Stereotyping and Overgeneralizing People and Institutions

[ken_sylvania]

Here's a sobering example of a lack of leadership in a body of believers. Eli's sons were mishandling the sacrifices of the people. God's response to Eli was to put a curse on him and his sons.

Wherefore kick ye at my sacrifice and at mine offering, which I have commanded in my habitation; and honourest thy sons above me, to make yourselves fat with the chiefest of all the offerings of Israel my people? [1Sam. 2:29]

The next five verses foretell the grievous curse for letting his sons in ministry get away with sin.

If we take Matthew 23 seriously, then there must be times where we conclude that people who should be caring for children are doing something seriously wrong instead. The image of bad shepherds is a major theme in the Bible, we need to take that seriously too.

I think that underplays it substantially. Forget language like "should be caring for children".

Every single person who claims to be a Christian shouldn't be molesting young boys, and that extends to that everyon else shouldn't be trying to cover it up and help such a person get into more situations where they can easily re-offend. Frankly it astounds me that this has to be said at all.

I don't think anybody in this discussion disagrees with you regarding this.

[Ernie]

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.

My 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?

Barnhart, still waiting for your answer unless I missed it somewhere.

[Ernie]

Which dynamic are you referring to?

The dynamic of adding value statements that are judgmental in nature as opposed to descriptive in nature like JohnH did. JohnH's descriptions are accurate or inaccurate assessments of a groups observable values. Accuracy depends on the observers level of bias, depth of research, and ability to describe their findings.

That is very different than saying group A has more value than group B. Describing my own group as superiour or inferiour is quite different from merely describing my group.

Using language like we are the "biblical" ones, or we are the "real" Christians or the "real" Mennonites is a value statement. It begs the question of "who placed you in that position to judge the world? And if you are in that position, can others analyze your standard of judgement and use it against you?"

I basically agree with all of this.

But can't "biblical" or "real" also be descriptive? I mean, aren't there real Christians as compared with fake ones? Jesus does tell us that we can know people by their fruits. That involves judging.

Norm, I would like further dialog on this.

[barnhart]

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.

My 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?

Barnhart, still waiting for your answer unless I missed it somewhere.

I think it is a little self evident. Creating a scale, putting yourself on the scale, looking down on people who are in a different category, creating a meta narrative about who's on the right track along the scale, these all seem to me to me value judgements. I'm not aware Scott did these things but others have used his categories to do that. I think the hunger that pushes Mennonites to find meaning, purpose and identity in this pursuit is not wise. This is different than different groups deciding for themselves who they are close to.

[Ernie]

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.

My 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?

I think it is a little self evident. Creating a scale, putting yourself on the scale, looking down on people who are in a different category, creating a meta narrative about who's on the right track along the scale, these all seem to me to me value judgements. I'm not aware Scott did these things but others have used his categories to do that. I think the hunger that pushes Mennonites to find meaning, purpose and identity in this pursuit is not wise. This is different than different groups deciding for themselves who they are close to.

There may be a person on this forum who fits this description, hence the reason for this thread. But I have not seen this "hunger for identity that pressed mennonites to assign value judgements to his categories." I am interested in hearing more about where you have seen this otherwise.

[joshuabgood]

I am not Barnhart, but that angle feels like a quite present reality in my context, that being Lancaster.

[barnhart]

I think it is a little self evident. Creating a scale, putting yourself on the scale, looking down on people who are in a different category, creating a meta narrative about who's on the right track along the scale, these all seem to me to me value judgements. I'm not aware Scott did these things but others have used his categories to do that. I think the hunger that pushes Mennonites to find meaning, purpose and identity in this pursuit is not wise. This is different than different groups deciding for themselves who they are close to.

There may be a person on this forum who fits this description, hence the reason for this thread. But I have not seen this "hunger for identity that pressed mennonites to assign value judgements to his categories." I am interested in hearing more about where you have seen this otherwise.

I don't like to hear people say things like "old orders aren't saved" because they don't have a modern doctrine of Penal Substitutionary atonement and I don't like to hear people say some other group that doesn't dress like me or doesn't share my exact practice is worldly.

[JohnH]

I think it is a little self evident. Creating a scale, putting yourself on the scale, looking down on people who are in a different category, creating a meta narrative about who's on the right track along the scale, these all seem to me to me value judgements. I'm not aware Scott did these things but others have used his categories to do that. I think the hunger that pushes Mennonites to find meaning, purpose and identity in this pursuit is not wise. This is different than different groups deciding for themselves who they are close to.

That presupposes that the scale has a "good" and a "bad" axis, which I don't see anywhere in Scott's book. In particular, if you don't think being more conservative/traditional is a good thing, why would you be upset about being categorised as being in a less-conservative/traditional group?

His categories do mean you can point out to people who get a big identity out of being "conservative" and "plain" that, "you know, most Anabaptists are more conservative and plain than you are, so perhaps some humility is called for, or else if you think those values are so good, you could consider embracing them more yourself".

[JohnH]

I don't like to hear people say things like "old orders aren't saved" because they don't have a modern doctrine of Penal Substitutionary atonement and I don't like to hear people say some other group that doesn't dress like me or doesn't share my exact practice is worldly.

It is entirely reasonable to say that the practice of, for example, BMA youth is more worldly when they play X-Box, watch the Eagles game, etc. (to give an example from my time spent with some 12 years ago), versus time spent with Pilgrim/Hope youth who did not do those things, although they might have struggles in other departments.

I think any reasonable person can agree that watching or attending pro sports game is more worldly than choosing not do so for spiritual reasons. Of course, whether or not that is a good or bad thing is a separate topic for debate, but is interesting to me that members in the least-conservative groups often chafe when it is pointed out to them that they are in the least-conservative/traditional alignment. Why wouldn't they consider that a good thing?

[joshuabgood]

We probably need a common working definition of worldly. From my perspective, it is not synonymous with cultural assimilation, and its antithesis is not success in sustaining a counter culture.

For example, if a church culture/society fosters/results in church division it is worldly no matter the degree of counter culture. (We know that Jesus desires his church to be unified and that the most grown up spiritually mature ordained brothers live in harmony with each other.) If a culture that results in "swept under the rug" child abuse is worldly, regardless of assimilation. etc..