Introduction:
I. Congregational Autonomy (Definition of Terms)
A. Congregation (Local Churches)
1. Local churches the only government (organization) God ever gave his people
a. Church “Universal” has no structure (cf. Matthew 16:18)
“And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.”1) Simply the “called out” of God; Christians; Relationship, not structure.
b. Church “Local”, an organization (Organized by God, consisting of various elements) (cf. Phil. 1:1)
“Paul and Timothy, bondservants of Jesus Christ, To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:”
2. When we speak of congregational autonomy, we mean the autonomy of the local church
B. Autonomy
1. Webster’s New World Dictionary (College Edition) “Self-government”
2. Etymology – “auto” (self); “nomos” (law) ~ Self law
“Nothing is more plainly taught in the Word of God with greater misunderstanding than the scope of activity of the local church. I especially make reference to the autonomy of the local church. If Christians fail to grasp this truth, then untold harm will result as they are swept into complete apostasy.
“Autonomy is defined: ‘The condition or quality of being autonomous. especially, the power or right of self-government’ (Funk & Wagnalls). When the word autonomy is used with reference to the church of our Lord, it should be understood that allusion is that each church has the divine right to govern itself.” (Robert L. McDonald, The Discerner, Local Church Autonomy, October 1991, Page 2).
Discussion:
I. The Biblical Concept of Autonomous Congregations
A. As mentioned above, the Bible is silent regarding any formal organization of the universal church
1. The concept of the universal church is the body of saved believers (Eph. 5:23-27)
“For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. {24} Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. {25} Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, {26} that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, {27} that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish.”
“The only officer in the universal church is Christ as the head of the church; the inspired writings of the apostles and prophets are the governing law of the body of Christ. This does not mean the universal church is in a state of disorganization and disarray, but it is organized directly under Christ without earthly offices, intermediaries or headquarters. There are no earthly officers in the universal church.
“The Scriptures give considerable discussion to the qualifications of the officers in the local church. There is no mention of an earthly office in the universal church and no list of qualifications for such an officer. Why would God so carefully direct the local church in its appointment of officers but say nothing about officers in the universal church? That does not make sense. The very silence of the Scriptures precludes universal church offices and officers.” (Mike Willis, Guardian of Truth, Church Autonomy, September 16, 1993, Page 2).
B. Again, the Bible is silent concerning any organization outside of the church which would oversee it, regulate it, or do its work
1. Christ is the “head” of the church. In Him resides all authority (Eph. 1:22-23)
And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, {23} which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.
2. It is axiomatic to state that if God created the church to do a work, he would sufficiently outfit it to that work. (Human councils and organizations are not needed). (Evangelism, Edification, Benevolence)
C. Positively, the Local churches are revealed to be independent from one another
1. This is illustrated in the rule of elders
a. Notice the following passages, which reveal the elders oversight is limited to the local congregation of which they are a part (1 Pet. 5:1; Acts 20:28)
“The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed:”
“Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.”
b. “The elders have authority to oversee the members, discipline, teaching, and funds of the local church and it only.” (Mike Willis, ibid.)
II. The independence of each local congregation is seen in the work God has given it to do
A. Each local church is to support the preaching of the gospel (Phi. 4:15-18; 2 Cor. 11:8; Acts 11:22)
(Philippians 4:15-18) Now you Philippians know also that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church shared with me concerning giving and receiving but you only. {16} For even in Thessalonica you sent aid once and again for my necessities. {17} Not that I seek the gift, but I seek the fruit that abounds to your account. {18} Indeed I have all and abound. I am full, having received from Epaphroditus the things sent from you, a sweet-smelling aroma, an acceptable sacrifice, well pleasing to God.
(2 Corinthians 11:8) I robbed other churches, taking wages from them to minister to you.
B. Each local church is to care for its own needy (when able) (Acts 2:44-45; Acts 6:3)
(Acts 2:44-45) Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, {45} and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need.
(Acts 6:3) (Twelve said) “Therefore, brethren, seek out from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business;
C. Each local church is to conduct its own finances (1 Cor. 16:1-2)
(Church in Corinth) Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given orders to the churches of Galatia, so you must do also: {2} On the first day of the week let each one of you lay something aside, storing up as he may prosper, that there be no collections when I come.
1. Note: The context of 1 Cor. 16 reveals the contribution was for the purpose of providing benevolence to another local church unable to provide for its own needy members
2. The funds were sent to the elders of that local congregation (cf. Acts 11:27-30)
a. Autonomy not violated
b. Giving church (Elders have oversight in decision to send funds) when done the work is complete
c. Receiving church (Elders have oversight in distribution of funds) that is their work.
d. As we shall see, THIS IS NOT PARALLEL TO SPONSORING CHURCH ARRANGEMENT in Evangelism!
D. Each local church is to select its own overseers, servants and messengers (Acts 14:23; Acts 6:3)
(Acts 14:23) So when they (Paul and Barnabas) had appointed elders in every church, and prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed.
(Acts 6:3) (Apostles said) “Therefore, brethren, seek out from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business;
“We conclude then, that the New Testament teaches that each local church does its own work under the oversight of its own elders, without any outside interference or control. This principle applies to every area of the local congregation’s work. It appears to me that we ought to respect the principle highly, since it is mandated by the Lord Himself.” (Dennis Abernathy, Gospel Truths, Congregational Autonomy, November 1991, Page 18).
Applications:
I. A Rejection of this principle led to the current Catholic Hierarchy
A. First, exaltation of one man above others in a local eldership (Bishop)
B. Next, councils of Bishops (with binding decisions), taken back to local churches
C. Finally, the coronation of a “universal father” (Pope) as head over entire Catholic denomination
D. Consider the resulting apostasy when central control is complete
1. If one man is “taken away”, all are affected
2. God’s safeguard (local church autonomy) no longer working
II. A Rejection of this principle led to current Protestant Denominational Governments
A. Synods, Councils, Conventions, Creeds
III. A Rejection of this principle led to division in the church (Modern times)
A. Missionary Society (Christian Church)
B. Orphan Homes & Colleges in the Budget (Institutionalism)
C. Sponsoring Church Arrangement (Institutionalism) (One Nation Under God as Example)
1. Gives work we are to do over to the oversight of elders in another congregation
2. Complicates the simplicity of God’s plan for Evangelism
IV. A DISTORTION of this principle (from the other direction) has some abusing the concept of autonomy to justify toleration of sinful practices and false doctrine.
“It is a sad day in spiritual Israel which has brought all too many brethren to the point of praising the wicked, justifying their acceptance, quelling their tongues from the mandatory rebuke of evil, and, instead, pronouncing condemnation upon those who do contend with the wicked as charged by God. The contender with wickedness is now labeled a “watchdog,” a “self-proclaimed guardian of orthodoxy” or a “Pharisee.” From pulpits to dining room tables, from Bible classes to college campuses, from “gospel papers” to preachers of repute, a growing cry is being heard for tolerance of “diversity” in doctrine and practice, even when sin is involved. It began its current momentum from brother Ed Harrell’s plea for continued acceptance of brother Homer Hailey despite his teaching and application of error on divorce and remarriage (Christianity Magazine, Nov. 88, pp. 6-9). It gained steam when none of the editors of that paper challenged brother Harrell’s error. The speed of the movement increased further when esteemed brethren stepped in to defend the concept that we should praise our “historical practice” of accepting those who teach some doctrinal errors and practice some sins. It has clearly gone beyond the sound (2 Tim. 2:13; 1 Tim. 6:3f) barrier as some have now begun to praise our doctrinal diversity as a proof of rightful congregational autonomy. (emp. mine SC)
“Brethren, it is past time that we realize there is no violation of congregational autonomy in preaching the truth! Conversely, we must see that the Bible recognizes no legitimate autonomy for a church to do that which it has no authority to do. A congregation of God’s people is protected against the assaults of the devil and his forces only to the degree that each individual Christian hears and heeds the whole counsel of God.” (Harry Osborne, Watchman Magazine, Protecting the Local Church, November 1997)
A. Harry Osborne, in the above article, supplied three formal arguments showing the right of all Christians to “defend God’s will as stated in His revealed truth.” (ibid.)
1. The Jerusalem Church, Acts 15
a. Elders in Jerusalem took part in sending a teaching (regarding circumcision) to other churches
b. They warned the brethren about false teachers (vs. 24)
c. They sent men with the written message, who would expound upon it orally (vs. 27)
d. In the written message, they declared the principles of truth (vs. 28-29)
“While it is true that the Spirit inspired the content of the message, that does not change the fact that these actions were taken. God does not use a wrong means to declare a right message. Everything about the context suggests that the action was approved.
“If those elders had taken it upon themselves to bind their decision on another church about who was to be allowed to preach for that other church, such a violation of autonomy would have been rebuked. However, providing teaching to brethren in other places does not violate their autonomy.” (ibid.)
2. The Case of Colosse, Colossians 2:1-8
a. He warned them of false teachers, even though he was not among them (vs. 1)
b. In doing so, he did not violate their autonomy
c. We are to imitate him (cf. 1 Cor. 12:28-29)(1 Corinthians 4:16-17) Therefore I urge you, imitate me. {17} For this reason I have sent Timothy to you, who is my beloved and faithful son in the Lord, who will remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach everywhere in every church.
3. John and the Churches of Asia, Revelation 2 & 3
a. John commended the church in Ephesus for not putting up with false teachers and evil men (2:2)
b. John reproved the church in Ephesus for leaving their first love (2:4-5)
c. John rebuked the church in Thyatira for tolerating a false teacher (2:20-23)
d. John condemned the church in Sardis as dead (3:1)
e. IN DOING SO, HE DID NOT VIOLATE THEIR AUTONOMY!
B. Don Partain took issue with Harry’s article. Notice the following quotes:
“Could it be, Harry–and the rest of the staff of “Watchman Magazine”–that you and I don’t really have a brotherhood overseeing role (and the power that attended that role)?
“I do believe that we have a certain responsibility to warn or admonish brethren even outside our local congregation. But I would not dare to presume to oversee the brotherhood in the way you seem to advocate in your article.” (Reader Response Page, Watchman Magazine)
1. This is key, Note that this is a false charge
a. Harry did not advocate “oversight” of the brotherhood
b. He was clear in advocating only the teaching of the gospel
c. Watchman Magazine does not advocate a “brotherhood overseeing role” either2. Most of the objections being heard today are STRAW MEN
a. Men will say (as Don above), “I do believe that we have a certain responsibility to warn or admonish brethren even outside our local congregation.” But when this is done, cries of “Foul” are heard everywhere, as claims are made that autonomy is being violated.
“There are no provisions for universal officers under Christ in the church on earth. Brethren need to guard themselves from thinking of anything or anybody as such. Editors of papers are not creed writers. Colleges and publishing houses are not dictators of doctrinal positions. I do not know of a college president or editor of a paper among us who believes otherwise.
“There is nothing wrong with a person teaching the word of God, whether he be a college president or an editor. The power of what he writes or says is only in the moral persuasion of the word of God. Hence, the authority resides not in the office he holds as college president, editor, preacher, etc., but in the God of heaven who wrote the Bible. Consequently, in reading after or listening to any speaker, we should give attention to what the Bible says, not who says it. Let us “search the Scriptures daily” to see if the things taught are so (Acts 17:11). This is our best safeguard against intrusions on the autonomy of churches.” (Mike Willis, ibid.. page 560)
3. These protestations are the common tactics of those who do not want their doctrines examined
“Effort to shift responsibility for division is the invariable rule of innovationists in the church. The innovators themselves never cause the division — it is always the opposition. It is an old story. The introducers of instrumental music never caused the division — it was the opposition to it!
“Thus also would the sponsors of the speculations now disturbing the peace of the church escape their just condemnation. But they shall not pass!
“Unopposed, no doctrine or ism, from sprinkling to speculation, would ever cause division. The cause is the teaching; opposition, the effect; division, the result. Acquiescence to error is neither the price nor the basis of Christian unity. The doctrinal purity of the church lies in the Defense of the truth.” (Foy E. Wallace, Jr., Gospel Advocate, The Widened Breach, March 1934, as reprinted on page 299 of The Present Truth).
V. The following quotes are intended to establish that this problem is present among God’s people
A. Steve Dewhirst, Sentry Magazine, 6/93, Church Autonomy
1. Note the judging of motives in paragraph 2
“We’re not generally contented to mind our own business. We want to know what everyone else is doing. We find it extremely difficult to allow someone else to walk by faith if his application of faith is different from ours. History bears out our shortcomings. Man has consistently clamored for uniformity rather than autonomy.
“And history also demonstrates that those who have clamored loudest for uniformity under the guise of scripturalness actually have had an ulterior motive of power. Our brethren have not been untouched in this lust for power, prestige and influence. Religious papers, and self-important preachers have meddled repeatedly in the affairs of autonomous congregations over the years. And in our day papers are often eager to tell us with whom we may or may not fellowship, and people are still listening. The fault not only lies with the brethren enamored of themselves, but with brethren who refuse to accept the burden of self-determination as an autonomous church family.”
B. Don Partain, Reader Response Page, Watchman Magazine
1. A misrepresentation, and failure to understand that we have the right to imitate the work of “watching”
“From what I understand, your magazine was named ‘Watchman Magazine’ based upon Ezekiel 3:17–‘Son of man, I have appointed you a watchman to the house of Israel.’ But it seems to me that you and your staff have taken more upon yourselves than the Lord ever intended–or authorized–by referring to yourselves as God’s appointed “watchmen to the house of Israel.
“Whether you realize it or not, what you are claiming by this designation is a prophet’s calling–thus, his commission, his ‘jurisdiction,’ his role, and his power to enforce that role. He was not merely an Israelite who had been studying the Word of God and was going about exhorting others to abide by the Word. Rather, he had been specially called and commissioned by God, he had been given jurisdiction over the whole nation of Israel, and he had been inspired and empowered by the Holy Spirit–not only to reveal God’s Word infallibly but also to enforce it with judgments.
“So, to call yourselves ‘watchmen of the house of Israel’ is to call yourselves ‘prophets of God’–having the call, role, etc. of a prophet. Is this really how you mean to convey yourselves? Is this really what you think your role is?”
C. Vance Trefethen, Sentry Magazine, “Watchdogs of the Lord”, 9/30/96, page 10
“Does history repeat itself? If the Pope in Rome sends a preacher from Castille to Provence to straighten out those churches doctrinally, does that bear any similarity to a paper in Kentucky encouraging a preacher from Texas going to California to straighten those churches out on a doctrinal matter?”
D. Kenny Chumbley, Sentry Magazine, The New Catholicism, 9/30/96, Page 10
“While the new Catholicism, like the old, parades under the banner of conservatism and loyalty for the old paths, it is neither. In truth, it is built on a small circle of men who hold an elitist view of themselves; who excuse or gloss over sins within their group that they vehemently condemn in others; who believe in a “brotherhood church” for which they are responsible; and who threaten with “Anathema” any who dare oppose them. Catholicism arose once, it can rise again. Embracing error to defend the truth was its original premise, but rendering evil for evil can never be an option for the Christian. In the kingdom of heaven, “extremism in the defence of liberty” is a vice. Those who love the Lord must oppose every departure from the truth – even when those departing claim such is necessary to guard the truth.”
E. Wallace Little, Mars-List Post, February 13, 1998
“There is no unity apart from diversity. The problem is not whether diversity exists in congregations. It does. The problem is to determine how much and of what kind can be permitted by a local congregation without destroying its fellowship and causing one or more to violate their conscience.
“You might also consider the absoluteness of congregational autonomy. Then if a difference exists in one church whereby a brother or sister believes they cannot continue worshipping there, the obvious answer is to find another congregation whose practices do not offend (cause to sin) their conscience.”
F. Jeff Smelser, Mars-List Post, February 1998
“…I am convinced that there are many who attend some of the churches listed in GOT whose “we” is defined outwardly. Their “we” is not coextensive with the body of Christ. Their mindset is sectarian. Those who believe the Church of Christ is in terrible shape today are high on this list. They are assuming they know who is in the Church of Christ independent of the word of God, so much so that they are willing to suppose that many are in it who are responsible for its being in terrible shape. But the Lord’s church is holy and without blemish (Eph. 5:27). So when someone’s “we” is a church that is not holy and without blemish, he is a part of a “we” that is man-made. Call it a denomination or whatever, but it’s not the Lord’s body. The Lord knoweth them that are his (2 Tim. 2:19).”
G. The next two quotes indicate a peculiar mindset. That is that autonomy, and not truth is the basis of staying free from denominationalism
1. Wallace Little, Mars-List Post, February 1998
” There has been far too much (actually, any is “too much”) interference in the affairs of one church by those not holding membership therein. In the name of doctrinal purity, these have tried to impose their will on others. In my book, that is a gross violation of the absoluteness of congregational autonomy, and is a big step along the road to denominationalism.”
2. Steve Bobbitt, Mars-List Post, February 1998
“To the extent that a congregation maintains its independence and autonomy, that church is aloof from denominationalism. Likewise, to the extent it functions as one member in a team of churches and accepts authority outside its own fellowship, that church is moving toward denominationalism.”
a. Note, I have no problem with this quote, if understood properly. However, it must be noted that it is possible to be autonomous, and yet denominational by leaving the truth, and thereby establishing man-made creeds.
H. Wallace Little, Mars-List Post, February 1998
“Mark it: This continued effort to demand conformity will result in another denomination among the hundreds already here, and do so by further splitting the brotherhood already rift by some insisting on their belief being the defining factors of faithfulness. Mark it also that the one who defines faithfulness, thus those worthy of fellowship, is the one who controls fellowship. Where I worship, that ONE is Christ, NOT brethren. If /when this changes, I will find another place to worship where Christ is the Savior. We are saved through grace through faith, and NOT by law. True, we must obey law to access grace, but we err greatly when we slip from that to elevating law as our savior. At that point, our attitude toward law is our downfall.”
I. Bob Owen, Sermon on Fellowship, Temple Terrace, FL, 9/2/93
“But one of the things that alarms me, is what may be a disposition for us to become more concerned about the universal concept of brotherhood, than we are the local congregational arrangement of fellowshipping. And although I go hither, thither and yon, at opportunity and preach the gospel, and try to preach the same things everywhere, and although I fully believe that the law of God is the same for all of us everywhere, God has not organized us into the brotherhood. He organized us in local congregations. And I think we should be wary of those who would try to spend their time and effort directing the brotherhood as opposed to simply preaching and teaching truth.”
J. Bob Owen, Q&A Period following Sermon: We Differ – Can We Fellowship, Concord, NC, 2/19/95
“But Homer Hailey is not a deceitful worker, going around with personal desire to be disruptive and to make gain of the brethren. Homer Hailey is not some hypocritical blasphemer, who rails at the dignity of God. And those are the descriptions of the false teacher in 2 Pet. 2. I differ with brother Hailey on some issues on divorce and remarriage. And frankly, he could fellowship some people, some divorced people, that I couldn’t fellowship. I’m an old time conservative on the divorce and remarriage issue. But a bunch of brethren have come along and they list me as a false teacher because I do not agree with them that I can’t have any relationship with brother Hailey. Since we differ on the divorce question, they say, if I have fellowship with him, then I’m a false teacher on fellowship. And I’ve got to be marked and some are doing that publicly. I regret that but I’m not going to lose a lot of sleep over it. I’m gonna do what my conscience says oughta be done, what I believe the Bible teaches and let the Lord take care of the rest of it. Is the divorce thing a matter of…is it an issue? Sure it is. How should it be decided? Let me tell you how it ought to be decided. Every local congregation is going to take each individual case and pass its own judgment what would be the impact in this congregation if we accept that couple. If it’s going to be harmful to the group, then that group, they ought not accept them. But I can’t sit in Tampa, FL and write the prescription for all the situations that might come up on divorce and remarriage for all the churches in the country. And nobody else can, by the way. Some are trying to do it, but they can’t do it.” (emp. mine SC)
Conclusion:
I. Local Church Autonomy must be understood to avoid error
A. We must not be guilty of violating autonomy, and establishing denominational structures
B. We must not “hide behind” autonomy, to justify a departure from the truth of God’s word
C. Final Quotes:
“Let us avoid violations of church autonomy. There is no eldership which has authority over anything larger than a local church. No outside individual has the right to intrude into the affairs of a local church to make decisions for that church. However, there is no sin committed in preaching the truth to anyone, whether or not he is a member of the same local church as I am. Church autonomy is not a concept to hide behind to escape open investigation of any Bible subject or principle, or the necessity of giving Bible authority for the actions and decisions made in a local church!” (Mike Willis, Guardian of Truth, Church Autonomy, September 16, 1993, Page 561)
“We must allow each local church to make their own decisions as they consider facts and information in given situations. It is hoped, of course, that they make every effort to base their decision upon the Word of God and not upon hearsay, rumors, and the dictates of individuals. This does not mean one can not protest and warn against false doctrines or that one must bid Godspeed to error or encourage people in sin (Acts 20:31; 2 John 9,10; Prov. 17:15). But the principle of congregational autonomy does mean that the elders of one church have no right to interject themselves into the affairs of local churches other than to preach truth and warn against error.” (Dennis Abernathy, Gospel Truths, Congregational Autonomy, November 1991, Page 18).
