Planting a church without being sent out?

[MikeinGhana]

To say that there is no example of a church being started without the "authority" from another church is really an argument from silence. I do believe the best way to start a church is under the authority of another like-minded church. There are good practical reasons for this. But to say there is no other way to start a church "biblically" than to start it out of another is ignoring several instances recorded in scripture. Did the church send Philip to the Ethiopian Eunuch to baptize him? I am sure we can think of other examples whereby a church may have existed prior to Paul getting there.

 

[pasdave]

Actually, I do know what the point is, or maybe two.

I don't want to sound judgmental, but it seems that you have assumed that you were no longer 'supported' in this . So what?
Has the leading changed, somehow? Does the lack of 'support' probably both financially and spiritually, mean that you have no place to go? Perhaps you might have to make tents, as well. There are many bi-vocational pastors around. In my own area, I know of several. I've known may over the years who were so. Today, some of them are not. One of my close friends also works as a teacher in a school, another worked for a while for NCR, in the early days of pastoring the church he started. Another extremely close personal friend of mine once worked for Brinks while in the ministry, as well as some other things. Today, he pastors a church, which he started, that numbers into the thoudsands.
My own late grandfather who BTW, had an earned doctorate, once pastored my home church, bi-vocationally, selling life insurance, at the same time as he dispensed "Eternal Life Insurance". One of the leading individuals in KY Baptist life for years never would even consider pastoring a church that was very large, but milked cows on a family farm for his entire ministry. And I believe Rick Warren, whom you do not seem particularly fond of, today does not take any salary from the church where he is the senior pastor, but supports himself by his books. That does not seem to represent hireling to me, at least. Disagree with any or all if you will. I have no problem with that. But please don't let a bit of resentment darken a bright vision.

In His grace,

Ed

I do not now nor did I at the other church recieve a salary. I have two full-time jobs- my secular job and pastoring. My point was, that the authority to start a church comes from Jesus Christ. Being a member of a true New Testament church and being given the Great Commission by Jesus is all the authority one needs. I know the big thing with some folks is "the authority" thing, but the true authority rests with Jesus.

 

[EdSutton]

I do not now nor did I at the other church recieve a salary. I have two full-time jobs- my secular job and pastoring. My point was, that the authority to start a church comes from Jesus Christ. Being a member of a true New Testament church and being given the Great Commission by Jesus is all the authority one needs. I know the big thing with some folks is "the authority" thing, but the true authority rests with Jesus.

Then we are agreed here, even though a cursory reading might make it seem not to be the case. I believe I mentioned some churches that were not "under some Mother church". Uh- in fact for all, merely listen to that phrase, and consider it.

And while I'm no fan of Rick Warren, per se, for whoever has posted this, previously, I am annoyed by some comments directed obliquely at him and the ministry with which he is associated which to me, at least, almost smack of jealousy.

Ed

 

[pasdave]

Then we are agreed here, even though a cursory reading might make it seem not to be the case. I believe I mentioned some churches that were not "under some Mother church". Uh- in fact for all, merely listen to that phrase, and consider it.

And while I'm no fan of Rick Warren, per se, for whoever has posted this, previously, I am annoyed by some comments directed obliquely at him and the ministry with which he is associated which to me, at least, almost smack of jealousy.

Ed

That is correct. No church has authority over another. No matter what size or length of existence.

As far as Mr. Warren goes, I wouldn't jealousy, just disgust.

 

[Pastor Larry]

My point was, that the authority to start a church comes from Jesus Christ. Being a member of a true New Testament church and being given the Great Commission by Jesus is all the authority one needs. I know the big thing with some folks is "the authority" thing, but the true authority rests with Jesus.

So who fulfills the role of 1 Tim 3 and 5 in examining elders for this new church? Who ensures that the doctrine is correct? If you don't have a sending church, then it seems hard to see how these commands can be taken seriously.

The question is, why wouldn't you have a mother church to plant a daughter church?

 

[gb93433]

So who fulfills the role of 1 Tim 3 and 5 in examining elders for this new church? Who ensures that the doctrine is correct? If you don't have a sending church, then it seems hard to see how these commands can be taken seriously.

The question is, why wouldn't you have a mother church to plant a daughter church?

Who sent out Paul? The first church he started had only one elder--him.

I think the thing to do which is better than having a mother church is having several churches pool their resources and then have one of the pastors meet with the new pastor. Then, monthly or quarterly have the church pastors meet together with the mission pastor. I did that with a young man who wanted to plant some churches and it worked great. We had a group of ten churches who pooled their money and resources. It was not a lot of money from each church but the amount was substantial for the pastor to work with. If I remember right each church gave about 500 dollars. Several of the churches came and helped in some of the programs and outreach. Many of the children and adults helped out in outreach during the summer such as VBS. There were times when people would help out with physical needs such as fixing things at the pastors home and building they met in. One of the churches was growing and needed a new sound system because it had expanded its building so they gave the not so old system to the mission church.

One thing I have seen recently which has worked well is to send a staff member which has been on staff for awhile in preparation for starting a church. Then there is a good relationship already established.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Who sent out Paul? The first church he started had only one elder--him.

The church at Antioch sent him out (Acts 13).

I think the thing to do which is better than having a mother church is having several churches pool their resources and then have one of the pastors meet with the new pastor.

Why? Why not just have one church be the sending church. That is what the church at Antioch did. That makes the most sense. That way there is accountability, support, fellowship, and help. Other churches can certainly participate both financially and with people.

One thing I have seen recently which has worked well is to send a staff member which has been on staff for awhile in preparation for starting a church. Then there is a good relationship already established.

That is the way it should be done. That way, the church can see the qualifications, testimony, and gifts of the planter over a period of time. They can disciple him, use him in ministry, and send him out. That seems to be the NT pattern and seems to be the most logical.

 

[John of Japan]

So who fulfills the role of 1 Tim 3 and 5 in examining elders for this new church? Who ensures that the doctrine is correct? If you don't have a sending church, then it seems hard to see how these commands can be taken seriously.

It's called ordination. If the founding pastor is ordained, he has been examined properly. As for examining elders for the new church, there is no problem here except with some types of "elder rule." If you agree that the elder is a preacher/pastor, then you ordain him just like any other preacher.

As Pastor Larry pointed out, the church at Antioch sent out Paul. But as I pointed out on p. 1 of this thread, "The word for the elders of the church sending the men away is apoluo, a very strong word meaning to release, set free, or even sometimes used with the meaning of divorce! So the church at Antioch actually completely let go of the church planters, and had no authority over them."

The question is, why wouldn't you have a mother church to plant a daughter church?

The question is, would the "mother church have authority over the "daughter church?" If so, it is not Biblical and certainly not Baptistic. On the other hand, if the "mother church" offers financial and moral and wisdom support but not institutional authority, great.

 

[John of Japan]

Who sent out Paul? The first church he started had only one elder--him.

Very true, and a stumbling block for some theories of "elder rule."

Here's another stickler. Barnabas and Paul, the founding missionaries, ordained elders (Acts 14:23). Paul told Titus to "ordain elders in every city" (Tit. 1:5).

I think the thing to do which is better than having a mother church is having several churches pool their resources and then have one of the pastors meet with the new pastor. Then, monthly or quarterly have the church pastors meet together with the mission pastor. I did that with a young man who wanted to plant some churches and it worked great. We had a group of ten churches who pooled their money and resources. It was not a lot of money from each church but the amount was substantial for the pastor to work with. If I remember right each church gave about 500 dollars. Several of the churches came and helped in some of the programs and outreach. Many of the children and adults helped out in outreach during the summer such as VBS. There were times when people would help out with physical needs such as fixing things at the pastors home and building they met in. One of the churches was growing and needed a new sound system because it had expanded its building so they gave the not so old system to the mission church.

One thing I have seen recently which has worked well is to send a staff member which has been on staff for awhile in preparation for starting a church. Then there is a good relationship already established.

Good points and good process. In faith missions we call this process deputation and support. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Pastor Larry]

It's called ordination. If the founding pastor is ordained, he has been examined properly. As for examining elders for the new church, there is no problem here except with some types of "elder rule." If you agree that the elder is a preacher/pastor, then you ordain him just like any other preacher.

But this ordination comes through a church. It is not just ad hoc.

So the church at Antioch actually completely let go of the church planters, and had no authority over them."

That seems certainly a novel interpretation. If there was no authority, then why go back and report to them as they did?

The question is, would the "mother church have authority over the "daughter church?"

Not once it becomes a church. It is not a church until it forms. Until then, it is an arm or extension of the mother church. So when people are baptized in an unconstituted church, to what church are they baptized in? The "mother church." They are members of the mother church and subject to the discipline of the "mother church" until they become members of the new church. That cannot happen until at least the new church has been constituted.

If so, it is not Biblical and certainly not Baptistic.

I disagree on both counts.

On the other hand, if the "mother church" offers financial and moral and wisdom support but not institutional authority, great.

Not great, because then you have something outside the local church. And there is no place for that in Scripture. The church is the primary institution, the guard of the local church, the institution from which mission originates, gains its support, and reports to.

One thing that continues to amaze me is how foreign historic Baptist doctrine has become. I think it shows a great weakness in our churches and their teaching.

 

[John of Japan]

But this ordination comes through a church. It is not just ad hoc.

You ask where the ordination of the elders came from and I told you. I don't recall saying there was no church involved. :saint:

That seems certainly a novel interpretation. If there was no authority, then why go back and report to them as they did?

If you disagree, please explain the use of the Greek apoluo here. If the church at Antioch was to have authority over the missionaries, why did the Holy Spirit not inspire the use of apostello, which would infer authority? This is the third time I've mentioned this, and no one has yet refuted me.

Frankly, not only do I see no Scripture mandating it, it would be very impractical for my sending church to have authority over the church I am planting in Japan. My home church is in Tennessee, 1000's of miles away; no one there speaks Japanese or knows the Japanese culture very well; though we have e-mail and such nowadays, in the old days there was no one for a sending church to easily contact a missionary on a far-flung field. So how in the world does the church being planted by a missionary doing pioneer church-planting in a foreign country answer to his home church? (I'm not even going to get into the bizzarre notion that a missionary on the field should be sending his tithe back to his sending church rather than the one he is planting.)

Not once it becomes a church. It is not a church until it forms. Until then, it is an arm or extension of the mother church. So when people are baptized in an unconstituted church, to what church are they baptized in? The "mother church." They are members of the mother church and subject to the discipline of the "mother church" until they become members of the new church. That cannot happen until at least the new church has been constituted.

But why not call it a church from the very first time it meets? In the famous church chapter of Matt. 18, right there in the context it says, "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." I believe that teaches that two or three meeting in the name of the Lord Jesus constitute a church. This idea of "forming a church" after some time of a branch work meeting together exists nowhere in Scripture.

Not great, because then you have something outside the local church. And there is no place for that in Scripture. The church is the primary institution, the guard of the local church, the institution from which mission originates, gains its support, and reports to.

Nope, you have nothing outside the local church. You have another independent local church.

One thing that continues to amaze me is how foreign historic Baptist doctrine has become. I think it shows a great weakness in our churches and their teaching.

Actually we are talking about practice rather than doctrine, per se. But you really need to prove that what we are saying here is foreign to historic Baptist doctrine. Do you have a source for saying this? Can you prove that early Baptists would have done it just like you would? Frankly I doubt it.

Go back to p. 2 of the thread and read Squire's link to the history of Hamilton Sq. Baptist. Again, note Squire's quote on p. 5 from Hiscox supporting my view. Again, who started the first Baptist churches in Holland, America and England? Did they answer to a "mother church?" Nope! :smilewinkgrin: :tongue3:

 

[Pastor Larry]

If you disagree, please explain the use of the Greek apoluo here. If the church at Antioch was to have authority over the missionaries, why did the Holy Spirit not inspire the use of apostello, which would infer authority? This is the third time I've mentioned this, and no one has yet refuted me.

What is there to refute? I don’t grant the premise. I think you are attaching way too much weight to that word and it is unjustified given the context. The word apoluo can very easily take the meaning required for my view (and I think the view of historic Baptists).

Frankly, not only do I see no Scripture mandating it, it would be very impractical for my sending church to have authority over the church I am planting in Japan. My home church is in Tennessee, 1000's of miles away; no one there speaks Japanese or knows the Japanese culture very well; though we have e-mail and such nowadays, in the old days there was no one for a sending church to easily contact a missionary on a far-flung field. So how in the world does the church being planted by a missionary doing pioneer church-planting in a foreign country answer to his home church? (I'm not even going to get into the bizzarre notion that a missionary on the field should be sending his tithe back to his sending church rather than the one he is planting.)

Is your church organized and established? If so, then it is no longer a part of your mother church. But before a church is organized, into what church are they baptized? And to what church are you answerable?

These reasons, in Baptist polity, seem to require the scenario I describe and preclude the one you describe. And where did the absurd notion of sending your tithe back to your mother church come from?

But why not call it a church from the very first time it meets?

Because the NT church has certain characteristics that are probably not yet in place. They are established with biblical officers (pastor and deacons) selected by the congregation. Who selected them the first time you meet? They observe the ordinances, meet at regular stated times, etc. Again, I think this is pretty standard Baptist polity.

In the famous church chapter of Matt. 18, right there in the context it says, "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." I believe that teaches that two or three meeting in the name of the Lord Jesus constitute a church. This idea of "forming a church" after some time of a branch work meeting together exists nowhere in Scripture.

I severely disagree. Two or three believers may have the Lord in the midst, but they are not a church. Right now, there are four believers gathered here. We are not a church.

Nope, you have nothing outside the local church. You have another independent local church.

But not until it is biblically constituted, and this may be the area of disagreement.

Actually we are talking about practice rather than doctrine, per se. But you really need to prove that what we are saying here is foreign to historic Baptist doctrine. Do you have a source for saying this? Can you prove that early Baptists would have done it just like you would? Frankly I doubt it.

My understanding is that what I am saying is historic Baptist polity (which is both doctrine and practice).

Go back to p. 2 of the thread and read Squire's link to the history of Hamilton Sq. Baptist. Again, note Squire's quote on p. 5 from Hiscox supporting my view. Again, who started the first Baptist churches in Holland, America and England? Did they answer to a "mother church?" Nope!

And you have an entirely different scenario with Smyth and Helwys. I don’t have my Hiscox here. The history of an individual church is entirely unconvincing since they may have been wrong. (I don’t mean that perjoratively; I am sure you agree with me on that.) But in the NT, I see no evidence of any non-apostle starting a church outside the sending of a local church. I see no way to fulfill the NT mandate of church authority and protection in your method. I see no way to guard the truth in your method. I see no way to avoid individualism in your method. And I am no historical expert, but I don’t think Baptists have traditionally agreed with you.

 

[EdSutton]

I severely disagree. Two or three believers may have the Lord in the midst, but they are not a church. Right now, there are four believers gathered here. We are not a church.

How many does it take to "form a church"? I agree as to Roger Williams, etc., as JoJ mentioned as well as the Hamilton Square Church. And I disagree about the importance of the rite of baptism as being 'definitive' to form, or for 'membership' in a church.

I believe we are baptized into the Lord, in water, signifying we have been baptized into the Lord by being baptized into His death.

And I would offer that the churches in the NT were first 'founded', with the elders and deacons and other 'officers' coming later, as well. BTW, that simply happens to be how I see Scripture, and I care little about "most Baptists", "Hiscox" or "Helwys".

Ed

 

[John of Japan]

What is there to refute? I don’t grant the premise. I think you are attaching way too much weight to that word and it is unjustified given the context. The word apoluo can very easily take the meaning required for my view (and I think the view of historic Baptists).

The word occurs in 63 verses in the NT, often meaning "divorce" and occasionally meaning "send away." The times it means "send away" virtually always means to send away someone over whom you have no institutional authority (such as when Jesus sent away the multitudes). It can mean release a prisoner (set him free). So, how, pray tell, can apoluo take the meaning required for your view? Please give me an example (just one will do) that proves this possibility. Apostello or pempo or ekpempo all can be used for sending someone out under your authority, not apoluo.

Is your church organized and established? If so, then it is no longer a part of your mother church. But before a church is organized, into what church are they baptized? And to what church are you answerable?

I've been planting it for 10 years, and if I wait for it to be "organized and established" the way an American church is, it will never be a church. :smilewinkgrin: Your ideas work fine for America. How pray tell are we to institute them on a "Gospel-resistant" field?

Very few Japanese churches ever get large enough to have deacons; there is no governmental recognition of a church in Japan until you own property, so there is no legal reason to have a constitution or bylaws (though we do); for various reasons there are very few Japanese young men being called to the ministry nowadays (three of the four IFB Bible institutes in Japan have no male students), so chances are my church may never have a Japanese pastor.

As to what church I am answerable to, that would be my home church (my sending church) and all of my supporting churches, which can drop me anytime they want to. :thumbsup: My home church will be the one to take charge in case the board notifies them (or they find out some other way) of a moral or doctrinal lapse. But my home church has no institutional control whatsoever over the church I am planting. It was a church from the first day. (Or should I have named it "Victory Baptist Evangelistic Branch?" That would have really confused the Japanese!)

The first church I planted I really had not thought this through, so there was chaos when I tried to institute church membership later on.

These reasons, in Baptist polity, seem to require the scenario I describe and preclude the one you describe. And where did the absurd notion of sending your tithe back to your mother church come from?

There are actually pastors who require missionaries sent out of their church to do so, believe it or not. :tongue3: But isn't that a logical conclusion to the idea that the sending church has authority over the sent one?

Because the NT church has certain characteristics that are probably not yet in place. They are established with biblical officers (pastor and deacons) selected by the congregation. Who selected them the first time you meet? They observe the ordinances, meet at regular stated times, etc. Again, I think this is pretty standard Baptist polity.

If a NT church must have deacons to be a true church, I'm afraid only a tiny percentage of Japanese churches will ever be true churches. The numbers are just not there. I have three men in my church, with only two of them being members. Neither of those are ready to be deacons, nor would they accept if I asked them to.

I severely disagree. Two or three believers may have the Lord in the midst, but they are not a church. Right now, there are four believers gathered here. We are not a church.

But look at the context! Exegete! Matthew 18:17 uses the word "church," and then in v. 20 we have two or three gathered together in the name of Jesus. Does the context cease somehow between vv. 17 and 20?? The word "gathered" in v. 20 is used a number of times in the NT meaning when the church met. Why is it not so here?

But not until it is biblically constituted, and this may be the area of disagreement.

Yes, I think you are right. So please tell me. What are Biblical principles for constituting a church?

My understanding is that what I am saying is historic Baptist polity (which is both doctrine and practice).

And you have an entirely different scenario with Smyth and Helwys. I don’t have my Hiscox here. The history of an individual church is entirely unconvincing since they may have been wrong. (I don’t mean that perjoratively; I am sure you agree with me on that.) But in the NT, I see no evidence of any non-apostle starting a church outside the sending of a local church. I see no way to fulfill the NT mandate of church authority and protection in your method. I see no way to guard the truth in your method. I see no way to avoid individualism in your method. And I am no historical expert, but I don’t think Baptists have traditionally agreed with you.

The "way" you don't see is the Holy Spirit. He is the "Lord of the harvest." If a missionary/church-planter is ordained properly, how is it that he and the Holy Spirit cannot keep doctrine and practice straight? Why in the world do we ordain preachers if they can't be trusted to keep their doctrine straight? How can we trust the pastor of the sending church to keep his doctrine straight? As the old Latin proverb says, "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" ("Who watches the watcher?")

I know only one missionary who is trying to plant a church here in Japan your way, and he has had to change home churches twice now because of aberrations in the home church! :tonofbricks:

 

[gb93433]

That is the way it should be done. That way, the church can see the qualifications, testimony, and gifts of the planter over a period of time. They can disciple him, use him in ministry, and send him out. That seems to be the NT pattern and seems to be the most logical.

I have also seen the same thing done a few years before the pastor retires. The pastor then has the blessing of the people and the retiring pastor. I saw the church go from about 400 to 2000 in just a few years when it did that. The church nor the pastor had no ideea who the timing was so perfect. Near the end of the time that was planned the pastor was diagnosed with cancer and died shortly thereafter. The pastors wife and kids and their spouses all stend are very involved in the churhc under the new pastor. That happened about 9 years ago that the new pastor became pastor and not much later the former pastor died.

 

[I Am Blessed 24]

Because the individual origionally tossed his hat into the ring to candidate for Senior pastor and withdrew it, the church won't send him out.

A man should be sent out by God - not a church...

 

[John of Japan]

How many does it take to "form a church"? I agree as to Roger Williams, etc., as JoJ mentioned as well as the Hamilton Square Church. And I disagree about the importance of the rite of baptism as being 'definitive' to form, or for 'membership' in a church.

I believe we are baptized into the Lord, in water, signifying we have been baptized into the Lord by being baptized into His death.

And I would offer that the churches in the NT were first 'founded', with the elders and deacons and other 'officers' coming later, as well. BTW, that simply happens to be how I see Scripture, and I care little about "most Baptists", "Hiscox" or "Helwys".

Ed

And a case can be made for each point you make, Ed, though I do believe in a baptized church membership myself. And amen, "most Baptists" if they be true Baptists should decide church polity from Scripture, not Baptist history. :thumbs:

 

[Pastor Larry]

How many does it take to "form a church"?

A church is not determined by number, but by organization and function.

And I disagree about the importance of the rite of baptism as being 'definitive' to form, or for 'membership' in a church.

Then explain how you are a Baptist, because that is a Baptist distinctive.

And I would offer that the churches in the NT were first 'founded', with the elders and deacons and other 'officers' coming later, as well. BTW, that simply happens to be how I see Scripture, and I care little about "most Baptists", "Hiscox" or "Helwys".

Remember, in the apostolic era you have a completely different era of transition. It's not the same thing. But the principles that I have described seem clearly found in Scritpure. I will gladly grant that any apostle can go and plant a church without a sending church (even though they didn't do that in the NT). So all apostles, step forward and do the job.

 

[Pastor Larry]

The word occurs in 63 verses in the NT, often meaning "divorce" and occasionally meaning "send away." The times it means "send away" virtually always means to send away someone over whom you have no institutional authority (such as when Jesus sent away the multitudes). It can mean release a prisoner (set him free). So, how, pray tell, can apoluo take the meaning required for your view? Please give me an example (just one will do) that proves this possibility. Apostello or pempo or ekpempo all can be used for sending someone out under your authority, not apoluo.

Acts 13 would be a "just one example" that proves this possibility. I don't have my lexical works here in front of me (out of town). But when you read the context, you see an examination, a prayerful consideration, and a command that "mark them off" for service. How can that not very clearly be a sending forth, a commission from the church of which they were a part to plant churches? And on top of all that, it is said to be the work of the Spirit.

I've been planting it for 10 years, and if I wait for it to be "organized and established" the way an American church is, it will never be a church. :smilewinkgrin: Your ideas work fine for America. How pray tell are we to institute them on a "Gospel-resistant" field?

I know you are not suggesting situation ethics, but that's what it sounds like. What about those who say if you preach the gospel of faith and repentance it will never be a church? Just how much can we compromise in the name of pragmatism? (Please John, understand I mean nothing perjorative by that. I have nothing but respect and appreciation in the Lord for your ministry there in Japan.) Do you not have pastors and deacons, called by teh congregation?

In my mind, until the church constitutes, it is a Bible study with the purpose of forming a church.

Very few Japanese churches ever get large enough to have deacons; there is no governmental recognition of a church in Japan until you own property, so there is no legal reason to have a constitution or bylaws (though we do); for various reasons there are very few Japanese young men being called to the ministry nowadays (three of the four IFB Bible institutes in Japan have no male students), so chances are my church may never have a Japanese pastor.

Why not? Is this a discipleship problem? Do we really judge the NT mandates for churches by governmental recognition? I know you would say no, as would I. Which is why I find this paragraph not helpful towards a resolution. Why is that the Chinese house churches have leaders growing and being discipled all over? What is the difference? (I ask sincerely because having worked with some Chinese house church leaders I am amazed at their ministry.)

As to what church I am answerable to, that would be my home church (my sending church) and all of my supporting churches, which can drop me anytime they want to. :thumbsup: My home church will be the one to take charge in case the board notifies them (or they find out some other way) of a moral or doctrinal lapse. But my home church has no institutional control whatsoever over the church I am planting. It was a church from the first day. (Or should I have named it "Victory Baptist Evangelistic Branch?" That would have really confused the Japanese!)

I think there are simple answers. It seems to me that in most cases, there would be at least one man or two that could be a deacon, and yourself the pastor. You could then carry out all the various functions of the church and constitute as a legitimate church. Then you are under the authority and discipline of a local church.

There are actually pastors who require missionaries sent out of their church to do so, believe it or not. :tongue3: But isn't that a logical conclusion to the idea that the sending church has authority over the sent one?

No, I don't think so. I think the offerings could be run through the sending church as a designated contribution and that is probably the way I would handle it.

If a NT church must have deacons to be a true church, I'm afraid only a tiny percentage of Japanese churches will ever be true churches. The numbers are just not there. I have three men in my church, with only two of them being members. Neither of those are ready to be deacons, nor would they accept if I asked them to.

Isn't this a discipleship issue? I ask because twice in the last six months I was asked that dreaded question by two different people unrelated, about two different issue, and I hated hearing it, and I hated knowing it was true. It wasn't about deacons, but about evangelism and giving.

But look at the context! Exegete! Matthew 18:17 uses the word "church," and then in v. 20 we have two or three gathered together in the name of Jesus. Does the context cease somehow between vv. 17 and 20?? The word "gathered" in v. 20 is used a number of times in the NT meaning when the church met. Why is it not so here?

I am not saying they are not a church. I am merely saying that two or three together is not a church. I have heard people say that two or three people sitting in a coffee shop are a church. That is not necessarily so.

Yes, I think you are right. So please tell me. What are Biblical principles for constituting a church?

Preaching the gospel, organized with pastor(s) and deacons, observing the ordinances, meeting at regular and stated times, carrying out the great commission, etc.

If a missionary/church-planter is ordained properly, how is it that he and the Holy Spirit cannot keep doctrine and practice straight? Why in the world do we ordain preachers if they can't be trusted to keep their doctrine straight? How can we trust the pastor of the sending church to keep his doctrine straight? As the old Latin proverb says, "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" ("Who watches the watcher?")

The church. All through the NT (and history) you see people who were ordained who defected. That calls for church discipline. What church will carry it out in a church planter whose church has not yet formed.

Let's say a guy goes out to plant a church and falls into immorality. Who will discipline him?

When a new convert is baptized, what church does he become a member of?

I know only one missionary who is trying to plant a church here in Japan your way, and he has had to change home churches twice now because of aberrations in the home church!

That may be, but that's not the issue. People are sinners and will always cause problems. But I think the biblical model is different than you.

But regardless of our differences, I praise God for your ministry in Japan and encourage you to "stay by the stuff." You have probably heard that before (if I recall your background properly.) I heard it many times.

 

[gb93433]

Very few Japanese churches ever get large enough to have deacons; there is no governmental recognition of a church in Japan until you own property, so there is no legal reason to have a constitution or bylaws (though we do); for various reasons there are very few Japanese young men being called to the ministry nowadays (three of the four IFB Bible institutes in Japan have no male students), so chances are my church may never have a Japanese pastor.

All churches were once small.

Sometimes larger churches are like the following story:

This is a story about four people named Everybody, Somebody, Anybody and Nobody. There was an important job to be done and Everybody was sure Somebody would do it. Anybody could have done it, but Nobody did it. Somebody got angry, because it was Everybody's job. Everybody thought Anybody could do it, but Nobody realized Everybody wouldn't do it. So Everybody blamed Somebody when Nobody did what Anybody could have done.

Sometimes those larger churches get small. I saw a church that was once over 1000 get down to less than 15 and close their doors. That was the best thing thta happened. A few months later a pastor came to start the church and opened the doors again. About five years later the church is running over 2000.