We have a problem. Many of us know we have a problem. The pastors who are engaged in this denomination have seen it, and some are alarmed at the thought of how deep the issues go. Yet any attempt to correct the problem is met with a shrug of the shoulders or a raise of the eye-brows and the magic word ‘AUTONOMY’. Does that word really mean that a Baptist Church is untethered from any agreed upon doctrinal statement, to sail whichever way they choose? Worse, does that word mean that every other church in the association is now tethered to the furthest outlier with the only option being to follow meekly along or to withdraw from the denomination?
Just about every pastor can name a couple of churches that exist in their Association that are in ‘isolationist mode’ and have been for decades; no representation, no letter and likely no dues. For all intents and purpose they have dropped out. On the other hand, most can name the church or churches in your association who are constantly pushing the envelope of ‘progressive’ theology and practice further and further. Most moderate pastors are now caught in a vice; they don’t love the compromise, but they love the denomination. We don’t want to travel down certain roads, but is the only option isolation or departure?
We, Canadian Baptists of Ontario and Quebec, are wrongly understanding automony. We have made autonomy king over all other Baptist distinctives and the result is the decline and potential collapse of a denomination. If the CBOQ is to be saved it will require determined action and decisive change of mind on the meaning of autonomy and association. Happily, it does not require some untraveled road or new innovation; the baptist’s of the past are happy to furnish us with the tools we need to restore soundness to our shared fellowship.
In 1644 one of the earliest Baptist confessions was written. The confession demonstrates that our English ancestors understood the need to balance autonomy with an associational principle of shared doctrinal belief. Historian Barrie White writes, “The principle of congregational autonomy, however, which could so swiftly lead by itself to a mere isolationism was modified by certain convictions to which expression was given in both the preface to the 1644 Confession and its article XLVII.”[i]
In the words of these historic baptists: “…although the particular Congregations be distinct and severall (sic.) Bodies, every one a compact and knit Citie (sic.) in it selfe (sic.); yet are they all to walk by one and the same Rule, and by all meanes (sic.) convenient to have the counsel and help one of another in all needful affaires (sic.) of the Church, as members of one body in the common faith under Christ their onely (sic.) head.”[ii]
White , quoting from a 1653 document printed as ‘The Baptists of Berkshire’, writes, “…a major motive for membership of an individual congregation was ‘to keep each other pure, and to clear ye profession of ye Gospel from scandal’, the same motive must also operate to encourage individual congregations to have fellowship together. Hence ‘unless orderly churches be owned orderly, and disorderly churches be orderly disowned’ the church on earth could not be kept pure nor could the profession of the Gospel be kept from scandal.[iii]
If, then, autonomy on matters of doctrine and practice was not forefront in the minds of 16th Century Baptists, what did they mean by autonomy? One must remember the milieu in which the baptist’s came forth, one will be reminded that they were surrounded by state churches, the church of England and the church of Scotland being the near neighbours and oft oppressors of the Baptists. Baptist autonomy came forth as a declaration that these churches were not under an Episcopal system, nor a Presbyterian system. They were constituted under the direct Lordship of Christ, and owed no allegiance to any king, human nor ecclesial court. “They would have pointed out that congregational autonomy meant freedom from obedience to men, a freedom to be jealously guarded not for its own sake but in order to obey Christ. Joint study of the Bible as the revelation of the mind of Christ would bring unity with his will, and hence, unity between individual congregations.” [iv]
It may surprise the reader to discover that correcting erring doctrine and expelling churches unwilling to satisfy the doctrinal requirements of association was practiced in historic baptist circles, not only in England, but also in Canada.
Consider this interesting application of this principle in 1861 in Upper Canada. The Grand River North Association is meeting, in Farlton (near modern day Milton), for their 5th Annual Meeting. Their baptist autonomy couldn’t be more clear from the entries in the minute book. On page seven Rev. J. Winterbotham was seconded by Deacon Winter on his statement:
“That this Association hereby records its conviction of the increasing excellence of the Canadian Baptist and its confidence in the abilities and zeal of its editors while it wishes at the same time to impress on the member of our churches, and friends generally of the Baptist cause, the duty of supporting it, as the organ of the people, and not as the instrument of a hierarchy to be used for the purpose of smothering free discussion.”[v]
The italicized emphasis is not mine, these words are emphasized in the original minute book, now held in the baptist archive collection at McMaster University. This is a group of Baptist who understand the importance of autonomy.
The following day the minute book records an extended resolution decrying government sponsorship of sectarian schools, in opposition to the Methodist and Presbyterians who have been quick to line up for some government funding. The 19th Century Canadian Baptists wanted no part in this. Rev. Jaz. Cooper is seconded by none other that the Rev. Dr. R. A. Fyfe in stating, “…that in the opinion of this association, the grants made by the legislature from year to year, for sectarian bodies, are in direct opposition to the principle that there should be no connection between church and state;”[vi] This is an association with autonomy well in hand.
Now consider the fact that this association, with a fully functioning understanding of Baptist Autonomy ejected a church from fellowship as the eleventh and twelfth order of business on Friday afternoon of this same meeting!
Here are the eleventh and twelfth articles in their entirety:
XI. On call of the Moderator for the Waterloo church. Bro. Davidson reported that Bro. Patton, Caldwell and himself (according to appointment of the Association at last year’s meeting), visited that church, and found that they had adopted doctrines subversive of the gospel, whereupon it was,
XII. Moved by Rev. T.L. Davidson, seconded by Deacon Baker and carried unanimously that said church be struck off the list of Baptist churches composing the Association.[vii]
The minute book for the following year is also in the baptist archive collection at McMaster and contains the conclusion of the action taken upon the Waterloo church by the Grand River Association. That meeting was held in Drumbo on the 22nd and 23rd of June, 1860 and during the Saturday morning session the issue of ‘The Waterloo Church’ was addressed. Here again is the entire entry:
XXIV. The Waterloo church having sent neither letters nor delegates and it being reported that said church had embraced views not held by our denomination, the following were appointed to visit them at convenient times in the ensuing year: Revs. R.A. Fyfe and Geo. Patton, with Rev. J. Wintherbotham, and Revs. T.L. Davidson, with W.A. Caldwell [viii]
This is within the parameters of baptist autonomy. A group of frontier Baptists, among them Dr. Alexander Fyfe understood that this was a proper action for a baptist association to take. But what mechanism of Baptist polity did they activate to effect the ejection of an autonomous church from their fellowship for ‘doctrines subversive to the gospel’?
The answer to that question is the association principle on the basis of shared doctrinal belief. This is the same counterweight against unconstrained autonomy that was present in the earliest English Baptist denominations; an agreement that prevented the entire association being dragged along by one church that chose to use their autonomy to flaunt orthodoxy.
Where was this doctrine and principle to be found for the Grand River North Association? It was written right into their constitution. Three important statements in the constitution of the Grand River North Association command our attention. The first is doctrinal in nature, it outlines what every church in their association shares in common; the second is utilitarian, how a church who is part of the association can be dropped from the association; the third is a buttress against compromise and heterodoxy instructing the association on what should be done if one church believes another church has become corrupt in doctrine or practice.
The following articles are given verbatim from the minute book of the first annual meeting of the Grand River North Association, held at Blenheim in late June 1857. The Grand River Association had divided into North and South the previous year, this constitution is identical to the constitution held by the Grand River South Association, leading the reader to conclude that these ideas come from Baptist thought much earlier than 1857.[ix]
Art. II. This Association shall be composed of Strict Communion Baptist Churches, who hold in substance the following doctrines: -
The being and unity of God; the existence of three equal persons in the Godhead; the divine inspiration of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as complete and infallible rule of faith and practice; the total moral depravity and just condemnation of all mankind, by the fall of our first parents; the election of grace according to the foreknowledge of God; the proper Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, the all-sufficiency of his atonement; (unclear word) and sanctification by the Holy Spirit, justification by grace alone; perseverance of the Saints; immersion only baptism; believers the only proper subjects of baptism; the Lord’s Supper, a privilege peculiar to immersed believers, regularly admitted to Church fellowship; and the religious observance of the first day of the week; the resurrection of the body, the general judgment; the final happiness of the saints, and the eternal misery of the wicked; the obligation of every intelligent creature to love God supremely; to believe what God says, and to practice what God commands.
Art. IV. This Association shall fully recognize the power and independence of the Churches, and in no case exercise any authority or jurisdiction over them. Nevertheless, it shall have a right to drop from its fellowship, any Church connected with it, which shall neglect to present itself for two successive years; or which, in the opinion of the Association, may have essentially departed from the faith.
Art. IX. If any Church of this Association shall become corrupt in doctrine or practice, it shall be the duty of some sister Church having knowledge of the fact, to labour with said offending Church; and if satisfaction is not obtained, to “take one or two” more sister Churches, and if they shall judge that there is sufficient ground for the Association to suspend fellowship, and shall so report and testify, then it shall be the duty of the Association to withdraw fellowship, and publish the fact to the world, unless said offending Church shall give satisfaction to the Association.[x]
The Canadian Baptists of the 19th Century held in high regard the idea of Baptist Autonomy but protected orthodoxy with one article that defined their shared convictions (Art. II); one article that insisted that sister churches address error and labour to correct it (Art IX.); and one article that permitted the expulsion of any church that “may have essentially departed the faith.” (Art. IV)
The Grand River North and South Associations were not anomalies in this regard. The Long Point Association’s constitution had as their 5th Article the statement, “If any Church shall lose its visibility, or become heretical in doctrine, or immoral in practice, that Church will be dropped from the minutes.”[xi] The Long Point Association’s constitution went on in article 6 to describe in some detail how a Church was to be determined to be heretical or immoral through the visit and investigation of a sister congregation that addressed the concern and sought to correct the heresy.
The right to expel or drop a dissenting church was universal in the ten early association constitutions I was able to access in the Canadian Baptist Archives at McMaster Divinity College.[xii]
Does not history teach us that our ancestors were better Baptists than we are? Christian, here are the tools you need to save the Canadian Baptist denomination from endless compromise. Let us return to the wisdom of the past and to revert our thinking on the meaning of Baptist Autonomy. The journey back will not be easy; for we have lost something key along the way, a loss that would seem stunning to the pastors and elders who established our churches. We’ve lost the shared doctrinal agreement upon which we were founded.
Almost all modern constitutions in the CBOQ contain an article that permits the Association to drop churches from fellowship[xiii]. But in almost every case the language of heresy, disorder and ‘gospel inconsistency’, common in our historic documents, has been stripped out, leaving most churches mystified as to how or why such a clause would ever be invoked[xiv]. More significantly, almost all of our associational constitutions no longer carry a statement of doctrinal agreement, nor an article on the necessity or process for confronting error in a sister church.
Thus, in the modern era the Canadian Baptist denomination has fostered a distorted view of autonomy with such a tiny counter-weight on the side of association that it is insufficient to protect the denomination against heterodoxy. The decline and demise of our associations, widely feared in the CBOQ[xv], is linked to the fact that autonomy has been allowed to run unchecked and has become ‘Doctrinal Autonomy’; damaging the sense of unity between our churches, and replacing it with a sense of suspicion and distrust[xvi].
The way back is not easy. There is no solution to the current dilemma that would see the happy continuation of liberal churches, teaching revisionist theology, with conservative churches who espouse the doctrines akin to those written in the 19th century. Our denomination rests on a knifes’ edge, many of the conservative churches preparing for the possibility that every year might be their last within the denomination. Acknowledging that is the first step.
The next two steps are illustrated by history. Heartily embraced they would restore health to those that embrace them.
1) An agreed upon doctrinal statement. The day of geographic association are now behind us. With the advance of technology churches can now align ‘convictionally’ across hundreds of kilometres with the help of the internet and telephone.
2) The recovery of a determination to hold firm our shared doctrinal conviction even to the point of parting ways with a dissenting church. You need to prepare your church to say ‘No’ to doctrinal compromise and continue to say ‘No’. Expelling doctrinally liberal churches from our Associations is far to be preferred over the current practice of suggesting that an offended church remove itself from fellowship. Our fellowship has been weakened over the years by the ‘leaking out’ or the ‘isolation’ of sound churches who can no longer tolerate the endless compromises of progressive congregations.
I do not propose the end of autonomy, but rather, that autonomy be used to its proper end - “And although the particular Congregations be distinct and severall Bodies, every one a compact and knit Citie in it selfe; yet are they all to walk by one and the same Rule, and by all meanes convenient to have the counsel and help one of another in all needful affaires of the Church, as members of one body in the common faith under Christ their onely head.”[xvii]
[i] Barry White, “The Doctrine of the Church in the Particular Baptist Confession of 1644,” Journal of Theological Studies, N.S., Vol. XIX, Pt 2, (October, 1968): 583.
[ii] Barry White, “The Origins and Convictions of the First Calvinistic Baptists” Baptist History and Heritage Vol. 25 No. 4, (October, 1990): 46.
[iii] White, “The Doctrine of the Church in the Particular Baptist Confession of 1644,” 589
[iv] Barry White, “The Doctrine of the Church in the Particular Baptist Confession of 1644,” 584
[v] Caldwell, Rev. W.A. Clerk, June 28 & 29, 1861 Minutes of the Grand River (North) Association of Regular Baptist Churches at their Fifth Annual Meeting, (Canadian Baptist Archives at McMaster Divinity College), p. 7.
[vi] Caldwell, Grand River North 1861, p. 6
[vii] Caldwell, Grand River North 1861, p. 3-4
[viii] Caldwell, Rev. W.A. Clerk, June 22 & 23, 1860, Minutes of the Grand River (North) Association of Regular Baptist Churches at their Fourth Annual Meeting, (Canadian Baptist Archives at McMaster Divinity College), p. 5.
[ix] The Grand River (North and South) Association contained churches that would later form the nucleus of Oxford-Brant, Norfolk, South Central and Georgian Bay Associations.
[x] Grand River Assoc. North Clerk, June 19 & 20, 1857, Minutes of the Grand River Association, North of Regular Baptist Churches at their First Annual Meeting, (Canadian Baptist Archives at McMaster Divinity College), p. 12-14.
[xi] Long Point Assoc. Clerk, 1839, Second Annual Meeting of the Long Point Baptist Association, (Canadian Baptist Archives at McMaster Divinity College).
[xii] The Peterborough Association retained the right to drop from its connection any Church which, “…in the opinion of the Association, may have essentially departed from the faith… and to exclude from a seat in its meeting any minister or delegate who is manifestly corrupt in either theory or practice; the fact in either case may be ascertained in any way not inconsistent with the Gospel. The Walkerton Association called it a ‘duty’ to withdraw fellowship from churches corrupt in doctrine and practice and publish to the fact to the world, unless the offending church should give satisfaction to the Association. The 1837 edition of the Upper Canada East Associations constitution gives a utilitiarian clause for dropping heretical churches and then a detailed article on how one church shall address their concern to another church. The Amherstburg Association Constitution speaks of churches being ‘excommunicated’ for ‘walking disorderly’ and ‘refusing to give satisfaction.’
[xiii] Government requirements for Constitutions may be behind this change. Although Oxford-Brant managed to adopt a constitution in 2014 that contained doctrinal distinctions.
[xiv] As of the writing of this article I had reviewed the modern constitutions of 9 associations including, Canada Central (now disbanded), Elgin 2010; Lambton, Middlesex, Huron 2011; Norfolk 2011; Northwestern 2011; Owen Sound (Revising); Oxford-Brant 2014; South Central (2012); and Western (2012). Oxford-Brant’s document actually contained a statement of faith and practice as part of the constitution that contained two statements related to autonomy and linked expulsion from the association to departing from the Statement of Faith and Practice. South Central has a covenant appended to the end of the constitution and by-law that spells out some doctrinal issues, however AUTONOMY seems to resound from every paragraph. Elgin’s constitution took the unusual step of requiring the Association to consult with the Executive Minister of the CBOQ before proceeding with any motion to exclude a church from their Association. The reasons for exclusion include ‘disaffection’, ‘for reasonable and just cause’, ‘if it seems advisable’, ‘when it is deemed to be wise and necessary’. Only Oxford-Brant links exclusion to doctrine. A far cry from the strong statements of past Baptists. (For the sake of brevity I have not included these – I can happily email a copy to anyone who has interest.)
[xv] It is widely rumoured that the CBOQ is searching for a replacement for associations, with many associations foundering and at least one, Canada Central, completely defunct.
[xvi] In Norfolk, pulpit exchanges are sometimes arranged, but with specific exclusions on which churches will not accept pastors from certain churches.
[xvii] White, “The Origins and Convictions of the First Calvinistic Baptists,” 46