|
By Allan F. Hutchinson
Pastor, First Church of God, Morehead, KY |
|
The assignment I have been given is to analyze the tensions and issues which exist relating to autonomy (freedom/liberty) and accountability (acceptance of restrictions) as it relates to Pastors (clergy) within the Church of God Reformation Movement. Thus, I have been given the responsibility to review from a Biblical and practical perspective, not necessarily who “governs the church,” but who “governs its leaders or pastors.” From my perspective, a Biblical understanding of these terms is important for us to have a practical model for pastoral accountability in the church.
What is Autonomy; What is Accountability? Autonomy is simply, “the power of making one’s own choices or decisions” (Webster). The Greek word for autonomy, o:’tonemi, means: “self-government, independence or having a law in itself, without any external authority to dictate its affairs” (Stanford.edu). Thus the word autonomous refers to the person/pastor who is a law unto himself or an independent person. “In referencing the New Testament, there are no words like this used anywhere when it comes to the life of the church” or individual ministries (Joel, p. 2).
Accountability means “an obligation or willingness to accept responsibility for one’s actions” (Webster). In essence, this is the aspect of balance given to help define and direct the autonomy (freedom or liberty) we do have in Christ (Galatians 5:1).
The Problem of Isolation and Individualism I personally believe our “enemy” has his “I’s” set on each and every pastor today. These “I’s” are meant to dissolve every blessing accountability can bring to a pastor’s ministry and life. What are the enemy’s “I’s?” Isolation and Individualism: both will shroud pastors in the cover of darkness and rob them of the life-giving grace found in accountability.
Isolation is the environment of separation from others where secret sins can grow and flourish. It places a pastor in a situation of vulnerability to moral failure and acceptance of situational ethics. Individualism is the mindset adopted when pastors proudly believe they are truly an “island unto themselves,” and thus believe their methods of ministry and design of programming are the only “appropriate” way to fulfill their ministry calling.
The answer to these issues I raise is not to develop another conference, seminar, tool or method of ministry. We are blessed by many of these which already exist today. I feel the answer to the issues of isolation and individualism lies in a deeper understanding of how we balance our freedom or autonomy with being accountable (responsible) according to Biblical standards. Thus the issue becomes:
To Whom Is A Pastor Accountable? In closely examining the message of the New Testament one discovers that it does not encourage autonomy or independence. Neither the church nor any pastor functions independently, being a law unto ourselves. There are several distinct realities which call us to accountability. These include under-standing 1) how we are governed by and accountable to God and His Word; 2) how we are governed by and accountable to the Holy Spirit; 3) how we are governed by and held accountable as we yield to the gifts of the Holy Spirit in other’s lives and ministries; and 4) how we are governed by and held accountable to the instinct to love and respond to the needs of others.
First and foremost a pastor is governed by and accountable to God because of his/her calling. The overseer/shepherd role of the pastor is not a personal vocational choice; it is a divine appointment. Paul’s words to the Ephesian elders teaches us this truth, “Keep watch over yourselves [guard yourselves] and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers” (Acts 20:28).
Paul’s words “watch yourselves,” or guard yourselves, calls pastors to embrace accountability to God’s call on their lives. Paul helps give form to this area of accountability as he writes to Timothy the following, “I give you this charge: Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction” (2 Timothy 16:2). Notice the emphasis of the areas of accountability for the pastor: (1) Preach (truth); (2) Prepare (study); (3) Preside (govern in spiritual matters among the flock).
Peter’s call for a pastor’s accountability to God is somewhat similar to Paul’s with some particular additions. “To the elders among you I appeal as a fellow elder and a witness of Christ’s sufferings who also will share in the glory revealed: Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, watching over them— not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not pursuing dishonest gain, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away” (1 Peter 5:1-4). Peter offers the aspect of leading through humble service as pastors remain accountable for the “flock” God has placed under their care.
Also the pastor is governed by and accountable to the Holy Spirit because of his/her gifting. Again, in recognition of a divine calling versus a vocational choice, pastors have received a gifting of divine grace by the Holy Spirit to accomplish their ministry calling.
Paul pointed out to the Ephesians how the gifting of the Holy Spirit is the source of all areas of ministry calling: “But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it . . . so Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ” (Ephesians 7:11-13).
A pastor’s accountability here involves how well he/she is equipping Christians to discover and use their spiritual gifts for ministry, working together in spiritual unity and deepening their walk with God. So in this area we discover how a pastor is gifted by the Holy Spirit to assist others in discovering and using their spiritual gifts. Also, I think it’s significant that the role of pastor in itself is actually a gift given to ministers by the gifting of the Holy Spirit.
The area of accountability for pastors that can be most challenging is understanding how we are governed by and held accountable as we yield to the gifts of the Holy Spirit in the life and ministry of other people.
In general, the New Testament speaks plainly to all Christians of to maintain the unity of the Spirit (Ephesians 4:3); to notice those who walk disorderly (Romans 16:17; Titus 3:10); to prefer one another over ourselves (Romans 12:10); and to recognize the cohesiveness which the spiritual gifts of others bring to the Body of Christ (Romans 12:3-6a; 1 Corinthians 12:4 and 11). In light of this, there is no room for “full autonomy” or independence. So the church is governed best when we respond to the gifts of the Holy Spirit that have been given to ministers, leaders, laity, etc. for the overall mission of God’s church.
Also it appears that the New Testament, by practice, approves spiritual authority (leadership) to those chosen and gifted by the Holy Spirit to manage the spiritual affairs of the church. This is especially seen where it comes to doctrine, ministry and our interdependence on each other. Several examples here include Paul’s role of leadership over Timothy at Ephesus (1 Timothy 1:3-7); Titus at Crete (Titus 1:4-5); and James ruling on the acceptance of Gentiles to the Jerusalem Council of Elders (Acts 15).
As pastors and leaders observe the Holy Spirit’s leading and ministering through people of the New Testament, the only practical conclusion is that spiritual unity is essential for balancing both autonomy and accountability. We are one body; we have one faith; we are under one Lord; we have one mission in the world; and all of us must function under the anointing of the Spirit. With this reality then, how can we be fully autonomous or independent—especially when the scripture says, “The spirits of the prophets are subject to the control of the prophets” (1 Corinthians 14:29-32)?
Summary of Thoughts As far as I can see, the spiritual authority that the New Testament provides for the governance of the church and pastors has nothing to do with hierarchical control or excessive authority over the life of the church when functioning according to New Testament principles. Also, it does not have an ecclesiastical authority to intervene outside of those principles that the New Testament provides for governance. So the spiritual authority in the New Testament for governance reveals the following: 1) to restrain individualistic and self-tendencies; 2) to endeavor to restore and reconcile those who are in error; 3) to protect from false doctrines; 4) to maintain the integrity of the ministry and minister; 5) to maintain the unity of the body and unity in the ministry.
While this paper is limited in scope due to the differences of opinions and amount of supporting scripture, I feel that it gives a good framework for dialogue and discussion. I do understand there are many discussions which will emerge from this subject. Overall, the conventional wisdom we deal with concerning spiritual authority in the church today is multidimensional. The sense I get here is when it comes to spiritual authority/accountability, we are only responsible to God to function within the dictates of His word and our conscience without the influence of an organization. However, we cannot have an autonomy that keeps us apart from each other and that eliminates the accountability the scripture mandates and our Lord requires.
In conclusion I would like to submit some key questions that should guide our thoughts on the subject of autonomy and accountability: Can we maintain unity and be fully autonomous? How can we have a united mission if we choose to be autonomous or independent? From what or whom are we independent? How can we maintain integrity in the ministry if we are not accountable to each other? And finally, how do we react within the New Testament spirit if the organization moves toward control and not toward reconciliation, redemption and the maintenance of the spiritual unity of the Body of Christ?
References Cited
Agoston, V., “Autonomy.” Buffalo-Toronto: Matthias Corvinus Pub, 1995
Allen, M., “Local Church Autonomy and Exposing Errors.” Expository Files. Sept. 2005
Diego, G. “The Many Faces of Autonomy.” www.tanatologia.org
Freeworld Dictionary: Greek, “Autonomy.” www.freeworlddictionary.com
Ferris, R., “What is Autonomy?” Truth Magazine. Vol. 7 (2007), p. 7
Joel, R. “Autonomy.” The Christian Watershed. July 27, 2011. p. 2.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary, “Autonomy,” “Accountability.” www.merriam-webster.com
Smith, John W. V., A Brief History of the Church of God Reformation Movement. Anderson, IN: Warner Press (1976)
Smith, John W. V., Heralds of a Brighter Day. Anderson, IN: Gospel Trumpet Co., 1955
Willis, M., “Church Autonomy.” Truth Magazine. Sept.16, 1993
The Relation of Congregations By Albert F. Gray There are different views of congregational relations, ranging from the idea that each congregation is entirely independent to the position that a congregation must have a charter from a parent body to have the right to exist. Frequently a congregation of people, usually under the leadership of a minister with a strong personality, acknowledges no relationship whatever with any other group. These are a law unto themselves. On the other hand, there are congregations that are entirely subservient to the ministry, as in the Roman Church.
There are, of course, certain areas in which a local church conducts its own affairs; but since every child of God, whether in a local church of God or not, is a member of every other child of God, there is a universal relation that local church membership does not destroy. We are “members one of another.” If we are to cooperate as individuals, it is but natural that we cooperate as congregations.
There was in the early church a certain bond of spiritual union among all Christians. Different ministers preached in various churches and members moved from one church to another. There was a substantial unity of doctrine and a voluntary cooperation in missionary work and works of charity.
There is no evidence in the Bible of a standing organization joining the several congregations, either general or provincial. All cooperation of churches was on a voluntary basis growing out of a common interest. But if a group of Christians in a local church can organize their work, there is no good reason why groups of churches may not similarly join together in promoting the work common to all.
Ideally, such a cooperative effort should be open to all congregations of true Christians. . . . Intercongregational cooperation should be on a purely Christian basis, free from all denominational bias, as local units of the one great universal church of God. --Basic Christian Theology, Book 2, p. 41 Anderson, IN: Warner Press, n.d.
|
