Why have the Anabaptists FAILED at Reaching the Masses

[Josh]

It is important to be able to acknowledge a problem exists, even if we don’t have answers.

Many OOs will admit a problem exists. They don’t agree on the evangelical “toolbox”. But they are open to other ideas.

[RZehr]

I might be enlightening to look back at our history, and other denominations histories, in order to understand the present demographics, and understand how our history continues to impact us today in these ways.

I'm no historian, and I am not looking up any of this. I'm just sitting here typing. So I'm going to count on others to jump in and correct some of this.

We know that Anabaptists migrated here and were rural people. And that we eschewed political power. And they believed in the virtues of humility and contentment. So they didn't flock to the cities to get wealth or power.

Compare this to some other denominations, that promote the holding of governmental office, and see no conflict whatsoever with wielding worldly power and influence and wealth to further Christianity, or their own ambitions. These denominations could easily thrive in cities, because there was no standard of holiness that was much different than the prevailing culture of the day. Even today, these denominations simply tag along a step or two behind the culture, occasionally and weakly calling out, only to be cruelly dismissed by the culture, which the denominations thus ignored, scurry to once more catch up. These understand that you will either be cast aside and dismissed by the world as "extremist" or derided as "bigots". This is historically why there are thousands of protestant churches in cities.

Compare also with the Spanish Catholic church history of converting thousands in Central and South America under pain of death. I dare say that without the history of conversion by murder, the Catholic church in the Western Hemisphere would be nothing.

Fast forward to today, and you see that all of these churches in the cities are dying out - both individual congregations, and broader denominations.
This morning I happened to listen to a few minutes of the famous book, Cheaper by the Dozen by Frank Jr and Ernestine Gilbreth. This story is around 1920. In the part I listened to, Mr Gilbreth would sit on his front porch on Sunday mornings and read the newspaper, thus scandalizing the neighbors who were walking to church. Walking to church. In 1920, there had to be lots of small churches all through the cities, because the whole neighborhood walked to church. Churches had to be everywhere in order to be in walking distance.
Fast forward 100 years, no one is walking to the neighborhood church. And none of these denominations are even building churches in the cities. They are building the new churches on the outskirts of the cities, while their old inner city churches are being torn down (like one two blocks from where I currently sit typing this), or repurposed or vacant (like one three blocks away that I can see out my window).

I could say more, but gotta go.
I do support city mission/church efforts, and I don't think we can dismiss out of hand Mrbilliams critiques, and I don't think that we are completely blameless in our present day cultural preferences.

[ken_sylvania]

Why have the Anabaptists FAILED at Reaching the Masses?

Most of them have no interest in going to the Masses. The so-called churches where the Masses are held insist that babies should be baptized and do not look favorably upon those who believe otherwise.

[Ken]

Fast forward to today, and you see that all of these churches in the cities are dying out - both individual congregations, and broader denominations.

This morning I happened to listen to a few minutes of the famous book, Cheaper by the Dozen by Frank Jr and Ernestine Gilbreth. This story is around 1920. In the part I listened to, Mr Gilbreth would sit on his front porch on Sunday mornings and read the newspaper, thus scandalizing the neighbors who were walking to church. Walking to church. In 1920, there had to be lots of small churches all through the cities, because the whole neighborhood walked to church. Churches had to be everywhere in order to be in walking distance.

Fast forward 100 years, no one is walking to the neighborhood church. And none of these denominations are even building churches in the cities. They are building the new churches on the outskirts of the cities, while their old inner city churches are being torn down (like one two blocks from where I currently sit typing this), or repurposed or vacant (like one three blocks away that I can see out my window).

I could say more, but gotta go.
I do support city mission/church efforts, and I don't think we can dismiss out of hand Mrbilliams critiques, and I don't think that we are completely blameless in our present day cultural preferences.

Cheaper By the Dozen by Gilbreth is describing suburban life in Montclair New Jersey which was an archetypical suburb and bedroom community of New York City. The fact that they walked to church was because it was a streetcar suburb with sidewalks and a walkable street grid, not because it was inner-city. It is still a suburb today, just a very expensive one. I’m sure it still has lots of churches. In 2024 the suburban fringe has moved on to new areas where people mostly drive to church and everywhere else because there are no other options but driving in modern cul-de-sac suburbs.

In any event, I think the notion of making “city missions” and so forth is flawed. Suburban America isn’t Haiti or Equatorial Guinea. Just move there, make it your home, engage in the community, and build a church if one doesn’t already exist that suits you. If that is what is meant by “city missions” then good. We are in agreement. But often means something different if people just “parachute” into some urban area, do their “mission” for a spell, then go back home to where they came from. I had friends in Texas (not Anabaptists) who would do that sort of thing. They would drive 2.5 hours into Houston every weekend to “church plant” and then return to their actual lives in suburban Waco for the rest of the week. Until they eventually got tired of the church commute and drifted away. In the beginning I got all the breathless reports about how great it was all going. A year or two later it was kind of forgotten and they had moved on to something else.

[RZehr]

Are you saying that inner cities are not walkable, or what is your point of the first paragraph?

Mission in my context, would be people living in the neighborhood or city that they are trying to reach. Not the sort where people come in for a bit on the weekend.

[Ken]

Are you saying that inner cities are not walkable, or what is your point?

My point is that your 1920s story was about the suburbs not the inner city. My suburban community is full of churches, some of them enormous. And some have big overflowing parking lots on Sundays. The only difference between the 1920s and today is that people drive instead of walk. And that is mostly due to how suburbs are built today compared to the 1920s.

[RZehr]

Are you saying that inner cities are not walkable, or what is your point?

My point is that your 1920s story was about the suburbs not the inner city. My suburban community is full of churches, some of them enormous. And some have big overflowing parking lots on Sundays. The only difference between the 1920s and today is that people drive instead of walk.

Okay, that’s fine. Potato, tomato.
My broader point is that people today don’t seem to walk to church, but instead drive. My guess is that even in the largest cities, people can take mass transit to reach the church of their choice.
I don’t expect many critics to parse the difference between the lack of Mennonite churches in the inner city or in the suburbs. We are in neither, generally. And I for myself, a city of 50,000 -100,000, a church in either the suburbs or inner city is findable for the whole city if someone wants to attend. So the inner city/suburban difference probably doesn’t matter a great deal.

[Ken]

Are you saying that inner cities are not walkable, or what is your point?

My point is that your 1920s story was about the suburbs not the inner city. My suburban community is full of churches, some of them enormous. And some have big overflowing parking lots on Sundays. The only difference between the 1920s and today is that people drive instead of walk.

Okay, that’s fine. Potato, tomato.
My broader point is that people today don’t seem to walk to church, but instead drive. My guess is that even in the largest cities, people can take mass transit to reach the church of their choice.

I don’t disagree with you. I’m agreeing with you. I’m just pointing out that what you are describing is not due to changes in churches. But rather changes in how we build suburbs today compared to the 1920s.

[Josh]

Are you saying that inner cities are not walkable, or what is your point of the first paragraph?

Mission in my context, would be people living in the neighborhood or city that they are trying to reach. Not the sort where people come in for a bit on the weekend.

Careful. We're about to have another thread about zoning.

[Ken]

Are you saying that inner cities are not walkable, or what is your point of the first paragraph?

Mission in my context, would be people living in the neighborhood or city that they are trying to reach. Not the sort where people come in for a bit on the weekend.

Careful. We're about to have another thread about zoning.

Well, as I recall it was you who started the last one.

But I think RZehr and I are in agreement. If Anabaptists want to expand into new cities, the way to do that is move there and make it your actual home community. Rather than parachute in temporarily for a “church planting” and leave.