Lets talk mission work. The following is a smal list of questions and comments, not that any are my own oppinions and views, but just somethings that make some curious.
1. Is a mission a church? Why or Why not
2. Who holds the membership of those who attend the mission?
3. Can a sponsoring church overide the decisions of the mission? If yes, is this universalism
4. Can a mission observe the Lord's Supper?
5. Can they travel to the sponsoring church and observe it there?
6. Where does the missionary keep his membership?
a. If with the sponsoring church, can he partake in the Lord's table if the Mission observes it?
7. When does a misison become a church? what is the deciding factor
8. What does the reverter clause do?
9. (Parenthetic) If we practice local visible church then why are our presberties universal?
10. Does this missionary have the authority to veto any motion made by the mission?
L.L.L
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1. Is a mission a church? Why or Why not
ReplyDeleteAccording to the "Where two or three" verse (was it Mt 16:18?), they meet these qualifications. A mission also meets the ABA definition of a church "called out assembly of baptized believers covenanted together to carry out the great commission". They are also a local, visible body. If they are members of a church where they never see the others, you don't have a local, visible body. You have a foreign, unseen body.
2. Who holds the membership of those who attend the mission?
Who does or who should? In the ABA, sometimes the sponsoring church does. My answer #1 does not allow room for such a thing, so to follow the thought out to its full extent, they hold their own.
3. Can a sponsoring church overide the decisions of the mission? If yes, is this universalism?
No. But if there is a building involved and the association or sponsoring church owns it, then they can threaten kick them out of that building.
4. Can a mission observe the Lord's Supper?
Again, b/c I believe my first answer, I can't contradict it here. Absolutely.
5. Can they travel to the sponsoring church and observe it there?
This would be universalism.
6. Where does the missionary keep his membership? The sponsoring church.
a. If with the sponsoring church, can he partake in the Lord's table if the Mission observes it? No.
7. When does a mission become a church? what is the deciding factor?
When there are two or more baptized believers gathered together in the name of Jesus covenanted together to carry out the great commission (with the exception of the missionary whose membership is with the sponsoring church) and the church has given the vote of authority.
8. What does the reverter clause do?
Allows a sponsoring church to take its building back if certain specifications are not met by the church/mission after it has already organized.
9. (Parenthetic) If we practice local visible church then why are our presbyteries universal?
No. These are a "passing on" of the "gift" by the laying on of hands. The gift, in my opinion, is a symbolic show of support and help, and prayer for the individual being ordained. I do believe, however, a presbytery should be called only for the office of a pastor, and the local church should be the only one involved in ordaining a deacon. After all, a preacher is ordained once for life, a deacon can be ordained at a church, move churches and be ordained again and again and again and...
10. Does this missionary have the authority to veto any motion made by the mission?
Only those which deal with the building owned by the sponsoring church. He is there to disciple, but they are their own free moral agents.
Most of the questions should be dealt with up front in a sponsoring church-missionary agreement. When one is speciofic enough, both church, mission and missionary knolw where they stand. The problem often occurs when an agreement is not clearly spelled out, then one or the other thinks others are not going by the original agreement or that the rules have changed in midstream. A signed agreement (whether it is legally binding or not) would give a definite basis for working together. The church-mission debate continues to rage. Having been a pastor of a sponsoring church, our agreement allowed the missionary to teach and practice the Lord's Supper. How else can they learn? We permitted them to run their own business (with detailed reports we discussed and approved or not at our business meetings). The church authority over a mission works like Israel in Egypt - they need a protected, sheltered environment until they grow to doctrinal and financial strength to stand on their own. A mission is like a baby - must go through maturing stages with adult supervision.
ReplyDeleteWe did not go to the mission and observe the Lord's Supper and they did not do it with us.
The reverter clause is not legal in some states. It often ties the hands of a church (after being organized from a mission) when they try to borrow money or sell property. I think if the work is ready to be organized, they shjould have their property free and clear - no reverter clause. The reverter clause is an effort to control a new church by an old church. Even though it seems good to protect it from the work and the building being taken over by others (that's hasppened too often)it violates local church sovereignty (my opinion).
A mission does need help, but it does not fail to meet any of the qualifications of a church. BTW, I agree on your idea of the converter clause.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the Bishop on the converter clause also.
ReplyDeleteWhat is a converter clause?
ReplyDeleteMy understanding of a reverter clause is this. The sponsoring church owns the building. The "mission" or "baby church" or "fake church" becomes a "real church" when it organizes. When it organizes, it is a "real church" and so the sponsoring church gives it the building, but does not really give it to them. The sponsoring church actually only pretend gives or Indian-gives it to the true church which has now organized (Sorry my Indian friends, just a phrase.) The clause gives certain specifications that must be met in order for the new church to retain the building. If those qualifications aren't met, then the building returns ownership to the sponsoring church.
ReplyDeleteIt's really all about money, control and essentially power. They disguise this by saying "it's a way to protect the Lord's investment". What they don't tell you is that the wording can not be worded properly to protect the investment.
The wording I've heard of is "if the new church stops participating in associating with the ABA or if it stops believing the ABA's doctrinal statement, the building returns to the sponsoring church's ownership." Problems I see, what if the ABA changes its doctrinal statement to heresy. What if it begins using other Bible versions in its literature and the sponsoring church changes associations. What if that church decided to go Independent Baptist with the exact same beliefs as we have, with the exception of they don't want to associate with the ABA national association.
The reverter clause basically is a form of control over another body. One body controls the other by a looming threat of stealing back the building.
I feel if you give something to someone, it is no longer yours. If you give money to a stranger to get gas, and he buys alcohol, you wouldn't go to the court to get your money back. That's ridiculous. It causes harm to the cause of Christ. The entire idea to me is strange anyway, b/c lets just assume that church decided 100 years in the future to go Pentecostal. They probably by then put more money into the upkeep of the building than the association or sponsoring church gave to it anyway. How can the sponsoring church claim ownership when it didn't even give as much money into the building as the new church has?
And how do we decide that all our money going into that building "went to waste" just b/c a church left our work. What if souls were saved, baptized, some surrendered to preach, and the church grew strong and closer to the Lord. Then a couple of SBC churches split in the area, the splits all join this ABA church that used to be a mission, then take it over. Are we really willing to say that our money became wasted? All the souls saved and wonderful works should be enough bang for our buck.
I conclude with this. Why do we build a big building anyway? Isn't this a form of welfare? I believe in most cases, the best way is to sponsor and support a missionary (and his family). Let the Lord use his work to build a church of saved baptized believers who are meeting in homes until they can rent a place or they can afford to build their own building. Then, we can help them financially at that point. Of course assume we should pray for them continually. I just think if they build their own church building, they will respect it more and be more likely to stick around, since it was their own hard earned dollars that went into the building. If we build it for them, then they have no sense of appreciation (or little) for the church.
I personally agree with you on some of your statements. There is no such thing as missions in the bible as I see it. I see churches starting. I also agree the support should be sent to support the Missionary himself and his family.Bro. James there are a few statement you made that is not far to those who have no problem with the converter clause of the way the majority does mission work.
ReplyDelete"Fake Church" No one believes that a mission is a "Fake Church." Where is your smilie if you are joking.
"Causes harm to the cause of Christ." How?? I do not necessary agree with the way it is done, but I actually see no harm being done.
My wife is Cherokee and she will scalp you when she gets home.
Taking a building back is stealing in my opinion. That's where the harm is done. Also, if your wife will scalp me when she gets home... does that mean I'm at your home already?
ReplyDeleteI was joking about the other comment. sorry. :-p
No but she will bring her knife this weekend.
ReplyDeleteMost churches that I know of who does the converter clause has an agreement on both sides. Both Churches (A Mission is a Church) agree for a clause to be but in place.
ReplyDeleteOne I knew of it was more like "We will give you the building with this clause, b/c that's what we agreed to."
ReplyDeleteBy "we" I mean the sponsoring church.
ReplyDeleteBro. L.L.L.
ReplyDeleteI know you don't know me. But here is my answer to "Is a mission a church?"
I answer with a question. Do you ever find in the N. T. and specifically in the Book of Acts where Paul or anyone one else ever started or oganized or form or whatever anything but a N. T. Church?
Joseph L. Looney (2)
To make it clear, I do believe the pattern we are to follow is spelled out in the N. T. and specifically in Acts 13:1-4.
ReplyDeleteWhere should the membership of the missionary and his family be? Of course, to begin with in the sending church. Yet, later it should be in the church (the new work) in the new location that he has been sent out to establish by the sending church. (I for one believe that our ABA mission policy is in error, I voted against the change in I believe it was 1990 in Columbus, Ohio.) How can a missionary pastor administer and partake of the Lord's Supper without being a member of the new work. Otherwise, we have universalism.
The relationship between the sponsoring /sending church and the missionary and the new work should be one of love and trust of the highest order.
The sending church has the responsibiltity to notify any who may help in sending offerings and etc. of problems and of false teachings if this occurs.
Joseph L.Looney (2)
Gillette, WY