Reformed Baptists Not Doing a Good Job of Planting Churches

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

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

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

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

How then am I to understand your words?

Hi Bob,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hope that clarifies the intention of my words.

Your servant,

 

[MarieP]

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

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

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

How then am I to understand your words?

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

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

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

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

How then am I to understand your words?

Hi Bob,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hope that clarifies the intention of my words.

Your servant,

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

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

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

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

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

Marie,

I think Christ has accomplished much good through your church (RBC of Louisville), and this is no doubt partly due to the burden and vision He's imparted to your elders. I really admire their zeal and thank God for their example to other RB churches.

 

[rbcbob]

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

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

How then am I to understand your words?

Hi Bob,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hope that clarifies the intention of my words.

Your servant,

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

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

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

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

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

Your simple servant,

 

[Wannabee]

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

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

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

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

 

[Herald]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[DMcFadden]

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

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

 

[Raj]

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

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

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

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

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

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

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

Raj,

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

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

 

[KMK]

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

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

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

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

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

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

Your simple servant,

Dear Bob,

Thanks for your humble response. I think we may be misunderstanding one another. The point of my statement, which you cite, is not to deny that a local church may participate in all the various facets of Great Commission labor. Any local church, big or small, may participate to some extent in the various works of evangelism, ministerial training, church planting, benevolent outreach, missions, and local church nurture. The degree to which any local church participates in any one of these elements of kingdom work will depend on various factors (e.g., the churches size, human and financial resources, trained personnel, providential opportunities, etc.).

The "work of the Great Commission," however, is one that entails bringing the nations under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and thus is a worldwide and an age-long endeavor. So to answer your question, Neither 1 nor 1,500 local churches can successfully fulfill this commission alone. The Great Commission was given to the apostles who represent the universal visible church through the ages. Accordingly, I stand by my statement. I do not believe "any one local church can successfully carry out the work of the Great Commission in isolation from other true churches of Christ" (emphasis added). This I learned from taking Greg Nichols' course on Ecclesiology, the same course you and your fellow elders have used to train your ministerial aspirants.

In the second place, I think you interpreted my statement to imply that a local church must be a member of a formal denomination or association of churches in order to participate in the various facets of Great Commission endeavor. But nowhere do I make that claim. In fact, when I said above, "Most of the 1689 churches I associate with believe as firmly in the interdependence of local churches as they do the independence of local churches," I had in mind independent, non-associational churches like yours, as well as ARBCA and Founders churches.

Most local churches I know have constitutions, which serve to specify how that church is going to apply specific and general principles of Scripture to church life and ministry. Yet there's no specific command in Scripture that a local church must have a written constitution. Arguably, though, it's a matter of prudence. Similarly, local churches collectively will normally try to labor in conjunction and cooperation with each other. This is a more effective and, I think, a more biblical way of carrying out the Great Commission. Some of those local churches that work together think it prudent to draw up and adopt something like "Articles of Cooperation." These articles end up functioning much like the constitution of a local church and often form the basis of a formal association. I certainly believe local churches are at liberty to formulate such articles and I even believe it to be a matter of prudence. One may not agree with a given set of articles of cooperation or associational constitution and therefore not be able in good conscience to join said association of churches. That does not mean, however, that the concept of associations is ipso facto unbiblical and unwise. Nor does it mean, on the other hand, that any church not participating in a formal association is in every instance ipso facto uncooperative and isolationist.

I hope this helps to clarify my point and to bring us to closer agreement. Once again, I affirm the self-government of the local church. But I also affirm that God never intended local churches to carry out kingdom endeavor in isolation from the larger visible body of Christ. Hence, I affirm both the independence and the interdependence of local churches as biblical. I suspect that the church you pastor (RBC of Louisville) agrees in principle and practice with both of these ways of viewing the local church and its labors vis-a-vis the universal visible church.

Blessings,

-----Added 7/25/2009 at 09:19:46 EST-----

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

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

Ken,

Thanks for your comments. I agree with you. Of course, I don't think it wrong for a family to leave an apostate church or even, after much patience and interaction with the leadership a seriously defective church that is resistant to biblical reformation in order to attend a more doctrinally sound and spiritually healthy church. But as a rule, I tend to think that less of our energy should be spent on "sheep-stealing" or, as one pastor put it, "rearranging the furniture in God's house," and more of our energy should be spent attempting to win the unconverted to Christ and bring them into Christ's church.

 

[Raj]

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

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

 

[Edward]

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

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

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

 

[KMK]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Reformed Thomist]

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

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

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

This link may help, brother Raj...

Reformed Baptist Churches in India

 

[Wannabee]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Herald]

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

 

[KMK]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Herald]

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

Ken,

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

 

[Raj]

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

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

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

This link may help, brother Raj...

Reformed Baptist Churches in India

Dear brother. Nathan

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

God bless .

 

[KMK]

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

Ken,

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

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