# Planting a reformed baptist church if there's already a reformed presbyterian church?



## Need 4 Creed

Is there any real justification for reformed baptists planting an RB church in an area that already has has reformed presbyterian churches? 

It seems there are different views:

1) Yes, because some RBs would see that they are planting a 'purer' expression of the church and because it is 'different' it is not in competition.

2) No, it is divisive, counterproductive, a waste of resources and a poor witness.

I'm sure there are other perspectives.


----------



## au5t1n

The very existence of Reformed Baptists and Reformed Presbyterians as distinct groups is divisive, and we should always be seeking to restore the breach and become of one mind on baptism, all speaking and practicing the same thing -- and ultimately becoming visibly united Presbyterians as we ought to be. In the meantime, we _are_ divided and that difference inevitably manifests itself in different churches, as is necessary for the practicing of incompatible baptism convictions.

Now if you want to make a case that when there is a choice between an area barren of Reformed churches and an area laden with solid Reformed Presbyterian churches, Reformed Baptists should generally prefer the barren area -- yes, there might be a good case for that, and likewise in reverse. But then again it may be that there are Reformed Baptists waiting for an RB church in a heavy Presbyterian area, or vice versa, whereas such may not be the case in the barren area. It depends.


----------



## Need 4 Creed

So RBs should not seek to live out their convictions by establishing RB churches in their communities (even if there are reformed presbyterians in the community?


----------



## Tyrese

au5t1n said:


> Need 4 Creed said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is divisive
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The very existence of Reformed Baptists and Reformed Presbyterians as distinct groups is divisive, and we should always be seeking to restore the breach and become of one mind on baptism, all speaking and practicing the same thing -- and ultimately becoming visibly united Presbyterians as we ought to be. In the meantime, we _are_ divided and that difference inevitably manifests itself in different churches as necessary for the practicing of incompatible baptism convictions.
> 
> Now if you want to make a case that when there is a choice between an area barren of Reformed churches and an area laden with solid Reformed Presbyterian churches, Reformed Baptists should generally prefer the barren area -- yes, there might be a good case for that, and likewise in reverse. But then again it may be that there are Reformed Baptists waiting for an RB church in a heavy Presbyterian area, or vice versa, whereas such may not be the case in the barren area. It depends.
Click to expand...


Or we can all start Baptising believers only by immersion as that is what the Bible teaches.


----------



## ProtestantBankie

Tyrese said:


> au5t1n said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Need 4 Creed said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is divisive
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The very existence of Reformed Baptists and Reformed Presbyterians as distinct groups is divisive, and we should always be seeking to restore the breach and become of one mind on baptism, all speaking and practicing the same thing -- and ultimately becoming visibly united Presbyterians as we ought to be. In the meantime, we _are_ divided and that difference inevitably manifests itself in different churches as necessary for the practicing of incompatible baptism convictions.
> 
> Now if you want to make a case that when there is a choice between an area barren of Reformed churches and an area laden with solid Reformed Presbyterian churches, Reformed Baptists should generally prefer the barren area -- yes, there might be a good case for that, and likewise in reverse. But then again it may be that there are Reformed Baptists waiting for an RB church in a heavy Presbyterian area, or vice versa, whereas such may not be the case in the barren area. It depends.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or we can all start Baptising believers only by immersion as that is what the Bible teaches.
Click to expand...


Not really on topic or necessarily correct Tyrese.


----------



## Need 4 Creed

Tyrese said:


> au5t1n said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Need 4 Creed said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is divisive
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The very existence of Reformed Baptists and Reformed Presbyterians as distinct groups is divisive, and we should always be seeking to restore the breach and become of one mind on baptism, all speaking and practicing the same thing -- and ultimately becoming visibly united Presbyterians as we ought to be. In the meantime, we _are_ divided and that difference inevitably manifests itself in different churches as necessary for the practicing of incompatible baptism convictions.
> 
> Now if you want to make a case that when there is a choice between an area barren of Reformed churches and an area laden with solid Reformed Presbyterian churches, Reformed Baptists should generally prefer the barren area -- yes, there might be a good case for that, and likewise in reverse. But then again it may be that there are Reformed Baptists waiting for an RB church in a heavy Presbyterian area, or vice versa, whereas such may not be the case in the barren area. It depends.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or we can all start Baptising believers only by immersion as that is what the Bible teaches.
Click to expand...


Oh no. Let's not have a bun fight over the right views of baptism (at least not at the start of the thread!)

Let's stick to discussing justification for church planting (I know the topics are interelated). 

In otherwords let's not just throw the rocks of our baptismal positions at each other.


----------



## Rich Koster

I voted yes. I also say that we are in cooperation, not competition. We want to tell the elect about the Lord Jesus Christ and get the job done. We both agree that government and baptism are not essential for salvation. Many godly men have ended up on different sides of the creek on these issues, but we are all journeying to the same place.


----------



## Tyrese

Need 4 Creed said:


> Is there any real justification for reformed baptists planting an RB church in an area that already has has reformed presbyterian churches?
> 
> It seems there are different views:
> 
> 1) Yes, because some RBs would see that they are planting a 'purer' expression of the church and because it is 'different' it is not in competition.
> 
> 2) No, it is divisive, counterproductive, a waste of resources and a poor witness.
> 
> I'm sure theer are other perspectives.



It's extremely important that Reformed Baptist Churches are planted everywhere, even next to Presbyterian Churches for the simple fact that infant Baptism is a real hang up for a lot of Christians. Therefore we (Reformed Baptist) should have a Church that practices what it is we believe. I'm sure if you were surrounded by Reformed Baptist you would want the same.


----------



## Need 4 Creed

Tyrese said:


> Need 4 Creed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there any real justification for reformed baptists planting an RB church in an area that already has has reformed presbyterian churches?
> 
> It seems there are different views:
> 
> 1) Yes, because some RBs would see that they are planting a 'purer' expression of the church and because it is 'different' it is not in competition.
> 
> 2) No, it is divisive, counterproductive, a waste of resources and a poor witness.
> 
> I'm sure theer are other perspectives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's extremely important that Reformed Baptist Churches are planted everywhere, even next to Presbyterian Churches for the simple fact that infant Baptism is a real hang up for a lot of Christians. Therefore we (Reformed Baptist) should have a Church that practices what it is we believe. I'm sure if you were surrounded by Reformed Baptist you would want the same.
Click to expand...


Just for the record, I'm still credobaptist at this point.


----------



## au5t1n

Tyrese said:


> Or we can all start Baptising believers only by immersion as that is what the Bible teaches.



Thanks for clearing that up for me, Tyrese. If you start a thread making a case for baptism by immersion from Scripture, I will gladly participate, but this isn't the appropriate place for it.




Need 4 Creed said:


> So RBs should not seek to live out their convictions by establishing RB churches in their communities (even if there are reformed presbyterians in the community?



I didn't say that. I said once the distinction between RBs and RPs exists, it is too late to say, "Well, it's divisive to plant churches next to each other." At this point we are already divided. We might as well plant churches next to each other until we come to the unity of doctrine and practice we are all (hopefully) pursuing. That is, unless there is a very barren area that needs them more. Ultimately I can't give a direct answer to your question because I think RB churches should become RP churches and plant RP churches (well, technically, it would be the Presbytery doing that, but you know what I mean). However, since the division exists, it is very after-the-fact to make it a matter of division to plant churches near to each other. We don't want a "pretend unity" where we are really divided, but at least our churches are spread apart. We want a real, visible unity -- that is what we should all be pursuing.


----------



## Need 4 Creed

Rich Koster said:


> I voted yes. I also say that we are in cooperation, not competition. We want to tell the elect about the Lord Jesus Christ and get the job done. We both agree that government and baptism are not essential for salvation. Many godly men have ended up on different sides of the creek on these issues, but we are all journeying to the same place.



If government and baptism are not essential for salvation: is there any real justification for splitting the church over it?

Is splitting the church over secondary matters not the sort of schism that the early fathers, and reformers, condemned?


----------



## au5t1n

I appreciate the calls for unity and brotherly love among Baptists and Presbyterians, but I hope we all understand that it doesn't mean schism in the Church is no big deal. It means exactly the opposite of that. Our love for each other calls us to seek unity by diligent study of the Scriptures, charitable debate and discussion, and much prayer. We should never adopt a mindset of thinking of distinct denominations as "flavors" that might as well remain separate because after all it's a "secondary matter"; who really cares? The Lord cares. He prayed that we would be one. One of the dangers of over-cooperation between denominations is that it makes us complacent and apathetic about the existence of separate denominations. It ought to sadden us that our difference on baptism necessitates separate churches.

In the meantime, I think this question will need to be answered on a case-by-case basis. There may be a very barren area and a Presbyterian area that both have interest in RB churches, in which case probably priority should go to planting in the barren area. But sometimes there may be families with strong RB convictions wanting an RB church in a Presbyterian area, in which case it doesn't hurt my feelings if RB churches meet that need -- at least except inasmuch as it bothers me that we are separate in the first place, but that isn't going to be solved in a day, or in a year, or in a decade. It ought, however, to be our pursuit, and in the meantime, there is no use pretending in our church planting that we do not have incompatible baptism convictions that may necessitate planting separate churches -- even right next door.


----------



## Pergamum

Why not go and plant a church where none at all exists, whether paedo or credo?


----------



## Scottish Lass

I voted yes. Cooperation, not competition. NAPARC has a comity agreement where Reformed Presbyterian churches are supposed to consult an existing church in the area before planting, etc., but that's not the issue here.


----------



## Rich Koster

Need 4 Creed said:


> Rich Koster said:
> 
> 
> 
> I voted yes. I also say that we are in cooperation, not competition. We want to tell the elect about the Lord Jesus Christ and get the job done. We both agree that government and baptism are not essential for salvation. Many godly men have ended up on different sides of the creek on these issues, but we are all journeying to the same place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If government and baptism are not essential for salvation: is there any real justification for splitting the church over it?
> 
> Is splitting the church over secondary matters not the sort of schism that the early fathers, and reformers, condemned?
Click to expand...


This has gone on for hundreds of years, and I really doubt that I am the man to come up with the answer that thousands of godly men have not arrived at.


----------



## au5t1n

Need 4 Creed said:


> If government and baptism are not essential for salvation: is there any real justification for splitting the church over it?
> 
> Is splitting the church over secondary matters not the sort of schism that the early fathers, and reformers, condemned?



I realize I'm talking a lot, but we cross-posted and I hadn't seen this. Schism over incompatible government and baptism positions is unavoidable. A church can't practice two polities or two baptismal convictions. Historically, I'm not sure this point works in a credobaptist's favor if you think about who separated from whom.


----------



## jogri17

There may be times where it is fine (larger cities, which need more churches proportionally than smaller suburbs or towns), but the general rule because there are a limited amount of resources ought to not plant immediately but go where there is not a good witness first and if later in the future the occasion presents itself, then to do so. SO I would say yes plant, but put it lower on the priority list.


----------



## Edward

Another Presbyterian vote for 'yes'.


----------



## Goodcheer68

Tyrese said:


> immersion as that is what the Bible teaches



Forgetting the paedo-credo debate the immersion only position is pretty hard to sustain so I would not be so confident on that.


----------



## DMcFadden

YES!

* There are too few RB and RP churches in America. More is better!!! Look at a map of RB or RP churches in America and you would think that you were looking for Druids.
* Neither confessional Baptists nor confessional Presbyterians have much "market share" to begin with in America. I would love to see more deceived Christians and non-believers come to confessional congregations. If some of the folks now going to empty-theology churches had the option of attending an orthodox congregation, it would present a fantastic opportunity for evangelism.
* While some of the PB members are attending churches that reflect their theological and confessional commitments, my guess is that many are "settling" for places because a truly confessional option does not exist in their locale. Wouldn't it be great if people were able to throw themselves wholeheartedly into their congregations with clear consciences and enthusiasm for the ministry? A commitment to the Body of Christ will get you to participate in the "best" church you can find. However, if you are wincing or rolling your eyes every third minute, it is certainly a less than ideal "fit."
* Churches are not a "zero sum game." One more RP or RB church does not necessarily mean subtracting members from other congregations (even if that would be GREAT in some cases). In reality, if one Starbucks was sufficient, there would not be one on every other corner in some cities. I am still trying to figure out how there can be a CVS on one side of the street and a Walgreens on the other side, let alone one of either every few blocks. We even have three Target stores in our not very big city. Adding a RP or RB church to every city in America would be a net gain for the Kingdom, in almost every respect. One denomination in my town has 32 congregations, a half dozen of them with 600-800 in attendance each weekend.

The larger problem (in my opinion) is that the people I agree with most theologically tend to be the lamest at planting churches. Some of them would rather waste most of their day reading theological message boards and priding themselves in the effectiveness of their put downs of (mostly) like-minded brethren or tearing down Christian leaders more "successful" than themselves, than in doing the HARD work involved in planting a congregation. Church planting takes more than being an introverted nerd with a large library of orthodox books and a special relationship with the Internet. It involves reaching out to people, engaging people, loving people, caring for people, counseling people, evangelizing people, discipling people, knowing something about managing people, delegating to people, holding people accountable, and being willing to suffer loss for the sake of the Gospel.

I wish that some of the management skills and entrepreneurial zeal of the guys who plant churches and see them grow rapidly with adult conversions could be linked to the passion for accurate orthodox theology. I have pastored tiny churches (35 avg. atten.) and medium sized ones (520 avg. atten). In the smaller congregation I wasted time trying to look busy. In the larger one, I wish that there had been more time for reflection and study. But, in both of them it was painfully obvious that a passion for accurate theology and a zeal for devoting long hours to study does not suffice for the skill set of a pastor.


----------



## Pergamum

> The larger problem (in my opinion) is that the people I agree with most theologically tend to be the lamest at planting churches. Some of them would rather waste most of their day reading theological message boards and priding themselves in the effectiveness of their put downs of (mostly) like-minded brethren or tearing down Christian leaders more "successful" than themselves, than in doing the HARD work involved in planting a congregation.


----------



## Need 4 Creed

I thought this article was quite interesting: Why I Am Not Too Excited About Church Planting


----------



## Tyrese

Need 4 Creed said:


> I thought this article was quite interesting: Why I Am Not Too Excited About Church Planting



It's a good article. I think this applies to alot of what is popular in modern evangelicalism. Do you think this applies to this thread? And if so why?


----------



## Need 4 Creed

Tyrese said:


> Need 4 Creed said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought this article was quite interesting: Why I Am Not Too Excited About Church Planting
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a good article. I think this applies to alot of what is popular in modern evangelicalism. Do you think this applies to this thread? And if so why?
Click to expand...


Sorry, I should have made the link with the topic clear. 

The following points seem relevant:

"2. Church planting is very expensive. I recently spoke to a planter at a men’s conference. He confided that his denomination had budgeted $125,000 a year to get his congregation off the ground. With local giving, he expected to expend almost $175,000 a year to establish his church plant. He also told me that more than 70% of plants failed within two years.

3. Church planting is labor intensive. Truckloads of stage gear, chairs and childcare infrastructure have to be set up and torn down each week. It’s a ton of work and key volunteers can burn out easily. It’s easy to expend all your energy on logistics and have little left for loving people."

Having been involved in several 'church plants' of an independent nature, I can agree that they are labour intensive and greedy on resources. They always need to recreate the wheel. They usually, (always?) seem to depend upon Christians transfering from an existing church inorder to support the work). 

I guess from a practical point of view would it not make more sense for RBs to cast their lot with RPs (assuming there is already an RP presence) rather than starting a new work? (I am asking this from the perspective of a credobaptist in an area where there is no RB but an abundance of RPs (of a variety of stripes). 

That would be my arguments against on the basis of pragmatics, but I also have theological reservations, is it not schism? And could Calvin's quote not be applied to the current RP/RP discussion? 

John Calvin: The pure ministry of the Word and pure mode of celebrating the sacraments are, as we say, sufficient pledge and guarantee that we may safely embrace as church any society in which both these marks exist. The principle extends to the point that we must not reject it so long as it retains them, even if it otherwise swarms with many faults. What is more, some fault may creep into the administration of either doctrine or sacraments, but this ought not to estrange us from communion with the church. For not all the articles of true doctrine are of the same sort. Some are so necessary to know that they should be certain and unquestioned by all men as the proper principles of religion. Such are: God is one; Christ is God and the Son of God; our salvation rests in God’s mercy; and the like. Among the churches there are other articles of doctrine disputed which still do not break the unity of faith. Suppose that one church believes—short of unbridled contention and opinionated stubbornness—that souls upon leaving bodies fly to heaven; while another, not daring to define the place, is convinced nevertheless that they live to the Lord. What churches would disagree on this one point? Here are the apostle’s words: “Let us therefore, as many as are perfect, be of the same mind; and if you be differently minded in anything, God shall reveal this also to you” [Philippians 3:15]. Does this not sufficiently indicate that a difference of opinion over these nonessential matters should in no wise be the basis of schism among Christians? First and foremost, we should agree on all points. But since all men are somewhat beclouded with ignorance, either we must leave no church remaining, or we must condone delusion in those matters which can go unknown without harm to the sum of religion and without loss of salvation. 
But here I would not support even the slightest errors with the thought of fostering them through flattery and connivance. But I say we must not thoughtlessly forsake the church because of any petty dissensions. For in it alone is kept safe and uncorrupted that doctrine in which piety stands sound and the use of the sacraments ordained by the Lord is guarded. In the meantime, if we try to correct what displeases us, we do so out of duty. Paul’s statement applies to this: “If a better revelation is made to another sitting by, let the first be silent” [1 Corinthians 14:30 p.]. From this it is clear that every member of the church is charged with the responsibility of public edification according to the measure of his grace, provided he perform it decently and in order. That is, we are neither to renounce the communion of the church nor, remaining in it, to disturb its peace and duly ordered discipline. Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 1, ed. John T. McNeill and trans. Ford Lewis Battles, (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, reprinted 1977), Book IV.1.12, pp. 1025-1026.

John Calvin commenting in 1 Cor 11:19: For there must be also heresies. He had previously spoken of divisions. (1 Corinthians 11:18.) Now he uses the term heresies, with the view of amplifying the more, as we may infer, too, from the word also, for it is added for the sake of amplification. (pro auchesin) It is well known in what sense the ancients used those two terms, and what distinction they made between Heretics and Schismatics. Heresy they made to consist in disagreement as to doctrine, and schism, on the contrary, in alienation of affection, as when any one withdrew from the Church from envy, or from dislike of the pastors, or from ill nature. It is true, that the Church cannot but be torn asunder by false doctrine, and thus heresy is the root and origin of schism, and it is also true that envy or pride is the mother of almost all heresies, but at the same time it is of advantage to distinguish in this way between these two terms. 
But let us see in what sense Paul employs them. I have already expressed my disapprobation of those who explain heresy as meaning the setting up of a separate table, inasmuch as the rich did not partake of their Supper along with the poor; for he had it in view to point out something more hateful. But without mentioning the opinions of others, I take schism and heresy here in the way of less and greater. Schisms, then, are either secret grudges — when we do not see that agreement which ought to subsist among the pious — when inclinations at variance with each other are at work — when every one is mightily pleased with his own way, and finds fault with everything that is done by others. Heresies are when the evil proceeds to such a pitch that open hostility is discovered, and persons deliberately divide themselves into opposite parties. Hence, in order that believers might not feel discouraged on seeing the Corinthians torn with divisions, the Apostle turns round this occasion of offense in an opposite direction, intimating that the Lord does rather by such trials make proof of his people’s constancy. A lovely consolation! “So far, says he, should we be from being troubled, or cast down, when we do not see complete unity in the Church, but on the contrary some threatenings of separation from want of proper agreement, that even if sects should start up, we ought to remain firm and constant. For in this way hypocrites are detected — in this way, on the other hand, the sincerity of believers is tried. For as this gives occasion for discovering the fickleness of those who were not rooted in the Lord’s Word, and the wickedness of those who had assumed the appearance of good men, so the good afford a more signal manifestation of their constancy and sincerity.” Calvin’s Commentaries, Vol. XX, trans. John Pringle (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, reprinted 1979), p. 366.


----------



## Need 4 Creed

"YES!. . . Churches are not a "zero sum game." One more RP or RB church does not necessarily mean subtracting members from other congregations (even if that would be GREAT in some cases). In reality, if one Starbucks was sufficient, there would not be one on every other corner in some cities. I am still trying to figure out how there can be a CVS on one side of the street and a Walgreens on the other side, let alone one of either every few blocks. We even have three Target stores in our not very big city. Adding a RP or RB church to every city in America would be a net gain for the Kingdom, in almost every respect. One denomination in my town has 32 congregations, a half dozen of them with 600-800 in attendance each weekend."

Thanks for your response, I liked a lot of your other points. 

I do wonder though, is the above point not an example of looking at the situation through the lense of our own culture (western consumerism) rather than theological? Should we take our lead from the secular free market?


----------



## Need 4 Creed

Pergamum said:


> Why not go and plant a church where none at all exists, whether paedo or credo?



Great point, which raises the deeper issue: should any group church plant when there is already a church in an area? But I think that might need another thread!


----------



## Pergamum

Need 4 Creed said:


> Tyrese said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Need 4 Creed said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought this article was quite interesting: Why I Am Not Too Excited About Church Planting
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a good article. I think this applies to alot of what is popular in modern evangelicalism. Do you think this applies to this thread? And if so why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, I should have made the link with the topic clear.
> 
> The following points seem relevant:
> 
> "2. Church planting is very expensive. I recently spoke to a planter at a men’s conference. He confided that his denomination had budgeted $125,000 a year to get his congregation off the ground. With local giving, he expected to expend almost $175,000 a year to establish his church plant. He also told me that more than 70% of plants failed within two years.
> 
> 3. Church planting is labor intensive. Truckloads of stage gear, chairs and childcare infrastructure have to be set up and torn down each week. It’s a ton of work and key volunteers can burn out easily. It’s easy to expend all your energy on logistics and have little left for loving people."
> 
> Having been involved in several 'church plants' of an independent nature, I can agree that they are labour intensive and greedy on resources. They always need to recreate the wheel. They usually, (always?) seem to depend upon Christians transfering from an existing church inorder to support the work).
> 
> I guess from a practical point of view would it not make more sense for RBs to cast their lot with RPs (assuming there is already an RP presence) rather than starting a new work? (I am asking this from the perspective of a credobaptist in an area where there is no RB but an abundance of RPs (of a variety of stripes).
> 
> That would be my arguments against on the basis of pragmatics, but I also have theological reservations, is it not schism? And could Calvin's quote not be applied to the current RP/RP discussion?
> 
> John Calvin: The pure ministry of the Word and pure mode of celebrating the sacraments are, as we say, sufficient pledge and guarantee that we may safely embrace as church any society in which both these marks exist. The principle extends to the point that we must not reject it so long as it retains them, even if it otherwise swarms with many faults. What is more, some fault may creep into the administration of either doctrine or sacraments, but this ought not to estrange us from communion with the church. For not all the articles of true doctrine are of the same sort. Some are so necessary to know that they should be certain and unquestioned by all men as the proper principles of religion. Such are: God is one; Christ is God and the Son of God; our salvation rests in God’s mercy; and the like. Among the churches there are other articles of doctrine disputed which still do not break the unity of faith. Suppose that one church believes—short of unbridled contention and opinionated stubbornness—that souls upon leaving bodies fly to heaven; while another, not daring to define the place, is convinced nevertheless that they live to the Lord. What churches would disagree on this one point? Here are the apostle’s words: “Let us therefore, as many as are perfect, be of the same mind; and if you be differently minded in anything, God shall reveal this also to you” [Philippians 3:15]. Does this not sufficiently indicate that a difference of opinion over these nonessential matters should in no wise be the basis of schism among Christians? First and foremost, we should agree on all points. But since all men are somewhat beclouded with ignorance, either we must leave no church remaining, or we must condone delusion in those matters which can go unknown without harm to the sum of religion and without loss of salvation.
> But here I would not support even the slightest errors with the thought of fostering them through flattery and connivance. But I say we must not thoughtlessly forsake the church because of any petty dissensions. For in it alone is kept safe and uncorrupted that doctrine in which piety stands sound and the use of the sacraments ordained by the Lord is guarded. In the meantime, if we try to correct what displeases us, we do so out of duty. Paul’s statement applies to this: “If a better revelation is made to another sitting by, let the first be silent” [1 Corinthians 14:30 p.]. From this it is clear that every member of the church is charged with the responsibility of public edification according to the measure of his grace, provided he perform it decently and in order. That is, we are neither to renounce the communion of the church nor, remaining in it, to disturb its peace and duly ordered discipline. Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 1, ed. John T. McNeill and trans. Ford Lewis Battles, (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, reprinted 1977), Book IV.1.12, pp. 1025-1026.
> 
> John Calvin commenting in 1 Cor 11:19: For there must be also heresies. He had previously spoken of divisions. (1 Corinthians 11:18.) Now he uses the term heresies, with the view of amplifying the more, as we may infer, too, from the word also, for it is added for the sake of amplification. (pro auchesin) It is well known in what sense the ancients used those two terms, and what distinction they made between Heretics and Schismatics. Heresy they made to consist in disagreement as to doctrine, and schism, on the contrary, in alienation of affection, as when any one withdrew from the Church from envy, or from dislike of the pastors, or from ill nature. It is true, that the Church cannot but be torn asunder by false doctrine, and thus heresy is the root and origin of schism, and it is also true that envy or pride is the mother of almost all heresies, but at the same time it is of advantage to distinguish in this way between these two terms.
> But let us see in what sense Paul employs them. I have already expressed my disapprobation of those who explain heresy as meaning the setting up of a separate table, inasmuch as the rich did not partake of their Supper along with the poor; for he had it in view to point out something more hateful. But without mentioning the opinions of others, I take schism and heresy here in the way of less and greater. Schisms, then, are either secret grudges — when we do not see that agreement which ought to subsist among the pious — when inclinations at variance with each other are at work — when every one is mightily pleased with his own way, and finds fault with everything that is done by others. Heresies are when the evil proceeds to such a pitch that open hostility is discovered, and persons deliberately divide themselves into opposite parties. Hence, in order that believers might not feel discouraged on seeing the Corinthians torn with divisions, the Apostle turns round this occasion of offense in an opposite direction, intimating that the Lord does rather by such trials make proof of his people’s constancy. A lovely consolation! “So far, says he, should we be from being troubled, or cast down, when we do not see complete unity in the Church, but on the contrary some threatenings of separation from want of proper agreement, that even if sects should start up, we ought to remain firm and constant. For in this way hypocrites are detected — in this way, on the other hand, the sincerity of believers is tried. For as this gives occasion for discovering the fickleness of those who were not rooted in the Lord’s Word, and the wickedness of those who had assumed the appearance of good men, so the good afford a more signal manifestation of their constancy and sincerity.” Calvin’s Commentaries, Vol. XX, trans. John Pringle (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, reprinted 1979), p. 366.
Click to expand...



You wrote:


> Church planting is labor intensive. Truckloads of stage gear, chairs and childcare infrastructure have to be set up and torn down each week



This is not true; church can begin much simpler than this...


----------



## DMcFadden

Need 4 Creed said:


> I do wonder though, is the above point not an example of looking at the situation through the lense of our own culture (western consumerism) rather than theological? Should we take our lead from the secular free market?



I do NOT subscribe to the views of the Church Growth movement, even though one of my profs in seminary was C. Peter Wagner, the granddaddy of the movement!

My response was thinking about an American context where 30-40% of people are already attending church, not a European situation about which I know nothing.

I was trying to interject the observation that it is silly to wring hands over whether another orthodox church is "too much." When my wife and I moved to this community of 250,000 there was NO RB congregation. Given the current environment of mainline drift, Romanist stasis, fundamentalist proliferation, and shallow megachurch reality, it is more likely than not that there will NOT be ANY confessional Reformational congregation nearby.

My point about Starbucks and Target was that obviously people who are hardheaded enough not to waste resources on too many of their stores recognize that there is plenty of room in a community for multiple outposts of their kind. The same is true of churches.

And, while this may represent tipping too far in the direction of culture, investing in "curing" a sick church is often more time-intensive and resource draining, not to mention frustrating, than planting a new congregation. Due to the sinful attitudes of many leaders of existing churches, they simply will NOT accept reform of "how we do it around here." You speak of the danger of schism. For me the danger of trying to put new wine in old wineskins is a reality as well. My first pastorate was in a church ready to close. We grew fairly rapidly, but the challenges of ministry in an environment where the size was a direct result of toxic attitudes was probably much more difficult than a church plant would have been.

My tilting in favor of church planting has more to do with a Christian doctrine of the sinfulness of man than consumerist marketing. In America, anyhow, many dying churches have entrenched power structures (e.g., key families who control the church) that organize rather effectively against a healthy congregational life and ministry.


----------



## Cymro

I would not consider baptism a secondary issue as a paedobaptist, as the denial of its
application to the seed of believers is a negation of the covenant promise. The reason
why I would say no to the planting of a RB church where there is already an RP cause
is, that a Baptist can take out membership in a RP church so fulfilling their spiritual needs.
Whereas the reverse of that position would not be allowed. The size of the locality is also
a factor. A village could not sustain competing interests and the divisiveness would be a
poor witness, as historically in Wales we have experienced.


----------



## DMcFadden

Pergamum said:


> The larger problem (in my opinion) is that the people I agree with most theologically tend to be the lamest at planting churches. Some of them would rather waste most of their day reading theological message boards and priding themselves in the effectiveness of their put downs of (mostly) like-minded brethren or tearing down Christian leaders more "successful" than themselves, than in doing the HARD work involved in planting a congregation.
Click to expand...


Sorry if it sounded too harsh! It is my observation, however, that in the confessional Reformation churches that I am familiar with (RP, RB, and LCMS), there are practical reasons why some of the congregations do not flourish.

* Pastors who become too inward focused and do not lead their people to think evangelistically. Evangelism is not the exclusive property of the evangelicals!
* Church leaders who are more content catering to their own "needs" rather than seeing the church as the tip of the spear for the kingdom of God.
* The psychological reality that it is easy for full-time pastors of very small congregations to fall into bad work habits. If we would have had the Internet when I was pastoring a congregation of 35, it would have been an immense temptation to spend all of my time compensating for being such a small fry by wasting my days on theological message boards. As much as I love the PB, how many pastors of thriving churches have time to devote to this kind of thing?


----------



## Need 4 Creed

Pergamum said:


> Need 4 Creed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tyrese said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Need 4 Creed said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought this article was quite interesting: Why I Am Not Too Excited About Church Planting
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a good article. I think this applies to alot of what is popular in modern evangelicalism. Do you think this applies to this thread? And if so why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I should have made the link with the topic clear.
> 
> The following points seem relevant:
> 
> "2. Church planting is very expensive. I recently spoke to a planter at a men’s conference. He confided that his denomination had budgeted $125,000 a year to get his congregation off the ground. With local giving, he expected to expend almost $175,000 a year to establish his church plant. He also told me that more than 70% of plants failed within two years.
> 
> 3. Church planting is labor intensive. Truckloads of stage gear, chairs and childcare infrastructure have to be set up and torn down each week. It’s a ton of work and key volunteers can burn out easily. It’s easy to expend all your energy on logistics and have little left for loving people."
> 
> Having been involved in several 'church plants' of an independent nature, I can agree that they are labour intensive and greedy on resources. They always need to recreate the wheel. They usually, (always?) seem to depend upon Christians transfering from an existing church inorder to support the work).
> 
> I guess from a practical point of view would it not make more sense for RBs to cast their lot with RPs (assuming there is already an RP presence) rather than starting a new work? (I am asking this from the perspective of a credobaptist in an area where there is no RB but an abundance of RPs (of a variety of stripes).
> 
> That would be my arguments against on the basis of pragmatics, but I also have theological reservations, is it not schism? And could Calvin's quote not be applied to the current RP/RP discussion?
> 
> John Calvin: The pure ministry of the Word and pure mode of celebrating the sacraments are, as we say, sufficient pledge and guarantee that we may safely embrace as church any society in which both these marks exist. The principle extends to the point that we must not reject it so long as it retains them, even if it otherwise swarms with many faults. What is more, some fault may creep into the administration of either doctrine or sacraments, but this ought not to estrange us from communion with the church. For not all the articles of true doctrine are of the same sort. Some are so necessary to know that they should be certain and unquestioned by all men as the proper principles of religion. Such are: God is one; Christ is God and the Son of God; our salvation rests in God’s mercy; and the like. Among the churches there are other articles of doctrine disputed which still do not break the unity of faith. Suppose that one church believes—short of unbridled contention and opinionated stubbornness—that souls upon leaving bodies fly to heaven; while another, not daring to define the place, is convinced nevertheless that they live to the Lord. What churches would disagree on this one point? Here are the apostle’s words: “Let us therefore, as many as are perfect, be of the same mind; and if you be differently minded in anything, God shall reveal this also to you” [Philippians 3:15]. Does this not sufficiently indicate that a difference of opinion over these nonessential matters should in no wise be the basis of schism among Christians? First and foremost, we should agree on all points. But since all men are somewhat beclouded with ignorance, either we must leave no church remaining, or we must condone delusion in those matters which can go unknown without harm to the sum of religion and without loss of salvation.
> But here I would not support even the slightest errors with the thought of fostering them through flattery and connivance. But I say we must not thoughtlessly forsake the church because of any petty dissensions. For in it alone is kept safe and uncorrupted that doctrine in which piety stands sound and the use of the sacraments ordained by the Lord is guarded. In the meantime, if we try to correct what displeases us, we do so out of duty. Paul’s statement applies to this: “If a better revelation is made to another sitting by, let the first be silent” [1 Corinthians 14:30 p.]. From this it is clear that every member of the church is charged with the responsibility of public edification according to the measure of his grace, provided he perform it decently and in order. That is, we are neither to renounce the communion of the church nor, remaining in it, to disturb its peace and duly ordered discipline. Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 1, ed. John T. McNeill and trans. Ford Lewis Battles, (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, reprinted 1977), Book IV.1.12, pp. 1025-1026.
> 
> John Calvin commenting in 1 Cor 11:19: For there must be also heresies. He had previously spoken of divisions. (1 Corinthians 11:18.) Now he uses the term heresies, with the view of amplifying the more, as we may infer, too, from the word also, for it is added for the sake of amplification. (pro auchesin) It is well known in what sense the ancients used those two terms, and what distinction they made between Heretics and Schismatics. Heresy they made to consist in disagreement as to doctrine, and schism, on the contrary, in alienation of affection, as when any one withdrew from the Church from envy, or from dislike of the pastors, or from ill nature. It is true, that the Church cannot but be torn asunder by false doctrine, and thus heresy is the root and origin of schism, and it is also true that envy or pride is the mother of almost all heresies, but at the same time it is of advantage to distinguish in this way between these two terms.
> But let us see in what sense Paul employs them. I have already expressed my disapprobation of those who explain heresy as meaning the setting up of a separate table, inasmuch as the rich did not partake of their Supper along with the poor; for he had it in view to point out something more hateful. But without mentioning the opinions of others, I take schism and heresy here in the way of less and greater. Schisms, then, are either secret grudges — when we do not see that agreement which ought to subsist among the pious — when inclinations at variance with each other are at work — when every one is mightily pleased with his own way, and finds fault with everything that is done by others. Heresies are when the evil proceeds to such a pitch that open hostility is discovered, and persons deliberately divide themselves into opposite parties. Hence, in order that believers might not feel discouraged on seeing the Corinthians torn with divisions, the Apostle turns round this occasion of offense in an opposite direction, intimating that the Lord does rather by such trials make proof of his people’s constancy. A lovely consolation! “So far, says he, should we be from being troubled, or cast down, when we do not see complete unity in the Church, but on the contrary some threatenings of separation from want of proper agreement, that even if sects should start up, we ought to remain firm and constant. For in this way hypocrites are detected — in this way, on the other hand, the sincerity of believers is tried. For as this gives occasion for discovering the fickleness of those who were not rooted in the Lord’s Word, and the wickedness of those who had assumed the appearance of good men, so the good afford a more signal manifestation of their constancy and sincerity.” Calvin’s Commentaries, Vol. XX, trans. John Pringle (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, reprinted 1979), p. 366.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Church planting is labor intensive. Truckloads of stage gear, chairs and childcare infrastructure have to be set up and torn down each week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is not true; church can begin much simpler than this...
Click to expand...


Sorry, that was a quote. But I take your point. However, while they need not be as labour intesnive as the article suggests, they do demmand a lot of work. Even the ones who start small have the demmands of dealing with creshe facilities for young children and so on. You usually end up with an overworked small core.


----------



## Need 4 Creed

Cymro said:


> I would not consider baptism a secondary issue as a paedobaptist, as the denial of its
> application to the seed of believers is a negation of the covenant promise. The reason
> why I would say no to the planting of a RB church where there is already an RP cause
> is, that a Baptist can take out membership in a RP church so fulfilling their spiritual needs.
> Whereas the reverse of that position would not be allowed. The size of the locality is also
> a factor. A village could not sustain competing interests and the divisiveness would be a
> poor witness, as historically in Wales we have experienced.



I think this may be true for the highlands, too.


----------



## Need 4 Creed

Okay, a couple of emerging issues seem to be:

1) Are there different answers to the original question, depending upon whether or not you are based in the city or a small rural community? 

2) On what grounds is there theological justification for planting a reformed baptist church when there are already reformed presbyterian churches? (e.g. Is it a matter of baptism or the nature of the church
i.e 'believers only' church?)


----------



## Tyrese

Pergamum said:


> Need 4 Creed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tyrese said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Need 4 Creed said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought this article was quite interesting: Why I Am Not Too Excited About Church Planting
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a good article. I think this applies to alot of what is popular in modern evangelicalism. Do you think this applies to this thread? And if so why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, I should have made the link with the topic clear.
> 
> The following points seem relevant:
> 
> "2. Church planting is very expensive. I recently spoke to a planter at a men’s conference. He confided that his denomination had budgeted $125,000 a year to get his congregation off the ground. With local giving, he expected to expend almost $175,000 a year to establish his church plant. He also told me that more than 70% of plants failed within two years.
> 
> 3. Church planting is labor intensive. Truckloads of stage gear, chairs and childcare infrastructure have to be set up and torn down each week. It’s a ton of work and key volunteers can burn out easily. It’s easy to expend all your energy on logistics and have little left for loving people."
> 
> Having been involved in several 'church plants' of an independent nature, I can agree that they are labour intensive and greedy on resources. They always need to recreate the wheel. They usually, (always?) seem to depend upon Christians transfering from an existing church inorder to support the work).
> 
> I guess from a practical point of view would it not make more sense for RBs to cast their lot with RPs (assuming there is already an RP presence) rather than starting a new work? (I am asking this from the perspective of a credobaptist in an area where there is no RB but an abundance of RPs (of a variety of stripes).
> 
> That would be my arguments against on the basis of pragmatics, but I also have theological reservations, is it not schism? And could Calvin's quote not be applied to the current RP/RP discussion?
> 
> John Calvin: The pure ministry of the Word and pure mode of celebrating the sacraments are, as we say, sufficient pledge and guarantee that we may safely embrace as church any society in which both these marks exist. The principle extends to the point that we must not reject it so long as it retains them, even if it otherwise swarms with many faults. What is more, some fault may creep into the administration of either doctrine or sacraments, but this ought not to estrange us from communion with the church. For not all the articles of true doctrine are of the same sort. Some are so necessary to know that they should be certain and unquestioned by all men as the proper principles of religion. Such are: God is one; Christ is God and the Son of God; our salvation rests in God’s mercy; and the like. Among the churches there are other articles of doctrine disputed which still do not break the unity of faith. Suppose that one church believes—short of unbridled contention and opinionated stubbornness—that souls upon leaving bodies fly to heaven; while another, not daring to define the place, is convinced nevertheless that they live to the Lord. What churches would disagree on this one point? Here are the apostle’s words: “Let us therefore, as many as are perfect, be of the same mind; and if you be differently minded in anything, God shall reveal this also to you” [Philippians 3:15]. Does this not sufficiently indicate that a difference of opinion over these nonessential matters should in no wise be the basis of schism among Christians? First and foremost, we should agree on all points. But since all men are somewhat beclouded with ignorance, either we must leave no church remaining, or we must condone delusion in those matters which can go unknown without harm to the sum of religion and without loss of salvation.
> But here I would not support even the slightest errors with the thought of fostering them through flattery and connivance. But I say we must not thoughtlessly forsake the church because of any petty dissensions. For in it alone is kept safe and uncorrupted that doctrine in which piety stands sound and the use of the sacraments ordained by the Lord is guarded. In the meantime, if we try to correct what displeases us, we do so out of duty. Paul’s statement applies to this: “If a better revelation is made to another sitting by, let the first be silent” [1 Corinthians 14:30 p.]. From this it is clear that every member of the church is charged with the responsibility of public edification according to the measure of his grace, provided he perform it decently and in order. That is, we are neither to renounce the communion of the church nor, remaining in it, to disturb its peace and duly ordered discipline. Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 1, ed. John T. McNeill and trans. Ford Lewis Battles, (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, reprinted 1977), Book IV.1.12, pp. 1025-1026.
> 
> John Calvin commenting in 1 Cor 11:19: For there must be also heresies. He had previously spoken of divisions. (1 Corinthians 11:18.) Now he uses the term heresies, with the view of amplifying the more, as we may infer, too, from the word also, for it is added for the sake of amplification. (pro auchesin) It is well known in what sense the ancients used those two terms, and what distinction they made between Heretics and Schismatics. Heresy they made to consist in disagreement as to doctrine, and schism, on the contrary, in alienation of affection, as when any one withdrew from the Church from envy, or from dislike of the pastors, or from ill nature. It is true, that the Church cannot but be torn asunder by false doctrine, and thus heresy is the root and origin of schism, and it is also true that envy or pride is the mother of almost all heresies, but at the same time it is of advantage to distinguish in this way between these two terms.
> But let us see in what sense Paul employs them. I have already expressed my disapprobation of those who explain heresy as meaning the setting up of a separate table, inasmuch as the rich did not partake of their Supper along with the poor; for he had it in view to point out something more hateful. But without mentioning the opinions of others, I take schism and heresy here in the way of less and greater. Schisms, then, are either secret grudges — when we do not see that agreement which ought to subsist among the pious — when inclinations at variance with each other are at work — when every one is mightily pleased with his own way, and finds fault with everything that is done by others. Heresies are when the evil proceeds to such a pitch that open hostility is discovered, and persons deliberately divide themselves into opposite parties. Hence, in order that believers might not feel discouraged on seeing the Corinthians torn with divisions, the Apostle turns round this occasion of offense in an opposite direction, intimating that the Lord does rather by such trials make proof of his people’s constancy. A lovely consolation! “So far, says he, should we be from being troubled, or cast down, when we do not see complete unity in the Church, but on the contrary some threatenings of separation from want of proper agreement, that even if sects should start up, we ought to remain firm and constant. For in this way hypocrites are detected — in this way, on the other hand, the sincerity of believers is tried. For as this gives occasion for discovering the fickleness of those who were not rooted in the Lord’s Word, and the wickedness of those who had assumed the appearance of good men, so the good afford a more signal manifestation of their constancy and sincerity.” Calvin’s Commentaries, Vol. XX, trans. John Pringle (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, reprinted 1979), p. 366.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Church planting is labor intensive. Truckloads of stage gear, chairs and childcare infrastructure have to be set up and torn down each week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is not true; church can begin much simpler than this...
Click to expand...

 
Its not true at all. I've been to the very Churches that the article is dealing with and he's on point. But this has absolutely nothing to do with Reformed Baptist Church planting. I've never been to a Presbyterian Church plant so I cant say anything about that. I hope someone with more time can give a more detailed answer to this.


----------



## JonathanHunt

Cymro said:


> I would not consider baptism a secondary issue as a paedobaptist, as the denial of its
> application to the seed of believers is a negation of the covenant promise. The reason
> why I would say no to the planting of a RB church where there is already an RP cause
> is, that a Baptist can take out membership in a RP church so fulfilling their spiritual needs.
> Whereas the reverse of that position would not be allowed.
> .



Not always true, Jeff. We allow believers who believe their covenant baptism to be the fulfilment of Christ's command into membership, although they wouldn't be allowed to hold office. Just as in most presbyterian churches.


----------



## JonathanHunt

Need 4 Creed said:


> Okay, a couple of emerging issues seem to be:
> 
> 1) Are there different answers to the original question, depending upon whether or not you are based in the city or a small rural community?
> 
> 2) On what grounds is there theological justification for planting a reformed baptist church when there are already reformed presbyterian churches? (e.g. Is it a matter of baptism or the nature of the church
> i.e 'believers only' church?)



I truly believe that you have to make every judgment on a case-by-case basis. A few years ago a Presbyterian church was planted in the town we used to live in. As members of the only 'reformed' (Baptist) church in town we were not impressed given the darkness in surrounding towns and our perception of the need there. Now there are four churches in the town who are explicitly soteriologically reformed, and three that are (essentially) confessional. There's certainly room for all of them, and a need for them to be in the different corners of the town they are, but they would probably be more effective as three or two fellowships rather than four.

The only thing I would venture is that in a small rural community where there was a genuine church (preaching the truth) I would not start another one, but rather seek to strengthen the one that existed, whatever secondary issues I had.


----------



## Need 4 Creed

Tyrese said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Need 4 Creed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tyrese said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Need 4 Creed said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought this article was quite interesting: Why I Am Not Too Excited About Church Planting
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a good article. I think this applies to alot of what is popular in modern evangelicalism. Do you think this applies to this thread? And if so why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I should have made the link with the topic clear.
> 
> The following points seem relevant:
> 
> "2. Church planting is very expensive. I recently spoke to a planter at a men’s conference. He confided that his denomination had budgeted $125,000 a year to get his congregation off the ground. With local giving, he expected to expend almost $175,000 a year to establish his church plant. He also told me that more than 70% of plants failed within two years.
> 
> 3. Church planting is labor intensive. Truckloads of stage gear, chairs and childcare infrastructure have to be set up and torn down each week. It’s a ton of work and key volunteers can burn out easily. It’s easy to expend all your energy on logistics and have little left for loving people."
> 
> Having been involved in several 'church plants' of an independent nature, I can agree that they are labour intensive and greedy on resources. They always need to recreate the wheel. They usually, (always?) seem to depend upon Christians transfering from an existing church inorder to support the work).
> 
> I guess from a practical point of view would it not make more sense for RBs to cast their lot with RPs (assuming there is already an RP presence) rather than starting a new work? (I am asking this from the perspective of a credobaptist in an area where there is no RB but an abundance of RPs (of a variety of stripes).
> 
> That would be my arguments against on the basis of pragmatics, but I also have theological reservations, is it not schism? And could Calvin's quote not be applied to the current RP/RP discussion?
> 
> John Calvin: The pure ministry of the Word and pure mode of celebrating the sacraments are, as we say, sufficient pledge and guarantee that we may safely embrace as church any society in which both these marks exist. The principle extends to the point that we must not reject it so long as it retains them, even if it otherwise swarms with many faults. What is more, some fault may creep into the administration of either doctrine or sacraments, but this ought not to estrange us from communion with the church. For not all the articles of true doctrine are of the same sort. Some are so necessary to know that they should be certain and unquestioned by all men as the proper principles of religion. Such are: God is one; Christ is God and the Son of God; our salvation rests in God’s mercy; and the like. Among the churches there are other articles of doctrine disputed which still do not break the unity of faith. Suppose that one church believes—short of unbridled contention and opinionated stubbornness—that souls upon leaving bodies fly to heaven; while another, not daring to define the place, is convinced nevertheless that they live to the Lord. What churches would disagree on this one point? Here are the apostle’s words: “Let us therefore, as many as are perfect, be of the same mind; and if you be differently minded in anything, God shall reveal this also to you” [Philippians 3:15]. Does this not sufficiently indicate that a difference of opinion over these nonessential matters should in no wise be the basis of schism among Christians? First and foremost, we should agree on all points. But since all men are somewhat beclouded with ignorance, either we must leave no church remaining, or we must condone delusion in those matters which can go unknown without harm to the sum of religion and without loss of salvation.
> But here I would not support even the slightest errors with the thought of fostering them through flattery and connivance. But I say we must not thoughtlessly forsake the church because of any petty dissensions. For in it alone is kept safe and uncorrupted that doctrine in which piety stands sound and the use of the sacraments ordained by the Lord is guarded. In the meantime, if we try to correct what displeases us, we do so out of duty. Paul’s statement applies to this: “If a better revelation is made to another sitting by, let the first be silent” [1 Corinthians 14:30 p.]. From this it is clear that every member of the church is charged with the responsibility of public edification according to the measure of his grace, provided he perform it decently and in order. That is, we are neither to renounce the communion of the church nor, remaining in it, to disturb its peace and duly ordered discipline. Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 1, ed. John T. McNeill and trans. Ford Lewis Battles, (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, reprinted 1977), Book IV.1.12, pp. 1025-1026.
> 
> John Calvin commenting in 1 Cor 11:19: For there must be also heresies. He had previously spoken of divisions. (1 Corinthians 11:18.) Now he uses the term heresies, with the view of amplifying the more, as we may infer, too, from the word also, for it is added for the sake of amplification. (pro auchesin) It is well known in what sense the ancients used those two terms, and what distinction they made between Heretics and Schismatics. Heresy they made to consist in disagreement as to doctrine, and schism, on the contrary, in alienation of affection, as when any one withdrew from the Church from envy, or from dislike of the pastors, or from ill nature. It is true, that the Church cannot but be torn asunder by false doctrine, and thus heresy is the root and origin of schism, and it is also true that envy or pride is the mother of almost all heresies, but at the same time it is of advantage to distinguish in this way between these two terms.
> But let us see in what sense Paul employs them. I have already expressed my disapprobation of those who explain heresy as meaning the setting up of a separate table, inasmuch as the rich did not partake of their Supper along with the poor; for he had it in view to point out something more hateful. But without mentioning the opinions of others, I take schism and heresy here in the way of less and greater. Schisms, then, are either secret grudges — when we do not see that agreement which ought to subsist among the pious — when inclinations at variance with each other are at work — when every one is mightily pleased with his own way, and finds fault with everything that is done by others. Heresies are when the evil proceeds to such a pitch that open hostility is discovered, and persons deliberately divide themselves into opposite parties. Hence, in order that believers might not feel discouraged on seeing the Corinthians torn with divisions, the Apostle turns round this occasion of offense in an opposite direction, intimating that the Lord does rather by such trials make proof of his people’s constancy. A lovely consolation! “So far, says he, should we be from being troubled, or cast down, when we do not see complete unity in the Church, but on the contrary some threatenings of separation from want of proper agreement, that even if sects should start up, we ought to remain firm and constant. For in this way hypocrites are detected — in this way, on the other hand, the sincerity of believers is tried. For as this gives occasion for discovering the fickleness of those who were not rooted in the Lord’s Word, and the wickedness of those who had assumed the appearance of good men, so the good afford a more signal manifestation of their constancy and sincerity.” Calvin’s Commentaries, Vol. XX, trans. John Pringle (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, reprinted 1979), p. 366.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Church planting is labor intensive. Truckloads of stage gear, chairs and childcare infrastructure have to be set up and torn down each week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is not true; church can begin much simpler than this...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its not true at all. I've been to the very Churches that the article is dealing with and he's on point. But this has absolutely nothing to do with Reformed Baptist Church planting. I've never been to a Presbyterian Church plant so I cant say anything about that. I hope someone with more time can give a more detailed answer to this.
Click to expand...


While reformed churches may not have all the extra baggage that the contemporary churches have, it is naive to think that there is not more work involved in the early stages of a church plant. 

However, let us not be sidetracked by focusing on practicalities and instead focus on the theological justification. 

Even if it could be argued that a church could be planted without demmanding larger resources (finance, people, fabric etc) this still does not answer the question from a theological perspective.


----------



## Need 4 Creed

JonathanHunt said:


> Need 4 Creed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, a couple of emerging issues seem to be:
> 
> 1) Are there different answers to the original question, depending upon whether or not you are based in the city or a small rural community?
> 
> 2) On what grounds is there theological justification for planting a reformed baptist church when there are already reformed presbyterian churches? (e.g. Is it a matter of baptism or the nature of the church
> i.e 'believers only' church?)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I truly believe that you have to make every judgment on a case-by-case basis. A few years ago a Presbyterian church was planted in the town we used to live in. As members of the only 'reformed' (Baptist) church in town we were not impressed given the darkness in surrounding towns and our perception of the need there. Now there are four churches in the town who are explicitly soteriologically reformed, and three that are (essentially) confessional. There's certainly room for all of them, and a need for them to be in the different corners of the town they are, but they would probably be more effective as three or two fellowships rather than four.
> 
> The only thing I would venture is that in a small rural community where there was a genuine church (preaching the truth) I would not start another one, but rather seek to strengthen the one that existed, whatever secondary issues I had.
Click to expand...


Thanks Jonathan. 

"in a small rural community where there was a genuine church (preaching the truth) I would not start another one"

I was listening to a reformed baptist podcast, it was on church planting. It seemed to argue that the justification for planting a reformed baptist (when there was already a reformed presbyterian) was on the basis that the reformed presbyterians were not a 'true church' (this was not stated explicitly but implicitly). By that I mean, the definition of a 'true church' seemed to be things like 1) 'regenerate membership' (i.e believers' church) and 2) baptism of believers only.


----------



## Tyrese

Need 4 Creed said:


> JonathanHunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Need 4 Creed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, a couple of emerging issues seem to be:
> 
> 1) Are there different answers to the original question, depending upon whether or not you are based in the city or a small rural community?
> 
> 2) On what grounds is there theological justification for planting a reformed baptist church when there are already reformed presbyterian churches? (e.g. Is it a matter of baptism or the nature of the church
> i.e 'believers only' church?)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I truly believe that you have to make every judgment on a case-by-case basis. A few years ago a Presbyterian church was planted in the town we used to live in. As members of the only 'reformed' (Baptist) church in town we were not impressed given the darkness in surrounding towns and our perception of the need there. Now there are four churches in the town who are explicitly soteriologically reformed, and three that are (essentially) confessional. There's certainly room for all of them, and a need for them to be in the different corners of the town they are, but they would probably be more effective as three or two fellowships rather than four.
> 
> The only thing I would venture is that in a small rural community where there was a genuine church (preaching the truth) I would not start another one, but rather seek to strengthen the one that existed, whatever secondary issues I had.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks Jonathan.
> 
> "in a small rural community where there was a genuine church (preaching the truth) I would not start another one"
> 
> I was listening to a reformed baptist podcast, it was on church planting. It seemed to argue that the justification for planting a reformed baptist (when there was already a reformed presbyterian) was on the basis that the reformed presbyterians was not a 'true church'. By that I mean, the definition of a 'true church' seemed to be things like 1) 'regenerate membership' (i.e believers' church and 2) baptism of believers only.
Click to expand...


I know several families in different Reformed Baptist Churches that passed two or three Presbyterian Churches to drive a little over an hour to the nearest RB Church until one was planted near there homes. This is how important this issue is to some people.


----------



## Need 4 Creed

Tyrese said:


> Need 4 Creed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JonathanHunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Need 4 Creed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, a couple of emerging issues seem to be:
> 
> 1) Are there different answers to the original question, depending upon whether or not you are based in the city or a small rural community?
> 
> 2) On what grounds is there theological justification for planting a reformed baptist church when there are already reformed presbyterian churches? (e.g. Is it a matter of baptism or the nature of the church
> i.e 'believers only' church?)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I truly believe that you have to make every judgment on a case-by-case basis. A few years ago a Presbyterian church was planted in the town we used to live in. As members of the only 'reformed' (Baptist) church in town we were not impressed given the darkness in surrounding towns and our perception of the need there. Now there are four churches in the town who are explicitly soteriologically reformed, and three that are (essentially) confessional. There's certainly room for all of them, and a need for them to be in the different corners of the town they are, but they would probably be more effective as three or two fellowships rather than four.
> 
> The only thing I would venture is that in a small rural community where there was a genuine church (preaching the truth) I would not start another one, but rather seek to strengthen the one that existed, whatever secondary issues I had.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks Jonathan.
> 
> "in a small rural community where there was a genuine church (preaching the truth) I would not start another one"
> 
> I was listening to a reformed baptist podcast, it was on church planting. It seemed to argue that the justification for planting a reformed baptist (when there was already a reformed presbyterian) was on the basis that the reformed presbyterians was not a 'true church'. By that I mean, the definition of a 'true church' seemed to be things like 1) 'regenerate membership' (i.e believers' church and 2) baptism of believers only.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know several families in different Reformed Baptist Churches that passed two or three Presbyterian Churches to drive a little over an hour to the nearest RB Church until one was planted near there homes. This is how important this issue is to some people.
Click to expand...


I can understand it, I've been credobaptist all of my Christian life. Although moving towards confessionalism has somewhat softened my fixed credobaptist position.


----------



## Brock Organ

Need 4 Creed said:


> Is there any real justification for reformed baptists planting an RB church in an area that already has has reformed presbyterian churches?
> 
> It seems there are different views:
> 
> 1) Yes, because some RBs would see that they are planting a 'purer' expression of the church and because it is 'different' it is not in competition.
> 
> 2) No, it is divisive, counterproductive, a waste of resources and a poor witness.
> 
> I'm sure there are other perspectives.



As an RB currently in happy "exile" with a local PCA church, it's a key issue for me, and not an academic point. I do disagree with my dear Presbyterian friends on the baptism issue; and agree with my RB brothers it is not secondary; BUT, I receive a gracious, generous, warm and genuine Christian fellowship from many presbyterians: for example, a presbyterian pastor is my seminary mentor, we read, study and discuss Edwards and Bonar together, and a presbyterian chaplain is giving me a start in jail ministry. I thank God for their loving support and genuine personal interest in me, and pray that I would be only a blessing to them and their churches, faithful and kind to repay their trust, and never return their love with strife, division and competition.

So, in arriving in a new area, I think my preference would be to help the existing church first.

Kindest Regards!


----------



## Brock Organ

Brock Organ said:


> So, in arriving in a new area, I think my preference would be to help the existing church first.



As I almost always do, I forgot to include "thank you all for the other responses in this thread, they are very helpful to me and give me great food for thought" in my earlier post ...

Regards!


----------



## Heath

I vote YES!

Here is how that exact scenario played out in my city and in my church and a few reasons why having a RBC matters:

Over the last 20+ years in my city (Auburn, AL) there has been at least one or more RP churches. Over the years as baptists have become convicted of reformed teaching you have had two options, go PCA or stay in a non-reformed BC. Both have happened and both were good in some ways. 

In the BC you then tried to hold to teaching you believed while dealing with different teaching and congregational opposition to your views. It was something you had to deal with and it put you in a situation where you were a light in a BC in some ways. I'm not suggesting that you were not being fed, indeed you were, but it was always in a place of, at the very least, mild friction. As believers it was an opportunity to attempt to help others come to a reformed understanding but it was not the brotherhood and fellowship of a RBC.

In the RPC you were able to sit under reformed teaching but were limited by conscience from church office and even some lower level leading roles. You were also restricted from church membership by conscience and were left a bit on the outside because of withholding your children from infant sprinklings.

So, in our case, two professors in the EE department at AU began to realize that they were in these two positions. One in the RPC and one in the BC. They began praying and thinking that a RBC might be possible. 

The entire story of the forming of our church is a bit long to post here but the short story is that they formed a church, called a pastor and we have now been a church for ~8 years the best my mind currently recalls. We are a thriving church still in the beginning of some things but we were instantly a complete church in terms of fellowship and foundational theology. We get new visitors and members that mostly come seeking a RBC but a lot that are simply seeking "good biblical teaching" that they have not been able to find easily elsewhere. There are a few that would still describe themselves as non-reformed (not ant-reformed) and we are working on being a better church for the kingdom everyday. 

--

And as that all was happening my story was playing out as follows. I was saved in college 13 1/2 years ago at this point. I had grown up Methodist but had no real knowledge to look back on, even though I had attended sunday school and church regularly. My friends at college that were Christians were Baptist and so I began attending a BC and the Baptist student center. I was baptised and joined the BC. Skipping a lot, a few years later I found myself working with youth at a BC in the next town and still active and on leadership in the Baptist Student Center in AU. I am honestly uncertain how it began but as I began to see things from a reformed perspective there was a bit of controversy at the Student Center over the subject. Nothing major but it was clear that there were opposing views between one of the campus ministers and a tiny but growing group of students that had become reformed. I confronted some of the other students who had come to the reformed perspective independently from me about this rift as I didn't really have any solid footing in reformed theology and had only been seeing that there were huge differences between what I believed and what was being taught in some cases. 

For several reasons my time working with youth at the out of town BC was coming to an end and I was about to start attending the BC I had been a member of for several years before when the others at the Student Center who were a bit more solid in their reformed theology and understanding told me they had just started attending a brand new church plant that was RB. I would not have attended a PCA church at this point for sure. For one, I wouldn't have really known what I was looking for theologically because the reformed word as well as the calvinist word were still not in my head. I had no idea at the time that there were differences in Presbyterian or BCs and the two "obvious" choices were actually both on the liberal end of the spectrum. All that to say I went with them to the new church plant. I actually remember going to a meeting at one of the founder's homes on July 4th. It was a Godsend to say the least. 

There are many more facets to the story but for brevity sake I will say that had there only been RP churches and non-reformed BCs I would likely have never attended a reformed church. 

If you have any specific questions about how anything else played out please let me know.


----------



## Steve Paynter

Cymro said:


> I would not consider baptism a secondary issue as a paedobaptist, as the denial of its
> application to the seed of believers is a negation of the covenant promise. The reason
> why I would say no to the planting of a RB church where there is already an RP cause
> is, that a Baptist can take out membership in a RP church so fulfilling their spiritual needs.
> Whereas the reverse of that position would not be allowed. The size of the locality is also
> a factor. A village could not sustain competing interests and the divisiveness would be a
> poor witness, as historically in Wales we have experienced.



To put the counter-argument, baptism isn't a secondary issue as a Baptist. Paedobaptists can travel to the nearest Paedobaptist church for the rite for their children and the children of others in the church who might be so inclined, yet take out membership in a RB church with no other practise to distress them. In contrast, a Baptist in a paedobaptist church has to regularly witness "baptism" being administered to those with no faith, and witness those who have not come to repentance and faith being declared to be a member of the covenant of grace. This grates upon the Baptist's sensibilities.

In many ways baptism is a secondary matter; but like the question of women-ministers, it is one which so shapes a church that it is difficult for those with different views to function together. Some secondary matters just get in the way more than other secondary matters.

Having said that, I agree, in some situations the differences have to be overlooked. In my experience, many factors go into choosing a church, and it is often a matter of compromise.


----------



## Need 4 Creed

> In contrast, a Baptist in a paedobaptist church has to regularly witness "baptism" being administered to those with no faith, and witness those who have not come to repentance and faith being declared to be a member of the covenant of grace. This grates upon the Baptist's sensibilities.
> 
> In many ways baptism is a secondary matter; but like the question of women-ministers, it is one which so shapes a church that it is difficult for those with different views to function together. Some secondary matters just get in the way more than other secondary matters.
> 
> Having said that, I agree, in some situations the differences have to be overlooked. In my experience, many factors go into choosing a church, and it is often a matter of compromise.



This idea of baptised infants being included 'in the covenant' and being 'members of the visible church' strikes at the heart of ecclesiology. It raises the issue of who belongs to the church? And what is the church? 

I guess true baptist church theology would argue that the presbyterian theology of the church falls short of the New Testament revelation and therefore this alone would justify the establishing of a baptist (or as they would see it N.T) church. 

In reformed baptist teachings about church it is not uncommon to hear the phrases 'true churches' or 'churches established on N.T principles' of 'Churches fully commited to the teaching of the bible'.


----------



## Pergamum

I just read that Afghanistan has 48,000 mosques but not a single church.


----------



## Edward

Need 4 Creed said:


> 3. Church planting is labor intensive. Truckloads of stage gear, chairs and childcare infrastructure have to be set up and torn down each week.



The author is either ignorant or mistaken. We started with a rented school auditorium, some banner signs, a round trip plane ticket for a preacher and some wicker baskets from the hobby store for the collection. The first major purchase was some choir robes, the next capital expense was folding chairs after we changed to a larger location. Folks donated folding cribs that they no longer needed; that took care of the infants and toddlers.


----------



## py3ak

DMcFadden said:


> I do NOT subscribe to the views of the Church Growth movement, even though one of my profs in seminary was C. Peter Wagner, the granddaddy of the movement!



What's the connection between Wagner and McGavran? I remember reading an article by McGavran where it seemed like he was praising himself for having started the Church Growth movement.


----------



## Tyrese

Edward said:


> Need 4 Creed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Church planting is labor intensive. Truckloads of stage gear, chairs and childcare infrastructure have to be set up and torn down each week.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The author is either ignorant or mistaken. We started with a rented school auditorium, some banner signs, a round trip plane ticket for a preacher and some wicker baskets from the hobby store for the collection. The first major purchase was some choir robes, the next capital expense was folding chairs after we changed to a larger location. Folks donated folding cribs that they no longer needed; that took care of the infants and toddlers.
Click to expand...



Is your Church the type of Church being described or is more of a tradititional PCA Church w/o a band?


----------



## Tyrese

Goodcheer68 said:


> Tyrese said:
> 
> 
> 
> immersion as that is what the Bible teaches
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forgetting the paedo-credo debate the immersion only position is pretty hard to sustain so I would not be so confident on that.
Click to expand...


Why wouldn't a Baptist be confident about baptism by immersion? I'm not interested in having a debate about the subjects of baptism or mode (considering the issue has been debated in the past) but I would never say that paedobaptist are not confident in the practice of infant baptism (and whatever comes with it) even if I believe it's being read into scripture. To a certain extent we are all confident about our beliefs even if we disagree with one another. I would say confidence as a Christian is extremely important. So to make a long story short I don't think we have to have a debate on whether we (Baptist) are confident in what the Bible says, and you will probably be disappointed to see that we are confident.


----------



## Need 4 Creed

Most of the answers, unless I'm mistaken, seem to be of a pragmatic nature and not theological. 

Are we saying that living in the context of denominations forces us to be pragmatic in these matters: i.e different denominations exist and we cannot change that therefore must accept it?


----------



## Herald

Need 4 Creed said:


> Most of the answers, unless I'm mistaken, seem to be of a pragmatic nature and not theological.
> 
> Are we saying that living in the context of denominations forces us to be pragmatic in these matters: i.e different denominations exist and we cannot change that therefore must accept it?



I'll be happy to provide you a theological reason. I disagree with paedobaptism and Presbyterian polity. I believe the Reformed Baptist interpretation of the Scriptures in these areas is correct. If a given geographical area is lacking a solid Reformed Baptist Church, planting one will meet a need for those who are like minded theologically. 

Denominations do exist because of sin. But which side is willing to wave the white flag and surrender? We believe what we believe because we are convinced that belief is right. It becomes a matter of conscience. 

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk


----------



## Need 4 Creed

Herald said:


> Need 4 Creed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the answers, unless I'm mistaken, seem to be of a pragmatic nature and not theological.
> 
> Are we saying that living in the context of denominations forces us to be pragmatic in these matters: i.e different denominations exist and we cannot change that therefore must accept it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll be happy to provide you a theological reason. I disagree with paedobaptism and Presbyterian polity. I believe the Reformed Baptist interpretation of the Scriptures in these areas is correct. If a given geographical area is lacking a solid Reformed Baptist Church, planting one will meet a need for those who are like minded theologically.
> 
> Denominations do exist because of sin. But which side is willing to wave the white flag and surrender? We believe what we believe because we are convinced that belief is right. It becomes a matter of conscience.
> 
> Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Thanks, for your response. 

So, is the 'sin' of wrong administration of baptism and 'church polity' (in the baptist's view) a greater sin than schism? Or to put it another way, is the catholicity and unity of the church less important than organising ourselves in away that lets us govern ourselves and baptise in the way we see fit?


----------



## JML

I would have to vote "maybe" but it is not available. To me it depends on the Presbyterian Church. Some Presbyterian churches allow Baptists to be members, partake of the Lord's Supper, etc. Others do not allow either. In the first circumstance, I would say no. In the second, I would say yes, the plant should be considered. I would also consider the condition of the non-reformed Baptist churches in the area. Baptists are really good at over-saturating an area. The population of the town I live in is approximately 6,500 and there are 120 baptist churches within a 15 mile radius. None of these are Reformed however.


----------



## Need 4 Creed

John Lanier said:


> I would have to vote "maybe" but it is not available. To me it depends on the Presbyterian Church. Some Presbyterian churches allow Baptists to be members, partake of the Lord's Supper, etc. Others do not allow either. In the first circumstance, I would say no. In the second, I would say yes, the plant should be considered. I would also consider the condition of the non-reformed Baptist churches in the area. Baptists are really good at over-saturating an area. The population of the town I live in is approximately 6,500 and there are 120 baptist churches within a 15 mile radius. None of these are Reformed however.



Thanks John. 

Incidently, which presbyterian denominations would not allow baptisst to become members or partake of the Lord's supper?


----------



## Edward

Tyrese said:


> Is your Church the type of Church being described or is more of a tradititional PCA Church w/o a band?



Depends on what you mean by 'band'. Of course, we started with a piano in the school auditorium. Now we have a couple of organs, and a piano at most services, but occasionally supplement with a brass quintet or string quartet, or a violin, or a harp, or some combo of such instruments supplemented by percussion. I've seen some guitar, but it's been acoustic. An attempt to push Christian Contemporary for one service didn't end well, but it ended.


----------



## JML

Need 4 Creed said:


> John Lanier said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would have to vote "maybe" but it is not available. To me it depends on the Presbyterian Church. Some Presbyterian churches allow Baptists to be members, partake of the Lord's Supper, etc. Others do not allow either. In the first circumstance, I would say no. In the second, I would say yes, the plant should be considered. I would also consider the condition of the non-reformed Baptist churches in the area. Baptists are really good at over-saturating an area. The population of the town I live in is approximately 6,500 and there are 120 baptist churches within a 15 mile radius. None of these are Reformed however.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks John.
> 
> Incidently, which presbyterian denominations would not allow baptisst to become members or partake of the Lord's supper?
Click to expand...


As far as I am aware, only the OPC and PCA among reformed Presbyterian denominations allow credobaptists with unbaptized children to become members.

In regards to the Lord's Supper, I think it is up to the local session. My wife and I have been denied the table at a RP church for our baptismal views but allowed access in others.


----------



## Pilgrim

Edward said:


> Need 4 Creed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Church planting is labor intensive. Truckloads of stage gear, chairs and childcare infrastructure have to be set up and torn down each week.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The author is either ignorant or mistaken. We started with a rented school auditorium, some banner signs, a round trip plane ticket for a preacher and some wicker baskets from the hobby store for the collection. The first major purchase was some choir robes, the next capital expense was folding chairs after we changed to a larger location. Folks donated folding cribs that they no longer needed; that took care of the infants and toddlers.
Click to expand...


Agreed. While there are undoubtedly many plants of the type described in the article, in my opinion the author needs to get out more. A lot of the church plants with which I'm familiar are basically family-integrated whether they are part of the FIC movement or not. (The ones I'm most familiar with aren't part of it.) Those and others with which I'm familiar also have nowhere near the type of sound equipment he mentions. Some basically have no sound equipment at all. 

Also, most don't have a fraction of that kind of $$ invested in them either although it certainly does exist. Recent plants I'm familiar with probably don't have 20% of the cost that was quoted there, ($175,000) and some wouldn't have anywhere near 10% of the cost. Not every church plant aims to be the next Saddleback or Willow Creek. Social media also helps get the word out more quickly and cheaply than the more expensive methods (advertising, etc.) that were common in the past.

What others here have mentioned is apropos as well. Many leaders (perhaps especially in denominations like the Southern Baptist Convention) will prefer to plant new churches rather than fight with entrenched error (in doctrine and practice) in dysfunctional existing churches. Unfortunately, too many pastors in the latter end up being little better than hirelings that are subject to the whims of a few powerful and influential members. Church discipline is often practically impossible in those kinds of churches. Some of those types will plot for years if need be to get rid of a pastor who doesn't cater to their every whim. I know Presbyterian ministers (PCA and OPC) who have had to deal with similar situations as well. 

Other pastors will go into existing churches that are in danger of closing the doors or have been in steep decline and will essentially "replant" them. I have a friend who has done that several times. In those cases, they already have facilities.


----------



## Pilgrim

John Lanier said:


> Need 4 Creed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John Lanier said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would have to vote "maybe" but it is not available. To me it depends on the Presbyterian Church. Some Presbyterian churches allow Baptists to be members, partake of the Lord's Supper, etc. Others do not allow either. In the first circumstance, I would say no. In the second, I would say yes, the plant should be considered. I would also consider the condition of the non-reformed Baptist churches in the area. Baptists are really good at over-saturating an area. The population of the town I live in is approximately 6,500 and there are 120 baptist churches within a 15 mile radius. None of these are Reformed however.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks John.
> 
> Incidently, which presbyterian denominations would not allow baptisst to become members or partake of the Lord's supper?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As far as I am aware, only the OPC and PCA among reformed Presbyterian denominations allow credobaptists with unbaptized children to become members.
> 
> In regards to the Lord's Supper, I think it is up to the local session. My wife and I have been denied the table at a RP church for our baptismal views but allowed access in others.
Click to expand...


And some PCA and OPC congregations will strongly discourage if not outright prohibit convinced credobaptists from joining. In the OPC I think it's up to the session, if I recall correctly. (One OPC pastor told me he was going to have to bar one family from the table unless they presented their children for baptism. They finally had them baptized before that step had to be taken.) Also, If I recall correctly in the PCA that kind of stance is technically not allowed, but I know of ministers who will discourage it and will try to find a Baptist church for them instead. I'm guessing the ARP will admit antipaedobaptists too. The churches that have their origins in the Continental Reformation will tend to bar Baptists from the table and membership.


----------



## Pilgrim

Need 4 Creed said:


> In contrast, a Baptist in a paedobaptist church has to regularly witness "baptism" being administered to those with no faith, and witness those who have not come to repentance and faith being declared to be a member of the covenant of grace. This grates upon the Baptist's sensibilities.
> 
> In many ways baptism is a secondary matter; but like the question of women-ministers, it is one which so shapes a church that it is difficult for those with different views to function together. Some secondary matters just get in the way more than other secondary matters.
> 
> Having said that, I agree, in some situations the differences have to be overlooked. In my experience, many factors go into choosing a church, and it is often a matter of compromise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This idea of baptised infants being included 'in the covenant' and being 'members of the visible church' strikes at the heart of ecclesiology. It raises the issue of who belongs to the church? And what is the church?
> 
> I guess true baptist church theology would argue that the presbyterian theology of the church falls short of the New Testament revelation and therefore this alone would justify the establishing of a baptist (or as they would see it N.T) church.
> 
> In reformed baptist teachings about church it is not uncommon to hear the phrases 'true churches' or 'churches established on N.T principles' of 'Churches fully commited to the teaching of the bible'.
Click to expand...


It does indeed strike at the heart of ecclesiology. The two positions are essentially irreconcilable unless everyone agrees to disagree, as with the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster. (And there they only baptize "babes in arms", from what I understand.) Baptists and Presbyterians are not agreed on the very definition of the church. 

With regard to sin which I think you've mentioned, that cuts both ways as well. The WCF asserts that it is a sin to neglect or condemn baptism, which in context includes infant baptism. In our tolerant age, many Presbyterians seem to regret that language, however.


----------



## Herald

Need 4 Creed said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Need 4 Creed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the answers, unless I'm mistaken, seem to be of a pragmatic nature and not theological.
> 
> Are we saying that living in the context of denominations forces us to be pragmatic in these matters: i.e different denominations exist and we cannot change that therefore must accept it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll be happy to provide you a theological reason. I disagree with paedobaptism and Presbyterian polity. I believe the Reformed Baptist interpretation of the Scriptures in these areas is correct. If a given geographical area is lacking a solid Reformed Baptist Church, planting one will meet a need for those who are like minded theologically.
> 
> Denominations do exist because of sin. But which side is willing to wave the white flag and surrender? We believe what we believe because we are convinced that belief is right. It becomes a matter of conscience.
> 
> Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, for your response.
> 
> So, is the 'sin' of wrong administration of baptism and 'church polity' (in the baptist's view) a greater sin than schism? Or to put it another way, is the catholicity and unity of the church less important than organising ourselves in away that lets us govern ourselves and baptise in the way we see fit?
Click to expand...


I am saying that truth matters. I am convinced, by the Word of God, that certain teachings are true. If church history has taught us anything it is that teachings form beliefs; beliefs form practices; and practices form denominations. You ask whether these teachings are a greater sin than schism. Is disunity within the body of Christ less serious than schism? I also think you are minimizing the seriousness of these sins you are comparing to schism. Ask one of my dear Presbyterian brethren on this board whether he is willing to forgo the baptism of his child because there is no Presbyterian church in town. Suggest to them that schism would be a more serious sin than applying the sign of the covenant to their infant. My disagreement with my Presbyterian brethren does not lessen my love for them in Christ. I know how serious they are about applying the sign of the covenant to their infant children. I do not mean to sound unkind, but to minimize the differences between us for the sake of unity is a wishful view that is not grounded in reality. 

As others have said in this thread, the presence of Reformed Presbyterian and Baptist churches in the same locale should not be seen as a threat to either. Both should be laboring to do the work of the Kingdom; feeding the sheep and evangelizing the lost. Does the existence of two different forms of ecclesiology create schism? No. If we are using the Reformation as our bench mark the schism has already existed for hundreds of years; it is a reality.


----------



## Need 4 Creed

Herald said:


> Need 4 Creed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Need 4 Creed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the answers, unless I'm mistaken, seem to be of a pragmatic nature and not theological.
> 
> Are we saying that living in the context of denominations forces us to be pragmatic in these matters: i.e different denominations exist and we cannot change that therefore must accept it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll be happy to provide you a theological reason. I disagree with paedobaptism and Presbyterian polity. I believe the Reformed Baptist interpretation of the Scriptures in these areas is correct. If a given geographical area is lacking a solid Reformed Baptist Church, planting one will meet a need for those who are like minded theologically.
> 
> Denominations do exist because of sin. But which side is willing to wave the white flag and surrender? We believe what we believe because we are convinced that belief is right. It becomes a matter of conscience.
> 
> Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, for your response.
> 
> So, is the 'sin' of wrong administration of baptism and 'church polity' (in the baptist's view) a greater sin than schism? Or to put it another way, is the catholicity and unity of the church less important than organising ourselves in away that lets us govern ourselves and baptise in the way we see fit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am saying that truth matters. I am convinced, by the Word of God, that certain teachings are true. If church history has taught us anything it is that teachings form beliefs; beliefs form practices; and practices form denominations. You ask whether these teachings are a greater sin than schism. Is disunity within the body of Christ less serious than schism? I also think you are minimizing the seriousness of these sins you are comparing to schism. Ask one of my dear Presbyterian brethren on this board whether he is willing to forgo the baptism of his child because there is no Presbyterian church in town. Suggest to them that schism would be a more serious sin than applying the sign of the covenant to their infant. My disagreement with my Presbyterian brethren does not lessen my love for them in Christ. I know how serious they are about applying the sign of the covenant to their infant children. I do not mean to sound unkind, but to minimize the differences between us for the sake of unity is a wishful view that is not grounded in reality.
> 
> As others have said in this thread, the presence of Reformed Presbyterian and Baptist churches in the same locale should not be seen as a threat to either. Both should be laboring to do the work of the Kingdom; feeding the sheep and evangelizing the lost. Does the existence of two different forms of ecclesiology create schism? No. If we are using the Reformation as our bench mark the schism has already existed for hundreds of years; it is a reality.
Click to expand...


So really it is back to the point that I raised earlier: the denominational context forces us towards a position of pragmatism, justifies schism, and accepts and reinforces a lack of visible unity.


----------



## Herald

Need 4 Creed said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Need 4 Creed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Need 4 Creed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the answers, unless I'm mistaken, seem to be of a pragmatic nature and not theological.
> 
> Are we saying that living in the context of denominations forces us to be pragmatic in these matters: i.e different denominations exist and we cannot change that therefore must accept it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll be happy to provide you a theological reason. I disagree with paedobaptism and Presbyterian polity. I believe the Reformed Baptist interpretation of the Scriptures in these areas is correct. If a given geographical area is lacking a solid Reformed Baptist Church, planting one will meet a need for those who are like minded theologically.
> 
> Denominations do exist because of sin. But which side is willing to wave the white flag and surrender? We believe what we believe because we are convinced that belief is right. It becomes a matter of conscience.
> 
> Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, for your response.
> 
> So, is the 'sin' of wrong administration of baptism and 'church polity' (in the baptist's view) a greater sin than schism? Or to put it another way, is the catholicity and unity of the church less important than organising ourselves in away that lets us govern ourselves and baptise in the way we see fit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am saying that truth matters. I am convinced, by the Word of God, that certain teachings are true. If church history has taught us anything it is that teachings form beliefs; beliefs form practices; and practices form denominations. You ask whether these teachings are a greater sin than schism. Is disunity within the body of Christ less serious than schism? I also think you are minimizing the seriousness of these sins you are comparing to schism. Ask one of my dear Presbyterian brethren on this board whether he is willing to forgo the baptism of his child because there is no Presbyterian church in town. Suggest to them that schism would be a more serious sin than applying the sign of the covenant to their infant. My disagreement with my Presbyterian brethren does not lessen my love for them in Christ. I know how serious they are about applying the sign of the covenant to their infant children. I do not mean to sound unkind, but to minimize the differences between us for the sake of unity is a wishful view that is not grounded in reality.
> 
> As others have said in this thread, the presence of Reformed Presbyterian and Baptist churches in the same locale should not be seen as a threat to either. Both should be laboring to do the work of the Kingdom; feeding the sheep and evangelizing the lost. Does the existence of two different forms of ecclesiology create schism? No. If we are using the Reformation as our bench mark the schism has already existed for hundreds of years; it is a reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So really it is back to the point that I raised earlier: the denominational context forces us towards a position of pragmatism, justifies schism, and accepts and reinforces a lack of visible unity.
Click to expand...


Justifies schism? The schism is inherent and systemic. It is a grievous thing. Short of the Lord's return it is not going away. That does not mean we ignore it or not work to lessen its impact, but it is not pragmatism to say that it is embedded within the Church. You are correct when you say it, "accepts and reinforces a lack of visible unity". That is part of the systemic nature of schism. The fact that two churches, with opposing doctrines, stand on opposite street corners is proof that there has been division because of sin. 

Short of one side repenting, what is your remedy?


----------



## DMcFadden

py3ak said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do NOT subscribe to the views of the Church Growth movement, even though one of my profs in seminary was C. Peter Wagner, the granddaddy of the movement!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's the connection between Wagner and McGavran? I remember reading an article by McGavran where it seemed like he was praising himself for having started the Church Growth movement.
Click to expand...


McGavran did "discover" church growth. However, by the time he began writing, he was already a mature man, near the end of his career. Pete Wagner was his protege and student. Wagner was teaching church growth in the 1970s (when I had him) and is still at it in retirement. At last count, he had authored more than 70 books! In my mind it is like McDonalds. The fellow who started it sold it as a few restaurants to Kroc who turned it into what we know today.

McGavran should get the credit/blame for the idea, but only wrote a few things on the subject; Wagner developed and popularized it through many books and decades of advocacy continuing to today.

My "granddaddy" comment was imprecise. In my mind Wagner is Mr. Church Growth. Whereas McGavran brought it to Fuller, Wagner developed some of the theoretical foundations of it and a whole lot of the practical implementations during his three decades of teaching there. He even received a PhD from USC in "social ethics" for his dissertation on "our kind of people," defending the "homogeneous unit principle." The "homogeneous unit principle" is the intellectual backbone of church growth theory. It posits that people will only come to a church where the people are perceived to be "like themselves." Back when "All in the Family" was a popular television show, Wagner would opine incessantly that Archie Bunker (the bigot) would never go to church with George Jefferson (the African American). So, if you want to "grow" churches you need to advertize to, appeal to, and cater to a specific niche group ethnically, socio-economically, etc.

Wagner was INTENSELY pragmatic. He approached Church Growth like an engineer. 

People need to get saved.
People won't cross social barriers to worship with people unlike themselves.
So, while we will all be one rainbow of peoples, tribes, and languages in heaven, trying to form multiethnic, multicultural, sociologically mixed churches here will only mean that nobody gets saved. 
Therefore, it is better (in the ethical sense, remember that PhD in social ethics) to win people to Christ even if you have to indulge their racially bigoted, classist, sub-redeemed attitudes.

He also pioneered the application of "Third Wave" thinking to the field. By this, Wagner characterizes the "First Wave" of interest in the work of the Holy Spirit as Pentecostalism. The "Second Wave" was the Charismatic Movement. And, the Wimber "signs and wonders" emphasis represents the "Third Wave." It is full of healings, preparing org. charts of demonic hierarchies in various locales, etc.

I found Wagner's position theologically repugnant.

But, in deference to your historically accurate observation, I will change my description of Wagner to the "Ray Kroc" of Church Growth.


----------



## Need 4 Creed

Herald said:


> Need 4 Creed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Need 4 Creed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Need 4 Creed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the answers, unless I'm mistaken, seem to be of a pragmatic nature and not theological.
> 
> Are we saying that living in the context of denominations forces us to be pragmatic in these matters: i.e different denominations exist and we cannot change that therefore must accept it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll be happy to provide you a theological reason. I disagree with paedobaptism and Presbyterian polity. I believe the Reformed Baptist interpretation of the Scriptures in these areas is correct. If a given geographical area is lacking a solid Reformed Baptist Church, planting one will meet a need for those who are like minded theologically.
> 
> Denominations do exist because of sin. But which side is willing to wave the white flag and surrender? We believe what we believe because we are convinced that belief is right. It becomes a matter of conscience.
> 
> Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, for your response.
> 
> So, is the 'sin' of wrong administration of baptism and 'church polity' (in the baptist's view) a greater sin than schism? Or to put it another way, is the catholicity and unity of the church less important than organising ourselves in away that lets us govern ourselves and baptise in the way we see fit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am saying that truth matters. I am convinced, by the Word of God, that certain teachings are true. If church history has taught us anything it is that teachings form beliefs; beliefs form practices; and practices form denominations. You ask whether these teachings are a greater sin than schism. Is disunity within the body of Christ less serious than schism? I also think you are minimizing the seriousness of these sins you are comparing to schism. Ask one of my dear Presbyterian brethren on this board whether he is willing to forgo the baptism of his child because there is no Presbyterian church in town. Suggest to them that schism would be a more serious sin than applying the sign of the covenant to their infant. My disagreement with my Presbyterian brethren does not lessen my love for them in Christ. I know how serious they are about applying the sign of the covenant to their infant children. I do not mean to sound unkind, but to minimize the differences between us for the sake of unity is a wishful view that is not grounded in reality.
> 
> As others have said in this thread, the presence of Reformed Presbyterian and Baptist churches in the same locale should not be seen as a threat to either. Both should be laboring to do the work of the Kingdom; feeding the sheep and evangelizing the lost. Does the existence of two different forms of ecclesiology create schism? No. If we are using the Reformation as our bench mark the schism has already existed for hundreds of years; it is a reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So really it is back to the point that I raised earlier: the denominational context forces us towards a position of pragmatism, justifies schism, and accepts and reinforces a lack of visible unity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Justifies schism? The schism is inherent and systemic. It is a grievous thing. Short of the Lord's return it is not going away. That does not mean we ignore it or not work to lessen its impact, but it is not pragmatism to say that it is embedded within the Church. You are correct when you say it, "accepts and reinforces a lack of visible unity". That is part of the systemic nature of schism. The fact that two churches, with opposing doctrines, stand on opposite street corners is proof that there has been division because of sin.
> 
> Short of one side repenting, what is your remedy?
Click to expand...


I'm still working it through (hence this thread). I have always held to credobaptism, and to 'believers' church'. I trained for ministry in a baptist institution. I find myself in a context with no baptist church. I have been, for the last few years been attending a non-reformed church that practices credobaptism and 'regenerate church membership'. However important differences (which I won't mention here) caused me to realise that I could no longer minister and fellowship within that context. In the interim I am attending a reformed presbyterian church, studying lots of reformed presbyterian writings and reflecting upon whether or not the long term solution is to cast my lot with the reformed presbyterians or explore the establishment of a reformed baptist church. 

I should add, one thing that has begun to change (as a result of my study and experience) is that I am the weaknesses of the independent nature of baptist congregations and the strength of the presbyetrian system of government. 

I hope this helps clarify where I am coming from, and that I am not just creating a post for the sake of controversy.


----------



## Herald

Need 4 Creed said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Need 4 Creed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Need 4 Creed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Need 4 Creed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the answers, unless I'm mistaken, seem to be of a pragmatic nature and not theological.
> 
> Are we saying that living in the context of denominations forces us to be pragmatic in these matters: i.e different denominations exist and we cannot change that therefore must accept it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll be happy to provide you a theological reason. I disagree with paedobaptism and Presbyterian polity. I believe the Reformed Baptist interpretation of the Scriptures in these areas is correct. If a given geographical area is lacking a solid Reformed Baptist Church, planting one will meet a need for those who are like minded theologically.
> 
> Denominations do exist because of sin. But which side is willing to wave the white flag and surrender? We believe what we believe because we are convinced that belief is right. It becomes a matter of conscience.
> 
> Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks, for your response.
> 
> So, is the 'sin' of wrong administration of baptism and 'church polity' (in the baptist's view) a greater sin than schism? Or to put it another way, is the catholicity and unity of the church less important than organising ourselves in away that lets us govern ourselves and baptise in the way we see fit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am saying that truth matters. I am convinced, by the Word of God, that certain teachings are true. If church history has taught us anything it is that teachings form beliefs; beliefs form practices; and practices form denominations. You ask whether these teachings are a greater sin than schism. Is disunity within the body of Christ less serious than schism? I also think you are minimizing the seriousness of these sins you are comparing to schism. Ask one of my dear Presbyterian brethren on this board whether he is willing to forgo the baptism of his child because there is no Presbyterian church in town. Suggest to them that schism would be a more serious sin than applying the sign of the covenant to their infant. My disagreement with my Presbyterian brethren does not lessen my love for them in Christ. I know how serious they are about applying the sign of the covenant to their infant children. I do not mean to sound unkind, but to minimize the differences between us for the sake of unity is a wishful view that is not grounded in reality.
> 
> As others have said in this thread, the presence of Reformed Presbyterian and Baptist churches in the same locale should not be seen as a threat to either. Both should be laboring to do the work of the Kingdom; feeding the sheep and evangelizing the lost. Does the existence of two different forms of ecclesiology create schism? No. If we are using the Reformation as our bench mark the schism has already existed for hundreds of years; it is a reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So really it is back to the point that I raised earlier: the denominational context forces us towards a position of pragmatism, justifies schism, and accepts and reinforces a lack of visible unity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Justifies schism? The schism is inherent and systemic. It is a grievous thing. Short of the Lord's return it is not going away. That does not mean we ignore it or not work to lessen its impact, but it is not pragmatism to say that it is embedded within the Church. You are correct when you say it, "accepts and reinforces a lack of visible unity". That is part of the systemic nature of schism. The fact that two churches, with opposing doctrines, stand on opposite street corners is proof that there has been division because of sin.
> 
> Short of one side repenting, what is your remedy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm still working it through (hence this post). I have always held to credobaptism, and to 'believers' church'. I trained for ministry in a baptist institution. I find myself in a context with no baptist church. I have been, for the last few years been attending a non-reformed church that practices credobaptism and 'regenerate church membership'. However important differences (which I won't mention here) caused me to realise that I could no longer minister and fellowship within that context. In the interim I am attending a Reformed Presbyterian Church, studying lots of reformed presbyterian writings and reflecting upon whether or not the long term solution is to cast my lot with the reformed presbyterians or explore the establishment of a reformed baptist church.
> 
> I should add, one thing that has begun to change (as a result of my study and experience) is that I am seeing the weaknesses of the independent nature of baptist congregations and the strength of the presbyetrian system of government.
> 
> I hope this helps clarify where I am coming from, and that I am not just creating a post for the sake of controversy.
Click to expand...


Interesting. So you are considering breaking unity because of a theological change. You do not see schism in that?


----------



## Need 4 Creed

"you are considering breaking unity because of a theological change" 

What do you mean, Bill? 

It is the opposite, for the sake of unity I am consiering not acting on long standing theological convictions (baptist).


----------



## KMK

DMcFadden said:


> But, in deference to your historically accurate observation, I will change my description of Wagner to the "Ray Kroc" of Church Growth.



Classic...


----------



## matt01

Herald said:


> ...truth matters...



I am late to the thread, but I might as well throw my two bits in. Having spent 7+ years in various reformed denominations, due to the lack of RB churches in places that we lived, I am all for RB churches planting wherever the need exists, even across the street from RP.


----------



## Need 4 Creed

matt01 said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...truth matters...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am late to the thread, but I might as well throw my two bits in. Having spent 7+ years in various reformed denominations, due to tha lack of RB churches in places that we lived, I am all for RB churches planting wherever the need exists, even across the street from RP.
Click to expand...


Lol! Thanks for your candid comment!


----------



## Herald

Need 4 Creed said:


> "you are considering breaking unity because of a theological change"
> 
> What do you mean, Bill?
> 
> It is the opposite, for the sake of unity I am consiering not acting on long standing theological convictions (baptist).



John, why are you not in a Baptist church_ right now_?


----------



## Need 4 Creed

Herald said:


> Need 4 Creed said:
> 
> 
> 
> "you are considering breaking unity because of a theological change"
> 
> What do you mean, Bill?
> 
> It is the opposite, for the sake of unity I am consiering not acting on long standing theological convictions (baptist).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John, why are you not in a Baptist church_ right now_?
Click to expand...


There are no baptist churches (not even non-reformed baptist churches) in the area (Non-presbyterian churches do not really have much of a presence in the highlands and islands). In fact, most baptists who come here end up becoming Church of Scotland ministers! (Has happened at least on two occasions).


----------



## Herald

Need 4 Creed said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Need 4 Creed said:
> 
> 
> 
> "you are considering breaking unity because of a theological change"
> 
> What do you mean, Bill?
> 
> It is the opposite, for the sake of unity I am consiering not acting on long standing theological convictions (baptist).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John, why are you not in a Baptist church_ right now_?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no baptist churches (not even non-reformed baptist churches) in the area (Non-presbyterian churches do not really have much of a presence in the highlands and islands). In fact, most baptists who come here end up becoming Church of Scotland ministers! (Has happened at least on two occasions).
Click to expand...


No wonder my paternal great grand parents left the Highlands! LOL


----------



## Herald

Need 4 Creed said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Need 4 Creed said:
> 
> 
> 
> "you are considering breaking unity because of a theological change"
> 
> What do you mean, Bill?
> 
> It is the opposite, for the sake of unity I am consiering not acting on long standing theological convictions (baptist).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John, why are you not in a Baptist church_ right now_?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no baptist churches (not even non-reformed baptist churches) in the area (Non-presbyterian churches do not really have much of a presence in the highlands and islands). In fact, most baptists who come here end up becoming Church of Scotland ministers! (Has happened at least on two occasions).
Click to expand...


Seriously though, you seem to be providentially hindered from attending a like-minded church, unless you have the ability to move. If you had qualified your OP to represent a rural or sparsely populated area perhaps the answers you have received would be different. You may consider it pragmatism, but _where _a new Reformed Baptist work might be planted may not make sense. If there are no Baptists in the area then starting a Baptist church may be not be the wisest course of action. In the area that I live in the dynamic and demographics are different. There is a myriad of Presbyterian and Baptist churches, but Reformed Baptist churches are a rare find. Our church is the only one within an hour's drive. Considering there are 9,500,000 million people in the Baltimore/Washington/Northern Virginia area, I would say the schism is rather diluted.


----------



## Need 4 Creed

Herald said:


> Need 4 Creed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Need 4 Creed said:
> 
> 
> 
> "you are considering breaking unity because of a theological change"
> 
> What do you mean, Bill?
> 
> It is the opposite, for the sake of unity I am consiering not acting on long standing theological convictions (baptist).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John, why are you not in a Baptist church_ right now_?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no baptist churches (not even non-reformed baptist churches) in the area (Non-presbyterian churches do not really have much of a presence in the highlands and islands). In fact, most baptists who come here end up becoming Church of Scotland ministers! (Has happened at least on two occasions).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously though, you seem to be providentially hindered from attending a like-minded church, unless you have the ability to move. If you had qualified your OP to represent a rural or sparsely populated area perhaps the answers you have received would be different. You may consider it pragmatism, but _where _a new Reformed Baptist work might be planted may not make sense. If there are no Baptists in the area then starting a Baptist church may be not be the wisest course of action. In the area that I live in the dynamic and demographics are different. There is a myriad of Presbyterian and Baptist churches, but Reformed Baptist churches are a rare find. Our church is the only one within an hour's drive. Considering there are 9,500,000 million people in the Baltimore/Washington/Northern Virginia area, I would say the schism is rather diluted.
Click to expand...


Thanks, Bill. I intentionally avoided mentioning my OP because I just wanted to tease out the priciples. 

The RB presence in Scotland is not strong at all if this website is anything to go by: Grace Baptist Partnership Scotland


----------



## py3ak

Thanks, Dennis! That was informative and entertaining. I still think you should write a book filled with candid observations - and maybe a few org charts of demonic institutions.



DMcFadden said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do NOT subscribe to the views of the Church Growth movement, even though one of my profs in seminary was C. Peter Wagner, the granddaddy of the movement!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's the connection between Wagner and McGavran? I remember reading an article by McGavran where it seemed like he was praising himself for having started the Church Growth movement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> McGavran did "discover" church growth. However, by the time he began writing, he was already a mature man, near the end of his career. Pete Wagner was his protege and student. Wagner was teaching church growth in the 1970s (when I had him) and is still at it in retirement. At last count, he had authored more than 70 books! In my mind it is like McDonalds. The fellow who started it sold it as a few restaurants to Kroc who turned it into what we know today.
> 
> McGavran should get the credit/blame for the idea, but only wrote a few things on the subject; Wagner developed and popularized it through many books and decades of advocacy continuing to today.
> 
> My "granddaddy" comment was imprecise. In my mind Wagner is Mr. Church Growth. Whereas McGavran brought it to Fuller, Wagner developed some of the theoretical foundations of it and a whole lot of the practical implementations during his three decades of teaching there. He even received a PhD from USC in "social ethics" for his dissertation on "our kind of people," defending the "homogeneous unit principle." The "homogeneous unit principle" is the intellectual backbone of church growth theory. It posits that people will only come to a church where the people are perceived to be "like themselves." Back when "All in the Family" was a popular television show, Wagner would opine incessantly that Archie Bunker (the bigot) would never go to church with George Jefferson (the African American). So, if you want to "grow" churches you need to advertize to, appeal to, and cater to a specific niche group ethnically, socio-economically, etc.
> 
> Wagner was INTENSELY pragmatic. He approached Church Growth like an engineer.
> 
> People need to get saved.
> People won't cross social barriers to worship with people unlike themselves.
> So, while we will all be one rainbow of peoples, tribes, and languages in heaven, trying to form multiethnic, multicultural, sociologically mixed churches here will only mean that nobody gets saved.
> Therefore, it is better (in the ethical sense, remember that PhD in social ethics) to win people to Christ even if you have to indulge their racially bigoted, classist, sub-redeemed attitudes.
> 
> He also pioneered the application of "Third Wave" thinking to the field. By this, Wagner characterizes the "First Wave" of interest in the work of the Holy Spirit as Pentecostalism. The "Second Wave" was the Charismatic Movement. And, the Wimber "signs and wonders" emphasis represents the "Third Wave." It is full of healings, preparing org. charts of demonic hierarchies in various locales, etc.
> 
> I found Wagner's position theologically repugnant.
> 
> But, in deference to your historically accurate observation, I will change my description of Wagner to the "Ray Kroc" of Church Growth.
Click to expand...


----------



## theydonman

I am with Pergamum on this. There are so many places crying out for the Saviour. Plant there.


----------



## Need 4 Creed

theydonman said:


> I am with Pergamum on this. There are so many places crying out for the Saviour. Plant there.



Does this mean no denomination should plant where there is already other denominations present? Or reformed churches should plant where there is no reformed church? Does this also mean that we should stop planting' in the already 'full of denominations' west and head off to the unreached parts of the world?


----------



## au5t1n

theydonman said:


> I am with Pergamum on this. There are so many places crying out for the Saviour. Plant there.



I understand the sentiment, but not everyone whom God calls to ministry is called to foreign missions. Likewise even in the US, not every area that is barren of a Reformed church is fertile ground for one, sad as it is. There may be RB families waiting for an RB plant in a Presbyterian area, or Presbyterian families waiting for a Presbyterian plant in an RB area, and as long as we remain divided on this issue, I don't see that there is any point in avoiding planting near each other if there are prudential reasons to do so.


----------



## Pergamum

Need 4 Creed said:


> theydonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am with Pergamum on this. There are so many places crying out for the Saviour. Plant there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does this mean no denomination should plant where there is already other denominations present? Or reformed churches should plant where there is no reformed church? Does this also mean that we should stop planting' in the already 'full of denominations' west and head off to the unreached parts of the world?
Click to expand...


Yes. It means that more pastors should be trained and encouraged in their home churches and seminaries to possess a mindset of prioritizing the least-reached.

I believe the Church as a collective whole has a duty to intentionally target the unreached. I might even say that the Church in the world must prioritize the least-reached... in the very least I would say that we have the duty to not deprioritize them. 

Right now, a disproportionately large percentage of the Church's resources go towards those who are already being fed and want to be fed more, instead of going to the starving portions of the world.

-

I also believe that the way "the call" is explained in many reformed circles hampers missions. A congregation calls a pastor to come and serve them (an already established church). Instead, we need churches to send people out to plant churches where none yet exists, among peoples/tribes/tongues that still yet do not have a reproducible Gospel presence. We need to cultivate a call to go to where there is no church, and not merely a call to come and serve a church that already exists.


I remember a few years back someone on the PB went down south to try to plant a TR church in a major southern city. I remember him using a phrase or two such as "without a true gospel witness" or "unreached" or something to that effect. It was rather ridiculous. Upon further research, there were PCA and OPC and baptist churches within a 40-mile radius of his proposed church plant site (plus Christian radio and podcasts in English).


I agree that church-planting is good. It is hard to say that there are ever too many churches. And the credo-paedo lines are such that Reformed Baptist and PCA churches might share the same city block and both meet an unmet need. But there are various shades of Presbyterian micro-denominations and they all promote their church-planting using terms of "need" when - in reality - true churches are not lacking but merely churches of their small denominations. 

I would much rather see some of these efforts transported to Asian cities.


----------



## Need 4 Creed

Pergamum said:


> Need 4 Creed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theydonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am with Pergamum on this. There are so many places crying out for the Saviour. Plant there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does this mean no denomination should plant where there is already other denominations present? Or reformed churches should plant where there is no reformed church? Does this also mean that we should stop planting' in the already 'full of denominations' west and head off to the unreached parts of the world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. It means that more pastors should be trained and encouraged in their home churches and seminaries to possess a mindset of prioritizing the least-reached.
> 
> I believe the Church as a collective whole has a duty to intentionally target the unreached. I might even say that the Church in the world must prioritize the least-reached... in the very least I would say that we have the duty to not deprioritize them.
> 
> Right now, a disproportionately large percentage of the Church's resources go towards those who are already being fed and want to be fed more, instead of going to the starving portions of the world.
> 
> -
> 
> I also believe that the way "the call" is explained in many reformed circles hampers missions. A congregation calls a pastor to come and serve them (an already established church). Instead, we need churches to send people out to plant churches where none yet exists, among peoples/tribes/tongues that still yet do not have a reproducible Gospel presence. We need to cultivate a call to go to where there is no church, and not merely a call to come and serve a church that already exists.
> 
> 
> I remember a few years back someone on the PB went down south to try to plant a TR church in a major southern city. I remember him using a phrase or two such as "without a true gospel witness" or "unreached" or something to that effect. It was rather ridiculous. Upon further research, there were PCA and OPC and baptist churches within a 40-mile radius of his proposed church plant site (plus Christian radio and podcasts in English).
> 
> 
> I agree that church-planting is good. It is hard to say that there are ever too many churches. And the credo-paedo lines are such that Reformed Baptist and PCA churches might share the same city block and both meet an unmet need. But there are various shades of Presbyterian micro-denominations and they all promote their church-planting using terms of "need" when - in reality - true churches are not lacking but merely churches of their small denominations.
> 
> I would much rather see some of these efforts transported to Asian cities.
Click to expand...


I think you have nailed it with that post. Thanks.


----------



## Edward

Pergamum said:


> But there are various shades of Presbyterian micro-denominations and they all promote their church-planting using terms of "need" when - in reality - true churches are not lacking but merely churches of their small denominations.



Not just the micros. The ARP church plant in Dallas is in an area served by 4 Anglophone PCA churches of varying sizes and worship styles, and the PCA and OPC are planting churches not far from each other in Southwest Dallas (but with different target groups). And I can come up with several instances where the PCA has planted a new work very near an established congregation. 

That being said, I'm not sure that I'm still on board with the model of sending middle class westerners around the world to plant churches.


----------



## Sola Gratia

Edward said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> But there are various shades of Presbyterian micro-denominations and they all promote their church-planting using terms of "need" when - in reality - true churches are not lacking but merely churches of their small denominations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not just the micros. The ARP church plant in Dallas is in an area served by 4 Anglophone PCA churches of varying sizes and worship styles, and the PCA and OPC are planting churches not far from each other in Southwest Dallas (but with different target groups). And I can come up with several instances where the PCA has planted a new work very near an established congregation.
> 
> That being said, I'm not sure that I'm still on board with the model of sending middle class westerners around the world to plant churches.
Click to expand...


I agree and disagree. As hard as it is for even me to believe, there are areas of the US, particularly down south where I am that have NO Reformed congregations at all. Prime example - this weekend I went to help my little sister move out of her college dorm and into an apartment in the same city. While there I paid attention to the churches (as I always do) and was struck by how... off the theology of this city was by church number and size. I even googled it, there are churches within an hour that are reformed(and in another city), but not within 30 minutes. This city was nothing but Church of Christ, AoG, Free Will Baptist, Wesleyan Pentecostal, etc. There were only two non FWB Baptist churches which were tiny and one of them is way way Arminian based on their sign. So there is a real need in some areas for reformed churches.

In my own area, which is out in the boonies in the south there are reformed churches, but predominantly PCUSA with women pastors or very liberal - OR a church where many of the members don't even believe the doctrines of grace! At a PCA Church in fact! Also, I am all for missions and things like that in other countries - they are important. That being said, I am getting very tired of being made to feel bad for being a working/middle class white male. I cannot control how God in his sovreignty created me, and I also feel that I was created the way I am and placed where I am geographically is so that I can minister where I am. Believe me, there is still great need where I am and I am completely surrounded by this semi-pelagian form of "Christianity" that drives me nuts. To find a good confessional church for me is a 45 minute drive. 
As a side note, those of you with multiple confessional churches nearby count your blessings. 

Grace and Peace,
Hyatt


----------



## Pergamum

Edward said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> But there are various shades of Presbyterian micro-denominations and they all promote their church-planting using terms of "need" when - in reality - true churches are not lacking but merely churches of their small denominations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not just the micros. The ARP church plant in Dallas is in an area served by 4 Anglophone PCA churches of varying sizes and worship styles, and the PCA and OPC are planting churches not far from each other in Southwest Dallas (but with different target groups). And I can come up with several instances where the PCA has planted a new work very near an established congregation.
> 
> That being said, I'm not sure that I'm still on board with the model of sending middle class westerners around the world to plant churches.
Click to expand...





You wrote:


> I'm not sure that I'm still on board with the model of sending middle class westerners around the world to plant churches



Can you explain?


----------



## Edward

Pergamum said:


> Can you explain?



Yes. We may have discussed this before. I believe resources are probably put to more effective use when nationals are trained and do the actual church planting. And it's probably easier to have a long term impact by reaching foreign students in the US than it is to try to reach them after they are in careers or government in their country. In 2011-2012, there were 764,495 foreign students in the US. While some were already Christian when they came here, others have not heard a clear presentation of the gospel. 

I think this is an open thread, so I don't want to get more specific on how this might work with regard to countries that are semi- open or closed.


----------



## Pergamum

> I believe resources are probably put to more effective use when nationals are trained and do the actual church planting.



Most church-planting missionaries I know (even the western middle class ones), try to prioritize the training of nationals. 

To train these nationals, the best approach is to have boots on the ground locally who know the indigenous language and culture of the target peoples being reached.

Many US Churches have gone totally to the "funding the foreigner" approach. Without "western middle-class missionaries" on the ground to partner with these foreign-funded nationals, monstrous heresies are being spread with the use of U.S. mission dollars. Also, congregations are being taught that they don't need to support their own pastor because Westerners will do that for them. Also, whereas in other areas of church-growth the reformed will say, "Numbers/results/the bottom line does not matter" strangely this is contradicted by reformed believers who desire to get a better "bang for their buck" by supporting 12 Indian pastors instead of one American one. 

It is no doubt easier letting the nations come to us, but it seems that there is also a command to go forth and take the Gospel to them where they live.


----------



## Pergamum

Sola Gratia said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> But there are various shades of Presbyterian micro-denominations and they all promote their church-planting using terms of "need" when - in reality - true churches are not lacking but merely churches of their small denominations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not just the micros. The ARP church plant in Dallas is in an area served by 4 Anglophone PCA churches of varying sizes and worship styles, and the PCA and OPC are planting churches not far from each other in Southwest Dallas (but with different target groups). And I can come up with several instances where the PCA has planted a new work very near an established congregation.
> 
> That being said, I'm not sure that I'm still on board with the model of sending middle class westerners around the world to plant churches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree and disagree. As hard as it is for even me to believe, there are areas of the US, particularly down south where I am that have NO Reformed congregations at all. Prime example - this weekend I went to help my little sister move out of her college dorm and into an apartment in the same city. While there I paid attention to the churches (as I always do) and was struck by how... off the theology of this city was by church number and size. I even googled it, there are churches within an hour that are reformed(and in another city), but not within 30 minutes. This city was nothing but Church of Christ, AoG, Free Will Baptist, Wesleyan Pentecostal, etc. There were only two non FWB Baptist churches which were tiny and one of them is way way Arminian based on their sign. So there is a real need in some areas for reformed churches.
> 
> In my own area, which is out in the boonies in the south there are reformed churches, but predominantly PCUSA with women pastors or very liberal - OR a church where many of the members don't even believe the doctrines of grace! At a PCA Church in fact! Also, I am all for missions and things like that in other countries - they are important. That being said, I am getting very tired of being made to feel bad for being a working/middle class white male. I cannot control how God in his sovreignty created me, and I also feel that I was created the way I am and placed where I am geographically is so that I can minister where I am. Believe me, there is still great need where I am and I am completely surrounded by this semi-pelagian form of "Christianity" that drives me nuts. To find a good confessional church for me is a 45 minute drive.
> As a side note, those of you with multiple confessional churches nearby count your blessings.
> 
> Grace and Peace,
> Hyatt
Click to expand...


You wrote:



> I am getting very tired of being made to feel bad for being a working/middle class white male



There is no reason for you to feel bad if your private calling as a Christian does not compel you to take the Gospel out to other regions of the world. The obligation is there. But it is not to you - but rests upon the collective Church as a whole. 

If the Church as a whole is failing to intentionally take the Gospel out to those that do not have it, then they should feel bad. But individual Christians who are not called to go needn't put themselves under false guilt, nor should they resent those who try to remind the Church that there are still peoples in this world without a single chapter of Scripture or any viable Gospel witness.


----------



## JonathanHunt

The problem with this entire thread, is that with the greatest respect, most of the participants do not understand the circumstances in the UK, let alone Scotland.

Inasmuch as we discuss pure principles, well and good, but it is how they apply to British circumstances which is the issue. As you (JJ) have mentioned GBP Scotland, I do suggest that you get in touch with them for a discussion at the very least.


----------



## Sola Gratia

Pergamum said:


> Sola Gratia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edward said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> But there are various shades of Presbyterian micro-denominations and they all promote their church-planting using terms of "need" when - in reality - true churches are not lacking but merely churches of their small denominations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not just the micros. The ARP church plant in Dallas is in an area served by 4 Anglophone PCA churches of varying sizes and worship styles, and the PCA and OPC are planting churches not far from each other in Southwest Dallas (but with different target groups). And I can come up with several instances where the PCA has planted a new work very near an established congregation.
> 
> That being said, I'm not sure that I'm still on board with the model of sending middle class westerners around the world to plant churches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree and disagree. As hard as it is for even me to believe, there are areas of the US, particularly down south where I am that have NO Reformed congregations at all. Prime example - this weekend I went to help my little sister move out of her college dorm and into an apartment in the same city. While there I paid attention to the churches (as I always do) and was struck by how... off the theology of this city was by church number and size. I even googled it, there are churches within an hour that are reformed(and in another city), but not within 30 minutes. This city was nothing but Church of Christ, AoG, Free Will Baptist, Wesleyan Pentecostal, etc. There were only two non FWB Baptist churches which were tiny and one of them is way way Arminian based on their sign. So there is a real need in some areas for reformed churches.
> 
> In my own area, which is out in the boonies in the south there are reformed churches, but predominantly PCUSA with women pastors or very liberal - OR a church where many of the members don't even believe the doctrines of grace! At a PCA Church in fact! Also, I am all for missions and things like that in other countries - they are important. That being said, I am getting very tired of being made to feel bad for being a working/middle class white male. I cannot control how God in his sovreignty created me, and I also feel that I was created the way I am and placed where I am geographically is so that I can minister where I am. Believe me, there is still great need where I am and I am completely surrounded by this semi-pelagian form of "Christianity" that drives me nuts. To find a good confessional church for me is a 45 minute drive.
> As a side note, those of you with multiple confessional churches nearby count your blessings.
> 
> Grace and Peace,
> Hyatt
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am getting very tired of being made to feel bad for being a working/middle class white male
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no reason for you to feel bad if your private calling as a Christian does not compel you to take the Gospel out to other regions of the world. The obligation is there. But it is not to you - but rests upon the collective Church as a whole.
> 
> If the Church as a whole is failing to intentionally take the Gospel out to those that do not have it, then they should feel bad. But individual Christians who are not called to go needn't put themselves under false guilt, nor should they resent those who try to remind the Church that there are still peoples in this world without a single chapter of Scripture or any viable Gospel witness.
Click to expand...


The Church as a collective _is_ an international body and therefore does not rely solely on Westerners to "do" missions. I think we are probably doing more mission work now than we have in the history of the world. With the spread of the internet, the Bible being translated into more and more languages, etc. the church is expanding rapidly. That being said, not all of the growth is positive, with much of it being pentecostal and/or charismatic. If there was harshness in my reply I apologize I had just recently read an article by an "evangelical" who said that the Holy Spirit had left behind us Western Christians who think that we are the center of the world and was moving to other people. I just get tired of a culture that looks down on white western males because of who we are, I got enough of that in college and I fear it may be creeping into the church. Not that any of you personally may think that. I do not resent people who remind the Church, but it is frustrating when many of those people (not necessarily you) act as though NOTHING is being done when it is. For those of us who aren't called to a "mission field", though I believe all of the world is a mission field, we typically give quite a bit to aid those who are called. Once again, I apologize for any unwarranted frustration in my response.

Grace and Peace,
Hyatt


----------



## Jake

My county, Henry County, Georgia is one of the fastest growing counties in the country. (According to Wikipedia: As of the 2000 census, the population was 119,341. As of the 2010 census, the county's population swelled to 203,922, up 70.9% from the previous census and becoming Georgia's 8th most populous county and the 10th fastest growing county in the nation.)

There are lots of churches, with the two largest groups being Baptist and Methodist. However, there is very little reformed presence in my county. There are only two conservative Presbyterians of any kind in the county (one EPC and one PCA), and no confessionally reformed baptists (there are some southern baptists with 5 pointers on staff, a few primitive baptists that I don't know much about, and a non-denominational church of 5 pointers). I know many reformed-minded people that drive a ways to find a good church and I know that many of the churches here are preaching very watered-down gospels. I would welcome reformed baptist and reformed presbyterian church planting here. 

My little area just shows one truth that Dennis and others have put forth in this thread: confessional reformed churches are a minority throughout our country. There is no reason we can't have more of both!


----------



## Pergamum

Sola Gratia said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sola Gratia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edward said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> But there are various shades of Presbyterian micro-denominations and they all promote their church-planting using terms of "need" when - in reality - true churches are not lacking but merely churches of their small denominations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not just the micros. The ARP church plant in Dallas is in an area served by 4 Anglophone PCA churches of varying sizes and worship styles, and the PCA and OPC are planting churches not far from each other in Southwest Dallas (but with different target groups). And I can come up with several instances where the PCA has planted a new work very near an established congregation.
> 
> That being said, I'm not sure that I'm still on board with the model of sending middle class westerners around the world to plant churches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree and disagree. As hard as it is for even me to believe, there are areas of the US, particularly down south where I am that have NO Reformed congregations at all. Prime example - this weekend I went to help my little sister move out of her college dorm and into an apartment in the same city. While there I paid attention to the churches (as I always do) and was struck by how... off the theology of this city was by church number and size. I even googled it, there are churches within an hour that are reformed(and in another city), but not within 30 minutes. This city was nothing but Church of Christ, AoG, Free Will Baptist, Wesleyan Pentecostal, etc. There were only two non FWB Baptist churches which were tiny and one of them is way way Arminian based on their sign. So there is a real need in some areas for reformed churches.
> 
> In my own area, which is out in the boonies in the south there are reformed churches, but predominantly PCUSA with women pastors or very liberal - OR a church where many of the members don't even believe the doctrines of grace! At a PCA Church in fact! Also, I am all for missions and things like that in other countries - they are important. That being said, I am getting very tired of being made to feel bad for being a working/middle class white male. I cannot control how God in his sovreignty created me, and I also feel that I was created the way I am and placed where I am geographically is so that I can minister where I am. Believe me, there is still great need where I am and I am completely surrounded by this semi-pelagian form of "Christianity" that drives me nuts. To find a good confessional church for me is a 45 minute drive.
> As a side note, those of you with multiple confessional churches nearby count your blessings.
> 
> Grace and Peace,
> Hyatt
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am getting very tired of being made to feel bad for being a working/middle class white male
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no reason for you to feel bad if your private calling as a Christian does not compel you to take the Gospel out to other regions of the world. The obligation is there. But it is not to you - but rests upon the collective Church as a whole.
> 
> If the Church as a whole is failing to intentionally take the Gospel out to those that do not have it, then they should feel bad. But individual Christians who are not called to go needn't put themselves under false guilt, nor should they resent those who try to remind the Church that there are still peoples in this world without a single chapter of Scripture or any viable Gospel witness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Church as a collective _is_ an international body and therefore does not rely solely on Westerners to "do" missions. I think we are probably doing more mission work now than we have in the history of the world. With the spread of the internet, the Bible being translated into more and more languages, etc. the church is expanding rapidly. That being said, not all of the growth is positive, with much of it being pentecostal and/or charismatic. If there was harshness in my reply I apologize I had just recently read an article by an "evangelical" who said that the Holy Spirit had left behind us Western Christians who think that we are the center of the world and was moving to other people. I just get tired of a culture that looks down on white western males because of who we are, I got enough of that in college and I fear it may be creeping into the church. Not that any of you personally may think that. I do not resent people who remind the Church, but it is frustrating when many of those people (not necessarily you) act as though NOTHING is being done when it is. For those of us who aren't called to a "mission field", though I believe all of the world is a mission field, we typically give quite a bit to aid those who are called. Once again, I apologize for any unwarranted frustration in my response.
> 
> Grace and Peace,
> Hyatt
Click to expand...


The body of Christ does not rely SOLEY on Westerners to do the work of missions. But it would certainly seem amiss if the country which publishes the most Gospel materials and commentaries and hosts the most seminaries would lag behind the rest of the world. Brazil and Korea are also big missions-senders as well. 

If you are concerned about the doctrinal integrity of those missionaries being sent, the solution would not be to leave the task to Third World pastors, but to make greater efforts to send doctrinally sound missionaries ourselves. 

All the world is not equally the mission field. There are places where the Gospel will not just naturally flow into by means of movement and immigration or travel. Some places need intentional strategizing and deployment of resources to reach.

In my experience, most missionaries do not act as if NOTHING is being done - but we do act as if NOT ENOUGH is being done.


----------



## Josh Williamson

JonathanHunt said:


> The problem with this entire thread, is that with the greatest respect, most of the participants do not understand the circumstances in the UK, let alone Scotland.
> 
> Inasmuch as we discuss pure principles, well and good, but it is how they apply to British circumstances which is the issue. As you (JJ) have mentioned GBP Scotland, I do suggest that you get in touch with them for a discussion at the very least.



I agree with Jonathan. I would encourage you to contact Grace Baptist Partnership - Scotland. Ali is a godly man with a passion for planting RB churches throughout Scotland. He would be worth talking to.


----------



## Tripel

Pergamum said:


> I believe resources are probably put to more effective use when nationals are trained and do the actual church planting.
> 
> 
> 
> Most church-planting missionaries I know (even the western middle class ones), try to prioritize the training of nationals.
Click to expand...


This is my experience also. It's the nationals that we train and support as church-planters, and actually being on the ground with them is important.


As to the OP, it depends on the context. In a small, rural town, I would probably not favor such a church plant. And the same reasoning can be applied to a particular district within a large city.


----------

