Unordained Minister, No members - Visible Church?

Scott · #1 (**permalink**) 07-30-2007, 09:52 AM

Here is an ecclesiastical hypothetical. Please discuss.

As noted in a previous thread, the PCA allows members to leave their congregation if they move to another branch of the visible church. If the member leaves for a false church or no church, then the elders are supposed to take further action, such as warning. The elders are evidently supposed to assess whether the new church the person leaves for is such a branch.

Say that a PCA member leaves to start attending New Church. New Church was started last week by an unordained man and three of his friends (now four, with the ex-PCA guy). A New Church service involves uncontroversial elements of worship, reading/preaching the Word, prayer, and singing. The pastor teaches justification by faith alone, believes in the Trinity, and believes the Bible is inerrant. They don't believe in church membership, so the ex-PCA guy is an attender.

Anyway, is New Church a "branch of the visible church?" Please explain your answer. I can provide more info if needed.

JonathanHunt · #2 (**permalink**) 07-30-2007, 10:08 AM

Does 'New church' have any connections? Is it a plant from anywhere? Is it sited in a place of need where there are no other sound churches?

JH

ADKing · #3 (**permalink**) 07-30-2007, 10:24 AM

The elders of a church can try to convince the members of the serious definciency of the ecclesiology of New Church. Completely aside from whether or not it is actually a church, its structure may have serious problems that would not be to the well being of this body or the members associating with it. Besides, independency, lack of membership makes discipline difficult if not impossible and lack of proper oversight would be harmful to any christian.

If a family persisted and left for New Church, a session could erase them from the rolls (unless some form of discipline was deemed necessary). This is not a statement of whether or not New Church is actually a church or not, but it is a statement that a family left to go somewhere which the session could not endorse (say by way of a letter of transfer).

This seems to be a more practical way of operating that doesn't involve individual sessions in the messy task of judging whether numerous independent groups should be considered visible churches. There are some cases such as if someone wanted to join a Mormon "church" (for example) that a session clearly should tell them that it would be removing themselves from the visible church.

Scott · #4 (**permalink**) 07-30-2007, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonathanHunt

Does 'New church' have any connections? Is it a plant from anywhere? Is it sited in a place of need where there are no other sound churches?

JH

No, no connections. It is not a plant by another church or part of any denomination. There are other churches around.

Scott · #5 (**permalink**) 07-30-2007, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ADKing

The elders of a church can try to convince the members of the serious definciency of the ecclesiology of New Church. Completely aside from whether or not it is actually a church, its structure may have serious problems that would not be to the well being of this body or the members associating with it. Besides, independency, lack of membership makes discipline difficult if not impossible and lack of proper oversight would be harmful to any christian.

If a family persisted and left for New Church, a session could erase them from the roles (unless some form of discipline was deemed necessary). This is not a statement of whether or not New Church is actually a church or not, but it is a statement that a family left to go somewhere which the session could not endorse (say by way of a letter of transfer).

This seems to be a more practical way of operating that doesn't involve individual sessions in the messy task of judging whether numerous independent groups should be considered visible churches. There are some cases such as if someone wanted to join a Mormon "church" (for example) that a session clearly should tell them that it would be removing themselves from the visible church.

Erasure is a form of discipline without process. It is to be applied only when one willfully neglects coming to church for more than a year or affiliates oneself with a false body (eg. Mormons). The BCO does not allow erasure when one moves to another branch of the visible church. It is to be accompanied by a warning as well and they are to be viewed as being outside the Church. If New Church is a branch of the visible church, then pursuant to the BCO the proper course is to simply note the irregularity on the rolls and let them go on their way in peace. They are still to be viewed as being in the Church.

ADKing · #6 (**permalink**) 07-30-2007, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott

Erasure is a form of discipline without process. It is to be applied only when one willfully neglects coming to church for more than a year or affiliates oneself with a false body (eg. Mormons). The BCO does not allow erasure when one moves to another branch of the visible church. It is to be accompanied by a warning as well and they are to be viewed as being outside the Church. If New Church is a branch of the visible church, then pursuant to the BCO the proper course is to simply note the irregularity on the rolls and let them go on their way in peace. They are still to be viewed as being in the Church.

If you had a family leave your church and go to New Church (or any other for that matter) without consulting the session and without asking for any sort of disjucture or transer you would not leave them on your rolls as members of your church. I fail to see how "noting the irregularity on your rolls and letting them go their way in peace" differs substantially from erasing them from your rolls.

wsw201 · #7 (**permalink**) 07-30-2007, 12:41 PM

The only organization that I know of that is considered a "False Church" is the RC. LDS & JW are in the "no church" category.

Since the form of government only goes to the well being of the church and not the essence of what a church is, indepedency should not be a issue.

Considering the other points, I would say that New Church is a part of the visible church. But I would agree with Adam that the family should be counselled as to what they are getting themselve into.

Scott · #8 (**permalink**) 07-30-2007, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ADKing

If you had a family leave your church and go to New Church (or any other for that matter) without consulting the session and without asking for any sort of disjucture or transer you would not leave them on your rolls as members of your church. I fail to see how "noting the irregularity on your rolls and letting them go their way in peace" differs substantially from erasing them from your rolls.

There are two main differences. First, erasure is an ecclesiastical judgment (albeit without process) that someone has sinned. As the BCO says, "This erasure is an act of pastoral discipline (BCO 27-1a) without process." Second, from the PCA's perspective, the exiting member is deemed by the PCA to be outside the visible church. The WCF says that there is ordinarily no salvation outside of the visible church. So, it is a big deal from the Confession's perspective.

In contrast, when someone leaves for another branch of the visible church, he is understood to still be part of the visible church and he is not under any form of church discipline.

Scott · #9 (**permalink**) 07-30-2007, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wsw201

The only organization that I know of that is considered a "False Church" is the RC. LDS & JW are in the "no church" category.

Since the form of government only goes to the well being of the church and not the essence of what a church is, indepedency should not be a issue.

Considering the other points, I would say that New Church is a part of the visible church. But I would agree with Adam that the family should be counselled as to what they are getting themselve into.

Ok, let's introduce a second hypo. Each week ex-PCA member just meets with a different Christian friend. He and the individual meet to read the bible, pray together, and sing. On week one he meets with John. On week two, he meets with Bill. On week three he meets with Tom. So, on a weekly basis, "two or more are gathered in Christ's name." It is just that the guy's "church" partners change regularly. His assorted friends maintain right doctrine on sola fide, inerrancy, and the Trinity. Is the former PCA member a part of the visible church in this second hypothetical? (No poll for this one).

wsw201 · #10 (**permalink**) 07-30-2007, 04:28 PM

I would not call this a church and it would be outside the visible church. The elements of worship are not there. It doesn't even seem that they are attempting to to have a worship service, which is central to a church. I would consider this as no different than a bible study.

Scott · #11 (**permalink**) 07-30-2007, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wsw201

I would not call this a church and it would be outside the visible church. The elements of worship are not there. It doesn't even seem that they are attempting to to have a worship service, which is central to a church. I would consider this as no different than a bible study.

The line between a Bible study and a service can be difficult to draw. Many people see preaching as simply a matter of teaching, with no authority that is not possessed by any teaching or discussion of the Bible. What is the difference? I know in prior threads some (not you) have rejected the authority or significance of preaching as anything distinct from any kind of Bible-teaching or discussion.

So, if that part is fixed, is he part of the visible church? Let's say that he or his lay friends take turns "preaching." So, they have "preaching," bible reading, prayer, and singing. Is it sufficient to just mix these elements with two people to have a church and a sevice?

ADKing · #12 (**permalink**) 07-30-2007, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott

There are two main differences. First, erasure is an ecclesiastical judgment (albeit without process) that someone has sinned. As the BCO says, "This erasure is an act of pastoral discipline (BCO 27-1a) without process." Second, from the PCA's perspective, the exiting member is deemed by the PCA to be outside the visible church. The WCF says that there is ordinarily no salvation outside of the visible church. So, it is a big deal from the Confession's perspective.

In contrast, when someone leaves for another branch of the visible church, he is understood to still be part of the visible church and he is not under any form of church discipline.

I agree that those distinctions are important. It just seems to me that in either scenario the session is forced to cease considering such a person a member of their congregation and remove his names from the rolls. In one case they do so expressing that he is in sin in another case they do so without expressing him to be in sin (although one wonders if there is not sin involved in someone just up-and-leaves without his session's consent to a church they canot endorse??).

However, I sense that this may be drifting away from what you were really trying to get at in the original OP, so I will leave it there.

Semper Fidelis · #13 (**permalink**) 07-30-2007, 09:21 PM

Sounds like a Sect to me and not a Church.

beej6 · #14 (**permalink**) 07-30-2007, 11:14 PM

I prefer the wording in the OPC Book of Church Order, where a member may be erased if "he desires dismissal to a church which the session cannot approve as a church of like faith and practice, nor a church which will advance his spiritual interests." (BoD V.2.a.1)

I think the "visible church" reference is ambiguous at best and confusing at worst.

Scott · #15 (**permalink**) 07-31-2007, 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beej6

I prefer the wording in the OPC Book of Church Order, where a member may be erased if "he desires dismissal to a church which the session cannot approve as a church of like faith and practice, nor a church which will advance his spiritual interests." (BoD V.2.a.1)

I think the "visible church" reference is ambiguous at best and confusing at worst.

That excerpt from the OPC is interesting. That is quite a different standard.

As for the visible church be ambiguous, that term has a long history in the reformed tradition. Are you suggesting that it is no longer usable in the denominational fragmentation we have inherited as protestants? There is a fairly standard test reformed used, Word and Sacrament. Some used a third element, church discipline. That may not be as easy to apply in our present situation as it was during the reformation era. We don't have anything else, though.

Scott · #16 (**permalink**) 07-31-2007, 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

Sounds like a Sect to me and not a Church.

I don't know, Rich. What test would you use to determine that it is not a branch of the visible church?

I would certainly be uncomfortable calling New Church a branch of the visible church. I am not sure if we have much choice. If we use the standard reformed test of Word and Sacrament, then they could pass, if we use a definition of sacrament that we would accord many evangelical churches (ok if they don't baptize infants, people not lawfully ordained may administer, etc.). Of course, the reformers would not have tolerated a sect like this. They would have used the state to suppress it. But that does not mean that it would not pass the standard test of what accounts for a true church. The supression of dissent could be for prudential reasons or reasons of unity (benne esse, as opposed to esse).

We could add a third element to the test, which some reformed used, which is enforcement of church discipline. But then, we would have to drop a lot of evangelical churches that we commonly see as part of the visible church. Also, how would elders go about inquiring into the discipline history of a congregation a member leaves for?

Semper Fidelis · #17 (**permalink**) 07-31-2007, 02:58 AM

I would call it a sect because it cannot rightfully administer Word and Sacrament with an unordained minister nor can it exercise discipline without membership.

Sounds like a Calvary Chapel to me.

theologae · #18 (**permalink**) 07-31-2007, 03:08 AM

How about calling it an "ecclesial community"?

Semper Fidelis · #19 (**permalink**) 07-31-2007, 03:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theologae

How about calling it an "ecclesial community"?

Is that another word for "flakes"?

I'm sorry, folks, but I have zero tolerance for this kind of stuff. The type of spirit that leads people to do things like this is sub-Christian. Why must Gospel bearers be sent at all (Romans 10) if a Church is optional for spreading the Gospel?

When Christ commanded us to make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and to teach them everything that He commanded, He did not permit us to shave off the last portion. He also didn't permit us to determine which portions we were supposed to instruct disciples in. The apostles never permitted us to add or delete portions of the Scripture that were inexpedient to the Church.

And so I ask: How does a group of men with an unordained Pastor and no membership fulfill Christ's commission and the Apostolic teaching? Authority is derivative. If Christ has not ordained a Church then it is not a Church.

I would tell such a man, to his face, that he is playing with fire, to submit to God's Word, and get back into Church.

LadyFlynt · #20 (**permalink**) 07-31-2007, 07:52 AM

The sad thing is, there are churches like this that call themselves "Reformed"