Why have the Anabaptists FAILED at Reaching the Masses

[Ken]

But Matthew 28's Great Commission is NOT LAW, and is ignored, BARELY brought to cities, when it is a direct command of Jesus after he declared all of Heaven AND Earth to be under his authority. He said "Go ye therefore...".

Matt. 28 says to go to the “nations”, not cities. Anabaptists seem quite willing to go to all kinds of different nations and countries. They are also eager to reach sub nations inside America and Canada such as Navajo.

It’s true they haven’t set up a megachurch in downtown Dallas. The Bible doesn’t command such. Nonetheless they are in dense cities ranging from Minneapolis to the forests of Tennessee, across the plains of Texas, from Detroit down to Houston, and from NYC to L.A.

If Anabaptists never went out to the nations, they’d be confined to a hill in Switzerland and a few city blocks of Flanders.

Curiously, all of Paul's missions were to cities. The names of many of his epistles are major cities of the eastern half of Rome (Corinthians, Thessalonians, Ephesians, Colossians, Romans).

In any event, the word "nations" had a different meaning in the ancient world than it does today. The Greek word ethnē doesn't refer to countries or states but rather "gentiles," "peoples," or "nationalities" as the case may be.

[Sudsy]

The conversation seems to have wandered off again into those very popular subjects again like headcoverings and women in ministry. But if this is thought to be related to failing to reach the masses, I would suggest that wearing unique headcoverings worn outside local church meetings and the restraints on women in ministry by some are two possible hindrances to reaching the lost.

If women in ministry ie, pastors, ministers or bishops is why people don’t want to join. Sorry, but the cost is high for some and being unwilling to die to self will doom anyone.
As for the head covering, I agree we should be consistent on application.

The point I was trying to make regarding women in ministry was that I believe there should be no restrtictions on women in ministry as in our world today women can have as much education to be pastors as men. It is quite a different world than the one in NT times and I don't believe the directions given for the church at that time is in the same environment and applicable as we find ourselves in today. I am very thankful that my immediate parents and relatives and other acquaitances were able to be lead to the Lord and taught the scriptures through a lady pastor. So through my experiences, especially in the Pentecostal and Salvation Army, I see how God has used and still is using women as pastors and leaders in ways that some other faith groups don't alllow due to their interpretations of scriptures.

Personally, as I have mentioned before, I was raised under the teachings of a woman pastor for 20 years and many souls were saved and a number of them also became soul winners. So the whole women in ministry thing, in my experience, was a teaching for that NT culture and not for today where God has poured out His Spirit upon all flesh both male and female. God is using women today in many leadership roles and has for many years especially in mission work.

Scripture forbids women having spiritual authority over men. The Holy Spirit teaches the same. Women have the ability to teach, preach and witness, but they are not given the right of authority. By implication, women do not teach men nor preach to men but women do witness to men.
To teach otherwise is in direct contradiction to Scripture and the Holy Spirit.

In the MB church I was in they still have a male as this 'final authority' but women are involved in every ministry as man is. I don't agree with your understanding on 'final authority' as being applicable to us today as being a male only role. In NT times, it was needful.

Regarding headcoverings worn in public, if this was to be the practise for all time, then men should not wear any head coverings in public, ever.

I’m not convinced that asking women to cover means men can’t protect themselves from the sun. Women in my view are just as able to remove their covering for specific reasons too. I do think that in strict application, it’s perfectly appropriate for a woman to only cover during church or spiritual activities, I also see it within the church authority to ask a woman to do so. I do not see a church having authority to ask a man to wear a specific hat(covering)

I have no problem with a woman wearing a headcovering in church (although what is called a headcovering to many is nothing like the NT era headcoverings) or if a woman interprets the scripture that reads that her hair is given her as a covering and does not wear something else on her head. Imo, what is more important is how a man and a wife treat each other.

So, these two practises, imo, detract from reaching the masses as they are two things that strongly go against the grain of the culture we live in and can be immediate turn offs to people listening to the Gospel. In the NT era women preachers would be a problem in that culture and headcoverings were a norm to wear by most women. Neither of these would be an immediate detraction in the norm of that culture.

I have heard all sorts of arguments, but it’s very clear that a self sacrificial lifestyle is counterculture and a serious detriment to people converting.

People unwilling to do tiny things that Scripture teach are likely unwilling to follow Jesus in a self sacrificial lifestyle.

Well, imo, if the Gospel is presented about what Jesus has done to save us from eternal death and what He offers in eternal life and they receive this gift, and the Holy Spirit comes to live within them, their new life will not be one of having to give up but rather one of taking on. Old things will pass away and a new life begins. My parents, for example, had no problem with letting go of their worldly ways of living when they were saved. God, through the Spirit, gave them new desires to follow Jesus. Letting go of their old ways was not a sacrifice and that is what 'conversion' is all about.

I believe the only sacrificing a believer has after conversion is to not give way to the flesh and to consider it dead. Give it life and one will think they are giving up life. Kill it daily and the new desires will produce a life of victory and not defeat. I have problems with understanding a Christianity that majors on what must be given up rather than what should be taken on.

Anyway I believe if our light is really shining through us some will be attracted to that light and want to know about it. But we can hide that light under a bushel of religion and others will not be able to see through that bushel to behold that Light.

[ohio jones]

The conversation seems to have wandered off again into those very popular subjects again like headcoverings and women in ministry.

It will continue to wander off into those areas if you keep discussing them in this thread.

[seinetsodumm]

I would like to read more input pertaining to the title of this thread.

What is it that you want to hear.

The conversation seems to have wandered off again into those very popular subjects again like headcoverings and women in ministry. But if this is thought to be related to failing to reach the masses, I would suggest that wearing unique headcoverings worn outside local church meetings and the restraints on women in ministry by some are two possible hindrances to reaching the lost.

Personally, as I have mentioned before, I was raised under the teachings of a woman pastor for 20 years and many souls were saved and a number of them also became soul winners. So the whole women in ministry thing, in my experience, was a teaching for that NT culture and not for today where God has poured out His Spirit upon all flesh both male and female. God is using women today in many leadership roles and has for many years especially in mission work.

Regarding headcoverings worn in public, if this was to be the practise for all time, then men should not wear any head coverings in public, ever.

So, these two practises, imo, detract from reaching the masses as they are two things that strongly go against the grain of the culture we live in and can be immediate turn offs to people listening to the Gospel. In the NT era women preachers would be a problem in that culture and headcoverings were a norm to wear by most women. Neither of these would be an immediate detraction in the norm of that culture.

I believe in the Mennonite realm the most evangelical Mennonites are not following the NT customs in our area and are the ones that are growing and reaching out beyond their ethnic backgrounds.

I

If I understand correctly, you are tired of this discussion but want to make sure you have the last word?

[Soloist]

If I understand correctly, you are tired of this discussion but want to make sure you have the last word?

Just as some of us repeatedly challenge compromise attempting to subvert Scripture, he challenges repeatedly what he sees as not following his view.

[Sudsy]

The conversation seems to have wandered off again into those very popular subjects again like headcoverings and women in ministry.

It will continue to wander off into those areas if you keep discussing them in this thread.

Well, as I said, if these subjects are considered connected to this thread than I would give and did give my opinions. As I posted -

But if this is thought to be related to failing to reach the masses, I would suggest ------

[Sudsy]

If I understand correctly, you are tired of this discussion but want to make sure you have the last word?

That is an incorrect understanding. I was not 'tired of this discussion' but if these things are related to the thread subject matter then I would engage. My thought was that posts had wandered from the main subject matter.

[Sudsy]

If I understand correctly, you are tired of this discussion but want to make sure you have the last word?

Just as some of us repeatedly challenge compromise attempting to subvert Scripture, he challenges repeatedly what he sees as not following his view.

I am not looking for followers of my views but I will challenge others views on their interpretations of scriptures. Stand up for what you think the scriptures mean and their application. I will do the same and we may just have to agree to disagree.

[Ernie]

So, these two practises, imo, detract from reaching the masses as they are two things that strongly go against the grain of the culture we live in and can be immediate turn offs to people listening to the Gospel.

Yes, I agree that this is one reason Anabaptists have failed at reaching the masses, but I take this as a compliment. Anybody who can't handle these two things are attracted to a different gospel than the one we teach.

In the NT era women preachers would be a problem in that culture and headcoverings were a norm to wear by most women. Neither of these would be an immediate detraction in the norm of that culture.

From my research, the culture that I Corinthians 11:2-16 is directed towards, headcoverings were not worn by most women and women were quite vocal in the church. The opposite would have been the case in Tarsus. It is important to understand the audience that each epistle was written to.

I believe in the Mennonite realm the most evangelical Mennonites are not following the NT customs in our area and are the ones that are growing and reaching out beyond their ethnic backgrounds.

Again, it does not surprise me that they are growing faster, since many teach a different gospel. This doesn't mean that those who teach our Gospel couldn't be growing more than what they are. But this would be for different reasons that I and others mentioned earlier in this thread.

[Ernie]

For those who don't know what I am referring when I talk about a different Gospel, I am referring to the difference between a cruciocentric gospel and a Christocentric Gospel. Or as Jesus called it, the Gospel of the Kingdom.