Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Fellowship With Southern Baptists
When God's people in ABA attend revivals at SBC churches, etc., they bid them god-speed. They sanction their beliefs, practices and encourage them in what they are doing. Every landmarker should thoughtfully and prayerfully consider the need for separation. Those who fellowship with SBC churches uphold their errors and are partakers of their sins. Such participation approves open communion, private communion, alien immersion, clinic baptism, and pulpit affiliation. Such participation endorses women preachers, interpretative dance in worship, different worship behavior (clapping, stomping, etc.), the convention system that lords it over local churches and the use of new (corrupt) Bible versions. Fellowship with SBC does not make them more like us (ABA), it makes us more like them. God forbid.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Bro. Arch Bishop, I do not fellowship with any SBC Churches, But I do know some in our area that I could fellowship with and exchange members ocasionally. They hold to the same scriptural principals as we do. They are usually rural and have conservative Pastors but yet they have SBC on their sign. Marlin Freeman
ReplyDeleteTo help out Brother Bishop, I'm pretty sure he is not referring to all SBC churches. There are SBC churches who left the ABA over the lack of fellowship and Christian attitudes in their local association. These chruches joined the SBC or went independent and hold the exact same beliefs we do in all the above mentioned topics. They may not be attending meetings with or sending money to the SBC. They are SBC in name only, and many of these small country SBC churches have no clue as to what the SBC does. While MOST churches aren't ignorant, some are. I'm pretty sure (please correct me if I'm wrong) Brother Bishop isn't saying ALL SBC churches Brother Marlin, but rather those who believe and/or practice heresies.
ReplyDeleteI'm going to come off as being stupid here, but I need definitions for:
ReplyDeletePrivate communion (Is this where the pastor takes the Lord's supper to the lady at the nursing home?)
Clinic baptism?
That's all I'm having trouble with.
I agree that churches should only associate with churches of like faith and order. I typically don't single out the SBC, as there are problem churches in all ranks. I take each church at its own merit. That being said, you can tell a lot about a person by the company that they keep.
I do think you have to take churches individually - yet at some point they agree to the denominational errors by their support, etc.
ReplyDeletePrivate communion - pastor takes Lord's Supper to shut ins at home or nursing home.
Clinic baptism - pour water on sheet all around sick person.
When you lay down with dogs, you get up with fleas.
WOW!!!!
ReplyDeleteI also believe we have to look at each church individually. BUT, when another church has SBC on the sign I must take that as an open endorsement of their unscriptural practices. I could not ever accept a letter from a church that endorses "sbc" practices and beliefs or an ABA, BMA, IFB church that does accept letters from such a church.
If SBC church A is found to be a "good one", and they accept a member from SBC church B who practices some of the errors mentioned by Archbishop. and Bro Freemans church accepts a member from church A, that makes his church as guilty of endorsing the sins of church B as "B" itself.
Sorry I see no compromising stands on this that would be appropriate.
Same scenario a few steps further.
ReplyDeleteSound SBC church A accepts letters from unsound SBC church B.
ABA 1 church accepts letter from SBC church A.
ABA church 2 accepts letters from ABA church 1 not knowing their letter receiving process.
ABA church 3 receives letters from ABA church 2, who as far as anyone knows, ONLY accepts letters from other ABA churches.
Your church receives a letter from ABA church 3.
According to your logic, you've condoned, supported and put your stamp of approval on undoctrinal practices?
Do we really need to take every member, and trace their letter back to baptism before we accept them? If so, what about those churches that their letter passed through that may be closed down? Or perhaps their baptizing church is closed.
I've run into this scenario where the church baptizing is closed, or the place their letter was at was closed. How do we approach this situation? These aren't just "what if" situations, I've faced some of these. I think we are perhaps leaning a little too far to one side.
Like I said, there are SBC churches who don't participate in, or send money to the convention. They only have their name on the sign. They are usually small elderly country churches who receive very few letters, if any. Many of these people are ignorant, not even knowing their is a various teaching about baptism and letter receiving.
Clinic Baptism is not practiced in the SBC. I mean, there may be one or two fringe churches that practice that, who also associate with the SBC, but that doesn't make the SBC a clinic baptising convention.
ReplyDeleteYou'll probably also find that most SBC churches do not endorse women preachers, and I'm not aware that the SBC officially supports ordaining women preachers (I think the group that supported that withdrew from the SBC, but I could be wrong.) Still, my friends in the SBC don't approve of that.
I think open communion is being practiced more in the SBC, I don't know of the official status of that doctrine though.
I think the SBC policy on baptism is anything that was done by immersion (so I think the alien baptism is a problem in the SBC). I know of an SBC church in Bullard that accepts baptism from Campbellite churches, and one in Rising Star that accepted a baptism from LDS.
I'm sure I'm coming off as some flaming lunatic liberal heretic here, but you can not declare an organization evil because member churches are practicing heresy. (Don't get me wrong, there are things about the SBC that are unscriptural, and I've listed some here).
But you can't say that the SBC ordains women preachers just because some churches do, no more than you can say that the ABA has turned against the KJV because some preachers in the association have turned to the NKJV or NASB.
JamesCharles,
ReplyDeleteI ask the prospective new member about their salvation experience, then I ask about their baptism. Who did it, in what church, why? If I am satisfied that their baptism was done for the right reasons by a scriptural church, I accept them. If they are coming from a heretical work (It is possible to be saved, scripturally baptized, then deceived into joining a heretical church), I take them by statement. If they are coming from a dead church, I take them by statement.
If they are coming from a sound church, I take them by letter.
"When you lay down with dogs, you get up with fleas."
ReplyDeleteAre there any ABA dogs, and, if so, do they have fleas?
(I am not being facetious, just using your terminology. This is a serious question.)
Thanks.
Their profession of faith is the most important thing to consider. If they are truely saved, they should be counseled as to ABA doctrine and practices. The Holy Spirit will work in their heart to reveal to them their need to be baptized. I did not say rebaptized for if the "church" they were dunked at was not scriptural and did not have authority they were not baptized. God will reveal to that person their need to be baptized.
ReplyDeleteIf their profession is true and they want to be obedient to God they won't have a problem being baptized even if they have been baptized before.
If I have doubt I baptize. I have not have one, baptized under these conditions, question being baptized and they have been very faithful for they understand my concern for them being completely right with God.
If a BMA or Southern Baptist church asks an ABA preacher to preach a revival or fill in at their church, is that bidding them Godspeed or sanctioning their beliefs?
ReplyDeleteThere are ABA churches with practices from which you get fleas. It depends on the practices of the church. I personally have never preached for BMA or SBC churches. I always run the baptism back to the church that authorized it. If you don't, you don't really know what you're getting.
ReplyDeleteBaptist Mike in Oregon - would you fill in your profile? Glad to hear from you.
ReplyDeleteBro. Merritt, I agree that there are ABA churches from which one might "get fleas". One ought to "flee" these.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this and also when you say "It depends on the practices of the church." That is why I advocate an approach that is consistent with the Bible doctrine of church independence and autonomy. Each local church must stand or fall on its own merits. If one does not take this approach, then following the logic of this post, being in the ABA endorses and bids Godspeed to the dogs with fleas associating in it.
I am an associational Baptist and believe at present the ABA is closest to Bible truth (recognizing a lot of changes are going on and 1 ABA church to the next may have wide variations). I believe in fellowship in the truth, but have had by necessity to be rather choosy even in the ABA. By church independence and autonomy, I feel I can associate scripturally (where the convention system is extrabiblical and unscriptural by principle) within the ABA.
ReplyDeleteIs "closest" good enough? How "close" must one be in order to associate with them? I don't understand one sentence, please dumb it down for me. "I feel I can associate scripturally (where the convention system is extrabiblical and unscriptural by principle) within the ABA."
ReplyDeleteA profile is now done for me Arch Bishop.
ReplyDeleteBro T,
I liked your post, except the "ABA doctrine and practice" part. It should simply be Bible doctrine and practice. Who cares what the ABA stand happens to be. The churches within its grasp are all over the board in what they believe anyway.
That being said there are many wonderful churches fellowshipping in the ABA and many that are not. But I think you nailed it. We should not be afraid to re-baptize someone who is questionable. We are just too nervous to bring up that subject in fear of driving them away. As you said, if they are doing it for the right reason, to follow Christ, they will do what needs to be done.
The convention system is extrabiblical - unscriptural. The principle of church sovereignty or autonomy is disregarded and denied by a system that elicits, combines and directs (controls) the churche. As long as I feel I can associate scripturally in the ABA, I will continue to do so. The ABA is not perfect, therefore the closest. When the liberal churches get the majority (as reflected by decisions made at ABA messenger meeting) in the ABA, I will have to reconsider my affiliation.
ReplyDeleteBaptist Mike, thanks for the profile.
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying that this is being advocated here, but I have read comments by brethren on other boards which proclaimed that there churches did not openly associate with the ABA (though their churches are listed in the book), nor did they participate in associational business because the ABA had gotten too liberal. This attitude is almost cultish, IMO.
ReplyDeleteI want to caution you not to make so many things a test of fellowship that you isolate yourselves from the rest of God's people. However, the issues listed in the original post were good tests of fellowship.
When does a Church cease to be a Church in the Lord's eyes?
ReplyDeleteCorinth MBC, you know the one Paul wrote to, had alot of problems. They were wrong on Baptism and the Lord's Supper but the letter is addressed to the Church at Corinth.
I personally would not exchange letters with some baptist churches but can you make a blanket claim against one group or even one Church that fellowships with such a group?
Would you have exchanged letters with Corinth MBC?
I agree, Big J. Take them one by one. I am actively associational and have been for all my ministry. We are very careful with whom we exchange letters. Good comments, Big J.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the difference between association and exchanging letters, and can we associate with those whom we feel we cannot exchange letters? If so, we can actively associate with Catholics as well as ABA churches we don't exchange letters, for we feel both are not true churches. If you feel an ABA church is a true church, you should not hesitate to exchange letters.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Big J and Arch Bishop. It is definitely a church by church basis.
ReplyDeleteI do have a question. I agree that the Lord acknowledged Corinth as a "scriptural" church. But one thing i have considered is the time the letter was written. At that time they still saw in part and were getting instruction through letters etc in peices. Today there is absolutely zero excuses as we now have the full Word of God at our disposal. Corinth did not have that and were learning as they went, so to speak. There is not one true church with that excuse today. The problems Corinth had can not be tolerated in NT churches today, without openly and publicly endorsing sin. It appears that they were given a time to repent as they were convicted of their crimes against God. As were the churches in Asia, again at the time when they had portions of scripture at their disposal. We have no new revelation today. It is complete and available. When we accept these (unscriptural) things we do it openly before God with all of the information before us. Maybe a church loses authority at the moment she accepts ungodly practices as church doctrine. Maybe not, I dont know, but it is a question I have pondered. Do we have a space for repentance when we know the whole truth before hand?
You cannot associate or fellowship with a church you would not exchange letters with. When you associate/fellowship a church you are acknowledging that church as of like faith and practice.
ReplyDeleteI see know difference between association and exchanging letters.
There are churches with the excuse of not having the entire Word of God available to them, in today's time. Many only have the New Testament or the book of John translated into their language, and have no current way of learning another language to receive the rest of the books as a church. I'm not disagreeing with the rest of the post, just letting you know. :-p
ReplyDeleteAs to the question about association, it seems like through his comments here, Brother Bishop said he could associate with unscriptural churches in the ABA, just not exchange letters. If I'm wrong, please correct me. :0D
The following exist in varying degrees in churches in the ABA -- open communion, alien immersion, pulpit affiliation, different worship behavior (clapping, stomping, etc.), and the use of new (corrupt) Bible versions.
ReplyDeleteBased on the Articles under which the ABA operate, the association is the churches, and by being a member you are alleging joint cooperation with every other church that is a member. To me that seems to be as great or greater a case of bidding godspeed than attending a revival at an SBC church.
Articles of Agreement of the American Baptist Association
Article III says, "This Association shall be composed of regular Missionary Baptist churches."
Article IV says, "This Association is the joint cooperation of the churches composing it."
I have to agree with Bro. Archbishop's post.
ReplyDeleteI believe we have to and should investigate each church when we exchange letters to see what that church believes and practices.
We need to be very careful to not compromise our doctrinal position.
We should, at least, request that they reveal to us what they believe about the Doctrine of Salvation by Grace, Security of the Believer, the Royal Priesthood of Believers (see 1 Peter 2), Baptism, and the Lord's Supper. These things (along with Baptist perpetuity {Mat 16:18}) are paramount and the basis of Landmark Baptist Doctrine and pretty much determine much of the other doctrines (the 21 statements) that has been adopted by the ABA and also by our church here in Gillette.
Here in Wyoming there are only three Churches that fellowship in the ABA. To my knowledge they are the only ones from which we will exchange letters. And if we will not exchange letters, we have no scriptural grounds to fellowship with a church otherwise. When we do we are compromising the truth of the Word of God. (This is not to say that we will not exchange letters with true Churches that do not fellowship in the ABA if they prove to be true.)
On an individual basis (believer to believer) we can fellowship with those who profess Christ as their personal Savior as to the doctrine in which that are correct. But even here we need to be very careful.
Bro. Archbishop said,
"When God's people in ABA attend revivals at SBC churches, etc., they bid them god-speed."
This is so true, God help us not to do this.
Bro. Archbishop said,
"Those who fellowship with SBC churches uphold their errors and are partakers of their sins. ... Fellowship with SBC does not make them more like us (ABA), it makes us more like them."
I would echo this also.
There may be some Landmark Baptist Churches in the SBC in the South; but I have not found any in the West and none in Wyoming, at least in our immediate area. (Again, that is not to say that there are none. Even so, we must be careful and be separate most if not all of the time.)
jll2
Gillette, WY
You all need to realize that there are still plenty of Landmark Southern Baptist churches left in the SBC. As a matter of fact there are Southern Baptist pastors and churches that are just as landmark as anyone in the ABA.
ReplyDeleteAlso this idea that Southern Baptist Convention lords over its just is just flat wrong! I have pastored Southern Baptist churches for over ten years now and not once has the SBC forced my church to do anything.
Come over and check out my website and learn about Landmark Southern Baptists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LandmarkSouthernBaptist/
I do not associate or exchange letters with some ABA churches. It has been correctly stated that there are ABA churches with a wide variety of beliefs and practices. At the natinoal meeting, or at any scriptural association, no church has any control over any other church that chooses to represent (that is local church sovereignty). Scriptural church association has always been whoever wanted to hang their hat with us. Rather than infringe on local church sovereignty or render the associational unscriptural, we know for a time some will represent in the assocoation that realize sooner or later they are not like us and they move on. I did not say I could assocoiate with unscriptueral churches in the ABA.
ReplyDeleteJust curious, is there anything in the ABA stating in order to be a member, you have to agree to the 21 doctrinal statements? If not, should there be? If so, what should the association do about those churches who are members of the ABA, yet disagree, practice and teach against some of the 21 (such as closed communion, premillenial return of Christ, etc.)?
ReplyDeleteA church is not required to believe the ABA doctrinal statement to be a member. This is referred to as "freedom of association." The only pre-requisite to being in the ABA is representing by letter or messenger to the national meeting.
ReplyDeleteYou'll find that many brethren will fight to keep it that way as well. Back in the late 40s, some brethren in the Texas state work (then known as the Baptist Missionary Association of Texas), decided it would be a good idea to pass an article that would allow the messenger body to refuse to seat messengers from a church that was deemed "irregular." That led to one particular church's messengers being refused seats at a meeting in 1949, not because the church had abandoned solid doctrine, but because the pastor (Dr. Albert Garner) had become openly critical of the actions of the state president (namely, diverting funds donated to Jacksonville College to the Baptist Progress newspaper.)
Anyway, this led to an uproar in the 1949 BMAT meeting which resulted in a number of churches' messengers walking out, going to a local church, and forming the Missionary Baptist Association of Texas (which is now the state association in Texas whose churches associate with the ABA.)
That split set the stage for the 1950 split of the ABA national association... however, this time it was the BMA that was walking out, not vise versa.
Two books will bring you up to speed on this. (1) From a Cabin to a Castle by Dr. Albert Garner and (2) Why Associational Baptists Split by Dr. A. J. Kirkland. Both are available by calling Texas Baptist Institute.
BTW, I believe a church SHOULD believe the doctrinal statement to associate with the ABA... to do so otherwise would violate a church's integrity. Why would you join something that you don't agree with?
ReplyDeleteAlso, if my history on this subject is inaccurate, I don't mind being presented with correct info.
Well, if churches practice open communion or other things, but associate, I think they should not be allowed to. After all, if you can believe in contradiction to the ABA doctrinal statement, then the majority of catholic "churches" could join, and by vote, overtake the ABA and it's money. It sound EXACTLY like what some catholic churches have done according to history. I'm not trying to pick on catholics, ANY church that doesn't agree to the 21 shouldn't be allowed by the association to associate. I'm not referring to "anything" deemed irregular, just the 21 which the association should be formed around. Also, I might add KJV, since the ABA curriculum on the ABA website says "Always Fundamental, Always King James"
ReplyDeleteJust to clarify, I didn't mean KJV only. I mean any Textus Receptus / Masoretic Text and static translation thereof. After all, we don't consider the new perversions God's Word any more than the Koran, so if we wouldn't let an islamic "church" join the ABA (or would we?) Why would we let a church join which doesn't use God's Word?
ReplyDeleteOn the local level, a church presents a petitionary letter stating a desire to associate (usually based on same beliefs). The messengers vote to seat the messengers if they desire. They may not accept a church (usually based on beliefs). On the national level, the ABA follows freedom of association. They aren't voted in and they can't be voted out. To do differently is to practice like the BMA (formerly NABA) and form a credentials committee that is more powerful than the church that sends the messengers because tthe committee can refuse to seat them. A scriptural association that does not violate church sovereignty is worth having - an organizatin that is not scriptural association is not worth having. Some represent with the ABA in hopes of getting support for missionaries, etc. If there is a takeover by a group of churches that begin making wrong decisions, then true and sound churches withdraw and start a new association. IMO, there is no danger of Catholics associating in the ABA.
ReplyDeleteWhy is it a violation of church sovereignty on the national level to require petitionary letters, but not on the local level? How can a local association observe freedom of association if they vote to seat messengers? Why is it OK for an ABA local association, but not for the BMAA?
ReplyDeleteI don't think this has been thought through sufficiently.
Our local association, the Shelby County Association of Missionary Baptist Churches does NOT vote to seat messengers because we believe in the freedom to associate principle mentioned above.
ReplyDeleteI inquired aboiut this and a brother stated that the cream rises to the top...those unscriptural Churches will be found out and we as individual churches can mark the laborers there and choose not to allow them to preach from our pulpits.
Big J, you are correct about that. It is also true concerning the Mt. Zion Association and probably others. Both Mt. Zion and Shelby County used to require a petitionary letter. East Texas local associations historically voted to accept or reject churches, but some, when they were in a position to do so, changed their articles to match watch they were teaching.
ReplyDeleteWhat Arch Bishop mentions is still true of some local associations -- The association messengers vote to seat the petitioning church's messengers, and they may or may not accept a church (usually based on beliefs). A few ABA-related associations even require that the messengers be members of the churches they represent. The huge inconsistency here seems to be the idea that it makes the BMAA unscriptural but somehow doesn't for certain ABA-related associations. I don't get that.
Many local associations recognize freedom of association and do not vote to seat messengers. Shelby, Mt. Zion and the Anderson County Associations do not vote to seat messengers, to my knowledge. I don't think the Southwest Assoc. does either.
ReplyDeleteThe practice of voting to seat messengers on the local level stems from the fact that many of the local associations have roots that go back to the convention in the late 1800s. When the Landmark churches began coming out of the convention, they reconstituted their local associations, basically adopted the same by-laws and practices without really considering them, and thus the "voting to seat messenger" policy just became a holdover from the convention days. Few realize why they do it. It's jsut "always been done this way."
The rule that messengers must be members of the church they represent rule became popular during times of controversy, as seminary students would circuit preach at country churches and represent one of those churches at the meeting, but actually be a member of Antioch Baptist Church of Little Rock or First Baptist Church of Jacksonville, or any other church that was home to seminary students. The underlying accusation was that Bro. Bogard, or Bro. Keller, or any other such leader was padding the votes by getting their students recognized as messengers. I'm not saying they did, I'm just saying what was said.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the church has the authority to designate whosoever they want to as their representative.
So, basically the inconsistencies are historical kinks that have not been worked out, yet.
ReplyDeleteFreedom of association is often used as the sine qua non (without which it could not be) of scriptural associations. I believe it was Ben Bogard who originated the "whoever wants to hang their hat with us "expression. Ray O. Brooks, in "Scriptural Church Association" (A. J. Kirkland Memorial Lectures, Dec. 1983 & his class at TBI), teaches "scriptural church association requires voluntary association", in which he teaches the same as Bro. Bogard -- freedom of association means an association cannot vote to allow or disallow a church. What about the freedom of association of the churches that are already associating. Why is one church free to choose to associate regardless, while the others must acquiesce?
ReplyDeleteTo bring it out in a different way, let's consider this example. Five free autonomous Baptist preachers -- ArchBishop, Younglandmarker, JamesCharles, Leland Acker and Baptist Mike In Oregon are freely fellowshipping with one another. They believe the same articles of faith and everything is going fine. But then another free autonomous Baptist preacher, persona non grata Rlvaughn, comes up and insists that they must fellowship with him. He denies one or two of their articles of faith, but insists they must fellowship with him or they will be violating his freedom of association -- he is free and autonomous and they cannot violate that. Nonsense. Of course they can. They are free and autonomous too, and they can choose to fellowship with him or not. Most would agree with this concerning personal freedom. Why are we not willing to accept this concerning church freedom?
Perhaps this rolls along fine as long as ArchBishop, Younglandmarker, JamesCharles, Leland Acker and Baptist Mike In Oregon -- all five -- agree that they don't want to fellowship Rlvaughn. But where the rub often comes in associations is when ArchBishop, Younglandmarker, and JamesCharles agree that they don't want to fellowship Rlvaughn, but Leland Acker and Baptist Mike In Oregon have second thoughts. Maybe we could fellowship him.?. So how to resolve this without stomping on someone's freedom of association? Leland Acker and Baptist Mike shouldn't be able to force ArchBishop, Younglandmarker, and JamesCharles to fellowship with Rlvaughn, should they? Of course not. This is how we resolve it: Autonomous ArchBishop, Younglandmarker, and JamesCharles decide they will not fellowship Rlvaughn and anyone who fellowships with him. Autonomous Leland Acker and Baptist Mike have a decision to make. Perhaps Leland Acker autonomously decides that, though he wouldn't mind fellowshipping with Rlvaughn, he will not jeopardize his fellowship with ArchBishop, Younglandmarker, and JamesCharles. On the other hand, Baptist Mike In Oregon might autonomously decide he will fellowship Rlvaughn and forego the fellowship with ArchBishop, Younglandmarker, and JamesCharles. Everyone of the five has remained free and autonomous. If not, why not?
But what about Rlvaughn's freedom? What about my freedom of association? Was my freedom not violated because they five were not forced to fellowship with me? Of course not! Fellowship is a two way street. It must be agreed on by both parties. If not why not? My freedom ends where yours begins.
Church fellowship/association is also a two way street. It must be agreed on by both parties. If not, it is not "fellowship". It is not "association".
Bro. Acker, most Texas local associations probably don't vote to seat messengers. I haven't looked at all of them, but that would be my guess. Bro. Brooks and TBI has been influential in this regard. I remember when Mt. Zion adopted the new articles of agreement and disposed of the old "constitution". Most followed Bro. Brooks in this.* Two churches voted against it, one being the one I was a member of under the leadership of Bro. J. W. Griffith. One of Bro. Griffith's objections was the nature of association, including seating of messengers.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't agree with the historical representation that voting to seat messengers goes back to roots in the convention. Associations had rules to seat messengers long before there was any Convention. Of course, most of our East Texas Associations are not older than the convention, but in other places many of them are.
In regard to "historical kinks", I guess we could say that. In essence the majority has changed their mind. As far as not being worked out yet, I think that some of the minority associations are perfectly happy with their voting to seat messengers and/or requiring messengers be members of the churches they represent and have no interest in working them out.
*I don't mean they were just mindless followers, but he was leading the charge.
[BTW, I prefer the church designating whomever they want to as her representatives. But I view agreeing to send only members as no more a violation of church autonomy than agreeing to send only three messengers or any other thing a church agrees to in order to associate with other churches. If it is not unscriptural and they agree to it, how is their autonomy violated?]
Bro. R. L. Vaughn,
ReplyDeleteI have one question. If we have the right to associate those of like faith and order, what about the right to disassociate with those of unlike faith and order.
jll2
Gillette, WY
Yes, Bro. Looney. Those two things are the front and back side of the same coin, in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteBro. R. L. Vaughn,
ReplyDeleteIf they are the front and the back side of the same coin (and really I agree), then why should not messenger bodies have the right to vote on seating messengers from a church that clearly is not in agreement with the doctrinal statement of the messenger body
jll2
Gillette, WY
I think the disagreement over the seating of messengers is not over church autonomy (or independence) but over church sovereignty. A messenger body cannot tell a church what to do. I propose two possible solutions to this dilemma: one, refer the matter back to the churches to declare nonfellowhship with the irregular church rather than saying that the irregular church is out of the ABA; or, two, if a church practices, say, open communion, alien immersion, or pulpit affiliation, then a church or group of churches could propose a resolution that censures such a church without excluding such. The resolution would be a workable compromise between those in favor of excluding such a church and those who believe that exclusion violates church sovereignty in association. Something must be done because if you allow an irregular church to fellowship, then you go against everything we stand for. 1) You violate the freedoms of scriptural churches, and 2) The Bible clearly teaches that we should be separate people. The 21 statements are clear teachings of God's Word and not our preferences.
ReplyDeleteBig J,
If you remember in Shelby Co., although I'm sure it is just a formality, a church that wishes to join the association does bring a petitionary letter. We did that when Bro. Fausto's church at Gethsemani organized as a church.
Bro. Vaughn,
I would like to know to what degree you see things such as alien immersion, open communion, etc. being practiced in the ABA. I only know firsthand of 5 churches that practice either. I know that many are turning liberal in their worship and use of other Bible versions.
Bro. Acker,
I think that the comment you made on some brethren being "cultish" was a little over the top. One particular brother that frequently comments here and is one of the admins. on the other board seems to be very sound to me.
Let me clarify a few things about my comment. I hold church independence and church soverignty very dear. I believe that churches needed to be protected against being unjustly accused,that freedom of speech to criticize association officers, and right to send the support for their missionary directly to him and not through the office of Sec.-Tres. is a foundational doctrine. When I say exclusion or censure, I am talking only about irregularity in fundamental Bible doctrine.
ReplyDeleteBrother Looney, you asked, "If they are the front and the back side of the same coin (and really I agree), then why should not messenger bodies have the right to vote on seating messengers from a church that clearly is not in agreement with the doctrinal statement of the messenger body?"
ReplyDeleteI think they should have the right, if one is going to the trouble to have a messenger assembly. If I gave the impression they should not, I apologize. Of course, my ultimate preference is for churches to not go to the extent of having something churches are "members" of.
Brother Melton, you said, "I would like to know to what degree you see things such as alien immersion, open communion, etc. being practiced in the ABA." I don't know to what degree. And some of it is subjective -- for example, some believe that close communion is open communion, receiving any SBC baptism is alien baptism, etc. But I would say that what I would consider open communion, alien immersion, and pulpit affiliation is relatively minor in extent, to my knowledge. The different worship behavior and the use of new Bible versions would be much more than the first three, IMO. The point I meant above though, is not based on how much it is going on, but the fact that it is going on. By the very nature of the Articles of Agreement of the ABA, a church is at least tacitly claiming "joint cooperation" with ALL the churches in the ABA.
One trademark of cult movements is the teaching that their assembly/denomination is the only assembly/denomination going to Heaven. You can point to almost any cult and see this teaching.
ReplyDeleteWhen a church, or pastor, believes and teaches that the ABA (as it stands now) has gone too liberal and has turned away from God's Word, then that pastor or church is on the verge of starting or becoming a cult. There is no other association on Earth, in my assessment, that is more committed to God's Word, preaching God's Word, practicing God's Word, and obeying God's commandments than the American Baptist Association, and, on the state level in Texas (not including state associations outside of Texas), the Missionary Baptist Association of Texas.
So, you may feel that my comments are over the top. I stand behind my comments and applaud the churches of the ABA, and gladly fellowship and associate with them.
I'm sorry to keep posting, but I really want to clarify my last statement about associations. I am not comparing the MBA of Texas to, say, the Louisiana state association, or the Arkansas state association. When I say that the MBA of Texas is the most committed state association in Texas to God's Word, I am comparing it to other state associations located within the state of Texas (which don't affiliate with the ABA).
ReplyDeleteAnd I'm not saying anyone here is starting a cult. I'm just warning against unnecessarily isolation.
I just want to make a final statement. Association has nothing to do with church autonomy or sovereignty. An association is purely on voluntary basis. You can, without violating a single right of an individual church, create agreements whereby a church may voluntarily join the association. If they disagree or at any time cease to agree, they have voluntarily removed themselves from the association based upon their agreement in the beginning.
ReplyDeleteAnother example. EVERY single individual who joins a church does so based upon the church covenant, and agreement they make. The church, hopefully, does not EVER practice taking away rights or freedoms, but allows every individual church member to do as they please. When a church member, however, chooses to commit public sin, a church usually tries to bring the person back into fellowship with the Lord. If that person refuses, however, they will generally be excluded. This is biblical. The church has in NO WAY taken away any freedom or right from the individual. It has simply enforced the covenant or agreement made upon joining the church.
I do NOT like the idea of sending money to the ABA, which is in turn sent out to heretics and men who don't use the Bible. I think every church should voluntary join or remain in the ABA by the 21 doctrines. If those doctrines aren't important or tests of fellowship, or what separate us from other denominations, let's stop using them altogether.
Is the ABA sending money to heretics and men who don't use the Bible? That's news to me.
ReplyDeleteThe churches of the Lord can accomplish a great number of things if they work together. If you're not going to support the missions and ministries of the association, then why associate?
Many advocate direct missions support in view of some endorsed for salary that they would not like to support. Another method would be to designate offerings for which salaried interstate missionaries you would be willing to support. "Don't use the Bible" probably refers to those who use something other than the KJV, if I understand them correctly. When a missionary is discovered to teach heresy, he is questioned - if the questions are answered to the satisfaction of the messengers that he is a heretic, he is no longer considered on the list of missionaries recommended for salary support. It is important that those with the knowledge bring it up so it may be dealt with (preferably at the 60 day Miss. Comm. MTG previous to the messenger meeting, so some of the questions may be satisfied and that the missionary and his sponsoring church may be aware there are questions).
ReplyDeleteI believe an association should be a group of churches who agree with one another.
ReplyDeleteYes indeed there are missionaries who are heretics, and those who don't use God's Word.
An association should be made up of those who agree together, so you CAN work together to support a great number of things, as you put it. I do not believe, however, I can support men and ministries which do not believe the same major and primary doctrines as I do. If that were the case, I could just "associate" and send money to the Catholics.
I believe those heretics whom money is sent to in the ABA include those who believe in "repeat after me" salvation prayers, which need no faith. This contradicts Doctrinal Statement #14. I HAVE known at least one missionary personally and I am not naive enough to believe there aren't others who practice this.
Other ABA false teachings among missions on support include universal church (open communion, alien immersion, etc.) which is in direct contradiction not only with our mission policy, but also with Doctrinal Statements #17 and 18.
Also, I have known at least one missionary who believed and preached to the mission that salvation isn't salvation. He taught that salvation + works were necessary to have eternal life, and anyone who did not live a Christian life would instead have eternal separation from God, never to see Jesus. This contradicts doctrinal statement #15.
Still other missionaries may not believe the Genesis account of creation contradicting Doctrinal Statement #4.
I've known at least one missionary who taught that miracles and spiritual gifts still exist, in contradiction with Doctrinal Statement #9.
Finally, I've recently been informed many ABA preachers (I'm not sure about missionaries) buy into an Amillenial view of the rapture, which is direct contradiction of the Doctrinal statement #13.
So please don't misunderstand me, I believe in supporting missions, and I believe an association can help you find missions who generally agree with you, and so you can contact them to find out how much or how little. I just don't believe it is right to give money to the ABA, and the ABA sends it to men who believe in deceiving people into thinking they are saved by repeat after me prayers, teaching them to observe universal church with open and close communion, teaching works for salvation (basically) and above all, preaching out of perversions of God's Word which take away the truth of salvation, Jesus being God, and lessen the awareness of sin such as homosexuality by changing it to "homosexual prostitution" being sin.
None of this is a shot at you, as I don't know what all you believe and teach. I assume (since you are in the ABA), you believe the same on the major doctrines as I do. The problem comes in when there are so many who disagree with the same major doctrines, casting doubt on all missions. As to supporting mission in the ABA, our church does indeed. We just use the ABA as a tool to find the ones who are doctrinally sound, and then support them ourselves.
As to the Bible Versions, as always, let me clarify. KJV isn't the only word of God. The TR, MT, KJV and ANY other formal equivalence translation of the TR and MT are God's Words.
ReplyDeleteI take nothing personal, as nothing you discuss describes me. Any missionary who does not believe the 21 doctrinal statements should not be on associational support, on that, we agree.
ReplyDeleteHowever, having an associational support structure in place (as it exists now) is essential to enabling missionaries to get to their respective fields in a timely manner.
My average supporter sends in $75/month. (Some send in way more, some send in a little less. I'm thankful for all of it!)
To raise the support to fully fund a missionary, depending on the field, it could take as many as 60 churches supporting that missionary. That missionary will have to spend a mimimun of 20 weeks on deputation, possibly more (because not every church you visit on deputation will support you). 60 Churches? I think I have, like, 15-18, not including the entire association through the MBA of Texas.
With associational support, a missionary can spend just a few weeks on deputation, to both gain some financial support and prayer support, get approved for mission support at the messenger meeting, and get on onto the field. Without that associational support structure, that missionary may spend 9-18 months on deputation.
If that missionary does not believe or practice all 21 points of doctrine, he should be voted off.
Of course, we have to be careful that we do not define those doctrines so narrowly that we vote off men who actually believe them. A man who is accused of teaching "repeat after me" prayer may be doing no more than explaining the way of Salvation, then explaining what a person should ask God for when petitioning for salvation. It might not be easy-believism after all.
In scriptural assocation class, our instructor showed us articles of agreements of many associations. Many of these articles contained the words "regular Missionary Baptist Churches."
The instructor told of a class where he asked, "What is a regular Missionary Baptist Church?" One student replied, "One that believes like I do." This is the definition for many Missionary Baptists. It is possible (as we see evident on these and other boards) to differ from other Missionary Baptists, but still believe and uphold the doctrinal statement, and still be in God's will in our approaches.
Let's remember the MANY things we have in common, and not look for things that set us apart from each other. If we do this, our fellowship will grow, IN TRUTH, and we'll be able to accomplish even more than we are now in the Lord.
Well, I think we agree Brother Leland. The missionary I knew of, btw, did indeed practice repeat after me prayer. Not from the pulpit, but on a personal one-on-one basis. I know, personally, because I was a recipient at a young age of this type of "leading". Twofold more the child of Hell than I had been before, and much more difficult for me to admit it to others once I had accepted Jesus, in fear of being labeled a liar and hypocrite. It took a couple of years to admit I'd been saved. Instead of the joy that usually acompanies salvation for many months (or so I've been told) and witnessing that follows it, instead I hid in shame having only joy over my soul, but not sharing it with any other.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I think we agree 100%
Whatever association or convention, easy believism has permeated almost all Baptists ranks - repeat after me, hold up your hand if you want to be saved, stand up if you love Jesus and many other variations.
ReplyDeleteBro Acker,
ReplyDeleteYou mentioned the need for Associational support as being essential to getting a man in the field in a timely manner. Also you mentioned visiting many churches on deputation. Is there scripture for that belief?
What happened to just going where you are lead to go? Money should not stop us from doing God's will. If we are called to a place, He will supply.
When I went to Utah. I moved there about 30 days after I made my announcement to my sending church that the Lord wanted me there. I had their authority (no finances promised). Visited the nearby churches during that one month and was on the field with no support, no job etc. My sending church wanted me to be a full time missionary with no secular job. So my family lived off the little savings we had. At the time my savings was gone. We had full support and there was no need for secular work.
I know another preacher that did it the same. Walked out in faith, relying on Gods promise to provide for him and his family. He visited just a handful of churches in a short time and was on the field doing the work. Rather than wasting time and money travelling telling people about the work he wanted to do.
The biblical examples seem to be you are called and you run thither.
I also read in the scripture where the church at Antioch prayed and FASTED... which is something I bet few Baptist churches practice.
ReplyDeleteNot having a life savings to rely upon, deputation was the practical thing for my mission work. We raised enough money to supply our needs until state salary kicked in (with the help of my secular employment). As a result, several churches were encouraged, many supported us, and as a result, we have wanted nothing.
What I do read in the scriptures is the actions of churches sending messengers to a meeting (Jerusalem Council) to clarify doctrinal issues, and churches working together to support a church that is struggling financially (the collection for the poor saints at Jerusalem). This, my brother, is association, and our churches need more of this to grow stronger.
Now if you wish to continue to judge my faith and scripturality, feel free. In spite of my "short comings," God will establish His church in Brownwood, TX.
I was not trying to judge you particulary. So please forgive me if it came off that way. It was a comment on ways things are done. The way I did it is anecdotal I know. It was put in as an example.
ReplyDeleteMy main concern was words like "essential" and in your last post you said "and our churches need more of this to grow stronger."
Neither is true. Many churches do these things in and out of the associational structure.
Churches continue to work together, have great fellowship, and support eachother in missions with and without "associational" involvement. Associational work is not the easiest and best way, it is simply another way. That was what I was trying to get at.
Yes, I pastor a church that associates within the Oregon State Association. I hope all the churches within the association flourish. I will attend the association meetings as the church here requests. But I cannot take part in voting on matters with folks that are not of the body in which I am a member.
You're not voting on anything that is a matter of the body of which you are a member. The association does not vote to make missionaries official, neither do they vote to send missionaries. They vote on whether to send funds to the missionaries that have been sent out by the churches of their membership. Without a sending church, the missionary's request doesn't even make it to the floor.
ReplyDeleteAnd associations to aid and strengthen churches. Did not the Jerusalem Council strengthen the churches in Acts by providing doctrinal clarity, and did it not raise awareness of missions among the Gentiles? Were not the churches strengthened and encourged by this?
What about the cannonization of scripture? Was it not an "associational meeting" where the churches compiled which of Paul's epistles, which Gospels and so on, would comprise the New Testament? Where would we be without that?
To the best of my knowledge there was no canonization meeting of true churches - the true churches used the good manuscripts and refused to use the bad ones.
ReplyDeleteYou're right. I went back and looked up what I thought I was referencing and discovered that my statement about the canonization meeting was in error. Thanks for pointing that out.
ReplyDelete