Starting Churches

[Neto]

… 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.

OK. Thank you. I had posted my question earlier, so I thought perhaps your post was an indirect answer.

[mike]

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.

So you're arguing that the groups who are apostasizing, making it necessary for those who want to follow the apostles' doctrine to leave, are actually the ones engaging in schism - not the ones who are leaving to create new churches. I think I agree with that, but it's kind of hard to make the case that those leaving are not in any way guilty of schism. Schism is defined at "the formal separation of a Church into two Churches or the secession of a group owing to doctrinal and other differences." I think terms like schism are pejoratives that established groups who have departed from their historic belief and practice typically like to level at those leaving. I've experienced that.

I've also experienced being part of a 'schism' where we did not seek, nor would we have received, the official blessing of the congregation that we left, but where the long-time bishop of that congregation told people that if he had young children, he would probably need to leave also. That, in addition to the one time he came and preached for our congregation, was the closest we came to having any blessing from the congregation that we left, and yes, it was meaningful. But I agree with JohnH that this 'blessing' is something that should be voluntary, not required for some sort of 'legal' legitimacy.

[mike]

It's been a while, so I don't remember with great accuracy. But I think one reason was because he did not want to "run off" and start something on his own. And I think that another was connected to that, simply that he wanted to show respect and maintain as good of a relationship with the conference as possible.

Do I agree that those goals are important? Sure, why not, what's not to like about those?

Showing respect and maintaining good relationships are great, of course. But what if they would not have given such a letter. Would it have stopped him from leaving and helping to start a new church?

Who knows? And what does it matter what this specific man may or may not have done 75 years ago? I do know that the whole leaving thing caused him to have a mental breakdown that affected him the rest of his life. Which is an indication that he did not do this lightly, which in turn indicates.....what does it indicate what he might have done? I don't know. I think one thing that we can take from this, is that in some circumstances it is possible to leave in the manner he did. And that not all people leave and shake the dust off their shoes in a huff, but rather seek to do it with more respect than is often seen today, where people go "start their own church" and like Micah, find their own preacher for ten shekels and a shirt.

It matters because it reveals the mindset that at least one person had during that division. The lifelong struggle he had with his decision is very interesting.

Don't you think there could be other ways to leave a church than these two options:

1. Leaving only after getting a letter of blessing from the church one is leaving, and even then struggling with the decision the rest of one's life.

2. Run off in a huff to start one's own church with no respect shown to the church one is leaving.

Neither seems all that great of a way to start a new church. The first option does at least seem to show more humility than the second, but if doing the right thing causes such a debilitating mental struggle, then I have to wonder how sure of a thing it is that the decision was in fact the right one.

[joshuabgood]

So you're arguing that the groups who are apostasizing, making it necessary for those who want to follow the apostles' doctrine to leave, are actually the ones engaging in schism - not the ones who are leaving to create new churches. I think I agree with that, but it's kind of hard to make the case that those leaving are not in any way guilty of schism. Schism is defined at "the formal separation of a Church into two Churches or the secession of a group owing to doctrinal and other differences." I think terms like schism are pejoratives that established groups who have departed from their historic belief and practice typically like to level at those leaving. I've experienced that.

I understand this in theory I think. But there remain questions. Who is the arbiter of "what is heresy" and "who" is actually leaving the "real faith?" The unstated presumption seems to be that the "individual" decides this, and perhaps he/she gets a few other folks who also agree, or perhaps it is just him and he starts/continues what in his mind is a "true" church.

Some feel the church is the one given the authority to be the arbiter in such matters, and folks bringing dissension are the ones in the "wrong" and going against the authority that has the keys to the kingdom.

Some would feel the fruit of this individualistic spirit is self evident in the Protestant and Anabaptist worlds, to a degree that, most reasonable people would conclude, is ridiculous at times. Literally some groups say "X" is necessary for fellowship and some say "Not-X" is necessary for fellowship. (One case in point, though there are many, is facial hair. Some groups have required it, some have required the absence of it for church participation and fellowship. Some saw facial hair as a marker of apostasy in a church and some saw no facial hair as a marker of apostasy.)

Personally I think the above is in fact a fair contention. The truth is any schisming group will argue they are the ones following the "true faith." So it effectively becomes a "no true scotsman" type of situation.

[Ernie]

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.

For the record, I do not consider that perfectly acceptable at all.

Neither do I think that starting a church without official approval is a very bad idea.
If the church a person is leaving is not being faithful, then I think one is free to start a new church as long as they seek unity with faithful churches around them. (I realize that the letters to the churches in Revelation don't advocate leaving your church to start another. They encourage believers to hold fast the things that remain. The reason I think a person is free to start a new church is that Jesus seemed to indicate that it was ok to do the opposite of the expectations of religious leaders who were not living faithfully. At the same time, he instructed the disciples to obey everything the religious leaders commanded, but not do after their works. So, there are some nuances that need to be considered in all of this and I'm not always sure where that line is.)

However, I do think that if a church or its leaders are faithful, the members of that church should be submitting to the church/leaders rather than going against their counsel. Afterall, the Hebrew writer does say that we should submit ourselves to those who have the rule over us.

If one is going to leave an unfaithful church, I suggest they join or work in harmony with faithful local churches. If there is no such thing, then start a faithful one, but only according to God's timing and the leading of the Spirit.

[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.

So you're arguing that the groups who are apostasizing, making it necessary for those who want to follow the apostles' doctrine to leave, are actually the ones engaging in schism - not the ones who are leaving to create new churches.

Yes.

I think I agree with that, but it's kind of hard to make the case that those leaving are not in any way guilty of schism. Schism is defined at "the formal separation of a Church into two Churches or the secession of a group owing to doctrinal and other differences." I think terms like schism are pejoratives that established groups who have departed from their historic belief and practice typically like to level at those leaving. I've experienced that.

Exactly.

I've also experienced being part of a 'schism' where we did not seek, nor would we have received, the official blessing of the congregation that we left, but where the long-time bishop of that congregation told people that if he had young children, he would probably need to leave also. That, in addition to the one time he came and preached for our congregation, was the closest we came to having any blessing from the congregation that we left, and yes, it was meaningful. But I agree with JohnH that this 'blessing' is something that should be voluntary, not required for some sort of 'legal' legitimacy.

Agree.

[Ernie]

So you're arguing that the groups who are apostasizing, making it necessary for those who want to follow the apostles' doctrine to leave, are actually the ones engaging in schism - not the ones who are leaving to create new churches. I think I agree with that, but it's kind of hard to make the case that those leaving are not in any way guilty of schism. Schism is defined at "the formal separation of a Church into two Churches or the secession of a group owing to doctrinal and other differences." I think terms like schism are pejoratives that established groups who have departed from their historic belief and practice typically like to level at those leaving. I've experienced that.

I understand this in theory I think. But there remain questions. Who is the arbiter of "what is heresy" and "who" is actually leaving the "real faith?" The unstated presumption seems to be that the "individual" decides this, and perhaps he/she gets a few other folks who also agree, or perhaps it is just him and he starts/continues what in his mind is a "true" church.

Some feel the church is the one given the authority to be the arbiter in such matters, and folks bringing dissension are the ones in the "wrong" and going against the authority that has the keys to the kingdom.

Some would feel the fruit of this individualistic spirit is self evident in the Protestant and Anabaptist worlds, to a degree that, most reasonable people would conclude, is ridiculous at times. Literally some groups say "X" is necessary for fellowship and some say "Not-X" is necessary for fellowship. (One case in point, though there are many, is facial hair. Some groups have required it, some have required the absence of it for church participation and fellowship. Some saw facial hair as a marker of apostasy in a church and some saw no facial hair as a marker of apostasy.)

Personally I think the above is in fact a fair contention. The truth is any schisming group will argue they are the ones following the "true faith." So it effectively becomes a "no true scotsman" type of situation.

I think the folks who are continuing to
1. follow the teachings of Jesus
2. abide in the Apostles doctrine
have the right and the responsibility to continue doing so and to expect those they fellowship with and commune with to do the same.

If an individual or church either adds to 1&2 or subtracts from 1&2, they lose their right to the claim that they have the correct worldview.

Jesus is the arbiter in the end. I don't know of anyone or any church who can determine with absolute certainty who is the real church or who is free from heresy. We do the best we can, and there is a lot of alignment between devout Christians who all study the same blueprint.

[mike]

Jesus is the arbiter in the end. I don't know of anyone or any church who can determine with absolute certainty who is the real church or who is free from heresy. We do the best we can, and there is a lot of alignment between devout Christians who all study the same blueprint.

This is I think the linchpin of the question - where the true authority lies. It lies in Jesus, the head of the church. Yes, he has set all the gifts and talents and roles, but all these are subject to him, and as humans they are all fallible, and thus do not have ultimate authority. Both those who are in authority and those who are under authority make mistakes. God has given us the gift of free will, and two sides can choose to go their separate ways and both still serve Jesus and his kingdom.

The apostles had a wide-ranging authority over the early church, but even that was not absolute and waned at times, as is obvious in 2 Timothy. And there were no replacements. There was no bishop of Rome who was the representative of Christ. The story of the Christian church is not that of a monolithic organization with a central hub of control and tentacles over the globe. It's not like that at all, and I think maybe God doesn't want that.

[mike]

So you're arguing that the groups who are apostasizing, making it necessary for those who want to follow the apostles' doctrine to leave, are actually the ones engaging in schism - not the ones who are leaving to create new churches. I think I agree with that, but it's kind of hard to make the case that those leaving are not in any way guilty of schism. Schism is defined at "the formal separation of a Church into two Churches or the secession of a group owing to doctrinal and other differences." I think terms like schism are pejoratives that established groups who have departed from their historic belief and practice typically like to level at those leaving. I've experienced that.

I understand this in theory I think. But there remain questions. Who is the arbiter of "what is heresy" and "who" is actually leaving the "real faith?" The unstated presumption seems to be that the "individual" decides this, and perhaps he/she gets a few other folks who also agree, or perhaps it is just him and he starts/continues what in his mind is a "true" church.

Some feel the church is the one given the authority to be the arbiter in such matters, and folks bringing dissension are the ones in the "wrong" and going against the authority that has the keys to the kingdom.

Some would feel the fruit of this individualistic spirit is self evident in the Protestant and Anabaptist worlds, to a degree that, most reasonable people would conclude, is ridiculous at times. Literally some groups say "X" is necessary for fellowship and some say "Not-X" is necessary for fellowship. (One case in point, though there are many, is facial hair. Some groups have required it, some have required the absence of it for church participation and fellowship. Some saw facial hair as a marker of apostasy in a church and some saw no facial hair as a marker of apostasy.)

Personally I think the above is in fact a fair contention. The truth is any schisming group will argue they are the ones following the "true faith." So it effectively becomes a "no true scotsman" type of situation.

I share your questions and agree with what you say. And the only alternative that I know of is the so-called ancient faith traditions (ironically, there are a couple to choose from), and then you have to at times defend forms of Christianity that most reasonable people would agree do not represent the good news of Jesus, among many other serious issues.

[barnhart]

So you're arguing that the groups who are apostasizing, making it necessary for those who want to follow the apostles' doctrine to leave, are actually the ones engaging in schism - not the ones who are leaving to create new churches. I think I agree with that, but it's kind of hard to make the case that those leaving are not in any way guilty of schism. Schism is defined at "the formal separation of a Church into two Churches or the secession of a group owing to doctrinal and other differences." I think terms like schism are pejoratives that established groups who have departed from their historic belief and practice typically like to level at those leaving. I've experienced that.

I understand this in theory I think. But there remain questions. Who is the arbiter of "what is heresy" and "who" is actually leaving the "real faith?" The unstated presumption seems to be that the "individual" decides this, and perhaps he/she gets a few other folks who also agree, or perhaps it is just him and he starts/continues what in his mind is a "true" church.

Some feel the church is the one given the authority to be the arbiter in such matters, and folks bringing dissension are the ones in the "wrong" and going against the authority that has the keys to the kingdom.

Some would feel the fruit of this individualistic spirit is self evident in the Protestant and Anabaptist worlds, to a degree that, most reasonable people would conclude, is ridiculous at times. Literally some groups say "X" is necessary for fellowship and some say "Not-X" is necessary for fellowship. (One case in point, though there are many, is facial hair. Some groups have required it, some have required the absence of it for church participation and fellowship. Some saw facial hair as a marker of apostasy in a church and some saw no facial hair as a marker of apostasy.)

Personally I think the above is in fact a fair contention. The truth is any schisming group will argue they are the ones following the "true faith." So it effectively becomes a "no true scotsman" type of situation.

I share your questions and agree with what you say. And the only alternative that I know of is the so-called ancient faith traditions (ironically, there are a couple to choose from), and then you have to at times defend forms of Christianity that most reasonable people would agree do not represent the good news of Jesus, among many other serious issues.

That choice, in my eyes, looks like an overvaluation of structural or organizational unity/continuity over unity of purpose and spirit. Even Jesus mentioned the potential of churches to apostatize and "loose their candlestick". When that happens and bad fruit appears, shouldn't the righteous leave?