THE ECCLESIOLOGY OF THE BAPTIST WORLD ALLIANCE By John Briggs

Baptists find it relatively easy to articulate an ecclesiology [or theology] of the local church, the body of believers in one place who have covenanted together under God and with each other to bear witness to God’s kingdom in that locality; but they find it more difficult to extend that ecclesiology to other than local groups; that is, to regional groupings, national conventions and unions, continental fellowships and the Baptist World Alliance itself.

Nevertheless, from the earliest times the responsibility

to associate with others has generally been recognized. For example, E.A. Payne affirms, “Associations, Synods, Unions and Assemblies of churches are not to be regarded as optional and secondary. They are the necessary expression of Christian fellowship, a necessary manifestation of the church visible. The local congregation is not truly a church if it lives an entirely separate life.” Early Baptists both learned to follow biblical precedents in securing mutual counsel on difficult problems, and to work together to forward God’s mission in the world. Arguments for other than local groupings have generally

been developed by attempts to try and extend the principles of local church government to the larger unit, but always with great care. When the Baptist union was founded in Great Britain it went on record as eschewing “all manner of superiority and superintendence over the churches.” The constitution of the Baptist World Alliance reflects the same cautions. In 1905 there was recognition of “the independence of each particular church,” which in 1923 was strengthened: “It being understood that this Alliance shall in no way interfere with the independence of the churches.” As recently as at Los Angeles in 1985 it was affirmed that “this Alliance recognizes the traditional autonomy and independence of churches and general bodies.” Any fellowship wider than the local church to secure any standing with the churches will accordingly require a deliberate act of covenanting by such local churches, which thereby bestow competence on the wider body to act in the interests of the mission of the kingdom. Only thus can the wider body secure authority to act. The issue is not simply where decision-making takes place, but whence the authority for such decision-making derives. In Baptist ecclesiology that must always be from the local to the national and international, and never vice-versa, as commonly occurs within Episcopal and Presbyterian systems.

This raises the question as to whether local churches covenant

to the wider family authority to act on very specific matters or whether they may give to the wider body more general delegation of authority. I incline to the former view and would add that the need for the local body to be continually and intelligently involved with the consequences of their actions by way of shared information, prayer and commitment as appropriate. In so developing our relationships there are reciprocal

principles of freedom and fidelity. That is to say, there needs to be freedom unfettered to explore the mind of Christ for his purposes in the current situation, but at the same time continuing to secure fidelity to the apostolic faith as once given. This defines the bonds of fellowship, necessarily excluding any who depart from this faith. Contrariwise, slavery to the past has sometimes inhibited some from seeing their contemporary missionary responsibilities. The new missionary spirit that reinvigorated Baptist life at the

end of the eighteenth century inevitably made its impact upon Baptist ecclesiology. Co-operative action across denominational boundaries necessarily posed questions about the practice of closed communion. How could Christians under the direction of the Spirit unite in mission and then separate at the Lord’s Table? At the same time, serious questions were posed about church order, and the necessity for baptism to precede communion and church membership.

How could Christians under the direction of the Spirit unite in mission and then separate at the Lord’s Table?

In due course, questions inevitably arose as to the relationships

between mission boards and churches in the mission field, quite properly asserting the need for the younger churches to be respected as churches in their own right. Just as Baptist ecclesiology in asserting the autonomy of the

local church did not conceive of independent churches competing for members within the same community, so it is difficult to justify a multiplicity of Baptist conventions/unions existing in any given geographical area, the more especially when each is in membership with the BWA. [This was raised at the time of the BWA General Council in Harare, Zimbabwe, in 1993, in reference (Continued on next page)

OCTOBER/DECEMBER 2016 5