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.