Church automony & issues between local congregations

[email]

I would like to discuss an issue that involves three local congregations of the Lord's church. I'll start with the background first then get to the issue at hand. Please bear with me as it is a long & windy road.

First a member, call him "Joe", of congregation "A" has a problem that involves the elders. Something happened, I don't know exactly what, but it resulted in the elders of congregation "A" withdrawing fellowship from Joe. (Some say that the issue was one of judgment not an issue of scriptural vs. unscriptural acts.)

Now Joe, looking for a new place of worship attends congregation "B" for several services and finally wishes to place membership there. Congregation "B" has no elders, so several of the men of "B" contact the elders of "A" & discover Joe is not in good standing. Upon discussion of the situation at a business meeting of the men of "B" we find that basically two stories exist, Joe's side & the elders' side of what happened at "A". It would take the wisdom of Solomon &/or first hand knowledge to resolve the problem. (I believe that congregation "B" has no right to get in the middle of solving any business regarding congregation "A" because each congregation is autonomous. Besides the fact we have no first hand knowledge of the problem, only two different stories.)

Not wanting to divide congregation "B", Joe departs & along with other members of "A" who believe Joe's account of what happened regarding the elders & start a new work, congregation "C". That was months ago & it would seem that "side-stepping" the issue resolved everything. Of course, it did not.

Here is problem: Now some of the faithful in congregation "B" want to hold a meeting of the men (because they are without elders) to discuss how congregation "C" is to be regarded, i.e. should "B" announce "C's" gospel meetings, let a male member of "C" who is visiting at "B" lead a prayer, etc., etc.? Basically decide if "C" a faithful congregation of the Lord's church.

Here is my thinking, & I'll tell you both sides could have a good argument in my mind:

In the first line of thinking the legitimacy of "C" goes back to whether or not the elders of "A" were correct in withdrawing fellowship from Joe. If Joe was wrong & did not properly resolve whatever issue that occurred, then there would seem to be a cloud hanging over congregation "C". I believe that we will NEVER know the exact facts as to what happened. Congregation "A" sees it as meddling if "B" pursues trying to fact find any more than has already been done.

However, should "B" even be considering such things? "B" does not hold meetings to consider any other local congregation. Do we look at individuals of any other congregation & point to their shortcomings (we all fall short)? A congregation is a group of individual Christians who come together to worship & does not exist as a separate entity in & of itself. "B" should have no need to come out & say we think this about them as a congregation. Each congregation is autonomous, and therefore "B" has no authority to become involved in the business of any other congregation. On the flip side of that, we do say the all denominational churches are unscriptural & advise our member not to associate, visit, support, etc. them.

What is the real issue? Is there a scriptural basis (I've listed none)? Maybe it is like Paul regarding the meat offered to idols. If any member of "B" has a problem with "C" then we should not "recognize" "C" out of respect. I could go on & on. Most of it philosophical & not scriptural/unscriptural. I would like to hear your thoughts & opinions, especially with any scriptural references. I am a member of "B" as you've probably guessed & I am dreading this proposed meeting as "little things" like this can split a congregation.

In Christian Love.

[m273p15c]

This is definitely a tricky problem; however, I fear it is a common problem, although the specifics may vary. You have done me a great favor by leaving everything general and anonymous. However, I would like to go even further and simplify your scenario into a handful of very general questions. Hopefully, you will be able to use these general answers to make specific application without having to reveal sensitive information.

Before I get into the questions, please let me first apologize for not getting back immediately. I fear that things may be happening quickly for you, and I pray that this is both useful and timely. (I pray I am not too late.) Second, let me commend you for your good attitude and desire to maintain unity within the Lord's direction. Your desire for purity first and then peace are greatly appreciated (James 3:13-18).

Now, here are the general questions that occurred to me, while I was reading your note:

1. Does a local church have the right to question potential members, possibly denying them membership?
   
   Yes. After Saul was converted, "he tried to join the disciples; but they were all afraid of him, and did not believe that he was a disciple" (Acts 9:26). Notice, the Spirit does not reprimand this action in Scripture. Instead it only was resolved by Barnabas, an insider and a brother who was trusted by the Jerusalem congregation, who vouched for Saul, proclaiming how Saul was converted and how he preached boldly in Jesus' name since that time (Acts 9:27).
   
   Similarly, if there is suspicion that a brother may be divisive, a false-teacher, a persecutor, or any other fearful, disturbing element, any church has the right to be afraid and deny membership, unless a trusted source can vouch for him. It is nothing personal. It is simply the right and duty of a congregation to protect its own integrity from harmful influences. (If a church has the right to withdraw fellowship to maintain its purity, it certainly has authority to never extend it for the same reason - I Corinthians 5:6-13.) If this outsider is truly repentant or humble, he will both sympathize and understand the congregation's position, and will go out of his way to accept or accommodate their judgment.
2. Does a local church have the right to investigate or inquire regarding the previous standing of a potential member?
   
   Yes. This logically proceeds from the answer to question #1. If a congregation is given the right to do something, then necessarily they must be given the power to do it. Therefore, since they have the right to evaluate and judge whether a person may be added to the membership, the congregation must necessarily have the authority to ascertain the facts that are required to make such judgment.
   
   Furthermore, some New Testament congregations required and accepted the practice of sending letters of commendation with a brother moving from one congregation to another (Acts 18:27; II Corinthians 3:1). This authorizes not only the right of the inquiring congregation but the burden for a subpoenaed congregation to comply with basic inquiry.
3. Can the leadership of a congregation erroneously disfellowship or cast out a righteous individual?
   
   Yes, sadly it is true. The fellowship and judgment of men does not always represent God's fellowship. A person may be in perfect standing within his local congregation, but yet he could be completely rejected by God. Of course, the opposite is also true. For example, Diotrephes would not receive John or his messengers. Furthermore, he even arranged the withdrawal of those who would have received the messengers of the apostle John (III John 9-10). Therefore, it is entirely conceivable that the leadership of one congregation may oust one or more individuals for wicked, ignorant, or selfish reasons.
4. Do other individuals, potentially comprising another local congregation, have the right to ignore the judgment and withdrawal performed by another group of individuals?
   
   Yes. Again, this logically flows from the answer to question #4. But, as more specific proof, please note John's word to the brethren suffering under Diotrephes tyranny:
   

   "I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to have the preeminence among them, does not receive us. Therefore, if I come, I will call to mind his deeds which he does, prating against us with malicious words. And not content with that, he himself does not receive the brethren, and forbids those who wish to, putting them out of the church." (III John 9-10)

   John does not encourage the brethren to submit to this tyranny. In fact, he commends and encourages them to continue to receive the brethren, the very brethren being rejected by Diotrephes (III John 1:5-8). Moreover, John promises a public rebuke through recitation of his Diotrephes public words and deeds. However, John seemed uncertain if we would be able to personally deliver this rebuke (III John 10). Maybe someone else could have done it in his stead, since the rebuke was to be based on publicly incriminating deeds - not the sheer authority of the apostolic office. Even if Diotrephes was an elder, this could have been justified and warranted by any male member, if the proper procedures had been followed (I Timothy 5:19-20).
5. In a situation where one man's word is pitted against the word of multiple men, especially elders, who should be believed?
   
   Given the situation where one's man word is pitted against the word of multiple men, especially elders, the elders word should be accepted. Why? Under Moses' law, a man could be put to death "at the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses" (Deuteronomy 17:6). This principle of establishing fact based on testimony of at least two or three individuals is reasserted in the New Testament (Matthew 18:16; II Corinthians 13:1; I Timothy 5:19). Action was not to be taken at the mouth of one witness. Innocence was assumed, unless a matter could be established by multiple individuals ("at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death"). Moreover, Christians are to provide the benefit of doubt, unless the matter can be established ("believes all things, hopes all things", I Corinthians 13:4-7). Therefore, if multiple witnesses cannot be provided, the accused should be accepted, unless other incriminating evidence can be provided.
   
   Admittedly, it is conceivable that a panel may be hoodwinked by a multitude of wily, false-witnesses. (Recall the trials of both Jesus and Stephen.) However, that is where we must trust God's procedure. Please note the false-witnesses bore the guilt and punishment of the injustice that arose from their deception. They paid with their lives! False-witness could be a capital offense (Deuteronomy 19:16-21). The judges who acted based upon the false-testimony bore no guilt, because they followed God's method. This is where faith must kick in. Despite our best efforts, some things may not be resolved perfectly until eternity, and we must trust God to oversee and overrule in our affairs, where our intentions are noble.
   
   However, if a false-witness is uncovered in his duplicity, then clearly their testimony is to be dropped. This is where some level of personal judgment and acumen must be applied in evaluating the credibility of each side ("the judges shall make diligent inquisition", Deuteronomy 19:18). However, unless the elders are clearly lying, then a tie goes to the "two or three witnesses". Furthermore, the elders have earned some level of additional respect, which should not be cast aside too quickly (I Timothy 5:17-19), even if the examiners are not members of the pastors' flock.
6. Does a Christian have the right to visit a church in which he disapproves?
   
   Yes, people may attend other congregations, even if they do not agree with the congregation as a whole, IF the attendance is exploratory or evangelical. Please consider Paul who reasoned in the synagogue of the Jews, or preached on Mars hill (Acts 17:16-22). I could not in good conscience regularly attend a congregation, which was involved in unscriptural, congregational activities. Neither, could I conscientiously visit a congregation, whose members would interpret my presence as an endorsement of their unscriptural, individual activities (II John 10-11).
   
   I could whole-heartedly attend a service conducted by a good man in a wicked congregation (support the preacher, not the church). However, in both cases, I would feel compelled to express my true allegiance and support the righteous, so that there could be no consolation offered to the wicked.
7. Is a congregation required to announce the meetings of nearby congregations?
   
   No, there's no requirement. Therefore, a congregation can use whatever standard they want. It may involve trivial things, like distance. For example, we do not announce meetings for churches that are 500 miles away. Yet clearly, a congregation should not want to announce a meeting, where wickedness will be proclaimed or encouraged. Neither, should a congregation do anything to encourage its members to study at the feet of liberal, presumptuous men. This is just an exercise of brethren, or elders, looking out for the spiritual well-being of the flock (Acts 20:25-28). Exactly where that line is to be drawn must be decided by each congregation, as they have the right to decide what is spiritual healthy for its members.
   
   I think the focus should be slightly redirected. This is not a matter of fellowshipping another congregation, although that is certainly possible in terms of benevolence (Acts 11:27-30; I Corinthians 16:1-2; II Corinthians 8:9). Rather, it is a matter of ensuring proper spiritual food for a congregation's members. A meeting should be announced and approved, if and only if, the leaders believe that the congregation's membership will receive spiritual nourishment. A person should never go to a meeting, just to "support the local work". True, the brethren will be encouraged, but that is a side-effect or incidental concern, not the primary goal. He might as well attend services to make his mom and dad happy. We go to church, first for ourselves (relationship with God), second to directly encourage others (teaching, singing, speaking, etc.), and lastly to support through "numerical representation".
8. Is a congregation required to permit visitors from nearby congregations to participate in service?
   
   No, a congregation can use whomever it wants to perform the various duties of its service. Of course, there are certain qualifications (I Corinthians 14:34; I Timothy 2:11-15), but beyond those, there is no tenure required. Of course, a congregation should not permit one to participate or lead a service, if it suspects the person may lead them somewhere they do not want to go (false teaching, misleading questions, etc.) or generally catapult the service into chaos (I Corinthians 14:33). Consequently, some level of acceptance and approval is indicated by such extensions, so I would not want to offer that favor to anyone, whom I did not think deserved such appreciation or trust (II John 10-11).
9. Should all members of a neighboring congregation be held accountable for the actions of its leaders? (In other words, can a member from church "C", lead prayer at church "B", even if the reason for founding "C" is condemned?)
   
   If the case went poorly for the leadership and reasons for founding church "C", then I would not trust their men to even lead prayers. (I have too often observed people becoming the "target" of prayers. I would not want to give such people a platform.) However, other people may join the work, "who do not know their right hand from their left"; furthermore, they may be in need of "pity" (Jonah 4:11). Whether they be babes, untrained, or unaware, not every member of congregation "C" should be shunned or prohibited from participating in services at congregation "B". Again, I think the focus should be on individuals, not intra-congregational.. Therefore, I would not deny participation to every individual of C, regardless of the individual, unless the circumstances or teaching were so heretical, it would be impossible to be a member of C and not support its heresy.
10. Disconcerting facts, as I understood them:
    • From what I understand, "Joe" should not have started another work just to avoid trouble. Trouble is eliminated by dragging it into the light (John 3:19-21). Those of the truth would not back down from the light. Although "Joe" may have only been trying to avoid "trouble", I would be concerned that he would start another work. That does not speak well of many things. I would only start another work if there was no hope. It would be better to be a pauper in a unified church than to be king of a division. Jesus gave His life for the church. Shouldn't we be willing to suffer a little defraud (I Corinthians 6:7)? If I was Joe, I would either repent, or suffer embarrassment so I could find a final home at either A or B.
    • The elders of "A" were resistant to "fact-finding" and questioning their judgment. (See question #2.) Elders have an obligation, and if they are worth their salt, they should be very helpful in providing the necessary data so congregation "B" can make a good decision. They should know their obligation (Acts 18:27; II Corinthians 3:1), and they should be helpful in the execution of church B's obligation. Furthermore, it is hateful (maybe proud, selfish, and cowardly) to not force brother "Joe" to come to the light! If I was an elder of a congregation, and we had a wandering member, I would be overjoyed that another congregation had both interest and opportunity to help him see the error of his ways. I would do everything I could to help them be successful to that end, because I cared supremely for Joe's soul.

I have tried not to dodge any issue or question. However, if you find that I have overlooked some wrinkle, especially an important one, please let me know. I'll do my best to answer hurriedly.

Lastly, please let me add this caution. Some of these points come more clearly obtained from Scripture than do others. Some require more diligence, extrapolating and reasoning from what has been said. This realm of inference is more difficult, because there is more room for our fears and prejudice to sway our thinking. However, just because one cannot find a direct "thou shalt not", one should not assume that there is no right or wrong answer. Just because a situation requires judgment, that does not mean that the judgment can be neither right nor wrong. "Judge righteous judgment" (John 7:24). Furthermore, like the demon that the apostles first failed to cast out, some problems can only be answered by much prayer and dedication (Mark 9:28-29).

I pray this helps.

May God bless us to have a sincere love of the truth.

[email]

You are not too late as we have yet to meet on this matter. Thanks so much for your response. You have brought up many good points.

Unfortunately, what I say about the workplace & the secular world is also true about the church, "It is people being people". Sometimes church members also have a glass house & a pile of rocks. Personally, I hate the bickering. We seem to be too much in the know of what the other congregation is doing. That happens for a number of reasons: previous members of "B" now attend "A" & previous members of "A" now attend "B"; members of "B" work with members of "A" in the secular world; members of "B" have family that attends "A" (I myself have in-laws that attend "A", though we rarely if ever speak of church matters). You would think that members of the Lord's church could get along better. However, even Paul & Barnabas had a disagreement over John Mark & split up for a time (Acts 15:36-41). Congregation "B" has a reputation for standing for the truth & is known to be very conservative. While I agree that elders should have high regard having met the requirements of that position (& at one time argued that very point regarding this issue). However, the elders of congregation "A" seem to have a questionable history in their decisions. For example, ... The men of "B" told him he was wrong & offered to study with him more on the subject. The member instead placed membership at "A" & immediately began preaching & teaching at "A" even though the elders of "A" were fully aware of the circumstances. As far as I am aware (as an outsider) nothing was ever done to adequately address the situation at "A" until this very day. There are other examples as well. However, I am on the outside & don't know all the facts but from my perspective it sure appears that the elders at "A" make some very poor decisions. It has been said that that "B" wants to throw stones, where "A" wants to throw a rope to sinners. While I would not advocate "B" or anyone else throwing stones at sinners, the facts seem to lead credence that the rope isn't working for "A" (at least in the 3 or 4 instances I am aware of). At any rate, there should not be this apparent back & forth between congregations.

...

Just so you will know, I am a middle aged (early forties) regular guy, not one of the "leaders/pillars" of the congregation, not the one who is always the lone dissenter at every meeting, not a rebel rouser who delights in conflict. I am an "also ran", a member who is ready to do anything needed but would just as soon sit in the pew & worship God as a somewhat anonymous member of the church. I believe that there is plenty of work to be done at congregation "B" starting with me, without worrying what is going on at other congregations. Paul was only able to say that he was the chief sinner because he never met me!

Any other comments, thoughts & opinion you have would be appreciated as well. I trust with much prayer & discussion this matter can be put to rest. The men of congregation "B" have always conducted themselves in the most upright & civil manner at every meeting I have attended. I pray that we will listen to all sides on this matter with Christian love & all part as friends afterwards. I would ask that you please keep me & the congregation I attend in your prayers that we might seek to do the Lord's will first in all things.

In Christian Love

[m273p15c]

Well, it does indeed sound like a mess. I appreciate what you have said and your godly concern. I don't know that I can say much more without jumping into the middle of things and knowing more about the specific charges against "Joe", which I hesitate to do. However, I would like to clarify and add a few things to what I said previously:

About the testimony of elders and multiple witnesses, there are a few critical distinctions to make:

• Witness versus Judgment - The elders (or multiple witnesses) should be respected for their testimony to factual events not judgments. I would accept the word of multiple witnesses, such as elders, over a single individual if the question was as to what a person said or did. For example, I would not accept their word that a person was divisive; however, I would accept their word as to the specific events, and then I would make my own conclusion as to whether or not those facts showed a person was divisive. All the passages I quoted referenced witnesses, ("at the mouth of two or three witnesses"). These passages do not instruct us to necessarily accept the judgment of 2 or 3 people. The multiple witnesses should be used to establish the facts, but the judgment of guilt lies upon you and the other members of congregation "B", since it pertains to your fellowship. No one can make that judgment for you.
• Sin versus "Personality Conflicts" - This coincides with the previous point, plus things said in the last note, but just for emphasis, it is important that the elders' judgment not be accepted, if they cannot provide factual evidence (possibly including their testimony) - but, the factual evidence must also constitute an unrepentant sin (I Corinthians 5; Romans 16:17; Titus 3:10; II John 9-11). Personality conflicts or irreconcilable differences are not grounds for withdrawal. If neither of these things (fact and sin) can be established, then I see no burden whatsoever for respecting the judgment of the elders' of congregation "A". ... Even if these two things can be established, I believe there would be exceptions. For example, divisiveness is grounds for withdrawal, but what was the issue of division? Was Joe taking a stand for truth and rebuking sin in the elders? If that was truly the case, I would be happy to have Joe at "B" or support congregation "C", assuming Joe was correct in his rebuke. In such a case, he would not really be guilty of sin, but I hope you see my point.

Lastly, I would encourage you to objectify and simplify the situation. Try to reduce the situation to the minimum generic questions or problems, void of any name, face, or prejudice. Answer those Scripturally, and then make the application, if it is still relevant. Furthermore, try not to consider things that are not relevant. For example, elders "A" may have acted poorly in the past, but that should not sway facts. You mentioned several things that I would try to jettison from mind during any deliberation, whether that be personal or congregational. For example, I do not think the following things are relevant and should be potentially discarded mentally:

• family, friend, and other past inter-congregational relationships
• past decisions of elders A and B
• general reputation of A and B
• "B throwing stones"
• "A throwing rope to sinners"
• Joe's friend
• the father of Joe's friend

Of course, some of these things may play into establishing the credibility of a witness, but only as far as deciding which witness to believe regarding facts. These things should not play into one's judgment concerning these facts. I appreciate your mentioning these things, because it highlights the "stickiness" of the situation, but you will only be able to objectively answer the question, if you and the church can look past independent, irrelevant, or emotional non-factors.

From my limited viewpoint, it seems the issue should boil down to this:

1. Did Joe sin and refuse to repent? (In other words, "Was the withdrawal valid?") To establish this, one must ask a few more questions:
   1. What was the charge?
   2. What was the evidence?
2. I see 3 possible outcomes from this question:
   1. The withdrawal was Scriptural. Joe clearly sinned and refused to repent based on the facts, as provided by the elders or other obtainable witnesses, possibly including Joe's own admission. In this case, I would encourage "B" to respect the judgment of elders from "A" - not because "A" withdrew, but because "B" would have likewise withdrawn given the evidence.
   2. The withdrawal was unscriptural. Either the charge did not relate to sin (maybe it was a personality conflict), or the charge was based on hearsay or other unsustainable evidence. In this case, I would encourage "B" to either accept Joe and "C", unless they had other reasons for not doing so.
   3. The correctness is indeterminable. Innocence is always presumed by the Christian (I Corinthians 13, etc.). However, a church does indeed have the right to reject potential members based on suspicion or fear, because of a person's history (Acts 9:26-27). Therefore, "B" could still reject "Joe" and any work in which he is preeminently involved, if enough sustainable suspicion exists, and if it is not allayed.

To me the other things seem irrelevant, and bringing them up will only lead to an all-out war between the two congregations, maybe among the 3 congregations, which could easily lead to multiple divisions. To me, the key is the facts. What are the facts? If the facts cannot be determined based on reliable evidence or testimony, or if the facts do not support a charge of unrepentant sin, then "B" is under no obligation. In such a case, Joe's friend and his father may be playing the role of Barnabas, in attesting to Joe (Saul's) sincerity and purity.

It is hard for me to say more without knowing more, and even then, I do not think I could be very effective without knowing much more - too much.

I pray this helps. If you can think of any other general question, or if you would like to discuss my general answers more, I would be happy to study those.

Again, I appreciate and am thankful for the pure heart you have demonstrated in your concerns. You and and all those involved (God knows who they are) will be in my prayers.