Skip to content

Add your phone number?

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

Jumpstarter 6 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion
Radical Reformation History  /  Lecture 21: The 20th Century Anabaptist Mission Movement  /  Discussion Questions
All Questions
Question 6
Peter Jantz shifted toward “small, self-sufficient agricultural colonies” in Indonesia because converts were being killed in a hostile Muslim setting; what does this model imply about God’s concern for converts’ long-term survival, obedience, and community formation—not merely their moment of decision—and what parts of that implication make modern Christians uneasy?
Another way to ask: What does Jantz’s colony plan suggest about God caring for new believers long-term, not just their first decision? Which parts of that approach make Christians today uncomfortable, and why?

Direct Answer The transcript suggests Jantz’s colony model assumes mission should aim at sustained Christian life—protecting converts, forming a discipling community, and caring for the whole person in a hostile environment. Modern Christians may feel uneasy because it sounds like “changing culture,” building separate communities, or mixing material support with evangelism.

Support from Transcript:

  • Taylor says Jantz faced a crisis: when people converted, “they killed them,” forcing a rethink of mission strategy.
  • Jantz adapted a “Russian Mennonite model of colonies” into Indonesia to see “what kind of fruit he would get,” implying long-term viability matters.
  • The model is described as “small, self-sufficient agricultural colonies” to “better support new converts in a Muslim setting hostile to Christianity.”
  • Taylor highlights discipleship and community as explicit goals: “Discipleship. A community discipleship model and also care for the whole person.”
  • These communities helped converts “actually live out their Christian life in a sustaining world” and serve as “an example and a light to the people around them.”
  • Taylor later critiques modern missiology that “ridicules this kind of a thing” with language like “we don’t want to change their culture,” showing where unease comes from.
Discussion Follow-ups Where is the line between wise protection/community and unhealthy isolation? What would “care for the whole person” require in our mission contexts without replacing faith with dependence?

Jumpstarter 6 of 10
Back Questions Next