Associations
Zion's Advocate, Vol. 38, No. 8, August 1899
Within the last few years there has been quite a good deal said and written by some of our dear brethren in opposition to associations, while those who are favorable to them have been comparatively quiet. As a result some churches have withdrawn from their associations and some associations have disbanded their organizations entirely. While expressions quite unbecoming have been occasionally made, as a rule what has been written has manifested a spirit of kindness and true christian forbearance. We have carefully read many articles from the pens of the most gifted writers, who have been very outspoken in protesting against such organizations, and have thought it best to be silent on this question, not wishing to "raise up strife and contention." Hab. i. 3. We think the time has come, however, for us to give our opinion; for "If the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?"Of the reasons assigned for opposing associations, these three seem to be the most important: 1st. It is contended that the local churches are entirely independent of each other, and that the form of government of the church is strictly congregational. 2nd. It is said that associations have been productive of strife and confusion by usurping authority over the individual churches and raising unwarranted bars of fellowship. 3rd. It is argued that they are unscriptural and should be classed with all the institutions and societies of the world. In the spirit of meekness and love we desire to examine these positions, and give some of our reasons for favoring associational organizations.
We most emphatically deny that the local churches are entirely independent of each other. If they were it would never be proper to speak of the church of Christ in the singular number, using the term in allusion to the institution of Christ's visible kingdom on earth. He said, "On this rock I will build my church," but if each is distinctly independent of all the others he should have said churches, for he would have known that he would eventually have a great number of them. It is true, in a sense, that each local body is the church of Christ, yet all combine to form one church, united by a common bond of brotherhood in one faith and practice. They are united as compactly as the individual members of the church are, and their interrelationship is so closely woven that no one body can be said to stand apart from all others of the same faith. We have known grievous consequences to result from the erroneous idea of local church independency. We have known of cases in which the majority had departed from the faith and practice of the Baptists, and persisted in contending that they constituted the church proper because the local church was an independent body and the majority had the right to decide questions of faith and practice. On such hypothesis one church might declare, by majority vote, that water baptism is in order to the eternal salvation of sinners, and a minority would have no recourse, and other churches would be bound to respect the decision of the majority and recognize it as a church of Christ. To this all Baptists unite in saying, "O no; that is heresy, and such a body would have no just claim to be regarded as a church of Christ." True enough, but if the local church is an entirely independent body who is to decide that such doctrine is heresy, and that a church that adopts it as her faith is not the church of Christ? Such a theory at once sets the churches afloat upon the sea of uncertainty, leaving each to drift withersoever she may, with no bond to hold them together under the banner of Immanuel's love, and no chart to direct them along the ordained channel of his service. So far as the private matters of the church is concerned, such as the choosing of pastors, the location and erection of church buildings, and all matters that do not concern the fellowship of churches in general, the local church government is congregational and therefore entirely independent. But in matters of a general interest that affect the common fellowship of the brotherhood such is not the case.
In regard to the plea that Associations produce confusion by usurping authority over the individual churches, we will say that where such is the case it is an abuse of the power of the members forming the Associational body, and a departure from the design or purpose of the organization. Churches sometimes do wrong and go astray, thus producing confusion and strife, and we might argue, with as much propriety, that church organizations ought to be abandoned, since such organizations sometimes produce confusion and strife. Whatever proves too much proves nothing.
But those who oppose Associations seem to classify them with Sunday Schools, Epworth Leagues, &c., as being without authority in the word of God, and contend that they are of very modern origin. As this is the main argument used in opposing them we desire to give it our most careful attention. Now, let it be remembered that it is not the act of assembling once a year for religious worship that is opposed, but the act of appointing messengers and authorizing them to organize themselves into a body, and transact business, and make and keep a record of the same, that the recent war is waged against. As we understand it there would be no objection made to a Yearly Meeting, or a Union Meeting, or even an Association, if a single church were to hold such, and in her own organized body transact the business, inviting those who might be present to sit in council with her. Were we to call upon the advocates of this modified affair for scripture authorizing a church to have a Moderator and Clerk, to transact a certain definite form of business, and make and keep a record of the same, and invite brethren to sit in council, they would be hushed into perpetual silence. We do not know that the primitive churches were organized by choosing some one to act as Moderator and some one to act as Clerk, and that they proceeded by regular form to transact business, and that they kept a record of their proceedings. We do not know that they did, neither do we know that they did not. This universal custom is not based, therefore, on an actual precept or example given in the New Testament, but is employed to carry out the instruction given to "let all things be done decently and in order." I. Cor. xiv. 40. Certain parliamentary rules have become recognized as essential to be observed by well regulated bodies, and our churches are governed by them that order may be maintained and a history preserved. Such may have been observed in some way since the days of the Apostles, but whether it has been or not can be no reasonable objection offered to such a procedure now.
Then if a number of churches, finding themselves to be uniform in faith and practice, should mutually agree to appoint messengers to meet and organize themselves into a body, and thus unite upon a common doctrine, and perpetuate their yearly meetings for the purpose of forming and keeping a historical record, and for the purpose of conferring together and maintaining an interchange of ministry and receiving and communicating information concerning the condition and prosperity of the churches, what reasonable objection can be urged against it? For our part we have yet to hear or read an objection that amounts to a feather's weight. There is scriptural authority for the appointment of "messengers." See II. Cor. viii. 23. And the statement made by the outspoken opponents of Associations that they are of very recent origin is without foundation. We make this assertion with all due respect for the acknowledged scholarship and talents of some who take a stand on the opposite side of this question. It is admitted that the Baptists of Wales date back into the depths of antiquity, and originated in the days of the Apostles. It is certain that some who heard Paul preach at Rome carried the good news to Wales, and that churches were planted there, which were greatly strengthened in the year 180 by two native Welshmen, Faganus and Damicanus, who were regenerated in Rome and returning to Wales, became famous preachers. "We have every reason to believe that the Welsh Baptists had their Associations, and that Dyfrig, Illtyd, and Danawt, were leading men among them, long before Austin's attempt to convert them to popery, in that association which was held on the borders of England, about the year 600." Davis' History of the Welsh Baptists, page 187. So much for the antiquity of Associations. Brethren, we entreat you, in the name of our divine Master and for the sake of his precious cause we entreat you to pause in your unwarranted and sarcastic warfare against Associations. Is this matter to be pushed until those churches who have been led to take a stand against them declare a non-fellowship for all who hold them? If so, then they will be forced to the embarrassing conclusion that the gates of hell had prevailed against the church, so that at the time it held Associations it was swallowed up in heterodoxy. We are decidedly in favor of Associations, and shall continue to be unless a reasonable argument should be made against them. We know of no better way to maintain correspondence and an interchange of ministry, to preserve the history of the progress of the cause in the various localities, and to promote harmony and fellowship among the churches, than to just go on in the well beaten paths in which our fathers have trodden. What glorious meeting we have had at our Associations! What bountiful feasts have been spread at these meetings by the Lord to gladden the hearts of his hungry, care-worn children! How many are brought together thus who otherwise would not be permitted to meet and mingle together in the heavenly service!
Not to control the church below,
Nor bind, nor rule her sons,
But to associate below
With Zion's little ones.
These seasons still from year to year
Our comforts do restore;
While love and union sweetly roll,
Our Saviour we'll adore.
J. R. D.
Copyright c. 2003. All rights reserved. The Primitive Baptist Library.
