It comes back to the question of "What is the Gospel of the Kingdom that Jesus gave the command to preach?" You mentioned church growth in Brazil. Some of the fastest growing churches there are questionably more than "emotionally skin deep". Kicking the image of Mary, stuff like that. I have no problem with emotion being expressed - I'm a rather emotional person myself, and sometimes choke up just reading the Scripture in SS class, or making a comment in that setting. But emotion must be an out-flowing of true Christianity. It is a problem in any mission situation where there is sudden and super fast growth - the risk of superficiality. Full training is a must, but in these "fire-storm conversions" there is often a shortage of teachers. We DO want to see people movements, where an entire community turns to Christ, but there are specific challenges that go with it.Ken wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 10:38 pmHonestly I think the entire premise of "church planting" is part of the problem. There is no part of this country that isn't already full of churches of every variety. Those local churches are the ones who should be taking the lead in evangelizing in their own communities. They are always going to be better at it since they are local and understand the local social culture. If conservative Mennonites want to move away from traditional rural Menno communities, they should find places that suit THEM and then move their because that is where they want to make their homes and be a part of the actual community, not because they want to plant churches. That's what the Amish do. You would never hear about Amish talking about church planting. At least not in the sense that others use the term. The do their research, find some new place where they want to move to, then do it. And then immediately set about improving it for future generations.Neto wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 8:38 pmI think that Ken has touched on some of the main salient points here. It is perhaps much more difficult now than it was back in the development period of the 'early anabaptists', but looking really different can be a problem, but I also don't think it is unsurmountable. Every where you go, if you want to be real friends of people of a different culture, it takes time to "earn a hearing", to become trusted members of a community.Ken wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 7:46 pm
....
If you want to simply plant new conservative Mennonite "colonies" in new suburban areas but keep all the ethnic trappings of the culture then you are going to ... have your same old insular and self-sufficient community, just in a suburban rather than rural setting. With separate schools, separate businesses, etc. And while there will be polite cordial interactions and business down [done?] with the outside community, you won't really be a part of it. ....
.... But the folks who actually seek out that sort of life from the outside are a different and much more obsessive sort. Who often seem drawn to the more rigid and disciplinarian aspects. And sometimes even a little unhinged. The focus isn't on being good Christians, but on strict traditional gender roles, patriarchal family structure, strict discipline of children, etc. The Christianity part is almost secondary.
On the other hand, if you want to build a new church somewhere and really be a part of a new community and grow with it. With your growth coming primarily from local people joining the church rather than other conservative Mennonites moving in. Then you are going to have to change who you are and you will wind up looking more like any other generic community church except with some remaining Anabaptist flavor. I don't think it is a coincidence that most urban Anabaptist churches are more along the MCUSA flavor. And a growing number don't even use Mennonite in their name.
....
Ken also mentions the separate school. Now if you can go into a place, start a school, and manage to gain the trust of a few adventurous types who will send their children to your school, it just might work. But I think it would take a lot longer than if your own children go to the school where their children attend. But because this might be placing your children in harms way, this would very much depend on what type of community you were moving into. There must, however, be some sort of involvement in the community that goes beyond just doing business there. I could also, however, be "all wet". All of my training and experience was with a remote, insular society. And we were welcomed there, requested, actually, although not with the aim of them hearing the Gospel. Their motivation was to get both goods and services from a connection to the city. All sorts of goods, and medical treatment. To paraphrase the title of a book I got for my wife some years ago, "The Gospel comes with a Servant's Attitude".
[One more comment, then I'll shut up. If this 3% deal is anywhere near accurate, then I do not think that you can find a whole "congregation worth of people" who will want to get involved. I can think of lots of young people with whom I went through missionary training, and lots of those never left 'American soil'. There are also those who prepared, then God Himself seems to have laid out a different path for them. One of my great uncles was one who, as a young man, felt a strong pull to missionary service. He was never able to pursue that 'dream', but it was instilled in his children and grandchildren, and many of them were (and are) personally involved in missionary careers. Oh, I think I said I was going to shut up....]
The whole language of church planting often has sort of a us/them superiority complex to it. We are the superior people who are coming into your world to impart our superior ideas, morals, and version of Christianity. You can't change the whole world. All you can do is maybe improve your own tiny corner of it. So pick the place you really want to be your homestead. Think in terms of GENERATIONS not 2 or 5 year mission terms. Then get down to the business of making your chosen home a better place however you define that (spiritually, socially, economically, environmentally etc.). And leave it a better place for your grandchildren and great grandchildren. That is how the original Menno settlers to PA and OH thought 2-3 centuries ago. And it is exactly what they did. No one was on a church planting mission to Bucks County PA in 1720 with the notion of returning back home to Switzerland 4 years later. They were building a new home for future generations. And I'm pretty sure they were full participants in their new communities in every way.
Every person's answer to the question posed in this discussion will be painted by their answer to the basic question posed above: What is the Gospel? My position is that the early anabaptist people were "People of the Book", determined to not stray from the teachings of the Scripture. If we take the same approach, then we must include "the Gospel of Peace" as an integral part of the "Gospel of the Kingdom". As an example from the community I have known best, that is not the case in nearly all of the church groups in the area of Oklahoma where I grew up. That is why my HS classmates called me "Adolf", and why a friend in Bible college (in Minnesota, not Oklahoma) told me "Go back to Russia" (and then never spoke to me again). It is why I found a friend in tears, a Quaker girl I knew in Grad school linguistics missionary training, because some of her other friends there said that "all of the conscientious objectors should be lined up and shot". (This was Summer of 1980, to put it in perspective.) These were Christian young people, members in the churches you say are "everywhere". Yes, in my experience these 'nationalistic Christians' ARE everywhere in this country, but they are not 'anabaptist', and if all of the teachings of Jesus matter, nor are they his followers.
I also underlined the bit about the superiority complex of Christian missionaries. (No, you didn't use those exact words.) Is the Gospel being preached in all of these churches on every street corner the Gospel of Jesus?