Biblical Relations Between Local Congregations (Autonomy vs. Other), Leadership?

[Bocephus]

How are the relations between local congregations of the church supposed to be accomplished?  Are local churches autonomous with their own elders?  Are one set of elders to be in a "mother church" that watches out for a whole city/small region?

[James.]

JMG, I didn't suggest a single church per city.

Perhaps not, but you've come awful close. 

And the LA Church is not "subservient" to Boston.

I didn't say it was.  In fact, the LA church became the Mother Church when McKean switched coasts.  But that was then, much has changed in recent years.  The NYC church, for example, has been broken up into "sectors" and folks in NJ across from Manhattan now have their own congregation.

[stevehut]

JMG, the original premise of this thread was segregation in churches.  I suggested a number of ways to achieve racial integration.

I suppose that combining all existing congregations could be one way to get there.  But I'm not sure that I was the one that raised that idea?

[James.]

JMG, the original premise of this thread was segregation in churches. 

Yep, it was in the other thread (which is what I was getting at).  This topic has been spun off.

[DCR]

2- I would have no problem with having multiple congregations in a large city like Nashville.

Now, I'm a little confused.  It seems like you've been criticizing this concept all along.  At any rate, we're back to square one.  In many cities, whole sections of town might be predominantly one race.  So, if you were to split it evenly, the "Northside Church" might be mostly black, while the "Southside Church" might be mostly white... simply because of the distribution of where people live.  It makes sense for people to go to the closer of the two churches, in this case.  But, it's their choice.

But as I have said previously, around here, you can't drive more than a few blocks without tripping over another COC meeting place.  Combine all seven groups, and you might have about 300-400 on Sunday morning.  (The paper memberships are more than double that, but the attendance is dismal.  Definitely not a uniquely COC phenomenon.)

Another thing to take into account is that neighborhood churches may have been established in the past when people were less mobile.  With modern transportation, the distance between communities seems shorter.  For example, in my home town, there was a time when it would have been considered just a rural town a half day's buggy ride to Nashville.  Now, it's in the outer suburbs of a metropolitan area and a half-hour drive or less from downtown by today's standards.  Surely, you can't expect anyone to force all these different congregations located in these different communities to disband?

[James.]

But as I have said previously, around here, you can't drive more than a few blocks without tripping over another COC meeting place.

Depending upon which direction I drive, it's either 10 miles (south), 30 miles (north), 40 miles (east), or 50 miles (west) to the next CofC meeting place.  All but one are fewer than 100 people, and if you drew a circle around the area they all cover you'd encompass over 1,200,000 people, both urban and rural.

[marc]

This past summer I got a glimpse of the larger dynamic area churches are operating in around here. Some of the information I already knew, but I wasn't aware of how strong some of the feeling were.  What I see is this:

There are a band of conservative mainstream churches that tend to do things as they have alwys been done.  They have meetings with the same preachers, go to each others' singigns and other activites, and talk about the same people/churches.

A subset of this group is a handful of ultra-conservative churches.  These take a more active role in talking about/acting against other churches (I'm talking about Churches of Christ here). A few months ago I accidentally got in the middle of a conversation where something I can only call plotting was taking place.  Seriously.

On the edge of this group are a few churches that when left alone tend to the left, but when pressed try not to offend the conservatives.  We are among this group.  We take part in the conservatives' meetings and camps; they come and visit us, and we act as if all is right in the world.  When they're not around we go to visit the more "liberal" churches, invite their preachers to come speak for us, visit Baptist-like community churches and put on programs for them, go to Lipscomb's Summer Celebration, etc.  I know of another congregation or two that act in similar ways.

Then there's the church where I grew up.  They hold meetings together with the local Baptists and Methodists and Church of Godists (uh, that's not the way to say that) every couple of months.  One of the local conservative preachers has started holding meeting directly aimed at opposing these actions.

Incidently, these were originated by my older step-sister.  Our congregation, otoh, continues to court conservatives because of my step-father, the preacher, who is perhaps the only true conservative left in our congregation.

Then there are the parenthesis churches.  You know, ".... Family of God (a church of Christ)".  I wish they'd keep in contact with them more (and I have given their people our address and email and asked, with no results) because they seem to be doing very good things.


So my question is this:  without real congregational autonomy, what happens?  Do we find ourselves in a greater or a smaller mess?  Will we be forced to draw greater lines of demarcation?

[blituri]

If you exclude "doubtful disputations" or that which arises out of preferences (Rom 14) then you can conduct what Paul calls "synagogue" where you exclude self-pleasure and then speak that which is written defined as Scripture (Rom 15) as the Campbells tried, then it just won't make any difference.

You assemble yourself and then Disassemble yourselves without any "staff" to consume your time and money each week

1Pet. 4:11 If any man speak,
        let him speak as the oracles of God;
        if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth:
        that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ,
        to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
Acts 15:21 For Moses of old time hath in every city
        them that preach him,
        being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
1Tim. 4:13 Till I come, give attendance to [public] reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.

That was IT for over 4 centuries:

Homer, Odyssey 14. Then the much-enduring, goodly Odysseus answered him: “Friend, since thou dost utterly make denial, and declarest [150] that he will never come again, and thy heart is ever unbelieving, therefore will I tell thee, not at random but with an oath, that Odysseus shall return. And let me have a reward for bearing good tidings, as soon as he shall come, and reach his home; clothe me in a cloak and tunic, goodly raiment.

[155] But ere that, how sore soever my need, I will accept naught;
        for hateful in my eyes as the gates of Hades is that man,
          who, yielding to stress of poverty, tells a deceitful tale.

The rabbi were around the synagogues for further education and the disciple paid the teacher but did not have him room and board with him.  An evangelist by definition would have a GO button so that if one is located like Paul for a period THE WHOLE PROVINCE HEARD THE GOSPEL.

The president of the ekklesia (Jesus' patternism) was elected for the year and he was contact man.  The free members of the ekklesia (church) did not have authority to MAKE UP what they would hear and discuss.

[Imabear]

blituri, I don't get what Homer's Odessey has to do with any of this. 

[blituri]

Maybe it would help to know that the GRANDEST Greek scholar who ever lived does not have a first century dictionary or lexicon. Good Tidings is the evangel which evangelist must carry out with NO authority to add his own silly jokes and illustrations.  If you carried a letter from a king to the commander in the field and modified it a jot or tittle you would be killed.  If you carry the message to our COMMANDER and tamper with His words you are worthy of death and hell.

Words can rarely be defined with A meaning: the only way to know what the words and the concept means is to know the literature which informed men like Paul or John.

If you want to know what a preacher is you have to trail along with Homer etal and see how the HERALDS understood their role.

The message of the quoted Herald is that if one JUST MAKES UP stuff rather than delivering the SEALED message they are CONSIGNED to Hell.

Is. 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them

Is. 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
Is. 55:9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
Is. 55:10 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater:
Is. 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

Preachers are bound to "teach that which is written." Those who sermonize or proof text will usually lie about the Word of God: that is why as a HERALD if he doesn't deliver God's Words he has no hope and in all civilizations would be worthy of death.

Is. 58:13 If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words:
Is. 58:14 Then shalt thou delight thyself in the LORD; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it.

Hebrew SABBATH is Greek PAUO which is almost exclusively used in the Greek literature to mean "STOP the speaking, STOP the singing, STOP the instruments" meanig STOP the rest Jesus died to give us FROM the burden laders so wecan "come learn of HIM."  Preaching is laying forth the text and anyone who does that and GETS PAID is  recognized in the literature of Paul or John as worthy of death and hell.

No one knows a smattering of the Bible to qualify as a FOR HIRE SCHOLAR who does not understand the literature which was contemporaneous with the Bible.

[stevehut]

1- Now, I'm a little confused.  It seems like you've been criticizing this concept all along. 

2- It makes sense for people to go to the closer of the two churches, in this case.  But, it's their choice.

3- Another thing to take into account is that neighborhood churches may have been established in the past when people were less mobile. 

4- Surely, you can't expect anyone to force all these different congregations located in these different communities to disband?

1- Nope.  Not me.

2- I couldn't agree more.

3- I wasn't aware that most people in TN still traveled by horse and buggy.  I thought they had cars and bicycles and buses, etc.  Past doesn't have to determine future.

4- Nope. 

DCR, I think you're putting many, many words into my mouth.  You're attributing things to me that I have never even thought to myself, much less articulated to anyone else.

Let's try this again:

A- The original premise of the thread was about racial separation in churches.

B- I said that it's a shame that we have so many segregated churches.

C- You said it would be wonderful to be integrated, but it would be too hard to achieve, based on various obstacles.

D- I suggested some solutions to the problems.

E- You said that my ideas were unworkable, because of x, y, and z

F- I offered solutions to those obstacles, which could work if the people were willing.


I didn't suggest that any of the churches should disband; I suggested that any willing church could expand their reach if they tried.

I didn't suggest forcing anyone to do anything. 

I didn't suggest having one giant church per city.

I didn't suggest having a mother church to rule over any other.

Everything I suggested, was for one congregation to serve its community.

The ideas that I proposed, could be implemented in any church of any affiliation, whatever their doctrine or corporate structure, with or without local autonomy.


This was my suggestion, based on what my church has done successfully hundreds of times, all over the world:

When we plant a new church, we deliberately choose a multi-ethnic group of missionaries, as diverse as is possible or practical.  (But probably not so much, in a place like Tokyo.) Some will be singles, some will be married couples with children, some will be college students.  We make every effort to also have an ethnically varied leadership and staff.  All things to all men.

These people are then spread out to live in different places all over town.  In the big cities, a few are sent to live out in the suburbs and hinterlands.

Each household hosts a weekly dinner or Bible study, and they knock on doors and share with people at shopping malls and at their schools or workplaces.  We teach them (from the Bible) what we believe in, and what we do.  Most of the visitors never return more than a few times, but many end up attending the Sunday service or midweek.  Among those, many end up becoming members.

The Sundays and midweeks will be arranged in some central location.  It might be a large home of a member or a rented hall or hotel ballroom, depending on the situation.  For those who don't have their own transportation, they will be offered rides with the members.

When we do this, we always end up with a melting pot of membership.  In time, we sometimes establish specialized ministry, such as a Latino group for those who don't speak English.  Or a support group for single moms, or sobriety, or whatever.  This even worked in Johannesburg, during the height of apartheid.

But that's a new planting, which doesn't have any pre-existing baggage.  The section in red (above), can be done in any existing congregation.

You spoke of "merging" or otherwise joint-venturing with another existing church.  I suppose that could work, but I've never heard of anyone doing it successfully.  It would be more natural, methinks, to simply evangelize like crazy and see where it leads.

________________________ __


I don't pretend that this would be easy, nor that it would work overnight.  But I've been hearing people tell me for decades now that this is a hopeless situation far beyond repair, because these people are so set in their ways.

But someone has to try.

[stevehut]

Marc, if every congregation is autonomous, then how is it that so many COC's meddle in the affairs of others?  Sounds to me like a de facto central authority, or authorities.

[James.]

Your neighbors on your street are autonomous from your control (I'd hope), but I bet you've got a nosy one or two that get in your business from time to time.

[stevehut]

Your neighbors on your street are autonomous from your control (I'd hope), but I bet you've got a nosy one or two that get in your business from time to time.

Oh, you betcha.     Every street has one. 

But they don't pretend otherwise, and they don't claim divine inspiration.

Leastways, not in these hyar parts.

[marc]

The meddling tends to prove the autonomy.  If they weren't, there wouldn't be as much of an opportunity.