WHAT CONGREGATIONAL AUTONOMY AND EQUALITY DOES NOT MEAN

1. It does not mean equality in the numerical strength of congregations.

2. It does not mean equality in knowledge, talent or influence.

3. It does not mean equality in material net worth or financial strength.

4. It does not mean exact equality in the amount of work done, budget, or the size of programs planned by each congregation. Such equality is not required by command, example or necessary inference.

How taught: ( 1) Church cooperation is taught in the New Testament by approved example: (a) Disciples in Antioch sent to the elders in Judea for the poor in that area (Acts 11:27-30); (b) Churches in Macedonia sent to the poor among the saints in Jerusalem (2 Cor. 8: l-5); and (c) several churches contributed to establish the church

in Corinth (2 Cor. 11: 8). (2) Church cooperation is also taught by apostolic command: The churches of Galatia and in Corinth were ordered to send to the needy in Jerusalem. (1 Cor. 16:1-3; 2 Cor. 8: 6-15) Such cooperation involved many individuals in numerous congregations. Church cooperation in such work is partnership with

God, according to rules given by the Holy Spirit. (1 Cor. 1:9; 15:58; Eph. 2: 10; 2 Tim. 2: 5.) Members of the body of Christ are God’s fellow-workers on the team by which the pure light of the everlasting gospel is radiated in a sinful world. ( 1 Cor. 3 :9)

Nature of the principle: Elders have the oversight only of the local church-the flock among them-and its work. (Acts 20: 17, 28; 1 Pet. 5 : l-3.) But autonomous churches may voluntarily cooperate in relieving the needs of others and in helping others do the work of God. (2 Cor. 8: 1-5; Rom. 15 : 25-3 1.) No church can dictate to others. But God ordained that local churches contribute to and assist sister congregations in doing God’s work. (1 Cor. 16: l-6.) Sometimes it is the giving of material means for the poor (Rom. 15 :26) ;  sometimes it involves ministry of the word-sending a preacher to another church to meet a spiritual need (Acts 11: 21-26) ; sometimes it is sending someone to consult with another congregation (Acts 15 : 1-4) ; sometimes it is sending advice and/or personnel to another church in response to solicitation for help (Acts 15:22-33); and sometimes it is sending funds to supply spiritual service to a church in a mission field (Phil. 4: 14-18; 2 Cor. 11: 8.)

As to method therefore, the principle is generic, not specific. Since more than one method of cooperation is authorized, none is bound to the exclusion of the others. Expediency ( 1 Cor. 6: 12)) good pleasure (Rom. 15: 27)) and love (John 13: 35) must determine which method a church will use.

Law and expediency: Church autonomy is a matter of faith (the essential) which we must honor. Church autonomy also involves expediency (the incidental), which we must also understand and honor. Church cooperation is also both a matter of faith (the essential) and a matter of expediency (the incidental). In doing God’s work, autonomous churches must make decisions and take action concerning church cooperation. This involves both specific authority (What?)’ and generic authority (How.7 When? Where? How much?).

As to duty, or necessity to cooperate, the divine principle is specific; but as to method, the divine law is generic. To walk “by faith” is to do what is commanded or authorized by the divine law of Christ in approved ways. (2 Cor. 5:7; Matt. 16:19; 28:20; 2 Tim. 2:5.) “Faith” is as broad as divine revelation, but no broader. (Rom. 10: 17; Matt. 17:5) However, when divine law authorizes a thing to be done, authority is included for doing that thing in some effective way. (Heb. 10:25.) What is both authorized and permitted by generic authority is lawful, and to do it is to walk by faith. To neglect, discredit or disobey what the law of Christ teaches by command is to be guilty of sin. (James 4: 17.) Such is not walking by faith. But to forbid what the Bible teaches and allows by generic authority is also to fall away from the faith, depart from divine fellowship, and become guilty of lawlessness. (1 Tim. 4: 1-3; 1 John 3:4.)

Divine law guides and limits faith and practice. Both the authority and limitations., of divine law must be honored. We are guided and limited by the word of God in teaching: “Preach the gospel;” “preach the word;” “If any man  speaketh, speaking as it were the oracles ofGod.” (Mark 16:15; 2 Tim. 4:2; 1 Pet. 4:ll.) We are guided and limited by apostolic doctrine in our practice: Jesus said, “And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matt. 16: 19; 18: 18; Acts 2:4ff.) We are bound by what the apostles bound:

“Whosoever goeth onward and abideth not in the teaching of Christ, hath not God: he that abideth in the teaching, the same hath both the Father and the Son.” (2 John 9.) We must not loose where God does not. (Heb. 12:2; Rev. 22:18,19.) But where the apostles did not bind, there is liberty in doing things commanded; and we must respect

and grant that liberty. To bind where God has not is to give heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons. ( 1 Tim. 4: l-3.) One departs from divine fellowship as surely by binding where God has not as by loosing where he does not.

What violates autonomy? Some contend that for a church to send funds to another congregation to be administered by it, or to a home =which the sending church does not manage, is to give up its autonomy. But the church in Antioch did not lose its autonomy when it sent relief to the church in Judaea. (Acts 11:29,30.) They exercised their autonomy and retained oversight over their own work. The churches in Galatia and Corinth did not lose their autonomy when they gave to the poor at Jerusalem. (Rom. 15:26,27; 1 Cor. 16: l-3; 2 Cor. 8:6-22.) Each church exercised its autonomy in sending and receiving. When the churches of Macedonia gave to that need, they too exercised their autonomy. (2 Cor. 8: l-5.) The church in Antioch did not take over the Jerusalem church when it received Barnabas from the Jerusalem church and used him a whole year in Antioch for evangelism and edification. (Acts 11: 22-26.) Nor did the Jerusalem church take over the autonomy of the church in Antioch when it sent help to Antioch. (Acts 15:22-33.) Each church exercised its autonomy in giving and receiving to meet a spiritual need. Neither church took over the other, nor did either church surrender its independence. The church at Corinth was helped by a number of churches in evangelism, but it did not lose its autonomy in so doing. (2 Cor. 11:8; 1 Cor. 16: 3.) Nor did the churches that sent to their aid lose theirs. The Bible does not teach that one church must control every church to which it sends funds, nor does it teach that a congregation must manage every home to which it contributes. (Acts 6: l-6.) There can and must be scriptural cooperation without inter-congregational organization, without regional bishops, and without loss of autonomy.

Inspiration plainly foretold the general falling away. (1 Tim. 4: 1; 2 Thes. 2: 1-12.) Before the end of the first century Paul declared that “the mystery of lawlessness doth already work.” (Thes. 2:7; cf. 1 John 4:l.)

Signs of the falling away in the form of church government appeared early in the second century. The epistles of Ignatius of Antioch, written by 110 A.D., indicate that the name “bishop” (episcopos) was becoming the sole title of one superior leader of the congregation. The apostles had jurisdiction over the entire church, but they left no

successors. Instead, they ordained a plurality of bishops, elders or pastors in every church. (Acts 14:23; 20:17,28; Eph. 4:ll; Titus 1:5.) But because such men as Ignatius, Clement, and Cyprian of Carthage (A.D. 195-258) gave support to the idea of monarchal bishops, the structure of the church was perverted. By A.D. 150 many churches were under such authority. “Episcopal” government evidently became the rule in all the larger churches by the end of the second century, and that paved the way for the rise of the Catholic hierarchy. The next major step in the development of hierarchal church government was the Council of Nicea, called by Constantine in 325 A.D. Out

of a total of 1800, 3 18 bishops came to Nicea in Asia Minor at govemment expense. They sanctioned the office of “metropolitan’‘-five superior bishops in large population areas-and designated three of those five “patriarchs.” Rome’s bishop refused this title; but the pope became a reality in A.D. 590 when Gregory I was awarded the title

“universal bishop.” The falling away in church autonomy was a gradual development of 500 years. Then for 1000 years “the man of sin” virtually ruled the earth. But in 1517, Martin Luther was able to break the shackles of Papal power and corruption. Having broken with the papacy, he worked out the organization for Lutheran churches in 1523-24, adopting the congregational form of government. “Let the people govern,” he said.

But because of the Peasants’ Revolt, he later renounced this and said the civil ruler should be in charge. He began to distrust the common man. In spite of Luther’s success in returning the Bible to the people, a fine opportunity to restore the Bible principle of church autonomy was aborted. But the Reformation paved the way for the Restoration. The early 19th century Restoration Movement was a genuine effort to restore New Testament Christianity. The dissolving of the Springfield Presbytery, June 28, 1804, by Barton W. Stone and four other

preachers, was significant for its implications concerning church autonomy. The Campbells (Thomas & Alexander) and Walter Scott taught that “nothing ought to be inculcated upon Christians as articles of faith, nor required of them as terms of communion . . . nor admitted of divine obligation . . . but what is expressly enjoined by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ and his apostles . . . either in express terms or by approved precedent.” (Luther’s position was to allow what the Bible does not specifically forbid.) The Campbells were in autonomous churches when Brush Run and Wellsburg began. But they affiliated with Baptist associations a few

years. Wellsburg church (which included the Campbells) became truly autonomous in 1830 when the Mahoning Association was dissolved. A. Campbell was slow to disassociate himself and the movement from the Baptists. He was even slower to divest himself of “the Baptist Associational formulas” for evangelistic work. He was not

opposed to it for meetings, reports, or as a missionary organization, “pruned of certain redundancies and encroachments upon faith, piety, and humanity.“-Millenniaial Harbinger, 1849, p. 272.

By articles he wrote in 183 l-32, and in 1841, Campbell sought to lead the brethren toward greater cooperation through a general organization of the churches. He evidently did not trust God’s arrangement for activating the church, and regarded the entire matter of church cooperation through regional associations and the missionary society as mere expediency. His ideas were opposed by some who denied his contention that the churches were deficient in organization, but the movement for county and state meetings with presidents, secretaries and treasuries gained momentum. They sent out, supported and supervised evangelists. In 1849 the American Christian Missionary Society was formed in Cincinnati. A. Campbell was its president until he died in 1866. In spite of his towering genius and monumental contribution to New Testament Christianity, the wedge that divided the church was driven: The human was substituted for the divine in church cooperation and autonomy. The major trouble which followed was becauseof departures from the princiuple which gave the Movement birth.After the church was divided, churches of Christ honored the Bible plan of church autonomy, working through elders of local churches.

The sponsoring church method of cooperation was used for decades, at home and abroad, with approval of leading preachers and editors and with marked success. In April, 1950, however, the Gospel Guar- &cm launched an offensive against this method of cooperation in foreign evangelism, a method they had used in meetings and other programs. This bold, new position, taken by sincere, ardent but mistaken men, was supported by some outstanding preachers. They argued that “the scriptures authorize a pattern for congregational cooperation”

which “is specific, not generic,” and that the sponsoring church type of cooperation in foreign mission work violates that pattern. One of their strongest objections was that such cooperation was “a little missionary society.”

After the Herald of Truth began, Feb. 10, 1952, the Guardian men condemned the very principle of cooperation in a local field which they had formerly used and taught. The guns of the movement were turned against the very principle formerly practiced and defended as scriptural. After a few debates, they began to change arguments and take new positions. Some affirmed three specific patterns of church cooperation -one for evangelism, one for edification and one for benevolence. Others stuck with the “one exclusive pattern” position, but by 1958 the

Guardian Publisher was saying, “The pattern is general.” By 1958 they had abandoned the position on which they staked their whole case from 1950-55. But they continued to oppose good works and create division in the church.

In the next lesson we plan to show why there is no parallel between sponsored church cooperation and the missionary society method of church cooperation. A number of sincere brethren has been convinced that church

contributions to orphan homes and the Herald of Truth type of church cooperation are not in harmony with the New Testament teaching. It is alleged that there is a true parallel between the Missionary Society of the Christian Church and such cooperative works among churches of Christ as orphan homes and the Herald of Truth radio and television program of the Highland church, Abilene, Texas. It is the purpose of this lesson to explain why no such parallel exists. Most opposition to the type of church cooperation involved in the Herald of Truth has been based upon the idea that ( 1) the New Testament teaches one specific pattern of church cooperation, and (2) that the Herald of Truth type of cooperation violates that pattern and is therefore parallel to the Missionary Society. This position has been proved to be wrong on both counts. The New Testament teaches a general pattern of church cooperation (Acts 11:22-26; 11:27-30; 15:1-5; 15:22-29; 1 Cor. 16:1-4; 2 Cor. 8:1-5; 9:1-15; 11:8), and the Herald of Truth type of cooperation, as an expedient, violates no New Testament principle. So long as (1)

the principle of congregational autonomy is observed, and (2) no inter-congregational organization is formed, no New Testament principle is violated when one church, or a number, assists another church in doing the work of the Lord. This conclusion does not deny the fact that each local church must do “its own work.” But a local church’s own work is clearly that work which it is authorized by the New Testament to do and which it has the ability to do. And this goes right back to the question of whether we have specific or generic

authority in the matter of church cooperation.Furthermore, to say that we have a general pattern, rather than

specific, for churches to cooperate, does not mean that ANY method of cooperation is permissible (such as the Missionary Society) ; any more than to say that, because we have a general pattern of teaching, ANY

method of teaching is authorized (such as the Missionary Society). What the opponents of the Herald of Truth type of cooperation must do is take one of two steps: (1) Either DENY that one church may send anything to another church in order to help meet a SPlRlTUAL NEED (in spite of Acts 11:22-24; 15:22,23; and 2 Cor.

11:8) or (2) DEFINE (by exclusive, specific pattern) WHAT SIZE LIMIT the Bible places upon a spiritual need to which another church is authorized to contribute. Few are willing to take step number one for obvious reasons. Yet those who have taken step number two have failed to give adequate answers to such questions as these: Is a

church’s spiritual “need” of the local church (members) only? Could “a church in need” have a spiritual need that reaches out into the whole city? County? State? Obviously there is a realm of expediency in church cooperation. Not everything is clearly specified. Opposition to church contributions to orphan homes has been based

upon the idea that (1) the New Testament has specified the local congregation as the only organization through which the church must provide for its needy, and (2) that there is a true parallel between the Missionary Society and the orphan home. This position has also been proved to be wrong on both counts.

The New Testament charges the church with some responsibility in providing for the needs of the fatherless and widows. James 1:27 reveals what is to be done, and 1 Tim. 5:16 reveals who is to do it. But, has the Lord specified the local congregation as “the only organization” through which the church must provide for the needy? Has he specified the type of home in which the fatherless and the widow must be kept? Has the Lord specified who is to supervise and manage the place in which they are kept? Virtually all now admit that incorporation of the homes is not the question at issue. (Some states require that local congregations also form a legal corporation to own property.) Neither is it really a question of “another organization” than the local church doing the work of caring for the needy; for this is done when a private home cares for a charge of the church. The basic question is  his: Has God specified what type of management must characterize a home in which the needy must be kept, and to which a church may contribute? Obviously not. If it be true that God has specified the local congregation

as the only organization through which the church may do the work of providing for the needy, this either eliminates the private home, or it does not. (1) If it does not, then there is no specific pattern as to what type of management must characterize a home to which churches are authorized to contribute. (2) If it does, then a

church may never use a private home in which to place one of its charges, and it can never make a contribution to a home which the local church does not manage.

The idea that the orphan home is parallel to the Missionary Society is clearly wrong. There are similarities, but similarity does not prove identity. A man and a monkey are similar in at least forty ways. But there is no true parallel between them-they remain man and animal, vastly different in many fundamental ways. The difference between the orphan home and the Missionary Society is just as great. Besides this, the opponents of the homes admit (1) that individuals may contribute to them; and (2) that churches may buy services from them (hire them to care for a child); and (3) some have even suggested that they may be supported with a box in the vestibule of the church building. This seems to be a clear admission that the orphan homes are not parallel to the Society.

The orphan homes are “institutions” in an entirely different category from the church as an institution, serving a different function, and are not rivals of the church; whereas, the Missionary Society is an institution originated by men in the same category with the church, serving the same function, and is clearly a rival of the church Jesus

built. Failure to see that one term may be used in two entirely different senses is what has caused some to fear what some call “institutionalism.”

Yet, after Jesus told Pilate, “my kingdom is not of this world,” Pilate understood that his kingdom and the kingdom of Jesus were in different categories, serving different functions, and were not rivals of each other, even though there may have been some overlapping. He therefore from that moment sought to release Jesus.

Pray and work that our brethern will become equally clear in their thinking on the matter of “institutions.”