autonomy – La Vista Church of Christ

The Alternative to Autonomy

Jeffrey Hamilton — Mon, 04 May 2026 17:23:49 +0000

by Steve Dewhirst
via Sentry Magazine, Vol. 21 No. 1, March 1995

Considering our brotherhood’s abundance of controversies, teamed with an all-too-common sectarian mindset, it’s not surprising that some are beginning to show their true colors. Historically, brethren have revered the sacred axiom of church autonomy in principle, if not in actual practice. We have taught the theory of autonomy for a long time and loudly, but have often felt uncomfortable about allowing churches to make difficult decisions for themselves, especially when we disagree.

Lately, we have begun to hear the "uncertain sound" of preachers questioning the validity of the autonomy principle in certain cases. It is as if some issues are just too big for an independent congregation to resolve on its own. This is reminiscent of a fundamental, but often unnoticed, error in the early days of the Restoration Movement.

In his famous Millennial Harbinger, Alexander Campbell published a series of articles on Church Cooperation throughout 1831. For all his strides toward New Testament Christianity, he was never fully able to divest himself of the notion that the aggregate church universal must sometimes be roused to action. His reasoning was flawed. Inasmuch as evangelism is a God-given work for Christians, he assumed that it must also be a work of the church universal. He readily acknowledged the lack of scriptural precedent for such, yet considered it unimportant. He concluded that since the task of evangelism had nothing to do with the "faith and morals" of individual churches, and since the task was larger than single congregations could handle, brethren were at liberty to align themselves into districts and organize annual meetings for the purpose of creating "ways and means" for promoting the gospel in their region. Even a casual student of history can easily see how such reasoning paved the way for the American Christian Missionary Society in 1849.

But Campbell argued from an incorrect premise. Evangelism is not the work of the church universal, but of local churches and individual saints. The church, the universal collectivity of people saved through the blood of Jesus Christ, has no organization, function, or human leadership. Christ, alone, is the sole reigning Head (Ephesians 1:22-23).

Because the Bible places responsibility for spreading the gospel squarely on the shoulders of local churches and disciples, worthy brethren over the years have vigorously upheld this vital principle. "Local congregations were the medium through which this work of the church was done in New Testament days. They were the only missionary organizations of the New Testament church.״ (Roy E. Cogdill, The New Testament Church, p. 25).

Now, when Campbell concluded that local churches just weren’t up to the task, and that ״annual meetings״ were necessary to devise ״ways and means״ for promoting evangelism, what was he doing? Not intentionally perhaps, but by natural conclusion, he was arguing for the establishment of an organized body larger than, and separate from, the local church. He argued that this body should not be vested with ״ecclesiastical authority," but such was inevitable. This was the seed of sectarianism. Note again what Brother Cogdill wrote, ״If the church of the Lord is sufficient to accomplish what the Lord intended for it to do, it is competent, adequate, and no other organization or arrangement is permitted, much less needed. Any effort made by man to add to or improve upon the Lord’s arrangement for the accomplishment of His purpose through His church indicates dissatisfaction with God’s ways.״ (Walking By Faith, p. 10). Amen.

What was the logical alternative for church autonomy in the work of evangelism? The formation of a separate corporate body, entirely unknown to scripture, to plan and execute the work. Since this body was composed of brethren from churches everywhere, it presumed to speak for churches everywhere. Such an institution couldn’t help but take on a life of its own and eventually evolve into an "adjunct of the church" without the slightest pretext of biblical authority. Such a development was inevitable. Human nature is such that when men are given a sense of authority, however illegitimate, it creates an aura of self-importance and a desire for even greater influence.

The great irony of this sad episode is that, in his early days, Alexander Campbell was a staunch critic of missionary societies and all such humanly contrived arrangements. Yet his powerful teaching and great influence planted the very seeds of what he decried.

But what of our current controversies? Because of a legitimate concern for the universal body of Christ, we have often sought brotherhood consensus in the face of pressing issues. We demonstrated that inclination when dealing with the missionary society, instrumental music, premillennialism, institutionalism, and almost every other topic. We seem to be consumed with knowing where everyone stands on every question, not just for the sake of truth, but so that we may know who to include in the "acceptable brethren" category. We like to know where folks "line up," and that our select group from across the brotherhood "has the truth."

Certainly, no one faults a desire to "have the truth." And no one wants to encourage fellowship with darkness. We all want to be right with God. But look how we’ve defined the term right: on the basis of our group association. That is the definition of sectarianism: that soundness lies in party identity rather than in our individual relationships with the Savior and in fellowship in a local congregation. These two things constitute the full extent of our duties before God. The scope of any disciple’s responsibility is limited to his individual personal life and his participation in the collective work of saints in a local church. Period.

Scripture gives no charge to the church universal. The Lord’s work can only be carried out by local churches and individual saints; questions of fellowship can only be determined by local churches and individual saints; discipline of the unruly can only be discharged by local churches and individual saints; questions of doctrinal correctness can only be determined by local churches and individual saints. Nothing stands between the local congregation and the Lord. There is no organized brotherhood with which to contend, or to which we must answer. The Lord requires our "membership" in nothing larger than a local fellowship of Christians. Our place in the universal body is determined by Jesus alone.

What, then, is the logical alternative to local church autonomy when faced with controversial issues? Scripturally, there is none. But if men believe, as Campbell did, that the universal church has been assigned work and that the task is too great for local congregations on their own, then here’s what we might do. After dividing the brotherhood into various districts and selecting representatives to speak "for the folks back home," conduct a brotherhood-wide meeting to discuss current issues. Naturally, these delegates will have great status in the brotherhood, but not as much as the one elected President, for every group must have a leader, after all.

The first order of business would be to establish regular meeting times, for any group of men with power must first provide for their perpetuation. Then could begin the "necessary" work of defining the absolute final biblical truth on every issue ever raised. At long last, we could have the definitive answers to nagging questions such as the gift of the Holy Spirit, the covering, Christian and carnal warfare, Sunday night communion, and so forth. Then this august panel could once and for all give us every answer to every facet of every question concerning marriage/divorce/ remarriage, to the relief of brethren everywhere. No longer would individuals be burdened by the time-consuming task of private study; no longer would individual local churches have to wrestle with tough questions under the leadership of qualified elders. Once the Church of Christ Doctrine is officially defined, it’s an elementary process to determine who’s "in" and who’s "out."

Of course, we’ll have to acknowledge a few concessions. Individuals will have to concede their conscience to the Official Church View of things. Local churches will have to forget the old-fashioned concept of autonomy and surrender independence to the Official Church Hierarchy. Local Bible class teachers will have to relinquish any independent thought to Official Church Orthodoxy. Elders will have to water down the work of overseeing to the task of reporting to the Official Church Board. But all in all, it’s not such a bad deal. We’ll never have to wrestle with tough problems again; we’ll just let The Church decide for us.

Sound scary? Welcome to the real world of denominationalism. Admittedly, no brother in his right mind would advocate such an arrangement. But when we begin to question or even speak mockingly of the divine principle of local church autonomy, we’re planting the seeds of sectarianism, just like Campbell.

So, will there ever be any resolution to the endless questions and issues among brethren? No, and thank God for it! As long as men exist, we’ll struggle with darkness and light, right and wrong, good and evil, truth and error. Honest hearts will always hold strong convictions and occasionally lock horns with other honest-hearted folk. But the Creator has endowed us with free will and sufficient intellect to exercise the same. Individual saints and autonomous local churches have always been governed by the King, via divine revelation. Any attempt to seek a "brotherhood consensus," thus mobilizing and legislating for the church universal, strips away the crown from Christ and hands it to mere men.

How can there be church autonomy when the church in Jerusalem oversaw many house churches?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Fri, 24 Apr 2026 02:03:13 +0000

Question:

Hello brother,

I have a question about the autonomy of the local church. I understand that there were many house congregations in the first century. So, if there were many house congregations in Jerusalem, how can they be considered the church in Jerusalem?

Also, if there were many congregations in one city, it means the elders of the Jerusalem church were overseeing many congregations rather than just one.

If that is so, then how will that compare to the church autonomy that we preach today?

Can it then be said that elders can oversee many congregations in a city?

Answer:

You made a jump in your argument that has no supporting evidence. It is true that some of the early churches met in homes. The church in Rome met in Aquilla and Priscilla's home (Romans 16:3-5). When they lived in Ephesus, the church met in their home there (I Corinthians 16:19). The church in Hierapolis met in Nymphas' home. The church in Laodicia met in Philemon's home (Philemon 1-2). These places were not in Jerusalem but scattered in various areas of the Roman Empire.

Just because some churches met in homes, it does not mean all churches did so. There is no mention of any church overseeing other churches. There is no mention of house churches in Jerusalem.

Church Autonomy

Jeffrey Hamilton — Sat, 27 Dec 2025 18:46:31 +0000

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.

Can an eldership direct multiple congregations?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Mon, 13 Jan 2025 02:52:50 +0000

Question:

We teach that elders are appointed in local congregations and that no congregation oversees another congregation. Neither does the elder of one congregation have overseeing power or responsibility over another congregation.

In Acts 15, we know that there were Jewish Christians who insisted that Gentile Christians must circumcise and observe the law of Moses. Consequently, they decided "that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question" (Acts 15:2). Some argued that Jerusalem became the council that oversaw/decided the interpretation of church doctrines and church instructions, just like the hierarchical or monarchical bishop structures adopted by the Roman Catholic church or some other denominations today.

How would you deal with this question?

Answer:

Acts 15 is an interesting study of solving problems within and between congregations.

Members of the church in Jerusalem had been going to other congregations stating that Gentiles had to be circumcised. After confronting the false teachers, Antioch sent representatives to discuss the issue at the source of where this false doctrine apparently originated (Acts 15:1-4). Take note that it was the church in Antioch that sent members to Jerusalem to discuss this matter. The church in Jerusalem did not invite them to come to a conference. Even though Antioch had elders (Acts 14:23), the church made the decision to send Paul, Barnabas, and a few others.

When the brethren arrived in Jerusalem, they were received by the church, the apostles, and the elders (Acts 15:4). This was not a private session with the church leaders. Everyone was there. In that assembly, some of the Pharisees insisted that the Gentiles be told to be circumcised (Acts 15:5). The problem that others saw in other congregations was now seen by the church in Jerusalem coming from some of its members.

Subsequently, the apostles, the ambassadors from Antioch, the elders, and the leaders of the church in Jerusalem from which these troublemakers came gathered to discuss the matter (Acts 15:6). Again, it was not a closed-door meeting because all the multitude listened to Peter, Paul, and Barnabas discuss the matter (Acts 15:12). They all heard James apply the prophet Amos to show that circumcision of the Gentiles was unnecessary.

Was the autonomy of the church in Jerusalem violated because men came from Antioch seeking to persuade them to follow God's teachings? No, because the church in Jerusalem weighed the evidence and determined the solution. This was a problem in the church. It was a concern of the church.

What took place was not a sequestered council of the church hierarchy. Only Antioch sent representatives to Jerusalem. No other churches were involved. It was not a private elders’ meeting that deliberated and announced its conclusions to the assembly. The congregation was present, heard the convincing evidence, and joined in the conclusion and in sending greetings to the Gentile converts. Those sent with the letter were also selected by the congregation (Acts 15:22-23). Notice how the congregation's participation is reiterated repeatedly in this chapter. The oversight of the church in Jerusalem did not preclude the congregation's involvement.

While one church is independent of others, churches can advise each other. They decided to send a warning to other churches that these members of the Jerusalem congregation were acting without authority (Acts 15:23-24). Jersualem's announcement of their rejection of these men’s teaching did not violate the other churches’ autonomy. They merely set the record straight about what the church in Jerusalem taught. The Holy Spirit did add His thoughts (Acts 15:28), and thus, the letter became a part of the church's official teaching universally. The church in Jerusalem announced that they agreed with what the Holy Spirit stated. They advised the other churches that they would do well to also follow the Holy Spirit in this matter.

The result is that the false teachers who tried to give authority to their teachings by saying that this was what was being taught in Jerusalem had the rug pulled out from under them. Paul made sure the letter was widely circulated among the Gentile churches so everyone knew that the church in Jerusalem did not agree with the position of the false teachers.

Compare this with the Catholic or Orthodox church councils. A council is declared to discuss a matter. Letters go out inviting various churches to send their representatives. After much deliberation by these representatives, a decision is made, and a document is written telling the churches what they must teach on the matter. This is not what happened in Acts 15.

The Sponsoring Church Arrangement (Jennings)

Jeffrey Hamilton — Tue, 29 Aug 2023 03:17:29 +0000

by Ethan Jennings

Not long after World War 2, members of the Lord’s church decided they wanted to take the gospel overseas to the countries with whom we had been at war. This was a good attitude to have. Especially since we are supposed to spread the gospel to everyone. Paul wrote to commend the church in Thessalonica, “For the word of the Lord has sounded forth from you, not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in every place your faith toward God has gone forth, so that we have no need to say anything” (I Thessalonians 1:8). The church needs to be spreading the gospel.

One big problem arose, however. Some churches couldn’t fully support a preacher who decided to go overseas. So, elders or members of one church told other churches to send them what they could, and they would, in turn, use the funds to support a preacher (or preachers) overseas. This seemed reasonable because it made it so the preacher didn’t have to request help from multiple churches. He only had to request help from a “sponsoring” church.

However, does this align with the Biblical pattern of supporting preachers? Is it lawful for one church to send money to another church for the purpose of evangelism? In Philippians 4:15-16, Paul wrote, “You yourselves also know, Philippians, that at the first preaching of the gospel, after I left Macedonia, no church shared with me in the matter of giving and receiving but you alone; for even in Thessalonica you sent a gift more than once for my needs.” In II Corinthians 11:8-9, he stated, “I robbed other churches by taking wages from them to serve you; and when I was present with you and was in need, I was not a burden to anyone; for when the brethren came from Macedonia they fully supplied my need, and in everything I kept myself from being a burden to you, and will continue to do so.” Churches sent directly to Paul when he was preaching the gospel. They didn’t send it to another church to send to Paul. It says they sent directly to Paul – that’s the pattern of the New Testament.

The very concept of the sponsoring church arrangement also affects church autonomy (“autonomy,” meaning self-governing). Some may ask, “How do we know the first-century church was autonomous?” I Peter 5:1-2 states, “Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness.” Peter emphasized “the flock of God among you” to the elders. This tells us the elders were responsible for the local flock where they were members and overseeing, and not multiple flocks. They oversaw and shepherded the work of the local congregation. They didn’t oversee the work of other churches. In other words, the elders at the church in Corinth didn’t oversee the church’s work in Ephesus and vice versa. Each church was responsible for its own work. For example, the sponsoring church arrangement would have the church in Corinth (if they were the sponsoring church) determining how the funds at Ephesus (designated for evangelism) would be used! In this case, Ephesus would have given up her ability to determine how the funds were used (autonomy) since Corinth had the money!

Each church is self-governing. Their work isn’t governed by another church. The sponsoring church arrangement goes completely against the Bible on this.

Rather than following the pattern man devised, why not follow the scriptural pattern? Many preachers have been sent overseas the scriptural way. If God’s pattern in the Scriptures could be carried out in the first century, why not today? Indeed, many churches are following this pattern!

Is it scriptural for one congregation to invite another congregation for evangelism?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Sun, 12 Sep 2021 21:10:42 +0000

Question:

Dear Brother,

Is it scriptural for one congregation to invite another congregation for evangelism?

I look forward to your response.

Thanks in anticipation.

Answer:

I'm puzzled about what exactly is the concern. "To me, the very least of all saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unfathomable riches of Christ, and to bring to light what is the administration of the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God who created all things; so that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places. This was in accordance with the eternal purpose which He carried out in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Ephesians 3:8-11). Technically, it is Christians who teach God's Word. Congregations support the teaching, which can include sending out teachers to other areas. The church in Antioch sent out Barnabas and Saul (later known as Paul) to teach in other regions.

Given this, there is no reason that a congregation cannot send some of its members to another area, where a congregation is weak to help them reach the lost in their area.

Is it right to have a board represent all the churches in a country?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Fri, 15 Jan 2021 23:22:33 +0000

Question:

Hi Jeff,

How do you keep the government from being involved in the affairs of the church in the United States? Over here in Nigeria, the government directed that all churches be registered with a name in other for them to monitor the number of churches in the country. Each church must have a different
name. In order to protect the churches of Christ, the church decided to set up a body called the Board of Trustees consisting of brethren in different fields saddled with the responsibility to inform and
protect the church from the government. Please, is this move by the church right?

The churches have what they call a Ministers' Forum where they share ideas and discuss issues bothering the churches and how they can use their positions as ministers to put things right. Even the bishops have their own forum. Please, are all these right?

Thanks. I anticipate your response.

Answer:

We are fortunate for the moment that our laws do not allow the government to be involved in religion. There are rules and regulations we have to abide by, but they are ones established for any business.

I recall being asked about the Board of Trustees in Nigeria in the past. From what I was originally told, the board was set up by individuals and not by the churches. Governments want someone to communicate with and represent the church. See Is it biblical to have a board of trustees? It must be remembered that any such board is for the convenience of the government. Such a board has no power over the congregation.

In Nigeria, the people went a bit further and treated the church as if it is a denomination. Instead of a board representing each congregation, you have a board claiming to represent all congregations. I don't know the governmental laws in Nigeria, but I suspect that it wasn't necessary. If you need unique names, then you just put down, "the Church of Christ in La Vista" or something like it. What I recall someone writing once before was that this board tried to take property away from a church because the board no longer agreed with the congregation's teaching. Thus, you ended up with a man-made organization telling a congregation what they had to believe. It is no longer functioning as a mediator between the government and the church.

Personally, I would ignore the attempt to create a denomination and simply register directly with the government if that is what is required.

There is nothing wrong with preachers or elders talking with each other. But once again, it becomes wrong when such a forum tries to tell preachers or elders what they must do or teach.

Church Autonomy

Jeffrey Hamilton — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 02:38:00 +0000

by Robert Turner

"Autonomy" is a compound word, composed of autos, meaning "self," and nomos, meaning "law." An ordinary dictionary will tell us the word means "self-ruled," so that an autonomous church is "self-governed, without outside control."

There are those who reject the concept of God and revelation, saying ultimate authority is in man. To them, there would be no limitations placed upon self-rule. Of course, most of our readers accept Christ as King and know that a church that wishes to exercise "self-rule" in all things is not the church of Christ. But our brethren are far from clear on the legitimate (scriptural) field of self-rule, and how this affects the relation of one church to another. Some seem to think "autonomy" means the right to devise organizational arrangements for which there is no New Testament authority; while others think calling attention to such error violates the "autonomy" of the erring brethren.

A church cannot "rule" on the importance of Christ's death, the necessity of faith, the meaning and purpose of baptism; for these are legacies of truth which Christ gave the world and by which we are called. The church is the product of the gospel, not its author. One would not violate some church's autonomy by teaching along these lines, for no church is a legitimate "say" in such things.

Does God give a local church the right to decide the day of worship? May they "rule" on the need for assembling, or the so-called "items" of acceptable worship? It is not clear that even in those things assigned as church (team) activity, a distinction must be made in that which is part of "the faith, once for all delivered unto the saints" (over which the congregation has no rule), and such details as are left to human judgment. The field of church autonomy is that of human judgment, and that only.

As an example: God's word indicates the day on which saints are to partake of the Lord's Supper -- but it does not specify the time of day. The time is left to human judgment, and therefore to the "rule" of brethren. A church exercises autonomy when it sets its own time of assembling -- and we might add, that time rests upon human authority, not upon divine mandate. Each church has this same right and may choose different times. If one sought to unduly influence or alter another's time of meeting, this would be interfering with "autonomy."

But if one church should declare Thursday the Lord's Day, others could seek to teach them more perfectly the way of the Lord -- and violate no legitimate "autonomy" in doing so -- for no church has the scriptural right to "rule" in matters God has settled.

When brethren have honest differences in their understanding of what God has said, one church may believe their "ruling" is done in matters of judgment, while another may believe they violate the plain teachings of God. If both parties are equally interested in serving God, neither will rest the case in "our rights," but will be happy to study God's word together so that God can rule supremely in all.

Congregational Independence (Moyer)

Jeffrey Hamilton — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 20:57:00 +0000

by Doy Moyer

The Scriptures teach local congregational independence and autonomy. What does this mean?

The body of Christ (universal terminology as in one body, Ephesians 4:1-3) is not some interconnected web of congregations; rather, the body is composed of individuals (see I Corinthians 12:12-27). Individual Christians ought to seek out other Christians in their locale with whom they can work, worship, and edify one another. This is what Christians have done from the beginning (Acts 2:42). Fellowship requires togetherness.

Local congregations are made up of Christians who purposefully join together to that end (e.g., "to the church of God that is in Corinth," (I Corinthians 1:2)). A local congregation is not institutionally tied to any other congregation, but stands on its own as an independent, self-governing group. One local church is not amenable to another local church; they each stand independently before Christ, accountable to Him. Revelation 2-3 gives us a good snapshot of this. The Lord addressed each congregation on its own, gave the good and bad where each existed, and told them what they needed to be doing. The church at Ephesus had no authority over the church at Smyrna, and vice versa. That is the position of Christ, the King of all.

To clarify further, saying that a church is autonomous or self-governing does not imply that the group is not under Christ as Head or that such a group can just make up its own rules about what it does. In this context, autonomous simply means that a local group takes care of its own business without being controlled or overseen by any other group or institution. When a group has shepherds, the shepherds are to oversee only that group which is among them (Acts 20:28; I Peter 5:2). They have no biblical warrant for taking oversight of other congregations or even asking other congregations to bring their work under them. In the first century, the apostles operated on a level larger than local churches because of their special roles chosen by Christ, but that is not so for elders or shepherds. Absent living apostles now, each biblical congregation would seek to abide by what the apostles and prophets left behind, but no living person today has any authority over any group of churches.

Practically, what this means is that each congregation makes decisions that the leaders believe will work best for that group alone. Given that all should be seeking to act within the principle of abiding in God's word, the decisions for one group will not necessarily be the best for another. One group may decide that meeting once on a Sunday is best for them; another may decide to meet twice at times that vary from other groups. One group might use a sign simply indicating that Christians gather there, while another might use a different description (assuming all are biblical). It is not the business of anyone outside the local group to become the judge of that group (e.g., "that church quit meeting on Sunday night; they must be slipping in their spiritual focus"). When decisions are made within the realm of what Scripture allows, there is a good bit of leeway and many choices to be made within that group's purview. Those who are not part of that group have no warrant to interject themselves into the group's business, and we all need to be very careful in how we criticize decisions made by an autonomous group of which we are not a part. We are neither Christ nor the apostles.

It should be a given that all disciples of Christ should be seeking to abide within His word (John 8:31). None of this is to say that we cannot evaluate the actions of a group on the basis of Scripture. However, we need to be careful that we are not misjudging what is local congregational liberty in acting upon what best works for their situation. Many choices must be made, and local leaders are usually aware of their own members' needs. How can we judge what we don't even really know? Even within a local congregation, the elders will likely be dealing with issues surrounding some members about which other members will not have all the information. How much more when we aren't even part of a group!

Respecting autonomy is important, for there is no super-organization that controls and commands what each group is to be doing. No one person or other outside group or institution has the authority to take over a local church. That is the realm of the Lord and His word. Now we might assess a local situation for ourselves and decide that they are doing what we cannot participate in, or, on the flip side, that they are doing what is right and the situation fits us well. At the end of the day, that's pretty much the only way it can work. Individuals must decide. Local groups must decide. Who are we to try to usurp the Lord's position?

Respect autonomy. The alternative is neither scriptural nor pretty.