BAPTIST POLITY
By H. Leon McBeth,
Professor of Church History, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary,
Fort Worth, Texas.

This article originally was printed in the March 1993 issue of the TBC newsletter. We are reprinting it now because so many of the issues raised by the fundamentalist prior to the 1996 BGCT annual meeting (women deacons, CBF, local church gifts) are “polity, i.e., local church autonomy” issues that should not be brought up at the state convention and should not be dividing Texas Baptists.

Dr. W.B. Barnes taught Baptist history at Southwestern Baptist Seminary in Fort Worth for over forty years. After his retirement, he still liked to talk with students, often over lunch. Those of us fortunate enough to know Dr. Barnes would often ply him with questions by the hour.

I remember one such lunchtime conversation in which the white-haired old professor and four or five students lingered for coffee at the old Seminary “snackery,” as it was then called. One student started to ask a question: “Dr. Barnes, can a Baptist church…?”

That is as far as he got. Dr. Barnes interrupted by saying, “young man, a Baptist church can do whatever it decides to do.”

The veteran Baptist historian went on to point out that a Baptist church is free to make its own decisions, and that no authority in church or state has jurisdiction over the faith and practice of a Baptist church. We call that, Barnes said, local church autonomy. That autonomy is part of Baptist polity.

Polity is important to Baptist. The dictionary defines polity as the way a group is organized to do its work. How are Baptist churches organized? How do Baptist churches relate to other churches in associations and conventions?

This article will set out and briefly illustrate some of the basic principles of Baptist polity.

A Baptist Church is FREE

In a time when some oppose freedom and others fear it, we cannot overemphasize the fact that Baptist churches are free.

Under the Lordship of Jesus Christ, the members of a Baptist church may define their own doctrinal beliefs, they own and control their church property, they may call their own pastor and other ministerial staff and, if need be, dismiss them; they may elect whom they choose as Sunday School teachers; and they may ordain whom they will as deacons. All of these things a Baptist church can do without permission or approval of any other body.

The freedom of a Baptist church is not only internal, relating to their own family affairs, it is also external, concerning the church’s relation to other churches and conventions. A Baptist church can vote to affiliate, or not affiliate, or disaffiliate with any association, convention, or missionary offerings to any individual missionary, society, board, or convention that is chooses. A Baptist church is perfectly free to send all of its offerings, part of the offerings, or none of the offerings to any person or group it chooses.

By the principles of Baptist polity, a Baptist church may decide to cooperate with a convention this year, and decide not to cooperate next year.

There is often a wide difference between what a church should do and what a church can do. Not every church decision is wise or right. Sometimes churches, like individuals, make the wrong choice. However, this does not cancel their freedom.

Just as a church is free, so Baptist associations and conventions are also free. Such bodies set their own membership standards; they define the basis upon which churches may or may not affiliate with them. The associations and/or conventions may sometimes make decisions that are unwise or even unBaptistic, but that does not change their freedom to decide.

Church Cooperation is Voluntary

Our history shows that as early as 1624 five Baptist churches cooperated in a common concern. In 1644 seven Baptist churches in London acted together to issue a common confession to their faith. By the early 1650s a new organization, “the association,” had entered Baptist life. The association was the first Baptist structure beyond the local church, and one of the most important.

In every case, church affiliation in these associations was voluntary. Churches would often write to the association to get more information about their faith and practice before deciding whether to affiliate. And associations, in turn, would often ask more information about churches before agreeing to accept them into fellowship.

No association or convention can command or coerce a church to affiliate. To this day, cooperation is voluntary.

Cooperation Strengthens our Witness

Although churches are free to cooperate with others or not, there are many advantages to cooperation. Very early Baptist learned that there is strength in unity, that a three-fold cord is not easily broken.

In 1652 the Abingdon Association affirmed that “perticular (sic) churches ought to hold a firm communion each with other.” (B.R. White, ed., Association Records, Part 3, p. 126) These early Baptists said that just as individual Christians need the fellowship and mutual support of other Christians in church, so the churches also need each other. Churches walking together can draw strength, inspiration, and guidance from each other.

There are practical as well as spiritual benefits in church cooperation. The Abingdon Association concluded that “The work of God, wherein all the churches are concerned together (sic), may be the more easily and prosperously carried on by a combination of prayers and endeavors.”

That is why churches to this day cooperate in associations and conventions. We are all concerned for the work of God, and we believe that a “combination of prayers and efforts” of all the churches will advance that work better than we can do alone.

Cooperation May Be Multiple

Some relationships are, by their nature, exclusive. One example is marriage; a person is married to one person, not two or three. Other relationships, however, may be multiple. An employee, for example, may work for more than one company.

Church cooperation by its nature may be multiple. It may in fact be as wide as the church’s vision and resources. A church may support a missionary board, contribute to a missionary society, send funds directly to a missionary on the field, send their own missionary, or all of the above. Wherever in the world churches see a need and have resources to address that need, they are certainly free to do so.

Baptist history is full of examples of churches that sent missionary offerings to different mission agencies. In earlier days, Southern Baptist churches, especially in border states, affiliated with both Northern and Southern Baptist conventions. Such churches remain in good standing with both groups. They usually divided their missionary offerings between the two conventions and, as a result of giving two directions, they often gave more than churches aligned with only one group.

Today we have several hundred African-American churches affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention. This relationship has been positive, it helps the churches, and it brings a rich diversity of Christian gifts and fellowship to the SBC.

Most of the African-American churches affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention also retain their ties to one of the African-American conventions. Thus we have many churches today that affiliate both with the Southern Baptist Convention and the National Baptist Convention. These churches contribute through the SBC Cooperative Program, but they also support one or more programs of the National Baptist Convention.

Would anyone say today that African- American churches should be put out of the SBC because they choose to retain some fellowship and common interest ties to the National Convention? Would anyone exclude them if they, while contributing loyally through the Cooperative Program, choose also to support some of the special causes of the National Convention?

What is true of the African-American SBC churches is also true of many white churches. Churches in good standing in the SBC currently send some of their offerings through the Cooperative Program, some to individual missionaries (especially those from their own church), some to independent groups like Wycliffe Translators and some to worthwhile causes sponsored by other denominations. Such churches are not censored and their relationship to the SBC is not threatened by the exercise of their freedom to contribute to more than one cause.

Challenges to Baptist Polity

In a world where nothing seems nailed down anymore, historic Baptist polity is being challenged as never before. Some are proposing changes in the relationship of churches to other churches, or churches to denominational bodies, that would fundamentally alter our Baptist way of life.

Churches do not belong to the denomination. Churches are not like local franchises of a national corporation. Churches do not report to “headquarters,” nor do they receive orders from corporate officers at some denominational home office. Churches may affiliate with the SBC, cooperate with the SBC, participate in programs of the SBC, but no church belongs to the SBC.

Some Baptists seem to adopt a “corporate mentality” about church-denomination relations. That is, some may subconsciously adopt an American business or government paradigm that the local units must ultimately conform to corporate headquarters. I have heard people say, “eventually, the churches must follow the denomination’s lead.” If we accept that idea, we have turned Baptist polity upside down.

Perhaps the greatest challenge to Baptist polity today comes not from some outside opponent, but from within the churches themselves. A Baptist church that forgets how to exercise its freedom stands in danger of diminishing that freedom, or even losing it.

Conclusion

What can a church do today to reaffirm and practice our historic polity? First, we need serious Bible study to strengthen our concept of the church and its ministry in the world until our Lord returns. Second, we need to review our heritage to see how Baptist churches in the past have worked together to advance God’s kingdom. Third, we need to open our eyes to the world around us, from the street where we live to the backside of the earth. What are the spiritual needs around us? What are some ways we can help meet these needs.

Once we have a clear concept of the church’s mission and have identified spiritual needs, let us do our best to meet those needs and cooperate with others who are trying to do the same.

February 1997