OBSERVATIONS ON CHURCH ORGANIZATION

by Milburn Cockrell

            Every since my early boyhood days most of the Baptists with whom I have been acquainted seem to know how to organize a new Baptist church.  People who were members of an already existing Baptist church secured letters of dismissal from their church to form a new church.  Generally the pastor of the already existing church, as well as some of the members who intended to remain with the old church, would meet on a given day and organize the dismissed members into a New Testament Church.  Generally the people going into the new church would adopt a confession of faith and covenant together to form a church.  In my 45 years in the ministry I have been present at many such organizations, sometimes as the organizing pastor, or as a visitor in the services.  This practice has served our Baptist people well as many presently existing churches were organized in this fashion.

            In the last few years men have arose who say that this practice is unscriptural, for one church cannot organize another church.  In fact churches must be self-constituted, for the only scriptural churches are self-constituted. There is no need to secure letters from the church where they are members; yea, it does not matter even if they are properly excluded members. If these brethren are correct (I think they are dead wrong), this is good news for Protestant churches, for they were all self-constituted.  This is good news for community churches and Bible churches, for they are all self-constituted.  This is good news for all cults, for they are self-constituted.  It especially good news to all Campbellites, for they were self-constituted with Baptist baptism, and they meet in the name of Christ.  In fact this is good news for all kinds of would-be-church founders.  If two or three people can found a church any time and any place, then they can surely originate baptism, which is a mere ordinance of the church.  So let churches be organized anywhere, anyhow, and by anybody.  Let the people be believers and let them baptize each other, and start a church.

            If this new idea is true, it is only bad news for a church which was lettered out from an old church to found a new church.  Since these are not self-constituted in the absolute sense, and since the only scriptural churches are self-constituted, these brethren have bastard churches.  They should, if the new doctrine is true, disband and reorganize in order to have scriptural churches.  Worst still, some of those who teach that a church must be self-constituted are members of churches which were started by other churches.

To date, so far as I know, not one of them has disbanded and reorganized.  Why such brethren find it impractical to practice what they preach I cannot say.

A BRIEF HISTORY

            I always look at how a new idea got started.  One of our historic Baptist churches excluded some members who left the church.  These excluded members joined another church by statement of faith, and then the church, which took them by statement, organized this excluded group into a new church in the same city where the church, which did the excluding, existed.  These facts were not so well known when they happened, nor are they very well known to this day.

            The problems could have been worked out at the time they happened, if scriptural rules of reconciliation had been practiced.  Even at this late hour the matters could easily be corrected, if human pride could be laid aside.  But this has not been done, nor are there any plans to do so at present to the best of my knowledge.

            Instead of these matters being resolved, a few brethren have introduced a whole new set of rules for organizing new churches out of properly excluded members from another church.  I have never cared much for either situation ethics nor circumstantial ecclesiology.  I do not believe it is right to organize a new church out of properly excluded members from another church.  I grant that a church can be in error in its discipline, and, when it is, other churches should not respect its erroneous discipline.  If a church has been organized out of properly excluded members from another church, I believe that such a church should tell the truth about its origin.

THE CASE HAS NOT BEEN MADE

                        Despite lengthy articles and quotes from Baptist history (some of which were not documented), I do not think the case has been made to prove properly excluded members can be formed into a new church.  So far as I have seen, no New Testament text has been produced to show that properly excluded members in the time of the New Testament went to some other place in the same city and form themselves into a New Testament church.  Brethren, if there are some Scriptures which prove this, I, for one, would like to have chapter and verse.

            What if some Baptists in the early days in America in remote places did constitute themselves into a church without the consent of another church? Seldom do those who point to these things tell us that some of these people did plan to secure letters when it was possible to do so.  How does this prove that properly excluded members from one church can go down the road and constitute themselves into a church?  What proof do we have that those in the early days who formed themselves into churches were properly excluded members of other Baptist churches?  I would be happy to be introduced to some records which prove this was the case.  I would also appreciate historical records to prove this was the ordinary practice of the Baptists of days past.

            Personally, I would like to see numerous quotes from the old Baptist writers and theologians who state they believed a church could be organized out of properly excluded members from another Baptist church.  I would like these documented, and not from mere secondary sources.

            The whole idea of self-constitution of churches is built upon the idea that a member may dismiss himself at pleasure from a church without the consent of his church.

I know of no Scripture which says a person may do this in the New Testament.  Will some person please give me chapter and verse for this?  A few quotes from the old Baptists would also be appreciated as to this practice.

THINGS WHICH ARE DIFFERENT ARE NOT THE SAME

            I do not agree with some brethren who say there exists no problem, for all are saying the same things, but from a different standpoint.  The man who believes a church member can dismiss himself at pleasure without the approval of the church where he is a member, and the man who believes that the church only can dismiss a man who is a member, do not believe one and the same thing. A person who believes that a church is self-constituted, and a person who believes that one church must begat another church, do not believe one and the same thing.  A man who believes that five preachers met in Acts 13:1-4 and ordained two of the group to go out as missionaries, and the man who believes the church met and ordained these two men and sent them out as missionaries, do not believe one and the same thing.  A man who believes that when a person is ordained (by council or some church) he then has the right to go out and baptize and start churches at pleasure, and the man who believes that a man must baptize by the authority of the church and into a church, do not believe one and the same thing.  A person who believes that baptism is a preacher ordinance or a Christian ordinance, and the person who believes it is a church ordinance, do not believe one and the same thing. A person who believes that the call of the church constitutes an ordination for a pastor, and a person who believe there must be a formal ordination service by the church, do not believe one and the same thing. A person who believes that Landmarkism started with J. R. Graves and J. M. Pendleton in the 1800s, and a person who believes that Landmarkism is as old as the New Testament, do not believe one and the same thing.  A person who believes that a church pops up here and there with no organic connection to any other church, and a man who believe that there has been a link-chain of churches (one church starting another church), do not believe one and the same thing.

I HAVE A PROBLEM

            I, for one, have a problem with a person who pretends to believe one thing for years and passed among us as one who believes these truths, although he in truth never did believe them.  Such a person is either a great pretender, or he has suddenly changed his position.  It is incumbent upon such persons to tell us plainly of which they are guilty.

            I have no respect for a man who professes to believe one thing while he secretly holds to the opposite.  I can respect a man who comes to new conclusions about the Bible or history, if he will be honest and tell the people that he now has come to new light on these matters.  If a man is going to say that he always has believed what he now believes about the church, he should be doubly certain that his past writings prove this.