Attempts at urban plain churches & seekers

[JohnH]

Periodically, plain people think they will set up a church in a city. Eventually they often get a few seekers who become members.

I have noticed that the expanded plain network tends to provide these seekers with access they didn’t have before to better job opportunities in rural communities, along with an inside track to good, lower cost housing and so forth (and attendant access to schools).

This means that seekers tend to “flow through”, although it isn’t too surprising seekers would choose a better quality of life with less smog, traffic, better wages and work conditions, and safer/more space for their children to play. It can also mean home ownership is within grasp.

If the seekers are immigrants it’s even more pronounced. If you move from Haiti to NYC, another move from NYC to central PA isn’t that big of a deal.

Long-term, lots of members pass through city missions (myself included) who eventually fade into the background of large, established rural congregations. Plain city churches are often majority ethnic plain people who hail from rural places.

This seems to be the most pronounced amongst families with young children as opposed to single seekers (particularly older singles), although I recently learned of a long term seeker/member who e fed up availing themselves of a plain nursing home out in a typical plain “stronghold”.

[Ernie]

We are attempting this. We are not intending to funnel seekers into rural areas. But we will see what happens I guess.

I think a church needs to be very intentional in how it structures itself. I had a friend call me a couple years ago. He had helped start a church a couple years before we got started. He said something like this, "What do we do? We have Anabaptists driving up to two hours to attend our church. I never expected that Anabaptists would want to attend church in an old ugly building in a run down, narcotic ridden neighborhood." (This church is in a city that is in economic and population decline.)
The people attending from a distance were not really looking to be involved in ministry to the neighborhood but rather looking for a church with certain non-conformity specifications and certain emphases. A couple weeks ago I asked him how it is going and he said, "I guess you'd say we are a typical Anabaptist church at this point."

If Anabaptists want to move to the city to be part of a church, and the church does not need their help, I echo Allen Roth's advice and that is to tell people that there is plenty of work to do and they are welcome to start another church in the city. (assuming they are willing to work in harmony with the churches already there)

[Soloist]

We are attempting this. We are not intending to funnel seekers into rural areas. But we will see what happens I guess.

I think a church needs to be very intentional in how it structures itself. I had a friend call me a couple years ago. He had helped start a church a couple years before we got started. He said something like this, "What do we do? We have Anabaptists driving up to two hours to attend our church. I never expected that Anabaptists would want to attend church in an old ugly building in a run down, narcotic ridden neighborhood." (This church is in a city that is in economic and population decline.)
The people attending from a distance were not really looking to be involved in ministry to the neighborhood but rather looking for a church with certain non-conformity specifications and certain emphases. A couple weeks ago I asked him how it is going and he said, "I guess you'd say we are a typical Anabaptist church at this point."

If Anabaptists want to move to the city to be part of a church, and the church does not need their help, I echo Allen Roth's advice and that is to tell people that there is plenty of work to do and they are welcome to start another church in the city. (assuming they are willing to work in harmony with the churches already there)

Much of this sounds like elitism and I doubt that’s the intention. I could never go start a church in New Orleans, but I would consider joining one.
I think if they want to join then they can live in the city and live like their neighbors they are trying to reach.
Don’t shove them out, just expect them to submit to the direction of the church like all the seekers have to. If they are unwilling, then membership in that body evidently isn’t for them.
If there is room for a second church then there is additional work the church can do and to tell someone to start their own is the wrong direction. They should think about why they can’t use more people.

[JohnH]

You can’t restrict seekers from seeking greener pastures, particularly in a place like NYC where the majority of people aren’t actually from there - it is logical they are just passing through and will end up settling somewhere more suitable.

You could try to restrict your membership and participation in ministry programmes through a variety of means:

- Require members to live in a geographic area (perhaps city limits, or so many minutes’ drive or walk from the church house or the school.)
- Not accept membership transfers at all.
- Require membership transfers to instead be done more like missionaries, sponsored by the sending congregation, with a time limit, expectation of doing missionary duties and so forth.
- Have a rather strict lifestyle standard that isn’t onerous to seekers but would be difficult for ethnic Anabaptists and require it of all members. For example, mandate no more than 2 trips out of town for family reasons per year. (Missions often do this.)
- Only ordain people who agree to live near church/school.
- Mandate usage of the church school. (Holdemans do this which effectively restricts the geographic area of a church.)

Holdmans run most “urban” churches like missions. Ethnic members are welcome to move and transfer their membership, but they also will generally staff such a church with a teacher, missionary couple, boys’ or girls’ unit house parents, and an additional couple if there is some other ministry to run such as a hospital guest house. These positions are required to live in the city.

What I observed at York was the congregation clogging up with people who drove 30 minutes from Lancaster, kept living a typical Lancaster Co. semi-plain lifestyle, rushed home as soon as Sunday church was over, and generally didn’t seem too interested in seekers.

[Ernie]

We are attempting this. We are not intending to funnel seekers into rural areas. But we will see what happens I guess.

I think a church needs to be very intentional in how it structures itself. I had a friend call me a couple years ago. He had helped start a church a couple years before we got started. He said something like this, "What do we do? We have Anabaptists driving up to two hours to attend our church. I never expected that Anabaptists would want to attend church in an old ugly building in a run down, narcotic ridden neighborhood." (This church is in a city that is in economic and population decline.)
The people attending from a distance were not really looking to be involved in ministry to the neighborhood but rather looking for a church with certain non-conformity specifications and certain emphases. A couple weeks ago I asked him how it is going and he said, "I guess you'd say we are a typical Anabaptist church at this point."

If Anabaptists want to move to the city to be part of a church, and the church does not need their help, I echo Allen Roth's advice and that is to tell people that there is plenty of work to do and they are welcome to start another church in the city. (assuming they are willing to work in harmony with the churches already there)

Much of this sounds like elitism and I doubt that’s the intention. I could never go start a church in New Orleans, but I would consider joining one.
I think if they want to join then they can live in the city and live like their neighbors they are trying to reach.
Don’t shove them out, just expect them to submit to the direction of the church like all the seekers have to. If they are unwilling, then membership in that body evidently isn’t for them.
If there is room for a second church then there is additional work the church can do and to tell someone to start their own is the wrong direction. They should think about why they can’t use more people.

Growing a church numerically (from people who are not in position to help start a new church) means:
1. needing to rent facilities rather than meet in homes and garages
2. more policies, more systems, more agreements, more scheduling challenges, etc. and the time it takes to do all of these things
3. the leaders of the church spending more time shepherding/discipling those who moved into the city instead of shepherding/discipling the locals
4. the percentage of transplants becoming higher than the percentage of locals (which typically translates into less locals joining the church)

We have been wrestling with the challenges of all four of these the last number of months.

I can see how it looks like elitism, but the early church didn't just send anyone to start churches. Church planters were selected.
I don't think there should be a difference (as it relates to spiritual readiness) in who we select to plant churches in Zimbabwe vs. St. Louis, MO.
I think making a difference between these two is why Plain Anabaptists have been very unsuccessful in North American church planting.