Planting a reformed baptist church if there's already a reformed presbyterian church?

The very existence of Reformed Baptists and Reformed Presbyterians as distinct groups is divisive, and we should always be seeking to restore the breach and become of one mind on baptism, all speaking and practicing the same thing -- and ultimately becoming visibly united Presbyterians as we ought to be. In the meantime, we are divided and that difference inevitably manifests itself in different churches, as is necessary for the practicing of incompatible baptism convictions.

Now if you want to make a case that when there is a choice between an area barren of Reformed churches and an area laden with solid Reformed Presbyterian churches, Reformed Baptists should generally prefer the barren area -- yes, there might be a good case for that, and likewise in reverse. But then again it may be that there are Reformed Baptists waiting for an RB church in a heavy Presbyterian area, or vice versa, whereas such may not be the case in the barren area. It depends.

 

Or we can all start Baptising believers only by immersion as that is what the Bible teaches.

 

Not really on topic or necessarily correct Tyrese.

 

I voted yes. I also say that we are in cooperation, not competition. We want to tell the elect about the Lord Jesus Christ and get the job done. We both agree that government and baptism are not essential for salvation. Many godly men have ended up on different sides of the creek on these issues, but we are all journeying to the same place.

 

It's extremely important that Reformed Baptist Churches are planted everywhere, even next to Presbyterian Churches for the simple fact that infant Baptism is a real hang up for a lot of Christians. Therefore we (Reformed Baptist) should have a Church that practices what it is we believe. I'm sure if you were surrounded by Reformed Baptist you would want the same.

 

Thanks for clearing that up for me, Tyrese. If you start a thread making a case for baptism by immersion from Scripture, I will gladly participate, but this isn't the appropriate place for it.

I didn't say that. I said once the distinction between RBs and RPs exists, it is too late to say, "Well, it's divisive to plant churches next to each other." At this point we are already divided. We might as well plant churches next to each other until we come to the unity of doctrine and practice we are all (hopefully) pursuing. That is, unless there is a very barren area that needs them more. Ultimately I can't give a direct answer to your question because I think RB churches should become RP churches and plant RP churches (well, technically, it would be the Presbytery doing that, but you know what I mean). However, since the division exists, it is very after-the-fact to make it a matter of division to plant churches near to each other. We don't want a "pretend unity" where we are really divided, but at least our churches are spread apart. We want a real, visible unity -- that is what we should all be pursuing.

 

I appreciate the calls for unity and brotherly love among Baptists and Presbyterians, but I hope we all understand that it doesn't mean schism in the Church is no big deal. It means exactly the opposite of that. Our love for each other calls us to seek unity by diligent study of the Scriptures, charitable debate and discussion, and much prayer. We should never adopt a mindset of thinking of distinct denominations as "flavors" that might as well remain separate because after all it's a "secondary matter"; who really cares? The Lord cares. He prayed that we would be one. One of the dangers of over-cooperation between denominations is that it makes us complacent and apathetic about the existence of separate denominations. It ought to sadden us that our difference on baptism necessitates separate churches.

In the meantime, I think this question will need to be answered on a case-by-case basis. There may be a very barren area and a Presbyterian area that both have interest in RB churches, in which case probably priority should go to planting in the barren area. But sometimes there may be families with strong RB convictions wanting an RB church in a Presbyterian area, in which case it doesn't hurt my feelings if RB churches meet that need -- at least except inasmuch as it bothers me that we are separate in the first place, but that isn't going to be solved in a day, or in a year, or in a decade. It ought, however, to be our pursuit, and in the meantime, there is no use pretending in our church planting that we do not have incompatible baptism convictions that may necessitate planting separate churches -- even right next door.

 

Why not go and plant a church where none at all exists, whether paedo or credo?

 

I voted yes. Cooperation, not competition. NAPARC has a comity agreement where Reformed Presbyterian churches are supposed to consult an existing church in the area before planting, etc., but that's not the issue here.

 

This has gone on for hundreds of years, and I really doubt that I am the man to come up with the answer that thousands of godly men have not arrived at.

 

I realize I'm talking a lot, but we cross-posted and I hadn't seen this. Schism over incompatible government and baptism positions is unavoidable. A church can't practice two polities or two baptismal convictions. Historically, I'm not sure this point works in a credobaptist's favor if you think about who separated from whom.

 

There may be times where it is fine (larger cities, which need more churches proportionally than smaller suburbs or towns), but the general rule because there are a limited amount of resources ought to not plant immediately but go where there is not a good witness first and if later in the future the occasion presents itself, then to do so. SO I would say yes plant, but put it lower on the priority list.

 

Another Presbyterian vote for 'yes'.

 

Forgetting the paedo-credo debate the immersion only position is pretty hard to sustain so I would not be so confident on that.

 

YES!

* There are too few RB and RP churches in America. More is better!!! Look at a map of RB or RP churches in America and you would think that you were looking for Druids.
* Neither confessional Baptists nor confessional Presbyterians have much "market share" to begin with in America. I would love to see more deceived Christians and non-believers come to confessional congregations. If some of the folks now going to empty-theology churches had the option of attending an orthodox congregation, it would present a fantastic opportunity for evangelism.
* While some of the PB members are attending churches that reflect their theological and confessional commitments, my guess is that many are "settling" for places because a truly confessional option does not exist in their locale. Wouldn't it be great if people were able to throw themselves wholeheartedly into their congregations with clear consciences and enthusiasm for the ministry? A commitment to the Body of Christ will get you to participate in the "best" church you can find. However, if you are wincing or rolling your eyes every third minute, it is certainly a less than ideal "fit."
* Churches are not a "zero sum game." One more RP or RB church does not necessarily mean subtracting members from other congregations (even if that would be GREAT in some cases). In reality, if one Starbucks was sufficient, there would not be one on every other corner in some cities. I am still trying to figure out how there can be a CVS on one side of the street and a Walgreens on the other side, let alone one of either every few blocks. We even have three Target stores in our not very big city. Adding a RP or RB church to every city in America would be a net gain for the Kingdom, in almost every respect. One denomination in my town has 32 congregations, a half dozen of them with 600-800 in attendance each weekend.

The larger problem (in my opinion) is that the people I agree with most theologically tend to be the lamest at planting churches. Some of them would rather waste most of their day reading theological message boards and priding themselves in the effectiveness of their put downs of (mostly) like-minded brethren or tearing down Christian leaders more "successful" than themselves, than in doing the HARD work involved in planting a congregation. Church planting takes more than being an introverted nerd with a large library of orthodox books and a special relationship with the Internet. It involves reaching out to people, engaging people, loving people, caring for people, counseling people, evangelizing people, discipling people, knowing something about managing people, delegating to people, holding people accountable, and being willing to suffer loss for the sake of the Gospel.

I wish that some of the management skills and entrepreneurial zeal of the guys who plant churches and see them grow rapidly with adult conversions could be linked to the passion for accurate orthodox theology. I have pastored tiny churches (35 avg. atten.) and medium sized ones (520 avg. atten). In the smaller congregation I wasted time trying to look busy. In the larger one, I wish that there had been more time for reflection and study. But, in both of them it was painfully obvious that a passion for accurate theology and a zeal for devoting long hours to study does not suffice for the skill set of a pastor.

 

It's a good article. I think this applies to alot of what is popular in modern evangelicalism. Do you think this applies to this thread? And if so why?

 

You wrote:

This is not true; church can begin much simpler than this...

 

I do NOT subscribe to the views of the Church Growth movement, even though one of my profs in seminary was C. Peter Wagner, the granddaddy of the movement!

My response was thinking about an American context where 30-40% of people are already attending church, not a European situation about which I know nothing.

I was trying to interject the observation that it is silly to wring hands over whether another orthodox church is "too much." When my wife and I moved to this community of 250,000 there was NO RB congregation. Given the current environment of mainline drift, Romanist stasis, fundamentalist proliferation, and shallow megachurch reality, it is more likely than not that there will NOT be ANY confessional Reformational congregation nearby.

My point about Starbucks and Target was that obviously people who are hardheaded enough not to waste resources on too many of their stores recognize that there is plenty of room in a community for multiple outposts of their kind. The same is true of churches.

And, while this may represent tipping too far in the direction of culture, investing in "curing" a sick church is often more time-intensive and resource draining, not to mention frustrating, than planting a new congregation. Due to the sinful attitudes of many leaders of existing churches, they simply will NOT accept reform of "how we do it around here." You speak of the danger of schism. For me the danger of trying to put new wine in old wineskins is a reality as well. My first pastorate was in a church ready to close. We grew fairly rapidly, but the challenges of ministry in an environment where the size was a direct result of toxic attitudes was probably much more difficult than a church plant would have been.

My tilting in favor of church planting has more to do with a Christian doctrine of the sinfulness of man than consumerist marketing. In America, anyhow, many dying churches have entrenched power structures (e.g., key families who control the church) that organize rather effectively against a healthy congregational life and ministry.

 

I would not consider baptism a secondary issue as a paedobaptist, as the denial of its
application to the seed of believers is a negation of the covenant promise. The reason
why I would say no to the planting of a RB church where there is already an RP cause
is, that a Baptist can take out membership in a RP church so fulfilling their spiritual needs.
Whereas the reverse of that position would not be allowed. The size of the locality is also
a factor. A village could not sustain competing interests and the divisiveness would be a
poor witness, as historically in Wales we have experienced.

 

Sorry if it sounded too harsh! It is my observation, however, that in the confessional Reformation churches that I am familiar with (RP, RB, and LCMS), there are practical reasons why some of the congregations do not flourish.

* Pastors who become too inward focused and do not lead their people to think evangelistically. Evangelism is not the exclusive property of the evangelicals!
* Church leaders who are more content catering to their own "needs" rather than seeing the church as the tip of the spear for the kingdom of God.
* The psychological reality that it is easy for full-time pastors of very small congregations to fall into bad work habits. If we would have had the Internet when I was pastoring a congregation of 35, it would have been an immense temptation to spend all of my time compensating for being such a small fry by wasting my days on theological message boards. As much as I love the PB, how many pastors of thriving churches have time to devote to this kind of thing?