by Harry Osborne
From the apostolic age to the present, there have been countless problems at both ends of a pendulum swing in people's concepts about church autonomy. At one end, there has been the tendency to centralize the control of a plurality of local churches under the oversight of a single decision making body whether it be an eldership, a council, an institution or a pope. Such attempt plainly violate the instruction of God regarding local church autonomy (1 Pet. 5:1-4; Acts 20:28; etc.). At the other end of the pendulum, there has been the call for local churches to develop a diocesan attitude which shuts out brethren in other places and stifles the needed love for the brotherhood. Clearly, such a lack of concern for brethren in other places and their spiritual welfare also violates the instruction of God (1 Pet. 2:17; Eph. 1:15; 6:18; etc.). God's pattern is for oversight to be limited to the elders of the local church which is among them, but for love and concern to exist universally among brethren. In our study, we will see that New Testament Christians showed that love and concern for their brethren in other places by several means, one of which was to provide them with the teaching of God's truth.
In our time, problems have resulted from both ends of the pendulum swing described above. Our institutional brethren brought division by insisting upon the centralization of control through sponsoring churches and institutions of every kind. However, some of our brethren are now calling for what amounts to a diocesan concept of concern which seeks to forbid brethren in one congregation from teaching the truth to those in another congregation. It is claimed that one who comes from church A to teach the truth to fellow brethren who are members of church B and oppose any error present, without binding any decision upon church B, is violating church B's autonomy. Does teaching truth to those in another congregation and opposing error present in another congregation constitute a violation of local church autonomy? Our effort will be to find God's answer to this question by simply studying His word and drawing several conclusions from that study.
If those elders had taken it upon themselves to bind their decision on another church about who was to be allowed to preach for that other church, such a violation of autonomy would have been rebuked. However, providing teaching to brethren in other places does not violate their autonomy. Brethren have rightly acted upon the same principle when bulletins with the teaching of truth were sent from one church to another. The same is true when brethren have acted in a parallel way to that in Acts 15 by making provision for the local preacher to hold a meeting for another congregation. A church so doing is acting in accordance with the pattern of truth as seen in Acts 15. They are not violating the pattern of truth. They are showing love and concern for the souls of brethren in other places.
However, when we consider the actions of Paul, he says that we are to imitate him. "I beseech you therefore, be ye imitators of me. For this cause have I sent unto you Timothy, who is my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, who shall put you in remembrance of my ways which are in Christ, even as I teach everywhere in every church" (1 Cor. 4:16-17). One imitates action, not place. I cannot imitate Paul's revelation or confirmation of the truth through miraculous action, but I can imitate the action of his teaching in method and content. He told Timothy to do so. He told Timothy to teach others to do so.
If one says that we have no authority to teach those in another congregation because that was Paul's unique right through divine inspiration, how can we be sure that we are authorized to teach anyone? How would we answer one saying that all commands and examples regarding teaching can only be rightly applied to those doing so by inspiration? While in Wichita, Kansas a few years ago, I spoke with a man who said that no one today has the right to call names of false teachers as did Paul because that was the unique right of those inspired during the first century. I have often wondered how long it will be before that brother consistently applies such logic and concludes that we cannot teach with the same method or content of the apostles because they were inspired. Such reasoning inevitably leads to a rejection of the pattern. The fact is that we are taught the will of God in part by approved apostolic examples (Phil. 4:9; 1 Cor. 11:1; etc.). If that is a fact, it is also a fact that we are rightfully to imitate the actions of Paul regarding how he taught. I did not say that gospel preachers and teachers today have the same place as the apostles in respect to their apostolic authority. I did say we can imitate the method and content of their teaching excluding the miraculous gifts.