THE ILLUSION OF CONGREGATIONAL AUTONOMY

Most of the congregations within the Restoration heritage, especially our own Churches of Christ, are no closer to the practice of autonomy than are Roman Catholics or Episcopalians. Oh, I realize that legally most of our congregations control their own property, and, if need be, they could go their own way without a court battle. But when it comes to week to week activities, and the beliefs that these imply, we are as bound to tradition and the practice of sister congregations as any people have ever been. We may talk about autonomy and even prize the ideal, but we do not even begin to practice it.

Take a little thing like arranging for a slightly controversial singing group to visit one of our churches. The best way to get them accepted is to point out that they have appeared at Central in Midland, Fifth and Izzard in Little Rock, and Rochelle Road in Nashville. Other loyal churches have accepted them! That is the big deal. Never mind about how spiritual or edifying they are, and never mind what a blessing their appearance is likely to be. If others don’t accept them, we don’t!

So with speakers who might be a little different. How close to Jesus they are is not considered. How much they have to offer is beside the point. “Our brethren don’t use him” is all that need be said to most of our leadership. But if he is accepted, if he is really in, then he is OK to have around, however superficial his contribution to the well-being of the saints may be.

The same with any idea or practice. It is very difficult for a congregation to take up any new approach to old problems unless there is some precedent for it “among the Lord’s people,” meaning you know who. This is the case even when the practice is scriptural or at least permitted by scripture, such as the laying on of hands. I am always seeing pictures in The Christian Standard of this practice among our brethren in Christian Churches—the ordination of elders and ministers—which is not without scriptural precedent. One is as likely to see such as this in the Firm Foundation or the Gospel Advocate as he is in an advertisement for a pipe organ. I dare say that if some Church of Christ in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area should start laying hands on its elders in an ordination service, which in the New Testament was done by an evangelist, it would quickly bring such censure as to virtually ostracize it from all others.

The sin is not in departing from scripture, but in being different from other churches. It may be cruel to say it, but the truth is that a lot of our folk don’t really care what the Bible says. It is what the Churches of Christ practice that counts, for after all that is what the scriptures really mean!

Let one of our congregations have a choir, allowing gifted singers to encourage their brothers and sisters in praise to God, which is at least as scriptural as congregational singing, and see what happens to it on the way to heaven. Or even such a simple thing as a solo.

Or let it have set periods for fasting and praying - a fasting church, and see what the faithful churches do to it.

Or let it literally “lift up holy hands” in prayer and praise to God, which a few of our daring souls are doing here and there.

Or let it have some visiting brother from the Christian Church lead the congregation in prayer or address the saints—or even a brother from some other party in the Church of Christ for that matter. Never mind how beautifully he may be able to bear the saints to the very throne of God through his gift of praying. ‘Tis better, we all know, to hear some poor soul drone through the usual cliches to the utter boredom of us all than to trifle with unorthodoxy.

Or let it discard some of our sacrosanct practices, such as the invitation song. Or turn Wednesday night into family visitation. Or print, paint, type, write, or emboss some name beside Church of Christ. Or call for a special collection for the Red Cross or Salvation Army rather than one for our orphanages or missions.

It is a form of idolatry, this passion to appease other congregations. It is the lordship of party practice rather than the lordship of Jesus. “If we do that, they’ll criticize us. . .” becomes a virtual mandate. “Our people don’t do it that way” becomes more important than what the scriptures actually teach. You can frighten most of our elderships with “If you keep doing things like that, there’ll not be a preacher in the brotherhood that will preach for you.” That, of course, is part of the problem, preachers do preach for churches more than for the Lord and for truth’s sake, and so a lot of folk are caught up in a “play loyal” game.

Congregational autonomy is virtually nonexistent among us. All our talk about it is a joke, a colossal illusion. We feel a keen responsibility to stay within the general practice of our particular brand of Churches of Christ. To get “marked” as liberal or anti or charismatic or even as different is feared like a plague. Any brother who suggests that “the other road” be taken is considered a threat, and he will be made to suffer in one way or another if he dares to take that other road himself. And believe it, dear reader, it doesn’t matter what the Bible has to say about it.

When we tell our neighbors that our churches are autonomous, we are deceiving them. We should say something like this: We have a rather strict party line, an unwritten creed, that all our churches follow. If a church gets out of line, it is disfellowshipped by the others. We are uniform in name, organization, doctrine, and practice because we don’t veer from the way we’ve always done it. If a neighbor asks such a nauseating question as, “But suppose a congregation finds some new truth,” we will of course respond, “That can’t happen, for we already have all the truth.” The neighbor might not buy it, but I believe we’d get an A for honesty!

But we do have some truly autonomous congregations, and praise God that freedom is having its way with some of us. It is my judgment that these churches are terribly feared by the others. Orthodoxy must not allow them to survive. Their penalty for being different must be death or at least isolation. Their very existence is a threat, for how could they dare change when they were already like the rest of us. To change from being right can only mean that one is now wrong.

I am not here weighing the place of autonomy itself. Our folk have always assumed autonomy to be the way of God, which may be open to question. The congregations in the New Testament were hardly autonomous in that they were under apostolic authority, or they were suppose to be. Paul merely needed to write a letter and that would change things, or that was the way it was supposed to be. The New Testament churches were more apostolic than autonomous. In any event, the scriptures do not talk about how autonomous we are to be. I am not sure how that term came to be such a big deal in our history and in our thinking. We have never practiced it, that’s for sure. Take away editorocracy, clerical rule, domination by Christian colleges, the demand to be like other congregations, and you have no rule left for the churches in our history.

But still we assume that autonomy is desirable, perhaps even scriptural. We are all still under apostolic rule and the lordship of Christ, and as God’s kingdom on earth we are a monarchy under King Jesus rather than a democracy. But we are to be autonomous in that each one of us is to decide his own course and follow his own conscience, looking only to Jesus and his word for guidance. Others are not to impose their conscience on us. This will allow for considerable difference between us even while we are all one in Christ. And this must be true of congregations as well.

If this is what we mean by autonomy, then it has a lot going for it, scripturally, pragmatically, psychologically, and every other way. I am all for it. I think we ought to start practicing it.—The Editor