Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Is the ABA Becoming A Big Tent?

The idea for this post comes from a recent article series in The Baptist Monitor on "What is the ABA?" In Robert Ashcraft's contribution, under the heading, Doctrinal Identity, he opened like this: "Some brethren rear back and proclaim that ABA churches are closer to the New Testament than any other churches. Although some will not accept baptism administered by a church affiliated with the SBC, we have others who will receive just about any baptism, so long as it is immersion after salvation."

It seems today that we are losing our emphasis on doctrinal issues. More are calling for less of a focus on doctrine and more on evangelism. However, we need to focus on both. This seems to mirror the trend in politics and wider society away from moral issues and more emphasis on fiscal policy and the role of government in our lives. In political terms, many want the Republican party to become more of a "big tent": embracing more divergent, liberal views in order that it might win back control of Congress.

Is this what the Bible teaches? It seems that it is much more narrow: "Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few be there that find it." (Matthew 7:14) The Lord Jesus Christ said in John 14:6: "...I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." While these Scriptures primarily refer to Jesus being exclusively the Way of salvation, in a secondary sense Biblical truth is also narrow and exclusive and not all-embracing. While many are not leaving the truth, it seems that there is a cry to not "major on the minors." The "minors" in my perspective always seems to be in areas where there is not a clear, ABA consensus. Issues such as: Bible translations (which is an issue of the Word of God) and what liquid element is to be used in the Lord's Supper (which virtually none would dare consider using leavened bread because it would picture sin in the Lord's body but would use wine which is as the leavened bread, fermented)are two of the main issues that fall under this category. It seems we as an association are willing to do anything to avoid divisive controversy. While this should not be our goal (Ephesians 4:12-15), sometimes divide becomes necessary and inevitable. (1 Corinthians 5:6; 11:19)

Now to the point of my reference to the article: are churches that want to stand separate from false doctrine forced by our belief in church sovereignty to fellowship with those who receive alien immersion (not the only false doctrine or practice prevalent today but the one being used for an example for this post)? The ABA by its very definition is a fellowship (albeit in limited sense with many churches). When a church identifies itself to be ABA, they are in fellowship with others who identify themselves as such. According to our Articles of Agreement, under ARTICLE III-MEMBERS, Section 1 reads: "This Association shall be composed of regular Missionary Baptist churches." Contrary to what is commonly taught, the ABA is something a church is a member of by the very definition of the word "composed".

Alien immersion is one of the most liberal practices that a church calling itself Baptist can have outside of teaching a works plan of salvation. Again, we tenaciously hold to the idea that churches are sovereign not only in their internal affairs (autonomous) but the highest authority in associational matters. #20 of our ABA Doctrinal Statement affirms this: "
We believe that all associations, fellowships, and committees are, and properly should be, servants of, and under control of the churches (Matt. 20:25-28)." However, are churches servants of other churches? Are orthodox churches forced to acquiesce to the right of voluntary association of a church that is fundamentally in error? Does this not violate the church sovereignty of the orthodox churches? Is there nothing that can be done to ensure doctrinal integrity in our associated work?

I propose two possible solutions: 1) a resolution be referred back to the churches that would, if passed, declare non-fellowship with a church that does not agree in practice with our doctrinal statement (these would not be part of the Statement if they are not agreed to be fundamental issues). This would prevent the action from being taken by the messenger body and have a messenger body or a committee "telling a church what to do", and would be a statement by the affirming churches that they wish not to fellowship with said church(es), rather than declaring them "out" of the ABA. 2) a resolution could be passed by the messenger assembly which would serve only to censure such church(es). This would be a workable compromise between those in favor of non-fellowship and those who believe such would be a violation of church sovereignty.

Are we going to look our forefathers, millions of whom died barbarous deaths over their stand on baptism, and say we must fellowship those churches who receive alien immersions? Are we going to stand before the Lord at the Judgment Seat of Christ and tell Him we could not separate ourselves from churches who practice things such as alien immersion because we could not violate their sovereignty?! God help us!!! 2 John 10,11 says: "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds." There will be those who say that this is speaking of the doctrine of Christ and salvation alone. However, the whole premise behind alien immersion is that when you receive someone's baptism that was administered by, for instance, a Church of Christ, you are giving assent to their doctrine of baptismal regeneration. The Landmark movement was Baptists v. Pedobaptists and not Baptist v. Baptist. The problem comes when a Baptist church fellowships in any way with churches that are not Baptist. Therefore, an SBC or BMAA, or independent Baptist church that stands true to the doctrines and practices of Scripture should be held on par with another ABA church. Therefore, being unscriptural to fellowship false doctrine, if there is no Scriptural way to protect the doctrinal integrity of our associated fellowship, then perhaps it's time to reevaluate the whole concept of the association. After all, worlds of good can be accomplished by direct support of missionaries.

7 comments:

  1. By "fellowship" and "associate", you and most others (myself included) use these terms very loosely and liberally. Does your church really associate with "ABA Church A" in "Whoknowswhere, Arkansas" that receives alien immersion? Do you really associate with them? My understanding is that the ABA doesn't exist in and of itself. Technically the BODY of the ABA doesn't even exist outside the messengers.

    So how about this as a better solution (to save LOTS of money and time).


    The ABA stops using the whole missions committee and huge fund. This pooled fund was designed to help missions who did not have the opportunity to be noticed by many churches due to size or location of sponsoring church. It was to "get the word out" about such and such a mission to help support them financially. Due to modern technology, this is no longer a need. So why not try something which would favor EVERY church, despite their belief.

    Let's have all the ABA churches list EVERY QUESTION they desire to know about a missionary they are considering supporting. Then after we have a list compiled, we make a survey containing all these questions (most commonly asked ones at top, and in descending order of number of churches who asked the question). Then, EVERY missionary who desires support by ABA churches will answer these questions honestly (since all we end up doing in the meeting anyway is trusting people's word for it). We put up a website with a list and photo of every missionary, along with all their beliefs/practices according to the survey, as well as any personal notes they want to give. We then use the modern advancements of technology to allow a church who is searching for a missionary to support to go online and fill out a form of "what kind of missionary" they are looking to support.

    EXAMPLE: Perhaps ALL your church cares about is the KJV, Salvation, and Baptism issues. You fill out the form that you are looking for a missionary who believes like you do in these three issues, but "any" in all other fields. Then, you click search. A list pops up that gives you all missionaries who fit your beliefs. From here, you can search each one and present them to your church.

    If you care about TONS of little minor things like does the preacher wear a tie, or does the preacher use hymns, then you can search for all these too.

    This would suite every ABA church no matter how liberal or conservative. Also, you'd only support those with whom you agree. There would no longer be a need for Secretary Treasurer of Missions. The committee perhaps would no longer be necessary. There would be FAR fewer hours spent arguing over certain men and becoming less and less godly in the debates. Churches who are on the EXTREME (on either side liberal or conservative) would receive less support if fewer churches agree with them.

    In this way, churches are informed of who they vote for, they find who they want to support, and the ABA saves much money. Also, ALL missionaries get represented fairly and unbiasedly.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Bro. James,

    I agree with you that the Internet can be utilized in multitudes of ways to communicate, transmit information, process forms, etc. There's absolutely nothing wrong with "new" things as long as it doesn't violate Scriptural principles such as "in spirit and in truth". (John 4:24) Even Power Point can be used for such things as displaying the words of hymns, the pastor's sermon outline, announcements, etc.

    However, you mentioned that whether we use hymns is one of the "minor little things." I know this is an issue that is difficult to clarify in everyone's mind, but surely you don't believe the use of Christian rock (I try to refrain from using names but, for instance, Live Fish) is a "minor little thing".

    Also, can you define what you consider EXTREME as far as conservative is concerned? Now as far as the church is concerned, there are some who believe that only church members are indwelt by the Spirit, that you can only be saved by the DIRECT influence of the church regardless of the Word or the Spirit, and
    that the New Covenant only applies to the church. This is Newlightism and no more belongs with us than those who believe in universal church, open communion, alien immersion, using modern translations, or Max Lucado, or who take their youth to nondenominational conferences on the liberal end of the spectrum. However, I would not call those who believe a preacher should wear a tie, women should wear dresses, that a preacher cannot be divorced, etc. extreme. I have high respect for men and churches that will hold to their convictions. I would not identify myself as a moderate and would agree with them at least 90% of the time.

    I'm sorry, but I'm for what the ABA is SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT. However, if the ABA becomes like the SBC that tolerates everything from Arminianism to Calvinism, questioning the inspiration of Scripture (more of an issue before the Conservative Resurgence), amillennialism (those who deny the literal return and thousand year reign of Christ), etc. count me out. It causes quite a controversy there when the IMB tries to ensure that missionaries have been baptized by a Baptist church!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No one becomes God in the flesh. The Holy Spirit indwells the body of Christ (the church). People can be saved and their spirit made alive by the convicting power of the Holy Spirit but that doesn't mean they become God in the flesh. That's exactly what you are advocating when you say the Spirit of God indwells a person when they are born again. Call it newlightism if you must. It's only new to those that haven't heard it before. it's been taught since Jesus promised His diciples that the Spirit would come. Read John chapters 14 thru 17.

      Delete
  3. ARTICLE III—MEMBERS



    Section 1. This Association shall be composed of regular Missionary Baptist churches.

    Section 2. The annual or called sessions of this Association shall be held by Messengers elected by the churches composing said Association.

    Section 3. Each church shall be entitled to three Messengers whose qualifications shall be determined by the church electing them.

    ARTICLE IV—NATURE



    This Association is the joint cooperation of the churches composing it.


    Okay, let's analyze the Articles of Agreement. First, if the Association was truly only the messenger meeting, there would be no need for a section entitled "MEMBERS". I will concede that Article IV attempts to define the Association as "the joint cooperation" or as we commonly term it, "the associated work"; however, Article III contradicts that definition. It says the annual sessions "of the Association." That does not mean the annual sessions being the Association but the Association's annual sessions. It further says it shall be held by messengers elected by "the churches composing this association." Therefore, the Association in reality exists BEFORE the annual messenger meetings. Again, the word "composed" by its very definition suggests we are joined together. I wish I had Bogard's booklet "Associations Are Scriptural" before me, but in it, he traced the etymology of the word association back to the Greek word translated "fellowship" in the Bible. While it may not be active and is in a very limited sense, yes, we are fellowshipping other churches who identify themselves as ABA.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm not here to argue or prat about issues such as "what is association". I'm saying that an online form could simplify everything. Cut out all the salary, and just allow all to be designated funds.

    The argument used to be "but then some missionaries won't receive funds because churches don't know who they are". Now, with the internet, ALL churches can know who they are (even if it requires asking a child or grandchild to access the info and print it.)

    With the web form, a church can search for missionaries or ministries with whom they are in agreement instead of giving blanket fees that are distributed to all sorts of missions by the secretary treasurer of missions office. Instead, the missionaries who are supported by more churches will be those with whom more ABA churches agree.

    Those missions who receive funds from very few churches will be those with whom very few ABA churches agree. This will cut out the question of associating/supporting false churches and missions with false doctrine.

    For example, your church could search for only those missions who answered that they believe in KJV, dress wearing women, preacher in a suit, hymn only worship. EXTREMELY LIBERAL MBC could search for only missions who use false versions, bikini wearing women, preacher in pajamas, rap music only worship. This would keep you from supporting and fellowshipping with churches with whom you disagree. All ABA churches could list their beliefs accordingly, thus allowing your church to choose with which churches it associates. See?

    It also cuts out secretary treasurer of missions and the funds we spend. It also elevates a churches knowledge to knowing which missions exist weekly instead of annually. It solves these issues.


    So if a missionary receives little or no support, it is due to their views an

    ReplyDelete
  5. To answer the question, the ABA is far from being a big tent. We do have liberals and heretics, and even wackos, but usually our commitment to scripture, doctrine and orderly practices makes these folks so uncomfortable that they leave.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I find it interesting that many Landmarkers define conservatism as agreeing with them on every jot and tittle issue. It really is the height of arrogance and does not seem to make any room for Christian charity.

    Landmarkers of the contemporary milieu would have a hard time finding a church to attend just a hundred years ago, since Landmark Baptist of that era used the pure blood of the grape (fermented wine) and tended to be more Calvinistic than the current ABA.

    In 1611, Landmarkers would even be more concerned. Some Baptists of the day tended to be more Arminian, most Baptists were accepting of social drinking, and many of them had female deacons.

    The question for me is this. If Landmark Baptists of today could not accept the baptisms of those churches back then, does that not mean that there was an era when no scriptural church existed. If this is the case, then perpetuity and succession is a sham.

    I would rather affirm Christian liberty that hold to the self-righteous and arrogant position of many young Landmarkers today.

    http://landmarkism.blogspot.com

    ReplyDelete