INTRODUCTION:

As I begin this message I want to say that this has not always been my persuasion and I might say my persuasions are not easily changed. This didn't happen overnight and it has not been without some struggles.

Much like the Bible text issue, I cut my teeth, so to speak, on the New Testament Greek text type of Westcott and Hort and in the context of church associations.

Secondly, I realize I'm messing with the goose that laid the golden egg. To many who claim the name Baptist this may be an attack upon the apple of their eye, and no doubt I will further be labeled as a radical and fanatic and one to be avoided. But, I guess none of that is new.

I must also say I can't say I have come to this position because I wanted to unless it is because I have only wanted to be Biblical. I am turning 70 years of age this year and I guess you might say I'm a slow learner. I tell my church folks that we as Christians need to ever be teachable, but we need to be careful that we are not gullible.

Historically, Baptists have held to the distinctive of the autonomy of the local church due to the fact that this is clearly taught and demonstrated in the New Testament Scriptures; that a local church is responsible to its Head, the Lord Jesus Christ and Him alone.

The New Testament teaches that the ministry of the gospel of Jesus Christ is the responsibility of the local church. Historically, Baptists have also held that their sole authority for faith and practice is the Word of God, yet no where in Scripture is there even one verse that supports the idea that the local church is to redelegate its divinely-given responsibilities to some other organization.

Regardless of whether it be in the Catholic church, the Protestant denominational churches or Baptist conventions, fellowships, associations, or even some para-church mission agencies, you have an organized machine that either takes or feels it is delegated by local churches to fulfill the responsibilities that are Biblically given to the local church.

Though an organized entity claiming to be comprised of independent Baptist churches or autonomous Baptist churches, that organization in reality functions basically the same as the conventions, the Presbyterians, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Methodists or Catholics.

They all function as a centralized ecclesiastical system and by their very nature necessarily to some degree infringe upon the autonomy of the local church.

Many of those considered as fundamental Baptists of today were historically in the framework of either the old Northern Baptist Convention or the Southern Baptist Convention. In protest of the unbiblical practices, policies and teachings going on in these two conventions, many withdrew.

Similar to the protesters in the Catholic church that were forced out or withdrew and started the many Protestant denominations, they still didn't leave behind all of the unbiblical paraphernalia of their predecessors. To my knowledge none of them left behind the infant baptism and the organizational structure of the Catholic church.

These protesters of conventionalism despised the conventionalism and yet formed the same kind of inter-church machinery Ä they just called it by another name: association of churches, fellowship of churches, or such and such missionary agencies Ä all functioning as an organization in behalf of a group of churches.

These organizations by way of elected/appointed officials take to themselves a supposedly delegated united authority and united program (responsibilities) of the group. Where in the New Testament is the local church instructed to so delegate its authority or its responsibility to anything or anyone outside of its local assembly?

Regardless if you accept these conclusions as I have discussed, I trust you will consider the perils that are associated with these organizations, at leasfrom a human perspective. I'm not saying that some of these organizations have not done good things for the cause of Christ. But may I implore you to at least consider the fact that there well may be some perils involved here.

I want to clearly state here that I'm not against, nor do I believe that the Scriptures dictates against church cooperation. The perils lie not in inter-church cooperations but in inter-church organizations and para-church organizations.

PERIL 1: Delegation of responsibilities to an inter-church organization contributes to local church and individual Christians neglecting and even vacating the responsibilities that are theirs.

Example: Some years ago now a man I talked to informed me that he belonged to a church that was in the Southern Baptist Convention. When I informed him of what he was supporting by way of their cooperative missionary program, he simply shrugged the whole issue aside by saying he gave his money in good faith, and what was done with it then was not his concern.

By way of association, fellowship and mission agencies that local church and its individual members are removed from direct responsibility and scrutiny over the varied responsibilities that actually are committed to them and thereby feel no need to be personally concerned.

Example: Missionary agencies are examining missionary candidates, making policies, etc.; the local church rarely even considers quizzing a missionary regarding his doctrine and practice.

In the education of the youth, the whole of the college and seminary training has been turned over to these para-church organizations and the local church has little if any voice in the schools operation.

PERIL 2: The united group serves as a means for political maneuvering and a place where men with selfish desire for pre-eminence, prestige and power can manipulate their way into positions of leadership and power.

History bears witness of the fact that these inter-church organizations serve as a place where corruption, compromise and apostasy creeps in and serve as tools to take the whole group of local churches down with them.

PERIL 3: These inter-church organizations have fostered a spirit of patriotism to the inter-church organization that surpasses and supersedes loyalty to the local church. The organization invariably serves to depreciate or even destroy the primacy of the local church and the inter-church organization takes center state in all too many peoples eyes.

PERIL 4: These inter-church organizations promote a group clique so that pastors and church members tend to shun and even divorce themselves from pastors and churches which remain outside of the organization, even though those pastors and churches are doctrinally, practically and every other way more like their own church than many of those within their group, thereby creating a sort of bunch of "Baptist Snobs."

PERIL 5: The Scripture clearly promotes Christian excellence, sanctification, separation from error, false doctrine, worldliness, apostasy, etc. (Matt. 5:48, 1 Peter 1:15, 2 Corinthians 6:14 - 7:1) but by way of an inter-church organization there is a constant pull to accommodate and cooperate with churches and ministries you would not if it were not for the common organizational tie you have with them.

The pull is ever to make concessions and compromises to accommodate everybody in the group. "After all we have a Christian duty to help the compromising churches to become more biblical and separated don't we?" Thus, it promotes mediocracy rather than excellence. The tendency of mediocracy is to devolve Ä not evolve.

It thus serves as a breeding ground for compromise and apostasy and the spread of them as well as other perils and spirituals ills. I think the words of Alexander Pope sort of fit here: "Vice is a monster of so frightful mien. As to be hated needs to be seen; Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face, we first endure, then pity, then embrace where the extreme of vice was ne'er agreed."

It seems to me that the Scriptural way is not by accommodation or sanctioning infiltration but separation. The Local Church remaining as separated local autonomous churches is the Biblical pattern.

PERIL 6: The denominations, conventions, associations and fellowships tend to create a spirit of dependency on numbers and security in numbers.

A national association of Churches that I am acquainted with has promoted its organization on the philosophy that there is safety in numbers. The church at Philadelphia in Revelation 3 wguaranteed an open door of ministry that no man can shut on the basis of their faithfulness to the Lord and the work given them to do, not upon the basis of their joining in inter-church group.

Man-made organizations may be dependent on such protection, but not a church of Jesus Christ. If a local church has the protection of the church at Philadelphia (Revelation 3:7) what more security does it need.

PERIL 7: The inter-church organizations tend to detract from an intimate spirit of concern for care of churches of like faith and practice and their people. They tend to create a welfare state type of mentality so that those inter-church needs are left up to the inter-church organization. Not only do these inter-church organizations tend to divorce churches from direct care and concern for one another, but also to divorce a local church from her missionaries.

PERIL 8: These inter-church organizations and para-church organizations create a need for buildings, offices, office equipment, travel expenses and salaries that take finances that could otherwise be used to promote the work of the local church, the support of missionaries and the planting of new churches.

PERIL 9: Its whole structure forms a channel to lead to the ecumenical movement and the road back to Rome. Not too many years ago the Northern Baptist Convention (now American Baptist Churches) and the Southern Baptist Convention were comprised of solid Bible preaching, Bible practicing local churches.

One of the recent heads of the National Council of Churches was a man in the American Baptist Convention. The CBA and the GARBC who came out of there to form their own inter-church organizations are there or nearly there also. The whole philosophy of inter-1

church organizations lead to a universal organization and the establishment of an organizational unity rather than a unity established upon a common faith and polity.

PERIL 10: These man-made organizations tend to create an organizational unity to the neglect of doctrinal unity. Amos 3:3, "Can two walk together, except they be agreed?" It thus creates a false unity to the displacement of the doctrinal and true unity (the rope of sand).

PERIL 11: These organizations cause sound Baptist churches to be involved in programs they would otherwise never be involved with, and identifications they would otherwise never be identified with.

PERIL 12: Last but not least, at least in the eyes of God, is that these organizations tend to detract from the glory God is to have in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages and transfers it to the man-made organization. Unto Him be glory in the church Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen."

Ä THE FUNDAMENTALIST DIGEST

Chuck Nichols is the pastor of the Independent Baptist Church, "Ramsey, MN. While standing firmly for the faith the church he pastors maintains a fervent evangelistic emphasis. Pastor Nichols ministers in a state where Baptist Associationalism and Conventionism is the dominant ecclesiastical polity structure.