Ethics Scandals and Local Church Autonomy

Image

The Oxford Concise English Dictionary defines autonomy as (1) the possession or right of self-government, (2) freedom of action. In other words, autonomy is the freedom to make choices according to the individual or group’s own principles and values. It’s freedom of conscience.

For Christians and New Testament local churches, autonomy is 100% conditioned by obedience to our Lord. In that sense, we have no autonomy. But in relation to those other than ourselves and Christ, we do have autonomy: the freedom to act according to what we believe to be the will of Christ.

We should view that kind of autonomy as precious, fragile, and a sacred trust.

We may better understand and value it if we consider it through a historical and theological lens. That consideration may also help us better understand how allegations of misconduct among members (including staff) ought to be handled.

Some Historical Light

During the Reformation, as churches were recovering biblical views of Christ, faith, and grace, they were also recovering a more biblical understanding of church structure and order. All reforming churches rejected the authority of the Pope and the traditions of Rome. Congregationalists went a step further, rejecting episcopal and presbyterian forms of church government.

(”Congregationalism” is used two, somewhat overlapping senses: (1) in reference to local church autonomy vs. the authority of some body outside it, and (2) in reference to the authority of the congregation vs. that of church leaders within it, such as elders or a single authoritarian pastor. My focus here is on the first sense.)

In England, seven congregationalist Baptist churches published what came to be known as the First London Confession (1644, revised in 1646: Theopedia). Article XLVII reveals a bit of their thinking on on autonomy (emphasis added):

And although the particular congregations be distinct, and several bodies, every one as a compact and knit city within itself; yet are they all to walk by one rule of truth; so also they (by all means convenient) are to have the counsel and help one of another, if necessity require it, as members of one body, in the common faith, under Christ their head. (Reformed Reader)

Though reforming churches everywhere drew heavily from England’s Westminster Confession of Faith after 1646, congregational churches objected to its presbyterian model of church governance and discipline.

Accordingly, Congregationalists in England published the document now commonly known as the Savoy Declaration, in 1658. This confession adopts nearly all of the Westminster (more on that), but includes an extended section focused on church discipline and local church autonomy. Some of the same language appears in the Second London Baptist Confession of 1689 and the Philadelpha Confession of Faith of 1742.

A few excerpts might convey the essence of their belief and practice (emphasis added):

4. To each of these churches thus gathered, according to his mind declared in his Word, he hath given all that power and authority, which is any way needful for their carrying on that order in worship and discipline, which he hath instituted for them to observe, with commands and rules for the due and right exerting and executing of that power.

6. Besides these particular churches, there is not instituted by Christ any church more extensive or catholic entrusted with power for the administration of his ordinances, or the execution of any authority in his name.

22. The power of censures being seated by Christ in a particular church, is to be exercised only towards particular members of each church respectively as such; and there is no power given by him unto any synods or ecclesiastical assemblies to excommunicate, or by their public edicts to threaten excommunication, or other church-censures against churches, magistrates, or their people upon any account, no man being obnoxious to that censure, but upon his personal miscarriage, as a member of a particular church.

Paragraph 26 endorses voluntary formation of a special purpose “synod or council” as needed, but adds that

these synods so assembled are not entrusted with any church-power, properly so called, or with any jurisdiction over the churches themselves, to exercise any censures, either over any churches or persons, or to impose their determinations on the churches or officers.

The word “autonomy” does not appear in the Declaration, but the authority of local churches to govern themselves, answering only to Christ, is unmistakable – especially in response to wrongdoing by members.

Theological Light

Several theologians of note also offer helpful summaries of the congregationalist understanding of local church autonomy.

Martin Lloyd-Jones seems to have been more Presbyterian than anything else, but spoke well of congregationalism.

The Congregationalists—those who believe in the congregational system—affirm that every local church is an entity in itself, that it has supreme power to decide everything itself. It is a gathering of Christians who believe that the Lord is present and is the Head of the Church, and who believe that, as they look to Him and wait upon Him, He, by the Spirit, will guide them and give them the wisdom they need to decide about doctrine and discipline, and so on. The local church is autonomous, it governs itself, and does not look to any higher body, be it a bench of bishops, a presbytery, a general assembly or anything else. (Great Doctrines of the Bible, Vol. 3, 22)

After complaining that there seemed to be no congregationalist churches left, he gave the idea a hearty endorsement.

And that is why I suggest the local independent view: it seems to me to approximate most closely to the New Testament pattern. Each local church should be autonomous and independent, but ready always to meet in fellowship with those who are like-minded and of a like spirit. (23)

Turning to Baptist theologians, Roland McCune is concise:

The Local Church Has the Authority to Settle Its Internal Affairs

Concerning saints going to law against other saints (1 Cor 6:1–5), Paul directs the local church at Corinth to care for its difficulties. No committee was formed and no pressure was brought to bear either by other churches, apostles, or ministerial executives. The decision of the local church on the matter was final. There is no higher court of appeal or body of jurisdiction; the local church’s judgment is final (Matt 18:15). (A Systematic Theology of Biblical Christianity, Vol. 3, 236)

Local Church Government Is Biblical in Constitution

The authority, principles and rules of organization are to be found in the Bible alone: “If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ … he is conceited and understands nothing” (1 Tim 6:3–5).

Local Church Government Is Congregational in Form

Each local church has supreme authority in its own affairs. It cannot be dominated, coerced or interfered with by any power outside itself. This does not preclude cooperation with other local churches, but such cooperation or association has no authority over the local church. (236)

Augustus H. Strong wrote of local church authority in matters of discipline, also noting what should happen when the church leadership botches their part of the job (emphasis added):

As the Prudential Committee, or Committee on Discipline, is simply the church itself preparing its own business, the church may well require all complaints to be made to it through the committee. In this way it may be made certain that the preliminary steps of labor have been taken, and the disquieting of the church by premature charges may be avoided. Where the committee, after proper representations made to it, fails to do its duty, the individual member may appeal directly to the assembled church; and the difference between the New Testament order and that of a hierarchy is this, that according to the former all final action and responsibility is taken by the church itself in its collective capacity, whereas on the latter the minister, the session, or the bishop, so far as the individual church is concerned, determines the result. (Systematic Theology, 926)

Conclusion

The goal here has been to clarify what the idea of local church autonomy is, and, along the way, also demonstrate that it wasn’t cooked up by a few fundamentalists in the 1980s. The idea is verifiably as old as the Reformation. The biblical support – which I’ve made no attempt to cover here – points to its origin under the leadership of the Apostles.

For the biblical case for congregationalism, I recommend the systematic theologies by Strong (904-908), Millard J. Erickson (1079-1080) and McCune (232-237) as well as Larry Oats’ article at Proclaim and Defend, Andy Naselli’s post at Thoughts on Theology, and Fred Mortiz’s “Congregational Government: a Response to James McDonald” here at SI.

How should belief in local church autonomy shape our response when members of a congregation have accused other members of unethical conduct? We should understand the following:

  1. The moral and ethical standards come from the congregation itself as it strives to obey Scripture.
  2. Since the congregation has established its own ethics standards, it alone has the authority to enforce them.
  3. Where civil and criminal law is relevant, law enforcement operates separately and in addition to the local church’s discipline process, though law enforcement action may have to precede church action chronologically.
  4. Churches following New Testament order (autonomous, congregational) should ensure that informed consent is built into the membership process, so that everyone who joins is fully aware of the church’s ethical standards, consequences for violation, and how investigations will be conducted (when necessary). Typically, when lawsuits have resulted over church handling of ethics scandals, it’s been the result of alleged defamation, emotional distress, etc., by individuals who have been disciplined.

For more on discipline and legal matters, see Jay A. Quine, “Court Involvement in Church Discipline, Part 1,” Bibliotheca Sacra, Issue 593; and “Court Involvement in Church Discipline, Part 2,” by the same author in issue 594. The following are also helpful, and more current:

Discussion

Joe, yes, that’s exactly the kind of thing I’m talking about. The med student, the football captain, etc., when they don’t have ethics, are precisely the kind of guy that other guys learn not to introduce to their sisters and such. When that kind of person gets into a pulpit, the church has some answering to do—some investigation, and an outsider to see what’s up with their culture can be extremely helpful.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

On the niceties of how some use various terms, the facts have already been stated repeatedly and linked to. “Misconduct” is the umbrella turn for everything from hugging a bit too long to rape. “Assault” is the term normally used exclusively of criminal conduct. Joeb and Bert are using “abuse” as the exact synonym of “misconduct.” This is sloppy, but not important. None of this is relevant to the article or a biblical understanding of church autonomy and handling misconduct.

To review, God has tasked His church with the job of handling the sins of its members. Congregations may choose to enlist the aid of outsiders, but the responsibility remains each congregation’s burden. When crime is involved, the courts do their thing separately and — from Bible-believers’ point view — in addition to, the church’s action.

Whether we “trust” churches or not, is also not relevant. They don’t work for us. Their Head is Christ.

As a matter of thinking clearly, it’s common to cite examples of churches botching the job as though this proved anything more than that they ought to do it right. Doesn’t follow. Nobody blames “skating” for the fact that nearly everyone does it badly… and talk all day about wobbly, faltering, knee-busting skaters says nothing at all about skating, except that it’s difficult.

Yes, church discipline can be difficult. There are many ways to mess it up. It is the duty of churches (and no one else) all the same.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

Means much less today b/c

  • People just go to another church (especially if they are in urban area)
  • Many choices … and will be welcomed warmly
  • The “tie that binds” (as in “bless be the …”) is a very loose cord

Strange one from my past:

  • Single deacon left my church blaming me because “he wasn’t being fed” (Bill [not real name] )
  • Others blamed me b/c that nice deacon left (I’m “under the gun”)
  • Several months later our church secretary (Karen) disappeared (while her husband (Joe) who was an officer in the reserves was in Europe)
  • Joe called me from Europe to say Karen ran off with Bill
  • Joe comes home and sneaks into Bill’s house and sees Karen’s clothes there
  • Bill had withdrawn from membership (b/c I was a lousy pastor)
  • We [the deacons] tried to track down the facts about Karen. It’s a big city and we don’t have police powers … hard to affirm Joe’s story
  • Within a year Karen and Bill marry … warmed accepted into another church

Jim, you mentioned the deacon who left your church because “he wasn’t being fed.” That reminded me of Clearwaters’ classic reply to that statement: “sick sheep don’t eat.”

Real cases present difficulties every time. My attitude has been, you can only do what you can do, as a church, but need to do everything you can do.

Sometimes the member you want to discipline is in jail in a different state. What are you going to do then? In one case I was involved in, the church could not exactly conduct an investigation, and in any case, the member was not denying his actions. What we decided to do was remove him from the membership then take the matter up again when (if) he became accessible to us in the future.

It felt mostly symbolic, but sometimes symbols are important (like weddings, for example).

In another church I was involved in, the pastor got involved with a woman during a conference trip and decided he wasn’t coming home. The discipline process was painful, but there was no avoiding it. Much had to be done long distance with poor communication, it seems (I was in the congregation at the time, not staff or deacon, so we did not have every single detail. We had the information we needed though.) There was eventually repentance and a kind of restoration, but returning to the pastorate was never on the table.

On the topic of Jim’s preaching :-)

My former church was blessed to have in the pulpit a few times also, and for most of them I was able to be there as well. I was always fed and blessed.

Sometimes, the “not being fed” thing (which is really another topic entirely) is a reality even for good preachers though. We all preach at different levels of sophistication, and sometimes a member is getting nothing because it’s all going over his head. Other times, he’s getting nothing because it’s all too elementary. Solutions to that? I don’t know. Another topic.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

[Jim]

Means much less today b/c

  • People just go to another church (especially if they are in urban area)
  • Many choices … and will be welcomed warmly
  • The “tie that binds” (as in “bless be the …”) is a very loose cord

Strange one from my past:

  • Single deacon left my church blaming me because “he wasn’t being fed” (Bill [not real name] )
  • Others blamed me b/c that nice deacon left (I’m “under the gun”)
  • Several months later our church secretary (Karen) disappeared (while her husband (Joe) who was an officer in the reserves was in Europe)
  • Joe called me from Europe to say Karen ran off with Bill
  • Joe comes home and sneaks into Bill’s house and sees Karen’s clothes there
  • Bill had withdrawn from membership (b/c I was a lousy pastor)
  • We [the deacons] tried to track down the facts about Karen. It’s a big city and we don’t have police powers … hard to affirm Joe’s story
  • Within a year Karen and Bill marry … warmed accepted into another church
Now, instead of Bill just being a deacon at your church, let’s suppose Bill is a nationally published author of religious books, one of them even being a book of marriage advice. Does Bill’s public status mean that the details of Bill’s relationship with Karen should become public knowledge? If it DOES become public knowledge, should the public’s reaction be a factor in whether the new church initiates church discipline?

A truth to keep in mind with all this is that when the church takes responsibility for disciplining its members, including its leadership, but botches the job and doesn’t oust someone who should be ousted, they are truly going to answer to Christ. Our natural human bias is toward the immediate, and thinking that if we don’t see justice here and now, there is no justice. But if we reflect on this, we all know (I hope) that this is simply not the case.

14 For God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil. (ESV, Ecclesiastes 12:14)

31 because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.” (ESV, Acts 17:31)

5 but they will give account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead. (ESV, 1 Peter 4:5)

Do we trust God enough to do things His way and leave it to him to settle the scores?

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

[Aaron Blumer]

Do we trust God [scripture] enough to do things His way and leave it to him to settle the scores?

Edit mine.

Pretty much this is the crux of the whole discussion.

Lee

Yes, I think it is. We are a very results-oriented people and it’s easy to get caught up in “this won’t work” or “this will work” and forget that we should have started out with “what have we been commanded to do?”

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.