Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Evangelical
A Kerfuffle over “Church Autonomy” among Baptists

A Kerfuffle over “Church Autonomy” among Baptists

Last updated on: December 14, 2016 at 8:47 am by Roger E. Olson

A Kerfuffle over “Church Autonomy” among Baptists 2016-12-14T08:47:05-05:00 Roger E. Olson

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

My apologies to those of you who have no interest in Baptist debates, but they constitute a significant part of my life and, in my opinion, there is tremendous confusion adding fuel to the fires and generating more heat than light. So here, in a rare blog post about Baptist matters, I want only to shed some light and avoid generating more heat (which may be impossible).

As editor of the forthcoming 14th edition of the Handbook of Denominations in the United States I cannot help noticing again something I have long known: that Baptists in the United States are very much divided. Many will not have fellowship with fellow Baptists due to what outsiders would probably consider relatively minor issues of doctrine and practice.

For example (just one out of scores I could mention), some Baptists in the U.S., under the influence of a theology known among Baptists as “Landmarkism,” consider the only church the local congregation, and therefore reject all ecumenical and cooperative endeavors such as Billy Graham evangelistic crusades. At the other end of that particular spectrum are Baptists who enthusiastically cooperate with other Christians, believe in the “church universal,” and even accept infant baptisms performed in other denominations as valid for Baptist church membership.

*Sidebar: The opinions expressed here are my own (or those of the guest writer); I do not speak for any other person, group or organization; nor do I imply that the opinions expressed here reflect those of any other person, group or organization unless I say so specifically. Before commenting read the entire post and the “Note to commenters” at its end.*

There are literally scores of Baptist groups (conventions/denominations) in the U.S. divided over many issues. Some of them do not prevent fellowship or cooperation; others do prevent them. For example, some Baptist groups in the U.S. started out as ethnic and some of those retain their ethnic roots and distinctives without those causing rejection of cooperation and fellowship with other Baptist groups. On the other hand, some Baptist groups will not have fellowship or cooperate with even other Baptist groups that are not premillennial.

It seems that every Baptist denomination in the U.S. occasionally, sometimes often, simply must fall into controversy within itself. (I will use the word “denomination” here for what Baptists prefer to call “conventions,” “associations,” or “conferences.”) It seems to be in Baptist DNA to divide over what non-Baptists and some other Baptists consider trivial matters.

There is a joke that addresses this tendency: A Baptist man was stranded alone on an island in the ocean for several years. (Think Tom Hanks’s character in the movie “Castaway.”) When his rescuers finally arrived they saw three huts the castaway had built side-by-side. They asked him what these are. He pointed at one and said “That’s where I live.” The rescuers then asked about the other two huts. The Baptist castaway pointed at a second hut and said “That’s where I worship.” The rescuers asked about the third hut and the man said “That’s where I used to worship.”

Sure, Baptists aren’t the only ones guilty of being fissiparous, but we (I am a Baptist and have been for most of my life and have belonged to several different Baptist denominations) seem to take it to our own extreme. There are somewhere around fifty distinct Baptist groups in the U.S. to say nothing about the numerous “unaffiliated” Baptist churches that shun belonging to any Baptist denomination. Most of the groups are small, but some are very large. It’s difficult to tell how many churches and members many have since many permit dual affiliation in which a congregation can belong equally to two (sometimes three!) Baptist denominations at the same time. (The Baptist church I belong to is a member of two distinct Baptist denominations.)

When the word “Baptist” is used many Americans think immediately of the largest Baptist group in the U.S. which is by all accounts the Southern Baptist Convention. They tend to think of it as very conservative—socially, culturally, theologically and politically. What most don’t know is that there are smaller, but yet fairly large, Baptist groups that consider the SBC “liberal.” And, of course, there are other Baptists who consider the SBC “fundamentalist.”

The world of Baptists in the U.S. is very much like a zoo to a non-zoologist (or at least to me): Many species that look alike but are actually incapable of reproducing. (I cannot tell the difference by looking between several types of snakes. This is actually somewhat important because one of them is poisonous and exists around where I live! No, I’m not comparing Baptists to snakes except in this one feature: some look alike to non-experts but to insiders are radically different.)

One thing all Baptists agree about (so far as I can tell and I’ve studied Baptists in the U.S. for many years) is what we call “congregational autonomy” or “church autonomy.” Not only is there no Baptist pope with real authority or power to control individual congregations; there is no hierarchy in any Baptist group (that I know of) that can control one. Every Baptist church (I suppose someone will come up with an exception because there is always an exception!) governs itself—unless it owes money to a denomination. When a Baptist church (under whatever name) borrows money from any organization that money comes with strings attached; a Baptist congregation that owes money to its denomination may not function totally autonomously until it pays off the debt.

Now, Baptists are not the only ones who enjoy, if that’s the right word, “church autonomy.” Many others do as well, but it is a doctrine among Baptists in a way not true of many other groups whose member congregations are free to govern themselves.

Baptist denominations are purely voluntary associations of autonomous Baptist congregations that cooperate voluntarily together for various purposes such as fellowship (at local and regional meetings), supporting youth camps, publishing, missions, etc. A Baptist denomination might require things of its member congregations such as reporting baptisms every year or donating a certain portion of its annual budget to its programs. So, you may be thinking: How is that consistent with “church autonomy.” Ah, the point is that a Baptist church may withdraw from its denomination (unless it owes it money) without any repercussions except hard feelings and inability to vote at the denomination’s meetings (of course). It can take all its property with it; so far as I know no Baptist congregation in the U.S. holds its property “in trust” for the denomination to which it voluntarily belongs (again, unless it owes it money). For whatever reason, or for no reason, a Baptist congregation can withdraw from a denomination, become totally unaffiliated, or join another denomination. It does that by a majority vote of the congregation, not by pastoral or other fiat. In fact, this happens all the time.

At the same time, “church autonomy” in Baptist polity means that a Baptist denomination can expel any congregation it chooses to—usually by vote of the denomination at a called meeting of all delegates from member churches—for any reason. Just as the individual Baptist congregation has no formal obligations to the denomination (so long as it does not owe it money), so the Baptist denomination has no formal obligations to its member churches that are not voluntarily chosen by it (meaning by its member churches in a democratic process). Such denominational obligations to members would be stated in its constitution and/or bylaws and could be undone by a majority vote of the delegates from member churches at an annual or semi-annual business meeting.

Baptist groups expelling member churches is not rare; it happens with some frequency. Often, though, the Baptist church leaves before it comes to being expelled, so there is no open or public “kerfuffle” about it. However, when a Baptist church is expelled by its denomination, often the press gets involved and part of that is because the press rarely understands the nature of Baptist polity. Reporters and editors often assume, wrongly, that the denomination is going to take back the church property—something that can only happen if the church owes money to the denomination and the church property is its collateral. News reporters and editors rarely fully understand Baptist polity and so portray the expulsion of a congregation from a Baptist denomination as a dreadful event—as if the congregation’s rights have been violated. They haven’t been—unless the denomination’s constitution and bylaws were somehow violated in the process.

Baptists (and others) may strongly disagree with the reasons given for a Baptist denomination expelling a member church. They may also strongly disagree with a Baptist congregation’s withdrawal from its denomination. But that’s a different matter than the frequent mantra one hears “Violation of church autonomy!” During my life as a Baptist I have witnessed many examples of Baptist denominations expelling member churches for various reasons. Whether I agree with the reasons or not, I defend the right of a Baptist denomination to expel a member church just as I defend the right of a member church to withdraw from its denomination.

In other words, as a Baptist I might disagree very strongly with the reasons for a Baptist denomination’s expulsion of a church or churches from its membership while at the same time agreeing that it has that right because of the voluntarism underlying Baptist polity including church autonomy.

Let me give an example. Some years ago I belonged to a Baptist church whose denomination decided by majority vote at its stated annual business meeting to expel member churches that accept into full membership people without believer baptism by immersion (in virtually any church, not only Baptist ones). I strongly disagreed with that decision but at the same time defended the denomination’s right to do that. And the churches that were expelled as a result did not suffer anything other than loss of right to participate in the denomination. The expelled churches could immediately turn around and join another Baptist group or be totally unaffiliated.

In fact, in some places in the U.S., such Baptist churches expelled by their Baptist denominations remain members of their local Baptist associations which are often multi-denominational! (The local Baptist association in which I live includes even some non-Baptist congregations!)

My point is that I might strongly disagree with a Baptist denomination’s reason for expelling a member church while defending its right to do that without violating “church autonomy.” Expulsion of a Baptist denomination has no effect on its self-governing ability, its ownership of its own property, its ability to call its own pastor and decide on its own standards for membership, etc., etc. Every Baptist church decides those matters for itself (unless it owes money to the denomination in which case there may be strings attached).

I am not a Landmarker, but I do believe every Baptist church ought to hold its membership in a Baptist denomination somewhat lightly. By that I do not mean non-participation; if it belongs to a denomination I would encourage it to support that denomination’s programs. However, what I mean is that no Baptist denomination is “the church” or “the kingdom of God.”

Recently I publicly defended a Baptist denomination’s right to expel certain congregations without expressing agreement or disagreement with its reasons. What I said (very publicly) was that, contrary to what some people were claiming, it was not a violation of “church autonomy.” I have been chastised, very publicly, for that as if I agree with the decision. Some good friends would rather I did not even defend the denomination by explaining that its decision does not violate church autonomy, as people quoted in the local press claimed. Feelings come into it: “We feel hurt by the decision so it violates ‘church autonomy’.” Perhaps I am “feelings challenged,” but I don’t think so. (I can’t watch an episode of “This Is Us” without crying!)

As a Baptist theologian, one of my duties is to correct misunderstandings of Baptist polity in the public press and elsewhere. I have done that several times during my life as a Baptist theologian and there have always been consequences. People who disagreed with what I said or wrote accused me of various things—now being uncaring and lacking in compassion. As a theologian it is not my calling or duty to express Baptist doctrine or polity based on feelings. I realize how that sounds, but I simply cannot base my decisions or explanations about doctrine or polity on feelings—others’ or my own. I have to attempt to set feelings aside and deal with even the most controversial issues with reason. The meaning of “church autonomy” in Baptist polity does not shift based on people’s feelings; it is what it is.

*Note to commenters: This blog is not a discussion board; please respond with a question or comment solely to me. If you do not share my evangelical Christian perspective (very broadly defined), feel free to ask a question for clarification, but know that this is not a space for debating incommensurate perspectives/worldviews. In any case, know that there is no guarantee that your question or comment will be posted by the moderator or answered by the writer. If you hope for your question or comment to appear here and be answered or responded to, make sure it is civil, respectful, and “on topic.” Do not comment if you have not read the entire post and do not misrepresent what it says. Keep any comment (including questions) to minimal length; do not post essays, sermons or testimonies here. Do not post links to internet sites here. This is a space for expressions of the blogger’s (or guest writers’) opinions and constructive dialogue among evangelical Christians (very broadly defined).

Uncategorized

Previous Post

December 10, 2016

And Now It Begins: Trump's Ignorant and Un-American Opinions and Plans

Next Post

December 16, 2016 My Thoughts about a New Proposal about God's Providence and Power

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Against Liberal Theology Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who is known for his wisdom and built a temple?

Select your answer to see how you score.

David Moses Paul Solomon