Thread: Reformed Baptists Not Doing a Good Job of Planting Churches

[quote=rbcbob;660315]

But to put aside my humiliation and return to the point-- I am still trying to comprehend that bold statement of yours which seems to mark any particular church and its simple elders in a light of ignorance and presumption should they believe that Christ has authorized and equipped them to do all that He wills them to do relative to their commission. Again, you said that “we reject the notion that any one local church can successfully carry out the work of the Great Commission in isolation from other true churches of Christ”. May I put the question to you – Are there any fifteen or fifteen-hundred churches collectively and cooperatively that can carry out the work of the Great Commission?

Allow me to make it clear that just because our church cannot, as a point of conscience, join an association, denomination, or other such organization it does not follow that we despise the sincere efforts of our brethren who see the issue differently.

Your simple servant,

Dear Bob,

Thanks for your humble response. I think we may be misunderstanding one another. The point of my statement, which you cite, is not to deny that a local church may participate in all the various facets of Great Commission labor. Any local church, big or small, may participate to some extent in the various works of evangelism, ministerial training, church planting, benevolent outreach, missions, and local church nurture. The degree to which any local church participates in any one of these elements of kingdom work will depend on various factors (e.g., the churches size, human and financial resources, trained personnel, providential opportunities, etc.).

The "work of the Great Commission," however, is one that entails bringing the nations under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and thus is a worldwide and an age-long endeavor. So to answer your question, Neither 1 nor 1,500 local churches can successfully fulfill this commission alone. The Great Commission was given to the apostles who represent the universal visible church through the ages. Accordingly, I stand by my statement. I do not believe "any one local church can successfully carry out the work of the Great Commission in isolation from other true churches of Christ" (emphasis added). This I learned from taking Greg Nichols' course on Ecclesiology, the same course you and your fellow elders have used to train your ministerial aspirants.

In the second place, I think you interpreted my statement to imply that a local church must be a member of a formal denomination or association of churches in order to participate in the various facets of Great Commission endeavor. But nowhere do I make that claim. In fact, when I said above, "Most of the 1689 churches I associate with believe as firmly in the interdependence of local churches as they do the independence of local churches," I had in mind independent, non-associational churches like yours, as well as ARBCA and Founders churches.

Most local churches I know have constitutions, which serve to specify how that church is going to apply specific and general principles of Scripture to church life and ministry. Yet there's no specific command in Scripture that a local church must have a written constitution. Arguably, though, it's a matter of prudence. Similarly, local churches collectively will normally try to labor in conjunction and cooperation with each other. This is a more effective and, I think, a more biblical way of carrying out the Great Commission. Some of those local churches that work together think it prudent to draw up and adopt something like "Articles of Cooperation." These articles end up functioning much like the constitution of a local church and often form the basis of a formal association. I certainly believe local churches are at liberty to formulate such articles and I even believe it to be a matter of prudence. One may not agree with a given set of articles of cooperation or associational constitution and therefore not be able in good conscience to join said association of churches. That does not mean, however, that the concept of associations is ipso facto unbiblical and unwise. Nor does it mean, on the other hand, that any church not participating in a formal association is in every instance ipso facto uncooperative and isolationist.

I hope this helps to clarify my point and to bring us to closer agreement. Once again, I affirm the self-government of the local church. But I also affirm that God never intended local churches to carry out kingdom endeavor in isolation from the larger visible body of Christ. Hence, I affirm both the independence and the interdependence of local churches as biblical. I suspect that the church you pastor (RBC of Louisville) agrees in principle and practice with both of these ways of viewing the local church and its labors vis-a-vis the universal visible church.

Blessings,

-----Added 7/25/2009 at 09:19:46 EST-----

Originally Posted by KMK

The problem I have with planting churches in the US is their survival and growth necessitates stealing sheep from other shepherds. Perhaps I am a prude, but that isn't something to take lightly. Isn't the sanctity of church membership one of the tenets of Reformed theology? Shouldn't we encourage people to keep the covenants at the churches they already attend?

Shouldn't our church planting energy/resources be used to plant churches in areas where growth is done by conversion?

Ken,

Thanks for your comments. I agree with you. Of course, I don't think it wrong for a family to leave an apostate church or even, after much patience and interaction with the leadership a seriously defective church that is resistant to biblical reformation in order to attend a more doctrinally sound and spiritually healthy church. But as a rule, I tend to think that less of our energy should be spent on "sheep-stealing" or, as one pastor put it, "rearranging the furniture in God's house," and more of our energy should be spent attempting to win the unconverted to Christ and bring them into Christ's church.

"Shouldn't our church planting energy/resources be used to plant churches in areas where growth is done by conversion? "

Well said brother....amen to this. And I'm working this way here.

Originally Posted by KMK

The problem I have with planting churches in the US is their survival and growth necessitates stealing sheep from other shepherds.

At least in the growing cities of the South, that isn't accurate. The easiest, fastest growing church plants are those which are built in rapidly growing communities (outer suburbs or redevoping inner core areas) or areas with highly dynamic populations (near military bases or universities, for example)

When folks are moving in from out of state, they are locally unchurched, and it's not sheep stealing to provide for their spiritual needs. While the model well might be different in dying rust belt areas, your attack is, at least overbroad.

Originally Posted by Edward

Originally Posted by KMK

The problem I have with planting churches in the US is their survival and growth necessitates stealing sheep from other shepherds.

At least in the growing cities of the South, that isn't accurate. The easiest, fastest growing church plants are those which are built in rapidly growing communities (outer suburbs or redevoping inner core areas) or areas with highly dynamic populations (near military bases or universities, for example)

When folks are moving in from out of state, they are locally unchurched, and it's not sheep stealing to provide for their spiritual needs. While the model well might be different in dying rust belt areas, your attack is, at least overbroad.

My statement was obviously broad in regards to planting churches in the US that is true. But, my post was not an attack. It was a response to those who see church reformation as an act of subterfuge. As I said in my post, energy should be directed toward areas where growth can be accomplished by conversion without stealing sheep from other pastors. I am sure that church scenarios such as yours are excellent places to plant churches.

Obviously this discussion hinges on other presuppositions as well, such as the definition of a 'true' church. IOW, what is the lowest common denominator from which we should not encourage Christians to leave? It is not my desire to take the thread in that direction. Regardless, I am sure we all agree that great care should be taken when planting churches to avoid stretching forth our hand against the Lord's anointed.

Originally Posted by Raj

"...There has been less focus on ground-zero church planting in large metropolitan areas where there is no or little Reformed witness existing..." Dr. Bob

This is very much true here but in the village (country side) setups. There are village after village where there is no witness and no church in our area, North India.

Can I learn of any Reformed Baptist church in North India or West Nepal for prayer and fellowship?

This link may help, brother Raj...

Reformed Baptist Churches in India

Originally Posted by KMK

The Bible clearly teaches 'Reformed' theology. Love edifies. Therefore, consistent expositional preaching and teaching by men who truly love their brothers and sisters inevitably reforms a church without the use of subterfuge. Just ask some of the many pastors and teachers on PB who have helped or are helping to reform churches as we speak. Ask Pastor Marshal who is being used to reform a UMC church! Ask Rich who, as a Presby, was used to help reform an SBC church in Okinawa! All they are doing is teaching and living what the Bible says with true love of the brethren.

Ken, this is presupposing that God will grant fruit. There are many attempts at reform that mirror Jeremiah's ministry. Consider all the prophets who attempted reform. Many of them were killed for their love. To state that faithful preaching out of love for our brethren "inevitably" reforms is simply, and sadly, not true. I can give you a list of examples of just the opposite. One man I know, who is one of the most gentle and loving men I've met, is currently getting his heart ripped out by the congregation he's attempting to love. Many men have been ruined for ministry. Don Whitney tells of how his health was permanently affected in one of his first ministries. We can be faithful. We are accountable to God for our faithfulness. But only God can bring fruit. But God's Word crushes, comforts and hardens. In many cases they stop their ears and charge the pulpit.

The problem I have with planting churches in the US is their survival and growth necessitates stealing sheep from other shepherds. Perhaps I am a prude, but that isn't something to take lightly. Isn't the sanctity of church membership one of the tenets of Reformed theology? Shouldn't we encourage people to keep the covenants at the churches they already attend?

Shouldn't our church planting energy/resources be used to plant churches in areas where growth is done by conversion?

Ideally, I think you're right. But I know of a man who currently attends a presby church because it's the most solid church in town; maybe the only one with good doctrine. There are many other churches, but most of every stripe except solid doctrine. He, and some of his friends, attempted to help facilitate a change in their Baptist church a few years ago, but the opposite occurred. Others in the church rose up against them and actually went further in the other direction. In the end they got a pastor that doesn't even believe in eternal security. When I first met this family I remember the wife's words, through tears, "we're starving." They just didn't have faithful preaching.
Now, should he jump on the chance to be part of a new work in the area or, as a credo, attempt to facilitate change in the presby church? His family is a great blessing to any church. But they also know that this church family, one that keeps telling them that "they'll get it," is not their home. Would a new credo work "steal" them if it started up? Stories like this are repeated all across the nation.

-----Added 7/25/2009 at 11:03:07 EST-----

Sorry Ken, you posted while I was still typing...

I agree with both Ken and Joe. If the Lord is in the work, then sound teaching will eventually win out. That is where I agree with Ken. But the Lord is not in every work. It is not God's will that every local church thrive. Sometimes a lamp stand needs to be snuffed out in order for another to take it's place. It's not just deficient teaching that sours a church; cold hearts are just as destructive. If continued over a long period of time these deficiencies can become inherent. That church will either die or remain the way it is. That is where I agree with Joe.

Originally Posted by Wannabee

Now, should he jump on the chance to be part of a new work in the area or, as a credo, attempt to facilitate change in the presby church?

I know we are all in agreement with the overall picture but here is an example of where we are going to differ in the particulars. Personally, I believe there is a third option and that is to stay in the Reformed Presbyterian church.

And if I could clarify, a church in which Reformed doctrine is taught and many are offended and leave is still being 'reformed'. This happened at my church. I was asked to preach and many left. But those that stayed and those who joined later are indeed 'reforming'. I now pastor a largely Reformed church but many of the faces have changed. This is going to happen anytime you get a new Pastor regardless of what he/she is preaching.

If, instead of being willing to work with an already established church, I had endeavored to plant a RBC in my little town, those in the church I pastor now would never have been exposed to the DoG and would never have known any different. I am afraid the DoG would have passed them by because they were not sitting there longing for a 'Reformed' church to attend.

I agree, however, that it must be God's work and I don't want to universally state that church planting is wrong, but I do want to assert that it is not always the best solution. (Which seems to be the presupposition among many Reformed folks)

I agree, however, that it must be God's work and I don't want to universally state that church planting is wrong, but I do want to assert that it is not always the best solution. (Which seems to be the presupposition among many Reformed folks)

Ken,

That is exactly the presupposition I work from. There are always exceptions. I don't want to be caught opposing the work of the Spirit in reviving a troubled local fellowship. I would rather have the support of like-minded churches in starting a new work. It's not that such a work will be easier; in fact it will require the same amount of hard work. But removing doctrinal hurdles is a major advantage that most Reformed-minded pastors won't enjoy in existing churches.

Originally Posted by Reformed Thomist

Originally Posted by Raj

"...There has been less focus on ground-zero church planting in large metropolitan areas where there is no or little Reformed witness existing..." Dr. Bob

This is very much true here but in the village (country side) setups. There are village after village where there is no witness and no church in our area, North India.

Can I learn of any Reformed Baptist church in North India or West Nepal for prayer and fellowship?

This link may help, brother Raj...

Reformed Baptist Churches in India

Dear Bro. Nathan

Thank you for the link. But all the churches mentioned here are more than 2000 kms away from us, i.e all located in the South.

God bless .

Originally Posted by Herald

I agree, however, that it must be God's work and I don't want to universally state that church planting is wrong, but I do want to assert that it is not always the best solution. (Which seems to be the presupposition among many Reformed folks)

Ken,

That is exactly the presupposition I work from. There are always exceptions. I don't want to be caught opposing the work of the Spirit in reviving a troubled local fellowship. I would rather have the support of like-minded churches in starting a new work. It's not that such a work will be easier; in fact it will require the same amount of hard work. But removing doctrinal hurdles is a major advantage that most Reformed-minded pastors won't enjoy in existing churches.

Well, for what its worth, my wife agrees with you.