Defenders or Defectors

Defenders or Defectors?

by Brother Ron Beardsley

        As a pastor and minister there is a trend in many of our churches that greatly troubles me. There are those who it seems so easily leave one church body to join another. What concerns me is not that they would leave one church and join another, but why they would. (Often they leave one church and just stay home). There are Biblical reasons to leave a body of believers and join another, but all too often that is simply just not the case. Some people leave because their personalities clash, some leave because they desire power or it may be the lack of prestige, sometimes it's wrong priorities. Some don't like the pastor, some don't like the parishioners, some don't want to deal with problems and to others  it's church policy and practice. Whatever it is, it is a fact that the church will have some issues at times, but that isn't anything new;  what is new, is how many act and behave like it is.

Faithful or Fluffy?

        Sometimes people get the wrong impression by looking at the outside of the church. Activities often draw crowds to the church today. One of the questions I get asked most often by churches is what do you have to offer our children?  I understand the desire people have of reaching the youth and I know the need of having people, both young and old plugged in and active in the work of God. What I don't understand is what so many are willing to sacrifice in the name of church growth.  We need to be reminded that God didn't call His church to play games, but to preach the gospel.  A large church is not an automatic sign that they are Scriptual, and a small church is not an automatic sign that they are not. We need Scriptural churches instead of spiritual churches. (If the church is Scriptural, it will aslo be Spiritual. Unfortunately, many are only “spiritual”, they are led by feelings and fluffiness). In Revelation 3;7 Jesus sends a letter to the church of Philadelphia and set before them an open door that no man could shut because they had a little strength, kept His Word and had not denied His Name. In verse 14 Jesus sends a letter to the church of Laodicea, the church that said they were rich, increased with goods and had need of nothing, but Jesus said that they were wretched, miserable, poor, blind and naked. The world would look at these two and by appearance assume the opposite of what was true.

Emotion or Devotion?

        What motivates you; feelings or faith?  Emotion or devotion? Just imagine how many marriages would last a lifetime because of emotions alone. (Take a look at the divorce rate and you'll get an idea). Now emotions aren't a bad thing, God made them. We could not show our feelings without emotions, you couldn’t distinguish the difference between pain or joy without emotions. Imagine what it would be like if you always had the same emotion, whether you were just married, celebrated the birth of your baby, diagnosed with a terminal illness or just attended the funeral of a loved one who had passed away? Emotions are good in their proper place, but they become bad when we are moved to action by them. Remember this: emotion moves us to react, devotion moves us to respond.

        Again, often there are problems that arise in the church because we are more carnal than Christian at times. In 1st Corinthians 1:12 there were contentions in the church because some of the church followed Paul, some Apollos, some Cephas and some Christ. (Also look at 1st Corinthians 3:1-7)

        God tells us quite a lot in His Word about how the church is to conduct itself. Acts 2:41 Tells the church how to receive a new brother or sister into fellowship. I Corinthians 5: 1-11 Tells the church how to remove a brother or sister from fellowship. 2 Thessalonians 3:6 Tells the church why to reject a brother or sister that is out of fellowship. 2 Corinthians 2:6-8 Explains to the church how to receive a brother or sister back into fellowship.

        So what does God tell us in His Word about removing ones self from fellowship?  What are the Biblical reasons to remove yourself from a church that preaches and practices what God says in scripture?  (How often do you read in the Bible where some member got dissatisfied or disgruntled and moved their membership to another church?)  I only know of three Biblical reasons to leave the House of God.

        1.  Pastoral Ministry.  If God calls one of His men into the ministry.  Ephesians 4: 11-12; 'He gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, and for the edifying of the body of Christ:'

        2.  Death. When God relocates one of His children from a community of Heaven on earth to Heaven itself. 2nd Corinthians 5:8; 'We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.' 

        3.  Relocation.  If you move too far away to be faithful in your local church, then we are to find a New Testament church that preaches, teaches, believes, and obeys all that God says.  Hebrews 10:25; 'Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another:  and so much the more, as you see the day approaching.'

        Some may argue that a pastor that preaches heresy is another reason to leave the church, but the Bible declares a pastor that preaches heresy is grounds to seek new leadership. 

        Galatians 1:6-9 'I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.' 

        2nd John 1:10,11 '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.'

        So then the only reason for leaving a church where the pastor preaches heresy would be if the church itself turned against the gospel of Jesus Christ and became heretical.

The Deceiver and Destroyer

        John 10:1 'Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.'

        The words thief and robber come from two different words and have two different definitions, but one end result. Satan is both a thief and a robber, he takes by hook or by crook. To the lost he lies and says there is no God, or he will lie and tell them Jesus isn't the only way to heaven. To the saved he lies and says there's no need to go to church, or he will lie and tell them that they can't worship God in the church that they are in. Satan both deceives and destroys. Often people leave the church because they were unaware of the devils devices. I am convinced that the most common reason people leave one body for another body today is deception.

        1st John 4:1 'Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.'

        Jesus said, upon this Rock I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. The Lords' church will be here until Christ comes to take us home and Satan could have no power at all in her if we would stop giving it to him.

        Ephesians 6:10,11 'Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.'

        May God richly bless His work in His church, and give His pastors and His people strength to continue the good fight of faith.

Brother Ron Beardsley

Pastor: Friendship Missionary Baptist Church - Caseyville,IL.

Minutes of the Philadelphia Baptist Association

Dr. Holmes has asked that I send each of you a link to an online article from the Center for Baptist Studies. It is titled "Minutes of the Philadelphia Baptist Association" by Walter B. Shurden. article below.

"Minutes of the Philadelphia Baptist Association"

by Walter B. Shurden

Callaway Professor of Christianity

Executive Director, The Center for Baptist Studies

Mercer University, Macon, Georgia

During the eighteenth-century in America, the Philadelphia Baptist Association was the single most important institution in Baptist denominational life. From 1707, the date of its founding, to 1814, the Philadelphia Baptist Association served essentially as a national convention for Baptists in this country. The association, the first of its kind in America, was so prominent in its influence on later Baptist associations that historians have come to refer to "the Philadelphia tradition." For those reasons--its singular importance in the eighteenth-century and its lasting influence on Baptist life in America--the Minutes of the Philadelphia Baptist Association,edited by A. D. Gillette and published in 1851 by the American Baptist Publication Society, is a classic of Baptist history in America. Fortunately, the Baptist Book Trust of Otisville, Michigan (48463) reprinted this invaluable book in 1976. It is one of the many "must" books for any Baptist history collection and for anyone serious about knowing the background and development of Baptists in America.

Why should "minutes" of an association be considered a classic? To be sure, it is not a classic in the sense of literary elegance and excellence. As the title indicates, it consists of Minutes of the Philadelphia Association. Few, if any, "minutes" of any organization belong to the category of literary beauty. These are no exception. In the early years the minutes were sketchy, poorly compiled, yet still invaluable as documentation of early eighteenth-century Baptist life. However, after Morgan Edwards, the first Baptist historian in America, comes on the associational scene in 1761, the records of the association assume more order, detail, professionalism, and historical value. These records, however, never reached the lofty heights of literary brilliance or profound historical ideas. Again, then, why label it a classic?

The Concerns of Baptists in the Eighteenth Century

The Minutes of the Philadelphia Baptist Association is a classic because it provides insight into the elementary concerns of Baptist churches and people in eighteenth-century America. When organized in 1707, the Philadelphia Association was to be composed of the "most capable in every congregation" and to meet yearly "to consult about such things as were wanting in the churches, and to set them in order."

What was "wanting" in the churches? What needed to be "set in order"? A careful chronological reading of the Minutes reveal the evolutionary preoccupations of Baptists in their second century of existence in America. It is easy for us today to read later affections back into Baptist history. For example, one does not find in the first fifty years of the Minutes any reference to "missions" as we know the term today. The "foreign missions" movement did not begin until very late in the century (William Carey and 1792) and the records of the Philadelphia Association clearly reflect that fact. To say, as one often hears at Baptist meetings, that "Baptists have always been a missionary people" is to overlook the fact that at one time Baptists were concerned with survival, not expansion.

The Philadelphia Minutes reflect a Baptist people and Baptist churches struggling to find their way in the world. The churches were small. In 1761, over fifty years after the founding of the association, the association consisted of twenty-nine churches, the three largest of which had 134, 110, and 104 members respectively. Nineteen of the twenty-eight churches had less than fifty members! Twenty-five of the twenty-eight churches had less than 100 members! When one thinks of Baptists today, especially of Baptists in the South, one thinks "big." Such thinking skews one’s effort to understand early Baptists in this country.

In addition to being small, the churches possessed limited ministerial leadership. They had even fewer educated ministers or laity. Doubtless, this is why the churches wanted the "most capable in every congregation" to represent them in the yearly association of churches. Religious education of any kind in the churches was limited primarily to the sermons of the preacher, the reading of the Bible, and the few books or pamphlets available.

All of this is to say that the early Baptist churches in America needed each other! They needed each other in ways that Baptist churches today, with their access to information and education, can hardly imagine. Therefore, in its first half-century the Philadelphia Association addressed itself to the things that were "wanting" in the churches. What was "wanting" were answers to questions regarding baptism, ordination, church disputes, and theological issues. The association virtually served as a "Baptist Bishop," always functioning, however, in an advisory rather than judicial or legislative manner.

While the churches needed each other to advise them regarding their "queries," they were "wanting" even more in securing and sustaining a preaching ministry. The Minutes are replete with laments regarding "the scarcity of ministers." Churches were encouraged "to make inquiry among themselves, if they have any young persons hopeful for the ministry, and inclinable to learning." The churches were encouraged to "call out the called." While ministerial scarcity was one problem, ministerial "imposters" posed another threat. The association advised churches to take precautions in the certification of ministers. Deviant minister in belief and practice were "advertised" to the churches, a potent weapon of social control in early Baptist life. To help regulate, and in a very real sense to "standardize", the churches and the ministry in faith and practice, the Philadelphia Association issued in 1742 the Second London Confession of Faith and a document on church discipline.

In the first half of the eighteenth-century the Philadelphia Association focused on the needs of the churches and the ministry. In the last half of the century, it turned more toward becoming a voice for ministerial education, religious liberty, and missions, and in that order. To say it another way, in the first half of the century, the churches appealed to the association to aid the churches with their internal problems. In the latter part of the century the association appealed to the churches to work together through the association to accomplish externally what the churches could not do in isolation.

The Authority and Power of Associations

The Minutes of the Philadelphia Baptist Association is also a classic because it contributes enormously to our understanding of the very knotty problem of Baptist church polity or church government. How much power does an association of churches have? What authority does it possess it relation to a local church? These questions were not only inevitable for Baptists; they remain to the present day as we debate polity issues. To answer the questions, you must look not only at what Baptists said but also what they did. Theory must be tested by practice. Moreover, to answer the questions fully one would have to investigate all Baptist associations of the eighteenth-century. However, the Minutes of Philadelphia provide helpful insight into the questions.

In 1749 the association asked Benjamin Griffith to write "an essay on the power and duty of an Association of churches." The formally stated intent of the essay revealed the fact that, like the doctrine of the trinity, this issue of polity was easier to state than to resolve The purpose of the essay was to identify "what power an Association of churches hath, and what duty is incumbent on an Association; and prevent the contempt with which some are ready to treat such an assembly, and also to prevent any future generation from claiming more power than they ought—lording over the churches." Translated, Griffith said that an association has certain duties, so it should have certain respect, but deference to the association did not mean domination over the churches.

Griffith made at least three significant points in his essay about an association. First, and this is what he began with, the association "is not a superior judicature," having power over the churches. Rather, "each particular church hath a complete power and authority from Jesus Christ, to administer all gospel ordinances,...to receive in and cast out, and also to try and ordain their own officers, and to exercise every part of gospel discipline and church government, independent of any other church or assembly whatever." Later in the essay Griffith echoed this theme for emphasis, saying that the association has no "superintendency over the churches" but rather was "subservient to the churches."

Baptist church government has often been described as a process of checks and balances. Baptists, however, have been primarily interested in "checks." Extensive reading in the Minutes of the Philadelphia Baptist Association and in other eighteenth-century associational documents is not required to convince one that Baptists were far more interested in the freedom of the local church than they were in extending the powers of the associated body. Most associational documents spent for more time indicating what an association could not do than clearly stating what it could do. Griffith leans in that direction as well, but he also wanted his readers to know what power an association had.

Second, while the association cannot "lord it over the churches," the association was, just as a local congregation, an independent and self-governing body. This meant that the association could and should "withdraw" from churches or individuals "defective in doctrine and practice." Griffith went further, however. To "withdraw" from deviant churches was a negative power. The association, said Griffith, also has the positive power "to exclude" a defective or disorderly church from the association. In other words, an association had the right and responsibility to determine its membership in the same manner as a local church. Again, however, Griffith qualified this power of exclusion by saying that it did not mean that the association had the power "to excommunicate or deliver a defective or disorderly church to Satan." His distinction is important. An association could determine its own membership by excluding a church from the association, but an association could not by that action "de-church" a local congregation of believers. In other words, a local church has complete power to be a church apart from the action of any association.

Third, Griffith made the point that the association could "advise" the churches on proper procedures and proper beliefs. Using Act 15 and the account of the first church council as a biblical precedent, Griffith warned that an association could declare any person or party in a church "censurable." And then, "without exceeding the bounds of their power and duty," the association could "advise" the church on proper procedure for dealing with such persons. What Griffith did not go on to say but what is clear in reading eighteenth-century associational minutes is the church's consequences of failing to follow associational advice. Often the rejected "advice" meant the association excluded the church. Social pressure could end in the exercise of constitutional power. Again, however, neither social pressure nor the exercise of constitutional power by the association could strip a church of its churchly powers. It remained a full and complete church even though not a member of the association.

So why is the Minutes of the Philadelphia Baptist Association a classic? Because it described "the Philadelphia Tradition" of associational life and what it bequeathed to Baptist life in America. First, it provided the initial model of interchurch confederation which helped to organize denominational life. Second, it contributed orderliness to churches and ministers without uniforming them. Third, it guaranteed a church polity which honored congregationalism without encouraging isolationism or presbyterianism. Finally, it constructed a denominational channel through which Baptist churches could minister in areas of education, religious liberty, and missions.