Do “Transitional Anabaptist churches” fulfil the purpose of the church?

[Josh]

I will use this definition for “transitional Anabaptist churches”. If you disagree with the definition please discuss in another thread.

#1. The church sources most of its new members (who are not born to existing members) from another plain Anabaptist group that is more conservative/plain/strict/traditional.

#2. The church loses members who transfer to another plain Anabaptist group that is less conservative/plain/strict/traditional (or perhaps are lost to a mainstream evangelical type of church).

Now, what is the purpose of the church? I believe it is to share and spread the gospel, to induct new believers into the body of Christ (whether thru baptism, membership, communion, church services, etc.) and then to provide a family and a safe home for such believers in an environment with loving discipline, pastoral care and concern, and meeting of one another’s needs.

Do transitional Anabaptist churches do this? I argue they do not.

#1. The bulk of their members are either born to an existing church member, which the Old Orders are already very good at doing - or Catholics, evangelical, etc.

The rest are membership transfers from people who are already plain Anabaptists and are already baptised (typically speaking). If someone does not need to be rebaptised, then they are already born again. They don’t need to be reached with the gospel - they have already heard and received the gospel message.

Accepting membership transfers from other churches of already born again people is not the primary mission of “the church”.

#2. They are unable to provide effective loving discipline since the culture is so entrenched of people who don’t like it simply leaving. This is analogous to if children who were upset with their parents’ discipline simply left and joined the neighbour’s family, who for whatever reason was willing to accept “parental transfers” of children.

#3. In practical terms, transitional Anabaptist churches do a terrible job of intaking seekers who want to find a more biblical, Jesus-following church, because they are accustomed to intaking members who are already very familiar with Anabaptist culture and customs and expect new members to be comfortable with them and conform to Anabaptist culture and customs.

They simultaneously do not know how to disciple and train sincere new believers who aren’t familiar with how to practice things like nonresistance, the covering, how to resolve disputes peacefully and so forth.

Thus you can see an excellent Christian family who tries to attend a moderate conservative church is counselled they must wear a certain style of kapp and a cape dress for a year before they will be accepted as members. Meanwhile, youth who sport skirts and shirts and doily coverings are members in good standing.

#4. These churches run many mission programs with no concern to their effectiveness in actually winning new church members in stable churches. A sad example would be the debacle in CAM in Haiti, which started with choosing a “missionary” from a Charity type of church that epitomises being a transitional Anabaptist church.

[Ken]

Now, what is the purpose of the church? I believe it is to share and spread the gospel, to induct new believers into the body of Christ (whether thru baptism, membership, communion, church services, etc.) and then to provide a family and a safe home for such believers in an environment with loving discipline, pastoral care and concern, and meeting of one another’s needs.

Do the Amish and other ultra-conservative groups fulfill this first purpose that you list?

How is what you accuse them of doing (recruiting from other Christian groups) any different from Anabaptist or other protestant missions to Catholic countries in Latin America?

[Josh]

Do the Amish and other ultra-conservative groups fulfill this first purpose that you list?

The purpose of this thread is not to discuss that. You may start a thread to discuss that if you wish.

How is what you accuse them of doing (recruiting from other Christian groups) any different from Anabaptist or other protestant missions to Catholic countries in Latin America?

The purpose of this thread is not to discuss that. You may make a separate thread to discuss that if you wish.

Both of these are valid topics for discussion, but please keep this thread on topic about “transitional Anabaptist churches”.

[Ernie]

#3. In practical terms, transitional Anabaptist churches do a terrible job of intaking seekers who want to find a more biblical, Jesus-following church, because they are accustomed to intaking members who are already very familiar with Anabaptist culture and customs and expect new members to be comfortable with them and conform to Anabaptist culture and customs.

They simultaneously do not know how to disciple and train sincere new believers who aren’t familiar with how to practice things like nonresistance, the covering, how to resolve disputes peacefully and so forth.

I couldn't agree more.

[Ernie]

The NT model of the church as I see it is a church that provides everything a Christian is supposed to receive from the church. Sectarian churches limit the good that a Christian can receive from that church. Consequently, the forage diet does not provide all the nutrients that a Christian should receive, which results in health issues of various kinds. So some sheep go looking for the missing nutrients. When they find a pasture with the missing nutrients, they are excited. What they don't generally realize is that the new pasture is also missing some necessary nutrients. So rarely are spiritaul gains made in the long run.

Instead of churches helping each other produce better forage, they compete with each other for sheep. Instead, I applaud the efforts of organizations like Standing Together in Utah that tries to improve the forage in pastures that lack particular nutrients. https://www.standingtogether.org/

But there are also sheep that are looking for grass that tastes good but doesn't have many nutrients. If Plain Anabaptist churches were perceptive, they would be able to identify such sheep. But often their own arrogance about their ability to help wandering sheep, and their own experience in more conservative churches, and their desire for more members keeps them from being able to identify such sheep. It keeps them from admitting their own inability to help such sheep. Consequently, they accept into their churches a lot of transitional folks, folks with only a veneer of a religion.

A transitional church is only fulfilling the purpose of the church if they are doing all they can to break down sectarianism and help grow full nutrient grass anywhere and everywhere they can.

[Ken]

Do the Amish and other ultra-conservative groups fulfill this first purpose that you list?

The purpose of this thread is not to discuss that. You may start a thread to discuss that if you wish.

How is what you accuse them of doing (recruiting from other Christian groups) any different from Anabaptist or other protestant missions to Catholic countries in Latin America?

The purpose of this thread is not to discuss that. You may make a separate thread to discuss that if you wish.

Both of these are valid topics for discussion, but please keep this thread on topic about “transitional Anabaptist churches”.

Then I would say yes, you are correct, transitional Anabaptist churches don't do a good job of fulfilling the purpose of the church. Which makes them pretty much indistinguishable from any other factional church that forms by breaking away from other groups on various points of theology or standards.

I don't, for example, see a difference between a congregation that forms out of an actual split or schism from a larger group all at once (of which there are dozens if not hundreds of examples in Anabaptist history), or a group that does the same exact thing through a slower process of attrition. In both cases you have a church formed by splitting off from a larger group in either a more conservative or liberal direction.

[Josh]

The NT model of the church as I see it is a church that provides everything a Christian is supposed to receive from the church. Sectarian churches limit the good that a Christian can receive from that church.[/qoute]

Could you elaborate more on this, by what you mean by "sectarian churches"?

I think the Anabaptist concepts of a defined membership and close communion are very valuable concepts. There are many churches that don't care about membership and have "open" communion, but they also don't seem to do anyone much good - whether their own frequent attenders or members or outsiders.

[NedFlanders]

The NT model of the church as I see it is a church that provides everything a Christian is supposed to receive from the church. Sectarian churches limit the good that a Christian can receive from that church. Consequently, the forage diet does not provide all the nutrients that a Christian should receive, which results in health issues of various kinds. So some sheep go looking for the missing nutrients. When they find a pasture with the missing nutrients, they are excited. What they don't generally realize is that the new pasture is also missing some necessary nutrients. So rarely are spiritaul gains made in the long run.

Instead of churches helping each other produce better forage, they compete with each other for sheep. Instead, I applaud the efforts of organizations like Standing Together in Utah that tries to improve the forage in pastures that lack particular nutrients. https://www.standingtogether.org/

But there are also sheep that are looking for grass that tastes good but doesn't have many nutrients. If Plain Anabaptist churches were perceptive, they would be able to identify such sheep. But often their own arrogance about their ability to help wandering sheep, and their own experience in more conservative churches, and their desire for more members keeps them from being able to identify such sheep. It keeps them from admitting their own inability to help such sheep. Consequently, they accept into their churches a lot of transitional folks, folks with only a veneer of a religion.

A transitional church is only fulfilling the purpose of the church if they are doing all they can to break down sectarianism and help grow full nutrient grass anywhere and everywhere they can.

Part of the problem is that some churches that get labeled as sectarian CAN see the transitional issue happening and so that is why they draw fellowship lines. They get called sectarian while the goal is about stopping such a direction of travel, and so they go misunderstood by many who are transitional.

[joshuabgood]

The NT model of the church as I see it is a church that provides everything a Christian is supposed to receive from the church. Sectarian churches limit the good that a Christian can receive from that church.[/qoute]

Could you elaborate more on this, by what you mean by "sectarian churches"?

I think the Anabaptist concepts of a defined membership and close communion are very valuable concepts. There are many churches that don't care about membership and have "open" communion, but they also don't seem to do anyone much good - whether their own frequent attenders or members or outsiders.

I am interested in the idea that "There are many churches..." Perhaps there aren't many churches. There is only one church. And "the many" to which you refer are all orders. I am continuing to see this view more sympathetically for a lot of reasons. And the idea then of "club" or "order" membership and communion and foraging only for said order/club seems to lose some luster, as opposed to embracing one holy communion.

[Josh]

The NT model of the church as I see it is a church that provides everything a Christian is supposed to receive from the church. Sectarian churches limit the good that a Christian can receive from that church.[/qoute]

Could you elaborate more on this, by what you mean by "sectarian churches"?

I think the Anabaptist concepts of a defined membership and close communion are very valuable concepts. There are many churches that don't care about membership and have "open" communion, but they also don't seem to do anyone much good - whether their own frequent attenders or members or outsiders.

I am interested in the idea that "There are many churches..." Perhaps there aren't many churches. There is only one church. And "the many" to which you refer are all orders. I am continuing to see this view more sympathetically for a lot of reasons. And the idea then of "club" or "order" membership and communion and foraging only for said order/club seems to lose some luster, as opposed to embracing one holy communion.

I would immediately ask if you would be open to Catholics coming and participating in your communion.