Wednesday, 29 October 2008
-
Why I left the Mennonite church, Part 2.
Warning: this is probably the longest post I have ever written. Kudos to you if you can make through to the end.
So...this is the part where I talk about the conclusions I came too regarding my Mennonite heritage...Note that these are simply the conclusions I came to, I don't pretend to know all the answers to these things, and you can feel free to disagree at any time.
One of the central conclusions that I came to was that we, in the New Testament era, are bound by principles, not rules. Principles of loving God with all your heart, loving others the same as you love yourself, honesty, chastity, and so on.
What does that mean in practical terms? Simply this: if the Bible says something specific that has no practical reason or application today, we are not bound by that. However, that “something specific” almost always has a governing principle behind it, and that governing principle will be just as binding on us as it was to the people it was written to. It's just that the practical application will look somewhat different with in today's world than it did to the people 2000 years ago.
Example: The feet-washing ceremony. It was something that was done to imply submission, humility, showing servanthood to your brothers and sisters in Christ. And in that context, in ancient Jewish culture, it did. In our culture, in our time, it doesn't. Today, it's a symbol, and not much more...and I don't think that feetwashing, is binding on us today. If you want to do it, great. Symbols are cool, and there's nothing wrong with symbols. But it's not a requirement to being a Christian.
But the principles behind feetwashing of humbling ourselves, showing servanthood to each other, and submitting to each other? Those are completely binding on us today, and are totally part of what it means to be a follower of Christ.
And ultimately, I don't think God really cares if we're following the specific details of the Bible...He cares much more about whether or not we're following the principles behind them.
I eventually came to realize that there are two ditches people fall into, legalism and liberalism.
Legalism takes the principles of Scripture and makes checklists from them. You should or should not do this or that because that's how you should apply this verse or that one in today's world. Don't listen to rock music. Don't drink alcohol. Don't watch TV. Wear clothes that are different from the world. And so on. And while not doing those may or may not strip you of your Christianity, you won't completely measure up as a Christian if you don't do them.
Liberalism takes the principles of Scripture and ignores them. If you want to follow the Bible that's fine, but you're kind of a fool if you do. Come on man, live it up a little. Party hearty, get completely plastered, take a few chicks home for one night, have fun with life and do whatever feels right to you.
When all is said and done, I don't think that either one is worse than the other when dealing with people's souls. From what I've seen, liberalism poisons a person's heart and legalism suffocates it. I fail to see which is worse.
I'm just going to come out and say it...if you are a Mennonite, please don't take this personally.
For me, being in the Mennonite church meant that I was living under legalism.
Which leads me to my next point...one man's legalism is another man's normal way of life. For some people, not getting tattoos and not having a TV and living by the other rules is simply what they would naturally do. And if it's what they would naturally do, I can't really argue that they're living under legalism. Some people thrive in the Mennonite church. If that's you, then more power to you.
Some people feel like they're being
suffocated. It shouldn't come as any surprise that...I felt like I
was suffocating spiritually.Being a conservative Mennonite works for some people, but not for me...that's pretty much the long and short of it right there.
Switching gears here, I also came to some more specific conclusions regarding “the rules,” and here they are:
One is that there is absolutely nothing wrong with being like the world, if what the world is doing does not violate Scriptural principles. And so, using “the world” to say that we should or should not do something is illogical, or else we should all be Amish.
To be honest, I often felt that some were using “the world” to hang on to traditions and rules that had no other Scriptural backing. But I'll talk a little more about that in the final post. ;)
The other conclusion was that rules of the Old Testament with no backing in the New are not binding today. The ones that were important were given as principles, and backed up by Christ (or in a few cases, the apostle Paul) in some way. The others, they left alone. For example, what it says in Leviticus about tattoos? Not binding on us. Saying women shouldn't wear pants because of the Leviticus verse that says not to wear the clothes of the opposite sex? Again, that's not binding either. If it's in the Old Testament Law and nowhere else, I don't worry about it.
And there you have it. Pretty much every rule falls under those two, or under what I wrote about being bound by principles and not rules.
All that being said, there are several issues I want cover in a little greater detail...
People ask me about the covering more than anything else, and it falls under what I said about principles versus applications. As I see it, the application for the Corinthians was the covering, while the principle of the passage has to do with husbands showing leadership and wives showing submission. Paul mentions those same principles in several other epistles as well, but never mentions the covering elsewhere.
Davidrmiller asked about my position regarding divorce, so I'll try do that too. First of all, I don't believe it's quite as cut-and-dried as the Mennonite position makes it out to be...it's kind of like my old issue with the covering. I know people who are in their second marriage and are Christians. How that actually works, I don't know, and you can draw your own conclusions from it. All I know is that these people are Christians and their lives reflect it. I also know that they have gone through a divorce at some point, often before they were saved, and have since remarried.
I guess my position on divorce is this: if you're married, you're married. For you to leave your spouse would be a sin against him/her and a sin against God. But if your spouse leaves you literally or figuratively (runs off with someone else, gets really abusive, etc.) and divorces you, then remarriage later may be an option. I don't know. Jesus did say divorce was wrong...but left a caveat in there regarding cases of sexual immorality.
Questions? Comments? Any issue you feel I didn't cover? Complaints? Did you make it all the way to here? I'll probably do like I did last time, and leave a comment clarifying or answering anything people bring up.
Is the grass really greener on the other side? Do people who leave face a greater risk of going off the deep end? Find out, when we come back. Coming up...candid advice to dissatisfied young Mennonites, and to slightly frustrated (from dealing with said YMs) older people.
-
recommend
- recs 0
-
share
-
email
- sent 0
Post a Comment
- Back to futureastronaut's Xanga Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in futureastronaut's local time zone: GMT -08:00 (Pacific Standard - US, Canada)
Comments (24)
Sorry it's me again with a lot of comments and questions.
Actually that caveat that you mentioned, in Mt 19:9 specifically say fornication which means sexual immorality that happens before you are married versus adultery which is sexual immorality in marriage. These verses were referring to the Jewish laws on engagement not marriage.
A lot of people misinterpret that verse.
Wandering what you do with Jesus words in Matthew when he says "I am not come to destroy the law but to fulfill it." ?
Are you saying we can totally dismiss Old Testament laws? What about the Ten Commandments?
Yes, following the spirit of the law is important, but only because it makes the letter of the law more real and vibrant. Following the principals of the law does not mean we can dismiss the law itself.
Feetwashing is an example and reminder of servanthood in the brotherhood, and even in today's culture a very humbling and loving gesture. How can that be a bad or legalistic thing?
So we only obey Scripture when it's mentioned "x" amount of times?
I totally agree with applying principles, and we all do that in different ways granted, on Scripture that does not mention specifics. God's word is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Therefore picking and choosing what is prevalent and what is not is getting on a little bit shaky ground in my opinion. Especially, when it is a direct command from Scripture.
For instance say a homesexual decides that today's culture is such that it is ok to be a homesexual as long as you are married in the church and vow to each other for life. He could say it's the principles in Scripture that matter. Paul was only speaking to that culture back then. Now that it is exceptable to be a homesexual, it's ok? So when God's word says specifically that those practicing homesexual behaviors will not enter into the kingdom of God, He was just speaking to that culture. I don't think so...
The verses that say things like the "women adorn themselves in modest apparel"leave room for us to decide what is modest and what is not. So we help and encourage one another in this principle by setting up accountablility and guide lines, thus helping each other with the principle of the law. Now when we start saying thing like your not a Christian if you don't wear a cape dress, or if you have a slit in your skirt, or your covering has to be a certain size (when the Bible does not specify) that is legalistic in my opinion.
As far as cultural is concerned nothing is "new under the sun." As Solomon put it. By the way it was not the practice of Roman or Gentile people in Paul's day to wear the covering. How do you explain that?
Hope we can have a good discussion about this...
We'll I'm an outsider here, but I do remember when we were kids and happened to live around the corner from each other.....
I'll speak for myself here, but I'm guessing we can identify with each other in a few areas.
I'm currently in a Cons. Menn. church. ........man, now that I'm writing this, I'm not sure where to start. I think of the verse - "the letter of the law kills, but the Spirit brings life". At the end of that chap. in 2 Cor 3 (I think that's it) it also says how we are changed into his image as we behold His Glory (paraphrased a bit). I think Joy has some valid concerns, however I guess I would have to say that I'm more concerned about someone's heart getting killed then I am about the check list of requirements. I've tasted Grace, I've tasted Love and my heart is finding freedom to love and give grace in ways I've never thought possible. I believe Jesus came to fulfill the law for us. He died for me. He came not into the world to condemn the world, but so the world through him might be saved. - And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not. Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life. John 3:38-40. Did He not also say - love fulfills the law and that the whole commandment is summed up in this one command - to love the Lord your God with all your heart? I'm wondering - what really is it that we are so concerned about? What are we trying to prove? Is it not the Holy Spitit that leads us into all truth? Do we actually depend on him and see him in the way He intended? Do we really believe that all our righteousness is as dirty rags? His words are Spirit and they are life - the flesh profits nothing. The carnal mind is enmity against God, for it is not subject to the law of God neither indeed can be. What does it mean to walk in the Spirit? We are commanded to do this and I have yet to find more then one person (in our circles) who can give me an answer to this question that satisfies my heart. Because of His grace, my heart has been crying out for this ability - to walk in the Spirit and not fulfill the lusts of the flesh, and I'm happy and unashamed to say that He is teaching me and that I'm learning ssslllooowwwlllyyy. "He" is all that's good in me. And He is so patient and full of grace that even though I keep screwing it up and trying to do it on my own, He draws me back to Him. My heart is finding places of freedom and expression, and most of all - life and peace like I've never known. I've experienced a Spiritual high that had to have been better then any drug out there. The only side effect was that a couple days later I was feeling down because nothing else really mattered other then experiencing his presence and knowing him - which is the very thing we were created for. He died so we could draw near to him - yet we stand back and try to figure everything out on our own - which really is the very essence of sin - trying to make it on our own. We do many really good things in the power of the flesh (anyone can be a Mennonite with or without the power of God), yet we don't know his voice in a personal way. We think we have it all figured out - yet we don't realize that we are blind, poor, wretched and naked (Rev). Isaiah 31:1 and a few verses following speaks clearly to this end. We have the Spirit of those who trust in Egypt - who cover with a covering yet that is not of His Spirit.
I wasn't intending to write all this - its just things that have been brewing inside of me for some time now. This one thing that I know is that there is so much more to be had in a close walk with God that its beyond what we could ask or think, and its to be had right here on earth.
I've gotten distracted, off focus and have even found quite a bit of bitterness in my heart from the wounds of religious people. But nothing is too big for Him and I'm so happy to say that He's been dealing with it. Song of Songs says that love is stronger then death. There is nothing more powerful then love - for love is God. In the end, the battle in our churches comes down to -Law verses grace - freedom verses bondage. And as always we have people on the side of grace who - use their freedom for an occasion for the flesh. Which turns those off who feel they have to fulfill the checklist in order to be a Christian. And as we all know - reaction never takes us forward.
I welcome any interaction or disagreements with what I'm saying. I'm still learning and growing and will be till I die.
My comment to Mathew is: God would have us be honest with our heart. If you leaving the Menn. church is part of taking you closer to God - please go!!
I believe a revolution is coming and is already here that will change our definition of church completely, Menn. or not.
And as I'm sure you know, there will be many accusations (probably already have been) from religious people - and remember that Satan is the accuser of the brethern.
Joy; I hear your concerns too and believe without a doubt that they are coming from the love that you have in your heart for your bro. I say to you: keep asking good questions.
And finally; I say I'm no authority on any of this stuff and can only speak from what God has done in my life. I also know that NOTHING compares to His grace and love. And there is NOTHING that can change that for me.
Matt it has been interesting reading your past two posts. I'm sure it took a lot of courage on your part to express yourself the way that you did. However, I must say that what I have read has troubled me, but I will give you kudos for being open. This helps a person have a little bit of an understanding of where you are coming from.
I have been listening to a CD by, Voddie Baucham. I do knot know what denomination he is, but I know he is not a Mennonite. (My wife heard him in person.) His subject was on world view. World view is a persons most basic beliefs. It is how we judge reality. It directs our everyday desicions. He goes on to say that the most popular world view in America is called secular humanism. One of the beliefs of secular humanism is situational ethics. The belief that what is true to me, may not be true to you. What is truth today, may not be true in 100 years. There are no absolute truths. We are being bombarded with this philosophy. It is being taught in our educational system, in the media, and even in many churches. These beliefs may be very subtle or proclaimed very boldly.
Now, I wrote the previous paragragh to give a little background of why your thoughts that you expressed were troubling to me. Some of the beliefs that you expressed seemed to be coming from that form of a world view. I get that idea from the whole tone of the post, but a few lines that express it more clearly are, "one man's legalism is another man's normal way of life" "Its just that the practical application will look somewhat different within today's world than it did to the people 2000 years ago." Does this sound like secular humanism? I can believe one way and you can believe another way, and also the idea of time changing how we apply scripture. One more yet "if the Bible says something specific that has no practical reason or application today we are not bound by that." My question to this is who gets to decide what is practical? Me? You? Secular humanism would say that we both would be able to. Is that what you would say? I would challenge you to think about where your most basic beliefs are coming from. Is it based on Scripture, or has the world influenced even our most basic beliefs?
Sorry I meant to sign my name at the end. I did not want to be anonymous. Kevin B.
Matt, thanks for another thoughtful post. Good food for thought. I would also have some questions I would love to ask about the way that you look at scripture, but I don't think it's a discussion that can be adequately had in a xanga comments section. :) As for some of the comments here...
@chdbcolb - I can understand your concern about a humanistic viewpoint, but I don't think that I can agree with some of the examples that you gave. "one man's legalism is another man's normal way of life", and "Its just that the practical application will look somewhat different within today's world than it did to the people 2000 years ago." These I don't see as being relativistic with the truth, but as simply stating facts. There really are different expressions of legalism, and a lifestyle that one person may find to be freeing may be legalistic when imposed on another person; of course, this has to stay within the bounds of scripture (for instance, I don't think you can say that decisions about sexual activity, or theft, or murder can fall within the areas of disagreement). Also, practical applications of principles may very well change with changing times. What demonstrated a willingness to live simply in one era may demonstrate wealth in another. What was modest in the Roman empire may be different from what is modest today. Even proper relationships between unmarried men and women change somewhat with changing times. I fail to understand how these demonstrate a secular humanist worldview. That said, if I have misunderstood you here and am busily knocking down a straw man, please tell me. :)
@brilliantvapor - practical applications may change, but the specifics of God's word do not.
A lot could be said. A lot of good things have been said, good concerns and questions have been risen. All I have to say is search, search, search the Scriptures. Whether you are a Mennonite or a Baptist or a Methodist doesn't matter so much as whether you are following God's word, seeking the word. That need hasn't ceased for me and I hope it doesn't for you. Keep reading, searching, and listening, listening to those with years of Bible knowledge and experience over their heads. Mostly Matt I hope no matter what church you go to that you stay close to Jesus and His word.
I echo what Joy said in regards to the divorce issue. The clause "except for fornication" is often misinterpreted by people. Good comments on that.
I want to comment on your statement regarding divorce. You said, "I know people who are in their second marriage and are Christians. How that actually works, I don't know, and you can draw your own conclusions from it. All I know is that these people are Christians and their lives reflect it."
I have some real problems with that way of thinking. That is like saying, "I know God's Word says it's wrong, but these people are such good Christians, so it must be okay." Who sets the standard of right and wrong here? Well respected, "good" Christians, or God's Word?
Matthew 7:21 says, "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."
You gave the example of feetwashing being a symbol that is not "binding on us today." I couldn't disagree more. It seemed important enough to Jesus that he included this along with the breaking of bread and drinking the cup. Those are symbols of Christ's body and blood. In your way of thinking, we might also conclude that we should not practice Communion today, as this was merely a symbol. Jesus commanded us to do these outward symbols so we would remember to practice the principles that you are talking about. BOTH are very important.
On another note, in regards to culture dictating Biblical practices, it is true that some applications of modesty, for instance, can change with time. But there HAS to be a standard somewhere, a point when we say, "No, I cannot accept this!" For instance, I had a guy try to tell me once (angrily, I might add)that Christians had no right to impose their beliefs on modesty to the naked savages of Papua New Guinea. He says in their culture it is okay for women not to have their tops covered, and we should just leave them alone; they are happy the way they are! This reasoning is ridiculous. Yes, some standards of modesty may change with time, but if we don't make ANY practical applications, our "slippery slope" thinking may lead us to justify total nakedness, when the Bible tells us we are to wear clothes.
We could go on and on about this issue, and about that issue. But what it all comes down to is this: Am I trying to follow God's Word to the best of my ability, or am I constantly trying to find loopholes and explanations so it fits into my ideoloy and lifestyle?
Nobody look at the clock cause here I go again.
I'm getting the feeling that if we all try hard enough to figure everything out maybe we can get it right. Can I add one more thing to the list? There are many, many commands to visit the fatherless and widows. Does anyone's conservitive Mennonite church have a standard requiring them to make weekly visits to thier local homeless shelter? Now if someone took thier covering off they would be promptly excomunicated - but we can sit in our nice comfortable houses, drink our coffee and look down our noses at all those "worldly Christians" who have cut hair, some of which happen to have much more love for the fatherless and the widow then we do. And does anyone need to ask which of those two comnmands are more important? You say they are equal? Oh, ok then you better go tell your ministers to excomunicate you because you have not visited the fatherless and widow last week. Have you been praying without stopping? You haven't? Well don't you take that litteral? You don't? Well you most likely are on the slippery slope and I most deffinately wouldn't want you in my church - where will your children end up? My goodness, and the next thing you know your children will be watching TV!!! Can someone someone quickly have a cow!
We are a people that has a form of Godlieness and we deny the power thereof. Can anyone remind me of why Christ died? I guess maybe he wouldn't have had to die for us because we've grown up in our nice little Mennonite homes and have it all figured out and really haven't done anything that wrong. The more right things we can nail down the more righteous we are right? We run from the very grace that frees us to love him. It's unconditional love that changes people. I guess you can keep trying to pressure those close to you, let me know when your pressure/control gets you what your heart wants.
Hang on I'm getting a visual. Can't you just picture Jesus talking to a new believer. He's welcoming him to the body of Christ: Listen to what He's saying: ...now in order for you to be a member here you will need to learn how to sew, make yourself a cape dress, learn how to put your hair up like this... you will emediatly throw out your TV and conquer every single habit that you have that doesn't quite fit here with the rest of these "perfect" people. You will need to come to all of our members meetings, unless you are sick of course. Now if you don't do those things, my woderful bride will reject you because you are not Holy and Rightous like them.
You don't think that sounds like the heart of the Father? We'll that's how we live so it must be right because our denomination is the best. Its the most righteous one out there.
I hope my sarcasm dosn't turn anyone off. I can remember a few people in the bible who thought sarcasm and anger were both appriate. In the process of discussing all our concerns, I must say that I'm really concerned about our concerns.
So...here's my response to some of your questions. Hopefully these make sense, enjoy
1. What is sin, is sin, and doesn't change, culture or no. But sometimes the Bible gives instructions or commands that aren't listed as issues of sin. The covering, for example. Paul never says anything about it being a sin to not wear one. When I talk principles versus applications, those are the issues I'm referring to.
Hence, issues like homosexual behavior cannot be justified as something specific to that culture or era. Those are issues of sin. But issues like the covering, jewelry, and tattoos are not issues of sin, and should not be treated as such.
2. Can we dismiss the Old Testament Law? If it's not found in the New Testament, then yes. The 10 Commandments are seen at various places in the New Testament, and cannot be ignored. Laws regarding stoning homosexuals, not getting tattoos (I know, I keep using that example, but it's such a handy one), sacrificing lambs, and so on are not found in the NT, and thus are not binding on us.
3. Yes, I believe we should draw practical applications from scriptural principles for today. But I've also realized is that unless I figure what those applications are for myself, they're not worth much. A church deciding what the applications to us are and telling people that they have to conform to those same applications turns into legalism pretty quickly.
So if you want to know who should figure out what practical applications are for your life, it's simple: YOU should. Use the Bible, use the counsel of those older and wiser than you, use every resource you have. But in the end, it still has to be you that figures out and decides what the practical applications are for your own life.
4. On the issue of feetwashing and communion, I'll simply say this. The story of the bread and the wine is mentioned in all four Gospels, and Luke was the only one where Jesus told them to do anything in remembrance of him. John is the only one who mentions the feetwashing, and there Jesus says nothing about doing anything in remembrance. If Jesus would have wanted Christians to literally wash each other's feet and keep doing so, He would have said so, IMHO.
Since He gave instructions to keep doing Communion in remembrance of Him, but did not actually give those same instructions regarding feetwashing, I don't see feetwashing as necessary for today. That's why I see as a thing of principle vs. application.
5. Regarding divorce, I just have this to say, and then I'll shut up.
To say that Matthew 5:31 only applies to Jewish law regarding engagement might be true, and I've heard that before. I also find that hard to believe. Because Jesus didn't say that. If Jesus said no divorce except in cases of infidelity, the Jewish men were going to assume he was talking about married people divorcing, since that was their mindset regarding divorce to begin with. And since Jesus didn't specify anything about divorce during the engagement period, it seems to me that that probably isn't what He meant.
And I know what's going to happen, someone is going to say that since Jesus used the word fornication it means that the divorce is referring to two people who aren't married yet. IMHO, if that's what a person is using to form their opinion, then they are extrapolating a whole doctrine based on nothing more than semantics...that's dangerous, at best. Besides, the Greek word used there is porneia, which was defined as sexual activity outside of marriage in general; adultery, fornication, homosexuality, and so on.
I'm not trying to argue with anyone here, nor am I trying to find loopholes. I've said it before, I'll say it again, I DON'T KNOW. What I've written on divorce is simply the closest I've come to a solution to the clash between the doctrine I was brought up with, and the Christians I know who are one their second marriage.
And with that, I'm done. Check back here in a few days for the final post.
Wow, that comment got really long all of a sudden. No wonder it took me so long to write it
Anyhow, I just wanted to say, thank you so much to all you for the feedback you've left.
hhhmmm!!!!! interesting discussion going on here...I think its better for me to keep my thoughts to myself for now....
me too. i think you have some good points, matt. we all have our own reasons for leaving or staying with menno's, and i think its pretty brave of you to post your opinions out here where anyone online can criticize them. you notice most of your comments are from people who disagree with you, because those who agree with you decline to comment. like me, lol :)
@bethkrabill - ditto, ditto!
keep talking!
@qwertle - I'm working on it...this last one is the hardest of the 3
Matt, I just wanted to say that you are 100% correct about the OT law (and especially relevant to us Mennos re: women wearing men's clothing and tattoos). I would be willing (time allowing) to debate anyone from Scripture on this point. The Scripture is crystal clear about this. I have written quite a bit about the OT law in the life of the NT believer, two examples are here and here.
I would echo the concerns stated about your "general principles" idea. I have not found this to be a concept expressed in the NT, though I would be eager to examine it if you can point the way. Yes, we are under the spirit of the law, not the letter, but 99% of the time that makes our responsibility greater, not less. The specific commands such as the headcovering and divorce are indeed mere examples and tiny subsets of the spirit of the law. While they are examples, the spirit of the law doesn't make them an optional, situational example. (If I told you that you should be careful when crossing a busy street (the underlying principle being that you should not let carelessness kill you), the underlying principle doesn't nullify my command to you, it verifies it and strengthens it. You would hardly go around telling people that you can be careless crossing the street as long you (insert another example that fulfills the spirit of the law) never parachute into Tora Bora in the middle of a gunfight between the Taliban and U.S. soldiers just for the thrill of it.) On the contrary, the "examples" (expressed as commands) are not flawed examples that only apply for a small amount of time. They are perfect, practical examples of the application of the spirit of the law in our daily lives. The perfection of the examples are such that they are not given in situational form, but rather in command form. There are plenty of commands given in the NT (the eating meat offered to idols re: weaker brothers' consciences, following OT laws (in Acts) to satisfy Jews, etc) that are given in conditional and situational form, so one can hardly argue that a simple conditional/situational clause was omitted because it wasn't the writer's manner or it was difficult to express in Greek.
And yes, I'm afraid you are sounding quite post-modernist. Make sure your freedom from the OT law (remember, it not freedom from morality or freedom from laws, but from the OT law specifically) doesn't become anti-nomianism.
I would also say from my own experience (and I know you tried to preemptively discount my experience by writing the paragraph that starts with "Which leads me to my next point...one man's legalism is another man's normal way of life.") that legalism is all in the heart. Legalism--and the suffocation it brings--cannot (or certainly has not in my experience, my experience being more conservative than yours) be imposed externally. There are things that my church teaches and requires that I don't believe are necessary from the Bible, but that hardly means my spiritual life needs to suffer. I do my best to joyfully live a life of dedication to Christ anyway. I've not found that not wearing tattoos or dresses, or washing someone's feet, or kissing someone (something I do a lot of in the Arab world) to be a detriment to my spirituality. In fact, if you've got a bunch of dead, stifled, legalistic Christians in your church, God has just placed you in the most fruitful mission field possible. I've always found the standard-issue argument that leaving Mennos make--legalism stifling their spiritual life--quite unconvincing. For starters, it runs entirely contrary to one of the main theses of said people: spirit mattering, not externals.* But even more so, I have tried to make this same argument to myself: that I can't effectively minister to people while being a member of a church that requires things that aren't necessarily in the Bible. Each time God has shown me that that argument is utter hogwash and the problem is in my own heart--I'm not doing what I should to keep a spiritual relationship with him and I'm not doing what I should to minister to others. (I'm speaking from my own experience in that little bit and not necessarily projecting on you.) However, I do find it surprising that you feel your spiritual life was being stifled going to the church you had been going to, given its relative liberality. I've always thought that externals might be able to stifle me if I grew up in an Amish church, but God gave lie to even that thought as I have a good Amish friend who is a born again believer, vibrant spiritually (probably more so than you or me), and is going to Bangladesh tomorrow to share the great news.
So in conclusion, you've been doing some good thinking and come to some very correct and very necessary conclusions about what the Bible says and does not say, but it seems to me you've created some extrapolations from those conclusions that are not supported by a straightforward reading of Scripture. So I encourage you to keep praying and keep reading the Scriptures for yourself. Don't rely on commentaries and books for these matters; they serve as good starting points and provide things that you might not have thought of on your own, but remember to always weigh them by Scripture and ask yourself, "If I wrote those words in Scripture, would I have meant them as I am interpreting them?"
(* And trust me, I'm not knocking "spirit mattering over externals"; I'm foremost in that camp.)
A few more points:
- The argument that because a wonderful, spirit-filled Christian is doing it, it must be all right is quite fallacious. This is made obvious by the clear Scriptural principle that we are responsible for sin according to our knowledge. Just because they have not come to the knowledge that they are living in sin is not an excuse for me to do the same. (I am not denying that divorce is a complex issue that I certainly do not understand completely and that there is a legitimate Biblical debate on the topic.)
- What Chief Dave (DJ Sommers) said is true, but it doesn't mean there aren't commands and that a spirit-filled person won't follow those commands. The Bible (see below) calls someone who claims to be spirit-filled, but who ignores the commands, a liar. I don't think DJ and I disagree, I just think that while DJ's emphasis is correct for the MC as a whole, in this context it needs to be balanced because we are not seeing a lack of emphasis on the spirit here!
Also, a response to Matt's point #1 in your comment:
I'm not aware of a method of Biblical interpretation that says the Bible must explicitly call something sin before it is sin. Christ said, "If you love me, keep my commandments." See also John 14:21-24, John 15:10-14, 1 Cor. 16:11, 1 John 2:3-5, and 1 John 5:2-3. (1 John 2:3-5, NASB: By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. The one who says, "I have come to know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him:) If it's given in command form, it's sin (and a threat to our salvation, per the Scripture references I gave) if we break that command. The Scriptures give some direction that is not in command form, but it is quite clearly given as a conditional/situational or it explicitly says it's not a command: 2 Cor. 8:8: "I am not speaking this as a command", 1 Cor 8:10: "I give my opinion in this matter", 1 Cor. 7:6: "But this I say by way of concession, not of command", 1 Cor. 7:25: "I have no command of the Lord, but I give an opinion".
Please note that all of this flows from my own, short walk with the Lord. If I'm wrong, I'd be glad to hear about it. And if I make any statements, that I haven't explicitly backed with Scripture, let me know and I'll try to supply the references.
WikipediaWictionaryChambers (UK)Google imagesGoogle defineThe Free DictionaryJoin exampleWordNetGoogleUrban DictionaryAnswers.comrhymezone.comMerriam-Webster<>0wvcidfjoguarmMy favorite part of your post was the tease at the end.
"Is the grass really greener on the other side? Do people who leave face a greater risk of going off the deep end? Find out, when we come back. Coming up...candid advice to dissatisfied young Mennonites, and to slightly frustrated (from dealing with said YMs) older people."
The grass is greener if it is planted ontop of a septic tank :)
Matt what about accountablity? None of us were meant to walk this Christian life alone. We make rules that come from principles taught in Scripture in order to keep each other accountable. Hmm, I could and want to say a lot more, but I don't think I am going to persuade you. So instead again I'll just say search the Scriptures and know that I will be in prayer for you. The footwashing thing by the way was practiced by the early church. In verse 14 of chapter 13 Jesus specifically says, "If I then your Lord and Master have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet." Isn't that a command?
Matt, I really would like to hear what your response is to my points. Even if it's so little as, "I know you're wrong, but I don't feel like explaining why."
What's the status of my comments? It's a bit deflating to put a lot of effort into honestly engaging you on Biblical grounds only to be ignored.
I do understand, however, the busyness of life...
@starrsoft - uh...I got lazy and wrote up one final response in part 3b that also included a response to your comments and the comments in part 3a. Sorry I wasn't more clear on that. So yeah. You can find my response here:
http://futureastronaut.xanga.com/681681273/why-i-left-the-mennonite-church-part-3b/?page=1&jump=1461936536&leftcmt=1#1461936536