Baptist Church Cooperation, Part 6

Read Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, and Part 5.

The Ecclesiastical Conglomerate

Baptists have looked for ways to cooperate in performing certain tasks because most churches are not in a position to perform those tasks individually. Not many churches are capable of sponsoring their own camp, of coordinating their own missionaries on the field, or of providing full training for the next generation of ministry. What most individual churches cannot do alone, Baptists have attempted to accomplish through cooperative efforts.

In some cases, however, churches do have enough members, money, and skill in order to perform these tasks. Individual Baptist churches sometimes do own and operate their own agencies or institutions. Sometimes the church itself acts as the agency.

Usually, churches that perform one of these tasks will perform others as well. A single church that acts as a missions agency will also operate a Christian school, a camp, a college, a publishing house, or a seminary. What emerges could be called the “monecclesial model” of church cooperation, except that it is not usually a form of cooperation between churches. In this model, one church simply performs the necessary tasks for itself. It becomes, so to speak, a self-sufficient, self-sustaining ecclesiastical conglomerate.

There are many examples of such Baptist conglomerates. Historically, the Wenigar brothers built a conglomerate in San Francisco that included a seminary and a conference center. Lee Roberson’s conglomerate featured a college, a seminary, and a church-planting network that resulted in dozens of branch congregations around Chattanooga—all of which were governed from the home campus. Among contemporary fundamentalist Baptists, Inter-City Baptist Church of Allen Park, Michigan, operates both a seminary and a mission agency.

A modification of monecclesial structure is to create institutions that are technically independent, but closely bound to a particular local church through moral commitment and financial dependence. This form of organization has also been pursued by contemporary fundamentalists. For example, Central Baptist Theological Seminary of Minneapolis is technically an independent service organization, but de facto the seminary could not exist without the hospitality of Fourth Baptist Church. The church’s administrative deacons (trustees) are automatically given seats on seminary board, and the pastor must constitutionally be nominated for the chairmanship.

Any church that chooses to organize and sponsor its own work is well within its rights. In fact, of all Baptist models of organization, this one that is the most centered upon the local church. This is the only model in which institutions have direct accountability to a particular local congregation. If the agency begins to deviate, the church can instantly call it into account.

Operating its own institutions will bring definite benefits to the church. Institutional personnel become heavily involved in the ministry of their local congregation. Missionaries who come home on furlough may function as church staff members (and what better way to promote missions?). College or seminary professors are able to exercise their gifts through visible, hands-on involvement in the ministry of the assembly. This model also provides for the most direct and personal interest in the lives and ministries of the institutional personnel, and especially of the church’s missionaries.

The ecclesiastical conglomerate also presents a number of disadvantages, however. The first and most obvious is that few churches are able to finance and staff such efforts by themselves. In almost every case, the church ends up appealing to other churches for at least some help and support. This fact is most obvious in the case of missionaries. While many larger churches send their own missionaries to the field, almost none of them provide full support for the missionaries that they send. In almost every case, the missionaries will be found asking other churches for financial assistance in getting to their field of service.

The same is true of educational institutions such as colleges and seminaries. Not many church-operated schools are prepared to fully fund their students, and not many of them admit only students who are members of the church. In almost every case, students receive some support from other churches, and they certainly come to the school from the memberships of other churches.

Of course, it is no problem for one church to support the personnel and activities of another church. Arguably, the New Testament provides a pattern for just such activity. But the moment that a church recognizes that it cannot carry the whole burden itself, it is back to cooperative effort. That, in turn, raises the question about the best way to organize for Baptist cooperation. The New Testament does not provide quite as clear a pattern for one church to accept support, students, and missionary candidates from other churches, but then to reject accountability to those other churches.

In fact, smaller churches that look to ecclesiastical conglomerates for help are usually left with little or no real voice in their operations. Sometimes the conglomerate will feel that it has been more than accommodating by simply making its services available to smaller congregations. The inhabitants of the conglomerate may wonder (sometimes with indignation) at the ingratitude of the little people who want a voice in how things are run.

The existence of the conglomerate may even hinder the development of cooperative endeavors. Without meaning to, a large and successful church may push aside the cooperative labors of other congregations. For example, missionaries who are looking for a sending agency may be attracted by the financial benefits of an ecclesiastical conglomerate, leading to the demise of cooperative missionary efforts among smaller congregations. The conglomerate may become a kind of “ministry magnet” that unintentionally suppresses other ministries.

When a conglomerate reaches this point, it is poised to become a danger. It is now in a position to ignore its sister congregations or, even worse, to begin dictating to them. A successful conglomerate becomes a clearing house for pastorless churches and churchless pastors—and whoever controls pulpit placement can de facto control the policies of the churches.

The close tie between church and agency also creates internal problems for the church. Usually, the agency brings to the church a corps of highly trained, very capable employees. These leaders are often considered to be a threat to the balance of power within the congregation, and the more politically driven conglomerates usually take measures to limit their influence. Even worse for the church, if there is some theological or moral problem within the institution, the church cannot readily sever ties to the problem organization. Agency problems almost always become church problems.

Many ecclesiastical conglomerates have attempted to deal with this dynamic by limiting the power of the agency and of agency employees within the church. Not uncommonly, agency employees are forbidden from holding office in the church. In some cases, they are not even allowed to vote or to have a voice in the church’s business. While one can sympathize with the rationale that leads to such measures, they are pretty direct violations of the soul-liberty and priesthood of the believer. They indicate a predatory tendency on the part of the conglomerate. A conglomerate that is willing to use its power to suppress its own people internally will usually become willing to use its power to push and shove other congregations externally.

Of course, not every conglomerate behaves in a predatory fashion. And the predatory behaviors are certainly not unique to conglomerates. They can be found in any form of Baptist organization. Some ecclesiastical conglomerates have provided significant blessing for the Lord’s people. We should not be naive, however. As with every model of Baptist organization, the potential for abuse does exist.

As Weary Pilgrim, Now at Rest

Anne Bradstreet (c. 1612-1672)

As weary pilgrim, now at rest,
Hugs with delight his silent nest
His wasted limbes, now lye full soft
That myrie steps, have trodden oft
Blesses himself, to think upon
his dangers past, and travailes done
The burning sun no more shall heat,
Nor stormy raines, on him shall beat.
The bryars and thornes no more shall scratch,
nor hungry wolves at him shall catch.
He erring pathes no more shall tread
nor wild fruits eate, in stead of bread,
for waters cold he doth not long
for thirst no more shall parch his tongue
No rugged stones his feet shall gaule
nor stumps nor rocks cause him to fall
All cares and feares, he bids farewell
and meanes in safity now to dwell.
A pilgrim I, on earth, perplexed
with sinns with cares and sorrows vext
By age and paines brought to decay
and my Clay house-mouldring away
Oh how I long to be at rest
and soare on high among the blest.
This body shall in silence sleep
Mine eyes no more shall ever weep
No fainting fits shall me assaile
nor grinding paines my body fraile
With cares and fears ne’r cumbred be
Nor losses know, nor sorrowes see
What tho my flesh shall there consume
it is the bed Christ did perfume,
And when a few yeares shall be gone
this mortall shall be cloth’d upon
A Corrupt Carcasse downe it lyes
a glorious body it shall rise
In weaknes and dishonour sowne
in power ‘tis rais’d by Christ alone
Then soule and body shall unite
and of their maker have the sight
Such lasting joyes shall there behold
as eare ne’r heard nor tongue e’er told
Lord make me ready for that day
Then Come deare bridegrome Come away.

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.