THE AUTONOMY OF THE LOCAL CHURCH 1. One of the major problems for the churches today is the understanding of the Church. It is for this reason that in 1994 the Faith & Order Commission of the WCC established a study on The Nature and Purpose of the Church. 2. One reason why the understanding of the church is such a problem for the churches is that so much has been said and written about the Church that many find totally unacceptable. This is the case even when the claim is made that one's understanding of the Church derives from the Scriptures. 3. However, there are some things about which almost there is general consensus. We mention three:
There is only one Church. That Church has existed from before the foundation of the world. It emerged fully and self-consciously as an historic institution on the Day of Pentecost. This is the one Church. Beside this, there is no other.
Christ is the head of this Church. Through him, God authored its full historic expression. In the person of the Holy Spirit, God gifts and sustains the Church for its mission. In the end, the Church will account to Christ, its Lord, for the quality of its stewardship
The Church does not and cannot exist for itself. It belongs to God, and it is God's instrument for the accomplishment of God's purposes.
4. It makes nonsense to speak of this one Church of the Living God as an autonomous entity. The Church cannot exist apart from Christ. Indeed, it is the body of Christ. It cannot live, breathe nor serve, apart from Christ. Christ is everything in the Church. Any attempt to live apart from Christ represents a denial of Christ's ownership of and lordship over the Church. 5. This one Church of the Living God has suffered throughout its history from schisms which represent a tragic denial of the oneness of the Church. Around AD 500, there was a division in the Orthodox Church over how the humanity and divinity of Christ are united in our Lord's nature. This produced what we now refer to as the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Church. Around AD1000, there was a split between East and West, resulting in the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox Church. Some 500 years later, there was a major split in the Western Church, resulting in the creation of the Protestant Church. The Church of England, together with other churches in the Anglican communion, claims it stands somewhere between the Roman Catholic and Protestant communities. 1
Since the emergence of the Protestant Church, the tragic development of schisms has gathered momentum, resulting in so many so-called denominations today that it is hard to keep an accurate count. With the rise of neo-Pentecostalism, the trend has continued. Today, the body of Christ is badly scarred. This is a potent sign of our sinfulness, and the healing of the wounds caused by our division, calls for our fervent prayer and ardent work. It is in the context of this brokenness of the Christian Church that talk has surfaced about the so-called autonomy of the church. 6. Young churches seeking to assert their independence of State churches in Europe, appealed to the notion of the autonomy of the individual congregation. In the sixteenth century, the Anabaptists, for example, could claim freedom from a requirement to accept Roman Catholic formulations of the faith and order. Clearly, as a political strategy, the appeal to the autonomy of the church served the purpose of assisting small church communities to free themselves from the dictates of those with whom their members disagreed over church doctrine and polity. The appeal to church autonomy also contributed to the development of further schisms in the body of Christ. 7. As time passed by, notions of human autonomy flourished. With the onset of the Renaissance (14th century AD), the idea of individual autonomy began its stirrings. This came to full flower in the Enlightenment in eighteenth century Europe. The intention was to assert the freedom of the individual from the dictates of the Church and State, to affirm the autonomy of the individual over against the Church and State. While this agitation has contributed in no small way to the development of the human rights tradition in the western world, it has also bequeathed a perilous individualism which is destructive of community. Nations in the Western world are still seeking to come to terms with the cancer of individualism, especially when this becomes bedfellow with materialism. 8. Today, we often speak of the churches, rather than simply the Church. When some people make reference to the churches, what they really are referring to are the various communions, such as Orthodox, Roman Catholic or Protestant, which really are patterns of understanding the one faith taught by the one Lord who has established one Church. 9. Others, when they speak of the churches are not simply referring to the main divisions in the one Church. Instead, what they are describing, for example, the individual denominations of Protestantism - such as Lutheran, Reformed, United, Baptist, Methodist, etc. In a country like Jamaica, they would be referring to the numerous churches, many of which are registered as incorporated entities. We speak therefore of the Open Bible Church, the United Church, etc. 2
10.Baptists speak of the church in still a different way. They use the word church interchangeably with the word congregation. For them, then, the Jamaica Baptist Union is not a church. Instead, it is essentially a union of local churches, that is, a union of congregations. 11.Part of the problem here is the understanding of the expression "the local church". For most believers, the expression local church refers to the church in a particular province. Hence, Anglicans, for example, refer to themselves as a local church with the name "The Church in Jamaica in the Province of the West Indies", and they are a part of the Anglican World Communion. The case is the same with the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox, for example. They understand their national or regional~ bodies as local churches. Indeed some Bible scholars believe that when Paul refers to "the church of God in Corinth" (1 Cor. 1:2), he is referring to a number of house churches, as is believed to have existed for example, in the household of Chloe (1 Cor. 1:11) and the household of Stephanas (1 Cor. 1:16). At the same time, Paul also uses the term church to describe a congregation (1 Cor. 16:19; Col. 4:15; Philemon 2; Romans 16:5). When Baptists speak of the local church, they are usually referring to the local congregation. This has caused terminoIogical problems in the attempt to develop agreement on the nature of the Church. 12.The local Anglican Church does not regard itself as autonomous of the (Anglican) Province of the West Indies. For women to be ordained in the Anglican Church in Jamaica, there has to be a majority agreement in the Anglican churches in the Province. So, if an Anglican speaks of the church being autonomous of the Anglican World Communion, this doesn't mean that this church in this nation is free to make its own decisions on all matters of faith and life. It does so in consultation with the wider Anglican family in the West Indies. Meanwhile, periodically, the bishops of the worldwide Anglican Communion meet to discuss issues of mutual concern, and to seek together to discern the way forward. 13.When some Baptists speak of the autonomy of the local church, what they are referring to is the right of the congregation to order its life, deciding how it will operate, determining its own policies. In furtherance of this, these congregations develop their own constitutions - sometimes as if the church were theirs to organize as they desire, as if the way they choose to operate is autonomous of :1) 2)
what others - even other Baptist Christians - outside the fellowship think or desire, the beliefs and traditions of the communion or denomination of which they are a part. or 3
3)
the understandings others have of what the Bible teaches.
In other words, they believe that the congregation has sovereignty over all of its affairs. Nothing can be further from God's will for his Church. 14.In the Jamaica Baptist Union, perhaps not enough has been written to clarify for the membership how we understand the Church. It seems clear, however, that there is no written denominationally-authorized source which has put forward the idea of congregational autonomy as we have just characterized it 15.This is what, for example, we find in the GUIDE TO CHURCH MEMBERSHIP of 1973. "The Church is a fellowship of believers in a place, a region or a country, who gather to worship Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour and to dedicate themselves to obedience and service. The word Church means a community and depicts the community over which Christ rules (emphasis added). This community is called into being by God, the Spirit (Acts 2:42-47). The purpose of the Church is to be the Body of Christ (1Cor.12:12-31). There is a unity between Christ and the Church, in that He lives, and works in His Church. He is the Head of the Church (Eph. 1:21-23; Col.1:15) and so the Church is not a body in itself apart from its Head (Col. 2:19). We find this unity between the Body and Head expressed, e.g., in Jn. 15:5, in terms of vine and branches or, in Eph. 2:20-22, in terms of a building. The Body has several members with different functions (1 Cor. 12) in order that the Body may be built up in Love (1 Jn. 4:9; 1 Cor. 13)." [p. 16]
There is no reference in this description of the Church to the notion of the autonomy of the local congregation.
16.A section of the JAMAICA BAPTIST UNION HANDBOOK, 1990, deals with Baptist beliefs. In its treatment of the "Structure and Functions" there is a sub-heading, viz. ~'The Local Church: Its Independence and Interdependence." The matter of autonomy is mentioned and is related directly to "discipline and government", i.e. it refers to how the congregation disciplines its members, chooses its leaders and manages its affairs. So, the text offers as examples the idea that members of the Officers' Board or Church Council are "elected by the members of the church at a properly called and constituted church meeting" (p.18). Further, the text states that: "Each church is free to draw up its own Covenant and Constitution, provided it does not contravene the rules and regulations of the Jamaica Baptist Union" (ibid). Regarding the call of a minister, the text states: 'the call 'and settlement of a new pastor is not the exclusive right of any individual or group of individuals within a church/circuit The people of God in that church/circuit must together seek the mind of God in the matter and take the decision" (p. 20). So the so-called autonomy that is referred to in the Handbook is understood to have nothing to 'do with central church doctrines, but rather with what may be described as legitimate diversity, that is the diversity which does not violate fundamental biblical norms and theological principles. 4
Autonomy has to do only with competency to discern, like other churches, what the' Spirit of God is saying. All churches, including the Roman Catholic accept this view, but describe it in terms of the process of reception, that is, the responsibility to receive and affirm what the Spirit of Christ is saying through the Church. It is not that each group of believers has a right to decide how it thinks things should be done. 17.Talk of congregational autonomy has often come up at the JBU Assembly when some dissident pastor or delegate wanted to assert their right to disagree with and reject some decision which the Assembly takes. Further, the language of autonomy has surfaced on occasions when speakers have wanted to assert the authority and power they and their churches have over the manner in which they order their life together. 18.Nowhere has the defective idea of the notion of the autonomy of the local congregation found fuller expression than in the Southern Baptist Convention (USA) in which the national body is little more than an optional body with which a congregation may affiliate, but whose decisions the congregations have no obligation to receive. 19.In 2000, the Baptist World Alliance published a text called WE BAPTISTS. This book was designed to answer a number of questions including "Who are the Baptists, and what they believe?" The way in which the text addresses the question we are examining shows the tension that exists between those who understand this so-called autonomy in terms of the competency of the congregation, and those who understand this autonomy of the congregation in terms of congregational independence. We quote the section in full. Baptists hold that each local church has the freedom and the responsibility to conduct its own life and mission. The commitment flows from the belief that the risen Christ is fully present within the life of the gathered community (Matt. 18:20). A local church, gathered in what is often called "the church meeting." is responsible to discover [Note, not determine] the Lord's purposes for it. This involves questions about worship, mission, appointment of leaders, reception of members, and sharing of vision. Leaders will undoubtedly offer guidance; but in a Baptist church the congregation has the, final authority, under Christ, for the life and mission of the church. Sometimes tensions develop when individuals or a small group of leaders scheme to impose their ideas, but this is a distortion of the Baptist view, which insists that each believer should genuinely seek the common mind of Christ for the meeting. For the church meeting to work, there must be a shared commitment to know the mind of Christ as revealed through the Scriptures, prayer, and the wisdom of fellow believers. At times this Baptist emphasis on the spiritual competency of the local church may have led to an exaggerated sense of autonomy and independence. (emphasis added) This is one point on which Baptists around the world do evidence some differences. For some, the autonomy of the local church is absolute so that the role of any convention or union is minimal and only advisory, and it exists to facilitate ventures in which churches can achieve more together than separately, Other Baptists insist on the necessity of churches associating together; for them any definition of the church which does not include this interdependence is inadequate. According to this later view, the local church needs to belong to a larger association of
5
churches which can more fully reflect the nature of the church as it seeks to find the mind of Christ. In any case, most Baptist churches show deep loyalties to sister churches, seek their advice and help, and cooperate in missions, education, and diakonal ministries..... For most Baptists, this sharing extends to fellowship in state (i.e. regional) and national Baptist conventions or unions and in the BWA, and for some, it also includes local ecumenical partnerships and membership in national and international councils of churches" (pp. 25-26).
20.At the recent meeting of the Commission on Doctrine and Interchurch Cooperation held in Havana, Cuba, no less a Baptist authority than Dr. Paul Fiddes, Principal of the prestigious Regent's Park, College, Oxford, had this to say: In recent years among Baptists the writing of a formal covenant has largely been lost, and even covenant language has fallen into disuse. But the basic theological ideas are still present, and help to explain the distinctive approach of Baptists to the nature of the Church and to mission. Three implications in particular need to be drawn out, all of which are based on fundamental Baptist convictions about the rule of Christ in the world... First, the liberty and integrity of the local church is based in the presence of Christ as covenant-mediator in the congregation (Matt. 18:19-20), not in a merely worldly - or Enlightenment - idea of freedom. It is because God in Christ makes a covenant with this group of believers that the local church has all the privileges or 'seals of the covenant'. This is why it cannot be imposed upon by wider councils of churches, but has the liberty to discern the mind of Christ for itself and so to order its own life. The local church also has the liberty to recognize the pastor or overseer who is being called by the Holy Spirit to serve the community‌and the liberty to celebrate the sacraments. All these liberties are not based in any philosophy of independence...but upon the nature of the local church as a covenant community. Early Baptists were clear that theirs was a community under the discipline of Christ, the Lord through whom the covenant was made. The local church had its liberty in its direct dependence upon Christ. But this meant that it regarded itself as having a spiritual interdependence with other local churches. It was always ready to hear what Christ was saying to and through other local congregations, and to assemblies of representatives from local churches. It could not be forced to adopt the decisions of associations of churches since it had the liberty of a covenant community, but it was open to being guided by their resolutions, and was humble enough to think that it needed this guidance in finding the mind of Christ for itself. So a group of churches in London in 1644 confessed that: Although the particular congregations be distinct and several bodies, everyone a compact and knit city in itself, yet are they all to walk by the same rule, and by all means convenient to have the counsel and help of another in all needful affairs of the church, as members of one body in the common faith under Christ their only head. The understanding of the 'liberty' of the local church accounts both for Baptist insistence on freedom of conscience‌and at the same time, a willingness to live and work in fellowship with other Christian churches...When a North American Baptist writer states that 'Today there are two types of congregational polity among Baptists: independent congregationalism and cooperative congregationalism’ one must observe that while any independent church can call itself 'Baptist', in Europe at least this kind of ecclesiology has no historic connection with Baptist identity." (pp. 22-24)
6
Addressing the same meeting in Cuba, on the subject of The Autonomy of a Baptist Congregation in the Caribbean, another Baptist leader indicated the difficulties caused by the different emphases and conflicting claims in the understanding of this so-called autonomy which are the result of the British and North American roots of Baptist work in the region. To this end, he proposed that the idea that the autonomy of the local church is to be understood as the myth that it is. Not surprisingly, in Belize there is talk of the "christonomy" of the local church-that is, the emphasis on the fact' that it is Christ who rules over and in the local church, that is, the congregation. If autonomy is understood as the rule of the people of the congregation over, and in, the local church, it is not merely a myth; it is a heresy. What we need to emphasize is the competency of the congregation, not its autonomy; for a congregation can never be autonomous. 21.Those who rejected the false understanding of congregational autonomy and affirm the matter of congregational competence have no difficulty with Paul's words: "Who makes you different from anyone else? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not?" 1 Cor. 4: 17) "This is the rule I lay down in all the churches." 1 Cor. 7:17 "If anyone wants to be contentious about this [what is proper in worship], we have no other practice - nor do the churches of God." 1 Cor. 11:16 "Do what I told the churches to do." 1 Cor. 16:1 Nor are we surprised to hear Paul's advice in Colossians 4:16: "After this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans and that you in turn read the letter from Laodicea." And, we are not surprised to see that ministers are given to the church to offer spiritual oversight - so that, under Christ, the Chief Shepherd, the faithful may receive guidance in the discovery of the truth (1 Peter 4:2). JBU Faith & Order Commission February 2001 Reviewed June 2017
7