Bart Barber, whom I consider an internet friend[1]
and a biblical Christian, has recently written about “monochurches”.
He also has a well-thought and well-argued chapter[2] on denominationalism in Upon This Rock: a Baptist Understanding of the Church. Nevertheless, I don’t
agree with his conclusions. Reading and interacting at his blog provides the
background for my discussing this here.
Hoping to represent him fairly, I’d say Bart
concludes that denominations are a tertium
quid, a “third thing” which stands somewhere between local church
ministry and parachurch ministry (p. 134).[3] He further concludes that
denominations are both biblical and useful.
Brother Barber addresses the elephant in the room
that is too often assumed or ignored. What makes a denomination? How do we
define it? He ties denominational barriers to the boundaries of ministerial
service and membership (pp. 136-137). I will address denominations in this way.
Denominations for the practical purpose of this blog post are groups such as
the Southern Baptist Convention, American Baptist Churches in the USA, Baptist
Missionary Association of America.[4]
I have no problem with “associations”
and “conventions” as advisory councils. While I wish not to “fight” them, I believe conventions and
associations as continuing organizational entities are neither biblical nor
useful. Unlike councils or presbyteries which meet to conduct business/give
advice[5] and cease to exist, denominational organizations linger on “to
elicit, combine, and direct the energies of the denomination...”
I find three problems with denominationalism as
commonly practiced by modern Baptists.
1. Denominationalism that rejects normative
biblical practice is disobedient (violates orthopraxy).
Here modern Baptists are distinctly deficient, and are weighed and found
wanting. Baptists who once based their practice on New Testament practice now
find the vast majority of New Testament practice to be “descriptive”
rather than “prescriptive.” This is a nice little deflection from
saying they believe their own convolutions are better than those of the
apostles and prophets. “We live in a different world; that won’t work
anymore.” Such a rethinking will eventually rethink Baptists out of
existence, and even already has for a number of them. Are we free to develop
our own organizations any more than our own orthodoxy? That is the question. Is
it of any consequence that there are no national or denomination-wide organizations
in the New Testament? The majority of Baptists seem to have already answered
that is of no consequence – we are free to develop our own methods to suit our
own needs. If so, biblical orthopraxy is of no consequence. But if apostolic
practice is normative, not only our doctrine but also our practice should be
guided by the New Testament. Time and again we read statements such as “so
ordain I in all churches,” “as in all churches of the saints,”
“be ye followers of me,” and “ye ought to follow us.” I
contend that these commands direct us in seeking the old paths of the apostles
and New Testament churches rather than carving out our own.
2. Denominationalism that usurps church authority
is unscriptural (violates orthodoxy).
The autonomy and authority of the local church is a distinct Baptist precept. Let
me hasten to say that there is one sense in which Baptist denominationalism generally
and consistently does not violate church authority. Baptist churches enter
voluntarily into their associations and conventions, and they participate or do
not participate in the part or parts of the denomination each particular local
church chooses. The area in which denominations usurp church authority is that
of taking on themselves the work given the churches. The majority of Baptists
recognize the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20) as a church commission, yet
many of these same Baptists operate within organizations which do the work
themselves (e.g. operate seminaries) or decide who can do it (e.g. elect and
send missionaries). Also at question here is whether churches may delegate the
authority given them by their Lord to another entity for that entity to carry
out. The apostles never organized another entity to carry out the work given to
the churches. If so, why should we?
3. Denominationalism that separates sister
churches is sinful (violates orthokardy).
Denominationalism separates sister churches by artificial means. The tendency
is for members of a particular Baptist denomination (convention, national or
general association) – unless they are highly ecumenical – to view all churches
which are affiliated with their denomination (SBC, for example) as sister
churches and view those outside their denomination not as sister churches. This
inserts a non-biblical third party between churches as a deciding factor in
whether they are of like faith and order. Instead, the biblical faith and practice
of particular local churches ought to be the deciding factor as to whether they
are of like faith and order. If not, we deny the autonomy and independence of
local churches that we profess. Organizations should not artificially divide
God’s churches. Faith and practice not according to the Scriptures should be
the only matter separating churches.
This “tirade” against denominationalism
is not an indictment against cooperation and interdependency of biblical
churches. A scan of the New Testament shows that without any denominational
organizations, autonomous churches operated in the spirit of family, love and
cooperation. Without instant communication, Christians across the Roman Empire
knew about, prayed and cared for one another, and labored in unison of service
and purpose. Much of the so-called independent Baptist movement in the Western
world has turned New Testament Christianity on its head by exalting
isolationism, ignorance and self-confidence above the obvious New Testament
example of autonomous interdependence. On the other hand, churches with tight
denominational connections also fall short of the true New Testament practice
of orthodoxy (right doctrine), orthopraxy (right practice), and orthokardy (right heart). In these
cases the true denominational influence is not a bonded brotherhood but simply
the common use of the same machinery which drives “fraternal” relations. With
Brother Barber, I approve the “cooperative connection among New Testament
congregations.” We just haven’t yet found agreement on exactly how all that
plays out in denominational life. To me it might look something like this:
Ideally – churches of New Testament caliber which move under the direction of the Spirit & the Word and need no organizations to elicit, combine and direct their energies. But we don’t live in an ideal world, and I don’t expect the developments of several centuries to suddenly dissolve into thin air. Yet Baptist churches that take their autonomy, independency and interdependency seriously and that exalt the Saviour first of all might learn to hold His churches in the highest esteem; to regard them not on the basis of affiliation with an organization, but rather affiliation with Christ, His Word, His faith, His practice, and His love.
Let “Back to the Bible” be our cry, as
it was for our forefathers. May all false systems fall before the sword of the
Spirit, the word of God!
Footnotes
[1] Since we’ve not met face to face.
[2] Chapter 6, A Denomination of Churches:
Biblical and Useful
[3] A cooperative ministry of multiple
congregations similar to an ordination presbytery
[4] In the area of taxonomy, I consider these to
be “sub-denominations” of Baptists.
[5] The business of the council is to give
advice.
