INTRODUCTION:
A. The subject ought not to be a difficult one for those Reformed.
1. The need of federation seems so obvious.
2. Reformed churches have practiced proper federation since the Reformation.
3. And independency has usually been rejected.
B. For those who wish to read an interesting evaluation, check the P.R. Theological Journal of this past April- article by John Hooper in Plymouth England.
1. He has observed the evils of independentism first-hand in England.
2. And gives sound reasons for a Scriptural federation of churches.
DANGERS OF INDEPENDENTISM
I. WHAT INDEPENDENTISM IS:
A. As such:
1. It is a church with no denominational affiliation.
a. Organized as an independent church.
1) Often happens with some “charismatic” pastor.
2) Some gain large followings-often become “mega-churches.”
b. Or it may be a congregation which separates itself from a denomination to which it was formerly affiliated.
1) These become dissatisfied with the direction of the denomination.
2) And these do not wish to run into similar problems with another affiliation which might end the same way.
2. Not to be confused with an “autonomous” church.
a. An “autonomous” church is ruled by the elders-but agrees to federate with other churches.
1) These can again leave the denomination.
2) But while these are in it, they abide by the decisions made.
b. An independent church may be involved in loose organizations, but are not bound to abide by any of its decisions.
B. Reasons for independentism:
1. An attempt to escape the “hierarchy” of the denomination.
a. That is an understandable reaction.
1) Rome developed into a great hierarchy: the pope ruled.
2) Many denominations also develop into an evil hierarchy.
a) The CRC showed this in 1924 when the classes suspended and deposed officebearers.
b) In recent years the trend has accelerated in the CRC.
1/ It suspends an article of the C.O. contrary to any of its own rules and regulations.
2/ It imposes the wish of the Synod concerning women in office.
b. To separate and remain independent is considered the solution.
1) One is no longer compelled to support activities financially that are distasteful to the local church.
2) One is no longer bound by decisions which are contrary to Scripture.
3) It is even argued that denominationalism or federation is contrary to Scriptural patterns.
2. To give a free hand in the work of ministry.
a. The local church need not follow directives from broader bodies.
b. It can develop freely its own ministries without giving account to a classis or synod.
II. INDEPENDENTISM IS NOT REFORMED
A. One hears of “Reformed” Baptists, or Independent “Reformed” churches.
1. One recognizes that there might be a time for such independency.
a. Gives opportunity for seeking proper federation.
b. Or it might be needed to work at forming a new federation.
2. However, to be “Reformed” yet independent is an oxymoron.
B. But federation is an essential element of being Reformed.
1. The Church Order of Dordt presents federation.
a. Remember: this was drawn up not that long after the Reformation.
1) If ever there was a fear of hierarchy and desire for independency, it would have been then.
2) Yet our fathers did not shy away from federation.
b. It clearly identifies and defines denominational life.
1) It recognizes the dangers of hierarchy-and has articles which are designed to protect against that.
2) Yet it presupposes the need to federate-and sets forth the rules for the same.
2. Calvin and the reformers agree.
3. In fact, Scripture gives support for this position.
a. It is true that formal denominations are not set forth there.
b. Yet the churches practiced unity in very real ways.
1) There is the command to seek proper unity based on truth.
2) There is evident the work of mercy between various churches.
3) There is the “synod” of Jerusalem dealing with the circumcision issue.
a) True: this was not in fact a synod.
b) Nevertheless, the unity of the churches is emphasized.
1/ In that Antioch sought help from Jerusalem and the apostles and elders there.
2/ In that the ruling there was also passed on to all of the churches as a binding decision.
III. THE DANGERS OF INDEPENDENTISM
A. The danger of hierarchy within the local church.
1. Independent churches claim to want to avoid hierarchy.
2. Yet within the local church there is real danger of hierarchy.
a. It may be the preacher who becomes a small “pope.”
1) The congregation is bound to submit to his dictates-often without the opportunity to appeal.
2) He seems able to introduce what he will-no appeal.
b. Or: several elders, often permanently installed, rule with a harsh hand the church.
1) The preacher will likely fear to oppose them.
2) And these will insist that their way is always the right way.
c. Or there is a certain hierarchy of the congregation.
1) They can “vote out” the preacher if they are unhappy with him.
2) So the majority becomes, if you will, the pope there.
B. Danger that each within the church begins to do “what is right in his own eyes.”
1. The emphasis on “independentism” must have its effect in the congregation.
a. There is no emphasis on unity within the body of Christ.
b. Soon that desire for independency shows itself within the church itself.
1) Each insists on his own theological position.
a) Each holds to what is right in his own eyes.
b) Soon a congregation exists with no unanimity in doctrine.
2) And there often then is disunity within the congregation.
a) One church of which I am aware, decides only by unanimous vote.
b) But even here, there has been division-because ultimately each is accountable to the chief elder.
C. There is no stability or opportunity to bring appeals.
1. With our sinful flesh, often disagreements arise.
2. In an independent congregation, there is no place of appeal.
a. Discipline ultimately must be decided by the majority (or unanimous) vote of the congregation itself.
b. The minister’s position is secure only as long has he retains the confidence of the majority of the congregation.
D. There is little or no opportunity to labor together in missions, seminaries, or even to help one another.
1. It might be possible to cooperate with others in the mercies of Christ.
a. Even then, it would be more difficult to cooperate with other churches.
b. But means have been used to accomplish this.
2. Difficult or impossible to do mission work.
a. If the church is sizeable, perhaps they could work on their own.
b. Most independent churches are small-and would find such work virtually impossible.
1) How can they properly work with others when there is no unity in doctrine?
2) A tendency then to concentrate only on the local congregation.
3. Small churches can not adequately provide for the ministry.
a. Some share ministers with other congregations-to which they have refused to federate.
b. Some ministers must be in a “tent-making” ministry to the detriment of the congregation.
c. Or congregations continue without a minister.
4. Independent churches would have difficulty finding a minister who fits in with the doctrinal position of their congregation.
a. These can not provide a seminary for the training of ministers.
b. Must use either independent seminaries or those of other denominations.
c. The consequence also would be that men of differing doctrinal positions could likely occupy the pulpit.
E. The calling of the church is to seek unity:
1. Not on the lowest common denominator-the ecumenism of our day.
2. But on the basis of truth; as Christ and the Father are one.
3. Such union has many blessings-even and especially in this evil age.