|
 If
the subject of congregational autonomy has been scripturally and
sufficiently taught in the past two decades, it is apparent that
many were not listening. Nothing is more fundamental or needful
concerning the work of the church than the recognition of its
autonomous nature; seeing that every congregation of God's
people is to be independent and self-governing functioning only
as directed by its head, Jesus Christ and in keeping with its
own resources. In practical terms that means, among other
things, that no local church has the authority to make its work
dependent upon other churches. Any work that is too big for the
local church is simply too big to be scripturally carried out.
The very fact that a church cannot do certain works on its own
makes it evident that God does not hold them responsible for
such. Regarding individuals God says, "it is acceptable
according as a man hath, not according as he hath not" (2
Cor. 8:12). Why should the principle be different with churches?
It is what we have that determines the extent of what we
can do, whether individually or collectively.
But,
not only does the receiving (sponsoring) church lose its
independence in such arrangements, so does the contributing
church. The receiving church DEPENDS on the funds from
contributing churches and the contributing churches DEPEND on
the sponsoring church to do a work. Any arrangement that makes
one church dependent on another is one in which autonomy is
forfeited, and such is the case in all "sponsoring
church" efforts. They exist without Bible authority.
| |
Further,
failure to respect the autonomous nature of the local church has
involved elders in the overseeing of activities beyond
the flock which is among them (I Pet. 5:2). Extra-congregational
activities require extra-congregational organization. Since
elders cannot scripturally oversee ANY work or ANY people
outside the framework of the local church, they can have no
place in such work. The fact that God has provided no
organization through which extra-congregational activities might
be directed should prove they have no place in carrying out His
work. It will take more than calling sponsoring church
arrangements a "work of the local church" to make them
so. Contributing churches claim to have fellowship in such work (they
know it is more than a "local" effort). Therefore,
elders become overseers of a "fellowship" of churches.
How can they rightly oversee workshops and campaigns involving
work and people outside the local congregation? As brother
Robert Turner has noted, God provides no harness for this kind
of a "team'; therefore, such "teams" have no
legitimate existence.
One
other point needs to be made respecting this autonomy and it is
this: No church, no group of elders, and no preacher has any
business trying to run the affairs of another church! Many are
preaching autonomy while failing to practice it. Outside
interference has disrupted the unity of more than one
congregation in recent years. Our primary responsibility lies
within the local church. Most of us will find enough work and
problems there to fully occupy our time and talents. Dan S.
Shipley
[Previous
Article] [Next
Article]
|
