Mission Boards

[Bruh]

I am wondering if young men should learn a trade first before going into ministry.  Jesus was a carpenter until He started his earthly ministry at 30 years of age.  Maybe if they learned a trade, it would serve a couple of purposes:  1) they will have a way to make a living during the tough times, on the mission field, etc., and 2) they have a chance to mature a bit before jumping into ministry.  If that is the example Jesus gave us, why do we push our kids into ministry right out of high school?  Most don't have any idea who/what they are at 18 years of age. 

Just a thought.

Continuing your thought.

It is my belief that we should follow Jesus example of waiting till the age of 30 before ministry begins.

The years till thirty are for training and study. You would easily have enough time to obtain a legitimate doctor's degree. Then one would be better able to lead the congregation because of a more well rounded education.

Without a study of ecclesiastical history one does not know that his idea one version onlyism was in vogue in the Catholic Church of the 1500s.

So many wacked out ideas have been repeated over and over in history because the MOG thinks he discovered some new revelation.

Hebrew and Greek would be good too. In the past it was expected for the pastor to be able in both Hebrew and Greek.

With todays Bible colleges they scoff at the need to actually know the scriptures in the languages in which the the Holy Spirit choose to breath them out.

It is not uncommon for anti-intellectualism to reign in the Bible Colleges.

When the qualifications of a pastor are laid out in Timothy and Titus, it is understood that he is not a novice and that the man also has a family with children that are to be used as a gauge of their ability to lead the congregation. It would seem to me that a careful study of Timothy and Titus would indicate a man of 30 to 40 years of age with older children that may have some interest in what has been termed riot in our English version.

Gill says,
Not accused of riot; or chargeable with sins of uncleanness and intemperance, with rioting and drunkenness, chambering and wantonness; or with such crimes as Eli's sons were guilty of, from which they were not restrained by their father, and therefore the priesthood was removed from the family: "or unruly" not subject, but disobedient to their parents.

In order to have children that would be interested in this kind of behaviour they would at least be older teenagers. This man than would be close to 40.

Most young men began as an asst. pastor or youth pastor or even an unpaid assistant with another job. From my experience most men are at least 30 (with a wife & children) before they become pastor. The other positions should be looked at as training positions & most rarely carry any decision making authority.

I would have no problem limiting senior pastor candidates to men 30 years or older with a min of 5 years exp. in ministry.

My point is that young men could benefit greatly by following Christ's example of learning a TRADE before entering ministry, in whatever capacity.  Age wasn't my main point.

The older I get I believe age has a lot to do with it...even if a 22 year old is youth pastor, what does he really know about life? I thought I knew a whole lot in my twenties.

Allow that young man to grow up some, and rub shoulders with the wicked everyday, come home to a family, find time to read his bible and then find time to show up on Saturday days and again on Sunday's. I'm sure he will look and people differently going through this as he brakes away from heis 20's.

 

[Norefund]

I very much agree.

I am about to get myself into trouble here. I would further compare a person who leaves college and goes straight into the ministry as pretty much the same as a person who runs for political office without having held a private sector job. Both probably don't understand the challenges regular working people have with maintaining their households and fulfilling all the "requirements" that our leaders expect - political and church. Similarly, I think that priests who conduct pre-marital training that is required in a Catholic marriage have no idea what they are talking about. How could they? Life experiences teach us much more than any training and the lessons taught by life stick with us much more effectively.

Try hard not to take offense at that last paragraph. As always, it's just my opinion.

I am wondering if young men should learn a trade first before going into ministry.  Jesus was a carpenter until He started his earthly ministry at 30 years of age.  Maybe if they learned a trade, it would serve a couple of purposes:  1) they will have a way to make a living during the tough times, on the mission field, etc., and 2) they have a chance to mature a bit before jumping into ministry.  If that is the example Jesus gave us, why do we push our kids into ministry right out of high school?  Most don't have any idea who/what they are at 18 years of age. 

Just a thought.

Continuing your thought.

It is my belief that we should follow Jesus example of waiting till the age of 30 before ministry begins.

The years till thirty are for training and study. You would easily have enough time to obtain a legitimate doctor's degree. Then one would be better able to lead the congregation because of a more well rounded education.

Without a study of ecclesiastical history one does not know that his idea one version onlyism was in vogue in the Catholic Church of the 1500s.

So many wacked out ideas have been repeated over and over in history because the MOG thinks he discovered some new revelation.

Hebrew and Greek would be good too. In the past it was expected for the pastor to be able in both Hebrew and Greek.

With todays Bible colleges they scoff at the need to actually know the scriptures in the languages in which the the Holy Spirit choose to breath them out.

It is not uncommon for anti-intellectualism to reign in the Bible Colleges.

When the qualifications of a pastor are laid out in Timothy and Titus, it is understood that he is not a novice and that the man also has a family with children that are to be used as a gauge of their ability to lead the congregation. It would seem to me that a careful study of Timothy and Titus would indicate a man of 30 to 40 years of age with older children that may have some interest in what has been termed riot in our English version.

Gill says,
Not accused of riot; or chargeable with sins of uncleanness and intemperance, with rioting and drunkenness, chambering and wantonness; or with such crimes as Eli's sons were guilty of, from which they were not restrained by their father, and therefore the priesthood was removed from the family: "or unruly" not subject, but disobedient to their parents.

In order to have children that would be interested in this kind of behaviour they would at least be older teenagers. This man than would be close to 40.

Most young men began as an asst. pastor or youth pastor or even an unpaid assistant with another job. From my experience most men are at least 30 (with a wife & children) before they become pastor. The other positions should be looked at as training positions & most rarely carry any decision making authority.

I would have no problem limiting senior pastor candidates to men 30 years or older with a min of 5 years exp. in ministry.

My point is that young men could benefit greatly by following Christ's example of learning a TRADE before entering ministry, in whatever capacity.  Age wasn't my main point.

The older I get I believe age has a lot to do with it...even if a 22 year old is youth pastor, what does he really know about life? I thought I knew a whole lot in my twenties.

Allow that young man to grow up some, and rub shoulders with the wicked everyday, come home to a family, find time to read his bible and then find time to show up on Saturday days and again on Sunday's. I'm sure he will look and people differently going through this as he brakes away from heis 20's.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Sword:
Most young men began as an asst. pastor or youth pastor or even an unpaid assistant with another job. From my experience most men are at least 30 (with a wife & children) before they become pastor. The other positions should be looked at as training positions & most rarely carry any decision making authority.

I would have no problem limiting senior pastor candidates to men 30 years or older with a min of 5 years exp. in ministry.

I would agree.
In my experience, I have seen this work very well in practice.
I might say 32-33 would be a good starting point for a Senior Pastor today...people in this culture tend to mature slower than in some previous generations. It has always been my belief that assistant and or youth pastors were practical apprenticeships.

 

[cpizzle]

Back to the subject of missions:

I would love to emulate some of the LDS practices concerning missions (it is ok to utilize their methods, just not their doctrine.)

Our current missions philosophy is...
1) Surrender to the mission field
2) Spend 2-5 years asking for support from judgmental churches who will drop you if you don't agree with them on every legalistic standard and belief
3) Go to the mission field for the rest of your life.  If you ever come off the field, you are a quitter.  The pastors who are growing fat and happy in America will judge you forever because you only spend 20 years of your life in Uganda (unlike them, who never left the states.)
or...
Come off the field for the higher calling of teaching at a Bible college or running a mission board.

What if we allowed our new graduates (and fully supported them) to spend 2-3 years assisting a veteran missionary and then let them come home, start a family, and let God lead them to a ministry or a secular job.  Think of the benefits:

1) More people who be able to participate in foreign missions knowing they would not have to spend the rest of their lives overseas.
2) They would mature must faster and have greater life experience.  They would have credibility with their congregation when it came to promoting missions.
3) They wouldn't have to drag a carload of kids across the country and across the world.
4) If God gave them a burden, they could certainly return, go on deputation, and give their lives to the mission field.

Churches could give to a mission board (not an individual missionary) who could help disperse the funds.  We can send out as many as we can afford. 

Oh, by the way, let's stop sending people to "1st World European" countries who have full access to the Gospel.  Their are billions around the world in areas that have never heard. 

 

[16KJV11]

Back to the subject of missions:

Oh, by the way, let's stop sending people to "1st World European" countries who have full access to the Gospel.  Their are billions around the world in areas that have never heard.

Then you would be against starting new churches here in the United States where we have 'full access to the Gospel?', I assume?
Countries like England only have a smattering of Gospel preaching churches compared to say 100 or so years ago.
I meet people all the time in my own city who have little to no idea about the Gospel at all b/c I go street witnessing, evangelizing, soul winning, whatever you want to call it.
(There are people who take issue with the word 'soul winning' b/c the word is not in the Bible...I assume that they don't use the word Bible, rapture, or Trinity either...but I digress.)

 

[cpizzle]

Back to the subject of missions:

Oh, by the way, let's stop sending people to "1st World European" countries who have full access to the Gospel.  Their are billions around the world in areas that have never heard.

Then you would be against starting new churches here in the United States where we have 'full access to the Gospel?', I assume?
Countries like England only have a smattering of Gospel preaching churches compared to say 100 or so years ago.
I meet people all the time in my own city who have little to no idea about the Gospel at all b/c I go street witnessing, evangelizing, soul winning, whatever you want to call it.
(There are people who take issue with the word 'soul winning' b/c the word is not in the Bible...I assume that they don't use the word Bible, rapture, or Trinity either...but I digress.)

I do not support "missionaries" who ask for full-time support to start a church in America either.  We had a guy come through who was on deputation to start a church in Iowa.  He is not a missionary.  He is a pastor who has a burden to start a church.  Great!  I am 100% for him.  I might even give him some of "my" money, but I won't take him on for monthly support out of the Church mission budget

The purpose of missions is to spread the gospel to areas that do not have access to it.  England has full access.  Do they need more soul winners.  Certainly.  Do they need American missionaries, probably not.

Look, I agree with Paul.  I celebrate anytime the gospel is preached.  If we had unlimited resources (human and financial), I would start a Bible Believing Baptist Church on every street corner on Earth.  However, since there are limits to our commitment to World missions, we should send the resources where they can do the most good.  I do not begrudge anyone who leaves America and goes overseas.  No other country has what we have, and any mission field requires a level of sacrifice.  I will not criticize anyone.  However, I believe we can do better. 

England, France, Belgium, ect... have plenty of their own countrymen to start new churches and spread the gospel.  Christians are a minority in Europe, but they comprise a much greater percentage of the population than most other countries.  They have the gospel and have rejected it for the most part.  Missions is about taking the gospel where it hasn't been or where access is very limited.

Thanks

 

[Vince Massi]

Here's what we've seen in Mexico.

Some missionaries show up without a mission board, explaining that they answer to the Holy Spirit, not man. Within a few months, they show major spiritual problems that would have kept most mission boards from accepting them.

But mission board or not, most missionaries here go home empty-handed after two years. One Pentecostal missionary has started a successful boys' orphanage. One Southern Baptist missionary has established four small Mexican churches in the state of Jalisco (where we're at), one Presbyterian couple started a successful orphanage, and everyone else has left empty-handed, except for the ones who come short-term to work in ministries that are already established.

The Gringo Christian churches here were started by retirees, not missionaries.

 

[sword]

Here's what we've seen in Mexico.

Some missionaries show up without a mission board, explaining that they answer to the Holy Spirit, not man. Within a few months, they show major spiritual problems that would have kept most mission boards from accepting them.

But mission board or not, most missionaries here go home empty-handed after two years. One Pentecostal missionary has started a successful boys' orphanage. One Southern Baptist missionary has established four small Mexican churches in the state of Jalisco (where we're at), one Presbyterian couple started a successful orphanage, and everyone else has left empty-handed, except for the ones who come short-term to work in ministries that are already established.

The Gringo Christian churches here were started by retirees, not missionaries.

What about the Winns, Ashcrafts, Wallaces, Robles, Murrillo’s, Johnsons, Rose’s, Williams, & the 25 or more that the BBF have in Mexico.

Why do you say the churches are started by retirees or that they don't stay.

Last count there were about 45 or 50 spread across Mexico.

 

[16KJV11]

Back to the subject of missions:


England, France, Belgium, ect... have plenty of their own countrymen to start new churches and spread the gospel.  Christians are a minority in Europe, but they comprise a much greater percentage of the population than most other countries.  They have the gospel and have rejected it for the most part.  Missions is about taking the gospel where it hasn't been or where access is very limited.

Thanks

Jesus told his disciples:
Acts 1:8 (KJV)
8  But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
Seems to me he was still concerned about Jerusalem, where he was rejected.
Anyway,
The Lord has led me to start two churches, one in Iowa and one in PA.

Both are now well established churches that support missionaries worldwide.
The one I started 9.5 years ago, we merged with another dying church about 6 years ago.
We support many missionaries around the world and strive to support more.
Both were started with temporary missions support. (Support given for 2 - 3 years.)
Both have seen multitudes witnessed to and many saved.
I did not do deputation per se' though I did mail out letters to pastors around the country.
Once I arrived at said destination, the support started coming in from local and out of state churches.
I have had to work as a bus driver and still do, my wife has had to work at home data entry jobs, but we have made it by the grace of God.
Thankfully I never had to work full time employment though I have been willing to if necessary, but God has ALWAYS provided.
I believe in home missions b/c these are the churches that will support world wide missions.
And I thank God for churches that were willing to support home missionaries.

 

[cpizzle]

Please forgive me if my remarks came across as condescending or belittling.  I am all for churches helping to start more churches, including financial support.  I do not consider them missionaries, but that does not mean I do not recognize their service to God.  They are obeying their calling and what a great calling it is.  I adopted my church, I could not imagine how difficult it is to "birth" one 

Let me ask you an honest question to which I do not have an answer.  If I started a church in my hometown (which is full of churches), and I built it to 500 people.  450 of my new members were already saved and came to my church because they liked our preaching, music, kids program, ect....  Did I evangelize an area by starting and building a new church, or did I just provide more options for people who were already saved?  The 50 that I did reach, could I not have reached them as a member of one of my communitie's other churches?  Is starting a church in an area where the gospel is already prevalent the same as bringing the gospel to an unreached area?  What is the difference between being a missionary and a soulwinner?

 

[rsc2a]

A missionary is one who  is sent. Jesus has sent everyone who claims to follow Him.

Jesus is also the only one who wins souls.

 

[16KJV11]

Please forgive me if my remarks came across as condescending or belittling.  I am all for churches helping to start more churches, including financial support.  I do not consider them missionaries, but that does not mean I do not recognize their service to God.  They are obeying their calling and what a great calling it is.  I adopted my church, I could not imagine how difficult it is to "birth" one 

Let me ask you an honest question to which I do not have an answer.  If I started a church in my hometown (which is full of churches), and I built it to 500 people.  450 of my new members were already saved and came to my church because they liked our preaching, music, kids program, ect....  Did I evangelize an area by starting and building a new church, or did I just provide more options for people who were already saved?  The 50 that I did reach, could I not have reached them as a member of one of my communitie's other churches?  Is starting a church in an area where the gospel is already prevalent the same as bringing the gospel to an unreached area?  What is the difference between being a missionary and a soulwinner?

I understand your dilemma and I would not start a church where there were many Gospel preaching churches.
Here where I started this church, there are few Gospel preaching churches of any stripe.
Not saying there are none, just very very few.
We do not often get transfers from churches at all.
Just recently several have joined.

 

[RAIDER]

Please forgive me if my remarks came across as condescending or belittling.  I am all for churches helping to start more churches, including financial support.  I do not consider them missionaries, but that does not mean I do not recognize their service to God.  They are obeying their calling and what a great calling it is.  I adopted my church, I could not imagine how difficult it is to "birth" one 

Let me ask you an honest question to which I do not have an answer.  If I started a church in my hometown (which is full of churches), and I built it to 500 people.  450 of my new members were already saved and came to my church because they liked our preaching, music, kids program, ect....  Did I evangelize an area by starting and building a new church, or did I just provide more options for people who were already saved?  The 50 that I did reach, could I not have reached them as a member of one of my communitie's other churches?  Is starting a church in an area where the gospel is already prevalent the same as bringing the gospel to an unreached area?  What is the difference between being a missionary and a soulwinner?

Definitely a relevant question.  The town in which I grew up is a town of about 35,000.  There is a GARBC church pastored by an older man who is a BJU grad.  They have an older congregation and run about 50 on Sunday morning - no bus ministry and no organized soul winning ministry.  There is a church that classifies itself as a Independent Baptist Church.  They run about 75 on Sunday morning - no bus ministry and no organized soul winning.  There is an IFB church that runs 40 - no bus ministry and no organized soul winning.  There was an IFB church that had been around for almost 40 years.  The pastor ran it into the ground and it closed a couple years ago.  There is a Independent Baptist Church that runs about 100 on Sunday morning - no bus ministry and no organized soul winning program.  I have concentrated my comments on Baptist churches that are doctrinally close to what we would believe.

Could this town use a church that loved and reached out to people?  Absolutely.  Could this town use a preacher that loved the people and preached the truth?  Sure.  Could this town use a church that ran a bus to pick up those who would not otherwise come to church?  Yes.  Could this town use a church whose members reached out with the gospel?  No doubt.  I would have no problem with someone starting a NT Baptist church in this town. 

 

[cpizzle]

Thanks for the responses.

Let me clarify further.  The question is not whether or not a church is needed, but whether or not it falls under our current, understood definition of missions.  My church is growing because we offer a mix of "old time religion" and "love thy neighbor" while opposing both liberalism and legalism.  However, my growth has been almost entirely attributed to transfers from other churches.  They like what we offer and have moved their membership.  I think it is great that we can offer people what their spirits need that they are not getting elsewhere, but I have probably done very little to bring the gospel where it wasn't.  Sure, when I go soulwinning or witness to someone, the gospel is being spread, but my city is not receiving the gospel as a whole because of our church.

 

[cpizzle]

A missionary is one who  is sent. Jesus has sent everyone who claims to follow Him.

Jesus is also the only one who wins souls.

When you post, I am reminded of this verse...

Galations 2:4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:

5 To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.

6 But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:


Not the false brethren part, but the ignoring because they added nothing.

 

[sword]

Back to the subject of missions:

I would love to emulate some of the LDS practices concerning missions (it is ok to utilize their methods, just not their doctrine.)

Our current missions philosophy is...
1) Surrender to the mission field
2) Spend 2-5 years asking for support from judgmental churches who will drop you if you don't agree with them on every legalistic standard and belief
3) Go to the mission field for the rest of your life.  If you ever come off the field, you are a quitter.  The pastors who are growing fat and happy in America will judge you forever because you only spend 20 years of your life in Uganda (unlike them, who never left the states.)
or...
Come off the field for the higher calling of teaching at a Bible college or running a mission board.

What if we allowed our new graduates (and fully supported them) to spend 2-3 years assisting a veteran missionary and then let them come home, start a family, and let God lead them to a ministry or a secular job.  Think of the benefits:

1) More people who be able to participate in foreign missions knowing they would not have to spend the rest of their lives overseas.
2) They would mature must faster and have greater life experience.  They would have credibility with their congregation when it came to promoting missions.
3) They wouldn't have to drag a carload of kids across the country and across the world.
4) If God gave them a burden, they could certainly return, go on deputation, and give their lives to the mission field.

Churches could give to a mission board (not an individual missionary) who could help disperse the funds.  We can send out as many as we can afford. 

Oh, by the way, let's stop sending people to "1st World European" countries who have full access to the Gospel.  Their are billions around the world in areas that have never heard.

I agree the LDS model is very effective but you missed several key points.

1. The Elders in Salt Lake City send a retired couple to each of their 400 missions to oversee the 10 to 50 young people assigned to that mission at any given time. These young couples often serve the rest of their life as health permits. The larger missions will have several other retired couples who assist the “Head” of mission.

2. The Mormon church, according to time magazine, was worth 30 billion dollars.

3. CNN reports Mormon church earns $7 billion a year from tithing.

4. The Mormon church teaches their young people that God expects everyone to do a 2 year “Mission” either before or after college. This supplies 1000’s of young people each year, who are fully funded & supported by the Mission Headquarters in Salt Lake.

5. They take the "All the world" command to heart. They have fully supported missions all over the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_missions_of_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints

 

[sword]

Back to the subject of missions:

I would love to emulate some of the LDS practices concerning missions (it is ok to utilize their methods, just not their doctrine.)

Our current missions philosophy is...
1) Surrender to the mission field
2) Spend 2-5 years asking for support from judgmental churches who will drop you if you don't agree with them on every legalistic standard and belief
3) Go to the mission field for the rest of your life.  If you ever come off the field, you are a quitter.  The pastors who are growing fat and happy in America will judge you forever because you only spend 20 years of your life in Uganda (unlike them, who never left the states.)
or...
Come off the field for the higher calling of teaching at a Bible college or running a mission board.

What if we allowed our new graduates (and fully supported them) to spend 2-3 years assisting a veteran missionary and then let them come home, start a family, and let God lead them to a ministry or a secular job.  Think of the benefits:

1) More people who be able to participate in foreign missions knowing they would not have to spend the rest of their lives overseas.
2) They would mature must faster and have greater life experience.  They would have credibility with their congregation when it came to promoting missions.
3) They wouldn't have to drag a carload of kids across the country and across the world.
4) If God gave them a burden, they could certainly return, go on deputation, and give their lives to the mission field.

Churches could give to a mission board (not an individual missionary) who could help disperse the funds.  We can send out as many as we can afford. 

Oh, by the way, let's stop sending people to "1st World European" countries who have full access to the Gospel.  Their are billions around the world in areas that have never heard.

I agree the LDS model is very effective but you missed several key points.

1. The Elders in Salt Lake City send a retired couple to each of their 400 missions to oversee the 10 to 50 young people assigned to that mission at any given time. These young couples often serve the rest of their life as health permits. The larger missions will have several other retired couples who assist the “Head” of mission.

2. The Mormon church, according to time magazine, was worth 30 billion dollars.

3. CNN reports Mormon church earns $7 billion a year from tithing.

4. The Mormon church teaches their young people that God expects everyone to do a 2 year “Mission” either before or after college. This supplies 1000’s of young people each year, who are fully funded & supported by the Mission Headquarters in Salt Lake.

5. They take the "All the world" command to heart. They have fully supported missions all over the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_missions_of_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints

cpizzle

How would you fund such a plan, and from where. We can't get the Baptist preachers in my town to even cooperate in a revival meeting let alone pool money. Many baptists pastors can't get along with their own friends let along joining a national mission funding program. I'm sure the Southern Baptist have something similar to the LDS model but I don't see it working with IFB churches.

 

[cpizzle]

Hammond and other large churches would certainly have to take the lead.  I would use a model similar to the Team Missions where money is sent directly to the "Team" as well as individual people.  With a team, you support a "Lead Missionary" (ie, Ted Spears in Ghana or Dan Hubbard in Peru) and then budget a certain number of rotational slots.  Churches could support teams from colleges or mission boards that they trust (different camps.) 

I just don't like the "go forever" or "don't go at all" attitude toward missions.  Paul went on Missionary journeys and then returned.  Our missionaries are not allowed to return.  Paul also didn't have to spend years raising support.  The church at Antioch "sent" him and supported him.

If given the opportunity to spend 2 - 3 years on the mission field after graduation working with an established missionary, I would certainly have taken it. 

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

How would you fund such a plan, are from where. We can't get the Baptist preachers in my town to even cooperate in a revival meeting let alone pool money. Many baptists pastors can't get along with their own friends let along joining a national mission funding program. I'm sure the Southern Baptist have something similar to the LDS model but I don't see it working with IFB churches.

The SBC does have a very efficient and effective plan...for foreign missions, outreach and assistance at home and church planting around the world.

 

[cpizzle]

The problem with the SBC is not they have a cooperative mission program.  It is that churches have very little control on where the money goes.  They are all required to give to one big fund that is controlled by the convention (at least that is how I understand it.)  They might spend money on colleges that have atheists as teachers.  They might support organizations that go against what the church believes.  Independent Baptists control where the mission money goes.  We can still give cooperatively, remain independent, and ensure that the money our members give to missions is spent in a way the church agrees upon.