Stratford Church Plant 2026

Before reading this, please see my previous two posts and videos, which together with this post are part of an introductory series regarding establishing a Church Constitution and regarding the Great Confessions of the Reformed Tradition.

Previous articles:
Part I:    He’s been in a good paddock…
Part II:   The Great Confessions of the Reformed Tradition

Please also note that the proposed constitution has been further developed to achieve what is discussed in this post, by adopting the 39 Articles of Religion and the London Baptist Confession as well as the Westminster, while clearly allowing discretion in matters of conscience where these confessions conflict, and emphasising that which is held in common, while broadly honouring and not condemning the wider content of the confessions. You can read more about this in the article Stratford Church Plant 2026: Constitution.

Confessions about confessions

It is fair to describe the Westminster Confession of 1646 as the greatest resource for theology and church discipline outside of scripture itself. And yet it is a human document, established by one group of Christians in opposition to another group, arguing that their confession is more biblical. The points of tension that saw other Christians with strong and sound biblical reasoning take to it with a red pen reveal that, as discussed in my previous article, and as the Westminster Confession admits itself, it is not an infallible document.

I do consider that there are clauses of the confession that go beyond the rule of scripture alone interpreting scripture.

Church government negotiable

I am happy to operate under a Presbyterian system of church government, under the rule of synods and councils, with ministers and deacons serving the church. And yet while this may be ideal, the Bible does not make this a rule for all times and all places. The Bible does not condemn or reject an arrangement of bishops, vicars and priests.

Terms of the role of the civil magsitrate negotiable

I can understand the value of kings and governments taking the initiative to aid the church, as did King James I, with his authorised Bible of 1611. And the Westminster Confession provides for such intervention as appropriate and right.

However, scripture nowhere requires kings or governments to make rulings for churches, or to intervene in their affairs, save in matters of criminal prosecution. And it certainly does not require wholesale obedience to the civil magistrate when that obedience clashes with matters of conscience in religion, as some use the Westminster Confession to argue. So I have sympathy for the opposition of the Congregationalists, and for the Savoy Declaration of 1658, and for the American amendments to the Westminster Confession in 1788.

Infant baptism negotiable

I accept the practice of baptising infants early, not requiring from them a confession of repentance, faith and obedience – if they’re in a covenant family, allowing them the same sign of entry into the covenant community of faith as anyone privileged to enter into that community. And yet I can appreciate the dissent of those who reject infant baptism, who say the Bible does not require it, and therefore they are not going to do it.

So on one hand I understand the reasons for the 1689 London Baptist Confession. But I reject the Baptist extreme that rejects baptism as a sign of entering into a family covenanted to Christ, and limits it only to those professing repentance, faith and obedience. I also accept the practice of having children participate in taking the bread and the wine at The Lord’s Supper. But I consider that each family should have discretion to practice baptism and participation in The Lord’s Supper as they see fit, according to their conscience, for their family.

Views on spiritual gifts negotiable

And in our day, some would interpret the first Clause of Article 1 of the Confession as teaching that God’s use of gifts such as prophecy, tongues, words of knowledge and wisdom as being no longer in play today, and that our only means of guidance today is via scholastic study of the scripture, and via the teaching of men trained in such study.

Yet such an interpretation would, again, go beyond the rule of scripture interpreting scripture. By all means, God is not in the business off adding new doctrines to the church. He has provided everything we need to understand his worship and his salvation in the 66 books of the Bible. And yet he speaks and guides us daily in many ways, but always only ever with instruction consistent with the Bible.

To be denominational or not to be denominational

Debates about the understanding of church government, submission to authorities, and the right way to practice baptism, and debates about the use of spiritual gifts in the church, have often been the wedges that have caused the separation of churches, and beginning of new churches. And yet scripture itself cannot be read plainly, on its own terms, with scripture as the only point of reference, to justify separation over these matters.

It is by all means natural for birds of a feather to flock together, especially when facing persecution for holding fast to their convictions. But as we consider the constitution for a new church plant in Stratford in 2026, in Godzone, in the free world, we have no need to fix ourselves to a mould that goes beyond what scripture requires. Rather, we need to remember that unity and reconciliation is at the heart of what the Christian gospel and life is all about, and at the heart of what gathered worship is all about. And so, to draft up the flock into silos that are simply unnecessary and inappropriate for 21^st Century New Zealand would not appear to be an optimal path at all.

In saying that, we need to address that there is an attraction to adopting a confession wholesale, and signing up with an existing denomination, that can’t be ignored. Such a route is attractive because of the authority and support that would be available to guide the work, through that association. It is attractive because the pastors and elders of a congregation would have an authority and tradition they are accountable to.

And yet, a denomination that operates in a way and with an authority that goes beyond what the bible requires, following an errant confession without amendment or exception, may be putting unnecessary stumbling blocks in the way of genuine Christians. Where a denomination imposes unnecessary restrictions, burdens and prohibitions, that go against convictions of conscience that are grounded in the Bible – convictions of of great value spiritually – it appears to me that cost of that support and authority could easily be greater than the benefit.

I am not completely against wholesale confession to a subscription. We do have to live in the real world, here on planet Earth. The existence of Catholics, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Congregationalists, Baptists, Methodists and Pentecostals is no accident. God is sovereign, and all of this is of his designing. But I see the emergence of churches and denominations like CREC in the USA as a sign of the times. There are many ways in which this new way of coming together seems to me to bes clearly fashioned for the 21^st Century.

It seems to me that to seek alignment with an existing denomination before initiating this church plant would actually be to put the cart before the horse. Each tradition has its strengths and its weaknesses. Rather than choosing one and taking a cookie-cutter approach to building church, why not create a platform whereby this new church can work with the convictions of the hearts and consciences that God has already planted in our rich volcanic soils.

Adopting and adapting

It is with this kind of thinking in mind that, instead of proposing wholesale subscription to a Confession or denomination, I am proposing a CREC approach of adopting and adapting. The adopting consists of recognising the richness and breadth of the Westminster Confession. The adapting is to allow discretion in matters of church polity, the place of government authority, whether or not infants are baptised or participate in communion, and the practice of spiritual gifts – so long as these things are guided and bound by what scripture teaches plainly.

A draft of what this could look like as a constitutional document is available for download at this link, here.

My next post and video will be the last of this series ahead of Tuesday’s meeting, addressing other aspects of forming a Constitution, such as:

• providing for church membership and government structures
• commitments that would be required for members
• the establishment of clear processes for conflict resolution and discipline
• avenues for establishing a legal trust or incorporating a society to manage church affairs.

Up next:

Part IV: Other Constitutional Matters