I have heard that congregation autonomy is unbiblical. What do you think about this? -- Many emails
It is fairly easy to prove in the NT that the churches were not independent. Nor were they dependent (in the immature emotional sense). I prefer to use the term "interdependence." An adult who is completely independent of others may be a sociopath. One who is totally dependent, emotionally retarded. Mature adults remain connected, while they ultimately take responsibility for their decisions. In this respect, they are indeed autonomous. I think the debate need not focus on terminology. For me, autonomy is a neutral word. It's what is meant by it that matters. I am all for autonomy, in one sense--and completely against it in another.
How did churches in NT times cooperate? They collaborated on a relief contribution (2 Corinthians 8-9, Romans 15, etc). They met on occasion to discuss issues of unity and doctrine (Acts 15). Sometimes a leader from one church was "recruited" to serve in another ministry (Acts 16). But this level of cooperation is a far cry from what some of us may have experienced.
Churches in the NT were not locked together in a common governance or controlled from outside in the areas of personnel programs and finances. That level of control too easily leads to abuse. Responsible autonomy is another thing; it is what we see in the New Testament, and I am convinced this approach to intercongregational relationships will work today.
This article is copyrighted and is for private use and study only. © 2003. Reprints or public distribution is prohibited without the express consent of Douglas Jacoby.
