Associations of churches (like churches) may go astray. What would be the cause for a church to withdraw from an association? Some have suggested and others predicted a future split in the ABA.
A. J. Kirkland in the book Why Associational Baptists Divided and Other Vital Issues, wrote, "If a Baptist church ...is sound on its doctrine and practice concerning the church ordinances, its letter of dismission or application for membership is honored," (p. 53). He also stated, "Good, sound Baptist churches sometimes identify themselves with groups which have unsound programs. Therefore a church cannot altogether be judged heretical because it associates with the wrong group....A church may be considered wrong in practice to a certain extent without losing its identity as a scriptural church," (Kirkland, p. 53). Another quotes states, "All the churches were commanded to do the same thing at the same time, and, they were to be doing it for a common cause," (Kirkland, p. 50). I might add "do the same thing the same way, according to scriptural commands or principles." When churches are of the same mind, doing the same thing the same way for a common cause it is the nature of a scriptural associated work. When churches do different things, by different ways for different causes, there is no basis for continuing in an association. What is the checkmate reason for withdrawing from an association?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Checkmate is salvation other than by grace through faith. Check, Lord's Supper closed, baptism other than by complete emersion. I'm sure you have a point of reference that you would comsider checkmate other than these obvious reasons. ??
ReplyDeleteFrom my understanding, "the split" in 1950 did not occur because of churches believing different doctrines or not practicing the same thing in the same way. It occurred because people (churches) refused to recognize messengers from other churches which were supportive of an investigation into finances. So basically, the split was due to a lack of respect or recognition of church authority and sovereignty.
ReplyDelete(Someone correct me kindly if I'm mistaken)
I'm just curious...who has suggested or predicted a split in the ABA? And on what basis?
I've heard discussion concerning a future split on basis of KJV, not imminent but seems to be building up steam. I would not call their names without getting permission. I just wondered if anyone else heard it discussed.
ReplyDeleteThe difference of respecting church authority and others that did not respect church authority would be churches believing diffrently and not practicing the sane thing the same way.
I am not promoting a split. My question is, What is THE thing that would cause someone to feel it is necessary to no longer associate with others?
ReplyDeletePride.
ReplyDeleteI guess it depends on what "associate" means. I have heard it said that a church that decides to no longer be a part of the ABA is no longer scriptural or at least gone off into heresy or departing from the faith.
ReplyDeleteThat is silliness and pride among some in the ABA that hold that view. It appears (I may be wrong) that Bro Acker is claiming that pride is what would cause a church or person to quite associational work. Sometimes pride is what keeps some in.
I have just resigned as pastor of a church associated in the ABA in Oregon. I will tell you that at this point I see no reason ever to unite with a church in the ABA ever again. But that is for me. The reason is that there is no unity of belief among the churches in the association.
They all hold to the vague doctrinal statement in the Sunday School curriculum. But there is no unity on "when you are saved" or at least indwelled by the Holy Spirit, what the Word of God is (no two english bibles can be equal), what constitutes scriptural baptism, close vs closed communion, who has the authority to baptize, how to do mission work, calvinism etc.
In the association you are absolutely associating with churches that are of not like faith and practice, no matter which side you are on in these matters.
I have yet to see any good come from associational work. seriously. Not one thing have I seen good. I have seen good churches in associations, but no good results fromt he association as a body.
The two things that I hear that are "good" from folks are
1-promote missions
2-promote sunday school, publications
Both of which are done just fine with landmark baptist churches that are not in associations. These churches still work together in supporting missions and churches. and many of the churches actually have teachers that prepare Sunday School lessons and teach rather than read what the selected men have to say to the classes. By the way, lesson one in Esther was complete rubbish in the quarterly.
I will still support missions sent out by scriptural churches that are in the association. I just choose not to handcuff myself to churches that may not be practicing and beleiving the same as us. That freedom does not exist in the association.
I suppose the only two ways for a church to be separated from associational work is to
ReplyDelete1)leave voluntarily (like Mike)
2)not recognize messengers from churches (which happened to us in 1950)
There have been and will continue to be churches leaving associated work because a pastor leads them to or because they have some issue with what ABA churches generally believe. If people pick an issue, such as KJV only, as a test of fellowship, the two ways of separation will apply
1)voluntarily leave
2)not recognize their messengers at meetings
*Leaving voluntarily seems unnecessary since KJV is used in the overwhelming majority of ABA churches.
*Not recognizing messengers seems to be a violation of church sovereignty (which is why we "split" in 1950)
Associated work has its flaws because people are flawed. But it does much to encourage awareness, cooperation, fellowship, and promotion of the gospel. There will always be some "on the fringe," and they will usually separate themselves in time. Why spend the effort there (fighting for %100 conformity) when there is so much to do with regards to the lost and the spiritual needs of people?
One program that seems very divisive is AWANA. I wonder how many awana churches there are in the ABA?
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't use literature if it used other Bible version quotes in it. I wouldn't use literature if it was unsound. mike in utah stated leaving an association based on heresy is silliness and pride... but if the association began teaching salvation by works, it certainly wouldn't be. We have to draw the line somewhere. If the literature began teaching works for salvation, baptism outside of immersion after salvation, open communion, or that the Lord's coming had already passed, I'd probably stop using the literature and possibly stop associating in that association.
ReplyDeleteAs to what I think might cause a split, I think if the other Bible versions were used in the ABA literature, it would probably cause many churches to leave on the basis of designing their own literature.
Concerning mike's in utah comment about no good coming from association work, I'm afraid I disagree. Many great mission works that could not have been accomplished in the time they were, and many projects that could not have been accomplished in the time they were have been done because of the association. Also, without an association of any kind, finding preachers who believe mostly like your church would be near impossible. Finding churches which believe like you would be difficult (as church names only sometimes represent common beliefs.) Fellowship among the brethren would be far less, and very few seminaries would be funded to the extent they are. These are a few of the reasons associations are important.
I haven't noticed AWANA as a largely divisive issue. Only a select few would stop fellowship over such a small thing, and even then they wouldn't stop all fellowship. They'd just say they did, and then continue to fellowship all the same.
ReplyDeleteI must clarify, i beleive i made the comment that some believe that if a church withdraws from an association, they are guilty of heresy or departing from the faith. That was the mindset I find silly. but it was not clear the way I typed it before. Sorry.
ReplyDeleteNext when I said nothing good coming from associational work, I agree missions are good, but they are accomplished just as well outside of the associational government. unafilliated churches fellowship and fund/support mission work just as well. Also it is very easy to find churches and preachers of like faith, outside of an association. It is actually sometimes shockingly difficult to find men of like faith that you would trust in your pulpit in the association.
I hate seminaries and would never send a preacher to one. But that is a personal opinion. Seminaries are not a baptist idea, but one we have clinged to in order to be more like protestants and catholics who used them to control beliefs for state or old order churches. Men are to be trained in the local churches.
Well, I respect that you have your opinion, but I respectfully disagree with two things. #1 - "just as well outside of association..." since we DON'T have government in our association as it is purely voluntary.
ReplyDelete#2 - "I hate seminaries" as I have gone to one, and they encourage each student to study the Bible in context, and give the students many ways to do so. A seminary simply teaches different methods of study, so that person may study in their own local church.
Also, Paul taught Timothy outside of the local church, as well as he taught Titus and others. Also, most likely, the sons of the prophets was very similar to a seminary. Teaching against seminaries (the elders who have much experience and study helping younger ministers learn some of the lessons they did) is to teach against Scripture. Besides this, there are MANY things multiple preachers can teach that one cannot due to his lack of experience. No one preacher can teach all the things a group of preachers can. It's just a fact. For example, Brother Crain was able to help me learn about ministerial practicalities concerning formal dinners (which very few preachers could teach). Brother Don was able to teach me about timing, which many preachers have no concept of. Still Brother Brown was able to help me understand pastoral counseling better, of which my pastor had no clue at that time and admitted he would not even do counseling b/c he couldn't
ReplyDeleteHow do you believe one pastor in a church can adequately teach a young minister in that church in all the areas he is weak in? And what if a young minister happens to be in a church with a pastor who is out of God's will, and knows very little about the Bible? This isn't a hypothetical situation, it is one of which I know very well. What then? Does the young minister sit under the man who knows very little and teaches even less? No. He goes to seminary, and learns from many Pauls and Barnabases who are willing and apt to teach young Timothys such as himself.
Bro. James, your post above presents a fine argument for why churches should have plurality of elders (which we find in the NT) rather than seminaries (which we do not).
ReplyDeleteTo the original question: one deal-breaker would be when association becomes more than fellowship between churches -- the association begins to conduct business in the name of the churches, such as ownership of things, elects and pays people to conduct business, etc.
I agree in a plurality of elders Brother Vaughn. After all, our church has one. But not all churches can (this isn't always practical) and not all churches will (this is not traditional). So we find ourselves in a predicament. Again, we find Paul training Timothy and Titus outside of local church. We find the sons of the prophets "seminary" learning from a prophet. We also find it natural for a preacher to ask an older preacher for advice or help. Is this not all a seminary really is? Younger preachers asking older preachers to help them learn methods of study and give them life experiences? Finally, this is just a good, practical application. It's common sense.
ReplyDeleteWe find seminaries to be Biblical, logical and practical in this comment.
Funny how things that are right and biblical such as plurality of pastors are dismissed as not practical. But the man made idea of seminary in the NT church is considered to be more practical even though it pulls men away from serving in their church, leaves the pastor absent from his most willing helpers and many times causes young men to come home and be at odds with what his pastor believes and teaches causeing division.
ReplyDeleteIt is now considered no longer practical to start churches the biblical way, which is authorize men to start churches, instead it is more practical to have a mother church over a man in his called field for years and years until the mother church decides he can do what God calls him to do.
It is no longer practical for women to dress modestly in church or otherwise. It is more practical to dress and act as the world, afterall we dont want our women to feel wierd.
Gods way is practical every time. We are the ones who mess it up and think it is not.
I said I agree with a plurality of pastors, but it can't be practical for a church of 3 or 4 elderly on fixed incomes who can't afford to pay multiple pastors.
ReplyDeleteSeminary has NEVER pulled me away from serving in my church.
Now, as to modestly, why don't you look up the definition of that word when it was written in the English language. You'll realize you don't even know what it means. Or if you do know what it means, then you KNOW dress UP is the exact opposite of what it means. It means moderate, not excessive, not boastful or arrogant. It means putting on something between the two extremes, which is further expounded upon in the SAME verse (1 Timothy 2:9), that women are NOT to wear costly array. Dressing up is forbidden in this verse, not commended. SO since this is the Biblical word, and scripture, it is practical indeed. What will you do when you study this out, I wonder? Make an excuse or try to find some way out of what the Bible obviously teaches simply because you've believed a different way? Or perhaps you will come around to see the truth of Scripture and make changes. I don't know, but what I do know is this.
You make assumptions about seminaries based upon what you've been taught or based upon some conclusion you've come to on your own. If you didn't, you'd NEVER claim all seminaries take pastors away from their churches. You'd never claim seminaries set at variance a pastor and church, and you'd NEVER claim you hate seminaries.
I'd like to here note that mike in utah has conceded that seminaries are biblical and scriptural, because after twice bringing them up, he has not refuted the fact that Paul had a sort of training outside of a single church with Timothy and Titus, and the sons of prophets had a seminary type training. By ignoring these scriptures, he shows he cannot refute the facts of the Bible, and he must therefore concede seminaries are Biblical. As he said, if it is Biblical (God's way), it is ALWAYS practical.
Even though your tone has turned to attack mode. I am glad to see we agree on modesty. I never said we are to dress up in fancy clothes, so I am not sure where you came up with that.
ReplyDeleteI believe women should dress in long flowing garments that do not draw attention to the body. So tht would include garments that are plain and not flashy.
(modest apparell)
Now to say that Paul ran a seminary is no accurate. He trained men that he lead to the Lord or happened across during his ministry. But he did not run a school of profit under the guise of teaching men the ministry.
I never said I was against older men teaching. I talk to several older and sometime younger men on a regular basis with the hopes of gleaning knowledge. But it is not a seminary.
JamesCharles wrote: "We also find it natural for a preacher to ask an older preacher for advice or help. Is this not all a seminary really is?"
ReplyDeleteNo. If it were I would have no objection to it. But instead of older preachers just helping younger preachers, seminaries look to the world model and then set up classrooms, fees, degrees, etc. Yes, Paul taught Timothy "outside the local church", if by that you mean taught at times when they were alone; or, that is, when not gathered with the whole assembly. That's no more justification for a seminary than his doing mission work "outside the local church" would be justification to form a mission board.
As far as the sons of the prophets, perhaps you would prefer the "school of the prophets". I think the Living Bible gives it that way!?! Sons of the prophets probably was much like what Paul did with Titus and Timothy, but one certainly has to use his imagination to get from there to a modern seminary.
My original comment about the plurality of elders was probably too cryptic. I think it is quite unusual for churches who generally only have one pastor (or even if more usually only one "teaching pastor"), to use as an argument for seminaries that one pastor in a church cannot adequately teach a young minister in that church. If he can't do that, he surely can't adequately teach the whole membership of the church either. (Which by the way, I would agree with, and think that is part of the NT reason behind plurality of elders.)
mike in utah: "Now to say that Paul ran a seminary is not accurate. He trained men that he led to the Lord or happened across during his ministry. But he did not run a school of profit under the guise of teaching men the ministry."
ReplyDeleteNot all seminaries are schools of profit. I am not attacking, I'm simply speaking boldly (not angrily or violently.) I suppose it cannot be seen via words on a screen. Tones can be read into a writing however the reader feels at the moment, whereas only via vocal communication can the true tone be heard. I assure you I am not attacking you, but rather hoping to reason with you so you will understand the truth.
I'm glad you see the truth that modesty isn't wearing our "best", "nicest" or most expensive clothes. Since you agree that it is whatever does not distract from worship, we are in agreement and you had no need of bringing it up in your comment earlier. We already agree that God's way is the best way.
Concerning Paul running a seminary, while it may not be accurate, he did train up younger preachers who needed help. This is ALL the seminary I attended was.
R. L. Vaughn: Concerning the pastor who can't adequately teach a young preacher not being able to adequately teach the entire church either, this is EXACTLY the kind of situation to which I was referring. It is in this situation that preacher NEEDS a seminary. His pastor isn't worth his salt, and he has no other preachers in this church to help him learn. This is the situation a seminary is most beneficial.
Concerning a "world model", do we not use a "world model" in having "Sunday School classes", Hymn "books", carpet, windows, etc in a church house? There is NOTHING wrong with a world model, so long as it doesn't violate scriptural principles. Some seminaries do not have fees (which LMBIS is now able to offer its courses free of charge, as well as an EXTREMELY cheap rate of apartment rent.) Degrees aren't a negative thing, as they help a minister accomplish more outside of the local church, such as in becoming a chaplain in the armed forces *unless one expects him to go to a secular college only and learn about God from this type of college*. As a matter of fact, a seminary degree is required (if I'm not mistaken) to become a chaplain in most, if not all, branches of the military. This is just one of the places it is beneficial. For example, if a laymen goes to a seminary to learn more about the Bible in a short period of time than he could over a long period years by himself. A pastor may not have time to individually sit down with each church member for hours at a time daily explaining the many methods of study he knows. If he did, he'd basically set up a seminary at church.
Paul's teaching of Timothy outside of the local church is in reference to the fact that they were not members of the same church while Paul was still training him. Titus is the same. The sons of the prophets did indeed learn by the prophets.
ReplyDeleteI suppose I don't know what the issue is with seminaries exactly. Is it using a model set up by the world? If so, let's not use ANY model set up by the world.
If it's doing God's work outside of the local church, let's not do anything that benefits the church outside of the local church. Let's not purchase paint from a non-church owned business. Let's not allow non-church members to build our buildings.
If it's the uniformity of beliefs, you don't have to worry about this at all. I promise you could ask almost EVERY 5th year of the seminary class I just graduated with, and we will all disagree. Why? The seminary does not teach you what to believe. It teaches you different methods of study, so you can study for yourself. It doesn't take you through the whole New Testament and show you every teaching in the NT from the Greek language. It teaches you how to study the Greek language, and therefore study the Bible in it's original languages to add clarity. Our seminary didn't teach us every historical and geographical location in the Bible. It gave us ways of using the geographical positions to our advantage in study.
I was in a position where my pastor (may he draw closer to the Lord daily) knew very little about the Bible, and even less about context. He did not understand the languages at all and terribly messed up what he thought he knew of them. He did not give counseling to the church members, because he said every time he did, it ended up worse. He preached the same few messages over and over again. This was the ONLY preacher in our church. What would you have had me do, in this situation? I was ignorant at the time, and thought this shallow preaching was all there was to the gospel. I didn't even know how to study context, because most of the sermons I heard were out of context. The seminary in my first year opened my eyes to knowing the Bible to be so much more than a book about just salvation, baptism, and dedication to working on the physical properties of the church building. The seminary professors helped me learn MUCH, and I probably disagree more with many things many of the professors believed AFTER having learned how to study than I did before. Before I went to seminary, I took what I was taught and believed it. After attending seminary, I learned the Bible holds the answers and it is my only rule of faith and practice. If it weren't for the teaching, I may or may not have ever learned how to study and therefore, how to preach. God worked through LMBIS to accomplish something great for me, and I'm sure any who have finished it would say the same.
Addressing the original post of this blog, one reason I'd split from the association is if the government began using it to find and hunt down it's members.
ReplyDeleteBrother James, you wrote: "Concerning the pastor who can't adequately teach a young preacher not being able to adequately teach the entire church either, this is EXACTLY the kind of situation to which I was referring. It is in this situation that preacher NEEDS a seminary. His pastor isn't worth his salt, and he has no other preachers in this church to help him learn. This is the situation a seminary is most beneficial." This left me confused. I take this as a condemnation of specific pastors who are unable to teach (kind of like what you refer to later in your own experience). But you initially wrote, "No one preacher can teach all the things a group of preachers can. It's just a fact." I took this as a general statement. That is what I was responding to. I will respond to the other below.
ReplyDeleteYou ask, "Is it using a model set up by the world?" No, it is replacing the model instituted by Jesus Christ with a model instituted by the world. Jesus gave a command to His church (Matt. 28:18-20) to evangelize, baptize, and teach. Obviously those things are not all done in church capacity. But how do we know the way to carry out the commission? Do we make it up as we go, or do we search the Scriptures to find out how the early churches carried out the commission? We search the Scriptures. It becomes apparent that, though there were educational systems existing in that day, that the churches did not look to that pattern to teach the faith delivered to the saints. Rather what they did, if we want to describe it in terms of a "world model", is much more like mentor/ relationship or an apprenticeship.
Concerning some of the other things you write about, it would take some time to address them sufficiently and we are already far afield from the original topic. Suffice it for me to say briefly that I think we have followed a "world model" in many areas, including how much Sunday School is done. Hymn books, carpet, windows, etc. are not an actual "doing" of anything. As for chaplains, I guess when one goes out of the churches and ministers in such an environment; he must follow the rules of that environment as much as he conscientiously can. I don't know whether a seminary degree is required for one to become a chaplain in most, but if so the military has set it self up as a judge in spiritual matters, discriminating against any denominations that do not believe in seminaries. That would seem like a violation of the 1st amendment to me.
Concerning your experience, you ask, "What would you have had me do, in this situation?" Based on my limited knowledge of what you mention, I suppose my first recommendation would have been for you to find another local church (or the church should have found another pastor or pastors). Despite my difference of belief about the practice of seminaries, I can nevertheless rejoice in what you learned there. It is a shame that anyone has to wait till they get there to know how to study the Bible, context, etc.
Concerning your last post: if you wait till the government has started using it to find and hunt down its members, you have probably waited too late!!
As you can see, even when trying I have a hard time saying anything briefly!
I would consider my seminary experience like the mentor relationship. I probably went to each instructor individually when I had problems outside of what was addressed in the classroom, and they were glad to meet with me outside of the school times. I actually believe the seminary experience I had was just that. I voluntarily asked six men for help in understanding the Bible by signing a piece of paper, and they voluntarily aided me.
ReplyDeleteIt is similar to what we do on this blog. We digitally sign a "login" or "username", then we type these long statements to help others understand the Bible, and to learn ourselves. We do so outside of the church. Is this wrong?
If not, what is different between digitally teaching, and verbally? What about seminaries correspondence (hope I spelled that correctly) via tape or disc? What about online courses? These are all similar to the blog, in nature. They are all from a world-model. I believe that the counsel Peter had to clear up was a similar thing. Preachers get together, discuss Biblical issues, and learn from them.
Since I know nothing of the seminary training, or lack thereof, of those commenting brethren who seem a bit opposed to the seminary experience, I can make an observation based only on my interaction with some other brethren.
ReplyDeleteOn several occasions, I have known brethren who were vehemently opposed to seminary training. Their reasons varied from the idea of it being unscriptural to unnecessary.
But I can say that these men are men whose lives would have been turned upside down had they tried to attend seminary. They had established lives, stable families and to a certain degree, financial stability. In order for them to attend seminary they would have to make great sacrifices. Sacrifices they did not feel were worth the benefit.
Seeing other brethren make the sacrifices to attend school, would certainly make one feel a little bit guilty. And we all know when one feels guilt, he will naturally attack the source.
So they formulate attacks. No one in their right mind can find fault with a man desiring to further his study in the word of God. Nor can one find legitimate fault with a church providing an organized curriculum to help God's people study the Word.
I am not accusing any of the commenting brethren of anything. But what I am writing is truth. I know it to be so because I struggled with some of the same guilt before I finished my seminary training.