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