A Free Church - see it differently?

[ServantofTruth]

Tonight I went to my local Free church. It's been over a year since I last went and it was good to again, put some of my own past foolishness behind me, and make friends in love with many people their.

But I have a question or more a discussion to start here.

This topic is not about how to chose a church. I have a 'home' church which is Anglican and I'm happy there. But I like to praise/ worship with members of other denominations/ churches - to show the One church of Jesus Christ, I firmly believe in.

My general discussion is, should we look at free churches any differently from ones in denominations?

Again this is not a topic about whether an individual church is good or bad. That would be judged biblically, and I'm pleased to tell you this church uses the King James Version and the pastor preaches excellently, in my opinion well within bible bounderies.

But why by totally Free? He explained to me once that they are not only not part of a denomination, but are also not part of any Free church organisations/ alliances.

Is this going too far? There was a suggestion that even the Free churches that he use to be friends with and visit, were no longer biblical.

I understand the returning to bible truth only, and seperating yourself from any church or organisation that is not preaching gospel truth in your opinion. But surely any church should be able to find other biblical churches, to be in a loose, if informal alliance with?

I guess I ask this, because I believe in church unity so much and this seems the reverse. It is verging on, attend my church or you have little chance of being saved. Which is sad because he is an excellent preacher (45 minutes tonight on the real biblical Jesus) and the congregation very loving and I believe good Christians. I will look forward to attending again, perhaps in a month or so. SofTy.

[Bethany67]

The church I used to go to was so against doing anything with other churches that they wouldn't join the Evangelical Alliance or the FIEC (think they may now have joined the FIEC under a new pastor), and even held their own separate March for Jesus. It was weird, and very arrogant; we were kept totally isolated and it had all the markings of a cult, with some very depressing results.

[chad]

Here's a question. Do you think that a preacher or any church fellowship has exclusivity on who is saved and who isn't?

Does a preacher even have the power to save anyone? Is there any preacher who has the power to offer forgiveness for sins? There is only one who is able to offer salvation, and that is Christ Jesus, our faith is in him, not a preacher.

We are but humble servants pointing the way to the truth, that is salvation through Jesus Christ.


Chad

I guess I ask this, because I believe in church unity so much and this seems the reverse. It is verging on, attend my church or you have little chance of being saved. Which is sad because he is an excellent preacher (45 minutes tonight on the real biblical Jesus) and the congregation very loving and I believe good Christians. I will look forward to attending again, perhaps in a month or so. SofTy.

[monergist]

I don't think we will ever see the church reorganize the way it did at the time of the early church. At that time, each city had its own bishop, and he was the head over all the churches. Honestly, the closest thing that approximates that type of organization is the Easter Orthodox tradition.

In my mind, a church should be accountable to someone besides themselves. If that's an organization of "free churches" then that's better than nothing. Granted, even an entire free church organization, or denomination for that matter, can go off the reservation of orthodoxy or orthopraxy. However, I think the decline can be accelerated by lack of any outside oversight.


God bless.

[Moxie]

Would you explain your definition of a "free" church and a "denomination". I know of many denominations who would call themselves autonomous....is that the same thing as free?

[ServantofTruth]

Moxie - this church is about 50 believers under a pastor who answers to nobody, except that congregation.

I think all I'm saying, is that none of us are perfect and we all need occassionally to be steered away from extreme positions. In the few times I have been to this church, I see nothing wrong, but even the best minister/ pastor is going to have a bad day.

Also there is one elder and a greeter. When the pastor is ill or away, there is no real authority to take over. The elder, and especially the greeter, the pastor told me, are not able to step up to his position/ train to take over. Last time a pastor left, the church had no minister/ pastor for some months.

I can see this is a differcult topic for people to get their teeth into and I thank those who have tried. I guess while that pastor is there, it will remain an excellent place to praise/ worship, but he is elderly and a time will come when they again will be left looking for a new leader - when if that pastor would join even with a few other churches, the transition would be smoother. SofTy.

[Veretax]

Tonight I went to my local Free church. It's been over a year since I last went and it was good to again, put some of my own past foolishness behind me, and make friends in love with many people their.

But I have a question or more a discussion to start here.

This topic is not about how to chose a church. I have a 'home' church which is Anglican and I'm happy there. But I like to praise/ worship with members of other denominations/ churches - to show the One church of Jesus Christ, I firmly believe in.

My general discussion is, should we look at free churches any differently from ones in denominations?

Again this is not a topic about whether an individual church is good or bad. That would be judged biblically, and I'm pleased to tell you this church uses the King James Version and the pastor preaches excellently, in my opinion well within bible bounderies.

But why by totally Free? He explained to me once that they are not only not part of a denomination, but are also not part of any Free church organisations/ alliances.

Is this going too far? There was a suggestion that even the Free churches that he use to be friends with and visit, were no longer biblical.

I understand the returning to bible truth only, and seperating yourself from any church or organisation that is not preaching gospel truth in your opinion. But surely any church should be able to find other biblical churches, to be in a loose, if informal alliance with?

I guess I ask this, because I believe in church unity so much and this seems the reverse. It is verging on, attend my church or you have little chance of being saved. Which is sad because he is an excellent preacher (45 minutes tonight on the real biblical Jesus) and the congregation very loving and I believe good Christians. I will look forward to attending again, perhaps in a month or so. SofTy.

To whom does the church, its shepherd/pastor, deacons, and membership ultimately report? Is it not Christ? Secondly, we need not have men rule over us as they had in the levitical priesthood because we have the one true mediator in Christ in heaven already.

I have been a member of several different churches. A Reformed Faith Presbyterian (PCA) where the pastor was not seen as a member of a church, but of the "presbytery" if you will, a member of an independent fundamental baptist church, that belonged to no denomination, although they did participate at times in certain fellowships. An independent Bible Church, (as far as I can tell it too had no real denomination hierarchy to answer too), another independent Bible church, (similar to the first one, except they were a bit more legalisitic in some interpretations), and now an American Baptist (which is part of the 'state convention')


Ultimately, the local church is lead by the congregation. Because of the problem of the Roman Catholic Church in history, many churches even today choose not to be affiliated with a hierarchy, because it can make the congregants lazy in discerning about what they are taught. Furthermore, it is the bible, and Christ which should be the sole abriter of what is true and to be preached.


In my opinion no, a church being separate from a denomination in no way makes it right or wrong. we need to remember that there is the local church, and then there is the One Church in Christ. However, I subscribe to the believe that unity has to be based on truth, not simply a desire to be united with others. I've seen far too many examples in my lifetmie of various people coming together to be united in a church or 'faith assembly' who's ultimate beliefs would have to be sacrificed in order for them to agree.

The church I used to go to was so against doing anything with other churches that they wouldn't join the Evangelical Alliance or the FIEC (think they may now have joined the FIEC under a new pastor), and even held their own separate March for Jesus. It was weird, and very arrogant; we were kept totally isolated and it had all the markings of a cult, with some very depressing results.

Why is it necessary to be a part of some global organiation of man? Is not doing the will of God and following his direction as the spirit leads not sufficient? I view such bodies with high skeptisicm because the truth should never be enforced from some far away organization, but enforced locally. I also believe that every church should be able to call whomever they see fit to call to be the pastor of their flock, and not have it handed down from some institution of man.

Moxie - this church is about 50 believers under a pastor who answers to nobody, except that congregation.

I think all I'm saying, is that none of us are perfect and we all need occassionally to be steered away from extreme positions. In the few times I have been to this church, I see nothing wrong, but even the best minister/ pastor is going to have a bad day.

Also there is one elder and a greeter. When the pastor is ill or away, there is no real authority to take over. The elder, and especially the greeter, the pastor told me, are not able to step up to his position/ train to take over. Last time a pastor left, the church had no minister/ pastor for some months.

I can see this is a differcult topic for people to get their teeth into and I thank those who have tried. I guess while that pastor is there, it will remain an excellent place to praise/ worship, but he is elderly and a time will come when they again will be left looking for a new leader - when if that pastor would join even with a few other churches, the transition would be smoother. SofTy.

Can't speak for the church in question, but in other churches where this happened, often times they would invite missionaries, or other pastors in the church, interns, or even deacons or elders to fill in until they could call another pastor. When I was in the Presbyterian church they had two types of elders, ruling and teaching. Those who were of the later were also able to fill in if need be should something happen to the pastor.

I ask again, is it a man's ministry? Or is it God's ministry? If a church, any church is seeking the ministry of a particular man then they may be treading on rocky ground, but if they pursue a man to lead God's ministry, then God will see fit to replace him when the time is necessary. I find it as a matter of faith that worrying about succession plans is taking away from God's ability to provide brilliantly for all of our needs.

[Bethany67]

Why is it necessary to be a part of some global organiation of man? Is not doing the will of God and following his direction as the spirit leads not sufficient?

In theory, yes. But in our case, it led to unchecked heresy and a huge amount of widespread hurt and family destruction. They fell for the extremes of prosperity televangelists and wouldn't listen to anyone who tried to point out it was wrong and unbiblical. If you disagreed, you were being deceived by Satan and told to get with the programme or get out. In extreme cases they'd try to cast the demon of rebellion out of you. And when you left, they spread rumours that you were never a Christian. That's how cults operate with mind-control. I had one female friend convinced God was going to kill her for leaving that church, and she came to my place so she wouldn't have to die alone. She didn't die, of course, and neither did I, but there'd been so much teaching about 'stepping outside the will of God' which equated to the 'will of the pastor and elders.' I came back to Jesus 10 years later; she never has.

[Veretax]

In theory, yes. But in our case, it led to unchecked heresy and a huge amount of widespread hurt and family destruction. They fell for the extremes of prosperity televangelists and wouldn't listen to anyone who tried to point out it was wrong and unbiblical. If you disagreed, you were being deceived by Satan and told to get with the programme or get out. In extreme cases they'd try to cast the demon of rebellion out of you. And when you left, they spread rumours that you were never a Christian. That's how cults operate with mind-control. I had one female friend convinced God was going to kill her for leaving that church, and she came to my place so she wouldn't have to die alone. She didn't die, of course, and neither did I, but there'd been so much teaching about 'stepping outside the will of God' which equated to the 'will of the pastor and elders.' I came back to Jesus 10 years later; she never has.

We just left a church that was independent, not because of that fact, but because the Lord's spirit showed us that their love seemed cold. very legalistic, among other things. And yes it may be how cults operate, but being in a Hierarchy doesn't prevent corruption either. Hence why I lean on Christ always to guide me, not any particular man or pastor, though they may help teach, I always try to prove what is said from scripture. there are some I've known who believe leaving a church for any reason, is a sin I don't find that biblical either.

The Apostles warned us about false teachers and that in the last days there would be many, that's why we must guard our hearts as it says in Hebrews 2:1

[Partaker of Christ]

If I have understood Veretax correctly, then I agree with that view.

Biblically, a Church is governed by that locality.
The Church of England, The Church of Scotland, The Church of America. The large movements and denominations, are all unscriptural. They are too large. Then all so the Church on 123 street is also unscriptural, as it is too small.

It is the Church in Jerusalem, the Church in Ephesus, the Church in Rome, the Church at Corinth.
In the UK, it should be the Church in London, the Church in Manchester, the Church in Edinbourough, and the like.

[Veretax]

If I have understood Veretax correctly, then I agree with that view.

Biblically, a Church is governed by that locality.
The Church of England, The Church of Scotland, The Church of America. The large movements and denominations, are all unscriptural. They are too large. Then all so the Church on 123 street is also unscriptural, as it is too small.

It is the Church in Jerusalem, the Church in Ephesus, the Church in Rome, the Church at Corinth.
In the UK, it should be the Church in London, the Church in Manchester, the Church in Edinbourough, and the like.

Well you got it partly. I'm of the belief the church is lead from the bottom up, not from some hierarchy outside that town/city/state/country down. The pastor is a servant, and while he may technically be a leader, in most churches I've been in he is not a dictator/king/executive, and many things have to be run by the church Trustees board (or deacon board or Session in some churches) and in some cases the congregation as a whole.

In morgantown for example there was more than one Independent church, frankly i think having massive churches can become a problem ti administrate, but size and number really imo has no bearing on this.

[Partaker of Christ]

Well you got it partly. I'm of the belief the church is lead from the bottom up, not from some hierarchy outside that town/city/state/country down. The pastor is a servant, and while he may technically be a leader, in most churches I've been in he is not a dictator/king/executive, and many things have to be run by the church Trustees board (or deacon board or Session in some churches) and in some cases the congregation as a whole.

In morgantown for example there was more than one Independent church, frankly i think having massive churches can become a problem ti administrate, but size and number really imo has no bearing on this.

Yes I was agreeing, but I was adding to your view of what the local Church was scripturally. They still often meet in smaller and larger groups, but the overall governing, responsibility and accountability to God, is the whole of that locality.

[Dragonfighter1]

I think you may be over reading what he said. Free church simply means no denominational control. It doesnt mean that they dont listen to other spiritual people or follow advise. I pastored a free church (non denominatinal) for 14 years. I ran into a problem with a member and asked a pastor from a free church 40 miles away to come in and assume authority for the disputed issue. He did, it was resolved, everyone happy (some hurts feelings but that evaporated fast).

Free doesnt mean in rebellion. Just that no one with church-political agendas can waltz in and push people around. The Apostle paul had no compelling legal authority in any of the churches he went to or started. They were in peoples homes. They were free associations. If they didnt want anything to do with him they stopped attending or told him to get lost. But in a denomination you can not do that! In fact if your local church tried to leave the denomination its in, it would be forced to leave the church building simply because the denomination owns the building!

.. and thats not very free is it?

[teddyv]

...snip...

In fact if your local church tried to leave the denomination its in, it would be forced to leave the church building simply because the denomination owns the building!

.. and thats not very free is it?

This is not true for all denominations. Certainly our congregation owns the building and parsonage(s).

[Bob Carabbio]

The world is full of "us 4 and NO MORE" groups, all convinced that ONLY THEY are the true church. SOme are more toxic about it than others. The hard-line Non-Instrumental Church of Christ, for example, is POSITIVE that ONLY THEY are Christians and EVERY OTHER CHURCH is worthless and all the people in 'em are hell-bound.

Your "Free church" isn't free at all - it's just another little denomination all it's own.