Congregational Autonomy:
Organization and Intent

By Jeffery Kingry

       Brother Roy Cogdill wrote an excellent book on authority a generation ago. Discussing the autonomy of the local congregation he wrote, ‘Autonomy means self-government. God gave to the congregation the right of self-government. Each local church is subject to Christ and His authority alone. This right of self-government depends upon two other scriptural principles: The independence of each church and the equality of all the churches “ (Cogdill, Walking By Faith, page 33).

      Brother Cogdill then goes on in his outline to make five major points which he amply substantiates with scripture and illustration:

(1) Christ gave His church a congregational form of government.

(2) The congregation was the only medium through which the New Testament church functioned in the performance of its mission.

(3) The congregation was the only medium through which the Christians of the New Testament age functioned in accomplishing the mission which the Lord assigned His church.

(4) There were no congregational alliances among New Testament churches; but each church did its own work under the direction of its own elders.

(5) No church became the agent of another church in the New Testament day. (Ibid., page 34.)

      In the disputes and controversy which have raged among the brethren for the past thirty-five to forty years, great emphasis has been placed upon the usurping of the congregation’s autonomy by “brotherhood projects” which entailed contributions by many churches to an institution or to one church. This “capital flow” made concrete an existing de-nomination which identified itself as the “Church of Christ.” Brethren who op-posed this corruption of what God in-tended the church to be, found them-selves “out,” i.e. isolated by those who cried “liberty,” and were decried as part of a splinter or a sect. But, oddly enough, these very brethren who were trying to quarantine the opposing voice were them-selves “victims” of a similar effort a few generations further removed. They had fought against and opposed the “Missionary Society” as a violation of church autonomy and organization, yet when the sponsoring church and institutional bandwagon came along, driven by their friends and associates, they were seemingly oblivious to their own apostasy because it was ^“us^” who were doing it. They opposed the Society, yet swallowed the institution. Why? Could it happen again?

      It seems men do not always learn the lesson of history. There is an increasingly strident and consistent voice to be heard in print and private that declares that brethren are “fragmenting” and ^“mushrooming^” too much by polarizing over different issues. Calls and appeals have gone forth in print that the “conservative cause” is being divided over matters that should not be made a test of fellowship. It seems that some are repeating a long sung refrain only under a different tune.

More than One Way to Skin a Cat

      Congregational autonomy is a way of working and thinking — it is an attitude expressed in independence of action. Congregational autonomy works as if each church were completely independent of any other church, organization, or institution. A church which functions in its evangelism, edification, benevolence, and worship as if it were the only church on the face of the earth is indeed a New Testament church. The autonomous church does not define or design its work in relationship to other churches. It seeks out the needs of its members spiritually and physically and spends its energies and treasury to meet those needs. It measures its assets and potential and then brings all it can bear upon the problem of a lost and dying world about it.

      When this process is infringed upon from the outside by pressures which are meant to infer the inadequacy of the local church under its elders, deacons, teachers, evangelists, and members to meet the local church’s needs, then to that degree the local church has lost its autonomy. When the teaching of the local church is centralized and the doctrine is standardized in anything except the Bible, then that church has lost its autonomy to the degree that it has lost its independence. Just because there is no cash flow involved in the deference of the decision making process does not mean that congregational autonomy is left intact. Just because some have taken their hands out of the pockets of the church’s treasury does not mean that those churches have been left to function autonomously

Truth and Spirit

      There is one aspect of the subject of authority which needs some emphasis at this point. Often a pattern of authority is thought of extending only to half of what God has given us. Some may think that if the act authorized is done, then the deed is pleasing to God. The Pharisee made a similar mistake. In meeting God’s command to tithe, he meticulously kept the law even to the tenth leaf and berry of his herb garden. But he failed in the intent of such scrupulous service which was intended to pro-duce an attitude of submission, sacrifice, and generosity. “These things ought ye to have done, and not to have left the other undone” (Matt. 23:23). This attitude, “What is your gripe? Am I doing anything wrong?,” neglects the obvious scriptural principle that the reason and intent in our action is at least as, and many times more, important than what we actually do.

      We can see that in any service there are actually two elements that comprise the total pattern: (1) Organization, or action, the deed authorized; and (2) the intent, purpose, attitude, or spirit which God intended as well (See Chart).

      In Jno. 4:24, Jesus told the Samaritan woman that those who would comprise the church would be characterized by a different sort of service than had been common previously. This worship would be “in spirit and in truth,” i.e. both according to “truth” (or organization, action, and deed authorized) and “spirit” (or the intent of heart God is pleased with).

      We can see this in the act of baptism. God authorized an act: immersion in water as a religious act. But just any religious immersion in water is not enough. The purpose and intent of baptism which pleases God is penitent, believing baptism to wash away sin. The act can be correct of itself. The eternal effect can be entirely different because of wrong intent or attitude toward baptism.

      God authorized singing as a means of public and private worship. One could properly sing without instrumental music and still not meet God’s requirements of “spirit and truth.” If the singing were done by one who merely sang for the aesthetic pleasure it gave, or for the praise of others of his singing ability (“to be seen of men”), then the other half of his service is lacking!

      Any service we commit to God falls under the dual rule. Discipline, as de-fined in Scripture, is certainly organized (Matt. 18:15ff; 1 Cor. 5, et al.), but has as its intent something the actual practice can only be an aid to implement. The intent of discipline is to make strong Christians. If the motions are carried through, and “law’s” demands are met, without any effort to implement the purpose behind discipline, then the action is unauthorized.

      The subject of autonomy of the local church also falls under this same dual rule. It is possible to infringe upon the intent of autonomy by doing a right action with a wrong motive. And this infringement is not necessarily and obviously an “evil” thing. Like many departures, it is founded upon a desire to do something good without a great deal of thought as to the consequence or precedent of the action. As an example, take the “church schools” that seem to be proliferating. The work begun by one church announced, in every subscription paper published by sound brethren, a “Preacher-Training Program” as “only a local work.” It is not the intent of this article to review the well-intentioned and probably quite good efforts of these conscientious brethren. But it is illustrative that in their announcement of their local work as an autonomous church in edification of its members, that its “school” for preachers would begin “if sufficient interest is shown.” By whom? By the members there who wished to prepare themselves in the Bible? Hardly. Their scope of work was intended to include a response in a “universal” sense from all men severally divided in autonomous congregations who obviously felt they could not receive such instruction with the church where they worshipped. The church by their public statement seeks to become a preacher-training school so future preachers will not feel compelled to go to a college (I wonder which college, that they say they are not in competition with, they might be referring to?) and take a lot of courses they reallydo not want. Their work is intended in its scope to be larger than the local church.

      An editor of a nationally-circulated religious journal suggested that churches in many cases would do better to mail one or several of the subscription journals to their brethren, than attempt to continue local teaching efforts through the printed page. I have discussed this suggestion at some length with this editor, and I feel his suggestion is just that: a suggestion based upon his wisdom and experience. He was not indicting every bulletin mailed out through local effort, merely the ones that were poorly reproduced, written, or copied. Whether the conclusions he reached are necessary are problematical, and not really the point of this illustration, but the solution (cessation of local effort and the purchasing of a centralized teaching effort to supplant it) is fraught with danger, especially when suggested by the editor of one of those journals (cf. Prov. 27:2). This increased centralization of teaching is not wrong of itself, so long as the teaching remains centralized in the Bible, and is open and sensitive to discussion and review. But any centralization bears an inherent danger. What are intended to be aids to facilitate the work of saints and churches have a habit of be-coming tomorrow’s necessities.

      Another illustration, closer to home, is the annual fall meeting of the Thayer Street church where I now labor. This annual lectureship started like all gospel meetings do, as an effort to meet the needs of the church here. The brethren were surprised and pleased when other brethren from relatively far away places drove great distances to share in the Bible study, worship, and atmosphere of Christianity which prevails so strongly in these meetings. The visitors gave an added opportunity for individual brethren in the area to show hospitality to strangers. The over-all effect and act are undeniably authorized and good. Before moving to work with the brethren here, we talked extensively about whether the lectureship was intended and designed to be a brotherhood work, and provided to include a “universal” response for its success.

      I feel confident that the Thayer Street church’s meeting is autonomous in organization and intent, not because of feeling alone, but because of action, statement, and careful consideration demonstrated by the eldership. But the potential for such an effort digressing in its intent increases with the length of time. The elders are not only aware of this potential, but seriously weigh the benefits for the local church each year before they make up their mind even to have another one next year. Teaching is done both before and after such an effort, demonstrating its purpose and intent, as well as giving attention to the actual lessons.

      (It is necessary to insert here that there is no violation of principle or authority intended when mentioning a brother’s recommendation to a church (or churches) on their bulletin, or for a church to establish a training class for potential preachers, or of a church’s having a well attended gospel meeting. But the intent and purpose of such actions can be questioned if sufficient fruit is established that the “spirit” is not autonomous. We readily concede that judging an intent is impossible with-out some outward evidence of that intent. “Love thinketh no evil.”)

      Some other churches who have had similar meetings have not put such consideration into the intent of their meeting, as reflected in one church’s bulletin, which announced the “great success” of their meeting as reflected in the numbers which had attended from other states. Incidental attendance is one thing, but what is the intent of the meeting? If it is to do evangelism, then attendance which reflects a large number of the lost would be reason to count the effort a success. If their intent was to debate a matter of division, and their attendance included those of contrary mind, then they would do well to be joyful. But a work intended to edify a church, wouldfind only incidental satisfaction at the attendance of others. Only a work in-tended to be directed at the brotherhood would find reason to glory at the success of a meeting defined by the number of the “universality” they attracted. The question remains, would it have been a success if no one came but the members of the local church?

Brotherhood of Saints
Not Churches

      Again Brother Cogdill states, “A failure to properly distinguish between the church universal and the church in its local sense is perhaps one of the basic difficulties in the misconceptions and misunderstandings concerning the church and its work as set forth in the teaching of the scriptures. The Catholic church is the ultimate development in the concept of the church universal as an organic body to function in the performance of its mission in the world” (Cogdill, Ibid., page 85).

       This “failure to distinguish between the church universal and the church ... local” produces action and intent which is addressed to the universal rather than the local church. There are only two manifestations of the church, either local or universal in sense. There is no middle ground. One may speak of the “church in Ohio” as Paul spoke of the churches of Galatia, but we are still speaking only of the church in the local sense, severally autonomous. And action by any church is determined in relationship to God, not to anything else.

      What it boils down to is this: “The local church is the only functional unit in this world, and can not function through any universal medium or organization^” (Cogdill, ibid.). It makes no difference whether that “universal medium” uses money as its commonality as the Herald of Truth and the sponsoring church, or whether the “universal medium” uses power and influence like a well-known preacher or paper. The result is the same. I might oppose the former because of organization, and the latter because of motive.

The Just Shall Live By Faith

      The willingness to use the organization that God has given the local church and have faith in its effectiveness to accomplish the spiritual goals God has set before the saints requires a degree of faith. There do appear to be problems and challenges that the local church is ill-equipped to handle. In the words of one preacher, “What am I supposed to do? Here is an error sweeping the nation. It is gobbling up preachers and churches at an alarming rate. No one is doing anything nationally!” His solution was an organ which would operate nationally to battle the perceived error. Actually, the Bible is our international organ of defense, and it calls on Christians everywhere to “contend earnestly for the faith.” It takes a degree of faith to let God do that work.

      Reading much of the writing of those apostates who have cast off their first love to follow heresy, it appears that their problems stem from a desire to apply the principles of fellowship on a universal scale: between churches, within a “movement,” without realizing that such is impossible scripturally or even on a practical level. In a letter from the editor of Ensign Fair, he stated, “Of course I believe in a brotherhood of churches! That is what this discussion is all about!”

       God is the only one who has control of the discipline administered to the church in a universal sense. The local assembly is to care for those in its own number. Where does that leave every-body else? Fellowship in the local body is subject to its own control (Acts 9:26). Where does that leave the disagreements of those outside of that local body? “Fellowship with the saints in the church is controlled by the congregation, and not by any universal medium or organization” (Cogdill, op. cit., page 87). The church in Jerusalem did not accept Paul till he was endorsed by Barnabas (Acts 9: 26-28). Discipline cannot be administered by any agency of the church as a whole. God designed it that way. In the Revelation letter of John from Jesus, each congregation was directly and independently responsible to the Lord for its own faithfulness to His word and work (Rev. 2, 3).

       To deny that any problem can be dealt with within the local organization and function which God designed into the New Testament church is to go back to square one on the very issue that has characterized apostasy since the days of the Apostles. Each man must realize that God has limited by design the scope of a single man’s ability, whether through individual effort or organization, to influence the beliefs and actions of others. God has never intended us to bypass the design of the local church in its autonomy to design our own mode and means of directing or controlling churches through some other form of organization accomplished individually. One may have authority from “liberty” or organizational standpoint, but not from the authority of intent.

Gospel Anchor (June 1980)