David Stone’s concluding article concerning lessons from the past about church cooperation
In last month’s article, we looked at the development of the Baptist Union (BUGB) and the Congregational Union (CUEW).
We saw how they grew from loosely connected groups of churches to denominations with top-down authority. This was a negative step for churches committed to biblical independent church government. What lessons can we learn for today?
We must first acknowledge the positive impact of both Unions. As they worked to raise funds centrally, money could be distributed nationally from larger, wealthier churches to support poorer churches. Likewise, without the Unions’ strong backing for an educated ministry, backed up by funding, fewer churches may have been blessed with well-trained ministers.
Along with these benefits though, we saw that the authority of the Unions increased. Why?
Money
The collection and distribution of funds placed power into the hands of denominational leadership. In part, this is natural: groups have a responsibility to ensure their funding is well spent. However, access to funds was often used to compel churches into a particular model of ministry rather than to ensure the preservation of the gospel.
This is a difficult issue. Funders need to ensure money is being used wisely, which will mean necessary practical recommendations. These will inevitably curtail a church’s freedom to spend funds. Consider the FIEC ‘partner in training’ scheme. Linked with the funding provision is the requirement that partners are appointed by a particular method and have a minimum amount of training. Does this deny independency? History would suggest a lesson to heed. In spite of the dangers, though, centralised funding does not kill independency. It does mean that givers and receivers must be aware of these pressures, and those who give may need to hand over control to those who receive.
Leaving
When considering the movements towards liberalism reflected by Leicester and Downgrade, a surprising fact is that very few churches chose to leave the denominations. In part, this is because over time it became increasingly difficult for churches to imagine functioning without Union support. Closer unity, and increasing dependency, can come about almost regardless of the attitude of either church or denomination, simply by a larger body supporting churches very effectively.
This raises a question: at what point does a denomination become so essential to a local church that it becomes too difficult to leave? If a minister is accredited, employed and even appointed by a denomination, there is an obvious potential conflict of interest: while a church may become theo-logically mismatched with a denomination, an accredited minister may be only too aware of what they might forfeit should they encourage their church to leave.
Theological support
Over time, a desire to progress the cause of the gospel seems to have led the BUGB and CUEW to view the independence of the local church as hindering gospel advance. Because the biblical basis of independency was not defended, it was much easier for the Unions to take practical steps which undermined it.
This could easily occur today. The seeming practical and financial advantages of closer integration are always tempting. Unless each generation of independents is convinced of the theology of independency (viewing Christ as handing the keys of the kingdom to the members of each church; Matthew 16 & 18) practical pressures may tempt them to abandon it.
Theological diversity
Whilst both Unions moved towards greater practical union, they also became increasingly theologically diverse. What led to this broadening being accepted?
One factor is the impact of strong friendships. Many of the leaders of both groups knew each other well and perhaps encouraged each other’s theological development. Although we can’t be certain what impact these relationships had, there is a great personal cost in challenging the evangelical faith of a friend, especially if they report an experience of conversion. Again this serves as a warning. We can be tempted to assume that our friends believe the same things we do, especially if we have a long history together. We can tend to answers questions of theology with answers based on relationship. We do not want to imagine that our friends are not orthodox.
Unity
Central to the question of the relationship between churches and Unions is the purpose of unity: who is united, and why? Organisations united by ties other than shared gospel beliefs may seek to remain together when beliefs broaden.
Although the BUGB and CUEW had begun with aims and doctrines that were both evangelical and reformed, their theology had shifted by the 1900s. However, because both bodies were strongly united by history and views of church government, this shift did not cause separation.
This should cause us to reflect. It’s easy to begin united by common doctrines, and a common understanding of the Christian faith.
As time progresses it’s possible to remain united because of a combination of friendship, finance, history and inertia, even if the common doctrines are no longer central. There are questions for all who engage in inter-church gospel activity such as camps, Bible colleges and mission teams: what is the gospel that we agree on? Why are we united, and are we keeping central the same gospel agreed at formation?
Creeds
A key point was that neither Union seems to have been able to use their doctrinal position to combat error. We see this in the response to both Leicester and Downgrade. In both cases, orthodoxy is asserted, but is never accompanied by removing the unorthodox.
The Congregationalists in particular were not prepared to treat anything other than Scripture as binding on their churches. Because their creed was not authoritative, it served no real purpose, and as those who had adopted broader theologies came into positions of leadership, the creed itself was abandoned.
This raises one of our most important questions: in what ways are churches independent? The last and most reluctant area for church independence should be in developing church doctrine, precisely because it removes any restraining influence of theological tradition and history. If a church composes its own creed with no connection to a broader body, it can all too easily change it. A basis of belief is especially important as churches seek to work together. Both of the Unions seem to have believed that doctrinal precision would have hindered their mission. However, surely the reverse must be true? Unless churches agree to cooperate based on a shared doctrinal understanding of the gospel, can there really be any genuine gospel cooperation?
Conclusions
Firstly, we see that churches will face pressure towards increasing practical union. When a denominational body is well organised, and in control of funding, churches will gradually be drawn to reliance upon it. This is likely to happen whether or not the Union promotes centralisation. Independent churches and denominational bodies need to believe and teach a clear doctrine of inde-pendency, and be specific about what it means in practice.
Secondly, we see over time a temptation to broaden out theologically. As strong relationships are formed, so the cost of excluding a co-worker on doctrinal grounds increases. Unless a basis of faith is linked to action, it does not serve any purpose. If they wish to remain in a particular theological position, groups will need to be cautious of changes to doctrinal statements, and be ready to use them.
It is tempting sometimes to be discouraged by independency during the Victorian era. A strong Calvinistic legacy was widely abandoned. Criticism of the Bible became widespread. The independence of churches was eroded practically and the theological support for independency was undermined. But there are brighter notes too. Dissenters began to benefit from civil rights they had never had before. Ministers were trained and sent to serve in new church plants. Countless men and women were converted, discipled, and died as Christians. Churches met to worship and witness, week by week, year by year. Whilst the big debates of doctrine and Union were rumbling on, churches continued to fulfil Jesus’ great commission. The work of God continued, sometimes through, and sometimes in spite of, human institutions and denominations. God continues to work this way today.
