War Bulletins

W. Carl Ketcherside

[Page 12]

"Local autonomy" is a term heard frequently among the heirs of the restoration movement. It simply means that the government of the saints is congregational in nature. Each congregation is a separate entity. It is not subject to any human authority outside of itself! No board, synod or district presbytery can pass laws or resolutions which are binding on its membership. Its members are not subject to discipline administered by those outside of its own ranks. The congregation selects men from its members to serve as bishops and through these men conducts its own affairs, answerable to each other and to God.

     In theory, this looks excellent. The average preacher in "The Church of Christ" can present a strong case for it to those in other bodies who have a different system. That is why so many of these are enticed into taking their stand with us, only to suffer grievous disillusionment at our actual practice. Of course there are a great many areas in which there are wide divergencies between our doctrine and actual performance. Most of the brethren would not make very high marks in a class on consistency. However, in no other area is there such flagrant disregard for what we affirm as there is in the doctrine of "local autonomy." Many who acclaim it from the platform on Sunday spend the other six days of the week in utter disdain of what they boldly announced to be the scriptural procedure. It is chiefly an "export doctrine" rather than one for home consumption.

     One need only read the "local church bulletins" to verify what I say. These are much more vocal than local. Frequently the editor, generally "the local minister," seeks to discipline and direct the affairs of other congregations in the same locality, or even in sections remote from where he labors. Other congregations are designated, castigated and chastised. They are criticized because of their selection of men to conduct their various meetings. They are attacked with partisan zeal and labeled with such epithets as "heretics" and "apos-

[Page 13]

tates." It is obvious in many instances that there are those who comb their exchange bulletins to find something to enlarge upon as a basis for carrying on a constant running skirmish with other brethren of a different school of thought.

     Few of the bulletins actually wage peace among brethren. Many seem dedicated to the unenviable task of creating greater animosity, arousing rancor and perpetuating unholy feuds among the saints. Satan has infiltrated our ranks and used the mimeograph machine to make a mockery of our vaunted cry of local autonomy. Preachers seem to feel that they prove their fidelity to God by dissemination of propaganda calculated to destroy the harmony of congregations whose members will not "parrot the party line." Nothing so incenses the average defender of orthodoxy as an eldership which serves notice that they will run their own affairs and answer to God for their conduct, rather than to a bureaucracy of "loyal preachers" in the city. Of all "sins" this is the gravest because if persisted in it will destroy the right to meddle in, muddle up, and trample down those who are not under the jurisdiction of the meddler.

     Russia has its Iron Curtain. China has its Bamboo Curtain. "The Church of Christ" has its Paper Curtains. The last, like the first two, has as its purpose the isolation of those behind it. It has been erected not to secure freedom but to deny it. No thought from the other side must penetrate. No light must filter through which will reveal the darkened areas of tradition which now constitutes the unwritten creed of the party. It is a serious question whether many "church bulletins" serve any good purpose on earth by the attitude they reflect. They create strife, augment division and perpetuate ill-feeling. These things have no place in the lives of those who profess to be the saints of the Most High.

     Certainly the medium of printing has a justifiable use. But when it is abused and misused, and is devoted to dogmatic, authoritarian attempts to impose upon other congregations a partisan program, its use should be given a careful scrutiny. By what power does an editor of a bulletin presume to tell those in another congregation what they must do or not do, to be regarded as "loyal"? On what ground does one proceed who proposes to tell the eldership and congregation in another place to whom they may listen, or not listen?

     Actually, we are victims today of a clerical authority which differs only in degree with that of Rome. When something does not please the pope he issues a bull; when something does not please our brethren, they issue a bulletin! Some congregations, like the pope, suffer from a mistaken idea of infallibility. They always speak ex cathedra and must be the authorized interpreters for the whole world of mankind. Once they have decreed a dogma, "if any man come and bring not this doctrine, do not allow him in your house and neither give him any greeting, for he who greets him becomes a participant in his evil doings." This doctrine is the party ruling on individual cups, Bible classes, colleges, television sets, nationwide television programs, orphan homes, fermented wine, charitable institutions--or instrumental music! Evil doings consist of taking the other side on these issues.

     I wonder what would happen if every congregation of saints started to practice local autonomy and just minded their own business? What would be the result if, on a given Lord's Day, every eldership in the United States, announced that from now on they would read the Bible for themselves, without benefit of clergy, and be answerable only to God and to the congregation which chose them, for their conduct? Is "local autonomy" to be recognized only when brethren see everything as we do, and to be wilfully ignored when they cannot conscientiously do so? Will we continue to feel there is an "open season" for judging motives, intentions, and service to God, for all who do not conform in every respect to our own congregational activities?

     We believe that sincere and consecrated bishops should start at once to govern their own congregations, and instruct the preaching brethren whom they support, that the congregation will henceforth con-

[Page 14]

fine its regulations to its own affairs! Nothing could encourage and foster the spread of fraternal feeling more quickly than this.