From Voice, May/June 2014. Used by permission.
Let’s face it: American pastors are constantly being asked questions about whether the local church is important and why church attendance is necessary. There are those who advocate that the modern American church is broken: why not fix it with a Starbucks-style makeover?
Some people are saying “the typical Sunday morning service of half lecture and half sing-along isn’t a useful way for me to connect with God. What if, instead of the church being like a theater, a police station, or a seminary, it was more like a coffeehouse?”1
Those are definitely questions that need to be answered, especially when asked sincerely. But those are really questions about form and methodology when there’s an even more basic question that needs to be asked first: what’s so important about the local church? Can we ditch it altogether? With technology offering Bible teaching through the Internet on your laptop or iPad or iPhone, what’s wrong with virtual, web-based Christian communities? Can your iPad serve as your pastor and your friends serve as the source of your fellowship and accountability?
What’s so important about the local church?
The local church, God’s design
Local churches have been in existence since the Day of Pentecost in Jerusalem in the First Century (Acts 2). Because Christ said He would build His church (Matthew 16:18), groups of believers in the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior have gathered together all across the world to form local congregations. In those congregations they would worship Him, teach His Word, evangelize the community, and practice the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Table. He indeed was building His church.
Through the centuries, many local congregations have chosen to identify with various groups and associations (often called in America “denominations”). Many people can only conceive of a group of churches with one authoritative, central office and one leading officer who directs the affairs of all the associated churches. This kind of church organization is usually controlled by the central administrative authority of the church group and the designated officers. The church lands and buildings in this kind of organization are usually owned by the group itself, and not by the local church’s members. Pastors for each of these churches are directed by the central office and are usually told in which of the group’s churches they will serve and for how long they will serve there.
Money is also an issue in these kinds of churches: each local church must send to the central office a certain, designated, mandatory amount of money each year for maintaining the central office, its officers, and its programs. In time, problems often arise in these kinds of church groups over issues like control (“who is in charge of the group and each of our churches?”), authority (“who will make the decisions for our group and each of the churches?”), and doctrinal integrity (“what will all of us believe as the core teachings and distinctives of our group?”).
But is this the only way to understand how local churches are to organize and be governed?
Throughout history there have been independent local churches free from outside control, dependent simply upon the Lord Jesus as the Head, the Holy Spirit as the Power, and the Bible as the Guide. The churches established by the First Century apostles of Christ began as independent local churches and the New Testament teaches the autonomy of the local independent church under the Lordship of Jesus Christ. The autonomous local churches of the New Testament were self-governing which means they:
- chose their own officers (Acts 6:1-6) according to a Scriptural standard (1 Timothy 3:1-13)
- exercised their own discipline (1 Corinthians 5:13)
- handled their internal problems as an individual congregation (1 Corinthians 6:1-5)
- were responsible to preserve the true teaching of the Bible in their church (1 Timothy 3:15)
- were accountable to the local elders of their church (Acts 14:23; Hebrews 13:7, 17a) who in turn were accountable to Christ (Hebrews 13:7b)
The autonomous local churches begun by the First Century apostles of Christ were also self-supporting which means they:
- supported their own local ministries through regular, systematic giving (1 Corinthians 16:1-2; 2 Corinthians 9:6-8)
- financially supported their own pastor (1 Timothy 5:17-18)
- took care of their own local people in financial need (like widows, 1 Timothy 5:3-16)
Following this pattern, today’s independent, autonomous local church depends upon the Holy Spirit for direction (Acts 13:1-3) and chooses its own name, government and programs. It is free to call its own pastor and invite any speakers and teachers it considers to be true to the Word of God. It is also free to determine when and where they will meet and at what time their meetings will occur. They can choose to meet in a building they construct or in a building they rent or in a large house or in the catacombs like the early church in Rome (the location they gather in is not the definition of a church).
Independent, autonomous local churches seek God’s direction in pursuing those evangelistic ministries they find Scripturally acceptable. They can choose the Christian education materials they believe are best to teach Bible truths to their people. They are free to support whatever ministries and missions and schools and organizations they believe are valuable for advancing the Gospel. Mandatory obligation to protect a tradition or an investment is not involved in an independent local church’s decision to support a ministry.
Misrepresentation and misunderstanding
But the concept of the independent local church can be greatly misrepresented in the sinful actions of the church people. If the church leaders and congregation are not obedient to the Bible and refuse to be humbly directed by the Holy Spirit, they can degenerate into warring factions in the church (1 Corinthians 1:10-13; 3:1-9) and domineering leaders lustful for control and power (1 Peter 5:3; 3 John 9). Even though the New Testament teaches the autonomy of the local independent church under the Lordship of Jesus Christ, autonomy means that each church grows in its dependence upon the Lord. He is the Head of each church and He demands their godly submission to Him in all areas of church life. They are to look to Him for the guidance from His Word regarding how they should function and they trust Him for the provision of their every need as a church. This type of church government encourages prayer, faith, and spiritual growth among all of its members.
Also, the concept of the independent local church can be greatly misunderstood to justify isolationism and a spirit of exclusivity. Remember that the body of Christ transcends all earthly denominations and organizations (Ephesians 1:22-23). It is composed of all who have trusted Christ as Savior, regardless of organizational affiliation. Biblically independent churches strive to be loyal to Christ and His Word rather than to any organization. They seek to establish, preserve, and expand local churches according to the New Testament pattern. Yet the First Century apostles of Christ also encouraged cooperative interdependence between local churches.
Notes
1 Thom and Joanie Schultz, Why Nobody Wants to Go to Church Anymore: And How 4 Acts of Love Will Make Your Church Irresistible (Group, 2013).
Discussion
NewHi Les,
Hi Les,
Thank you for your fine article, and clear exposure of the kinds of problems churches face. You were fair in pointing out that just as churches that with central offices have problems, so too do autonomous churches.
But is one better than the other? I don’t think so since these churches, both connected and autonomous, exacerbate schism and a turning away from the writings of the inspired apostles and prophets. Schism is a problem that neither governing arrangement solves, for schism is more rampant today then ever.
So I’d like to give some reasons why autonomy is not a biblical doctrine (since most readers here are Baptistic) and then propose a better way, I believe, for churches to be governed.
None of this justifies the use of central offices though, for like the doctrine of local church autonomy, there is no NT precept establishing such, or NT example of such in operation.
Instead, the NT churches were committed to being one church in a city under the governance of Scriptures. The Scriptures were applied to the life of the one church of that region or city by a group of men who were qualified to rule the church by first meeting Scriptural qualifications. It’s a point I make in my article “The High Call of Eldership Churches.”
www.churchsonefoundation.com
www.gracecurchministry.org
NewNo Provided Solution in Your Article
Ted,
Who are the apostles today to decree who are qualified to be elders in each city?
Ken
NewAutonomy and Apostles
These questions have been answered many times over the years by congregationalists.
On “autonomy,” the word does not appear in the NT but the concept does. There is good and bad autonomy, in the sense of self governance. The word “steward” is a biblical term (1Cor.4:1-2, 1 Pet. 4:10) that refers to autonomy under the rule of a lord. The steward governs all that has been put in his charge (autonomy) but does so under the direction of his master. “Self-control” is another biblical term (1Cor.9:25, Gal.5:23) that refers to self-governance (autonomy) under a standard of right conduct. So, no, the concept of autonomy is not always negative in the NT.
The authority of the apostles:
Congregationalists have long believed (along with other groups) that the authority of the apostles continues in the completed NT Scriptures. See Eph. 2:20, Gal 1:8-9 (where believers are called to judge the doctrine of apostles by the already-inscripturated standard of the gospel)
For more on this, see McCune’s Systematic Theology vol. 3, especially around p.219 and following. [amazon 0982252722]
For less emphatic, but well reasoned perspective, Millard Erickson’s theology is helpful. In my copy, p.1083ff., espec. p.1086. [amazon 0801036437]
A couple of other helpful links:
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.
New"What’s so important about
“What’s so important about the local church? Can we ditch it altogether? With technology offering Bible teaching through the Internet on your laptop or iPad or iPhone, what’s wrong with virtual, web-based Christian communities? Can your iPad serve as your pastor and your friends serve as the source of your fellowship and accountability?”
I’m not advocating ditching the local church, but I do wonder how much technology can expand the concept of “local.” Local used to mean within walking distance. Now it is within driving distance or even light rail distance. I can Skype with someone across the world from me, and my virtual presence is in the same room with them. That isn’t a “fake” me. That is MY eyes seeing what is in the room with the other person, and my voice talking to them. Sure, I can’t put my arms around them, but is my physical presence actually necessary for fellowship and accountability? I’m just thinking out loud here. It certainly may be, so that’s why I want to hear what others say about it.
NewA friend of mine has been visiting Minneapolis' mega-churches ..
A friend of mine has been visiting Minneapolis’ evangelical mega-churches this summer (all the while attending his own church).
He sent me this link to a searchable database of US megachurches.
Responding to this question in the main article above:
Here’s my take:
Twitter
Jim's Doctrinal Statement
NewJim wrote:
Even when people use their IPads to facilitate their connectivity, they don’t consider the IPad itself to be their friend or their pastor. They are simply connecting to real people through their IPads.
NewAgreed
I agree with this
Twitter
Jim's Doctrinal Statement