Dr. Hershael York, who is a trustee for the IMB, has just posted an article concerning the revisioning that is happening at the International Mission Board. With his permission, we are reprinting it here for our readers. We at SBC Today thank Dr. Rankin, Dr. Paul Chitwood, the Trustees and the staff at the IMB for working together in unity at this time. Our prayers are with you under this spirit of unity and purpose. May the Lord receive praise and glory in your stewardship at the IMB.
York on the IMB and NPR
By Hershael W York
I am just now returning from a historic meeting of the International Mission Board. President Jerry Rankin, Chairman Paul Chitwood, staff, trustees, and a special task force are working closely together, perhaps more than ever before, to chart the course for a bold missiological paradigm shift that will propel us to greater efforts at world evangelization. Following Dr. Rankin’s lead, the task force presented to the trustees a statement of vision, mission, and core values. After evaluation, discussion, tweaking, and the presentation of a final form, the Board unanimously approved the following:
VISION
Our vision is a multitude from every language, people, tribe and nation knowing and worshipping our Lord Jesus Christ.
MISSION
Our mission is to make disciples of all peoples in fulfillment of the Great Commission.
CORE VALUES
1. We commit to obedience to the Lordship of Jesus Christ and to God’s inerrant Word.
2. We believe Jesus Christ is God’s only provision for salvation and all people without personal faith in Him are lost and will spend eternity in hell.
3. We seek to provide all people an opportunity to hear, understand and respond to the gospel in their own cultural context.
4. We evangelize through proclamation, discipling, equipping and ministry that results in indigenous reproducing Baptist churches.
5. We serve churches to facilitate their involvement in the Great Commission and the sending of missionaries to bring all peoples to faith in Jesus Christ.
6. We partner with Baptists and other Christians around the world in accordance with IMB guidelines.
7. We understand and fulfill God’s mission through God’s Word, prayer and the leadership of the Holy Spirit.
Based on this vision, mission, and core values, we also approved 8 proposals for revisioning what the IMB of the future must look like and the parameters for reaching a lost world that is less and less defined by national boundaries. The 8 proposals are:
Revisioning 2008 Proposals1. We affirm a continuing commitment to the basic priority of impacting lostness through:
• Evangelism, discipleship and planting reproducing churches.
• Engagement of all peoples with the gospel.
• Comprehensive, holistic strategies including but not limited to medical, media, human needs, social ministries, training and theological education.2. We affirm a commitment to serve and facilitate all cooperating Southern Baptists involved in fulfilling our Great Commission task.
3. We affirm the creation and the expanded utilization of platform organizations for creative access to impact lostness.
4. We affirm appropriate levels of cooperation with others, including:
• Indigenous Baptist partners and missionaries;
• Non-IMB Southern Baptists engaged in overseas missions;
• Great Commission partners.5. We affirm a revision of our vision and mission statements and core values to reflect a more relevant expression of our current task and commitments.
6. We affirm an organizational structure based on the following principles:
• Maximize frontline personnel in witness and church planting.
• Minimize administrative field structure and resources.
• Serve and facilitate field personnel and their needs.
• Provide appropriate accountability at all levels.
• Provide a seamless unity between home and the field.
• Alleviate administrative burden of the regions.
• Accommodate supervision and accountability of creative access platform organizations.
• Staffed by servant leadership at all levels.7. We affirm a uniform structure in which missionary personnel are assigned to a team whose work is coordinated by a team facilitator.
• Teams are organized into clusters led by a cluster leader to facilitate impacting the lostness of their assigned target area/people group/s.
• Clusters are affiliated with global affinity groups.
• Global affinity groups are established on the basis of language, culture and ethnicity.
• Affinity group strategists ensure accountability of the clusters to the Office of Global Strategy.8. Each missionary unit is served by geographically-based support teams representing financial management, business services, personnel support and mobilization assistance.
These are exciting days as Southern Baptists probe the edges of lostness. Though I have only been on the board for one year, I sense a new day in partnership between missionaries, staff, and trustees. A spirit of focused purpose, cooperation, and harmony for the gospel’s sake permeated our meeting. Debate and disagreement was respectful, insightful, and even helpful. The result was evident in the recommitment to and recasting of our vision. Furthermore we took some positive steps to show greater trust in our Richmond staff as they work with missionary candidates and present them to the Board. I was gratified to be a small part of that effort by serving on a subcommittee that was charged with reviewing the way we deal with and present candidates. I don’t think I am overstating it one bit to say the staff was elated with the results of our efforts.
The next four months will be critical in the future of world evangelization, not just in the life of the IMB. As the largest missionary sending agency in the world, the IMB necessarily sets the pace for other agencies who feel the ripples of what we do. Please pray for the task force, Dr. Rankin, Dr. Chitwood, the staff, and the board as we work through and implement the implications of our vision, mission, and core values that God has given us.
Finally and on a completely different note, I will appear on National Public Radio’s Tell Me More on Friday, September 12, and the topic will be the evangelical faith of Gov. Sarah Palin. The media have had a field day talking about her church’s views on homosexuality, creation, and even the second coming of Christ. What is fair game in a political race? The show does not appear in all markets, but you can listen to it online at the preceding link or on Sirius satellite radio on channel 134 at 9AM or 6PM.
Robin,
Good catch! I, too, saw his post and thought it to be a thoroughly encouraging report!
SOLA GRATIA!
Given core value #5, it’s now time to reverse the personnel policies.
Wow! This looks good!
Looking at #7 and #8, it looks like some big organizational changes are underway. Speaking as someone who served in an administrative capacity for my IMB tenure, those changes can be “scary”. We should pray for our missionaries as they learn how this will be effecting them personally.
I’m also happy about #6. “alleviate administrative burden of the regions”. I don’t know if that means that they will do away with some of the administrative requirements or provide adequate staff to deal with those requirements. It will be interesting to see how this works out.
Rick
Good to have you here. Could you please explain a little further how # 7 and # 8 can be “scary” changes that would affect the missionaries personally?
I am glad you are happy with #6. It seems that the IMB is trying to stream line its organization so that more money can be put in the efforts on the field. Am I correct in that assessment?
Hi Robin,
Anytime there are any changes that effect administrative organization, the thought always goes through your mind, “am I gonna have to move”.
# 7 (to me) deals with how the regions are organized. They used to be organized on the “local mission” strategy, that is, each local mission took care of the missionaries and the direction and the decisions that effected that country. Then, with “New Directions”, the old mission structure was removed in favor of a people group structure, but still retaining (usually) a country based system. Of course, I am no longer privy to the inner workings of the Board, but it looks like they are going to reorganize again and remove even “regional” designations and go in favor of “affinity group” designation. That is, instead of a people group approach in say, West Africa, they will now go with a “Muslim Region” and an “Animist Region”. Of course, I have no way of knowing that is what they are going to do, but that is my speculation. When changes like that happen, it always effects somebody. Since we have since a total shakeup of how things were done with New Directions, it is safe to assume (perhaps) that the new reorganization will shake up the missionaries. They are, after all, just human, and as humans, we are resistant to change. I certainly didn’t mean it as a bad thing; we should be praying for them, anyway, right! ;-)
For #8, this will most likely effect only those who are in support. If, for example, you have three different regions using a “safe” city, you would have three different facilities within that “safe” city all doing the same thing, but for different missionaries. #8 looks as if it might be combining the efforts of those support missionaries and having them be “multi-regional” instead of region specific. That isn’t a bad thing. But with all changes, there are certain things that are left up in the air and can be scary when they finally land. For example, if a mission support office has always been in one city, but now, several regions combine together, it might work out that folks would need to move to a different city to work in the new “combo” office. That means, in some cases, learning a new language, getting your kids in (another) new school, finding your way in the city for marketing and medical services, etc.
So, in those types of changes, the “not knowing” can be a very scary process.
Regarding #6, I think you are right in your assessment.
Rick
Thanks for the explanation. You are correct, anytime someone is required to move because of changes in an organizational structure, families are affected. It is even scary for someone to move from a ministry here in the US to another ministry in the US. For a multitude of reasons, I would imagine it is 10 times scarier for someone overseas. Yes, we should pray for the families (as always) and support them if a major transition takes place.
I also believe that for #6 to happen (which we both support), #7 & #8 will need to occur. I know several men on the board and while a move for a family is scary, I also know the trustees will ensure that everything that needs to occur in order to provide the best transition, will happen.
Thanks for giving clarification on this matter. I believe we are both in agreement in that #7 & #8 are not bad, but we still need to support those uprooted missionaries with our prayers.
Keep giving us your insight. It is helpful.
‘We affirm the creation and the expanded utilization of platform organizations for creative access to impact lostness.’ – ‘the edges of lostness’ – ‘Affinity group strategists ensure accountability of the clusters to the Office of Global Strategy’ – ‘Missionary Unit’ – ‘Mobilization Assistance’.
Maybe it’s just me, but could someone translate this stuff into plain English?
It’s a small but not unimportant point that it is not lostness that sends people to hell. The Bible word is condemnation, the cause is sin.
Quick Quiz Question: How many times do the Bible words sin or sinner appear in this missiological document? (And we thought the CBF had a problem . . .)
Has anyone heard whether a new policy has been put into place in regard to whether or not new converts can serve as pastors?
Brother Alex,
“We affirm the creation and the expanded utilization of platform organizations for creative access to impact lostness.”
This means the IMB will would like to expand their use of non-traditional ways of gaining access and helping those who have no access to the Gospel. Platform organizations (humanitarian organizations and for-profit businesses) allow access to areas where “missionary” activity is restricted.
“the edges of lostness” – this phrase refers to people groups who have no witness or extremely limited witness. I cannot remember the number of people groups which are “unengaged” at this time, but it is ridiculously high.
“Affinity group strategists” – I am assuming that an affinity group is either the same as a people group or may be several VERY similar people groups. A “strategist” is the “missionary unit” (see below) that is responsible for listening to God and developing a strategy for seeing the church planted and discipled.
“Missionary Unit” – Either a family or one single person. Just like a “giving unit” in a church.
“Mobilization Assistance” – Mobilization is the aspect of overseas work where we let people know of the needs and share opportunities for them to be involved.
“Office of Global Strategy” – I guess this is the new name for the big wigs in Richmond ;^)
Baptist Theologue,
I do not understand the question. Are you referring to IMB personnel being new converts?
Nope, I’m referring to the practice of using new converts as pastors in a new church planted by IMB missionaries. When I was an IMB strategy coordinator, David Garrison’s book was considered to be the authoritative source for CPM methodology. Notice this excerpt from David Garrison’s book, Church Planting Movements:
“Relying on local leaders can be difficult for missionaries. Even today, some missionaries insist on pastoring the new churches they help to plant. Similarly, some missionaries still insist on mother churches sending an ordained pastor on an itinerant route to provide struggling new churches with rites of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. This pattern of external dependency has never produced a Church Planting Movement. Those who are reluctant to transfer this kind of authority quickly point to Paul’s instructions in 1 Timothy 3:6 where Paul advises young Timothy that a bishop ‘must not be a recent convert…’ However, Timothy’s church was already well established enough to reference several generations of believers (see 2 Timothy 2:2). In such an environment it was natural for Paul to delegate church oversight to those who had been closest to the original message delivered by the apostles, but nowhere does Paul place church authority in the hands of outsiders. When a new church is started, Paul does not hesitate to appoint local leaders right away. In Acts 14:23, immediately after winning converts in Lystra, Iconium, and Asia Minor’s Antioch ‘Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust.’ Likewise, he urges Titus to appoint elders, local men with families whom everyone knew, for every town of Crete. Meeting with the Church Planting Movement taskforce we posed the question, ‘When do you pass the torch to new leader?’ Their unanimous response was, ‘In a Church Planting Movement you begin with the torch in their hand.’ The nods of approval around the room testified to the shared experience. Of course this is only possible when the churches are rooted in obedience to God’s word and a lifelong commitment to discipleship.”
David Garrison, Church Planting Movements: How God is Redeeming a Lost World (Midlothian, VA: WIGTake Resources, 2004), 187-188.
One more Interesting quote from David Garrison’s CPM book:
“Church Planting Movements are rapidly multiplying movements of people. People can multiply truth or error. The secret to keeping them on track is not to slow them down long enough to indoctrinate all their leaders before they are allowed to reproduce. The secret to keeping them on track is to build fidelity to Scripture into the DNA of the earliest reproducing church models.”
Garrison, p. 269.
Baptist Theologue,
Gotcha. To my knowledge the IMB is still allowing the local churches to practice autonomy. So I would doubt they are allowing or disallowing anything with regards to local congregations. On the other hand, I am not aware of any church planters encouraging what I would consider immature believers to lead entire congregations. But, considering some of the immature leaders I’ve met in churches here in the States, I’m sure this same issue exists “out there.” Good question.
“From the Middle East,” I agree that local churches should be autonomous. I believe, however, that groups of believers should have a pastor who is qualified to be a pastor according to biblical standards before the group is designated as an autonomous church. Reproductive speed should not trump biblical qualifications. In regard to immature pastors in the states, I can only speak from my experiences on ordination councils. When we meet with the candidate, we try to determine whether he is biblically qualified, and then we present our recommendation to the church. The local church then makes the decision on whether or not it will ordain him. The question that is of missiological significance is this: What do you do if you are in a pioneer situation where there are only new converts? Do you then designate new converts as pastors of the new autonomous churches? I would answer that you can keep the groups as missions or stations until there are men who meet the biblical qualifications. John Nevius did this successfully in China, and he taught his principles to the early missionaries in Korea. His principles were utilized very successfully in Korea, where I served as an IMB missionary. Nevius said the following:
“While elders should be ordained as soon as practicable, we should not forget that the qualifications of elders are minutely laid down in the Scriptures; and to choose and ordain men to this office without the requisite qualifications is in fact going contrary to, rather than obeying the Scriptures. If suitable elders are not to be found, we should wait for them, however long a waiting may be required. . . . In central Shantung no church has as yet been organized with native elders, though some of our stations have had an existence with from ten to twenty and more church members for a period of seven or eight years. We are hoping very soon to ordain elders in some of these stations. In the meantime the leaders are unofficially performing many of the duties which will fall into the hands of elders when appointed. The missionary or evangelist in charge transacts all important business by consultation with the whole company of native Christians or their leaders. These Christians or leaders have only advisory power, the authority of deciding questions being vested solely in the missionary.”
Nevius, The Planting and Development of Missionary Churches (N.p.: 1886; reprint, Hancock, NH: Monadnock, 2003), 71-73.
Baptist Theologue,
You will not get any argument from me with regards to allowing time for folks to mature before they lead (by themselves) entire congregations. I feel our American culture tends to push a little hard to get things done on our timetable rather than God’s!
I know this is kind of off-topic, but with regards to your statement:
In regard to immature pastors in the states, I can only speak from my experiences on ordination councils. When we meet with the candidate, we try to determine whether he is biblically qualified, and then we present our recommendation to the church. The local church then makes the decision on whether or not it will ordain him.
I have two questions:
1. How often and for how many months/years do you typically meet with the candidate to determine whether or not he lives a Spirit-filled life?
2. How much time do you, and the other members of the council, typically spend “doing ministry” with him before you are comfortable recommending him?
There are two entities at work in the ordination process: the local church and the ordination council. The church has the final say in the ordination. The church which votes to approve him is usually the church where the candidate was reared. (The church where he is to be hired often requests his home church to ordain him.) These people have seen him for a very long time (typically many years). The church members know whether he has met the qualifications in 1 Timothy 3:2-7. The council is assembled to use their doctrinal training and experience to assess his conversion experience, call to ministry, and whether he is “holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, that he may be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict” (Titus 1:9).
P.S.: Sometimes the local church ordains the candidate without being asked to do so by another church:
“Young George Washington Truett followed his parents to Whitewright, Texas, where he joined a local Baptist congregation. In a short time, the leadership and people of the church became very much impressed with his teaching and speaking abilities. He was elected to be their Sunday school superintendant. The young man would also take the pulpit in the pastor’s absence. Even though Truett had enrolled in the Grayson Junior College, the Whitewright congregation had other plans to put his gifts to work for God. The membership of the church encouraged him to consider God’s calling to the ministry. So much were they convinced regarding his talents and abilities that they urged him to be ordained on a Saturday in 1890 and then did so on Sunday.”
http://www.allaboutbaptists.com/history_George_W_Truett.html
Dr. Mohler stated,
“First, there is an inward call. Through His Spirit, God speaks to those persons He has called to serve as pastors and ministers of His Church. . . . Second, there is the external call. Baptists believe that God uses the congregation to ‘call out the called’ to ministry. The congregation must evaluate and affirm the calling and gifts of the believer who feels called to the ministry. As a family of faith, the congregation should recognize and celebrate the gifts of ministry given to its members, and take responsibility to encourage those whom God has called to respond to that call with joy and submission.”
Baptist Theologue,
If the ordination councils you are referring to here only meet with the candidate once I do not understand why they are needed. Unless the local church is full of immature believers.
No offense intended here, but considering that assessing ones’ “conversion experience, call to ministry, and whether he is ‘holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, that he may be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict’” are all things that require more than one meeting to determine, it sounds like the local church is really who is doing this.
I’m not saying this is necessarily wrong, but we are typically concerned with someone being able to walk the walk if they talk the talk. In this case, it sounds like council convenes to make sure the candidate can talk the talk AFTER he has already walked the walk. And even then, the local church SHOULD be more than well enough equipped to determine if someone’s talk lines up with their walk.
Do you think it is possible we measure spirituality more by how much someone knows than by how closely they walk with Jesus? Obviously orthodoxy begets orthopraxy, but just because someone articulates orthodox beliefs with their lips does not necessarily mean they practice these same beliefs. I’m not sure I would feel comfortable putting my “stamp of approval” on anyone I had not spent a considerable amount of time with – visiting with him and interacting with him and his family, observing as he visits the sick, teaches the Scriptures, counsels, etc.
I’m not really sure what the point of this comment is other than I’m a little concerned about the purpose of these ordination councils. At any rate…
His peace be yours in abundance,
From the Middle East
It doesn’t have to be an “either/or” situation; rather, it is a “both/and” situation. Both the council and the church work together. The church is not in competition with the council. The council is there to help the local church. Men who have served in the office of pastor have a good understanding of the office and can help both the candidate and the church discern whether the candidate is ready for the office. If the recommendation of a local church was required for one of its members to apply for admission to West Point, then the church might invite some current military officers to assess whether the candidate is a good fit for military leadership. The officers could utilize their experience and knowledge of military leadership to ask relevant questions and make a well-informed recommendation to the church. They have served on foreign fields and understand the demands of military service on the family and the stress of ordering men into situations in which they will be killed. The church, of course, already has a good idea of the man’s character and orientation toward service (e.g., perhaps he became an eagle scout in a troop sponsored by the church). Again, the church has the final say in the matter, but it is assisted by the council of military leaders.
Baptist Theologue,
An either/or situation makes sense. But, given that the purpose of the council is to “discern whether the candidate is ready for the office,” my concern is that this is not possible in one meeting. If God is already using someone to “do” the “tasks” of a pastor in an orthodox way while walking closely with Jesus, then the local church should make it official by installing him into the office. Again, my concern is that this cannot be determined in one meeting.
I do appreciate what you are saying and thank you for the dialogue.
May His face shine upon you,
From the Middle East
“From the Middle East,” you can learn a lot from one interview. This is true with job interviews, psychological interviews (as at the IMB candidate conferences in Richmond), etc. In Tennessee, one interview is used to assess potential church planters who want financial assistance from the Tennessee Baptist Convention, and experience has proven the value of the interview/assessment when the assessor uses the format that is being used now. I think churches generally appreciate the assistance rendered by the ordination council. These are tough days in the ministry, and candidates need to be ready for difficulty. Discerning the candidate’s fitness for ministry is very important. According to the Schaeffer Institute, 80% of seminary and Bible college graduates leave the ministry in the first 5 years of their ministry. According to the Hartford Institute, in the 5 years prior to the year 2000, 75% of churches experienced some degree of conflict, and in the 2 years prior to the year 2005, 57% of churches experienced conflict.
Baptist Theologue,
You said:
you can learn a lot from one interview
You can learn a lot about what they think and say, but not necessarily about how they live their lives.
You said:
These are tough days in the ministry, and candidates need to be ready for difficulty.
Yes, but one interview cannot determine this. It takes time, as you stated concerning overseas work, to develop AND evaluate whether God has prepared them.
You said:
According to the Schaeffer Institute, 80% of seminary and Bible college graduates leave the ministry in the first 5 years of their ministry. According to the Hartford Institute, in the 5 years prior to the year 2000, 75% of churches experienced some degree of conflict, and in the 2 years prior to the year 2005, 57% of churches experienced conflict.
This is exactly my concern. It seems either we are not adequately preparing these candidates or we are not recognizing that they God has equipped them with the gifts necessary to fulfill the pastoral role. Again, these are things that are determined by time. Your statistics have actually confirmed my concern. That is that we are much more concerned with what someone says than whether or not they are called and equipped to practice the same words.
Churches and church leaders MUST identify giftedness and begin discipling new believers in the areas in which they are gifted as soon as possible. In the case of leaders, to be mentored by church leaders (not just visiting with them a couple of times) prior to laying on hands and affirming their calling to a particular area. The statistics you cited indicate that seminaries cannot do this alone. We need pastors to identify gifted pastors as youngsters and disciple them. Seminary does not necessarily prepare someone for service, it provides knowledge. Discipleship ensures that this knowledge is actually put into practice.
Gotta run, but I am enjoying this discussion. It has actually confirmed what some of my friends in different seminaries have been sharing with me about how South Korean churches prepare their seminarians extensively prior to sending them off, or laying hands on them. They have been very concerned, after hearing from our brothers “over there” about how they affirm leaders, that we are really pretty nonchalant about it “over here” as a whole.
Peace to you brother,
From the Middle east
Brother Theologue,
This is a good discussion. I would like to flesh this out a little more….
“Baptists believe that God uses the congregation to ‘call out the called’ to ministry.”
In what way do Baptists believe this? Where in scripture are you pointing us for ordination requirements where a congregation employees ordination as the biblical standard for it Pastor/Pastors? Not that the practice of praying over men in the church for service should be abandoned, but it appears from three letters of Paul to his Pastors that Paul himself or other “presbyters” were those that prayed and moved these men (Pastors, not deacons) into their role.
Scripture reveals men Pastoring the church as described in the letters to Titus and Timothy as recognized by their character (lives) and , not “officially/professionally ordained” by any congregation,….unless of course praying over the men is the official bequeathing (1 Timothy 4:14) seen extending from the congregation. The context does not seem to bear that out.
Where is the “pivot point” to have the congregation choose (exclusive from praying over men as they should always) the Pastor/Pastors, from what Paul specifically told Timothy and Titus to do as their responsibility in Leadership.
2 Timothy 4:3-5 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, (4) and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths. (5) But you, be sober in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.
I am more interested to know where you believe the pivot occurred in Paul’s writing to have the congregation do the work that Paul described to Timothy and Titus.
Blessings,
Chris
“From the Middle East,” you said,
“You can learn a lot about what they think and say, but not necessarily about how they live their lives. . . . One interview cannot determine this. It takes time, as you stated concerning overseas work, to develop AND evaluate whether God has prepared them.”
I think I dealt with this concern earlier. The local church has watched the candidate over time. Notice what I said earlier:
“The church which votes to approve him is usually the church where the candidate was reared. (The church where he is to be hired often requests his home church to ordain him.) These people have seen him for a very long time (typically many years). The church members know whether he has met the qualifications in 1 Timothy 3:2-7.”
You also said,
“Your statistics have actually confirmed my concern. That is that we are much more concerned with what someone says than whether or not they are called and equipped to practice the same words.”
Again, this is where the local church has responsibility. The church members know the candidate’s character. They know whether he practices what he preaches. Removing the ordination council from the process will not make any difference in this regard.
I agree with you that time is needed for adequate discipleship. For that reason alone, it is a huge mistake for new converts to serve as pastors. This issue is huge in the missiological sense. When a new convert is made pastor of a new church full of new converts, the potential for disaster is definitely there. The missionary who was involved in establishing the church might give counsel to the new pastor, but once the group is designated as an autonomous local church, the pastor can ignore the missionary. In a pioneer area where the people have never seen Christians, if such a pastor leads a new church into error, it will have profound effects. The church might disappear from the scene or become a cult. The poor witness left by such a church could make it much more difficult for the next missionary to plant a viable church in that area. I agree with Nevius that is better to delay constituting the group as a church until there is a qualified man available to serve as pastor.
Chris, I’m not sure what you’re looking for with the “pivot point” you mentioned. If you’ll clarify that, I’ll try to respond.
Various Christian groups define ordination in different ways. I see it as public recognition that a particular man is biblically qualified for a biblical office. I like what R. Stanton Norman said:
“A church officer is a man who has been God-called and God-equipped and who has been publicly recognized by the church to perform certain functions for the benefit of the entire church. In Baptist life, pastors and deacons are recognized as officers of a New Testament church. The men who assume these responsibilities are publicly recognized (usually by ordination) by a church as qualified to serve in these roles. . . . The orderly function of a church necessitates that those men called of God to serve in these capacities be formally recognized by a church as qualified to be an overseer or a deacon. Public recognition of these offices is important because of the leadership roles attached to these duties.”
Norman, The Baptist Way: Distinctives of a Baptist Church (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2005), 124.
Baptist Theologue,
This comment may be a little long and tedious… apologies.
You said:
I think churches generally appreciate the assistance rendered by the ordination council. These are tough days in the ministry, and candidates need to be ready for difficulty. Discerning the candidate’s fitness for ministry is very important.
& previously:
The council is assembled to use their doctrinal training and experience to assess his conversion experience, call to ministry, and whether he is “holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, that he may be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict” (Titus 1:9).
I said:
“You can learn a lot about what they think and say, but not necessarily about how they live their lives. . . . One interview cannot determine this. It takes time, as you stated concerning overseas work, to develop AND evaluate whether God has prepared them.”
Then you said:
I think I dealt with this concern earlier. The local church has watched the candidate over time. Notice what I said earlier:
“The church which votes to approve him is usually the church where the candidate was reared. (The church where he is to be hired often requests his home church to ordain him.) These people have seen him for a very long time (typically many years). The church members know whether he has met the qualifications in 1 Timothy 3:2-7.”
Now I say:
If the local church is doctrinally sound & living in obedience to the Scriptures, I still do not understand the point of these councils. Since the church has already confirmed God’s call on their lives due to their orthodoxy and orthopraxy, these councils seem pointless. At the same time, I do not understand why someone would want to approve, even if their opinion does not really count for anything, someone they really know very little about.
His peace be yours,
From the Middle East
Why do ordained men in the US get a tax break, even if that man is not a pastor?
Brother Theologue,
I don’t disagree with the “Baptist Way” definition, even though the definition is somewhat ambiguous when it uses the term “by a church”, and in the brief paragraph does not determine the genesis of such an appointment to Leadership. That could mean for instance that the church at Corinth who was involved in all sorts of specific sin would be qualified to publicly recognize certain men as Pastors (it seems some could, but obviously not the whole). Corinth, with enough voting members by those engaged in sin,…. would be able to continue in their sin as Paul warned Timothy, by seeking out men for their own desires. That type of public recognition is not the biblical model that Paul was charting for Corinth or any other church.
What I am trying to understand by my previous question concerning a “pivot point” is…..if the “public” recognition is the “determining factor” for qualified Leadership when did this show up in Holy Scripture, if at all.
In other words,…if the Apostle Paul came into the church at Ephesus and had everyone stand in a circle and began to teach the congregation about the model and appointment of Leaders, does the scripture he penned for us, giving us direction to set the church in order, pivot toward a democratic vote for leadership among those in the circle,…or does it pivot toward Timothy as the Leader to appoint men as prescribed by the qualifications set forth in the letter. Did Paul tell everyone in the circle that we are now going to take a vote to see if Timothy and others meet with your approval….or was the command given differently?
Praying for, affirming, gaining congregation input, edifying one another, etc. are part of what is seen is scripture within the life of the church. But, when does scripture move to appoint the overall congregation to choose by popularity its biblical Leadership, since the initial appointments came from Christ, through the Apostles, to the Pastors that met the Pauline (Godly) qualification, and so on….. where do we see the congregation as a whole take over the responsibility of appointing Leadership?
Blessings,
Chris
Sister Elizabeth,
I am an ordained Pastor and I do not get a tax break… not sure where your coming from on that one.
Blessings,
Chris
I thought those ordained were eligible for some kind of self-employment tax break?
Sister Elizabeth,
There probably is some sort of tax relief given to “ordained ministers” of any type. I could only hope I could get tax relief for ministering as a Pastor in the church….since I paid over $40K in taxes last year.
:(
Blessings,
Chris
“From the Middle East,” you said:
“If the local church is doctrinally sound & living in obedience to the Scriptures, I still do not understand the point of these councils. Since the church has already confirmed God’s call on their lives due to their orthodoxy and orthopraxy, these councils seem pointless. At the same time, I do not understand why someone would want to approve, even if their opinion does not really count for anything, someone they really know very little about.”
It may be helpful if I share something about the most recent ordination council with which I was involved. The council met a couple of years ago, so my memory may be a bit fuzzy. I knew the candidate from talking to him at the seminary and from talking to him at a missions fair at his home church. His pastor was also on the council, and his pastor is a friend of mine. I suspect that some of the other men on the council knew this young man. One of the men is an associate DOM in the association, and he assesses church planters for the Tennessee Baptist Convention. I don’t think it is uncommon for men on the council to know the candidate. It largely depends on how good the relationships are between churches in the association. The men who serve on the council often come from other churches in the association. In the association where I am now a pastor, the little churches work together to send members together on mission trips. Thus, people from different churches often know each other pretty well, especially if they have been active in associational work and attend associational meetings. Of course in rural areas with low population density, everyone seems to know everything about everyone else. Often the local church pastor, who has seen the candidate grow up in his church, serves as moderator for the council. You seem to be asking what the council has that the local church doesn’t have. Even if most of the men on the council don’t know the candidate (which was the case when I was ordained), I think the council has value. In most local churches, there is either one man holding the office of pastor or a few men holding the office of pastor. The council is made up entirely of men who hold the office of pastor. They have experienced the call to the office of pastor, and they have gained understanding of what the office requires. Thus, they have a different perspective than the church members have who do not hold the office. I believe that their perspective is valuable and that it assists the local church. We may disagree on that point, but that’s okay.
My impression is that you and Chris agree with me that new converts should not serve as pastors. Back to my original question in this thread about the IMB: “Has anyone heard whether a new policy has been put into place in regard to whether or not new converts can serve as pastors?”
Brother Theologue,
I most definitely agree with you….that new converts should not serve as Pastors. Doing so would be in direct opposition to scripture and a huge disservice to the new convert and the congregation.
Blessings,
Chris
Baptist Theologue,
You said:
They have experienced the call to the office of pastor, and they have gained understanding of what the office requires. Thus, they have a different perspective than the church members have who do not hold the office. I believe that their perspective is valuable and that it assists the local church. We may disagree on that point, but that’s okay.
Not sure if we disagree or not. But I certainly do not see the need for what you have described here if we are talking about a healthy congregation.
May His face shine upon you,
Form the Middle East
Baptist Theologue,
You asked:
Has anyone heard whether a new policy has been put into place in regard to whether or not new converts can serve as pastors?
As far as I know the IMB is not allowing or disallowing anyone the office of pastor. Not sure that an organization can have a policy on something that falls outside the scope of it’s authority.
Has anyone else heard anything about a policy on who is allowed to be a leader in an indigenous congregation overseas? And if so, how are they planning on “enforcing” this?
Brother FTME,
Whether indigenous to the US or Iran, I would suggest they follow the scripture and not some policy…..
1 Timothy 3:6 and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil.
I think Paul was not just kidding around when he gave this part of the qualification.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris, we have had a similar discussion in the past about voting. If I remember correctly, you do not believe that the congregation ever needs to have a formal vote. You prefer elder-led churches, and I prefer churches in which the local congregation has the ultimate say in terms of voting. Millard Erickson commented on the congregational form of government:
“It is my judgment that the congregational form of church government most nearly fulfills the principles that have been laid down. It takes seriously the principle of the priesthood and spiritual competency of all believers. It also takes seriously the promise that the indwelling Spirit will guide all believers. At the same time, the need for orderliness suggests that a degree of representative government is necessary. In some situations leaders must be chosen to act on behalf of the group. Those chosen should always be conscious of their accountability to those whom they represent; and where possible, major issues should be brought to the membership as a whole to decide.”
Erickson, Christian Theology, Second Edition (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998), 1096.
I agree with Erickson about the major issues needing a congregational vote. As I stated in our past discussion, Paul referred to a majority vote in a matter of church discipline (2 Corinthians 2:6): “Sufficient for such a one is this punishment which was inflicted by the majority” (NASB).
David Garland commented on the verse:
“When Paul uses this word, it nearly always refers to the majority. . . . The reference to the majority therefore implies that not all concurred with the action and may reveal that the church is split.”
Garland, “2 Corinthians,” vol. 29 in The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1999), 125-126.
The late A. T. Robertson also commented on the verse:
“By the more, the majority. If Paul refers to the case in 1Co 5:1-13, they had taken his advice and expelled the offender.”
As I stated in our other discussion, if a formal vote is not possible in a church, then it is not possible for the church members to remove a corrupt pastor or pastors.
“From the Middle East,” you said,
“As far as I know the IMB is not allowing or disallowing anyone the office of pastor. Not sure that an organization can have a policy on something that falls outside the scope of it’s authority. Has anyone else heard anything about a policy on who is allowed to be a leader in an indigenous congregation overseas? And if so, how are they planning on ‘enforcing’ this?”
I think you misunderstood me. I am not talking about an autonomous local church. A local church can do anything it wants to do, and the missionary has no authority over a local church. What I’m talking about is the point in time when a local church is formed. The missionary usually has authority over the groups (not churches) that he begins and leads. I believe that the missionary should not encourage that group to become a church too quickly. If all the national members of that group are new converts, then none of the national members in the group are qualified to be the pastor(s) of that new church. Speed does not trump biblical qualifications.
Chris, I’m glad that you agree with me that new converts should not serve as pastors. Some people believe that 1 Timothy 3:6 does not apply to all churches. Notice again Dr. Garrison’s comment:
“Relying on local leaders can be difficult for missionaries. Even today, some missionaries insist on pastoring the new churches they help to plant. Similarly, some missionaries still insist on mother churches sending an ordained pastor on an itinerant route to provide struggling new churches with rites of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. This pattern of external dependency has never produced a Church Planting Movement. Those who are reluctant to transfer this kind of authority quickly point to Paul’s instructions in 1 Timothy 3:6 where Paul advises young Timothy that a bishop ‘must not be a recent convert…’ However, Timothy’s church was already well established enough to reference several generations of believers (see 2 Timothy 2:2). In such an environment it was natural for Paul to delegate church oversight to those who had been closest to the original message delivered by the apostles, but nowhere does Paul place church authority in the hands of outsiders. When a new church is started, Paul does not hesitate to appoint local leaders right away. In Acts 14:23, immediately after winning converts in Lystra, Iconium, and Asia Minor’s Antioch ‘Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust.’ Likewise, he urges Titus to appoint elders, local men with families whom everyone knew, for every town of Crete. Meeting with the Church Planting Movement taskforce we posed the question, ‘When do you pass the torch to new leader?’ Their unanimous response was, ‘In a Church Planting Movement you begin with the torch in their hand.’ The nods of approval around the room testified to the shared experience. Of course this is only possible when the churches are rooted in obedience to God’s word and a lifelong commitment to discipleship.”
David Garrison, Church Planting Movements: How God is Redeeming a Lost World (Midlothian, VA: WIGTake Resources, 2004), 187-188.
Brother T,
You know I can’t let you just lay this down without a little “scruffle” (a deep theological term yet to be etymologized) when you said:
“As I stated in our other discussion, if a formal vote is not possible in a church, then it is not possible for the church members to remove a corrupt pastor or pastors.”
It is possible, they are confronted…and possibly with help from others….Paul was probably not as “autonomous” as some these days, nor did he teach autonomy as some teach (even from the aspect of an Apostle).
2 Corinthians 10:1-2 Now I, Paul, myself urge you by the meekness and gentleness of Christ–I who am meek when face to face with you, but bold toward you when absent! (2) I ask that when I am present I need not be bold with the confidence with which I propose to be courageous against some, who regard us as if we walked according to the flesh.
Autonomy does not exist for the destruction of the local assembly or for the protection of the democratic processes. So yes, an errant Pastor can be dealt with,…though obviously not an easy task for any pride-filled man that thinks he is right on all doctrinal matters.
Blessings,
Chris
Brother Chris,
You said:
1 Timothy 3:6 and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil.
I think Paul was not just kidding around when he gave this part of the qualification.
We are in agreement. Not sure what gave you the impression that we were not. Apologies for the miscommunication.
May His face shine upon you,
From the Middle east
Baptist Theologue,
You said:
I believe that the missionary should not encourage that group to become a church too quickly.
Ahhh, if we are talking about a encouraging or discouraging rather than allowing or disallowing, that is a whole different animal.
You also said:
Speed does not trump biblical qualifications.
Amen! And, by the same token, biblical knowledge does not trump obedience to Jesus.
His peace be yours in abundance,
From the Middle East
Chris, what if the congregation prays about the problem and confronts the corrupt elder(s) but the elder(s) refuse(s) to repent or leave? Without a formal vote, the congregation has no other way to deal with the corrupt elder(s). It is clear from 2 Corinthians 2:6 that the majority ruled in the matter of church discipline. Voting in such a case and at such a stage is the biblical solution. In sexual molestation cases there may be a legal solution, but sometimes pastors do things that are legal yet unacceptable to the congregation.
Brother T,
I can almost hear Robin walking down the hall to thump us on the heads to get back on subject…..so we more than likely can discuss this in more detail later….
But, as I have said before “voting” exists in many forms and there are a plenty of other ways to confront and persuade the “Prideful Pastor” of his error. Most of the time people try to protect the property or the building, and get confused on how to handle order in the church (the people of God). Of course we are speaking about overt situations (corrupt Elders, etc),…which are really not difficult to deal with if the church is ordered properly. The more difficult situations are those lazy Pastors that show up and do a few things, or just enough to keep a few people happy and begin to build political friends and foes. Probably a good subject for another day…..
Blessings my friend,
Brother FTME,
I too misunderstood the comments….I think we are on the same page here!
Blessings,
Chris
To get back on topic, I think many of us have assumed that all Southern Baptists agree that pastors should not be new converts. Such is not the case. Notice what Thomas Lea said in our own New American Commentary:
“Churches could not carry out the prohibition against using a recent convert in their first few years of existence. Only the first converts could assume office where the gospel had recently appeared (Acts 14:23). Eventually it would be important to select leaders with enough maturity to avoid the pitfalls of pride.”
Lea, “1, 2 Timothy,” vol. 34 in The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992), 113.
Thus, some people allow new converts to serve as pastors in pioneer situations where there are only new converts. Some people have pointed out that in Titus 1:6-9 the prohibition against new converts is not present. This lack of the prohibition seems reasonable to them because Crete was a pioneer area where presumably there were only new converts. Notice what Lenski said:
“In Tit. 1:6, etc., this point is not included. The reason is that when the gospel was newly introduced in a territory—Crete was new territory—only novices could be placed in charge of the newly gathered flocks because no others were available; and because in the case of such novices there was no danger of falling into conceit.”
Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians, to the Thessalonians, to Timothy, to Titus and to Philemon (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961), 587.
I have two objections to Lenski here:
1. Titus 1:9 gives as a qualification “holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict” (NASB). That does not sound like the description of a new convert.
2. There were not only new converts in Crete. Some of the Cretans had been converted on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:11).
P.S.: Union University’s own Ray Van Neste clearly disagrees with Lenski about Titus 1:
“While the bulk of the list focuses on character, the list climaxes with the mention of teaching. It was common in ancient writing to give special emphasis to a certain item in a list by placing it either first or last and then making it disproportionately longer than the other items on the list. This is exactly what happens in 1:9. Whereas the rest of the list consists of one or two word items, this last item consists of 21 words! The other items are simply adjectives or nouns, but this one is a verbal clause with two explanatory purpose clauses. This greater length and complexity sets it apart as Paul emphasizes the teaching role of the elder. Whereas the other characteristics listed are also required of other believers, this aptitude in teaching and refuting is the distinguishing mark of the elder. . . . For churches to be healthy they must be led by men who are firmly convinced of sound doctrine and as a result are passionately committed to it. . . . He must be able to teach purely, the truths of God’s word. No man is truly a pastor unless he is a teacher. . . . The office of bishop/elder/pastor, according to this passage, is designed for instructing the people of God in the word of God, because the church cannot operate or grow in any way other than by the word of God. . . . If there is to be any health in a church, the elders must be gifted in and given to the teaching of sound doctrine.”
Van Neste, “The Message of Titus: An Overview,” in The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 7, no. 3 (Fall 2003): 21.
Van Neste continued:
“In summary, when Paul assessed the needs of the fledgling Cretan churches, he first directed their attention to their need of leadership, and the kind of leadership needed centers on two things: 1) proven, evident maturity in Christian character and 2) a passionate adherence to sound doctrine resulting in the ability to teach this doctrine to others and the willingness to confront any who would distort it. Leaders are to be men who are living examples of the fusion of belief and behavior, those who both preach and practice. This, for the apostle Paul, is leadership.”
Van Neste, ibid., 22.
Brother T,
It appears that pragmatic theology has trumpted biblical theology at this point for Mr. Lea and Lenski. It is no doubt clear and beneficial for the church to have qualified Leadership in the beginning and throughout. That is the Apostles stance as assemblies formed throughout the countryside. To assume that God’s commands are negotiable is a step in pragmatic mire.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris, this is a huge issue on the mission field. I would really like to know if it was discussed by the task force.
Brothers BT & Chris,
What do you think the church should have done in Thessalonica when Paul was booted a few weeks after he brought the Gospel to them?
May His face shine upon you,
From the Middle East
Brother FTME,
It appears that Thessalonica was a difficult place (Acts 17) and gives us great insight to why Paul was so concerned that this group would become discouraged and the more reason for solid doctrine and solid teachers.
I’m certain that Paul would see no need to circumvent what he had already given as ecclesial doctrine for the sake of the Thessalonians, but we do have two wonderful letters of encouragement that in know way hints that they should remain without qualified men to lead the church.
1Thessalonians 3:10 as we night and day keep praying most earnestly that we may see your face, and may complete what is lacking in your faith?
Paul was greatly concerned and took care of the flock as well as he could. I would try to do what Paul had already started by continuing to send qualified men and women to minister and be with those in Thessalonica and continue to build up and appoint Godly men in Leadership as they become qualified for the benefit of the church.
A church (the people of God) certainly exist in the form of an assembly, even without a Pastor in their midst. But, they will not remain that way as they obey Christ, disciple and follow the Word of God without compromise. Any church that may be in the same condition today as those in Thessalonica should receive the same attention as Paul was giving. Men of God should go to them and support and raise up Godly men to lead and shepherd Christ’s flock as He has prescribed. But, you never appoint an unqualified man to Pastor the flock of God. That is antithetical to Paul’s teaching.
Blessings,
Chris
Brother Chris,
Interestingly enough, in spite of what they lacked, Paul still considered them “imitators of us and of the Lord; in spite of severe suffering” (1 Thess 1:6). And even “models” to “all the believers in Macedonia and Achaia” (1 Thess 1:7) and the Gospel was still sounding off like a trumpet from among them (1 Thess 1:8). Sounds like a pretty strong community to me. Would Paul say the same of our local communities? (Not an accusation, just a question for reflection.) Again, this was in spite of Paul having to leave quite quickly.
Another point is that churches are not planted in perfect situations. We work with what we have out here as you do where you are. And while I agree that is no reason to embrace unbiblical practices, we must realize that the church planter may have to leave prior to seeing the development of what we would consider “mature” leadership. And, even in this less than ideal situation, God’s people are God’s people. Regardless of whether or not we consider them a “constituted church,” when they gather in His name, He is among them. Praise be to His name for His faithfulness!!
That being said, I do agree that we should do everything within our power to encourage mature leadership among indigenous congregations.
His mercy be yours in abundance,
From the Middle East
Brother FTME,
I agree completely. The church, when understood as primarily the people of God, have no other purpose but to prevail because it is the deliverer that is the sustainer. As Christ delivers His people, He certainly will sustain them as they encourage one another and then grow as He supplies their growth. That is the beauty of understanding how Christ births and forms His body.
Blessings,
Chris
Brother FTME,
Thanks for the discussion and I’ll add one final thought…..In our congregation, we currently have two Pastors with about 40 people total in a mission we began about 18 months ago near Nashville TN. One of the main goals as Pastor of this congregation is to multiply and appoint more Elders/Pastors as they are qualified and aspire to serve. I am meeting with two other men that are part of our congregation tomorrow morning that are biblically qualified to lead, so I will be encouraging them to leadership commitment. It is incumbent upon the Pastors of the churches to search out and appoint qualified men to encourage and lead the church and their families. This is the will of God and how God equips His church.
For too long, Pastors have ignored multiplying their leadership in their own congregation and have depended upon the servants (deacons) to lead. That is a tragic mistake.
Blessings,
Chris
“From the Middle East,” you asked,
“What do you think the church should have done in Thessalonica when Paul was booted a few weeks after he brought the Gospel to them?”
Michael Martin, Vice President for Academic Affairs and a professor of NT studies at Golden Gate Seminary, commented on the situation at Thessalonica described in Acts 17:
“The seam in the Acts account between 17:4 and 17:5 at least allows for the possibility of continued ministry in the city after Paul’s three-week ministry in the synagogue. And Acts does not indicate how long Paul stayed in Jason’s house (first mentioned in Acts 17:5) before the riot that forced his departure (17:10). Thus the possibility exists that it was in Thessalonica (not Corinth; cf. 18:5-8) where Paul first established the pattern of moving his base of operations from the local synagogue to a private residence when he was rejected by the synagogue leadership. . . . A longer stay is also consistent with Phil 4:16, which indicates that Paul’s stay in Thessalonica was long enough for the church at Philippi to send a contribution to support his ministry there. . . . Acts’ mention of three weeks does not limit Paul’s stay but is describing only three weeks of his stay.”
Martin, “1, 2 Thessalonians,” vol. 33 in The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1995), 24.
We don’t know at what point they became a church. We do know that Timothy was sent to them to strengthen and encourage their faith (1 Thessalonians 3:2).
Chris, you said,
“But, you never appoint an unqualified man to Pastor the flock of God. That is antithetical to Paul’s teaching.”
I agree, as do the following missiologists:
Ed Stetzer:
“Although the requirements in 1 Timothy 3 target pastor-elders, they also apply to church planters.”
Stetzer, Planting New Churches in a Postmodern Age (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2003), 80.
Elmer Towns:
“It is not advisable to place a young convert, even if he is saved late in life, in a position of leadership without his first being given the opportunity to gain the spiritual maturity. In listing the qualifications of a pastor, the apostle Paul warned, ‘Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil’ (1 Tim. 3:6).”
Towns, Getting a Church Started: A Student Manual for the Theological Foundation and Practical Techniques of Planting a Church (Lynchburg, VA: Church Growth Institute, 1985), 37.
Charles Brock:
“It is better to have a time of testing and an opportunity to gain experience and understanding before the person is recognized as pastor. Much prayer should precede the church’s choice of the Bible teacher. After the person chosen as Bible teacher has served for a few months, perhaps the church and the teacher will feel certain of God’s ordination of that person for the task of pastoring.”
Brock, The Principles and Practice of Indigenous Church Planting (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1981), 90.
Aubrey Malphurs:
“The qualifications found in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9 deal primarily with character. These are qualifications for elders but are also essential for church planters.”
Malphurs, Planting Growing Churches for the 21st Century: A Comprehensive Guide for New Churches and Those Desiring Renewal, Second Edition (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998), 111.
David J. Hesselgrave on “the qualifications of local church leaders”:
“Pastors should not be new converts (1 Tim. 3:6). . . . They should hold fast to sound thinking (Titus 1:9).”
Hesselgrave, Planting Churches Cross-Culturally: A Guide for Home and Foreign Missions (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980), 353-354.
Gailyn Van Rheenen:
“During the Developing Church Stage, the church planting evangelist seeks to nurture all Christians within the fellowship. Out of this in-depth congregational training, leaders emerge as God works within the body. New Christians should never be elevated to leadership roles by outsiders in developing mission churches. Leaders should be called by God in the midst of active church life rather than artificially selected before nurturing. . . . Two extremes must be avoided during the Developing Church Stage. If the church planter concentrates on a particular church for too long, the church may look foreign and become dominated. If, on the other hand, there is not enough concentrated teaching, the church may not internalize basic Christian concepts. This can result in its eventual disintegration or syncretism with non-Christian beliefs and forms. This stage takes from six to fifteen months. . . . The third period of maturation, the Independent Church Stage, begins when the founding church planter is able to allow local leaders to assume all major leadership roles.”
Van Rheenen, Missions: Biblical Foundations & Contemporary Strategies (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996), 157.
Brother T,
I would like for us to be very clear,…that the church was at Thessalonica.
Acts 17:2-5 “And according to Paul’s custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, (3) explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ.” (4) And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, along with a large number of the God-fearing Greeks and a number of the leading women. (5) But the Jews, becoming jealous and taking along some wicked men from the market place, formed a mob and set the city in an uproar; and attacking the house of Jason, they were seeking to bring them out to the people.”
1 Thessalonians 1:1-2 “Paul and Silvanus and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace. (2) We give thanks to God always for all of you, making mention of you in our prayers;”
It is clear God had birthed the church there according to the Apostle Paul. Sometimes we don’t make it as clear an ecclesiology as God does when he forms His congregation out of sinners.
When you said “We don’t know at what point they became a church.”…I would say we do know, because Paul was engaging with the church at Thessalonica. He knew they were there even though scared, confused, scattered and moving around to different homes as some of the commentators have mentioned, etc. But we know without a doubt that God had birthed His church in the city. It was certainly clear to the Jewish contingent that was jailing folks.
As Americans, and our very often poor concept of the church, we tend to put boarders around what we want to call the church. Sometimes a building full of people on Sunday morning may appear to be a church in America. But, there is a greater distinction….because certain buildings full of people with nice hats and suits may not be called out by God. Americans like nice neat little packages…. but the Apostle would not recognize those folks as readily as he recognized these in Thessalonica.
Blessings,
Chris
Brother BT,
That is one way of interpreting the account of Paul’s time in Thessalonica. Having studied this previously, I do not hold to this interpretation nor do I have time to re-research Chapter 17 of Acts this week. I understand the point you are making, but, at this point would not agree with you or Michael Martin.
However, I am curious as to your thoughts on the second paragraph in comment #51.
His mercy be yours in abundance,
From the Middle East
Brother Chris,
RE #53:
Praise God!! I am encouraged by what your congregation is doing!
This is my prayer for your congregation:
All mighty King of glory, I praise you for their obedience to the Scriptures in discipleship and raising up leaders! May this local expression of your people never have to search for a new “CEO.” Rather, may this community always raise up leaders that you have gifted and called from within the community… so much so that there is an abundance and many are sent overseas to be part of church planting teams among peoples with no access to the Gospel!!
Peace be yours,
From the Middle East
“From the Middle East,” you wanted my reaction to this paragraph:
“Another point is that churches are not planted in perfect situations. We work with what we have out here as you do where you are. And while I agree that is no reason to embrace unbiblical practices, we must realize that the church planter may have to leave prior to seeing the development of what we would consider ‘mature’ leadership. And, even in this less than ideal situation, God’s people are God’s people. Regardless of whether or not we consider them a ‘constituted church,’ when they gather in His name, He is among them. Praise be to His name for His faithfulness!!”
I agree that churches are not planted in perfect situations. Some situations are more receptive to the gospel than are other situations. Thus, one size does not fit all. A strategy/methodology that works well in one place may not work well in another place. I agree that the missionary/church planter may have to leave a resistant area before a church is planted. It is better for him to leave without planting a church than to plant an unbiblical entity that he calls a “church” but which is not really a biblical church. He can certainly instruct the new converts about what a biblical church is, and after he leaves, a biblical church can eventually be planted. The believers he leaves behind can eventually plant a biblical church after some of them become maturing believers (past the new convert stage) who can lead the church. Donald McGavran spoke about resistant fields:
“Recognition of variations in receptivity is offensive to some missiologists because they fear that, if they accept it, they will be forced to abandon resistant fields. Abandonment is not called for. Fields must be sown. Stony fields must be plowed before they are sown. No one should conclude that if receptivity is low, the church should withdraw evangelistic efforts. Correct policy is to occupy fields of low receptivity lightly. The harvest will ripen someday. . . . Reinforcing receptive areas is the only mode of mission by which resistant populations that become receptive may be led to responsible membership in ongoing churches. . . . That receptivity should determine effective evangelistic methods is obvious.”
Donald McGavran, Understanding Church Growth, Third Edition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 190-192.
Brother BT,
The example I gave was not referring to spiritually resistant people groups, rather to persecuted environments in which the church planter is forced out. They are not quite the same.
But I do have a few questions based upon the rest of your comment:
1. I may be wrong, but based on the rest of this conversation, I was under the impression that you think a group of believers without leadership can only mature in the presence of a missionary (or other non-indigenous leader). If this is the case, how would you suggest they mature after he gets kicked out?
2. You referenced “authority” in comment #38. Who has this “authority” in the instance of this community of believers who are not a church?
3. What term do you prefer to use for this community of believers among darkness that is not really a church?
4. I am probably missing something here, but do not understand the relevancy of the McGavran quote in this discussion. I understand his thesis here, but it seems irrelevant to this conversation. Does my lack of understanding have something to do with persecuted environments vs spiritually resistant peoples?
5. What examples do you have from Scripture for groups like this? Meaning a community of “immature” believers of which none is a leader.
His peace be yours in abundance,
From the Middle East
Everybody
I just wanted to say thank you for the gentle spirit by which everyone has been engaging each other. Some of the conversation did go off topic (sort of), but it has all been interesting and educational for myself.
Hopefully, we will have part two from John Mann early next week.
“From the Middle East,” I’ve been away from the computer all day, so I’m just now getting back to you on these issues. You have asked some good, thought-provoking questions. I will try to provide some good, thought-provoking answers.
Question 1. “I was under the impression that you think a group of believers without leadership can only mature in the presence of a missionary (or other non-indigenous leader). If this is the case, how would you suggest they mature after he gets kicked out?”
Answer 1. The continuing presence of a Christian leader is necessary for a period of time that depends on the target group. On his first missionary journey, Paul spent some time with each group, departed from them for a while, and then returned to them before the first journey was finished. Remember, however, that these groups had been studying the Old Testament before they were evangelized by Paul. This situation is fairly unique in comparison with pioneer situations today. Notice what Nevius said about Paul’s first missionary journey while comparing it with the situation in China:
“The Apostolic usage of ordaining elders soon after reception into the Church, under circumstances very different from ours in China, is apt to mislead us. The work of the Apostles in heathen lands commenced for the most part in the synagogues of the Jews resident in those lands. Even in such places as Lystra, where there seems to have been no synagogue, there were Jewish families and their influence had been felt by the native population. Among the first converts to Christianity were both Jews and Jewish proselytes who for generations had been freed from the thraldom of idolatry. They were sincere worshippers of Jehovah, familiar with the Old Testament Scriptures and waiting for the long promised Messiah. From such persons the first elders of the Christian church were no doubt largely drawn.”
Nevius, The Planting and Development of Missionary Churches (N.p.: 1886; reprint, Hancock, NH: Monadnock, 2003), 72.
Question 2. “You referenced ‘authority’ in comment #38. Who has this ‘authority’ in the instance of this community of believers who are not a church?”
Answer 2. I was speaking of ecclesiological authority. From the beginning, the missionary should teach that God is the ultimate authority in all things and that the Bible is His inerrant and authoritative revelation to man. Once the group is constituted as a biblical church, then that church is autonomous and has the ecclesiological authority in regard to church discipline of its members, etc. When I was a missionary in South Korea, I targeted factory workers in the industrial city of Ulsan (population approx. one million). Another IMB missionary and I led Bible studies in the Hyundai auto plant, the Hyundai ship-building plant, and the Hyundai off-shore oil rig construction plant. I also led Bible studies in my apartment. My wife and another IMB missionary led Bible studies for women in a friend’s apartment. I was the strategy coordinator and team leader. If an interpretative question came up in a Bible study, participants were allowed to express different opinions, but I was clearly the Bible study leader. If any heretical opinion was expressed about a first tier doctrine, then I dealt with it by telling the truth in love. For the autonomous Korean churches, however, I was a consultant.
Question 3. “What term do you prefer to use for this community of believers among darkness that is not really a church?”
Answer 3. When I was an IMB team leader, I had to fill out an “Entity Annual Statistical Report” each year. The term for a group that was not yet a church was “outreach group.” I think that is a useful term.
Question 4. “I am probably missing something here, but do not understand the relevancy of the McGavran quote in this discussion. I understand his thesis here, but it seems irrelevant to this conversation. Does my lack of understanding have something to do with persecuted environments vs spiritually resistant peoples?”
Answer 4. A CPM involving rapidly multiplying house churches tends to occur in a place where there is official persecution of Christianity but where there is also receptivity to Christianity. Thus, there is a good reason not to have official church buildings that will be targets of official persecution. If Christianity becomes quite influential, the official persecution will likely stop after a period of time. The key factor for effective evangelism is receptivity, not persecution. The people groups with the highest priority should be those with both high receptivity and a high percentage of non-Christians. Such groups should receive the most emphasis, the most resources. Receptive groups can become resistant. Resistant groups should be dealt with as McGavran suggested. In very resistant groups and very receptive groups, methodology is not as important as in the middle range of receptivity. In a very resistant group, no evangelistic method seems to work well. In a very receptive group, every evangelistic method seems to work well. In the middle range, some methods work well, and some methods don’t work well.
Question 5. “What examples do you have from Scripture for groups like this? Meaning a community of ‘immature’ believers of which none is a leader.”
Answer 5. Crete was an example of a place where there were no pastors for a while. There were probably some informal leaders, but they were not yet pastors. Some Cretan Jews were in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:11). Some of them probably remained in Jerusalem for a short period of time and learned under the influence of the Apostles, and some probably returned fairly quickly to Crete as new converts. Some of them may have stayed in Jerusalem for a long time. The book of Titus was written many years after the events on the Day of Pentecost, and thus there was much time and many opportunities for the new converts on the island to travel and seek guidance from maturing Christians in other places such as Jerusalem. We don’t know about unnamed Christians from other places traveling to Crete and teaching the new converts. When Titus looked for men qualified to serve as pastors on the island, he could find them. Albert Barnes commented,
“It is clear from the epistle before us Tit 1:5, that the apostle Paul was there on some occasion, and that the gospel, either when he was there or before, was attended with success. ‘For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldst set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city.’ Here it is manifest that Paul had been there with Titus; that he had commenced some arrangements which he had not been able himself to complete; and that the gospel had had an effect extensively on the island, since he was to ordain elders ‘in every city.’ It is not certainly known, however, when Paul was there. There is no mention in the Acts of the Apostles of his having been there, except when he was on his way to Rome Act 27:7-8; and this was in such circumstances as to preclude the supposition that that was the time referred to in this epistle, for (1.) Titus was not then with him; (2) there is no reason to suppose that he remained there long enough to preach the gospel to any extent, or to establish churches.”
Brother BT,
No problem. Thanks for the comments. They are insightful. However some of my initial questions are still unanswered:
1. How do you suggest the “outreach group” that does not have access to a church planter or elders mature?
2. In the outreach group who has “ecclesiastical authority?”
4. What is the relevance of the McGavran quote to the second paragraph of comment #51 since we were not discussing a resistant people group?
Not sure if I will be able to comment on 3&5 tonight, but I do have some thoughts… and hopefully they will be thought-provoking as well!
Peace to you brother,
From the Middle East
“From the Middle East,” I’ll again try to answer your questions.
Question 1. “How do you suggest the ‘outreach group’ that does not have access to a church planter or elders mature?”
Answer 1. When I was an IMB missionary in South Korea, I wrote a discipleship manual that covered all the basic doctrines and included the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message. It was translated into Korean by a Korean-American lady on my team. My memory is a bit fuzzy, but I think I worked through the entire manual with some of my groups. I don’t think I finished working through it with other groups. When I had to leave for stateside assignment (furlough), if the group desired to continue, it had my manual to use as a guide when questions arose about basic doctrines. I think all my groups had at least one Christian in the group (besides the missionaries) who was not a new convert. Outreach groups should begin Bible study with a teacher who is not a new convert. If that teacher must leave the group, then hopefully another teacher who is not a new convert can replace him.
Question 2. “In the outreach group who has “ecclesiastical authority?”
Answer 2. The primary Bible teacher has the ecclesiological authority in the outreach group.
Question 3. “What is the relevance of the McGavran quote to the second paragraph of comment #51 since we were not discussing a resistant people group?”
Answer 3. In that paragraph you said, “Churches are not planted in perfect situations.” When I think of an imperfect church planting situation, I think of a resistant people group.
Brother BT,
1. Thank you. Literate means would be excellent among some people groups. Who would you recommend lead these groups? Would this put them in the unofficial position of “spiritual leader?”
2. But it sounds as if no one can be the “primary Bible teacher” in some situations due to their immaturity. In this instance would it be the one who wrote the curriculum? ;^)
3. Gotcha. I was thinking more in terms of persecuted environments, not resistant peoples. Sorry about the miscommunication.
May His face shine upon you,
From the Middle East
Brother BT:
I said:
What term do you prefer to use for this community of believers among darkness that is not really a church?
You said:
When I was an IMB team leader, I had to fill out an “Entity Annual Statistical Report” each year. The term for a group that was not yet a church was “outreach group.” I think that is a useful term.
To have an outreach group, it would seem someone who is more mature is reaching out to someone who is less mature.
1. Who is doing the reaching out in the example of the church planter being kicked out? Even if it is the one going through the curriculum?
2. How do we, or they, determine when they have moved from being an outreach group and become a church?
Peace to you,
From the Middle East
If I understand your first question correctly, you are asking about groups that are not literate. It is my understanding that chronological Bible storying can cover all the basic doctrines. The primary Bible teacher of the outreach group is the spiritual leader of the group. In your second question, you seem to be referring to a group that is in an area where there are only new converts and that has never seen a Christian who is not a new convert. If you will supply some more hypothetical details (e.g., how the new converts were converted), I will try to give you a hypothetical answer.
You said, “To have an outreach group, it would seem someone who is more mature is reaching out to someone who is less mature.”
My outreach groups were composed mainly of non-Christians. There were a few Christians in the groups, and some of the non-Christians became Christians.
You asked, “Who is doing the reaching out in the example of the church planter being kicked out? Even if it is the one going through the curriculum?”
I don’t understand your question. Please clarify it.
You also asked, “How do we, or they, determine when they have moved from being an outreach group and become a church?”
The 2000 Baptist Faith and Message provides a good definition of the biblical church:
“A New Testament church of the Lord Jesus Christ is an autonomous local congregation of baptized believers, associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel; observing the two ordinances of Christ, governed by His laws, exercising the gifts, rights, and privileges invested in them by His Word, and seeking to extend the gospel to the ends of the earth. Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes. In such a congregation each member is responsible and accountable to Christ as Lord. Its scriptural officers are pastors and deacons. While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.”
The charter members should be covenanted together to be a biblical church as defined above.
Brother BT,
Apologies for the lack of clarity.
In the first example (comment #64) I am not assuming all in the group are illiterate. Some are literate.
With regards to the second question (comment #65), you are exactly right. I have the same situation in mind for both situations. My experience is primarily in those kinds of situations. If all in the area were not new converts, we should have local church planters involved from the beginning and there would not be an issue upon our leaving!
An additional question that arises for the second question is who determines that the outreach group has made it to church status?
Hope this clarifies…
Brother BT,
I caught your answers in 67 after posting 68, please re-answer applying the same principles to our hypothetical situation (which is, in reality, not really all that hypothetical).
Apologies again for the poor communication on my part.
Peace to you!
In regard to who determines whether a group can move to church status, I think it is a “both/and,” not an “either/or.” The group must be willing to covenant together to be a biblical church. A biblical church requires more commitment from its members than does an outreach group. Also, the missionary must use his judgment about whether the group is ready to progress to autonomous church status (e.g., whether there is at least one man who meets the biblical qualifications for the office of pastor).
In regard to your other question, if I understand you correctly, you are asking what to do if a church planter is kicked out and only new converts remain. Hopefully the planter who was kicked out can return or another planter can pick up where he left off. In the meantime, hopefully the first planter left behind some discipleship materials that can be utilized by the group.
Brother BT,
I have been doing my listening phase of this conversation and feel I have a decent understanding of your perspective. Thank you for sharing it with me. I have grown through this interaction.
Now, I would like to make a couple of observations. But first, I want to make it clear that it seems to me we are both striving for the same thing: healthy, reproducing congregations. (Inherent in health is mature leadership.)
At the same time, I also think that our personalities and experiences predispose both of us to looking at the same situations from different perspectives. This is the reason I engaged you in this conversation… I firmly believe that iron sharpens iron.
My two observations are as follows:
First, it seems that we, here in the West tend to measure maturity so much by knowledge that we neglect obedience. My contention would be that if someone’s knowledge level is seven and his obedience is three (3/7), he is not as spiritually mature as one who’s knowledge level is five and obedience is four (4/5). Are either complete? Of course not, but I would argue that the more obedient one is more mature than the one who has much knowledge but has not implemented it.
Second, I do not think you have considered the implications of everything you are saying in VARYING situations. In the example of the church planter being kicked out and not having access to the people group, this is evidenced by several unanswered questions. First, given no one is qualified to lead as they are all “new converts,” who is the “outreacher” or “church planter” (either indigenous or foreign)? Second, who has “ecclesiological authority” in this instance? Third, how will the church planter confirm upon the “outreach group” the status of “church” (or how he would collaborate with them to come to a joint decision)? Fourth, who will appoint the leaders when they are mature?
Again, my point is that churches are not planted in perfect situations and we must deal with what we have. The goal is always healthy, reproducing congregations (including mature leadership). The reality is that sometimes the church planter is forced out prior to seeing this. The question is whether or not the immature group left behind is a church. I am 100% sure that you and I would both be very excited about the fact that there are people who have been, and are being, transformed by the Spirit of God in this persecuted environment. But are they a church?
I would simply say that a community that worships God does exist. And, just as the communities of worshippers of God in Corinth, Galatia, Laodicea, etc had major issues in both doctrine and practice, this community also has some growing to do! However, Jesus’ promise to be among them remains. If you want to call them an “outreach group,” go right ahead. But I would say that brothers and sisters who meet intentionally to encourage, edify and exhort, hold each other accountable, grow in faith, worship God and faithfully share the Good News in the midst of persecution cannot simply be called an “outreach group.” They may not be perfect, but they are still the body of Christ. I could not care less what we call them in our statistical reports ;^) I only care that they are being obedient to Jesus and growing!
Thank you for sharpening me brother!
May we both be obedient to the King,
From the Middle East
“From the Middle East,” you are welcome.
Brother FTME,
Thank you for bringing those points forward in post #71. God births His church where the gospel of preached. The terminology provided by scripture for “body of Christ” and “church” mean the same critter throughout scripture and are never in contradiction. The local congregations that form out of what God has called in Christ are simply that,…local manifestations of the entire church. Some do look rather odd, immature, lopsided, but on the other hand they are beautiful expressions of the differing gifts that God has put together to love and encourage one another.
In stark contrast to biblical ecclesiology, Churches in America are so “building” oriented and safe, that the congregations tend to lose sight of “who the church is” and replace it with a some contrived, complete, and self-maturing picture of what “they” intend for it to be. That is what makes America a great place for missionary work!…. because there are multitudes of people that dress up and make their weekly pilgrimage down the street to do their religious function….yet even in their “going” never taking the privilege to worship, or receive communion, or engage in “one another gifting” given to the body (Romans 12).
I always think it interesting that in America we use the phrase … “Where do you go to church”…as if the place you end up is important. Some of the church are taught to think that way. That is such a foreign concept to how the scripture views the church. Scripture always refers to the church as meeting together (individuals) from the view of being called out by God,…not from the view of arriving at a place. In other words, in scripture the church was “met with”, “belonged to”, “prayer made fervently by”, “the church at” ….Luke put it this way in Act 13:1 “Now there were at Antioch, in the church that was there, prophets and teachers: Barnabas, and Simeon who was called Niger, and Act, So the church at”, “gathered the church together”, etc.
Its not really that hard to obey the commands of Christ as the church meets together for prayer, fellowship, worship, teaching, encouraging one another, etc…wherever they meet in homes, small buildings, large buildings, etc. The conversation for “determining” or “constituting” or saying “is this really a church” never occurs in scripture. We would do well to begin understanding the church as the Apostles have explained and what she is doing in scripture.
Blessings,
Chris