10250 North Freeway @ West Road
Houston, Texas 77037
Tel: (281) 447-8484

Peculiar Misunderstandings
Written by Dr. Lester Hutson

Copyright - Lester Hutson - 1989
This material is copyrighted and may not be copied or reproduced without the express written permission of Dr. Lester Hutson.

Message #14

MISUNDERSTANDING WHY THE LORD'S CHURCH IS TO BE INDEPENDENT

Text * Ephesians 3:21

Remember that there are many churches. Each one constitutes the body of Christ in that particular location. Christ is the head over each one, and each one is responsible to carry out his commission to win souls, baptize them, then teach them the truths of his Word.

Since there is no church in the sense that all believers constitute just one giant body or church, but the church as an institution consists only of individual churches here and there; then the question arises as to what kind of connection these many churches should have one with another.

I. MANY OF GOD'S FINE SERVANTS SEE NO PROBLEMS NOR DANGERS WITH ALLIANCES AND INTERLINKING RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CHURCHES IN WHICH THE CHURCHES INVOLVED ACTUALLY SURRENDER, TO ONE DEGREE OR ANOTHER, SOME OF THEIR AUTONOMY, SOVEREIGNTY, OR INDEPENDENCE:

A. Bear in mind that the ecumenical mindset of churches without regard to creed or practice, joining each other in alliances and common efforts is not even being considered here:

1. In the first place, we do not believe every church is a true church of Jesus Christ (one he would call "my church"). From Galatians 1:7-9 we conclude that no church which is not teaching the Bible plan of salvation is a church. Furthermore, we deny any church to be a true church of desus Christ, which can not trace it's doctrinal ancestry to Jesus Christ as founder. That means any church movement starting since Jesus' earthly ministry is not legitimate.

Numerous varieties of churches, calling themselves by Christian names and all claiming to be churches of Jesus Christ, are not recognized by Jesus as his body. Just because a church group calls itself a church of Jesus Christ doesn't mean it is one. To be one that Jesus claims as his own, a church must bear his doctrinal earmarks and be the kind founded by him personally.

2. Among many of those groups which call themselves churches of Jesus Christ, but whose earmarks testify that they are not his; there is a strong ecumenical spirit and desire to get together in one big unified movement. Quite often these are willing to compromise and ally themselves with little or no regard to the autonomy of individual congregations.

3. We reject this ecumenical spirit and effort categorically. We are not against unity; to the contrary, we encourage it. Although, we believe true unity or fellowship is possible among believers or churches only through common acceptance of the truths of God's Word. Yes, we believe there should be unity and co-operation among churches, but never in any way which surrenders the individual autonomy of any church involved. We believe the body of Christ is one local church; and the biblical call for unity in the body of Christ, such as in John 17, is a call for unity within local congregations; not a call for all individual churches to federate under one ecclesiastical unbrella or earthly head.

We do not believe God wants his churches to arm up with, or co-operate in any spiritual or social functions with those who aren't his.

4. So, the scope of our discussion here limits itself to those churches which belong to Jesus. Some of these may be weak and questionable, and on the verge of ceasing to be churches (as was the case in Revelation 2:5 where the candlestick was about to be removed); but they are still churches which desus claims.

B. Even within this limited field, there exists a wide range of opinions about inter-church relationships and entanglements:

1. Many of God's people of highest character and deepest sincerity see nothing wrong with alliances, conventions, associations, and other entanglements between churches. These people are not sinister and evil with malicious intents toward churches and the Lord's work. They are often godly people and dear brothers in the Lord; and they want to see the prosperity of the Lord's work. They earnestly feel that by a church joining a group of other churches in some sort of organization, the Lord's work will be enhanced.

2. Some of these form organizations that are pretty tight and authoritative over the local churches which are a part of it. In almost every case, the individual church is left with a certain amount of autonomy. Thus, most churches within organizations still regard themselves as independent and autonomous. Although, in the more centralized conventions and associations, the individual churches must surrender considerable autonomy. In many cases they must agree to support and uphold the organization of which they are a part. They must agree to co-operate with central leadership, economically support the group, limit activities and fellowship (either voluntarily or in-voluntarily) to the group, and participate in the organization's work. In almost every case, an individual church can get kicked out of the organization, if it gets too far out of step. Many of the central organizations pretty effectively determine what will be taught in the Sunday schools of the constituant churches, which missionaries they'll support, where their pastors will be educated, and general church beliefs and policy.

3. Other church organizations are more loose-knit. They're often called fellowships, and the participating churches have greater autonomy. Usually the actions of the central organization are non-binding, and the individual churches can pick and choose which aspects they'll support. Though participation in these is voluntary, the peer pressure applied on those who are not zealously in support of the organization and its policies and programs is very great. Thus, the dedication by pastors and churches to the organization is often stronger than that in the tighter, less voluntary organizations. Even in these looser organizations of churches, there must be a certain minimum level of support and participation by the individual churches to maintain membership within it. A church must be a member church to be able to vote in and have a voice in the organization's affairs. Thus some criteria for membership must be maintained; and if a church fails to meet that criteria, then it's out, one way or another. Thus, there's an ever-present pressure (however subtle) and demand for cooperation and support by the outside leadership or influence of the central organization over the member churches.

4. These inter-church entanglements (which go by a multitude of names) normally grow out of efforts to do missionary work, although they can involve a myriad of fronts. Churches form joint organizations to provide financing for new churches, build hospitals, do radio and television work, run schools, own and operate youth camps, and so much more.

II. MANY PEOPLE THINK US STRANGE AND PECULIAR BECAUSE WE ARE NOT A PART OF NOR IN SUPPORT OF ANY ORGANIZATION OF CHURCHES:

A. Call us independent, unaffiliated, un-allied, or whatever one choses; but the whole idea is that we are not a part of any organization of churches:

1. We have never joined one and can't be kicked out of one.

2. We send no delegates to any organizational meeting, and never vote or have any voice in any ecclesiastical organization's business.

3. We are not voluntarily nor involuntarily trying to adhere to the creeds or policies of any other church or group of churches; but are rather trying to adhere to Jesus Christ and his teachings only.

4. There is no organizational ladder for our pastor or church to climb. For our pastor or other members, there are no higher and more glamorous offices to hold than the offices of the local church.

5. We do not look to, nor answer to, any outside leadership or headquarters other than Jesus Christ's leadership; and he is our head.

6. We're involved in no work bigger than that being done by a local church; either our own or a sister church.

B. We are not isolationists doing nothing with other churches:

1. To the contrary, we are deeply involved with many other churches in the work of our Lord. We work together in the support of many missionaries; and jointly participate in establishing churches, running youth camps, the operation of colleges, mission and Bible conferences, revivals, the ordination of pastors and deacons, and much, much more.

2. But, we never do it by joining in any kind of organization of churches, either voluntarily or otherwise. The decisions and authority for all of the work we are involved in are made by our church or by another church; never by a group of two or more delegates, pastors or otherwise, from more than one church. We make many decisions and attempt many things to enhance the work of our Lord, and sometimes other churches help us with these works. Often we find ourselves helping other churches in this manner. But, it's always church to church; never church outside of church through some organization made up of churches. In fact, we do many of the same things churches in organization do; but we do these through the church; not through any organization other than a church.

In our case, the work we do is always under the authority of one local church; never under the joint authority of two or more churches, even if one be our own.

3. An amazingly large number of people find this approach to church life peculiar. They say, "You mean you are not in the convention?" "How do you do missions work?" "When you say you are independent, do you mean there is an association or convention made up of Independent Baptists?" "What do you mean 'Independent Baptist'? How does it work?" 'Is this something new among Baptists?"

III. IN VIEW OF THE ORIGIN OF INDEPENDENT CHURCHES, AND HOW LONG THEY HAVE BEEN AROUND: IT IS HARD FOR US TO SEE WHY ANYONE WOULD THINK THEM PECULIAR:

A. The very first church to ever exist, which was established by Jesus himself, was independent:

1. Jesus personally said, "I will build my church," Matthew 16:18. This He did in Jerusalem, Israel. Of the material prepared by John the Baptist (Luke 3:4), Jesus called twelve and sent them forth, Matthew 10:1-15. These constituted the first members of the church (I Corinthians 12:28), which we see functioning in the first few chapters of Acts.

2. Now, it is not hard to see that this church was independent. It had to be. There was no other church with which it could form an alliance.

3. In the Jerusalem Church, we have the original, God ordained pattern church. It was independent, which is sound biblical basis for the existence of Independent Churches.

B. Within a few years after the Jerusalem Church was established by Jesus, others out of it and like it sprang up in many other locations:

1. Under heavy persecution at Jerusalem, members of the Jerusalem Church were "scattered abroad...everywhere preaching the Word," Acts 8:4. Soon churches sprang up in Antioch (Acts 13:1), in Syria and Cilicia (Acts 15:41), in Galatia (Galatians 1:2), and in many other locations.

2. Did these churches form organizations of churches or enter into entangling alliances or other arrangements? The answer is "no". How do we know? From the Bible. Search the scriptures from where Jesus started the church in Jerusalem in Matthew 10 right to the end of the Bible in the Revelation, and you will not find even one reference or hint that there ever was any organization formed between any two or more of these Bible churches.

Cooperation? Yes. Alliances or joint organizations? Never! When there was a doctrinal question in one church, it sent messengers to another church for advice in the matter; but not to form some ecclesiastical union or alliance, Acts 15. They worked together in support of missionaries (Philipplans 4:15-16), and in help of the needy, II Corinthians 8:1-5. But, never once in scripture did they ever form an alliance, connection, association, fellowship, or other joint organization among themselves.

3. In scripture, you will find no ecclesiastical organization for the propagation of the Word and work of God bigger than the church, nor outside of the church.

C. We believe scripture to be our guidebook in commandment, and in example:

1. When Jesus personally established his church and then recorded it's multiplication and operations in scripture for the next seventy years, we see there what he intended his churches to be and how they're to operate. I Peter 2:21, "For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps."

2. Why should any church be thought peculiar for following that Bible plan and example? If all Bible churches were completely autonomous or independent of inter-church alliances or extra-church organizations (and they were), why should any church today be thought odd or peculiar for being independent or autonomous? In essence, we believe no church is peculiar for being like those churches in the Bible. To the contrary, if anything is peculiar, it is deviation from this Bible example.

A dear preacher friend of mine was once being chided for not being a part of one of the large inter-church organizations. The fellow pastor insisted that Independent Baptists are just a splinter group. The pastor finally asked his antagonizer what his organization was before it became the Southern Baptist Convention. "Well," answered the man, "We were the American Baptist Convention." "And," my friend pressed," What were American Baptist Churches before they formed into a convention?" The pastor said, "Well, we were just Baptists." "You mean," said my friend, "That you were not in any organization of churches: that you were just independent Baptist churches ? "Well yes," stammered the goading pastor, "I guess you could say that." "Well," said my friend, "If I am now what you were then, and you are now no longer what you were; you tell me who is the splinter group and who is the main-liner."

This little story illustrates the point well that it is not independent churches who left the Lord's pattern for church government and operations. It is those who would form organizations between churches that somewhere along the trail of time left the God-given pattern. But, surely those of us who have stayed with the pattern down through the centuries should not be thought peculiar or out of step with mainstream, Bible Christianity. We're not the ones who moved or made the switch to a new way.

D. Biblically, a fundamental change occurs the moment a church ceases to be completely antonomous:

1. The Bible says, "Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen," Ephesians 3:21. The church is his institution, and that which he promised to sustain, Matthew 16:18. It was to the church that he gave his great commission in Matthew 28:19-20. All of his ecclesiastical promises and commands in scripture are to the church. In scripture, he talked about and to his churches, and worked through them as though no other ecclesiastical organization existed.

2. From scripture, it is obvious that he wants his work done through the church. That's where he placed the authority for the propagation of his work; never elsewhere. There is no question that he could have raised up associations, conventions, fellowships, or other such organizations and given them a stake in the doing of his work; but he didn't. He didn't! That's the point, he didn't. And, ours is not to concern ourselves so much with surmisings about what he could or should have done; but rather to do as he commanded or gave example. Who are we to question God or take it upon ourselves to change his methods? It is Samuel who warns, "Behold to obey is better than sacrifice, and to barken than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry," I Samuel 15:22-23.

3. God put the authority for his work in the local church; not in an organization made up of two or more churches. Any time the real authority and voice for carrying on God's work gets outside one local church, a fundamental violation of God given practice is violated. Churches are to look to their head, the Lord Jesus, for leadership, Ephesians 1:22-23. They are never to look to organizational headquarters; nor allow staying in harmony with other churches to determine their policies, pratice, or doctrine. However subtle and little it may be, any time a church becomes a part of an ecclesiastical organization with one or many other churches, be they good or bad, it surrenders a little of its autonomy; and becomes a part of an organization which is without scriptural basis or foundation. Any glory to God for any good that comes out of such an organization erodes away at his stated intent that all glory that comes to him is to come through his church; not some organization made up of two or more of his churches.

4. God put the authority in his one and only ecclesiastical organization, and that's where we try to keep it. We don't think that's peculiar, and we wonder why anyone else does.

"It Does Make a Difference What You Believe"