Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.
The Historic Faith
Sign in

Jumpstarter 3 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion
Radical Reformation History  /  Lecture 21: The 20th Century Anabaptist Mission Movement  /  Discussion Questions
All Questions
Question 3
The Mennonite Encyclopedia description of Hutterite practice says they sent brethren “every year,” chose preachers “semi-annually,” assigned each missionary a “certain field,” and maintained contact through letters carried by dispatched brethren; what would it require for a present-day congregation to treat mission as a yearly, church-wide rhythm rather than a “special calling” for a few?
Another way to ask: What would your church need to change to treat mission as a regular, every-year practice for everyone? What keeps churches thinking mission is only for a few “called” people?

Direct Answer Based on Dean Taylor’s emphasis, it would require a congregation-wide expectation that sending is routine, planned, and spiritually owned by the whole church—paired with real structures for choosing workers, supporting them, and staying in close communication so the mission remains a branch of the church.

Support from Transcript:

  • Taylor stresses regularity: the Hutterites “sent brethren every year,” making mission a repeated rhythm, not occasional enthusiasm.
  • He notes congregational involvement in leadership selection: the congregation “semi-annually chose their preachers…to perform a widespread missionary service in all directions.”
  • Mission was organized and accountable: “Each missionary had a certain field assigned to him,” implying clarity and oversight.
  • Missionaries were equipped with tools: “equipped with the epistles…letters and…tracts…in their knapsack.”
  • The home church supported with prayer and communication: “not only by prayers, but also by writing them letters back and forth,” and dispatched brethren “to maintain contact…bring home all news of importance.”
  • Taylor highlights the principle: mission should feel like “a branch of the church…Everything we were doing in the church was a branch of what we’re doing out there.”
Discussion Follow-ups What practical structures do we lack—planning, budgeting, reporting, sending patterns—that keep missions feeling optional? How could we strengthen “branch of the church” connections without turning missions into mere bureaucracy?

Jumpstarter 3 of 10
Back Questions Next