We have chosen to review a little history that sheds light on the nature and development of the Baptist Bible Fellowship International. When the Fellowship was nearing its tenth year, growth, expansion and questions brought leaders to the conclusion that the original constitution was inadequate. In the annual meeting in
September 1959 in Detroit, these matters were discussed. It was decided that the president and directors should study the matter, invite suggestions, make recommendations and report their work at the next meeting in September 1960.
Denominational-type control was rejected
In the 1960 meeting at Grace Baptist Church of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, a new constitution for the BBFI was adopted that continued the organization as a fellowship of autonomous churches, pastors, evangelists and missionaries, not an ecclesiastical organization with centralized authority and control over local churches and ministers. It provided for
affiliation to any Baptist church or pastor (in 1975, it was revised slightly, limiting affiliation to pastors) believing in and adhering to the Word of God and fellowshipping on the basis of the Articles of Faith. Further, qualifications for officers determined that they shall be a minister of a church supporting Fellowship endeavors, believing and
practicing the Articles of Faith. The vote for the new constitution was unanimous.
Local church sovereignty was the key issue
The discussion of this matter took an entire day of the Oklahoma meeting. In reporting this event, Tribune Editor Noel Smith said the point of agreement was the recognition of the sovereignty of the local congregation with a determination not to surrender or transfer any of that sovereignty to an ecclesiastical organization. Smith cited two other key
elements. First was the belief that pastors would always have adequate means to choose the right officers for the Fellowship. Second, he said, "the decisive factor was everybody who was there will tell you was the hand of God. It was self-evident His hand was decisive, nobody felt that 'we won' and nobody felt that 'we lost.'"
The details are in Art Wilson's address
On this page is Wilson's address to the 1960 Fellowship meeting. It is slightly edited in length. The insights, wisdom and leadership it contains will be helpful to all who are separatist Baptists and have interest in the continuing work of the BBFI.
The Decision To Remain A Fellowship
by Dr. Art Wilson
An address by the president to the annual fall meeting of the Baptist Bible Fellowship, in Grace Baptist Church, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
My message is a resumé of the work your officers have done regarding the constitution and by-laws of our Fellowship.
The need for a new constitution and by-laws
First: I want to speak of the need of a new and strengthened instrument of guidance and government. To say that this Fellowship, after the phenomenal growth God has given in 10 years, doesn't need an instrument to fit its work today is, in my estimation, like saying your 10-year-old children should wear the same size clothes that they wore in the
cradle or that your church of 500 should meet in the same building you had for the first 200.
The nine directors (pastors James Combs, G. Thornton Hall, Harold Henninger, George Ziemer, Howard Ingram, Fred Neidy, Bernie Rodgers, Frank Wood and Charlie Hunter) have each entered wholeheartedly into the work which shall be presented. It might amaze you, but never once on any paragraph of the new proposed instrument was
there any final disagreement. There were mountains, but honest prayer brought the right answer. These also brought and maintained the sweetness of fellowship.
Growth has forced reevaluation
Second: To us it is obvious and clear that a million dollar concern with widespread interests must be guided, directed and controlled by governing principles somewhat different than that which they used when but a small local store. In the same manner, the growth of this Fellowship with its far-flung interests and its hopes and prayers for still
more fronts, both at home and abroad, make it very clear that a new strengthened instrument is a necessity.
The definition of a constitution and by-laws
Third: We believe it to be most clear also, that a thorough understanding of the meaning of a constitution and by-laws, makes the same not only needed but most desired.
A constitution simply means "a clarification in words of that organic tie which is the substance of a given organization; that which constitutes an order." To that end we need a constitution for this Fellowship. It is to be that which clarifies in words the tie or the substances (in our case, the purpose and intent)
of that which makes us a Fellowship-type of organization.
Now, the term by-laws simply means "laws to go by; the laws or rules by which every branch of an organization functions; every officer goes by it, and every act of all branches and officers is governed by them." It is in reality a trailer to the constitution.
Assuming that these generalities are most commonly believed by most of you, until you have in your hand the copies of both the old and the newly proposed instruments, I shall by-pass the explaining of the details thereof and more immediately go on to the phase of the newly proposed instrument about which the greater
apprehensions have prevailed and probably still do prevail.
The dividing points from the previous meeting
Through those present in Detroit, it was obviously clear that the strongest contenders for adoption there were those strongly advocating the inclusion that no one could be nominated for the office of the presidency or vice-presidency of this Fellowship who practices the receiving of alien baptism in his church. Personally I would have voted for
that. It was equally obvious that many who wanted the action deferred for a year were against such a plank. There was, of course, the third thought that others of either conviction who did not know about the proposals by virtue of their absence, ought to have the right to be first notified of the matter.
A great problem and a great motive
Frankly, this was one of the committee's seemingly insurmountable problems. It is admitted that the longest hours of our deliberations were spent on this phase. No one was interested primarily in trying to develop this matter in a way that would please some pastor friend or some geographical group of pastors, but all were prayerfully concerned, that
in this dreadful hour of world history we would not come up with something which would, upon presentation here, divide our forces, split our larger interests and defeat the very cause for which we believe God raised up the Fellowship. Obviously our task was larger than the combined human brain power of the entire committee. Nevertheless, in our pause to ask
God for wisdom, we feel He imparted it to us. I want to explain the way He did it.
Suggestions were solicited
You are all aware that since the Detroit meeting, there have been no national Fellowships, but the Tribune made announcements and public announcements were made requesting any pastor or group of pastors to make suggestions for the director's consideration. There was a time and place set where they were to be turned in or discussed.
This has been faithfully fulfilled. Suggestions came from about every geographical section of the nation. These were greatly desired by the committee and proved most valuable. It was felt one of the chief values that that procedure had (and remember it was not the committee's choice of procedure but a directive to them by last
year's Fellowship vote) was that if everyone was given a whole 12 months to say what he thought, it would save time and unnecessary remarks at such a meeting as this. Thus, everyone has had a free and equal opportunity and should have spoken on the matter if he so desired. There will be discussion today but it will be with a time limit.
All the suggestions drove us to seek the Lord for His help
What I really want to stress on this "suggestion subject" is that they work two ways. Let me illustrate. Imagine yourself a member of the Constitution and By-laws Committee. Scores of pastors send or hand you their decisions which they believe and desire to have incorporated into the new instrument - that of the phrase already mentioned of alien
baptism.
Then another committee member is told or handed suggestions by others who say "We want something in the constitution against the Baptist Bride teaching" because, they say, "most of our pastors don't believe it."
Now a third member of the committee has been told, "All right, if you are going to deal with two matters, we think most of our fellows are not in favor of straight wine for communion and the constitution should so state, that any man preaching such may not be so honored."
In comes Committeeman No. 4. He has in his hands, or has just been told, that a segment of pastors from his locale thinks the new by-laws should bar any pastor serving in any Fellowship office if he is a lodge member.
Here comes Bro. So So, Committeeman No. 5. He has just been pressed by several pastors to try to see to it that the new instrument will declare unmistakably that no divorced, remarried man can be a part of our Fellowship of pastors for, they declared, such a pastor is unscriptural.
In walks Committeeman No. 6. He relates the story of a petition he has received with several pastors' names signed to it which says that since our state Fellowships are part of our national Fellowship, the new by-laws should contain a paragraph making mixed swimming at any BBF youth camp positively prohibited.
Remember, you are imagining yourself as a director. There are nine such men. So that means there are still three to come in with other suggestions. But we won't draw the story out any further. Does it seem to you that your responsibility would be a simple one? Would you not also be compelled in such circumstances to admit your
aggregate inability to cope with all this and thus be driven to God requesting His wisdom? I'm certain you can see the point!
What the committee agreed to do
As you can readily see without naming the many others, we were faced with six major factors of which, as a committee we knew there existed much disagreement. Shall we attempt to reconcile them? Shall we ignore them or shall we insert what some certain segment of preachers say to the ignoring of others? Shall we state all six and be the means of
dividing our camp into six groups who would be at each other's throats?
These were weighty questions. In an all-out approach in the face of these potential separating wedges, the consensus of opinion was to first make a research of the purpose of our existence, the substance of our existence and then tune the strings of this instrument of guidance and government as closely into harmony with those
discoveries as possible.
Our research uncovered the purpose for our existence
We found our major purposes to be three in number:
1. To carry on unitedly a world missionary program for the purpose of reaching for Christ and training as many souls as is possible - hence our missions department.
2. To operate a training institution for prospective missionaries, pastors, and other Christian workers for the purpose of more perfectly equipping them in their God-called endeavor - hence our college department.
3. To participate in fellowship meetings always and primarily for the express purposes of enhancing and advancing these two espoused causes and secondarily for edifying and strengthening of each other through the preaching of the Word at such fellowship meetings.
What we discovered was not our purpose
The research to this point clearly indicated that the BBF is not an organization existing for the purpose of giving birth to new independent Baptist churches which, as a result of their being so mothered, would in every detail of belief and practice, be in complete conformity each to the other. To the extreme contrary, the original intent and
purpose was that Baptist churches already born, premillenial and evangelistic and missionary in characteristics, should themselves rather formulate and build upon those three Divine characteristics as the undergirding pillars thereof, a fellowship-type organization through which each such church could give a stronger, concerted expression toward world
missions, toward the training of prospective Christian workers, and toward meetings of this nature designed to enhance and promote those two magnanimous purposes.
A common value brought us to these conclusions
We were driven to this by the strength and power of one word which we each prize so dearly. That word is "autonomous" or "autonomy." "Autonomy" means "self-rule" or "self-governing."
Inasmuch as every Fellowship church I know anything about loves its autonomy and inasmuch as the directors are likewise cognizant of this fact, you will find as a sort of conclusion to the proposed constitution and by-laws this paragraph:
"No article in this constitution or by-laws shall ever be interpreted in such a way as to infringe upon or jeopardize the absolute sovereignty of any and all local churches in fellowship with this organization, nor shall the property rights, the local missionary and practical policies, or the autonomy of any self-governing
Fellowship church ever be endangered in any way by this constitution and by-laws or by the Fellowship as a whole."
As a committee, working against the backdrop of that which constitutes our Fellowship organizationally on the one hand, and the fact of the autonomy of the local church on the other hand, the committee's decision - and mind you, it was not a split one - was, we believe, made in accord with organization, intent and in accord
with the generally accepted meaning of the word "autonomy."
The decision was unanimous
It was at this point where our decision was unanimously reached. We, as a fellowship - type organization, existing and consisting as we do, cannot at one and the same time prescribe and demand each doctrine and practice of every affiliating church and yet lay claims to individual church autonomy. Such would be a travesty on stable mindedness and
honest character.
Since therefore a constitution and by-laws is the instrument the Fellowship shall go by and since none of us would vote for any kind of an infringement upon our church's autonomy, in our judgment, that means that aside from the evangelistic message of the eternal grace of God, the common acceptance of and desire to fulfill the
Great Commission in mission work and the recognition of a center in which to train prospective workers for the Lord's harvest field, we can, as a Fellowship, vote nothing as a local church teaching and practice into a set of by-laws and remain respectfully consistent while so doing.
This was not a compromise decision
Note carefully, however, that this is not a confession to compromise issues but rather a recognition of the sovereignty of the local church. For the teaching and practices of such local church the Scriptures make it plain that such is the responsibility of the shepherd of the flock, the pastor himself, who must give an account for that church's
belief and practices and not another. To keep us from entangling ourselves with inconsistency, the committee therefore, after these long months of prayer, thought, analysis, and deliberation does not recommend the inclusion of any of the matters mentioned earlier into the proposed instrument.
What the committee claimed for itself
No claim is laid, of course, to infallibility by this committee but claim is made for consistency. Further, this committee whole-heartedly believes that the entire instrument should be adopted in a final form altogether harmonious with practice and policies of the Fellowship for the purpose of clarity and consistency.
We must safeguard local church autonomy and sovereignty
Finally, there has been no effort made to overly please this or that segment of preachers, but rather that the best interest - both now and later - of this Fellowship has been uppermost in the committee's mind. To have dealt otherwise would have put us in the position of setting this segment of preachers against that, in a most divisive manner which neither
the directors themselves nor the entire Fellowship has either constitutional or biblical right to do. To ever attain such rights a complete reorganization would have to be accomplished. All churches would have to vote in proper meetings ascribing the authority to settle doctrinal issues to the Fellowship. While this type of organization could be properly
constituted and therefore become a proper religious organization from man's standpoint, it could never, in the fullest and clearest sense, be scriptural - because no New Testament church can possibly remain as such when it gives away its autonomy and sovereignty. These, we feel, must ever be safeguarded.
Source: The Baptist Preacher, Jan-Feb, 1997
Main Pages
Missions
