Autonomy?

[Splayd]

I've never really questioned the fact that we're autonomous, but as I've been carefully considering a lot of things about the RM over the last few months, I'd love to hear your thoughts and supporting scriptures regarding this matter.

Thanks :)

[AJB4]

I've never really questioned the fact that we're autonomous, but as I've been carefully considering a lot of things about the RM over the last few months, I'd love to hear your thoughts and supporting scriptures regarding this matter.

Thanks :)
I honestly don't think there are any scriptures commanding us to be autonomous. There's no evidence that the New Testament churches were autonomous, unless based on individuals views. I don't believe that the position of bishop and elder are the same thing anyway, because in the Bible, it's clear that they were two different positions. This thread (http://www.christianforums.com/t4666356-the-office-of-bishop.html&page=2) sums up my views on Bishop nicely, and I believe that the position of Bishop is singular, while the rest of the offices of the church are plural.

[- DRA -]

I've never really questioned the fact that we're autonomous, but as I've been carefully considering a lot of things about the RM over the last few months, I'd love to hear your thoughts and supporting scriptures regarding this matter.

Thanks :)

I suspect the autonomy of each church is based on two things:
1.) "And when they had appointed elders for them in every church ..." - Acts 14:23a (ESV)
2.) "Shepherd the flock of God that is among you ..." - 1 Peter 5:2a

Conclusion: God's plan is for each church to have elders, and the elders only have oversight among the local church, and not over another church or other churches. Therefore, the implication or necessary inference is that each church is autonomous. Consider Jesus' messages to the seven churches of Asia in Revelation 2-3. Different messages were sent to each church, because each church was autonomous from the others, and had different strengths and weaknesses.

[AJB4]

I suspect the autonomy of each church is based on two things:
1.) "And when they had appointed elders for them in every church ..." - Acts 14:23a (ESV)
2.) "Shepherd the flock of God that is among you ..." - 1 Peter 5:2a

Conclusion: God's plan is for each church to have elders, and the elders only have oversight among the local church, and not over another church or other churches. Therefore, the implication or necessary inference is that each church is autonomous. Consider Jesus' messages to the seven churches of Asia in Revelation 2-3. Different messages were sent to each church, because each church was autonomous from the others, and had different strengths and weaknesses.
I'm sorry, but what does Acts 14:23 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2014:23&version=9) and 1 Peter 5:2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%205:2;&version=9;) have to do with autonomy? I'm sure you'd find most churches even that aren't autonomous have elders in every one. Quite often they also have a bishop too, which, after my own study, I've come to the conclusion that singular Bishops are alright, and that Elders and Bishops are not the same office.

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by - DRA -
I suspect the autonomy of each church is based on two things:
1.) "And when they had appointed elders for them in every church ..." - Acts 14:23a (ESV)
2.) "Shepherd the flock of God that is among you ..." - 1 Peter 5:2a

Conclusion: God's plan is for each church to have elders, and the elders only have oversight among the local church, and not over another church or other churches. Therefore, the implication or necessary inference is that each church is autonomous. Consider Jesus' messages to the seven churches of Asia in Revelation 2-3. Different messages were sent to each church, because each church was autonomous from the others, and had different strengths and weaknesses.

I'm sorry, but what does Acts 14:23 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2014:23&version=9) and 1 Peter 5:2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%205:2;&version=9;) have to do with autonomy? I'm sure you'd find most churches even that aren't autonomous have elders in every one. Quite often they also have a bishop too, which, after my own study, I've come to the conclusion that singular Bishops are alright, and that Elders and Bishops are not the same office.

Since elders were appointed in every church, and elders only have authority over the local flock, that means each local church was autonomous.

I've read your comments on 1 Timothy 3 i.e. bishop (singular) versus deacons (plural). I suggest you spend some time to better understand what the Greek word for bishop (episkope) means. Acts 20:28 is a good place to start. The KJV says, "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood." The word "overseer" in that passage is the Greek word "episkopos" -- the plural of episkope. Who are the overseers referred to in Acts 20:28? See verses 17-18.

[HeyHomie]

I don't feel that Scripture gives a firm command either way, honestly. Acts 15 (the Council at Jerusalem) seems to hint at the idea of external control of congregations, whereas other verses hint at internal control of congregations. Heck, maybe God intended the New Testament to be the be-all-end-all of external control of congregations.

There are some things the RM does not because of a mandate from Scripture, but simply because we consider it a Good Idea™. Local control of congregations is one of them.

IMHO, the idea is not without its flaws. For one thing, anybody who wants to be a missionary basically has to freelance - meaning they have to go from church to church to get commitments of financial support. If we had a "headquarters," so to speak, then a would-be missionary could just sign up at headquarters and get the money they need (once they had the proper education, training, etc., of course).

That's why I support the idea of Missionary Societies - a group that congregations send support money to, to be doled out to missionaries as the congregations see fit. Unfortunately, we (the RM) tried that once and it didn't exactly work out.

[JDIBe]

Good Idea™.

Hey, hey, hey.....you're supposed to say "expedient". You're gonna get us sued.....:) :)

[- DRA -]

I don't feel that Scripture gives a firm command either way, honestly. Acts 15 (the Council at Jerusalem) seems to hint at the idea of external control of congregations, whereas other verses hint at internal control of congregations. Heck, maybe God intended the New Testament to be the be-all-end-all of external control of congregations.

The issue at hand in Acts 15 was whether or not circumcision and the law of Moses were required for the Gentiles who were obeying the gospel of Christ (see verses 1 & 5). What prompted this discussion/debate? Jewish Christians came from Judea to Antioch (of Syria) and said these things (circumcision and adherence to the law of Moses) were necessary. Therefore, men from Antioch were selected to travel to Jerusalem to discuss the matter. Paul and Barnabas were a part of the group that traveled to Jerusalem. Think back. Paul and Barnabas had just concluded what is commonly called the First Missionary Journey. Is there any evidence Paul -- an apostle of our Lord -- taught that circumcision and observance of the old law were necessary for Gentiles coming to Christ? No. Paul taught what the Lord told him to (Gal. 1:11-12) -- and the necessity of circumcision definitely wasn't a part of his/His teaching (Gal. 5:1-4). Therefore, both Paul and Barnabas already knew that circumcision and the law weren't required. Note Acts 15:3. Does there seem to be any indication he was doubtful about what he taught the Gentiles? No. He shared the conversions of the Gentiles as he traveled to Jerusalem. Once there ... when the apostles and elders came together ... Peter (the apostle to the Jews spoke i.e. Gal. 2:7), then Barnabas and Paul (the apostle to the Gentiles (Gal. 2:7) spoke, and then James spoke. The matter was settled. The Gentiles were neither commanded to practice circumcision nor keep the law.

Rather than "hinting at the idea of external control of congregations," Acts 15 shows us the disciples in Antioch, when confronted with erroneous teaching, went straight to the source of the problem to address the issue. I don't see the message going out that the church in Jerusalem had power or authority over other churches. Rather, all I see is that the matter of what it takes to be saved under the gospel of Christ was settled by those charged with taking the gospel to the world (Mark 16:15-16, Matt. 28:18-20).

There are some things the RM does not because of a mandate from Scripture, but simply because we consider it a Good Idea™. Local control of congregations is one of them.

If local control is just a "Good Idea," then the understanding that the "rule" of the elders (1 Tim. 5:17) having oversight over the local flock (flock which is among you - 1 Pet. 5:2) must be erroneous, right?????

IMHO, the idea is not without its flaws. For one thing, anybody who wants to be a missionary basically has to freelance - meaning they have to go from church to church to get commitments of financial support. If we had a "headquarters," so to speak, then a would-be missionary could just sign up at headquarters and get the money they need (once they had the proper education, training, etc., of course).

Two issues to consider:
1.) Does Scripture give us everything we need to serve and please God, or not (2 Tim. 3:16-17)?
2.) Does the N.T. reveal anything about how missionaries/preachers were supported? If it does, then shouldn't we be doing it that way?

That's why I support the idea of Missionary Societies - a group that congregations send support money to, to be doled out to missionaries as the congregations see fit. Unfortunately, we (the RM) tried that once and it didn't exactly work out.

Unless I'm mistaken, God's way is for the local churches or individual Christians to support those who preach e.g. Philippians 4:15-16.

When churches send their money to a society, doesn't the society decide who gets supported, how much, how long, etc.?

[AJB4]

Personally, I don't think that God looks down on us for our system of church government. In the Bible, they probably did the autonomy thing because it best suited them and their size. If in any situation autonomy didn't work, I don't think God would mind if they changed it up a little. I think the law of liberty comes in here. Autonomy works for the CoC because there aren't that many of us. If we suddenly grew in numbers of say, the number of the Orthodox and Catholic churches, then the episcopal system of Bishops would probably work much better for us, and it would be much easier, if we had a position above the elders at the local church which we could answer to. I don't think that there's anything especially divine about what system of government the early church used. It worked for them, mainly because they were still small in number. If I remember correctly, the episcopacy was introduced as the numbers in the church grew. It happened sometime between 96 AD and 105 AD (when looking at the writings of Clement, and later Ignatius of Antioch). I think on the Orthodox part of the forum, they said that it was introduced to cater to the growing number of people joining the early church.

[- DRA -]

Personally, I don't think that God looks down on us for our system of church government. In the Bible, they probably did the autonomy thing because it best suited them and their size. If in any situation autonomy didn't work, I don't think God would mind if they changed it up a little. I think the law of liberty comes in here. Autonomy works for the CoC because there aren't that many of us. If we suddenly grew in numbers of say, the number of the Orthodox and Catholic churches, then the episcopal system of Bishops would probably work much better for us, and it would be much easier, if we had a position above the elders at the local church which we could answer to. I don't think that there's anything especially divine about what system of government the early church used. It worked for them, mainly because they were still small in number. If I remember correctly, the episcopacy was introduced as the numbers in the church grew. It happened sometime between 96 AD and 105 AD (when looking at the writings of Clement, and later Ignatius of Antioch). I think on the Orthodox part of the forum, they said that it was introduced to cater to the growing number of people joining the early church.

"If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God." (1 Peter 4:11a - NKJV)

and

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God ... that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16-17)