The Lord, in His divine wisdom, has seen fit to make the local congregations of His church autonomous. To be autonomous means to be "functioning independently without control by others." One of the things that makes the Lord's true church different from Catholicism and denominationalism is autonomy. As we read the New Testament, we find there is no organizational structure larger than or beyond that of the local congregation. There is no "mother church" or ruling body to which all the local congregations must follow or pay dues. Every local church is connected directly to Jesus Christ as the Head, follows His doctrine, and answers to His authority.
There are some blessings found in God's pattern of church autonomy. For instance, it is a safeguard against brotherhood-wide apostasy. If a "mother church" departed from the faith, it would naturally and quickly take away all other churches under its control. Since every local congregation is to function independently without control from others, such departures from the faith are initially confined to local churches.
Consider the Seven Churches of Asia who were the original recipients of the book of Revelation. Five of these seven churches had problems that needed correction (Rev. 2-3). The church in Ephesus had left its first love (Rev. 2:1-7). The church in Pergamos allowed the doctrine of Balaam and the doctrine of the Nicolaitans to go unchecked in their midst (vv. 12-17), while the church in Thyatira allowed a woman to seduce members into practicing fornication and idolatry (vv. 18-29). The church in Sardis was dead (3:1-6) and the church in Laodicea was "lukewarm... wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked" (vv. 14-22). Although found in the same general area, these local congregations had different problems. The "lost love" of the church in Ephesus had not spread to the church in Smyrna, which was suffering great persecution (2:8-11). The "deadness" of Sardis and the "lukewarmness" of Laodicea had no effect upon the faithful church in Philadelphia (3:7-13). With these problems confined to local congregations, the Lord could address them and correct them before they spread.
While it serves a great purpose, unfortunately "church autonomy" is sometimes used as a means of deflecting sincere and needed challenges regarding a congregation's beliefs and practices.
As we noted in last week's bulletin, local churches have the right to make decisions regarding things like how many preachers they choose to support, how many times they choose to meet on the Lord's Day, and the order of their worship services. Although brethren will naturally question such changes, each local congregation has the right to make such changes in the way that works best for them.
However, at times local congregations can begin to depart from the Lord's pattern for the work, worship and organization of the church. For instance, a church can begin to use musical instruments in its worship, allow women to take speaking or leadership roles in the assemblies, employ the social gospel in its evangelistic efforts (offering "food and fun" to those who would attend their events). Congregations can begin to tolerate false doctrines by having men who teach error to hold their gospel meetings.
When brethren in other congregations hear of such things, and ask the elders or members of such congregations "by what authority are you doing these things," they are sometimes rebuked with an appeal to church autonomy. "We are not doing anything wrong. How dare you question our soundness! Mind your own business!!"
The truth is, while each local congregation is free from the control of other congregations, they are not free from having an influence upon other congregations. Left unchecked, one can't help but wonder how long it would take for the problems of the churches in Ephesus, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis and Laodicea to spread to other congregations. If the faithfulness and zeal of the church in Thessalonica had spread to the churches in Macedonia and Achaia (1 Thess. 1:6-8), what was keeping the problems in Corinth from spreading to these same churches? If Paul was hearing of their problems while he was in Ephesus (1 Cor. 1:11; 5:1; 11:18; 16:8), what was keeping other brethren from hearing about them and being influenced by them? These departures from the pattern were taken seriously. The New Testament is filled with epistles from the Lord's apostles addressing, correcting and seeking to prevent many such departures.
Take these First Century examples and put them in the environment of the accelerated communications of the Twenty First Century. Today, we have instant access to what is being taught and practiced by our brethren in the surrounding area as well as from all over the world. Fliers from area congregations reveal that unfaithful men are sometimes used to hold gospel meetings. Photos and video posts on social media show drama skits being performed and food being served to children attending Vacation Bible Schools conducted by our brethren. Brethren who are marked and withdrawn from in one congregation are accepted into the fellowship of another congregation without any indication of repentance. These things have a greater influence upon surrounding congregations than ever before.
"Church autonomy" does not "protect" a congregation from accountability for their influence. Brethren have a right to ask questions and demand a "thus saith the Lord" or a "book-chapter-and-verse" for such activities.
Despite Cain's statement to the contrary, we are our brother's keeper (Gen. 4:9). When we see our brethren make changes in their meeting times, it is only natural to ask them why these changes have been made. When we see our brethren make departures from the pattern, it is even more important that questions be asked. Instead of deflecting such questions with an appeal to "church autonomy," we need to be ready to give an answer for our beliefs and practices. Sometimes it takes someone from the "outside" to see that we have left our first love, are tolerating sin and error, are dead or are lukewarm.
A final thought: we have noted that "church autonomy" is sometimes used as a means of deflecting sincere and needed challenges regarding a congregation's beliefs and practices. Unfortunately, sometimes a congregation is challenged by someone who is not sincere. While "autonomy" protects a local church from outside control, there are some brethren who try to control what is done in other congregations through intimidation. The spirit of Diotrephes is alive and well today, and sometimes he is not confined to a local congregation, but seeks to control things in the entire brotherhood (3 John 9-11). This attitude is equally a departure from the New Testament pattern.
We have the right to question any practice. When we discover that a church has indeed made a departure from the Lord's pattern for the church, we have a right to try to encourage them to make the needed correction. However, we do not have the authority to control what happens in other local congregations.
There were brethren who departed from the faith in the First Century. Such will happen in the Twenty First Century. Such departures are unfortunate. Church autonomy will help protect local churches from such apostasies, but it should never be used as a means of ensuring such departures. We are brethren. Let's look out for one another, and let's do so in love.