A Great Abuse

W. Carl Ketcherside

[Page 9]

     The idea that each congregation of saints is to direct its own affairs and be responsible for its own business has been generally held by most of the more than two dozen factions that have grown out of the restoration movement. They have repeatedly affirmed an adherence to the principle of "the autonomy of the local church." Autonomy is a combined form of auto, self, plus nomos, law. It refers to a state of self-government, independent of outside influence or control. It is our conviction that this was the system approved by the apostles as ambassadors of Jesus, and it is easy to see why divine wisdom would endorse congregational independence while at the same time upholding a universal monarchy embracing all of the subjects of the King.

     But it is one thing to assert a governing principle and a wholly different thing to embrace it and become obedient to it. It is not a law on the lips of the subjects but that law enshrined in their hearts and translated into action which makes a people great. God declared, "This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth and honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me." Perhaps in no other case is this condemnation more appropriate than in the one with which we are dealing. The history of our brethren demonstrates that they have been as lax in respecting congregational autonomy as they have been loud in proclaiming it. There are two things they cannot bear: one is to hear the idea attacked, the other to see it put into practice.

     Theoretically it is assumed that when a congregation of believers selects men who are then ordained as bishops it is free under God and the guidance of these brethren to arrange and dispose of its concerns, subject to no earthly synod, conference or brotherhood board of arbitration. Apparently the theory has never been taken seriously and it has been generally ignored for all practical (or impractical) purposes. It breaks down from one or the other of two sources. One is internal and the other external abuse of the principle. The first occurs when the bishops arrogate to themselves prerogatives which were not theirs by right of appointment; the second when preachers or others outside the congregation seek to interfere in decisions of the congregation, or when one congregation attempts to dictate the policy to be pursued by another congregation. The first violates the autonomy of the local church, the second that of the local church.

     The right of government is resident in the congregation. No group of persons can bestow upon others that which they do not possess. Since it is a fact that no group or society can act in a corporate capacity except through properly recognized agents it is a wise provision which authorizes a plurality of bishops in the local congregation. The qualifications for such men are provided by the constitution, but the congregation must be the elector-

[Page 10]

ate and judiciary, interpreting and determining the meaning of these qualifications and selecting the men who meet them. These men cannot be appointed under constraint or duress but must indicate a willingness to serve. When appointed they superintend and guide through sufferance of the congregation and by their bestowal of the right to do so.

     The bishops are slaves of Christ chosen by their fellow-slaves to fulfill a certain trust. They do not constitute the church, nor are they a church within the church. They are specifically enjoined against lording it over the heritage entrusted to their care. They cannot act arbitrarily against the wishes of the body. God has made no provision for government without consent of the governed. If a bishop presents a matter to the congregation and they reject it, he can either seek to convince them through love, withdraw the matter, or resign. He cannot force his fellow-slaves into a pattern contrary to their will. Unfortunately, many bishops become enamored of office and think more about authority than about a proper example to the flock. Such an attitude results in tyranny over God's people. It is a flagrant abuse of privilege.

     An unbiased survey of the situation among the various factions designating themselves "The Church of Christ" will demonstrate that the expression "local autonomy" has become a mere catchword. Generally the power over each faction is exercised by a hierarchy of preachers, a top echelon of ecclesiastics, who hold the power of "life and death" over the congregations. Any decision of a local congregation which does not meet their approval must be reversed or a rigid boycott will be enforced with the intention of making the congregation "knuckle under." A local congregation cannot secure a man for a series of meetings who does not have the stamp of approval of those designated as "our main preachers." Government is not so much by local autonomy as by distant autocracy.

     Obviously this hierarchy in most cases is composed of men who feel that because of their superior ability they are called of God to protect and safeguard "the brotherhood." This frequently goes to the extent of attempting to censor what the members read. They are not altogether to blame for they have inherited the system and often the position of prominence from predecessors in whose good graces they were able to remain. By now the congregations have become so beaten down and frustrated that they find it easier to conform than to complain. It is hard to kick against the pricks!

     The problem is aggravated by another factor. Just about every faction has an official journal, a paper which represents the party platform. The editor through power of control over the propaganda dispensed can wield a sway over the party which often makes it spiritual suicide to resist. I grew up in a faction in which preachers and congregations were disciplined through the "loyal paper." All the editor had to do was shut a man out of the columns and publish a scathing indictment of him and every door in "the brotherhood" was slammed against him. It made no difference if his home congregation still respected and recognized him, he was through, and so was the congregation if it could not be "whipped into line." For want of a better term I have coined a word which represents this form of government--editorcracy!

     I can recall a case of local discipline in a small congregation over which a few preachers disagreed. Before it was over with all the preachers (with few exceptions) had taken sides and congregations that did not even know where the original trouble spot was located on the map were forced to "take a position." This they generally did on the basis of the stand taken by their favorite preacher. If local autonomy were adhered to, no trouble would ever affect more than one congregation!

     I must confess (although I am now ashamed of it) that when I write about such partisan tactices I can do so from personal experience. I suspect that I was a "factionalist of the factionalists"! I recall when a couple of brethren many years ago printed a document which they

[Page 11]

thought would lead toward unity. There was a considerable furore over what was regarded as a "compromise" and as one of the rampant leaders of the opposition I actually helped to arrange for a conference in a central location to decide what steps "the brotherhood" should take. We demanded that all the preachers and congregations wishing to be regarded as "faithful" take a stand against the document. Those who did not were to be regarded as "disloyal." Congregations were divided, friendships disrupted and brethren alienated. Of course my action was stupid and childish but it is a good illustration of how far one will go when driven by the party spirit.

     No congregation has a right to bind a decision on any other. No congregation has a right to interfere with or meddle in the internal affairs of another. No congregation can take disciplinary action against or "withdraw" from another. We might not like the way brethren in another congregation do some things. We need not do them that way, and we may exchange views in a friendly and brotherly fashion seeking to eliminate possible sources of friction, but no congregation has any authority over another. There is little use of opposing popery in Rome and endorsing it in America!

     As an editor I can share my views with those brothers who wish to share in them. I cannot force others to view things as I do and I will not try to do that. If brethren agree with me I will try not to be puffed up with pride, if they do not I will not become arrogant toward them. I am resolved that I will love those brothers who disagree with me as much as I love those who agree. I will not try to rend, divide or separate them into warring camps. It is not necessary for brethren to subscribe to either this paper or my views for me to love and respect them in the Lord. It is my firm conviction that if we would really practice the autonomy of the local congregation as well as advocate it that we might go a long way toward eliminating some of our grave problems of human relationship in the one body. Let us all stay in our place!