According to Baptist historians, one of the earliest errors to creep into the early churches was the larger churches and their pastors assuming they could exercise authority over smaller and younger churches.

Of this error J. M. Carroll writes,

John T. Christian also mentions this error. He wrote,

J. B. Moody deplored this race for the exercise of authority over other churches in these words,

Francis Wayland wrote,

As indicated by Carroll and Christian, this trend eventually led to the hierarchical system of what evolved into the Roman Catholic Church with its tiered priests, bishops, cardinals and pope that is rightly deplored by most Baptists. To one degree or another, her Protestant daughters have retained this system.

This exercise of authority by one church and pastor over other churches and pastors was totally rejected by true churches of the Lord Jesus Christ. Most Baptists were true to the doctrine of equality of the churches of the Lord Jesus Christ until the formation of the various conventions and some associations. In the SBC the equality of churches was denied. Thus they have a system whereby each church is entitled to a minimum number of delegates. But, a church gains the right to more delegates as it grows in its membership and in its contributions to the Cooperative program. Thus, a small church may have three delegates while the larger church down the road might have ten delegates. This allows the larger churches to have more say in the business of the Convention which is tantamount to lording it over the smaller churches.

Historically, other Baptists, including associations, have rejected this inequality fostered by the convention system. For instance, in the American Baptist Association, each church is entitled to three messengers regardless of its financial support of associational activities. No difference is made based on membership. Church A may have 1,000 members and give a hundred thousand dollars to the various associational endeavors and is entitled to three messengers when the annual messenger body convenes. Church B may have ten members and give nothing to the associational activities and is entitled to three messengers when the messengers meet.

All my life as a Christian I have been a Baptist. I have never, until recently, read after any Baptist who advocated the authority of one true Baptist church over another. Nearly every independent Baptist I know has been a strong contender for the equality of churches. Recently I have read something that should be the sounding of an alarm to those who hold to the independence and autonomy of every local, visible Baptist assembly.

While I object to the terminology of "mother church" and "daughter church" because it is extra-biblical, my real objection is to the implications some draw from the terminology. Some time ago, I warned that the idea of Mother-Daughter churches could lead to churches exercising authority over other churches. Some thought that idea foolish and ridiculous. In some circles I have been severely criticized for my objection and warning. But, I personally know of two cases in which this occurred. (Since this was written and published another atrocious example of "motherly authority" has come to my attention. Read about it in the August issue of the GP&P.

Twenty-five years or so ago, in a southern state, there was a young ABA church which was having some difficulties. The pastor of an older church about 20 miles away heard of their difficulties and heard that they were having a special business meeting on a Wednesday night to try to settle the matter. The pastor of this much older church showed up and announced he had come to moderate their business meeting and help them solve their problems. The young church and pastor sent him packing, and rightfully so.

Another happened in another state. An independent Baptist church was having problems and had a meeting to try to solve it. The church had been organized for a number of years but the pastor of the "mother" church showed up and when asked by what authority he was there replied that his church was their "mother" and this gave him authority to be there to assist them. If I remember correctly, he was sent packing also.

I am not suggesting that every person or church that espouses the "mother church", "daughter church", and "grand-daughter" church terminology believes in the "mother church" having authority over the "daughter church". Most who endorse and use this terminology would protest this exercise of authority of one church over another as strongly as I or any other would.

As indicated, recently I have read an article that advocates the Mother Church-Daughter Church idea. But, unlike most who espouse this idea, this article advocates the authority of a mother church over the churches formed out of her. In fact, it even claims to demonstrate that the "Mother" church, the church at Jerusalem, exercised authority over the church at Antioch. Even more astounding, the article, while affirming that Antioch sent out Paul and Barnabas as missionaries, further claims that the church at Jerusalem exercised authority over the churches formed under the ministry of Paul and Barnabas as missionaries from Antioch, not Jerusalem. This amounts to Jerusalem exercising authority over the so-called "daughters" of Antioch who, if one espouses this scheme of "Mother-Daughter" Churches, were actually "granddaughters" of the Jerusalem congregation. But, that is not all. The article asserted that Jerusalem had authority over all churches descending from her, even if started by churches other than Jerusalem. The article said,

Does a man from another country and church attending an associational meeting in the U. S. A. form a legitimate link? Some think I am a heretic because I do not believe a vote is essential in the organization of each and every church and that Scriptural Baptism and ordained ministers of the gospel can compose informal links between churches. But, there are churches that claim chain-link succession back to Jerusalem merely on the basis of a minister from Hilcliffe church attending a meeting of the Philadelphia association. Folks, that is a weaker link than I have proposed must exist. In fact, it is no link at all.

I believe the article I recently read gave me the key to the puzzle. Why does God permit the continued existence of the Roman Harlot? Why has he permitted all those early true churches to die, even though he has promised and maintained the perpetual existence of his churches? If Jerusalem were still alive today, and if she did have authority over all the churches descending from her, according to this article, she would have authority over all other true churches on earth. If she had authority over Antioch, and over those formed under the leadership of the missionaries sent forth from Antioch, why not all churches in the world today? After all, in one manner or another, every true church in the world today has descended from the Jerusalem church and would, according to the article, be under the authority of Jerusalem. And, her pastor, if he were inclined to believe older churches could exercise authority over younger and smaller churches, would, among Baptists, be almost an equivalent to the Catholic pope. We would have a Baptist hierarchical system older than that of the Roman Catholic Church.

After coming to this conclusion recently (two or three weeks ago, now), I was surprised later, while doing other research for another purpose, to find this statement concerning Shubal Stearns and the Sandy Creek Church. Cathcart wrote,

In the kind providence of our all-wise God, his churches have been perpetuated through the forming of new churches but have been protected from the hierarchical system that would have developed if churches such as Jerusalem and Antioch had been kept alive and active all this time. Had God, in his wise providence, not allowed the church in Jerusalem to apostatize or die out there would doubtless be those who would pay homage to her much as the Roman Catholics do the Vatican today. With the love that some Baptist preachers have for preeminence, there would end up a Baptist hierarchical system and some preachers would be competing with one another to become pastor of the Jerusalem church, making him Supreme Pastor of all Baptist churches. 3 John 9 I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not.

Do you think it is unbelievable that an independent, Sovereign Grace Baptist preacher would advocate the authority of churches over other churches? Consider this bold statement from the afore mentioned article called Mother Churches and Daughter Churches.

Some who object to the idea of "Mother Churches" and "Daughter Churches" admit that the gender of a Church is feminine. They would have us view the Churches as all sisters. Sisters are equals. Neither has authority over another, they tell us. I will grant that sisters are equal and that sister Churches have no authority over another sister Church! But I intend to demonstrate from the Scriptures that there were Churches in the apostolic age which DID HAVE authority over other Churches! (Underlining mine, RWC). And in so demonstrating this authority one over another, I will demonstrate that some of these Churches were viewed, not as sisters and equals but as "mothers" and as having authority over the younger Churches! I submit that if I can demonstrate this authority of one Church over another, I can demonstrate the concept of "Mother Churches and Daughter Churches"!

The article further said,

I propose to ask two questions and answer them from the clear and evident practice of the apostles and the Churches of their day. 1. Was it the practice of any Church of the apostolic age to send preachers to preach and administer the ordinances in any other Church? If so, this will demonstrate that one Church had authority over another and that the "Mother Church-Daughter Church" concept was known and practiced. 2. Was it the practice of any Church of the apostolic age to give direct instructions to be obeyed by any other Church? If so, this will further demonstrate that one Church had authority over another. The "Mother Church- Daughter Church" concept will be demonstrated in this way also.

To his credit, the author did point out that the apostles did not start "missions." This editor has pleaded for the biblical basis for starting "missions" for 25 or more years but no one has ever provided one instance of an apostle, church, or missionary of New Testament times ever starting a mission. On this the author of the article wrote,

Let me submit also, as an aside, that I think we should be careful to observe that the apostles did not purpose to start "missions." Their purpose was to start Churches! They did indeed start "Churches." I believe there is a great evil done when we start a "mission" and in spite of spiritual, numeric and financial growth, continue to retain such "missions" as "missions" when they could be organized into "Sister Churches." I am not quibbling about words or terms. I am trying to be concerned about Scriptural concepts and practices!

There is still another problem. I believe the author of the article claims to be a strictly local church believer. Yet, he has two assemblies here—one meeting in Jerusalem and the other meeting in Samaria—all of whom are members in Jerusalem. This is certainly something other than a local church. Is a church truly local if it has members who regularly, and purposely assemble in two different cities? Is a church truly local if it has members who regularly and purposely congregate in two different countries?

In Hebrews we are admonished be faithful in attendance at the assembling of the church of which we are members. Hebrews 10:25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching. This verse does not refer to occasionally missing church but to totally absenting one's self from the assembling of the church. According to Strong, the word translated forsaking, as used here, means "totally abandoned, utterly forsaken." I wonder if any can show any Biblical evidence that the members of the church in Jerusalem who were assembling in Samaria (according to the article they were members in Jerusalem) had ever assembled, or ever did assemble with the church in Jerusalem. Were they members of a church with which they had never assembled? Had they not done worse than totally abandoning and utterly forsaking the assembling? They had never assembled with them the first time as far as any biblical record is concerned. In the effort to prove the authority of Jerusalem over this body of Scripturally baptized believers in Samaria which he himself declares is a church, it would seem the brother has painted himself into a corner on some of his assertions and assumptions.

Another question comes to mind. I believe the Bible teaches that we are to support the church with our tithes and offerings. I am sure the writer would agree. If the folks in Samaria were members in Jerusalem, would they not be supposed to support the church in Jerusalem? If they held dual membership, were they supposed to split their tithes and offerings between the two bodies? I ask again in closing, "If there truly existed a 'Daughter Church' in Samaria, but, the folks baptized by Philip were members in Jerusalem, who were the members of the church in Samaria?

Next time we will look at the problem of diminishing authority.