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.

[ken_sylvania]

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.

Sorry, I was thinking the 18th century.

Anyway, even though the conference structure wasn't so clearly defined, there doesn't seem to have been quite the freedom that one sees nowadays to just run off and do your own thing. The Mennonites in (Germantown, I thing) wrote to the mother church in Europe and got permission instead of their ministers just taking it upon themselves to baptize, serve communion, and officiate marriages.

[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.

Sorry, I was thinking the 18th century.

Well, or that time period either, or the late 20th century for that matter?

[JohnH]

There is some Methodist-background minister who is in the line of apostolic succession going back to Catholic circles and ultimately St. Peter. He will lay hands on and "ordain" anyone who asks, in case someone is terribly worried about officially ordained.

Of course, the fact such a thing is possible should call into question the whole concept of apostolic succession granting legitimacy.

[eccentric_rambler]

When this topic comes up I am reminded of what Peter Hoover wrote in Behold the Lamb.

In 1467, at a general meeting of the brothers near Rýchnov (Reichenau), a day’s journey west of Kunvald, everyone felt the time had come to elect their own leaders and detach themselves from the Hussite church. After prayer and earnest exhortation, they chose their candidates. Then they put twelve slips of paper into a clay pot. Nine of the slips were blank. Three said jest (it is). A little boy pulled them out and gave them to the brothers.

Matěj, a twenty-five-year-old farmer of Kunvald, Tůma Přeloučský, a book keeper, and Eliáš Chřenovický, a miller drew the jest slips. But who would lay hands on them and give them their charge? The brothers knew if anyone of them did it, the Hussites would accuse them fiercely. After considerable discussion they decided to send the three chosen brothers, along with a Waldensian as guide, to the south. There, just across the Austrian border from Nová Bystřice in the territory of Jindřichův Hradec, an old bishop of the Poor, a man named Stefan, ordained them for service in the Lord’s church.

ken_sylvania has already touched on the portability of ordinations, with his comment

Having an ordained person go along with a splinter group in my opinion doesn't magically gain it legitimacy.

Do others agree that ordinations are for a specific group or congregation, or should that authority be recognized throughout the holy catholic church? If the second, to what degree is that authority valid in other congregations or groups?

[Neto]

....
.... Do others agree that ordinations are for a specific group or congregation, or should that authority be recognized throughout the holy catholic church? If the second, to what degree is that authority valid in other congregations or groups?

There are at least three men in our congregation that were ordained in other congregations, ones not affiliated with ours in any way. (One of these men is regularly called on to do 'pulpit supply' for another congregation, also outside our own 'circle'. Another has recently been elected to the office of elder, now a non-ordained position - 6 year term.)

[R7ehr]

Why did he feel that this was important? Would you agree that it was important?

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.

[R7ehr]

I think that it is possible for a group to start their own church under less than ideal circumstances and less than ideal motives, and after decades that church ends up being a decent church. But I think we all are familiar with the oft turmoil and challenges that typically accompany such endeavors. Call it reaping or not. But I don't know that lasts forever.

[joshuabgood]

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.

Yes...I agree. Well put. But the critique still gives me pause. Any one running off and starting a church whenever they "feel called by the Spirit" to their liking on their own authority seems to be a modern individualistic and western thing to do.

Though I still do lean with the decentralized model I think...though the constant splintering seems like it goes against the teachings of Jesus re John 17.

But there doesn't seem to be any clear original church Catholics and EO claims notwithstanding.

[JohnH]

Yes...I agree. Well put. But the critique still gives me pause. Any one running off and starting a church whenever they "feel called by the Spirit" to their liking on their own authority seems to be a modern individualistic and western thing to do.

I strongly agree.

Though I still do lean with the decentralized model I think...though the constant splintering seems like it goes against the teachings of Jesus re John 17.

I feel like there is no requirement for a new congregation to be first blessed by an existing one, and its leaders ordained by ministers or bishops or what-have-you from another congregation. But it may indeed be very wise to seek such interactions and contact, and even request oversight. The key thing for me is that it voluntary not compulsory.