Welcome, everyone, to our Sunday school class as we've been going through the doctrine of associationalism. I'll begin our time with prayer. Dear Lord, we once again thank you for the lordship and headship of Christ over the church. We thank you that whatever trials and tribulations that the church endures in this age, she has a head who is unwavering, who is unchanging, who is ever faithful, and Lord, we do pray that as a church, even as a local church, we might be more and more like our Savior in that respect. Please bless our time as we consider this doctrine. In Jesus' name, amen. Over the past few weeks, we've considered the doctrine of associationalism, again, a doctrine that teaches that like-minded churches should formally associate together in order to advance the cause of Christ. In part one, I introduced the principles of the local church being independent and yet local churches being interdependent. So each local church is autonomous, but yet they're still under the headship and lordship of Christ. And yet each individual church, while they're autonomous, they're still to be accountable to other churches, or to work together to foster mutual edification, accountability, and cooperate in various ways. In part two, we explored the scriptural basis for this interdependence. We looked at a number of scripture passages that set the pattern of churches working together. And so while there is no explicit text that says churches must associate, Well, it's hard to read any of the New Testament without implying an understanding, a formal association among those churches. In part three, we considered the confessional and historical aspects of associationalism. We unpacked chapter 26, paragraph 14 of our confession, which calls churches to hold communion among themselves for their peace, increase of love, and mutual edification. And we consider some historic ways that Baptists did that very thing. Well now today in part four, we will consider the next paragraph in our confession, dealing with associationalism. Chapter 26, paragraph 15, expresses how associations of churches are to help and function in the resolution of difficulties and differences. But first, we must recognize that there are difficulties and differences among churches, in case you didn't know. We must recognize the reality of conflict in churches. It's a sad and sobering reality that the church in every age will face conflict. Some of the most painful things you will experience in your Christian life will not be as a result of unbelievers. It will come from other Christians, or so-called professing Christians. That is a sad reality of every age. You just look back through church history and see that is the case. The church throughout the ages has had to deal with conflict. But even further back, all the way back to the beginning of the churches, even in the early church, churches that were planted and even nurtured and discipled by the apostles themselves, even they had conflict. Think of Acts chapter six, where we read about the issues in the Jerusalem church, where the Hellenistic Christians, the Greek widows, felt like they were being treated unfairly. and there was partiality being shown towards the Jewish Christians of the church. And so they felt neglected in the daily distribution. So there's conflict, difficulty. Or think of even of Philippians 4, you think of the church in Philippi that otherwise was a very healthy church. Even there, they had this feud between two women, Euodia and Syntyche, that Paul needed to address. Well, even these examples of churches with conflict that were planted by the apostles, then we see that the difficulty they have, the conflict they have, and if even these churches are not immune to conflict, well then, no church is immune to conflict. As Pastor David Dykstra comments, to think that any church can go long without conflict of one kind or another is to engage in unrealistic idealism. And our Baptist forefathers shared this same view of reality. They understood that problems would arise both within local churches and even among local churches. And so the question is not whether churches will face conflicts or whether leaders or even congregations will abuse their authority. History and experience confirm that these are inevitable. The critical question is what do we do when conflict or abuse of authority arises within or among our churches? Now in Presbyterianism, such as the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, we've got one of those in our town, there are clear mechanisms for addressing grievances. So if a member of a church feels that they have been treated unfairly, maybe by their elders or by the church, he can submit a complaint to his elders, to the session, and then they review that complaint and they respond. But it doesn't stop there. If unsatisfied, the member can then appeal to the presbytery, which is the next court up from the session. And the presbytery then conducts a thorough review, and potentially they might hear both sides and come to some kind of ruling. Well then if the presbytery's decision is deemed unjust, the member can appeal to the General Assembly, which is the OPC's highest court and authority. And then the General Assembly will review the case and they may even overturn the decision of these lower courts and even of the church itself and the elders. And so injured parties in the OPC have recourse to have their case heard. And this very obviously checks and prevents the abuse of tyrannical leadership. It means that there's accountability built into the system such that injured parties can appeal. Well, that's Presbyterianism, which is denominationalism, or denominational, meaning they have a structure, a hierarchy of courts. They don't believe in the independence of local churches. But as Baptists, we do affirm the independence of the local church. So where does that leave us? Is there any recourse for injured parties? Well, sadly, many so-called Baptist churches, or even so-called confessional churches, operate in isolation, the result being that the elders and the congregations themselves are unaccountable to anyone outside of themselves. Let me ask a question. Especially in light of maybe the Presbyterian system and compare that with an isolationist kind of church. What dangers arise when a church has no accountability beyond itself? How is there potential for harm in those situations? Yeah, when a church is isolated. false doctrines arise within that church and spread amongst its members. That's the easiest way I can give. The doctrines arising, malpractice going unchecked. Think of 1 Timothy, when Paul charges Timothy to charge false teachers. Even though Paul's an apostle, that's something Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Like, what can they know? And I don't know the answer to that. In this kind of church and stuff. Yeah, there's no recourse. You gonna say something? Yeah, I think maybe even just almost to the opposite of Tim's scenario, which would maybe be the more predominant one, but even maybe where there is, maybe the congregation is refusing to submit to their elders, or a situation where maybe it's a single pastor for recourse for that man to even, if they're not in association or they're not in a denomination where they can go to the presbytery or a higher court, there's a lack of recourse even for that man to seek reconciliation or resolution of the issue. Yeah, that's a good point. It's not only one way. Often maybe we think of leaders maybe abusing authority, but congregations can abuse authority too and make decisions that are harmful. So yeah, it protects both ways, as it were. Do you have something else, Austin? Yeah, I was also thinking we might make the argument, well, it's only a silo to one church. It's not always the case because if a church is thinking of missions, they could send out missionaries might not be able to elder qualified missionaries and they're spreading it by going to unreached places and teaching these doctrines. So. Contamination. Yeah, the contamination effect. Yeah. Where people would wanna argue that it keeps it from spreading and since it still can spread. Yeah. Yeah, good thoughts. Some thoughts that I put down. is that in these kinds of situations where there is no recourse, churches operate in isolation, you have leaders who are unaccountable. And when elders, our congregations, act as sort of the judge, jury, executioner, especially if they are the offending party, well then justice fails, doesn't it? It's like being falsely accused of, or falsely arrested by a police officer, only to find out when you ask for a trial, you find out, oh no, well he is also, he's the police officer who arrested you, he's also the judge, he's also the jury and the executioner. Well, that would be ridiculous. I mean, there's an obvious conflict of interest in a situation like that. I mean, our legal system is set up as a constitutional republic, and it's deliberately designed not to have maybe all that power in one person, but certainly it's designed to protect the minority from abuse of the majority, or the powerful, as it were. Or another analogy, it's like, when there's a question of corruption in a government agency, but then there's a press release that assures you, don't worry, we did a thorough investigation of ourselves, we left no stone unturned, you can be sure there's no corruption in our organization. And you see it, but even the unbelieving world looks at that and says, that's ridiculous. You can't assess yourselves, that's a clear conflict of interest. And then third, without external counsel, without recourse, members facing unjust discipline or abuse, or even, to your example, Daniel, even maybe a pastor who's being mistreated by the congregation, where they have nowhere to turn. The vulnerable person then is wounded, and ultimately the reputation of Christ's church is tarnished. Well, the good news is that this is not a gap or weakness in our Baptist ecclesiology. So we don't have to become Presbyterians if we want justice and checks and balances and those kinds of things. Our Baptist forefathers thought very carefully about this issue. For them, the independence of the local church never meant that a local church was a law unto themselves. They carefully set out the procedure for dealing with difficulties in chapter 26, paragraph 15 of our confession. So let's now walk through this paragraph, and I'll comment line by line. Would someone be willing first to read the paragraph? It's on your handout. PJ. In cases of difficulties or differences, either in point of doctrine or administration, where neither the churches in general are concerned, or any one church, in their peace, union, and edification, or any member or members of any church are injured in or by any proceedings and censures not agreeable to truth and order, it is according to the mind of Christ that many churches holding communion together do by their messengers meet to consider and give their advice in or about that matter indifferently. to be reported to all the churches concerned. How be it these messengers assembled are not entrusted with any church power properly so called or with any jurisdiction over the churches themselves to exercise any censures either over any churches or persons or to impose their determination on the churches or on Thank you. So we'll go through this line by line. First, in cases of difficulties or differences either in point of doctrine or administration. So this sets the context of when this paragraph applies. In cases of difficulty or differences. And there may be difficulties or differences in a point of doctrine. So this relates to theological beliefs and teachings. Or there may be difficulties and differences in a point of administration. Administration refers to church governance, church practices, church discipline. Really, you could boil it down this way. Doctrine is everything a church believes. Administration is everything a church does. So administration is a very wide-ranging term that can apply to any actions of a church or its elders. Difficulties refers more to a difficult question. So for example, messengers of these various churches could gather together and discuss a difficult topic, and they could come to maybe a mutual agreement on that topic. So for example, in 1689 at the General Assembly, there were 15 questions that were raised, discussed, and responded to during their meeting. These questions ranged from practical questions, such as whether two local churches that were very small should merge together, the necessity of supporting your ministers financially, a question of whether Presbyterian ministers should preach in Baptist pulpits. I think they said yes. They also dealt with doctrinal questions, such as observing the Lord's Day. So difficulties are more like difficult questions, like, hey, let's come together, let's discuss this difficult question. How should we, maybe we as a local church, how should we approach this difficult issue? Differences refer more to disagreements, So again, our forefathers recognized that it was to be expected that at times, churches, leaders, would wrongly use their authority, that differences would occur, that some members could be injured, and so there had to be recourse for this. There had to be a way for recourse for injured parties. Next phrase, wherein either the churches in general are concerned or any one church in their peace, union, and edification. So it covers difficulties and differences that may affect multiple churches or even just one church with problems affecting peace, union, and edification. Next, are any member or members of any churches are injured in or by any proceedings in censures not agreeable to truth and order? So the scope extends from multiple churches with differences to a single church, and then even to a single member of a church. So you see the scope narrowing. Proceedings and censures refers to disciplinary actions like a public rebuke, suspension, or excommunication. And notice it's not the injured member here who's seeking recourse, who is being charged with damaging truth or order. Potentially it's the actions of the church or the leaders whose censures have potentially, which are potentially not agreeable to truth and order. So the member, our former member of the church injured in or by these proceedings that are not agreeable to truth and order, this member has a right to a council of appeal to hear their case. You know, it's interesting, the United States has a population of about 340 million people. That's an incredible number of people. And yet, we see it happen all the time where when one person suffers injustice, or is even perceived to have suffered injustice, police shooting, some kind of unfairly arrested and convicted of a crime they never did, something like that. Whenever that happens, it sparks public outrage. But why? Why does the mistreatment of a single individual matter in a nation so vast with hundreds of millions of people? Well, it's because justice for one is the foundation of justice for all. If a single person's rights can be trampled without recourse, then the entire system of justice is undermined. And if your rights can be taken away, or someone else's rights can be taken away, then so can yours as well. Well, in the same way, when a church member faces unjust discipline or abuse at the hands of a church's leaders or the church itself, commitment to biblical justice and the church's witness before the world is at stake. Chapter 26, paragraph 15 ensures that even one voice can be heard, which protects the vulnerable and upholds the church's witness. David Dykstra comments on this, he says, our forefathers were saying that the individual church member is so important that any injury done to him by a maladministration of church authority may become a legitimate item of discussion in a meeting of assembled messengers of the churches. Next, it is according to the mind of Christ that many churches holding communion together do by their messengers meet to consider and give their advice in or about that matter of indifference. That's the key phrase here, it is according to the mind of Christ. This is a strong declaration intended to say that this is the way prescribed by Christ for the resolution of such difficulties. To say that it's the mind of Christ is to say it's the will of Christ. It is to say that it has the same binding authority as any of Christ's command in scripture. And if something is the will of Christ, we should never act against his will. And so for a church or leaders to refuse a council of appeal is to sin against Christ himself. Next, to be reported to all the churches concerned. So the advice or conclusions from the meeting who hear the case of the injured party are communicated back to all of the churches affected by or involved in the dispute. And this reporting ensures transparency so that people can look at the process and maybe even see if the process was fair. And it does other things that we'll consider later. Next, how be it these messengers assembled are not entrusted with any church power, properly so-called, or with any jurisdiction over the churches themselves, to exercise any censures, either over any churches or persons, or to impose their determination on the churches or officers. So all of that is saying, essentially, that if a council of churches comes together and they meet, and perhaps they make a determination this church is in error in how they handle something, they don't have the authority to go in there and remove those elders or undo church discipline or something like that. Their authority remains at the level of counsel, advice, recommendation, not at the level of actually being able to make changes in the local church. So it's an affirmation that a church is accountable but also that local church retains its own autonomy to function as a local church. That's an overview of our confessional statement on this section. I'm going to be unpacking some implications of this, so I will be drilling down into more detail, but any questions, comments at this point? Does paragraph 15 apply to that, is that what you're saying? Yes, in the sense that it recognizes that, so for example, if an association of churches come together, the messengers are sent together, they can discuss issues of difficulties and differences, so they can discuss difficult theological topics, or they can discuss and advise on these differences, these conflicts within the churches. So paragraph 15 is more intended to focus on those I don't know, tricky conflict-oriented things. The previous paragraph maybe more deals with, I don't know, the positive practical kind of things. Yeah, but certainly when, even as churches come together and the messengers meet, it's not only like hard things they're discussing, but they can, yeah, discuss positive things of how can we reach maybe this area that needs a church plant or something to that effect, yeah. Good. Moving on to implications of paragraph 15. We've recognized the reality of conflict and potential for abuse of leadership and authority in churches. We've surveyed paragraph 15. Now we'll consider a number of implications. And at this point, just again as a kind of a footnote, I am drawing on numerous sources, but at times I am drawing heavily on David Dykstra's chapter on conflict. in his book Denominations and Associations, which I have sent out that chapter to all of you. It's very helpful. So this is a footnote for what I'm about to say, or for much of what I'm about to say. Well, the first implication of this paragraph is that individual churches are autonomous and accountable. So our forefathers believed that decisions of an individual church or eldership were not necessarily the end of the issue. Just because a local church or its eldership made a decision, that wasn't necessarily the end of the issue. 3 John verses nine and 10 is a good example of what they had in mind. And this is even one of the scripture proofs for this paragraph in our confession. I'll read these verses. This is the Apostle John writing. I have written something to the church, but Diotrephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge our authority. So if I come, I will bring up what he's doing, talking wicked nonsense against us. And not content with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers, and also stops those who want to, and puts them out of the church. So in this church that the Apostle John was writing to, there was a man named Diotrephes, a domineering leader who is abusing his authority. He's publicly slandering. ministers of the gospel, men in good repute, like the Apostle John. He's also rejecting these itinerant gospel workers. He's not hosting them. He's not even allowing his people to host these gospel workers. And in fact, he's excommunicating, apparently, any members of his own church who are supporting these other gospel workers. And there was no way that the Apostle John could ignore the situation. So what did he do? Well, John responds by bypassing Diotrephes and writing directly to Gaius and promising to confront the abuse publicly when he arrives. He assured Gaius that he would come and call attention to Diotrephes' actions. So what Diotrephes has been doing, John says, will be brought to light. He'll make it known to the people, which implies that probably some church members were completely unaware of what Diotrephes was doing, the fact that John is saying, oh, I'm gonna come and I'm gonna make this public, what this guy is doing. So he will publicize this man's abusive leadership. Now, while the apostles are no longer present in the church today, we can't phone up the apostle John and ask him to come help in a certain situation. The needs that the apostle dealt with are still in the church today. And so churches today must have a way to deal with men like diatrophies. This is why our Baptist forefathers recognized that both doctrinal heretics and abusive leaders like diatrophies should not be able to hide behind the doctrine of local church independence. Yes, local churches are independent and autonomous, yet they are still accountable. So that's the first point, individual churches are autonomous, but they're also accountable. Second implication, members allegedly wronged by unjust discipline have the right to seek counsel from other churches. So Congregationalists believed that when a person was injured through the misuse of authority in a local church, they had the right to appeal to other churches. and specifically to those who are outside that, their own immediate church. The Congregationalist, so he wasn't a Baptist, but he was a Congregationalist, John Owen writes this, and for most of the lengthier quotes, I have included them in your handout. No church is infallible in their judgment absolutely in any case. And in many, their determinations may be so doubtful as to affect the conscience of him who is censured. But such a person is not only a member of that church, but by virtue thereof of the Catholic church also. It is necessary therefore that he should be heard and judged if he so desire it. David Dykstra comments on this quote, Owen denies any notion of the infallible eldership of a church or a church. There are times when whole elderships and churches can be wrong and an abused individual right. And he also points out that what Owen says, the decision to appeal to these other churches does not rest with the church's elders or even with the congregation. If an individual was injured by the proceedings of his elders, or perceives himself to be injured by the proceedings of his elders, his elders could not veto his approaching this other group. As Owen says, he can go and be heard if he so desires it. And that makes sense. If you have a completely hypothetical situation where elders are being accused of maybe abusive leadership, Well, if they're also the ones deciding whether or not you can appeal their abuse of leaders to someone else, well, of course they're gonna say no. Again, I gave examples earlier of a police officer being the judge, jury, and executioner, or corrupt organizations kind of evaluating and examining themselves. It's ridiculous. Owen says, if there is a mechanism for recourse, which there is, it must be the option and choice of the person injured, not those who maybe are accused of doing the injuring. Our particular Baptist forefather, Benjamin Keech, echoes Owen in his work, The Glory of a True Church. He asks whether someone unjustly dealt with by a local church has any relief. And he answers, we believe he hath relief, and also that there is no church infallible, but may err in some points of faith as well as discipline. And then Keech goes on to describe that this way of relief is through a meeting of churches who are associating together. So members of churches have the right to appeal to a group, to churches outside of their own local church. Third, members who have been wronged have the right and duty to defend themselves using all lawful means. Again, John Owen upholds the right of self-defense and self-vindication. Here's what he says. On the part of the person supposed to be injured, every man by the law of nature is obliged to undertake the just defense of his own innocency by all lawful ways and means. And as absolutely the way, means, and measure of his defense are left unto a man's own prudence, so there is a rule given unto it. wherever the glory of God or the good of his neighbor is concerned. If either of these suffer by his wrong, he is obliged to vindicate his own innocency, nor is at liberty to suffer false imputations to lie upon him. It is in such cases a man's sin not to do so. So Owen says that a man, for example, falsely censured by a church or injured in some way, not only has he the right to clear his name, but actually that he has the duty to clear his name. Owen goes so far as to say that to fail or to refuse to clear your own name could actually be sin. Why? Owen says because the glory of God is at stake. Sadly, it is often the case, if you've ever studied abuse in all of its different forms, It's very often the case that it's the person who has been abused by the powerful who is told to be silent. I'll phrase that better. The powerful party usually resorts to silencing the abused party and telling them that they need to suffer in silence. The victim of abuse is accused of disrupting peace and order. It happens with abused women in the home. where they are told to be silent and they are accused of breaking up the family if they speak up about the abuse. It happens with whistleblowers in the workplace. They're the black legs, the traitors, as it were. And sadly, and all too commonly, this is how victims of church abuse are treated. But as Owen points out, where church abuse goes on unchecked, the glory of God is at stake. What about churches who hear about cases of abuse and do nothing? Well, John Owen has hard words to say about them. He says, and for persons or churches not to give assistance in this case, according to truth and equity, is their sin. So even to witness abuse and to allow it to go unchecked, unaddressed, is sin, according to Owen. And again, it's a sad state of affairs when churches go along with abusive leaders. Isaac Chauncey even talks about how whole congregations might go along with the abuse of their leadership. And he notes how such a group might have the appearance of peace, the appearance of unity and order. But then he says this, it is true there may be a kind of peace and agreement in a church that is a stranger to gospel order, but this is not order, but disorder by consent. So churches and their leaders are never authorized to cover up abuse in the name of, quote unquote, peace and unity and disorder. As Chauncey says, to do so is not order, it's just disorder by consent. And what happens in churches where there is no hope of a council of appeal for injured parties? Well, John Cotton actually deals with this question in his book, The Keys of the Kingdom. He notes how sometimes whole elderships can be an error, and in such situations, trying to resolve it within the church itself will be impossible. He even notes how just the reality is that many people in the church will side with the majority elder position. But then he says, And so he says, that's why in such situations one must resolve it with this Council of Appeal. But then he says, where there is either no help or hope from such a council, members may withdraw from that church. And he even notes that pastors, because again, the book is called Keys of the Kingdom, he's talking about what authority pastors have and what authority people have. He even notes that pastors have the authority to leave a church like that, that will refuse a Council of Appeal, and he's actually free to take members with them, leaving that church to their error. So again, these are things that are addressed by our church fathers, by congregationalists. They've dealt with all of these things. Fourth, fourth implication. Associations promote accountability for leaders and churches through reports and disassociation. In paragraph 15, there's very careful balance between upholding the autonomy of the local church, but also holding that church accountable for their actions. On the one hand, the messengers who meet together are limited in what they can do. Their role is to consider, advise, consult. The messengers who meet have no power over local churches. Even if they meet and they determine that a local church is in error or their leadership is in error, the association can't impose that recommendation upon the church. That church must choose or not to choose to deal with things. so that the association doesn't have the power to readmit someone falsely excommunicated or something like that. The local church is still autonomous. But at this point, we might wonder, well, if all an association can do is meet together, discuss things, write a report, give recommendations, call to repentance, what good is that? Does a council have any teeth at all if this is the case? What's the point? Well, there are two ways the conclusions of these messengers do have teeth, to put it that way. The first is report writing. So after an investigation and discussion has taken place, the council will write a report of their findings and give their advice. This report is then made transparent. It's sent to all of the churches or individuals involved in the conflict. And this in itself can be a very powerful tool because if you are either a congregation or if you are a pastor in a church that is an associational church and you know that there is this ability for reports to be written, it keeps one in check from potential maybe an abuse of leadership. And certainly this is a powerful tool that exposes abusive leaders. David Dykstra says this, and he's drawing on the fact that Yeah, in 3 John, John's purpose is to come to the church and expose what Diotrephes is doing that apparently even the members don't even fully know the depths of his abuse. Dykstra says this, a Diotrephes in the church is like an abusive man in the home. The last thing such a man wants is someone knowing what is going on. Some people go to great lengths to conceal their actions. These are often the actions of people who fear disclosure. Of them, 3 John is applicable. A diatrophies in the church fears disclosure. Our forefathers recognized that the simple expedient of publishing their advice would be an effective preventative influence in guarding the churches from doctrinal error or administrative abuse. Abuse in any sphere thrives in secrecy. It lives in the shadows. It hates the light, but public reports shine a light on the actions of abusive individuals, which both deters and can also expose those who abuse the vulnerable. The second action an association can take is that of disassociation. So let's say that a local church is called to repent for holding false doctrine or abusive malpractice. And then the association meets and determines that this church needs to repent of that sin and that error. But if that church continues and says, well, we're just a local church, we get to determine things for ourselves. Well, after some length of time and after some length of appealing to that local church, the association can respond by removing its commendation of that church, and essentially disassociating with that church. So saying this church is no longer a church of Christ in good standing, we can no longer give this church our commendation, and so we can no longer walk with them in close fellowship, and they're removed from the association. There are, you might say, powers that an association and a council has, but an association can only take from a local church that which it gives. What an association gives when you join it is you received a good commendation and the association has the authority to remove that if a church is walking in error. So though associations cannot impose judgments, Their councils do carry weight through transparency and through relational accountability. Report writing exposes and disassociation removes unrepentant churches, safeguarding the vulnerable and upholding biblical justice. Fifth and finally, The last implication that I've drawn out of this paragraph is that we ought to associate with like-minded churches for mutual accountability. We know that conflict will arise. Christ has told us that we will have trouble in this life, but Christ has also not left us without recourse and without his wisdom. We know the mind of Christ, he has shown us through his word and we believe that our confession encapsulates what he has taught us and we believe that it is according to the mind of Christ that churches be mutually accountable to one another in this way. And therefore, it's important that we associate formally with other churches for their good and for our good. And the alternative is isolationism. and that's a dangerously unhealthy place to be. Again, John Owen warned against isolationism in the true nature of a gospel church. He said, no church, therefore, is so independent as that it can always and in all cases observe the duties it owes unto the Lord Christ and the church Catholic. by all those powers which it is able to act in itself distinctly without conjunction with others. And the church that confines its duty unto the acts of its own assemblies cuts itself off from the external communion of the church Catholic, nor will it be safe for any man to commit the conduct of his own soul to such a church. So what Owen is saying is that churches that operate as isolationist churches, essentially are cutting themselves off from the true church, the universal church of Christ, and that it's dangerous to commit your soul to such a church that is isolated in that way and unaccountable to other churches. A church that does not practice paragraph 14 or paragraph 15 is not a safe place to be a member, Owen says. Following this quote, Dave Dykstra comments, When people are evaluating churches, a legitimate question to ask is this, is this church accountable to other churches in its actions? If not, there is good reason to believe that it does not hold to the confession of faith and would be a legitimate reason to find a church home elsewhere. Any church that refuses to be accountable for their actions cuts themselves off from the church Catholic. These are strong words, but these are words that reflect our confession of faith and the practice of our Baptist fathers. And sadly, we can unfortunately think of examples of those kinds of churches. But for our church, or Trinity Reformed Baptist Church. We are a confessional church. We believe confession is a faithful summary reflection of many of the teachings of scripture. We believe that associationalism is a good thing. And so with the Lord's help and with the wisdom that Christ gives to his church, let us pursue association with other confessional churches as providence allows. Any last thoughts, questions, comments? Maybe more of a comment than a question, but going back to sections two and three, members of churches have the right to appeal to other churches and members have a right and duty to defend themselves. Keech talks further about in his work, you know, for any member of a church that goes to a sister church, That church, they have a duty to investigate the matter. They have a duty to get to the bottom of it. And there's an intent there that they're trying to restore that man or woman or family. right back into fellowship with their church. Their goal is to produce that, and if not, then they have the ability to offer membership to that person who has been sinned against. And that's both for the good of that church, for the good of that member, but Keech also talks about that's even a benefit or a defense for that church, that they're not submitting someone into membership because they're fleeing from an issue, is to make sure that that person, Keech often uses the word, is not an unruly or unorderly individual. So it's also for even the safeguard of admitting members into their fellowship. But the goal is to hopefully bring about restoration. But I mean, it is a duty that if that church is incumbent upon them, they must intervene. Yeah, that's very helpful. And Keech's work, it's very short. Really, it's worth everybody reading. And it's very, very helpful in laying those things out you know, all of the tricky church situations and, you know, maybe it's our first time approaching this issue or that issue, but that's the benefit of looking back. Our forefathers thought through these things. They worked out their theology, their ecclesiology, both in writing and in practice, and it's so helpful to be able to look to those things for guidance and wisdom. Austin? Yeah, I was just looking at 2 John and 3 John, he addresses Is he addressing himself specifically in his position as an elder of a church? Or as a just, yeah, is it more of official? Is it more of the kind of language he uses in 1 John? It's like talking about his little children versus an elder, kind of like that relational aspect. Yes, some apostles seem as were elders in churches. They were kind of church officers in specific local churches. You see that in the Jerusalem Council. It's been a while since I've preached through second and third John, so I don't remember off the top of my head. But John does like that kind of fatherly language, to use that to your point. It's not just convenient, but helpful if that's the case with third John because he's going directly to a church to address this issue. And is he doing that as an apostle, or is he doing that more as an elder? That's just helpful language, if that's the case. I have another question. So maybe this is coming up in other, or past Sunday School. And maybe I need to read this a little closer. So would you say, if there is no official document or draft of association Do you think they're not being accountable? No. Well, let me answer. Let me fill that out a little bit. I think it is ideal to have a formal association and to formalize that relationship. I think there are churches who maybe operate that way without maybe a formal document. And that is better than not being in an association at all. So does that kind of answer your question? Yeah, I'm just curious, and you might have addressed this earlier, but what's the earliest kind of drafted document you can think of that we see an actual association? Is that something within Keech, or is that even something in the early centuries with Augustine, even in the church itself? Well, I mean, in terms of Congregationalists, I mean, they started associating in the 1600s. And so I think the Abingdon Association was one of the first ones. Were you here for? Yeah. Yeah, for that. So I don't know the earliest. Off the top of my head, the earliest example, I think among the Baptists, it was the Abingdon Association. But I'm open to sound corrected on that. But did the ancient church, the church in Jerusalem and Antioch, did they have a written constitution? I mean, they might have. We don't know. But they certainly functioned in a formal kind of way. Yeah, you see that in scripture. It's just more or less they're fighting such earlier doctrine. You could say infant Christians in a lot of ways. They're trying to get their feet under them. So they have a lot of other heresies to address when, you could say, forming their own churches. But you do see that characteristic. Yeah. I mean, certainly when the council was held in Jerusalem, some churches were invited to that. Obviously, there was some kind of list that was drawn up. So they obviously had some way to determine who would come to that. Any other comments, questions, PJ? To those ignorant members or to whom? Of investigation, defense, of conjured participation in the situation, is there any comment there? Yeah, you know, and that's where the other thing I really appreciate about, you know, you read these fathers, it's not like they had these rigid rules, where this is what's done and it just has to be done this way and, you know, but they recognize the limitations of situations, the sinfulness of men's hearts. So again, kind of in terms of your question, my mind goes to Keys of the Kingdom and John Cotton, where he says, this is how you resolve these issues. You call for a council of appeal, you have churches come together, But he acknowledges situations where you have a whole eldership who are together in their error, and they refuse to be held accountable, and they won't allow for, they won't submit themselves to a council of churches to come. He recognizes that even the congregation are probably just gonna go along with him because they're gonna have the hearts of a lot of the congregation. I mean, it's just incredible how he addresses that. And so, in that situation, he recommends or allows permits one to withdraw. In the same way that we withdraw from an unrepentant member in terms of excommunication, well, kind of the reverse of that. One can withdraw from a church that is in error that way. But yeah, I mean, you could spend a lot of time working out specifics and everything, but it's a hard question. Are you referring to someone within the church a member who is hearing about another abuse member being, for example. Yes, and I think if there cannot be an appropriate source, then there's withdrawal. Yeah. It's inappropriate. From experiences that I've had with abuse, usually you will have, it does depend on the situation. But one of the, an example is, if it is your job to understand He has a member that's your responsibility to understand the situation the best you can, but at the same time, trusting your leadership as much as you can understand the scripture. So when people ask, should I vote yes, nay, or, which I ask how you used yay or nay at CHPC, yes or no, or abstention, usually they encourage you, it's either abstention or vote yes, in the sense of trusting your elder's decision Because that's who you voted in. But if you still are not sure, and you can't vote yes in trusting your elders, if you can't trust your elders, then I would say abstention in a general way. They're uncountable. Yeah, and they're uncountable as your teachers. Keith talks about the duties of church members, that if they become aware of a sin, that they are supposed to help to try and address that. Otherwise, to ignore a problem, that they themselves become guilty of that sin by extension. And in the same token, if they're aware of a sin, it's not uncommon upon them to go around gossiping and telling others, well now they're also committing a different sin. So there is an active role for members to confront sin. whether that's maybe a sin from an elder or a sin from another brother, sister in Christ, that there is a duty for the church to be active. And even just thinking, you know, as we thought through what is congregationalism, you know, and the rights and duties of members, that's why it's important that we, as members, vote upon members. That's why it's important that we vote on elders and deacons, and making sure that we're exercising due caution and concern, because ultimately, if you have Unbiblical members in the church, you have unholy members, or you have unqualified men who are put in positions of authority, that will create problems in the church. And that's not to say that if you can somehow vet everyone out, you won't have problems. That's not the case. But it certainly helps to defray the truth from being a reality. But at the end of the day, the Christ is given the authority to the congregation. And so the members of the church have that duty and authority from Christ to deal with matters of controversy within the church. Just to say as well in terms of our potential association, if we vote to be a founding member of that association, I spent some time with these brothers and this is a point that they brought up. This is one of the reasons why they want to be an association. They want to be accountable to other churches and for their church to be accountable to other churches. This is a healthy mindset to have. And many of us, maybe we've experienced in churches that is the complete opposite of this. But this is a healthy mindset to have. And one of the things that these pastors say every so often, and I say to you, my church, that there is recourse. It's not like every single issue that happens in a church rises to the level of calling for an association, but if there is a decision ultimately and someone feels that mistreated, that there is recourse. Even if that person is, we'll say, objectively in the wrong, they still have a right to recourse in that way, to be heard. So I hope this is an encouragement, this is for the good and prosperity and protection of the church, her members, her ministers. Well, let me close in prayer. Dear Lord, it troubles our hearts to think of conflict in the church, it troubles us to think of conflict among churches, and yet you warned us that this would happen. We even see this in the case of diatrophies. Philippi, and even the first church in Jerusalem. Lord, we thank you that you have not left your church without recourse, without a provision of a way towards reconciliation. You've not left your church without the Holy Spirit, or without her head, the Lord Jesus Christ. You have given her spiritual gifts, spiritual fruits, spiritual weapons, all to be wielded against sin and the things that would cause disunity. We pray for our local church, help us to maintain a spirit of unity and love, but never at the expense of truth and doctrine and right practice. So Lord, we thank you and we praise you in Jesus name. Amen.