Are the Turtles Beating us?

[Ernie]

For a long-time Anabaptists operated with a bonded-set paradigm, but permitted centered-set thinking within that bonded-set boundary. (I suggest that this also true for all OO and CA's and that they have the same thing within their congregations, conferences, and fellowships.)

Many folks did all sorts of crazy things in the name of Anabaptism in the first centuries and if their actions were outside of the bonded set, they were either censured to the point of them leaving the Anabaptist umbrella or else they left on their own before they were censured. For some reason they never retained the name Anabaptist.

The Hutterites started their own bonded-set/centered-set paradigm shortly after the Anabaptist movement was under way. There were a few tiffs back and forth with the other Anabaptists, but it is my impression that overall, both groups believed the other to be part of the Kingdom of God.

In 1693, Jacob Amman thought the circle was being extended/broadened, so he parted ways with the other Anabaptists and attempted to restore the church to the days of Menno Simons. Now there are three bonded-set/centered-set Anabaptist groups in existence but in general, (maybe not at the time of their divisions) they believed the others to be part of the Kingdom as they all stood for similar persuasions.

In the succeeding years, many people again went in all sorts of directions but the three groups continued on until the Alexander Mack/Brethren group formed. The Brethren formed the fourth bonded-set/centered-set. Like during the Amish separation, they Brethren believed they were doing it a lot better, but in general, they still acknowledged the other Anabaptist groups as being part of the Kingdom.

I suggest the General Conference breakaway with John Oberholtzer in the 1800's was the first large group to continue to claim the Anabaptist label, but deviate significantly in theology concerning what it means to be a Christian and not part of the kingdoms of this world. I think it was the first large group to significantly change the bounded-set parameters to something that early Anabaptists would not have held in common. And ever since then, they have kept moving the boundaries. Eventually the Old Mennonite church, the Brethren, the Brethren in Christ, (and even the Conservative Amish-Mennonite Conference to a degree) all joined General Conference in moving the bounded-set boundaries every decade or so.

In answer to Barnhart's question, What I am proposing is not leaving a bonded-set paradigm in favor of a centered-set paradigm, but rather a more historical Anabaptist bonded-set/centered set paradigm. In other words, there is a certain baseline that cannot be altered or moved, but within the group of churches that acknowledge that baseline, there is room for spiritual fellowship, Orders, and iron sharpening iron.

[Sudsy]

yeah, your views get people to indulge
their flesh and get away with it here resulting eternal condemnation.
As I said

The options from the non-conservatives are not appealing to fix those problems. All of those except stability drop the more freedom/personal conviction alone you get

I don't see where my views support indulging the flesh but you can put a twist on them if you need to.

It could also be possible that some people who are 'living out their sanctification' are indulging their flesh as they take pride in how great of a Christian they think they are. I think we need to keep looking at what Jesus did if we are going to follow Him. One thing that stands out to me is the way He involved Himself with sinners. His 'separateness' from sinners was really frowned upon by the Pharisees but He didn't allow them to influence His mission.

[Josh]

yeah, your views get people to indulge
their flesh and get away with it here resulting eternal condemnation.
As I said

The options from the non-conservatives are not appealing to fix those problems. All of those except stability drop the more freedom/personal conviction alone you get

I don't see where my views support indulging the flesh but you can put a twist on them if you need to.

It could also be possible that some people who are 'living out their sanctification' are indulging their flesh as they take pride in how great of a Christian they think they are. I think we need to keep looking at what Jesus did if we are going to follow Him. One thing that stands out to me is the way He involved Himself with sinners. His 'separateness' from sinners was really frowned upon by the Pharisees but He didn't allow them to influence His mission.

Does one need to dress exactly like sinners in order to minister to them? That's a very odd view of clothing.

[Sudsy]

I don’t where it says in the NT that we should dress immodestly, disobey 1 Cor. 11 about head coverings, and disobey teachings on not wearing gold or costly garments in order to “reach the lost”.

This frankly seems like a false choice.

True, it doesn't say those things because they have nothing to do with reaching the lost. They do need to be studied with regard to what is intended for those people written to and what is still applicable today. I don't believe some people, who don't live up to someone else's understandings of being modest, wearing a head covering or wearing jewelry, cannot be still reaching the lost and have witnessed many who do reach the lost with different understandings in these areas. Actually, most professing Christians today have a different understanding and application of these areas than the more 'conservative' believers do.

How many are being turned off from the Gospel message by those who share it but are not 'obeying' in these areas as you see it ? I would say very few except perhaps in some real extreme cases. Most, I believe, are looking more at internal heart changes that they can see in how we love and serve others, especially those not like us. What fruit of the Spirit are they seeing in us ? Is it what stands out the most or is it the things we put on our body ? I believe it is the characteristics of the fruit of the Spirit.

[Sudsy]

yeah, your views get people to indulge
their flesh and get away with it here resulting eternal condemnation.
As I said

I don't see where my views support indulging the flesh but you can put a twist on them if you need to.

It could also be possible that some people who are 'living out their sanctification' are indulging their flesh as they take pride in how great of a Christian they think they are. I think we need to keep looking at what Jesus did if we are going to follow Him. One thing that stands out to me is the way He involved Himself with sinners. His 'separateness' from sinners was really frowned upon by the Pharisees but He didn't allow them to influence His mission.

Does one need to dress exactly like sinners in order to minister to them? That's a very odd view of clothing.

I certainly don't have that view and don't know of many that do. To me, proper dress would be that which does not primarily draw attention to our bodies. The Pharisees used dress as one of their ways of displaying how godly they were. Whether over dressing to look godly or under dressing to draw attention to oneself, both are drawing attention to the outward and not the inner man. Col. 3:12 -

Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience.

This is what ministers most to the unsaved.

[Josh]

The Bible is pretty clear that things like the head covering are what the NT teaches.

It boggles my mind that someone can actually believe you should disobey the Bible because God wants us to disobey the Bible in order to evangelise more effectively.

[Sudsy]

The Bible is pretty clear that things like the head covering are what the NT teaches.

It boggles my mind that someone can actually believe you should disobey the Bible because God wants us to disobey the Bible in order to evangelise more effectively.

But others interpret the head covering text to focus on the act of submission to authority and not a required literal wearing of a head covering meant for all time. They do not regard this as disobedience as you might view it. https://www.gotquestions.org/head-coverings.html

Some see water baptisms in scripture to only be practised by immersion not any other mode. However, many, including many Anabaptists do not follow immersion baptism but go outside of the NT practise to support other modes. Are these to be considered disobedient also ? Some would say yes.

One could also say how can a small, sometimes opaque, piece of material often worn on the back of one's head be called a head covering. It ain't covering the head just a little spot on the back of the head. If one needs to cover their head with material when prophesying and praying in a church meeting, then I would think a full head covering would be necessary to be accurately obedient.

But all this, imo, is straying off the topic of evangelism. I don't believe women who wear a head covering are more effective at evangelizing than those who do not. Nor do I think wearing one always reflects the truth of what they believe about submission to authority.

Effective evangelism, imo, is sharing the Gospel that saves us as the scripture expresses it and seeing people turn to Christ. What we wear on our bodies is not the Gospel. But if, once the Holy Spirit comes to live within us, He convicts us to dress ourselves in a certain way, then we should obey His leadings. That how I see it.

[Ernie]

The end does not justify the means.

[Sudsy]

The end does not justify the means.

But God uses His imperfect children to achieve His purposes.

[Josh]

The end does not justify the means.

But God uses His imperfect children to achieve His purposes.

By the same argument, maybe the Amish are doing evangelism just fine.