One of the cardinal principles of Baptist life is the primary position of the local Baptist church. When graphs are drawn illustrating Baptist life, the local Baptist church is at the apex of the pyramid. All connecting ties flow from the church to the other areas of corporate Baptist life. The local Baptist church is subordinate to no association, no convention, no entity.
Because the local Baptist church is primary, it is also autonomous. It is governed by its members. No other Baptist body, and certainly no single individual, can tell any local Baptist church what it must or must not do.
According to Baptist principles, the associations, the state conventions and the national convention all exist to serve the needs of churches. Churches never exist to serve the needs of any other Baptist body.
One of the practical expressions of this principle is seen in the way “messengers” are chosen for participation in state and national conventions. Churches do not compose the membership of state or national conventions. Messengers do. One of the reasons for this is that nothing the state or national convention does is binding on any local church.
Historically, Baptists have been true to this principle. In 1845, when the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) was organized, founders wrote in Article IV of the constitution: “While independent and sovereign in its own sphere, the Convention does not claim and will never attempt to exercise any authority over any other Baptist body, whether church, auxiliary organization, associations or convention.”
The constitution of the Alabama Baptist State Convention offers a similar commitment in Article III. There one reads, “While autonomous in its own affairs, this Convention disclaims all rights of exercising authority over any church, association, mission organization or convention, recognizing the independence of the churches and the autonomy of all Baptist bodies.”
Similar wording can be found in the documents of most state Baptist conventions.
The primacy of the local Baptist church would seem clearly enshrined in official Baptist documents. Unfortunately, some are now advocating actions that could result in churches surrendering some of their autonomy.
Justification for churches surrendering their autonomy is found in the phrase, “while autonomous in its own affairs.” A growing chorus of voices now argues that churches must conform to the wishes of other Baptist bodies if they want to be members of those bodies.
To be sure, “autonomous in its own affairs” is also an important Baptist principle. No church can tell an association, a state convention or the national convention what it must or must not do. Each area of Baptist life is “autonomous in its own affairs.” Each area is free to determine who will and who will not be members. The result has always been a certain tension between autonomy and control.
Most often the tension has been played out over doctrinal issues. Now some want to expand the tension into how a church uses its money. In one state convention, a series of constitutional amendments was introduced at the last annual meeting that stipulated a member church would be forbidden to support any other state convention or any organization that acted like a state convention.
Obviously, this was a state where Baptist brothers and sisters have divided into two different camps.
According to the amendments to be voted on in the next annual meeting, the convention would have the right to examine a church’s financial records to determine whether that church supported some other convention-like organization.
Under the guise of exercising “autonomy in its own affairs,” a convention could demand to see the financial records of a church to determine that no “competitor” received funding from that church.
To this writer, that sounds like control. It sounds like another Baptist body would exercise control over a local Baptist church. It sounds like a church is being asked to surrender some of its autonomy. It sounds like a church is being used to accomplish the goals of another Baptist body.
The proposals trouble many observers, even some of the staunchest defenders of present SBC leadership. Gregory Willis, director of the Center for the Study of the Southern Baptist Convention at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., was quoted recently as saying, “I don’t think that (the constitutional amendments) has any precedent. It has some merit, but it may be wrong.”
The question of church autonomy is not an issue over which Baptists should fight. The church is primary, and the church is autonomous. Likewise, every Baptist body is autonomous in its own affairs. On that, all should agree.
Associations and conventions should use their “autonomy in their own affairs” principle in ways that reflect their roles as servants of local churches. To exclude a church from membership because it has taken a doctrinal position that places it outside the description of Baptist is one thing. But for a state convention, or any other Baptist body, to claim the right to examine a church’s contribution records turns Baptist polity on its head. It makes the convention master and the church subservient. Churches then exist to carry out the will of another Baptist body rather than conventions existing to empower churches. That is a giant step toward hierarchical church government and away from Baptist congregational polity.
These constitutional amendments have not yet been adopted. Perhaps they never will be, but every Baptist should be concerned about developments in the Baptist family that suggest churches should surrender their autonomy in order to participate in another area of Baptist life.
Share with others: