MennoNet.com

In this thread, I would like to specifically look at the impact of conservatism and progressivism and its impact on missions. Side topics such as retention of members, attrition, etc. can also be discussed but I want to keep the focus on missions.

One of the noteworthy things about the early Anabaptists was their sense of mission. They wanted their understanding of the Gospel to permeate all of Europe and beyond. The late Wayne-in-Maine noted that the early Anabaptists revived something that had been nearly extinct for centuries.

Mainstream and Progressive Anabaptists have started thousands of indigenous churches around the world. In general, Conservative Anabaptists have a very difficult time planting indigenous churches and keeping them networked without a lot of investment from the US.

People like John L. Ruth recognize the good of Old Orders and Conservatives, but at the same time, he relishes all the folks around the world who got introduced to Jesus, that the conservatives would never have gotten to.

The big question in my mind is, if conservatives had kept up the fervor for missions that they had from say 1900-1950, and not conceded to the cultural pressures, could there be conservative churches all over the world at this time. There are conservative churches all over the world but not many that are led or coached by non-ethnic Swiss/Germans.

This post again raised the question in the OP, that I have had for a long time but never really explored much...

Wesleyb wrote: ↑Wed Jan 14, 2026 1:39 pm

Ernie wrote: ↑Wed Jan 14, 2026 12:35 pm

HondurasKeiser wrote: ↑Wed Jan 14, 2026 12:26 pm

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?

Among Plain Anabaptists, I meet lots of folks who want to be involved in missions and starting churches comprised of the local population, but few are willing to take the steps needed in order for this to become a reality. (both individually and corporately)

Most that I meet want to be part of an exciting "outreach" church but find themselves gravitating towards churches that are mostly focused on discipling fellow Anabaptists.

I don't see the kind of dedication and persistence and collective effort for indigenous church planting like we saw in the first half of the 20th century.

This is a very interesting question. I have 2 unrelated thoughts.

1.) In reading Nolt & Yoders history of the Virginia Conference, I was deeply impressed by the "home missions" fervor that took hold in the conference beginning in the late 1800's. So many new congregations were planted and outreaches begun. It's astounding really the energy that was poured into spreading the gospel whilst maintaining a conservative Mennonite practice. This is something that has largely been lost in the acculturated churches but something that I notice is still important to the conservative Mennonites I'm familiar with. KMF, for instance began a mission 10 years ago in the neighborhood my parents live in, in Williamsport, Pa. Our Lancaster Conference congregation had heretofore been the only Mennonite Church in the city going back decades.

2.) Here in Honduras we attend a Mennonite church that was begun by missionaries from Lancaster Conference back in the 1950's. The old folks here say that in the beginning, the missionaries taught the ladies to wear coverings and so they did. Sometime though in the 1970's the missionaries began showing up without coverings so the ladies here took theirs off too.

Maybe the causality is the other way round, maybe missions introduces new ideas and practice.

HondurasKeiser wrote: ↑Wed Jan 14, 2026 3:02 pm In reading Nolt & Yoders history of the Virginia Conference, I was deeply impressed by the "home missions" fervor that took hold in the conference beginning in the late 1800's. So many new congregations were planted and outreaches begun. It's astounding really the energy that was poured into spreading the gospel...

The oral history I heard was that started after the Civil War because so many mennonite men fled into the west Virginia mountains to escape Confederate conscription and established friendships with the secluded populations there.

Ernie wrote: ↑Wed Jan 14, 2026 2:50 pmIn this thread, I would like to specifically look at the impact of conservatism and progressivism and its impact on missions. Side topics such as retention of members, attrition, etc. can also be discussed but I want to keep the focus on missions.
One of the noteworthy things about the early Anabaptists was their sense of mission. They wanted their understanding of the Gospel to permeate all of Europe and beyond. The late Wayne-in-Maine noted that the early Anabaptists revived something that had been nearly extinct for centuries.
Mainstream and Progressive Anabaptists have started thousands of indigenous churches around the world. In general, Conservative Anabaptists have a very difficult time planting indigenous churches and keeping them networked without a lot of investment from the US.
People like John L. Ruth recognize the good of Old Orders and Conservatives, but at the same time, he relishes all the folks around the world who got introduced to Jesus, that the conservatives would never have gotten to.

The big question in my mind is, if conservatives had kept up the fervor for missions that they had from say 1900-1950, and not conceded to the cultural pressures, could there be conservative churches all over the world at this time. There are conservative churches all over the world but not many that are led or coached by non-ethnic Swiss/Germans.

I realize I'm making some assumptions on your definition of "conservative" and "progressive", but from my limited time in a couple other countries, and interacting with various anabaptists living (or having lived) in other countries, I would be inclined to answer your question (bolded above) with a "no", based on two factors - a difference between the perspectives of indigenous cultures and the Swiss-German "order"-inclined cultures of conservative Anabaptists, and also the economic support inherently required in maintaining much of the forms of conservative Anabaptist groups, which conservative Anabaptists (generally speaking) fail to invest (if it would even be effective) in order to impose (not the ideal word, but bear with me) conservative Anabaptist culture upon indigenous cultures.

There is a “mission” in Akron of plain Anabaptists. I inquired with them about referring seekers there. They informed me they are only interested in people from other countries and not to refer local Akron people there. (One wonders if someone of Nepali descent would be acceptable, and if so how many generations back until they wouldn’t qualify.)

It is painfully obvious these sort of “missions” are part of a new, exciting thing but have almost no focus at all on actually becoming indigenous from the local population.

Some feel strongly that the mission movement in the first half of the 20th century contributed greatly to the decline of the older Mennonite ways and led directly to Progressivism. Old Order groups to this day I believe are skeptical of the modern protest missions movements to this day.

joshuabgood wrote: ↑Wed Jan 14, 2026 7:34 pm Some feel strongly that the mission movement in the first half of the 20th century contributed greatly to the decline of the older Mennonite ways and led directly to Progressivism. Old Order groups to this day I believe are skeptical of the modern protest missions movements to this day.

what does this refer to. "modern protest missions movements"