The year was 1767. Baptists in New England were debating whether or not to come together and form an association of churches. Only a few New England congregations cooperated with the Philadelphia Baptist Association.
New England’s hesitancy about associations was not typical of the way most Baptists reacted to the Philadelphia Association or to the concept of associations. Since its official founding in 1707 the Philadelphia Association had provided cohesion for the Baptist movement. At one time participating churches stretched from Maine to the Carolinas.
In 1751, Baptist churches had formed the Charleston Baptist Association, the first association in the South, and efforts were underway to form an association in New England.
But New England Baptists were wary of any organization beyond the local church. They had witnessed what happened to Congregationalists who formed a voluntary association only to see the association assume power over local churches. Even Baptist stalwarts like Isaac Backus had doubts about being a part of an association for a time.
‘Subservient to the churches’
Baptists had tried to assuage such fears. Early on they declared “an association is not a superior judicature having power over the churches concerned.” The association is “subservient to the churches” they declared in a 1749 official statement.
Against that background Samuel Jones, moderator of the Philadelphia Association, wrote to James Manning, of Rhode Island, that “a collection or union of churches into one associational body may easily be conceived capable of answering those still greater purposes which any particular church could not be equal to.”
Though the language seems strange to today’s ear, the words lift up one of the originating principles of Baptist associations — helping churches do together what no single church could do alone. Both the Philadelphia and Charleston associations, along with other early Baptist associations, embodied the advantages of cooperative actions.
Associations stressed education for its members and supported schools for its ministers. Baptist historian Leon McBeth in his book, “The Baptist Heritage: Four Centuries of Baptist Witness,” quotes from the minutes of these bodies showing efforts to work in “destitute areas” and to engage in extensive home missions activities.
Two-plus centuries later that contribution of Baptist associations has not changed. Associations still channel the passion and energies of cooperating churches into missions projects and ministry programs aimed at local needs. In most cases this cooperation makes it possible to do more together than any church could do alone.
Today some large-membership churches provide extensive local ministries. While Baptists celebrate this, they are exceptions rather than the rule. Most Baptist churches still need the cooperation of sister churches through their local association to do major missions projects or on-going ministries.
Even where large-membership churches can do their own missions and ministry projects, most still support cooperative efforts because of the witness of Baptists standing together.
In New England, for example, once the Warren Baptist Association was formed, Backus became the associational spokesman as Baptists stood together to fight for religious freedom. Writing about the advantages of standing together, Backus wrote that associations “increase the body of weight and strength” when addressing public issues.
Standing together
Whether it is speaking to an issue like religious freedom (which is still an issue today) or feeding the hungry or sharing Scripture passages, people notice when Baptists stand together through their local association.
Though subservient to a church, the association’s counsel on matters of doctrine and practice has generally been valued. Like today, churches historically have invited “help” from their association when faced with the knotty problems.
The only power of the association relates to fellowship. A church can be accepted into fellowship with sister churches if in general agreement with the accepted doctrinal guidelines. Or fellowship can be withdrawn from a church whose faith and practice cannot be reconciled to generally accepted standards.
That leaves the church free to believe and practice what it wills but the endorsement of the Baptist association through membership remains like a “seal of approval” to observers. Whether one is a cooperating member of the association or not says something about that church.
Most directors of missions can tell multiple stories of working with churches to mediate disagreements and to arbitrate conflicts. As in days past the wisdom of the local Baptist community, as represented through the association, can be valuable to local churches.
Confidence in the association led to another historic contribution — helping churches with personnel matters. From earliest times associations helped churches obtain pastors, arranged for pulpit supplies between pastors, commissioned preachers for itinerant work and helped establish new churches. Early associations also screened potential pastors to ensure general agreement with Baptist doctrine and polity. Those contributions continue today.
While most attention is paid to what associations “do,” the “being” of associations also is important. More than 20 years before the Philadelphia Association was organized, area Baptist churches met together each quarter for a time of inspiration and encouragement. One historian said the association provided fellowship for “lonely Baptists.”
The quarterly meetings offered unintended benefits. Good preaching was modeled. Sound teaching about Baptist beliefs and practices was provided. But the primary purpose was for Baptists to be inspired and encouraged in their faith by being with other Baptists. As Baptists met one another the entire body of believers was strengthened as each participant learned of others who shared a common faith in Jesus Christ.
Again the value of that historic contribution continues today. There is no way of over valuing the benefits of neighbors, co-workers and others learning of the common faith they share when they see one another at associational-sponsored meetings and events.
When the Charleston Association started in 1751, a circular letter to area churches described the association as a “great means of union and common interest and that union will be weakened and those interest suffer in proportion as neglect prevails.”
That observation is still true.
Share with others: