|
 Congregations
(independent groups of Christians) are autonomous. Each local
group makes its own decisions and rules itself under Christ’s
rule. Its organization is peculiar to the group and reaches out
no farther than that particular flock. For instance, each
congregation chose its own messengers and sent them with Paul to
Jerusalem (1 Cor. 16:3; 2 Cor. 8:16- 24). And elders are to tend
the flock “among them,” (1 Pet. 5:2).
After
reading a bulletin article of a good friend, I wrote to him,
asking, “Does autonomy mean that a congregation has a
scriptural right to decide to do that which is unscriptural?”
He replied: “Autonomy means that a congregation can do
whatever it wants to, period. The scripturallity of it is to be
settled between it and God.” And, “Since autonomy means ’self-directed’
it of course precludes any other congregation (individual)
haranguing or bringing unscriptural pressure for the self-chosen
action.”
Of
course, a congregation has a “right” to make its own
decisions and must pay the consequences for wrong decisions; but
scripturally, if it is to please God, its decisions must
be circumvented by truth. For instance, a congregation does not
have a scriptural right to change God’s word — its rights of
decision exist within an area, first of all, of that which is
right. However, if such decisions are circumvented by truth and
are in the area of human judgment, no one has the right to
question such decisions. For instance, if we, at Southern Oaks,
decided to support Timothy at Troas, we would have the right to
do so, but I deny that we would
|
|
have the scriptural right to
support a Billy Graham Crusade.
However,
the antithesis of “self- directed” would be for one
congregation to make decisions and direct affairs of another
congregation’s work and resources. A congregation might rule
that another organization or congregation could make its
decisions (whether for all or part of its work) but it has no scriptural
authority to so rule. A congregation might put itself totally
under the oversight of another congregation or it might send a
donation to an overseeing congregation assuming a “brotherhood
work.” Most can see where autonomy is being violated in the
first instance but have difficulty with the second because it
involves only a PART of that church’s over-all activity.
Now,
does autonomy preclude concerned brethren trying to reach and
teach congregations engaged in unscriptural practices?
Concerned brethren should never harangue or bring unscriptural
pressure to bear but rather should ask for “authority for
practice.” Such appeals are not always welcome but “autonomy”
is a peculiar defense for supporters of the Herald of Truth,
with its key-men pressure arrangement, to take.
Hence
the word “autonomy” adequately depicts a church’s right of
self-rule but in no way affirms that its decisions will be
right. And to appeal to “autonomy” while practicing sin is
to misunderstand God’s rule in a self-ruling church. —–Jim
R. Everett
[Previous
Article] [Next
Article]
|
