|
By Dave DeVoll Editor, Truth Matters |
|
The Reformation Movement of the Church of God has historically held two tenets that are in constant tension with each other—the autonomy of ministers and congregations and the accountability of ministers and congregations. This paper attempts to examine the historical practice of these “twin” doctrines and traditions.
My assignment, as I understand it, is to examine from the perspective of history the development of the twin issues of autonomy and accountability. I have deliberately focused on the decades from the 1880s to the late 1920s because I don’t think there has been much development since then, only some refinement. If we regard these issues as “twins,” we have often treated autonomy as the “good twin” and accountability as the “evil twin,” because there is a tension that naturally exists between them.
F.G. Smith preached a sermon to ministers in 1919 that he called “Divine Organization and Government,” in which he lists “the development of human governments [within the church] . . . as monarchy, oligarchy, republic, pure democracy.” The implication is that all of these forms of government are purely human. A brief synopsis of this sermon appears in The Gospel Trumpet: “Monday morning, June 16, F. G. Smith spoke on ‘Divine Organization and Government.’ On the platform behind the pulpit Brother Smith exhibited five charts, illustrating five kinds of church government, viz., monarchial, episcopal, Presbyterian, congregational, and the charismatic, or Holy Spirit kind. The great similarity of the first four is evidenced by the fact they all derive their powers from man, and the great difference between the first four and divine, or charismatic, organization, is that the latter comes down from God through the Spirit. God governs His church by spiritual gifts and governments. The authority rests upon spirituality and moral influence and not upon delegated or conferred authority. Brother Smith made it plain that man could not confer or delegate authority in the church of God without doing harm.” It seems to address the problem of unlimited personal autonomy and accountability and, by extension, accountability and autonomy in local church government, very early in our history.
This sermon seems to have been refined and re-preached under the title, "Fundamentals for Which We Stand,” in the 1928 Anderson Camp Meeting, for it appears on pages 171-192 in the book of sermons for that year, printed by the Gospel Trumpet Co. Smith used a chart in 1928, as well as 1919, but I could not determine if they were identical. On the 1928 chart, (Smith was a great one for charts; see Appendix 1) he illustrated monarchy by the Roman Catholic Church, oligarchy by the Episcopal Church, republic by the Presbyterian Church, pure democracy with those churches using the congregational model. Keep in mind, he regarded all of these as “human governments,” and the outline contains the stark statement: “Christian individualism [is] the cause.”
On the chart that accompanied this version of the sermon he added a fifth kind of government—“no rule” (which he parenthetically calls “anarchy”). He appears to equate this last one most closely with Holy Spirit rule! (See Appendix 1.) I think it safe to say that because of the tension between autonomy and account-ability, we have certainly had our share of this form of church government, both in our local churches and in our Movement as whole. His solution sounds simple: Holy Spirit rule. One could only wish his outline had contained an explanation of this solution with more details than the words, “a complete surrender to the Divine Government and will”!
Relative to this issue is a common early teaching among the pioneers that the officers of the church consisted of two kinds.
A lengthy pamphlet concerning autonomy and accountability and the two kinds of officers appeared in 1913. This pamphlet is particularly interesting to me because it appeared at a time when our Movement was facing a crisis—some of our ministers were changing their views on a part of the dress code that had been standard among us. They were permitting men to wear neckties, and in some cases were wearing this evidence of “the superfluity of naughtiness” themselves—including tie clasps to hold them in place! This sounds trivial to us, but it actually caused a division then that still exists today in the Church of God (Evening Light), centered in Guthrie, OK. An accepted standard became a “conscience matter” for the individual, and was eventually abandoned altogether. One wonders if this issue prompted the pamphlet.
I will try to analyze this “Ministerial Letter.” The author, D.O. Teasley, introduces the subject of autonomy and account-ability by using four terms similar to Smith’s concerning “man-made” organization, Notice the fifth form, which he calls “anarchical” (136), appears in his chart before Smith used it 25 years later. He describes the adherents of this class as those who “go to the opposite extreme and either neglect church government or reject it altogether. A large percentage of popular holiness movements and city missions belong to this class. These sporadic little sects condemn the older churches, and particularly the clergy . . . but they present a remedy that is worse than the disease” (137). This indicates to me that at least this one of our pioneers recognized the dangers of autonomy uncontrolled by some kind of accountability.
He then devoted one section of his “Letter” to “Necessity of Church Organization and Government.” The organization and government of the church are presented as the responsibility of “the under-governors of the church,” of which there are two categories. Teasley terms them “Travelling Officers” and “Resident Officers.” There are two of the first category, apostles and evangelists. The Resident Officers are pastors and teachers, prophets, and deacons.
He does not devote much time to the practicalities of the recognition of the first category, but he does to the second. I reproduce segments of two paragraphs on this to show his reasoning, which would have been very progressive in his day: “A congregation of men and women drawn together by the common [i.e., corporate, accountable] interests created by the internal life of Christian [i.e., autonomous] experience will sooner or later begin to take organic form. The appointment of such officers as are necessary to govern the church grow naturally and gradually out of the existing needs of the society. . . .There are two aspects of the call to divine service: the subjective and the objective; in other words, there is (1) to the one called, the voice of the Holy Spirit and the call of duty; and (2) in the congregation he is called to serve, a demand for his services. This resolves itself into the call of the Spirit, the call of duty, and the call of the church. . . . The call of the church is that prevailing sentiment in the congregation itself. . . . As we sometimes put it, the congregation feels that the Lord has his hand upon a certain one” (149-150). It is interesting to note, however, that Teasley does not tell how the church reaches and expresses a “prevailing sentiment.” The process described sounds something like the more contemporary “natural church development” method.
Teasley does spend some time on the authority of the Travelling Officers he calls evangelists. His view is that if an evangelist is in a meeting in a congregation where a member or members are at odds with the local pastor, the evangelist may hear them out and, if the pastor is at fault, “the travelling minister should not render decisions without first going to him and entreating him and admonishing him. In the case where a recognized pastor in charge of a local assembly is found to be in error either in doctrine or in practice, it is decidedly better that he be dealt with by at least two or three representative men outside of his congregation than that he be dealt with and set aside by only one” (155). This indicates a need for accountability to hold in check a pastor’s autonomy. Unfortunately, at that time our Movement had no formal way to do it. Now, it is the recognized responsibility of our State Credentials Committees—a definite development in the area of accountability.
In one short paragraph, Teasley deals with congregational autonomy and inter-congregational accountability. He calls this “the administration of church government” (156). He faults Roman Catholicism for sacrificing personal liberty (autonomy) in favor of external unity (accountability). He also faults Protestantism for going to the opposite extreme and granting to every “layman, minister, or congregation [the right] to dissent from the universal body” (156). He grants that there may be “instances when a layman or a minister or even a whole congregation will find it difficult to submit to the decision and sentiments of the universal body” (156), noting that if there is no spiritual or moral degeneracy involved they should not be ostracized. He balanced this with saying, “On the other hand, a congregation should be unwilling to sever itself from the fellowship of the universal body on account of its own peculiar views” (156). If by “the universal body” he referred only to our Movement, the body of Christ was small indeed in 1913! If it meant what we usually mean—all the truly saved—I do not see how the dilemma can be resolved, especially in light of the practice of our ministers of that day encouraging denominational congregations to “take a stand for the present truth” by severing their connection with the denominational world. I believe this was Teasley’s attempt to find a balance between autonomy and accountability. Teasley actually produced a diagram (see Appendix 2) to illustrate the harmony he thought there would exist if the church were in its proper condition (162).
We have struggled with this issue of Divine governance, of harmonizing the twin principles of autonomy and accountability, since our inception. Daniel Warner wrote a small booklet called The Church of God, What It Is and What It Is Not. This booklet has been printed, reprinted, and circulated not only by the Reformation Move-ment, but also by the many schismatic bodies springing out of it. These would include those centered in Guthrie, OK; Newark, OH (three of them there!); Hagerstown, MD; Mount Tabor, OH; the Restoration Movement; and a number of others. In the booklet, Warner acknowledges “that the laying on of hands of elders by the elders in ordaining elders . . . pertains to the organization of the church, we freely allow. . . . Those whom God saves, baptizes with power, and commissions by the Holy Spirit have the only ecclesiastical authority instituted of God, and this comes directly from heaven, and not through any imaginary line of predecessors.”
We are still left with the question, how was this very idealistic view lived out in the life of the church? In trying to present a coherent answer to this question, I was tempted just to reproduce one of C.E. Brown’s 1951 lectures presented to the School of Theology in Anderson, “The Development of Organization.” He devotes a section to what he calls “The Belief in an Infallible Pattern,” positing that “the theory of ironbound completeness was not . . . a conception of Warner himself nor of his ablest co-workers.” This conclusion seems to be in harmony with one of our heritage songs written by Warner, “Brighter Days Are Sweetly Dawning”:
Brighter days are sweetly dawning, O the glory looms in sight, For the cloudy day is waning And the evening shall be light.
O what golden glory streaming! Purer light is coming fast; Now in Christ we’ve found a freedom Which eternally shall last.
Brown describes Warner as “an explorer of reality” who “was very definitely an experimentalist, a spiritual explorer throughout his whole life” (p. 110). However, some of Warner’s immediate followers tended to polarize around what they perceived to be unchangeable principles because they thought Warner perceived them to be so. We see this mindset today in such groups as those centered in Guthrie, OK, and the Restoration Movement, which to a greater or lesser degree also have tried to reproduce even the dress codes of that era.
When we were a very small fellowship of Christians, we tended to hold to a “no organization” mindset, which naturally made for a degree of instability. As early as 1891, however, we had to face the tension. John Smith describes the dilemma and its solution in these words: “The stabilizing process was manifested in yet another way—the development of some rudimentary organizational structures beyond the local congregations. The need at this point first became evident when those who had been attending the camp meeting near Bangor, Michigan, decided to purchase their own meeting site on Lester Lake just north of Grand Junction. . . . It became the task of those who assembled to decide how they could hold corporate title to the property without resorting to ‘human organization.’ It was a difficult problem but finally they agreed by consensus without voting to form the Grand Junction Camp Meeting Association with nine ‘brethren’ who had been suggested by Warner as the trustees. In case a vacancy occurred, the remaining trustees would agree upon a successor. By avoiding any voting procedures and limiting the trustees to the management, improvement and maintenance of the property, they felt they had avoided sectarian ecclesiasticism.” One could argue with F. G. Smith’s logic evidenced in the sermons quoted above that this was one of the oldest forms of “sectarian ecclesiasticism,” since it followed the “monarchy” model of Rome—one man appointed the original officers. Then, it followed the “oligarchy” model of the Episcopal Church, since those appointed by Warner appointed their successors.
This brings me to two early historical examples of how external, “charismatic,” authority was exercised over local congregations early in our history.
First, I cite an incident near St. James, MO. Members of the congregation at Merrimac Springs, MO, met Warner’s company (in Warner’s words), “some dancing on one leg, some rolling their eyes in their heads, other gibbering in tongues, or jerking, or falling stiff . . . . Unseemly and even hideous operations and contortions were carried on and called the manifestations of the Spirit and power of God. . . . The supposed gift of tongues was alarmingly increasing. Indian war dances, etc., had turned the church of God into something quite different, a disgusting maze of confusion. . . . A terrible nervous jerking had seized upon many in the meetings, which in some cases resembled St. Vitus’ dance. We renounced that working as of the devil. . . . Nearly all the foolish stuff was rid out of the camp after one discourse explaining and renouncing it.” Daniel Warner, writer, publisher, and evangelist, but not pastor or even member of that local church, exercised “charismatic” authority over them, and they submitted. Their autonomy was not total.
The next incident is a bit more complicated. It involves a doctrinal vagary introduced in Moundsville, WV, in 1898 concerning the doctrine of entire sanctification. The variant position is called “Zinzendorfism,” since the Pietist Zinzendorf had taught it earlier. Briefly, it denies both a second cleansing and a second work of grace, holding that a person is entirely sanctified at conversion. The teaching had been introduced to some of the Gospel Trumpet Family members, and on Thanksgiving Day of that year Enoch E. Byrum publicly denounced it, saying “that the false doctrine and false teaching mentioned would be allowed no place in our midst henceforth.” The following year at the Moundsville Camp Meeting Byrum did not give it a public hearing, citing several reasons, among them: “(1) it had been exposed before most of those involved . . . ; (2) at different times since then the doctrine had been exposed; (3) those involved had been warned in private of the false spirit behind the anti-cleansing heresy” (John Smith, 188). The Camp Meeting, being a “general camp meeting” for the Church of God Movement, involved more than just one congregation, yet one man, Byrum (editor of The Gospel Trumpet, as Warner had been), seems to have been the one to exercise the authority in determining that this doctrinal deviation “would be allowed no place in our midst henceforth.” This certainly does not indicate an unlimited autonomy in our Movement under Warner’s successive editor.
Byrum, in fact, seems to me to have been even more autocratic than Warner was. It was Byrum who initially compiled the “Ministerial List” from 1896 to 1916 that gave clergy rates to our ministers who travelled by rail (John Smith, 131). Presumably this would have given him a large amount of “authority” in the Movement, but we must remember that the concept of divine, charismatic authority appears to have been understood to mean persons who have, in Warner’s words quoted above, “the only ecclesiastical authority instituted of God, and this comes directly from heaven . . . .” In popular language, “God told me to do it.” Whoever seemed to be the most influential and effective, i.e. the most spiritually charismatic, spokesperson, then, was God’s spokesperson.
Commenting on the independent, sometimes autocratic-appearing, actions of our pioneers, Brown (who knew them and labored among them from his youth and held them in highest esteem), lectured young seminarians, “One of the greatest hindrances that troubled the pioneer era was the tendency to link the inner certitude of moral conviction, arising from the assurance of salvation, with an intellectual dogmatism about questions of theology which were deemed to be guaranteed by the teacher’s personal religious experience. In all ages dogmatists have taken this road.”
Our Movement has been very jealous in guarding our autonomy—but equally jealous in guarding our orthodoxy. This is no small feat, for as any group of people grows in size there will be differences of understanding and methods. John Smith writes in a chapter on “Breaking the Organizational Barrier,” “As early as 1907 there was a General Assembly meeting which continued annually in connection with the camp meeting at Anderson. . . . Occasionally, controversial subjects would arise concerning which were varied opinions. Often the result would be that ‘one of the more influential brethren would stand and say, “Now, brethren, this is the way we believe the question.”’ Usually that settled the matter” (Smith, Quest, 212).
I believe that partly because of our necessary emphasis on experiential salvation, we are prone to Brown’s “greatest hindrance.” Because we believe one’s standing with God is based on personal faith and expresses itself as that person follows the teachings and leadings of the Holy Spirit, we tend to one of two different conclusions—either of which may be fatal to vital fellowship with one another. (1) I may conclude that what God has led me to do is what everyone else must do. Anyone who does not do as I do cannot be accepted in “my” fellowship. (2) Since God leads each individual, it is not necessary that we be in any kind of fellowship or work together. Both conclusions are fatal to my unity with other believers. The same principle applies, I believe, to the congregations of our Movement. This naturally produces tension because of our stress on Christian unity.
Our pioneers, while stressing autonomy and experiential salvation equally stressed our need of each other. Consider the heritage hymn many of us still sing with enthusiasm, “The Church’s Jubilee.” One stanza reads
O blessed truth that broke our bonds, in it we now rejoice, While in the holy church of God we hear our Savior’s voice. No earthly master do we know, to man-rule will not bow, But to each other and to God eternal trueness vow.
We have no earthly masters, we accept no man-rule, but we do accept our responsibility to be true to each other as well as to God.
This tension between autonomy and connectedness was recognized in the following writings separated by 15 years:
In the December 1912 issue of Our Ministerial Letter, J.W. Phelps wrote “The Care of the Churches.” He urged our pastors: “I would exhort you never to allow the least particle of division to creep in or have the least countenance among you as elders of the church. Stick together in everything that is worth sticking to at all. If the least grievance should unavoidably arise between you, by all means keep it from reaching the ears of the church” (Volume 1, p. 38). This was during the days of the neck-tie agitation.
By 1927 the views of some of our leaders had modified so significantly that our publishing house even published a book that contained the following statements: “Human church governments are of four distinct forms papal, episcopal, Presbyterian, and congregational. The human aspect of divine church government may, at times, approximate the external form of any one of these, tho [sic] fundamentally different. Yet no one of them should be allowed to exclude any of the others as the Spirit’s mode of operation.” One wonders what Warner would have said to that statement thirty-five years earlier!
A glimpse at the Table of Contents for Byrum’s book shows how far we had developed from (or departed from, according to one’s point of view) Warner’s uncomplicated views in The Church of God, What It Is and What It Is Not. Here are a few samples: in chapter 3 concerning “Membership in the Local Congregation,” there is a view foreign to Warner: “Right of Majority Rule.” That chapter discusses voting (remember the qualms of conscience at Grand Junction in selecting Trustees for the first camp grounds?) “Ordinarily, however, those in the minority should humbly submit to a majority decision, even tho [sic] it seems unwise and harmful” (42). He further cautions the majority, “Yet in important business matters such as a choice of a pastor or the building of an expensive house of worship, which will burden the congregation with a large debt for years and which will require the cooperation of all, it is very unwise for the majority to disregard the wishes of a considerable minority” (42-43). (Note how we had gone from no voting, and from ridiculing the “steeple houses” of the denominations, to selecting a pastor by voting and “building an expensive house of worship.”) He obviously strives to hold to autonomy (voting) and accountability (accepting the majority decision).
In chapter 4, “Officers of the Local Church,” is a section on the ordination of ministers. He says that ministers are to perform the “formal act of ordination,” that a minister should be ordained only with the “knowledge and approval of the local church of which he is a member,” and that even when an ordination occurs in the candidate’s local congregation (which he considers most appropriate), “pastors and other elders be present . . . from other congregations in the region” (73). He further stresses the importance of granting a Certificate of Ordination, even reproducing a sample Certificate on page 74. This is quite a contrast with the “Carson City Resolution” in the fall of 1881, where the pioneers resolved, “That we ignore and abandon the practice of preacher’s license as without precept or example in the Word of God, and that we wish to be ‘known by our fruits’ instead of by papers.” We had come far in 46 years in expecting autonomy and accountability to work with instead of against each other to effectively do the work of the divine church.
Byrum included a chapter on “Church Judicature.” In it he dealt with “Trial by a Local Church” and “Trials by Councils of Ministers.” This section is especially interesting in light of our tradition of local autonomy. This chapter is quite complex. The proposed balance between autonomy and accountability is that a local congregation may invite outside ministers to mediate between factions in the church or the pastor and the church. Although all such councils are, strictly speaking, only advisory, the church ought to give careful consideration to its findings, for they called for help. Disregarding a council’s findings could “endanger fellowship” (130). In the case a minister is accused, a council of ministers may be called because “it is only by the action of such a council that an unworthy minister can properly be dealt with. This is because the action of a body of ministers was necessary properly to recognize him as a minister in formally inducting him into the ministerial office by ordination. Therefore only such a body of ministers can properly withdraw from him what was given in ordination” (136-137). By the late twenties, then, the concept of accountability had come a long way.
Problems in the Local Church is interesting because it illustrates the natural development of the principle Teasley had expressed, “Government does not make the church, yet it is necessary in the church. Neither is the church a slave to organization and mechanical form. The church needs and makes use of that degree of organization which serves it purpose best and hinders it none” (emphasis mine) (137-138). Do we need more or less today? That is for the others to discuss.
Relative to a congregation’s accountability, Byrum devotes the entire Chapter 10 to “External Relations of the Local Church.” This chapter honors our tradition of autonomy, but limits it to “its own local, internal affairs . . . and no higher ecclesiastical organization on earth has a right to reverse its decisions” (184). He brings a measure of accountability, albeit a voluntary accountability, to the issue by noting, “Any congregation which refuses to fellowship and cooperate with other local congregations of the church of God immeasurably impoverishes itself and limits its opportunity for usefulness. It also endangers its permanent prosperity if it refuses to heed good advice from the body of ministers of a region” (185).
The purpose of such accountability is for fellowship and mutual care. This may include at times an “able minister” in a region overseeing young churches and inexperienced pastors. Byrum, however, does not detail who determines or calls or appoints these “able ministers.” Churches ought to seek advice from regional ministers when seeking a pastor. Byrum, who wrote our first (and excellent) systematic theology and who was present from the earliest days of our Movement, had seen enough to realize by 1927 that autonomy and accountability were both necessary elements of a healthy New Testament church.
Retired minister Tom McCracken wrote recently, “In a conversation about the future of the movement to which we belong, I recalled an overheard conversation at an Inter-Seminary meeting years ago. Dr. Louis Gough, asked about our form of government, answered, ‘charismatic congregational.’” That is the ideal, but as I have tried to show in this paper, implementation of these details present difficulties. Every leader, if worthy of the name “leader” in our fellowship, feels “led of the Spirit.” And yet we don’t all do things the same way. Is it not just as possible that God can qualify a group of leaders and guide them with His Holy Spirit in our corporate life as it is to believe that He only speaks to individuals? When have we crossed the line from that degree of government that is necessary for the efficient operating of the body of Christ to denominational control? I leave that discussion to others, remembering that it is all very well to say that we believe in charismatic church government, but it is another thing to practice it in a way that will produce a unified body of people of any size.
Berry, R.L., Vol. 39, No. 27, July 3, 1919. Anderson, IN: Gospel Trumpet Co. 12 Smith, F.G. Sermon Outlines of F.G. Smith, Sermon 118. Springfield, OH: Reformation Pub. 1923 Teasley, D.O. Our Ministerial Letter, “Biblical Church Organization and Government.” May 1913. Reprinted as a two volume set by Reformation Publishers in 2008, this article appears on pp. 136-161 Warner, Daniel S. The Church of God, What It Is and What It Is Not. n.d. p.8 Guthrie, OK: Faith Pub. House Brown, Charles E. When Souls Awaken. p. 101. 1954. Anderson, IN: The Gospel Trumpet Company Warner, Daniel S. Hymns and Spiritual Songs. No. 164. n.d. “Brighter Days Are Sweetly Dawning,” Anderson, IN: Gospel Trumpet Co. Smith, John W.V. The Quest for Holiness and Unity. pp. 146-147. 1980. Anderson, IN: Warner Press Brown, Charles E. When the Trumpet Sounded. 1951. Anderson, IN: Warner Press 138-139 Byrum, Enoch E., Life Experiences. 1928. Anderson, IN: Gospel Trumpet Co. 152 Brown, Charles E. When Souls Awaken. 1954. Anderson, IN: The Gospel Trumpet Co. 109 Naylor, Charles W. Hymnal of the Church of God. No. 430, 1953. “The Church’s Jubilee,” Anderson, IN: Warner Press Byrum, Russell R. Problems of the Local Church. 23. 1927. Anderson, IN: Gospel Trumpet Co Byers, Andrew L. Birth of a Reformation. 1921. Anderson, IN: Gospel Trumpet Co. 269
Words of Caution from Everett I. Carver Assistant Professor of Biblical Theology Gulf Coast Bible College (Now Mid America Christian University)
The cooperative work of the church demands organization. It is at the cooperative level that our philosophy of the church faces its greatest problems and greatest testing. . . . Yes, there must be organization, but we should use extreme care lest we violate our vision of the church and church government at this [intercongregational] level, even though it is maintained at the congregational level. Two tendencies we must avoid. The tendency to consider this [reformation movement] group in the same light as a sect, or to consider it the “pure” church to the exclusion of other Christians must be avoided. The other trend that must be avoided is that the organization that is developed to make cooperative effort efficient and legal tends to move in the direction of ecclesiastical controls of the congregation.
--The Body of Christ, the Church, p.184 Houston, TX: The Ambassador Press, 1968
We are face to face with the question whether voluntary cooperation can succeed as well as organized cooperation. Just the other day we learned of a certain denomination whose leaders passed the word down along the line that each local minister should carry on a campaign for their church paper. They were obliged to comply. We have no one with such authority. Each pastor enjoys freedom of operation . . . . No ecclesiastical authority can say, “Do this,” or “Do that.” . . . Yet shall this freedom make for disintegration? Shall it destroy cooperation? Shall it cause us to be independent and take no part in cooperative enterprises? Or rather shall our cooperation be all the more rich and real because it is purely voluntary, because it springs from loyalty to a common cause?
--A 1928 Editorial from The Gospel Trumpet
Observations on Organization in the Primitive Church by Charles E. Brown
Were the [primitive] congregations completely independent, or did they cooperate together in some way? If they cooperated, was it on some basis of equality or subordination? Was the authority of the Apostles transmitted to the order of bishops as a constant grant of authority to rule the church forever?
In this debate, advocates of the congregational form of church polity have generally insisted on the complete independence of each local congregation. Every local congregation was and is entirely autonomous, they say. On the other hand, Episcopalians and Presbyterians point out that there was a definite connectional relation between the apostolic churches. Their representatives met in assemblies, they cooperated in sending money to the poor saints at Jerusalem, and the voice of the Apostles spoke with authority in every one of their congregations.
In this way the debate between complete congregational independency and a more or less strong definite connectional relation between the apostolic churches has always been a live question among radical Christians.
It is my considered belief that there is a sense in which both sides of this argument are right. Undoubtedly, each local congregation of the apostolic church was independent in the sense that no official or group of officials had authority to dictate to it in the legal sense in which modern diocesan or district or connectional officials order obedience in a given local congregation. It is such an obvious truth that it is unnecessary to labor the point by numerous citations, that there was no such authority in the apostolic church as legal, official authority. The church was spiritual, and the authority of its ministers was spiritual and no other.
Once we are willing to admit that from a legal, official standpoint each local congregation was completely independent, candor compels us to admit that from a religious and spiritual standpoint all the congregations considered themselves as one in Christ. . . . A member of one in one place was a member of all in every place.
The orders, instructions, advice, and counsel of the leaders of the church were accepted by the congregations through a firm faith and confidence in the spiritual quality of the leaders. These leaders exercised tremendous moral authority. There was no legal organization to give them legal authority in the first place, and both the legal organization of the church and the authority to administer it were entirely beyond their knowledge and desire.
Condensed from The Apostolic Church (Anderson: Warner Press, 1947) pp.113-117
|
