Let me begin with a personal thank you and a personal note. I owe Dave Miller a big thank you for posting my essays. Most of the Voices writers post their own, but I’m technologically impaired. So, Dave does it for me. Thanks, Dave. I mentioned that my dear wife was recovering from a broken shoulder, suffered in a fall at our home. I’m glad to report that her bones have healed, and she’s doing well. She’s still receiving physical therapy to regain strength and range of motion.
In my recent post on Baptist Distinctives, I listed local church autonomy. I thought it would be helpful to expand on that topic. This is especially true because most of those opposed to Dr. Al Mohler’s “Unifying Amendment” mentioned local church autonomy.
What does “autonomy” mean, anyway? It’s not a word we use regularly in conversation. My American Heritage Dictionary defines “autonomy” as “self-government.” It defines “autonomous” as “self-governing.” You won’t find the word “autonomous” in the Bible. I know; I checked an exhaustive concordance, and I did not find the word used in the Bible. It is mentioned in the Southern Baptist Statement of Faith and Message. In the article on The Church, we read: “A New Testament church of the Lord Jesus Christ is an autonomous local congregation of baptized believers….” In my post on Baptist Distinctives, I explained autonomy thus—“each local congregation is autonomous. That means the church governs itself under the headship of Jesus Christ. In other words, Jesus Christ is head of the church. Neither the SBC nor a state convention nor a local association can order a church to do anything. The church calls its own pastor, determines its own statement of faith, and voluntarily associates/cooperates with whichever entity it chooses.”
What does this mean in practice? First, each Baptist church chooses it own pastor, staff, and lay leaders. Second, each church determines its own statement of faith, covenant, and constitution and by-laws. The majority of SBC churches have adopted the Baptist Statement of Faith and Message (2000) as their statement of faith, but not all. I know churches that use the 1963 Statement of Faith, and others have written their own statement of faith. Third, each church decides for itself about joining the local Baptist association, the state Baptist convention, and the national Southern Baptist Convention. A church could be a member of the local association but not the state or national convention. I knew a church once that was disfellowshipped by its local association, but the church continued as a member of the state convention and SBC.
Fourth, each church determines for itself whether to support financially the ministries of the association, state convention, and SBC. Those entities cannot require a church to give a certain amount or percentage. The churches give voluntarily and in the amounts they choose. Further, churches decide for themselves whether to participate in projects undertaken by a Baptist entity. For example, a local association might decide to sponsor simultaneous revivals in its member churches. Nevertheless, each church would decide whether to hold a revival or not.
The principle of autonomy applies to all levels of Southern Baptist life. An association cannot dictate to a church, and the state convention cannot dictate to an association. The SBC might urge the state conventions to all join in a national effort, but the SBC cannot require them to do so. The principle here is voluntary cooperation. The SBC system depends on voluntary cooperation. Of course, the venerable Cooperative Program provides the funds necessary for state conventions and the national convention.
What would happen if a church went “rogue”? I’ve used this example in my seminary classes. Under its autonomy, a Southern Baptist church could call a Mormon to serve as its pastor. What could the local association do? The associational leaders could and would urge the church to reconsider. If the church rejected that plea, the association could disfellowship (expel) the church from the association, but that’s about all it could do. The same holds true for the state and national convention.
My wife and I attended the SBC Annual Meeting in St. Louis in 1980. During a business session, a messenger moved that the SBC ban the election of denominational entity staff members to serve as messengers to the convention meeting. That would mean that a professor at Southern Baptist Seminary could not be chosen as a messenger from his local church in Louisville. Herschel H. Hobbs (Mr. Southern Baptist in those days) went to a microphone and asked to be recognized. He declared, “I object to this motion. It infringes upon the autonomy of the local church.” I turned to my wife and said, “That motion is dead as a doornail.” Sure enough, it was soundly defeated upon voting.
The one messenger who was allowed to speak against the “Unity Amendment” at this year’s SBC meeting mentioned local church autonomy. However, the messengers seemed not to agree because they passed Dr. Mohler’s amendment decisively.
What are your thoughts and questions on church autonomy?
