We all know that as human beings there can be no absolute independency. We are creatures of God and utterly dependent upon Him for life, health, and all things. Particularly and peculiarly is a church dependent upon Him. He is her Head and the Holy Spirit dwells in her to administer His will -- NOT the will of the majority, merely.

Aren't Baptist churches democratic in government? No truly. I have preached for many years that a Baptist church is not run by the pastor, by the deacons, by an inner circle or clique, nor even by the majority. The Lord's churches are administered by Him as their Head, the Holy Spirit manifesting His will in the Word and administering it in the disposition of the membership. Only if a member truly understands this -- knows that he is expressing the will of the Lord -- should be allowed to express a choice by vote in the assembly.

There are times when children or uninformed members should NOT vote. No, we have no rule, no laws, which say they cannot. Much less do we NOT have a law which says women may not vote. As in the matter of long hair for a man, "nature itself" should teach us that some members should not attempt to guide the affairs of a church. When I do not have enough information, or the choice is not distinct, I do not vote in civil elections. If one cannot do it intelligently and according to the Constitution, he should not do it. So, if one cannot express an intelligent voice in the light of the Bible he should not vote in the church Business Meeting.

I think if more of us were aware of the position we are in there would be less trifling with God in the conduct of the affairs of a church. There would certainly be no campaigning or electioneering to determine the outcome of a matter. But there would be much prayer, much soul-searching and humbling of self before Him before any matter is determined.

With these principles in mind we can see how the matter of church independency stands. The Holy Spirit resides in the local church and makes her responsible for the will of God in all things. Even the matter of carrying out the Great Commission is up to her, within the limits of her capacities under Him. She can neither escape her responsibility by denying it nor by delegating it to other churches or groups. Any action she takes must be made in the light of this responsibility.

This one church becomes the final and full reach of any of her members. And they do not have any rights to heed nor to meddle in the affairs of any other church. The Holy Spirit leads the membership of any given church, but it is to act within and for that church alone. He does not lead them to bring pressure to bear upon other churches.

If one church promotes a mission in some field, or invites a Fellowship Meeting, etc., others may volunteer to coop~ crate in such ventures, but attempting to interfere or stop such actions would not be her proper sphere of influence. The only possible exception to this is in the matter of public instruction. A church has as a part of her responsibility: to go into all the world and to preach the Gospel to every"~ creature, She likely will encounter all sorts of hindrances and opposition to this, but she must trust Him for grace and continue as He leads.

Baptists teach tolerance in civil matters and argue for the First Amendment with its freedom of religion and of conscience. But we do not always grant this to our brethren. It is not unknown for one to bring railing accusations, even false charges, in order to stop a brother, or a church, from doing anything different from what we ourselves are doing.

It is in this area that Fellowships, Associations, Conventions, and Conferences become infringers upon the independency of churches. When these gatherings of the members, particularly the leaders, becomes a forum for destroying the ministry of men and of churches through railings, false charges, innuendo, and name -calling, then their purpose to encourage brethren and promote fellowship is defeated. Jesus and the apostles did not fail to condemn sin and error, but it is always done in an atmosphere of love, a broken heart, and a desire to win the ones in error.

If a brother or a church is sincerely going about His business of winning souls and turning men to righteousness, then NO BROTHER or CHURCH should attempt to stop him just because he may not be "lined up" with the one who is different. I believe this is the sense of that difficult passage in Luke 9:49, 50:

"And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us. And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us."

But men today cannot keep hands off; they feel they must forbid him.

Frequently I am led to feel that if there were no Protestants, no churches teaching legal obedience for salvation, or assuming an authority to administer the ordinances which they do not rightfully have, that our task would be so much easier. But they are there. We do not approve. But they are not accountable to us; only to God. The Pharisees were there in Jesus' day. And the Sadducees. And others. "Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fail into the ditch" (Matthew 15:14).

How utterly un-Christian! How wrong for a preacher or member of one church, or of a school, or with a paper, to go over to a church where he is not a member while they have their own pastor, and attempt to undermine that pastor, disturb that fellowship, and influence a member or members to rise up against his own church or pastor, thus disturbing the fellowship of one of the Lord's churches, maybe forcing the pastor to resign, or the church to divide. God shall not hold him guiltless who does such a thing.

A lost man asked me one time what was my biggest problem as a pastor; what is it that causes me the greatest concern. I did not have to hesitate for an answer: Meddling preachers. Outsiders from another church influencing my members, even under the guise of trying to help.

Lost people and other denominations in the area will create enough opposition for us to deal with in building a church. We ought not to have to cope with members of sister churches who "sow discord."

My honest conviction is that the greatest area of wrong fostered by conventions, associations, fellowships, and conferences is not their organization (though this is wrong because it is unscriptural), not their planning of programs to be foisted onto the churches (though this too is wrong - unscriptural), not many other things which their misguided zeal fosters; but it is this atmosphere which these groups create. They feel they must enlist everyone (and nobody can blame them for this) and then make everyone conform to their own patterns of doctrine and practice. A church may call an adulterous pastor and nobody will rise up to tell them off, but if that pastor does not "go down the line" by following the organization's mould they will rebuke him and if he does not get straightened up and promote the "work" he will soon be destroyed by being forced to resign, being put on some sort of black list so that he is suspect and will not be used in the area of their influence.

How can a church or a preacher claim to be independent while hemming in some other preacher or church? Is it that they only want to be allowed to do as they please but all others must do to please them?

Of course, this is nothing but the old man, the carnal nature, at work. And this nature does show up in preachers and in church members. Just as surely as some brother begins to preach that covenant position may be lost, that a saved man may lose his soul (his life -- not his physical life, necessarily, but his usefulness, Matthew 16:24-27), somebody will begin to call him names. He is charged with denying the security of the believer (while it was the "unbelieving saved man" he was talking about), charged with teaching that salvation is by works (it is only a faith that works that will save the life), or charged with some other thing because his language does not seem to defend the pattern of the atmosphere created by the group. He may be preaching the Bible, but if it does not sound exactly as taught in certain circles it is presumed that it is error. He may still hold to every essential for the identification of a New Testament church, and may even recognize the church of the accuser as being one of the Lord's, but this is not enough.

Such destroyers of independency demand that legal limits be placed on preachers and churches. It seems they feel they know all of the answers and there is nothing to be understood which they do not already know. So anybody who presumes to suggest something, not just like they say it, it is "new light" or some derogatory title. "God is Light, and in Him is no darkness at all." Either we understand and are walking fully in that Light, with no possibility of making further progress, or else we come into an area of new light (new joy, new experience, new understanding) once in a while. The man who does not feel that such progress is possible for anybody beyond what he himself experiences has already assumed a position of pride which precludes his learning the Truth.

Nobody can ever learn anything of Truth which is not already in the Bible. It is all-sufficient and no further revelations are forthcoming. But there is room for us all to grow in grace and in knowledge. Failure to do so is to grow cold, backslide, become indifferent, "fall away." How many have already "fallen away" yet remain confident that they "are the people, and wisdom will die" with them (cf. Job 12:2).

One of the saddest facets of this grievous situation is that aspiring men feel that they must be specially zealous to parrot the proper "line" in order to get ahead. Unable to think for themselves they make their mark this way. Or perhaps this is the saddest: A brother who has followed on to know the Lord" (cf. Hosea 6:3), begins to feel the heat from the "mark makers" who busily suggest that he is "not one of us," and he becomes scared, compromises, tries to straddle the fence, in order to justify what he has been preaching and yet please the outside brethren, After all, where would he get a church if he is forced outside the fellowship? And the church (also) thinks: Where will we get a pastor if we don't stay in the (group)? I might answer that curtly: "How about asking the Lord?"

I dare say that, for the most part, pastors should be raised up in the midst of the place where there is a need. Missionaries, of course, must go to new fields. There is less need for the Lord's personal direction and leadership when a man or a church has the group (convention, fellowship, association, conference) to look to for its beliefs, its programs, etc. And the Leaders in the group feel justified in interfering with any man or church who does not go along!

They call themselves "independent" but are not willing for others to be "independent." (My use of "independent" is to be construed within the limits of the area of dependency set forth in the first three paragraphs of this article.)

Repeatedly in the Scriptures we find the Lord and His churches having to separate themselves from the influential "groups" that interfered with their liberty to serve the Lord. The usual situation was that strong opposition would come to the Truth, forcing the true believers to go somewhere else.

Take the case of Paul at Corinth (Acts 18:7-10): "And when they opposed themselves, and blasphemed, he shook his raiment, and said unto them, Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean: from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles" (v. 6). So Paul took the few believers and moved into a private home (that of Justus) close by the synagogue. This separation from the Jewish leaders resulted in great benefits, even to certain Jews, for even the ruler of the synagogue (Crispus) believed, "and many of the Corinthians hearing believed."

At Ephesus much the same thing happened: Paul customarily began his work in a city in the synagogue of the Jews. For three months they allowed this at Ephesus (Acts 19:8). But, again, there was a violent resistance: "But when divers were hardened, and believed not, but spake evil of that way before the multitude, he departed from them, and separated the disciples, disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus" (v. 9). This continued for two years. Whether there were any believers among the Jews in the synagogue which would not go along with Paul when he "separated the disciples" we do not know, but at least Paul separated the disciples from the Jews who "were hardened and believed not, but spake evil of that way before the multitude."

It seems that we can do more good standing apart from the group, most of the times. As Jews there at Ephesus the believers had as much right to the synagogue facilities as did the unbelievers among the Jews. But even if they had been in the majority no doubt it was best to go their separate way. Thus could they be truly independent. Many times brethren become disappointed in those who are fellow members in a church, but they will not "separate" themselves because they have put money into the building and do not want to surrender their investment.

This is a very false philosophy. When one gives he gives to the Lord. If what was purchased with the gift seems to be lost, the giver is not to fight for the gift as though it were his own. God will make His own recoveries in due time. We must serve Him with all of our hearts and our present resources. And it can never be right to compromise the Truth in order to hold onto what we had been doing.

Many people seemingly stay in the various groups because of the past investment or past relationships. But if the group is changed, or its members take a stand contrary to known Truth, it may be necessary for him who knows true independency, while depending upon the Lord, to "separate himself." This, however, should never be done out of fear or compromise as Peter did it at Antioch (Galatians 2:11, 12).