Plain Anabaptist Church Planting Models

[Ernie]

I’ll diverge a bit into church planting here… but hospitality is at the center of effective church planting IMO.

My church planting model keeps getting refined, and one of the things I'm learning is that if those who are attempting to start a new church do so without spiritual, emotional, social support (and financial support if needed) the "burned feeling" can be much more discouraging. A few families who strike out on their own to start a new church can get burned out fairly quickly, especially if the team dynamics struggle significantly.
Here are a couple models that seem better than some others for small church planting teams ...
1. Start the new church on the edge of the community. This allows the church planters to have some social interaction with people from the home church, until converts are contributing socially to the health of the church.
2. If needing to relocate to start a new church, consider sending a minimum of 6 families, but plan to start two or three fellowships in the same general area.
Several benefits to this. If the six families meet together, they don’t really need anyone else to join the church in order to have a sense of community and sustainability. Its also harder to integrate newcomers into a “foreign” culture since the new comers are in the minority. If six families start two or three assemblies, they can consider themselves sister assemblies but one church. The church planters can focus on a vision that fits their small assembly, while still benefitting from social interactions with the other church planting families. There is less need for furloughs, and if one of the small teams can’t make it for some reason, there is still “the church” to relate to and the possibility of regrouping into more a workable arrangement.

I'm not sure I see planting a church on the edge of a community to be a good thing. I understand the idea but what I see happening is that the separation occurs only for Sunday service but for other activities they still are invested in their social network they already have. How do the churches in foreign countries deal with the same problem? Is it the mindset about what they are doing? Perhaps we look at a church plant as just another place to go while a church plant in a foreign land has more implications and people are more intentional about reaching out?
The problem with churches composed of 2 families each is the obvious implications of authority structure as well as how exactly to integrate someone from the community. Wouldn't the 6 families still end up spending their social time with each other rather then the time and investment into others? Who would they seek council from? a fellow new member of a few years? or the fellow church goer of 30 years just across town?

I personally think that 6 families is a good starting size for a church but I'm not sure I'd want to see it smaller for a number of reasons. Of course you are not envisioning a traditional church with standards and if you are, I see that two men making a church is a recipe for disaster.

I think you are correct about what normally happens. The only way something different from this would happen is if the church planters are very intentional about changing their social structures. Otherwise the models being proposed have no real advantages.

If two men "making a church" are not mature and not under the oversight of wise and discerning elders, yes, it could be a disaster.

And yes, for some reason it is hard to get Americans to think about church planting in America, in a manner similar to the way it is done in foreign indigenous church planting endeavors.

[Josh]

In order to have a lot of seekers in a church, they have to have a way to become members on equal footing with everyone else. And they need to be treated socially just as well as, for example, a conservative family treats their less-conservative relatives.

Generally I don’t see many ethnic Anabaptists interested in extending their kinship networks to seekers, at least not for socialisation and fellowship. They continue to refuse to do this and then they are puzzled why their churches don’t grow with seekers.

[Soloist]

I think you are correct about what normally happens. The only way something different from this would happen is if the church planters are very intentional about changing their social structures. Otherwise the models being proposed have no real advantages.

If two men "making a church" are not mature and not under the oversight of wise and discerning elders, yes, it could be a disaster.

And yes, for some reason it is hard to get Americans to think about church planting in America, in a manner similar to the way it is done in foreign indigenous church planting endeavors.

So... how would a seeker be on equal footing if there is someone who the two men have known all their life is the one calling the shots and making the rules?

Edit: it would seem to me that this wouldn't be very different as they would be an extension of the parent church and by the structure be fairly similar... Do you envision a time where that elder would no longer be calling the shots? how would you see that transition working?

[Soloist]

In order to have a lot of seekers in a church, they have to have a way to become members on equal footing with everyone else. And they need to be treated socially just as well as, for example, a conservative family treats their less-conservative relatives.

Generally I don’t see many ethnic Anabaptists interested in extending their kinship networks to seekers, at least not for socialisation and fellowship. They continue to refuse to do this and then they are puzzled why their churches don’t grow with seekers.

And they don't understand and say "you get what you put in" as they refuse to come over constantly due to prior family engagements.

[Ernie]

In order to have a lot of seekers in a church, they have to have a way to become members on equal footing with everyone else. And they need to be treated socially just as well as, for example, a conservative family treats their less-conservative relatives.

Generally I don’t see many ethnic Anabaptists interested in extending their kinship networks to seekers, at least not for socialisation and fellowship. They continue to refuse to do this and then they are puzzled why their churches don’t grow with seekers.

I don't either. Anybody who wants to be involved in church planting or in growing the church with people outside of their ethnic framework, must be interested AND willing to extend their kinship networks. If not, they might as well not try to plant churches or grow the church this way. Less people will be hurt.

[Ernie]

I think you are correct about what normally happens. The only way something different from this would happen is if the church planters are very intentional about changing their social structures. Otherwise the models being proposed have no real advantages.

If two men "making a church" are not mature and not under the oversight of wise and discerning elders, yes, it could be a disaster.

And yes, for some reason it is hard to get Americans to think about church planting in America, in a manner similar to the way it is done in foreign indigenous church planting endeavors.

So... how would a seeker be on equal footing if there is someone who the two men have known all their life is the one calling the shots and making the rules?

Edit: it would seem to me that this wouldn't be very different as they would be an extension of the parent church and by the structure be fairly similar... Do you envision a time where that elder would no longer be calling the shots? how would you see that transition working?

Yes, I envision working myself out of a job in any church plant endeavors I am involved in.

A few years ago I took training for taking blood tests on chickens. (It was a five hour training.)
1. First we heard skilled blood testers talk about how they take blood tests.
2. Then they showed us pictures of the tools they used and the process they used.
3. Next they took us to the barn and took some blood samples while we watched.
4. Then we took some blood samples while they watched and gave advice.
5. After that we were on our own. We could of course get further advice as needed.

I see this being a simple model for how church planting should be done. (Of course this process will take more than five hours, and all Christians can benefit from getting wise counsel, no matter how old they are and how long their congregation has been in existence.)

[Soloist]

I think you are correct about what normally happens. The only way something different from this would happen is if the church planters are very intentional about changing their social structures. Otherwise the models being proposed have no real advantages.

If two men "making a church" are not mature and not under the oversight of wise and discerning elders, yes, it could be a disaster.

And yes, for some reason it is hard to get Americans to think about church planting in America, in a manner similar to the way it is done in foreign indigenous church planting endeavors.

So... how would a seeker be on equal footing if there is someone who the two men have known all their life is the one calling the shots and making the rules?

Edit: it would seem to me that this wouldn't be very different as they would be an extension of the parent church and by the structure be fairly similar... Do you envision a time where that elder would no longer be calling the shots? how would you see that transition working?

Yes, I envision working myself out of a job in any church plant endeavors I am involved in.

A few years ago I took training for taking blood tests on chickens. (It was a five hour training.)
1. First we heard skilled blood testers talk about how they take blood tests.
2. Then they showed us pictures of the tools they used and the process they used.
3. Next they took us to the barn and took some blood samples while we watched.
4. Then we took some blood samples while they watched and gave advice.
5. After that we were on our own.

I see this being a simple model for how church planting should be done. (Of course this process will take more than five hours.)

In the military they call that "see one, do one, teach one"

I suppose what weighs in this is what the goal of church planting even is. If the goal is to make people following Jesus, that might work. If the goal is to make people follow Jesus our way... I think that would fail. Either you would set goals that are effectively unreachable or the spirituality would be the test and then its a bunch of unwritten expectations. I'm not saying it can't work but it reminds me of one of the people who spoke at AIC about how it really was the shirts he wore but no one would tell him that was his spiritual weakness they had identified.

[Josh]

In order to have a lot of seekers in a church, they have to have a way to become members on equal footing with everyone else. And they need to be treated socially just as well as, for example, a conservative family treats their less-conservative relatives.

Generally I don’t see many ethnic Anabaptists interested in extending their kinship networks to seekers, at least not for socialisation and fellowship. They continue to refuse to do this and then they are puzzled why their churches don’t grow with seekers.

I don't either. Anybody who wants to be involved in church planting or in growing the church with people outside of their ethnic framework, must be interested AND willing to extend their kinship networks. If not, they might as well not try to plant churches or grow the church this way. Less people will be hurt.

One thought is to look at what actually does work. I've done a bit of looking into seeker last names and understanding when they came into the church.

The most common pattern was just 1 person ended up joining an otherwise rather monolithic congregation, and for whatever reason, eventually married into the church. (Entire families joining seems to be much rarer.) For example, one of my wife's ancestors was a soldier who somehow heard Anabaptist preaching whilst he was on leave, abandoned his arms, and joined that church. Eventually he became a deacon or a minister and married someone in the church (I believe the daughter of a deacon). Now his many descendants are the very "ethnic Anabaptists" we bemoan here.

Perhaps we should simply embrace this model as one that works.

[Soloist]

One thought is to look at what actually does work. I've done a bit of looking into seeker last names and understanding when they came into the church.

The most common pattern was just 1 person ended up joining an otherwise rather monolithic congregation, and for whatever reason, eventually married into the church. (Entire families joining seems to be much rarer.) For example, one of my wife's ancestors was a soldier who somehow heard Anabaptist preaching whilst he was on leave, abandoned his arms, and joined that church. Eventually he became a deacon or a minister and married someone in the church (I believe the daughter of a deacon). Now his many descendants are the very "ethnic Anabaptists" we bemoan here.

Perhaps we should simply embrace this model as one that works.

And what about the families? wish them well at starting their own church? I agree it seems most likely that a single person can join and often marry in but why is it that a single person can be successful while a family isn't?

[Josh]

And what about the families? wish them well at starting their own church? I agree it seems most likely that a single person can join and often marry in but why is it that a single person can be successful while a family isn't?

I'm simply saying, let's look at what DOES work with seekers. Occasionally a whole family that is already born again joins, but it seems to be exceedingly rare.

We do have a few in Holdeman circles (along with some where the parents are long gone, but the children have stayed). We also have quite a few where one parent joins and the other doesn't. In other plain circles even this is exceedingly rare.

Given how unsuccessful most conservative/plain Anabaptists are with integrating a family where both parents are already born again, I do think a lot of plain Anabaptists may want to give pause to how much of a burden they think God holds the typical non-Anabaptist family to. My personal opinion is "not very much", and that God instead will look to us plain Anabaptists on judgment day and find that many of us lacked in hospitality and Christian charity, whilst he will tell the "worldly" family to "enter into the joy of your master".