/ Subject > Re: The Anabaptists and their Stepchildren /
/ Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.religion.christianity, alt.messianic /
.
> On 7Jan99  Paul C. Fox wrote:  <snip>  As to the crazies--they came with the times.
.
 tx: Don't they always?
.
> The Muensterites who caused so much trouble were idiots and were not Christian. Menno Simmons'
> brother was among them, which is what caused Simons to lead the Dutch Mennonites in the way of
> peace. If you knew any history, you'd know that the Anabaptists were like lambs to the slaughter
> -- persecuted by both Catholics and Protestants, and going willingly without striking back. <snip>
> In loving concern,    --  Margaret Ann
.
 Dear Margaret Ann, can you tell us about the reasons why Menno finally left the Romish Church?
And also anything you can say about one Hans (John?) Denck?

/ Re: Anabaptist History / Date > 18 Feb 1999 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.anabaptist.brethren /
.
>> Dolf Boek wrote in message ... Where might I be incompatible with your anabaptist faith?
.
> On 16Feb99 Margaret Ann replied: Well, for one thing, harsh, belligerent words are not exactly
> what anabaptists are made of (although, I never said you were incompatible with the faith. I
> was actually quoting you about something else). I believe you've said in other posts to love
> everyone (you're saying love homosexuals), and there's nothing wrong with that, however,
> in these other posts, I sense a lack of love. What you post is not constructive criticism, but
> bitterness.  Why?
.
 textman answers: Because Dolf mightily believes his pro-homo faith, and feels perfectly justified in adopting a militant and belligerent attitude towards all those he sees as his enemies  . . . (namely, all True Believers).
.
>> DB: From my readings of the posts here, you spend more time on religious history
>> than in proclamation of faith
.
> MA: This forum is for anabaptists and people interested in the anabaptist faith to discuss.
> Sometimes it's faith, sometimes history. At this point, the topic is history. Is there a problem
> with that? (and, since our history is so very closely tied to our faith, there shouldn't be, really)
.
 I agree. Historical realities are very important to the Faith, and always have been. But people like Dolf abuse history by twisting it this way and that until it assumes a shape that pleases them.
.
> MA: Since the regulars on here are all quite familiar with the anabaptist faith, there's no need
> to proclaim it to ourselves. However, when someone comes with a relevant question -- then's
> the time to be explaining and proclaiming. Have you any questions that you would like to ask
> us? (Please keep them on-topic this time though)
.
 Dear Margaret Ann, I have some questions. 4X: Do today's post-modern anabaptists see themselves as part of a long tradition that stretches back to the Radical Reformation? Do the Brethren view their roots in this movement with pride and thanksgiving? Do you know who Hans Denck is? Is he a part of the anabaptist tradition? ... I have others, but this is enough for starters ...   :)
.
>> DB: You have no idea what my faith is.
.
 Oh Dolf, don't be so melodramatic! I think we all have *some* idea what your "faith" is all about ...
.
> MA: OK. Then tell us.
.
 Good Grief! Please don't encourage the guy!
.
> It might be helpful to know, and might avoid a whole lot of misunderstandings and squabbling.
.
 I have serious reservations about that possibility.
.
>> DB: Seems to me you are doing the very thing you suggest others ought not to do.
>> You are basically saying my comments are rubbish.
.
> MA: Quite the contrary. I was merely suggesting that you be a little more thoughtful and
> considerate. Your posts are not really relative to us at this point, and they are causing more
> division and hard words than generating any kind of thoughtful discussion. Maybe less
> belligerently worded posts might be more in order?
.
 Well, if no one else will say that Dolf's spam is rubbish, I am most certainly not shy to do so!
.
>> DB: Recongise folks, that I am here to stay.
.
> MA: Which is fine. We only ask that you not flame. Is that so terrible?
.
 I think that what Dolf means is that he's going to post his spam to this ng whether you (or anyone else on this channel) likes it or not. In other words, Dolf doesn't care what true believers think. He only demands the opportunity to poison the lives and minds of Christians with his "enlightened criticisms"; and anyone who squawks about it is surely oppressing him and denying him his basic "human rights".
.
>> DB: And in the event that someone might actually say something which
>> quantifies anabaptist belief, I might actually on ocassion respond.
.
 We look forward to it with bated breath, Dolf.
.
> MA: What exactly do you believe quantifies anabaptist belief?
> I'd be interested to know how much you actually know about us.
.
 My guess: very little.
.
> And what are your sources? God bless you and keep you  - Margaret Ann
.
 Dear Margaret Ann, isn't it interesting how Dolf can go into any ng and post away to his heart's content, and no one can do anything to stop him, while textman fears to post anywhere because he knows he will be nuked within minutes? These cyber-censors have literally forced me out of all my favorite newsgroups such that there is no place anywhere on the Usenet where I can feel safe in posting to. Do these contrasting responses suggest anything to the Brethren? I would hope that they do...

/ Re: Anabaptist History / Date > 19 Feb 1999 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.anabaptist.brethren /
.
>> textman previously wrote: <snip> Dear Margaret Ann, I have some questions. 4X:
>> Do today's post-modern anabaptists see themselves as part of a long tradition that
>> stretches back to the Radical Reformation?
.
> MA replies: I think most do, but a lot of the newer liberals almost seem to want to detach themselves
> from our history, and be "Mennonite" or "Brethren" in name only. They do not like "long traditions".  ;-)
.
 It's very sad to hear that the Brethren are also infected with the deadly virus of faithless post-modern liberalism, but I suppose it would be unreasonable to think that any denomination could entirely escape the contamination. When I think of how corrupted even a group such as the Quakers are, it's truly frightening. But it seems that the Brethren are better able to resist the destruction than the vast majority of other churches who open wide their arms, and gladly ask the Wicked One to enter in among them ...
.
>> tx: Do the Brethren view their roots in this movement with pride and thanksgiving?
.
> I would imagine so. Certainly I know the more conservative groups are very proud (I'm not sure
> if that's the right word though) of the history of our movement.
.
 Oh, there's nothing wrong with a little pride in one's faith heritage. But the danger in this is that of becoming so focused on "our traditions" that we forget that the history of our Faith goes back well beyond the Middle Ages. Every generation saw its heroes and saints, and those of the earliest Greek churches belong to a tradition that ought to be shared among all True Believers.
.
>> tx: Do you know who Hans Denck is? Is he a part of the anabaptist tradition? ...
.
> I have heard of Hans Denck, but it was a while ago, and I can't remember who exactly he is. ;-)
> I think he is part of anabaptist tradition, but I'm not sure to what extent.
.
 Me neither. I know that he died at a rather young age, and that he left behind a handful of letters and essays; but I haven't been able to find them on the WWW or in the local libraries. Many years ago I came across a book by Williams called 'the Radical Reformation' which is an outstanding resource on an otherwise forgotten period of church history. If I remember rightly, he had an entire chapter on one Johannes Denck. It's rather sad that such heroes are all but completely forgotten by today's Christians. This loss of contact with church history clearly demonstrates a serious flaw in our post-modern Faith. That's why I'm glad to see that the Brethren still respect their historical roots. It's more than can be said for the other churches, including the Quakers.
.
>> tx: I have others, but this is enough for starters ...   :)
.
> MA: I hope my answers were as good as the questions.
.
 Nah. Too skimpy ...  :)
.
> I bet the Wayne's could answer better than I.
.
 Great. ... Ummm, are they on vacation?
.
] Dolf Boek spat out: You have no idea what my faith is.
.
>> tx: Oh Dolf, don't be so melodramatic! I think we all have *some* idea what your "faith" is all about ...
.
>>> MA: OK. Then tell us.
.
>> Good Grief! Please don't encourage the guy!
.
> Oh.  Sorry. ;-)    Anyway, God bless, Margaret Ann
.
 Oh, don't worry about it. I don't think anything could be said, or not said, that would in any way encourage OR discourage this particular crusader. Would you believe me if I suggested that I know the type?  :)

/ Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.anabaptist.brethren / Date > 21 Feb 1999 /
.
 It's very interesting to observe how the anabaptist churches splinter and schism and break apart into varying branches; with each new (or old) church claiming to remain faithful to their heritage, and to the original spirit of the founding fathers. But surely this cannot be the case. Surely they cannot *all* be faithful to their spiritual roots in the Radical Reformation of the sixteenth century. So how can we understand this seeming necessity to splinter and fragment with each and every generation that passes?
.
 I think the answer lies in a simple, but nevertheless universal, human reality: All people are creatures of habit with a strong conservative impulse that drives them to resist the changes that an ever-evolving world imposes upon us against our collective will. This is why we develop traditions in the first place; and why we remain loyal to them long after their usefulness and value has departed.
.
 Observe then the trivial, and even seemingly ridiculous, reasons behind the fracturing of anabaptist communities. One day someone realizes that there is no good reason for not having a telephone on the farm, and so he proposes the acquiring of such a device, and turmoil and tumult are the immediate result. But why? Is it not due to an over-emphasis on cherished traditions?  But it was not always thus ...
.
 "Was their secret a connection to an evangelical tradition that had gotten passed on from generation to generation in the mountains of Europe? No. The Anabaptists inherited no sacred "body of tradition" from anyone. They were all new converts -- not tradition keepers, but tradition breakers. There is no evidence of a single contact between them and the Waldenses, Albigenses, or other movements before them." [from 'The Secret of the Strength', by Peter Hoover, chapter two]
.
 Here, then, we see that it was the courage to break with tradition that made the early anabaptists who and what they were. Their faith was stronger than the long and bloody traditions of the Romish church. Stronger even than the new traditions of Luther and Calvin and Zwingli. Their faith in the Son of Man gave them the strength to bear the horrors inflicted upon them by the state-empowered churches. It gave them the courage to break with the traditions that formerly held them captive to corruption and spiritual death.
.
 This is what the succeeding generations gradually lost. The slow loss of the Spirit's fire within their breasts was replaced by ever-increasing emphasis on the ever-accumulating traditions. And it was loyalty to these traditions that came to define who anabaptists were, and what they were about. This is the error that has dogged and harassed the step-children of the Reformation ever since. This is the original sin that they simply cannot shake off, nor overcome.
.
 Clearly, what is most needed today is a new generation of True Believers who are able to break the shackles bearing the weight of four centuries of gathering dross, and so regain the incredible power of love and thanksgiving that arises from hearts newly filled with the eternal Good News of salvation in Christ Jesus.    . . .
.
 Thus the Lord now calls out to his wayward People: "Give me hearts filled with passion for the Truth! Give me a People whose love is stronger than Death! Give me souls with the courage to break the chains of their traditions!"

/ Topic > Re: The Tradition Breakers / 21 Feb 1999 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.anabaptist.brethren /
.
>> textman previously wrote: <snip> Observe then the trivial, and even seemingly ridiculous,
>> reasons behind the fracturing of anabaptist communities. One day someone realizes that
>> there is no good reason for not having a telephone on the farm, and so he proposes the
>> acquiring of such a device, and turmoil and tumult are the immediate result. But why? Is it
>> not due to an over-emphasis on cherished traditions? But it was not always thus ... <snip>
.
> Wayne Chesley replies: <snip> Well, the reasons for schisms are never quite so trivial. There
> is always something else behind these divisions, be it rebellion, greed, jealousy. I think the
> root causes of these divisions are much less trivial.
.
 textman answers: I tend to agree, but it always seems to come down to two competing and incompatible responses to whatever problem or situation that exists, and also raises tempers and other strong feelings. My guess is that people tend to react from the gut level, and rarely stop to thoroughly think things through before acting ... ?
.
>> tx: Here, then, we see that it was the courage to break with tradition that made the early
>> anabaptists who and what they were ... <snip> This is what the succeeding generations
>> gradually lost. The slow loss of the Spirit's fire within their breasts was replaced by ever-
>> increasing emphasis on the ever-accumulating traditions.
.
> WC: I recall the saying from the Bruderhof: The first generation has the Spirit, the
> second has the memory, and the generations after that, traditions.
.
 My reading of history suggests that a more complex process of descent and ascent is at work. Bruderhof's observation covers the slide from red-hot spiritual fire to comfortable luke-warmness, but does not account for the possibility of spiritual revival and renewal ... Which is precisely what the early anabaptist movement was (ie. the Spirit's answer to the corruption and degradation of the Holy Roman Empire).
.
> WC: It's a plain historical fact that Anabaptists in the second and third generations made pacts with
> the governments agreeing to settle in certain areas and not try to spread their faith, but to just
> raise their children in their traditions. They made these agreements to keep from being persecuted.
.
 Good parents will give up much on behalf of their children. This is only natural and understandable, but also somewhat sad and unfortunate, since this compromise with Satan's kingdom very quickly became an inflexible tradition that still entraps and isolates many communities to this very day.
.
> They became the "quiet in the land", and the price of this peace was faithfulness to the
> commandment to "make disciple of all nations, baptizing... and teaching them to obey everything
> I have commanded you." The ultimate cost was a loss of God's spirit that their forefathers knew.
.
 Yes, exactly. On the other hand, if they did not "make a deal" it's very likely that the State & Church combination would together have put an end to the anabaptist movement; permanently, and with bloody finality. It is difficult to say, from our historical vantage point, which would be the lesser of two evils.
.
>> tx: And it was loyalty to these traditions that came to define who the anabaptists were, and
>> what they were about. This is the error that has dogged and harassed the step-children of
>> the Reformation ever since. This is the original sin that they simply cannot shake off, nor overcome.
.
> WC: Might I suggest even that the establishment of these traditions actually halted the restoration
> of "primitive" New Testament Christianity among the Anabaptists?   --  Wayne Chesley
.
 Oh, absolutely. However, I have two comments to add: 1. New Testament Christianity is not nearly as primitive as many post-moderns suppose. Despite the more obvious archaic elements (4X: pre-scientific cosmology, demonology, etc) it is remarkable how much of the NT (and even the OT) still stands up with the strength and power of abiding Truth. And 2: I'm not at all certain that any tradition or denomination is really capable of fully actualizing all the spiritual realities that are testified to in the scriptures. I think individual believers can do better in realizing the NT faith than corporate structures and institutions.  ...  What do you think?

/ Re: The Tradition Breakers / 22 Feb 1999 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.anabaptist.brethren /
.
>> textman wrote: It's very interesting to observe how the anabaptist
>> churches splinter and schism and break apart into varying branches
.
> don replies: Your statement is not exactly true. It applies only to the Amish and Mennonite branches
> of the Anabaptist religion, not to the Hutterite branch (which began before either of those two).
.
 textman answers: Dear Don, do I detect just a smidgen of pride here?
.
> The Amish and Mennonites are probably the most divided group of any that claim to be Christian.
.
 Surely that's debatable. It seems to me that the Quakers have a darn good claim on that particular distinction.
.
> And why are they so divided while the Hutterites do not have such a problem (laying aside for
> the moment the problem with the Kleinsasser Schmiedleuts which seems to be healing)?
.
 I don't think that they are as problem-free as you suggest.
.
> It seems to me that the reason is that the Amish and the Mennonites, from their very beginnings,
> did not go all the way, did not make a complete commitment to the Lord Jesus, did not surrender
> their all to Him, did not attempt to come into complete obedience to all of His commands.
.
 Neither do the Hutterites obey *all* His commands. 4X: they do not evangelize the nations; nor do they bring the Good News to those who most need it.
.
> Jesus said, "If you love Me, you will keep My commands." The command that the Amish and the
> Mennonites have disobeyed from the beginning is the one concerning possessions: "Sell your
> possessions" (Lk 12:33). Jesus said, "No one can be My disciple unless He parts with, bids
> farewell to, all of his possessions" (Lk 14:33).
.
 I think you over-emphasize the value and meaning of this saying. Consider the Romish church and its requirement that its "religious" take the vow of poverty. But poverty has never saved the soul of even a single monk or nun in all the long centuries that it has been enforced. All it has done is to keep the wealth in the hands of the wealthy bishops and archbishops and cardinals and popes.
.
> Therefore, the Amish and the Mennonites, like the rich young man in Mt 19:21, fall short of
> perfection due to their fear to giving up all. They come close, as the rich young man did, but
> still fall short of the glory of God, and therefore are easy prey for Satan to tear apart.
.
 No, Don, you are wrong. Having possessions does not, in and of itself, make us fall short. The Lord also said that nothing that goes into a man can make him unclean, for what defiles a man is what comes out of his heart. The same applies to possessions. It is our greed and lust for things that defiles us, not the things themselves. That is why the rich young man fell short. It's not that had possessions, but rather that he loved them so much that he could not bear to part with them.
.
> The early church set the example for us, they had all things in common (Acts 2:44-47, 4:32-5:11).
.
 Actually, Don, that is more of an idealized projection than an accurate account of the early church. Indeed, there never was a time when the church did not have both rich and poor. And it was not until the rise of the monastic movement (4C) that holding all things in common became a necessity.
.
> They loved their neighbor as themselves and trusted God for their daily bread, just as
> the true children of God still do today.  -- Don Murphy  -  Fan Lake Brethren
.
 Actually, the early Christians had to labor and toil for their daily bread just like everybody else. Those who trusted God for their sustenance were idlers who became a burden on their brothers and sisters. And that is why Paul warns against them, and even commands that those who do not work should not eat (cf. 1&2Thessalonians).

 Dear Cyber-Saints, in browsing (of late) the meager offerings of the various media, and also reflecting on the general course of Church History from ancient times, I am once more amazed (and surprised by joy :) at the awesome power of the Word of God to burst through the darkness and violence to reshape the World according to the Gospel of Love & Truth.
.
 Case in point: the sixteenth century! Which - in terms of sheer fascination - is second to none; except, of course, the century that saw the original autographs of all the NT documents (ie. c.50CE (the Hellenistic Jewish-Christian prophets Paulos and Silvanus) to c.150CE (the Egyptian-Christian prophets Jacob, Judas, and 2Peter).
.
 Thus in the early decades of the 1500's the most significant event for the next five centuries was the mass production of printed bibles in the common languages of Europe. It was not Columbus and his surprising discovery of the New World, or the rising might and industry of the emergent nation-states, or the inevitable march of ever-increasing rationalization, that would drive the engine of the modern world; but rather some few small and scattered bands of earnest seekers (ie. for the light of truth) who opened, read, prayed, and discussed the manifold mysteries of the Word of God. They read the Bible with the 'plain meaning' at the foremost, and the results of their determined bible-studies included the conclusion that what was most needed (in those turbulent and apocalyptic years) was an immediate return to the faith and practice of the New Testament!
.
 Now this was a very radical project indeed (although hardly without precedent); for the practice of biblical pacifism, freedom of faith, and the separation of church and state (based on the idea that good cannot compromise with evil; just as truth cannot compromise with lies) were all equally subversive, horrifying, and downright dangerous toward all things pertaining to human life.
.
 Thus the Kings and Nations and States and Churches of the World, whilst fighting and squabbling amongst themselves (as usual), didst manage to unite in their efforts to kill the gospel-truth (with great zeal and assurance) by fire and water and sword. But the only result of the bloody persecutions was to spread the seeds of faith throughout the World, and deep into the fast-approaching centuries ahead ...
.
 In the 17th century, Baptists, Puritans, and Quakers (and even a few others too) dared even to reform the Old World (or, at the very least, its thoroughly corrupt religious institutions); but when it became apparent that the powers and principalities would have none of *THAT*, the seeds were taken across the seas and planted in the rich soil of the New World. There, finally, it took root and grew fast and strong; sending vines and branches all around the globe, and burrowing deep into the hearts and minds of all manner of people ... Oh Yes!
.
 But the World is *still* the World of Darkness and Blindness (as well befits those who willingly refuse Spirit & Light), and so black thorns and weeds didst choke these seeds, and wrap the vines and fruits with nasty sharp points and edges. For such is the way of the World. And so it is that a certain Prime Minister of Canada openly declares (in one breath) that religion and politics don't mix, and (in the next breath) claims to be a good Catholic!!!
.
 Now the *really* funny thing about all this is that today most Christians in Canada, America, Europe, etc, will gladly echo these same noble sentiments (even with zealous idealism) while being blissfully unaware that the principle of non-coercion in all matters of faith was almost literally 'handed to them on a silver platter' by way of the blood and sacrifice of those hated and hunted Re-Baptizers who dared to open their hearts and minds and lives to the power and truth of the Word of God!

P.S.  Dear COB, who's that short guy with the weird big head?  :)
.
P.P.S.'And now for something completely different' department presents: An Entirely Unrelated Matter -->  And so now it seems that the swine wish to be fed their slop in golden trough! ... :D ... But I guess that's only to be expected; all things considered. I'm rather puzzled why they should even want to drink from such bitter waters; but the cybrwurm does not dance for them. Sooner or later they will catch on to this fact, and then the offensive one will promptly cease to be "trendy". Boo Hoo! Perhaps then they will elevate one of their own to that exalted duty? Oh, be *still* my beating heart!
.
P.P.P.S. : "I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either cold or hot! So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I am going to vomit you out of my mouth!" -- Revelation 3:15-16 / NETbible

/ Re: How the Re-Baptizers Re-Made the World! / Forum: TheologyOnLine - Religion / 17Oct2000 /
/ Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.religion.christian.anabaptist.brethren /
.
> On Oct11 used2bcatholic replied: You know what? If you appreciate your bible so much then throw the
> Devils version away and quote from Gods book. The version that was perfected in 1611 by wonderful
> saints who LOVED God and purified his word for the seventh time. The old faithful King James Version.
> Because the rest are just copycats from satan.
.
 textman answers: Dear used2bcatholic, that's quite a leap there from Catholicism to KJV-er.
Thing like that might even give one some whiplash ...  :)
.
> Other than that, good post.
.
 Many thx for saying so. It's good to know that I can still impress the KJV-only contingent now and then; despite the horrible blunder of using a satan-inspired edition. I'm rather curious, though, why you should think so highly of my little historical recap, since the Re-Baptizers didn't use the KJV. Which makes me wonder how those "copycats from
satan" could have inspired them to set the World afire?
.
 Is the Devil working for or against the Kingdom?