Okay, let's begin our time with some prayer. Dear Lord, we thank you again for this time to gather as a church, to think about the church, and even to think about our relations, our responsibility with regard to other churches, and even just this topic of associationalism. So Lord, continue to guide us into all truth, even in this matter, we pray in Jesus' name, amen. Well, you all have a handout and I thought that would be helpful for you to have just because as we go through some of the examples that we're We see throughout the New Testament of churches working together. Just to give you an idea of where these places are, it might not have come out as clearly as I had hoped, you might have to squint a little bit, but when you hear of the church in Jerusalem sending greetings to the church in Italy, or Italy to the church in Asia or whatnot, or to Achaia, you've got a sense of maybe the distance of some of these churches from one another. the church, you know, Achaia wasn't just one town over from, you know, Asia or even Macedonia. These are quite large distances here. But anyway, not to get too far ahead of ourselves. Well, today we're continuing our discussion, our consideration, our study of associationalism, which is a biblical principle that shapes how churches ought to relate to one another. Last week we laid the foundation by exploring two complementary truths, the independence of the local church and also the interdependence of local churches. Who would like to explain what we mean by those terms, the independence of the local church, interdependence of local churches? Austin. with other churches and ourselves. Yeah, that's it exactly. We're independent as a local church, unlike Episcopalianism, where there's a hierarchy of bishops, and unlike Presbyterianism, in which there is a hierarchy of graded courts made up of elders. As Congregationalists, we emphasize the autonomy of the local church. We believe that ultimately every local church is under Christ. Christ is the head of the church universal. Christ is the head of each local church. And the way that Christ has invested authority is not through a chain of bishops. It's not through graded councils or courts. Christ invests authority into each local church to do what he has called local churches to do. And so there's no requirement for some kind of external oversight from bishops, denominations, or other churches. We considered several key passages like Matthew 16, where Jesus grants the keys of the kingdom to the church, symbolizing authority to bind and to loose. Matthew 18, where the local church is the final court of appeal in matters of discipline. And Matthew 28, where the risen Christ authorizes the church to make disciples, to baptize and to teach. However, independence does not mean isolation. Independence, what should go along with independence is interdependence of local churches. According to our confession of faith, churches are called to hold communion together. Austin described, mentioned a couple of ways that churches do that through mutual edification, accountability, a partnership in Gospel work, supporting gospel works. So we believe in both of these things, independency of the local church and interdependency among local churches. We believe that this is according to the mind of Christ. that like-minded churches are meant to walk together in unity for mutual care, mutual counsel. Last week we considered the illustration from Dr. Renahan where he said that churches are not desert islands. They are part of an archipelago planted by the providence of God to aid and assist each other. Again, I think that imagery of an archipelago is very helpful, because on the one hand, you do have these distinct islands, but they're not isolated islands. They're not desert islands. They're islands yet connected to each other. So I think that's a good illustration that he uses to describe our church polity, our church government, our relationship to other churches. Well, to read from our Confession of Faith, chapter 26, paragraph 14, says this. As each church and all the members of it are bound to pray continually for the good and prosperity of all churches of Christ, in all places and upon all occasions, to further everyone within the bounds of their places and callings in the exercise of their gifts and graces, so churches, when planted by the providence of God, so as they may enjoy opportunity and advantage for it, ought to hold communion among themselves. for their peace, increase of love, and mutual edification. Now that is a long sentence, but the point being that churches ought to hold communion together. This language of ought is very strong language. The language of ought is the language of a command, something that's binding. In other words, aughtness implies there's a biblical duty upon churches to associate together. So our confession is not saying that, hey, this might be a good idea to do, maybe you could try this. It's not giving a suggestion, but rather it's saying that this is something churches must do. In chapter 15, it speaks of it being in accord with the mind of Christ. which is to say that, again, it is binding upon the church to practice formal associationalism. Now, it acknowledges, you know, churches are planted according to the providence of God. A church may not be in a position, providentially, to enter into an association with other churches, but if that is the case, that church ought to look for opportunities to associate and then take that opportunity when they're able. So today, we're, We're going to spend the rest of our time considering the scriptural basis for this command, this call that churches ought to associate, ought to be interdependent. And as we begin to explore scripture, we need to come with the right set of tools for interpretation, or to use a bigger word, hermeneutics, so how we approach and understand the text. And the first thing to note is that there is no single verse of scripture that says churches ought to associate, churches must associate together. But this is not a problem for us since the New Testament often assumes certain practices that are not explicitly commanded. For example, the New Testament doesn't explicitly command formal church membership. And yet, when you open any page in the book of Acts, when you read the epistles, everywhere church membership, formal church membership is assumed. Unless there is formal church membership, there's no way to obey the commands of the New Testament or even to follow any of the patterns. For example, Hebrews 13, 17 says, obey your leaders and submit to them. The question is, obviously in the context, it's talking about elders in a local church. The question is, if you don't have formal church membership, which elders do you obey? Are you to submit to every elder in the world? Or by extension, for myself as an elder, am I called to watch over the souls of every Christian in the world? How is that responsibility confined? Who is that responsibility confined to? Really, it's a command that's almost meaningless unless you have formal church membership. Likewise, how do you practice church discipline without formal church membership? How do you excommunicate someone who hasn't already been communicated into the church with the right hand of fellowship? So while the New Testament doesn't explicitly command formal church membership, it doesn't go through the entire process, everywhere it's assumed that people are members of churches. And obviously this isn't intentioned to be a full and a robust argument, bringing all the arguments for formal church membership. We're assuming that there is formal church membership. And then by analogy, considering formal associations among churches. So likewise, while there's no specific verse saying that churches must formally associate, everywhere, I would argue, it is assumed in the New Testament. And this hermeneutic is the same hermeneutic that was used by our Baptist forefathers. So for example, the Abingdon Association was founded in 1652, and in their founding document as an association, they say this. Because there is the same relation between the particular churches, each towards other, as there is between particular members of one church, For the churches of Christ do all make up one body, our church, in general under Christ their head. As particular members make up one particular church under the same Christ, and all particular assemblies are under Mount Zion. Wherefore we conclude that every church ought to manifest its care over other churches as fellow members of the same body of Christ in general do rejoice and mourn with them to the law of their near relation in Christ. Obviously some of that language just writing hundreds of years ago, it's maybe a little clunky to us, but basically what they're saying is just as you join a church and you're accountable to fellow church members as a part of a local body of Christ, so also churches are part of the larger universal body of Christ, and even at that level, churches ought to be in communion with one another, ought to maintain a level of accountability with one another, as opposed to being isolated. So our forefathers used that analogy of church membership to argue for associations. Well if, associationalism is a divine mandate. If churches ought to do this, if it's according to the mind of Christ, to use all the language of our confession, well then we should expect to see a high level of formal interdependence among the churches in the New Testament. So let's now consider the ways we see this in scripture. And the first example I want to bring to your attention is the remarkable level of communication between these early churches in the New Testament. Despite significant logistical challenges, which I would argue all points to them having a structured framework for associating with one another. In our digital age, sending an email or a text to a pastor 1,000 miles away is effortless. Literally earlier after the service, I got a text from a pastor in Virginia, and I texted him back. Just like that, it took a few seconds. We enjoy very easy communication. But in the first century, communication between churches required extraordinary effort, huge expense, and of course, commitment. Robert Strivins, one pastor, observes, Even in those pre-digital days, before any organized postal system, the churches across Italy, Achaea, Asia, and the Eastern Mediterranean kept one another informed of their activities and needs, and messengers traveled often between them. So there's a high level of communication among the churches, the New Testament churches, and this can't be coincidental. It required great effort and intentionality to do this. And so it arguably reflects a very deliberate and structured bond that existed among these churches. Consider the effort and expense required just for one church to communicate with another church. If you've never thought of this, about this, you'll find it interesting, I hope. You know, they didn't obviously have email. They didn't have a postal system. There was no box that you could put your letter into. And someone would kind of magically take it to the other side of the world. No, they didn't have that. Instead, if you wanted to communicate to another church, you had to write a physical letter. And more than likely, you wouldn't have written it yourself. You would have to pay someone else to write it. For example, that's what Paul often did. He typically would detail his letters to a scribe who would write them in a neat hand and be able to send them. Writing materials were costly. Letters were written on papyrus, a popular, or I should say, common writing material made from papyrus plant. Sometimes they were made from parchment. Ink was made from carbon-based mixtures, or sometimes with metallic compounds. A reed pen was used for writing. You also might want to retain a copy of the letter. If it's an important letter with important information, just for posterity, you might want a copy. And then that's more money to have to make a copy of that letter. Well, once your letter is ready, I mean, that's the easy part. You then need to find someone who has nothing important to do for the next three weeks, because they've got to go on a really long journey just to deliver this letter. A messenger might have to travel for two to three weeks by land and by sea to the other church. I mean, even as you look in your map and see just the location of some of these, where these different churches were, you see, it would be a lot today to have to travel just to send a letter. Well, it would have been even more expensive even then. Think of, for two to three weeks, having to pay funds for food, for lodging, passage on ships, paying tolls on roads, And this messenger had to be reliable. I mean, you couldn't just find the guy in town who hasn't anything going for him and he's just, you need someone trustworthy and reliable. Because this is important information that's being communicated from one church to another. And sometimes it involves sums of money, which obviously requires men of integrity. Travel in the ancient world was dangerous. Think of poor Epaphroditus, who Paul sent to the Philippians with that letter. To hand deliver the letter, Paul says, so receive him in the Lord with all joy and honor such men, for he nearly died for the work of Christ, risking his life to complete what was lacking in your service to me. So some of these people, these messengers who'd go between churches almost died just to maintain the bonds between churches. And so all of this, this costly process, I think underscores the value that early churches placed on being connected and being associated with one another. It would have been much, much easier for these churches to say, Italy is a faraway place. Jerusalem, that church is so far away. No, I'm just going to be my own little isolated church here. Anyway, we don't need them. They'll be fine without us. No, that was not the attitude of these early churches. They sacrificed even to maintain bonds of sharing prayer requests and these kinds of things. And churches did send many of these letters. The New Testament reveals a very vibrant network of churches exchanging greetings, updates, counsel, which again suggests that there were structured associations. We won't look at all the examples. There are many examples. We'll just look at a few. One example is Romans 16. When you think of Romans, you don't often think of this chapter, but basically, the entire chapter of Romans 16 is just greetings. Paul is just greeting all these different people, and he's naming them all. It's incredible. He knew all of these people, and presumably, Where he was writing from, they also knew some of these people. I'll just read the first five verses. I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church at Cancria, that you may welcome her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints, and help her in whatever she may need from you, for she has been a patron of many, and of myself as well. Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus, who risked their necks for my life, to whom not only I give thanks, but all the churches of the Gentiles give thanks as well. Greet also the church in their house. Greet my beloved Epanetus, who was the first convert to Christ in Asia. So again, these greetings, there's like, you're mentioning all these different churches and members of different churches, and they know these people, and they know these people. and he's mentioning them too. He's writing to the Romans, of course, the Italian churches. And the fact that there's this interconnection between the Greek churches and Italian churches, again, demonstrates there's a deep connection, relationship, that could only come about through free intentional association with one another. This level of contact is not gonna happen without effort, especially, it's true today, but especially in the ancient world. This was not a casual connection. 1 Corinthians 16 verses 19 to 20, at the closing. Paul writes, the churches of Asia send you greetings. Aquila and Priscilla, together with the church in their house, send you hearty greetings in the Lord. All the brothers send you greetings. Greet one another with a holy kiss. Again, we see more of the web of connections, the churches of Asia. He refers to them collectively, which probably meant that they had some kind of regional association of churches there in Asia, and he's able to communicate on behalf of them all collectively to the church in Corinth. In Colossians 4, 7 to 9 and verse 16, we read, Tichyus will tell you all about my activities. I have sent him to you for this very purpose, that you may know how we are. And when this letter has been read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans. So Tichyus and Onesimus are sent to Colossae to deliver Paul's letter, and there to give these oral updates. And then Paul instructs the Colossians to share this letter with the Laodiceans, again, indicating a communion among the churches. And of course, again, we see the use of couriers or messengers, which was very costly and dangerous, as we already mentioned. Two more examples, Philippians 4, 21 and 22. Paul instructs the Philippians in chapter four, greet every saint in Christ Jesus. The brothers who are with me greet you. All the saints greet you, especially those of Caesar's household. So again, he's extending greetings from the, now he's in Rome, probably in prison, writing to the Philippians, and he's maintaining these bonds between the church in Rome and the church in Philippi. Another example, Hebrews 13 verse 24. The author writes, and this is where I finally understood maybe some of the argument behind why those who say Paul might have written Hebrews. But he says, greet all your leaders and all the saints. Those who are from Italy send you greetings. So he's likely writing from Italy, from Rome. And again, this pattern, this reflects that pattern we've seen elsewhere of greetings being extended from one church to another, or even from groups of churches to another church, indicating a strong connection among churches across the Mediterranean. Well, we could go on and on, couldn't we? Maybe even as we've been reading, you've thought yourself of some examples that maybe you were reading even this week of churches sending greetings. I mean, think of how all the epistles open with greetings. And those are not just, you know, our typical, you know, I hope this email finds you well kind of a thing that we put up there, but no, it's intentional, it's deliberate. I mean, it wouldn't have sent someone for three weeks to say, I hope this finds you well. I mean, they meant it when they said, you know, You know, we rejoice with you, we pray for you, we give thanks, grace and peace. But what we see is that churches did not exist as isolated islands left to themselves. We can just be self-sufficient. We've gotta figure it out ourselves. No, that's not how churches existed. Churches were holding communion with one another. They were maintaining bonds, even at great expense and effort and energy. And as a result, churches knew each other. Churches knew each other. Members of churches knew each other. They knew each other's needs, and they were able to help provide for those needs. They shared in each other's sorrows and joys. They were able to pray for each other. They were able to send benevolence. Again, at a time before the electronic transfer of money. They literally had to go with bags of coins and hope that they weren't, you know, robbed or ambushed on the way. They were able to send men to minister to these other churches. And it's hard to imagine all of this taking place without formal relationships. It's sad that churches no longer practice formal letter writing or even greetings. But this is something I try to do whenever I can. Whenever I'm preaching at another church and when I'm invited to the pulpit, I'll extend greetings to that church from our church. Again, it's a way to foster this right fellowship among churches, it's biblical. Another practice that I think is very biblical from the New Testament is formal letter writing. And when we covenanted as a local church, you might remember, for those of you who were members at the time, I wrote a number of letters and I sent them out to maybe 10 different churches and I showed you those letters, essentially extending formal greetings to these other churches. telling them, letting them know we exist, we are a church, saying that we would pray for them and asking for their prayers for us. I do hope that churches recover that lost art of our practice of letter writing. Any comments, questions, thoughts at this point? I was just gonna say what an encouragement it was to us when the church that Sam Renehans in reached out to us, you know, said they would pray for us, and of course, help support, but the prayer and just the mutual Christian love was an encouragement. Yeah, that's an excellent example. And it's so much more. Their church was very kind to give us financial support, but yeah, to your point, it's so much more than just numbers or figures. Yeah, it's another church. Maybe we're not formally holding communion with them in that sense, but they are doing what churches ought to do, and that's to their credit. That's a good example. It's quite a contrast, too, of what often gets portrayed as the typical Baptist church, which, to be fair, is so often accurate of this, almost wholly huddled onto themselves. It doesn't fellowship, whereas this, as you're bringing it out and portray it, is portrayed building. Yeah, I never thought about that aspect of how much effort it took to do that. It's quite astonishing. If you consider how hard it was for them, shame on us. That's right. Yeah, exactly. Yeah, it really is. I mean, yeah, that's a good point. And yeah, again, that's why it's sad that many Baptist churches of all stripes are very kind of isolationist, when actually, real Baptists shouldn't be, because the first particular Baptists absolutely were not isolationist. They were associational. Next week or the week after, we'll think more of even just some of the historical practices of the Baptist churches in England. But yeah, that's a good point. Other thoughts? Hopefully, it's an encouragement to our desire to associate with other churches, and it will fuel even that process, and Lord willing, when we are associational. And I think even just a point to draw from this is, because some of the question as well is like, okay, well, when we're in an association, what will that look like? I think one thing we should take away is that it will require effort. We'll have to make effort. I mean, certainly as a pastor, I'll be going to pastor's fraternals, I'll be going to the General Assembly, I'll be, you know, maybe more involved, but even as a member, maybe there are ways you can be engaged with these other churches. Obviously, we're all in different life stages, some of us have just had babies, you know, we're in different life stages, but maybe a member of One of the churches in Virginia is up here, and you have space in your house, and they stay with you. Or maybe you just take them out for lunch or something like that. Maybe you go down there for business, and they're able to host you. And just even in an organic way, being intentional with fostering some of those relationships. But again, in a future week, we'll think even more about some of the practical things of an association. Well next, beyond letter writing, let's consider how the New Testament reveals churches intentionally cooperating with one another in structured ways through doctrinal councils, mutual accountability, sharing gifted ministers, financial support, and benevolence. Well first, we see a clear example of churches coming together for mutual counsel in matters of doctrinal and practical disputes The prime example, of course, is the Jerusalem Council in Acts chapter 15. I know it's something we've thought about recently in some recent Sunday school classes, but again, just to set the context, the context is that false teachers from Judea were teaching that in order to be really saved and really in the kingdom, you needed to be circumcised. So they were trying to apply the laws of the old covenant to Gentile converts. And this is a very serious claim. It strikes at the heart of the gospel. It's saying, well, there's Jesus, but plus circumcision, essentially. Faith and grace plus this external work. And so what's interesting is that initially, Paul and Barnabas debate these false teachers. And that's not the interesting part. The interesting part is that it doesn't get left there. They don't just say, yeah, we took care of those guys. You won't have to worry about them again. We reached the decision. No, that's not what happens. Instead, it seems Paul and Barnabas go back to the church in Antioch. They report to that church. And then Paul, Barnabas, and other messengers are appointed to go to this council in Jerusalem. And there in Jerusalem, they meet with other apostles and other elders. Now, although the passage only mentions the churches of Antioch and Jerusalem, the text does not exclude the possibility that there were other churches who had messengers present. Well, for example, we know that the problem of the Judaizers was a problem beyond just the Jerusalem area or Judea. We know, obviously, the Galatian church. had issues there. And in Acts 15.23, the decision of the council is to be communicated to Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia. Again, if you have your map, you can have a sense of where those places were. And so this may indicate that there were representatives of those churches also present at the council. The text says that there were other brothers present. Doesn't tell us where those men were from, but I think it leaves open the possibility that it could be more churches than just Jerusalem and Antioch present. Regardless, what all of this demonstrates is that this was a council made up of numerous churches who came together to discuss and to think through this difficult doctrinal issue. As we look at the nature of the council, it was a meeting of equals. The decision at the end of the day wasn't just decided by the apostles. Rather, the apostles worked in harmony with all of the gathered elders, the messengers of these churches, to reach a deliberation. And even when the multitude became silent, James, the brother of our Lord, began to speak. And he doesn't kind of get up on a soapbox, or he doesn't speak in a very kind of pontifical or authoritative kind of manner. Rather, he speaks in a very persuasive way, seeking to persuade the men there, rather than to speak down to them. He appeals to them, brothers. And then when they reach their decision, that circumcision is not commanded of Christians, they send out the letter to the churches. And the letter reads, it begins this way, the brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings. So what all of this demonstrates is that these churches were in close association with one another. every church for itself, trying to figure out everything by itself, but it was churches working in cooperation. And again, this assumes that there are formal ties between churches, such that they can come together and cooperate at this level. If anyone has any questions along the way, just raise your hand and when there's a kind of a natural stopping point, I can get to you. Well, the second thing we see is a level of mutual accountability among the churches. Churches held each other accountable for godly conduct and sound doctrine. I think Acts 15 is an example of this, where churches are holding each other accountable, they're valuing each other's counsel, they're coming together to maintain sound doctrine. Even though churches are independent, they are nonetheless accountable for their actions. For example, the Corinthian church disciplined a member for serious sin by a majority vote and they excommunicated him. In Paul's second letter to the Corinthians, Paul urges them to restore the individual. Again, Paul is trying to persuade them. Paul doesn't have the authority to make the decision for the church. but he does believe that's the right decision for the church to make. Paul recognizes that Christ has given that local church the authority and the power to correct this, and so only they have that ability to make this correct decision. And yet at the same time, even though the authority and the power and the responsibility is with the Corinthian church, that doesn't mean they're unaccountable or beyond accountability for their actions. The Corinthians are autonomous, but they're also accountable for their conduct. Now certainly Paul is an apostle, that's a special office. He probably has an elevated status that allows him to speak into a particular church's situation. And yet I think the principle can be drawn from this, that churches can be held accountable by other churches for their actions. For example, if a church veers into doctrinal error, or the church or elders have abused their authority and abused a member of the church, other local churches in the association have a duty to hold them accountable. Although these other local churches don't have the authority to overrule the decision of that local church or to remove those abusive elders, they can and they should call that church to repentance And that level of accountability only can happen in formal association. I would argue that, well, this is why we desire to be part of an association. We want to be accountable to other churches. We want that. Accountability is a good thing. It's good if you're a member of a local church that you're accountable to other members. It's good as a local church to be accountable to other churches. Listen to this. Listen to what retired pastor Earl Blackburn says. He makes this observation. When an individual refuses to become a member of and accountable to a local church, there is a serious problem. The same also applies to a church that refuses to become truly accountable to other churches. On the part of a church, a refusal to be held accountable through an association of churches usually, though not always, reveals either a deep insecurity on the part of its leadership, pride, or an elitist mentality, authoritarianism, or hidden sin that is fearful of being discovered. Those are strong words, aren't they? But I think they're true words. No one is above the law, as it were. No one is beyond accountability. And we should pursue accountability, even as a local church, through associationalism. Any questions at this point? I was reading at the end of 2 Corinthians just to see how Paul ends his letter. And of course he's an apostle. So I was just trying to think Just another, like another example, I'm trying to think of another example that we could use to support that this is coming, this is Paul coming from an apostle stance and not like an elder or a general member stance. So he says, this is 2 Corinthians 13, chapter 10, or verse 10. For this reason, I write these things while I'm away from you, that when I come, I may not have to be severe in my use of the authority that the Lord has given me for building up and not for tearing down. So you would understand that to be, that would be the initial stanza would be, that's the apostle letter, you could say. Is there anything else you would add to that or another passage that would help us further that case? Yeah, well, if I understand your question, I think every time the apostles do something, we need to recognize that it's the apostles doing something as opposed to like an ordinary elder. And so we recognize that there's a power and authority they have that we don't have either as elders today or as ordinary members of a church. So we need to distinguish between those things. So again, certainly I think Paul is writing to the Corinthians from the position of being an apostle, but the principle I was drawing is simply that churches are accountable for what they do, right? And I think you could argue that all of the epistles bear that out, that churches need other voices to speak into those situations. I think just to add to that, I think almost maybe the inverse of what you're getting at is true. Go back to the beginning of Acts 15, You know, the Judaizers are coming down, talking about circumcision. You know, and Paul and Marnabus are there. Paul is there as an apostle, and he just said, no, this is nonsense. We're gonna stop this. Thus saith the Lord. But instead, they go to, you know, even as an apostle, he's deferring to the council. He's deferring to the Association of Churches. Just looking there at Acts 15, sorry, in two. Yeah, after Paul and Barnabas, so verse 1, the Judaizers, verse 2, Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension in debate with them, so they did engage them, but then when the matter couldn't be resolved ultimately, they traveled to the council in Jerusalem. That's what I'm looking for, is like another case to bring about, you know, this distinct relationship between elder and apostle. someone would say, no, this is where authority is being reached over local church authority. So that example right there, Acts 15, seems like a great relationship. I'm going to also hear this when we'll go through the Council. Well, moving on, another way we see formal cooperation among churches is the sending of ministers and gifted brothers from one church to another in order to strengthen and encourage them. For example, in Acts 11, Barnabas is sent from the church in Jerusalem to the church in Antioch. In Acts 11.23, we read how, when he came and saw the grace of God, he was glad, and he exhorted them all to remain faithful to the Lord with steadfast purpose, for he was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith, and a great many people were added to the Lord. So Jerusalem's decision to send Barnabas reflects a pattern of cooperation. They share one of their most gifted leaders, and they send him to edify this other church. In Acts 18, 27 and 28, we read, when Apollos wished to cross to Achaia, the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to welcome him. When he arrived, he greatly helped those who through Grace had believed, for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, showing by the scriptures that the Christ was Jesus. Again here we have Apollos, a gifted teacher traveling from Ephesus to Achaia, probably to the church in Corinth. And the Ephesian church supported his journey by writing this letter of recommendation to the Achaian churches, ensuring his warm reception. So again, there are tons of examples of men being sent from one church to the other throughout the Book of Acts. And even in Paul's letters, he makes reference to guys being sent all over the place. And again, one of the ways that we practice this, or can practice this, as associations of churches is by sending pastors or gifted brothers to other churches who need pulpit supply for any number of reasons, from pastor dying to a pastor needing vacation, that we as churches can support each other that way as needs arise. The final example is financial support and benevolence. When the Jerusalem Christians were suffering poverty, Paul organized a collection from the Gentile churches of Macedonia and Achaia to aid the Jerusalem church. He makes mention of this in Romans 15, Romans 16, and in 1 Corinthians 16. But in Romans 16, 26, he says, Macedonia and Achaia have been pleased to make some contribution for the poor among the saints at Jerusalem. So there's these churches in both of these regions, multiple churches in these two different regions, making these contributions. They're pooling their resources to help the church in Jerusalem. Very obviously, one single church in one area would not have the resources to help Jerusalem. Probably would have only You know, trying to think of an analogy, like a chip off the iceberg or something. But when all these churches are working together, obviously the need must have been great that Paul is drawing from all of these regions. And in 2 Corinthians 8, 19, this is interesting. Paul speaks of a messenger being sent to the Corinthians. after being appointed by other churches. He writes, he doesn't mention the guy's name, but he says, he writes, he has been appointed by the churches to travel with us as we carry out this act of grace that is being ministered by us for the glory of the Lord himself and to show our goodwill. So what's interesting is that here there's been some kind of mutual getting together or agreement of churches coming together, and these churches collectively have appointed this messenger to be the man who will go with Paul to deliver this large sum of money. Again, you want someone trustworthy. This is a massive sum of money, and it's good even for the apostle Paul not to carry all that money by himself. Clearly, they send this other man as well. And so for this man to be a representative of all those churches, again, I would argue that it implies that these churches were working together formally. They got together, they voted somehow to make a decision to choose this particular man to be their messenger. And it was a large project. It spanned Macedonia, Achaia, and even Jerusalem. which required communication via letters, messengers being sent, all of which indicates a formal network of relationship. How different is this from a kind of a, just simply writing a check, writing a piece of paper and sending it off to, I don't know, either just off to a missionary or even off to a kind of a faceless missions organization. This was involved, very involved. And so in summary, While there is no explicit verse commanding churches to formally associate, what we do see is just like with church membership, it's assumed everywhere in the New Testament. And it's impossible to conceive of churches doing all the things the churches did without there being a formal network, a formal association of churches. We see the churches cooperating through doctrinal councils, accountability, sharing ministers, and financial support. The collection of 2 Corinthians 8, with the joint selection of messengers, I think exemplifies this structured relationship, one that would have required trust, and communication, and of course commitment. These churches were archipelago, weren't they? They weren't desert islands, they weren't isolated. Individually, they were autonomous under the lordship of Christ, but they came together despite being geographically very distant from one another and separated even by logistical challenges, and yet they were together. And as Baptists, this is what we ought to be. This is what we believe. As Baptists, we reject the hierarchy of denominationalism, but we equally reject isolationism. equally reject isolationism. That is not an option. Instead, we affirm both the independence of the local church and interdependence of local churches. And may God help us and all true churches of Christ to recover this biblical practice, that together we might hold communion to the glory and praise of our triune God. Any final questions, comments? Okay, let's pray, give thanks. Dear Heavenly Father, we thank you for Christ, the one who is the head of the church, the head of our church locally, and we thank you for his care for us, that even now he continues to serve as our prophet, priest, and king, guiding his church, and will be with us until the very end. And until then, Lord, would you work through our local church? Would you work through us as individual members of this church? Both to the furtherance of your work and purposes locally and also even in the interdependence of churches that we hope to enter into. Use us for your glory. We pray in Jesus' name, amen.