# Reformed Baptists Not Doing a Good Job of Planting Churches



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Are Reformed Baptist churches doing well at planting churches? After gathering data from 73 respondents who pastor churches that adhere to the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, church-planter Matt Troupe concludes that Reformed Baptists “are not aggressively planting new congregations and that organizational structures are not functioning effectively to promote church planting.” In light of his findings, Matt suggests four areas of policy change that would promote further reformation among our churches in this vital area of kingdom extension. 

*Reformed Baptists Not Doing a Good Job of Planting Churches*

Your servant


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I'm curious why you would apply a _collective_ assessment to what is essentially an independent responsibility according to Baptist ecclesiology. It seems you ought to wonder why each individual, autonomous Church is not planting other Churches.


----------



## Iconoclast

Do you think that many times RB churches put more energy into homeschooling, which leads to an inward focus rather than an outward focus. If the family has any backround with fundamentalism they might also let seperation turn into isolation.
I like anything that speaks about reaching out to the lost.Many of the RB churches are still small. Many of the members are not so much neglecting evangelism as they are seeking to work on their own sanctification.
If you come from a church backround with a lack of confessional teaching it takes time {and alot of reading and prayer} to reform from some of these wrong ideas to a more biblical view of life. Not all of this is bad,in fact it is needful. The key it seems is to be reminded that we need to keep an outward focus as well;
I have enjoyed and been challenged by these messages in particular this past year;
SermonAudio.com - The Church's Need of an Outward Focus

106 The Church's Need of an Outward Focus
Michael Crawford • 60 min. 
Immanuel Baptist Church Play! | 

SUN 09/25/2005 

91 Christian Relevence
Michael Crawford • 62 min. 
Free Grace Church Reformed 100+ Play! | 

SUN 07/30/2006
Special Meeting

The Believers Call to Stand in the Gap
Michael Crawford • 46 min. 
Immanuel Baptist Church 100+ Play! | 

These sermons are well worth the time to listen too,especially for us who enjoy reading and studying. They go hand in hand with the concern of the OP.
Let me know what you think. I believe Pastor Crawford is right on the pulse of the issue overall.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Semper Fidelis said:


> I'm curious why you would apply a _collective_ assessment to what is essentially an independent responsibility according to Baptist ecclesiology. It seems you ought to wonder why each individual, autonomous Church is not planting other Churches.



Hi Rich. Good question. Most of the 1689 churches I associate with believe as firmly in the _interdependence_ of local churches as they do the _independence_ of local churches. Accordingly, we reject the notion that any one local church can successfully carry out the work of the Great Commission in isolation from other true churches of Christ. We believe, rather, that the work of church planting and missions is not a solo but a _cooperative_ effort.


----------



## jogri17

I make the following comments based on experience: Because of the focus on the autonomy of the local church (which as a presbyterian I could affirm rightly defined) in foreign missions they see it as the responsibility as the native church plant to continue the work not the responsibility of the sending group or church. Here in Québec Raymond Perron has devoted his time to working planting CONFESSIONAL Reformed baptist churches in Québec. Now many baptists realize the hardship in that and make a clear decision that its better pragmatically to work with broader groups (SBC, other baptist associations, ect...) and they can still hold to their reformed solteriology and receive more financial support, prayer support, by working in mixed yet orthodox denominations. There are many baptists in québec who love ARBCA but why work with that when the SBC will support calvinists and the general baptist work has a longer history in the province?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

OK, thanks.

I assume by "Reformed Baptist" you're restricting your consideration to those Churches that subscribe to the 1689 LBCF and would not include Sovereign Grace Ministries in your critique.


----------



## Iconoclast

Semper Fidelis said:


> I'm curious why you would apply a _collective_ assessment to what is essentially an independent responsibility according to Baptist ecclesiology. It seems you ought to wonder why each individual, autonomous Church is not planting other Churches.



Hello Rich,
Dr.Bob will no doubt answer you but if I were asked this question I would say that the shared confession of faith leads to a view that although we are seperate autonomous churches, those who belong to ARBCA look to voluntarily co-operate with other like minded 1689 assemblies.
As I noted in my post many RB churches are small so just financially it becomes a consideration to train and equip missonaries and offer financial aid. The ARBCA website might speak to this.
Also it is true we each identify with our particular denomination, yet I also am supportive of any church who seeks to present the claims of Christ faithfully. 
While we seek to fine tune our beliefs here on the PB and we present our differences if we were together in a public setting speaking to unsaved persons we would work together to address that persons need of salvation and the focus would be on that goal, not on any of the differences at least initially


----------



## Herald

I know that ARBCA has a dedicated church planting initiative among it's member churches. If I recall, last year they hosted a church planting round table at Grace Baptist Church in Carlisle, PA. One of the reasons there is a mutual interest with ARBCA (between my church and ARBCA) is that we are located equidistant from Washington and Baltimore; not quite in the city limits of either but definitely within driving distance. 

Part of our long term goal is to plant another RB church in the area. The assistance of like-minded churches will prove invaluable.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Semper Fidelis said:


> OK, thanks.
> 
> I assume by "Reformed Baptist" you're restricting your consideration to those Churches that subscribe to the 1689 LBCF and would not include Sovereign Grace Ministries in your critique.



Yes. The research church-planter Matt Troupe collated and assessed was based on data solicited from pastors of 1689 churches.


----------



## KMK

ARBCA is committed to planting churches and has many ongoing projects.

There seems to be a presupposition to this discussion that RB churches _ought_ to plant churches rather than reform the ones that already exist. I am not sure I agree.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

jogri17 said:


> I make the following comments based on experience: Because of the focus on the autonomy of the local church (which as a presbyterian I could affirm rightly defined) in foreign missions they see it as the responsibility as the native church plant to continue the work not the responsibility of the sending group or church. Here in Québec Raymond Perron has devoted his time to working planting CONFESSIONAL Reformed baptist churches in Québec. Now many baptists realize the hardship in that and make a clear decision that its better pragmatically to work with broader groups (SBC, other baptist associations, ect...) and they can still hold to their reformed solteriology and receive more financial support, prayer support, by working in mixed yet orthodox denominations. There are many baptists in québec who love ARBCA but why work with that when the SBC will support calvinists and the general baptist work has a longer history in the province?



J. P.,

Thanks for your helpful input. I see no reason why Reformed Baptists from different denominational associations (e.g., ARBCA and SBC) cannot work together cooperatively especially when there is sufficient agreement doctrinally and philosophically. Perhaps Rich could help us here, but I suspect that O.P.C. churches might, in some instances, work cooperatively with P.C.A. churches in certain kingdom endeavors.


----------



## Iconoclast

KMK said:


> ARBCA is committed to planting churches and has many ongoing projects.
> 
> There seems to be a presupposition to this discussion that RB churches _ought_ to plant churches rather than reform the ones that already exist. I am not sure I agree.



Ken
As time permits I would like to hear a little bit more of your thoughts here, or perhaps in a new thread. If a person re-locates and does not find their denomination in the area, to what extent and what guidelines should be observed to help an assembly reform, without causing strife or division?


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

KMK said:


> ARBCA is committed to planting churches and has many ongoing projects.
> 
> There seems to be a presupposition to this discussion that RB churches _ought_ to plant churches rather than reform the ones that already exist. I am not sure I agree.



Ken,

I don't detect that presupposition in this discussion. It's certainly not a presupposition of Matt Troupe's research paper. The RB churches interviewed by Matt have been and continue to be committed to the reformation of churches that already exist. Some of us share the conviction, however, that church planting happens to be one of the areas of RB ecclesiology that needs further reformation. Of course, not all RB churches are at a stage of development to make the same level of contribution in this area. But many are at that stage. Their doctrine and worship are in order. But they're not growing. Nor are they multiplying new congregations. Matt's research and analysis suggest the need for reformation in the following areas:
(1) RB churches need to see the multiplication of new congregations as a core part of the purpose of their churches and associations.
(2) RB churches need to plant churches that are focused on making new disciples.
(3) RB churches need to target large cities in their church planting efforts.
(4) RB churches need to improve their cooperation in order to multiply worshipping congregations.​Hope this helps clarify.


----------



## Herald

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> jogri17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I make the following comments based on experience: Because of the focus on the autonomy of the local church (which as a presbyterian I could affirm rightly defined) in foreign missions they see it as the responsibility as the native church plant to continue the work not the responsibility of the sending group or church. Here in Québec Raymond Perron has devoted his time to working planting CONFESSIONAL Reformed baptist churches in Québec. Now many baptists realize the hardship in that and make a clear decision that its better pragmatically to work with broader groups (SBC, other baptist associations, ect...) and they can still hold to their reformed solteriology and receive more financial support, prayer support, by working in mixed yet orthodox denominations. There are many baptists in québec who love ARBCA but why work with that when the SBC will support calvinists and the general baptist work has a longer history in the province?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> J. P.,
> 
> Thanks for your helpful input. I see no reason why Reformed Baptists from different denominational associations (e.g., ARBCA and SBC) cannot work together cooperatively especially when there is sufficient agreement doctrinally and philosophically. Perhaps Rich could help us here, but I suspect that O.P.C. churches might, in some instances, work cooperatively with P.C.A. churches in certain kingdom endeavors.
Click to expand...


Bob,

The challenges with inter-denomnational church planting stems partly from doctrinal differences. Many SBC-Founders churches are still very much dispensational. Some still hold on to fundamentalism (to varying degrees). Personally, I would have a difficult time sanctioning the planting of a church in cooperation with those whom I have deep doctrinal disagreements.


----------



## FenderPriest

This does slightly touch on an issue I've been interested in lately: Does anybody know of any historical surveys or research into the history of "church planting"? I'll admit my ignorance on the subject, but I get the feeling that the "mission to church plant" has a stronger emphasis in the church today than it has in the past - though, as I said, I have little data to base that off of. Any help on this question? Survey's of church planting in general and/or in America?


----------



## Herald

As a P.S. to my last post...

What I mean by "cooperation" is an official church-sanctioned effort. Personally, I rejoice in seeing Calvinistic Baptist churches appear on the landscape. Of course, the OP was about Reformed Baptist Churches, not Calvinistic non-Reformed churches.


----------



## Herald

FenderPriest said:


> This does slightly touch on an issue I've been interested in lately: Does anybody know of any historical surveys or research into the history of "church planting"? I'll admit my ignorance on the subject, but I get the feeling that the "mission to church plant" has a stronger emphasis in the church today than it has in the past - though, as I said, I have little data to base that off of. Any help on this question? Survey's of church planting in general and/or in America?



Jacob, you're question, while a good one, is best asked in a new thread. I'd be happy to start a new thread with your post if you like.


----------



## Herald

A second P.S.

I meant no offense to SBC-Founders churches. My point is that Founders churches come in all sizes and flavors. I do not want to close the door on cooperation with a Founders church that may be friendly or in keeping with the 1689 LBC.


----------



## FenderPriest

Herald said:


> FenderPriest said:
> 
> 
> 
> This does slightly touch on an issue I've been interested in lately: Does anybody know of any historical surveys or research into the history of "church planting"? I'll admit my ignorance on the subject, but I get the feeling that the "mission to church plant" has a stronger emphasis in the church today than it has in the past - though, as I said, I have little data to base that off of. Any help on this question? Survey's of church planting in general and/or in America?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jacob, you're question, while a good one, is best asked in a new thread. I'd be happy to start a new thread with your post if you like.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the direction Bill. I will do so - thanks!


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Herald said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jogri17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I make the following comments based on experience: Because of the focus on the autonomy of the local church (which as a presbyterian I could affirm rightly defined) in foreign missions they see it as the responsibility as the native church plant to continue the work not the responsibility of the sending group or church. Here in Québec Raymond Perron has devoted his time to working planting CONFESSIONAL Reformed baptist churches in Québec. Now many baptists realize the hardship in that and make a clear decision that its better pragmatically to work with broader groups (SBC, other baptist associations, ect...) and they can still hold to their reformed solteriology and receive more financial support, prayer support, by working in mixed yet orthodox denominations. There are many baptists in québec who love ARBCA but why work with that when the SBC will support calvinists and the general baptist work has a longer history in the province?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> J. P.,
> 
> Thanks for your helpful input. I see no reason why Reformed Baptists from different denominational associations (e.g., ARBCA and SBC) cannot work together cooperatively especially when there is sufficient agreement doctrinally and philosophically. Perhaps Rich could help us here, but I suspect that O.P.C. churches might, in some instances, work cooperatively with P.C.A. churches in certain kingdom endeavors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bob,
> 
> The challenges with inter-denomnational church planting stems partly from doctrinal differences. Many SBC-Founders churches are still very much dispensational. Some still hold on to fundamentalism (to varying degrees). Personally, I would have a difficult time sanctioning the planting of a church in cooperation with those whom I have deep doctrinal disagreements.
Click to expand...


Bill,

I agree there must be adequate agreement doctrinally and philosophically, as I noted in my post above. I am friends with a number of SBC pastors who fully subscribe to the 1689. So I'm not advocating cooperating with SBC churches across the board--only with those with whom we have sufficient agreement. Moreover, from my discussions with pastors in the SBC, the convention allows for a significant degree of local church autonomy. Accordingly, one may be a part of the SBC while retaining a distinctively Reformed identity and choosing to support SBC causes that reflect that identity.

-----Added 7/24/2009 at 11:28:38 EST-----



FenderPriest said:


> This does slightly touch on an issue I've been interested in lately: Does anybody know of any historical surveys or research into the history of "church planting"? I'll admit my ignorance on the subject, but I get the feeling that the "mission to church plant" has a stronger emphasis in the church today than it has in the past - though, as I said, I have little data to base that off of. Any help on this question? Survey's of church planting in general and/or in America?



Jacob,

I'm not immediately aware of any research done in this area, and I agree with Bill that it probably deserves a thread of its own. I would venture, however, to suggest that the reason for a greater interest today in church planting may be that there are proportionately less established Reformed congregations in America today than in our country's Puritan era. If this is true, then young Reformed ministerial aspirants have the choice of assuming leadership roles in churches that are not Reformed or in the process of reformation. Or they need to think about planting Reformed churches from ground up. Neo-Calvinism seems to be focusing a lot on this latter approach, and I think more traditional Reformed churches are beginning to feel the need to do the same.


----------



## LawrenceU

Well, we are trying to do our little part.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

LawrenceU said:


> Well, we are trying to do our little part.



Press on, brother!


----------



## Pergamum

Thanks for the post, brother.


Critical self-reflection is the first step in improvement. 

We should never sit and be satisfied, but always be pressing forward and desiring more fruit.


----------



## JML

Is part of this due to a lack of qualified men to serve as pastors of these churches? I have heard both ways, some say that there are more men seeking the office than there are positions available, others say that it is the other way around.


----------



## Pergamum

I am skimming the paper now and will read it more deeply later, but....


Does it focus primarily on US church planting...it seems to. By church-planting we seem to be assuming US church-planting, and maybe this is part of the problem.



I have noticed that externally-focused churches, where the focus is on reaching far away also grows at home. I.e. if a church is missions minded for foreign fields, local growth is the natural result as well.


Local interests breed internally-focused churches.

-----Added 7/24/2009 at 01:41:52 EST-----

The writer speaks of the Great Commission, yet only focuses on discipling one nation. but as we reach out to the world, our backyards will also become healthier. Zeal for things abroad contributes to zeal for things near.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Pergamum said:


> I am skimming the paper now and will read it more deeply later, but....
> 
> Does it focus primarily on US church planting...it seems to. By church-planting we seem to be assuming US church-planting, and maybe this is part of the problem.
> 
> I have noticed that externally-focused churches, where the focus is on reaching far away also grows at home. I.e. if a church is missions minded for foreign fields, local growth is the natural result as well.
> 
> Local interests breed internally-focused churches.
> 
> -----Added 7/24/2009 at 01:41:52 EST-----
> 
> The writer speaks of the Great Commission, yet only focuses on discipling one nation. but as we reach out to the world, our backyards will also become healthier. Zeal for things abroad contributes to zeal for things near.



Perg,

I agree with the need to cultivate and maintain a global mindset. Nevertheless, as Troupe's research paper seems to indicate, Reformed Baptists have tended to focus on either reforming existing churches or supporting foreign missionaries. Whatever energies have been expended on planting churches here in the US have been largely confined to finding groups of believers who want a Reformed Baptist church and sending a man to pastor that core group and attempt to build a church. There has been less focus on ground-zero church planting in large metropolitan areas where there is no or little Reformed witness existing. The concern of some of us is that there can be more energy and financial resource expended trying to proselytize believers to the Reformed faith and less energy expended trying to win the unconverted to Christ--at least here in America. 

When you write, "As we reach out to the world, our backyards will also become healthier," I'm inclined to agree in part. However, I've sometimes met many Christians and been in churches that seem to have quite a zeal for what's going on overseas but seemingly little zeal for the lost at home. I confess that I've been guilty of this at times. So I think it can also work the other way around--zeal for the lost in my backyard can foster and make more genuine my zeal for the lost in other parts of the world. Ideally, and I'm sure you'd agree, we should be zealous for both. 

Thanks for your input and for taking time to read Matt's paper.


----------



## Reformed Thomist

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Whatever energies have been expended on planting churches here in the US have been largely confined to finding groups of believers who want a Reformed Baptist church and sending a man to pastor that core group and attempt to build a church. There has been less focus on ground-zero church planting in large metropolitan areas where there is no or little Reformed witness existing.



Speaking as a student at a massive secular research university in a large metropolitan area, I believe that a new Reformed Baptist congregation in the right hands on (even meeting in a small lecture hall at one of our old, liberal theological colleges) or a stone's throw from campus would do very well, very quickly. So many students here are _hungry_ for robust Biblical preaching.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Hopefully Matt's paper will result in positive effect.


----------



## rbcbob

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm curious why you would apply a _collective_ assessment to what is essentially an independent responsibility according to Baptist ecclesiology. It seems you ought to wonder why each individual, autonomous Church is not planting other Churches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Rich. Good question. Most of the 1689 churches I associate with believe as firmly in the _interdependence_ of local churches as they do the _independence_ of local churches. Accordingly, *we reject the notion that any one local church can successfully carry out the work of the Great Commission in isolation from other true churches of Christ*. We believe, rather, that the work of church planting and missions is not a solo but a _cooperative_ effort.
Click to expand...


That is a rather strong assertion and, depending upon if, and how, you might qualify it I may have to take exception to it Scripturally. Our church is not affiliated with ARBCA or any such body yet, under Christ we have been used of Him to 
1.	Train pastors
2.	Plant a sister church
3.	Do mission works on 5 continents
4.	Give up one of our elders to train men in a foreign land

How then am I to understand your words?


----------



## Pergamum

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am skimming the paper now and will read it more deeply later, but....
> 
> Does it focus primarily on US church planting...it seems to. By church-planting we seem to be assuming US church-planting, and maybe this is part of the problem.
> 
> I have noticed that externally-focused churches, where the focus is on reaching far away also grows at home. I.e. if a church is missions minded for foreign fields, local growth is the natural result as well.
> 
> Local interests breed internally-focused churches.
> 
> -----Added 7/24/2009 at 01:41:52 EST-----
> 
> The writer speaks of the Great Commission, yet only focuses on discipling one nation. but as we reach out to the world, our backyards will also become healthier. Zeal for things abroad contributes to zeal for things near.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perg,
> 
> I agree with the need to cultivate and maintain a global mindset. Nevertheless, as Troupe's research paper seems to indicate, Reformed Baptists have tended to focus on either reforming existing churches or supporting foreign missionaries. Whatever energies have been expended on planting churches here in the US have been largely confined to finding groups of believers who want a Reformed Baptist church and sending a man to pastor that core group and attempt to build a church. There has been less focus on ground-zero church planting in large metropolitan areas where there is no or little Reformed witness existing. The concern of some of us is that there can be more energy and financial resource expended trying to proselytize believers to the Reformed faith and less energy expended trying to win the unconverted to Christ--at least here in America.
> 
> When you write, "As we reach out to the world, our backyards will also become healthier," I'm inclined to agree in part. However, I've sometimes met many Christians and been in churches that seem to have quite a zeal for what's going on overseas but seemingly little zeal for the lost at home. I confess that I've been guilty of this at times. So I think it can also work the other way around--zeal for the lost in my backyard can foster and make more genuine my zeal for the lost in other parts of the world. Ideally, and I'm sure you'd agree, we should be zealous for both.
> 
> Thanks for your input and for taking time to read Matt's paper.
Click to expand...


Yes, I agree on many points.

Are their foreign missions all that strong when compared to their home missions? 

If the paper was replicated, but foreign missions was studied instead of home missions, how would the results differ in terms of number of missionaries per number of members of churches, percentage of income spent, number of fields engaged in, number of new churches planted overseas, and overall strategy to prioritize the darkest holes in the world?

-----Added 7/24/2009 at 04:54:51 EST-----



rbcbob said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm curious why you would apply a _collective_ assessment to what is essentially an independent responsibility according to Baptist ecclesiology. It seems you ought to wonder why each individual, autonomous Church is not planting other Churches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Rich. Good question. Most of the 1689 churches I associate with believe as firmly in the _interdependence_ of local churches as they do the _independence_ of local churches. Accordingly, *we reject the notion that any one local church can successfully carry out the work of the Great Commission in isolation from other true churches of Christ*. We believe, rather, that the work of church planting and missions is not a solo but a _cooperative_ effort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a rather strong assertion and, depending upon if, and how, you might qualify it I may have to take exception to it Scripturally. Our church is not affiliated with ARBCA or any such body yet, under Christ we have been used of Him to
> 1.	Train pastors
> 2.	Plant a sister church
> 3.	Do mission works on 5 continents
> 4.	Give up one of our elders to train men in a foreign land
> 
> How then am I to understand your words?
Click to expand...


I bet you don't truly do mission work on 5 continents through the efforts of your local home church alone, in isolation from others. Almost all asian and overseas efforts are a cooperation between US sending churches and some local national church, or some group which processes visas for you. I am guessing that your local deacons are not processing visas on 5 continents. 

Also, no missionary I know is SOLELY supported by one local home/sending church. In almost every case of Us missionaries being sent overseas, several churches come together to support a missionary and help the sending church send that one overseas.

-----Added 7/24/2009 at 04:58:05 EST-----



SolaScriptura said:


> Hopefully Matt's paper will result in positive effect.



Yes, AMEN to that!

Do you know how this paper is being received generally? 

Are people hearing about it, taking it to heart, and looking into its validity so that some "best practices" may be adopted and older practices/strategies/visions may be discarded? I.e., will this paper be enough to help push for change/improvement/further progress?


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

rbcbob said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm curious why you would apply a _collective_ assessment to what is essentially an independent responsibility according to Baptist ecclesiology. It seems you ought to wonder why each individual, autonomous Church is not planting other Churches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Rich. Good question. Most of the 1689 churches I associate with believe as firmly in the _interdependence_ of local churches as they do the _independence_ of local churches. Accordingly, *we reject the notion that any one local church can successfully carry out the work of the Great Commission in isolation from other true churches of Christ*. We believe, rather, that the work of church planting and missions is not a solo but a _cooperative_ effort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a rather strong assertion and, depending upon if, and how, you might qualify it I may have to take exception to it Scripturally. Our church is not affiliated with ARBCA or any such body yet, under Christ we have been used of Him to
> 1. Train pastors
> 2. Plant a sister church
> 3. Do mission works on 5 continents
> 4. Give up one of our elders to train men in a foreign land
> 
> How then am I to understand your words?
Click to expand...


Hi Bob,

Good to hear from you. You may not remember me, but I visited and preached at your church many years ago when a ministerial student in the RBC of Grand Rapids. 

I'm surprised that you're troubled at my words, which you highlighted above. Perhaps the best way I can explain the meaning of my words and understand your objection to my assertion is to ask you a series of questions, each related to the four ministry accomplishments of your local church. 

(1) I know your church has trained pastors. I'm good friends with two of them, Stephen Gambill and James Williamson. And yet, if I'm not mistaken, your elders have used teaching materials and lectures produced by pastors of other RB churches. Isn't that true? Indeed, I would suspect that the men you trained were assigned reading in literature written by theologians outside your congregation, some of whom are not Reformed Baptists. _If so, then you haven't trained pastors alone but in cooperation with other churches and the larger body of Christ._ 

(2) I'm aware of the fact that your church was instrumental in planting a sister church. I think you're referring to the work in Nashville. Did any other churches help fund this endeavor? Or did RBC of Louisville fund the effort alone? Did you receive any assistance from other churches, such as pulpit supply or even counsel? Did you ask other churches to join your congregation in praying for God's blessing on this church planting endeavor? Even if you did plant the work all by yourself, do you think your independent accomplishment should be the norm for every other local church? Especially smaller churches with less financial and human resources? 

(3) I'm glad to hear that your church is doing mission work on 5 different continents. That's great! But what exactly does that mean? Are the missionaries doing this work all members of your church? Are all these mission works under the direct oversight of your church? Is your church completely financing all of these mission works? Are you the only local church praying for these specific works? Or are you _cooperating_ with other churches in these mission works on 5 different continents? If you're doing it solo, I'm quite impressed. But once again, I'm not sure a purely independent posture--one that says, "We don't need or want help from anyone else"--is the biblical norm.

(4) Yes, you're giving up Pastor James Williamson to labor in Africa, providing national pastors with theological training. And Reformed Baptist Seminary, of which I'm the dean and which is a cooperative ministry of many RB churches is helping to provide your pastor with further theological training to prepare him for this task. Moreover, James is planning to pursue a doctorate through a paedo-baptist university. And, if I'm not mistaken, other Reformed Baptist churches I know will be supporting him with their finances and prayers. 

So I fail to see why you take issue with what I said above. You may not be formally affiliated with an organized association of churches like ARBCA, but you are, whether you like it nor not, part of the larger visible body of Christ according to the Confession to which you subscribe and the NT to which you adhere. And I think I know your church well enough to characterize it as one which _cooperates with other RB churches in fulfilling the Great Commission_. RBC of Louisville is doing much good for the kingdom but not as a lone maverick. 

Hope that clarifies the intention of my words. 

Your servant,


----------



## MarieP

rbcbob said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm curious why you would apply a _collective_ assessment to what is essentially an independent responsibility according to Baptist ecclesiology. It seems you ought to wonder why each individual, autonomous Church is not planting other Churches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Rich. Good question. Most of the 1689 churches I associate with believe as firmly in the _interdependence_ of local churches as they do the _independence_ of local churches. Accordingly, *we reject the notion that any one local church can successfully carry out the work of the Great Commission in isolation from other true churches of Christ*. We believe, rather, that the work of church planting and missions is not a solo but a _cooperative_ effort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a rather strong assertion and, depending upon if, and how, you might qualify it I may have to take exception to it Scripturally. Our church is not affiliated with ARBCA or any such body yet, under Christ we have been used of Him to
> 1.	Train pastors
> 2.	Plant a sister church
> 3.	Do mission works on 5 continents
> 4.	Give up one of our elders to train men in a foreign land
> 
> How then am I to understand your words?
Click to expand...


I sure would hate to think we are the exception! I am so exceedingly thankful that God has blessed our church in this way!! Praying that this is just the beginning of many works to come! As for other RB churches (and for Presbyterians and other Christ-exalting churches as well), I pray that the Lord will keep them focused on the Gospel and will give them resources as they continue to fulfill the Great Commission through church planting.

-----Added 7/24/2009 at 06:13:49 EST-----



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> rbcbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Rich. Good question. Most of the 1689 churches I associate with believe as firmly in the _interdependence_ of local churches as they do the _independence_ of local churches. Accordingly, *we reject the notion that any one local church can successfully carry out the work of the Great Commission in isolation from other true churches of Christ*. We believe, rather, that the work of church planting and missions is not a solo but a _cooperative_ effort.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a rather strong assertion and, depending upon if, and how, you might qualify it I may have to take exception to it Scripturally. Our church is not affiliated with ARBCA or any such body yet, under Christ we have been used of Him to
> 1. Train pastors
> 2. Plant a sister church
> 3. Do mission works on 5 continents
> 4. Give up one of our elders to train men in a foreign land
> 
> How then am I to understand your words?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi Bob,
> 
> Good to hear from you. You may not remember me, but I visited and preached at your church many years ago when a ministerial student in the RBC of Grand Rapids.
> 
> I'm surprised that you're troubled at my words, which you highlighted above. Perhaps the best way I can explain the meaning of my words and understand your objection to my assertion is to ask you a series of questions, each related to the four ministry accomplishments of your local church.
> 
> (1) I know your church has trained pastors. I'm good friends with two of them, Stephen Gambill and James Williamson. And yet, if I'm not mistaken, your elders have used teaching materials and lectures produced by pastors of other RB churches. Isn't that true? Indeed, I would suspect that the men you trained were assigned reading in literature written by theologians outside your congregation, some of whom are not Reformed Baptists. _If so, then you haven't trained pastors alone but in cooperation with other churches and the larger body of Christ._
> 
> (2) I'm aware of the fact that your church was instrumental in planting a sister church. I think you're referring to the work in Nashville. Did any other churches help fund this endeavor? Or did RBC of Louisville fund the effort alone? Did you receive any assistance from other churches, such as pulpit supply or even counsel? Did you ask other churches to join your congregation in praying for God's blessing on this church planting endeavor? Even if you did plant the work all by yourself, do you think your independent accomplishment should be the norm for every other local church? Especially smaller churches with less financial and human resources?
> 
> (3) I'm glad to hear that your church is doing mission work on 5 different continents. That's great! But what exactly does that mean? Are the missionaries doing this work all members of your church? Are all these mission works under the direct oversight of your church? Is your church completely financing all of these mission works? Are you the only local church praying for these specific works? Or are you _cooperating_ with other churches in these mission works on 5 different continents? If you're doing it solo, I'm quite impressed. But once again, I'm not sure a purely independent posture--one that says, "We don't need or want help from anyone else"--is the biblical norm.
> 
> (4) Yes, you're giving up Pastor James Williamson to labor in Africa, providing national pastors with theological training. And Reformed Baptist Seminary, of which I'm the dean and which is a cooperative ministry of many RB churches is helping to provide your pastor with further theological training to prepare him for this task. Moreover, James is planning to pursue a doctorate through a paedo-baptist university. And, if I'm not mistaken, other Reformed Baptist churches I know will be supporting him with their finances and prayers.
> 
> So I fail to see why you take issue with what I said above. You may not be formally affiliated with an organized association of churches like ARBCA, but you are, whether you like it nor not, part of the larger visible body of Christ according to the Confession to which you subscribe and the NT to which you adhere. And I think I know your church well enough to characterize it as one which _cooperates with other RB churches in fulfilling the Great Commission_. RBC of Louisville is doing much good for the kingdom but not as a lone maverick.
> 
> Hope that clarifies the intention of my words.
> 
> Your servant,
Click to expand...


Amen to the OTHER Pastor Bob too  Praise God for His grace towards His churches!

-----Added 7/24/2009 at 06:17:55 EST-----

And, as a side note, we've prayed for Matt Troupe in our prayer meetings. I am thankful that we have seasons of prayer devoted to the expansion of the Kingdom outside our own walls as well as inside!


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

MarieP said:


> I sure would hate to think we are the exception! I am so exceedingly thankful that God has blessed our church in this way!! Praying that this is just the beginning of many works to come! As for other RB churches (and for Presbyterians and other Christ-exalting churches as well), I pray that the Lord will keep them focused on the Gospel and will give them resources as they continue to fulfill the Great Commission through church planting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marie,
> 
> I think Christ has accomplished much good through your church (RBC of Louisville), and this is no doubt partly due to the burden and vision He's imparted to your elders. I really admire their zeal and thank God for their example to other RB churches.
Click to expand...


----------



## rbcbob

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> rbcbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Rich. Good question. Most of the 1689 churches I associate with believe as firmly in the _interdependence_ of local churches as they do the _independence_ of local churches. Accordingly, *we reject the notion that any one local church can successfully carry out the work of the Great Commission in isolation from other true churches of Christ*. We believe, rather, that the work of church planting and missions is not a solo but a _cooperative_ effort.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a rather strong assertion and, depending upon if, and how, you might qualify it I may have to take exception to it Scripturally. Our church is not affiliated with ARBCA or any such body yet, under Christ we have been used of Him to
> 1. Train pastors
> 2. Plant a sister church
> 3. Do mission works on 5 continents
> 4. Give up one of our elders to train men in a foreign land
> 
> How then am I to understand your words?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi Bob,
> 
> Good to hear from you. You may not remember me, but I visited and preached at your church many years ago when a ministerial student in the RBC of Grand Rapids.
> 
> I'm surprised that you're troubled at my words, which you highlighted above. Perhaps the best way I can explain the meaning of my words and understand your objection to my assertion is to ask you a series of questions, each related to the four ministry accomplishments of your local church.
> 
> (1) I know your church has trained pastors. I'm good friends with two of them, Stephen Gambill and James Williamson. And yet, if I'm not mistaken, your elders have used teaching materials and lectures produced by pastors of other RB churches. Isn't that true? Indeed, I would suspect that the men you trained were assigned reading in literature written by theologians outside your congregation, some of whom are not Reformed Baptists. _If so, then you haven't trained pastors alone but in cooperation with other churches and the larger body of Christ._
> 
> (2) I'm aware of the fact that your church was instrumental in planting a sister church. I think you're referring to the work in Nashville. Did any other churches help fund this endeavor? Or did RBC of Louisville fund the effort alone? Did you receive any assistance from other churches, such as pulpit supply or even counsel? Did you ask other churches to join your congregation in praying for God's blessing on this church planting endeavor? Even if you did plant the work all by yourself, do you think your independent accomplishment should be the norm for every other local church? Especially smaller churches with less financial and human resources?
> 
> (3) I'm glad to hear that your church is doing mission work on 5 different continents. That's great! But what exactly does that mean? Are the missionaries doing this work all members of your church? Are all these mission works under the direct oversight of your church? Is your church completely financing all of these mission works? Are you the only local church praying for these specific works? Or are you _cooperating_ with other churches in these mission works on 5 different continents? If you're doing it solo, I'm quite impressed. But once again, I'm not sure a purely independent posture--one that says, "We don't need or want help from anyone else"--is the biblical norm.
> 
> (4) Yes, you're giving up Pastor James Williamson to labor in Africa, providing national pastors with theological training. And Reformed Baptist Seminary, of which I'm the dean and which is a cooperative ministry of many RB churches is helping to provide your pastor with further theological training to prepare him for this task. Moreover, James is planning to pursue a doctorate through a paedo-baptist university. And, if I'm not mistaken, other Reformed Baptist churches I know will be supporting him with their finances and prayers.
> 
> So I fail to see why you take issue with what I said above. You may not be formally affiliated with an organized association of churches like ARBCA, but you are, whether you like it nor not, part of the larger visible body of Christ according to the Confession to which you subscribe and the NT to which you adhere. And I think I know your church well enough to characterize it as one which _cooperates with other RB churches in fulfilling the Great Commission_. RBC of Louisville is doing much good for the kingdom but not as a lone maverick.
> 
> Hope that clarifies the intention of my words.
> 
> Your servant,
Click to expand...


Dear Doctor Bob,
I will not be so tedious as to offer a full answer to each of your four questions but merely observe that if the implications of such questions were true of any pastor he would seem to be guilty of such amazing ignorance as to be unfit to care for the souls of Christ’s sheep.

It is in our rich Baptist tradition that we find such cooperation between churches that marks what the Lord will do, and indeed has done, through such poor and feeble congregations over the centuries. And this so often with such a spontaneity and _ad hoc_ manner as to meet one urgent need after another.

And what can adequately be said of our debt to the published works of both Baptist and Paedobaptist scholars? I need not be reminded that the work of many hands over many centuries have blessedly come our way in this the twenty-first century.

But to put aside my humiliation and return to the point-- I am still trying to comprehend that bold statement of yours which seems to mark any particular church and its simple elders in a light of ignorance and presumption should they believe that Christ has authorized and equipped them to do all that He wills them to do relative to their commission. Again, you said that “we reject the notion that any one local church can successfully carry out the work of the Great Commission in isolation from other true churches of Christ”. May I put the question to you – Are there any fifteen or fifteen-hundred churches _collectively_ and _cooperatively_ that can carry out the work of the Great Commission?

Allow me to make it clear that just because our church cannot, as a point of conscience, join an association, denomination, or other such organization it does not follow that we despise the sincere efforts of our brethren who see the issue differently.

Your simple servant,


----------



## Wannabee

KMK said:


> ARBCA is committed to planting churches and has many ongoing projects.
> 
> There seems to be a presupposition to this discussion that RB churches _ought_ to plant churches rather than reform the ones that already exist. I am not sure I agree.



This is a tough one Ken. There are a whole lot of ex-pastors out there who held to the same mentality. Unfortunately, reforming a church can be akin to what happened in the Reformation. Just as the RCC attempted to eradicate those who stood for reformation, a resistant church will often turn on a pastor and tear him, his wife and children shreds before he realizes the damage done and scurries off with his tail between his legs, or breaks down and does something really stupid. I would propose that it's better to abandon these works and start something up with a solid doctrinal statement and well substantiated foundation that the church can build upon and that will stand the test of time. This can be done in a few years, rather than spending five to ten attempting to reform; which only sometimes works.

Much of the problem in American church planting efforts is that they are doomed to failure before they start because they are a group of disgruntled people who want to start something that they like. And, all too often, they have ideals that can never be met. With this in mind, church planting with full support should be the norm, with a full plan on how to go about it, accompanied by a short and long term plan. And, ideally, more than one family will go to the new plant in order to offer support from day one.


----------



## Herald

Wannabee said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> ARBCA is committed to planting churches and has many ongoing projects.
> 
> There seems to be a presupposition to this discussion that RB churches _ought_ to plant churches rather than reform the ones that already exist. I am not sure I agree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a tough one Ken. There are a whole lot of ex-pastors out there who held to the same mentality. Unfortunately, reforming a church can be akin to what happened in the Reformation. Just as the RCC attempted to eradicate those who stood for reformation, a resistant church will often turn on a pastor and tear him, his wife and children shreds before he realizes the damage done and scurries off with his tail between his legs, or breaks down and does something really stupid. I would propose that it's better to abandon these works and start something up with a solid doctrinal statement and well substantiated foundation that the church can build upon and that will stand the test of time. This can be done in a few years, rather than spending five to ten attempting to reform; which only sometimes works.
> 
> Much of the problem in American church planting efforts is that they are doomed to failure before they start because they are a group of disgruntled people who want to start something that they like. And, all too often, they have ideals that can never be met. With this in mind, church planting with full support should be the norm, with a full plan on how to go about it, accompanied by a short and long term plan. And, ideally, more than one family will go to the new plant in order to offer support from day one.
Click to expand...


There is a large church in our area that endeavored to reform a struggling, non-Calvinistic, evangelical church. This large church sent one of their church planters to spearhead this effort under the guise of offering organizational and church growth expertise. I'll skip all the sordid details, but suffice to say that the effort failed. Eventually the existing pastor of the struggling church started to question the agenda of the larger church. He surmised that the real reason behind their offer to help was to change the theological landscape of the church. The association was ended. From what I have heard this large church is now seeking to plant a church using the more traditional method of starting from the ground up.

Reforming existing churches is often a fools errand. I'm not saying it can't be done, but why try to undo years or decades of theological, pastoral, or organizational neglect? Unless the circumstances are extraordinary, I would rather see a new work begun; one that is not saddled with prior baggage or unrealistic expectations.


----------



## DMcFadden

Herald said:


> Reforming existing churches is often a fools errand. I'm not saying it can't be done, but why try to undo years or decades of theological, pastoral, or organizational neglect? Unless the circumstances are extraordinary, I would rather see a new work begun; one that is not saddled with prior baggage or unrealistic expectations.



So many declining congregations are beset by corporate culture issues that make them not merely resistent, but absolutely opposed, to being changed. Statistics indicate that church plants grow more rapidly anyway. Sometimes planting a church where you rent from a desperate dying church can be a workable solution.


----------



## Raj

"...There has been less focus on ground-zero church planting in large metropolitan areas where there is no or little Reformed witness existing..." Dr. Bob

This is very much true here but in the village (country side) setups. There are village after village where there is no witness and no church in our area, North India. 

Can I learn of any Reformed Baptist church in North India or West Nepal for prayer and fellowship?


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Raj said:


> "...There has been less focus on ground-zero church planting in large metropolitan areas where there is no or little Reformed witness existing..." Dr. Bob
> 
> This is very much true here but in the village (country side) setups. There are village after village where there is no witness and no church in our area, North India.
> 
> Can I learn of any Reformed Baptist church in North India or West Nepal for prayer and fellowship?



Raj,

Good word. I tend to favor that strategy that focuses on the larger cities first. Once a church is established in the larger city, that church in turn can begin to send out laborers to plant churches in the smaller districts and villages surrounding the cities. But this is just a strategy and not a hard-fast rule. God sometimes works differently. If a man feels called to go to the smaller villages and plant churches, I wouldn't be unsupportive of his burden. 

BTW, I have a very good friend who is presently in North India visiting churches and indigenous pastors with the view to doing missionary work there in the future.


----------



## KMK

The Bible clearly teaches 'Reformed' theology. Love edifies. Therefore, consistent expositional preaching and teaching by men who truly love their brothers and sisters inevitably reforms a church without the use of subterfuge. Just ask some of the many pastors and teachers on PB who have helped or are helping to reform churches as we speak. Ask Pastor Marshal who is being used to reform a UMC church! Ask Rich who, as a Presbyterian, was used to help reform an SBC church in Okinawa! All they are doing is teaching and living what the Bible says with true love of the brethren.

The problem I have with planting churches in the US is their survival and growth necessitates stealing sheep from other shepherds. Perhaps I am a prude, but that isn't something to take lightly. Isn't the sanctity of church membership one of the tenets of Reformed theology? Shouldn't we encourage people to keep the covenants at the churches they already attend?

Shouldn't our church planting energy/resources be used to plant churches in areas where growth is done by conversion?


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

rbcbob said:


> But to put aside my humiliation and return to the point-- I am still trying to comprehend that bold statement of yours which seems to mark any particular church and its simple elders in a light of ignorance and presumption should they believe that Christ has authorized and equipped them to do all that He wills them to do relative to their commission. Again, you said that “we reject the notion that any one local church can successfully carry out the work of the Great Commission in isolation from other true churches of Christ”. May I put the question to you – Are there any fifteen or fifteen-hundred churches _collectively_ and _cooperatively_ that can carry out the work of the Great Commission?
> 
> Allow me to make it clear that just because our church cannot, as a point of conscience, join an association, denomination, or other such organization it does not follow that we despise the sincere efforts of our brethren who see the issue differently.
> 
> Your simple servant,
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Bob,
> 
> Thanks for your humble response. I think we may be misunderstanding one another. The point of my statement, which you cite, is not to deny that a local church may participate in all the various facets of Great Commission labor. Any local church, big or small, may participate to some extent in the various works of evangelism, ministerial training, church planting, benevolent outreach, missions, and local church nurture. The degree to which any local church participates in any one of these elements of kingdom work will depend on various factors (e.g., the churches size, human and financial resources, trained personnel, providential opportunities, etc.).
> 
> The "work of the Great Commission," however, is one that entails bringing the nations under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and thus is _a worldwide_ and _an age-long_ endeavor. So to answer your question, Neither 1 nor 1,500 local churches can successfully fulfill this commission alone. The Great Commission was given to the apostles who represent _the universal visible church through the ages_. Accordingly, I stand by my statement. I do not believe "any one local church can successfully carry out the work of the Great Commission _in isolation from_ other true churches of Christ" (emphasis added). This I learned from taking Greg Nichols' course on Ecclesiology, the same course you and your fellow elders have used to train your ministerial aspirants.
> 
> In the second place, I think you interpreted my statement to imply that a local church must be a member of a formal denomination or association of churches in order to participate in the various facets of Great Commission endeavor. But nowhere do I make that claim. In fact, when I said above, "Most of the 1689 churches I associate with believe as firmly in the _interdependence_ of local churches as they do the _independence_ of local churches," I had in mind independent, non-associational churches like yours, as well as ARBCA and Founders churches.
> 
> Most local churches I know have constitutions, which serve to specify how that church is going to apply specific and general principles of Scripture to church life and ministry. Yet there's no specific command in Scripture that a local church must have a written constitution. Arguably, though, it's a matter of prudence. Similarly, local churches collectively will normally try to labor in conjunction and cooperation with each other. This is a more effective and, I think, a more biblical way of carrying out the Great Commission. Some of those local churches that work together think it prudent to draw up and adopt something like "Articles of Cooperation." These articles end up functioning much like the constitution of a local church and often form _the basis_ of a formal association. I certainly believe local churches are at liberty to formulate such articles and I even believe it to be a matter of prudence. One may not agree with a given set of articles of cooperation or associational constitution and therefore not be able in good conscience to join said association of churches. That does not mean, however, that the concept of associations is _ipso facto_ unbiblical and unwise. Nor does it mean, on the other hand, that any church not participating in a formal association is in every instance _ipso facto_ uncooperative and isolationist.
> 
> I hope this helps to clarify my point and to bring us to closer agreement. Once again, I affirm the self-government of the local church. But I also affirm that God never intended local churches to carry out kingdom endeavor in isolation from the larger visible body of Christ. Hence, I affirm both _the independence_ and _the interdependence_ of local churches as biblical. I suspect that the church you pastor (RBC of Louisville) agrees in principle and practice with both of these ways of viewing the local church and its labors vis-a-vis the universal visible church.
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> -----Added 7/25/2009 at 09:19:46 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem I have with planting churches in the US is their survival and growth necessitates stealing sheep from other shepherds. Perhaps I am a prude, but that isn't something to take lightly. Isn't the sanctity of church membership one of the tenets of Reformed theology? Shouldn't we encourage people to keep the covenants at the churches they already attend?
> 
> Shouldn't our church planting energy/resources be used to plant churches in areas where growth is done by conversion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ken,
> 
> Thanks for your comments. I agree with you. Of course, I don't think it wrong for a family to leave an apostate church or even, after much patience and interaction with the leadership a seriously defective church that is resistant to biblical reformation in order to attend a more doctrinally sound and spiritually healthy church. But as a rule, I tend to think that less of our energy should be spent on "sheep-stealing" or, as one pastor put it, "rearranging the furniture in God's house," and more of our energy should be spent attempting to win the unconverted to Christ and bring them into Christ's church.
Click to expand...


----------



## Raj

"Shouldn't our church planting energy/resources be used to plant churches in areas where growth is done by conversion? "

Well said brother....amen to this. And I'm working this way here.


----------



## Edward

KMK said:


> The problem I have with planting churches in the US is their survival and growth necessitates stealing sheep from other shepherds.



At least in the growing cities of the South, that isn't accurate. The easiest, fastest growing church plants are those which are built in rapidly growing communities (outer suburbs or redevoping inner core areas) or areas with highly dynamic populations (near military bases or universities, for example) 

When folks are moving in from out of state, they are locally unchurched, and it's not sheep stealing to provide for their spiritual needs. While the model well might be different in dying rust belt areas, your attack is, at least overbroad.


----------



## KMK

Edward said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem I have with planting churches in the US is their survival and growth necessitates stealing sheep from other shepherds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least in the growing cities of the South, that isn't accurate. The easiest, fastest growing church plants are those which are built in rapidly growing communities (outer suburbs or redevoping inner core areas) or areas with highly dynamic populations (near military bases or universities, for example)
> 
> When folks are moving in from out of state, they are locally unchurched, and it's not sheep stealing to provide for their spiritual needs. While the model well might be different in dying rust belt areas, your attack is, at least overbroad.
Click to expand...


My statement was obviously broad in regards to planting churches in the US that is true. But, my post was not an attack. It was a response to those who see church reformation as an act of subterfuge. As I said in my post, energy should be directed toward areas where growth can be accomplished by conversion without stealing sheep from other pastors. I am sure that church scenarios such as yours are excellent places to plant churches. 

Obviously this discussion hinges on other presuppositions as well, such as the definition of a 'true' church. In other words,, what is the lowest common denominator from which we should not encourage Christians to leave? It is not my desire to take the thread in that direction. Regardless, I am sure we all agree that great care should be taken when planting churches to avoid stretching forth our hand against the Lord's anointed.


----------



## Reformed Thomist

Raj said:


> "...There has been less focus on ground-zero church planting in large metropolitan areas where there is no or little Reformed witness existing..." Dr. Bob
> 
> This is very much true here but in the village (country side) setups. There are village after village where there is no witness and no church in our area, North India.
> 
> Can I learn of any Reformed Baptist church in North India or West Nepal for prayer and fellowship?



This link may help, brother Raj...

Reformed Baptist Churches in India


----------



## Wannabee

KMK said:


> The Bible clearly teaches 'Reformed' theology. Love edifies. Therefore, consistent expositional preaching and teaching by men who truly love their brothers and sisters inevitably reforms a church without the use of subterfuge. Just ask some of the many pastors and teachers on PB who have helped or are helping to reform churches as we speak. Ask Pastor Marshal who is being used to reform a UMC church! Ask Rich who, as a Presbyterian, was used to help reform an SBC church in Okinawa! All they are doing is teaching and living what the Bible says with true love of the brethren.


Ken, this is presupposing that God will grant fruit. There are many attempts at reform that mirror Jeremiah's ministry. Consider all the prophets who attempted reform. Many of them were killed for their love. To state that faithful preaching out of love for our brethren "inevitably" reforms is simply, and sadly, not true. I can give you a list of examples of just the opposite. One man I know, who is one of the most gentle and loving men I've met, is currently getting his heart ripped out by the congregation he's attempting to love. Many men have been ruined for ministry. Don Whitney tells of how his health was permanently affected in one of his first ministries. We can be faithful. We are accountable to God for our faithfulness. But only God can bring fruit. But God's Word crushes, comforts _and _hardens. In many cases they stop their ears and charge the pulpit.



> The problem I have with planting churches in the US is their survival and growth necessitates stealing sheep from other shepherds. Perhaps I am a prude, but that isn't something to take lightly. Isn't the sanctity of church membership one of the tenets of Reformed theology? Shouldn't we encourage people to keep the covenants at the churches they already attend?
> 
> Shouldn't our church planting energy/resources be used to plant churches in areas where growth is done by conversion?



Ideally, I think you're right. But I know of a man who currently attends a Presbyterian church because it's the most solid church in town; maybe the only one with good doctrine. There are many other churches, but most of every stripe except solid doctrine. He, and some of his friends, attempted to help facilitate a change in their Baptist church a few years ago, but the opposite occurred. Others in the church rose up against them and actually went further in the other direction. In the end they got a pastor that doesn't even believe in eternal security. When I first met this family I remember the wife's words, through tears, "we're starving." They just didn't have faithful preaching.
Now, should he jump on the chance to be part of a new work in the area or, as a credo, attempt to facilitate change in the Presbyterian church? His family is a great blessing to any church. But they also know that this church family, one that keeps telling them that "they'll get it," is not their home. Would a new credo work "steal" them if it started up? Stories like this are repeated all across the nation.

-----Added 7/25/2009 at 11:03:07 EST-----

Sorry Ken, you posted while I was still typing...


----------



## Herald

I agree with both Ken and Joe. If the Lord is in the work, then sound teaching will eventually win out. That is where I agree with Ken. But the Lord is not in every work. It is not God's will that every local church thrive. Sometimes a lamp stand needs to be snuffed out in order for another to take it's place. It's not just deficient teaching that sours a church; cold hearts are just as destructive. If continued over a long period of time these deficiencies can become inherent. That church will either die or remain the way it is. That is where I agree with Joe.


----------



## KMK

Wannabee said:


> Now, should he jump on the chance to be part of a new work in the area or, as a credo, attempt to facilitate change in the Presbyterian church?



I know we are all in agreement with the overall picture but here is an example of where we are going to differ in the particulars. Personally, I believe there is a third option and that is to stay in the Reformed Presbyterian church. 

And if I could clarify, a church in which Reformed doctrine is taught and many are offended and leave is still being 'reformed'. This happened at my church. I was asked to preach and many left. But those that stayed and those who joined later are indeed 'reforming'. I now pastor a largely Reformed church but many of the faces have changed. This is going to happen anytime you get a new Pastor regardless of what he/she is preaching.

If, instead of being willing to work with an already established church, I had endeavored to plant a RBC in my little town, those in the church I pastor now would never have been exposed to the DoG and would never have known any different. I am afraid the DoG would have passed them by because they were not sitting there longing for a 'Reformed' church to attend.

I agree, however, that it must be God's work and I don't want to universally state that church planting is wrong, but I do want to assert that it is not always the best solution. (Which seems to be the presupposition among many Reformed folks)


----------



## Herald

> I agree, however, that it must be God's work and I don't want to universally state that church planting is wrong, but I do want to assert that it is not always the best solution. (Which seems to be the presupposition among many Reformed folks)



Ken,

That is exactly the presupposition I work from. There are always exceptions. I don't want to be caught opposing the work of the Spirit in reviving a troubled local fellowship. I would rather have the support of like-minded churches in starting a new work. It's not that such a work will be easier; in fact it will require the same amount of hard work. But removing doctrinal hurdles is a major advantage that most Reformed-minded pastors won't enjoy in existing churches.


----------



## Raj

Reformed Thomist said:


> Raj said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...There has been less focus on ground-zero church planting in large metropolitan areas where there is no or little Reformed witness existing..." Dr. Bob
> 
> This is very much true here but in the village (country side) setups. There are village after village where there is no witness and no church in our area, North India.
> 
> Can I learn of any Reformed Baptist church in North India or West Nepal for prayer and fellowship?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This link may help, brother Raj...
> 
> Reformed Baptist Churches in India
Click to expand...


Dear brother. Nathan 

Thank you for the link. But all the churches mentioned here are more than 2000 kms away from us, i.e all located in the South. 

God bless .


----------



## KMK

Herald said:


> I agree, however, that it must be God's work and I don't want to universally state that church planting is wrong, but I do want to assert that it is not always the best solution. (Which seems to be the presupposition among many Reformed folks)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ken,
> 
> That is exactly the presupposition I work from. There are always exceptions. I don't want to be caught opposing the work of the Spirit in reviving a troubled local fellowship. I would rather have the support of like-minded churches in starting a new work. It's not that such a work will be easier; in fact it will require the same amount of hard work. But removing doctrinal hurdles is a major advantage that most Reformed-minded pastors won't enjoy in existing churches.
Click to expand...


Well, for what its worth, my wife agrees with you.


----------

