Religion and Love

Here is a report by the NY Daily News about a divorced couple who can't agree about when to have their children baptized.  What is the logical choice?  Take it to court, of course!

The mother of the two young children baptized the kids without the father's consent, where it is assumed that she knew he would find the action unacceptable.  (She supports early baptism, while he affirms the anabaptist ideal of waiting until the children has full knowledge of what they are committing to).  So he takes her to court, and she will possibly be put in jail for this action because she violated the courts order that the religious upbringing of the children must be made with the knowledge (if not necessarily approval) of the father.

Legally, it makes some sense.  Under Jesus' law, this is insane.  Having a secular court arbitrate in religious decisions is crazy.  Heck, having a court arbitrate in personal matters is insane.

But the legal system has nothing to do with Jesus' standards of love.  Is it loving to put the mother of your children in jail because she disagrees with you about baptism?  Absolutely not.  Does it display love for the children to have their mother put in jail because of something they did?  What does that communicate to the children?  That they have driven their parents apart again.

This is why Jesus said in Matthew 12 that our laws and religious beliefs need to be subjected to mercy.  Every time we make a judgment, it should be put to the test of love: is it loving to force David and his men to go hungry because they weren't supposed to eat that bread?  Is it loving for the disciples to be judged for plucking grain in the field on the Sabbath?

Is it loving?  Does it show mercy?  If our religion can't abide by this principle, then throw the religion out, it's worthless.

Denominations and Limiting Jesus

Jeff Long posted: I used to think that Mennonites had a cultural identity problem because their name did not denote meaning, but only connoted it. I now realize that this is just as true for Presbyterians, Lutherans, Methodists, Episcopals and Foursquare. Their names don't denote any meaning either. These titles only have meaning to their members.

I believe that for those who grew up in a denominationally affiliated church it has become a pseudo-ethnic identity for them. I believe that members make adult decisions to be Presbyterian, Methodist and Lutheran because they grew up that way and it is their heritage even though their individual beliefs and practices aren't consistent with Reformed, Wesleyan, or Anglican heritage and theology.

We have followed in the footsteps of Europe and slid into a post-denominational era.

This raises serious questions about the roles that identity, historical heritage and denominational affiliation will play in church planting, evangelizing and discipleship.

What will it take for us to be faithful to the Anabaptist and more specifically Mennonite tradition now that our denominational names are societally meaningless and not useful in naming our congregations.

My response:
We should never have been about being "Mennonite" or "Anabaptist". We should have always been followers of Jesus as Lord. This means, in a sense, re-inventing the wheel with every baptism. What following Jesus in my context will look different than yours, and a homeless follower's life will look differently than a doctor's. Why limit ourselves to denominational titles? That actually limits conversation, rather than encouraging it. We should have more discussions about how we specifically follow Jesus rather than putting ourselves in a denominational box that limits our following Jesus to a stereotype.

Yes, it is good to work together, and it is good to be in community. But should that community be limited along denominational lines? Denominational support has borders. Mennonite money is limited to Mennonite groups, even if solid Anabaptist work is being done among the Presbyterians, the Methodists or, God forbid, non-denominational groups. Why should we narrow our focus to only one group of followers of Jesus? Are we not ALL one?

Mennonites and Anabaptists

LeeAnne asked if the Mennonite church supports Anawim and she gave her general support of Anabaptists:

I replied:
Some Mennonites do get involved, and Anawim has been an inspiration to the Mennonite church. I've just been asked by Urban Connections-- a Mennonite publication-- to write an article about our response to the recession. A local Mennonite church serves a meal once a month and sings hymns. And Mennonites have sent us socks, etc.

Mennonites are different than Anabaptists, really. The Mennonite church is the denominational descendent of the historical Anabaptists. Modern Anabaptists are those who are directly influenced by the historical Anabaptists. There are a lot of Anabaptists in the Mennonite church (I'm one of them), but not all Mennonites are Anabaptists and not all Anabaptists are Mennonite.

Orthodoxy and Anabaptism

Posted At MennoDiscuss under the topic "Is Anabaptism more than Pacificsm)

A friend of mine who has a doctorate in church history has come up with 26 Anabaptist distinctives (which I am posting at this blog site:
http://26anabaptistdistinctives.blogspot.com/

I have tried to simplify these distinctives to these points which the anabaptist does not share with the orthodox viewpoints of Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox churches:

The teaching of Jesus and the apostles takes precedence over the Law and the Prophets. Thus, Mennonites do not hold to a “flat” Bible, but see the teaching of Jesus and the apostles as central, and the rest of Scripture being interpreted through the teaching of Jesus. (Hebrews 1:1-3)

The end of all Bible study is to do what it says. We can believe in the Bible, but unless we do it, then our faith is dead. The true believer in Jesus is not just one who agrees with the word of Jesus, but who lives it out. (James 2:14-26; Matthew 7:21-27)

Believers of Jesus must be faithful to the teaching of Jesus, even if this brings them into conflict with the authorities placed over them by God. (Acts 5:29)

Baptism is for believers only. Baptism may not be given to infants or family members of believers in Jesus, but only for those who are firmly committed to Jesus for their whole lives. (Mark 16:16)

Each local congregation is qualified and responsible to decide what should be taught to it. Local congregations should also call, support and discipline their own pastors.

Believers of Jesus are literally to love their enemies and not to resist evildoers. This means that Christians cannot participate in the military. This separates all disciples from the world system which demands warfare and violence. (Matthew 5:38-48)

Believers in Jesus must share what they have with other believers who have needs. (Luke 12:33; 16:9) This means that believers need to live simply, in order to reserve their extra resources to share with others.

hi steve,

i read over your list of qualities which supposedly separate anabaptism from those other faiths you mention, and will say that what you may not realize is that Eastern Orthodoxy has taught many of those things long before anabaptism came on the scene-in fact, i have discovered they are actually emphasized and practised just as much, if not more so, amongst the Orthodox as amongst the mennonites. true, we do practise infant as well as adult, baptism, and there is no official "doctrine" of non-resistance (i believe in it myself), but the Gospel is indeed central to our Faith-indeed utmost reverence is always accorded the Holy Gospels at all times. worship of the Holy Trinity and becoming more Christlike (theosis) is absolutely central to our faith.

anyhow, i just wanted to clarify a bit for you (how would you know these things if you had never experienced the christian life as an Orthodox Christian? we view our Faith not as a religion, but as a "way of life"). Eastern Orthodoxy is neither Roman Catholicism nor Protestantism ,and in fact, the reality is that in many ways RCism and Protestantism are more akin to one another than the RCC is to the Orthodox Church.

did you check out the website i sent you http://www.stjohnsmission.org ? you can see for yourself how active these folks are in loving and caring for the poor in our midst! we Orthodox are very interested in praxis too! we believe very strongly in the importance of suffering, humility, taking up our cross, sharing what we have with others, living simply. indeed, most of my Orthodox friends live far more simply than the majority of the conservative mennonite folks i used to know-most of whom, upon their marriages had to have everything new and fancy. you would be shocked to see the poverty in which many of my orthodox friends (including myself) live in. i would say that list and characterizations therein to be not quite true, from personal experience.

please forgive me, and do not be offended,

unworthily,

theosis

I am certainly not offended. I have a number of friends who "converted" to Orthodoxy and I have done a bit of research on Orthodoxy myself, although honestly, I've really only read a few authors and the Philokalia.

I am truly very impressed with Orthodoxy, and feel that it comes close to what is considered a New Testament standard. So can Catholicism and Evangelicalism. I feel that the longer any church becomes the persecuted minority, the closer it comes to being the NT church. This is probably why Orthodoxy is further down the track than the other two paths-- they haven't been oppressed near as long as the Orthodox have! Heck, the evangelicals in the U.S. still think they're in charge!

However, I would still hold that these are Anabaptist ideals, not really shared by the orthodox. The Orthodox do see the faith as a "way of life", as you say, but they are less based on the word of Jesus for that life. That doesn't mean that they exclude Jesus-- by no means!-- but they interpret Jesus through the patriarchs, while the Anabaptists go straight to Jesus without any other interpreters (in theory).

As you say, pacifism isn't an Orthodox official ideal, and to not baptize infants would be conisdered a grave wrong. So, although I appreciate your insight, I wonder if your proximity to Anabaptism is adding more to Orthodoxy than you think. Perhaps you yourself see Orthodoxy in this way, but would the average Greek or Russian Orthodox person see their life in this way? I doubt it.

It is the same with Catholicism and other forms of Christianity. There are many that take on a particular aspect of Anabaptism-- like the Baptists not baptising infants or the Emerging church adopting pacificm-- but that doesn't make them Anabaptist.

Still, I appreciate you, your insights and the Orthodox church as a whole. I thank God that you are all there.