Oxymoron
Baptist popery should be an oxymoron. I’ve heard the two terms (Baptist and Pope) put together like this, but the two together are meant as an oxymoron. Even though it is an oxymoron, does it really happen, that is, Baptist popery? Because I’ve seen it, I believe it does.
Why is “Baptist popery” an oxymoron? The attributes of Baptists so contradict characteristics of Roman Catholics that the two seem surely mutually exclusive. Baptist and pope just can’t coexist.
Contradictions
Baptists believe the Bible is sole infallible authority — not Roman Catholics. They believe in the priesthood of the believer — not Roman Catholics. They believe in the autonomy of each church — not Roman Catholics. Baptists believe that baptism and the Lord’s Table are the only two church ordinances — not Roman Catholics. They also believe in only two church offices, pastor and deacons — not Roman Catholics. And finally, Baptists believe in the separation of church and state — not Roman Catholics.
All of the contradictions of the last paragraph say no Baptist popery. Baptists don’t believe in popes. They don’t believe in apostolic succession. The true church isn’t catholic, but it’s local. So is there really Baptist popery? Baptists don’t believe in hierarchical church government. They believe in a congregational form of church government, where a pastor himself is under the authority of the church (1 Timothy 5:19-20). No Baptist speaks ex cathedra — no new revelation of scripture since the close of Revelation (Jude 1:3).
Wannabe Popes
The Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church says:
The Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.
This is more than any Baptist pope could exert. Yet, how would a Baptist pope operate if he were at least like a Baptist pope, albeit not exactly one — maybe a wannabe pope? I believe several examples exist of this type of practice among those who call themselves Baptist. Baptist pastors or churches exert control on the outside over other churches like the pope or the church of Rome. Not necessarily in this order, here’s what’s toward Baptist popery, if not the actual thing. It tends toward, has a trajectory toward popery.
Conventions, Associations, or Fellowships
One, the most obvious form of control over churches comes in denominational groups, conventions, associations, or fellowships. They aren’t mentioned in the Bible, but they’re justified through silence. Scripture is sufficient and God doesn’t need someone to improve His program. One of our church members called this “teeing up a one world church,” using a golf analogy. True success is very often seen in the climb up a denominational ladder. One Southern Baptist pastor wrote this:
Today’s Southern Baptist Convention has a problem with power. Local churches—which may still exist in name—in fact are being overtaken (a better word might be “consumed”) by the dominating leadership and financial appetite of the larger denomination.
He continued:
Our crisis has its roots in a wide variety of decisions and trends [that] have a special impact on the loss of local church autonomy . . . used as . . . instrument(s) of control.
Kevin Bauder talks about a few of the ways denominational association tends toward popery (without using the word). About a few of these, he writes:
It is also not unusual for the association to end up controlling the churches. Any time an individual or agency serves as a gatekeeper for pulpit placement, that person or institution gains immense de facto power over churches. . . . An association provides a power structure that unscrupulous individuals can use to promote themselves. It also furnishes a mechanism that these people can employ to exert pressure upon the churches. These political maneuvers may lead to informal but, nevertheless, real interference with the autonomy of local congregations.
Fitting into the convention or association requires finding a lowest common denominator to remain unified. If God wanted the bigger organization or institution, He would have instituted it. He didn’t. They invented themselves. The heads of these organizations do bring in quasi-popery at least.
Parachurch Organizations
Quid Pro Quo
Two, Baptists in most cases today accept the existence, propagation, and power of parachurch organizations. This would include Baptist publishers, mission boards, colleges, universities, and seminaries, Christian school associations, and camps. When I was in fundamentalism, the parachurch organization was the pinnacle or summit of Christian acclaim. One of these trades on exchanges of favor, a kind of quid pro quo. If the pastor or church supports it, it promotes the pastor or church. Parachurch organizations create celebrity pastors.
Like the denominational associations or conventions, parachurch organizations are not in the Bible. Jesus didn’t give them the necessary tools to accomplish His ends. As a result, they will surely fail at doing what Jesus wants. The programs of the parachurch organization try to be and stay large to fulfill purpose and meet payroll. The truth is not usually a factor. Also like the denominational structure, to keep their relevance, they must settle on a lower common denominator to keep their coalition together. Also they compromise to stay relevant.
Hurting Churches
Publishers mostly don’t think about what needs publishing, but what will make enough money to fund the publisher. Mission boards must work with all sorts of different churches with different beliefs and practices. When a missionary claims that board, he most often associates himself with a larger variety of belief and practice than his church. This comes back to effect the churches, which in turn weakens the board, and continues a downward slide, feeding off each other. Everyone of the above parachurch organizations will have similar problems. One man criticizing the parachurch organization wrote:
Thus, I find it very disturbing when church leaders start to be known more as leaders of a particular parachurch group than as leaders in their churches. This serves to create a confusing image in the mind of the Christian public, whereby the boundary between church and parachurch is eroded, or, worse still, the parachurch is regarded as the place where the real action and excitement take place. This in turn consigns the church to an apparently less important role, and serves to relegate to the level of secondary or even tertiary importance the doctrinal elaboration and distinctives for which individual churches . . . stand. The Christian public comes to regard these ecclesial distinctives as hindrances.
Baptist popes come out of these parachurch organizations, because of their ability to influence and control churches. They get money from a lot of different sources that enable them to have a more widespread influence that corrupts churches.
Some might say parachurch organizations help churches. They exist to aid the churches. Scripture doesn’t support this. Some short term gain can occur, but over the long term the parachurch organization is a loss to churches. It’s detrimental overall even if it can point to individual successes.
More to Come
Whether deliberate or unintended, general ignorance of the Church’s local nature likely contributes to the blurring of Church and parachurch. “It’s all the body of Christ” they likely reason.
Hi Benjamin,
I think that’s true. Their universal church ecclesiology shapes their practice. It’s also a tradition ironically. People grew up with it and it becomes acceptable without question. They also do not have an obligation to regulate their lives only by the Bible. If the Bible doesn’t repudiate it, it permits it. That kind of thinking which undermines the sufficiency of the church.
I would not even know where to begin to repudiate your unbalanced approach of the scriptural teaching of ecclesiastical authority in the local assembly as well as the responsibility of every church “being a member in particular” of one body, the church. It is clear in Ephesians that Paul was writing concerning the church more as one body rather than a local assembly.
The problem in some Baptists “local” churches are Baptists popes who think they can lord it over God’s people.
Tom
Jesus is the Head of His church, which is local only. Under His head is the body, which are the members of the church, like Paul said in 1 Corinthians 12:27, “Ye are the body of Christ,” speaking to the church at Corinth.” Under Christ as an undershepherd is a pastor of the church as laid out in the pastoral epistles. A church is an assembly. That is what ekklesia means. An assembly and a body both are visible and local. This is what Jesus started, the Apostles started, and we are to start.
There is no universal, invisible, mystical something-or-other. There is the family of God and the kingdom of God, soteriological designations, not ecclesiological ones.
Kent wrote:
“There is no universal, invisible, mystical something-or-other”.
It is not invisible since you can see it (John 3:3) and it is not mystical since it was revealed to us in the scriptures (Colossians 1:26,27), but it is one body (Ephesians 5:30-31) and it encompasses saints that are present and those in heaven ( Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, (Ephesians 3:15))
How did you miss all that?
Eph 3:6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:
So, the Gentiles are of the same body in a local church? If yes, that is nothing less than private interpretation.
Also, are you saying that the following verses are used for a local church?
Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
(Ephesians 2:19-21)
Come on, brother. I have much more to say. God NEVER reveals anything to the “local church”, but rather to the saints of God in his body, the church.
Tom
Tom,
I’ve written a lot about this online, dealing with every single thing you’ve said here or referred to here, so I’m not missing anything. You didn’t deal with what I said, the meaning of the word ekklesia is assembly. The word “one” like “one body” doesn’t mean numerical one, like in so many instances. “One” means unified one. You’ve read these usages, like one voice, one mind, one soul, one heart. Does that mean there is one voice in the entire world, Tom?
Brother Kent,
” You didn’t deal with what I said, the meaning of the word ekklesia is assembly. The word “one” like “one body” doesn’t mean numerical one,”
Ekklesia means both: a particular body of faithful people, and the whole body of the faithful. That should be obvious. You are in one side of a ditch (local, an assembly of the one body of Christ). I am making reference to the other side of a ditch (whole body, one assembly of all the members of Christs body).
So, know we have to play games with “one”.
Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
(Eph 4:3-6)
So, ONE God an Father is two? Or one means “unified” in teaching that the body is “unified” with the Father?? Strange and almost heretical teaching. So One Lord is not ONE Lord? So, one Lord is “unified” with his body rather than teaching that the body of Christ (all churches everywhere) believes that there is only ONE Lord?
You are kidding me, right?
You wrote:
“Does that mean there is one voice in the entire world, Tom?”
Just like one Lord, having ONE voice is simply recognized as having the voice of God. That voice is the manifestation of God through the scriptures, or the true doctrines of the scriptures, or truth of the scriptures, or only the true gospel of the scriptures which exactly matches each of us as brethren (individuals as one body) that, “by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. (1Co 1:10)
This is simple stuff. I have not gotten to the difficult parts in the scriptures that you will have no answers for concerning the balanced view of eschatology and the “presbyterian” order of the church that should have been considered as part of the biblical order.
There is no teaching in the bible of an independent local church. None. That is nothing but private interpretation, convenience, Nicolaitan rule (We therefore ought to receive such, that we might be fellowhelpers to the truth. I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not. (3Jn 1:8-9)”) so that it is only the pastor that gets “the money” and has the rule over the members of the body of Christ.
Tom
Tom,
I’m not going to argue with you. I’ve explained why in the past. I have to choose how I’m going to spend my time and arguing over this with you will not be one of them. I’m going to answer this one comment, and this will be it for both of us on this issue.
Ekklesia doesn’t mean “body.” It means assembly, and assembly and universal are mutually exclusive. I don’t get your “ditch” idea. The singular ekklesia is used either as a particular or a generic, but there is no unassembled assembly meaning for assembly.
It’s not playing games to say that “one” means unified. If many members are one, that means that those members are unified into one body. If they have one mind, that means that they are unified in their thinking. This isn’t playing games. Sure, there is one God. We can start counting together: “One,…” “One,” yes, exactly one God. You don’t get to two. So Ephesians 4:6 says there is “one God.” What’s the point Paul is making? It is to teach unity in the church at Ephesus. Paul calls on the church to be unified. He gives a doctrinal basis. There is one God. God is not divided. He is one. Neither are any of these other words He uses, divided. They are all one, numerical and therefore unified. The point is not at all that there is one invisible, mystical body over planet earth. It reads nothing like the kind. It’s not true either.
“You are kidding me, right” That’s your best argument here. Ridicule. It’s effective emotionally with some people, like the scoffers
It’s very interesting how that you read the motives of pastors of churches, that their belief in the true church being local only being a conspiracy for their getting the money. I don’t even get how this conspiracy works. You have a congregational form of church government, which is unified in all things. How exactly does that work toward getting more money? Please don’t answer, because this is the end of this discussion.
As always, I appreciate your writings on varied topics or subjects, and this article is no exception. There is a spiritual blindness regarding ecclesiology and that will not go away anytime soon. Thank you for putting the truth out there. I wish it was shareable via social media platforms without copying and pasting.