AUTONOMY? WHERE?

Dear Forum Editor:

I have heard all my life that our congregations are autonomous. It is not clear to me what this is supposed to mean, but I’ve always understood it to mean that each church is free from all others. If this is so, then each church runs its own affairs without any pressures or railroading from any body outside that congregation.

What a sham and subterfuge this is! We are no more autonomous than a Methodist church with its ruling bishop or a Roman Catholic church with its pope. The main difference is that they are honest about it and we are not. They tell the truth and we lie. Excuse my French, but that’s the way I see it. If we try something in our congregation that other Church of Christ congregations do not do, we may well have loyal preachers and loyal papers and loyal colleges all over us. Oh, no, they don’t stay out of our affairs, saying “That is their business.” They make our business their business, and if we don’t do it the way the rest of the churches do it, then we are disloyal or anti, or something. Autonomy? Let some of your readers point to a truly self-governing congregation. — One of your Truth Seekers

WHERE THE BIBLE IS SILENT --?

Recently many of us have become painfully conscious of a discrepancy between preaching and practice with respect to the old slogan about “speaking where the Bible speaks and keeping silent where it is silent.” Its use has been quite misleading, and it should be no surprise that many of our more sensitive religious neighbors have been either amused or offended because of it. I have heard some talk to the effect that this slogan should be dropped from use and forgotten; but it seems to me that this might be a case of throwing the baby out with the bath water. What is really wrong with the slogan? Doesn’t it express the healthy idea of accepting the revelation of God as is, and not trying to invent doctrine where none is given in the scriptures?

Our mistake has been in misusing the slogan, and I believe that this is the result of a misunderstanding of its original meaning. The idea of keeping silent where the Bible is silent was meant originally as a self-imposed restriction, but a tradition has developed among us to use it as a discipline for others. Moreover, in applying the restriction we have changed its meaning. We have made “not speaking” mean “not practicing or promoting.” I am curious about how we came by our sense of obligation to forbid those things about which the scriptures have nothing to say. By what logic have we concluded that lack of mention equals lack of authorization so that every thing left unmentioned is automatically prohibited?

As unreasonable as this theory seems to be, it might be much better respected if its proponents were at all consistent in its application, but the reverse is true. The fact is that each faction of us has its own quaint way of exploiting the silence of the scriptures to suit its doctrine. For example:

Faction A interprets Biblical silence on divided Bible classes as being prohibitive of same, but interprets Biblical silence on church ownership of property as indicating freedom for same. The question of Bible classes is considered a matter of faith and is an issue of fellowship, but the question of church ownership of property is a matter of opinion.

Faction B interprets Biblical silence on Bible classes as indicating freedom for same, but interprets Biblical silence on congregational cooperation as being prohibitive. The former is a matter of opinion; the latter a matter of faith, and just cause for division.

Faction C interprets Biblical silence on Bible classes, congregational cooperation, and church ownership of property as being an indication of freedom, but interprets Biblical silence on instrumental music as being prohibitive. The first named things are matters of opinion, but the latter is a matter of faith, and just cause for division.

Do you know of any party or person who uses the silence of the scripture consistently, one way or the other? Brethren, we need to make up our minds what to make of Biblical silence. If it prohibits, then let us abandon everything we now do and say, upon which the scriptures say nothing — including divided classes, church buildings and parsonages, song books, black-boards, tuning forks and pitch pipes, etc. If scriptural silence really allows for the exercise of judgement, then let us try to be big enough to allow to others that liberty we so scrupulously defend for ourselves. Let us, to put it crudely, shut up in matters about which the New Testament is silent; and let those who judge that musical aids are expedient have their musical aids, and let those who believe that divided classes are expedient have their divided classes, and let those who see nothing wrong with church buildings have their church buildings, and let those who think it right to observe the Lord’s Supper once every three months or every day do so, and so on and on. “Why do you judge your brother; it is before God that he stands or falls.” Let these people serve God the best way they know how and leave it to God to accept or reject their service.

Some will shudder as this, and say, “Brother, this lets down the bars for all sorts of evil inventions.” What bars? Where did the bars come from, if God didn’t make them? And how can we judge men’s inventions evil for God’s purposes? Brother, what God hasn’t revealed to you, you just don’t know. Where is the seer, the prophet, the man with a special dispensation, who can show us the clear will of God in the long, unbroken silence of God’s Word?

Everyone here will be able to enjoy your journal, for we are interested in restoring the church to the order of the New Testament. — Washington

I so look forward to each issue of Restoration Review that I would not want to miss any. — California

Please rush me all ten back numbers of Restoration Review for which I enclose $3.00. — New York