The Origination and Contamination of the Church Letter – Acts 18:24-27

Baptist churches have, for about 2,000 years, made use of the “church letter.”

I have two little books here: “A Baptist Church Manual” by J. M. Pendleton,

And “The New Directory for Baptist Churches” by Edward Hiscox.

Pendleton was an important Southern Baptist who ministered in the middle of the 1800s.

Hiscox, pastored in New England and published his book in 1894.

Both of these little volumes spend time discussing the use of church letters.

As I say, the use of church letters has been around for a long time.

As I was studying this scripture, I noticed that a couple of commentaries suggested that this was the FIRST example of one of those church letters.

That depends on your definition and point of view.

I’d prefer to correct that to read: this is the first example of a church “letter of recommendation.”

Baptists have been writing church letters for a long time – since the very days of the New Testament.

Some of those letters have been for the purpose of recommending members between churches.

And there have been letters recommending ministers.

There have been letters for the simple purpose of fellowship between churches.

And there have been letters written for instruction and exhortation.

Wasn’t the actual FIRST Biblical example of a church letter all about DOCTRINE?

Turn to Acts 15 once again – 15:22-29:

“Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:

And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:

Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:

It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas & Paul, men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.

For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;

That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.”

As we learned in Acts 16, Paul was the mailman;

He delivered the Jerusalem letter to the churches of Galatia and Phrygia.

Now, I believe very strongly in the autonomy of each of God’s churches.

I believe that no church has any authority over any of the other churches of the Lord Jesus Christ.

I don’t believe that God ever ordained bishops to oversee, or lord over, local pastors.

I don’t believe that the episcopal form of church government of the Methodists, Anglicans and Catholics is Biblical or godly.

I don’t believe that the presbyterian form of government is of God either.

And the church in Jerusalem, as important as it was, had no authority over the churches in Antioch, Lystra or Iconium.

But that didn’t mean that there was no fellowship between, and no concern about, the welfare or the doctrines, of those various churches scattered around the Mediterranean.

The letter that Pastor James of Jerusalem wrote, was nothing more than his theological opinion,

but it was a serious recommendation which needed to be seriously considered by the Gentile churches.

And if the churches of Galatia had decided not to listen to, or practice, what he recommended,

James’ ONLY recourse would have been to sever fellowship with those churches;

Which I’m sure that he would have led his church to do.

You might be thinking that this was an isolated example of a doctrinal letter, but it isn’t.

That letter was not much unlike the letters of Paul, or Peter.

The only difference was that the epistles of Paul and Peter, were not CHURCH letters per se.

They were special in that they came from the pens of Apostles, and they were inspired by the Spirit.

They were “scripture.”

And “all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.”

Here is something for you to think about, and worthy of a little friendly debate:

The letter of Acts 15, although contained IN the inspired word of God,

probably wasn’t directly inspired by the Holy Spirit in the same way that the Book of Romans was.

It was written by a wise and godly man, but was not on a par with Romans, Hebrews or Revelation.

I’ll let you mull that over for a while.

But what about the Book of James, the one that follows the Book of Hebrews?

Was that a church letter, or was it like any of the epistles of Paul – an apostolic letter?

Again, you might be thinking that letter of Acts 15 was an isolated example of a doctrinal letter, but it wasn’t.

As late as the early 19^th century, and probably prior and for some time since then,

pastors, with the authority and approval of their churches,

wrote cyclical letters on various doctrinal and practical themes

and sent them to churches with which they had fellowship.

For example, in the “Complete Works of Andrew Fuller” are some letters which he wrote and sent to churches across England, with the approval and encouragement of the pastors of those churche.

And when it was not Fuller’s turn to write the letter, he referred to the letters written by some of the other men with whom he fellowshipped.

Apparently, most of the time, the subject of those letters had been previously determined.

They were read before the congregation, like mini-sermons, and then forwarded to other churches.

Again, the subject matter in those letters was only for consideration and edification.

No pastor considered it his right to tell another church, and another pastor what he should believe or do.

But those letters were sent with the prayer that the other congregations would be strengthened by the subject addressed.

So in Biblical history and in Baptist church history we see church letters sent for instruction and exhortation.

Would it be beneficial to see this sort of thing practiced again?

Why should the pastor go to a Bible conference and be blessed by the preaching and instruction of others, and the members of his church not be blessed.

Wouldn’t it be helpful if every few months, some of the more wise and venerable pastors wrote lengthy articles on specific subjects and submitted them to neighouring churches for their edification?

Probably it wouldn’t be any better received than the tapes that he brings home from those Bible conferences that he attends.

We also see references in the Bible to letters of SIMPLE FELLOWSHIP.

On several occasions in his epistles Paul made reference to communications that he had received from churches where he had ministered earlier.

Those letters and their carriers often expressed the prayers of those churches for their former missionary.

Sometimes they even included financial support.

Their primary purpose was little more than fellowship and communion.

Although, it’s not the same thing; or perhaps it is same thing in reverse;

The letters that we receive from our missionaries are much like this.

They should be designed to inform us and to keep us posted on problems and victories that the missionaries are experiencing.

They do little more than maintain fellowship with us as give us things about which to pray.

When a missionary is unwilling to stay in touch with us then I end up with little encouragement or desire to support his ministry.

I think that this is a very, very good practice,

and it’s one that I try to maintain in a very limited way.

Almost every Monday morning, I send a short note to our missionary Bro. Parrow, with a brief description of the past week, and a report on the Sunday’s services.

Therefore, most of the time he knows whether or not you have been in church and whether or not you were really sick.

I keep him posted on weather, visitors, and local events about which I think that he might have interest.

Although you never see them, as your pastor, they are a kind of church letter to our missionary.

And I send a second note, similar to the first one, to Austin Fulton, along with copies of the messages that I have preached that week.

All that I am trying to do is stay in touch with a couple of the Lord’s isolated servants.

I’m trying to encourage them, and to let them know that there are people here praying for them.

It’s a feeble effort to keep them from discouragement.

Then in addition to these, every three or four weeks, without any regular rhythm to them, I send an edited version of that week’s little note to a dozen or so friends that we have, as a church, around the country.

You could say that these are my little church prayer letters.

You have people around the world who know your names and who, I hope, pray for you at least for a short time after they get my little e-mail letter.

There are such things as doctrinal church letters and there are fellowship church letters.

There are also church letters of PERSONAL RECOMMENDATION.

No one today knows all the circumstances surrounding Paul’s epistle to the Romans.

But as we saw a few weeks ago, we do know that it was apparently transmitted from Corinth to Rome by a woman named Phebe.

And it appears to me that this sister was relocating from Cenchrea to Rome for some reason or other.

In addition to the doctrinal matters which the book discusses, it contains a recommendation of Phebe.

Romans 16 begins:

“I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea:

That ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you: for she hath been a succourer of many, and of myself also.”

Unlike the Lord’s Supper, BAPTISM is not an ordinance which is supposed to be repeated.

After a person’s salvation he needs to testify to the world that he has new life in Christ, and he needs to illustrate that new life through his immersion in water.

Coupled to his baptism, that new believer should become a member of the church which baptized him.

But what if he or she moves to a new city, as Phebe was doing in going to Rome?

Should she be baptized again?

It should not be necessary, if she had been a member in good standing in Cenchrea.

And a letter of recommendation from that church should be all that is necessary for her reception and membership in the new church.

Paul, as an Apostle and as the missionary or pastor of the church, wrote that recommendation as a representative of the church.

And when Phebe reached Rome, based upon the recommendation of her church, she should have been welcomed into the church at Rome without having to prove her salvation or to be baptized again.

What if a person is not able to provide a letter of recommendation in some fashion?

Then upon their profession of faith that new church may, or may not, accept that person into their membership.

But it should not be a problem if that church required him to be baptized again.

There should be a willingness in his heart to do whatever was necessary to testify of his life in Christ and his desire to serve the Lord in this new church.

But getting back to the use of church letters of recommendation,

Here is an area where modern churches have diverged from the practice that we see in the scriptures.

Of course, 2,000 years ago there was no such thing as an international postal agreement.

There weren’t post offices and planes and trains to carry mail to specific addresses around the world.

In fact, there probably weren’t specific addresses.

So to make this system work, when people like Phebe moved from one city to another,

it was almost essential that they CARRY their church letter WITH them.

And they were present when it was read before the church, whether it embarrassed them or not.

That is one of the things that Hiscox says in his “Directory for Baptist Churches:”

The applicant for membership should be present and hear the letter as it is publicly read.

But today, people move, apply for membership in a new church, and then that church writes back to that person’s old church and asks for a “letter.”

Then, in an almost ludicrous fashion, that first church usually sends a preprinted post card,

which says absolutely nothing of a personal nature about their former member.

There is nothing in that card which can be called a recommendation.

And they call this postcard “church letter,”

But it’s nothing more than formal reply card.

I personally think that this system is a travesty, a waste of time, and foreign to the scriptures.

If a person is worthy of a letter of recommendation, then recommend them.

If that person has been less than a good member,

then either tell that next church, or don’t send anything at all.

Should we apply my mother’s old adage: “If you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all”?

I acknowledge the doctrinal significance this “church letter,” despite my disagreement with the method.

Part of this exchange includes the acknowledgment that the candidate for church membership has received scriptural baptism.

This postcard is an indication that the first church considers itself as having authority to baptize, and that the applicant has received scriptural baptism.

I’m not suggesting that this isn’t important,

but I think that the letter of recommendations that we see in the Bible contain much more,

and what we see in modern practice contains much less.

The letter that was sent to Corinth about Apollos was partially a personal recommendation like this,

But this was primarily a recommendation of his MINISTRY.

Paul had been led of the Lord to start a church in Corinth.

And then he had felt led of the Lord to return to Jerusalem and to his home church.

And Aquilla had also felt led of the Lord to move from Corinth to Ephesus.

There he and his wife had met this young evangelist from Alexandria.

Apollos now felt led of the Lord to move to Corinth.

It may have been his intention to go into the synagogue to preach Christ, just the way that Paul had done.

But Corinth was not like Ephesus or Athens or so many other cities at that time:

there was an established church in the city.

It would have been impossible, and perhaps unethical, to preach Christ in the synagogue without some sort of fellowship with the Christian church there.

But Apollos was unknown to any of the members there.

A letter of recommendation as an evangelist or minister was important to both Apollos and the church; otherwise it would have taken months for the church to examine the character and doctrines of this young man.

Letters of ministerial recommendation are Biblical and practical.

But this might have also been a bit more.

“And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him.”

It is difficult to tell whether or not the man had been scripturally baptized, and if he was currently a member of one of the Lord’s churches.

We will get to the subject of John’s baptism next week,

But I believe that Johns’ baptism was Christian baptism.

Yet when verse 25 says that Apollos knew only the baptism of John,

I am left with the impression that something was lacking in this man’s ecclesiology.

Was it just a matter of instruction, or was it deeper than that?

When Aquilla and the brethren wrote recommending Apollos to the church in Corinth, it was not only a recommendation of his ministry, but also a recommendation that they “receive him.”

It appears to me to be a recommendation to receive him as a member of the church, and that may, or may not have necessitated his baptism.

Whether that was the case or not, this letter was a recommendation of Apollos’ ministry.

It opened the door to his work in the Corinthian church as well as the Corinthian synagogue.

So we have Biblical examples of doctrinal letters, personal letters, letters recommending membership, and letters recommending ministers and ministries.

And if these things are found in the Bible then, we ought to find them being practiced by God’s churches today.