Church Planting By Relocating Families

[Wade]

Most advice I would have to give would vary depending on the DNA of your group and I don't know your DNA.
However there are a few things that could probably apply across the board.
Here are a couple...
1. Don't overtax the women and make them "hewers of wood and drawers of water". You'll want them to stay physically, emotionally, and spiritually healthy. You need them to bring life to the church and the new community.
If you overtax them and don't provide opportunities for them to continue growing spiritually, it will effect the whole community, especially their children, and you will waste a lot of time and energy.
The men and the sending church should be willing to provide/hire help for the women as desired/needed.
2. Have a plan for how to handle minority viewpoints, disagreements, and appeals that you can use whenever normal organic relationships break down. Include and agreement on what will be done if some in the church eventually no longer wish to fellowship with you. You may never need to use the plan but it is good to have it in place and that each person in the church agrees to the plan whenever they join.

Could someone share what a "plan for how to handle minority viewpoints, disagreements, and appeals that you can use whenever normal organic relationships break down," might somewhat look like?

And what about what this may look like: "Include and agreement on what will be done if some in the church eventually no longer wish to fellowship with you."

These points seem very important.

[RZehr]

The church in Plainview, Texas has decided to send some families out to start a new church. They said they are planning to find a place within a 3 hr radius.

[Ernie]

Could someone share what a "plan for how to handle minority viewpoints, disagreements, and appeals that you can use whenever normal organic relationships break down," might somewhat look like?

Maybe something like this for starters?
"We don't believe that the majority is always right. Neither do we believe that it is right for a couple people to hold the church hostage to their minority view. Because of this, we've pre-appointed a group of advisors, mature men with a variety of giftings, who live within a few hours of us, who can be called upon or appealed to whenever there is a lack of good leadership, differences of belief/vision, or what feels to be unfair charges by some in the congregation."

And what about what this may look like: "Include an agreement on what will be done if some in the church eventually no longer wish to fellowship with you."

Maybe something like this?
If we leave this congregation to find fellowship elsewhere, we will leave peacefully and continue to work to build God's Kingdom, in truth and righteousness. We will seek fellowship with committed believers and not run competition against the church we left. We realize that this often may mean creating some geographic distance in order for God's Kingdom to be advanced in this geographic community. We will not demand houses or lands and will not demand a right to receive a portion of the church possessions and properties.

[Neto]

You may already be doing this, but from what I have observed, it seems good for the group of families who are relocating to meet and fellowship together while still in the sending community. It seems to help the new fellowship to get off to a running start and could make for fewer surprises.

Along this line of "fewer surprises", I think that it is important to have the congregational government model & guidelines pretty well worked out before the move. If the new congregation is a true outreach, then maybe this is not as necessary, as there will be more of the assumption that it will follow the standards & working model of the sending congregation, but if each new plant is allowed (or takes) total freedom to restructure everything, then there can be some pretty astounding surprises. Loosing key members of the new group (often back to the sending congregation) can cause serious interpersonal strain.

Some Questions to deal with:
Will there be adult Sunday school classes, even if not immediately? (The initial time, especially during which the meeting location may not lend itself well to dividing up in classes, can be used to have life-story testimonies, to get to know one another on a deeper level than before, especially if the sending congregation is large.)
Will there be special meetings for youth & older singles?
[I'm basing these comments on a personal experience of going with an "outreach" group, only to discover that the leadership had (secretly) decided before hand that there would never be adult SS classes, and that no separate youth activities would be tolerated. ("If the youth go putt-putting, the whole church goes putt-putting.")]

Note: I grew up in a true congregationalist church environment (MB = Mennonite Brethren), and after many years in a congregation that is very top-down, I'm more than ever convinced that congregationalism is a better approach. But I would also temper that by saying that while the MBs are very congregationalist at the local level, there is a strong conference structure as well. This largely prevents the possible extremes that might result from a lone-man congregationalism arrangement. I do realize that congregationalism is sometimes cursed as a heresy in the plain permutations of the Swiss Brethren anabaptist background environment. I mention the conference structure here because that may be a key in regards to whether some other issues or concerns already mentioned by others may surface.

[MaxPC]

Ernie: I quite like these paragraphs you wrote.

Would the statement about the group of advisors also include the expectations that the congregation would "respect and submit peacefully to the decisions of the advisors?"

Could someone share what a "plan for how to handle minority viewpoints, disagreements, and appeals that you can use whenever normal organic relationships break down," might somewhat look like?

Maybe something like this for starters?
"We don't believe that the majority is always right. Neither do we believe that it is right for a couple people to hold the church hostage to their minority view. Because of this, we've pre-appointed a group of advisors, mature men with a variety of giftings, who live within a few hours of us, who can be called upon or appealed to whenever there is a lack of good leadership, differences of belief/vision, or what feels to be unfair charges by some in the congregation."

And what about what this may look like: "Include an agreement on what will be done if some in the church eventually no longer wish to fellowship with you."

Maybe something like this?
If we leave this congregation to find fellowship elsewhere, we will leave peacefully and continue to work to build God's Kingdom, in truth and righteousness. We will seek fellowship with committed believers and not run competition against the church we left. We realize that this often may mean creating some geographic distance in order for God's Kingdom to be advanced in this geographic community. We will not demand houses or lands and will not demand a right to receive a portion of the church possessions and properties.

[Josh]

If we leave this congregation to find fellowship elsewhere, we will leave peacefully and continue to work to build God's Kingdom, in truth and righteousness. We will seek fellowship with committed believers and not run competition against the church we left. We realize that this often may mean creating some geographic distance in order for God's Kingdom to be advanced in this geographic community. We will not demand houses or lands and will not demand a right to receive a portion of the church possessions and properties.

Good grief, do people really do this? I am trying to lay plans to leave, but am sitting around stressing about what to do when I am no longer eligible for my medical sharing brotherhood plan, etc.

I cannot imagine demanding that I could bring some portion of the church possessions, properties, and so on with me... regardless of how much I have donated in the past.

[Josh]

Note: I grew up in a true congregationalist church environment (MB = Mennonite Brethren), and after many years in a congregation that is very top-down, I'm more than ever convinced that congregationalism is a better approach. But I would also temper that by saying that while the MBs are very congregationalist at the local level, there is a strong conference structure as well. This largely prevents the possible extremes that might result from a lone-man congregationalism arrangement. I do realize that congregationalism is sometimes cursed as a heresy in the plain permutations of the Swiss Brethren anabaptist background environment. I mention the conference structure here because that may be a key in regards to whether some other issues or concerns already mentioned by others may surface.

I believe Western Fellowship would be a hybrid of congregationalism and conference structure.

I do feel I should point out that the Amish subsection of the Swiss Brethren Anabaptist background environment will be solidly congregational. I have, indeed, never been part of a church with much conference structure at all - if our men's meeting decides something, that's what goes. It would be a great deal of pain for a brother to go appeal to another bishop in the same fellowship to put the brakes on something he disagrees with in his home congregation.

[Neto]

Note: I grew up in a true congregationalist church environment (MB = Mennonite Brethren), and after many years in a congregation that is very top-down, I'm more than ever convinced that congregationalism is a better approach. But I would also temper that by saying that while the MBs are very congregationalist at the local level, there is a strong conference structure as well. This largely prevents the possible extremes that might result from a lone-man congregationalism arrangement. I do realize that congregationalism is sometimes cursed as a heresy in the plain permutations of the Swiss Brethren anabaptist background environment. I mention the conference structure here because that may be a key in regards to whether some other issues or concerns already mentioned by others may surface.

I believe Western Fellowship would be a hybrid of congregationalism and conference structure.

I do feel I should point out that the Amish subsection of the Swiss Brethren Anabaptist background environment will be solidly congregational. I have, indeed, never been part of a church with much conference structure at all - if our men's meeting decides something, that's what goes. It would be a great deal of pain for a brother to go appeal to another bishop in the same fellowship to put the brakes on something he disagrees with in his home congregation.

We are talking past each other, with different definitions of "congregationalism". The Amish are about as far from what I'm talking about as you can get. Yes, in relation to other Amish congregations they are "congregationalist", but not internally. Rather than argue who has the 'most correct' definition, I'll just describe (hopefully briefly...) the governmental structure of the congregation I grew up in. First, the pastor is just that, the pastor. He makes no governmental decisions, although he attends and makes comments in the church board meetings. (He does not have a vote in that body, however. His only vote, if he chooses to exercise it, and many would not, is in the congregational business meetings.) Quarterly business meetings are held, in which all decisions are made. (Obviously committees are also selected and given authority to make many smaller decisions; the deacons care for the church house, etc.) The church board will generally have recommendations which they bring to these meetings, and these are presented to the congregation as motions. Robert's Rules of Order are followed, so there is a set procedure through which any member may move to amend the motion (by adding to it, striking words from it, or replacing words). Discussion follows each motion, and at some point someone calls for the vote, and the motion either passes or is struck down. (I'll not go into greater detail about the exact procedures, because if anyone is interested, you can find short summaries of the Robert's Rules on-line.)

Maybe I should try to define a bit what I mean by 'pastor', but I'll just say that he preaches, and shepherds the flock in the spiritual sense. That's it.

In this congregational model, "men's meetings would be for spiritual nurture only - no major decisions would be made w/o the presence of the sisters, and everyone has an equal vote. I didn't go into this part of it, but nearly all types of decisions require a fairly high percentage approval; that is, it is not just 51%, more like 80 or 85%, but depending on the nature of the decision as well. All of this is described in the congregational constitution, or a passing percentage is agreed upon prior to discussion and the vote.

[ken_sylvania]

Neto that sounds like a very orderly method, although quite different from what I'd be familiar with.
How is the Church Board selected? Do they serve set terms? Who serves as chairman, and how is he selected? It seems like the board would be fairly powerful in a setup like this, maybe to some extent similar to the bishop board in a conference-style setup? Who actually carries out church discipline when necessary?

[Neto]

Neto that sounds like a very orderly method, although quite different from what I'd be familiar with.
How is the Church Board selected? Do they serve set terms? Who serves as chairman, and how is he selected? It seems like the board would be fairly powerful in a setup like this, maybe to some extent similar to the bishop board in a conference-style setup? Who actually carries out church discipline when necessary?

The board is selected by vote for set terms, and while I do not remember for sure how the chairman is selected, in other committees on which I have served where the government model was also based on Robert's Rules of Order, the chairman is the person who received the most votes. In small committees, it it also the chairman's responsibility to record & distribute the minutes of the meetings, first to each of the committee members for verification / agreement, then to the membership at large, but in a larger committee like a board, another member is designated to perform this task, or a corporate secretary will do it.

The thing that balances the power of the board is that their motions must pass a vote in the general assembly, just like any motion submitted by an individual. Their motions may be amended by the vote of the floor, so that is another balance of power, even before it comes to a vote.

Regarding member discipline, I'm not sure how it is initiated. I suspect that it is brought to the Elders and the Pastor, who in turn deal in private with the individual concerned. (I was only aware of a disciplinary action once during the time I was growing up in that congregation. I was still in HS, so I was obviously not on the board or any group that dealt with it. I only heard and saw what when on publicly.) At a previous time in my congregation it was not like that, and the pastor was the one who decided who was to be disciplined, and he who threw people out. I think it was just one pastor who sort of took over like that, and those related to him found ways of needing to move away, to avoid the conflict. My grandfather was excommunicated for opposing this pastor's plans to show secular movies in the church house. (This was in the early to mid 50's.) After enough people got fed up with it, he was finally ousted himself (several years later), and my grandparents went back. He also tried to excommunicate my mom for giggling in a service, but my folks were already married, living in another state, and she was no longer a member there, so he didn't get very far with that one.