Baptist Church Cooperation, Part 3

Read Part 1 and Part 2.

The Service Organization

Baptists in America have organized local associations from their earliest days. These associations helped to facilitate ordinations, transfer of members, and the mutual recognition of church discipline. Rather early on, however, the associations also showed a tendency to become intrusive. Therefore, when Baptists faced the challenge of organizing at the national level, they did not automatically choose the associational model.

National organization was precipitated by the conversion of Adoniram Judson to Baptist principles while he was en route to Burma. His co-worker, Luther Rice, had also converted and agreed to return to the United States to organize support for Judson. Rice envisioned a missionary organization that would be accountable to churches through an associational structure.

Francis Wayland, however, believed that the work could be carried out best by an organization of individual Baptists. The members of the organization would be responsible to their own churches, but the churches would not exercise direct control of the work of missions. Wayland’s idea is called the “service organization model.”

The debate between Wayland and Rice eventually led to the organization of two large, regional bodies. The American Baptist Missionary Union (as it came to be called) operated as a service organization to coordinate missionary work in the North. The Southern Baptist Convention, organized on the associational principle, took responsibility for organizing the missionary work in the South.

Service organizations are independent agencies. Sometimes they are governed directly by their members, but more often they are governed by boards. In some service organizations the members elect the board. In many of these institutions, however, the board is self-perpetuating.

Baptists in the North eventually organized several independent agencies. Besides the American Baptist Missionary Union, they had agencies for home missions, education, publication, youth work, and a variety of other purposes. These agencies all operated autonomously, though their memberships overlapped to a high degree. All of the agencies held their annual meetings at the same time and in the same location. These meetings were called the Triennial Convention, or (later on) just the May Meetings.

When the Northern Baptist Convention was organized in 1907, it was promoted as an attempt to bring all of the agencies under a single roof. It also introduced the element of direct church involvement, leading to something that operated much more closely to the associational model. Unfortunately, the NBC was under liberal influence from the day of its organization, and the liberals soon used the convention as a platform from which to capture the churches.

Service organizations are still common among Baptists, and especially among Baptists of the more independent variety. Many of the prominent mission agencies are organized on this model. Examples include the Association of Baptists for World Evangelism, Baptist Mid-Missions, Baptist World Mission, and Evangelical Baptist Missions. Camps are often structured as service organizations, as are educational institutions such as Faith Baptist Bible College (Ankeny, Iowa) and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, Minnesota).

Occasionally the service organization model can be applied to an entire fellowship. An example is the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship, International. When it was called the Conservative Baptist Fellowship, this organization had an individual membership that elected officers. Later on, it was reorganized with a self-perpetuating board, but no membership at all (individuals could “identify with” but not join the FBF). Presently it offers membership, but the members do not elect the leaders.

The service organization model offers specific advantages over the associational model. The first is that no organic link exists between the agency and the local church. Consequently, if a local church detects a problem with a service organization, it is able to sever ties and withdraw support from the agency instantly.

Second, this model grants considerable flexibility to churches and individuals. Since service organizations are not supported automatically by an association, they must raise their support from individual congregations and church members. The churches have complete freedom to choose the agencies that they will support.

Third, even though service organizations have no organic accountability, they do respond to the promptings of the churches and individuals who support them. The accountability is informal, but it is real. An agency that displeases a sufficient number of its supporters had better be ready either to recruit a new constituency or to go out of operation.

Significant as these advantages are, the service organization also presents certain disadvantages. The first is that, however useful the informal ties may be, institutions that are organized on this model have no direct accountability to the churches. This deficiency will raise questions for those Baptists who are most committed to the centrality of the local church.

Second, this model leads to considerable duplication of efforts. The same constituency may be served by numerous mission agencies, seminaries, and other institutions. This leads to multiplied overhead and unintentional competition between institutions of similar conviction and purpose. Many believe that this multiplication constitutes an unfortunate waste of resources.

Third, under this model missionaries are usually required to raise their own support. They may be on deputation for years, and their labors may be harrowing. Nevertheless, the funds must be raised before they can reach the field to which God has called them.

Fourth, churches can develop such a sense of loyalty toward a particular institution that the safeguards of this model are rendered illusory. Once that happens, support for the institution cannot be withdrawn without considerable trauma to the local congregation. In practice, therefore, whatever evils enter the institutions can end up infecting the churches.

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

Finally, service organizations can provide a platform from which power-hungry ecclesiastical politicians can seek to control churches. Unfortunately, institutional leaders are often accorded greater respect and deference than local pastors. Unscrupulous politicians can use this power to subvert the churches of pastors who do not support their organizations or agendas. Often, pulpit committees will look to the leaders of institutions for pastoral recommendations. This gives the executives a considerable say over who actually gets called to the pastorates.

Service organizations have a long tradition among Baptists in America. They have proven very useful, but they can also behave quite destructively. Some of the weaknesses of this model are shared with the associational model and with other models of organization. During the next essays, we will examine a couple of attempts to combine features of the associational and service organization models.

Hymn Written at the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem

George Sandys (1578-1664)

Saviour of mankind, Man, Emmanuel!
Who sinless died for sin, who vanquished hell;
The first-fruits of the grave; whose life did give
Light to our darkness; in whose death we live:—
Oh! strengthen Thou my faith, convert my will,
That mine may Thine obey; protect me still,
So that the latter death may not devour
My soul, sealed with Thy seal.—So, in the hour
When Thou (whose body sanctified this tomb,
Unjustly judged), a glorious judge shall come
To judge the world with justice; by that sign
I may be known, and entertained for Thine.

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.