All Rights Reserved
It can be proved
historically that Baptists, in patterning their churches after the New
Testament, have demanded congregational rule and the absolute independence
of the local church from outside rule. Francis Wayland (1796-1865), Baptist
pastor, promenate educator, president of Brown University, states it this
way: "The Baptists have ever believed in the entire and absolute
independence of the churches. By this we mean that every church of Christ,
that is, every company of believers united together according to the laws of
Christ, is wholly independent of every other; that every church is perfectly
capable of self-government; and that therefore, no one acknowledges any
higher authority, under Christ, than itself; that with the church all
ecclesiastical action commences, and with it terminates, and hence, that the
ecclesiastical relations proper, of every member are limited by the church
to which he belongs" (Principles and Practices of Baptist Churches, Frances
Wayland, (1796-1865), Baptist Heritage Press, Watertown, WS 53094, pp
177-178. Later in his book he says: "We, (meaning Baptists), however looked
with great disfavor upon any practice which, in the remotest degree,
violates the great principle of the independence of the churches. . .
.Throughout the New Testament we can discover not a trace of organization
beyond the establishment of individual churches. . . .Is it not probable
that as he left it, so he intended that it should continue to the end of
time?" (Ibid, p. 182).
We can historially establish what constitutes a New Testament church by the
writings of the early Baptists. O.S.C. Wallace, writing in 1913 in "What
Baptists Believe" says that, "The word "church" designates a company of
people called out and joined together in a body by themselves." He
continues, "A gospel church is composed of people living on the earth, and
so related as to form a company which can be seen of men" (What Baptist
Believe, O.S.C. Wallace, SBC, Nashville, Tennessee, 1913, p139-140). In
addressing the issue of self-government of the local church, Wallace further
states "A church, if it indeed be a gospel church, seeks from the New
Testament to know the laws of its government ordained by its Lord. Whatever
is opposed to the letter or spirit of the New Testament, however fully it
may represent the wisdom of this world, or whatever promise it may seem to
contain of new efficiencies and wider conquest, must be rejected. The church
does not need two heads. The church cannot be embarrassed by the laws and
regulations proceeding from two sources. A church cannot serve two masters.
It cannot serve Christ and men. The gospel church, in order to preserve its
integrity, and that it may be truly and completely loyal to Jesus Christ,
may recognize no other Head" (Ibid, pp145-146).
The word in the New Testament that is translated "church" in our modern
English Bibles is the word "ekklesia" and means " an assembly called out to
come together for a particular reason." The word in itself does not tell you
who is meeting, but only that a group is to assemble. The context of the
passage tells you who is meeting. The English word, "church," cannot be
translated back into Greek because there is no word in New Testament Greek
that is the equivalent of the understanding of the English word. For
example, the word "ekklesia," is used in Acts 19:39,41 and demonstrates this
word was used to refer to a civil assembly of local townspeople of Ephesus
which included idol makers. In most places in the New Testament, it refers
to a local assembly of believers in Jesus Christ.
These believers met in rented halls and in the homes of people and they had
"elders" or bishops which were called of God and given oversight of the
congregation (Acts 20:28). They carried out the work of missions, in their
area and outwardly to the world. Sometimes these churches were wealthy, but
most often they were poor in the world's goods. Some needed outside help,
and others sacrificially gave to that need. Most were more like small
mission churches today than like large modern congregations with
administrative staffs and buildings. There is absolutely no hint that Paul
or anyone else looked upon any of them as being anything but independent and
autonomous assemblies because of their financial situation , age or
spiritual condition. Even a casual reading of the Epistles shows this was
the spirit behind Paul's instructions to them.
The autonomy of a local church is at the very heart and soul of what
constitutes a true Baptist church. A church must first be a true New
Testament church following, without compromise, the example and teachings of
the New Testament. This was a core belief of those that founded the first
Baptist churches. They sought, in practice, to follow the New Testament
example, and called themselves Baptists to identify themselves as such. A
church that does not follow these principles cannot legitimately call itself
a Baptist church.
Even the secular Encyclopedia Encarta97 recognizes this historic position of
Baptists and has this to say in listing the Distinctive Beliefs of Baptist
churches. "Baptists believe in the autonomy of the local church, which is
the key unit of Baptist polity. The local church ordains and call its on
clergy and theoretically may dismiss its own clergy. No power -
ecclesiastical or secular - may dictate to a local Baptist congregation. . .
. Baptists argue that the self government of the local church preserves the
spirit of democracy, encourages the participation of lay persons in the
church and permits a wide range of theological expression."
Writing on the status of councils among Baptist churches in 1906, William
Henry Allison, in his book Baptist Councils in America states: "In the first
place, the council has ever been regarded as the servant, not the master of
churches. As we have traced its introduction into Baptist polity, we have
seen that it was not imposed upon church from without, but was called into
service by themselves to perform functions which the church found necessary
for their own best welfare." Allison further states: "In no sense are they
(meaning the councils) essential to the existence of a true church or
ministry. The church antedates the council which was called into being by
them. The local church is independent and possesses through its union with
Christ, without reference to other bodies of Christians, a self-sufficiency
to live its own ecclesiastical life, choose it own ministry, administer the
ordinances and exercise discipline of the Baptist polity" (Allison, p42).
Allison in his third point states: "in its relation to the local church, the
council is advisory only. The council exists, we are told in church manuals,
solely for the purpose of giving advice, with no authority to enforce its
own decisions (note that this was written in 1906)." The Warren Association
in 1792 shows the opinion of Baptists in its constituency in this item from
its minutes: "A query whether the judgment or result of an ecclesiastical
council, is more than advisory? Answered unanimously in the negative."
Edward T. Hiscox, a respected Baptist pastor and historian known for his
keen insights into church polity stated: "As has been said, each particular
and individual Church is actually and absolutely independent in the exercise
of all its churchly rights, privileges, and prerogatives; independence of
all other churches, individuals, and bodies of men whatever, and is under
law to Christ alone. The will and law of the great Lawgiver are to be found
in the New Testament, which is the only authoritative statute book for His
people" (Principles and Practices for Baptist Churches, Edward T. Hiscox,
Kregel Publications, p145). He further states: "A Church is not a
legislative body, but administrative only. . . . It cannot make laws, but
it's the interpreter of the laws of Christ; the interpreter for itself, not
for others. Nor can others interpret laws for it. . . . There is no human
tribunal to which they can be brought for trial and punishment, except that
of public opinion" (Ibid, p 146). He continues, "There is no such thing as
interdependence in the sense of a limitation of the self-governing right and
authority of a Church. One Church may be poor and need help from one that is
rich; or it may be in perplexity and need advice from one supposed to be
more experienced --as the Church at Antioch sought counsel of the older and
more experienced Church at Jerusalem, or as the churches in Macedonia and
Achaia contributed to the poor saints in Judea. But these facts do not touch
the question of polity or government; their relations to each other in these
respects remain the same. Fellowship and fraternal accord may be
strengthened; the helpfulness of the one and the gratitude of the other may
be increased, but the one is none the more independent, nor the other any
less so, because of these friendly interchanges" (Ibid p49). In addressing
the supposed need of outside control, Hiscox states: "The defects lie not in
the plan (meaning God's plan for the church) but in those who administer the
government" (Ibid, p151).
The independence of the local Baptist church was dear to the hearts of the
early Baptists of the 18th and 19th centuries. Thomas Hooker (1586-1647) a
prominent Puritan and one of the founders of the Colony of Connecticut,
said, ". . . The truth is a particular congregation is the highest
tribunal." The respected Baptist scholar of this period, Isaac Backus,
concluded, ". . .The whole power of governing and disciplining their members
is in each particular church." Backus granted that, when necessary, local
churches should seek the advice of sister churches. Backus was reluctant to
join the Warren Association in 1770, however, he did so when their plan of
organization was rewritten to reassure concerned churches about the matter
of independence. The document was drawn up by James Manning, the first
president of Rhode Island College, later to become Brown University, and
read in part, "That such an association is consistent with the independence
and power of particular churches, because it pretends no other than an
advisory council, utterly disclaiming superiority, jurisdiction, coercive
right and infallibility" (Baptist Concepts of the Church, Winthrop Still
Hudson, Judson Press, Chicago, 1959, p124.) Isaac Backus, and the prominent
Baptist pastor John Leland (a contemporary of Backus), stated their
position: "Neither Backus nor Leland was prepared to support any system
which seemed in any way to threaten those liberties" (Ibid, p128).
Melvin L Hodges understood the need for self-government in planting and
establishing local churches. He concluded that, "To fail to place the
responsibility of self-government on the converts is to choke their
initiative and dwarf their spiritual growth" (The Indigenous Church, Melvin
L. Hodges, Gospel Publishing House, Springfield Missouri, p 22). He makes
the point that, "It is quite evident that there were hundreds of organized
local assembles in the Early Church before the apostles and elders came
together in Jerusalem for the first? General Council?. In certain areas it
would appear that we have started at the wrong level. We have set up an
organization at the top level, among missionaries, with perhaps a small
number of the most capable workers included, and have hoped that in time
organized self-government would filter down to the local church. In doing
this we have started at the wrong place. In order to have any real
foundation in self-government, we must begin with the local church" (Ibid.
pp23-24). He goes on to conclude that in church planting, we cast the mold
for the future of these churches and that is why it is of utmost importance
that we make a good beginning. He states that "the foundation of
self-government should be laid with the first church."
The local New Testament church is an autonomous body. This "autonomy" means
that the local church governs itself. The Biblical example of a New
Testament church is one that is not ruled by any board, hierarchical system
or another church. The local church has been defined as: "A body of
believers immersed upon credible confession of faith in Jesus Christ,
sovereign in polity, and banded together for work, worship, the observance
of the ordinances and the world wide proclamation of the Gospel."
In conclusion the Scriptures give no higher authority than the local
congregation of born again, baptized believers. Baptists believe that the
local church is to be governed by the Word of God, and the local church does
not need, nor does the Scripture teach that the local body rests under the
authority of any earthy outside group. It is a group unto itself, under the
authority of God, and solely responsible unto Him for its conduct, direction
and affairs. Jesus, in Rev. 2:6, 15, said that he "hated" the doctrine of
the Nicolaitans, which was a group of heretics in the early church who
promoted doctrinal errors, and a clerical hierarchy in the church.
11-25-07
(by Dr. Jack Hyles, 1926-2001)
THE CHURCH AS THE BRIDE OF CHRIST
(by
Dr. Jack Hyles,
1926-2001)
THE SUBSTITUTES FOR THE CHURCH
(by Dr. Jack Hyles, 1926-2001)
CHRIST AND HIS COWORKERS
(by
Dr. Curtis Hutson,
1934-1995)
The Authority Of The New Testament Church Is The Word Of God
A Biblical Look at Deacons
What's So Important About Attending Church?
A Brief Survey of Independent Fundamental Baptist Churches
The Autonomy of a Baptist Church
The Translation of the Greek Word "Ekklesia" as "church" in the English Bible and its Ramifications.
The Best Church for You (20 Questions to Ask before Joining Any Church)
Ye Must Be Born Again! | You Need HIS Righteousness!
No comments:
Post a Comment