Autonomous Churches & Accountability

[Koey]

Does anyone have some helpful advice on how to set up an accountability structure in a new autonomous interdenominational church?

Thank you, Koey the Koala

 

[Philip]

What kind of accountablity? Financial? Theological? Something else?

 

[LynneClomina]

http://www.ncmi.net/

New Covanent Ministries International is a team that comes alongside churches and helps them structure all areas in a biblical way and offers accountablility and support in all areas. our church is in the process of lining up with them, they seem to be an awesome bunch of people.

 

[Koey]

What kind of accountablity? Financial? Theological? Something else?

I would say all of the above and also personal accountability for the leaders. I've seen too many churches (even with a structure) abuse theology, finances and pastoral abuse. I really respect what one church does. Every year the board of elders evaluates the leadership. It is not allowed to be a tearing down of the leaders, but an honest appraisal which would include as much encouragement as criticism. It must be a tough time for the leaders, but a necessary one for the health of the church.

It looks like I am also going to be a lone church planter. As yet, I do not have a team, which would be preferable. Pioneering is the toughest kind of church planting, yet has some advantages and disadvantages. The biggest disadvantages may be loneliness and no immediate accountability structure.

Theologically, I have a Master of Theological Studies, which annoys the heck out of some people, because I tend to even evaluate the local preachers. However, even with a good education, my theology is not perfect. There is a tendency of long time pastors to ride on their laurels, rather than have their preaching evaluated. Take Rick Warren for instance. His material is very encouraging and positive. However, he abuses the Scriptures terribly at times.

 

[Peter]

Wow! Talk about oxymorons (sp). The original question is loaded with them.
By the way, have you ever considered the accountability system that has worked for the last 2000 years?

Peace.

Peter

 

[Crazy Liz]

It looks like I am also going to be a lone church planter. As yet, I do not have a team, which would be preferable. Pioneering is the toughest kind of church planting, yet has some advantages and disadvantages. The biggest disadvantages may be loneliness and no immediate accountability structure.

First, consider finding a denomination, mission association or other existing structure, rather than inventing your own system.

One system you might be able to plug into is a simple church network. Check out www.simplechurches.net. They recommend simple church planters connect with at least 2 or 3 different simple church networks and also with a denomination or larger church, if possible. IOW, it is a networking approach, rahter than a hierarchical or autonomous approach.

If you're a lone church planter, at least contact Harold Behr there, and see if he can give you any helpful advice.

You are asking excellent questions!

 

[Koey]

Wow! Talk about oxymorons (sp). The original question is loaded with them. By the way, have you ever considered the accountability system that has worked for the last 2000 years?...

I don't trust the accountability system that has "worked" for the past 2,000 years, because it has not worked very well at all. A monarchial or episcopal church polity accountability structure is an oxymoron to me. LOL.

 

[Peter]

Orthodoxy is a conciliar system, not monarchial or episcopal. It's still the same system as seen in the Acts of the Apostles at the first council.

Peace.

Peter

 

[Koey]

Orthodoxy is a conciliar system, not monarchial or episcopal. It's still the same system as seen in the Acts of the Apostles at the first council...

So what does conciliar mean? If I believe in Orthodox theology and want to start an autonomous post-modern Orthodox Church with modern music, would I be "allowed" to by council? Or, would I have to just go it alone, because I would be rejected? After all, Paul started churches independently long before he went to council. Of course, council at that time included the whole Church, so I guess you can't really say it's the same system, because the Church is now divided.

Now if I did a thing like Paul and went to council after it was up and running, do you think I would be accepted or rejected? If I was rejected, do you think I should fold the church up or just keep going as an autonomous body?

 

[Philip]

So what does conciliar mean?

Of, relating to, or generated by a council.

If I believe in Orthodox theology and want to start an autonomous post-modern Orthodox Church with modern music, would I be "allowed" to by council? Or, would I have to just go it alone, because I would be rejected?

If you believed Orthodox theology, then you would not want to start an autonomous Church.

After all, Paul started churches independently long before he went to council.

Paul did not start new churchs. He spread the original one.

Of course, council at that time included the whole Church, so I guess you can't really say it's the same system, because the Church is now divided.

We maintain that the Church is not divided.

 

[Crazy Liz]

If you believed Orthodox theology, then you would not want to start an autonomous Church.

Doesn't "autonomous Church" have a technical meaning in EO ecclesiology?

 

[Philip]

Doesn't "autonomous Church" have a technical meaning in EO ecclesiology?

Yes. Roughly speaking, it is an established Church that is not quite large enough to "go it alone". When we use the term 'Church' in this context, we are speaking of an nation- or culture-wide entity, not a local parish or congregation.

The Orthodox Church in Japan, for example, is autonomous. It is allowed to operate on its own for most purposes. However, the Church is not yet large enough to ensure that there will be a sufficient supply of candidates for the office of bishop (among other things). When it does reach this size and stability, she will become autocephalus. Until then, the Church in Japan remains under the Patriarch of Moscow.

However, in the my post above, I was using the term autonomous in the sense that I assume the OP was using.

 

[Philip]

For those interested, the autocephalous Churches are:

Church of Constantinople
Church of Alexandria
Church of Antioch
Church of Jerusalem
Church of Russia
Church of Georgia
Church of Serbia
Church of Romania
Church of Bulgaria
Church of Cyprus
Church of Greece
Church of Albania
Church of Poland
Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia
Orthodox Church in America

The autonomous Churches are

Church of Sinai (Constantinople)
Church of Finland (Russia)
Church of Japan (Russia)
Church of Ukraine (Russia)

I don't think the Church in China is autonomous yet, but I could be wrong.

 

[Koey]

Well, to return to my original question: Does anyone have some helpful advice on how to set up an accountability structure in [within] a new autonomous [independent] interdenominational [accepting and catering to people of various denominations] church?


I'm not interested in any more people telling me why their denomination is the A#1, exclusive franchise of God on earth. Been down that road before, bought the t-shirt, not going back.


Thanks,
Koey the Koala.

 

[Peter]

Koey,

No matter where you start in your particular group, 20 years from now it will something completely different. This is the nature of the group you are starting, "The Reformed Church reforming."

Peace.

Peter