Some Christians Have Church Autonomy Backwards

Many Christians / churches of Christ have their concept of “autonomy” (I Pet 5:2) backwards. They think it means we have to submit to the decision of elders of outside congregations, relieving us of our obligation to warn members there (Ezek 3:18). Instead, autonomy means just the opposite. Those not under the oversight of a set of elders should remain “independent” (synonym for “autonomous” at dictionary.com), that is, each congregation should act “autonomously” (make their own decisions).

So if we really love someone, we will try to correct them (as we have opportunity) no matter where they live (Heb 12:6a, Eph 4:15a). That is not only authorized, it is required (Acts 20:17,26-27,31 – note that Paul was not a member at Ephesus at the time). If we are truly autonomous, we won’t necessarily submit to the decisions/actions of other churches, but we will remain independent (autonomous) in our thinking and actions.

For example, suppose a congregation I am not a member of withdraws from one of their members without giving any justification whatsoever? I can’t just go along with that action, can I (II John 10-11)? On the other hand, suppose such outside congregation decides not to withdraw from someone that should be withdrawn from according to New Testament instruction. Does that relieve me of my responsibility of withdrawing from the disorderly (II Thess 3:6) just because someone else fails in their duties? Just to ask the question is to answer it. Hadn’t Paul withdrawn from Hymenaeus and Alexander (I Tim 1:20) even though he wasn’t necessarily at the same congregation as them? Autonomy (independence) means we should make our own decision about an unrepentant Christian in an outside congregation (based upon the facts, events, and scriptures), and then only back those outside elders’ decision if they made the right (God approved) decision.

I mean I don’t think Paul was a member of the Corinthian congregation, but he felt the need to inform them of things they needed to correct. He did that in I Cor 1 (division), 5 (Christian in sexual sin), 6 (taking brother to law), 11:17ff (partaking of the Lord’s Supper incorrectly), and etc. Surely we don’t think Paul was sinning when he did such, do we?

And I don’t think Paul was a member of the congregation where Peter was an elder either, but that didn’t keep him from “withstanding him to the face, because he was to be blamed” (Gal 2:11)? Did Paul’s warning violate the autonomy of “Peter’s congregation”?

As we’ve seen, Paul withdrew from unfaithful Christians outside his general area, even those not in his local congregation. Why did Paul do this? Because he loved people who lived even far away (Phil 1:17), and he knew it was wrong to have fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness” even if via long distance (Eph 5:11). We either are or are not supposed to emulate Paul (I Cor 11:1, Phil 4:9); we can’t pick and choose.

Surely we don’t believe John was sinning when he “wrote to the church” in III John 9 and explained to in verses 9-10 that Diotrephes was in the wrong for not “receiving the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church,” because he “loveth to have the preeminence among them”? And don’t you agree John was in the right for taking up for “Demetrius” in verse 12? No violation of autonomy, right?

The truth is when Paul and John tried to spiritually help brethren from other places, they were maintaining autonomy/independence, not violating it. If they had said nothing because they were not a member of those congregations, then they would have been surrendering their autonomy to them. It would be parallel to how Catholic congregations let the Pope tell them what to do, and in such way surrender their autonomy to the Catholic denominational hierarchy.

Acts 11:27-30 provides an example of one congregation sending money to (having fellowship with) another congregation. Well suppose the receiving congregation decided to become a gay church and refused to repent of it. Wouldn’t the sending congregation need to withdraw/withhold that fellowship going forward?, or would they have to accept the decision of the elders there and keep sending money? What does autonomy demand in that case? One church withdrawing fellowship from another church, right?

Suppose congregation A was supporting a preacher John Doe at a congregation B in Canada. Suppose that preacher decided to be a homosexual, but that church of Christ in Canada just went along with it. They wouldn’t withdraw from him as they ought (II Thess 3:6,14-15), and just let him keep on being their regular preacher. Would it violate congregation B’s autonomy for congregation A to withdraw their financial support of (fellowship with) John Doe? Of course not; none of us would keep on sending him preacher pay, would we? So deep down, everyone already knows the right answer to the question being addressed by this article, don’t they?