The law code consists of an introduction stating that Hammurabi was chosen by the gods to record the code, followed by 282 statements of law, and concluded with an epilogue. What is unique about this code is that unlike other ancient findings, it is completely intact.

Before this discovery, skeptics resisted the older date of the first five books of Moses. However, since this discovery, those conclusions have been challenged. Archaeology has revealed that this code predates the Law of Moses.

Because of this fact, critics say that Moses borrowed from Hammurabi’s code when writing the Law. There are a number of similarities between the two laws. Hammurabi’s code shares 37 similar lines with the Law of Moses. Lines 1, 8, 21-24, 60, 117-126, 129, 130-132, 154-158, 195-201, and 250-252 correspond to Exodus 20:14-15; 21:2-11, 15-16, 22-25, 28-36; 22:1-3, 7-9; 23:1-3; Leviticus 19:11-13, 23-25; 24:19-20; Deuteronomy 5:18-20; 15:12-18; 19:16-21; 21:1-5; 22:1-4, 22-27; 24:7; 27:22-23; Numbers 5:5-29; and Ruth 3:11; 4:10.

One of the reasons why this perplexed scholars when it was discovered is because of the small number of law codes known to exist at the time. Scholars first believed that the Mosaic Law was derived from the code of Hammurabi; however, further archaeological finds of other comparable law codes have forced scholars to abandon this theory. In fact, many countries had law codes at this time demonstrating that the code of Hammurabi is not as unique as first thought. However, there is more to it than just similar law codes.

As one compares the two they will see that the Mosaic Law goes beyond Hammurabi’s code or any other ancient code of law, being grounded in the worship of the one true God. Hammurabi’s code deals with many subjects which can be divided into twelve sections: legal processes, thieves, vassals, homes and land, trade-ins, deposits, family, injury to others, building, hiring, and the treatment of slaves. Marriage, family, and property are covered in 67 paragraphs within the code. Yet, with all the subjects covered there is one that’s missing: religion. According to Hammurabi, he received this code from the Babylonian gods Anu and Bel, but while it was received from gods, the subject of religion was not even once addressed in the code. There was no overall theme to this code, just a list of rules and regulations, with no deeper application to be made than submitting to the rules themselves.

This is not the case when one reads the Mosaic Law. While on the surface the law does state a variety of regulations in which the Israelites were to follow, the theme of the law is abundantly clear when the entire narrative is read. God’s law was designed and had the power to convict the heart and soul; Hammurabi’s code and other laws were not. The focus of the Mosaic Law was not just following God’s commands, but developing a character of love in the Israelites. While Jesus was teaching in Jerusalem, a lawyer came and asked Him about the greatest commandment. Jesus said, “You shall love the LORD you God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself’. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 22:35-39). God’s special covenant was a precursor to the law that Jesus would preach in the New Testament (Hebrews 10:1), and to the example that He would show us when He gave His life as a ransom for us (Matthew 20:28).

While the code of Hammurabi and the Mosaic Law may have some similarities between them regarding civil matters, it cannot be said that they were derived from the same source. The Mosaic Law goes so much further in developing an order and a people convicted of the things that the Lord has commanded them. To say that Moses copied from the code of Hammurabi betrays an ignorance of the purposes of the two laws.

The Apostate Church

Soon after the church was established men began to seek innovations in congregational government, work and worship.  There was a gradual change in thinking regarding the concept of authority.  The attitude of the apostles and first century Christians was, "If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God…" (cf. 1 Peter 4:11).  But, as the years progressed, the concept that tradition should be viewed as equally authoritative as scripture gradually developed.

Today, the Catholic church has expressed this principle absolutely:

"It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls."

Cathechism of the Catholic church (95)

Such a view coincided with pattern changes in the nature and work of our Lord’s church.  For example, churches were at one time satisfied with the Bible pattern of a plurality of elders in every congregation, and church autonomy (cf. Philippians 1:1; Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:2).  However, a gradual departure from that biblical pattern has resulted in the ecclesiastical  structure presently seen in the Catholic church.

Similar departures from Biblical patterns have resulted in unscriptural worship, the adoption of pagan days, and man-made doctrines such as the veneration of Mary, purgatory, celibacy, etc.  These things are from man, not God, and are condemned in principle by passages such as Matthew 15:9, "And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men."

Protestant Reformation

Much is made of the reformation efforts of men such as Luther, Zwingli and Calvin in the 1500′s.  However, these efforts, designed to reform the Catholic church, fell far short of a return to Bible authority for religious beliefs and practices.

Denominational creeds replaced church tradition, but both were substituted for Bible doctrine.  Humanly devised theologies were embraced rather than plain Bible teaching, and many of the conventions and innovations of Catholicism were retained in the Protestant denominations.

Christian Church

In the United States in the early 1800′s some became disillusioned by such human innovation.  A movement began to return to the Bible and the Bible alone for religious authority.  Men began to again respect Peter’s admonition, "If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God…"  We owe our heritage as Christians in this country, at least in part, to these efforts.

However, it was not long before men again began to depart from the word of God.  In his book, (published in 1951) Doctrine and Thought of the Disciples of Christ, Howard Short concisely states the attitude of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), which is the final product of this apostasy.  "Some (Christians, SC) were determined that the Bible contained every work of information and inspiration which the church could ever need:

‘What the Scripture does not explicitly teach is prohibited,’ they said.  It said nothing about missionary societies and organs, so there must be none.  Others (Disciples of Christ, SC) insisted, ‘What is not prohibited is permitted,’ so they had societies and organs.  The Churches of Christ stand separately from the Disciples of Christ today…, because the former group did not avoid the pitfall of literalism and expected more from the Bible than it promises." (pg. 15).

We dealt with this principle "What is not prohibited is permitted" in our article The Silence of Scripture.  Such a wrong attitude toward the Bible has not only led to "societies and organs" but in the 51 years since Short wrote his little book, the addition of women as preachers, a rejection of the inspiration of the scriptures by many of their preachers, and an full fledged embracing of the ecumenical movement in America.

Each apostasy had as its core a rejection of the authority of God’s word.  Had there been a fidelity to the principles established in the New Testament, such innovations and changes would not have occurred.  This is an important lesson to us today.  Brethren, unless we understand the nature of biblical authority and apply it to all aspects of our lives, we are in danger of suffering  the same fate.

This debate is important because Vance suggests a radical departure from the practice of the NT and makes his unscriptural “pattern” a test of fellowship. As one who serves as an evangelist and an elder in a local church, I deny his affirmative as both unscriptural and impractical. Our difference is not personal nor is his honesty or sincerity impugned.

Definitions: I commend Vance in appealing to the scriptures. However “pattern” should reflect a binding quality beyond that of his dictionary (2 Tim. 1:13; 1 Tim. 1:16; Heb. 8:5). Since Vance is advocating a pattern that requires “congregational decision-making in matters of judgment” and requires “an increased role for women in the decision-making processes of local churches” (Vance Trefethen, Confusion or Consensus, New Horizon Books, Montgomery, Al, 1993, p. 3), his obligation is to show that pattern. He brands private decision-making by elders as “without authority” (ibid, p. 6), thus sinful. Since a pattern allows no deviations, if it can be shown that a single exception to his pattern exists, he has no pattern. However, Vance is confused about what makes a pattern. He states “Acts 15 is the only Bible pattern there is on the matter” (ibid, p. 32), but attempts to add Acts 6 and 1 Cor. 5, etc., to that pattern. Either Acts 15 is the “sole” (only) pattern or it is not. When defining “decision-making in matters of congregational judgment” Vance emphasized that this addressed matters of judgment and not matters of faith. Agreed, but we differ on “decision-making” itself! His pattern calls for every decision to be made by the whole congregation (including women), under male leadership. This would be required in every congregation, whether or not there were elders. I suggest that this makes elders mere figureheads, with no scriptural authority to decide any matter. Though he affirms that he believes elders have “authoritative work to do in overseeing and leading a local church,” he also requires a “consensus” (ibid, p. 22, 24, 25, et al): a contradiction of terms. Consensus is “a collective opinion, general agreement” (Funk & Wagnalls Std. Dict.) in which women carry the same force as men in “decision-making” or there is no true consensus. “Consensus” is not found in the scriptures! It fits well in a democracy, but the church is a theocracy where elders are specifically mandated (Acts 14:23; 1 Pt. 5:2, etc.). It is exceedingly strange that his entire pattern is built upon a word that is not found in the scriptures (either specifically or in principle).

What this debate is not about: 1) “Not about feminism”? Though his disclaimer is appreciated, it is futile. I respect that he rejects feminism as such, but his position opens the door to the very evil he denounces. “Consensus” puts women on a par with men in decision-making. If a consensus of women in the majority disagrees with the consensus of men in the minority (which is true in many churches), he has placed the decision of the women over the men. The women may be humble and discreet, but either they have decision-making authority or they do not! If the minority of the men over-ride the decisions of the majority of the women, consensus would be destroyed. But when he allows the decisions of the women to prevail, he has violated 1 Tim. 2:11-15. His pattern has put him on the horns of a dilemma. 2) “It is not about women serving as preachers and bishops?” Again, I respect his disclaimer and join with him in denouncing such as a violation. But as a practical matter, once he opens the gate to decision-making women, it is foolish to think that all will be content with this “increased role” and nothing more. Already, congregations exist where women are leading in public worship. Some allow women to teach mixed classes of men and women “under male leadership” or as “co-teachers.” His position, however unwitting, advances women in that direction and cannot logically prohibit it. 3). “Not about whether elders have leadership, oversight, or responsibility in the local church?” But of course it is. His definition of “decision-making” and “consensus” eviscerates Biblical elders. Elders have no oversight in a consensus. Responsibility adheres to those making decisions and since the consensus decision is the congregation’s, the responsibility is theirs and not the elders. 4) Addressed in #2 above. 5) No disagreement here.

What this debate is about: The role of elders. Does the scriptural pattern require congregational meetings (including women) every single time there are decisions of judgment to be made? or: Do elders have authority from God to meet privately and make judgment decisions that bind the whole church?

Arguments: 1) Acts 6:1-6. According to Vance it is a sin for private meetings of males to make decisions for the whole church. But look at the text. The apostles 1) privately decided to change previous practices, 2) privately decided to stop serving tables, 3) privately decided to have others serve tables, 4) privately decided that these would be men and not women, 5) privately decided there would be seven of these men, 6) privately decided the qualifications of these seven and 7) privately decided that they would appoint the men and not allow the church to do so. Yes, what the apostles privately decided pleased the whole multitude and they had a role in choosing the men who would serve. The whole church can be, even should be, involved in some congregational actions. Clearly his “pattern” denies the very thing found in Acts 6: private decisions by males that are bound upon the whole congregation. His pattern is not found in Acts 6. It violates the “traditions of the apostles” (2 Thes. 2:15; 3:16).

2) Acts 15:12-27. His “pattern” calls for a congregational decision with no private meetings. Though the action “pleased the whole church” there were private meetings and his pattern fails in the very place he affirms as his “sole pattern.” Relating Gal. 2:1-10 to the meeting in Acts 15 will reveal the flaw in his exegesis. Gal. 2 shows that when Paul went to Jerusalem, he met privately (2:2) with “those of repute.” Acts 15:2 shows this private meeting to be with “the apostles and elders” who made the decision to give the right hand of fellowship to Paul and Barnabas. After this, they met with the whole church (15:4), then had another private meeting with the apostles and elders (15:6). Again, there is no disagreement with involving the church in the process but his pattern denies the truth of these private meetings where decisions were made. These multiple exceptions to his “sole pattern” show that he has no pattern.

3). 1 Cor. 5:1-5, 11-13. There has never been a problem with involving the whole church in various processes, including discipline, as in this text. The problem is his assertion that no private decisions can be made that bind the whole church to the decision of the few. Read just a few verses beyond ch. 5, into ch. 6:1-5, and we see the very thing he denies. In the matter of brother going to court against brother, Paul admonishes that brethren ought not go to court before the unrighteous, but that there should be a “court of the saints” (vs. 1). He advises that we ought to be able to “judge” by finding at least “one wise man who shall be able to decide between brethren” (vs. 5). Here are “wise men” (would elders qualify?) who make decisions for the whole church in disputes between brethren. Vance’s pattern is in tatters!

4) Matt. 18:15-17. He recognizes that discipline is a congregational matter and that it should be done under “male leadership!” Could these males be elders? If Vance could see the contradiction between “male leadership” and “decision-making women,” this debate would be over. When the church at Antioch sent relief to the needy brethren in Judea (Acts 11:27-30), they sent it to the “elders” (vs. 30). (What decision did the women make?) When the relief went to the elders, did it not go to the churches? In this case, the elders represented the churches which received the benevolence. If discipline began individually and continued until it came before the church, would it not be before the church under the leadership of the elders? Vance will learn that there are scandalous actions of brethren that do not need to be aired before the “whole church” lest they cause weak brethren and babes to stumble. Yes, the whole church can be involved in discipline but under the leadership of the elders. Your pattern is not supported by Matt. 18.

Questions: 1) Yes, Acts 6, Acts 15, etc., but this does not prohibit private decisions by male leaders. 2). Elders are authorized to make decisions for the church as the passages above prove. If elders cannot make such private decisions, no other group could. But if elders are authorized to do so, in the absence of elders, male leadership prevails, as you yourself propose (1 Tim. 2). 3) Yes. 4) Yes, as seen above. Additionally, in Acts 11:27-30 it is inferred that the elders decided who, how long and how much, etc. 5) No, but this does not rule out an “ekklesia” acting through agency. Examples: 1 Cor. 16:3; 2 Cor. 8:23 (messengers of the churches acted on behalf of the church); Acts 11:27-30 (elders received the funds on behalf of the receiving church). 6). No, an unqualified man cannot act as or substitute for an elder. But in the absence of elders, male leadership is authorized (1 Tim. 2:11-15) as you admit. Congregations existed for a time without elders (Acts 13:1ff-Acts 14:23). Male leadership is necessarily inferred.

Questions for Vance: 1) Do you believe Acts 15:22 authorizes voting? 2) Can an “ekklesia” be represented by agency, and if so, is it the same as the ekklesia acting? 3) If the majority of a congregation is women and the women disagree with the minority men concerning a matter of judgment, can the majority rule? 4) How can women be involved in “decision making,” remain in subjection, yet overturn the decision of men? 5) Must the entire church be gathered to decide the multitudes of decisions about buying supplies, caring for the needy (including sensitive financial information), hearing complaints between members, investigating scandalous moral actions of members and make every decision about every matter? 6) Is an eldership bound by a consensus even though the entire eldership disagrees with it?

I urge brother Trefethen to abandon his faulty pattern which will only generate strife and stumbling among brethren and to turn his considerable talents to edifying (Eph. 4:29).

Editor’s Note: Brother Roberts is presently preparing for a move to the Tampa, Florida area, to work with the Forest Hills congregation.  As such, I have taken the liberty of reprinting an article Tom wrote for the West Side Weekly, a bulletin published by the West Side church in Fort Worth, TX in the time brother Roberts preached for that congregation.

The date of the article is November 20, 1977.  At that time, brother Roberts was dealing with the error of “Neo-Calvinism” in the Dallas, Fort Worth area.  Among other criticisms he and others received in their defense of truth was the charge that they were “meddling” in the affairs of other congregations.

While the illustration is dated, (typewriters instead of computers and the internet),  the argument used to refute this quibble is the same.  Truth does not violate autonomy! We commend his article to you. (Stan)

One hears a lot of objections these days to the use of bulletins by churches.  They are used, it is said, to meddle in other churches’ affairs and to ruin the reputation of preachers who deviate from orthodox positions.  I believe we need to consider these charges.

A bulletin, properly used, is simply a teaching medium of a congregation.  It is used in much the same way that a radio program is used:  to expand the teaching area that can be reached by the local church.  A bulletin can be as versatile as gospel preaching in that it can be used for local members or for those not Christians or for a combined audience of Christians and non-Christians.  In and of itself, there is nothing wrong with a church using a bulletin, nor a radio program, nor any other means to proclaim the truth.

Wherein, then, lies the objection to church bulletins?  Must it not be an abuse of their use (real or imaginary)?  If church bulletins are scriptural as a method of teaching (and I believe them to be so), we should not object to them but to their abuse.  In this, I see a parallel to debating.  Many object to debates themselves, while debates are eminently scriptural.  But what many object to, with foundation, is the abuse of debates where such become an harangue and occasion of egotistical strife.  We might as well object to gospel preaching itself simply because there are preachers who have abused their place and brought dishonor to their work.  Let us learn to distinguish between that which is right and proper in itself and an abuse of that same thing.  One is right and the other is wrong.

But there is another thing to consider.  Some might object to bulletins simply because they are doing a good job of teaching the truth.  I have seen people in the denominational world object to bulletins (and tracts and radio programs and debates, etc.) simply because their error has been exposed.  They cry long and loud about “hard preaching,” “evils of debating,” “hate sheets,” when their position is examined and exposed.  Liberal churches frown on debates now that they occupy an indefensible position.  They refuse to debate institutionalism but will still debate denominationalism.  In other words, some people object to criticism only when their cause is weak.

Down through the years debates, radio programs, and yes, bulletins, have done an immeasurable amount of good.  Each of these methods of proclamation of truth has been, and can continue to be, used to good advantage.  A church would be foolish indeed not to be able to distinguish between a good method and an abuse of the method.

Is exposing error an abuse?  One preacher recently ridiculed a preacher who “runs to the church typewriter” as soon as he can to “destroy” those who disagree with him.  But he said little about other preachers who use bulletins as a constant medium of teaching and springboard for error.  In other words, let a false teacher have his typewriter. …let him write at will. …let him spread any teaching he chooses, but those who disagree occupy the safe course only by ignoring him.

I want the scripture where this is approved as a safe course of action.  Do you see Paul ignoring those who taught error?  Do you see Peter standing meekly back while teachers of error stood unopposed?  Does the New Testament really teach that we are to keep quiet in the face of false teachers?

Local Autonomy

I recognize the problem of local autonomy being respected while writing for a bulletin.  But so also can the same problem exist where a radio program is used or where personal work is active.  A bulletin, a radio program, personal work or any other medium of teaching should not be construed as a “brotherhood” work.  This bulletin does not speak for area churches nor for brotherhood churches.  But neither does a church stand as an island in the world.  It must influence, even as it is influenced by others.  Local members who receive bulletins from other churches will be influenced.  Local members who visit gospel meetings in other churches will be influenced.  Who can say this always bad or even wrong?  Teaching cannot be limited to a geographical area but such does not negate local autonomy automatically.

Conclusion

My conclusion is that a church may use a bulletin and its influence may be widely felt without invading another church’s independence.  Let us not be critical of any method or medium which a church uses so long as care is used to respect local autonomy.  And finally, let us extend the same courtesy to those who stand for the truth as for those who constantly agitate.  Don’t call for one to cease while allowing the other to continue.  Common fairness and decency demands this much.

To have the proper background to enable us to understand the “autonomy of the local church,” we must have an understanding of the New Testament uses of the word “church.” By an investigation of the word of the Lord it will become evident that the word “church” is used in two senses by divine writers. First, it is used in what may be called the “universal” sense. This simply means that the word “church” is used to include all of the saved in all of the world. When Jesus said, in Matthew 16:18, “Upon this rock I will build my church,” he certainly did not refer to any particular local congregation, for if he did, then all other congregations would be without divine origin. The word was used in the institutional, or universal, sense. The same is true of the statement made by Paul in Ephesians 5:25, as well as in many other New Testament references. However, in the second place, the word is used in a “local” sense. By this use of the word reference is made to all the saved in some particular locality, as “the church of God” at Corinth (1 Corinthians 1:1, 2), or “the church of the Thessalonians” (1 Thessalonians 1:1). The “local” sense of the word is also found in such expressions as “the churches of Galatia” (Galatians 1:2), “the churches of Judea” (Galatians 1:22), and “the seven churches which are in Asia” (Revelation 1:4). The first, or “universal,” sense of the word refers to the people of God in the aggregate, but the second, or “local,” sense of the word has to do with “local congregations.” With this proper meaning of the word in mind, as used by New Testament writers, let us consider the “autonomy of the local church.”

I. God’s Government For His Church Is Congregational

Through many years of the past gospel preachers have contended that any organization to do the work of the church that is larger than a local congregation is too large to be a scriptural organization, and that any organization to do such work that is smaller than a local congregation is too small to be a scriptural organization. This position is eminently scriptural for the word of the Lord has never authorized any organization to do the work of the church except the local congregation. To establish and maintain an organization, such as a Missionary Society or a Benevolent Society, through which a number of churches may perform their work of evangelism or benevolence, is therefore an unscriptural set-up, for such an organization, through which a plurality of churches function, is larger than a local congregation. On the other hand, if within a local congregation we should set up a Young People’s League or a Dorcas Society to perform certain functions of the local church, we have organizations that are smaller than a local congregation. Such has always been regarded as an unscriptural practice. Of course, any of these organizations, whether larger or smaller than a local church, is unscriptural because it is a human organization. But that is not the principal point to be considered in this article.

When God set up the organization of the local church he ordained elders in every church (Acts 14:23) in every city (Titus 1:5) if men were found who possessed the necessary qualifications. He did not authorize one elder for a number of congregations, or even one elder for one congregation. Nor did he authorize one group of elders for a number of congregations. The divine authority requires a plurality of elders for each congregation. According to this arrangement each congregation would be independent of every other congregation, and such an arrangement establishes what we call the “autonomy of the local church.” It makes the government of the church congregational.

II. The Meaning of Autonomy

If you are not familiar with the word “autonomy,” a brief study of its significance will be helpful. It is derived from the Greek words “autos” and “nomos.” The word “autos” means “self,” and the word “nomos” means “law.” Hence, a combination of the terms autos nomos, which gives existence to our word “autonomy,” simply means “self-law.” Or, putting it another way, it means “self-rule” or “self-government.” And this may be expanded into the expression, “the right of self-government.” The “autonomy of the local church” means, therefore, “the right of a local church to govern itself.” This government of the church is exercised, of course, through the elders that God has ordained for each local congregation (Acts 14:23; 20:28).

Autonomy, or self-government, by the elders of a local congregation does not mean that such elders have the right to legislate or to enact laws to govern the church in which they are elders. We have but “one law-giver, who is able to save and destroy” and that lawgiver is Christ (James 4:12). No uninspired man has any right to establish laws to regulate the church of the Lord. Such is not the “self-government” that God has given to local congregations. The authority of elders in any congregation is limited to the judicial and executive realms — to judge, and to put into execution the laws that Jesus gave approximately 1900 years ago. They are not to “judge” in any way that would set aside divine requirements, as such judging is condemned in James 4:11, but they are to make decisions relative to the progress and work of the church — but not as lords over God’s heritage — as divine revelation is put into execution in the hearts and lives of the members of the congregation. Compare 1 Corinthians 5:12. The independence of each congregation is, therefore, maintained when the government of the church is held to the elders of each congregation.

III. Points Involved In Church Autonomy

With no intention of presenting an exhaustive outline of local church autonomy, the following points are presented as illustrative of the jurisdiction of elders relative to the congregation of which they have the oversight. In other words, the congregation has the right of self-government in the following respects.

1. It has the right to discipline its own members when they become unruly. Paul, in the fifth chapter of First Corinthians, gives us an example of this matter. A member of the Corinthian church was guilty of fornication — such as was not even named among the Gentiles — in that he had taken his father’s wife. Relative to the action to take in this matter, Paul made the following declaration: “In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus” (1 Corinthians 5:4, 5). Thus it was that discipline was to be administered to the disorderly member. But you will notice that this disciplinary action was to be taken by the Corinthian church. No authority was given for some other congregation to exercise such corrective measures in the church at Corinth. It was purely a local affair to be looked after by that particular local congregation. It was a matter of autonomy belonging to it and to it only. No other congregation — nor the elders of any other congregation — had any right to take the necessary steps of discipline in the matter.
2. Each congregation has the right to manage its own affairs in matters of judgment and expediency. In sending a contribution for the poor saints at Jerusalem there were matters of judgment and expediency involved. In the absence of a postal system, such as we have today, it was necessary that messengers be used to transport the funds to the point of destination. But each church was to choose its own messengers (2 Corinthians 8:19). Paul told the Corinthian church: “Whomsoever ye shall approve by your letters, them will I send to bring your liberality to Jerusalem” (1 Corinthians 16:3). No other congregation had the right to make Corinth’s selection — it was a matter of autonomy that belonged solely to her.
3. The right to oversee its own work belongs to each congregation. The charge Paul gave to the Ephesian elders is a definite proof of this. He said: “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost has made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood” (Acts 20:28). These elders had the oversight of “all the flock” in the church at Ephesus. They were given no right to oversee the flock at any other place — nor was any other church given the authority to oversee the Ephesian church. It was a matter of local church autonomy.
4. It has the right to control its own resources. Money contributed by the members of a congregation is to be spent by that congregation. The Philippian church, while Paul was in Thessalonica, “sent once and again” to his necessity. And when he “departed from Macedonia” no church “communicated” with him “concerning giving and receiving” but the Philippian church (Philippians 4:15, 16). The congregation had charge of its own resources and spent the money as was its scriptural right to do. Its contributions were not turned to some other church to use according to its discretion, but money was sent by the church to Paul as he engaged in the proclamation of the gospel. It was exercising its autonomy and maintaining its independence in these matters. Such should be true with every other congregation.
5. Providing for the needy among its own members to the extent of its ability is the right of every congregation. When the Grecian “widows were neglected in the daily ministration” steps were taken by the apostles at Jerusalem to have the church there to look after the needs of such widows. The church exercised its right of self-government by taking the necessary steps to make provision for the neglected widows. It will not change the matter to argue that this was the only congregation in existence at that time and that no other church could have had any control over it, for every other church established by inspired men subsequent to this was set up exactly like the church at Jerusalem. If the Jerusalem church was able to manage its own affairs in things of this kind, other congregations, when they were established, were given the same right that the Jerusalem church had. It would be foolish to argue, since the Jerusalem church was the only one in existence when it “continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in the breaking of bread, and in prayers” (Acts 2:42), that other congregations did not also do the same. All congregations were established after the same pattern, and when a second one was formed the independency of the first one was not changed.

IV. A Congregation May Lose Its Autonomy

When a congregation’s right of self-government, as it pertains to discipline, to matters of expediency, to its own resources, to its work, to its relief programs, or to any other matter, is taken over by another congregation, the autonomy of the first congregation is violated. Every one will admit that no congregation can scripturally force its way into another congregation and seize the management of the affairs of that congregation. Such would be a violation of local church autonomy. But do not get the idea that a church never loses its autonomy unless such is taken by force by some outside group, whether it is a human organization or another congregation. A church may willingly surrender its autonomy to a human organization or to another church, and when it does so, it just as definitely loses such autonomy as if it were seized by another group. Since, in the matter of self-government, a church has the right to discipline its own members, this, as has been shown, is a part of its autonomy. But suppose that church willingly turns over the disciplining of its members to another congregation. When any of them becomes unruly or disorderly it takes no steps whatever toward correcting the situation, but allows another congregation to have charge of such matters. Has it not lost its autonomy in that particular field? The fact that it willingly surrendered such does not change it in the least. When we say that such congregation has lost its autonomy, we do not mean that it has lost its autonomy in every field of endeavor, but it has surrendered its autonomy concerning that particular point.

The same holds true concerning other matters involved in local church autonomy. If it willingly surrenders its right to manage its own affairs in matters of expediency and judgment, it loses its autonomy in that field. If another congregation, or another group makes the decisions relative to such things that should be made by the first congregation, then the autonomy of the first congregation has been violated, regardless of how willingly it may have been surrendered. Or, if a congregation surrenders the oversight of its work, or any portion of it, to another congregation, the same principle obtains. It may retain its autonomy relative to local evangelism, but surrender its autonomy relative to foreign evangelism to another congregation; it may retain its right of self-government in the edification of its members, but surrenders such right to another congregation in the field of radio preaching. If it surrenders the control of its resources or of its funds to another congregation to do a work to which both are equally related, the right of self-government has been violated. It may spend its own money for one phase of work that is its responsibility but turn money to another church to spend for another phase of its work. When we say that a congregation thus loses its autonomy, we do not mean that it has surrendered all right of self-government. It may retain its autonomy concerning many things that affect the local congregation, but it has lost its autonomy on that portion of its resources, used to discharge its own responsibility, but placed in the hands and under the oversight of the elders of another congregation.

How willingly a church may turn its work to another, or the fact that it can discontinue such practice when it so determines, does not prove that it in no wise loses its autonomy. A hundred years ago when churches placed their funds and their work in the hands of a Missionary Society the autonomy of the church was violated. They were not forced into such an arrangement, but willingly accepted such a program of work. Furthermore, they could discontinue the practice when they chose to do so. But this did not change the fact that they had lost their autonomy while the program was in operation. The same thing is just as true concerning our “brotherhood projects” today.

V. The Local Congregation Is The Only Medium Through
Which The Church Functions

Attention has been called to the two uses of the word “church” in the New Testament — the “universal” sense and the “local” sense. But God gave no organization to the “church universal.” The only sense in which the church universal can act is for every local congregation to act. But each congregation would have to act in its local capacity. No super-organization or centralized agency has ever been provided by the Lord for inter-congregational action. There were no inter-congregational alliances ever authorized. No group of elders ever became, by New Testament authority, “brotherhood elders.” Each congregation, as has been already shown, had its own elders. Any number of congregations could help another congregation that was in need — that was an object of charity — to relieve distress among its own members when that church was unable to care for its own. But no church was ever set aside by divine authority to become a brotherhood agency through which all churches could do a work to which all were equally related. Each congregation maintained its independence. The only organization ever authorized by the Lord through which the church is to function is the local congregation. The New Testament reveals no other organization for such work. And each congregation is ordained to carry on its own work in its congregational capacity. No one congregation can scripturally become a medium through which the whole brotherhood can function in accomplishing the work of all the congregations. Such has no resemblance to the simplicity of the divine arrangement revealed in the word of the Lord.

VI. God’s Wisdom Shown In Local Autonomy

We can easily see the wisdom of God manifested in the autonomy of the local church. If all the congregations were joined by some sort of “inter-congregational alliance” or “organizational federation,” the dangers of apostasy would be greatly increased. If one congregation in the “alliance” should turn to apostasy, there would be a distinct danger of every other congregation in the “alliance” becoming affected. Or if one group of elders were given the right to oversee many congregations, and they should go into apostasy, every congregation under their oversight would likely be led into the same apostasy. But when each congregation is an independent and autonomous body this is not true. One congregation or one group of elders may go into apostasy without affecting all of the others. Any congregation, of course, through false teaching, may be led into apostasy, but we should recognize and respect the greater degree of safety that is found in the autonomy and independence of the local church. God arranged it that way. Let us strive to keep it that way. Man’s “brotherhood projects” are not an improvement upon the divine system of operation.

The autonomy of the local congregation is a lesson that must be taught again and again. We need to know the truth on this matter as we deal with our denominational friends, whose religious organizations know practically nothing about the Spirit’s teaching on autonomy. Likewise, as the article pointed out, autonomy is a vital issue with some erring brethren. We have only a small amount to add to the author’s words.

The debate over autonomy has taken a new turn in recent years. Some brethren are now claiming that autonomy gives them the authority to do what they want without outside criticism. That is, if they want to accept an adulterous couple in their membership, no one has the right to say anything unfavorable about it, because the local church has the right to self-government. As the author pointed out, no one has the authority to alter the law of the Lord. As one man put it, autonomy only goes as far as authority.

Perhaps the loudest cry for autonomy has come over the issue of who holds a meeting for a congregation. There have been occasions when a church invites a man who is known (to one and all) for teaching error on one or more points. When his use in a meeting is condemned by others, the church protests saying their autonomy is being violated, or an attempt was made to do so, by such criticism. How ridiculous! To our knowledge, no church has been forced or voluntarily given up its self-rule.

We wonder, why do those who complain about violations of autonomy in the face of negative comments not also raise their voice when positive comments are made? If it works for one, it works for the other.

Brethren, let us have a healthy respect for the autonomy of the local church, not departing to the left hand or the right.

Unfortunately men have continually shown themselves unwilling to acquiesce to Christ’s will regarding His church, and have altered the divine plan. Departures have been seen with regard to the worship of the church. Men have promoted innovations such as instruments of music to accompany the singing which is commanded in scripture, and have altered acts of worship such as the Lord’s Supper to the point where they are almost unrecognizable distortions of the divine plan. Men have distorted the work of the church as well, a common example of this is the present emphasis on the church as an agent of social change. This social emphasis is a far cry from the work of evangelism and edification indicated by Paul when he declared the church to be “the pillar and ground of the truth” (cf. 1 Timothy 3:15). Men have changed at their whim the organization of the church. There has been the activation of the “universal” church, the centralization and consolidation of authority; and the alliance of the church with human institutions, councils and societies. Among the distortions of God’s blueprint for the church, and the focus of this article, is an assault on the concept of church autonomy as revealed in scripture.

In contrast we have God’s plan. It can be illustrated by pointing out that the congregation where I preach, as an autonomous group of Christians, is not compelled to follow any organization’s or individual’s dictates as to what we will believe or practice. Also, if we are to drift into apostasy, we have no authority to compel others to follow. This shows the wisdom of God’s design.

When you have elders overseeing the work of a congregation that is not their own, you have a violation of scripture (cf. Acts 20:28), and a violation of autonomy. When you have churches bonding together in a sponsoring church arrangement, you have a violation of the scriptural pattern of work, and you have a violation of autonomy. When you have “delegates” voting on a “creed” or “statement of faith” intended to bind conformity on the beliefs and practices of the Lord’s church, you have a violation of scripture, and a violation of autonomy. Men need to curb their desire to centralize the government and doctrine of the local church, and submit to the central authority, (our Lord) and His plan for the church.

“Since I am a very firm believer in local church autonomy, I don’t believe it’s necessary to discuss the decisions that have been made by the elders.”

Giving a defense of your practices can not possibly violate the principles of church autonomy, nor does the criticism of false practices and teaching. To utilize the principle as a smokescreen is obviously without merit. In effect, some want to say, “We can do what we want, and you have no right to say anything because we are autonomous.” God has never given error such an advantage. Can you imagine the Corinthians or the Galatians using the same tactic against Paul? “Leave us alone, we have the right to do as we please!”

A final sentiment sometimes heard is the idea that since the elders are the overseers of the congregation, they are the ones who determine the teaching and practice of the flock they oversee. In effect, “That’s the elders decision. If they want to do that, I have no right to question them.” Shades of the Catholic distinction between clergy and laity. While respect must be given to those who are pastors of the flock, they are not to be followed blindly. Their place is to “convict the gainsayer”, not become a gainsayer. We should be careful to establish their sin at the mouth of “two or three witnesses” (cf. 1 Tim. 5:19), but we must not follow them in evil.

I. Congregational Autonomy (Definition of Terms)

A. Congregation (Local Churches)

1. Local churches the only government (organization) God ever gave his people

a. Church “Universal” has no structure (cf. Matthew 16:18)
“And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.”

1) Simply the “called out” of God; Christians; Relationship, not structure.

b. Church “Local”, an organization (Organized by God, consisting of various elements) (cf. Phil. 1:1)

“Paul and Timothy, bondservants of Jesus Christ, To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:”

2. When we speak of congregational autonomy, we mean the autonomy of the local church

B. Autonomy

1. Webster’s New World Dictionary (College Edition) “Self-government”
2. Etymology – “auto” (self); “nomos” (law) ~ Self law

“Nothing is more plainly taught in the Word of God with greater misunderstanding than the scope of activity of the local church. I especially make reference to the autonomy of the local church. If Christians fail to grasp this truth, then untold harm will result as they are swept into complete apostasy.

“Autonomy is defined: ‘The condition or quality of being autonomous. especially, the power or right of self-government’ (Funk & Wagnalls). When the word autonomy is used with reference to the church of our Lord, it should be understood that allusion is that each church has the divine right to govern itself.” (Robert L. McDonald, The Discerner, Local Church Autonomy, October 1991, Page 2).

Discussion:

I. The Biblical Concept of Autonomous Congregations

A. As mentioned above, the Bible is silent regarding any formal organization of the universal church

1. The concept of the universal church is the body of saved believers (Eph. 5:23-27)

“For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. {24} Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. {25} Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, {26} that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, {27} that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish.”

“The only officer in the universal church is Christ as the head of the church; the inspired writings of the apostles and prophets are the governing law of the body of Christ. This does not mean the universal church is in a state of disorganization and disarray, but it is organized directly under Christ without earthly offices, intermediaries or headquarters. There are no earthly officers in the universal church.

“The Scriptures give considerable discussion to the qualifications of the officers in the local church. There is no mention of an earthly office in the universal church and no list of qualifications for such an officer. Why would God so carefully direct the local church in its appointment of officers but say nothing about officers in the universal church? That does not make sense. The very silence of the Scriptures precludes universal church offices and officers.” (Mike Willis, Guardian of Truth, Church Autonomy, September 16, 1993, Page 2).

B. Again, the Bible is silent concerning any organization outside of the church which would oversee it, regulate it, or do its work

1. Christ is the “head” of the church. In Him resides all authority (Eph. 1:22-23)
And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, {23} which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.
2. It is axiomatic to state that if God created the church to do a work, he would sufficiently outfit it to that work. (Human councils and organizations are not needed). (Evangelism, Edification, Benevolence)

C. Positively, the Local churches are revealed to be independent from one another

1. This is illustrated in the rule of elders

a. Notice the following passages, which reveal the elders oversight is limited to the local congregation of which they are a part (1 Pet. 5:1; Acts 20:28)

“The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed:”

“Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.”

b. “The elders have authority to oversee the members, discipline, teaching, and funds of the local church and it only.” (Mike Willis, ibid.)

II. The independence of each local congregation is seen in the work God has given it to do

A. Each local church is to support the preaching of the gospel (Phi. 4:15-18; 2 Cor. 11:8; Acts 11:22)

(Philippians 4:15-18) Now you Philippians know also that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church shared with me concerning giving and receiving but you only. {16} For even in Thessalonica you sent aid once and again for my necessities. {17} Not that I seek the gift, but I seek the fruit that abounds to your account. {18} Indeed I have all and abound. I am full, having received from Epaphroditus the things sent from you, a sweet-smelling aroma, an acceptable sacrifice, well pleasing to God.

(2 Corinthians 11:8) I robbed other churches, taking wages from them to minister to you.

B. Each local church is to care for its own needy (when able) (Acts 2:44-45; Acts 6:3)

(Acts 2:44-45) Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, {45} and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need.

(Acts 6:3) (Twelve said) “Therefore, brethren, seek out from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business;

C. Each local church is to conduct its own finances (1 Cor. 16:1-2)

(Church in Corinth) Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given orders to the churches of Galatia, so you must do also: {2} On the first day of the week let each one of you lay something aside, storing up as he may prosper, that there be no collections when I come.

1. Note: The context of 1 Cor. 16 reveals the contribution was for the purpose of providing benevolence to another local church unable to provide for its own needy members
2. The funds were sent to the elders of that local congregation (cf. Acts 11:27-30)

a. Autonomy not violated
b. Giving church (Elders have oversight in decision to send funds) when done the work is complete
c. Receiving church (Elders have oversight in distribution of funds) that is their work.
d. As we shall see, THIS IS NOT PARALLEL TO SPONSORING CHURCH ARRANGEMENT in Evangelism!

D. Each local church is to select its own overseers, servants and messengers (Acts 14:23; Acts 6:3)

(Acts 14:23) So when they (Paul and Barnabas) had appointed elders in every church, and prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed.

(Acts 6:3) (Apostles said) “Therefore, brethren, seek out from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business;

“We conclude then, that the New Testament teaches that each local church does its own work under the oversight of its own elders, without any outside interference or control. This principle applies to every area of the local congregation’s work. It appears to me that we ought to respect the principle highly, since it is mandated by the Lord Himself.” (Dennis Abernathy, Gospel Truths, Congregational Autonomy, November 1991, Page 18).

Applications:

I. A Rejection of this principle led to the current Catholic Hierarchy

A. First, exaltation of one man above others in a local eldership (Bishop)
B. Next, councils of Bishops (with binding decisions), taken back to local churches
C. Finally, the coronation of a “universal father” (Pope) as head over entire Catholic denomination
D. Consider the resulting apostasy when central control is complete

1. If one man is “taken away”, all are affected
2. God’s safeguard (local church autonomy) no longer working

II. A Rejection of this principle led to current Protestant Denominational Governments

A. Synods, Councils, Conventions, Creeds

III. A Rejection of this principle led to division in the church (Modern times)

A. Missionary Society (Christian Church)
B. Orphan Homes & Colleges in the Budget (Institutionalism)
C. Sponsoring Church Arrangement (Institutionalism) (One Nation Under God as Example)

1. Gives work we are to do over to the oversight of elders in another congregation
2. Complicates the simplicity of God’s plan for Evangelism

IV. A DISTORTION of this principle (from the other direction) has some abusing the concept of autonomy to justify toleration of sinful practices and false doctrine.

“It is a sad day in spiritual Israel which has brought all too many brethren to the point of praising the wicked, justifying their acceptance, quelling their tongues from the mandatory rebuke of evil, and, instead, pronouncing condemnation upon those who do contend with the wicked as charged by God. The contender with wickedness is now labeled a “watchdog,” a “self-proclaimed guardian of orthodoxy” or a “Pharisee.” From pulpits to dining room tables, from Bible classes to college campuses, from “gospel papers” to preachers of repute, a growing cry is being heard for tolerance of “diversity” in doctrine and practice, even when sin is involved. It began its current momentum from brother Ed Harrell’s plea for continued acceptance of brother Homer Hailey despite his teaching and application of error on divorce and remarriage (Christianity Magazine, Nov. 88, pp. 6-9). It gained steam when none of the editors of that paper challenged brother Harrell’s error. The speed of the movement increased further when esteemed brethren stepped in to defend the concept that we should praise our “historical practice” of accepting those who teach some doctrinal errors and practice some sins. It has clearly gone beyond the sound (2 Tim. 2:13; 1 Tim. 6:3f) barrier as some have now begun to praise our doctrinal diversity as a proof of rightful congregational autonomy. (emp. mine SC)

“Brethren, it is past time that we realize there is no violation of congregational autonomy in preaching the truth! Conversely, we must see that the Bible recognizes no legitimate autonomy for a church to do that which it has no authority to do. A congregation of God’s people is protected against the assaults of the devil and his forces only to the degree that each individual Christian hears and heeds the whole counsel of God.” (Harry Osborne, Watchman Magazine, Protecting the Local Church, November 1997)

A. Harry Osborne, in the above article, supplied three formal arguments showing the right of all Christians to “defend God’s will as stated in His revealed truth.” (ibid.)

1. The Jerusalem Church, Acts 15

a. Elders in Jerusalem took part in sending a teaching (regarding circumcision) to other churches
b. They warned the brethren about false teachers (vs. 24)
c. They sent men with the written message, who would expound upon it orally (vs. 27)
d. In the written message, they declared the principles of truth (vs. 28-29)

“While it is true that the Spirit inspired the content of the message, that does not change the fact that these actions were taken. God does not use a wrong means to declare a right message. Everything about the context suggests that the action was approved.

“If those elders had taken it upon themselves to bind their decision on another church about who was to be allowed to preach for that other church, such a violation of autonomy would have been rebuked. However, providing teaching to brethren in other places does not violate their autonomy.” (ibid.)

2. The Case of Colosse, Colossians 2:1-8

a. He warned them of false teachers, even though he was not among them (vs. 1)
b. In doing so, he did not violate their autonomy
c. We are to imitate him (cf. 1 Cor. 12:28-29)

(1 Corinthians 4:16-17) Therefore I urge you, imitate me. {17} For this reason I have sent Timothy to you, who is my beloved and faithful son in the Lord, who will remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach everywhere in every church.

3. John and the Churches of Asia, Revelation 2 & 3

a. John commended the church in Ephesus for not putting up with false teachers and evil men (2:2)
b. John reproved the church in Ephesus for leaving their first love (2:4-5)
c. John rebuked the church in Thyatira for tolerating a false teacher (2:20-23)
d. John condemned the church in Sardis as dead (3:1)
e. IN DOING SO, HE DID NOT VIOLATE THEIR AUTONOMY!

B. Don Partain took issue with Harry’s article. Notice the following quotes:

“Could it be, Harry–and the rest of the staff of “Watchman Magazine”–that you and I don’t really have a brotherhood overseeing role (and the power that attended that role)?

“I do believe that we have a certain responsibility to warn or admonish brethren even outside our local congregation. But I would not dare to presume to oversee the brotherhood in the way you seem to advocate in your article.” (Reader Response Page, Watchman Magazine)

1. This is key, Note that this is a false charge

a. Harry did not advocate “oversight” of the brotherhood
b. He was clear in advocating only the teaching of the gospel
c. Watchman Magazine does not advocate a “brotherhood overseeing role” either

2. Most of the objections being heard today are STRAW MEN

a. Men will say (as Don above), “I do believe that we have a certain responsibility to warn or admonish brethren even outside our local congregation.” But when this is done, cries of “Foul” are heard everywhere, as claims are made that autonomy is being violated.

“There are no provisions for universal officers under Christ in the church on earth. Brethren need to guard themselves from thinking of anything or anybody as such. Editors of papers are not creed writers. Colleges and publishing houses are not dictators of doctrinal positions. I do not know of a college president or editor of a paper among us who believes otherwise.

“There is nothing wrong with a person teaching the word of God, whether he be a college president or an editor. The power of what he writes or says is only in the moral persuasion of the word of God. Hence, the authority resides not in the office he holds as college president, editor, preacher, etc., but in the God of heaven who wrote the Bible. Consequently, in reading after or listening to any speaker, we should give attention to what the Bible says, not who says it. Let us “search the Scriptures daily” to see if the things taught are so (Acts 17:11). This is our best safeguard against intrusions on the autonomy of churches.” (Mike Willis, ibid.. page 560)

3. These protestations are the common tactics of those who do not want their doctrines examined

“Effort to shift responsibility for division is the invariable rule of innovationists in the church. The innovators themselves never cause the division — it is always the opposition. It is an old story. The introducers of instrumental music never caused the division — it was the opposition to it!

“Thus also would the sponsors of the speculations now disturbing the peace of the church escape their just condemnation. But they shall not pass!

“Unopposed, no doctrine or ism, from sprinkling to speculation, would ever cause division. The cause is the teaching; opposition, the effect; division, the result. Acquiescence to error is neither the price nor the basis of Christian unity. The doctrinal purity of the church lies in the Defense of the truth.” (Foy E. Wallace, Jr., Gospel Advocate, The Widened Breach, March 1934, as reprinted on page 299 of The Present Truth).

V. The following quotes are intended to establish that this problem is present among God’s people

A. Steve Dewhirst, Sentry Magazine, 6/93, Church Autonomy

1. Note the judging of motives in paragraph 2

“We’re not generally contented to mind our own business. We want to know what everyone else is doing. We find it extremely difficult to allow someone else to walk by faith if his application of faith is different from ours. History bears out our shortcomings. Man has consistently clamored for uniformity rather than autonomy.

“And history also demonstrates that those who have clamored loudest for uniformity under the guise of scripturalness actually have had an ulterior motive of power. Our brethren have not been untouched in this lust for power, prestige and influence. Religious papers, and self-important preachers have meddled repeatedly in the affairs of autonomous congregations over the years. And in our day papers are often eager to tell us with whom we may or may not fellowship, and people are still listening. The fault not only lies with the brethren enamored of themselves, but with brethren who refuse to accept the burden of self-determination as an autonomous church family.”

B. Don Partain, Reader Response Page, Watchman Magazine

1. A misrepresentation, and failure to understand that we have the right to imitate the work of “watching”

“From what I understand, your magazine was named ‘Watchman Magazine’ based upon Ezekiel 3:17–’Son of man, I have appointed you a watchman to the house of Israel.’ But it seems to me that you and your staff have taken more upon yourselves than the Lord ever intended–or authorized–by referring to yourselves as God’s appointed “watchmen to the house of Israel.

“Whether you realize it or not, what you are claiming by this designation is a prophet’s calling–thus, his commission, his ‘jurisdiction,’ his role, and his power to enforce that role. He was not merely an Israelite who had been studying the Word of God and was going about exhorting others to abide by the Word. Rather, he had been specially called and commissioned by God, he had been given jurisdiction over the whole nation of Israel, and he had been inspired and empowered by the Holy Spirit–not only to reveal God’s Word infallibly but also to enforce it with judgments.

“So, to call yourselves ‘watchmen of the house of Israel’ is to call yourselves ‘prophets of God’–having the call, role, etc. of a prophet. Is this really how you mean to convey yourselves? Is this really what you think your role is?”

C. Vance Trefethen, Sentry Magazine, “Watchdogs of the Lord”, 9/30/96, page 10

“Does history repeat itself? If the Pope in Rome sends a preacher from Castille to Provence to straighten out those churches doctrinally, does that bear any similarity to a paper in Kentucky encouraging a preacher from Texas going to California to straighten those churches out on a doctrinal matter?”

D. Kenny Chumbley, Sentry Magazine, The New Catholicism, 9/30/96, Page 10

“While the new Catholicism, like the old, parades under the banner of conservatism and loyalty for the old paths, it is neither. In truth, it is built on a small circle of men who hold an elitist view of themselves; who excuse or gloss over sins within their group that they vehemently condemn in others; who believe in a “brotherhood church” for which they are responsible; and who threaten with “Anathema” any who dare oppose them. Catholicism arose once, it can rise again. Embracing error to defend the truth was its original premise, but rendering evil for evil can never be an option for the Christian. In the kingdom of heaven, “extremism in the defence of liberty” is a vice. Those who love the Lord must oppose every departure from the truth – even when those departing claim such is necessary to guard the truth.”

E. Wallace Little, Mars-List Post, February 13, 1998

“There is no unity apart from diversity. The problem is not whether diversity exists in congregations. It does. The problem is to determine how much and of what kind can be permitted by a local congregation without destroying its fellowship and causing one or more to violate their conscience.

“You might also consider the absoluteness of congregational autonomy. Then if a difference exists in one church whereby a brother or sister believes they cannot continue worshipping there, the obvious answer is to find another congregation whose practices do not offend (cause to sin) their conscience.”

F. Jeff Smelser, Mars-List Post, February 1998

“…I am convinced that there are many who attend some of the churches listed in GOT whose “we” is defined outwardly. Their “we” is not coextensive with the body of Christ. Their mindset is sectarian. Those who believe the Church of Christ is in terrible shape today are high on this list. They are assuming they know who is in the Church of Christ independent of the word of God, so much so that they are willing to suppose that many are in it who are responsible for its being in terrible shape. But the Lord’s church is holy and without blemish (Eph. 5:27). So when someone’s “we” is a church that is not holy and without blemish, he is a part of a “we” that is man-made. Call it a denomination or whatever, but it’s not the Lord’s body. The Lord knoweth them that are his (2 Tim. 2:19).”

G. The next two quotes indicate a peculiar mindset. That is that autonomy, and not truth is the basis of staying free from denominationalism

1. Wallace Little, Mars-List Post, February 1998

” There has been far too much (actually, any is “too much”) interference in the affairs of one church by those not holding membership therein. In the name of doctrinal purity, these have tried to impose their will on others. In my book, that is a gross violation of the absoluteness of congregational autonomy, and is a big step along the road to denominationalism.”

2. Steve Bobbitt, Mars-List Post, February 1998

“To the extent that a congregation maintains its independence and autonomy, that church is aloof from denominationalism. Likewise, to the extent it functions as one member in a team of churches and accepts authority outside its own fellowship, that church is moving toward denominationalism.”

a. Note, I have no problem with this quote, if understood properly. However, it must be noted that it is possible to be autonomous, and yet denominational by leaving the truth, and thereby establishing man-made creeds.

H. Wallace Little, Mars-List Post, February 1998

“Mark it: This continued effort to demand conformity will result in another denomination among the hundreds already here, and do so by further splitting the brotherhood already rift by some insisting on their belief being the defining factors of faithfulness. Mark it also that the one who defines faithfulness, thus those worthy of fellowship, is the one who controls fellowship. Where I worship, that ONE is Christ, NOT brethren. If /when this changes, I will find another place to worship where Christ is the Savior. We are saved through grace through faith, and NOT by law. True, we must obey law to access grace, but we err greatly when we slip from that to elevating law as our savior. At that point, our attitude toward law is our downfall.”

I. Bob Owen, Sermon on Fellowship, Temple Terrace, FL, 9/2/93

“But one of the things that alarms me, is what may be a disposition for us to become more concerned about the universal concept of brotherhood, than we are the local congregational arrangement of fellowshipping. And although I go hither, thither and yon, at opportunity and preach the gospel, and try to preach the same things everywhere, and although I fully believe that the law of God is the same for all of us everywhere, God has not organized us into the brotherhood. He organized us in local congregations. And I think we should be wary of those who would try to spend their time and effort directing the brotherhood as opposed to simply preaching and teaching truth.”

J. Bob Owen, Q&A Period following Sermon: We Differ – Can We Fellowship, Concord, NC, 2/19/95

“But Homer Hailey is not a deceitful worker, going around with personal desire to be disruptive and to make gain of the brethren. Homer Hailey is not some hypocritical blasphemer, who rails at the dignity of God. And those are the descriptions of the false teacher in 2 Pet. 2. I differ with brother Hailey on some issues on divorce and remarriage. And frankly, he could fellowship some people, some divorced people, that I couldn’t fellowship. I’m an old time conservative on the divorce and remarriage issue. But a bunch of brethren have come along and they list me as a false teacher because I do not agree with them that I can’t have any relationship with brother Hailey. Since we differ on the divorce question, they say, if I have fellowship with him, then I’m a false teacher on fellowship. And I’ve got to be marked and some are doing that publicly. I regret that but I’m not going to lose a lot of sleep over it. I’m gonna do what my conscience says oughta be done, what I believe the Bible teaches and let the Lord take care of the rest of it. Is the divorce thing a matter of…is it an issue? Sure it is. How should it be decided? Let me tell you how it ought to be decided. Every local congregation is going to take each individual case and pass its own judgment what would be the impact in this congregation if we accept that couple. If it’s going to be harmful to the group, then that group, they ought not accept them. But I can’t sit in Tampa, FL and write the prescription for all the situations that might come up on divorce and remarriage for all the churches in the country. And nobody else can, by the way. Some are trying to do it, but they can’t do it.” (emp. mine SC)

Conclusion:

I. Local Church Autonomy must be understood to avoid error

A. We must not be guilty of violating autonomy, and establishing denominational structures
B. We must not “hide behind” autonomy, to justify a departure from the truth of God’s word
C. Final Quotes:

“Let us avoid violations of church autonomy. There is no eldership which has authority over anything larger than a local church. No outside individual has the right to intrude into the affairs of a local church to make decisions for that church. However, there is no sin committed in preaching the truth to anyone, whether or not he is a member of the same local church as I am. Church autonomy is not a concept to hide behind to escape open investigation of any Bible subject or principle, or the necessity of giving Bible authority for the actions and decisions made in a local church!” (Mike Willis, Guardian of Truth, Church Autonomy, September 16, 1993, Page 561)

“We must allow each local church to make their own decisions as they consider facts and information in given situations. It is hoped, of course, that they make every effort to base their decision upon the Word of God and not upon hearsay, rumors, and the dictates of individuals. This does not mean one can not protest and warn against false doctrines or that one must bid Godspeed to error or encourage people in sin (Acts 20:31; 2 John 9,10; Prov. 17:15). But the principle of congregational autonomy does mean that the elders of one church have no right to interject themselves into the affairs of local churches other than to preach truth and warn against error.” (Dennis Abernathy, Gospel Truths, Congregational Autonomy, November 1991, Page 18).