Starting Churches

[ken_sylvania]

If you were part of a church that you felt was beginning to depart from Anabaptist and biblical principles, and there were enough of people that felt similarly and were willing to join together to form a new congregation, why would you feel a need to gain the blessing or approval of the church you were leaving, or make sure that one of you were ordained under that church's administration?

I'm not sure if you are thinking of "felt was beginning to depart" as being distinct from "has already departed" but to me there is some difference. If my objections to my existing church don't have to do with clear violations of Scriptural teachings then I think the need for the blessing/approval of the church is greater than if it is a case where open sin is being tolerated in the church and nothing is being done about it. But take a situation where open sin is being tolerated - there are existing congregations and conferences that do not tolerate open sin that I can join myself to without going out on my own.
Having an ordained person go along with a splinter group in my opinion doesn't magically gain it legitimacy. Leaders need to be accountable to other leaders and so even if for some reason there is a legitimate need for a dozen families and two ministers to leave a church that is tolerating sin, in my opinion it would be best if they establish accountability with another church group. And by accountability, I don't mean just conversations and pulpit exchange, but a meaningful relationship where every minister/bishop is accountable to other church leaders who have the power to discipline him if necessary. I think the concept of a democratic style of church government - government by the consent of those governed - is a concept that the church has picked up from the world rather than from the Word.

Probably doesn't really answer your question though...

No, it doesn't, really.

The concept that leadership in a congregation should be subject to discipline by leaders from another congregation is really difficult for me to grasp. I've heard of a few of these situations where leadership from outside the congregation is called in to back up the leadership against the wishes and without the consultation of the congregation, and it didn't seem to end well. In one case, the 'assisting' bishop simply backed out and left, and the congregation has gone on to do quite well these many years without his help. In another case, the assisting bishop told the 'troublemakers' to sit down and shut up, some of whom did, others of whom left, and that church (a typical conference/fellowship conservative Mennonite church) has continued to have rather significant struggles for many years, possibly even to this day.

If the leader isn't subject to other leaders, who is he subject to? His congregation?

[Ernie]

So how can you both affirm churches starting only by 'sent' persons from an existing congregation, and also affirm the ad hoc church structure of the 16th century?

I am puzzled at how today's conservative Mennonites somehow have their legitimacy from past associations with the liberalizing and now thoroughly assimilated mainstream Mennonite churches.

In many ways, the argument that startup churches must be formed by approval, blessing, or proper succession from existing churches is a better argument for remaining in affiliation with one of the ancient Church traditions than it is for affiliating with modern Anabaptists, who can hardly be seen as anything other than schismatics through and through. Every single one of our organizations can be traced back to schism, and many of them quite recently.

There are several different topics going on here.

One, schisms appear bad. But if a church is simply continuing on in the Apostles doctrine, and need to separate from those that are not, I don't consider that church to be traced to a schism. Those who leave the Apostles doctrine are the ones doing the schism-ing. It is similar to how a person who quits living for the Lord, has already removed themselves from the church, before an official excommunication might take place. Churches who are continuing on in the doctrine of a church that eventually departs from the teaching of Christ and the apostles, are continuing on in the faith of their spiritual fathers and grandfathers. They just happen to need to change organizations along the way. Often their are leaders of churches in apostasizing churches who are still faithful themselves, but don't have what it takes to reign in the church to be what Christ intended. They are sort of like Eli or Samuel or David in that sense. And yet their love for the Lord is genuine. So in that sense, getting the blessing of some such leader to start a church that is more according to the original pattern, might not be a bad thing.

Two, The case for being Catholic or Orthodox is to stay with the same organization, in spite of its heresies and departures from the Apostles Doctrine. That is quite a different thing in my opinion.

Three, asking a faithful church or leaders from a faithful church to give their blessing or to be sent to a new church plant, seems fitting IMO, in that it is a way to help maintain accountability, unity, and collaboration within the body of Christ. Like someone else said, it may not be necessary but if it can be obtained, it adds that much more encouragement behind the endeavor.
For those who haven't experienced this yet, things come up in church life that are very trying, believe it or not, and the more encouragement and support a church has, the better they will be at weathering those rough periods. Many new church plants without support can't weather those rough periods on their own.

[Ernie]

… some of this comes back to the question of for whom did Jesus intend the "great commission"?
….

....
Jesus disciples were commanded to go make disciples and baptize them.
....

If that’s the whole answer, then they are all dead. Is anyone supposed to be doing this now?
If so, who?
If this command for action from Jesus is not for all of us (that is, if only for the original disciples and MAYBE now for the ‘ordained’), then I’m in serious trouble, and actually ‘wasted my life in fragrant disobedience’.

I'm not trying to be funny, or 'cute'. This is a serious question.

I wasn't proposing that it should only be for the ordained so I am not sure who the question is directed at.

[mike]

I'm not sure if you are thinking of "felt was beginning to depart" as being distinct from "has already departed" but to me there is some difference. If my objections to my existing church don't have to do with clear violations of Scriptural teachings then I think the need for the blessing/approval of the church is greater than if it is a case where open sin is being tolerated in the church and nothing is being done about it. But take a situation where open sin is being tolerated - there are existing congregations and conferences that do not tolerate open sin that I can join myself to without going out on my own.
Having an ordained person go along with a splinter group in my opinion doesn't magically gain it legitimacy. Leaders need to be accountable to other leaders and so even if for some reason there is a legitimate need for a dozen families and two ministers to leave a church that is tolerating sin, in my opinion it would be best if they establish accountability with another church group. And by accountability, I don't mean just conversations and pulpit exchange, but a meaningful relationship where every minister/bishop is accountable to other church leaders who have the power to discipline him if necessary. I think the concept of a democratic style of church government - government by the consent of those governed - is a concept that the church has picked up from the world rather than from the Word.

Probably doesn't really answer your question though...

No, it doesn't, really.

The concept that leadership in a congregation should be subject to discipline by leaders from another congregation is really difficult for me to grasp. I've heard of a few of these situations where leadership from outside the congregation is called in to back up the leadership against the wishes and without the consultation of the congregation, and it didn't seem to end well. In one case, the 'assisting' bishop simply backed out and left, and the congregation has gone on to do quite well these many years without his help. In another case, the assisting bishop told the 'troublemakers' to sit down and shut up, some of whom did, others of whom left, and that church (a typical conference/fellowship conservative Mennonite church) has continued to have rather significant struggles for many years, possibly even to this day.

If the leader isn't subject to other leaders, who is he subject to? His congregation?

At least to an extent, yes. A leader is in the position that he is in part due to the will of the congregation.

[mike]

Mennonites generally have a horror in relation to the idea of going “out on their own.” This discussion makes that quite clear. That is one reasonwhy the vast amount of movement within the Anabaptist world is not people starting new churches. It is people being for one reason or another dissatisfied in the church, and simply moving over to another group. That way you can still consider yourself as being in a safe place of submission under authority, and not be accused of just going out on your own. Our congregation, for example, is made up of 75 to 80% of members from other Mennonite churches who were dissatisfied for whatever reason and came over to our conference. It is curious to me why this is considered perfectly acceptable, while a group starting without the official approval of some other group is considered a very bad idea.

[R7ehr]

I think there is a connection to humility.
We eschew the idea that someone “feels called to be a preacher” as having “preacheritus”. We don’t send our people to seminary. We believe that preachers are best found by looking within the congregation.

I think there is a connection to submission as well.
If a person cannot decide for themselves that they are called to be a preacher, it really ought not be a surprise that we would hold the entrepreneurial church proprietor in suspicion as well, should it?

[JohnH]

Mennonites generally have a horror in relation to the idea of going “out on their own.” This discussion makes that quite clear. That is one reasonwhy the vast amount of movement within the Anabaptist world is not people starting new churches. It is people being for one reason or another dissatisfied in the church, and simply moving over to another group. That way you can still consider yourself as being in a safe place of submission under authority, and not be accused of just going out on your own. Our congregation, for example, is made up of 75 to 80% of members from other Mennonite churches who were dissatisfied for whatever reason and came over to our conference. It is curious to me why this is considered perfectly acceptable, while a group starting without the official approval of some other group is considered a very bad idea.

Interestingly, Holdemans have a concept where someone can just move to a new area where there is no church, and then if another family or two moves to the area, they will have a congregation. (An ordained person is not permitted to do this.) Once you have 2-3 families who are regularly meeting for church, the custom will be to travel to an established congregation perhaps once per month, and the rest of the time conduct a service in each other's homes. With any luck, now a family can be recruited to move in who is already ordained.

Sometimes that doesn't happen, and eventually someone just is ordained from the congregation. Usually thought an ordained person will eventually move in. Sometimes there is a "non-resident" minister and/or deacon who will frequently travel in order to serve this new congregation.

Holdeman doctrine also teaches there are 2 circumstances under which one can be ordained:

- One is ordained by God, answering the call (which explains John Holdeman's self-ordination). Apparently, this doesn't happen too often (so far once in the last 166 years.)
- One is ordained by a congregation. Apparently, this does happen often.

I think I prefer a hybrid congregational-conference sort of model as opposed to either a rigid conference structure, or the extreme congregational model seem amongst the Amish. It does help that there are no longer concepts of a distinction between ministers and bishops/elders.

[JohnH]

I think there is a connection to humility.
We eschew the idea that someone “feels called to be a preacher” as having “preacheritus”. We don’t send our people to seminary. We believe that preachers are best found by looking within the congregation.

I think there is a connection to submission as well.
If a person cannot decide for themselves that they are called to be a preacher, it really ought not be a surprise that we would hold the entrepreneurial church proprietor in suspicion as well, should it?

I have this found this interesting when paired alongside expecting people who are ordained to "feel a call" and be "answering that call". Yet at the same time, if they feel this call, they're supposed to go through life pretending they are not feeling such a call and to act like they have no desire to be ordained, as that is, apparently, the surest sign one should not be ordained.

[R7ehr]

Holdeman doctrine also teaches there are 2 circumstances under which one can be ordained:

- One is ordained by God, answering the call (which explains John Holdeman's self-ordination). Apparently, this doesn't happen too often (so far once in the last 166 years.)

Was John Holdeman the only one who was self ordained? I’m not exactly sure on detail on Holdeman history.

[JohnH]

Holdeman doctrine also teaches there are 2 circumstances under which one can be ordained:

- One is ordained by God, answering the call (which explains John Holdeman's self-ordination). Apparently, this doesn't happen too often (so far once in the last 166 years.)

Was John Holdeman the only one who was self ordained? I’m not exactly sure on detail on Holdeman history.

Well, his original congregation didn't bless his work of starting a new congregation, etc., so Holdemans did not build upon a foundation of claiming their legitimacy is because some other ordained person saw fit to ordain them.

The original Anabaptists would also be viewed as "self-ordained", since they were certainly not ordained by the Reformed or Catholic churches at the time.