Local Church Autonomy
Here is where our trouble seems to come with reference to much of our work in the church today. Everyone is for "mission work"; "radio preaching"; "education etc." It seems we are troubled over doing this work because we are divided over what "local autonomy" incorporates. In this article I am not trying to defend primarily either of the above things which we all agree are all right and even necessary IF we can find the place to operate.
Does It Infringe?
I believe congregations may cooperate in various ways without surrendering their local autonomy. I understand all agree that in the "famine in Judea" the congregations "cooperated" in relieving this distress. From this has been brought to the front the "emergency argument." To me this is but a "subterfuge" that beclouds the issue. I do not mean by this it is a "deliberate" attempt to do this, but from where I sit, it amounts to that. Now men are not dishonest JUST because they differ with me. To me, Paul never intended for this support, to these poor saints, to be construed as many are using it today. I believe I can show you why I say this.
This is the argument Brethren Tant and Wallace said was parallel to our radio work. 0, yes, Yater, you understood that Highland was to direct this program and these boys would work under them. We all told you that. You can't get out of it by saying you understood these men were going to collect the money, and they were going to get individual churches to buy the time. A meeting had already been held to discuss Highland's doing this work and Glen had spoken for it when I talked to you men. I told you Highland did not want any trouble over this and you, Brother Tant, assured me that we ought not to have any and that you would announce it. Brother Tant, you and Brother Wallace understood that Highland was doing this. You should just come clean with this and admit the truth and say, "I have changed my mind" — not that the program has changed, for it has not. That is honorable. To try to dodge the force of your endorsements by claiming you were not able to understand what the program was will not help you. I explained to you the setup. Now God knows about this, Brother Tant. You need to correct it.
Jealous Of Autonomy
One thing I believe; Paul would have been one of the first to protect the "local autonomy" of the church. The Holy Spirit that directed him; Christ that promised the Spirit; and God, the Father who sent the Spirit, were all "jealous" of this one fundamental fact. Not for a moment do I think they would have "sacrificed this principle," not even for an "emergency." Here is where I think we have failed to understand what "local autonomy incorporates" within its scope of meaning. I am sure he did not believe that "inter-congregational cooperation" infringed upon this sacred right. I believe I can prove it.
The Act Itself
Now in Acts 11 we have the first account of help for the poor saints in Judea. This was sent by one church, as I believe the context to show, hence it would not enter into our discussion of "congregational cooperation" and its being sent to the "elders in Judea" could not be parallel to our discussion now being engaged in over the brotherhood. But the one in 1 Corinthians 16 and 2 Corinthians 8-9, I feel is a point intact.
Commands The Churches
In 1 Corinthians 16:1 is the command he gave to the "churches" in Galatia and now he gives the same "order" to the church at Corinth, for the "poor saints" in Jerusalem. He points out how the "churches" in Macedonia also gave beyond their ability. The churches actually selected men to be their "messengers," and men were sent among the congregations to collect their "bounty." Paul and these men were "to deliver" this "bounty" to the church "in Jerusalem" for the "poor saints."
Of Which Congregation A Member?
This is a good question since much is being said about the "brains being in Rome, and the TREASURE in Philippi," or some such expression. Some differ as to where Paul was living when he wrote this. Some think it WAS Philippi, but Adam Clarke thinks strongly it was Ephesus. One thing certain, he did not have his "church home" in ALL of them. If from Ephesus, we would not be wrong in thinking that the church in that place, with her elders, by Paul, was at least active in this arrangement. If he were at Philippi as some think, then the church there surely knew of this. Who kept this contribution and to whom or to what was it sent before they started to Jerusalem? This is a good question for you brethren to discuss. The "churches" had selected just a "few" men to gather this "bounty"; they went among the churches and "gathered this bounty" and the congregations gave into this great work. Now I think it is evident that Paul, with a selected group, went to Jerusalem and delivered this "collection for the poor saints."
What Poor Saints?
There is an effort to prove that these congregations sent this contribution to the "elders" of the various congregations in Judea. The church at Antioch was said to have done this. This, in after years, as given in 1 Corinthians '16 and 2 Corinthians 8-9, did not so state. They were to send it to the "poor saints" and it was sent TO Jerusalem. Would Paul and all these congregations be so selfish as to gather all this "bounty" for the "poor saints" and then refuse the Jerusalem church to allow all saints to share in this UNLESS they had their "membership" with the Jerusalem congregation? How far will men press a "theory" to defeat something they are against? Would the Jerusalem church have sinned had they known of other poor saints who needed help in Judea had they divided this blessing with them? This is the question. Did the local autonomy of the Jerusalem church allow them to divide their blessings? (The letter killeth.)
How Many Years?
It has been 12 to 15 years now since this "famine" had started. Those who claim to know, say it continued for many years and help had to be sent to starving peoples all over the world. Hence here is a '15 year old EMERGENCY." We now know the Antioch church sent help to Judea; that Galatia, Macedonia, and by specific mention here is Corinth, all sending help into that section over a period of 12 to 15 years. The second of these reports shows "congregational cooperation" in relieving this distress. It shows they sent it, not to the ELDERS OF JUDEA, but to Jerusalem. Could Jerusalem have divided it?
Our Question Answered
There is one thing that stands out in all this. The question of losing their individual, "local church autonomy" in this "congregational cooperation" was never once mentioned or thought of, so far as the record is concerned. We now know that the "congregational cooperation" in this effort did not "infringe upon local church autonomy," else the Spirit was asleep, Paul did not care, Christ — who sent the Spirit — was not concerned, and God was off guard.
Had the Spirit thought they were destroying their "church autonomy" he would have guided Paul to instruct them along this line. If in "congregational cooperation" churches lose their "local autonomy" then here is where the churches for years had surrendered this most precious possession. If objection is made to its being a "number of years," then we know it was going on for at least "one year," 1 Corinthians 16:1-2; 2 Corinthians 8-9. If you can surrender it for one year, then tell us how much longer it may be surrendered?
They Exercised Autonomy
Brethren, instead of their having surrendered their "local autonomy" in this "congregational cooperation," they "exercised it." They had the right to decide "if they could give"; "how much to give"; and "when to give." No congregation could legislate this to them. In fact "congregational cooperation" is one of the outstanding means of exercising this right. Tell me which of these congregations surrendered its "local autonomy" in this "congregational cooperation"?
Conclusion Reached
We now know that this "congregational cooperation" for THIS emergency did NOT surrender their "local congregational autonomy." We must conclude therefore that it takes MORE than "congregational cooperation" to "destroy" our "local autonomy" for here it was exercised, not destroyed, in one of the "greatest" exhibitions of "congregational cooperation" in the history of the world. Here it was "once and for all demonstrated" that "congregational cooperation" does not "infringe" upon the rights of other congregations. This is why I say the "emergency argument" is but a "subterfuge" to "becloud" the issue.
What Now Is The Issue?
We narrow this down to this one point, namely; Does one congregation have the right to exercise its "local autonomy" in helping "another congregation"? Can one church help another? It is not "local autonomy" that is the battle ground. It is a fight to wage in defense of our being privileged to "help one another." The issue has been "side tracked." The issue is "Can one congregation give to another" and not surrender its "local autonomy"? If not then, I want Brother Wallace to give back that $500.00 the Highland congregation gave to the College congregation to help them in their "building emergency."
Question, Brother Wallace, Where did the "Highland autonomy" begin and where did it end? Do you really know? Yater, suppose you tell us. Well, lest you can't, let me tell you. We exercised our "local autonomy" when we made up our minds to make you this contribution for that purpose and we gave it. You exercised your "local autonomy" when you put that money into your building. You had a number of things needed. I do not know where you put our $500.00, whether into the building proper; the opera chairs; the lights; the tower; the air conditioner; or where. It became YOURS at the College Church when we gave it to you. It was yours to use as you thought best. If, however, in order to maintain ones "local autonomy" one must have supervision over the money after it leaves ones possession, then we own $500.00 worth of brick where you preach. This being true, we have the right, if you will point out to us which section is ours, to take it out and put it back in every time you do not do to please us. Such is silly to the extreme, isn't it? We exercised our "autonomy" when we decided to give it and then gave it. Now it is yours and you exercise your "autonomy" when you use it. But if you men be right, you can't use your building without consulting us; else we lose our autonomy for you are using "our money" doing our work in your building. Glen, why didn't you jump on the church where you were the preacher instead of us, for you there were receiving money from other churches to do a work not even in this nation and you received contributions from others for your church building for you said, Brother Wallace, it was the obligation of those who sent their children here to school to help the College Church with this for it was more than they were able to do. I think you were right and the church here gave a contribution because of that. Did we surrender our "local autonomy"? Brother Tant, suppose you write Brother Wallace up? Brother Tant, suppose you and Brother Glen, write a "burlesque letter" but this time, let Brother Wallace be "Mr. Brainstorm, the preacher," and the church where he works, be the "Church of Christ Digressive," or maybe, it could be the "preacher" and "church in Lufkin," where Brother Tant is the "preacher" for surely Brother Tant thinks Brother Wallace and the church where he preaches are right — and they collect money from other churches to do a work in another nation? If not, why jump on us and not "yourselves"?
Shame on BOTH of you. We do not think the College congregation did wrong. We commend them. We do not want our money back. This is no reflection on them. I am only showing how these brethren meet themselves "coming back."