Cooperation: A Baptist Essential

Creed, Confession, and Cooperation

Southwestern Journal of Theology
Volume 67, No. 2 - Spring 2025
Editor: Malcolm B. Yarnell III

Download

Introduction

In the twenty-first century Christianity has ever been moving into a post-denominational era. The historic classifications that have been supported through the varying confessions since the sixteenth century have shifted. Many churches do not categorize themselves in the same theological ways as their forebearers. The helpful monikers of the past—Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, etc.—are not as helpful anymore. In part this is due to the ever-changing nature of theology. What one generation deems to be important for their culture and place at that time might not be the primary concern for the next generation. The historic confessionalism from which the denominations arose was largely ecclesiological (and still is). However, as time pushed on, other issues (e.g. the doctrine of revelation) created camps and even divisions within the denominations. This led to further qualifications within a denomination such as what type of Baptist or what type of Presbyterian one is. Such a situation leaves the denominational descriptors confusing at best.

Another concern arises with the accusation that denominational language itself promotes division or at least does not support the center of what a church should be: the gospel. Appeals made to denominations or denominationalism are off-putting for many, especially in my own tribe—evangelicals. Whereas the original intent of the categorization was to describe theological belief and practice, it often imports political and social issues as well. These latter concerns have driven churches away from their historical moorings (though not necessarily a theological drift). Because of this, there is a growing number of churches opting to become non-denominational and independent. These entities want to be focused on the Great Commission and the gospel and often find that denominational affiliation brings too much baggage for them to accomplish the simple gospel call. Given this moment that many, especially evangelical churches, are in, questions arise: Are the groupings of churches around denominations helpful or even valuable? If so, should a church move toward non-denominational independency, considered what might be lost in the process?

It is not my concern in this essay to argue for the adoption of historic ecclesial categories. Although I do believe there is value to our descriptors, especially in terms of orthodoxy like “Trinitarian.” Rather, I want to highlight one element of this move toward non-denominationalism that is concerning theologically. We will be looking primarily at my own tradition—Baptists (capital “B”)—but the overall point applies to a variety of Christian traditions. Our concern is the movement of a church away from affiliation to no affiliation and thus a moving from a general communion with other saints and churches to an independent isolation that is not only pragmatically disadvantageous but theologically harmful. In short, there is great value and need in the partnership, collaboration, and cooperation of a local church with other local churches.

This essay will argue for that necessity of connectivity between churches. Cooperation benefits the overall health of the local congregation and further empowers engagement with its divine mission. It will look closely at ecclesiology—from a baptist (little “b”)—position, then demonstrate the historic appeal to cooperation in the baptist tradition. Finally, it will appeal to this ecclesial distinctive in the terms of associationalism as a way forward for church health and kingdom advance.

Ecclesiological Primer

Presently, there is a growing trend of baptist churches renaming themselves. In short, some churches are merely removing the word “baptist” from their title, while others are finding new names altogether but without any traditional denominational descriptor. The declared motives behind this rebranding come from a good place. Many church leaders advocating this change want to position their churches in their community to be more evangelistically engaged. They believe that names can cause roadblocks to their gospel priorities. Perhaps these churches are correct in the market strategy they employ for the community in which God planted them. But I wonder about the impact this may have on their communities. My concern grows from the pragmatic character behind the decisions of many local churches. A church wants “X” outcome, so it needs to do “Y” in order to accomplish X. Actions and outcomes become the primary ends of the congregation. Baptisms, attendance, membership, are all numbers that get tracked to demonstrate growth. But do these numbers also demonstrate health?

It is my contention that the being or nature of theology must be foundational for the necessary functions of the church. Our actions follow our being. This is most clear in the way in which baptists have recently engaged the doctrine of the church. Though church growth is important and should be valued, it must nevertheless be ordered properly, especially deriving from the nature of a church. In other words, we need a strong theology of the church to ground us as we engage in the activities of the church.¹

In this section I want to describe in brief the nature of the church to help ground the being of this divine community and then discuss how the church cooperates as churches. Thus, we will be able to see the nature of the church and the churches in the truest communal connectivity that benefits our mission in accomplishing the Great Commission.

Church

When we begin to think about or refer to “church” we need to consider its basic definition. Though it is true that there is a prevailing pragmatism at play in defining what a church is, there are good voices, again in baptist thought, that are attempting to provide help in understanding the nature of the church. Historically, we have seen the church described as: one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.² These characteristics are helpful grounding points. Building upon this tradition, consider Gregg Allison’s work Soujourners and Strangers. Although Allison provides a basic definition of church, he also helpfully shows that the church is more than a gathering of believers at a certain place. His provision of a church’s attributes points us in the right direction of thinking about the nature of the church. Allison claims the church is:

1. Doxological
2. Logocentric
3. Pneuma-dynamic
4. Covenantal
5. Confessional
6. Missional
7. Spatio-temporal/eschatological³

These characteristics provide a helpful insight into how we think about the church. It is aimed upward. It includes the Son and the Spirit in its essence. It is covenantal as well as confessional alongside being missional. Finally, it has an end—it is going somewhere. These characteristics help orient one to think about the church as it is and where it is going so that decisions about church action and engagement can be properly made.

Allison’s paradigm is not meant to be the only way to consider the nature of the church. A growing number of baptists have been influenced by Mark Dever and his Nine Marks of the Healthy Church.⁴ Now in its fourth edition, it rightly wants to help frame the notion of the church. Dever says, “The church is not a business, pastors are not executives, and ministry is not franchise building.”⁵ His understanding of the nature of the church continued to grow through its various editions. He desires health in churches, because “unhealthy churches cause few problems for the healthiest Christians; but they are cruel taxes on the growth of the youngest and weakest Christians. … Bad churches are terribly effective antimissionary forces.”⁶ The nature of the church is necessary to ground the people of God in God’s ultimate, and healthy, plans for them. This is found in the gospel and the Great Commission. Dever claims, “[t]he local church is God’s evangelism plan. The local church is God’s evangelism program.”⁷ This approach to the local church at least illustrates the need to examine what a church is before we engage in Christian and churchly activities. We must do things according to the biblical paradigm, our church’s effectiveness in the culture is directly dependent on our church’s health.

So, however we choose to particularly define “church” for usage in ministry, it needs to be a bit more involved than merely addressing pragmatic concerns—what we do. The establishment of who we are situates a church towards health, wholeness, and a biblical alignment with God’s plan and purposes.

Local and Universal

One important factor that arises when addressing the definition and characteristics of the church is not just who we are and what we do, but also where we are. Some of the greatest confusions to the ecclesiological question have to do with how we define the people of God. We prioritize local, physical, and persistent engagement with the church. We can point to a place and say, “that is where my church meets” or identify a group of people as “my church community.” At the same time, we recognize there is a greater connection to other Christians in the community, around the globe, and even throughout time. Are both of these groups of Christians “the church”? If so, how?

Throughout history the answer to this question has led to a variety of answers. Typically, definitions of the church incorporate two motifs—the local and the universal. In Baptist history some argue for only the local church, as with the Landmarkism movement in the nineteenth century. Others find their church membership only in the universal or invisible church. The former think they are the only true church and struggle in cooperating with other churches. The latter consider true membership in the church to be individual, and in the most extreme forms do not consider engagement with a local community particularly valuable. Both tendencies can descend into error. There is a local church, and there is a universal church, and we need to develop some understanding of the differences between them yet the truth of both motifs.

One of the most helpful works on this question in recent days is by Ryan C. Fields. In Local and Universal he addresses the free church tradition (of which baptists are part). Of particular concern is the role of catholicity (a classic mark of the church) for the free church tradition. Fields finds the answer to catholicity in the way in which the concepts of local and universal church work together. He applies this “rule” to his work: “no fulsome catholicity without sufficient locality and no fulsome locality without sufficient catholicity.”⁸ The term “catholicity” can be off putting for some in my tradition, but it should not be so. In its best sense, and in the way in which Fields uses it, catholicity provides a way for us to see the broader work of God throughout the world and time. Fields notes there is both a qualitative and quantitative sense of the term that allows for the diversity found within the church. Further, he rightly claims that catholicity “particularly distinguishes the concept from uniformity (for what is unified is a diversity), pluralism (for the diversity is unified) and sectarianism, exclusionism, and provincialism (for it is through the whole of all times, peoples, and places).”⁹

When we consider the church at its origin, we find that the foundation of the church, especially in its logocentric and pnuemato-dynamic sense, is truly both local and universal. And in a healthy, local church we find an interaction with the Word and Spirit, as also we see the broader, missional, movement throughout the world. Clearly both are active and necessary in defining church. However, we need to heed the integrated sense that Fields provides for us lest we bifurcate the church into ecclesial activities for the local and the universal. What I mean is that we should not think that elements like worship or evangelism are solely for the universal church to do while the local church is left with different concerns like polity. If we are “the people of God” (1 Pet 2:9), “the body of Christ” (Col 1:18), and “the temple of the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor 3:16), then we are all those things in both the universal sense and the local sense. From the nature of the church, we see that God the Trinity is with us and guiding us into the works that we are going to do for him. The activities of the church are oriented toward God and his commands, but it is easy in accomplishing these that we forget how we are connected to the ecclesial whole. The way we engage in Great Commission works is through the church, both local and universal.

It is the nexus of these two interrelated identities from which our main aim in this essay arises. That is, if we are both local and universal in our nature, and then from that nature we act for the Lord in this world, there seems to be a need for collaboration, connectivity, and cooperation to demonstrate our real spiritual communion. Christians and churches need to associate with one another.

Church Associationalism

In my tradition (Southern Baptist) we have held historically to a variety of “associations.” Simply understood, “associations” are organizations that were established by and worked with a set of local churches in a particular region. These associations may exist alongside other groupings in larger geographical regions—for instance, various state conventions and the national Southern Baptist Convention. All these entities are intended to resource the churches in accomplishing Great Commission and gospel ends. In short, they are something like parachurch organizations established to assist local churches in their mission. Here we clearly see the connection between the local and universal exhibiting the spiritual communion that exists between local churches for greater kingdom impact.

Biblical Cooperation

The desire for this type of visible communion is not merely pragmatic. We find it from the earliest parts of the history of the church. When the church is birthed in Acts 2, we see the nascent form of cooperation in the communion that these new believers had together. What it looked like to be a church in Jerusalem in these first few days can be speculative, but as thousands were saved we soon find common practices of voluntary care and communion with one another. The extent to which these new Christians cared for one another, most likely gathered within various houses, demonstrates a level of both communion and collaboration.

The language of devotion to one another highlights the early church’s cooperation. David Peterson offers this helpful commentary: “When he [Luke] says they continued to meet together (proskarterountes homothymadon), he uses the verb found in v. 42 (‘devoted’) and the adverb employed in 1:14; 4:24; 5:12 (‘together’) to stress the degree to which they were committed to practical expressions of their common life.”¹⁰ Although we might speculate about the exact structure of intra-communion or cooperation between churches in Jerusalem, there definitely appears to be the genesis of the normative care and support that Christians and churches should have for one another for the sake of the ministry.

As we continue in Acts, we come to one of the most important chapters on church cooperation: Acts 15 and the Jerusalem council. Here we have evidence of different churches coming together for wisdom about right church practice. At the center of Acts we find a pivotal event that charted the pathway towards the gospel going to the uttermost (Acts 1:8) with a common understanding from the whole church.¹¹ The critical question was, “Do converted Gentiles need to first become Jews?” We read of this crisis throughout Paul’s letters, but in Acts 15 we are allowed to see a decision for the whole church. The genuine concern was brought to a gathering in Jerusalem comprised of members from Antioch and Jerusalem and engaged by the apostles, elders, and the whole church (15:4). The visible communion between these two churches and the interactions of these three groups of participants suggests a biblical pattern for decision making in the life of the people of God. They were able to discuss together and come up with a solution that was received by and effective for the life of all the churches.

This pattern has been followed throughout the centuries in a variety of ways. We have seen it in the ecumenical councils that have provided necessary conclusions on the nature of Trinitarian and Christological orthodoxy, and confessed through creeds such as the Nicene Creed. However, different gatherings of inter-church groups have existed throughout history to provide support for local churches in a variety of ways beyond the discernment of right theological belief. In Baptist life this has been especially evident in the different associations, assemblies, and conventions that were established.

Baptist Associations

If we take the origin of Baptists as deriving from English Separatism in the seventeenth century, we can see how a variety of associations began to emerge.¹² Early on the Baptists were concerned with expressing how they were distinct from others, such as the Separatist churches or the Mennonites. Even as they expressed their distinctiveness in independency, it is worth noting that they acknowledged the existence of other churches.¹³ Indeed, there was an expectation in their confession that God intended them to cooperate with one another. This is highlighted in the “First London Confession” of the Particular Baptists. Article XLVII states:

And although the particular Congregations be distinct and severall Bodies, everyone a compact and knit Citie in it selfe; yet are they all to walk by one and the same Rule, and by all means convenient to have the counsell and help one of another in all needfull affaires of the Church, as members of one body in the common faith under Christ their onely head.¹⁴

Notice the distinction of individual churches that are intended to walk alongside other churches in a “same rule” with the goal of assisting one another in the affairs of the Church as part of one body. Here, early on, Baptists affirmed the ancient understanding of the nexus of the local church and the universal church. They also confessed the need for associating with one another.

This type of visible communion is found consistently among early Baptist groups. Leon McBeth described this movement summarily: “Both groups [the Particular Baptists and the General Baptists] flourished in England. By 1650 the General Baptists numbered at least forty-seven churches. They grouped these into associations, issued several confessions of faith, and had the rudiments of a national organization.”¹⁵ It was in the middle of the century that we start seeing more associations formally come into being. McBeth argued that the term came from the “associations” used in the New Model Army, and that the Baptists borrowed the terminology. While the military associations were intended to be used for the defense of state, the concept proved helpful for churches who needed to cooperate for mutual support.¹⁶ From this time onward you begin to see different types of assemblies arising for the purpose of helping Baptist churches in the ensuing difficulties that would come to them either on the national scene or in the everyday ministry of the churches.

One such organization of lasting impact occurred in the new world near Philadelphia at the end of the seventeenth century. Regionally, there were a variety of locations where Baptists would worship together under the preaching of Elias Keach and as part of the Pennepek church. However, over time each location began to meet together quarterly and then annually for the purpose of “preaching, fellowship, and receiving the Lord’s Supper.”¹⁷ From this initial practice of meeting together came the Philadelphia Baptist Association established in 1707. In 1742 they unified around a confession of faith that was a version of the Second London Confession. They then expanded their influence upon Baptists in the middle colonies and beyond, thus laying the groundwork for a Baptist national body. McBeth notes that by the end of the seventeenth century forty-two associations of Baptists had come into existence.¹⁸

Generally, these groups were interested in supporting the work of Baptists and their churches. They were voluntary and not designed to infringe upon local Baptist autonomy. Instead, associations existed for the local churches and not for themselves or for some other end. These early associations and the later conventions have always been sought after for assistance in fulfilling the mission that has been given solely to the local church. Voluntary engagement in cooperative missions entailed a rejection of pure independency (although there are also truly independent churches in Baptist history). Baptists have from their beginnings followed the biblical associational principle for the support of the Great Commission work of the church and the churches.

The Essential Nature of Cooperation

This brief essay has looked at the nature of baptist ecclesiology, highlighting both the need for a priority of nature over function in the church, as well as looking at the necessary nexus between the biblical motifs of the local church and the universal church. That nexus has become part of Baptist cooperative ecclesiology through means of parachurch organizations called associations and later conventions. Participation in those voluntary groups was only to help churches complete their own mission by sharing in the task of the Great Commission together.

It seems trite to repeat the following saying today, due to its overuse. However, we are definitely “better together.” However, I think the cliché character of this phrase, and perhaps the sometime cynical reaction to it is due, again, to a misunderstanding of our ecclesial foundations. If pragmatic and utilitarian means are all we are looking for in order to accomplish a mission for a church, then it is certainly trite, overused, and cliché, because all we would be using it for would be as a marketing slogan to urge us to accomplish the next thing. However, if we understand its meaning ecclesiologically and theologically then we find that we are able to participate as churches in something that is grander than the specific missional priorities on the church calendar. We have the ability to participate in the divine body of Christ that is known through the church.

Whatever we call ourselves in the future, let us not neglect the necessary work of cooperating with one another for mutual support of the ministry we hold in common from the Great Commission of our Lord. In arguing for local church autonomy may we never become so independent that we forget how we are connected to one another through our Lord and in his Spirit. Baptists, indeed all Christians, let us remember that we truly are better together.

1. There is a growing discussion on the nature of the church, though not all agree on the specifics in the end. See for example, Paul S. Minear, Images of the Church in the New Testament (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2004); Gregg R. Allison, Sojourners and Strangers: The Doctrine of the Church (Wheaton: Crossway, 2012); Brian Haymes, Ruth Gouldbourne, and Anthony R. Cross, On Being the Church: Revisioning Baptist Identity, Studies in Baptist History and Thought 21 (Colorado Springs: Paternoster, 2008); Terry L. Cross, The People of God’s Presence: An Introduction to Ecclesiology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2019); David Emerton, Types of Ecclesiology: Five Theological Approaches (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2024). ↩︎
2. See the Nicene Creed. ↩︎
3. Allison, Sojourners and Strangers, 31–32. ↩︎
4. Dever, Mark, Nine Marks of a Healthy Church. 4th ed. (Wheaton, Ill: Crossway, 2021). ↩︎
5. Dever, Nine Marks of a Healthy Church, 10. ↩︎
6. Dever, Nine Marks of a Healthy Church, 19. ↩︎
7. Dever, Nine Marks of a Healthy Church, 21. ↩︎
8. Ryan C. Fields, Local and Universal: A Free Church Account of Ecclesial Catholicity, Studies
   in Christian Doctrine and Scripture (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2024), 4. ↩︎
9. Fields, Local and Universal, 12–13. ↩︎
10. David G. Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 163. ↩︎
11. For fuller commentary see John B. Polhill, Acts, The New American Commentary 26
    (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1992), 321. Cf. Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles, 417. ↩︎
12. On Baptist origins, see H. Leon McBeth, The Baptist Heritage (Nashville: Broadman &
    Holman, 1987), 21–63. ↩︎
13. E.g., “A Declaration of Faith of English People Remaining at Amsterdam in Holland,” in
    William L. Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith, rev. ed. by Bill J. Leonard (Valley Forge:
    Judson, 2011), 112–13. ↩︎
14. “The London Confession, 1644” in Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith, 157. Original
    spelling. ↩︎
15. McBeth, The Baptist Heritage, 22. ↩︎
16. McBeth, The Baptist Heritage, 96. ↩︎
17. McBeth, The Baptist Heritage, 146. ↩︎
18. McBeth, The Baptist Heritage, 239. ↩︎