# Connectionalism - what is it.



## Pergamum (Jul 26, 2008)

I have now heard the word "connectionalalism" twice in two week on the PB.

What is it?


I googled it and found a few southern baptist articles about it (one were Paige Patterson rejects it).


Please enlighten me.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 27, 2008)

I think it is a word some of us might use to describe churches that are not merely in a loose confederation or convention, but consider ourselves to be organically whole.

Our little church is a unit, a self-governing, self-existing whole. But we belong to a group of these churches. And considered as a body "in-connection" we are also one church, the regional church. We have a single governing body called Presbytery in our circles, the decisions of that body are binding on its membership. It exists as an independent, self-governing whole. But we also belong to a group of these churches. And considered as a body "in connection" we are also one church, the OPC. We have a governing body called General Assembly in our circles, the decisions of that body are binding on the membership. It exists as an independent, self-governing whole.

The opposite of connectionalism is independency.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 27, 2008)

So a baptist that believed in connectionalism would be like a square circle?

Many calvinistic baptists stress the local church and minimize the universal church.

In the evangelical world can it be said that there is a spirit of connectionalism in the various mission societies and parachurch orgs? They see each church as a self-governing unit but they see all beleivers as the body of Christ globally?


What are the implicationsof connectionalism for missions?


----------



## mybigGod (Jul 27, 2008)

Wow, i always thought that the connection was only about special circumstances. Where the trouble or the problems with doctrine would involve a mediator. 

Or on a fellowship basis, and in the use of means at special times. 

And then personal liberty in private matters.

Isnt there a danger of over emphasizing mans involvement?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 27, 2008)

Perg,
I don't know many baptists who adhere to a truly connectional ecclesiology. As I read the history, the "independence of the local church" has been of paramount importance. Baptists in England saw themselves as a form of Congregationalism, and were asserting their identity and prerogatives against a centralizing CoE and impositions of organization.

Some Baptist denominations are more "denominational" than others. There is no "THE" Southern Baptist Church, but many "A" Southern Baptist Church, because the idea of a "church" stops at the door of a local gathering, and only takes form again in heaven, where the invisible becomes visible.

I don't think "connectionalism" really fits the sort of fellowship you are describing. Perhaps one can create new terms for certain cooperative arrangements: like "association"? You might have a board of representatives that is "advisory" at best, generally existing to facilitate cooperation.

The notion of connectionalism seems to me to include the idea of authority and government. The various bodies you describe are what they are because they aren't connectional. Appealing to the mystical connection (union) we all have to Christ as the head of all Christians, leaving each organization and body as a discrete governing entity hasn't changed anything from that which we already understood. If you call it "connectionalism", then a word with one older meaning has been appropriated to now describe the opposite thing from that for which it was coined.

Regarding implications, maybe you could reformulate the question.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jul 27, 2008)

> Connectionalism is the theological understanding and foundation of Methodist polity. The United Methodist Church website defines it as the principle that:
> 
> 
> 
> > “... all leaders and congregations are connected in a network of loyalties and commitments that support, yet supercede, local concerns.”



from wiki

I can see why a Baptist would reject it.


----------



## mybigGod (Jul 27, 2008)

I guess in my experience there is weakness in all of mans governing. 
The understanding to me as to what the scripture says is that the leaders of a particular church get the message from God , coupled with their understanding of the whole counsel, and that is authoritative. 
On the other hand there is a tendency to try to preach someone else s sermon.

Then its not really a collective decision even in the church of every matter brought before the collective leadership. Cause all of the personal commands toward unity apply personally to the Pastor as well. 
We need to lean on the Holy Spirit.

I think most people can tell if someone is genuinely trying to befriend a person, or if there are other people in the private conversations. In the local church setting ,I ve always thought that biblical leadership is not just taught but its also presented in developing relationships as well. And then its according to the social gifts of the person.
There may be something that is weakening the ministry by all of these tight connections organizationally. Its much different than the old way of sending a missionary out to the jungle in which it required much more faith.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 27, 2008)

How does connectionalism affect thinking regarding cooperative efforts at world evangelism, mission boards, parachurches, etc? Is that clearer?


----------

