Independent churches

Status
Not open for further replies.

BaptistCanuk

Puritan Board Sophomore
I sense that many people on here do not like "independent" churches. Could you please explain why that is? Do not most Baptists believe in independent churches? My church belongs to a fellowship but it is still autonomous.
 
Being that our church started out Arminian and has since, by the grace of God, come to embrace the doctrines of grace and reformed theology, I think I have a unique perspective on this.

First and foremost I would say that independent churches are seen as rogues. The reformed tradition is set in catechisms, confession of faith and church councils. And all for good reasons which I heartily agree with. It clearly sets the boundary between orthodox and heresy and maintains a level of order. So when a church who is reformed, doesn't do things the traditional way of doing things, even though their theology is sound, they are looked on with suspicion.

And the second reason is one that I was quite shocked to encounter when I first starting coming into the reformed faith; elitism. Fortunately this is not true of the majority, but minorities have loud voices.
 
Brian: Speaking for myself, I would not say that I don't like independent churches. I appreciate their people and work and would agree that they (at least the orthodox ones maintaining word and sacrament) are true churches. I would say that independency as a form of church government is contrary to biblical teaching, though.
 
From having been raised in the IFB and having been in several independant Bible churches, I can say I've experienced several problems...

1) the risk of authoritative abuse is higher (whether it is "elder" run or pastor run)

2) there is no higher structure to appeal to or that the pastor is accountable to

3) you never know what you are going to get from one church to another. Each will have it's own variations and deviations...nothing concrete regulating it. (this is especially a problem to those that move regularly and have to search for a new church...ie military)

[Edited on 4-24-2006 by LadyFlynt]
 
I currently am an elder in an independent Baptist church that meets in the middle of the fields and timbers of southern Wisconsin. We are one of the only Calvinistic and reformed Baptist churches in the immediate area and I truly regret the lack of fellowship that we experience as an independent assembly.

I have over the years labored mightily to establish friendships with the saints in nearby communities and states and have so prospered by the insights, prayers, and friendships of the saints. I am pleased that our church is slowly making a move toward kindling friendships and association with similarly minded churches, but the progress has been slower than I would like to see.

I have a few friends that attend elsewhere, some of them elders, other who are not, with whom I will often share some of the issues and struggles that we are going through in our specific churches. "In a multitude of counsellors there is safety." I thank God for the wisdom and the counsel that I have received from these friends.

Our church has over the past decade and a half moved from an arminian dispensational baptist church to a reformed baptist church. The move and growth has been both pleasant but taxing. At times the work has been a work in progress and being somewhat isolated, the progress has sometimes ran into various obstacles that perhaps could have been avoided had we wise counsel from those who have experienced similar situations.

Thankfully, God is patient and longsuffering and is able to perform even beyond what we can ask and think. I am grateful to be at His disposal and that God is merciful to use our efforts, even though at times we are foolish and undiscerning. I pray that God will continue to allow us the opportunity to develop frienships and associations with those saints who are faithfully serving him across the area.

In Christ,
 
Bob, that is great to hear how your church is growing. Keep the faith.:amen:

LadyFlynt, I understand your concerns about independent churches and agree with you. Those are serious issues to be aware of. However, it could be possible that independent churches are good things too. The Head of the Church is Christ and He gave elders to be his human leaders within the local churches. That is what all the churches were like in the Bible that I know of. Each church was independent. They only had to be in doctrinal agreement with the Bible (not a denominational board). Elders were raised up within each church, not appointed by denominational boards.

As long as a church is preaching the Gospel and not heresy, I believe autonomy of each local church is how God wants things to be. If not, we might as well have a papal system because that is the logical progression of organized denominations. For in organized denominations, who is accountable to whom? There has to always be someone higher up until you would eventually get to a "pope figure" who would be God's representative on earth who you cannot dispute with. That seems to be the logical progression to me.
 
"However, it could be possible that independent churches are good things too."

I agree. To put things in perspective, the PCA General Assembly had reformed baptist John Piper preach at the main preaching event. I think that visibly demonstrates how the typical reformed presbyterian (at least in the PCA, which is one of the larger reformed denominations) appreciates the work and ministry of our independent bretheren.

There are some of us, though, who would like to see Christ's prayer that His church be unified be expressed in visible unity (so that, for example, councils modeled on Acts 15 can operate, there can be reciprocal recognition of judicial decisions, and the like). So, the desire is not for the dissolution, or even dislike, of the independent congregations, but rather for visible unity with them.

[Edited on 4-25-2006 by Scott]
 
I hear what you're saying Scott. I agree. The Church should be in unity. I don't know about others but my idea of an independent church is just a local church that derives its government from within itself. It answers to no other earthly authority, but to Christ Himself. It is doctrinally solid and is united in truth with the rest of the Church. Am I being a bit more clear than I may have been?
 
Brother Brian,

I have a bit of perspective on this issue, since my walk in Christ has taken me through a number of churches.

I was saved as a youngster while attending a Baptist Church, but shortly thereafter, my parents began to attend a Presbyterian Church (FPC, in fact), where I attended for almost 15 years. I served there as a deacon, and had a fair bit of exposure to how the presbytery mechanism worked. Thereafter, I moved cities, and because of travel/work commitments, I visited a good number of Reformed Baptist Churches, and was thoroughly blessed and strengthened through those fellowships.

So, in determining a stance on church government, I was compelled to FIRST suspend all my presuppositions, experiences, preferences, etc. and see if the Bible gives a direct and clear directive on this. I Tim 4 (esp v. 14) points to a ruling body of some description. Since I was raised in a "KJV-only" church, interpretting that was easy - in that version, it reads " the presbytery". Other translations--including what I now use (NKJV)-- use the word "elder" Not being a scholar of Greek, I cannot attest to the exact meaning, but one can get general Biblical direction from the following:

Contextually, the passage begins with an exhortation against apostasy and error, and encouragement to stick with the sound doctrine of the gospel. The importance of oversight is further demonstrated in a broader scope across various epistles - Philippians 1:1, 1 Timothy 3:1-2, and Titus 1:7. The likely reference here is, I believe, to the elders of the individual church, but I also believe a principle is being at least demonstrated--that spiritual oversight over the churches is also valuable and important.

Why do I say this? Most of the Paul's letters are to the various churches which he either started or had contact with. He was not the pastor, but was in a position to exhort and give spiritual oversight. This is clear from the numerous times he is seen involved in specific church issues (Romans 16, for example, ensuring the collection arrives at Jerusalem). I'm sure my Presbyterian brothers here will add their perspective showing Biblical support for the Presbyterian model too.

Having seen and considered independant, Conference, and Presbyterian church government systems, I do feel the approach that most closely models the New Testament record is the Presbyterian system. That said, I have found wonderful, God-fearing believers in all the church systems I just mentioned.

Church government format has never been the deciding factor per se of my church choice, and I clearly lean to the Reformed Baptist denomination most other issues considered. I do side with my Presbyterian brothers on the issue of having an overseeing Presbytery, though!

Probably sounds a bit odd, but .... :)

dl

[Edited on 4-25-2006 by Cuirassier]

[Edited on 4-25-2006 by Cuirassier]

[Edited on 4-25-2006 by Cuirassier]
 
Hey Daniel, thanks for your post. I've been through a few different churches as well. I was in the Church of God for two or three years. Then I went to a church that believed in personal prophecy, kingdom now, manifest sons of God type theology. I was there for a while but learned where they were in error and left. I attended the Brethren church for a while with my friend. After that, I went to the church I go to now and have been at for about 6 years.

I do believe that "presbytery" in Scripture could be referring to just the elders in a local church. I believe that the spiritual oversight in the New Testament developing church was by Paul as he was the Apostle sent by Jesus for that specific purpose. Now that Scripture is complete, I wonder if each church is to be led by the elders within each church and under the Headship of Christ. To have outside bodies overseeing a church is strange to me because like I said, it would seem the logical progression is to have a "pope figure" at the top who is Christ's reprensentative on earth. If that isn't the case, who are the overseers accountable to? See what I mean?

God bless you.

Brian
 
Overseers that aren't isolated to one particular church are able judge things without being emotionally involved (or as much so) and other forms of bonding. I know a church where the eldership was pretty much bound to whatever the pastor wanted, thus the pastor was able to continue his abuse. Elders were yes men. If elders are accountable to other elders also from other churches (a presbytery) then they are more likely to hold the pastor accountable and less likely to be a bunch of yes-men.
 
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
Overseers that aren't isolated to one particular church are able judge things without being emotionally involved (or as much so) and other forms of bonding. I know a church where the eldership was pretty much bound to whatever the pastor wanted, thus the pastor was able to continue his abuse. Elders were yes men. If elders are accountable to other elders also from other churches (a presbytery) then they are more likely to hold the pastor accountable and less likely to be a bunch of yes-men.

You do have a point there. I'm not disagreeing with that. But with overseers from outside the church, they don't know a whole lot about each church. The elders do. I think in order to avoid elders being the way you said they could be is for each elder to have the courage to stand by his convictions and for each elder to recognize that they are under the Headship of Christ Himself.
 
Actually the presbyteries are more cohesive than that. They DO know what is going on in eachothers' churches and are required to give regular account. They hold eachother accountable from a more objective position. Not only that, but if an issue is big enough, a lay-person has others outside of the present eldership to turn to.
 
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
Actually the presbyteries are more cohesive than that. They DO know what is going on in eachothers' churches and are required to give regular account. They hold eachother accountable from a more objective position. Not only that, but if an issue is big enough, a lay-person has others outside of the present eldership to turn to.

Well, I definitely did not know that. Is it Catholic in nature? Who would be the highest person in the chain of command? Like I said earlier, it would seem to me that they would have to have someone in the roll of a "pope" or whatever.
 
no, there is no "highest person" like a "pope". The highest authorities are more like a council all from different churches and presbyteries...not catholic at all.

[Edited on 4-25-2006 by LadyFlynt]
 
I was raised baptist and only came to the reformed faith about 2yrs ago, jumped the baptism fence 1yr ago. I do understand how you are viewing it. BTDT.
 
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
no, there is no "highest person" like a "pope". The highest authorities are more like a council all from different churches and presbyteries...not catholic at all.

[Edited on 4-25-2006 by LadyFlynt]

Not true - we had Ian Paisley! :lol:

Just Kidding - notwithstanding some of my reservations about the denomination, I am thankful for the the excellent preaching I received whilst attending, and strongly encourage them in Christ.

dl
 
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
I was raised baptist and only came to the reformed faith about 2yrs ago, jumped the baptism fence 1yr ago. I do understand how you are viewing it. BTDT.

Thanks. How were you introduced to the reformed faith? I was at a friend's house and his brother is reformed. We were watching Sproul videos and his brother's friend talked to me about it.
 
My husband was studying it for a time due to our independant church being a mix of reformed, semi reformed, semi armenian, and armenian (what a mess!). Boy, I didn't take too well to anything that went against my dispensational background or that declared that there was an elect!

I followed hubby out of that church and learned to ask questions of the kindest reformed pastor I know (in the PCA) and found this board...the gentlemen here have born with me through my questions, some of my misunderstandings, and even my own hardheadedness...but I learned to glean.


[Edited on 4-25-2006 by LadyFlynt]
 
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
My husband was studying it for a time due to our independant church being a mix of reformed, semi reformed, semi armenian, and armenian (what a mess!). Boy, I didn't take too well to anything that went against my dispensational background or that declared that there was an elect!

Oh yeah, you had the natural reaction in regards to "the elect" eh? I didn't take too well to it either.

LOL it does sound like your church was in a bit of a mess. I can see why you would strongly support the presbyterian system of church government too. My church hasn't had that mess so I haven't been exposed to anything that would require the need for that type of church government.
 
Well, I definitely did not know that. Is it Catholic in nature? Who would be the highest person in the chain of command? Like I said earlier, it would seem to me that they would have to have someone in the roll of a "pope" or whatever.
The model is Acts 15.
 
Originally posted by Scott
Well, I definitely did not know that. Is it Catholic in nature? Who would be the highest person in the chain of command? Like I said earlier, it would seem to me that they would have to have someone in the roll of a "pope" or whatever.
The model is Acts 15.

Ok. I am going to go read it right now. Are we not supposed to build doctrine on more than one passage or verse though?

Ok I checked it out. I can see where you guys get your understanding of that form of government. I have two questions though. Could it just be that that is how they did it, without commanding the church to follow that example? Could it be that they had to do it that way because the Church had just begun recently and Scripture was not completed?

[Edited on 4-25-2006 by BaptistCanuk]
 
I would be a little leery about apply Acts 15 directly to church practice today. Remember that the men sitting on that council were apostles/inspired. That's not something that can ever be replicated today.
 
I would be a little leery about applying Acts 15 directly to church practice today. Remember that the men sitting on that council were apostles/inspired. That's not something that can ever be replicated today.
I think that the presence of the apostles actually suggests that the institution was intended to be permanent. The apostles did not need the authority of a council to back them up. The fact that they used one suggests that they wanted to leave the church with a model for resolving disagreements. That is one reason that the council included elders and not just apostles.
 
Ok I checked it out. I can see where you guys get your understanding of that form of government. I have two questions though. Could it just be that that is how they did it, without commanding the church to follow that example? Could it be that they had to do it that way because the Church had just begun recently and Scripture was not completed?
Righteous and godly examples are typically seen as examples to follow. See, for example, Jesus' defense of grain-picking on the Sabbath. Matt. 12:3-4. When we are faced with disagreement over doctrine, we have to ask, how are we gong to handle it? There are several ways to do it. One of them has biblical precedent, Acts 15. Most others do not. Which method should we choose?

It is true that the NT was not fully formed at the time of Acts 15, but there are two responses. First, the complete deposit of faith had been given by Christ to the apostles and the apostles were still around. So, the same body of doctrine was there. And Christ's direct representatives were there. So, they were in essentially the same position we are.

Second, the type of problem that gave rise to the council (disagreement of doctrine and practice) still exists. We still have disagreements over Christian doctrine. We need a means to resolve today's disagreements as much as they did.
 
Scott, I agree. We still have disagreements over Christian doctrine and we do need a means to resolve disagreements.

Yes, righteous and godly examples are typically seen as examples to follow. I don't know why you said that. When I was referring to what the Apostles did back in Acts 15, I meant that maybe it was just a historical event and not an example for us to follow. Wouldn't God have told us to follow it if that is what He wanted? Isn't that what the whole "Regulative principle" issue is all about? Do nothing unless specifically commanded to?
 
One should ask, "If I am claiming to be reformed according to the Scriptures, should I not seek to reform my churches polity by that same rule?" Or put differently, if a church is not seeking to find its polity in the apostolic example, where else will our instruction come from? It will only come from tradition or the world. The first should be examined by Scripture, the second is just asking for trouble. So, anyone claiming to be Reformed will use Scripture as their guide to outlining polity; see book IV of Calvin's Institutes as an example of this in practice.
 
I don't understand what you mean though Adam. Many on here concede to a "Regulative principle" which I take to mean, do nothing unless commanded. Now in this case, Acts 15 is not a command but rather a narrative of a historical event.

I think anyone who is Christian will use Scripture as their guide to outlining polity and not just those who are Reformed. I'm a little uneasy with the way many on here use the term "tradition". It has a very Catholic ring to it in my ears. If by tradition, you mean the teachings of Scripture I would agree. Is that what you mean by "tradition"?
 
Actually, Brian,
In this case he's using "tradition" in a negative sense there. He's saying that there are three choices for a source of guidance:
1) Scripture
2) tradition
3) the world

The last 2 are unreliable. But as you note, there are other ways to use the word "tradition". One might mean Scripture's own tradition (the only way we know what apostolic tradition really is--2 Thess. 2:15). Or one could reference the lineage of this or that church. There is a "baptist" tradition, just as there is a "presbyterian" one, or a "Roman" one. When speaking this way, one is not being prescriptive but descriptive. He is acknowledging a "tradition", but hopefully not making that tradition normative because it's tradition (as Rome or Eastern churches do).

As for the RPW, the point of this law of worship is that in order for some practice to be licit, it has to have Scriptural support. The easiest support to marshall is a direct command (or prohibition). That is unambiguous. Anther means of proof would be to make a valid deduction from scriptural premises. Such reasoning is just as powerful in conclusion as a direct command. Third, is an argument from "approved example." If you find the church in the Bible positively doing a certain thing, if you have no reason to think that said practice is a) negatively portrayed, b) restricted to apostolic persons or days, or c) non-repeatable, then one should seek to imitate it as closely as possible, where our own circumstances correlate to theirs.

[Edited on 4-27-2006 by Contra_Mundum]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top