Video of Virginia Mennonites from 1980

[joshuabgood]

the attrition rate would not have been significantly higher then as compared to previous decades.

Is there data that supports that the attrition rate was significantly higher in the 60s and 70s?

[barnhart]

I think though that had the bishops in Virginia, Franconia, Lancaster and elsewhere, held the line through the cultural upheaval of the 60's and 70's - the attrition rate would not have been significantly higher then as compared to previous decades.

This seems plausible to me.

[HondurasKeiser]

the attrition rate would not have been significantly higher then as compared to previous decades.

Is there data that supports that the attrition rate was significantly higher in the 60s and 70s?

No. I was suggesting a hypothetical in which the attrition would have maintained had the bishops chosen to hold the line on conformity in nonconformity.

[Ernie]

the attrition rate would not have been significantly higher then as compared to previous decades.

Is there data that supports that the attrition rate was significantly higher in the 60s and 70s?

No. I was suggesting a hypothetical in which the attrition would have maintained had the bishops chosen to hold the line on conformity in nonconformity.

Am I saying this correctly?

Conservative churches will almost always have attrition. The rate depends on a wide variety of factors.

If conservative churches give in to mainstream or progressive pressures, they can sometimes slow the attrition for awhile, but over the course of a decade or so, the amount of attrition is similar or even worse.
Often, there needs to be a continual influx of members from other churches (transfer growth) or else the church eventually dies out.

Old Orders experience attrition also, but rarely do their numbers decrease over time. Exceptions being individual settlements that never got launched well, or ones that died out due to socio and economic factors.

[Wesleyb]

Is there data that supports that the attrition rate was significantly higher in the 60s and 70s?

No. I was suggesting a hypothetical in which the attrition would have maintained had the bishops chosen to hold the line on conformity in nonconformity.

Am I saying this correctly?

Conservative churches will almost always have attrition. The rate depends on a wide variety of factors.

If conservative churches give in to mainstream or progressive pressures, they can sometimes slow the attrition for awhile, but over the course of a decade or so, the amount of attrition is similar or even worse.
Often, there needs to be a continual influx of members from other churches (transfer growth) or else the church eventually dies out.

Old Orders experience attrition also, but rarely do their numbers decrease over time. Exceptions being individual settlements that never got launched well, or ones that died out due to socio and economic factors.

After thinking it over for a while, I can almost accept HK's hypothesis, but several comments: The changes would have had to have been made in the decades leading up to the 60's and 70's. There was a huge push for missions and outreach in the 40's and 50's. To "hold the line", missions would have needed to take a backseat to maintaining historical practices. The conservatives would also have needed to maintain control of the college. It's interesting to think of what VA Conf might look like today if those things had happened. It would look a lot more like Southeastern than today's VA Conference, but not identical. Much smaller I'm sure. And what would EMU look like? Maybe more like Faith Builders?

[Ernie]

It's interesting to think of what VA Conf might look like today if those things had happened. It would look a lot more like Southeastern than today's VA Conference, but not identical. Much smaller I'm sure.

Why do you think it would be smaller? Eastern and Nationwide have more than tripled since their beginnings.

[HondurasKeiser]

No. I was suggesting a hypothetical in which the attrition would have maintained had the bishops chosen to hold the line on conformity in nonconformity.

Am I saying this correctly?

Conservative churches will almost always have attrition. The rate depends on a wide variety of factors.

If conservative churches give in to mainstream or progressive pressures, they can sometimes slow the attrition for awhile, but over the course of a decade or so, the amount of attrition is similar or even worse.
Often, there needs to be a continual influx of members from other churches (transfer growth) or else the church eventually dies out.

Old Orders experience attrition also, but rarely do their numbers decrease over time. Exceptions being individual settlements that never got launched well, or ones that died out due to socio and economic factors.

After thinking it over for a while, I can almost accept HK's hypothesis, but several comments: The changes would have had to have been made in the decades leading up to the 60's and 70's. There was a huge push for missions and outreach in the 40's and 50's. To "hold the line", missions would have needed to take a backseat to maintaining historical practices. The conservatives would also have needed to maintain control of the college. It's interesting to think of what VA Conf might look like today if those things had happened. It would look a lot more like Southeastern than today's VA Conference, but not identical. Much smaller I'm sure. And what would EMU look like? Maybe more like Faith Builders?

If you like that hypothesis, wait till you hear this one: It's really flimsy and I'm probably wrong but hear me out. Over Christmas my siblings and I were comparing stories of the many MCUSA and MCUSA adjacent churches that we're personally familiar with around the country that have gone all in on being Welcoming and Affirming of LGBTQ+ ex. SF First Mennonite, Pittsburgh Mennonite, Frazer Mennonite, Denver Mennonite, Cedar Falls Mennonite (IA), Germantown Mennonite, Salford Mennonite, Circle of Hope (COB). Even 15 years ago, half of these churches were not fully Welcoming and Affirming. My sisters were particularly astounded as they've been out of the Mennonite world for almost 20 years. They asked me what the catalyst for the change was among the MCUSA churches. Why were so many changing their stance on LGBTQ acceptance? I didn't have a great response and while we all recognized the emphasis on justice that is so important to the acculturated Mennos as being a factor, that didn't seem satisfying to me as an answer.

The more I thought about it and reflected on what I'd observed in those churches I came to the conclusion that while a host of factors may be at play, one of the driving motivations is something like love for our children and grandchildren and a desire that they continue to be counted among the Mennonite flock. That love or care for them far outweighs concerns about sin...until perhaps the sin is no longer seen as sinful.

This is where my theory gets a little flimsy as I can't possibly know what was in the minds of the Mennonite bishops in the 50's and 60's. I wonder though if a similar motivation wasn't at play in their minds back then as well. Namely, the overwhelming love for their relatives and the desire that they continue to be counted with the Mennonites, even if that means changing the church's practices to keep them there. Over time, former plain clothes Mennonites could develop all sorts of justifications, biblical and otherwise for why the dropped the practices but in the beginning, I wonder if it wasn't something as simple as wanting to avoid painful loss.

[Wesleyb]

It's interesting to think of what VA Conf might look like today if those things had happened. It would look a lot more like Southeastern than today's VA Conference, but not identical. Much smaller I'm sure.

Why do you think it would be smaller? Eastern and Nationwide have more than tripled since their beginnings.

Good question. I guess I was imagining a situation in which the Southeastern split would have been avoided, but the more liberal minded ones that would inevitably have left would have formed their own group, so today you would have the (conservative) VA Conf instead of Southeastern and a more liberal group comparable to the VA Conf of today. I'm sure the conference would have been much larger in 1972 than Southeastern was then, but what would have happened over the years? How attractive would the more liberal group have been? What would the quality of leadership have been like? Would the Old Orders who have flowed into Southeastern over the years have continued to do so, or would they have been more comfortable in Weaverland or another more conservative group? There are so many variables.

[Wesleyb]

If you like that hypothesis, wait till you hear this one: It's really flimsy and I'm probably wrong but hear me out. Over Christmas my siblings and I were comparing stories of the many MCUSA and MCUSA adjacent churches that we're personally familiar with around the country that have gone all in on being Welcoming and Affirming of LGBTQ+ ex. SF First Mennonite, Pittsburgh Mennonite, Frazer Mennonite, Denver Mennonite, Cedar Falls Mennonite (IA), Germantown Mennonite, Salford Mennonite, Circle of Hope (COB). Even 15 years ago, half of these churches were not fully Welcoming and Affirming. My sisters were particularly astounded as they've been out of the Mennonite world for almost 20 years. They asked me what the catalyst for the change was among the MCUSA churches. Why were so many changing their stance on LGBTQ acceptance? I didn't have a great response and while we all recognized the emphasis on justice that is so important to the acculturated Mennos as being a factor, that didn't seem satisfying to me as an answer.

The more I thought about it and reflected on what I'd observed in those churches I came to the conclusion that while a host of factors may be at play, one of the driving motivations is something like love for our children and grandchildren and a desire that they continue to be counted among the Mennonite flock. That love or care for them far outweighs concerns about sin...until perhaps the sin is no longer seen as sinful.

This is where my theory gets a little flimsy as I can't possibly know what was in the minds of the Mennonite bishops in the 50's and 60's. I wonder though if a similar motivation wasn't at play in their minds back then as well. Namely, the overwhelming love for their relatives and the desire that they continue to be counted with the Mennonites, even if that means changing the church's practices to keep them there. Over time, former plain clothes Mennonites could develop all sorts of justifications, biblical and otherwise for why the dropped the practices but in the beginning, I wonder if it wasn't something as simple as wanting to avoid painful loss.

That could explain some of it, but my impression is that a bigger factor was loyalty to "the church." Remember that at that time there had only ever been one major split and being a Mennonite in Virginia was the same as being a VA Conference member. The landscape of today where you could be a member of any of a dozen or more different groups, some based in OH or PA, and still be a Virginia Mennonite would have seemed foreign to them. Also, I think institutions and structure were more important to them than to most of us now. So they accommodated things they were not comfortable with and stayed with the church for the sake of unity. It's easy to look back and say "they should have. . ." or "If I were there I would have . . ." but there really were no easy choices.

[joshuabgood]

the attrition rate would not have been significantly higher then as compared to previous decades.

Is there data that supports that the attrition rate was significantly higher in the 60s and 70s?

No. I was suggesting a hypothetical in which the attrition would have maintained had the bishops chosen to hold the line on conformity in nonconformity.

Maybe I am misunderstanding. What I am asking is do we know that attrition wasn't maintained?