“The Association: Does It Matter?”
Wyman Richardson
Pastor, First Baptist Church – Dawson, Georgia
2009 Spring Meeting of the Summerhill Association
First Baptist Church – Lumpkin, Georgia
This evening I’ve decided to do something a bit different for this associational sermon. I’ve decided to ask a question that was certainly asked by earlier Baptists and that, truth be told, is often asked by Baptists today. The question is, “The Association: Does It Matter?”
I ask it because it seems to me to be a reasonable question. After all, none of us want to waste our time with things that do not matter. Furthermore, I ask it because it is consistent with Baptist history to ask the question. The fact that the vast majority of Baptists have answered the question in the affirmative does not mean it need no longer be asked, it simply means that it has been traditionally answered, on the whole, in a certain way. And, finally, I ask it because, what I just said notwithstanding, I’m not sure that many Baptists really believe our own answer anymore. Which is to say, I’m not so sure that today we are answering this question to anybody’s, much less to our own, liking.
In other words, when I listen to young ministers and laypeople and, I might add, to some older ministers and laypeople as well, I get the feeling that many of our assertions must be operating on the inertia of tradition and assumption. Many associations are not operating on the basis of fundamental conviction, or of absolute certainty that the enterprise is even needed, but merely because, to use our great Baptist default, “That’s how we’ve always done it.”
But “That’s how we’ve always done it” can only drive us so far. Eventually somebody is bound to ask, “Sure, but why?”
That’s the question I want to ask and try to answer tonight. Why the Association and does it matter?
Frankly, I’m not convinced that I need to offer a defense for asking the question, but I would like to give some other reasons for asking it, just in case any of you think the question is inappropriate or, even more alarming to me personally, in case any of you think it is unnecessary. Here are my reasons:
1. Baptist experience is being increasingly infiltrated by radical isolationist and tribal ways of thinking. Human beings instinctively draw inward and shun the fellowship of others. With the Baptist emphasis on the autonomy of the local church, sometimes we have been tempted to think that if our church does its own thing without any thought of others, then that’s no problem. Our American culture of radical individualism feeds into this and perverts our notions of autonomy into isolationism. In other words, local church autonomy is a good thing, but it is too easily confused with the type of radical hyper-individualism that plagues our culture and undermines genuine efforts at community. Baptist theologian Timothy George warned about this happening on a denominational level in 2001. He wrote:
“Especially troubling right now are isolationist forces within the denomination, some of whom oppose Baptist efforts even with other evangelicals…If left to grow like kudzu, it could reduce the Southern Baptist Convention to a mega-sect.”
2. Denominationalism is shifting and changing and, some say, collapsing. This has led increasing numbers of young Baptists to ask whether or not things like associations are even necessary. Now I offer this as a warning especially to those of you who may not believe me: if the association does not become a viable, helpful, and authentic expression of Christian unity it will die and disappear. It is not a matter of “if”, only of “when.” You do realize that over 80% of our young people leave the Church after high school graduation and never return? You do realize that the vast majority of our churches are plateaud and/or dying? You might also consider taking the time to look up the recent (March 10) and widely-discussed Christian Science Monitor article by a Kentucky Baptist named Michael Spencer entitled “The Coming Evangelical Collapse.” It will, to put it mildly, give one pause.
3. The assumptions of the modern church growth industry are undermining cooperative efforts. Increasingly local church pastors view other local church pastors as their competition. A whole host of destructive and ego-driven realities are pouring into the ministry and into local churches: career advancement based on having the biggest and best church, the false notion that the biggest church is the best, a view of missions that is really less about the salvation of the lost than about the growth of our church, etc., etc. On and on it goes. Suffice it to say that the obsession with growing “my church” undermines genuine cooperative efforts. No matter how many times we gather together in one room, if I am not genuinely hoping for your success and the success of your local congregation, we do not have unity. Somebody once said that two cats tied off at the tail and thrown over a clothesline are united but they don’t have unity.
For these reasons, and a whole host of others, it is time for us to reconsider the Baptist rationale for associations.
Biblically Grounded If Not Biblically Prescribed
To begin with, it is clear that earlier Baptists saw the Association as absent from the specific words and specific instructions of Scripture but in line with the voice of Scripture. That is, the New Testament never says, “And you shall form an Association!”, but the New Testament clearly holds up cooperation as an ideal and, indeed, a necessary function of the people of God.
For instance, in his 1860 Corrective Church Discipline, Baptist P.H. Mell wrote:
“…The Scriptures recognize no such bodies as Associations and Councils. The church is the highest and the only ecclesiastical body known to the New Testament…Associations are institutions of modern date. They are not opposed to the general principles of the Scriptures; and as advisory councils, and a means of promoting Christian union and cooperation, if they refrain scrupulously from infringing upon the internal rights of the churches, and from lording it over God’s heritage, they may be made to subserve a valuable purpose.”
That is, the Association is not explicitly called for in Scripture, but it is not opposed to Scripture principles, and, furthermore, approached rightly, it can serve a useful function.
So the question becomes one of harmony with Scripture principles and usefulness for the churches in the completion of their task.
I’ll deal with the second issue first. What are the practical benefits of the association?
Uses and Benefits
The “Summary of Church Discipline” drawn up by the Baptists of the Charleston Association in 1774 in South Carolina listed 12 “benefits arising from an association and communion of churches”:
The benefits arising from an association and communion of churches are many; in general, it will tend to maintain the truth, order, and discipline of the gospel. By it
(1) the churches may have such doubts as arise among them cleared, which will prevent disputes, Acts 15:28, 29;
(2) they will be furnished with salutary counsel, Prov. 11:14;
(3) those churches which have no ministers may obtain occasional supplies, Song of Sol. 8:8;
(4) the churches will be more closely united in promoting the cause and interest of Christ;
(5) a member who is aggrieved through partiality or any other wrongs received from the church may have an opportunity of applying for direction;
(6) a godly and sound ministry will be encouraged, while a ministry that is unsound and ungodly will be discountenanced;
(7) there will be a reciprocal communication of their gifts, Phil. 4:15;
(8) ministers may alternately be sent out to preach the gospel to those who are destitute, Gal. 2:9;
(9) a large party may draw off from the church by means of an intruding minister, or other ways, and the aggrieved may have no way of obtaining redress but from the association;
(10) contentions may arise between sister churches, which the association is most likely to remove;
(11) and the churches may have candidates for the ministry properly tried by the association.
These and other advantages arising from an association must induce every godly church to desire a union with such a body.
It then warned “any” who would “stand off”:
But should any stand off, it would argue much self-sufficiency, Rev. 3:17, and little or no desire after the unity of the Spirit, Eph. 4:3, or mutual edification, 1 Cor. 12:11–14.
Thirty-one years later, in 1805, Samuel Jones wrote his Treatise of Church Discipline, in which, in Chapter XII, Article 3, he spelled out the “special uses” of the association:
“The meeting thus of churches by their delegates is of special use; to gain acquaintance with, and knowledge of one another—to preserve uniformity in faith and practice, Phil. iii. 16.—to detect and discountenance heresies—to curb licentiousness in the wanton abuse of church power—to afford assistance and advice in all difficult cases—to contribute pecuniary aid when necessary—to make appointments of supplies for destitute churches—And every way advance and secure the interest of religion, and strengthen and draw closer the bonds of union and fellowship.”
These are all good reasons and benefits, and I do not dispute any of them. The Association, properly understood and operated, can be a great benefit to the churches. More than that, it can assist the churches in being a greater benefit to the world.
This principle of strength in unity must not only be taught, it must be demonstrated. It must be shown that we are stronger together than apart, that we need one another.
Biblical Rationale
And yet, pragmatism should not be the only basis for our union. We are bound together in this Association not only because we find it useful, but, I would argue, because we find it necessary.
I will not provide an exhaustive biblical list of passages calling for or assuming the unity of God’s people, but I will point out a couple of teachings that I think should be considered again.
The first is Christ’s “High Priestly Prayer” in John 17, particularly verse 11: “And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one.”
This is an amazing verse. We are to be one as Christ and the Father are one. That is, the model of our unity is the Trinity itself: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. That, friends, is a profound “oneness”! While the implications of this prayer for oneness are not specifically fleshed out in terms of what that means for inter-congregational-cooperation, can we not agree that it would be virtually impossible to read the “High Priestly Prayer” and conclude that all is well so long as our church keeps the bills paid and gets along tolerably well?
I grant you that this unity need not necessarily mean a formal “Association,” but it certainly means that we associate. This prayer undoubtedly calls for more than the Association, but it almost certainly does not call for less.
Consider also Acts 15, a passage appealed to frequently by earlier Baptists as a foundation for the Association. (I will point out, however, that other Baptists disagreed and argued that this had nothing to do with Associations…but, then, where would we Baptists be if somebody didn’t disagree!)
You will remember that Acts 15 is about the Jerusalem Council. Consider the first two verses:
1 But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.
Granted, you will not find the Baptist “Association” here, but you will find some very familiar looking ideas that we Baptists can relate to: (1) conflict, (2) the need to have conflict resolved, (3) the appointment of delegates, (4) the representation of various congregations in a joint meeting, and (5) group decision making.
This all sounds very familiar. Again, I am not claiming that the Bible lays down the specific structure of our Associational system, I only claim that the Association is in harmony with biblical principles and that sometimes these principles come together in ways that look very much like what we do in our Associations.
Consider also the over fifty “one-anothering” commands in the New Testament. The Church is by nature a “one-anothering” Church. Consider:
• “be at peace with one another” (Mark 9:50)
• “wash one another’s feet” (John 13:14)
• “love one another” (John 13:34-35, 15:12,17, Romans 12:10a, 1 Thessalonians 4:9, 1 Peter 1:22, 4:8, 1 John 3:11,23, 4:7,11-12, 2 John 5)
• “Outdo one another in showing honor.” (Romans 12:10b)
• “Live in harmony with one another.” (Romans 12:16, 15:5-6)
• “welcome one another” (Romans 15:7)
• “instruct one another.” (Romans 15:14)
• “Greet one another with a holy kiss.” (Romans 16:16, 1 Corinthians 16:20, 2 Corinthians 13:12, 1 Peter 5:14)
• “wait for one another…” (1 Corinthians 11:13)
• “have the same care for one another” (1 Corinthians 12:25)
• “comfort one another” (2 Corinthians 13:11)
• “agree with one another” (2 Corinthians 13:11)
• “serve one another” (Galatians 5:13, 1 Peter 4:10)
• “Bear one another’s burdens…” (Galatians 6:2)
• “bearing with one another in love” (Ephesians 4:2)
• “Be kind to one another…” (Ephesians 4:32)
• “forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you” (Ephesians 4:32)
• “addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs” (Ephesians 5:19)
• “submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ” (Ephesians 5:21)
• “teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom” (Colossians 3:16)
• “increase and abound in love for one another” (1 Thessalonians 3:12)
• “encourage one another” (1 Thessalonians 4:18, Hebrews 10:25)
• “build one another up” (1 Thessalonians 5:11)
• “seek to do good to one another” (1 Thessalonians 5:15)
• “exhort one another every day” (Hebrews 3:13)
• “stir up one another to love and good works” (Hebrews 10:24)
• “confess your sins to one another” (James 5:16)
• “pray for one another” (James 5:16)
• “Show hospitality to one another without grumbling.” (1 Peter 4:9)
• “Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another” (1 Peter 5:5)
• “we have fellowship with one another” (1 John 1:7)
Furthermore, we see in the Bible that the Apostles did not view the local congregations as so detached that they could not appeal to the example of one in order to help another. This reality led to a consistency in the message Paul delivered to each individual church. Paul teaches his “ways in Christ…everywhere, in every church” (1 Corinthians 4:17). He encourages each believer to live the life to which God has called him. This, Paul says, is his “rule in all the churches” (1 Corinthians 7:17). Furthermore, the rules of propriety in dress as well as propriety in gender roles are the same in “the churches of God” (1 Corinthians 11:16, 14:34).
Paul clearly felt that the example of one church could be helpful for another. “Now concerning the collection for the saints,” Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 16:1, “as I directed the churches of Galatia, so you also are to do.” It was this reality that undergirded the very possibility of circular letters: “Give my greetings to the brothers at Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church in her house. And when this letter has been read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and see that you also read the letter from Laodicea” (Colossians 4:15-16).
There was an organic unity, then, even among the local congregations.
This is what I mean when I say that you will not find the Association in the words of Scripture but you will find it in the voice of Scripture. What we are doing here is in harmony with the New Testament picture of the Church.
There are numerous other passages that we might appeal to, but let me appeal to one that should eclipse them all: the assumed and implicit unity of God’s people in the fulfillment of the call to evangelize the world.
Consider that beautiful commission that Christ gives the eleven in Matthew 28:
16 Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. 17And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted. 18And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
Let me ask an obvious question: is there anything in the words or tenor of the Great Commission that would have led the disciples naturally to the conclusion that what Christ was calling for here was radically isolationist, separated, tribal, keep-to-yourself congregations of Christians who did not care what the other equally paranoid congregations were up to? Do you read this commission and come away with, “Hey, let’s draw up the drawbridge and put another pig on the spit and do our own thing”?
No. Absolutely not.
First of all, the Great Commission is diverse in geography but cohesive in content. That is, the Great Commission assumes the presence of congregations all over the earth but assumes that they will be doing the same thing. Do we not see, then, the foundations of an organic unity whereby churches that are bound in solidarity around the mission of Christ will by definition be cooperating and associating churches?
Secondly, do we not see a transgenerational core to the Great Commission? I completely reject as absurd the notion that the Great Commission was intended only for the eleven. I refuse to believe that when Christ told the eleven to teach “them to observe all that I have commanded you” that they did not immediately understand that they were to teach others to join with them in what Christ had just commanded, the Great Commission, and that these others would not understand that this meant, first of all, evangelizing their own children.
This means, then, that the Church, regardless of its local and autonomous congregations, is indeed bound together in a beautiful and powerful association around the gospel that continues to this day and, indeed, until the end of time. Unity and association is hardwired into us. It is in our bones. To be a Christian is to be necessarily associated.
So should our outward form not comply with our new reality in Christ? Should those of us who are associated through the shed blood of Christ in the power of His gospel and in the Commission to evangelize and in the common call to worship God, pray, study His Word, encourage one another, and help one another not, in fact, formally associate?
Of course we should.
Brothers and sisters in Christ, does the Association matter? Yes. Yes it does. But it matters only insofar as we are faithful to the gospel, faithful to the Great Commission, faithful, indeed, to Christ.