MennoNet.com

We have had some debate here whether being worldly is a bad thing. I argue it is, but I would say even very conservative / traditional Anabaptists struggle with this. Here are some that I see, practiced by both Anabaptists and by non-Christians.

- Not engaging in radical hospitality but instead choosing to just socialise with one's close friends and family.

- Deciding to maintain ethnic enclaves with the usual trappings (e.g. marrying cousins despite birth defects being a problem) by maintaining obscure languages nobody else around you understands.

- Dedicating one's self to the pursuit of more wealth which is then primarily consumed, distributed to one's close family, or else funneled to non-church non-profit organisations.

- Using church as effectively a political institution where political power is sought, held on to, and then distributed amongst one's family.

- Having a hostile attitude towards newcomers to church.

- Tolerating sin and gross immorality if performed by people who are wealthy, politically influential, have the "right" family connections and so on.

- Operating fancy NGOs, mission societies, nonprofits (whether secular or religious), but seemingly having very few resources for neighbours right at home who are also in need.

The list above are things I see many people doing: secular people, governments and politicians, families who have lived in an area for generations, recently arrived immigrant groups. I would argue this is a very worldly list of attributes, and are things the Christian should strive to move away from.

I think you raise some really good points here.

I intentionally chose things that the Pakistani Muslim community routinely does in the UK. I would thus view Anabaptists who are falling into this things as indeed conforming to worldly ways of doing things. (For reference, a lot of Pakistani Muslims do not appreciate at all the culture that has developed in the UK amongst the ethnic enclaves there and from conversations I have had, consider it a sign of not being serious about practicing their faith.)

Forgot one to add to the list:

- Currying special government favours that only apply to your ethno-religious group with seemingly no regard for the fact your neighbours do not get these special benefits.

Regarding the wealth accumulation and fancy NGOs, true and i agree

The church being used for political power makes no sense to me, the lot system makes it nearly impossible to “strive” to aquire a position of power. The positions of power are also shared and heavily based on consensus so its hard to push any sort of personal agenda through. I think the conservative churches avoid the political traps the best of any church i know of.

Having hostile attitude towards new members, i think theres some truth here but its nuanced. I certainly didnt feel any hostile attitude, infact i felt like I intimidated most of my church members early on. The attitude was more standoffish/suspicious/afraid, not hostile in an aggressive sense

Anthony wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2026 10:53 pm Regarding the wealth accumulation and fancy NGOs, true and i agree

The church being used for political power makes no sense to me, the lot system makes it nearly impossible to “strive” to aquire a position of power.

Much elections in a "democracy", the lot can be, and is, gamed. In some settings (from what I hear, moderate-conservatives are more prone to this) this is a more honest process where the presiding bishops over an ordination will simply ignore the nominations (but tell the congregation they are doing this) and choose not to use the lot, or else just put their preferred candidates in the lot. In other settings, there is outright corruption, as some have alleged with Eastern. Given the preponderance of one specific family in Eastern's bishops and ministers, I find this to be a possible explanation.

The positions of power are also shared and heavily based on consensus so its hard to push any sort of personal agenda through. I think the conservative churches avoid the political traps the best of any church i know of.

They do, but as the plain churches tend to become more worldly and go through transitionalism, they also often adopt worldly power structures as well. I would agree that you will find a very "flat" structure in some of the most traditional settings possible like a Scottsville type, church, etc.

God and Uncle Dale documented well how transitional churches in the 1950s used power and the abuse of it to force transitions and wordliness very quickly upon their members.

Having hostile attitude towards new members, i think theres some truth here but its nuanced. I certainly didnt feel any hostile attitude, infact i felt like I intimidated most of my church members early on. The attitude was more standoffish/suspicious/afraid, not hostile in an aggressive sense

Yes, it depends on the congregation, but this is something many transitional churches struggle with. (Some "very conservative" churches are still transitional. In fact, many of them are. You can simply ask the church background of the members and their parents there, and if it's reliably a more conservative church, the next question is to find out what church their children go to. Dollars to donuts, it will be a less conservative church. Bingo.)

JohnH wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2026 10:05 am
- Dedicating one's self to the pursuit of more wealth which is then primarily consumed, distributed to one's close family, or else funneled to non-church non-profit organisations.

Wealth should be distributed to the family. Scripture speaks to this and says one is worse than an infidel if they are not helping their families. Personally, I know many wealthy people who are very generous to people outside of their progeny. And I am not aware that it's a Mennonite position to limit wealth. I can't speak for the Amish cuz I don't know them well but I have heard that they will limit biz expansion. Not a Hutterite position either. Do you have a Mennonite group in mind that limits wealth and income generation?

I will add this. An area where Mennonites are confirming to the world is spending on credit cards or borrowing heavily for expensive pickups and other things and then saddling themselves w interest payments for decades.
It's bondage and creates ungodly stress on families.

Southerner wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2026 1:36 pm Wealth should be distributed to the family.

That would be the general view of most of the world, yes.

Scripture speaks to this and says one is worse than an infidel if they are not helping their families.

I don't think the Bible says one is worse than an infdel if one doesn't accumulate wealth. It just says you need to provide for your own family, which seems reasonable.

Personally, I know many wealthy people who are very generous to people outside of their progeny. And I am not aware that it's a Mennonite position to limit wealth.

More traditional groups absolutely do (Hoovers, Holdemans, etc.), or did.

Less traditional groups don't.

I can't speak for the Amish cuz I don't know them well but I have heard that they will limit biz expansion. Not a Hutterite position either. Do you have a Mennonite group in mind that limits wealth and income generation?

Yes, Holdemans used to have a $100k (pre-covid) or so limit on salary jobs. As far as businesses, there wasn't a set limit, just a general feel of "maybe your operation is too big" and then you'd either have to start selling part of it off, or giving it away to a partner or employees, etc. or else just downsize.

I will add this. An area where Mennonites are confirming to the world is spending on credit cards or borrowing heavily for expensive pickups and other things and then saddling themselves w interest payments for decades.
It's bondage and creates ungodly stress on families.

Yes, that is another thing that many plain Anabaptists used to be against, but as they conform to the world more freely they do more and more.

I think there was plenty of super wealthy, high income Holdeman Mennonites long prior to Covid and through today. Why don’t they practice limited business and income any more?

R7ehr wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2026 11:36 pm I think there was plenty of super wealthy, high income Holdeman Mennonites long prior to Covid and through today.

Not from salary jobs though. For some reason, Holdeman (and other Mennonite groups such as yours) tolerate very wealthy business owners and farmers, but it's far less accepted to just work a high salary job in a city.

Being "super wealthy" though generally will result in being asked to disburse it. Some people lose their courage for Christian life when this happens and leave the church. Others joyfully give some of what they have away, and are still quite wealthy at the end - just not as wealthy.

Why don’t they practice limited business and income any more?

Inflation, I guess. $100k isn't a "big" income anymore. I'm pretty sure someone with a $500k salary job would be asked to change jobs, though.

Usually these things aren't an issue until someone seems to be manifesting spiritual problems, since nobody really goes around asking people how much they make or what their personal net worth is as a matter of course. It becomes quite obvious, though, when someone decides to build a 9,000 square foot house and hires a full time maid.

Groups like nationwide (most of them) would expect me to give up nursing which would near guarantee that I’ll have trouble affording housing, medical bills and anything that would actually reduce my expenses such as raising cows or large gardens.

This inevitably will make me look less competent, a poor manager and generally less spiritually successful.

Would they help me ungrudgingly? Likely but I’d feel judged.