Starting Churches

[JohnH]

Wasn't Menno also ordained by the Catholics?

Apparently, that wasn't good enough, because he got re-ordained by an Anabaptist person (whose lineage of ordination goes through Matthys).

Edit: I see Neto beat me to it:

Wasn't Menno also ordained by the Catholics?
....

Yes, but apparently that "didn't count", and he was re-ordained by Obbe Phillips about 10 years later. (I guess Menno was an ana-odinareian.... )

[Ernie]

I think truly caring about sound doctrine also means being willing to blend with others and work together with people who have faults, in which case it's less common to end up on an island with a motley collection of malcontents.

I'm filing this away in my collection of quotes.

[Ernie]

I think the Lord can only bless a church in which his Spirit is leading the effort...

I think it is illegitimate if the Spirit wasn't behind it.

I agree with this, but the question then is how to know for sure whether the Spirit is behind something.

With our highly structured organizations, procedures, and traditions, which often seem to roll along with or without the help of the Spirit, how do we know for sure that the Spirit is behind our established organizations?

That is a fair point.

Jesus disciples were commanded to go make disciples and baptize them. Planting congregations with elders and deacons and other people with other roles is how they organized the church. The latter was not commanded or taught by Jesus. But rather this is what the apostles did. Because of this, some today would say the latter is not necessary. Just make disciples and follow Jesus and don't try to make the church structure happen. That might sound good but at some point the group of believers is going to need to excommunicate or cut off fellowship with someone. This can be done in a chaotic and inconsistent manner or it can be done with clear expectations. At some point a leader will surface or be affirmed in the group and again, this can be done in a haphazard manner or in a thoughtful way. I prefer the thoughtful way and with clear expectations and this seems to fit the rest of the New Testament.

So if people are following Jesus together and decide to branch out, I think it can be assumed that the desire to branch out is of the Holy Spirit since that is the last thing Jesus instructed before he left earth.

The established organizations, though, might not be operating under the Holy Spirit.

What are the measuring points for whether a church is led by the Holy Spirit? Some of the things that have come up in this discussion so far seem to be:

Stability
Adherence to its historic values
Scripturally qualified leaders

I assume there are many more.

Following the teachings of Jesus.
Love for one another and for those outside the church.
Willingness to consider other groups who are following Jesus to be part of the church and to treat them as such.
Desirous of sound, apostolic doctrine. Looking to other faithful followers in humility to help figure this out rather than setting up one's self as the main possessor of sound doctrine. (The leaders at one church I know tell their members that if the members can find a church that is more biblical than theirs, they should leave and go to the more biblical church. And then when this actually happens, those leaving get spiritually abused and gas lighted. This is the opposite of being led by the Spirit, IMO.)

[ken_sylvania]

The early Anabaptists consistently did not follow this principle, and indeed that was the Catholic Church's (or the Reformed churches') chiefest complaint.

They had no interest in apostolic succession or needing the "blessing" of an existing church. They just got together, had a meeting, and then had the absolute audacity to baptise one another.

To be sure, that's not an accurate statement of fact, but maybe you don't care about being accurate.

The record indicates that Grebel, Blaurock and others wanted to stay with the existing church as long as it would look to the Word of God for direction. The January 1525 baptisms were a response to a council decree mandating infant baptism and another forbidding the Bible study meetings. They didn't "just" get together, have a meeting, and baptize one another.

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...

[ken_sylvania]

(The leaders at one church I know tell their members that if the members can find a church that is more biblical than theirs, they should leave and go to the more biblical church. And then when this actually happens, those leaving get spiritually abused and gas lighted. This is the opposite of being led by the Spirit, IMO.)

I assume that the leaders are of the opinion that those leaving are not in fact going to a more biblical church!
And so often, that's the rub. How do we separate opinion from fact? Is there really no way to be sure we are not being deceived about what is more biblical or less biblical? If it's all up to the individual conscience, what right does any church have to exercise church discipline?

[Ernie]

(The leaders at one church I know tell their members that if the members can find a church that is more biblical than theirs, they should leave and go to the more biblical church. And then when this actually happens, those leaving get spiritually abused and gas lighted. This is the opposite of being led by the Spirit, IMO.)

I assume that the leaders are of the opinion that those leaving are not in fact going to a more biblical church!
And so often, that's the rub. How do we separate opinion from fact? Is there really no way to be sure we are not being deceived about what is more biblical or less biblical? If it's all up to the individual conscience, what right does any church have to exercise church discipline?

Very good questions but I won't have time to write a response to this for awhile.

[mike]

To be sure, that's not an accurate statement of fact, but maybe you don't care about being accurate.

The record indicates that Grebel, Blaurock and others wanted to stay with the existing church as long as it would look to the Word of God for direction. The January 1525 baptisms were a response to a council decree mandating infant baptism and another forbidding the Bible study meetings. They didn't "just" get together, have a meeting, and baptize one another.

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.

[Ernie]

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.

I heartily agree with this.

When I see the "we got an ordained leader to go with us so now we are legitimate" argument, I always think of Micah in the book of Judges who was elated to have a priest in his house. But the priest turned out to be a false prophet.

[mike]

Understand this is an opinion that I hold relatively loosely because it's an observation of patterns and practice rather than a "thus saith the Lord."
I think we see new congregations forming in two ways in the NT - either because of believers moving to new areas due to persecution or financial reasons, or because of persons "sent" by and under the direction of an existing congregation. We don't see individuals going out on their own to start new congregations. I also think the record indicates that the newly formed congregations expected, respected and accepted oversight from the apostles and elders at Jerusalem.

I'm not suggesting I think there needs to be a denominational hierarchy tying everything together and I can appreciate the more ad-hoc nature of Mennonite church structure from the 16th century although it also had its fair share of flaws.

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.

[mike]

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.