PROBLEMS OF AUTONOMY

 EXORDIUM

About sixteen years ago when I hosted MOMENT OF TRUTH Radio Broadcast on LION FM, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, congregational autonomy was our bane. While the broadcast tormented Hell and depopulated it, our denominational neighbours were not at ease and sought every opportunity to see that we were bought out of air time.

Arguments were advanced for and against “autonomy.” Would it not be a violation of “Congregational Autonomy” should congregations contribute their resources towards keeping the programme on air? While Brethren were fighting over whether we should or should not, our religious neighbours were mobilizing resources to see that we were kicked out. While we were arguing whether to cooperate or not, the broadcast died. Till date efforts to resurrect it remains futile because I have moved on.  Charles T. Dudd wrote:

“Some want to live within the sound of church and chapel bell; I want to run a rescue mission shop within a yard of hell.”

It seems to me that when it comes to mourning and burials, burials, we jettison our overemphasis on autonomy, but when it comes to rejoicing, we take our hard-fast stances on congregational autonomy. We seem to cooperate more during burials, but less when it comes to what will enlarge the borders of God’s Kingdom as well as what will increase our individual and collective capacities. To me, we major in minors and minor in majors.

My first encounter with the term, “Autonomy” was in February, 1987. I was baptized into Christ and added to the Church on January 25, 1987. However, two weeks after my new birth, I was confronted with the issues of congregational autonomy. This was during my formative years in Christ. I almost slipped off.

WHAT IS AUTONOMY?      

Interestingly, autonomy is a not Bible word. From Matthew Chapter 1 to Revelations Chapter 22, you cannot find the word, “Autonomy.” It is Non-Scriptural (meaning, “Not found in Scripture” as against “Unscriptural,” which is “Against Scripture”). However, irrespective of the fact that autonomy is not found in Scripture, the concept is practiced and is well established. This is derived from “Pattern Theology.”  

Pattern Theology simply establishes for us how things should be done (cf. Hebrews 8:5). To prove any statement as Biblically true, as well as to establish a given Biblical pattern, we must show that it is taught or exemplified in the Bible. There are three distinct ways in which Bible teaches:

§  By Direct Command or prohibition.

§  By Approved Example. In this case the example must be exclusive.

§  By Necessary (essential) Inference (implication), that is, logical conclusions reached from given New Testament Biblical texts.

Consequently, the practice of autonomy is established and justified by Apostolic Examples and by Necessary Inferences (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5; Philippians 1:1).   

By definition, “Autonomy” is self-governance. Since we do not have a Biblical reference of the word, we now resort to the Greek Language from where we derived its English Language equivalent is “Autonomos,” Auto, meaning, “Self” and Nomos, meaning, “Law.” 

In his article, “The Challenges of Congregational Autonomy,” Kyle Pope of Olson Church of Christ, Southwest Amarillo, Texas wrote: 

“Autonomy is not self-legislation, but self-governance. The word “autonomy” is derived from the Greek words auto meaning “self, or same” and nomos meaning “law” - thus the idea is “a law unto themselves” (or “self-governing”). This term might give us the wrong impression. It might lead us to imagine that each congregation is left to govern themselves. Certainly in matters of judgment this is true. Yet this does not mean that each congregation may decide for itself what it should teach or how it should function - that is determined by the Head - Jesus. He governs through what is revealed in Scripture.” 

In his book, The Church of Christ: A Biblical Ecclesiology For Today, Everett Ferguson (1996:344) observed: 

“Each local church is the church, full and complete in itself,.... Each church is the whole church in miniature, a manifestation of the whole in a given locality. … The independence of the local church is often called Congregational autonomy,” that is, self-governing congregations. Autonomy is not a wholly satisfactory word. In regard to faith and practice, the Church is a monarchy, subject to her Lord. But in matters of opinion, expediency and human judgment, each church is an independent, self-governing unit, and in this sense, autonomy is an appropriate word.

 

“But autonomy is not isolation. Early church practiced a fullness of fellowship, cooperation, mutual assistance, and communication. There was a sense of being One Body under One Lord (Ephesians 4:4-5)

 

“When there were problems affecting one congregation, representatives of one church went to the church whence the problem arose to discuss the matter (Acts 15:1-2). The Apostles exercised extra-congregational supervision of the Congregations (Acts 8:14; Acts 11:19). The testimonies of the Apostles remains the foundations of the Church, and they remain the ambassadors through whom the Will of the Lord is known. It is noteworthy, however, that when they anticipated the removal of their personal presence, they did not appoint successors to continue the supervision of churches, but only local leaders who were ‘entrusted to the Lord’ (Acts 14:23) and commended ‘to God and to the message of His grace’ (Acts 20:32).”           

The concept of autonomy is universal. As explained earlier, Autonomy is self-governance. Everyone is autonomous. Every marriage is autonomous (For this reason, a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and shall be one flesh” (Genesis 2:24). “Therefore, what God has joined together, let no man put asunder” (Matthew 19:6). 

Autonomy confers on individuals and entities the inalienable rights to decide for themselves what they should do and how to do them within the confines of the rule of law guiding their conducts and operations. 

In view of this, one can safely say that individual Christians are autonomous of other Christians. In the same vein, congregations are also autonomous of other congregations. However, both individual Christians and congregations, irrespective of their independence are not islands unto themselves because they find strengths from one another. Romans 14:7 says, “For none of us lives to himself, and no man dies to himself.” Even though we are autonomous of on another, yet we are not absolutely autonomous. We all exist within our social, spiritual and economic ecosystems. In this case, the principle of “What affects one, affects all” applies.    

Each congregation is autonomous, but not absolutely autonomous. The autonomy of a congregation begins and ends with her faithfulness to the Lord and to His Word. The moment doctrinal or Scriptural error is detected and established, she ceases to be the Lord’s Church and will now be subjected to external evaluations and interventions.      

WHAT AUTONOMY IS NOT     

1.   Autonomy was not designed to stall congregational growth, but to strengthen congregational faithfulness.

2.   Autonomy was not designed to keep brethren at bay, but to ward off wholesale congregational error.

3.   Autonomy was not designed to destroy fellowship but to strengthen it.

4.   Autonomy is not anti-cooperation, but pro-cooperation.

5.   Autonomy is not isolationism.

Self-sufficiency is found only in the universal Body of Christ, not in any local congregational. In other words, what a particular congregation lacks, another congregation can supply. Therefore, it takes congregational cooperation to fill those needs. Writing to Roman Christians, Apostle Paul at Romans 1:11-12 says: 

“I yearn to see you so that I can bestow on you some spiritual gifts for your confirmation. I mean that we may be mutually strengthened by your faith and mine.”       

For it hath pleased them of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor saints which are at Jerusalem. It hath pleased them verily; and their debtors they are. For if the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things, their duty is also to minister unto them in carnal things. - Romans 15:26-27.

 

For as touching the ministering to the saints, it is superfluous for me to write to you: For I know the forwardness of your mind, for which I boast of you to them of Macedonia, that Achaia was ready a year ago; and your zeal hath provoked very many. - 2 Corinthians 9:1-2.

And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it - 1 Corinthians 12:26.

In New Testament, there was a commonality in sharing. Even though they respected the “autonomy” of one another, yet cooperated in sharing “Apostolic epistles.” An example of this is found at Colossians 4:16:

“And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.”    

The basic Scriptural principle of cooperation is “Willingness” of brethren and congregations to mobilize forces to advance a given cause (II Corinthians 8:11). 

CHALLENGES OF AUTONOMY

 1. Method Versus Model

The fundamental challenge of autonomy is that we are more interested in the letter, not of the spirit. In law, a fundamental rule is to ascertain the intendment of a law, not its letter. We are more interested in method, not the model. In one of His encounters with lawyers in the Bible who were more interested in methods than in models because sat to eat with “Sinners,” the Lord told them matter-of-factly:

    “But go ye and learn what that means, I will have mercy, not sacrifice: for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” (Matthew 9:13) 

In view of this. Would it be safe to say that the Lord designed autonomy to cause cataclysm in His Church and to stall her growth? Obviously, No. If there is any such, what it implies is that we have misread His intent. 

Consider the case of the three men who encountered the man who was travelling from Jerusalem to Jericho (Luke 10:30-37). Two of them followed the method while one followed the model. At the end, Jesus commended the man who modeled His intent than the men who misread his Model for their methods. 

2. Double-Speak, Conflicting Implementation

If a congregation which is high on absolute autonomy disfellowships One of their members, usually a letter of disfellowship would be dispatched to other congregations. Receiving congregations are expected to abide by the decision of the congregation from where the disfellowshiped letter emanated. However, in the “letter” of autonomy not in its “spirit,” a receiving congregation decides to assert her autonomy after considering the matter and then goes ahead to fellowship with the person that was disfellowshiped, the other congregation would get angry. 

The question is, “Is this not a violation of a local congregation’s autonomy?” If this situation becomes the case amongst us, would it not amount to double-speak? 

3. Absolute Autonomy, An Existential Threat

Going by the advocacies of some “Faithful” brethren and Die-hard proponents of Absolute Autonomy, it would be safe to say that autonomy is an existential threat to the growth and stability of the Gospel of Christ in particular and the Church in general. 

What absolute autonomy does is that it promotes “smallishness,” and by extension makes the Gospel Message as proclaimed by the small congregation unattractive because when people see our smallness, they are easily turned off. My mother’s death and burial with attendant massive turnout of Brethren taught me a great lesson and has remained beneficial to my village congregation. 

Absolute autonomy promotes non-cooperative spirit. In this case, youths of a particular congregation are not encouraged to fellowship with youths of other congregations for fear of violating congregational autonomy. 

Isolating our young ones because of church autonomy has led to a lack of sense of belonging, direction and fulfillment. This has led them to go into relationships with unbelievers, sometimes into marriage and ultimately apostatizing the Faith. 

Absolute autonomy has led to stunted growth of the Lord’s Church in Nigeria.  

4. Absolute Autonomy and “Come Over To Macedonia,

     and Help Us.”

Acts 16:9 remains a clarion call, any time, any day as far the Gospel is concerned and life on this plane of existence subsists. Here, we read: 

“And a vision appeared to Paul in the night; There stood a man of Macedonia, and prayed him, saying, Come over into Macedonia, and help us.”            

 Suppose a new congregation results from such a clarion call, can this new and young congregation be considered “autonomous” from the congregation that planted it? If in the name of autonomy, a young congregation that is not doctrinally sound is left to govern herself, the result would be “Scriptural syncretism.”  I had this awful experience in Ikpuiga and Amachalla, both in Enugu-Ezike, Igbo-Eze North Local Government Area, Enugu State. 

By nature, we do not give birth to children and allow them to take care of themselves when they are still young. Proverbs 29:15 tells us that “a child who is left unto himself brings shame to his mother.” Is this a surprise that we have a number of undisciplined preachers with New Hermeneutics who are disgracing us everywhere in the Brotherhood? 

BENEFITS OF AUTONOMY

Whatever the LORD made has many benefits. However, what we are against is its manifest abuse or abuses. Ecclesiastes7:29 tells us: 

“Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.” 

The primary benefit of congregational autonomy lies in its ability to protect the Church from wholesale error. In his book, WHY I AM A MEMBER OF THE CHURCH OF CHRIST, Leroy Brownlow (1973:39-40) wrote,

Autonomy is defined as “right of self-government; a self-governing state; an independent body.” In the first century each congregation was independent of every other congregation. The church in Rome or Jerusalem had no authority over the churches in other communities. Men outside the congregation had no right to exercise authority and power within the congregation. The elders and deacons in one congregation had no authority to exercise any other kind of rule over the elders and deacons in another congregation. Each church was free and independent, under the teaching of Christ and the apostles, to govern itself, carry on its own work, and manage its own affairs. There was no system of church government larger or smaller than the local congregation. All congregations had the same head, foundation, and mission; preached the same gospel; constituted the one body. But each was independent to direct its own work!

The wisdom of God is seem in such an arrangement for his churches. If one became corrupted in doctrine or affected by evil practices, other churches would not be so affect. If dissension arose in one, it would not spread to the others; if one perished, the others would not be dragged down. If a window is made of one large pane, a break injures the entire pane; but if it be made of several panes, it is not so bad to break one. The independence of the churches is a protection for each one. 

WHAT SHOULD NEIGHBOURING CONGREGATIONS DO WHEN A CONGREGATION GOES BESERK? 

“The care for one another” is a fundamental teaching of the New Testament. At II Corinthians 11:28-29, Apostle Paul lamented:

“Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches. Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is offended, and I burn not?”

Our goal should be to restore the erring. James 5:19 enjoins:

Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.

HOW CAN WE BALANCE THE TEACHINGS OF ABSOLUTE AUTONOMY WITH COOPERATION? 

We must always strike a balance between what the Lord with what we think He means, especially as they concern “Apostolic Examples” and “Necessary Inferences” as are opposed to “Direct Command.”

It is wrong to hide under autonomy to teach and practice what are not in line with plain teachings of the Bible. It is also wrong to hide under autonomy to deny other congregations of our cooperation towards enlarging the borders of God’s Kingdom in hearts and communities of men through evangelism, edification and in times of material needs.

I would like to conclude with the words of Oji O. Oji. In His book, Autonomy Issues and Unity of the Church of Christ (2009:5-6), Oji O. Oji wrote:

It is unfortunate that in our time, many Gospel preachers pay lip service and give erroneous interpretations to the principle of congregational autonomy. We all agree that each local church is separate and independent in organization from all other local churches. However, we should oppose all erroneous or misleading interpretations and applications of the principles of autonomy of the church, especially those that negate robust cooperation of the local congregation as enshrined in the Scriptures.   

CONCLUSION

Brethren, the way to go is cooperation, not overemphasis on autonomy. We must respect autonomy but play big on cooperation. Cooperation gave us:

11. Trans-Nkisi.

OOnicha Ngwa Bible College and Hospital.

 Bear Valley

World Bible School.

6.   World Video Bible School.

Etcetera.  

God bless us all!

References

Kyle Pope (2020). "The Challenges of Congregational Autonomy," Faithful Sayings, Volume 22, Issue 17 (April 26, 2020), Olsen Church of Christ, Southwest Amarillo, Texas. 

Everett Ferguson (1996). The Church of Christ: A Biblical Ecclesiology For Today, Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA: Wm B. Eerdmans.  

Leroy Brownlow (1973). Why I Am A Member of The Church of Christ. Fort Worth Texas, Brownlow Publishing Company, Inc.