The current debate among some ABCers with some expressing the view that there is no accountability for believing the Bible on the part of the local church under the authority of the family body (denomination or Association) does not deal with the issues in a fulsome way. Let me add my opinion via an article I wrote back in 2001.
THE AUTONOMY OF THE
AND THE ASSOCIATIONAL PRINCIPLE
TOGETHER IN TENSION
Dr. Lewis W. Kisenwether, Jr.
© 2001
The autonomy of the local church is a principle held in tension.
On a singular basis, that is when a church congregation stands alone as an independent congregation without associational or denominational ties, there are no limits to its autonomous freedom to act as it’s people direct, except as that freedom is itself limited by what God’s revelation in the Scriptures says and teaches. Thus, while a church is free to paint its building any color imaginable, locate in any desired community, establish culturized rules of membership, and innumerable other actions for which there is no scriptural teaching for or against, that same congregation has no right, no freedom, no autonomy to disregard the teaching of Scripture and announce as righteous, approve and/or promote a behavior declared sinful by the Word of God. The autonomy of the congregation is held in tension with the higher authority of God’s Word.
When a local congregation becomes associational and joins a Baptist fellowship of churches (Association or denomination) the autonomy is then held in an additional tension. All churches within the Association, by common consent and profession of belief in the Christian God, are constrained by the teaching of the Word of God, the Bible, and each individual church is then additionally constrained by its responsibility to her sister churches to be faithful to that revealed truth.
Therefore, an action by any church which is in opposition to the teaching of the Scripture is not only theologically inappropriate, but an injury to the family of churches so associated. Such action creates spiritual harm within the fellowship of churches, not the least of which are disharmony and broken fellowship. An appeal to local autonomy, in such a case, has no force if the church wishes to remain in association, because the congregation has both a stated and implied responsibility to be faithful to her brothers and sisters in Christ by being faithful to the Scripture’s demands.
If said congregation does not wish to be in willing subjection to God through His revelation, and does not wish to fulfill its associational responsibility to the churches of the Association to follow the teaching of the Bible, it has only one option if it is to act in integrity, and, that is to voluntarily disassociate {withdraw} from the Association. This act, while honorable and to be commended, does not remove the congregation’s responsibility, even as an independent church, to believe and behave as the scriptures require. With such withdrawal the Association’s official union with and responsibity for that church ceases. It is hoped that pastors, congregations, and individuals will hold the door of koinonia {friendship} and metanoia {repentance} open to the departed brothers and sisters.
When a congregation fails to return to apparent overt acceptance of the teaching of the Bible, and does not take the reasonable action of withdrawing from the Association, it is incumbent upon the churches of that fellowship at large to state the Association’s candid objection to unbiblical pronouncements and activities, and to discipline the offending church body.
