Gene wrote:
Verify my intent? This is reminiscent of questions a protective father may direct to the prospective suitor of a young daughter, or even an old daughter, though I suspect, (admittedly I can only speculate, having no offspring of the feminine persuasion myself and being a bit long in the tooth to remedy the situation) that the passage of time may bring an easing of the paternal restrictive instincts and perhaps even introduce a bit of desperation as in "Ain't this child ever gonna leave?". But what do I know? Except I would harbor grave reservations regarding a man who carries a hammer and a plunger. In a picture voluntarily released for public observation.
In spite of the great loss of historical data of near canonical inspiration the collapse of its predecessor represents, this forum represents the opportunity to have all the same pointless arguments that were carried on before without the chance for those with encyclopedic knowledge of every thing ever posted to immediately link to the discussion previously had on any given subject. This means we can spend days and perhaps months advocating for some favorite, perhaps obscure but still dearly held, theological point, honing the wording of our argument till any sentient individual presented with our flawless verbiage and impeccable logic will immediately fall to their knees in awe at our brilliance.
The concession must be made that "our" in this context may be a tad presumptuous considering that, at least as I understand it, this is an audition of sorts and mocking the administration is probably not seen as a good way to curry favor with the one with the power of life and death. At least as regards this forum.
Gene wrote:It does not carry with it the notion of actual progress toward the ostensible goal of the person or organization labeling itself as such. Therefore the creeping acceptance by MCUSA of gay marriage does not indicate movement toward more Christ likeness, what you would expect a Christian group to desire, but actually movement away from holiness.
What many more conservative people mistake is their move towards inclusiveness, to them, is out of an act of faith expressed through love. I know. I have had many conversations with Pink Menno directly along with others who work towards inclusiveness. WHile I disagree with their tacktics and direction, I have always come away with an understanding of their faith and desire to show Christ's love to others, not always me after I was done talking with them.
0 x
Try hard not to offend. Try harder not to be offended.
I think I am funnier than I really am.
silentreader wrote:I am, however, not comfortable with using moderate as it is used in the Biblical sense as synonymous with lukewarm as used in The Revelation.
I would suggest, for instance, lukewarm = apathetic.
So perhaps to meet the criteria that you seem to want to explore, you should start a new thread, maybe -- "What Constitutes Apathetic Anabaptism?"
I think that would be more relevant, and probably worthy of exploration.
I doubt there’s enough coffee in the rainforest to give me enough courage to attempt that! Wouldn’t that be too judgmental, to decide where the line of apathy falls among the listed groups? Or should we vaguely profile &/or stereotype what Apathetic Anabaptists are like?
Go ahead, they wouldn't care. And if they do, they aren't.
Gene wrote:But mostly the post was facetious. I am as cynical about CMC as any other group, but then I am not a Miller or Showalter nor do I live in Ohio, that Mennonite Mecca. I did marry a Miller, but one that owes more to an Amishman called Oregon Jake than to a Hotel Magnate from Grantsville. (I apologize to those for whom these names are so obscure as to be perfectly meaningless, a soggy word salad of sorts without any connection to anything remotely within your frame of reference. A certain architect with seemingly endless connections to CMC royalty can probably clear it up for you. )
I'll admit to perking up a bit when the prime minister (or someone using his name) posted in the welcome thread a few weeks ago. But he hasn't logged in since, so maybe we are safe for now.
Gene wrote:But mostly the post was facetious. I am as cynical about CMC as any other group, but then I am not a Miller or Showalter nor do I live in Ohio, that Mennonite Mecca. I did marry a Miller, but one that owes more to an Amishman called Oregon Jake than to a Hotel Magnate from Grantsville. (I apologize to those for whom these names are so obscure as to be perfectly meaningless, a soggy word salad of sorts without any connection to anything remotely within your frame of reference. A certain architect with seemingly endless connections to CMC royalty can probably clear it up for you. )
I'll admit to perking up a bit when the prime minister (or someone using his name) posted in the welcome thread a few weeks ago. But he hasn't logged in since, so maybe we are safe for now.
His listed portfolio is distinctly underwhelming almost as though he is intentionally remaining incognito to a degree. What does this mean? Is it a nefarious plot to spy on those miscreants within the flock, slyly reminding us to watch our step because dissent does not escape the attention of those in the corridors of power, or a subtle recruitment strategy aimed at those still a part of those inferior expressions of Christianity? hmmm. Or is he simply a rather humble guy? All kidding aside,This last would have my vote. Super good guy.
Gene wrote:Another way of phrasing the questions would be "Are you licentious (MCUSA) or legalistic (Old Order)?" Using this terminology (which is superior alliteration and therefore more catchier) one can also avoid a confession of being moderate which carries with it the connotation of residing in the mushy middle, neither hot nor cold. One is then drawn irresistibly to the conclusion that CMC is the finely honed peak of ecclesiastical perfection with all other expressions of religious life falling away into varying degrees of error, on the one hand where anything is permissible and conversely to a degree of rigidity where nothing is. I am sure the readers of this fine forum will see the truth of this position and be drawn to abandon their current group in order to affiliate with what must surely be the highest form of corporate Christian organization the Almighty has permitted man to devise whilst traveling through this vale of tears.
My wife and I were on an anniversary vacation. As we were driving through a town, we saw a Mennonite Church with a big sign saying "all are welcome". I thought it would be lovely to visit the church since we would be out of town and not attending our own. My wife is not Mennonite, but very accommodating So we show up the next morning. The people were so friendly. Plain clothes, head coverings, men on one side and women on the other. The women were not even allowed into the sanctuary until the men had prepared it. They told us we could sit together - but I thought why not do as they do. All this was very new to my wife, but I really enjoyed it. They seemed ultra conservative to her but to me they were moderates. They all drove cars and lived in or on the edges of the city. I hope to go back there some day and fellowship more.
BMA it is.
