The Autonomy of Local Churches

By John A. Spender [1] [2]

Introduction

Foundations are important, and they must be looked for in the right place. As the old hymn says:

How firm a foundation, ye saints of the Lord,
Is laid for your faith in His excellent Word.

In speaking of this foundation, Paul the apostle cautions every man to “take heed how he buildeth upon it”(1 Cor. 3:10). Whatever is built at the local level will be tested by constant encounters with the forces of darkness, “the gates of hell,” as our Lord put it. Therefore the way a congregation conducts its own internal affairs will affect its ability to stand firm over time, to relate to other congregations, and to represent the mystical church before the world. [3]

Much has been written about church polity, but a large part of it either ignores the subject of local church autonomy altogether or else treats it within a given denomination. More thought needs to be given to the biblical idea of autonomy as providing a perfect balance for that healthy intercommunion of local churches which is pleasing to God and which saints rightly desire.

The goal of this paper is to encourage an understanding of and appreciation for a truly biblical autonomy in local church government. It is one in which the churches are self-governing, self-supporting, and self-propagating. At the same time they sustain a happy, working relationship with one another, so that individual saints are edified and the mission of the church to reach the lost world for Christ is stimulated. The overall result is that God is glorified.

Local Church Autonomy: Biblical and Vital

Definitions: Autonomy and Independence

The word autonomous comes from the Greek words αὐτος (autos, self) and νόμος (nomos, law or rule) and refers to the power and right of self-government. At first glance the word independent appears to be a synonym of autonomous meaning “not subject to the authority of another.” However, there is an alternate meaning, “not affected or influenced in action or opinion by others.” This has come to be the primary sense in popular usage. An independent person thinks for himself and does his own thing regardless of what other people think. When applied to the government of local churches, autonomous is more suitable than the broader term independent, which can suggest a general isolationism. In fact when referring to the fellowship of local churches, the opposite of independence should prevail. Churches should be interdependent.

Although the words autonomy or autonomous are not used in Scripture, the idea represented by them is a biblical, practical, and logical necessity. [4]

On the Universal and Local Church Relationship

Before investigating the nature of church government, it is important to note that the word church or ἐκκλησία (ekklēsia) is used two different ways in Scripture. [5] It is used to refer to the whole company of God’s elect from Pentecost to the Rapture. The “universal church,” as it is usually called, is that great invisible company revealed through Paul to be the body of Christ. A substantial part of the church in this sense is already in heaven. By contrast the “local church” is the visible, earthly company of professing believers who gather in a particular place. The large majority of the one hundred fifteen occurrences of the word ekklesia in the New Testament are used in this second way.

One reason why there are so many different views on local church government is the complexity of the relationships involved. The local church must do more than just attend to its own administrative functions. It must be loyal to Christ the Head, responsive and submissive to the Holy Spirit who indwells it, and also seek to be rightly related to the larger universal church of which it is only a part. Since each local church is a microcosm of the whole, the need for self-determination must never obscure the truth of the one body, the spiritual interconnection of all the members.

Authority in the Church

Without authority there can be no government and all hope for order is lost. Simply stated, authority in the church comes from Christ the Head and is delegated to men called elders who are raised to function according to the authoritative Scriptures under the sovereign direction of the Holy Spirit.

At its heart church government is an authority issue, and discerning its ultimate source is not difficult, at least for Bible-believing Christians. Problems arise, however, when trying to decide the human agency through which that authority is mediated. Some see it as an unbroken chain of apostolic succession. Some allow official bodies between Christ and the local congregation. Others do not. Even within the local church there is much disagreement over where the authority resides. Volumes have been written to address the question as to whether authority is conveyed to the whole church or to its office bearers only. [6] Besides this there is the thorny matter of the names, number, selection, and function of leaders in the church.

A brief survey of the most important passages will form the next section of this study.

Tracing the Roots of the Principle of Autonomy

Israel and the Old Testament Theocracy

There is not a single doctrine in the New Testament concerning which the Old Testament is silent, including the study of ecclesiology, the doctrine of the church. Although it does not mention the church directly, the Old Testament abounds with beautiful pictures and foreshadowings of the church which are filled with instruction. Consider some of the great distinctives of God’s earthly people Israel and the parallels found in the New Testament teaching about the church.

Israel was an elect nation, called out of a foreign land, redeemed by power and by blood. As a theocracy, the supreme ruler of Israel was Jehovah, whose authority was manifested through human instruments whom He determined. The people were to be separate from the surrounding nations, and they learned that submission or rebellion in their relationship to the Lord would bring corresponding blessing or chastisement. Finally, the future of Israel was determined and settled by grace.

It is immediately apparent from this brief outline how an appreciation of the history of the nation Israel will contribute greatly to an understanding of the background in which the church was born. The influence of the old upon the new can hardly be exaggerated. Among other things Israel was not to look outside of itself for defense, resources, or form of government. The prophets spoke repeatedly against turning to Egypt for help. God had instituted a visible form of government through which He would work with His people. To look at the surrounding nations with the desire to “be like them” was a rejection of the Lord more than a rejection of His prophets. [7] The governments of surrounding nations were connected with the idols of their own making, and this produced a form of government whose authority was limited to the power of the then ruling class.

In post-exilic Israel the call of the nation back to a restored temple worship as the visible expression of God’s presence was important in view of the inactivity of the royal dynasty of the line of David. During the so-called four hundred silent years many problems remained, but idolatry did not reappear, and Jehovah was acknowledged as the sovereign deity. Rome, the dominant military power, determined to maintain order in the face of prevailing fierce Jewish nationalism. Added to this were the ever increasing Messianic expectations of the time which brought a spiritual side to the question. Throughout the gospels one sees the confusion and intertwining of the religious and political thinking of the day, and these matters were often used by His enemies against the Lord.

As to nationality the Lord and the disciples were all Jewish. The first churches were also. The place of religious gathering in Israel was the synagogue with its elders, and the earliest Christians met both in the temple and in the synagogues. One common term used to describe the Old Testament people of God was “the assembly of the congregation of Israel,” a fact to be kept in mind when trying to comprehend the words of Jesus “I will build MY ekklesia.” (Matt. 16:24). [8]

Therefore when the Lord, standing on Gentile soil, asked His disciples whom they did confess Him to be, the resulting dialogue was full of deep meaning and portent for the future. Following Peter’s great confession, the Lord spoke for the first time of the church that He would build. The nature of it must be supernatural and universal for its conflict would not be against earthly powers, but against the gates of hell. Its triumph would be built on the revelation from the Father of who Christ really is, and its government would involve spiritual questions of binding and loosing supported by the counsels of heaven.

Yet in all of this, the church would also have a local and visible expression which could hear and preside over the smallest complaints among men. This is seen in the other gospel reference to the church (Matt. 18:15–20).

Three passages in the gospels where our Lord imparted to His disciples the authority to act in His name should be noticed in particular. In Matthew 16, after disclosing His purpose to build His church, He gave to Peter keys that would unlock doors long barred by hatred and malice and spoke to him of heaven’s participation in binding and loosing. Then in Matthew 18, dealing with the subject of resolving grievances, He widened this authority to include the twelve and assured them of His presence in the midst as the true source of their authority. In John 20 He broadened the scope of the disciple’s authority to represent Him in dealing even with sin. Much discussion has revolved around the nature and extent of what has been conferred, and we join with those who understand the servant to be but a channel through which the Lord Himself works these things. Nevertheless, it is evident that the church as a community has been given by the Master the power and the right to do His work. This is an authority that is not civil, but spiritual.

The Dawn of New Testament Autonomy — The Early Apostolic Era

Having briefly considered the background of the Old Testament and the Gospels, we turn to a historical survey of the book of Acts in four sections. References to the epistles will be noticed at the appropriate places.

1. From Pentecost to Stephen’s death, Acts 1–7.
2. From the great persecution to the first missionary journey, Acts 8–12.
3. The three missionary journeys, Acts 13–21.
4. Paul’s trip to Rome to the end of the first century, Acts 22–28.

From Pentecost to Stephen’s Death, Acts 1 - 7

On the day of Pentecost [9] the infant church of about one hundred twenty persons was suddenly swelled by the addition of three thousand new converts. We have only a slight record of what was involved in managing such numbers of people, but undoubtedly there were many needs and problems which called for decisions and decision-makers, i.e., some form of government. In this matter three things stand out in the earliest chapters of the book of Acts:

1. The clear and decisive leadership supplied by the apostles with a resultant order in the community. [10]
2. The sense of the Lord’s real presence by His Spirit among them. [11]
3. The absence of any formal governmental structure or suggestion that outside civil or religious authority should be consulted.

The church was behaving more as a body than as an organization. This was, of course, by design. The apostles were not officials but shepherds, able to help the new believers pursue and follow the Head, the Lord who was in their midst. [12] The idea of “government” seems almost out of place, as the emphasis was on the organic or “body life” of the church.

Nevertheless, the administrative side was not lacking as witnessed by the orderly distribution of goods and money brought to the apostles by those who had sold possessions for the poor (Acts 4:35), or the decision to delegate to chosen men the growing work of caring for the widows (Acts 6:1–7). The Acts 6 passage is historic. In a few brief verses, it is understood that:

1. The church’s involvement in ministries requiring administrative functions had continued to expand.
2. The twelve apostles were accepted leaders having a consolidated authority and clear convictions about priorities.
3. Large numbers of disciples were being involved in decision-making on significant matters.
4. The actual conferring of authority to the newly-chosen deacons [13] came from the apostles, not from the multitude.

Probably the most important insights to be gained from these early records are how the apostles made decisions and how they passed on their leadership to others. It is clear from the foregoing that the process of the apostle’s decision-making was handled within the local community. The next section will shed some light on how they passed on their leadership to others.

From the Great Persecution to the First Missionary Journey, Acts 8-12

Within the central chapters of the book of Acts the continuing expansion of the church is described, and it is here and in the supporting evidence of the epistles that we must study the formation of New Testament church government.

The Lord Jesus had spoken to His disciples of being witnesses throughout the world, but for a time incentive to move from Jerusalem was lacking. The church continued to expand apparently without thought of a work among the Gentiles. After the death of Stephen in Acts 7 a brief but ominous record signaled change. “At that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad” (Acts 8:1). The seed of the gospel would now be planted throughout the countryside.

In Acts 9 the conversion of Saul of Tarsus is recorded. The fascinating story of his transformation from proud religious leader with great civil authority to humble servant with the unique authority of an apostle of Christ figures prominently in the rest of the New Testament.

Soon after this, we find reference to “the churches…throughout all Judea and Galilee, and Samaria” (Acts 9:31). Multiple churches require more leaders, and there are two provisions alluded to in this section which together would provide a natural transition to permanent local church government. The first was a widening sphere of ministry for the apostles as they moved among the young churches. We read Peter “passed throughout all quarters” (Acts 9:32) in an itinerant ministry which most likely included teaching and problem-solving.

The other provision comes with the first reference to “elders” in the church. Word had reached Jerusalem of a new working of God’s grace in Syrian Antioch about three hundred miles to the north, and Barnabas was sent to investigate. If ever there was a strategic opportunity to affirm the ascendancy of Jerusalem and the submission required of daughter churches, this was the perfect occasion. But no such instruction came forth, and Barnabas rather exhorted the believers to “cleave unto the Lord” (Acts 11:23). This he did himself. The decision to go to Tarsus and seek for Saul and bring him to Antioch seems to be a matter between himself and the Lord only.

Where did Barnabas learn this principle of action? He was present in Jerusalem when the problem over proper care for the widows had arisen in the church, and those in leadership immediately developed a wise plan at the local level to solve the problem. This set an important precedent for the self-determination of the local church. Accordingly when the new Gentile church at Antioch learned of approaching famine, we read that the disciples “determined [14] to send relief.… Which also they did, and sent it to the elders” (Acts 11:29–30). It is interesting that this first reference to the highest permanent office in the church is made almost in passing without further explanation. When one considers the meanings of the Greek word presbuteros, “older, mature man” and “qualified leader,” it is reasonable to think that the emphasis is being placed more on the man and less on the office.

The following chapters seem to anticipate the questions: “What happened to the Apostles?” and “How did the transition to elder-rule take place?” James was martyred by Herod, and Peter upon release from prison “went into another place” (Acts 12:17). An expanding work and a decreasing availability of apostles demanded a succession, either through the establishment of an enduring apostolic office or through the conferring of spiritual authority directly by the Head of the church. That the latter method was chosen by God is made clear in the next section of the Acts. [15] The divine plan for leadership in the church is confirmed by the unfolding events in history.

The Three Missionary Journeys, Acts 13 - 21

Within this next section of the Acts and the epistles there is enough material dealing with church government to fill a book in itself. Since the events of these chapters do not alter but only reinforce the direction already established, a brief summary of the major points will be presented.

The preaching of the Word and the gathering of converts. The missionary journeys began with a revelation of God directly through the Holy Spirit. A new ministry was being entrusted to the church through Paul and Barnabas, and all necessary communication and action took place at the local level. The Lord spoke directly to the spiritual leaders of the young church. They did not confer with Jerusalem (Acts 13:2). Students have observed the fact with interest that the first missionary endeavor of the church was launched, not from Jerusalem, but from a Gentile assembly. [16] This in itself did much to avoid reinforcing Jerusalem as the authoritative mother church, and it paved the way for events still future. As Broadbent says, “The destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans (a.d. 70) emphasized the fact that to the churches no visible head or centre on earth is given.” [17]

In the record of Paul’s travels set down for us by Luke his companion, only three extended speeches by Paul have been preserved: in the synagogue at Pisidian Antioch, at Mars Hill in Athens, and to the Ephesian elders at Miletus.

From the context and from statements in the epistles it is clear that the message of the gospel he preached contained an imperative and full authority to fulfill the entire commission given by the Lord to his disciples. This was not only to make and baptize new disciples, but to carry out all that pertained to observing the “all things” of the command. This is what Paul meant when he exhorted the new believers in Antioch to “continue in the grace of God” (Acts 13:43). It seems to be more assumed than expressed that the repentance and faith of which he characteristically spoke (the turning away from the old and receiving with obedience the new) must be carried beyond personal salvation and into the realm of spiritual relationships, i.e., gathering with other believers in local church fellowship. Churches sprang up throughout the Roman Empire.

The raising up of elders and other servants. While the transition to elder-rule was taking place gradually in Judea, it was almost immediate among the Gentile churches. Paul was only one person. He was also a traveling apostle, and his occasional visits, letters, and special envoys could never keep pace with the growth of the new churches and the expanding need for competent leaders. With travel and communication being slow and uncertain, they could not rely on distant boards or synods for direction, much less hope that Paul might settle in as “the pastor.” God’s provision lay in undershepherds, raised up from within the community itself. Paul never ceased to follow the example of self-determination in which he had participated in the young church at Antioch.

As to the question of how men are chosen to lead, two passages are of special significance: One records the appointment of elders by Paul and Barnabas “in every church” on a return visit to some of the churches of Galatia during the first missionary journey (Acts 14:23).18 The other is in Paul’s final address to the elders of the church in Ephesus during the third journey (Acts 20:28).

There has been a great deal of discussion about the nature of elder appointment in the Acts 14 passage, [19] but the critical points of the two passages are clear:

1. Leadership was the sovereign work of the Holy Spirit and was to be publicly recognized in each church. [20]
2. A plurality of men was raised up from within, not imported from outside.
3. Older servants of Christ such as apostles might help in pointing elders out, but the elders themselves were to function in governmental autonomy. Their authority to act came from “the Lord on whom they believed.” [21]

Thus, in a quiet way, the transition to elder-rule is documented through the Acts:

1. Beginning: Apostles
2. Middle: Apostles and Elders
3. End: Elders

That the apostles themselves participated in this transition is shown by the references to both Peter and John as elders in their later years (1 Pet. 5:1; 2 Jn. 1).

When servants who could assist the apostles by working among several churches were needed, the appointment was scarcely different. Acts 16 records the account of Timothy being taken into the Lord’s work based on the need and spiritual qualification. [22] Paul and the local elders evidently prayed for the young man with laying on of hands (1 Tim. 4:14; 2 Tim. 1:6). The whole matter was simplicity itself and ill befits the later complicated “ordination ceremonies” which are supposed to be derived from it.

A passage on what might be called the “personal autonomy” of workers is enlightening at this point. Paul informs the Corinthians, “As touching our brother Apollos, I greatly desired him to come unto you with the brethren: but his will was not at all to come at this time; but he will come when he shall have convenient time” (1 Cor. 16:12). This single verse is sufficient to describe the entire chain of command among New Testament workers. The servant was directly responsible to the Lord who had called him.

Church governmental action with special reference to Acts 15. Turning to the official side of church life, what could be more interesting than a multi-church council to debate hard doctrinal questions? The Jerusalem Council of Acts 15 has called forth an immense amount of comment from expositors, probably because of its bearing on matters of authority and government in the church. [23]

Returning to Antioch from their first journey, Paul and Barnabas soon found it necessary to defend the principles of grace under which they had worked in their travels. Certain visitors from Judea were insisting on obedience to Moses’ law as essential to salvation and were possibly claiming apostolic authority for their teachings. At the heart of this was the truth of the gospel and the attending questions of the unity of the churches and the apostles. Were all the churches — Jewish and Gentile — built upon the same foundation of salvation by grace alone? Did the missionaries to the Gentiles speak the same message as the apostles in Jerusalem, and did they possess the same authority? The Jewish apostles must be consulted. A group was chosen to travel to Jerusalem, and a special conference was convened. Several observations can be made.

1. Although the question had far reaching implications, the dispute had arisen between two churches and had to involve them both. [24] No uninvolved parties participated.
2. The proceedings were dictated by the need and cannot fairly be otherwise described than 1) understanding the problem, 2) listening to the testimony of history and Scripture, and 3) arriving at a Spirit-led conclusion. [25] No attempt was made to institute a regular event.
3. Unity was confirmed. Letters sent out describe the participants as “being assembled with one accord.” [26] Jews and Gentiles are all saved by grace through faith (15:8–11). Paul and Barnabas were in harmony with the apostles at Jerusalem (15:25), and the message of salvation by lawkeeping had not been authorized by the Jerusalem apostles (15:24).
4. The resulting “decrees” [27] are, to quote Dr. F. J. A. Hort, “more than advice and less than a command.” He wisely concludes, “A certain authority is thus implicitly claimed. There is no evidence that it was more than a moral authority; but that did not make it less real.” [28]

Supporting evidence from the New Testament epistles. This remark of Dr. Hort is vital to a proper understanding of the entire subject before us and becomes a principle that lies at the heart of the epistles written to the churches. Governmental autonomy was taken for granted because of the overriding sense of the Lord’s presence with each individual church in the exercise of the authority He had entrusted to qualified men among them. It would not have occurred to the apostles and those they trained to seek permission for their actions elsewhere. If the Head spoke, no more was needed. Moral authority must be spiritually discerned and is sufficient to influence the spiritual person or assembly. Godly advice, then, and help to any congregation can be only as strong as their understanding of spiritual authority. Paul repeatedly refers to the authority that God had given him (2 Cor. 10:8; 13:10), and those he styles as “enemies of the cross” also attacked his apostolic position and authority (Phil. 3:18). [29]

Although the authority of the apostles was moral and spiritual rather than personal or civil, it was unique and temporary in the church. An elder had authority only in the church where he served, but apostles could move among the churches and speak or write “a word from the Lord,” thus providing an element of non-autonomy in the earliest years of the church.

When the apostles wrote to the churches, they addressed the saints, not religious officials. In their letters many issues arose that bear upon the autonomous nature of local church government, but each confirms what has already been learned. They taught exactly what they practiced and reflected their understanding that local church administration is but the feeble outworking of the more dynamic processes of life between the members of the body and the Head. Lindsay is right in saying that “independence and self-government [are] evidently taken for granted and formulated in principles laid down by the apostle in his epistles.” [30]

Note examples of such issues addressed in the epistles.

1. Excommunicating discipline, the most serious form, did not wait for the arrival of the apostle who discerned its need and commanded its discharge. Nor was it referred beyond the local church but was carried out in all parts at the local level (1 Cor. 5).
2. Disputes among believers were settled through the church, not the civil courts of law (1 Cor. 6).
3. The appointment of delegates carrying funds from the church was local (2 Cor. 8:19).
4. Letters of commendation were given by the local churches (2 Cor 3:1, 2; 8:19). No other commending agency exists beside the local church.
5. Ministries for the poor saints came from the local churches (2 Cor. 8–9). Again all decisions were made at the local level.

It was important that each church become grounded in its own relationship with the Lord so that each might in itself truly be called “the church in such a place,” able to fully represent Him in all of its life and conduct. Rendall remarks, “The churches founded in the book of Acts were not mere outposts of a central authority.” [31]

Paul’s Trip to Rome to the End of the First Century, Acts 22-28

While Paul spent time in Roman imprisonments, the churches continued to benefit from his letters. Questions of spiritual authority were a constant concern. To the Ephesians he wrote of the church which is Christ’s body (Eph. 1:23; cf. 2:16; 3:6; 4:12, 16, 25; 5:23) and of the great spiritual conflict with unseen rulers of darkness (Eph. 6:12). To the Colossians he gave a detailed statement of the position of Christ as “head of all principalities and powers” (Col. 2:10), head of the church (Col. 1:18), and the head from which the body derives nourishment (Col. 2:19). There follows a list of warnings about the corrupting philosophies of the day — especially those that would result in the saints “not holding the Head” (Col. 2:19). In the letters to Timothy and Titus he spells out basic qualifications for church leaders as well as some of their responsibilities. These are instructions that will help younger workers in the appointment of elders “in every city” so that things which are lacking may be set in order. (Tit. 1:5).

Browne has refuted the notion that this process of public elder recognition cannot be repeated today because the original apostles or their delegates are not available. He shows that the young man Titus had only Paul’s letter, not his presence, and this was sufficient authority to act both then and now. [32]

Peter, writing to encourage scattered Jewish believers, also included a section addressed to elders. The appeal was moral rather than official, and the motivation for shepherds is neither legal nor monetary. It is the present accountability to, and future reward from, the Chief Shepherd (1 Pet. 5:1–4). John the apostle in his third epistle speaks out strongly against one Diotrephes who exalts himself to a position of “domineering ambition” in the church (3 Jn. 9). [33]

But no clearer display of local church autonomy can be found than in the seven letters sent from the risen Lord to the seven churches of Asia Minor (Rev. 2–3). In sharp contrast to the well-known seven-branched candlestick of Israel, each local church appears as a separate lampstand standing on its own individual base with the Lord in the midst, presumably inspecting the light. Each is directly accountable to Him, and authority to act is conferred directly by Him. His counsel is relevant (“I know thy works”), but different for each church. Throughout, the responsibility is thrown back upon the church to deal with its own problems, receive its own reward, and if not, to accept the consequences. There is no hint that any but He Himself might remove the lampstand. No church is given authority to control or to disfellowship another. It is true that help and advice may be sought from other fellowships (as in Acts 15), but in the end God holds the local assembly responsible for its actions.

And so in Asia Minor anyone so inclined might profit from the instruction given to each church. “He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.” Nevertheless, the messages are individual and personal. The Lord speaks not to a regional headquarters, but to each particular church. “I counsel thee” (Rev. 3:18). This personal dealing of the Lord directly with local churches which had now been in existence for many years cannot be brushed aside lightly. The warnings and commendations are not spoken as from one who is interrupting a chain of command or preempting the right of an organization. They are rather as from a Father dealing with the children of His own family.

Autonomy in the Post-Apostolic age

As we pass into the post-apostolic era, we do well to reflect upon the condition of the church. Lindsay gives a good summary.

Before the close of the first century the labors of apostles…had given birth to thousands of these local churches. They were all strictly independent, self-governing communities — tiny islands in the sea of surrounding paganism — each ruled by its session or senate of elders. There is no trace of one man, one pastor, at the head of any community. [34]

All this would soon change, however, and it is instructive to consider not only the fact of it, but also its cause. Dr. Edwin Hatch in his renowned work on the organization of the early Christian churches traces what has been described as the degeneration of conditions from the original apostolic independence into the vast confederation which, in due time, persecuted the true saints of God. [35] Beginning with informal and nonbinding representative assemblies held during the course of the second century, in which he cites Cyprian (martyred in a.d. 258) as claiming “in emphatic and explicit terms an absolute independence for each community,” [36] the trend was clearly toward greater structure and control. Once Christianity was recognized by the State in a.d. 313, “such conferences tended to multiply…and to pass resolutions which were regarded as binding upon the Churches…and the acceptance of which was regarded as a condition of intercommunion with the Churches of other provinces.” [37]

The process did not take place evenly throughout the Christian church and was powerfully influenced by the strength of Rome as the following quote from one within that system shows:

If one gazes back through the vistas of the ages it is of more than passing interest to observe the state of Christendom during the fifth and sixth centuries. One notes that at that period Catholic Christendom was divided into three groups, that is to say, the church of the East whose centre was Constantinople; the church of the West whose centre was Rome; and the church of the North-west whose centre was in Ireland. The churches of the East and of the North-west had this in common, namely, each church was, as it were, composed of a group or body of local churches, each local church autonomous in itself but in intercommunion with the others.… One submits that these principles of autonomy and intercommunion are not only of apostolic origin but that their observance persisted throughout the sub-apostolic age and only waned as the power of the papacy increased. [38]

Space forbids pursuing the matter except to say that as new problems and heresies surfaced, new councils were convened and confederations proliferated, bringing the church into a prison of its own making. It is sobering to remember how this all began. The virtues of love and brotherhood as expressed in occasional conferences for fellowship and communication over matters of mutual concern were not balanced by the scriptural safeguards of local church autonomy. This is a good lesson for our generation to ponder.

In reviewing the historical record of the early church, the conclusion is justified that the acts and writings of the apostles assume local church autonomy with dependence on the Head and nonbinding interrelations with other churches. Apostolic authority was used to establish each congregation in its own relationship with the Lord, and no attempt was ever made to foster an apostolic succession. [39]

Alternate Models and Their Problems

The Arguments for Centralization

There have always been differences of opinion about how churches should relate to one another, and linking them together has usually begun for innocent reasons. But the steps from cooperation, to councils, to federations, to denominations are short ones logically. In defense, supporters often followed a line of reasoning which later came to be known as the “doctrine of development.” By development is meant the growth and refinement of those principles only begun in the Scriptures by which the church should conduct itself. There is a kind of doctrinal extrapolation, implying that though Scripture may launch the ship, it cannot guide it to its final destination. Of course, development always moves in the direction of greater complexity. The resulting systems of ecclesiastical polity have multiplied beyond all measure, all the while pointing back to the early church as the root from which they have sprung. It must suffice by way of illustration to mention a few outstanding examples of attempts at centralized control among local churches.

Examples of Centralization

Roman Catholicism

It does not require great spiritual acumen to discern the fallacy of the claims of Rome to be the one true church on earth, especially when her own words describing this exalted position are considered. Two examples may be noticed.

The Council of Florence (a.d. 1438) states:

Also we decree that the Holy Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff himself is the successor of St. Peter, the prince of the apostles, and the true vicar of Christ, and head of the whole Church, and the father and teacher of all Christians; and that to him, in the person of the blessed Peter, our Lord Jesus Christ has committed full power of feeding, ruling, and governing the universal Church. [40]

The Creed of the Council of Trent (a.d. 1564) which is still in force and is “a creedal test to which, upon demand, every faithful Catholic must subscribe” [41] includes the following:

I acknowledge the holy, Catholic, and apostolic Roman Church as the mother and teacher of all churches; and I promise and swear true obedience to the Roman Pontiff, vicar of Christ and successor of Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles.… I shall most constantly hold and profess this true Catholic faith, outside which no one can be saved. [42]

From its inception, Rome moved away from the biblical idea of the church as an organism, striving to become an institution of unchallenged, centralized authority with absolute control.

National Churches

The national church theory holds that all members of the church in a given country are bound together in provincial or national organization and that this organization has jurisdiction over the local churches. [43] Davies writes, “Such expressions as the Church of England or of South India suggest an affiliation, a federation, or an amalgamation of churches which of necessity leads to a centralization of authority either in a representative group or in an individual as in the Episcopal systems.” [44]

In addition to the material presented earlier, the problems of this system may be seen by a careful consideration of all those New Testament passages where churches are addressed or described. The wording is precise to the effect that there is no instance in Scripture of a church linked with a country. We find the church in the city (1 Cor. 1:2), saints of a province (2 Cor. 1:2), churches of several provinces (Acts 9:31), but no church of a district or country.

The distinction is not trivial. The nature of the church is by design local to a city, but composed of individuals from diverse national backgrounds who have been called out from former loyalties into a new sphere of life. When Paul refers to the Jews, the Greeks, and the church of God in 1 Corinthians 10:32, he distinguishes the church from nationalities.

Protestant Denominations

Every Protestant denomination has its reasons for a sectarian stand, i.e., for building an organization that is larger than the local church but smaller than the universal church. Books on the subject — both in favor and in opposition — are numerous. [45]

Bannerman, a Presbyterian, gives a typical argument for a centralized government when he lists as one meaning of the word church in the New Testament “a plurality of congregations connected together as one body or church by means of a common government.” [46] His rationale for this definition is not convincing, since he argues from the historical fact of the large number of converts in Jerusalem to the unproved assumption of a “common ecclesiastical arrangement” over the smaller churches which he asserts must have existed. [47] Even the Baptists, for whom independence is an article of church government, have formed conferences and associations which carefully control their membership, so that a truly independent church is the exception. [48]

Harold St. John has well said:

We find the streets sprinkled with churches bearing the names of great Christian leaders (Wesley or Calvin), of forms of church government (Presbyterian or Episcopalian), of some special doctrine (Baptist), or a geographical region (Anglican or Roman), with many smaller societies. In almost every case these bodies came into existence by reason of some protest uttered by the Spirit of God; some truth of Scripture had been diluted, distorted, or denied.... It is important to see that the primitive church maintained intact all the doctrines and loyalties for which these bodies stand, but declined to use any of their party labels. [49]

Exclusive Brethren

Since the Brethren placed such emphasis on the unity of the church, one might have expected to look in vain for such problems. Indeed things went well for a time, and harmony prevailed. But before long the idea of a central meeting with “as many meetings subordinate to it as grace might vouchsafe” arose. [50] When doctrinal differences forced a split, the way was open for a “circle of fellowship” which was ultimately based on the principle that fellowship among believers depended upon separation from evil rather than the presence of new life in Christ.

Commenting upon J. N. Darby’s role in this shift, E. H. Broadbent writes:

His teaching abolishes the independence of congregations of believers and their immediate relations with the Lord, bringing in a body, introduction into which, or exclusion from which, by any part, is binding upon the whole; the Congregational principle exchanged for the Catholic. [51]

Later, the so-called “Needed Truth” assemblies in Ireland, consisting largely of former Presbyterians, continued the same idea of a “united oversight” which was really the synod system from which they had come.

The Underlying Error

At its birth, the church began under the apostles with a sort of “non-autonomy,” and nothing would have been easier than to continue this direction. But the divine plan was otherwise, and underlying all of man’s societies and federations are two fatal flaws which no supposed benefits can outweigh. They are at variance with the biblical teaching of the nature of the church as an expression of the one body, and they ultimately do not work out for the better in practice. As to the first of these, Thomas Lindsay put it clearly:

The evidence for the independence and self-government of the churches to which St. Paul addressed his epistles is so overwhelming that it is impossible even to imagine the presence within them of any ecclesiastical authority with an origin and power independent of the assembly of the congregation, and the apostle does not make the slightest allusion to any such government or controlling authority, whether vested in one man or in a group of men. [52]

Indeed, there was every opportunity for the apostles to have insisted that the young churches of Judea be under the control of Jerusalem, but they did not. The epistles might have anticipated and regulated denominational tendencies, but they did not. Freedom in Christ and dependence on the Head were too important. Radmacher well says, “Such organizational alignments only serve to obscure the true nature of the church,” [53] and Michael Browne comments strongly:

What a denial of Christ’s authority and Headship and contempt for His presence and word therefore is implicit in shifting the centre of authority out of the local assembly and investing it in some person or ecclesiastical group. [54]

When we consider how perfectly opposed are the principles of unity and division, we find a consistent testimony in Scripture on the subject. The spiritual man is charged to keep in the bond of peace that unity which the Spirit has created (Eph. 4:3), while the list of works produced by the flesh includes “rivalries, divisions, and sects” (Gal. 5:20). The Lord’s prayer for His people that they might enjoy the same oneness that He had with the Father is in bright contrast to the many warnings against the sins of pride and desire to control others by making them submit to our will. Twice He intimates that the church’s ability to reach the lost will relate directly to its ability to display the loving unity that exists within the Godhead (John 17:21, 23).

Of the second concern, it is clear from history that all attempts to display the glory of these man-made systems have not been able to do so. G. H. Lang has grasped the connection between the divine goal and the practical outworking when he writes:

Of any scheme or form of interlocking of assemblies we see no trace. Neither racial, social, geographical, nor political groupings or divisions were to be found; indeed, any such thought was wholly alien to the mind of the Lord as touching His church. [55] 

The apostles founded churches and they founded nothing else, because for the ends in view nothing else was required or could have been so suitable.… No other organization than the local assembly appears in the New Testament, nor do we find even the germ of anything further. [56]

Admittedly, the problem of a fractured church has become too large for any single individual or congregation to solve given the human tendency to exclude those whom God has accepted. But neither should we fall back on the idea of some that the church is “in ruins” and give up hope. Rather, we must learn and practice the biblical instructions that apply to the nature of the church. Believers who seek to understand and apply principles of New Testament church government need solid Bible teaching and frequent reminders to look into history as regards this subject. Otherwise the blessings of “co-laboring,” and “networking,” and other terms meant to express the benefits of fellowship might easily become the curse of centralized control.

Practical Benefits of Local Church Autonomy

Maintaining a balanced autonomy in the church will bring real practical benefits, but diligence is required to ensure that self-determination is confined to the administrative functions of government. The pendulum must not swing toward isolationism on one hand, or centralized control of churches on the other so that fellowship and ministry among the saints are quenched. Some rewards and dangers are outlined in the following section.

Dependence on the Head

As unseen authority in the church, the Lord directs all aspects of the life of the community by His Word and Spirit through godly leaders He raises up. One part of this work is to teach believers dependence on Christ in their daily walk, a matter of vital importance to spiritual maturity and the well-being of the church.

Dependence must be learned, not in a vacuum, but in fellowship with others. The love of God requires sacrifice of such nature as to be really the Lord living His life out through the believer. This is only possible through moment-by-moment reliance on the indwelling Christ. Such dependent life is modeled by the older, experienced men of the assembly, called elders or overseers, and serves the twofold purpose of guiding the church according to the will of the Head and training younger believers in the same quality of life. The type of local government described in the New Testament is best suited to these two purposes, and no better plan can be contemplated than that the individual should walk in constant dependence on the Lord for guidance, strength, and fruitfulness. At the same time he functions in a harmonious relationship with his near brethren, as together they seek out direction and help from the Head. This is to be accomplished apart from outside interference which could weaken the motivation to seek the Lord. This happens when needs are met or decisions made by some distant administrative body.

Understandably, the Adversary who opposes this good work will present a thousand plausible reasons as to why some capable person or group ought to stand between a local church and the Head. Yet Scripture allows none. Paul warned the Colossian believers of the danger of giving place to spiritual intermediaries and “not holding the Head” (Col. 2:19). On the other hand, Scripture is filled with examples of the heroes of faith who learned dependence relying directly upon God. Perhaps we might paraphrase Paul’s words to Timothy, “There is one mediator between God and the local church, the man Christ Jesus” (cf. 1 Tim 2:5).

The Defense of Sound Doctrine

In no area of Christian life will the enemy make greater gains than where he can corrupt the foundation of the faith, the holy Scriptures. Knowing this, Paul the apostle raised one concern above all others toward the end of his life — the urgent need for sound doctrine in the churches. [57] He warned of a day when men would exchange the conviction and correction of truth for the pleasurable sensation of a “tickled ear” (2 Tim. 4:3). To Titus he pressed the need for faithful elders who could feed the flock and silence those who undermine families with their errors (Tit. 1:9–16). In his final words to the elders at Ephesus, he predicted that men with ulterior motives would arise speaking things “having been perverted,” [58] and so divide the church (Acts 20:29–30). These warnings could be multiplied and are as crucial today as when written.

Since church leadership has the primary role in defending truth and combating false doctrine, the New Testament pattern of a plural eldership, i.e., men spending time together in the Word and prayer in fellowship with the Head, points out an interesting principle: plural leadership and local church autonomy complement one another. False teachings are more likely to take root where control is in the hands of a single person or a distant organization. Always the plague of the church, false doctrine can make but slow progress among churches which individually follow the Berean pattern, “They searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so” (Acts 17:11). However, false teaching spreads rapidly when it takes hold within a denomination or seminary officially linked to a circle of churches. Noting how the defense of a vigorous autonomy is a safeguard against false doctrine, Davies remarks, “In this way troubles are quarantined rather than being turned into countrywide issues.” [59]

But equally dangerous to healthy doctrine in the local church is an over zealous independence which closes the community off to the rest of the body. Congregations which become isolated (or isolate themselves) are not exposed to the vast resources within the body of Christ. Erroneous doctrines or teachings which are lopsided because unbalanced by correlative truths may not be identified and corrected. Since such groups tend to be exclusive in outlook, the lessons of church history are largely ignored. Often one finds that the whole counsel of God is not preached. Some subjects are worn thin, and others are neglected because of doctrinal bias or a narrow selection of “qualified” speakers. In time, an elitist intellectualism may develop which is weak in practical service and outreach into the world.

The Administration of Local Affairs Internally

The right to administer its own affairs is conferred upon the church by the Lord and taught in the Scriptures by both precept and example. Even the smallest of groups has all that is required for the proper functions of self-government, self-support, and self-propagation. The recognition of leadership, the feeding of the flock, the order of worship, methods adopted for various ministries, matters of discipline, outreach to the community, missions, and so much more need simply be subject to the Head of the church as He directs. His own presence and Spirit, the Scriptures, and such gift as is necessary to allow Him to serve His people from the midst require that the real control of the church remain local, not distant.

It is therefore important that the church take a biblical stand on matters of accountability and discipline. The prayer life of a church is a good indicator of its spiritual health, as God’s people express dependence upon, and accountability to the Head in prayer. If prayers are vague or absent, and especially if they are prideful, something is wrong. The headship of Christ must not be usurped either from outside by controlling agencies or from within by autocratic individuals or groups. As those who lead are prayerfully accountable to the Head, accountability within the congregation may be more readily encouraged.

Autonomy must not become the cloak for an unbridled will, a way to excuse rampant individualism and lawlessness. The church must walk in humility and always be on guard against a dictatorial spirit that typically progresses as follows:

1. “No outsider will tell us what to do.”
2. “No one in the church will tell us what to do.”
3. “No one will tell me what to do.”

In extreme cases this ends in a cult. After exhorting the younger men to submit to their elders, Peter says, “Yea, all of you be subject one to another” (1 Pet. 5:5).

Of like importance is the matter of discipline within the church. Sin must be dealt with to preserve fellowship. In commenting on the phrase used at the Jerusalem Council, “it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us” (Acts 15:28), F. F. Bruce notes the protecting value of autonomy on Christian fellowship. “If the mind of the Spirit be humbly sought, ascertained and followed, fellowship between churches will be promoted, as it will not if a church is subjected to the authority either of another church or of a group of churches.” [60]

Of the several different forms of discipline mentioned in Scripture, both preventive and corrective, every one is exercised within the assembly and provides no appeal beyond the local church. However, autonomy can be pressed so that there is little regard for the viewpoints or disciplines of other churches. This leads to the detriment of the whole body of Christ.

Certainly no church has the right to impose its decisions on other groups, and each should remember that there is but one body and one Spirit. Much trouble and harm may be spared by respecting as much as possible the righteous judgments of the Lord as discovered and carried out in other congregations. Furthermore, discipline is based on the unity of Christ and the church and must be truly church discipline. Even though the procedures of discipline are exercised at the local level and the resulting decisions are not binding, they should be honored as widely as necessary within the whole Christian church. [61]

The testimony of Scripture is abundant and clear as to where the final authority in the church resides. Each local congregation is taught to wrestle with the questions of leadership, ministry, discipline, outreach, etc. on their own. One looks in vain for suggestions that the church ought to seek guidance or funding or for that matter anything whatsoever from an outside source.

Perhaps the clearest passage on this subject is found in the book of Revelation. In sharp contrast to the well-known seven-branched candlestick of Israel, each local church appears as a separate lampstand, standing on its own individual base with the Lord in the midst, presumably inspecting the light. Throughout, the responsibility is thrown back upon the church to deal with its own problems, receive its own reward, and otherwise accept the consequences. The thought of one church disfellowshipping another is never contemplated.

The picture is not always so today. Often the autonomy of a local work has been compromised by denominational affiliation. The writer remembers a conversation some years ago in which a young man lamented that his congregation could take the Lord’s Supper only semiannually, since the group was small and at a distance from the main church from which an official must be sent to preside.

It is true that help and advice may be sought from other fellowships (as Acts 15), but in the end, God holds the local assembly responsible for its actions. So, in Asia Minor anyone so inclined might profit from the instructions given to each church. “He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches.” Nevertheless, the messages are individual and personal. The Lord does not speak to a regional headquarters, but to each particular church (cf. “I counsel thee,” Rev. 3:18).

Another way for churches to join in fellowship for the common good is in the exchange of letters of commendation, a practice used by early Christians and still valued by some today. Such a letter simply written communicates that “we value your help and fellowship in a matter of mutual concern.” Of course, the inability of an assembly to provide such a letter is a matter which other churches disregard at their own peril.

To be independent in matters where we are told to cooperate is not a virtue. I remember one time the frustration of sitting in required silence through the meeting of a certain independent church which was debating a question at length which our own congregation had just finished researching extensively.

The Development of Ministry in the church

One of the responsibilities of church elders is to act as stewards of God (Titus 1:7). More than any material treasure, this stewardship pertains to that great resource — people. All the blessings of gift and ministry come from Christ to the extent which and in the persons whom He wills to provide them. The church, then, is ideally a community of new creations in Christ whose potential for creativity and ministry is developing into service useful to men and a delight to God. Each member is to exercise his individual gift within the community for the benefit of the whole so that the church may fulfill its mission.

The world today is filled with greater needs and challenges than ever before, and the gospel of God’s grace is the only hope. Happy is the congregation that, by its biblical design, can move quickly in times of need to respond with the gospel and practical help. In changing situations it can take advantage of original thinking and spontaneous leading. In this way the church demonstrates that the Lord desires to give good things to His people, for it is evident that spiritual gifts will arise most quickly in the autonomous church. [62] Lindsay says, “The theocratic element was not given in a hierarchy imposed upon the church from without; it manifested itself within the community.” [63]

In several New Testament passages, Paul gives extended teaching on spiritual gifts and their uses. Any study of these gifts would fall outside the scope of this paper. It is worth noting, however, that the orderly use of the gifts and the controls and guidelines laid down by the Spirit of God are all under the jurisdiction of the local assembly. There is no hint that a wider circle of influence might scrutinize or control the proceedings.

In order to be effective shepherds, those who lead must guard against narrowness of vision. Being faithful to biblical principles and at the same time being open-minded toward new people, new ideas, and new opportunities for discipleship and outreach is the challenge. It is a strange thing how some who extol the quick thinking and flexibility displayed by the early Christians when their widows began to suffer neglect, or by a Hudson Taylor or a George Müller, will frown on any such creativity or flexibility when it arises closer to home. Paul’s letter to the Corinthians sets a good example for church leaders to follow. While standing firm on the principles of the gospel, he was flexible in his life and work so that he might reach many (1 Cor. 9:19–27).

The Biblical Interrelatedness of Churches

The safety and blessing of the church is not through isolation, but through communion. This involves communion with the Head and communion within the body. In the early years of the church, division had not yet splintered the relationships among Christian groups, and the sense of unity and belonging to that one holy temple which was being built together as an habitation of God through the Spirit was a strong testimony before the world of the reality of the Christian message. Thomas Lindsay summarized this principle of “belongingness” as follows:

It must not be forgotten that while each Christian community was a little self-governed republic, the visible unity of the corporate church of Christ was never forgotten. Although each local church was an independent society, although it was not connected with other Christian communities by any organization of a political kind, it was nevertheless conscious that it belonged to a worldwide federation of equally independent churches. Its self-containedness did not produce isolation. On the contrary, every local church felt itself to be a real part of the universal and visible church of God to which many hundreds of similar societies belonged. [64]

True autonomy encourages cooperation among local churches, and the ways in which this practical interdependence may be expressed are countless because the resources within the body of Christ are immeasurable. God has put them there to draw His people together in mutual love and care. Davies reminds us pointedly:

On the one hand, anything savoring of affiliation must be avoided, and on the other, local church autonomy should not militate against united activities for specified purposes. We must not be like the people of Laish who had “no business with any man.” They were easily overcome (Judges 18:27, 28). [65]

Accordingly, it is easier to give advice or receive counsel or lend a hand if both sides are clear that the only yoke into which each has entered is with the Lord Himself and not some humanly devised organization. Every local congregation must be secure in its interaction with others that its individual conscience will not be forced, that no outside authority may intervene, that its involvement is limited to its own exercise of heart, and that even its material contributions of time and resources will be done of its own free will.

But human pride wars against balance, and through the centuries the Christian church has suffered more from the extremes of sectarianism and isolationism than perhaps any other evil. Strange to say, the key to the dilemma was given by the Lord Himself in the two great commandments. “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God…and thy neighbor as thyself” (Matt. 23:37–39). In regard to the church, autonomy says that we are responsible to the Lord, and interdependence says that, in some ways at least, we are our brother’s keeper. These are two sides of the one coin of healthy church life. Growth can come when they are in balance. The church suffers when they are not.

It is sad to see some Christian groups glorying in independence when there is such great need in our day. They talk about their autonomy. They cut off every opportunity toward the world around them. They enter into a monastery of their own imagination right in the middle of a desperately needy society. Services are conducted and business is discharged in isolation and fear of contamination. If a report comes that a nearby church is seeing growth, the suspicion is immediate. They must be compromising.

It is rare to find a church where full fellowship and warmth are extended to believers on the basis of life in Christ (rather than light on issues) that is at the same time closed to the needs, perspectives, gifts, and resources of the larger body of Christ. When the church closes its eyes and heart and arms, its sight of the Lord, its reception of the saints, and its mission in the world become crippled. Unless revival comes, this leads to a slow death. It is a constant work of spiritual leaders to promote a healthy balance of autonomy and interdependence in the Christian church and guard against things which destroy that balance.

The Church and Civil Government

While prescribing a form of church government ideally suited to God’s pilgrim people in the world, the Scriptures also sanction civil government as ordained of God. Jesus assumed the coexistence of both, and in His famous statement, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s” (Mk. 12:17), set before His people two distinct spheres of obligation. This separation of church and state, as it has come to be known, presents the challenges of honoring both authorities and guarding against the dangers of fellowship with the world. (The problem becomes even more difficult when church and state encroach on one another’s domain). In its universal and mystical aspect, the church is separate, transcendent, and safe. But in its local expression, it must relate to the governments and affairs of this world, without compromising its testimony. J. Clyde Turner has warned, “There is a growing tendency on the part of the government to invade the realm of religion and impose restrictions on the churches. On the other hand, there is a persistent effort on the part of certain religious organizations to bring the church and state into partnership.” [66]

It would be well if the lesson of history on this point could be learned. E. H. Broadbent condensed it to a paragraph:

The first three centuries of the church’s history prove that no earthly power can crush it. It is invincible to attacks from without. The witnesses of its sufferings, and even its persecutors, become its converts and it grows more rapidly than it can be destroyed. The following period of nearly two hundred years shows that the union of the Church and the State, even when the powers of the mightiest Empire are put into the church’s hands, do not enable her to save the State from destruction, for, in abandoning the very position which her name implies, of being “called out” of the world, and of separation to Christ, she loses the power that comes from subjection to her Lord, exchanging it for an earthly authority that is fatal to herself. [67]

The point at which different authorities intersect is the point of danger, which in turn makes a proper understanding and application of local church autonomy vital. The safest course of action is to preserve as much as possible the separation. As Forrester says, “It follows that only where the life of a church touches the civic life of a community has the civil authority any right to interfere.” [68]

The applications of this position are manifold. Paul defended civil authority as ordained of God, but rebuked the Corinthians for attempts to settle brotherly disputes in civil law courts (1 Cor 6).

F. F. Bruce points out that “spiritual liberty is more likely to be preserved where the Scriptural principle of the administrative independence of each local church is maintained.… If the state be adversely disposed it can more easily paralyse a centrally organized corporation than a multitude of unfederated congregations, each independently governed and administered by its own elders and deacons.” [69]

Being in the world but not of it, and using the world but not abusing it, is not an easy assignment. But preserving the mission of the church and its ability to minister effectively is worth the efforts required to maintain appropriate relationships with civil authorities. History offers many examples of those who were negligent in this matter.

The Encouragement of Pioneer and Indigenous Works

When there is harmony with the government and harmony within the fellowship, the church can pursue its God-given mission toward the world. New Testament church government is admirably suited to the unique opportunities that spring from the unusual cultures of other lands. The church planter who has helped in the opening of new works can appreciate the freedoms granted to both worker and congregation in the Scriptures — the freedom to labor in the place and according to the method of his conscience before God without the fetters of institutional restrictions. He is able in this way to follow the guidance of the Lord in the many details of a new effort and to train younger workers to do the same without the constraints and regulations imposed by outside organizations. Such a course of action will encourage the early development of local leadership and the financial stewardship so indispensable for self-propagation.

This freedom must be guarded as G. H. Lang warned:

Should the gospel message be so blessed that churches spring up spontaneously through the testimony of evangelists or other believers, then forthwith men will arise whose great business seems to be to federate these local assemblies into Fellowships, Unions, Denominations. God, on the contrary, is working today in exactly the opposite direction, towards a return to His chosen plan as recorded in the New Testament. [70]

Every saint should have confidence that the essential unity which God created remains intact. [71] He should therefore seek to reflect this oneness with other believers wherever possible by a gracious attitude toward those with whom he may differ.

In non-biblical matters the culture of the people should be respected when the functions of government in the church are established. Even in the poorest of societies the work must always be on the shoulders of the local believers. This is especially important in the financial matters of the congregation. How else but through ownership and real involvement can commitment be tested and dependence on the Head be cultivated?

The book of Acts then, is much more than the history of the early church. It is a trustworthy guidebook for Christian workers to follow wherever a new field of labor opens.

Conclusions

Bible-believing Christians have been taught to regard the Scriptures as sufficient in all matters of faith and practice. This certainly includes the church. E. H. Broadbent in his survey of the history of the pilgrim church has said:

Events in the history of the churches in the time of the Apostles have been selected and recorded in the book of the Acts in such a way as to provide a permanent pattern for the churches. Departure from this pattern has had disastrous consequences, and all revival and restoration have been due to some return to the pattern and principles contained in the Scriptures. [72]

The same inspiration that wrote the history of the earliest years of the church forewarns of conditions at the end of the age. It is of more than passing interest that of all the evils which were foretold of the end times, none is more glaring than that which led to the first of all sins, namely, contempt for authority. As the days darken and signs of the approaching end of the age are seen everywhere, Christian churches face the pressures of what Paul called “perilous times.” Those founded on the rock of Scripture, will have a ministry in a desperately needy world. Those built on the shifting sands of false doctrine or emotionalism will collapse.

Every disciple of the Lord Jesus must weigh again the words of the Master, “This is my commandment, that ye love one another, as I have loved you” (Jn. 15:12). Loving those with whom we agree cannot be all that He meant, for the world does this. Rather, the love of Christ extends warmth and kindness to all true saints of God though they differ on secondary matters, including questions of church administration. The love of Christ seeks to promote practical unity wherever possible.

To be specific, let those whose zeal for progress and openness may entice them toward organizing churches into controlling structures remember Paul’s words which apply as well to government as to the gospel. “Stand fast, therefore, in the liberty with which Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage” (Gal. 5:1). May the Lord preserve us from sectarianism. And let those who look with suspicion on the widely different approaches to community within the bounds of what Scripture allows remember that we are instructed to seek “to comprehend WITH ALL SAINTS…the love of Christ” (Eph. 3:18–19). May He preserve us from Phariseeism so that we walk humbly in the fear of the Lord with love and acceptance for every true child of God.

Finally, let us be ever alert to the wiles of that one whose gates stand against the Lord and His church. Biblical autonomy is one safeguard of church unity worthy of all efforts in its defense by those who love Christ and His bride and who would share in His work to “present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing” (Eph. 5:27). The old saying remains true: “The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.”

Notes

1. This article was originally prepared for delivery at “Understanding the Church: A Colloquium for Serious Christians” in St. Louis on May 15-17, 1997. The colloquium was sponsored by Grace Bible Chapel.
2. Jack Spender has been working in central Connecticut since 1972 planting new assemblies, teaching the Bible, and discipling new believers. He is currently involved in a new assembly in Waterbury, Connecticut.
3. This refers not so much to corporate evangelism of which little is said in Scripture, but to the sense of 1 Timothy 3:15 where the church is “the pillar and ground of the truth.”
4. David Hesselgrave (Planting Churches Cross Culturally [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980], 188) suggests “Christonomy” instead of “autonomy” as more accurately describing the true source of government.
5. For an extended discussion of the meaning of the word ekklēsia see George Johnston, The Doctrine of the Church in the New Testament (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1943).
6. Cf. James Bannermann (The Church of Christ, 2 vols. [Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1868], 2:260–331), who distinguishes between Presbyterian, where authority resides with office bearers only, Episcopal, who hold to apostolic succession, and Independent (as Baptists), where authority resides with congregation. A. R. Hay (New Testament Order for Church and Missionary [Argentina: New Testament Missionary Union, 1947], 132) says, “It is this doing of Christ’s will through the church that gives the church its authority. It is in this way and on this ground that what is done by the Church on Earth is done in Heaven.” One special contribution of brethren assemblies has been the pleasing balance of decision-making between the elders and the congregation.
7. Cf. 1 Samuel 8:12.
8. Cf. Ex. 12:6. The Hebrew qāhāl is usually rendered ekklēsia in the LXX. See F. J. A. Hort, The Christian Ekklesia (London: Macmillan, 1900), 5. A. C. Headlam (The Doctrine of the Church and Christian Reunion [London: John Murray, 1921], 16) says, “As employed by Christianity, the word ekklēsia embodied a new conception for which the world was ready, which was the spiritual fulfillment of principles innate in Judaism, and awaiting development; which only came into being in the new life and revelation through Jesus Christ.” J. M. Davies (The Lord and the Churches [Kansas City, KS: Walterick Publishers, 1967], 17–19) has a good discussion on the Hebrew and Greek background of the ekklēsia. He concludes, “Christ then took hold of a word in common use when He said ‘My Ecclesia.’”
9. The argument of A. H. Strong (Systematic Theology [Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1907], 900) that the church was already in existence before the day of Pentecost in order to be added to (as in Acts 2:47) is weak. Through this scheme, some have held that John the Baptist was to be included in the church.
10. The emphasis of the record is not so much on administrative ruling and decision-making, as on boldness of witness and willingness to suffer persecution. It was understandable then why people had confidence in the apostles as true leaders.
11. The Holy Spirit is mentioned seventeen times in the six chapters between Pentecost and the death of Stephen.
12. Acts 4:23–31 is a significant passage because the persecuted apostles reported to their own company and together turned to the Lord in prayer, as it were, instinctively taking their problems to the real source of all authority in their midst.
13. E. M. Blaiklock (The Acts of the Apostles, TNTC [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 75]) calls the Seven “special officers appointed to meet a special need.”
14. The Greek text has ὥρισαν (hōrisan), the aorist of ὁρίζω (horizō), “to fix determinately.”
15. “The true Apostolic succession means nothing more nor less than the continual call of men to ministerial service by Christ Himself; no ceremony avails to effect it.” George Johnston, The Doctrine of the Church in the New Testament, 66.
16. Blaiklock, who thinks Acts 11:22–23 implies that “the Jerusalem church was conscious of its seniority,” calls Antioch “the mother of Gentile Christianity.” E. M. Blaiklock, The Acts of the Apostles, 102.
17. E. H. Broadbent, The Pilgrim Church (London: Pickering and Inglis, 1931), 7.
18. Paul never participated in the recognition of leadership on his first visit to a city. Acts 14:21 indicates that the missionaries retraced their steps to Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch.
19. In addition to the commentaries see the extended discussion in Roland Allen, Missionary Methods; St. Paul’s or Ours? (London: World Dominion Press, 1927), 136f.; William Kelly, Lectures on the Church of God (London: G. Morrish, n.d.), 217–223; and Michael Browne, Autonomy and Authority (Glasgow: Gospel Tract Publications, 1988), 25. Commenting on the word “ordained” (χειροτονέω, cheirotoneō), Hoste remarks, “There is indeed something grotesque in the idea of Paul and Barnabas ‘electing by a show of hands.’” William Hoste, Bishops, Priests and Deacons (London: Pickering and Inglis, n.d.), 48.
20. 1 Thessalonians 5:12, “Know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord.” In Hebrews 13:7, 17, 24 they are called “your leaders” (JND). Far from the honorific titles often used today, descriptives are humble and unassuming. It would be rewarding, to say the least, if every Christian worker would read the excellent section on humble, servant leadership in Alexander Strauch, Biblical Eldership, 3d ed. revised and expanded (Littleton, CO: Lewis and Roth Publishers, 1995), 85–98). So unassuming are the words used to describe New Testament elders that some groups of Christian brethren do not hold with a publicly recognized elder board at all.
21. Since the authority of elders comes from God, there is no record of hands being laid on elders at the time of their appointment.
22. The expression “full-time worker” is illustrated by this new sphere of labor for the young man Timothy.
23. Cf. F. J. A. Hort, The Christian Ecclesia, 82; Gene A. Getz, Sharpening the Focus of the Church (Chicago: Moody Press, 1976), 142–46, in the section “Biblical examples of administration and organization;” Michael Browne, Autonomy and Authority, 30–31, lists three reasons why the council at Jerusalem was a unique and unrepeatable situation; Robert Rendall, “The Church, What Is It?,” in J. B. Watson, The Church: A Symposium (London: Pickering and Inglis, 1949), 23, points out that doctrinal subjects might be addressed to a number of local churches grouped in a district, but “congregational affairs were never subjected to the decision of a general council or synod of churches. In each individual church, elders were raised up by the Holy Spirit and to them was committed the care of the church in which they ministered.” Cf. also the appendix by F. F. Bruce, “Church History and Its Lessons,” in J. B. Watson, The Church: A Symposium, 219 n. 12.
24. Too often it has been overlooked that the stated reason for Antioch’s appeal to Jerusalem and the counsel provided was first and foremost because “certain who went out from us have troubled you” (Acts 15:24); that is, the problem at Antioch was properly being referred back to the source from which it had come.
25. Dr. Hort says of James’ summary, “Then again the words which begin his conclusion, ‘Wherefore my judgement is,’ cannot reasonably be understood as an authoritative judgment pronounced by himself independently: the whole context and what is said in v. 22 about the actual decision makes that interpretation morally impossible.” F. J. A. Hort, The Christian Ecclesia, 80.
26. The Greek emphasizes the process “becoming of one mind,” or “having come to one accord” (Acts 15:25, γενομένοις ὁμοθυμαδόν, genomenois homothumadon).
27. The word decrees is δόγματα (dogmata) in Acts 16:4. F. F. Bruce renders this “decisions” (from the Greek word δοκεῖν). F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), 308.
28. Cf. the full paragraph by Dr. Hort that begins, “The New Testament is not poor of words expressive of command,…yet none of them is used.” F. J. A. Hort, The Christian Ekklesia, 82.
29. After the 2 Corinthians 10:8 passage, Paul goes on to describe his critics as “false apostles, deceitful workers transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.”
30. Thomas M. Lindsay, The Church and Ministry in the Early Centuries (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1903), 121.
31. Robert Rendall, “The Church, What Is It?,” in J. B. Watson, The Church: A Symposium, 23.
32. Michael Browne, Authority and Autonomy, 27.
33. C. I. Scofield, The New Scofield Reference Bible, KJV, ed. by E. Schuyler English (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1967), 1348.
34. Thomas M. Lindsay, The Church and Ministry in the Early Centuries, 155.
35. G. H. Lang, The Churches of God (London: The Paternoster Press, 1959), 22.
36. Edwin Hatch, The Organization of the Early Christian Churches (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1901), 171.
37. Edwin Hatch, The Organization of the Early Christian Churches, 172. For a discussion of the gradual steps by which informal became formal and authoritative see Thomas Lindsay’s chapter VIII, “The Roman State Religion and its Effects on the Organization of the Church,” in The Church and the Ministry in the Early Centuries.
38. Quoted in G. H. Lang, The Churches of God, 19.
39. Lindsey contrasts the post-canonical succession of the male lineage of the kindred of Jesus in Jerusalem with the organization of the Gentile churches under the leadership of gifted individuals who, regardless of connection, manifested in their service “a direct gift from the Master Himself.” (Thomas M. Lindsay, The Church and the Ministry in the Early Centuries, 120), “The absolutely irreconcilable controversy is between, on the one hand, the sufficiency and finality of Holy Scripture, and, on the other hand, either the figment of apostolic succession, and the falsehood of there being an unwritten apostolic tradition, or the assertion of the continuous inspiration of the Spirit being granted.” (G. H. Lang, The Churches of God, 17).
40. James Bannerman, The Church of Christ, 2:245.
41. John H. Leith, Creeds of the Churches (Garden City, NY: Anchor Books, 1963), 439.
42. John H. Leith, Creeds of the Churches, 441.
43. A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology, 912.
44. J. M. Davies, The Lord and the Churches, 25.
45. Cf. E. H. Broadbent, The Pilgrim Church; Andrew Miller, Miller’s Church History (Fincastle, VA: Scripture Truth Book Co., n.d.); and Andrew Stenhouse, The Sin of Sectarianism (Toronto: Christian Book Room, 1957).
46. James Bannerman, The Church of Christ, 1:13.
47. James Bannerman, The Church of Christ, 1:13.
48. Speaking of Baptist principles, Strong admits, “Bodies of Christians which refuse to accept these principles we may, in a somewhat loose and modified sense, call churches; but we cannot regard them as churches organized in all respects according to Christ’s laws, or as completely answering to the New Testament model of church organization.” A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology, 891.
49. Harold St. John, “The Unity of the Church,” in J. B. Watson, The Church: A Symposium, 203.
50. Andrew Stenhouse, “The Sin of Sectarianism,” 95.
51. E. H. Broadbent, The Pilgrim Church, 366.
52. Thomas M. Lindsay, The Church and the Ministry in the Early Centuries, 58.
53. Earl D. Radmacher, The Nature of the Church (Portland: Western Baptist Press, 1972), 346.
54. Michael Browne, Autonomy and Authority, 21.
55. G. H. Lang, The Churches of God, 13.
56. Lang, The Churches of God, 10.
57. The Greek word for “sound” is ὑγιαίνω (hygiainō), “to be healthy.” Of the twelve occurrences of the word in connection with words, faith, and doctrine eight are found in Timothy and Titus.
58. The Greek word διεστραμμένα (diestrammena) means “distorted, corrupted.”
59. J. M. Davies, The Lord and the Churches, 26.
60. F. F. Bruce, “Church History and Its Lessons,” in J. B. Watson, The Church: A Symposium, 220.
61. Anyone familiar with the vast amount of literature produced on all sides of this question by the Brethren will appreciate the difficult nature of this point.
62. Gifted individuals may be stifled in conventional church governments if their gifts threaten the established clergy. How might a young man who has been given the New Testament gift of pastor (or shepherd) feel if he is developing in a church where one individual is constantly referred to as “The Pastor”?
63. Thomas M. Lindsay, The Church and the Ministry in the Early Centuries, 33.
64. Thomas M. Lindsay, The Church and the Ministry in the Early Centuries, 155–56.
65. J. M. Davies, The Lord and the Churches, 27.
66. Quoted in Earl D. Radmacher, The Nature of the Church, 347.
67. E. H. Broadbent, The Pilgrim Church, 29.
68. E. J. Forrester, “Church Government,” The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. James Orr, 5 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1939), 1:655.
69. F. F. Bruce, “Church History and Its Lessons,” in J. B. Watson, The Church: A Symposium, 191.
70. G. H. Lang, The Churches of God, 11.
71. F. F. Bruce calls it “irrefragable.” F. F. Bruce, “Church History and Its Lessons,” in J. B. Watson, The Church: A Symposium, 191.
72. E. H. Broadbent, The Pilgrim Church, 2.