He [Jesus] is also the head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything. - Colossians 1:18
Good morning! We recently began a new sermon series titled “Baptist Distinctives”. Over the course of the next few weeks, we will consider some of the major beliefs and practices that make Baptists uniquely different from most other Christian denominations.
In last Sunday’s message, the first of this study, we talked about “Biblical Authority”. Baptists recognize the Bible as the sole and final authority for all aspects of Christian faith and practice. It is the inspired Word of God, divine, and perfectly manifested through Jesus Christ. No human opinion, teaching, or directive carries the weight or power of Scripture.
Today we will highlight a second Baptist distinctive - the “Autonomy of the Local Church”.
I. INDIVIDUAL CONGREGATIONS (1 Corinthians 12:12,27)
The word “church” is found over 110 times in the New Testament. It is derived from the Greek word “ekklesia” which literally means “an assembly” of “the called out”. Though technically it can apply to other groups of people (such as in Acts 19:32), in almost all cases the term “ekklesia” describes Christian gatherings. Depending on the context, it can refer to all Christians everywhere (the universal church), those in a particular city or area (the regional church), or the members of small, individual congregations (the local church). All 3 of these meanings are appropriate and valid.
The Bible describes the church metaphorically as “the body of Christ”. Jesus is the head of the body, and thus the leader of it. Apart from the head, the body is made up of many members. These members, though distinctly and necessarily different from one another, all work together for the good of the whole. The eyes, the ears, the hands, the feet, and all of the various parts of the body are important to and mutually affect each other. Again, the word “church” can be rightly applied to both the entire body and to it’s separate members. In other words, the Church is made up of many churches.
Differences exist between denominations due to their emphasis on one perspective or the other. Most prioritize the body as a whole, and thus view the church principally as a single religious institution. On the contrary, Baptists prioritize the various members of the body, and thus view the church primarily as a collection of many individual, local congregations. Though this distinction may seem nominal at first, it has significant implications...
II. INDEPENDENT CONGREGATIONS (Acts 16:5)
The governance and operation of the church is largely dependent upon its understanding of what a church is. Those denominations that stress the universal, institutional nature of the church have a very different administrative approach than Baptists do. Such churches are led by centralized authorities that govern through prescribed, hierarchical religious structures. Doctrinal positions and practices are determined at the higher levels and passed down to the local congregations. Individual churches have little, if any, say such matters. This methodology tends to be more rigid and promotes uniformity within the denomination.
In stark contrast, Baptist churches are completely autonomous (that is, self-governed and self-supporting). Each local assembly is fully independent. There are no authoritative bodies outside of or over the local congregation. There is no hierarchical ruling system in place. Each church, under the headship of Christ alone, is free to make its own decisions regarding its particular beliefs and practices. There are no universally prescribed dictates. Thus, while all Baptists share some unifying core beliefs, there is great diversity within the denomination. In fact, many fundamentalists would argue that Baptists are not a denomination at all - at least not in a strict sense - as they are not formally connected in any way.
But what about The Jerusalem Council? In Acts 15, a gathering of church leaders from Jerusalem and Antioch met to discuss whether or not Gentile Christians must be circumcised (like the Jewish Christians were) in order to be accepted as legitimate members of the church. After much deliberation they determined not to impose any arbitrary mandates on the Gentile Christians regarding circumcision (or any other issue). Instead they chose to offer constructive advice on several topics intended solely to help edify the Gentile believers. No consequences for “disobedience” were given. It is noteworthy that The Jerusalem Council chose not to act as an authoritative body over the universal church, but rather as a counselor and an advocate for the free expression of the local church. It did not assume any administrative power or control over the various and scattered Christian congregations.
III. COOPERATIVE CONGREGATIONS (Galatians 2:10, Romans 15:25-26)
Although Baptists strongly emphasize the individuality and independence of each local church, they also recognize the need for churches to cooperate with one another. It is plainly obvious that churches can accomplish more when they work together than they can separately. This is the basis for localized alliances, regional associations, and state and national conventions which consist of multiple Baptist churches. Participation in and giving to these bodies is completely voluntary, their proclamations are non-binding, and churches can choose to disassociate at any time. The resolutions and opinions of such conventions are generally representative of the majority, but not necessarily shared by all participating churches. Though cooperation provides numerous benefits, there are some Baptist churches that choose not to associate or affiliate with any other church or group (and that’s their prerogative).
There is a recurring storyline that runs through several of the New Testament epistles known as “The Collection for the Saints”. The Jewish Christians in Jerusalem suffered intensely from persecution and famine during the first century. The leaders of those congregations, likely during the aforementioned Jerusalem Council, asked the Apostle Paul to take up a contribution from among the various Gentile churches he visited during his missionary journeys. Paul gladly agreed to do so. This was a free-will offering, voluntarily given by those congregations who chose to participate, that was used to support the saints in Jerusalem. This collection was encouraged, but not required. Paul promoted this during his second missionary journey, collected it during his third, and subsequently carried it to Jerusalem. Baptists cite this as an exemplary model for how individual churches can and should willingly cooperate with one another to make a greater impact.
CONCLUSION
When the word “church” is used in the Bible, the overwhelming majority of the time it clearly refers to local congregations or assemblies. There is no indication in the New Testament of any hierarchical system or governing structure over the local church. Each individual congregation was distinct and autonomous, answering to the Lordship of Christ alone. To the extent possible, many (if not most) of these churches communicated with, held fellowship with, and even cooperated with one another in order to advance the Kingdom of God. Each church was uniquely different in some respects, as evidenced by the letters that were written to them, yet all were like-minded in their fundamental beliefs. Modern Baptists strive to follow this example. They encourage unity between the churches, not uniformity of churches.
I’ll close with an analogy. Though it isn’t accurate in all respects, it is helpful to me in understanding how Baptist churches are structured and related. Local Baptist churches function more like separate small businesses, while local churches in many other denominations operate more like franchises or branches of the larger corporation. Does that make sense? See you next week...
Good morning! We recently began a new sermon series titled “Baptist Distinctives”. Over the course of the next few weeks, we will consider some of the major beliefs and practices that make Baptists uniquely different from most other Christian denominations.
In last Sunday’s message, the first of this study, we talked about “Biblical Authority”. Baptists recognize the Bible as the sole and final authority for all aspects of Christian faith and practice. It is the inspired Word of God, divine, and perfectly manifested through Jesus Christ. No human opinion, teaching, or directive carries the weight or power of Scripture.
Today we will highlight a second Baptist distinctive - the “Autonomy of the Local Church”.
I. INDIVIDUAL CONGREGATIONS (1 Corinthians 12:12,27)
The word “church” is found over 110 times in the New Testament. It is derived from the Greek word “ekklesia” which literally means “an assembly” of “the called out”. Though technically it can apply to other groups of people (such as in Acts 19:32), in almost all cases the term “ekklesia” describes Christian gatherings. Depending on the context, it can refer to all Christians everywhere (the universal church), those in a particular city or area (the regional church), or the members of small, individual congregations (the local church). All 3 of these meanings are appropriate and valid.
The Bible describes the church metaphorically as “the body of Christ”. Jesus is the head of the body, and thus the leader of it. Apart from the head, the body is made up of many members. These members, though distinctly and necessarily different from one another, all work together for the good of the whole. The eyes, the ears, the hands, the feet, and all of the various parts of the body are important to and mutually affect each other. Again, the word “church” can be rightly applied to both the entire body and to it’s separate members. In other words, the Church is made up of many churches.
Differences exist between denominations due to their emphasis on one perspective or the other. Most prioritize the body as a whole, and thus view the church principally as a single religious institution. On the contrary, Baptists prioritize the various members of the body, and thus view the church primarily as a collection of many individual, local congregations. Though this distinction may seem nominal at first, it has significant implications...
II. INDEPENDENT CONGREGATIONS (Acts 16:5)
The governance and operation of the church is largely dependent upon its understanding of what a church is. Those denominations that stress the universal, institutional nature of the church have a very different administrative approach than Baptists do. Such churches are led by centralized authorities that govern through prescribed, hierarchical religious structures. Doctrinal positions and practices are determined at the higher levels and passed down to the local congregations. Individual churches have little, if any, say such matters. This methodology tends to be more rigid and promotes uniformity within the denomination.
In stark contrast, Baptist churches are completely autonomous (that is, self-governed and self-supporting). Each local assembly is fully independent. There are no authoritative bodies outside of or over the local congregation. There is no hierarchical ruling system in place. Each church, under the headship of Christ alone, is free to make its own decisions regarding its particular beliefs and practices. There are no universally prescribed dictates. Thus, while all Baptists share some unifying core beliefs, there is great diversity within the denomination. In fact, many fundamentalists would argue that Baptists are not a denomination at all - at least not in a strict sense - as they are not formally connected in any way.
But what about The Jerusalem Council? In Acts 15, a gathering of church leaders from Jerusalem and Antioch met to discuss whether or not Gentile Christians must be circumcised (like the Jewish Christians were) in order to be accepted as legitimate members of the church. After much deliberation they determined not to impose any arbitrary mandates on the Gentile Christians regarding circumcision (or any other issue). Instead they chose to offer constructive advice on several topics intended solely to help edify the Gentile believers. No consequences for “disobedience” were given. It is noteworthy that The Jerusalem Council chose not to act as an authoritative body over the universal church, but rather as a counselor and an advocate for the free expression of the local church. It did not assume any administrative power or control over the various and scattered Christian congregations.
III. COOPERATIVE CONGREGATIONS (Galatians 2:10, Romans 15:25-26)
Although Baptists strongly emphasize the individuality and independence of each local church, they also recognize the need for churches to cooperate with one another. It is plainly obvious that churches can accomplish more when they work together than they can separately. This is the basis for localized alliances, regional associations, and state and national conventions which consist of multiple Baptist churches. Participation in and giving to these bodies is completely voluntary, their proclamations are non-binding, and churches can choose to disassociate at any time. The resolutions and opinions of such conventions are generally representative of the majority, but not necessarily shared by all participating churches. Though cooperation provides numerous benefits, there are some Baptist churches that choose not to associate or affiliate with any other church or group (and that’s their prerogative).
There is a recurring storyline that runs through several of the New Testament epistles known as “The Collection for the Saints”. The Jewish Christians in Jerusalem suffered intensely from persecution and famine during the first century. The leaders of those congregations, likely during the aforementioned Jerusalem Council, asked the Apostle Paul to take up a contribution from among the various Gentile churches he visited during his missionary journeys. Paul gladly agreed to do so. This was a free-will offering, voluntarily given by those congregations who chose to participate, that was used to support the saints in Jerusalem. This collection was encouraged, but not required. Paul promoted this during his second missionary journey, collected it during his third, and subsequently carried it to Jerusalem. Baptists cite this as an exemplary model for how individual churches can and should willingly cooperate with one another to make a greater impact.
CONCLUSION
When the word “church” is used in the Bible, the overwhelming majority of the time it clearly refers to local congregations or assemblies. There is no indication in the New Testament of any hierarchical system or governing structure over the local church. Each individual congregation was distinct and autonomous, answering to the Lordship of Christ alone. To the extent possible, many (if not most) of these churches communicated with, held fellowship with, and even cooperated with one another in order to advance the Kingdom of God. Each church was uniquely different in some respects, as evidenced by the letters that were written to them, yet all were like-minded in their fundamental beliefs. Modern Baptists strive to follow this example. They encourage unity between the churches, not uniformity of churches.
I’ll close with an analogy. Though it isn’t accurate in all respects, it is helpful to me in understanding how Baptist churches are structured and related. Local Baptist churches function more like separate small businesses, while local churches in many other denominations operate more like franchises or branches of the larger corporation. Does that make sense? See you next week...