Anabaptist North American Missions vs. Church Plants

[Ernie]

Another question is why more new church plants aren't conducted as "missions" in America. The Holdemans did that with their church plant in NYC, which has had good success as a "mission".

I'm interested in this as well.

Tell us more about how Holdemans do stateside missions.

For some reason many conservative Anabaptists have a category for foreign missions/church plants and a separate category for North American mission/church plants. Models that are used outside of North America are not used in North America.

[Soloist]

I’ve heard very little about how the salt program in the US is working.
Perhaps someone can explain how the CM overseas missions work for locals and not just the clothing expectations?

The Mennonites don’t do church plants, they do community expansions. I suspect the closer to PA one is, the truer this statement appears. Coming from the west coast, I’ve been a little disappointed in the lack of desire to plant churches.

[Josh]

Another question is why more new church plants aren't conducted as "missions" in America. The Holdemans did that with their church plant in NYC, which has had good success as a "mission".

I'm interested in this as well.

Tell us more about how Holdemans do stateside missions.

For some reason many conservative Anabaptists have a category for foreign missions/church plants and a separate category for North American mission/church plants. Models that are used outside of North America are not used in North America.

If laity decide to just move to a new place (at least 30 minutes, preferably at least an hour away from other congregations), then that follows a “colonisation” model similar to how other Mennonites do it. Once a few families are in an area, a church will get established. It is customer that ordained men not try to start up new churches in new locations, but after 1 or 2 other families are in an area, an ordained man and his family would be very welcome to move there. Tract routes don’t get established until the congregation is well established (unless a founding family is personally enthused about tract work).

If a church just gets too big (over 200 members, maybe less), then a division may get “forced”. A new building is established or rented church building close by, and half the congregation goes there. Usually the school will be shared until the new congregation can get its own school going. This is a last resort and is not preferred - the former model is preferred now.

We also have “missions”. NYC is one. There used to be one somewhere in Idaho but it is a regular congregation now. Same goes for Phoenix. A mission gets support from the mission board, has a missionary couple sent out, and is often paired with a Christian public service unit. NYC and Albuquerque are examples of this. Missions might conduct services in Spanish as there are many neighbourhoods in America where that is the primary language. (There is also one French congregation in Canada.) Holdeman philosophy is to always conduct services in whatever the dominant local language is. Usually, tract routes get established very early in such a mission church plant.

It seems to me that new church plants of the first variety would do well to be combined with domestic mission model of the third variety. I would prefer no more “plants” of the second variety. But you can’t control people and force them to move away.

Due to this model, Holdemans have the best geographic coverage of North America of any plain group, including both cities and more rural areas. There are few populated places left in North America that aren’t within an hour or two of a Holdeman congregation or mission, including cities like Sacramento, San Francisco*, Los Angeles, Chicago, Miami, NYC, DC, Phoenix, Philadelphia, Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Kansas City, Atlanta, Detroit, Minneapolis, Houston, Dallas, or Seattle.

Cities with “local” congregations or missions (inside the city itself as opposed to a rural area an hour or two away) include Seattle, Los Angeles, Chicago, Toronto, Miami, NYC, Phoenix, and Houston.

I see no reason other plain groups could not follow this model, if they felt united enough and enthusiastic about supporting mission, alternative service, and tract work. In particular Las Vegas, NV and Utah cities seem to be places with a great need.

*Two hours without traffic…

[Ernie]

We also have “missions”. NYC is one. There used to be one somewhere in Idaho but it is a regular congregation now. Same goes for Phoenix. A mission gets support from the mission board, has a missionary couple sent out, and is often paired with a Christian public service unit. NYC and Albuquerque are examples of this. Missions might conduct services in Spanish as there are many neighbourhoods in America where that is the primary language. (There is also one French congregation in Canada.) Holdeman philosophy is to always conduct services in whatever the dominant local language is. Usually, tract routes get established very early in such a mission church plant.

Thanks for that Josh.

Do missionaries serve a particular length of time? Do some stay for life? Do couples raise families in these city settings? Have any of these missions in US or Canada resulted in a church being established? Any that result in a church being established that is primarily comprised of local people?

[Josh]

Do missionaries serve a particular length of time? Do some stay for life?

Missionary terms are 2 years, followed by a 3-month furlough, with an optional additional 1 year of service.

A missionary family can reapply to serve again back-to-back, which means another 3 year term. Many missionaries do this, so a typical term is 6 years.

There are other types of activity that aren't "missionaries", such as alternative-service house parents, tract worker, or caretaker of a guest house located near a significant hospital system. These are 2 year terms. I haven't heard of people serving back to back terms for these.

Do couples raise families in these city settings?

Usually not. Some seeker families who join our church might be living in a city setting. However, most of them end up migrating to a more traditional congregation due to access to better jobs, shorter commutes, and much more affordable housing. For example, in NYC, families who have joined tend to end up in Fleetwood, PA (2 hours west) or Belleville or upstate NY like Poughkeepsie.

Have any of these missions in US or Canada resulted in a church being established?

There are a few that have enough membership to be considered "established" like New York City, Phoenix, or Albuquerque.

Any that result in a church being established that is primarily comprised of local people?

Phoenix was this way for a while. The crime was rather bad in the nearby vicinity where the church is located for affordable housing, so non-local people tended not to stay for more than a few years. There were a few local families that stuck it out and thus they dominated the local church.

Holdeman living patterns don't tend to result in an outside family that joins staying in one place long term. Instead, they would tend to move to where they can find a good job. Due to the fact all of our children go to a church school, they will want to be located within 10-15 minutes of the church, too. Driving an hour each way to school is a big burden. Their children will tend to move away, too.

If I think of a few last names of ordained men who are from seeker families who joined or a seeker themselves, many of the ones I can think of are not still located in the original congregation their family joined.

When young women get married, they almost always move to the young man's congregation, so that halves the amount of "buildup" a family will have in a local area. Seeker families often are encouraged to have their young men try moving to different congregations and trying different jobs, which means he may end up moving, too. I recently met a young man who is from New Jersey and used to go to NYC (I think), and is now a member, eventually he moved to PA where he found a better job and better living situation. Another girl whose family originates from Puerto Rico/NYC is now married to a guy in Tennessee (also from a seeker family).

In short, the will of seeker families to try to live in big cities or big metro areas is about nonexistent as the will of ethnic Anabaptist families to do so. It just doesn't really make sense.

[JayP]

I would argue that Menno are trapped by the recognition of both the commandments to go forth and evangelize as well as if no one really JOINS these churches, they face the reality theat while they MIGHT be pleasing to God, they are. L early a cultural and clan experience and NOT THE church.

SO stuck with this they try missions. In Eastern they have both foreign ones like Paraguay and Guatemala, as well s N American church planting like Mendon or Peace River FL. Those American ones usually revolve around an interested family or two that reach out to a eastern and it either grows or dies on the vine.

But for EPMC particularly it is clear the rate of “success” (that definition is another topic) IMHO is brutally low.
Unlike some other groups, since Estern views negative influences coming back from the field as a factor in LMC failures, the run the overseas churches with an even firmer rod of iron than at home. Amazing how generations go by in Guatemala or Paraguay and yet SO FEW “natives” are ordained. Hmmmmmm

IMHO there is nothing inherently wrong with being Anabaptist. I am confident many of them will get to heaven. I have friends in Many settings (albeit more on the very conservative and Old Order flavors) and think it would be a horrid mistake for them to go anywhere else. Just as it equally would be a mistake for many/most non Anabaptists to join such churches.

God is pretty amazing. He can find no work with folks in a lot places you or I would roll our eyes at.
I have seen the Christian commitment equally present in a horse and buggy Mennonite family and in a Missionary Sister of Charity that I got to know a bit. Hopefully they are praying for me!

Not suggesting the specific church and beliefs you focus on do not matter. Myself I find comfort and meaning in a Liturgical setting. We do not get to just make up our own Christianity, but I am loath to tell others I have all the answers (or listen to those that say they do).

[Josh]

I agree there is a lack of perspective about how poorly some mission programs go. In particular, I wish they’d look at the few plain groups who do have more success and start to consider what the difference is.

[JayP]

I challenge you to itemized successful mission work by ANY Anabaptist group that seriously is still Anabaptist.
Liberal Mennonites do not count. They are Protestants now, just do not want to admit it.

Successful means folks in some sort of numbers comes, stays and grafts on to the tree.
You may not like Jehovahs Witnesses or Catholics, but these groups clearly have grown through evangelism.
NOT that this is proof of anything other than growth. Islam has grown pretty well. I would not recommend it for anyone.

But I hold that Conservative Anabaptists are now clans and a subculture, historically rooted and still practicing their religion but not successfully bringing in converts in any really successful numbers.

Because you CAN convert to Anabaptism, it’s much harder to become a Mennonite or Amish

[Josh]

I challenge you to itemized successful mission work by ANY Anabaptist group that seriously is still Anabaptist.

Liberal Mennonites do not count. They are Protestants now, just do not want to admit it.

Successful means folks in some sort of numbers comes, stays and grafts on to the tree.
You may not like Jehovahs Witnesses or Catholics, but these groups clearly have grown through evangelism.

In the Americas, the total number of Catholics is in decline. In Latin America, there is a popular movement where they convert to Pentecostalism or related sects, mostly. (I am not saying this is good; I am simply being observant.) I would agree that JWs are growing through "evangelism" although in my experience they often just convert people who are Catholic or evangelical or whatever.

NOT that this is proof of anything other than growth. Islam has grown pretty well. I would not recommend it for anyone.

But I hold that Conservative Anabaptists are now clans and a subculture, historically rooted and still practicing their religion but not successfully bringing in converts in any really successful numbers.

Because you CAN convert to Anabaptism, it’s much harder to become a Mennonite or Amish

My own group is essentially an exception to this, with nearly 100% national churches in Philippines, Brazil (around 50%), Haiti, and Nigeria. Brazil originally started as simply a new place to settle, instead of explicit mission work, but it is gradually becoming more and more Brazilian and less ethnic Anabaptist. Haiti has the most members (around 1,000), although conditions there are so bad that they may become effectively a diaspora.

As far as North America goes, the most significant "outsider" group is Lutherans, who are about 5% of the background of Holdemans. Due to intermarriage, many people might be a mix of Molosch, Polsch, Swiss Brethren, and Lutheran. (One can discern some of this via last names.) This establishment happened over a century ago, so I would say it is fairly stable now.

Another group that is notable is the horse and buggy German Baptist group which has significant non-ethnic numbers (around ⅓) and the same goes for the Delano-type Mennonites who also seem to absorb a lot of seekers.

Of course, when such people are "grafted onto the tree", eventually one forgets they have non-ethnic backgrounds. In my own congregation we have a significant representation of other groups. Out of 150 or so members, there are 5 non-ethnic last names, in varying levels of 1, 2, or 3 generations.

[Ernie]

I challenge you to itemized successful mission work by ANY Anabaptist group that seriously is still Anabaptist.
Liberal Mennonites do not count. They are Protestants now, just do not want to admit it.

Successful means folks in some sort of numbers comes, stays and grafts on to the tree.
You may not like Jehovahs Witnesses or Catholics, but these groups clearly have grown through evangelism.
NOT that this is proof of anything other than growth. Islam has grown pretty well. I would not recommend it for anyone.

But I hold that Conservative Anabaptists are now clans and a subculture, historically rooted and still practicing their religion but not successfully bringing in converts in any really successful numbers.

Because you CAN convert to Anabaptism, it’s much harder to become a Mennonite or Amish

A side note here...
JayP, would you be open to participating in a thread that discusses your journey growing up Anabaptist, becoming Catholic, and how you think about various Catholic things today?