May 08, 2007
The Church Covenant
I have been doubtful about the necessity of a church covenant for a number of years now. This is due mainly to the fact that many of the church covenants I had seen contained legalistic requirements and, more importantly, the members of the churches that had these covenants did not keep them. The covenant, I thought, made liars out of them. Over the years, I have been changing my mind. The following is a letter I recently distributed to our congregation about a church covenant.
Our church people may be interested to read these articles by Dr. Kevin Bauder.
Of Church Organization, Part One
Of Church Organization, Part Two
Of Church Organization, Part Three
Letter to Members and Friends of MSBC
Dear Member and Friend of Morning Star Baptist Church:
For several years now the leadership at MSBC has debated and discussed the merits and demerits of having a church covenant. We deliberately did not include a church covenant in with the recently adopted church constitution because of the fact that we were unprepared to have a covenant.
One of the reasons that I personally did not like church covenants is that, besides the fact that they are not biblically required, the ones I had seen seemed to intrude on the Christian liberty of believers (i.e. “do not play cards,” etc.) However, I have grown to see that the absence of a church covenant does open the door for a less disciplined commitment to the core truths and values that our constitution declares to be our beliefs. The constitution says what we believe, but the covenant declares how we agree to live.
This covenant should not intrude into the privacy of Christian decision in matters of peripheral importance, but a common commitment to live a particular way as members of this body not only makes sense, but is the long-held tradition of faithful churches throughout the centuries. These promises have to do with the keeping of commands in Scripture and commonly-held principles of conduct (i.e. prayer for each other, commitment to evangelism, commitment to giving, faithfulness in attendance, and a commitment to unity.)
I have included for your prayerful study an article by Pastor Matthew Schmucker from Capitol Hill Baptist Church where Mark Dever is currently the Pastor-Teacher. Please read this article and the attached covenant from Capitol Hill Baptist Church.
Finally, leading pastors around the nation have strongly recommended a covenant that addresses a commitment to heterosexual marriage and sexual monogamy in order to protect ourselves from the increasing persecution of homosexual activists who are insinuating themselves into churches who have not adequately documented their expectations of members. This is an effort to stem off potential legal action against the church for disciplining homosexual sin should, God forbid, that ever be necessary. Therefore, it seems expedient that we, as members of MSBC, agree on some fundamental principles of Christian church life and godliness to ensure to the best of our ability a unified front.
Please be in prayer with us as we draw up a covenant that will be acceptable to the brethren.
In the Beloved One,
Bob Bixby
This entry was posted in the following categories: Church Ministry
I really like the Capital Hill Baptist church covenant. A SharperIron member from CHBC shared this a while back on the Dr. Bauder posts.
My 2nd church did not have a church covenant. Of course (because of tradition, I suppose), I thought we had to have one. This idea did not go over well and we did not have covenant. I would have thought that the church would have been less holy or less committed, but in this particular church situation it was not the case.
I’m of the view that a church covenant is not essential. Sadly for many churches, it is a dusty, obsolete document.
Sorry about the text being underlined. Did not show this way in the preview.
Posted by: Jim Peet at May 8, 2007 11:21 AMCorrected it.
Posted by: Bob at May 8, 2007 11:33 AMYour comment: “a covenant that addresses a commitment to heterosexual marriage and sexual monogamy in order to protect ourselves from the increasing persecution of homosexual activists who are insinuating themselves into churches who have not adequately documented their expectations of members”
My suggestion: use the church constitution / doctrinal statement for this instead
Posted by: Jim Peet at May 8, 2007 04:07 PMThat action has been considered. However, we do not require everyone to believe every detail of our constitution in order to be a member. This is because a new convert, for example, my be a true believer, but may not understand the nuances of our eschatology. They must agree to the fact that we teach what is described in our constitution.
However, if we were to discipline a homosexual from our congregation on the basis that our constitution described our position against it, he might argue that he is being discriminated against because we allow differing views of eschatology even though the leadership has adopted a particular position.
Maybe that is a weak argument. Go ahead and poke holes in that reasoning. I’d embrace the challenges. There might be a better way.
Posted by: bob at May 8, 2007 04:15 PMI belong to a church where everyone who is brought into membership stands before the congregation and affirms each part of the covenant as the pastor reads it. Although I don’t believe it is wrong to have a covenant, and the reasons you give for having one seem sound, I find that when the rubber hits the road and there is some sort of disagreement between member and church/pastor, the covenant gets tossed and the member leaves. It’s not that I think it’s ever wrong to leave a church, but it seems to me if the member has essentially made a covenant with God and the church, like a husband and wife do in a marriage ceremony, then to leave when there are disagreements that are not essential to the integrity of the faith (as in marriage adultery would be), then when a member leaves for lesser reasons, he is a covenant breaker. But the church has forced him, in a sense, to be a covenant breaker, by requiring him to affirm a covenant to join.
Posted by: Austen at May 9, 2007 10:33 AMAusten,
You bring up a valid point. But I wonder about the covenant as a binding obligation to stay in said church. I don’t look at church membership as a marriage. I am in the minority on that one, but I am not sure that I buy into the concept that a person cannot leave a church unless he has solid doctrinal/moral reasons to justify it. I’m working through my thoughts on that one.
However, one might be able to say, “if you are going to be a member here, keep this. If at any time you decide you can’t live with it, feel free to move on.”
Posted by: bob bixby at May 9, 2007 10:47 AM
