Anabaptist church planting: a proposal

[Josh]

Ernie has been discussing for some time ways that Anabaptist church planting could be done a bit differently to try to address the problems of converts being unable to successfully fit in to a new church; the challenge presented by tying membership/baptism/communion to adherence to all of a church's standards; and the difficulty of having an outsider join a place with a strong ethnic culture.

Ernie also made me aware of a premise in sociological research which is that most people prefer to associate with people who are exactly like them, "most" being about 97%. But about 3% of people crave new experiences and like to associate with people who are different than them.

With that in mind, it would seem that out of 100 Anabaptist churches, 97 of them could reasonably be considered to be just fine being an "ethnic" church with a strong culture. The occasional 3%er person who wants to join a different culture may find that he wants to join such a church, and adapts his entire lifestyle and mindset to fit theirs, much as an immigrant moving to a new culture who accepts learning a new language, customs, cuisines, and so forth.

But 3 of them would reasonably be churches that are "multiethnic" and explictly diverse, and which are composed of the 3% of people who don't like being in a highly ethnic church, even if it is one that matches their own background. Seekers who are likewise part of this 3% would feel comfortable joining there, and there wouldn't be much of an expectation to change one's lifestyle and customs in ethnic terms. Instead, the church's culture would be defined as an ever-changing mixture of things.

I believe Anabaptists may already be unwittingly doing this, without realising it. In Apostolic Christian circles, one particular church near me has a reputation for being "diverse", having many Hungarians, Serbians, Romanians, an Italian minister whose parents joined the church, Slovenes, Slovaks, Croats, and more. It also has some classic Swiss-background Apostolic Christians and a person or two who would come from Amish background. (This congregation also has a lot of people who used to go to the Apostolic Christian Nazarean church.)

Yet other ACC churches are composed of people who are mostly related to each other in some way and very similar ethnic background.

I would argue that neither of these churches are "good" or "bad". Obviously, if I had to choose a church to fit in with, I would probably find the diverse church more to my liking (not to mention there are more people there who share a common ethnic group to me). But I suspect I may be one of those "3%" of people.

Over time, one of these diverse churches may transform into a less-diverse church and become one of the 97% type of churches. The children and grandchildren of the 3% type of people may be 97%ers themselves. Thus, a congregation's character would fundamentally change, and eventually an ethnic type of culture would emerge.

I think it would be good to accept these realities instead of seeing them either as flaws, or seeing a "diverse" church as some pinnacle to achieve, when in reality it's something only 3% of people really want. If there are seekers who are clearly 97%ers, it may be prudent to go about seeing how an "ethnic" church that is a good fit for them may be established. 3%ers would be happy going to one of these new church plants, and could bring it stability. Eventually, it would seem entirely reasonable to me, for example, to have a church established that is primarily Italian-American background people, and it would be easier for these people to recruit their family who are having a spiritual awakening to come to this church as well. Whereas trying to force-fit such people into the Amish-Mennonite mold seems like a fool's errand.

[temporal1]

i think it was on MD ..
there were a few members active in church plants, with enthisiastic+optimistic experiences.
i loved reading about their experiences, in various geographical locations. so encouraging.

(usernames i recall, no order:) undershepherd, appleman, GaryK, RZehr

[Neto]

I don't know the answer to the percentage question. I was trying to think of how I could find figures for What percentage of Christian workers are willing to (or even especially interested in) purposefully going to a culture other than their own. If 3% of church members were willing to do that, then we would have a large missionary force, and I think that (especially with proper training) it is a whole lot easier for a small team to adapt to another culture than to expect a large group to do so. I realize that this model doesn't result in a diverse CONGREGATION, but it DOES (I think) reach more people, and increases the 'diversity' of the Body of Christ.

[Ernie]

Ernie has been discussing for some time ways that Anabaptist church planting could be done a bit differently to try to address the problems of converts being unable to successfully fit in to a new church; the challenge presented by tying membership/baptism/communion to adherence to all of a church's standards; and the difficulty of having an outsider join a place with a strong ethnic culture.

Ernie also made me aware of a premise in sociological research which is that most people prefer to associate with people who are exactly like them, "most" being about 97%. But about 3% of people crave new experiences and like to associate with people who are different than them.

With that in mind, it would seem that out of 100 Anabaptist churches, 97 of them could reasonably be considered to be just fine being an "ethnic" church with a strong culture. The occasional 3%er person who wants to join a different culture may find that he wants to join such a church, and adapts his entire lifestyle and mindset to fit theirs, much as an immigrant moving to a new culture who accepts learning a new language, customs, cuisines, and so forth.

But 3 of them would reasonably be churches that are "multiethnic" and explictly diverse, and which are composed of the 3% of people who don't like being in a highly ethnic church, even if it is one that matches their own background. Seekers who are likewise part of this 3% would feel comfortable joining there, and there wouldn't be much of an expectation to change one's lifestyle and customs in ethnic terms. Instead, the church's culture would be defined as an ever-changing mixture of things.

I believe Anabaptists may already be unwittingly doing this, without realising it. In Apostolic Christian circles, one particular church near me has a reputation for being "diverse", having many Hungarians, Serbians, Romanians, an Italian minister whose parents joined the church, Slovenes, Slovaks, Croats, and more. It also has some classic Swiss-background Apostolic Christians and a person or two who would come from Amish background. (This congregation also has a lot of people who used to go to the Apostolic Christian Nazarean church.)

Yet other ACC churches are composed of people who are mostly related to each other in some way and very similar ethnic background.

I would argue that neither of these churches are "good" or "bad". Obviously, if I had to choose a church to fit in with, I would probably find the diverse church more to my liking (not to mention there are more people there who share a common ethnic group to me). But I suspect I may be one of those "3%" of people.

Over time, one of these diverse churches may transform into a less-diverse church and become one of the 97% type of churches. The children and grandchildren of the 3% type of people may be 97%ers themselves. Thus, a congregation's character would fundamentally change, and eventually an ethnic type of culture would emerge.

I think it would be good to accept these realities instead of seeing them either as flaws, or seeing a "diverse" church as some pinnacle to achieve, when in reality it's something only 3% of people really want. If there are seekers who are clearly 97%ers, it may be prudent to go about seeing how an "ethnic" church that is a good fit for them may be established. 3%ers would be happy going to one of these new church plants, and could bring it stability. Eventually, it would seem entirely reasonable to me, for example, to have a church established that is primarily Italian-American background people, and it would be easier for these people to recruit their family who are having a spiritual awakening to come to this church as well. Whereas trying to force-fit such people into the Amish-Mennonite mold seems like a fool's errand.

I think I agree with everything you are saying here, Josh. What I am promoting is quite rare in the circles where I have been, but I think that we as Swiss/German/Dutch Anabaptists should be able to do at least a bit of 3% sort of church planting, rather than virtually none of it.

I spent the first 40 years of my life relating to "97% churches". The last 10 years I have related to many churches that want to be the 3% kind, but they almost always attract people from a wide variety of Swiss/German/Dutch Anabaptists settings. These disaffected folks swell the numbers, (which can give the allusion of church growth) but they create so much work for the church leaders that the church leaders don't really have much energy left for reaching outside of the church.

[Szdfan]

I'm curious about that 97% vs. 3% number. Is there a link to the research that supports this?

[Szdfan]

I spent the first 40 years of my life relating to "97% churches". The last 10 years I have related to many churches that want to be the 3% kind, but they almost always attract people from a wide variety of Swiss/German/Dutch Anabaptists settings. These disaffected folks swell the numbers, (which can give the allusion of church growth) but they create so much work for the church leaders that the church leaders don't really have much energy left for reaching outside of the church.

In my experience, a huge chunk of church "growth" consists of disaffected Christians jumping from church to church rather than converting and bringing new Christians in.

[Ken]

I don't know about the 97/3 us versus them dichotomy.

But I would suggest that ethnicity is not really how most non-immigrant Americans sort themselves these days. For actual immigrant communities, yes that happens. We have Korean Baptist churches, Ukrainian churches, Spanish-language churches and so forth around here too, like any other metro area larger than a small town.

But for the larger and more successful churches I see around here the us/them dichotomy is whether you are part of the community or not. Do your kids go to the same schools? Play on the same soccer teams? are you involved in local community issues? Work for the same employers? Do we cross paths in the local grocery, library, etc? Do you have the same Pacific Northwest "vibe" and values? Then yes, you are part of the "in" regardless of what your ethnic heritage is. I have FAR more in common with my Indian neighbors across the street than I would with some white person of Germanic descent from rural Texas. Our kids go to the same school and were on the same soccer team a few years ago. We say hi, share tools, converse about local issues, and understand each other and where we are coming from.

So here in my community, a successful new church would be one that is made up of the same local people who are already part of the community. And some group of conservative Mennonites who parachute in (or Mormons, Southern Baptists etc.) are not going to be particularly successful because they are not part of the "in" but rather very obviously part of the "out". Maybe in a couple of years they will work their way into the "in" but it won't be through religious reasons. It will be by being a part of the community.

I think much of suburban America (which is most of America population-wise) is more or less the same. Ethnicity and even race is not really the dividing line that it once was for non-immigrant communities. Class, politics, and geography are more important.

[Josh]

But for the larger and more successful churches I see around here the us/them dichotomy is whether you are part of the community or not. Do your kids go to the same schools? Play on the same soccer teams? are you involved in local community issues? Work for the same employers? Do we cross paths in the local grocery, library, etc? Do you have the same Pacific Northwest "vibe" and values? Then yes, you are part of the "in" regardless of what your ethnic heritage is.

Ken,

Re-read what I said:

Ernie also made me aware of a premise in sociological research which is that most people prefer to associate with people who are exactly like them, "most" being about 97%. But about 3% of people crave new experiences and like to associate with people who are different than them.

Specifically, I said that "most people prefer to associate with people who are ... like them". In other words, yes, maybe they're at the same employer, or children go to the same employer, or they have similar PNW values.

Over time, a group of people who associate with other people similar to themselves will eventually form an ethnic group, assuming they have enough cohesion that their children end up marrying each other and forming families.

[Josh]

I'm curious about that 97% vs. 3% number. Is there a link to the research that supports this?

I got it from something Ernie shared that he did share a source for, but I can't find it. It does seem to be generally supported. It is also a rather obvious observation that most people prefer to be around people similar to themselves, and it is a small fraction of people who actually prefer and seek out diversity.

If I'm travelling for work, I enjoyed going to new types of restaurants and trying new cuisines. I quickly learned that the other people from the various jobs I've had mostly didn't enjoy this, regardless of where they came from. If they came from Israel, they felt uncomfortable going to different places in Northeast Ohio. If they were people from Northeast Ohio, they felt uncomfortable always having to go to different restaurants in Israel. Most people just wanted things to be familiar like "home". Likewise, most people don't like being around other people they don't share a common language with.

[Josh]

I think I agree with everything you are saying here, Josh. What I am promoting is quite rare in the circles where I have been, but I think that we as Swiss/German/Dutch Anabaptists should be able to do at least a bit of 3% sort of church planting, rather than virtually none of it.

One reason I was attracted to the church group I'm in is that more than 3% of people end up being tract workers, missionaries, service unit house parents, and so on. It is certainly possible for Anabaptists to do this.

I spent the first 40 years of my life relating to "97% churches". The last 10 years I have related to many churches that want to be the 3% kind, but they almost always attract people from a wide variety of Swiss/German/Dutch Anabaptists settings. These disaffected folks swell the numbers, (which can give the allusion of church growth) but they create so much work for the church leaders that the church leaders don't really have much energy left for reaching outside of the church.

I think the phenomenon you ran into over the last 10 years is that many of the people who get attracted are actually 3%ers from other settings who like the idea of the diversity and so on, but once they move to, for example, a new conservative Anabaptist church upstart in a college town, they end up wanting to get settled back into their own ways.

The obvious thing to do is to keep the disaffected folks out and have an explicit policy goal not to have one ethnic group predominant, and to have frank conversations with people from long lineages of plain Anabaptists families that they form an ethnic group. (I have run into a number of people from Amish backgrounds who think they are from a "non-Mennonite background" because they eventually joined a less-conservative Mennonite church.)

They should, instead, be encouraged to go and plant new churches somewhere else, not to try to latch on to something that already exists and is diverse. In other words, it should be treated exactly how a mission is. Missions are not places where anyone is welcome to just move in and transfer their membership, and mission staff are explicitly chosen.