Planting a church without being sent out?

[John of Japan]

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.

Well of course it is a "sending forth." I never said it wasn't!! The question is, what kind of a sending forth is it? I take it as a sending forth with no authority from the sending agency. For you to prove otherwise, you need to have examples of your position from other usages of apoluo. The word can be taken in the context either your way or my way. Thus, in order to prove your way you need examples from other passages.

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.

Since this is not an ethical issue, there is no way in the world it can be situation ethics. I guess I should have explained more what I was trying to say.

Since we are sent into every nation by the Great Commission, and I take the Matthew version of the Commission to be the church-planting one, then our church planting model must be valid for every nation. Since Gospel-resistant nations keep churches small (or even underground), it makes it very difficult to fulfill a church-planting model that requires deacons before the church is said to be a church. Frankly, I just don't find that model in Scripture.

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.)

It would take too long to explain completely the situation in Japan here, but suffice it to say that it is absolutely nothing like the situation in China.

Japan is just flat out hard. The Japanese hearts are hard, and they have been 180 degrees pointed away from Christianity since the Shogun outlawed it in the early 17th century and massacred many, many thousands of Japanese Catholics.

Add to that two factors since we came to Japan: (1) the society is rapidly aging, so that those open to the Gospel are decreasing in number; (2) the Japanese are having far fewer kids (average 1.26 per couple).

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.

But why in the world have a deacon with only 10-20 people coming (most Japanese churches)? What would be the Biblical purpose? And where would you find someone qualified? Does the average American church have 1 out of 3 men qualified to be deacons?? No way!

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.
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.

It would take too long to explain, but the Japanese are very slow spiritually. One experienced missionary estimated that it takes about 7 years to get a Japanese from salvation to full maturity.

And of course I believe the passage is about people meeting regularly in the name of Jesus as a church, since that is the context. So, one pastor, one deacon? Oops we left out the pastor's wife. Guess we can't have a church unless there are three!? :tonofbricks:

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

I agree with everything here but the deacons (see below). And everything but the deacons is possible right from the start with only two or three members.

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?

The sending church can revoke his ordination and otherwise practice church discipline: dropping support, deleting from membership, sending a rep to the field to try to deal with the problem (I've seen this done effectively), contacting the supporting churches, etc.

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

The new church, of course. :thumbs: When I start a church, all baptized believers are the first members, right from the start. Would you have me make them members of my home church in Tennessee? That smacks of colonialism in most countries, is impractical, and opposes the indigenous policy.

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.

The main stumbling block here is the issue of deacons. Everything else is possible right from the start. If there must be deacons before a church is a church, then:
(1) What about the church at Jerusalem before they had deacons?
(2) Why are not deacons mentioned in Titus when Paul is telling Titus how to run a church?
(3) Why are there no Scriptures mandating deacons for a church?
(4) Why, in fact, are deacons mentioned so little in Scripture?

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.

Thanks. We have no plans to quit! :thumbs:

 

[El_Guero]

Plant more churches . . . disciple more believers . . .

And by all means preach the Word in season and out of season - lead the lost to the Cross!

The time is coming when we will not be able to impact the eternal destiny of those that will spend eternity in hell . . .

:saint:

 

[Pastor Larry]

But why in the world have a deacon with only 10-20 people coming (most Japanese churches)? What would be the Biblical purpose? And where would you find someone qualified? Does the average American church have 1 out of 3 men qualified to be deacons?? No way!

The biblical purpose is to obey Scripture. It is how the Bible says to organize churches. It doesn't specify a number, though the plural seems to indicate more than one.

The sending church can revoke his ordination and otherwise practice church discipline: dropping support, deleting from membership, sending a rep to the field to try to deal with the problem (I've seen this done effectively), contacting the supporting churches, etc.

How can they if he is not under their authority? That is the whole issue ... You are claiming that the sending church has no authority. And that is what I am objecting to. I agree with you this, though "deleting membership" is not really a biblical option. They discipline him, drop his support, and make it impossible for him to stay.

When I start a church, all baptized believers are the first members, right from the start. Would you have me make them members of my home church in Tennessee? That smacks of colonialism in most countries, is impractical, and opposes the indigenous policy.

But if your church hasn't organized how can they join?

The main stumbling block here is the issue of deacons. Everything else is possible right from the start. If there must be deacons before a church is a church, then:
(1) What about the church at Jerusalem before they had deacons?

Deacons were an institution of necessity, established in Acts 6. They became a feature of a NT churches.

(2) Why are not deacons mentioned in Titus when Paul is telling Titus how to run a church?

Because Paul is not saying everythign about how to run a church. Notice how much other stuff he doesn't talk about. And you surely don't think that is unimportant or unnecessary.

(3) Why are there no Scriptures mandating deacons for a church?

I disagree. I think 1 Tim 3 does mandate them.

(4) Why, in fact, are deacons mentioned so little in Scripture?

How many times should they be mentioned? I think once is sufficient.

 

[John of Japan]

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.

Loved the stories--the second one sounds like it would be fascinating to hear "the rest of the story.":thumbs:

 

[John of Japan]

Happy New Year! May you and your family and ministry have a wonderful 2007!

The biblical purpose is to obey Scripture. It is how the Bible says to organize churches. It doesn't specify a number, though the plural seems to indicate more than one.

But the original deacons were appointed to fulfill a specific need that doesn't exist in a church of ten people.

How can they if he is not under their authority? That is the whole issue ... You are claiming that the sending church has no authority. And that is what I am objecting to. I agree with you this, though "deleting membership" is not really a biblical option. They discipline him, drop his support, and make it impossible for him to stay.

No, I never claimed the sending church has no authority over the sent one (though it may have seemed like that due to my interpretation of Acts 13). I claim the sending church has no authority over the church being planted (other than the intrinsic authority over the pastor as a member of the sending church).


To claim the sending church has authority over the church being planted is denominationalism, it is not Baptistic.


When I was there in the '70's Highland Park Baptist Church in Chattanooga had many “chapels” under the authority of the main church, but they each had the name “church.” The pastors were appointed by the "Chapel Office," not elected by the churches. Some of these "chapels" grew into 100's of believers. Many of those "chapels" were around for years under the main church without ever becoming independent. (There was a fear they would go into the SBC.) This is denominationalism, plain and simple. (I'm sure your intention is for your church to become independent of the mother church.)

But if your church hasn't organized how can they join?

I've been thinking about this. You know I have said that a church is a church from the very first Sunday. So they are of course members of the church that exists from the start. You know, if you will show me in the Bible where a church "organized" like you are saying it should, I might come around.:smilewinkgrin:


You will probably object that there is no chain of authority there if the church doesn't start out under a mother church, and I will answer that maybe that is a good thing since it avoids denominationalism, an unbiblical and un-Baptistic system. I believe the Lord authorizes the church planter to start that church. It is He, after all, Who is the Lord of the Harvest, not the pastor of the sending church.


But if the church doesn't exists as a church from the start, where is that non-church, almost-church in the Bible? Nowadays we may call it a chapel or a branch work. Where is a similar term in the Bible? Which church in the Bible existed as a branch work and then was officially organized into a church?


Thanks to you I went over every single NT mention of church over the weekend. :thumbs: Even when a church is small enough to meet in a house (such as the one in Philemon's house), it is still called a church. I find no mention of an intermediate form between the founding and constituting of a church. So where is it?

I disagree. I think 1 Tim 3 does mandate them.

Please tell me how 1 Tim. 3 mandates deacons. There is nothing there but instructions on how a deacon should be qualified. There is no command (mandate) that a church must have deacons to be a church.


Question: if a church has only one deacon, and that man dies, does the church then cease to be a church?

How many times should they be mentioned? I think once is sufficient.

Agreed. But if there are only a few mentions doesn't that mean to you that their importance is diminished? Now, thanks to you I have gone back into Scripture over the weekend to find every single NT mention of deacons. :thumbsup: I found many uses of the Greek word, but only these mentions of deacon as a possible church office (depending on your view of Phebe): the original six at Jerusalem (Acts 6:1-6, though the word deacon is not used); Phebe the deaconess (Rom. 16:1 & 27); Tychicus (Eph. 6:21, but it doesn’t say specifically of the church); “bishops and deacons” of Philippi (Phil. 1:1); the qualifications for deacons (1 Tim. 3:8-12). Where in the world is the mandate? There are no verses saying all NT churches had them, there are no commands for a church to have them, there are no commands to appoint them (unlike Paul's command to Titus to ordain elders). In fact, there are only two churches mentioned in the NT as even having deacons: Jerusalem and Philippi. So where is the mandate??

 

[El_Guero]

The issue in Japan is relatively simple.

The Japanese are the only people in the world that have seen the Holy Spirit move through their people and then seen satan decapitate the church.

They saw the shogun-god-head kill the Church. They have seen their shogunate god-head defeated. They have seen the wholesale slaughter of Christians on 2 occasions. The first occasion was the Christian Century, and the second was Hiroshima/Nagasaki. They have seen more major movements of the Holy Spirit than most other people groups . . . .

And they have seen secular materialism sweep through the country like a very well-oiled machine. In a country where secular materialism has provided very well for the people, Christianity only offers virtual poverty. Where the world offers men the opportunity to be 'men,' the Church averages less than one male per 5 females (if I remember correctly). Churches are half the size of churches in most of the world and women greatly outnumber men.

So, if you want a church to have a preacher and a deacon body . . . you will have to ordain women . . .

I am think I am with John on this . . . should American churches be asking Japanese churches to ordain a deacon body? If they ordain a deacon body to please us, who would ordain whom?

 

[John of Japan]

The issue in Japan is relatively simple.

The Japanese are the only people in the world that have seen the Holy Spirit move through their people and then seen satan decapitate the church.

They saw the shogun-god-head kill the Church. They have seen their shogunate god-head defeated. They have seen the wholesale slaughter of Christians on 2 occasions. The first occasion was the Christian Century, and the second was Hiroshima/Nagasaki. They have seen more major movements of the Holy Spirit than most other people groups . . . .

Thanks for the input, friend. You have the essential facts of history straight. Alas, the Franciscans evidently never translated the Bible in the 17th century, so the Kirishitan (Catholic Christian) movement perhaps reacted wrongly to the persecution by instigating the Satsuma Rebellion.

Concerning the Hiroshima/Nagasaki issue, I've never seen research about the numbers of actual Christians in the two cities, which were known as Catholic strongholds. It would be interesting.... Great movements were the Meiji revival in the 1870's after the complete Bible was finally translated, and the "Taikyo Dendo" revival of the Taisho era (beg. of 20th cent.).

And they have seen secular materialism sweep through the country like a very well-oiled machine. In a country where secular materialism has provided very well for the people, Christianity only offers virtual poverty. Where the world offers men the opportunity to be 'men,' the Church averages less than one male per 5 females (if I remember correctly). Churches are half the size of churches in most of the world and women greatly outnumber men.

So, if you want a church to have a preacher and a deacon body . . . you will have to ordain women . . .

I am think I am with John on this . . . should American churches be asking Japanese churches to ordain a deacon body? If they ordain a deacon body to please us, who would ordain whom?

And thanks for this excellent input. I would love to have a deacon. Our church has three grown men, two of them baptized. But none of them would yet fit the qualifications of 1 Tim. 3. If someone in America wants to tell me that our church will never be an actual NT church without deacons, I'd be happy to listen--as long as they provide the Biblical mandate for deacons, and I haven't seen that yet.

 

[Apreacher4Him]

Let me lay a tangent...

I would suppose that biblical examples are... biblical... but if not under command
we should be careful of legalism here...

But, let me offer another tangent.... speaking of biblical examples...

I would say that we have "biblical examples" and even biblical exhortation
that the church "teach faithful men" that the church train men for the ministry
and yet we have committed the "training" or "teaching" of "faithful men" to
the same institutions that are training business men, specifically institutions that are
not a church.

If one was to be consistent here (or perhaps legalistic) you could make the argument that churches have droped the ball in not providing for the "education" or "training" of those who "desire the office of a bishop"...

well... what think ye?

 

[bapmom]

I would suppose that biblical examples are... biblical... but if not under command
we should be careful of legalism here...

But, let me offer another tangent.... speaking of biblical examples...

I would say that we have "biblical examples" and even biblical exhortation
that the church "teach faithful men" that the church train men for the ministry
and yet we have committed the "training" or "teaching" of "faithful men" to
the same institutions that are training business men, specifically institutions that are
not a church.

If one was to be consistent here (or perhaps legalistic) you could make the argument that churches have droped the ball in not providing for the "education" or "training" of those who "desire the office of a bishop"...

well... what think ye?

what you say here is the main argument for all those little IFB colleges being started up as ministries under local IFB churches.

 

[John of Japan]

I would suppose that biblical examples are... biblical... but if not under command
we should be careful of legalism here...

Interesting that you should use these two terms. I believe we should carefully distinguish between Biblical command and example. It is sin not to obey a command of God, but it is not sin when we don't do things exactly as they did in the Bible. In fact, often it is impossible to do things exactly as they did in the Bible.

There are deacons mentioned in two churches in the Bible, the story of how the church at Jerusalem chose them, and the qualifications Paul gave Timothy for deacons. However, nowhere in the Bible is a command saying that churches must have them.

It is possible to make huge errors by insisting that we do everything just as 1st century Christians did. In fact, that insistence is exactly what got such heretical groups as the Church of Christ started.

 

[John of Japan]

what you say here is the main argument for all those little IFB colleges being started up as ministries under local IFB churches.

Very true, bapmom. But remember that there are some large IFB colleges with the same philosophy such as Temple in its heyday, etc.

As you remember I have my masters from Maranatha BBC, so I don't believe that this philosophy is a mandate. However, it is a workable philosophy on many mission fields. In our case, it would have been very difficult to have a Bible institute unless it were under a local church umbrella due to the scarcity of students and the high cost of renting a second building in Japan.

 

[Apreacher4Him]

I thought that you would agree ... brother John...

Yes, I thought that you would agree with the distinction between biblical example
and biblical command brother John . . . as most good exegetes and God fearing men do and would . . . but I had to ask...

Thanks for shedding your input as you read the Scriptures...

 

[John of Japan]

Yes, I thought that you would agree with the distinction between biblical example
and biblical command brother John . . . as most good exegetes and God fearing men do and would . . . but I had to ask...

Thanks for shedding your input as you read the Scriptures...

And a very important distinction it is, I believe.:thumbsup: