Planting a church without being sent out?

If a Church send out one to establish a new Church; should the 'sending Church'
have some type of control over the 'new Church'????

 

Not if you are a Baptist who believes in the autonomy of the local church! I refer you back to a previous post on this thread where I pointed out that when the Antioch church sent out Paul and Barnabas (Acts 13), the Greek word used was a strong one, even meaning "divorce" sometimes.

 

Great post!

 

Planting...

Who decides who is a "good" Baptist?:BangHead: Such a term implies there might also be a "bad" Baptist. This is one of the many dilemmas of Universalism--no real accountability.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

A man with a burden...

I believe John of Nippon coined the term: "bad Baptist", not many posts past.

I am not the one who judges--the Lord knows them that are His.

There is still an authority dilemma if one needs to go back to reforming Rome in the 16th century for authority--if they had the authority to begin with, they certainly gave noone permission to split.(Most reformer priests were quickly defrocked) The pedobaptists have been choking on this one for some time.

Now who is authorized?:BangHead:

Choose wisely,

Bro. James

 

Planting...

I stand corrected. John said good. I said bad. My proofreading is lacking lately, also early dementia. Sorry.

Back to the question which I have considered several times: Can what was done without proper authority now be blessed by proper authority? Is it not obvious that the planter must feel something lacking in the pedigree of his gathering? He would not be seeking someone to bless his work. If a New Testament Church sees fit to do things scripturally-- post facto, why not?

I have been baptized by immersion(albeit by proxy) in the Mormon Tabernacle, Salt Lake, City, Utah.:tonofbricks: Will you accept me into your membership? Probably not. Why not? There is something invalid my baptism. What makes it so? Improper authority. The same is true for anything relating to the authority vested in a New Testment Church. No individual can take the authority--that is usurpation--which is no authority at all--regardless of what the "Holy See" may say.:BangHead:

Choose wisely,:BangHead:

Bro. James

 

From The Little Church of Hamilton Square

taken from pages 10-11
On the evening of Feb. 7, 1881, seven persons gathered in Captain Gustavus Schroeder's front parlor to organize Zion Baptist Church.

ZBC held her first commoration of the Lord's Supper on April 3, 1881.

ZBC held her first official service on June 5, 1881.

On October 13, 1881, a Recognition Council convened at ZBC's invitation. The four churchs represented recognized ZBC as a Regular Baptist Church
*********
I don't have my Hiscox's Directory in front of me. But IIRC it has a section on councils. I'll look at it see if I can give you a cite for recognition councils.

FIW, a "Bad Baptist" practice is pew rents.

 

:laugh: :laugh:

Since my name has been invoked, I'll clarify my view.

Bad Baptist: one who ignores what it means to be a Baptist, and doesn't follow the Baptist distinctives in his polity. (There, now I have actually used the dreaded "Bad Baptist" label.:tongue3: )

Good Baptist: one who takes the Baptist distinctives seriously, studies and follows them.

 

Good Baptist - aka me and John of nippon . . . talk about early dementia . . .

Bad Baptist - all the others. :laugh: and of course John when he disagrees with Ichi Ban - neh?

:laugh: :laugh:

 

I dont think by what we see and hear Rick Warren doing, that Gods hand was in it very much.

 

Well, let's be sure you and I always agree, El_Guero! Neh?" :laugh: :laugh:

"Good Baptist, good Baptist. Down boy!:tongue3:

 

But seriously, if we as Baptists believe in the autonomy of the local church, I can disagree all I want with Rick Warren, but he and his church answer to God, not me. Amen?

I have no need to go on the warpath about any church if it has no effect on my church. I will say that I don't plan to buy any Rick Warren books if they are translated into Japanese, but it would be silly of me to criticize him and his church from my pulpit when my folk don't have a clue who he is! On the other hand, I may take it upon myself to warn other pastors and missionaries about his teaching and associations, fulfilling the prophetic office in a sense.

Back to the OP, once again the Baptist distinctives should guide us.

(1) According to the Baptist distinctive doctrine of the autonomy of the local church, who am I and my church to criticize someone who wants to start a Baptist church, even if it is not "authorized" by some other Baptist church? And no other Baptist church, not even the sending one, has a right to control that new Baptist church; and I believe it to be a church just as soon as two or more are gathered together in the name of Christ to worship as a church. There should be membership right from the start. (I learned this the hard way the first time I started a church.)

(2) According to the Baptist distinctive doctrine of the priesthood of the believer, who am I to say anyone else has not been led by the Spirit to start a Baptist church? The exception would be if the church-planter doesn't meet the qualifications for a pastor in the Bible, or in some other way opposes clear Bible principle in the founding of his church. :type:

 

Two things, John.

Autonomy doesn't mean we don't have the right to criticize another church. We should, in fact, when they are operating unbiblically. Autonomy means that no one from outside a church can have voice or control in the church.

Secondly, the NT of being "led by the Holy Spirit to plant a church" involves the support and recognition of an existing church. There are no examples to the contrary that I can find. Consider your statement about qualifications of a pastor being the exception. Who is to determine that? The local church. We could also say that if someone desires to start a church without sponsorship by a church they are not following the clear Bible principle. Again, the pattern of the NT is that churches start churches.

 

Point well taken, and I agree with you. What I was trying to say (poorly) was that criticize though we may, we have no authority in the operation of the other church--therefore often the criticism is a pointless exercise.

I'm going to differ with you here. After Paul was sent out, there is no record that the church at Antioch took any authority in his church planting, or in fact even financially supported him.

(1) Note my previous post on the Greek of Acts 13, where the church did not send out the apostolic/missionary mission (that would have been apostello or pempo or maybe ekpempo), but literally released their grip on the missionaries. You could even say the church divorced their missionaries, and you wouldn't be far off. The men did return to Antioch to report (furlough), showing that they considered it their home church, but in none of Paul's epistles do we find any control whatsoever by the Antioch church over his church-planting activities.

(2) Note this passage, indicating that the church at Antioch did not even support the missionaries financially: Phil. 4:15--"Now ye Philippians know also, that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church communicated with me as concerning giving and receiving, but ye only."

(3) I assume that since the home church elders seem to have ordained Paul and Barnabas, they had the right to rescind that. They would therefore have the authority and duty to be the spiritual authority in the case of moral or ethical failure. However, even in the dispute between Paul and Barnabas about John Mark, the home church was not called in.

 

I think you are reaching in Acts 13. Notice the progression: 1) The church fasted and prayed. 2) In response, the Holy Spirit told the church to "set apart for ministry" (that seems to clearly be a commissioning work) 3) They sent them out. 4) So the Holy Spirit sent them out.

It seems not coincidental that v. 3 and v. 4 go together. The church sent them out, so they, sent out by the Spirit. That seems to clearly identify the church as the body used by the Spirit to send them out.

Furthemore, sponsorship of church planting does not indicate control, but guidance and support. Not even financial support necessarily, but the proverbial moral support.