Thread: NAPARC Comity Agreement: Who Really Cares?

Brothers,

I was wondering if we could talk about the NAPARC comity agreement. We, who are in NAPARC churches, basically agree not to sheep steal and plant churches in the backyards of other NAPARC churches.

Do you think that this is necessary?

If the worship styles are quite different then who cares?

Are there any NAPARC churches that are opposed in practice to this?

Don't most cities have enough room for a few different reformed congregations?

For clarity: Today I read an article on the PCA plant near Glenside OPC and was just thinking about the implications that this would have on a NAPARC relationship.

Personally, I am in favor of this, up to a point, I have even contacted the most right reverend Danny Hyde about people that are interested in an RPCNA plant near his hood. So, this is not a 'let's plow ahead and do what we want OP, but just a conversation about NAPARC and comity." What do you all think of it?

To the best of my understanding is that there is no agreement that says no planting churches but rather we would communicate and talk to other churches close by to promote ecumenical unity amoung Christians.

There was much heat exchange in these parts between NAPARC brethren over an ARP plant in Grove City, PA. However it has seemed to cool as the ARP plant in fact did not cause the death of the PCA and OPC churches nearby as was feared.

Here is the article that got me thinking about this:

Old Life Theological Society Blog Archive Too Cool for You? Whither the PCA

What is this, a Church Sherman Act?

Originally Posted by nleshelman

Here is the article that got me thinking about this:

Old Life Theological Society Blog Archive Too Cool for You? Whither the PCA

While I will continue to quibble with Dr. Hart's understanding of "cultural transformation" (as would the rest of my Covenanter brethren, which interestingly enough he posits to be with my denomination, the ARP, which in many ways I would put closer to the PCA than the OPC, but that is a different thread) he is spot on in this article.

I am aware of at least 2 situation in local proximity where the PCA came in to plant a church and did not communicate with the other NAPARC church in town. While the comity agreement does not a priori prevent a church plant in the backyard of another NAPARC church, the principles of the Agreement are clear enough: consideration should be given as to "why" should there be another church plant given the existence of a current one, how it may affect the existing NAPARC church, etc. The planting church should initiate the discussion with the existing church up front, not after the fact where an existing church is in the dark and suddenly is wondering "why" this new NAPARC plant is showing up in their backyard. That is where hard feelings are born.

Can someone explain to me a little more precisely just what NAPARC is?

Originally Posted by Grillsy

Can someone explain to me a little more precisely just what NAPARC is?

North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council

Ultimately, no "agreement" can take the place of a principled commitment to real ecumenism and support of other branches of Christ's church. NAPARC is a good start, but it has not prevented denominations from poaching on another's church splits to "plant" one of their own churches, and it has not prevented churches from carrying distinctives to such a level that they plant on top of viable churches. I have seen this done for the sake of contemporary music and exclusive psalmody, for certain types of "outreach" or another.

And ultimately, we ought not to think that there are only a certain "set number" of reformed church-goers who must be guarded zealously. Better to always be expanding our commitment to our community.

How often could this really be an issue? What is the average size of a NAPARC church, and how does that compare to their cities? For example, if there are 20,000 people in a town, and an OPC church of 50, and if a PCA church comes in, are 19,950 unchurched people not enough to share?

In Greenville, SC, there are 3 (I think) NAPARC churches within 5 minutes of each other in the downtown area, but there's no competition, because there are literally thousands of unchurched people within 10 miles.

Exactly, Charlie. That was the argument of the minister who left the PCA so that he could start the ARP in Grove City. He had been serving with the PCA, and had planted other churches successfully in other areas, but the nearby PCAs were not on board with his advocacy of a new plant in Grove City.

As I heard it recounted, the OPC and two PCAs were arguing about losing members to this new plant (the man is an amazing scholar, pastor, and preacher, no doubt), but his thoughts were that if there are about 18,000 or so in the Grove City area, and yet our Reformed congregations account for all of several hundred of that number, why not then start another church? We've got people out there that need to hear the gospel!

I could be wrong about applying it to that situation, but sometimes competitiveness and jealousies hinder the growth of our sister congregations and efforts at outreach. Certainly this is nothing new when one studies Paul's first epistle to Corinth, but we should make greater attempts to overcome that tendency, and our own selfish ambitions in the process.

I have heard some men, particularly from micro-denominations that grieve over the "lack of a church" in City X; but on further investigation there are a half-dozen other Presbyterian or Reformed denominations within a 30 mile radius.

When their church plants fail, they then grieve over people not tolerating the truth, and totally ignore, again, these other nearby churches that are thriving.

Example: In the 60's my home church (when they were Indy Fundy with the Baptist Bible Fellowship) helped a pastor start a church plant about 15 miles to the south of our location. My pastor explained how he and several other likeminded pastors helped get this new church-planter set up. Then, the church plant began to announce that they had now "planted a Gospel voice in South Saint Louis" and justified their existence by claiming a great dearth of other Gospel churches in the area. My home church, and the others, then saw their numbers shrink a bit and this church announce the "success" of their "evangelism" as transfer growth occurred.


I am all for the policy of "the more churches the better" but it seems good stewardship of resources to spread out the church-planters and ministers - or even send some overseas, rather than bunch them up into one small locale.


Comity agreements happen all the time on the mission field.

When several likeminded orgs entered Irian Jaya, the Cm&A took one side of the Baliem Valley and RBMU took the other in order to more effectively reach a greater expanse of territory with limited missions resources. If we are truly thinking of our church plants as "missional" - then it behooves those who are planting churches in the US to take a lesson from the foreign mission agencies and do likewise, that is, if they truly feel the urgency of the task rather than desiring to nit-pick and advance their own narrow tribes.

While I appreciate the ecumenical cooperation behind comity agreements, I'm not so sure that they make much sense at the level of keeping churches out of an area.

The logic of why people come to a particular church can be complex. The factors include, location, theology, corporate culture, socio-economic and demographic dynamics, style of preaching, unique emphases, etc.

It seems that many members of this board seem to prefer or feel good about smallish congregations. The reality is that if your congregation has been around for 5 or 10 years, it is probably close to the size it is going to stay, short of a concerted effort at evangelism and outreach. The presence of another congregation in town is not likely to depress your attendance. In fact, a case could be made that more congregations will add strength to all of the churches.

The only time "competition" is much of a problem (in my experience), is when you are in the shadow of a mega church with gonzo programs. Some folks with kids will probably migrate to the kids program or youth program. However, other than that, another Reformed church in town would be good in so many ways.

If church-planters were a dime a dozen, I would favor 18 reformed churches in every major city.

But if there are vast tracts of land in the US without solid churches, and vast cities overseas without solid witnesses, if a group like NAPARC gets together and provides a platform for cooperation, it seems a matter of good stewardship to try to disseminate more evenly and to even target some bare areas and try to encourage folks to avoid more reached areas.

Many church-planters are willing to travel. If God is calling them to plant churches, one would think that the call would prioritize areas of greater need over lesser need. And any metric of "need" would factor in duplication of services and presence of solid witnesses already present in an area.

If missiological principles were applied to US church-planting, then long-term stragies of reaching the barest areas would entail prioritization of some areas over others and the urging by cooperative movements, such as NAPARC, to honor these prioritizations.

My understanding of comity is that it's a matter of respect and courtesy for one another. I find it regrettable that a number of NAPARC churches have been established or planted in the vicinity of CanRCs with not even any contact, let alone consultation. It's not at all the case that we're territorial and would shoot it down, but just so that we know what's going on and, if possible, can find ways to mutually support one another and be involved with one another. Personally, I'd love it if there were a dozen more NAPARC churches in Hamilton. But I'd love it even more if all those churches loved one another, respected one another and supported one another. I think our stance vis-a-vis the city could only be the stronger for it.

So, I think the comity agreement is a good thing that promotes mutual respect and the cause of the gospel. Now only if everyone would take it seriously.

Next NAPARC will be hosted by the FRCNA in Pompton Plains New Jersey, my soon-to-be congregation.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

If church-planters were a dime a dozen, I would favor 18 reformed churches in every major city.

But if there are vast tracts of land in the US without solid churches, and vast cities overseas without solid witnesses, if a group like NAPARC gets together and provides a platform for cooperation, it seems a matter of good stewardship to try to disseminate more evenly and to even target some bare areas and try to encourage folks to avoid more reached areas.

My own church, City Reformed, is a five-year-old church plant, and I'm very grateful for it. I had been attending the closest Reformed church, which was about 25 minutes from my home. That church had a fire, and the congregation met at various places for a while (that I couldn't keep up with). I lost touch. City Reformed was a start-up from one of the "further-out" churches, closer into the city. That's still 20 minutes from home.

One of the things they really emphasize are the "small groups." Our assistant pastor has been Tweeting a lot on "church planting". He currently leads one of our small groups, and I know he's been thinking and praying about it a lot. It's really needed, I think.

I wonder if such a comity agreement is made more neccesary because of the lack of committment to membership at one church that is obvious in the USA? I know this would mostly be a broad-evangelical phenomena (church shopping) but I know from personal accounts that it can decimate reformed churches too.

In terms of conservative churches here in the UK, committment is much stronger, but then again 'churchgoing' is not as mainstream as it is in the USA.

I do think you are correct in your assessment Jonathan. The need for an agreement like this does show a bit of a lack of commitment.

On the mission field, where I have seen it, comity agreements are not at all due to lack of committment by members of local churches.

Comity agreements are due to a clear sense of the urgency of the task and a desire to use the resources of Christ's Body in the most effective way possible, not carving up the Body into "Niche Churches" in the same town but in being good stewards as much as possible and reaching the broadest possible area with the Gospel. Sometimes comity agreements can encourage territorialism, but that is never their purpose; their purpose being to aid in fulfilling our urgent task.

Here is a concrete example: Take the number of churches in Birmingham, Alabama or Atlanta, Georgia and compare those churches which are truly solid to your average town in the region of Mormon-ville, USA. If there was some true cooperation between solid churches, then we would be deliberately sending new church-planters to one place and spreading out our resources for maximum impact.



The log analogy:

If there is a log with one heavy end and one light end, and there are 9 people helping heft the light end, and only one person straining to lift the heavy end alone, and an 11th person came along, where would you wish him to go? The light end, or the heavy end? Comity agreements merely try to send more people towards the heavier end.

Here's a post I did on this a while back...

On Comity and Mission Heidelblog

I agree with Pergamum. In my searches for Reformed churches at various denomination websites, it seems that there is usually a heavy concentration in a couple states (and I mean HEAVY), and then large areas of no Reformed churches. I think church planters should be encouraged to seek the bare areas.

I don't know, I see tons of NAPARC churches in a 30-minute radius of my house and none of the ones I've seen is suffering for members. We have 4 FRC, 7 CanRef, 4 URC, 1 HNRC, and I'm not counting any of the presbys in NAPARC, nor the NRCs that are in the area (we have a small OPC just two minutes from our church in Sheffield). We just did a head count to end out the year in Sheffield, and have 458 members, 236 of those are communicant members. I still see a need, even with this concentration. (But maybe I'm wearing rose colored glasses on this...) I do agree that it should expand outwards when looking at where to plant churches, but there is still lots to be done even in this area. Add to this the excellent work that the CanRefs are doing in downtown Hamilton, and I don't mind a few more reformed congregations, there's a lot of unreached folks out there!

Originally Posted by R. Scott Clark

Here's a post I did on this a while back...

On Comity and Mission Heidelblog

Thanks, Scott, that was a particularly illuminating set of observations on current practice and challenges.

How much of an issue are the proximity of non-NAPARC churches in this discussion? Does that factor in at all?

There are 285,000 people in our county, and only two NAPARC churches, both small, liberal PCAs. I go south a half hour to northern Santa Barbara county, where there are around the same number of people, and only one NAPARC church, our OPC, and there's normally 80 or so people there on Sunday.