Mainline/Mainstream Anabaptists

[Bootstrap]

Other than the disagreement over LGBTQ inclusion, do you see any other substantial disagreements currently In MCUSA over the COF?

I don't think that is a disagreement about only the LGBTQ+ issue. I think it involves this question: do we trust what the Bible says about sexual ethics? If we don't trust what it says about sexual ethics, what about other ethics? How do we interpret and apply the Bible to our lives? What do we do when biblical teaching conflicts with the mainstream understandings of society around us?

OK, I'll bite. What is a specific different example that you have in mind here where MCUSA churches are in conflict with the 1995 COF?

I think that the LGBTGQ+ issue raises all of these questions, which are pillars of the 1995 COF. And in practice, I have not seen people change their mind only about gay marriage. If the Bible is outdated and wrong about this issue, or if our understanding has matured since then, then that starts to creep to other areas. I hear people say they accept the authority of Jesus but not of Paul, for instance, and downplay even what Jesus said. Or if we can use the kinds of arguments some have used to change the plain meaning of Scripture, that extends to other things as well.

That's why I say the real question involves everything I outline in the paragraph you quoted. It's not just about one particular issue, it's about the foundation for how we discern all issues.

[JohnH]

OK, I'll bite. What is a specific different example that you have in mind here where MCUSA churches are in conflict with the 1995 COF?

I think that the LGBTGQ+ issue raises all of these questions, which are pillars of the 1995 COF. And in practice, I have not seen people change their mind only about gay marriage. If the Bible is outdated and wrong about this issue, or if our understanding has matured since then, then that starts to creep to other areas. I hear people say they accept the authority of Jesus but not of Paul, for instance, and downplay even what Jesus said. Or if we can use the kinds of arguments some have used to change the plain meaning of Scripture, that extends to other things as well.

That's why I say the real question involves everything I outline in the paragraph you quoted. It's not just about one particular issue, it's about the foundation for how we discern all issues.

An example of another point of departure from the 1995 COF is when a youth pastor in an MC USA church (now an FEC church, but it was MC USA atthe time) not only carries a firearm for personal protection after he got mugged in a "rough" part of town, but proclaims that he does so from the pulpit and feels completely justified in doing so. Likewise, when prayers of blessing are prayed for a young girl who has decided to join the National Guard and she is merrily sent on her way. Nonresistance / pacifism ends up being treated like a "personal decision".

Yet the 1995 COF says:

3. In continuity with previous Mennonite confessions of faith, we affirm that nonparticipation in warfare involves conscientious objection to military service and a nonresistant response to violence.

I can see some amount of "flexibility" in the 1995 COF for being a police officer, fish and game warden, forestry service officer, etc., but definitely not an active duty National Guardsman, nor carrying firearms for personal self protection against muggers.

[Bootstrap]

I suspect the labels in this thread and many others confuse things more than they clarify.

The right way to identify groups that are not plain is to say they are not plain. The right way to identify groups that accept gay marriage is to say that they accept gay marriage. The right way to identify groups that do not accept gay marriage is to say that they do not accept gay marriage.

I don't think any group calls themselves mainline/mainstream Anabaptists. I don't think the label clearly identifies a set of beliefs or commitments of any one group. I have a hard time remembering Ernie's definitions for these various groups, and they are different from ways other people use the same terms, so I mostly just get confused when these terms drive the discussion.

[HondurasKeiser]

I suspect the labels in this thread and many others confuse things more than they clarify.

The right way to identify groups that are not plain is to say they are not plain. The right way to identify groups that accept gay marriage is to say that they accept gay marriage. The right way to identify groups that do not accept gay marriage is to say that they do not accept gay marriage.

I don't think any group calls themselves mainline/mainstream Anabaptists. I don't think the label clearly identifies a set of beliefs or commitments of any one group. I have a hard time remembering Ernie's definitions for these various groups, and they are different from ways other people use the same terms, so I mostly just get confused when these terms drive the discussion.

I agree, Boot. It's fun to put people in categories to try and make sense of our sociological landscape. It's often done though in a such an unnuanced and and intellectually lazy way that it ends up being un-useful. To be fair though, I myself am guilty of it here as much as anyone else.

[barnhart]

I label myself as someone who does not fall into the trap of labelling people...

[JohnH]

I suspect the labels in this thread and many others confuse things more than they clarify.

The right way to identify groups that are not plain is to say they are not plain. The right way to identify groups that accept gay marriage is to say that they accept gay marriage. The right way to identify groups that do not accept gay marriage is to say that they do not accept gay marriage.

I don't think any group calls themselves mainline/mainstream Anabaptists. I don't think the label clearly identifies a set of beliefs or commitments of any one group. I have a hard time remembering Ernie's definitions for these various groups, and they are different from ways other people use the same terms, so I mostly just get confused when these terms drive the discussion.

I label myself as someone who does not fall into the trap of labelling people...

This is a common point of view from a particular constituency.

[Nomad]

I suspect the labels in this thread and many others confuse things more than they clarify.

The right way to identify groups that are not plain is to say they are not plain. The right way to identify groups that accept gay marriage is to say that they accept gay marriage. The right way to identify groups that do not accept gay marriage is to say that they do not accept gay marriage.

I don't think any group calls themselves mainline/mainstream Anabaptists. I don't think the label clearly identifies a set of beliefs or commitments of any one group. I have a hard time remembering Ernie's definitions for these various groups, and they are different from ways other people use the same terms, so I mostly just get confused when these terms drive the discussion.

I agree. I don't really find graphs/ charts about categorizing different people into neat little groups very helpful. Typically, its all based on one individuals own perception without taking into account the diversity of the individuals within the group they are labeling. Everybody is different within each group and not everybody fits in the neat little box we put them in.

If people think its helpful...that's fine...but its not really that beneficial and is a waste of time in my opinion.

[JohnH]

I agree. I don't really find graphs/ charts about categorizing different people into neat little groups very helpful. Typically, its all based on one individuals own perception without taking into account the diversity of the individuals within the group they are labeling. Everybody is different within each group and not everybody fits in the neat little box we put them in.

If people think its helpful...that's fine...but its not really that beneficial and is a waste of time in my opinion.

This is a viewpoint I tend to hear from people with certain affiliations/part of certain groups.

Digging into things a bit deeper, I can say with confidence that "a defining characteristic of Old Order Amish is that they use horse and buggy and don't drive cars. A defining characteristic of Conservative Mennonites is that they do use cars and don't rely on horse and buggy."

Is there something you find offensive about a statement like that? It is not actually true that "Everybody is different within each group and not everybody fits in the little box we put them in" with regards to cars; if you go to a conservative Mennonite congregation, virtually everyone will be driving a car and nobody will be using horse and buggy. If you go to an Old Order Amish congregation, nobody will be driving a car. There is no "diversity" of individuals in this matter.

[ohio jones]

A defining characteristic of Conservative Mennonites is that they do use cars and don't rely on horse and buggy.

That's a distinguishing characteristic that separates them from the Old Order Amish. It is not a defining characteristic, as it describes pretty much anyone in society at large.

[Ken]

I suspect the labels in this thread and many others confuse things more than they clarify.

The right way to identify groups that are not plain is to say they are not plain. The right way to identify groups that accept gay marriage is to say that they accept gay marriage. The right way to identify groups that do not accept gay marriage is to say that they do not accept gay marriage.

I don't think any group calls themselves mainline/mainstream Anabaptists. I don't think the label clearly identifies a set of beliefs or commitments of any one group. I have a hard time remembering Ernie's definitions for these various groups, and they are different from ways other people use the same terms, so I mostly just get confused when these terms drive the discussion.

I agree, Boot. It's fun to put people in categories to try and make sense of our sociological landscape. It's often done though in a such an unnuanced and and intellectually lazy way that it ends up being un-useful. To be fair though, I myself am guilty of it here as much as anyone else.

I would suggest that grouping and labeling is almost a characteristic of Anabaptists themselves. That is what the "Mennonite Game" is after all. And most Anabaptists I meet or am related to seem quick and eager to put people into boxes based on their dress or last name or who their grandparents are, etc. etc. My elderly aunts can pigeonhole someone at a glance from 100 paces. You don't see that same sort of obsession from say Catholics.