Baptist Church Cooperation, Part 2

Read Part 1.

The Associational Principle

Baptists have found that some endeavors are beyond the ability of most local congregations to accomplish alone. Therefore, they have looked for ways to work together in activities such as education and missions. As Baptists have organized for cooperative efforts, they have employed different organizational principles or models. I plan to examine six of those models. In the present essay, I will begin by discussing the associational model.

From the earliest days of their existence as an identifiable movement, Baptists in America have organized associations. A Baptist association is a fellowship of churches. Properly speaking, Baptist churches do not join an association. Membership, as opposed to fellowship, would imply the surrender of some measure of congregational autonomy. Therefore, Baptist churches may fellowship only with an association.

Occasionally someone says that an association is made up of churches, and that those churches send delegates to the association. That phraseology, however, is rather careless. Delegates have authority to represent their churches, and because of their delegated authority, they can speak for their churches and bind them to a particular action. Delegated authority would be an infringement upon church autonomy. Properly speaking, churches send messengers, not delegates, to the associational meetings. These messengers speak only for themselves, not for their churches.

Because the messengers do not represent the churches, the decisions of the association cannot become permanently binding upon its fellowshipping churches. These decisions are binding only insofar as each church chooses to participate in the association. The association may say, “To fellowship with us, you must meet these standards.” The church, however, always has the choice to leave the association if the requirement is objectionable.

Associations may be organized at several geographical levels. Most common is the local association. A local association may exist to facilitate fellowship between churches in a single city, a single county, or several counties. Once the association becomes larger than several counties (for instance, to include an entire state), it is often called a general association or a convention. Several local associations may be nested within a general association or convention. While the same churches may work with associations at more than one level, in principle each association is an autonomous entity.

Baptist churches may organize associations for a variety of purposes. They may meet for simple fellowship, or they may pursue some sort of cooperative effort. Associations often create institutions such as schools or sending agencies (for missions). They may also organize institutions for other purposes. The institutions are then held accountable by the association, either directly or through some sort of legal link. For example, the association may act as the governing board of the institution, the governing board may be elected directly by the messengers at the association meeting, or the board may be appointed by the elected officers of the association.

The associational model has been widely employed by Baptist churches. For example, the entire Southern Baptist Convention is organized on the associational principle. The SBC owns and operates its own institutions, as does each of its state conventions. At every level, these conventions are ultimately controlled by the “messengers.”

Among fundamentalists, the associational model is most clearly represented by the Minnesota Baptist Association. The MBA is actually the old state convention, which was severed bodily from the Northern Baptist Convention. It operates its own church planting work and owns Pillsbury Baptist Bible College.

The General Association of Regular Baptist Churches and the New Testament Association of Independent Baptist Churches are also examples of the associational model, with one difference. While they are organized and operate as Baptist associations, they do not own or control their own agencies. We will explore the GARBC situation in more depth during a later essay, but for the moment it is sufficient to note that these associations exist primarily for the purpose of fellowship among churches.

The associational model offers several advantages for Baptist church cooperation. First, it offers the most stable environment for whatever work is being done. The success of the work is not left to the whimsy of individual members or of a single church. It depends upon the cooperative efforts of local churches, and that enhances steadiness.

Second, accountability to an association tends to keep the work of the institutions more focused and balanced. Institutions that are controlled by associations have less of a tendency to become derailed by individual pet projects. They are also less susceptible to the idiosyncrasies and peculiarities of individual leaders.

Third, the associational model can make financial support available instantly. This is especially an advantage for missionaries, who often receive support directly from the association or convention rather than having to spend years on deputation. It is also helpful for the institutions. The association automatically provides them with a primary base of support.

These are significant advantages. Nevertheless, Baptists have rejected the associational model as often as they have embraced it. The reason is that associationalism also presents several disadvantages or dangers.

First, it is not uncommon for the institutions to end up controlling the association. It is also not unusual for the association to end up controlling the churches. Any time an individual or agency serves as a gatekeeper for pulpit placement, that person or institution gains immense de facto power over churches.

Second, the churches often find themselves supporting the associational or institutional programs rather than supporting individuals. This is particularly a problem for missionaries. Churches may not get to know the missionaries who receive their money, and they find it much more difficult to pray intelligently or to be directly involved in the missionaries’ work.

Third, because the association acts as an umbilical cord between the institution and the churches, there is a tendency for any damaging influences in the institutions to creep into the churches. If an institution tolerates political behavior or false doctrine, the churches are likely to be infected eventually. In practice, churches find it difficult to sever their ties to the association or the institutions. A church’s liberty to withdraw from an association is usually taken as the final guarantee of its autonomy. That liberty is recognized by virtually every Baptist association or convention of every stripe. The fact that it is so rarely exercised, however, ought to put us on notice that the situation is more complicated than it seems.

Fourth, some local churches tend to relegate to the institutions responsibilities that they ought to be fulfilling themselves. For their part, the institutions are often willing to accept the additional responsibility. This act can create a kind of role reversal in which institutions take precedence over churches.

Finally, an association provides a power structure that unscrupulous individuals can use to promote themselves. It also furnishes a mechanism that these people can employ to exert pressure upon the churches. These political maneuvers may lead to informal but, nevertheless, real interference with the autonomy of local congregations. The old Northern Baptist Convention provides an excellent illustration of this kind of predatory association.

The associational model presents Baptists with both advantages and disadvantages. At times it has been used very effectively. At other times, it has created havoc among the churches. It is worth noting that the weaknesses of the associational model are sometimes shared with other models of Baptist organization. Some of those models will be described in subsequent essays.

On Time

John Milton (1608-1674)

Fly envious Time, till thou run out thy race,
Call on the lazy leaden-stepping hours,
Whose speed is but the heavy Plummets pace;
And glut thy self with what thy womb devours,
Which is no more than what is false and vain,
And meerly mortal dross;
So little is our loss,
So little is thy gain.
For when as each thing bad thou hast entomb’d,
And last of all, thy greedy self consum’d,
Then long Eternity shall greet our bliss
With an individual kiss;
And Joy shall overtake us as a flood,
When every thing that is sincerely good
And perfectly divine,
With Truth, and Peace, and Love shall every shine.

This essay is by Dr. Kevin T. Bauder, president of Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). Not every professor, student, or alumnus of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.