when I have already stated that I stand largely in agreement with the distinctives of the Reformed faith?
Well, let me explain first that the M-Bs are anabaptist. The M-Bs are related to, and have been influenced by, baptistic thought. Hence there is baptism by immersion, and of beleivers. That eliminates my concerns about covenantal misunderstanding, and in fact places me in agreement with the MB polity as well.
Really, for someone with Calvanist leanings, the only real problem should be that anabaptism is historically arminian. It should also be a significant one. But it is not a problem, significant or otherwise.
The reason for that simply is M-B biblicism. The statement of faith sticks to biblical phrases, without getting into potentially contentious and controversial explanations of those phrases, which I appreciate. M-B approach to the Bible is inherently Christo-centric, which makes it a natural fit for Kingdom Theology, of which I am a big fan. The M-Bs also practice biblical interpretation in a believing commmunity context, so that is never the case that the individual interprets the Bible in a vacuum, but the individual interprets surrounded by the rest of the family. This means that M-Bs are willing to be influenced, but not overtaken, by new ideas.
Finally, the M-Bs are not opposed to Reformed theology as such, but rather to an emphasis on the soverignty of God that does not adequately make account for human responsibility. As one who holds that divine sovereignty and human responsibility are necessary complements, this is wonderful.
So if I were starting out again, I would start where I am now. Too bad it took so long to get here. God however has His reasons.