Fundamentalism-Chester Weaver-Anabaptist Perspectives

[Neto]

[Aside: David Kauffman = fundie. Interestingly, when I found a "Doctrines of the Bible" in a local used book store, I enthusiastically bought it, and was then VERY disappointed to discover that it was a Systematic Theology, something I had completely rejected in my late teen years & early 20's - my time of "anabaptist awakening".]

I began to question Kauffman about that time in my life as well but from a slightly different angle. I noticed it was written and published by people who no longer believe it. This made me suspicious his approach/doctrine/theology might be dangerous on some level.

Being Mennonite Brethren, I had never heard of him or his book until I came into contact with Beachy Amish Mennonites for the first time, when I was close to 28. But I had rejected Systematic Theology at 19 or so, because somehow around then I had already pretty much become a biblicist, and had seen the problems in doctrines that fill out the "missing parts" necessary to make a humanly logical explanation for all truth. I don't know for sure what other influences (or crises of belief) had come to bear in my life at that time, but I credit this personal shift (in terms of extra-Biblical reading) largely to Menno Simons. Secondly, I did go through a crisis of belief when someone I highly respected told me that they were 'charismatic' (something I had felt comfortable condemning). I only recall that I went to Scripture, and read it all over and over until I became convinced of the correct direction of belief. There is also probably an influence in there that came through the Jesus People - Jesus Freaks - or Christian Hippies - what ever you want to call them. This is expressed in the youth choruses of that era - songs like "They will know we are Christians by our love", with lyrics like "And we pray that all unity may one day be restored...". The human elements of Systematic Theology were seen as the cause of a lot of division, disunity, in the body of Christ. Our MBY group (high school age Mennonite Brethren Youth) was already singing those songs, doing Jesus Rallies outside of area bars, that sort of thing, even before I basically became a full-fledged Jesus Freak myself.

[Ms. Izzie]

Along with being skeptical of Daniel Kauffman's writings, I don't believe there are 7 Ordinances of the Church as taught by many Mennonites.

[barnhart]

Chester Weaver's emphasis on the corporate experience of God through the brotherhood reminds me of an incident when I was in my late teens or early twenties. My brother and I were working in construction and while we were on a jobsite, the local building inspector showed up. It soon became obvious what he really wanted was to stand around and talk, so we went back to work and he talked. Which worked well since he could hold up both ends of the conversation.

"You mennonite boys have in made, you know that? You will get married to a wife who will stay at home and cook for you and raise your children. You don't know how good you have it." I wasn't sure what to say to that, so I said nothing. I didn't necessarily disagree, but I knew something was missing. Now years later I realize he wanted a submissive wife, but had no intention of submitting to a body of believers himself. I think the word for that is Patriarchy.

[Ms. Izzie]

Rules to deal with ethics - at about 15:30 or so in the video. Very interesting to see this as fundamentalism; As opposed to anabaptism's emphasis on a relationship with the Christ. I want to dig a bit deeper into this, because it seems to me that there is a conflict between talk that almost sounds like "salvation as a group" vs this emphasis on a personal relationship with the living Christ...

So, I'm thinking that what I'll call "Group-Think" makes comprehensive drift possible. There is no room for a "Mennonite prophet" - one who would call the group back to truth. No INDIVIDUAL can bring the group back to faithfulness, because that would violate the "group faith" - the Christian life lived out in community, with the emphasis on "Christ & US" rather than fundamentalism's reported emphasis on "Christ & ME". This seems really contrary to our beginnings, both for me as a Dutch Mennonite ("Russian"), and for those of the Swiss Brethren heritage. It seems like what is being said is that it was OK to do this in the beginning, because then we were in the midst of false Christianity, but then we were suppose to stop it immediately after becoming a faith community.

I, too, have felt this conflict between "salvation as a group" vs. emphasis on a personal relationship with the living Christ in not only this interview, but in some other sermons by other people.

Although I do think that many of the early Anabaptists insisted on the group needing to be true believers, I think we have to remember they were coming out a church in which if you were baptized as a baby; you were then considered a Christian. It is understandable why they strongly thought a true church is made of true believers.

Anabaptist history tells us that there were disagreements between Anabaptist people. I’m not sure when the “salvation as a group” started. Maybe when we came "across the water"? Could somebody point me to some reading to answer this question? I am not convinced that this idea of "salvation as a group" is a good one; although it certainly would be good if every person in the church would be a true believer.

[barnhart]

I, too, have felt this conflict between "salvation as a group" vs. emphasis on a personal relationship with the living Christ in not only this interview, but in some other sermons by other people.

You and Neto are reading more into this than I do. I suspect he is referencing healthy, nurishing body life as opposed to gnostic nature of evangelicalism where salvation is divorced from the church, other believers and ethics in general.

[Wade]

Rules to deal with ethics - at about 15:30 or so in the video. Very interesting to see this as fundamentalism; As opposed to anabaptism's emphasis on a relationship with the Christ. I want to dig a bit deeper into this, because it seems to me that there is a conflict between talk that almost sounds like "salvation as a group" vs this emphasis on a personal relationship with the living Christ...

So, I'm thinking that what I'll call "Group-Think" makes comprehensive drift possible. There is no room for a "Mennonite prophet" - one who would call the group back to truth. No INDIVIDUAL can bring the group back to faithfulness, because that would violate the "group faith" - the Christian life lived out in community, with the emphasis on "Christ & US" rather than fundamentalism's reported emphasis on "Christ & ME". This seems really contrary to our beginnings, both for me as a Dutch Mennonite ("Russian"), and for those of the Swiss Brethren heritage. It seems like what is being said is that it was OK to do this in the beginning, because then we were in the midst of false Christianity, but then we were suppose to stop it immediately after becoming a faith community.

I, too, have felt this conflict between "salvation as a group" vs. emphasis on a personal relationship with the living Christ in not only this interview, but in some other sermons by other people.

Although I do think that many of the early Anabaptists insisted on the group needing to be true believers, I think we have to remember they were coming out a church in which if you were baptized as a baby; you were then considered a Christian. It is understandable why they strongly thought a true church is made of true believers.

Anabaptist history tells us that there were disagreements between Anabaptist people. I’m not sure when the “salvation as a group” started. Maybe when we came "across the water"? Could somebody point me to some reading to answer this question? I am not convinced that this idea of "salvation as a group" is a good one; although it certainly would be good if every person in the church would be a true believer.

Does the "salvation as a group" your thinking of have roots in a reaction against pietism maybe?

But more so I think ones understanding of salvation is key and what salvation is has a bigger impact on why someone would lean to a view that has more to do with me personally or the involvement of the body of Christ or rather a balance of the two.

[Ms. Izzie]

That may be, Barnhart, that I'm reading more into it than necessary.

Healthy, nourishing body life is one thing; headlong "group think" passing off as brotherhood is quite another. Does anybody else see similarities between post-modern tribalism and "group-think" brotherhood?

Wade, could you define pietism for me? I want to make sure I understand what you are saying.

[Wade]

That may be, Barnhart, that I'm reading more into it than necessary.

Healthy, nourishing body life is one thing; headlong "group think" passing off as brotherhood is quite another. Does anybody else see similarities between post-modern tribalism and "group-think" brotherhood?

Yes I think I know what you mean and agree there is a ditch there too.

Wade, could you define pietism for me? I want to make sure I understand what you are saying.

Thank you for asking. I looked it up and realized I have now seen many different definitions for pietism...

What I was referring to was a focus on personal experience with special attention to my own feelings and views on matters as I relate to my personal relationship with God. One that loves brotherhood to stir emotions but simply ignores most interference of thoughts (or even standards) of others that doesn't match my own in allowance for each others individual experience. Heightened experiences can even be used to confirm the moving of the Spirit within me and assuring my salvation.

[Neto]

I am not "against" "group-salvation" (not my term) in the sense of people movements. I don't know what happened to the book, but in one of my Bible college classes we used a small book about church growth by Dr. Donald McGavran, Understanding Church Growth. (It took me awhile to find the author's name & the book title. I cannot find my copy. I think I may have taken it to Brazil, and left it in our stuff there.) Anyway, a study was reported in that book that questioned people in mass movements of salvation as to why they had become Christians. The study, as I recall, was done in India. They asked new converts why they had become Christians, and got answers like "I wanted my children to have a good education, and so I converted so that they could attend the missionary's school." (I don't know if that was just bad information dissemination, or if that was a real requirement.) But then they came back in 20 or so years later, and saw that these same men who had given such non-spiritual reasons for salvation had become solid Christian leaders. McGavran's conclusion was that the fellowship and teaching that follows the "salvation experience" is more important than the initial experience, or reason for the decision.
I suspect that these ideas were not widely accepted outside the "Church Growth Movement", but I was schooled in this line of thought, and I have also witnessed an entire village coming to Christ at one time. I do not have a problem with that sort of "group-salvation" - I celebrate it. My hesitations now deal more with the part that goes after salvation, a sort of thought that says that Christian life has to be done AS a group. (Again, I do not have a problem with Doing Christian life IN a group. That is what I desire.) Group Spirituality, or Group Revelation has the eye telling the ear "You are not the ear, WE are the ear. I am not the eye, WE are the eye". In this figure that Paul uses, he states that the body is made up of DIFFERENT PARTS. If we loose that, then we have a bunch of dysfunctional parts all trying to act like they do not have a specific 'part' or role to play in the body. (I think I'm getting farther afield of the discussion here. So I'll just say that too much "group-think" allows for a real risk of stagnation.)

Here are some thoughts I jotted down on Thursday night, after I went up to bed. I'm going to quote it exactly as I wrote it, so you all can see what I was thinking after I wrote what I did that evening.

Community Centric Faith vs Individual Faith are in a tension. Neither can exist without the other, and moving too far to either side violates true Christian faith - way of life.
But it must start, for each person, with the individual faith, or you end up with legislated "faith", which is no faith at all, but a sham. If it never moves to INCLUDE Community Centric faith (not 'from individual faith), it becomes self-centered, where each one "does what is good in his/her own eyes", a "Me and Jesus got our own thing going" sort of tantrum.
[re: the video:] Why does he say "premillenialism" instead of just "millenialism"? Do some Swiss Brethren hold to Post-mill?

This morning's thoughts:
I am not opposing a congregation having a written set of agreed upon standards. I think it is good, in fact. But not something that is "enforced". Now some will object that "If they are not enforced, then what good are they?" This is where I was for some years. But now I'm thinking, "If they have to be enforced, then what good are they?" I think that a written and readily available PRINTED list of these standards should be in the congregation's literature rack or some place like that, where visitors & especially new-comers can pick one up, so that they know what to expect. But why, if they are not enforced? I do still think that it is best to "work out one's own salvation" in a close Christian community, but I do not want to encourage people to think that "If I follow this set of rules, then I'm 'in'."
Maybe some of what I've written here will sound contradictory. That's just where I'm at right now - sort of seeing it from different angles, and the views do not all match up. I am not trying to 'teach' anyone here, I'm trying to interact with the subject, and with the discussion participants. I will either end up some place different than where I was, or I will solidify my previous 'convictions' about the importance of congregational 'rules'. At this point, I do not know which it will be.

[AnthonyMartin]

Neto,
I've really appreciated your honest discussions in this thread. I agree with you regarding the possible list of agreed on standards and share your angst regarding enforcement. Every church standard I've ever seen enforced has used earthly governmental power and coercion to protect and enforce those standards.
As a pastor I struggle with maintaining that balance and pursuing the relationships of community without compromising scriptural principles and acknowledging individual differences in journeys among the group.