Let's begin our time with prayer. Our Father in heaven, we thank you for the atonement as we thought about earlier in our worship service. We thank you for the blood of Christ that was shed to pay as the purchase price to ransom the bride of Christ, the Church. And we pray that as we consider this topic of associationalism, that our love for your church would grow. Both our love for this local church as well as the duty of love we have to all of the churches of Jesus Christ. We pray these things in Jesus' name. Amen. We are continuing in our series on associationalism. And associationalism is a term that describes the a formal relationship that exists between like-minded churches. Over the past two weeks, we've laid the foundation for understanding how churches function both independently and yet also interdependently. In part one, we introduced the dual truths of local church autonomy that is ultimately rooted and under Christ's authority as head of the church, as well as the interdependence of local churches. The interdependency of churches is for the purpose of working together to foster cooperation in gospel work, mutual edification, accountability. Our confession of faith underscores this duty, stating that churches ought to hold communion among themselves for peace, love, and growth. We likened churches to an archipelago, although distinct islands, yet they're connected in a chain. They're not isolated desert islands. Then in part two, we considered the scriptural basis for interdependence. We saw that while there's no explicit verse in scripture that says, churches shall associate together, or ought to associate, we did see clear and normative patterns of interdependence among early churches. The Second London Confession in chapter one, paragraph six, reminds us that the whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in Holy Scripture. So some truths are expressly set down, explicitly stated in Scripture, and those are binding on us. And yet our confession also acknowledges that those things that are necessarily contained, so things that are logical and necessary inferences, are also binding, and are also the will and mind of Christ for the church. Such is the category of things like church membership and associationalism. They're there by necessary consequence, and as such, they are binding on the church. We also looked at numerous passages in the New Testament that show churches working together. Who remembers either passages for bonus points or even just examples of the ways churches worked together that we looked at last week? Acts chapter 15. Spread up, I was trying to say abroad and around at the same time, yeah. Yeah, that's right, Zach. Acts 15, the example of the Jerusalem Council, churches coming together to think through difficult issues, working together. At least two churches, probably, possibly more churches were involved discussing these difficult issues. Other examples? PJ? The financial support given to, the gift given to the Jerusalem Church. Yeah, that's right, the gift given to the Jerusalem church, which was a huge effort when you think of, I don't know, pre-PayPal and electronic transfers and wires and all those kinds of things where people literally had to travel miles and miles for days and days by land and sea. From one church to another, they had to be trustworthy men, they had to be men chosen, and they were chosen by multiple churches. These messengers were chosen to do this task, and one brother in particular with the Apostle Paul. When you think of all the organization and all of the planning that had to go into that, again, it leads to this picture and this pattern of churches formally working together. Other examples? Romans 16. Romans 16. Sorry, Phoebe. Financial. Yeah, Phoebe is sent, and then following that initial start of Romans 16, all the greetings of all the saints in all the churches. Again, these were churches separated by vast distances. Travel was dangerous, it was expensive, it was time-consuming, and yet they did it. for the purpose of sending letters, sending reports. You think how easy it is for us maybe to list some prayer requests and send them to a church in Virginia or some other church, and yet for them it meant vast sums of money, time, danger, all of those things, and yet they did it because they believe that's what churches ought to do. They ought to associate in those kinds of ways. One other example. ways churches helped each other. Yeah, PJ. Letters of encouragement. Yeah, those communications. Sharing gifted brothers. Yes, that was it. Yeah, gifted brothers, ministers, Apollo's ascent, he's given a commendation. as he sent, but even Barnabas, men like Barnabas, very gifted men. One church is willing to say, hey, we want to give you our best, so we're gonna send Barnabas to help you and to encourage you in the truth. So all of these ways that churches cooperated. Well, today, in part three of our series, we'll consider our confession of faith, 2nd London, and in particular, chapter 26, paragraph 14, which calls churches to hold communion for their mutual benefit. Then we'll also consider the historical background of the early particular Baptists, as well as how our forefathers put these things into practice. Well, let's now unpack the paragraph in our confession that introduces this doctrine of associationalism, chapter 26, paragraph 14. And before we jump into that, just to say as well that it's also important to remember that this paragraph and the next, 14 and 15, have 13 other paragraphs which precede it. And so this is built, really, and following on from everything else the confession has said about the nature of the church as this church that's independent yet under the lordship of Christ. And then paragraphs 14 and 15 speak of inter-church relations. Well, can I ask someone to read that paragraph, paragraph 14? Niall. As each church and all the members of it are bound to pray continually for the good and prosperity of all the 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 the churches for it ought to hold communion among themselves for their peace, increase of love, and mutual edification. Thank you. Let's break this paragraph down section by section, phrase by phrase. So first, as each church and all members of it are bound to pray continually for the good and prosperity of all the churches of Christ in all places. So the opening sets a foundational responsibility for every local church and its members. The language bound indicates that it's a duty, it's something we're bound to do. And what we're bound to do is to pray continually for the good and prosperity of all the churches of Christ, regardless of location. And here, prosperity, of course, is not prosperity gospel, but maybe the real prosperity gospel, where we're praying for the spiritual flourishing, the maturity, the growth, the health, the order of local churches. And so here, in a section that is going to narrow and focus on particular churches joining with like-minded churches, it begins by reminding us that we do have a duty to all churches in the world. So for example, we can pray for Carlisle Reformed Presbyterian Church. They are a church that we would not be able to formally associate with and plant churches with. We have different views of baptism, different views of church government, and yet they are a true church of Christ, and our confession reminds us that we should be praying for them. And we ought to discern from false churches. The Roman Catholic Church is not a true church, and we ought not to pray for their prosperity. We can pray for their repentance and salvation, but we certainly don't pray for their prosperity in that sense. These are true churches of Christ. But it reminds us that with other faithful and true churches we can and must, we're bound to pray for them. The next phrase says, and upon all occasions to further everyone within the bounds of their places and callings in the exercise of their gifts and graces. So prayer is the starting point But this phrase extends to the duty of practical action. Churches and their members are to further, that is to support or advance other churches as opportunities arise. And yet this support is not limitless, but it operates within the bounds of their places and callings. This bounds of places and callings is not a reference to geography, you know, well if you live in Carlisle, you can't help a church somewhere you know, outside of Carlisle or something like that. Bounds and callings refers to your giftings, your office, your place, perhaps in the church. So for example, a pastor of a church can help other churches in a way that ordinary members maybe cannot. A pastor can maybe preach and give counseling and those sorts of things. But that's where maybe lay members might be gifted in different ways with hospitality, administration, encouragement, and they can use their gifts. depending on their callings or station in life to help other churches. The next phrase is, so the churches when planted by the providence of God, so as they may enjoy opportunity and advantage for it. So this transitional phrase now is kind of moving from the general duty that we have to all true churches now moving towards those churches we are in association with. And it speaks of churches planted by the providence of God. So churches that are established through God's sovereign guidance and in circumstances where they have opportunity and advantage to act on these responsibilities. So it also recognizes essentially that there may be times where a church is not in a position to associate with other churches. I don't know, maybe there are no other churches in the country, that's true in some nations in the world, or maybe in a reasonable, within a reasonable distance, or even theologically to associate with. So it recognizes that there is an aspect of providence involved in this. And so there's a call to discernment, to know when, is this opportunity present by providence? But where that opportunity is present by providence, we should take it and obey this call. Next, so where opportunity is present, churches ought to hold communion among themselves. This is probably the most important phrase in this whole paragraph. The word ought is strong language. Again, it indicates a biblically binding duty. This isn't a suggestion. It's not an option. It's not a kind of take it or leave it thing. It's an ought. Now what does it mean to hold communion? Well communion in this context is not a reference to the Lord's Supper. Sometimes we refer to the supper as communion. Or it's not a reference to just an informal friendship or gathering of churches. Now I will say there has been a very popular teaching that, to my knowledge, originated out of Trinity Montville, New Jersey, out of that church, which interprets this phrase, holding communion, to refer merely to an informal fraternal of pastors. who come together as a fraternity and enjoy fellowship with each other, and maybe they share counsel, but it's not referring to churches formally associating with one another. So they would argue that when a group of pastors come together, they're fulfilling the intention of holding communion. And just to say, because that church has been very influential over the years, and Al Martin was a very influential figure, this is a view that one will find quite often in many Reformed Baptist churches today. And just to add maybe more so for the benefit of the recording, I do have very dear pastor friends who hold this position. I think they're wrong, but I do love and respect them. But whenever we study an older document, be it our confession of faith, or be it our national constitution, we need to apply the principle of authorial intent. In other words, instead of us deciding what I think this word should mean or what it means in today's context, we always need to ask the question, when studying older documents, is what do the authors mean or what do they think they meant when they wrote and used this particular verbiage? Well, Dr. Jim Renahan has done tremendously helpful historical work and he has demonstrated, I think very clearly, that particular Baptists understood this phrase, holding communion, to refer to formal associations. For example, the Abingdon Association, which we'll consider later. They formed in 1652, and they declared in their foundational principles that, quote, particular churches of Christ ought to hold firm communion with one another. And then they go on to describe a formal association. So this phrase, holding communion, does not refer to a casual friendship among pastors or even a description of churches that might happen to do things with each other in ways that overlap or something like that. No, it's a reference to a formal association of churches. And those who held to our confession, those who wrote our confession, did just that. The early Baptists formed formal associations. They formed associations across the regions of England. They had an association in Wales. They had an association in Ireland. But finally, the last phrase, the purpose of associationalism. It's for their peace, increase of love, and mutual edification. So there's a threefold purpose, peace, promoting harmony and unity among the churches. And it does this often through resolving conflicts and fostering reconciliation, an increase of love, deepening the, not infection, but affection that the churches have for one another, so that we can genuinely delight in one another's well-being. You know, when we hear of For example, the Valley Remnant Church, they had a baptism today. I mean, we rejoice in that. We delight to hear that. We're not jealous that they had a baptism and we didn't. But no, we delight that the Lord is working in these other places. And association helps us do that. And then finally, mutual edification. So again, it's mutually working for each other's good, building one another up through sharing resources, ministers, encouragement, and accountability. And these purposes reflect, I think, the pattern that we see in the New Testament, where churches are doing these very things, and they're also seeing the fruit of these things. So they're working together in the ways associations should, and they're reaping the reward of peace, love, and edification. That was an overview of that paragraph in our confession. Does anyone have any questions at this point? Well, at this point, we will move on from that survey of the confessional statement in paragraph 14, and we'll move to consider how some of the history, how the early Baptists put these things into practice. And just to say as a footnote to what I'm about to say, I am heavily drawing on the historical work of Dr. Jim Renahan. So if you read one of his books, and I think you should, and you say, hey, that sounded a lot like what Simon said. Well, I'm referencing him, not the other way around. Not that you would make that mistake. Well, as we look at the context of the early Baptists, we see that although they separated from the Church of England, they did not remain isolated. They came together and they formed associations. Just to give a picture of the religious and even political landscape of England at this time. By the late 1500s, England's Church of England was firmly established as a state-controlled institution, and there was a blending of civil and ecclesiastical authority. However, a growing number of Puritans sought to reform the church from within, believing that it retained too many of the Roman Catholic practices that the reformers had rejected, and that the Church of England as it existed was lacking in biblical fidelity. While among them, a more radical group, sometimes referred to as the hasty Puritans, or the separatists, grew impatient with the slow pace of reform. They believed the Bible provided a clear blueprint for the church, which should be followed without delay, without compromise. And when it became very clear that the Church of England's hierarchy was unwilling to reform, unwilling to change, the separatists took a bold and costly step. They separated from the state church, forming independent congregations outside of the authority of the Church of England, without the Church of England's sending them or commending them. They broke away from this church that they believed was in serious error. And this was no small decision. In this society, church and state were interlocked. And separation was viewed as treasonous. So you were almost a traitor to your country for this. And also it was seen as socially disruptive. You're disrupting unity here. Separatists faced severe persecution, imprisonment, fines, and even execution. Many would flee to Holland for safety and form churches there, while others would be forced into hiding. Some congregations that formed would ultimately dissolve under pressure from the government, which supported, more than supported, enforced the Church of England. upon the populace. And yet, despite these hardships and terrors, they maintained their conviction that scripture must be obeyed over human tradition, and they refused to return to this unhealthy, unbiblical Church of England. Well, how did they organize their churches? Well, emerging from the state-controlled Church of England, the separatists rejected the external control over congregations, so they rejected the Episcopalian system of a hierarchy of bishops. They also rejected the Presbyterian view of having a hierarchy of courts. Instead, they argued for the autonomy of each local church under Christ's headship. And that's important to note. It's not anarchic, right? Churches are a law unto themselves. No, they're still in submission, but they're in submission to Christ, not to a hierarchy, not to a bishop. They're under Christ's headship. However, they were very, very, very clear that they also rejected isolationism. So while they rejected this top-down control, like in the Church of England or even in Presbyterianism, they equally opposed the idea that churches would remain isolated from one another as standalone laws unto themselves. And this balanced perspective is captured well in a quote that you have on your handout from the True Confession of 1596. This was a separatist document, and this was their foundational statement. So this was not written by our Baptist forefathers, but this very clearly, as I'll demonstrate, influenced them. So it states, and you'll see it retains the Old English, That though congregations be thus distinct and several bodies, every one is a compact city in itself, yet are they all to walk by one and the same rule, and by all means convenient to have the counsel and help one another in all needful affairs of the church, as members of one body in the common faith are under Christ their head. So this separatist document affirms what we've been saying all along so far, that there is local church autonomy, right, these are distinct, several bodies, while emphasizing interdependence, so council, helping one another, walking together. It describes churches like cities, like these, they're separate, they're self-governing, and yet they're united in a common faith, and they're working together for their mutual benefit. Well, this quotation and this principle was carried forward almost verbatim into the first London Baptist Confession of 1644, which show that Baptists have direct continuity with the separatist conviction. Just a quick rabbit trail, press pause, rabbit trail. not many, no one who's historically honest, but there are some who say that Baptists came out of the radical reformation, the Anabaptists on the continent. That just isn't true, and this is more proof of that, that as Baptists, we come out of the Calvinistic separatist reformed stream. Okay, back into where we're going. So the particular Baptists emerged in 1640, or the 1640s, this separatist context, again, leaving the Church of England. And they embraced this same vision of independence and yet interdependence, and they expressed that through associationalism. So again, they believed that just because they were not part of some big denomination or big hierarchy like Roman Catholic Church, the Church of England, didn't mean that they could just go and do their own thing and not work with other churches and be in association with them. And so they saw associations as providing these, a way for mutual encouragement and support and enabling churches to stand together even during times of extreme persecution. And they did face extreme persecution. Well in, 1644, the Baptists produced the, well, I should say the particular Baptists, so the Calvinistic Baptists produced the first London Confession of 1644. And that confession itself was a product of seven London churches coming together at the Council of Jerusalem and agreeing on a common confession of their faith, something that defended their orthodoxy. And this commitment to associationalism would continue through the century through to the second London Baptist Confession, which was drafted in 1677 and was widely adopted in 1689 by an association of 100 churches. And so particular Baptists saw associationalism as a scriptural necessity, not an optional extra, and they saw it rooted in the patterns of the New Testament. That's a general picture of the historical context, which is important for understanding even how associationalism worked. Any questions, thoughts at this point? Well, we'll now look more particularly at one of the earliest Baptist associations. In 1652, the particular Baptist churches in the region of Berkshire united to form the Abingdon Association. Abingdon, I did have to look it up, my geography of England isn't great, but Abingdon is a town in the south of England, somewhat near Oxford. And so this regional association around Berkshire kind of had their hub in Abingdon. And this was one of the earliest regional associations of its kind. They followed the 1644 London Baptist Confession. That was the ground of their union, their communion together was their agreement with this confession of faith. And this association of churches would regularly send messengers who would all gather in one place. They would address theological questions. They would resolve disputes between members and within churches and even between churches. They would coordinate their efforts in the spread of the gospel and things like pastoral training as well as assisting those who would plant churches. And what I have now in your handout is their founding document in which they list their foundational principles. Let's take a moment to, again, read through it. And as we go through each section, I'll make some comments. They begin, that particular churches of Christ ought to hold firm communion each with other in point of advice in doubtful matters and controversies, and then they reference Acts 15, which scriptures compared together show that the church at Jerusalem held communion with the church at Antioch, offering help to them as they could. So again, right off the bat, they use this language of churches holding communion together. It's very clear what this language means. And so they speak of churches giving advice, and they reference the council that met together in Acts 15. They see that as a pattern for churches, all churches to follow. Next, in giving and receiving in case of want or poverty, so just like the early church, benevolence for suffering Christians, Third, in consulting and consenting to carrying on of the work of God as choosing messengers and in all things else wherein particular members of one and the same particular church stand bound to hold communion each with other for which conclusion we render these scripture readings. So each particular church should appoint messengers and send them to the gathering of other messengers. We refer to this usually as the general assembly. And then they continue to support this with a number of sub points. I won't read A, I read that last week actually when I explained that the hermeneutic of how we understand associationalism. But basically they draw an analogy between church members having duties to one another, then also to churches having duties to one another. Well B. From that which is a main ground for particular church communion, verse 12, to keep each other pure and to clear the profession of the gospel from scandal which cannot be done unless orderly walking churches be owned orderly. and disorderly churches be owned disorderly, even as disorderly walking members of a particular church would be disowned. Yea, the reason is more full in respect of the greater scandal by not witnessing against the defection of a church, our churches. This is very important. Churches must keep each other accountable to maintain purity. and to protect the reputation of the gospel. And this means recognizing orderly churches, so churches that come together and form an association. There's a mutual recognition. Yes, you are a church walking in gospel order. Your doctrine is sound, and your practice of doctrine and your administration of discipline is sound. You are an orderly church. And when we join an association, Lord willing, we will say that of these other churches. They will say that of us. So that's important. But then there's the other side of that, is that where there is a church walking in a disorderly way, either with regard to doctrine or administration, that other churches will first call that church to repentance. And if they refuse to repent, if they continue walking disorderly, that they are denounced as a disorderly church. And again, it's comparable to church members just as a church member, sadly, will ultimately be excommunicated if they refuse to hear the call of the church to repentance. Well, so also an association has the authority to remove a church and denounce them as disorderly from that association. C, for the proof of their love to all saints, particular church communion being never appointed as a restraint of our love, which should be manifest itself to all the churches. So here all they're saying is that if there is a church not in association with us, it doesn't mean that we don't love them, we do. So it's giving maybe the counterbalance. D, the work of God wherein all the churches are concerned together may be more easily and prosperously carried on by a combination of prayers and endeavors. So speaking to the benefit we have of a whole bunch of churches working together and praying together for the same outcome is better. What is it? More heads are better than one. More hands make light work. E. From need they have or may have one of another to quicken them when lukewarm, to help when in want, assist in counsel in doubtful matters, and prevent prejudices in each against other. So churches need each other to stay vibrant, to provide aid, to offer counsel in uncertain times, to help reconcile when there are problems of a difficult nature, either within that local church or even among churches, as happened then and happens today. And so it's saying that we need this. Again, you think of the analogy of church members. We need each other as members of this church, don't we? We need one another, both for encouragement when we need encouragement, but if we're in sin, we need a brother to come alongside us, or a sister to encourage us and to exhort us and maybe even rebuke us. We need the church to rebuke us if we fall into egregious error. And the analogy that our Baptist fathers saw to that is that churches also need to be able to come alongside one another to do all of these same things. Finally, to convince the world, for by this shall men know by one mark that we are true churches of Christ. Again, this is a mark of being part of the Church of Christ by being in association with other churches. And this is something that John Owen repeats. This is something that Cotton repeats. All the Congregationalists say it. Essentially, to refuse to be part of an association and to be held accountable to an association is just like a person who cuts themself off from the church Catholic. It is a removal from the church Catholic. So they saw this very seriously. So even as they in good conscience left what they believed to be a church in serious error and covenanted and made their own churches, yet they still did not believe that they should exist isolated from other churches. And then they agree, essentially the last phrase is that they agree that these messengers will come together in the future and they'll share their evidence of their churches being constituted and they will approve essentially these principles. So that's a really helpful snapshot of how You know, the early Baptists who believed in associationalism, who practiced it, how they viewed associationalism, why it was so important, and how they carried these things out. I think it's very helpful. Any questions, comments? How do we know what happened to those associations? Some associations lasted longer than others. Unfortunately, it seems that the way of most churches and the way of most denominations and associations is decline. And yeah, unfortunately, I don't remember the particular history, but I did look that up. And unfortunately, some of these associations did kind of fall apart and disintegrate. It sounds silly to us, but it was a big deal at the time. There was something called the hymn singing controversy. And it was a question as to whether we should even sing in worship, what would sing in worship. So if we think the worship wars are new, they're not. And very sadly, churches took very strong positions on this. And I think that was the London Association that was really in particular affected by that. But yeah. The other thing that happens, and I think this might be the case with the Abingdon Association, is that over time, the period of confessionalization, so this period where you have churches creating and crafting these wonderful confessions of faith on the continent, in England, in all these various confessions, well, in time, the next generation, as it were, begins to wane, and there's a period called deconfessionalization. So even on the continent, you had Francis Turretin, which is a powerhouse of a theologian, just a wonderful scholar. Anyone who's been to seminary, you had to read his works. The very sad thing is that after he retires, his son, Jean Alphonse Turretin, takes his place as the president of the seminary, and his inaugural speech which is on the first day of the new year. He gives a sermon or a lecture about how the old days of cold confessionalism are gone and we're into the new days of deconfessionalization, which is just a very sad snapshot as to what happens. So again, it's why every generation needs to hold fast to the truth and the word and keep the fire of truth burning. Yeah, it's a good question. Are you familiar with them? Yes, some of them. And this is a good question. We will talk a little bit more in particular about our association in two weeks. So I'll maybe address that question then, just for the sake of moving things along. But we will, in two weeks, have a class more focused in particular on those things. Well, for the sake of time, I will just move on with my notes, and then if there are any other questions, we can ask them at the end. Well, let's consider then some of the ways, we have their principles, this is what they wanted to do, what did they actually do? Those are sometimes two different things. Well, first, they helped each other with pulpit supply. In 1653, the Abingdon Association met together, and they agreed that such churches as want or lack gifted brethren to hold forth the word among them should make the same known to the rest of the churches, or at least to church or churches as in probability may be most able to help them. So in other words, if there are churches that need pulpit supply, that should be made known to the association. And then in 1658, so five years later, there's a church in Newbury. They apply to join the association, and in their letter they also express the great need and earnest desire to be better supplied by gifted brethren for holding forth of the word. So a church does this. They say, hey, we do need help. We want to be part of the association. We need help. And then at the next meeting of the association, the church in Andover, which I presume is maybe the closest church, again, I didn't look up the geography, but the church in Andover are able to send these ministers to help them out. So, pulpit supply, helping churches in that way. They assisted with the planting of churches in 1649. The London Baptists heard of emerging Baptist groups in Wales and they sent two men, John Miles and Thomas Proud, to go to Wales and to assist in these newly emerging Baptists, helping them to think through the doctrine of the church and how to organize into congregations. Mutual counsel. There's many examples of mutual counsel where messengers of churches could come together and raise questions for discussion at the meetings of these associations. For example, at the 13th General Meeting of the Abingdon Association in 1656, the messengers answered two questions proposed by the church at Reading. One question was about how to discern genuine conversions. And then the second was what to do about mixed marriages. And I assume in the context, mixed marriages are marriages between Baptists and Pedobaptists. Other questions that various associations dealt with were things like whether we lay on hands at baptism, the day on which the Sabbath was to be observed, premarital sexual intercourse by an engaged couple, whether that was okay, the recognition and appointment of elders, whether we should still pay tithes to the national church, and the swearing of oaths, and many other things. So like the Jerusalem Council, they came together, they studied the scriptures, they reasoned with one another, and they came to some kind of consensus on these issues. When I was at, a member of the church and a gifted brother at the church in California in Vista. There was one time that the association that we were a part of met and my pastors went to that association and they proposed a question as to whether pastors and elders should be aware of the giving amounts of their members. That was a question that was raised. Is this something that's helpful? And in addition to that, what are ways that we can encourage members to give more And there was a question that was discussed among the messengers of that association. Just another practical example. Finally, messengers, I mean, finally in terms of what I have, there's so much you can read if you so desire. I can point you to these things, transcripts of their meetings and their discussions, it's incredible. But finally in terms of my notes, Messengers were also asked to arbitrate when a dispute arose within a local church or between churches. So if a congregation or elders of a church were in serious practical or doctrinal error, other churches saw it as their duty to get involved and to call them to repentance. and to bring that church or those elders back into a state of order and peace. It was assumed that membership in the association committed a church to walk in an orderly way. And where this was lacking, churches acting collectively through their messengers would attempt to bring that church back into order. Should this ultimately fail to take place, then disorderly churches could be orderly disowned by the association. So in other words, removing them from the association, saying we can no longer commend you as a faithful, orderly church. And this happened, of course, a number of times. I think as did positively working through disputes. Well, before we close, let me finish with this comment from David Kingdon. He says, it is my deep conviction that we cannot continue as we are, fragmented, lacking a truly common purpose, and so often shackled by isolationism, which I am personally convinced is not to be found in the New Testament. Every church doing what is right in its own eyes without loving concern for the life of the churches is reprehensible. as an individual believer doing his own thing, our present situation is, I believe, a disgrace and a positive hindrance to the furtherance of the gospel. May God guide us then. If we love the churches and Christ loves them, surely he will give us the wisdom that we need in these difficult and confusing days. So he's calling, he's speaking particularly to Baptist churches and essentially calling them to follow and to obey the mind of Christ. associating with one another. Any final questions, comments, thoughts? Good. Well, let me pray. Our Heavenly Father, we thank you that with regard to the proper order of your church, you have not left us without a witness. We know the mind of Christ. with regard to how we should relate to other churches. And so, Lord, we do pray, as our confession acknowledges, that we would have opportunity to associate with other like-minded churches for peace, for mutual edification, and for an increase in love. And may you increase in us a love for your churches and a love for you. We pray these things in Jesus' name, amen.