts himself and his own discernment. A big man is humble enough to know that he needs the counsel and input of others.
I might have this wrong, however I see this dynamic more as a European version of tribalism applied to spirituality groups.
Tribalism is practiced by all humans because we all show up on the planet in a tribal unit.
A key feature of maintaining tribal identity is adding value judgement to tribal identities. This mostly influences the children and the followers.
This is a major part of the Gospels offensiveness. Jesus teaches us to value people irrespective of tribal affiliation and he calls Himself the judge of people. He simply called us to love our old order neighbour and our liberal neighbor.
