What scriptures prove churches should be independent?

I just want to point out that being independant don't make one a fundamentalist and being Southern Baptist doesn't disqualify one from being a fundamentalist either.

Also, if you think the SBC is a hierarchy, you don't know what you are talking about.

 

I was referring to IFB's post.

 

I see the churches in the NT as being interdependent. In Acts 20 Paul addresses the elders/pastors from Ephesus. It seems to me that he mentored those men who were pastors. They were not independent of him. He was their mentor. He instructed those men he mentored to the point where they were independent. They worked together.

Kind of a sideline note: About 25 years ago I was attending a church that wanted to lead in an evangelistic effort in the city. Several of the evangelical chrurhes participated. There were some of the KJVO and independent churches that did not want to. They did not want to mix with any of the other churches. It was a non-denominational church being pastored by an independent Baptist pastor that led in the effort. Today all of those churches that chose not to participate are nearly extinct. Most of them are at about 25 percent or less of the attendance they once had in 1978. The SBC church is even refusing to let the Korean SBC church use its building. So the Korean church is using the Nazarene Church to meet in.

 

I don't know that there is a "proof-text" which clearly states that churches should be independent. I find the principle reflected in the actions of the early church and the apostles. Probably the best example is in Acts 15. In the controversy that arose over circumcision, the "mother" church in Jerusalem took great pains to acknowledge that teachers who had gone out from Jerusalem had caused problems and the letter of James takes great pains to word its instructions in non-direct language. James' letter is an acknowledgement that the church in Jerusalem was in no way spiritually superior or politically superior to the church in Antioch (or anywhere else). If a local church possesses the word of God, its members possess the Spirit of God, and it has qualified officers (pastors and deacons), it needs no other spiritual resources to carry out its responsibility to God in fulfilling the great commission.

 

I can't think of a place where Paul told Timothy to do this. He did tell Titus to "appoint elders" and study of that shows that he was to arrange the process by which elders were chosen for the churches. He was not an outside influence dictating to the churches.

In the NT, the only external authority over a church was apostolic authority and that remains so today. The apostolic authority has come to us in the NT and that is the only external authority for a church today.

Associations are a tricky thing and they have been abused on both ends of the spectrum. We should hesitate to condemn churches in "gray areas" of association. We should not hesitate to separate from churches in "black and white areas." To argue that churches who separated have declined is irrelevant. Many churches who have not separated have declined and closed down and many who remained separatistic have flourished. It works both ways and thus that standard cannot be used as a measuring stick.

Yes. The verses are the NT teachings as a whole and the examples of no external authority. Do not confuse a lack of an explicit verse with a lack of a clear teaching.

 

I am a little confused about the nature of this "study".

I don't think the NT says one way or another. I think it is clear Paul had an intrisic spiritual authority over many churches, but as Pastor Larry stated we don't have any Paul today. And when the confusion over the gentiles arrose there was no "every church read the OT and decide for yourselves" but they took it to Jerusalem. This doesn't mean Jerusalem was some early popish authority over all churches, but everyone recongized that the spiritual leadership, indead those who walked with Christ were there in Jerusalem and they should be consulted. We don't have anything like this today, and I don't think it is fair to argue one way or the other from the specific examples of the Church being built and defined in ACTS to our more steady state existence 2000 years later. I want to modify this a bit. All churches were expected to read the OT and decide, namely, decide that what James and Peter and the council at Jerusalem was saying was correct.

I think our sense of isolation and indepedence is party influenced by the gross abuses of more central authority in the past. If we had had faithful church leadership over different churches we all might sing a different tune. There are negative consequences to churches being completely indepedenent, as some slide from the truth and have no one to check them.

It seems to me that the believers in the early church had a much better sense of the unity of the Body of Christ, despite location, then we have today. Indeed, most on this board are quite proud they are distinct from other gathering bodies. These churches respected each others teaching, thinking, shared with each other, prayed for each other, exchanged membors, letters. How this leads to a practical authority in todays world in unclear, and things are greatly confused when we consider that churches differ on some signifigant doctrine.

In the early church there was a clear faith and any church that fell out of line was rebuked by Paul or from Jerusalem as all believers were accountable to Christ, but now we have lost that firm foundation in that we can argue from Paul's writings, which are no way systematic, and since we and the presbos can't agree on some important thing then we must remain seperate in worship, practice, and above all authority until Christ returns or otherwise changes the outlook of modern Christianity.

My conclusion, the Bible doesn't speak directly to it and I am not threatened by hierarcical leadership or independent leadership. I attend an independent church, but one who is very sensative to be connected with other believers in Austin, the US, and the world in as much as possible considering our firm convictions on the Bible's teaching. A Hieracucal (sp) authority is no different at some levels in that we are still going to check every thing said by anyone with the Bible if we disagree to the point of non-fellowship that we will happily remove ourselves. The same happens at the church level. We listen to the pastor/elders but check whatever they say with the Scriptures, and if we come to the point that we differ so greatly that fellowship is not advised then we remove ourselves from the church. (I am going to start a new thread on this last point.)

 

IfbReformer: Or indoor plumbing, either!

 

If I'm understanding you correctly then, IFBReformer, your version precludes any kind of "top-down" heirarchy, requires congregational government, and allows cooperation within Biblical paramenters, since each individual congregation must be capable of following the clear teachings of the word of God.

Perhaps the sometimes simplistic "if it isn't in the New Testament" clouds the real issue, which is whether New Testament practice is normative for the church age. Perhaps some do not try to understand the argument. Whether to have electricity and indoor plumbing fall entirely outside the scope of "New Testament practice," and are therefore irrelevant to the discussion. Some of us have discussed this in other threads. Most Baptists accept New Testament practice as normative at least part of the time. I suspect most Baptists observe communion with fruit of the vine and baptism in water, rather than the reverse, not because of an explicit command, but because it was the New Testament practice. Some of us try to apply New Testamenet practice as normative consistently, but I know we fall short of achieving that consistency. That failure doesn't disprove our position.

[ September 22, 2003, 12:14 AM: Message edited by: rlvaughn ]

 

I never understood why people feel that the Southern Baptist Convention is a hiarchy like the Roman Catholic Church is.

Yes there is a president to reside over the association acting as CEO over business and missions affiars BUT let that man try to step in and save a pastor being voted out by the deacons

There is a cooperative program and a universal belief in doctrine BUT every Church has the right to believe what they want and self govern. No matter what the associations and conventions say, the Church is the ultimate and final word over the affiars of that Church.

 

The problem with a President/CEO model is that it is a secular model. While I acknowledge that we have freedom to develop methods and means, I think the SBC model goes in a direction with which I am not comfortable. The NT defines church leadership as pastor(s) and deacons. To develop offices in addition to these and particularly in authority over these is a change in essence IMHO, and is a step too far.

 

IfbReformer, I came in the middle of the thread to respond to a couple of specific points, so I feel a need to go back and interact with your original question. What scriptures prove churches should be independent? Probably most will agree that there is no explicit command for a particular type of church government, nor are there any New Testament writings specifying exact forms of church polity. In the absence of this, anyone rejecting New Testament practice as normative or authoritative will probably feel that the church is left to follow that which is expedient and pragmatic. Those who accept New Testament practice as normative will find proof in guiding principles and the consistent New Testament application of those principles through apostolic practice. To give those scriptures to someone who rejects that concept is somewhat of an exercise in futility.

It is generally accepted that there are three basic forms of church government: (1) Congregational; (2) Episcopal; and (3) Presbyterian. A 4th "form" is that of "non-government" - for example, everyone may just be sitting around waiting for the Lord to "give light" to someone. I believe the congregational or independent type fits scriptural principles and practices. I reserve the right to define what I mean by congregational, because I believe the democratic "whoever gets 50.1% of the vote wins" way of running a church is political rather than spiritual. By congregational or independent, I mean that a church's governance is not subject to outside bodies (whether parachurch organizations or bodies of ministers).

So here are some of my thoughts:
</font>

• Jesus is the head of the church; He is the law-giver. Forms of church government other than congregational put mediators between the Head and the church (Eph. 5:23.24; Col. 1:18).</font>
• The church is a body of believers, a priesthood which needs no more priests other than their High Priest (I Pet. 2:9).</font>
• There is evidence in the New Testament of autonomous congregations, not subject to the control of episcopacies, presbyters or other entities (Acts 6:5: 13:1-3; 15:22; Rom. 14:1; I Cor. 5:4-5,13; Gal. 6:1; et.al).</font>
• Jesus specifically rejects the lordship example of Gentile rulers (Mark 10:42-45).</font>
• Specific examples and teachings, such as church discipline resting in the church. There is no higher body of appeal (Matt. 18:15-17).</font>

 

Nor is our doctrine or practice infallible even in the PRESENCE of express commands.

I am loath to call the practices established by the inspired apostles "the commands and traditions of men." Are we to conclude that the apostles failed in their commission to teach the baptized disciples all things that Jesus had commanded them? But even if apostolic practice is not normative for the entire church age, on what basis would we surmise that their instituted practices of church autonomy are inferior to those devised later by other men? No form of church government can be established apart from New Testament practice. Therefore, if apostolic or New Testament practice is not a valid example, God favours no particular form and expediency is the standard.