|
 For
the past five months we have used this page for historical
studies of the Reformation —- with emphasis on things that
pertain to congregational independence. We know this is too
condensed to give a very full picture, but we hoped to convey
some important truths and to give our readers a better historic
sense. We pause, to relate earlier history to our own day.
When
Martin Luther sought to answer the Roman hierarchy by the
Scriptures he recognized the true principle of the priesthood of
all saints. As a priest, any saint could approach God’s throne
through Christ, our High Priest. Any saint could teach, baptize,
serve at the Lord’s Table, etc. This tore at the very heart of
the sacramental system, and it destroyed the concept of “historic”
succession of bishops and churches. Of course it encouraged
individual independence, and logically led to “free”
churches.
In
1523, writing to the Bohemian Brethren, Luther took the ground
of congregational independence and advocated the right of a
Christian congregation to call, elect, and depose its own
minister. At the Synod of Homburg in 1526, a plan was devised to
establish what may be called a Congregational system. Luther was
consulted and approved of the system in the abstract, but
pronounced it impracticable. (Schaff, V.7; Fisher, p.415) We
note that when it came right down to doing something
about congregational Independence, critical consideration
seemed to get the upper hand. Military protection was a big item
in those days, and too, radicals were using “freedom” as an
excuse for all sorts of excesses, and Luther did not wish to be
classified with
|
|
them. We are just wondering, if we had
been there what would we have done??
Luther
thought congregational in dependence impractical because he
apparently felt there were too few truly qualified men to whom
leadership could be trusted. This is not an invalid
consideration. Schaff comments that this independent type of
government “presupposes a higher grade of self-governing
capacity in the laity than the episcopal polity.” In other
words, freedom has its price — obligation to develop the
qualities necessary for self government.
Schaff
also comments, “Autonomy.. is more or less curtailed.. .where
the State supports the Church, for self government requires
self-support.” Self-government demands competence; qualified
men taken from among the members. It requires the willingness
and ability to support our own work. This sounds a lot like the
definition of independent: “not dependent” in those factors
essential to its function. (See Webster’s Unabridged. or other
standard dictionary.)
Could
it be that congregational independence has suffered because we
do not want to pay the price of freedom? The theory is great but
the practice imposes obligations. It is much easier (cheaper) to
let others plan our ”programs” and then just “chip in” a
bit and say we are part of that big publicity-attracting
function. We seem to have a hard time learning that freedom is
not free — in economics, government, and in the church.
[Previous
Article] [Next
Article]
|
