Church Autonomy
by Steve Dewhirst
via Sentry Magazine, Vol. 19 No. 2, June 1993
The word autonomy is not a Bible term, but it is certainly a Bible principle. It means independent or self-governing. Universally, the church is under the headship of Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2:22-23); we are His body and must take directions according to His testament. But locally, each church is to be overseen by elders who shepherd us in the paths of righteousness (I Peter 5:1-4). Two points are vital: elders only have authority over the flock in which they’ve been appointed (Acts 20: 28), and they must rule properly "as those who must give account" (Hebrews 13:17). Herein lies the principle of autonomy. Elders can only make decisions affecting the local assembly.... period. Any arrangement allowing the elders of one local church to oversee the affairs of another is unscriptural.
This concept is pretty fundamental, yet religious men have always struggled against it. We’re not generally content 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 has sometimes gone to extremes to attain it. Witness the Inquisition, for example. All Catholic churches and individuals were to conform to the official norm... or else. And history also demonstrates that those who have clamored loudest for uniformity - under the guise of "scripturalness" - have actually had an ulterior motive: power. He who sets the standard and forces conformity rules his peers.
Our brethren have not been untouched in this lust for power, prestige, and influence. Religious papers and self-important preachers have repeatedly meddled in the affairs of autonomous congregations. In the last century, the promotion of instrumental music and the missionary society was pushed more by papers than anyone else... and people listened. In the early days of the institutional controversy, papers like the Gospel Advocate practically ordered churches to fire preachers who opposed them... and people listened. As if a paper has the right to order anyone, let alone a local church! And in our day, papers are often eager to tell us with whom we may or may not have fellowship...and people are still listening. The fault not only lies with brethren enamored of themselves, but with brethren who refuse to accept the burden of self-determination as an autonomous church family.
Autonomy and Controversy
Because the very definition of autonomy is self-governing or independent, each local church must deal with controversy in its own way. There can be no "brotherhood norm" to which we yield, else we give up autonomy in favor of sectarianism. We are only obligated to the "norm" of Scripture. If our response to controversial issues is to simply imitate other churches, we are not walking by faith. Neither is it "conviction" to blindly follow the teaching of an influential preacher or paper, independent of our own study. It is undoubtedly easier to conform to a group than to study for ourselves, but discipleship demands an honest appraisal of the scriptures and appropriate action based thereon.
Controversy must be addressed squarely. Truth is not served by avoiding tough questions. Brethren in a local church should be willing and able to speak freely with one another, even when embracing opposing views. Brethren should be able to study together, recognizing a "thus saith the Lord" as the ultimate standard of right and wrong. It is then the responsibility of the local church, under the leadership of qualified elders, to reach decisions regarding its collective practice. Of course, not all questions have a bearing on the collective activity of a local body; many matters are privately held and observed with no effect whatever on anyone else. But when a controversy compels a church to re-examine its corporate behavior, brethren have to make a decision. And that decision must be based on a solid conviction, grounded in an objective examination of scripture. This principle places a great burden on us. It demands that we develop and exercise a faith of our own...even if brethren in other congregations don’t like it.
We have never seen a shortage of controversial questions. Our brethren have wrestled with instrumental music, the missionary society, premillennialism, the sponsoring church arrangement, church-sponsored recreation, the covering, the war question, the number of cups in the Lord’s supper, the Bible class question, the gift of the Holy Spirit, marriage and divorce, and even the Deity of Jesus while in the flesh. There’s no end. And these controversies are not altogether bad. They demonstrate that we’re still studying independently and endeavoring to walk by faith rather than blindly following a predetermined sectarian creed. And yet the very controversies that can help churches assert autonomy can contain a trap, as some brethren insist on exploiting controversy to demand "brotherhood" uniformity. Frankly, some brethren don’t trust others to make good decisions.
A point of clarification is in order here. It’s perfectly scriptural for a man to publish a paper, such as Sentry Magazine, to advocate his beliefs. There’s nothing wrong with controversial questions being discussed in papers and among brethren, either publicly or privately. There’s nothing wrong with Christians reading publications as a help in private study. But there’s definitely something wrong when brethren fail to recognize the rightful limit of their own influence.
No individual has the right to meddle in the affairs of an autonomous congregation. Period. When men begin phoning local church members attempting to gain information about a third party, or in an effort to sway a congregational decision in which they have no lawful involvement, it’s plain sinful. When calls come from "concerned brethren" across the country about which preacher should or should not be hired, or who should conduct a gospel meeting, such brethren have jumped from propriety to politics. And sadly, many churches have yielded to such intimidation, either trying to "avoid trouble" or to avoid being labeled "unsound" by self-appointed doctrinal arbiters. But who’s really to blame?
Surely, brethren who cannot discern between themselves and inspired apostles will give account to the Lord. But so will weak-kneed brethren in local churches who allow themselves to be corralled like mindless cattle! "Watch, stand fast in the faith, be brave, be strong" (I Corinthians 16:13). It’s time for saints to act like men and assume the God-given responsibility of acquiring a faith based on a personal study of God’s word. Then we need to find the courage to walk by faith, even if we discover we are walking alone. We need the good sense to accept wise counsel, whatever the source, and to reject the arrogance of men who seek power through coerced conformity.
Autonomy and Expedients
Within the realm of what is authorized by Scripture lies the principle of expediency. It simply states that once an endeavor is deemed right and proper, brethren are at liberty to find an expedient (appropriate, convenient, or practical) way to carry out the work. Of course, many practices have been "justified" as expedients, which were actually violations of biblical authority. The "ends" cannot justify improper "means." A legitimate expedient must not violate any other biblical principle in its execution, and it must not change the nature of the authorized work. For example, an expedient way to discharge the biblical directive to sing is to use songbooks and have someone lead the congregation. However, introducing a piano in worship is not a valid expedient because it changes the very nature of the music from vocal to instrumental.
But when it comes to the use of bona fide expedients, local autonomous churches have considerable liberty. For instance, while songbooks and song leaders are certainly valid expedients, they aren’t the only valid ones. A church could just as scripturally project the words and music onto a blank wall, and God could be worshipped faithfully. A local church must make its own decisions on how to carry out its authorized responsibilities.
Matters of expediency are matters of congregational judgment, and so long as no principle of authority is violated, one church’s judgment is just as correct as another’s. Yet we often find ourselves uncomfortable when surrounded by the unfamiliar. And some brethren are quick to suspect the "soundness" of others, based on differences in congregational comportment, even though the good brethren may be exercising every authorized act of worship in a manner completely acceptable to God. This is style over substance, form over faith, and it’s rank Pharisaism.
To be sure, most traditionally practiced expedients are fine. They have become "traditions" because brethren have found these practices practical and efficient methods of doing the Lord’s work. Traditions are not sinful, in and of themselves. It’s only when brethren come to think that all churches are obligated to do all things in an identical manner that sin crouches at the door. Qualified elders in each local church must shepherd their flock according to the dictates of their circumstances, and not according to a "brotherhood" standard.
With all good intentions, brethren in the past have suggested some horrible ideas. Someone once proposed that all churches of Christ nationwide adopt the same exact service time and follow the same Bible class material for the benefit of travelers. Another man urged that, to avoid controversy, all churches of Christ cease publishing bulletins and have everyone receive one particular gospel paper.
The problem should be obvious on two counts. First, the suggestions are sectarian to the core. It assumes that all churches should conform to a generally accepted standard. Whose standard? What wise, benevolent brother will decide the time and material to be used by churches everywhere? Do you get the point? Whoever makes the decision assumes the role of Jesus Christ. Isn’t Christ to be Head of the church universal? The man who presumes to make rulings for churches universally is playing God. And second, such a plan completely ignores the God-given arrangement of qualified elders shepherding flocks on a local level. It is a blatant usurpation of power.
We should rejoice in our autonomy. God forbid we use our liberty as a license for licentiousness, but thank God we’re not bound by the legalistic restraints of human creeds. We’re free to be justified by God through faith, rather than being justified by men based on blind conformity. We’re free to walk by faith. And each local church is to be free to carry out the Lord’s work in whatever manner is expedient.
