Anabaptist church planting: a proposal

[Neto]

....
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.
....

I 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 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....]

Honestly 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.

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.

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.

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?

[temporal1]

fwiw, i added a comment on P.105 Bunny Trails.
viewtopic.php?t=209&start=1040

Yep, that's certainly how the Great Commission reads, isn't it?
And how Paul lived his life...

[Ken]

I 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 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....]

Honestly 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.

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.

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.

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?

I would not be so quick to dismiss home-grown movements like Pentecostals in Latin America. Part of the reason they are growing so fast is that they are far better at meeting the spiritual needs of their congregants compared to North American style congregations dropped in from the outside. I'm not just talking about Mennonites but even, for example, the Mormons. And especially the Catholics.

One of the biggest scourges in the part of Guatemala where I used to work and still visit is alcoholism. The local Pentecostal churches are far better at turning around families that are wracked with alcoholism and bringing the men back to being responsible Christian family men. They are laser focused on it. Whereas with the Catholic church it is mostly just women who attend and participate.

Personally its not my cup of tea. But I'm also educated and bookish. Rural poor people in Latin America are neither of those things. And local preachers know far better how to reach them than missionaries from abroad. I'm not saying there is no value in overseas mission work. Just that most of those cultures are already Christian, more so than North America in many cases. So it isn't the same as in Paul's time. And one doesn't need to go overseas to fulfill the great commission anymore. Most of those countries have greater need of other types of development work.

[Josh]

I would not be so quick to dismiss home-grown movements like Pentecostals in Latin America. Part of the reason they are growing so fast is that they are far better at meeting the spiritual needs of their congregants compared to North American style congregations dropped in from the outside. I'm not just talking about Mennonites but even, for example, the Mormons. And especially the Catholics.

Pentecostalism is not at all home grown or native to Latin America. It is of English (Wesleyan) and American (Wesleyan Holiness) origins.

One of the biggest scourges in the part of Guatemala where I used to work and still visit is alcoholism. The local Pentecostal churches are far better at turning around families that are wracked with alcoholism and bringing the men back to being responsible Christian family men. They are laser focused on it. Whereas with the Catholic church it is mostly just women who attend and participate.

The same is true of Mormons and conservative Anabaptists, who are also militantly opposed to alcohol.

Personally its not my cup of tea. But I'm also educated and bookish. Rural poor people in Latin America are neither of those things. And local preachers know far better how to reach them than missionaries from abroad. I'm not saying there is no value in overseas mission work. Just that most of those cultures are already Christian, more so than North America in many cases. So it isn't the same as in Paul's time. And one doesn't need to go overseas to fulfill the great commission anymore.

Urban American populations are not bookish or educated either. Detroit city, for example, has a literacy rate below 50%. Perhaps the upper-middle-class, suburban, white/Asian communities in which you've lived are are "educated and bookish", and as you said, you seem to have no need of religion that encourages men not to be drink and instead of responsible Christian family men. (I have found that upper-middle-class white/Asian suburban people likewise think they have no need of God or following the Bible.)

Most of those countries have greater need of other types of development work.

Considering we have another thread talking about the lack of affordable housing in America and the growing problem of homelessness, I'm not sure Anerican answers for "development work" are the right ones. Seems these countries would be best off solving their own problems with their own people.

[Praxis+Theodicy]

I think endeavors regarding how we plant and shape churches should be guided by the principles laid out in the New Testament first, and then by what is practical second.

There is much ado about the dangers of ethic-specific churches in the NT. Even Peter showing preference to Jews by eating with them when he normally ate with gentiles was something Paul (rightly) confronted him on. The inclusion of non-Jewish people who heard and responded to the gospel of Jesus is a big theme in the New Testament, especially in the book of Acts and several of the apostolic epistles like Galatians and Romans.

The culture of a church should be formed by whomever is born again, coming together in community to discern from the Word of God how their common life should be expressed. This includes which cultural specifics from all members should be redeemed, cast off, included, allowed, encouraged, or restricted.

Earnest Eby has spilled gallons of ink on this specific topic. A lot of his stuff, posted on MN or available from Church Planters, or in interviews by him on Anabaptist Perspectives, is available to be digested and discussed.

[Josh]

The culture of a church should be formed by whomever is born again, coming together in community to discern from the Word of God how their common life should be expressed. This includes which cultural specifics from all members should be redeemed, cast off, included, allowed, encouraged, or restricted.

Well, actual reality is that most people like to associate with other people with whom they have lots of things in common. Attempting to force a church to be composed of lots of people whom have nothing in common results in a lot more tension, discord, and disagreements. Anabaptist churches place a high premium on maintaining unity and minimising strife.

God did also create nations, tribes, and tongues. I don't see anything wrong with congregations organising themselves according to nation, tribe, and tongue, and indeed not organising by tongue sounds logistically impossible. (Perhaps it could be done if many people have both the gift of speaking in other tongues and the gift of interpretation of other tongues.)

Much ink is spilled by people talking about how to have an "ideal" church plant; my advice is to go try and be part of one. When I was part of a diverse church plant/mission in Australia, the lack of cultural unity was endless and a major problem. It was simply hard to do anything together. We were all too different, and it was not reasonable for us to ask each other to change. I myself as a single man could have done it, but it would have been much better off if everyone had agreed to first come together and unify instead of trying to be "all things to all men".

[Neto]

The culture of a church should be formed by whomever is born again, coming together in community to discern from the Word of God how their common life should be expressed. This includes which cultural specifics from all members should be redeemed, cast off, included, allowed, encouraged, or restricted.

Well, actual reality is that most people like to associate with other people with whom they have lots of things in common. Attempting to force a church to be composed of lots of people whom have nothing in common results in a lot more tension, discord, and disagreements. Anabaptist churches place a high premium on maintaining unity and minimising strife.

God did also create nations, tribes, and tongues. I don't see anything wrong with congregations organising themselves according to nation, tribe, and tongue, and indeed not organising by tongue sounds logistically impossible. (Perhaps it could be done if many people have both the gift of speaking in other tongues and the gift of interpretation of other tongues.)

Much ink is spilled by people talking about how to have an "ideal" church plant; my advice is to go try and be part of one. When I was part of a diverse church plant/mission in Australia, the lack of cultural unity was endless and a major problem. It was simply hard to do anything together. We were all too different, and it was not reasonable for us to ask each other to change. I myself as a single man could have done it, but it would have been much better off if everyone had agreed to first come together and unify instead of trying to be "all things to all men".

I think that a good option is to have a sort of partnership with another congregation of a different culture or ethnicity. This will help people grow in other relationships with "other culture" people, and possibly also provide a person with a good recommendation when they meet someone who is of that culture, language, or ethnicity, a place where they will feel at home. (I would envision joint meetings periodically, or working together in community efforts, the latter being the better choice, to my mind. Or both.)

[Ken]

I would not be so quick to dismiss home-grown movements like Pentecostals in Latin America. Part of the reason they are growing so fast is that they are far better at meeting the spiritual needs of their congregants compared to North American style congregations dropped in from the outside. I'm not just talking about Mennonites but even, for example, the Mormons. And especially the Catholics.

Pentecostalism is not at all home grown or native to Latin America. It is of English (Wesleyan) and American (Wesleyan Holiness) origins.

Home grown in the sense that they are spreading organically through local leaders not due to missionaries from North America. If you want to be pedantic, no version of Christianity in North America is truly home grown except for maybe the Mormons. It all originally came the early church in middle east. But in the context of Brazil or Central America, the Pentecostal churches are the most home-grown and are spreading without international mission support or leadership.

One of the biggest scourges in the part of Guatemala where I used to work and still visit is alcoholism. The local Pentecostal churches are far better at turning around families that are wracked with alcoholism and bringing the men back to being responsible Christian family men. They are laser focused on it. Whereas with the Catholic church it is mostly just women who attend and participate.

The same is true of Mormons and conservative Anabaptists, who are also militantly opposed to alcohol.

Yes, but conservative Anabaptists and Mormon missionaries from North America who have never tasted a drop of alcohol their entire lives and have never even seen alcoholism in their extended families are not necessarily the best people to help Guatemalan families ravaged by alcoholism. Especially compared to local men who have been through the wringer with it and have lived with the destruction it brings and have now turned their lives around through the church. From what I have seen, they are the ones who are laser focused on helping their neighbors battle the same addictions that they faced. There was a Pentecostal church behind my house in Guatemala so I got to see a lot of it across the fence first-hand. Many services were almost AA or recovery-focused. People would be called up and praised for 2 weeks or 2 months of sobriety and surrounded by others with laying of hands, praise, moral support, thanking Jesus, and all that sort of thing. People would be crying and singing. They would do the AA-style sponsor thing. That isn't normally what you would see in a typical Menno or Mormon service. Does it work? [[Shrug]]. It seems to work better than what other churches are doing which is not much at all. But who knows.

Do local people always know better than foreign missionaries? I doubt it. But a lot of conservative Anabaptists don't actually have formal seminaries and trained pastors but just elect their preachers from their own ranks instead of relying on professional trained and hired ministers from the outside. So I would think there would be support for local people in other countries doing the same.

[NedFlanders]

I don’t think focusing on different people groups is all that helpful. Just get to know people personally. Love them like Jesus and then all this ethnic, culture, and etc stuff is seen rightly - as useless. At least as a person who grew up in the world I had to give up everything and literally do that. I don’t want for you to focus on what I gave up. I want to focus on Christ. If you keep coming back to backgrounds and etc - then you are the problem and heightening the awareness of a newcomer being different.

Nothing overrides Christlike hospitality in making others feel welcome - they won’t hardly pay attention to what you wear or have. And when they notice they will be more encouraged to do. So stop worrying about culture, culture might be where someone comes from but it isn’t who they are.

[Neto]

Culture is things like
In Islamic cultures, don't use your left hand for eating, and most everything else except for wiping. (I could never make it there.)
Level of eye contact. A lot (as in most Western countries) or very little, or even not at all (as in many "native" cultures, like Perhaps most American Indian cultures). (I attended public school in a small Cherokee town, and now I have to consciously remind myself to look the other person in the eyes from time to time, but not too long, or it gets weird. (People have actually done their thesis on things like this.) (I was also once told off for "showing disrespect" toward another person who was speaking, in a group setting, because I was apparently looking down most of the time while he spoke. The person leading the workshop was a tribal missionary, who would have never thought to get upset with me had it been a non-white who behaved in the same manner.)
Touch or don't touch (Brazilian culture involves a LOT of touching, air kissing, and very close social distance. The Banawa of Brazil, however, favors a social distance of 12' or more, as space allows. Never touch anyone.)
As concerns how you would arrange your meeting area - In rows, or all backs against the wall. (Westerners are OK with having someone sitting behind them. The Banawa are adjusting to it, but traditionally would never want anyone behind them. They also chose on their own to sit separately in Christian services, although they had never been in any place where this was a practice.)
Men talking to unrelated women, or no. What conventions are acceptable ways of getting around this in situations where a violation is essential?

A perhaps funny one: How do you point out something? A finger? Offensive in some cultures. In some places if you point at something with your finger and ask "What is that?" it doesn't matter how well you say the question, they will answer "your finger". (The Banawa point by extending the lower lip. I still catch myself doing it here in the States.)

A possibly strictly Western example (one that got me in trouble):
If there are things sitting out at a home where you have been invited, are you free to pick up such things? (Such as a display of antique items, like a coffee grinder, old knives, inoperable fire-arms, etc.)
Hint: I touched something of this nature, and was scolded by the host. Some will say that I should have known better, but my culture did not have this type of restriction. It still stings a bit to think of it.