Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

The word “autonomy” is defined as “the quality or condition of being autonomous; self-government; any state that governs itself.” The word “autonomy” does not appear in the English Bible. How-ever, the concept of church autonomy certainly does.

The Biblical Concept of Autonomous Churches

In the Bible revelation of the government of the church, there is no revelation of an organization of churches tied together under any kind of ecclesiastical government. The modern denominational concept, of all of the Presbyterian churches (or Catholic, Episcopalian, Baptist, Methodist, etc.) being organized into a body with elected officials overseeing the various congregations as a single unit, is not found in the Bible.

1. There is no formal, earthly organization of the universal church. The concept of a universal church is not a group of churches, but all of the saved in the world (cf. Eph. 5:23f). The only officer in the universal church is Christ as the head of the church; the inspired writings of the apostles and prophets are the governing law of the body of Christ. This does not mean the universal church is in a state of disorganization and disarray, but it is organized directly under Christ without earthly offices, intermediaries or headquarters. There are no earthly officers in the universal church.

The Scriptures give considerable discussion to the qualifications of the officers in the local church. There is no mention of an earthly office in the universal church and no list of qualifications for such an officer. Why would God so carefully direct the local church in its appointment of officers but say nothing about officers in the universal church? That does not make sense. The very silence of the Scriptures precludes universal church offices and officers.

2. Local churches are independent from each other. The authority of the elders in a local church is limited to the “flock of God which is among you” (I Pet. 5:1) and the flock “over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers” (Acts 20:28). Elders have no authority to rule over anything larger than the local church.

The sponsoring church is a violation of church autonomy because it makes elders of the local church oversee the funds of thousands of churches. The elders have authority to oversee the members, discipline, teaching, and funds of the local church and it only.

No Substitutes For Universal Officers

There are no provisions for universal officers under Christ in the church on earth. Brethren need to guard themselves from thinking of anything or anybody as such. Editors of papers are not creed writers. Colleges and publishing houses are not dictators of doctrinal positions. I do not know of a college president or editor of a paper among us who believes otherwise.

There is nothing wrong with a person teaching the word of God, whether he be a college president or an editor. The power of what he writes or says is only in the moral persuasion of the word of God. Hence, the authority resides not in the office he holds as college president, editor, preacher, etc., but in the God of heaven who wrote the Bible. Consequently, in reading after or listening to any speaker, we should give attention to what the Bible says, not who says it. Let us “search the Scriptures daily” to see if the things taught are so (Acts 17:11). This is our best safeguard against intrusions on the autonomy of churches.

Misunderstanding of Church Autonomy

During the institutional controversies, the liberal churches that violated church autonomy by the sponsoring church arrangement frequently manifested a misunderstanding of church autonomy which was reflected in their protestations of teaching being sent to their members. This misconception was reflected also in protests against naming specific churches and their digressive practices. Many faithful congregations used church bulletins to teach those who were in liberalism, exposing and documenting the digression with specific cases. On several occasions the elders in the liberal churches charged that their autonomy was violated because a faithful church sent bulletins to their members and exposed their practices.

The autonomy of a local church is not violated by teaching being sent to its members. Did Paul violate the autonomy of the churches of Rome, Corinth, Philippi, Ephesus, Colossae, or Thessalonica when he sent his epistles to them? Would a preacher sin if he followed an apostolic example of sending teaching directed to the problems in a local church?

Did Peter and John violate the autonomy of the church at Samaria when they were sent to see how things were going in Philip’s work (Acts 8:14)7 Did Bamabas violate the autonomy of the church at Antioch when he was sent there by the church at Jerusalem (Acts 11:22)?

Did John violate the autonomy of the seven churches of Asia Minor when he included both positive and negative points about their practices in a single letter and circulated this same letter to all seven churches (Rev. 2-3)?

Those who protest the receiving of teaching, whether done through a man (such as Peter, John, or Bamabas), a bulletin, or a paper, as a violation of church autonomy show a misunderstanding of church autonomy. Those who protest exposing the digression of specific churches reflect the same misconception.

Autonomy Does Not Mean Immunity

From Scriptural Examination

On more than one occasion, brethren have written articles in subscription journals to teach that articles in subscription journals violate the autonomy of the local church! Editors and preachers who write for subscription journals are condemned for violating church autonomy by a preacher writing an article in a subscription journal. Now if that makes sense to you, perhaps you can enlighten me! “Therefore thou art inexcusable, 0 man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things” (Rom. 2:1). Is it right to write an article in a subscription journal condemning those who write articles in subscription journals? Brethren, this is just plain silly!

“Autonomy” is not a concept to hide behind to avoid scriptural examination, the necessity of giving Bible authority, and exposing specific cases of digression and apostasy to the light of truth. That process does not make any local church subservient to the oversight of any paper’s editor, any college president, any preacher or even any single Christian any-where. Any Christian with a Bible in his hand can ask where the Bible authorizes a specific practice of any given church. Members of that church can choose to give a Bible answer or to declare themselves immune from giving a Bible answer on the mistaken notion that giving a Bible answer to “every man that asketh you a reason” violates church autonomy (1 Pet. 3:15; 4:11).

If a church uses mechanical instruments in worship, the concept of autonomy does not shelter it from preaching that condemns innovations in worship. If a church builds a fellowship hall and perverts its mission to provide recreation for its members under the guise of “felt needs” preaching, the concept of autonomy does not condemn brethren calling attention to these apostasies. If a church accepts into its membership those who have divorced for reasons other than fornication and subsequently remarried or bids Godspeed to this error by using and supporting preachers who teach this doctrine, the concept of church autonomy does not forbid preaching which calls this apostasy to light. The issue is not autonomy but open investigation of truth and departures from it. Those who love the truth have nothing to fear from the process of open study on any subject. Those who have a practice that is not authorized by the Scriptures may hide behind the false claims of violated autonomy.

The same is true of the concept of fellowship. 2 John 9-11 says, “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.” If a church violates 2 John 9-11 by fellowshipping those who have departed from the doctrine of Christ (whether the area of departure be receiving one who teaches that instrumental music in worship is acceptable, the sponsoring church, church sponsored recreation, or unscriptural doctrines on divorce and remarriage), the concept of church autonomy does not preclude their practice being examined in the light of Scripture. And, whether that review of their practice be published in a church bulletin, a subscription paper, or preached from a pulpit does not affect whether or not it violates church autonomy. If so, will someone please send me the Scripture for making such a distinction.

Violations of Church Autonomy Are Wrong

But Motive Judging is Right?

In some of the articles in subscription papers which charge that church autonomy is violated by those who write articles in subscription papers, there is considerable motive judging. The writers under review are charged with having an ulterior motive of trying to attain power and control the brotherhood. They are self-important and lust for power and prestige. Of course, the author of the article in a subscription journal who is condemning others who write in subscription journals does not lust for power and prestige, think himself self-important, or have an ulterior motive of attaining power! Those attributes are in others, but not in himself! Violations in church autonomy are severely condemned but no attention is paid to sinful judging of anothers motives. This kind of censorious judging is what Jesus condemned in Matthew 7:1-5 when he said,

Judge not, that ye he not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again, And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam Out of thine own eye: and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brothers eye (Matt, 7:1-5).

There is no defense for sinful attitudes and conduct for individuals, churches, papers., colleges, or anyone else. Wherein a brother is guilty of lusting for power, thinks himself self-important, and has an ulterior motive of trying to attain power, he is guilty of sin and should repent. However, we should be careful not to attribute these sinful attitudes to a brother ,just because he calls attention to a person or a churchs departure from the revealed word of God! He may just be a God-fearing brother doing his best to serve the God of heaven. If that be the case, how unfortunate would be the scathing articles which condemn him for ulterior motives. Jesus warned,” But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh! (Matt. 18:6-7)

Conclusion

Let us avoid violations of church autonomy. There is no eldership which has authority over anything larger than a local church. No outside individual has the right to intrude into the affairs of a local church to make decisions for that church. However, there is no sin committed in preaching the truth to anyone, whether or not he is a member of the same local church as I am, Church autonomy is not a concept to hide behind to escape open investigation of any Bible subject or principle, or the necessity of giving Bible authority for the actions and decisions made in a local church!

Furthermore, let us be wary of any teaching that discourages obedience to the Bible command to search the Scriptures daily, whether these things taught were so (Acts 17:11) and to try the Spirits whether they are of God” (I John 4:1). This attitude is essential to prevent the growth of apostasy among us. When brethren destroy this attitude, they prepare the soil for the seeds of apostasy to be planted or for those which already have been planted to grow. In my judgment, some articles on church autonomy have denigrated the open study of truth and the obligation to give book, chapter, and verse authority for their practices under the guise that church autonomy is violated by the very request for Bible authority cite is nobodys business what is done in the local church of which are a member”). This undermines the need forgiving Bible authority for our practices and is itself a danger to be guarded against.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 18, p. 2
September 16, 1993

By Phillip Mullins

I can see it now, immediately following Jesus’ conclusion to the Sermon on the Mount, he has everyone gird up their loins, lace up their cross trainers, and start stretching. After they are warmed up, he leads them in a 20 minute workout to tone up the flab. Does that sound ridiculous?

A prominent denominational church which meets down the street from me is offering just that. According to their sign, on Saturday mornings the church is con-ducting an aerobics class. Does that sound ridiculous? It should.

Ephesians 1:22-23 describes the church as the body of Christ. Jesus is the head and we are to carry out his work for him. Jesus’ mission was to seek and to save the lost. He began that work while on earth and as he was leaving this earth he commanded his followers to do the same, “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to them to observe all things that I have commanded you” (Matt. 28:19-20).

When you read about the church in the book of Acts, you see that they were busy carrying out the work of spreading the gospel, building up the saints, and relieving the needs of the saints (Acts 2, 4, 11).

The church of the New Testament did not offer classes on fishnet mending, pottery, or cooking. They did not build public hospitals, open soup kitchens, or homes for the aged. The mission of the church in the Bible was to save souls and care for those among the believers who were in physical need. Modern day churches which do not have a similar mission and work have completely missed the mark of what Christ’s church is all about. Life is too short, eternity is too long, and souls are too precious to waste time, resources, and energy serving the fleshly needs of all in the community.

If you are associated with a church that resembles a fitness center or the Red Cross more than it does the church of the New Testament, then you need to do some serious soul searching. Are you really part of the church that belongs to Christ?

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 18, p. 6
September 16, 1993

By Leona Rochelle

I am a housewife, mother of four children, grandmother of five. I am middle-aged, frankly so, slightly overweight and only moderately attractive. I hold no college degrees; I would be lost in the fast-moving world of business. But I am not neurotic, I am not frustrated, and I do not take tranquilizers!

Often when I finish reading an article telling what’s wrong with the average housewife, I’m downright disgusted and I’m surprised that I’ve ever had the sense to come in out of the rain. According to the writers of these articles I should be mired down in self-pity, constantly running to men of medicine for pills that do not help, seeking a cure for ills that do not exist.

How can I be happy when I have none of the things I’m told are necessary for me to lead a full life, to know myself and to become a whole per-son? I feel that I have a duty to be happy, an obligation to myself as well as to those around me. An optimistic attitude of mind is essential to my well being. Power, peace and healing are the natural products of a happy disposition, and a single spiritual idea can give poise and confidence.

Happiness does not in any measure depend on material possessions. I’ve never owned a Renoir, but I’ve walked with my children to the top of a high hill to look down on the breath-taking scene below and the splendor of a winter sunset. I’ve never been to the opera, but I’ve listened to the songs of birds, the chirping of the crickets in clover and the sighing of the wind in the pines. I’ve never been applauded by the masses, but I’ve shared with God the wonderful miracle of creation and I’ve had the thrill of hearing a tiny lisping voice whispering “you are the bestest muvver (orgyandmuvver) in the whole world.”

Does it really matter that I did not go to high school? My formal schooling was abruptly halted when I was 12 years old, but I have the ability to greet each dawn with a smile and with eagerness for the opportunities the day contains. I have the intelligence to approach my work, even the doing of tiresome and monotonous chores, with willing hands, and an open mind; and I can face the night with gladness, with a tiredness of body that woos me to sleep, happy in the knowledge that I have spent wisely this God-given day.

Life has not been easy for me. I’ve weathered several major illnesses, among them cancer and two heart attacks. I’ve held a sick baby in my arms all night, not just one night, but many, expecting every breath to be her last. I’ve walked the floors for hours while my husband lay under the surgeon’s knife, hoping and praying that something could be done before his lifeblood all drained away. I’ve stood helplessly by and watched my home and all my earthly possessions burn.

I am only 17 years older than my oldest child, and I never read Dr. Spock. So what? She could not have grown into a finer person had I been 30 and held a dozen degrees. Oh, yes, she and the three younger ones often wore clothes to school that were made of feed sacks, but no one knew. I learned early to use my hands and my little girls’ dresses were the envy of their classmates. The fact that their clothes were homemade did not keep any of them from being among the top 10 percent of their respective classes, scholastically.

Often it seemed to me that I was spending years just continued from previous page washing and ironing. But the clothes line was an inspiration; little girl dresses became rainbows and little boy trousers were wind-filled balloons, and I’ve had many poems published that I composed while hanging the wash on the line. The money received from the sale of these poems was often used to buy insulin .. .

So what if I don’t have a college degree? Once I was told that the greatest university in the world was not enclosed by four walls, but by an inquiring mind, a loving heart, a willingness, an eagerness to learn and a deep faith in God. To these I would add a good dictionary and access to a public library.

I do not feel that I am indispensable. Certainly my part in the great drama of life is small, like a pebble carelessly tossed into a whirling pool, for a moment only the rhythm is disturbed. When I am dead the snow will still fall in the winter, trees will still bud and put out new life in the springtime, autumn will follow summer and the leaves will drift noiselessly down as they have for unnumbered centuries; but I have not lived in vain.

For a little time my children will grieve for me, but I would not have their grief to last too long. I would have them think of me as walking the hills of Heaven, greeting old friends and making new ones, looking for my share of gold, not in shining pavements but in blossoming daffodils or goldenrod, happy to be in the presence of my God.

The landscapes I paint give pleasure tome and mine, but I know I’ll leave behind no great masterpiece of art, no deathless prose, no soul-stirring poem. But I will leave behind children and grandchildren with a deep and sincere faith in God and an appreciation of all his handiwork. 1 know that often when they see a lovely sunset, or stark bare tree branches etched against a winter sky, or the heart-stopping beauty of wild plum trees in bloom, or wild geese flying over, or smell the pungent odor of burning leaves, or freshly turned loam, they will pause and say: “Mother loved this so.” And for a moment I’ll live again.

God in his infinite wisdom, knowing my capabilities and my limitations, chose me for this station and this time. He has granted me leisure to sit and look at the wonders of the robin and the sparrow as they labor to build their nest; I’ve observed their loving care as they fed their babies and taught them to fly. Ive watched a fern uncurl, a flower unfold, a tiny seed pushing its way up through the moist earth, and in all of these things I’ve caught a glimpse of the unseen Hand of God.

I’m just a housewife, but if I had my life to live over and could choose any position in the world, I would choose no other way! (Reprinted from the church bulletin of the Church of Christ in Chipley Florida.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 18, p. 7-8
September 16, 1993

 

By Clinton D. Hamilton

The question for this column is a broad one dealing with the subject of forgiveness, especially in relation to the idea of forgiveness in the Old Testament system. Whole theories that actually contradict what the Scriptures teach are built on misinterpretation of the concept of forgiveness. Some of these theories would, if true, make the sacrificial death of Christ unnecessary. This is because the theory is that the sacrifices under the Law of Moses actually re-moved sins. When the Old Testament speaks of forgiveness, one needs to understand these statements in relation to what is taught about the sacrifice for forgiveness; this sacrifice is the Lord Jesus Christ.

Question: Discuss the subject of the forgiveness of sins in the Old Testament with the 10th chapter of Hebrews where it states that there is no forgiveness under the Old Testament.

Response: It would be helpful to enter into a study of the words used in both testaments for. forgiveness. There three terms in the Old Testament that convey the idea of forgiveness: kapar, to cover; nasa, to bear or take away; salah, to pardon. The following terms occur in the New Testament: apoluo, to put away or send away; aphiemi, to send forth, send away (from apo, from, and hiemi, to send); charizomai, to bestow a favor such as forgiveness. It is easy from the sense and meaning of each of these words to understand basically what is embodied in the idea of forgiveness.

The Law of Moses had a show of good things to come, and not the very image of things (Heb. 10:1). Accordingly, the law can never with those sacrifices which the Israelites offered year by year continually make the corners thereunto perfect (Heb. 10:2). Had those sacrifices been effective in the removing of sins, they would have ceased to be offered; furthermore, had they been purged of their sins, there would have been no consciousness of sins (Heb. 10:2). However, they were made conscious of their sins every year at the time of the atonement.

Every year, at the atonement sacrifice, there was a remembrance of sins (Heb. 10:3). Sometimes, it is said that their sins were “rolled forward” every year. There is nothing in this passage that even hints at, much less states, this. When the sacrifice of atonement was made annually, it reminded them that sins had not been removed. The reason that their sins were not removed is that it is impossible for the blood of bulls and of goats to take away sins (Heb. 10:4). The repeated offering of a sacrifice for sin demonstrated that it was not effective in the removing of sin because if it were effective, there would have been only one offering made. Jesus was offered once (Heb. 10:10). The writer of Hebrews affirms that where there is remission of sins there is no more offering for sins (10:18).

Someone might be ready at this point to inquire about how people before Christ are to be saved. By his own blood. Christ entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption (Heb. 9:12). Under the Old Testament, the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of a heifer sanctified to the purifying of the flesh (Heb. 9:13). The blood of Christ which he offered will cleanse the conscience from dead works (Heb. 9:14). Accordingly, “… for this cause he is the mediator of the new covenant, they that have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance” (Heb. 9:15).

Those persons under the first covenant or testament who walked by faith in observing what God had commanded in connection with the first covenant’s typical system would on the basis of their faith in observing God’s will, have their sins actually remitted by the blood of Christ. The life of the flesh is in the blood is what God told Israel (Lev. 17:11). God stated, “and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement by reason of the life” (Lev. 17:11). This blood did not remove sins as we have already learned but it foreshadowed the blood that would atone for sins, the blood of Christ. The typical significance of the system under the first covenant is not one of mean value. It abundantly and clearly pointed to the vicarious sacrifice of Christ and his cleansing blood. It was only prospective of, and foreshadowing, the new covenant system in which only one sacrifice was made for sins once.

When the sacrifice of Christ occurred, it is stated of him, “Whom God set forth to be a propitiation, through faith, in his blood, to show his righteousness because of the passing over of the sins done aforetime, in the forbearance of God; for the showing, I say, of his righteousness at this present season: that he might himself be just and the justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus” (Rom. 3:25-26). It is clear from these statements that it is on the basis of the sacrifice of Christ in the shedding of his blood that sins are removed. God declared in the new covenant why he was just in passing over sins done aforetime in the forbearance of God. Whether one may under-stand every aspect of this declaration is not an issue with a person of faith.

Paul also dealt with both the Gentile world and the Jews in these words: “For as many as have sinned without the law shall also perish without the law; and as many as have sinned under the law shall be judged by the law; for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified” (Rom. 2:12-13). Parenthetically, he proceeded to explain this in verses 14 and 15. Then he commented that this will be the case “in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men, according to my gospel, by Jesus Christ” (Rom. 2:16). Additionally, Paul dealt with the same issue about the Gentiles in Acts 17:30-31.

Looking at the word of God as a total message, it is not hard to understand that sins under the first covenant when spoken of as being forgiven are only thus typically by a blood sacrifice foreshadowing the blood that would actually remove sins. Seen in this light, one should not have difficulty understanding the idea of forgiveness under the first covenant.

I believe that one must look at the implication of saying that sins were actually removed through the blood of bulls and goats. If this statement is true, then there was no need for Christ to die. It also follows as a consequence that the sacrifice made by Christ is not the one made for sins once.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 18, p. 5-6
September 16, 1993