Author: Brent Hobbs

I saw this Baptist Group Keeps Gay-Friendly Church (longer story here) linked on twitter today (HT: Bart Barber) about a local association in Virginia. Because I’m working on this current series on local Baptist associations, I thought it would be a good idea to point this information out to readers.

This particular local association voted yesterday to retain in its membership a church that had ordained a man who is openly homosexual. (I don’t intend to debate the merits of that issue here, though will say that my own position is that the whole Bible is clear: homosexuality is sinful and contrary to God’s moral will.) This really prompts the question of what role a local association has in cultivating, and even sometimes requiring a basic amount of theological agreement among churches. Can there be a church that has so far departed from historic Christian teaching that they ought to be disfellowshipped from an association?

For many years, that question was answered in the affirmative without much dissent. Today, as you can see, the landscape is different. What role should theological unity play in our local Baptist associations and how do we go about achieving that? I plan to attempt an answer to that question in an upcoming post.

In previous posts, we’ve seen that the local association is not like a church, and that the Director of Missions (DoM) is not like a pastor, nor should his primary role be thought of as being “a pastor to pastors.” Since we’ve looked at the organization and its leadership so far, I thought it would be helpful to think about membership in the local association: What responsibilities and obligations do churches have who participate in local associations?

Local Church Autonomy
One of the distinctive beliefs of Baptists is a conviction about local church autonomy. That means that a local church is self-governing under the Lordship of Christ and influence of the Holy Spirit. No person or organization has the authority to tell a local church what decisions it must make or how to act. Not even the Southern Baptist Convention can direct member churches to act. The most they, or a state convention, or a local association can do is withdraw from the participating relationship. The most the SBC or a local association can say to a church is, “We disagree so strongly with your position, we no longer consider you a member and will no longer accept your financial support.” No outside organization can force the autonomous local church to act contrary to its own wishes.

Nothing in this scenario, however, prevents other organizations from trying to influence churches to make certain decisions or take action on an issue. For example, the last several years, the International Mission Board has been asking churches to consider adopting an unreached people group. Such an effort is commendable and worthwhile. It doesn’t violate local church autonomy because the IMB is seeking to influence churches to make that decision on their own.

So a local association may not assert any authority over a local church, but it may attempt to influence a local church in various ways. The question we’ll ask below is how and which ways are appropriate and helpful in our cooperative efforts together.

Ever been somewhere at a time when it’s quiet and fairly inappropriate to laugh, but something struck you as funny? As much as you tried, you just couldn’t help laughing; and they very fact that you were supposed to be quiet made it all that much funnier and harder to stop? It happens to me way too often. One example…

I’m a member of the local Ruritan club (community service organization) and we meet one night each month. We have about 20 people at a normal meeting. They’re pretty relaxed, we eat dinner together, talk, then have the formal meeting for a little while before we leave. I don’t remember all the details but it went something like this. One guy was up at the front talking a little longer than everyone wanted but obviously had a few more things to say. He told us that the Ruritan national president might be visiting our club. Knowing that some (i.e. all) of us were pretty much clueless as to Ruritan hierarchy, he graciously decided to fill us in. I’m pretty sure this is the exact quote: “…the Ruritan national president, that’s pretty much like the president of the United States.” A friend was sitting across the table and we looked at each other when he said that. Both of us lost it. Trying to stop laughing and be quiet, when one of us finally got it under control, we’d see the other’s shoulders shaking from laughter and we’d start all over again. Honestly trying to stop the whole time, it took four or five minutes before we could stop laughing.

What was so funny? What got it all started? An analogy that just didn’t quite fit. I guess there may be some similarities between Ruritan national president and POTUS: The title… Ok I give up trying to find any more. My point is that in order to say something is “like” something else, there needs to be some deep, essential aspects shared by the two items—otherwise the analogy is more harmful than helpful. Here’s a few examples:

• I love my wife. God loves my wife. Therefore: I am like God. (true in some sense, but mostly misleading and potentially dangerous)
• Bicycles are vehicles. Automobiles are vehicles. Therefore: Cars are like bikes. (please don’t tell this to my four year old learning to ride a bike—he might grab my keys and give it a try)
• Christians participate in churches. Christians participate in local Baptist associations. Churches do ministry. Associations do ministry. Churches have leaders. Associations have leaders. Therefore: Associations are like churches.

I’ve heard well-meaning people (some pastors) express the idea that the local association is like a church, and the DoM is like the pastor of this church-like organization. In this post, I want to pick apart these comparisons and show that they are biblically mis-informed, theologically dangerous, and practically unhelpful.

The first aspect of association ministry I would like to think about is the role of the Director of Missions (DoM). The typical structure of a local Baptist association includes an “association missionary” who leads the organization. In many cases this DoM position is a full-time, paid position.

Our local association is currently without a DoM, with a search committee currently looking for the next DoM to serve our association. (Just for clarity sake, I am not on the search committee of our association, but know more than half of the group—a godly, encouraging group of people!) This time without a DoM in our association has given me some time to think through what the role for a DoM ought to be.

Typical Perception of the DoM Role
There is a phrase I hear over and over again from people as we discuss what characteristics we ought to look for in a DoM, or what that role ought to look like: A pastor to pastors. In fact, I hear it so much, I’ve begun to think this is the essence of what most people expect a DoM to be. A pastor to pastors. Remember the phrase. I want to examine this concept closely and ask if this is really a good summary of how an effective DoM ministry would be described.

Our local Baptist association is going through a time of transition right now. This transition period has given me the chance to think and talk with friends and fellow pastors about several aspects of local association ministry. I want to use this post and few that will follow to think out loud about what local Baptist association ministry can and should look like in today’s world.

To get started, I’d like to point out a couple of resources that I’m aware of. If you know of any other helpful articles or resources, please feel free to add to this list in the comments section.

• Don’t Pull the Plug on Your Association Yet by Matthew Spandler-Davison
• Some Thoughts on Associational Revitalization by Nathan Finn
• Do Associations Have a Future in New-Work States? by Dave Miller
• Also, about a year and a half ago, I preached a sermon at one of our association meetings called Local Baptist Associations in the 21st Century. You can find the audio recording and sermon notes here.

A couple of issues I’d like to deal with in future posts:

• The Role of a DoM: A Pastor to Pastors?
• Is the Association Like a Church?
• Autonomous Local Churches and Voluntary Participation
• Keeping the Local Church Central in Association Ministry

I’d enjoy your feedback and input if you have some perspective on these issues and look forward to thinking through them together.

C. S. Lewis, from Mere Christianity, in his chapter on Christian Marriage (3.6):

To this someone may reply that he regarded the promise made in church as a mere formality and never intended to keep it. Whom, then, was he trying to deceive when he made it? God? That was really very unwise. Himself? That was not very much wiser. The bride, or bridegroom. or the ‘in-laws’? That was treacherous. Most often, I think, the couple (or one of them) hoped to deceive the public. They wanted the respectability that is attached to marriage without intending to pay the price: that is, they were impostors, they cheated. If they are still contented cheats, I have nothing to say to them: who would urge the high and hard duty of chastity on people who have not yet wished to be mere honest? If they have now come to their senses and want to be honest, their promise, already made, constrains them. And this, you will see, comes under the heading of justice, not that of chastity. If people do not believe in permanent marriage, it is perhaps better that they should live together unmarried than that they should make vows they do not mean to keep. It is true that by living together without marriage they will be guilty (in Christian eyes) of fornication. But one fault is not mended by adding another: unchastity is not improved by adding perjury.

D. A. Carson from his EBC Commentary on Matthew 7:28-29:

The central point is this: Jesus’ entire approach in the Sermon on the Mount is not only ethical but messianic—i.e., christological and eschatological. Jesus is not an ordinary prophet who says, “Thus says the Lord!” Rather, he speaks in the first person and claims that his teaching fulfills the Old Testament; that he determines who enters the messianic kingdom; that as the Divine Judge he pronounces banishment; that the true heirs of the kingdom would be persecuted for their allegiance to him; and that he alone fully knows the will of his Father.

I have been asked to deliver the message at the 2011 Fall meeting of the West Chowan Baptist Association. I’m posting the notes here for anyone who would like a copy. I also intend to post the audio after I deliver the message.

The notes are in .pdf format and are the same pages I’ll be bringing with me into the pulpit tonight. That is to say there are other notes from research and outlining that are not included here. Below is the title and outline of the message.

“Is There a Role for Local Associations in the 21st Century?”
Acts 16:4-5

Outline: What would an effective and relevant local association ministry look like?

1. Encouragement in Sound Doctrine and Theological Accountability
2. Becoming a Channel of Financial Resources Rather than a Reservoir
3. Establishing, Equipping, and Empowering Churches

Available for Download: Message Audio and Sermon Notes

One of my favorite segments in all of sports journalism is ESPN’s C’mon Man before Monday Night Football. They go back over Sunday’s games and pick out the funniest moments. These hilarious incidents often involve a player doing something that leaves commentators and viewers wondering what he was thinking. Hence the name.

The debate over the NIV update has had some c’mon man moments lately. My purpose here is to plead with NIV 2011 critics to be fair in your criticism of the translation: not to demagogue, not to oversimplify, not to accuse translators of ulterior motives.

I want people to criticize when they find problematic passages in the NIV 2011. I hope people will publish, blog, and tweet when they see ways that we can better understand the Bible. I don’t believe any translation is above question. Every translation can be improved, even if only in slight ways here and there.

What kind of criticisms am I talking about? What should be out of bounds? Here’s a sampling:

Denny Burk recently linked to an article in the Westminster Theological Journal by Vern Poythress. The article is titled Gender Neutral Issues in the New International Version of 2011.

I wanted to interact a little with this article because it makes some very valid points of criticism against the 2011 NIV. Readers of my website will know that I have been mostly positive toward the updated NIV. I still use the 1984 NIV as my main Bible for preaching and teaching. I haven’t yet decided if I will use the new NIV. (I won’t anytime soon because the vast majority of our church will still be using the 1984 version. But I do think this is an issue worth thinking about few years in advance of when I will need to make a choice.)

Poythress’ Main Point
The main problem Poythress addresses in his article is the move from 3rd-person singular pronouns (like “he” or “him” or “his”) to 3rd-person plural pronouns (like “they” or “them” or “theirs”). This move by the NIV translators is designed to show readers that the original text wasn’t specifically addressing men only, but both men and women.

There’s no good singular way in English to refer to a person without respect to that person’s gender. It’s why you’ve seen such awkward things in writing as “he/she” or “his or her”. So to avoid that kind of awkward construction, people today sometimes use a technically plural pronoun (“them”) while still meaning one person. Example: If anyone wants some water, they should take a drink from the water fountain. English teachers cringe but most of us shrug.