If a preacher (not a pastor) is burdened of the Lord to organize a church in a particular area and the following components are included:
-the work will organize as a church and not a mission
-the work will not be in the community of the preacher's home church
-there are no outstanding issues or problems between the preacher and the church of which he is a member,
which of the following church organization principles would be most favorable?
1)Preacher/people meet for worship services and simply start functioning as a church, choosing a pastor, electing positions, etc. and they request their home church either to send their church letters or to delete their names from the rolls.
2)Preacher/people inform their home church(es) of their intentions and request a vote of support (extension of an arm) of a church. The vote of “support” may or may not include financial support. An announced date of organization is set and other churches are invited.
3)Preacher/people request their church letters in writing for the announced purpose of organizing a church. An announced date of organization is set and other churches are invited.
4)The preacher, by church vote of his home church, is recommended or authorized to preach the gospel, baptize, and then organize a church. He may announce an organization date or details to the church that authorized him but is not required to do so.
Perhaps rank the two most favorable methods or classify each as acceptable, questionable, or not acceptable.
Comments welcome...
Bro. Adrian. I find that all four are acceptable to Me. But probally #2 or #4 Would my personal choice.
ReplyDeleteI'll take 2 & 4 Alex for $500!
ReplyDeleteI agree (with Bro. Marlin is a shocker) that #2 &4 would be viable choices as far as I'm concerned...as long as the new work isn't from or will cause a split in an existing Church.
ReplyDeleteI think a man that is sent out, with authority to start a new work is pretty important, perhaps even necessary. (perhaps is a big word there)
I feel that a Church can be organized with 2-3 members and they can call any man to be the pastor and can associate with any group they feel led to associate with.
The catch would be the condition of the 2-3 organizing members. If they are from a Church they should already have scriptural baptism therefore the authority to meet together, assuming they had permission from the Church of their membership...if they were saved but not baptized they would need a man that had authority, from a local Church, in order for their baptism to be a scriptual one.
If he has an arm of support to organize a church, does he has his family with him? I've known a missionary or two who often times met with only their family when none others showed up. If there are 2 or 3, and the sponsoring church gave arm of support for organizing a church and not a mission, then they are already a church, right?
ReplyDeleteAt least with our ABA definition, you'd have these requirements met...
A local visible body (of two or more) of baptized believers assembled and covenanted together to carry out the great commission, with the vote of authority for them to be a church.
Of our definition, what do they lack?
Let me begin by pleading for your prayers. Something has gone terribly wrong with my mental health. I have always suffered from memory problems, but I have just realized it is much more serious than I thought. Surely I stand in need of professional help, for I agree with Michael Reese, Jason Hebert and Marlin Freeman.
ReplyDelete