Article: Why I Have Not Left The Independent Baptist Movement.

[christundivided]

I remain IFB because I believe what those words mean: Independent, Fundamental Baptist.  I have withdrawn my membership from the Not-A-Denomination-Denomination.

BC -

What would you say to this?

I tend to think independent Baptists stress the"independent" entirely too much. The local body is responsible for itself, but it is still responsible to other bodies. Additionally, one should be aware of (and responsive to) history and fellow congregations even though they shouldn't treat those examples as sacrosanct. It is fundamentally impossible to be completely "independent".

By Independent, I mean autonomous in government.  There should be no outside force controlling the church's methods, money, membership, management or messages.  I do believe churches should take the example offered in the New Testament to notice other churches in need and send a free will offering or assist in another manner.  A prime example of this would be to support a missionary or finance a church plant or offer helping hands for a project.  However, these are all free will offerings that did not come through request or mandate of an outside body.  A church might join in another church's evangelism campaign or week long meeting.  A pastor might seek counsel from another pastor.  These would be examples of learning or in some cases, admonishing one another.  Such cases are taught in the Bible.  However, to be manipulated by an evangelist or nationally known "pastor" or speaker into changing your church, is to sacrifice your independence.  Also, to be controlled financially by another is to sacrifice your independence.  This creates a fine line.  While a church may financially support a church plant, that church must be independent and able to make its own decisions.  The support should be given as a free will offering - not as a tool of manipulation and control.

This is called congregationalism. Some "baptist" took the word "independent" and tried to pretend they were introducing something "new" or "revolutionary". The vast majority of American churches have always been "congregational" assemblies.

 

[rsc2a]

I remain IFB because I believe what those words mean: Independent, Fundamental Baptist.  I have withdrawn my membership from the Not-A-Denomination-Denomination.

BC -

What would you say to this?

I tend to think independent Baptists stress the"independent" entirely too much. The local body is responsible for itself, but it is still responsible to other bodies. Additionally, one should be aware of (and responsive to) history and fellow congregations even though they shouldn't treat those examples as sacrosanct. It is fundamentally impossible to be completely "independent".

By Independent, I mean autonomous in government.  There should be no outside force controlling the church's methods, money, membership, management or messages.  I do believe churches should take the example offered in the New Testament to notice other churches in need and send a free will offering or assist in another manner.  A prime example of this would be to support a missionary or finance a church plant or offer helping hands for a project.  However, these are all free will offerings that did not come through request or mandate of an outside body.  A church might join in another church's evangelism campaign or week long meeting.  A pastor might seek counsel from another pastor.  These would be examples of learning or in some cases, admonishing one another.  Such cases are taught in the Bible.  However, to be manipulated by an evangelist or nationally known "pastor" or speaker into changing your church, is to sacrifice your independence.  Also, to be controlled financially by another is to sacrifice your independence.  This creates a fine line.  While a church may financially support a church plant, that church must be independent and able to make its own decisions.  The support should be given as a free will offering - not as a tool of manipulation and control.

Independent governance is fine and good, but do you think that an independent church has obligations to other churches? Do you think they should be aware of how their own witness impacts the churches around it and the Church at large? What about independent churches that decide on a unique doctrinal perspective? You don't think a church that acts as mother church to a bunch of plants has the right to have conditions on the terms of their financial support? Do you see a place for higher education, which by its nature, would require the pooling of resources (e.g. capital, people, time) from a variety of places?

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=christundivided]The vast majority of American churches have always been "congregational" assemblies.[/quote]

No.

 

[Binaca Chugger]

I remain IFB because I believe what those words mean: Independent, Fundamental Baptist.  I have withdrawn my membership from the Not-A-Denomination-Denomination.

BC -

What would you say to this?

I tend to think independent Baptists stress the"independent" entirely too much. The local body is responsible for itself, but it is still responsible to other bodies. Additionally, one should be aware of (and responsive to) history and fellow congregations even though they shouldn't treat those examples as sacrosanct. It is fundamentally impossible to be completely "independent".

By Independent, I mean autonomous in government.  There should be no outside force controlling the church's methods, money, membership, management or messages.  I do believe churches should take the example offered in the New Testament to notice other churches in need and send a free will offering or assist in another manner.  A prime example of this would be to support a missionary or finance a church plant or offer helping hands for a project.  However, these are all free will offerings that did not come through request or mandate of an outside body.  A church might join in another church's evangelism campaign or week long meeting.  A pastor might seek counsel from another pastor.  These would be examples of learning or in some cases, admonishing one another.  Such cases are taught in the Bible.  However, to be manipulated by an evangelist or nationally known "pastor" or speaker into changing your church, is to sacrifice your independence.  Also, to be controlled financially by another is to sacrifice your independence.  This creates a fine line.  While a church may financially support a church plant, that church must be independent and able to make its own decisions.  The support should be given as a free will offering - not as a tool of manipulation and control.

This is called congregationalism. Some "baptist" took the word "independent" and tried to pretend they were introducing something "new" or "revolutionary". The vast majority of American churches have always been "congregational" assemblies.

From whence does Congregationalism hail?

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Binaca Chugger]From whence does Congregationalism hail?[/quote]

Likely the separatists within the Puritan movement in 17th-ish century England. It came over to America on the Mayflower.

 

[Binaca Chugger]

I remain IFB because I believe what those words mean: Independent, Fundamental Baptist.  I have withdrawn my membership from the Not-A-Denomination-Denomination.

BC -

What would you say to this?

I tend to think independent Baptists stress the"independent" entirely too much. The local body is responsible for itself, but it is still responsible to other bodies. Additionally, one should be aware of (and responsive to) history and fellow congregations even though they shouldn't treat those examples as sacrosanct. It is fundamentally impossible to be completely "independent".

By Independent, I mean autonomous in government.  There should be no outside force controlling the church's methods, money, membership, management or messages.  I do believe churches should take the example offered in the New Testament to notice other churches in need and send a free will offering or assist in another manner.  A prime example of this would be to support a missionary or finance a church plant or offer helping hands for a project.  However, these are all free will offerings that did not come through request or mandate of an outside body.  A church might join in another church's evangelism campaign or week long meeting.  A pastor might seek counsel from another pastor.  These would be examples of learning or in some cases, admonishing one another.  Such cases are taught in the Bible.  However, to be manipulated by an evangelist or nationally known "pastor" or speaker into changing your church, is to sacrifice your independence.  Also, to be controlled financially by another is to sacrifice your independence.  This creates a fine line.  While a church may financially support a church plant, that church must be independent and able to make its own decisions.  The support should be given as a free will offering - not as a tool of manipulation and control.

Independent governance is fine and good, but do you think that an independent church has obligations to other churches? Do you think they should be aware of how their own witness impacts the churches around it and the Church at large? What about independent churches that decide on a unique doctrinal perspective? You don't think a church that acts as mother church to a bunch of plants has the right to have conditions on the terms of their financial support? Do you see a place for higher education, which by its nature, would require the pooling of resources (e.g. capital, people, time) from a variety of places?

Obligations to other churches? No - A free will offering.

Aware of testimony?  Yes.  But aware of their testimony for Christ, not other churches.

Unique doctrines?  This is where another church may admonish, but not control.  If a church body chooses to teach, practice and follow heresy, that is their choice.  The Bible teaches that from such as these we should simply withdraw ourselves.

Conditions for support?  Yes and no.  A church choosing to support another should investigate if the church follows the same pattern as themselves before giving.  Once the money is given, it belongs to the other church with no strings attached.  They may choose to stop giving support if the church changes, but they do not get to control what happens in the church.

Pooling resources for higher education?  My jury is still out.  I am waiting to see where I land on Bible college.  I have seen all of the church colleges.  They eventually become a horrible system of MOG worship with a political structure of loyalty and secrecy that is easily corrupted.  Educators are not hired, friends and descendants are hired.  Students are not taught to investigate doctrine, but to follow.  However, an independent school system would easily slip into liberalism over the course of a couple generations.  I think maybe the best method for training would be to disciple converts in the church to the point of true Biblical understanding and yieldedness to the Holy Spirit.  Maybe pastors ought not be found by petitioning your favorite Bible college for their premier stars, but by asking God to reveal who among the congregation could best lead the congregation to be more conformed to Christ.

 

[christundivided]

[quote author=christundivided]The vast majority of American churches have always been "congregational" assemblies.

No.
[/quote]

Yes.

 

[Binaca Chugger]

[quote author=Binaca Chugger]From whence does Congregationalism hail?

Likely the separatists within the Puritan movement in 17th-ish century England. It came over to America on the Mayflower.
[/quote]

Exactly.  Which means they are not Baptist.  There is some difference in doctrine and practice.  While governance and many teachings may be similar, I am a Baptist. 

I was confounded for quite a while when I learned that Billy Sunday was a congregationalist.  This was one of those moments when I realized that just because you are not exactly like me does not mean you are bad (Eye opening for a FBCH kid).

 

[christundivided]

[quote author=Binaca Chugger]From whence does Congregationalism hail?

Likely the separatists within the Puritan movement in 17th-ish century England. It came over to America on the Mayflower.
[/quote]

It was the product of the Reformation.

 

[christundivided]

[quote author=Binaca Chugger]From whence does Congregationalism hail?

Likely the separatists within the Puritan movement in 17th-ish century England. It came over to America on the Mayflower.

Exactly.  Which means they are not Baptist.  There is some difference in doctrine and practice.  While governance and many teachings may be similar, I am a Baptist. 

I was confounded for quite a while when I learned that Billy Sunday was a congregationalist.  This was one of those moments when I realized that just because you are not exactly like me does not mean you are bad (Eye opening for a FBCH kid).
[/quote]

Sure they were Baptist. Don't get confused by the "Congregational Church". The idea of "independent" local "governance" has been around a long time. In America, it began or was greatly influenced by Puritans. Yet, don't consider them the source of the ideals of "independence".

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=christundivided]The vast majority of American churches have always been "congregational" assemblies.

No.

Yes.
[/quote]

http://undergod.procon.org/view.background-resource.php?resourceID=87

Catholic churches alone have nearly twice the membership of all flavors of Baptist (the largest congregational group). Methodist, Lutheran, and Presbyterian flavors come in at ranks 3-5 (with a total that is nearly that of all Baptists). This doesn't even account for the Anglican/Episcopalian churches, variety of Orthodox churches, or other varieties such as SDAs, Nazarenes, or the SA.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Binaca Chugger]From whence does Congregationalism hail?

Likely the separatists within the Puritan movement in 17th-ish century England. It came over to America on the Mayflower.

Exactly.  Which means they are not Baptist.  There is some difference in doctrine and practice.  While governance and many teachings may be similar, I am a Baptist. 

I was confounded for quite a while when I learned that Billy Sunday was a congregationalist.  This was one of those moments when I realized that just because you are not exactly like me does not mean you are bad (Eye opening for a FBCH kid).[/quote]

I didn't say they were Baptist. I said they were congregationalists.

 

[Binaca Chugger]

[quote author=Binaca Chugger]From whence does Congregationalism hail?

Likely the separatists within the Puritan movement in 17th-ish century England. It came over to America on the Mayflower.

Exactly.  Which means they are not Baptist.  There is some difference in doctrine and practice.  While governance and many teachings may be similar, I am a Baptist. 

I was confounded for quite a while when I learned that Billy Sunday was a congregationalist.  This was one of those moments when I realized that just because you are not exactly like me does not mean you are bad (Eye opening for a FBCH kid).

Sure they were Baptist. Don't get confused by the "Congregational Church". The idea of "independent" local "governance" has been around a long time. In America, it began or was greatly influenced by Puritans. Yet, don't consider them the source of the ideals of "independence".
[/quote]

Yes.  Independent local church governance has been around since the church began. 

I take the name Baptist because I believe it most closely resembles that of the church Christ started.  I add the words Independent and Fundamental to help differentiate between other modern variations of Baptists.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Binaca Chugger]Yes.  Independent local church governance has been around since the church began.  [/quote]

No...Paul (and John) pretty clearly stuck his nose in a variety of churches where he was not a member

 

[Binaca Chugger]

[quote author=Binaca Chugger]From whence does Congregationalism hail?

Likely the separatists within the Puritan movement in 17th-ish century England. It came over to America on the Mayflower.

Exactly.  Which means they are not Baptist.  There is some difference in doctrine and practice.  While governance and many teachings may be similar, I am a Baptist. 

I was confounded for quite a while when I learned that Billy Sunday was a congregationalist.  This was one of those moments when I realized that just because you are not exactly like me does not mean you are bad (Eye opening for a FBCH kid).

I didn't say they were Baptist. I said they were congregationalists.
[/quote]

Right.  The congregationalists were a split of the Puritan movement, seeking to return to a pure religion they abandoned the church of England to start over rather than reform.  The Pilgrims were not Baptist.  I was using your response to answer the previous post about how I sounded congregationalist.  I am not congregationalist.  While governance and many teaching may appear similar, I am a Baptist.

 

[Binaca Chugger]

[quote author=Binaca Chugger]Yes.  Independent local church governance has been around since the church began. 

No...Paul (and John) pretty clearly stuck his nose in a variety of churches where he was not a member
[/quote]

...and yet rejected the notion that the Jerusalem conference had control over the growth of the Gospel.

I do not believe a church or outside body should never admonish or encourage another church.  I believe a church or outside body should never mandate or manipulate another church.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Binaca Chugger]Yes.  Independent local church governance has been around since the church began. 

No...Paul (and John) pretty clearly stuck his nose in a variety of churches where he was not a member

...and yet rejected the notion that the Jerusalem conference had control over the growth of the Gospel.[/quote]

I, too, reject the notion that any human has control over the growth of the Gospel. God saves who He wills.

But Paul did do a checkup with the Jerusalem Council to make sure he was on the right track...

Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. I went up because of a revelation and set before them (though privately before those who seemed influential) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain. (Galatians 2:1-2, ESV)

[quote author=Binaca Chugger]I do not believe a church or outside body should never admonish or encourage another church.  I believe a church or outside body should never mandate or manipulate another church.[/quote]

Sorry, but if I'm giving money to a church plant and they start teaching that Jesus was a martian who came to teach us how to plant coins ("seed") to grow money trees, I'm cutting off that support.

 

[Binaca Chugger]

[quote author=Binaca Chugger]Yes.  Independent local church governance has been around since the church began. 

No...Paul (and John) pretty clearly stuck his nose in a variety of churches where he was not a member

...and yet rejected the notion that the Jerusalem conference had control over the growth of the Gospel.

I, too, reject the notion that any human has control over the growth of the Gospel. God saves who He wills.

But Paul did do a checkup with the Jerusalem Council to make sure he was on the right track...

Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. I went up because of a revelation and set before them (though privately before those who seemed influential) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain. (Galatians 2:1-2, ESV)[/quote]

Keep reading:

Gal 2:6  But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me: But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; ...  they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

I have no problem with asserting that Paul sought human council or advice.  I do have a problem with asserting that the council had the power to dictate what an evangelist / church planter / church is allowed to do.

 

[Binaca Chugger]

[quote author=Binaca Chugger]I do not believe a church or outside body should never admonish or encourage another church.  I believe a church or outside body should never mandate or manipulate another church.

Sorry, but if I'm giving money to a church plant and they start teaching that Jesus was a martian who came to teach us how to plant coins ("seed") to grow money trees, I'm cutting off that support.
[/quote]

Agreed.  Which is why I stated that investigation should be made at the onset and funds may cease to be sent if the new church changes direction.  However, money, once given, should not have strings attached.  Money given is a free will offering that God has burdened Christians to give to another Christian or group of Christians.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Binaca Chugger]I have no problem with asserting that Paul sought human council or advice.  I do have a problem with asserting that the council had the power to dictate what an evangelist / church planter / church is allowed to do.[/quote]

I'll use my normal argument for people who stress "independent" entirely too much.

How many books are in your New Testament? Why?