grassroots churches

[nodak]

In a thread about people leaving churches I stated that sometimes that is because a given local body or a denomination as a whole has become rotten. Still believe that.

Also noticed a few who instantly see themselves able to judge that those folks are nonbelievers.

But I've also witnessed some exciting things in our town and area in general.

They get called bush Baptists because they live and meet out in the bush. Or mountain Methodists. Or long distance Lutherans. Or unassembled Assembly of God. Or unChurch of Christ.

Whatever you call them, they are not the old bedside Baptist of jokes. They are very committed and very serious believers. Some meet in barns, some at homes, some at community halls, some at corrals, some at McDonald's, and some at Starbucks. Some are operating with volunteer staff, some with unpaid clergy, some without clergy.

Some pulled out of the UMC and ELCA over the liberal bent of those groups. Others, free grace or dispensational free grace, pulled out of the local SBC when it went full on TULIP with an attitude that some feel paints God as an ogre. Some are fundamentalist Baptists who just don't like rock and roll church. Some live so far in the boonies it makes no sense to drive long distance when there are enough neighbors up the dirt road to have church there.

What they all seem to have in common is the belief that a church is founded when a like minded body of believers begin to assemble and start a church. Then when said church desires and is strong enough they call a preacher.

What they reject is the idea a denom decides where a church needs to exist. They also are not apt to follow a church planter who just shows up, announces they are called to pastor there, and expects folks to "come under their authority."

It is church happening from the bottom up rather than top down, if that makes sense.

Either way, at least the laity are attempting to actively serve God, which is a cause to rejoice!

 

[Revmitchell]

Bottom up? Guess what, those in the up are church members and believers as well.

 

[nodak]

Not all of the up seem to be believers, at least not Biblical believers, here. Would you remain under someone's supposed authority if they asked the church to allow them to do gay weddings? Has happened here. Or teach you have to tithe what medicare or Medicaid paid for your surgery last month? Happening here. Or if the local body did a major change in theology? (Calvinist to Arminian or vice versa, free grace to Lordship Salvation, etc,) and you believed the change incorrect?

 

[Iconoclast]

"nodak,

Not all of the up seem to be believers, at least not Biblical believers, here. Would you remain under someone's supposed authority if they asked the church to allow them to do gay weddings?

sodomite activity is not part of a true church.

Has happened here. Or teach you have to tithe what medicare or Medicaid paid for your surgery last month? Happening here.

this is ubiblical....

Or if the local body did a major change in theology? (Calvinist to Arminian or vice versa, free grace to Lordship Salvation, etc,)

God has brought biblical correction to that Church. Leaving Arminian falsehoods for biblical truth and antinomianism for a proper view of the Lordship of Jesus is very proper.

and you believed the change incorrect?

additional study would be recommended and perhaps a cushion to sit on as the sermons most likely will be longer than the sermonettes that used to happen in the previous situation.....Truth being expounded properly takes time.

 

[Revmitchell]

Not all of the up seem to be believers, at least not Biblical believers, here. Would you remain under someone's supposed authority if they asked the church to allow them to do gay weddings? Has happened here. Or teach you have to tithe what medicare or Medicaid paid for your surgery last month? Happening here. Or if the local body did a major change in theology? (Calvinist to Arminian or vice versa, free grace to Lordship Salvation, etc,) and you believed the change incorrect?

To quote post number 1:

Also noticed a few who instantly see themselves able to judge that those folks are nonbelievers.

 

[nodak]

God has brought biblical correction to that Church. Leaving Arminian falsehoods for biblical truth and antinomianism for a proper view of the Lordship of Jesus is very proper

So if your church suddenly went the other direction, you would stay? Or be wrong if after following the Bible's directions on dealing with it found the new direction was here to stay?

Or would you take the sad, yet necessary, step of leaving and working as either laity (if you were) or clergy (assuming you are) to found a more Biblical church?

We are in total agreement on some instances, I see.

(Forgive me if I've fat fingered the quote feature and mis applied one quote to the wrong person? Computer is giving me fits today.)

 

[Iconoclast]

nodak,

Hello Nodak,

So if your church suddenly went the other direction, you would stay?

One advantage of being in a confessional church is that the people and the pastor have agreed on the confession of faith.....
If the pastor suddenly believed Presbyterian teaching he would resign and find a Presbyterian assembly to join. That is why prospective members are asked to review the confession of faith. Everyone covenants together to agree with the basic teaching.
In my former two churches I let them know I did not agree on some of the teaching and gave a biblical reason for it that was accepted as they shared my view anyhow.

Or be wrong if after following the Bible's directions on dealing with it found the new direction was here to stay?

Nodak.....I would suggest you try the Cal church. Not every sermon is going to be on the 5pts.....the sermons will be word centered and about Jesus.
When cals assemble they have those beliefs in common so it is not the main focus every minute....Jesus is.
Some listen to people who are just set against the doctrine and they give a slanted view as talebearers. They do not know first hand.
Attend for a few months and see firsthand.

Or would you take the sad, yet necessary, step of leaving and working as either laity (if you were) or clergy (assuming you are) to found a more Biblical church?

That is a last resort .it is more a "romantic" idea. the reality is that is a very difficult way to go,and most such efforts fail.
Start a home bible study and see how it starts off with a flurry, but then people slowly excuse themselves and vanish.

We are in total agreement on some instances, I see.

Sin is so openly flaunted in our day...Christians with any spiritual sensitivity have no alternative but agree , no matter what their theological base.

If you have the cal churches website, post it...i will listen and see if it is on track...

Nodak....
Go on sermonaudio.....listen to Geoff Thomas, Albert N Martin......or at least look at the range of titles and subjects preached upon.....

 

[Sapper Woody]

Or would you take the sad, yet necessary, step of leaving and working as either laity (if you were) or clergy (assuming you are) to found a more Biblical church?

The problem is, if you start a church "out of nothing", you haven't started a biblical church. A church planter has to have a sending church in order to be biblical.

Sent from my QTAQZ3 using Tapatalk

 

[StefanM]

The problem is, if you start a church "out of nothing", you haven't started a biblical church. A church planter has to have a sending church in order to be biblical.

Sent from my QTAQZ3 using Tapatalk

That is the pattern in the Bible, but circumstances change. Splitting away from a liberal church is very reasonable (and arguably required). If an area doesn't have an evangelical church, the only option is to start one without having been sent. In the Bible, we had churches with problems, but the churches were not apostate.

If an area has a suitable church, I would say they should pursue it instead.

 

[Sapper Woody]

That is the pattern in the Bible, but circumstances change. Splitting away from a liberal church is very reasonable (and arguably required). If an area doesn't have an evangelical church, the only option is to start one without having been sent. .

I disagree here. If a person needs to start a church due to there not being a "good" one in the area, then they can find a parent church somewhere. A parent church doesn't necessarily need to be close by (it is convenient, but not necessary).

Sent from my QTAQZ3 using Tapatalk

 

[StefanM]

I disagree here. If a person needs to start a church due to there not being a "good" one in the area, then they can find a parent church somewhere. A parent church doesn't necessarily need to be close by (it is convenient, but not necessary).

Sent from my QTAQZ3 using Tapatalk

Think about this practically, though. What church would "send" or "commission" a group of folks with whom they are unfamiliar?

And, really, couldn't that just be a perfunctory process to have an official sponsor of sorts?

 

[Sapper Woody]

Think about this practically, though. What church would "send" or "commission" a group of folks with whom they are unfamiliar?

And, really, couldn't that just be a perfunctory process to have an official sponsor of sorts?

It could be. But starting a church is no small matter, and if one wishes to do so, it's not unlike candidating for a pastorship. They should seek a church of like faith and practice to be their parent, and the potential parent church should either already be familiar with them, or take the time to get to know them before agreeing to parent them.

The right way isn't always easy, but it's still right.

Sent from my QTAQZ3 using Tapatalk

 

[StefanM]

It could be. But starting a church is no small matter, and if one wishes to do so, it's not unlike candidating for a pastorship. They should seek a church of like faith and practice to be their parent, and the potential parent church should either already be familiar with them, or take the time to get to know them before agreeing to parent them.

The right way isn't always easy, but it's still right.

Sent from my QTAQZ3 using Tapatalk

The problem is finding the parent church in the first place.

Doctrinally, those leaving a liberal congregation are likely to still have the core beliefs of their former church (just minus the liberalism). For instance, a group leaving a United Methodist church would likely have a hard time finding a similarly organized but theologically sound body. The Wesleyan church is an option in some areas, but there are large areas of the country without conservative Methodist or Wesleyan congregations.

They won't all pop out Baptist, for obvious reasons.

That being said, the bigger problem is going to be finding good leadership in such circumstances.
--------

I do wonder, though. How would you feel about an evangelical, ordained minister resigning from a church in a liberal denomination to start a conservative church, along with several of the church members from the old church? Would the ordination be sufficient in terms of commissioning? Would his original position in the old church be "transferred," so to speak?

 

[Revmitchell]

The problem is finding the parent church in the first place.

You are making too much out of this. It does not have to be as hard as you are making it and in fact it happens all the time.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

The problem is, if you start a church "out of nothing", you haven't started a biblical church. A church planter has to have a sending church in order to be biblical.

Sent from my QTAQZ3 using Tapatalk

Says who?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I disagree here. If a person needs to start a church due to there not being a "good" one in the area, then they can find a parent church somewhere. A parent church doesn't necessarily need to be close by (it is convenient, but not necessary).

Could you provide some distance parameters?
Sent from my QTAQZ3 using Tapatalk

 

[StefanM]

You are making too much out of this. It does not have to be as hard as you are making it and in fact it happens all the time.

Perhaps I am. I'm thinking more in terms of mainline denominations (with limited corresponding conservative denominations), so maybe I'm skewing my perspective a bit.

 

[Revmitchell]

Perhaps I am. I'm thinking more in terms of mainline denominations (with limited corresponding conservative denominations), so maybe I'm skewing my perspective a bit.

Honestly I am thinking purely from an SBC perspective. Since church planting and missions is the primary reason for our cooperative then it is most likely far easier within our circles to do this. It may be different in other denoms than baptists.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Errm, I give you the experience of Hamilton Square Baptist Church of San Francisco organized in 1881. At the time, there were four other Baptist churches in San Francisco. They were located in what is now considered the downtown area. Back then, it was the town as SF grew west from the bay front wharves. However, by 1881, the population had grown pushing into what is now the Western Addition. There were no Baptist churches in the WA. The other four churches were not interested in planting a work. So, twelve brethren gathered in the front parlor of Gustavus Schroeder. They agreed to begin a work and call a pastor. A advert was placed in The Watchman of Boston, Mass. Joseph Bromley answered the call.