I regret very much that it has not been my privilege to enjoy the fine Christian fellowship and inspiration of all the preceding sessions of this Bible Conference. It is true, of course, that "it is more blessed to give than to receive," but at a place such as this, one receives much more than he is able to give. At least I call say that for myself.

      The subject assigned to me is "The Autonomy of the Local Church." I therefore read in your hearing the following Scripture some thoughts of which I hope to use and impress later in this address. (Matt. 18:15-20.)

      The word, "Autonomy" is the only word in my subject which it is at all necessary to stop and define. It comes from the Greek word "Auto" meaning "self" and the Greek verb "Nemein" meaning "to deal with" or "manage." Self dealing or self management is the basic idea. Consequently it carries the idea of the self-government or independence of the local church.

      Involved in this subject are several other important considerations which in one address we can touch upon but briefly. Among those questions are the kinds and qualification of the officers of the local church, their duties, and obligations to God and to the membership. Also very important is the matter of the duties and obligations of the membership to these officers and to one another. There is also the [116] very necessary matter of the proper selection and appointment of those who are to be over us in the Lord. All of these matters can receive but brief attention tonight.

      From the teaching of the New Testament it is clear that church organization was always on the level of the local church, never upon the universal level, never upon the level of geographic boundary. We suggest in passing, but not stopping to prove it, that the New Testament Church was modeled more closely after the Synagogue with its Elders and Ministers or deacons. We go first to Jerusalem, the Mother Church. We read Acts 15:6: "The apostles and elders were gathered together." In verse 22 we read, "The apostles and elders and brethren." So in the very first church notwithstanding the presence of the inspired apostles they had elders--plural. It is also clear from the 6th chapter that seven men of certain character and qualifications--their names are given--were selected by the Church and ordained by fasting, prayer and laying on of hands, to the work of distributing to the necessities of the saints. Those good folk among us who contend that because we have today all the teaching of the apostles, therefore we do not need elders and deacons, forget that the Jerusalem Church not only had all the teaching of the apostles but the apostles themselves. Notwithstanding this fact, they had elders and these seven extra appointed men.

      In Acts 14:23 with fasting and prayer "they appointed them elders in every church." In Acts 20:28 [117] Paul had in his presence the elders of the church in Ephesus whom he declared had been appointed bishops by the Holy Spirit to feed the Church of the Lord. The Thessalonian Church was exhorted to esteem highly those who were over them in the Lord. (1 Thess. 5:12, 13.) The saints in the city of Philippi were addressed with the bishops and deacons. (Phil. 1:1.) Both orders here are on the local level. In Titus 1:5 Paul tells him to ordain elders in every city. From these Scriptures it is clear that early New Testament churches were organized only on the local level. It is also clear that where bishops of the local church were "wanting" as in Titus 1:5 this want was supplied as soon as possible. This is also true in Acts 14:23 when Paul and Barnabas ordained elders in every church. We do not deny these were churches for it says they were. We do not take the view so common in many quarters that these churches could neither worship God nor spread the Gospel without an ordained clergy. But we do say any church without bishops is "wanting." It is an undeveloped church. A local church without bishops lacks something. We turn now again to Matt. 18:15-20. There are several points to note.

      1. The local Church has final adjudication of the irreconcilable brother and may excommunicate him. (Verse 17.)

      2. The action of the local Church is ratified by God in heaven when it acts under His revealed will. (Verse 18.) Whatsoever ye bind or loose on earth is bound or loosed in heaven.

      3. Where two or three are gathered together in my name, which is the simplest form of a local [118] church, the presence and authority of Christ is there. (Verses 19, 20.) So the voice of the local Church acting under the authority of Christ is the voice of God!

      As all the organization is to be on the local level, so the organizing should be done only on this level. In other words, the congregation itself should make its own selection under the teaching and authority of Christ who is the head of the whole Church. Some one has said, "Poets are born and not made." In some sense this is true of Church elders. Some men are naturally kind, gentle, humble but firm, apt to teach, etc. Others acquire these qualifications. However they come let us be certain they are there.

      However, the fact that a man has these qualifications is not sufficient according to the New Testament to make a man a bishop or a deacon. Hebrews 13:7 requires that the Church "obey them that have the rule over you." I Timothy 5:17 tells us that "the elders that rule well are worthy of double honor."

      In Acts 20:29 the elders are said to have been made bishops, overseers to feed or pastor the flock. This all presupposes that the church should know who the overseers are, who the men are who "rule well," who they are that are "over you in the Lord."

      Now, as we have seen there are plenty of examples of the appointment or ordination of elders but strange though it seems there is no record of their selection. We do however have the record of the Jerusalem Church being instructed by the inspired [119] apostles to look out seven men from among themselves, whom they would appoint to a special work. So the choosing of them was one act and the appointing or ordaining another. So long as we hold to the principle of the Autonomy of the Local Church the selecting must be done by the Church. No Church will follow, much less be ruled by men with whose selection they have had nothing to do. There is but one thing that needs to be done and that is to ascertain the will of the congregation by some or any method by which it may be done. Then by a solemn service of fasting and prayer in which all the Church participates let hands be laid upon them by those whom the Church may select for this purpose.

      Let me give you some examples of how not to do it.

      1. For some preacher to arise and say nonchalantly, "Brother A., you be an elder," or "You be deacon," and let that settle it.

      2. For some old elder whose infirmities of age make it necessary for him to resign to arise as I once knew it to be done and announce, "I have appointed Brother So-and-So to take my place."

      Another example of which I know is that of a Church in Texas--a Church of Christ. It is incorporated under the laws of the State, has an anti-organ, anti-millennial clause in the deed and is so incorporated as to make its organization a self-perpetuating one as the next elders under the charter are to be selected by the remaining members of the official board. The only chance that congregation ever has to function as an autonomous church is either to change the charter or have all the present elders [120] killed at one time by a Texas tornado or bus wreck.

      Since God has ordained that certain men in the Church are to be overseers, it is certain that there are those over whom the oversight should be taken or exercised. They should let it be known some way that they are willing to come under the rule, discipline, and watch-care of the eldership. If Christians are not going to be members at some particular place or locality how can there ever be a local church? There are those who object to church rolls and record books, who shy at the expression "putting in membership." Lots of times they are the first people to raise a fuss if the elders or preachers do not come to see them. The man who wishes to observe the Lord's order will be a member of the local church. How can the bishop watch concerning their souls if they do not know who or where they are? There can be no such thing as the autonomy of the local church without a local church. There can be no local church without bishops, deacons and members. The no-local-membership idea results in disorganized conditions, nullifies the work of the elders and destroys efficiency.

      1. All ecclesiasticisms and all hierarchies are the direct result of such failure.

      2. Fosters Denominationalism. When all doctrines to be believed and all things to be practiced are [121] handed down from the top by a certain group, you have crystalized a movement into a denomination. Whoever does it or however it is done the movement is denominationalized.

      3. Among ourselves, we find big preachers with zones of influence who seem able to intimidate and practically dominate many churches. There are many local churches who fear the power and influence of religious journals and are afraid to act, contrary to the policy of the paper. It is possible under this sort of procedure for a religious journal to bring charges of heresy against a man, try him, convict him and cast his name out as evil without allowing the man to be heard, either through their pages or through his own congregation, or otherwise. This would not be so bad if hundreds of local churches where the journal circulates did not recognize their action and act accordingly. If the religious journal withdraws fellowship the Churches fall in line. Where then is our boasted liberty and congregational independence? A bishop over a district of churches would be better, for even in that arrangement the local churches, in most cases, have had some voice in selecting the bishop. There is not a religious journal or a college among us run by the Churches of Christ, but both these institutions may have been guilty at times of trying to run the Churches.

      Some of the results of local church independence are but natural and are evidence of a healthy [122] condition rather than something to cause alarm or cause division.

      1. The first one is diversity of beliefs and understanding in some matters. In the systems where what is to be believed is prearranged, adopted by a College of Cardinals, Ecumenical Councils, General Conferences, etc., and handed down from the top, of course there will be unity of belief in the things confessed. Where faith is strictly a personal matter, and there is no rule of faith but the Bible and no human statements of the thing to be believed there will be diversity.

      2. There will be more liberty of investigation and expression on the local church level than upon other levels, where in official group speaks for the whole body. For some officially recognized agency to issue its findings and pronounce its edicts means that the rank and file need not study, investigate or express themselves.

      There is even among the Churches of Christ the tendency to allow some self-appointed person of influence or certain humanly organized agencies such as schools, or papers, to standardize and regiment whole sections of the brotherhood.

      3. There will be greater diversity of customs, orders of worship, methods of congregational procedure than where a liturgy has been handed down by which to worship and a discipline written to govern church procedure.

      (Some Illustrations): Anti-Sunday School and Anti-College, no preacher, etc. Why should the brethren try to line up one another for or against a method of teaching, if the brethren who do not use [123] the class or help method are doing a good job of teaching the Word of God by their method (and many of them are)? Let us not ostracise them, much less excommunicate them. I believe they should act the same way about others.

      I. First under that head I will say it is being done. It is being done in caring for orphans and aged in two ways, (1) By placing the institution under the supervision of a local Church and then calling upon the Churches to support it from their treasuries. (2) It is being done through extra Scriptural organizations, chartered by the State with its board of directors and full quota of officers. No Church or group of churches exercise any authority whatever in selecting the officers or governing the policy of the institution. The treasuries of the Churches support the institution and their only voice is to answer "yes" or "no" or "how much?" to its appeal for money. Of the two methods I prefer the first.

      It is being done on a large scale in the matter of providing higher education. With few exceptions where some local church runs a small school our Churches cooperate in this matter through an extra-scriptural organization or corporation doing business under a State Charter. There is a full quota of officers and board of directors. Most of these boards are self-perpetuating and are elected by the board itself, like the Church in Texas I mentioned. Both individuals and Churches are asked to support them. [124] This has been the policy in the past and still is to a great extent. No Church as such has any voice in its policy, what shall be taught there, who shall teach or what business methods shall be employed. Are these extra-scriptural organizations unscriptural? It is possible, most of us believe, for something to be extra-scriptural, for example, a Church building, without being unscriptural. Another question that arises would be: If state chartered boards of directors or any extra-scriptural organization can be used for the above Christian purposes, what of employing them for missionary purposes? We hope to answer this in our next point.

      Here are the points that are clear in this passage:

      1. A financial campaign or drive was on among the Churches for a specific purpose, viz: To relieve the famine stricken saints in Judea and surrounding territory. It was sort of Near East Relief.

      2. It is clear from V. 16 that the earnestness of Titus had prompted him because he accepted Paul's exhortation in the matter to go forth of his own accord. This method is evidently all right because he is commended for it. Such a method is the one most generally used among Churches of Christ. However, I am sure he did not go out so entirely on his own accord that he was a free lance, unendorsed or not commended by any Church or amenable to no one. [125]

      3. It is equally clear that some unnamed brother who as the text says was "appointed by the Churches" "to travel in the matter of this grace" was sent with Titus. This would give Titus the endorsement of the churches, though he had not been appointed by them. In fact in V. 23 they are both called "the messengers of the churches." The question naturally arises, How was this brother appointed by the Churches? What we have read here is all we know about this case. The Churches appointed him and these men were recognized messengers of the churches. Here is a clear example of Church Group Cooperation and from 1 Cor. 16:1, 2, and 2 Cor. 9:3-5 this money was coming out of the general treasury of the Churches and had been pledged or promised beforehand. Just how much organization was necessary or just how these men were appointed is not known. To me it is a place for the exercise of sanctified common sense. I think it would be a safe rule to say that any method of appointment or organization that recognized the authority of the Churches represented in the matter and did not interfere in any way with the congregational independence or autonomy of the local church would be approved by the Lord.

      In the beginning of our movement in America which was almost a distinctive American movement, "Liberty" and "Independence" were watchwords of our nation. Neither the French Revolution nor American Revolution were far away in time. The din of both rather than their echoes were still in the ears of our people. Thrones, both political and ecclesiastical, were toppling and falling throughout the [126] world. Our movement with its slogan of "No Creed but Christ, No Rule of Faith but the Bible, No Organization except the Local Congregation" caught on. Yes, it more than caught on--it had in those days, because of the mighty events transpiring in the world, an unusual appeal for the liberty-loving people of the United States. All the saints were set not only for the defense or the Gospel doctrinally but for the defense of individual and congregational liberty. All movements for organized cooperation were opposed for a time. Liberty was to be preserved at all costs. But as time went on and conditions changed there were more and more who felt cooperative organization on state and national and international levels should be the policy. So the great division among the Disciples of Christ arose over what was termed organized work or the Missionary Societies. What has happened since is a matter of history. How far the cooperative organizers went toward sacrificing liberty for the sake of efficiency is still a matter of dispute. Committed as we are to nothing but the Bible with its approved examples, two things are evident: There was and is the Scriptural doctrine of the complete autonomy of the local church and there is by its side the Scriptural example of wide cooperation and the example of men being appointed by the Churches in a cooperative effort who were called not messengers of a church but "messengers of the churches." There should be, and no doubt is, some place of balance, a middle ground between sacrificing congregational liberty for efficiency and sacrificing efficiency for some idea of liberty.

      Our movement is set for the restoration of [127] primitive Christianity in its doctrines, its ordinances and its fruits. It is a worthy, wholesome and noble ideal and from it we should never be turned aside or retreat. However, it is both deplorable and deadening in its effects for any body of people who have such a high purpose to assume that they have fully arrived at their goal. For them to assume all questions of doctrine and congregational practice were settled by the fathers long ago, so there is no need for reopening any question for prayerful study, whether it be on this or any other question, is assuming too much. It simply means we must always think what the fathers thought, be satisfied with their findings and strive strictly to maintain the status quo. This is something that is contrary to the nature of living, forward-looking Bible-loving Christians and Churches, and something they will not do for long, however hard we may try to regiment them. So I propose an unbiased re-study of the question of cooperation among congregations of the Churches of Christ, lest we be found guilty of sacrificing efficiency to a mistaken idea of liberty and congregational autonomy.

      Finally, the greatest barrier to cooperation between Churches today would be the false notions of fellowship among us. A man or a whole congregation of people may believe in one God, in the Deity and Lordship of Jesus, the Holy Spirit, the Bible, the one Body or Church of Christ, hold the one hope and practice the one baptism, give every evidence of Christian character, meet each Lord's Day to commemorate the death of Christ, but we will grant them nothing in the way of fellowship or cooperation [128] because we disagree on the method of teaching classes, literature, record of pupils, etc., on how the Spirit operates in conversion and sanctification, or on which side of the millennium Christ comes. We are not saying these questions and many others are unimportant and should not have any place in Christian thought and discussion. They should. But the idea of building a church or a movement around them or testing the sincerity or orthodoxy of individuals or congregations upon them is foolish and harmful, if not down-right sinful. It will forever make for division and will place such a barrier between congregations as will make cooperation forever impossible. I therefore propose that as ministers of the Gospel that we also restudy the fellowship question on the basis of the inclusive rather than on the exclusive principle.

      When Alexander Campbell was questioned as to the success of his unity plea on the Bible and the Bible alone without human statements of faith, he replied to the effect that on all great doctrines of the faith there was a remarkable unity and that there was a growing unity even in the matters of opinions. We think this would still be the case if fellowship was first of the Spirit. It would not be withheld where there are differences in interpretation and even differences in practice on matters outside the fundamental doctrines of faith.

      I know a speech of this kind leaves much to be desired, but I may have made some suggestions that will lead to a greater congregational efficiency, closer cooperation among the Churches and a more practical demonstration of Christian unity. If so I am grateful to Him whose I am and whom I serve. [129]

[LM 116-129]