Afterthought
Puritan Board Senior
These days, some churches are started by people who believe they should go ahead and start them and be the "leader" or "pastor" of them. These churches may even be started in such a person's own home. In such a case, the person decides to do this independent of any authoritative structure but himself (hopefully not herself!). In terms of ecclesiology, what should be made of these churches and the "ministers" of these churches, which ministers are not affiliated with Presbytery or congregation or some other authoritative structure? Should they be seen as valid officers but unlawfully called and valid churches but unlawfully started? No ministers or churches at all, with no right to existence?
If they are seen as valid ministers and churches, then that would seem to mean they should be treated as true churches and true ministers that one has an obligation to; and yet these obligations arise and the church truly constituted outside of the bounds of any structure besides an individual's decision to start such a church? Wouldn't that then mean basically any who was successful at starting such a church could gain such authority in Christ's church? Would "whoever is not against us is for us" apply here in accepting such churches as truly constituted?
If they are not seen as valid, then that means validity depends on the existence of some ecclesiastical structure? In which case, what is required of the ecclesiastical structure so that such a calling and ordination is valid (since separate denominations recognize the validity of the ministers and churches of each other)?
And further, what is a good way to act towards such churches and the leaders of such churches, recognizing that whatever the answer, such is certainly not an ideal situation?
To simplify matters, let us say such a church has a true confession, albeit, a hidden one (since most of these churches aren't that into confessional Christianity), i.e., implicitly in that it preaches a true gospel.
Edit: For clarification, I am not speaking of "house" churches or the "house church movement." The home is merely a convenient place for such a start up to begin, but the goal of the start up is always for church planting: for having an actual church, dedicated meeting place (which is preferably not in the home for practical reasons such as too many members to comfortably meet in a private home), and ministry.
Edit2: I should have mentioned this earlier, but I am primarily interested in the case of a non-ordained person doing this and gathering a congregation to himself, rather than a congregation in some unusual circumstance (as allowed in Presbyterian thought) or in ordinary circumstances (as in Independent thought) electing someone from among themselves to be their officer.
If they are seen as valid ministers and churches, then that would seem to mean they should be treated as true churches and true ministers that one has an obligation to; and yet these obligations arise and the church truly constituted outside of the bounds of any structure besides an individual's decision to start such a church? Wouldn't that then mean basically any who was successful at starting such a church could gain such authority in Christ's church? Would "whoever is not against us is for us" apply here in accepting such churches as truly constituted?
If they are not seen as valid, then that means validity depends on the existence of some ecclesiastical structure? In which case, what is required of the ecclesiastical structure so that such a calling and ordination is valid (since separate denominations recognize the validity of the ministers and churches of each other)?
And further, what is a good way to act towards such churches and the leaders of such churches, recognizing that whatever the answer, such is certainly not an ideal situation?
To simplify matters, let us say such a church has a true confession, albeit, a hidden one (since most of these churches aren't that into confessional Christianity), i.e., implicitly in that it preaches a true gospel.
Edit: For clarification, I am not speaking of "house" churches or the "house church movement." The home is merely a convenient place for such a start up to begin, but the goal of the start up is always for church planting: for having an actual church, dedicated meeting place (which is preferably not in the home for practical reasons such as too many members to comfortably meet in a private home), and ministry.
Edit2: I should have mentioned this earlier, but I am primarily interested in the case of a non-ordained person doing this and gathering a congregation to himself, rather than a congregation in some unusual circumstance (as allowed in Presbyterian thought) or in ordinary circumstances (as in Independent thought) electing someone from among themselves to be their officer.
Last edited: