Baptist Cooperation

The Baptist Heritage
Session Seven
American Baptists and Cooperation With Other Christians

Years ago, in my Freshman year of college, I was visiting with a classmate from Hawaii. When it came out that I was a Baptist he asked, "what kind of Baptist?" Hearing my answer, "American Baptist" he responded, "Oh, the cooperating Baptists." Of all Baptist groups ours has gained the reputation of cooperation with other Christians. Our denomination has been involved, from the beginning, with councils of churches, both national and world. We have joined in cooperative efforts with other churches in evangelism and in social action. We had observers at the Consultation on Church Union. We also have joined the National Association of Evangelicals. In all this, the American Baptists do not see the possibility of a merger with other bodies to form an American "superchurch." In Canada, when such a merger occurred, the Baptist churches did not join in. In 1918 the Northern Baptist Convention received an invitation to join in forming a council to discuss a possible union of the Evangelical Churches in the United States. The Convention responded by adopting a resolution refusing to join in such talks. The author of the resolution was Shailer Mathews. Mr. Mathews had served as President of the Federal Council of Churches in 1913. During that term he became President of the Northern Baptist Convention in 1915. In writing the response, Mathews spoke for those who were active in Cooperative Protestantism rather than from a rigid separatist stance. This resolution was adopted in 1921 and was included in the denominations promotional materials for a emphasis on "Baptists and Other Christian Bodies" in 1931. Whereas, the Northern Baptist Convention has been invited to send delegates to a council looking toward organic union of the Protestant denominations, it is Resolved, that the Northern Baptist Convention, while maintaining fraternal relations with evangelical denominations in extending the influence of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, does not believe that the organic union with other denominations is possible. It therefore declines to send delegates to the proposed council. In declining this invitation, however, Christian courtesy demands that the Northern Baptist Convention should state its position as to organic union with other Christian denominations. This we make not with any desire to pose as judge of our Christian brethren, but in the interest of our mutual understanding. The Baptist denomination is a collection of independent democratic churches. Not one of these churches recognizes any ecclesiastical authority superior to itself. They are grouped in association, State Conventions, and a national Convention, but none of these groups has any control over a local church, beyond that which lies in common faith, practice and service. The denomination, in so far as it has unity, is a federation of independent democracies. In the nature of the case, therefore, anything like organic union of the Baptist churches with other denominations is impossible. There is no centralized body that could deliver Baptist churches to any merger or corporate unity. If Baptists churches do not have organic unity among themselves they obviously cannot have organic unity with others denominations. By the very nature of our organization, we are estopped from seeking organic union with other denominations. This situation does not arise from any desire on our part as Baptists to withhold ourselves from fellowship with other Christian bodies in the pursuance of Christian work. Nor does it arise from any desire to impose upon them our own convictions. We grant to others all rights that we claim for ourselves. But the liberty of conscience and the independence of the churches which characterize our position are involved in our fundamental conception as to the nature of the church and of its relation to the religious life. We believe in the complete competency of the individual to come directly into a saving relationship with God. We hold that a church is a local community of those who have consciously committed themselves to Jesus Christ. The only church universal is, in our belief, spiritual fellowship of individual souls with God. We do not believe in any form of sacerdotalism or sacrementalism among Christians who are all equally priests of the Most High. We reject ecclesiastical orders and hold that all believers are on a spiritual equality. With us ordination is only a formal recognition on the part of some local church that one of its members is judged worthy to serve as a pastor. The fact that such an appointment is generally recognized in all our churches is simply a testament to denominational good faith. We cannot modify these convictions for the sake of establishing a corporate unity with other denominations. Any compromise at that point would be an abandonment of structural beliefs. We heartily believe in the necessity of a combined impact of Christian forces upon the evil of the world. Such impact, however, does not depend for its efficacy upon organic union of the churches. We are convinced that our fundamental conception of the church, the nature of our organization, the democracy which is the very basis of our denominational life, make any organic union with groups of Christians holding opposite views unwise and impossible. Remember, This was not written by someone who held to fundamentalist separatism but by one who was extremely involved in ecumenical activities. The Baptists were not rejecting the concept of unity in Christ. They were rejecting organic union. Our Convention affirms the idea of cooperative Christianity but steadfastly refuses to become involved in any scheme to form a super church. This resolution gave three basic reasons for remaining aloof. First, the very nature of Baptist polity. A collection of independent churches has no authority which can commit it to union with other groupings. Each church would have to decide, individually, to enter such an union. Second, Baptist would not enter any super church which did not guarantee the same freedom which they have under the present system. Any union could only be with a group agreeing to the congregational form of polity. This polity, however, is the very one which is most vulnerable to schism and the forming of new denominations. Finally, Baptists opposed sacramentalism and sacerdotalism. The individual is competent to come to God. The church is not the means of grace but the community of believers. The minister is ordained, not to give him greater power or holiness but simply to recognize a man already felt worthy to serve as pastor in a congregation. Grace does not come through the rites of the church but straight from God to the individual. Baptists accept Calvin's thought that "the purest churches under heaven are subject to mixture and error." Thus they would view a super church simply as a super mixture of error. Since the unity of the church is viewed as spiritual, physical union as not seen as an aid to that spiritual union. Baptists have occasionally made attempts at merger. Any serious discussions of such action have been with groups of like polity and practice. There have been several attempts of the American Baptists to merge with the Disciples of Christ. There have also been talks with other Baptist bodies, including the Southern Baptists. These efforts have usually died for three reasons. 1) Pragmatic concerns, such as where would the headquarters be, who would lose their jobs. 2) Doctrinal differences, for example many Disciples churches believe that there is saving power in Baptism while most Baptist churches believe baptism shows the salvation which has already happened. 3) A preference for denominational unity over union with another denomination. In the 1960s the ABC/USA moved to a closer union with the Church of the Brethren. The two groups brought forth a list of areas of agreement: 1. The redemptive mission of the church. 2. The New Testament as a sufficient guide for faith and practice. 3. The historic trinitarian faith. 4. Believer's Baptism by immersion. 5. The symbolic understanding of the ordinances. 6. The local church composed of baptized believers and free to order its own life. 7. The competency of the individual in matters of religion 8. The common free church tradition. 9. The advisory nature of denominational organizations. 10. Diversity within unity. 11. Separation of Church of State. 12. Religious liberty. Even with agreement on these points the denominations were only able to agree to enter an associated status. They held back from full merger. Baptists and The Councils of Churches Even before the Northern Baptist Convention was formed in 1907, Northern Baptists were involved in planning a Federal Council of Churches. Thus the new denomination found itself immediately committed to cooperation with the new council of churches. The delegates to that council reported to the Convention in 1908. They pointed out that the Council had no authority over the bodies that joined it. It had no authority to draw up a common creed, form of governments or worship. Indeed, it could not in any way limit the full autonomy of its members. What it could do was provide the framework for cooperative efforts in proclaiming the Gospel and winning the world. In 1911 the Convention accepted an invitation to participate in planning a world conference on Faith and Order. The Baptists felt they had something to share with others. Involvement in Councils of Churches has not always been welcome to al American Baptists. The mention of the Council of Churches is almost sure to raise a conflict in almost any American Baptist Church. By 1916, the Delegates to the Council were forced to explain to the Convention that reports of council study commissions are not always the opinion of the Council, let alone the member denominations. In fact, people may speak at meetings of the Council who are not even members. Then someone will quote their statements as though they were the position of the Council. By 1925, complaints against the Social Gospel were being frequently heard. Micah had prophesied of those who would say "Do not preach, one should not say such things; disgrace will not overtake us." (Micah 2:6) It became necessary to defend the involvement of the churches in social issues. The Convention began to study its relationship with the Council. In 1933 a committee reported concerning the denomination's relationship with the Council. It had taken a survey on our continued relationship with the Federal Council of Churches. Of 229 replies 147 favored a continued affiliation and 71 opposed it. The Conventions voted to continue its affiliation. That year 50 churches left to form the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches. In 1948 the Convention adopted a policy concerning the Federal Council of Churches (the group now called the National Council of Churches of Christ.) That policy stated. 1. Local churches have the right to give or withhold support from the Council of Churches. Not supporting the Council will not be interpreted as failure to support the Convention's Program. 2. The amount budgeted for the council will come out of designated gifts. If such gifts do not reach the budgeted amount the difference will be made up from undesignated gifts. 3. Churches may go on record as opposed to the work of the council. 4. We are not thinking of organic union through the Council of Churches. In the second half of the Twentieth century the attacks on the council were twofold. It was accused of Communist tendencies and of theological liberalism. Many rejected the Revised Standard Version of the Bible because it was published by the Council of Churches. Strangely, though the congregations making up the denominations which belong to the council are overwhelmingly conservative, still the denominational boards and the council itself appear liberal. One reason for this is that social action has been, in itself, labeled as liberal, even though it is often a part of Christ's work here on earth. A second reason is that many "concerned" people are not concerned enough to get involved. If such Councils are not truly representative then it is necessary for those who wish them to change to become more involved. The more evangelicals who serve in decision making positions, the more evangelical the boards and councils will be. Part of the problem is in defining what it means for a Council which is not allowed to write a creed for its members to be liberal. Keep in mind that the Council has rejected membership applications from non trinitarian religious groups as well as from the Metropolitan Church. The accusation of Communism has died down with the fall of the Soviet Union. Still it was a serious charge. Magazines such as the Reader's Digest have published critical articles such as "The Gospel According to Marx." Often such charges came as social ministries were pursued. Sometimes those ministries overlapped with the work of socialist organizations. In 1995 Joan Parrot, Deputy General Secretary for Cooperative Christianity reported that in 1984 the General Board received a request for the ABC/USA to withdraw its membership in both the National Council of Churches and the World Council of Churches. Here report stated Accordingly, in 1985 the Ecumenical Relations Review Commission was formed. The Commission was asked to hear the concerns being voiced and the questions being raised regarding the NCCC and the WCC. This Commission advised that the ABC/USA should not withdraw form the NCCC and WCC, but that it should reach out to other ecumenical groups such as the National Association of Evangelicals. While the ERRC applauded both Councils' work in the areas of stewardship. religious education and literacy, Bible translation and distribution, civil rights, the cause of peace and justice, the combating of racism and sexism, and channeling Christian compassion in world relief and refugee resettlement, several areas of concerns were raised that continued American Baptist participation with NCCC and WCC would have to address. One of these concerns was NCCC's low priority for evangelism. Accordingly, American Baptists and other communions encouraged the NCCC to create a Commission on Worship and Evangelism. NCCC created the Commission and our own Emmett Johnson, then director of Evangelism for the ABC was elected the chairperson and served with distinction. After Dr. Johnson retired, another American Baptist, Dr. Duncan McIntosh, division manager of Evangelistic Ministries for the Board of National Ministries, was named chair. Dr. McIntosh, assisted by another American Baptist, the Rev. Brenda Halliburton, has provided outstanding and cooperative leadership for this NCCC Commission.