Church Covenant - Where was it first used and when?

Rick Warren, pastor of Saddleback Community Church in Lake Forest, California recently came out with an article in the Baptist Press recommending pastors and congregations adopt church membership covenants as a way of compelling their flock to become more involved in and committed to the ministry of their church. Although, on the surface such covenants might seem practical, here’s what Jesus Christ had to say about making covenants with men.

Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say unto you, SWEAR NOT AT ALL; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: "- Matthew 5:33-34 (emphasis added).

In Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary, he makes the following point:

"The worse men are, the less they are bound by oaths; the better they are, the less there is need for them."

When a church becomes dependent upon carnal mechanisms for spiritual motivation rather than the power and conviction of the Holy Spirit, contracts become fashionable among frustrated pastors who find it necessary to coerce members into carrying out the church’s ministry. Those who are led by the Spirit of God don’t need to sign on some dotted line guaranteeing their faithfulness. Those who aren’t led by the Spirit have no business in a Christian ministry to begin with. We don’t sign contracts guaranteeing our commitment to Christ for our salvation. So, why is it now necessary to sign a contract guaranteeing our commitment to serve in His church? Because faith isn’t required, that’s why. It’s only when you set out to fill your church with the faith-LESS that guarantees become necessary.

Source: Paul Proctor

 

MTA, the particular covenant above originated in the New Hampshire Association in the 1800s, and is believed to have been written by J. Newton Brown. This covenant, in several slight variations, has been the most popular among "missionary Baptists" in the United States.

 

I would take away the requirement for teetotaling from the covenant. That element was introduced, not from the Scriptures, but from the temperance movement which was a 19th century American social movement.

Just this week I read in the biography of Jesse Mercer (an influential Georgia pastor in the 1800s) that he actually opposed the temperance movement when it first got started, then later flipped-flopped and joined the movement.

I think requiring members to totally abstain has placed an unecessary barrier to church membership which has hurt the Baptist cause.

Furthermore, those who try to defend the teetotaling position from the Scriptures must resort to intellectual dishonesty and deceit, because the Bible just does not teach it.

The Bible does teach against drunkeness and gives the church instructions on how to deal with drunkeness in the church. Ironically, while most Baptist churches are adament in their stance on teetotaling, most of them steadfastly refuse to practice church discipline against drunkards (or any other offenders for that matter).

Mark Osgatharp

 

Mark,
Good post.

Appreciate all the information on the Covenant. I am teaching the Scriptural foundation for it on Wed. evening and needed some of the history of it.

Came here to post the question, but found the answer.

Bro. Dallas

 

I have no royalty from the selling of books--however, there is a book called: Christian Engagements, by Roy M. Reed, published by Bogard Press--it is a good primer for new members as well as a perhaps shocking refresher for others. It is also a good outline for teaching the doctrines of "the faith once for all delivered to the saints".

The book is available for about $3.50 + s&h from the ABA bookstore in Little Rock, Ark. They have a website.

In His Service,

Bro. James

 

I am several years late to this discussion, but it has become somewhat of a hot topic in the congregation I serve.

More recent revisions of this convenient (as published by Broadman) remove the direct reference to alcohol, and replace with "to abstain from habits and practices which harm us personally in body, mind or spirit, to be enthusiastic in efforts to advance the kingdom of our Savior."

If I'm not mistaken, there was an intermediate change made that basically referred to drug abuse or "intoxicating substances".

I actually am pretty comfortable with the newest version as it seems to "cover the bases" in a more biblical context.

But that being said - the scriptures are FAR more condemning of consuming alcohol than it is supportive. Indeed, the whole idea of "medicinal" comes from the very small handful of instructions to actually USE alcohol. Alcohol was a fact of life in Biblical times (and beyond). Lack of refrigeration and preservatives leads to fermentation (a form of spoilage). But HOW alcohol was used is of utmost importance. If a prohibition in a church's covenant is a stumbling block, they have some real issues to deal with.

 

I have extensive experience with the abuse of alcohol having been alcohol dependent-- a vice/disease which goes back to my childhood. I have lived with, worshipped with and socialized with many people who support those who make and sell intoxicating beverages.

This teaching has been watered down to the point that many do not have to be hypocritical about their closet alcoholism. We have watered down other sins as well. Whatsoever is not of faith---------------is sin.

Re: The Covenant--plainly says abstain from the sale or use of alcoholic beverage. It makes no distinction between Mr. K. Jackson, Mr.Smirnoff and Mr. Busch. This is not an endorsement of Mr. Welch. It is interesting/sad to read of the tragedies which came on those who make and market Bud Lite.

The real problem comes when we try to agree to a covenant which we do not keep behind closed doors. A lot of folk see no harm in having a little wine with a candlelight supper.

T-totalling is no longer a badge of holiness to the world. Do our children and grandchildren see the hypocricy? For sure--so does the world.

What is wrong with it? No, rather: What is right with it? This criteria applies to everything we do especially those who name the Name of Christ. The world is watching closely.

Nothing good has ever come out of a bottle of whiskey. Countless numbers of families have been torn assunder by spirits coming from a bottle.

Change the wording of the covenant--better still re-examine our perception of holiness.

Peace,

Bro James

 

Intoxicating Drink

We are considering this change: To abstain from drunkenness and the the excessive use of alcoholic beverages of any kind. To further abstain from any habits or practices that are harmful to the body, mind and spirit and which may cause a weaker brother to stumble.

What do you think?

 

The original Baptist in England established a confession in 1644 (not sure if you count a confession equal to a Covenant or not?). It was later revised in 1689 as the 2nd London Baptist Confession.

The early Church required new members to Memorize and quote the 1st-6 sections of the Didache for membership (See Section 7.2-see Lightfoot's translation). Yes, I know that someone will hit me up again for mentioning this, truly I am not trying to start a squabble not do I have an axe to grind.

 

You are correct on what you say here, especially in light of Deuteronomy 14:26

26 You may spend the money for whatever your [t]heart desires: for oxen, or sheep, or wine, or strong drink, or whatever your heart [v]desires; and there you shall eat in the presence of the Lord your God and rejoice, you and your household

The Bible says that if we do it, we are to do it to the Glory of God

 

Viewpoint of one whom did endulge in drinking to point of drunkenness and saw many others at that same bridge. I was Baptised in a SBC Church and took the "NO ALCOHOL" position to heart as I knew first hand of the damages that "drunkeness" could cause. As I grew in biblical understanding my position has changed. Drunkenness is sin, drinking alcohol is not unless you do it against the glory of God. The abstinence of all alcohol is not supported by the NT or the OT.