Norman Maring, in his book “Baptists in New Jersey” (p. 252) reports that in 1895 a church in the West New Jersey Association was “excluded” (i.e. disfellowshipped) from the Association. The reason? The congregation failed to dismiss a pastor who was guilty of immoral behavior. Dr. Maring does not specify the sin involved. The church was readmitted to the Association after it had taken action and then requested reentry.
What gave the Baptists who made up that Association the idea that they could discipline one of the Association churches? Didn’t they believe in local autonomy? Of course, they did, but they understood that obedience to God’s Word is a higher value in Baptist church life than is an independence that allows for defiance of the Bible’s directives.
They believed that the moral teaching of Scripture and the associational requirement that the church be in conformity to scriptural instruction superseded the church’s right to do anything it wanted to do.
As I said, Dr. Maring does not tell us what the immoral behavior was, but the Association apparently believed it to be something clearly declared in Scripture to be sin, and thus unacceptable to an Association of Churches naming the name of Jesus Christ, and therefore something not available to the local church no matter how free of ecclesiastical control the church felt itself to be.
Well, so what? Who cares about what Baptists did way back then? That was over 100 years ago. ABCUSA should care. All of its Regions should care. This is Baptist tradition. Those who profess that Baptist Principles do not support associational or denominational discipline of churches violating the teaching of the Bible are just wrong, or not students of Baptist history, or something.
