During our meeting in Melbourne on Friday, we discussed some things that would be important to ensure the health of the Oz 29 movement:
- Beginning slowly and establishing strong foundations in both shared theology and also shared ministry mind. Especially because the founding team are pulled together from different places, we mustn't take a shortcut here.
- Building good relationships with denominations and other networks. We are not wanting to set up a denomination, so we need to make sure that we can point new churches in the direction of organisations that will help them with infrastructure, legal necessities, church discipline, mediation and other things.
13 comments:
It seems to me that Oz 29 must either BE a denomination, or else a RESOURCE to help existing denominations.
If you set up new churches outside existing denominational structures, they will inevitably not join them, because of differences in theology, worship style, etc.
I would think you'd need to either set up a new church WITH a denomination (this new church will be Anglican, that one Presbyterian, ...) or bite the bullet and set up a denominational structure yourself. Otherwise, you'd be creating a church that had the seeds of its own doom already within it.
But I suspect you know all that, which is why you're counselling "beginning slowly."
You're right, Radagast, that's what point 2 is all about.
I doesn't need to be part of a denomination, any other structure that fulfills the same roles will do.
For example, an independent church whose constitution makes provision for external accountability and mediation if necessary would also protect Oz 29 from becoming a pseudo-denomination.
"An independent church whose constitution makes provision for external accountability and mediation" -- i.e. like Crossroads here. Crossroads here also draws on the theological-study resources of Moore, as you know.
I'll leave to one side the question of whether those external accountability provisions can be made strong enough, and say that that road in practice creates a new mini-denomination, with all the benefits and disadvantages of doing so.
No let's have both discussions, if you're up for it.
1) Any authority structure has its strong and weak spots. I've seen a lot of weakness in institutinos because of too much incomprehensible legislation, bureaucracy and many other factors.
2) wrt 'mini denomination'. Yes and no. There are definite distinctions. Otherwise you're just saying 'the only kind of independency that I consider worthy of the name is the bad sort'!
"Any authority structure has its strong and weak spots" -- indeed. The only balance to individual human weakness is some form of accountability to others and/or some form of codified rules. Those in turn also have problems. But I think Oz 29 will really need to wrestle hard with what kind of structures are put in place, and do that early on.
"The only kind of independency that I consider worthy of the name is the bad sort" -- I wasn't saying that. More that when I look at what was started as a "network of independent churches" I see what looks to me very much like a denomination under another name. Look at the Churches of Christ, for example. They look like a denomination to me.
So if you're going to start a "network of independent churches", you might as well CALL it a denomination, and say, "what kind of structures will it have?" From one point of view, the Presbyterian church already is a network of independent churches with an accountability structure. I'm sensing you want to set up something a little looser than that.
Crossroads here in Canberra is a mini-denomination more on an Anglican/Catholic model. It has multiple congregations and preachers, but a single senior pastor runs everything, kind of like a mini-pope (micro-pope? nano-pope?). That sort of thing often works well when a great man of God starts a church (Mars Hill is another example), but it may not survive a change in leadership, because the strong hand of the founder is often tolerated only because he IS the founder.
But I'm making no suggestions as to what you guys should do. Just begging you to be clear in your minds what the plan is, and to get the plan on paper, so that everybody who comes on board is perfectly clear as to what they're agreeing on. That way you reduce the risk of partners bailing out down the track.
Great comments.
This discussion is more for my theoretical interest than for Oz29, as point 2 in my original post has stated, we are totally committed to urging all affiliated churches to find some *other* denomination to be the source of accountability etc. We have already resolved to work hard to avoid taking on that role.
There are things that CoC or other networks may do that are _functionally_ like a denomination... but that doesn't mean they are.
For example, the PCA and indeed, even local Presbyteries, call themselves 'the church'. Networks don't do that.
Denominations, in principle, demand a pretty high allegiance, first of all, to the general church. Networks don't... for example in the training and placement of leaders.
There are other differences.
Well, I am (respectfully) suggesting that creating a new church and after it's up and running urging it "to find some *other* denomination to be the source of accountability etc." won't work.
I've seen churches vote to join a denomination, and it's a slow process that usually fails. Look at how many Presbyterian mini-denominations there are just in Tasmania (SPC, EPC, FPC, PCA, PCEA). Why haven't they merged? Because it's hard for churches, once established, to join a denomination.
Look at it another way. If Crossroads Hobart had been set up by a network like Oz 29, what's the chance you would have voted to join the Presbyterians? The Anglicans? The Reformed? Be honest. :)
I do suspect that the decisions you've made are de facto decisions to create a network of independent churches, which I would consider to be a de facto mini-denomination. You may have "resolved to work hard to avoid taking on" the associated roles, but I suspect you'll be stuck with them nevertheless.
thanks for your thoughtful replies.
I think I can see the missing piece that's causing misunderstanding.
The point at which the urging would go on is at the point of planning-to-plant. We'll assess and support guys who then go on to plant, predominantly I expect, within denominations.
I guess, being a scientist, I see things from the functional side. :)
The CoC has a constitution, a theological colege, etc. I know they call themselves a "networking, resourcing and supportive body that does what it can to aid local churches", but to me that means a denomination with a fairly loose structure. I'm not saying that's good or bad, just that I like to call a spade a spade.
Something like the CoC is one road that Oz 29 could have gone down, and I'd be interested to know why you didn't.
The issue of allegiance to a denomination is, in my view, often associated with allegiance to (1) a confessional document and/or (2) an ethnic group. In the latter case, things change as the ethnic mix changes. The Reformed churches, for example, changed a lot when they stopped being primarily a Dutch church. The Presbyterian churches are imho still in transition from being a Scottish church.
"The point at which the urging would go on is at the point of planning-to-plant. We'll assess and support guys who then go on to plant, predominantly I expect, within denominations." -- ah, thanks for clarifying that. Yes, that will work, of course. It makes Oz 29 be option 2 in my original response, a resource to help existing denominations plant churches, rather than a new denomination.
Re: your last comment, Radagast, that's exactly what A29 is in the US -- a church-planting organization that gives resources, training, and support to like-minded churches that are usually primarily funded by a denomination. We got the majority of our funding at the start (and still receive generous support) from the Kentucky Baptist Convention. But our affiliation with A29 makes pastor training and all sorts of other resources available to us -- not least of which is the network of pastors and churches itself.
The strength of A29, and what I think will make it a long-lasting movement and not just a flash in the pan, is that it can work both within and outside of denominational structures. People's attachment to denominations in the US has been on the wane in a big way for the last couple decades and I think A29 and other similar networks are providing a way for Christians to be able to suss out exactly what a church stands for. You don't have to do much guesswork to know what an A29 church believes. You only have to ask one question -- is it baptist or presbyterian? Apart from that, there's none of this, "Well, is it one of those GOOD baptist/presbyterian/whatever kind of churches or one of the ones that walked away from the gospel at some point in the last two decades?"
Long ramble, sorry! :)
Post a Comment