In terms of individualism, it seems the best way to counter that would be along the lines of #6–gathering regularly for worship…that is of God. It may depend on where you start, but if you believe that there is a God who does care intimately for his/her children, and is somehow at work in them–and best when they are listening–together– to various revelations over history, then the broken/transforming church makes sense, locally and globally I’d say. (I’m not sure yet about that kind of community being electronic–I kind of doubt it, but that could just be the sign that I am an OAR “old Anabaptist radical” and not a YAR…)

I’d say “Mennonite” is just one facet of the church universal, and if I were born into a Buddhist family, I’d likely be a conscientious Buddhist, but might as well bloom where you’re planted, or else migrate and bloom somewhere else, or else graft and create something new, I suppose, which also happens all the time in church history…. Anne

could we just admit that our ‘mennonite ideals’ (as though they actually exist in a concrete way (it’s so hard to be a non-creedal church, isn’t it?)) DO come out of western tradition. Why should we even claim to (or try to) be global in that sense?

questions are so much more fun than answers. that’s why i dropped history and went with theatre… i don’t have to pretend i know anything.

Congrats on the first post. I agree; It’s hard to argue with the J. My dad’s second cousin (I think) is also J. Daniel Hess and was a professor at Goshen College and a writer. I’m not sure why the first initial makes any difference, but aside from being a pain in the neck for standardized tests, it has served me well so far. Hopefully my second cousin once-removed doesn’t mind sharing (Does knowing what one of those is have something to do with my Mennonite culture?).

Anyway, I thought it was interesting that you mentioned the concept of pacifism being “passed down to us from God through our saintly friends in Zürich.” Non-resistance is the (historical) term for this that I am familiar with. It was a pretty big deal in the Lancaster Conference of the Mennonite Church (and presumably elsewhere), keeping Mennonites out of politics and the practice of law and earning Anabaptists the reputation of being “the quiet in the land”. But non-resistance in its most literal interpretation (more passivist than pacifist) is clearly not what Anabaptist affiliated organizations like CPT and arguably MCC are about today.

I know a number of Mennonites, influenced by the writings of Walter Wink (among others), who would view Jesus’ life and teachings as a call to active non-violent resistance (with the kicker: Love for Enemies!) rather than simply a passive non-resistance.

The heritage forged by earlier Anabaptists may make our approach to certain issues (like non-violence) a bit easier, but you’re right, in many ways we probably don’t want to “immitate traditional Anabaptists“; we want & need to be relevant today, just like Jesus was (and is).