Jaimee van Gemerden has a PhD in theology from the University of Otago. Her research interests include Baptist history and ecclesiology. Currently living in the UK, her home church is Cityside Baptist Church in Auckland. Ken Keyte is Senior Pastor at Cambridge Baptist Church and has more than two decades of pastoral leadership experience in New Zealand Baptist churches.
There has been a lot of discussion in the NZ Baptist movement over recent years about the need for greater safeguarding and more thorough responses to harm or abuse happening in Baptist churches. As a few examples, we have had long discussions leading up to and at the National Hui about the new Serious Misconduct process, and the National Council has heard recommendations from the Response Group in light of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care.
One idea that kept arising in discussions I was part of was that a barrier to greater accountability for local churches was how Baptist churches are autonomous. In Aotearoa, this idea of autonomy has been interpreted to mean that the local church is, in practice, independent and entirely capable within itself. For issues of safeguarding, this belief in autonomy has meant that local churches sometimes expect to be able to deal with complaints of harm or abuse internally, without accountability to wider Baptist relationships.
Yet, when I looked at a range of writing on Baptist ecclesiology—theologians reflecting on the unique way Baptists gather—nowhere did I find a clear statement about local church autonomy. Instead, Baptist literature suggests a different ordering of authority. From their origins, Baptists have certainly dissented against a type of centralised denominational authority that would seek to impose structures on local churches. But at the same time, Baptists have always recognised the need to gather together into associations in order to best determine the mind of Christ. The local church is certainly seen as sufficient, yet if we believe that Christ is the ultimate authority in our churches, then it is self-evident that we would want to gather with other believers to understand how Christ’s authority is impressed upon them.
The primary reason for this sort of associational behaviour should be understood to be when the needs of the local church surpass that church’s abilities. We gather into associations to support one another and to strengthen our understanding of Christ’s call, especially when faced with challenging circumstances. With great respect to local church leaders, and as a former elder/church council member myself, it is important that we recognise that the nature of abuse in church settings is always such that wider church support is needed to provide accountability for church responses. Issues of harm and abuse will always extend beyond the abilities of the local church to manage and require the support that Baptist associations can provide. Far from autonomous, Baptist churches depend on one another, through covenantal relationships in associations, to ensure we hear the call of Christ and that we best respond to challenging circumstances.
If this short reflection has raised questions for you, I hope you will read the longer article that this work draws from:
van Gemerden, J. (2026). Centralising Covenant in Baptist Calls for Accountability. Baptist Quarterly, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/0005576X.2026.2643085
In this article, I engage with leading Baptist thinkers to clarify why Baptists rely on associational relationships and to highlight the significance of these relationships when it comes to issues of protecting the most vulnerable in our communities. I’ve also included below some questions you might reflect on with your leadership teams and wider communities:
1. How do you understand the direct rule of Christ in your community? Do you see value in others contributing to how you sense Christ’s calling?
2. What could covenantal relationships look like for our Baptist associations and Union?
3. How does an idea of covenant empower the Baptist movement to best support those harmed in Baptist churches?
--------------------------------------------------------
Review: Centralising covenant in Baptist calls for accountability, Baptist Quarterly, March 2026, 1-14, by Jaimee van Gemerden
Ken Keyte
This paper raises the concern that our Baptist ecclesiology of the autonomous local church, is an inadequate safeguard by itself for dealing with issues of sexual abuse. Rather than rejecting this Baptist distinctive, Jaimee van Gemerden turns to another Baptist distinctive, that of covenanting, as a more effective safeguard against sexual abusers that is attained through the stronger accountability between associating Baptist churches.
I read this paper while preparing to welcome a couple into church membership. Our membership ceremony involves the congregation and the new members saying our church’s founding covenant together:
Having mutual confidence in each other as believers in the Lord Jesus, we agree to unite together as a Baptist Church ... We promise by the help of the Lord to watch, in love, over one another, seeking each other’s good, bearing with each other’s weaknesses, and by every means in our power endeavouring to promote the glory of our common Saviour, and the salvation of precious souls.
Right from the start in 1881, Cambridge Baptist Church members have practiced covenanting together. Our covenant to unite together as a Baptist church affirms our autonomy as a Baptist church and our promise to watch in love over one another affirms our accountability to each other. However, van Gemerden challenges whether such an autonomous membership covenant provides an adequate safeguard from sexual abuse, particularly from that of the pastor.
Acknowledging the tension that exists between the Baptist distinctives of autonomy and association she proposes that ‘Baptist associating occurs on the basis of covenanting and with the goal of supporting one another in walking together.’ She argues that ‘there are types of discernment that are most appropriately shared by the collective body of local churches because of the global impact of the issues being considered.’ ‘A covenantal understanding of Baptist relationships means that instances of abuse in local communities are not solely local problems. Instead, the whole body is implicated in the harm caused and it is not an imposition on local church sufficiency for there to be accountability held by the wider association.’
I also read this paper while in the process of a fit for purpose review of our church’s constitution as advised by the Baptist Union to meet the NZ Charities Commission regulations. At a minimum we will need to add the new Serious Misconduct clause requiring the church to recognise our responsibilities and obligations to report and comply with the Baptist Union’s role in managing a serious misconduct process for Baptist pastors who are named on the Official List maintained by the Union. We will be adding this clause because of the motion that was passed at the 2024 Baptist Hui. Prior to reading this paper, I had viewed the addition of the Serious Misconduct clause as an administrative necessity. However, I now understand the addition of this clause as a form of covenanting at an association level because of the wider impact that a pastor who has committed serious misconduct could have if called to another Baptist church who were unaware of his or her misconduct.
Jaimee van Gemerden’s article has helped me join the dots between three important Baptist ecclesial distinctives: church autonomy, covenanting, and associating. For matters that affect other associating churches (such as sexual abuse), covenanting between Baptist churches (as occurs at NZ Baptist Hui) offers the safeguard of stronger accountability than that of relying solely upon the membership’s accountability to an autonomous Baptist church.
Access the article online
van Gemerden, J. (2026). Centralising Covenant in Baptist Calls for Accountability. Baptist Quarterly, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/0005576X.2026.2643085
Photo credit: Stone wall by Liz West, CC on Flickr.com
