Autonomy

The gift that keeps on giving

Help me think this through.

Let’s say you are part of a denomination in which #autonomyisbad is currently trending. The overall messaging from the National leadership is that the practice of autonomy is the root of all sorts of problems. The steady vibe coming from the National is that there are issues that need fixing and one of the solves is eliminating the practice of local autonomy for the member churches of the organization.

In fairness, say, the National hasn’t told you what reduced autonomy would actually look like or what the shape of the future is for local churches in the denomination if it’s not local autonomy. In fact, the National might simply start saying things to you like, “we’ve never really had autonomy in our local churches, our local churches have never been free to add a fourth person to the Trinity.” Aside from arguing that, in fact, many churches in evangelicalism seem to have added the Bible as a fourth member of the Trinity (or specifically, their interpretation of the Bible), other than the composition of the Trinity there are actually any number of decisions about theology and ecclesiology that have been left up to local churches in the denomination – the role of women in church leadership being one of the most obvious, while another (and it wasn’t the composition the Trinity) was not. But the idea being conveyed is that not only is autonomy a nuisance, but we’ve also never really had it to begin with so likely we’ll not notice when it’s gone.

Still with me?

A guy named John Wimber, who I have learned a lot from, once wrote this:

No one wants to join something they must be subservient to. We want to join something that will help us realize our potential. In the past, when pastors have asked “What are we building here? What am I signing up for?” I would talk about the Vineyard as something that would help leaders do more together than they could do independently. Basically, we have tried to build an organization that will give people latitude and freedom, yet also give them the security that comes from the appropriate amount of structure and authority. This organization ought to be propelled by an honest desire to serve God the best we can in this lifetime. I believe that desire can be expressed in five organizational values I hope will guide us in the future. (Morphew, Derek; Wimber, John. John Wimber's Pastoral Letters (p. 47). Vineyard International Publishing.)

Wimber then lists the five:

1. Minimal bureaucracy

2. The importance of relationship

3. Local church autonomy

4. Spiritual versus Legal Authority

5. Decentralization

I think John had a perspective on the times we are in that would still serve us well today if we worked it.

Here’s what John says in the section on local church autonomy. (Spoilers – he didn’t think it was a bad idea or bad practice.)

If the Vineyard is a denomination, some might worry that Anaheim will begin issuing edicts that prescribe what a Vineyard church should be like to create uniformity. That’s not what I want. I want the local church to freely express itself within the constraints of the values, theology, and genetic code of the Vineyard. If a Vineyard in Valparaiso, Indiana has the genetic code, values, and theology, in a general sense, it doesn’t have to be a clone of a Vineyard in Venice, California. In some ways the Indiana Vineyard will reflect a Midwestern cultural setting, and that’s okay. We have to be careful about making judgments (“That’s not Vineyard”) because future Vineyards – especially those in a cross-cultural context – may have little outward similarity to Vineyards as we know them in say, Southern California. But it’s also fair to say that wherever I went and started a church, certain kinds of things would be characteristic of that church. And I think that those who have been trained under me and by me would have very recognizable churches. They would have a “Vineyard” resemblance, without necessarily having an identical personality. I’ve said in the past, they ought to be healing the sick, casting out demons, worshipping God, and teaching the bible. As long as the genetic code is intact, I don’t care if they wear doilies on their head, or uniforms to church. I would prefer they do not do that, but if they want to that’s their business.

AVC wants each Vineyard to have local autonomy. We want them to own their own property and have their own polity. We’ve given guidelines, of what we think works best, but we want them to be free to do what they need to do, to express their individuality. So, if they want a board of deacons, let them have a board of deacons. We do not want and have not set up a bureaucratic system that controls the local church.

(Morphew, Derek; Wimber, John. John Wimber's Pastoral Letters (p. 48). Vineyard International Publishing.)

While Wimber wrote that in the early 90s, I think it is the kind of position worth holding onto for today.

Of course, there’s an inherit problem in what Wimber wrote in this passage. You’ve probably already spotted it. “I want the local church to freely express itself within the constraints of the values, theology, and genetic code of the Vineyard.” While John Wimber may have had a very clear idea of what the values, theology and genetic code of the Vineyard was, what if you were in a denomination that, say, 35 years after you joined started redefining itself? What if the values, theology and genetic code you signed onto started to change its shape, its DNA, its practice and even its theology? In other words, what if your denomination moved the constraints and redefined them to a shape you never would have felt drawn to back in the day?

Things evolve, people evolve, institutions evolve. This stuff happens and it can be good, bad and neutral. But, when it happens, what happens to the autonomy of the local church that Wimber thought was so important that it made his top 5 values?

The trickiest part of this question – in my mind – arises from the source of these changes.

What if the source of these changes (the National Office) wanted to practice full autonomy while describing the practice of autonomy as unhealthy for its constituent member churches?

Imagine it like this. You have a National Office that ONLY exists because of the work and presence of its constituent members. In simple terms, the churches came first, the National came after to support the work of the churches.

The constituent members support the National Organization/Team/Office through financial donations and as brand ambassadors in the world. But the constituent membership does not vote for or have a binding voice in who any of the members of the National Organization are. The constituent membership does not vote or have a binding voice in decisions made by that Office that directly or indirectly impact the theology, genetic code and values of the Organization. In other words, the National Team exercises complete and total autonomy while telling the constituent members that they themselves can’t/shouldn’t do the same. The National Team can autonomously produce binding position statements for all its constituent member churches without their agreement or participation.

It's hard to believe that what’s good for the goose isn’t good for the gander. But then, perhaps this is actually proving how fragile the practice of autonomy can be and it’s healthier when practiced at a local level rather than a national level.

Of course it would be a misapplication of autonomy to say that its practice means that everyone gets to decide whatever they want about anything they want. One of the ways I might be able to talk you out of your personal autonomy would be to suggest that it would be horrible for you if every one of your cells suddenly decided to go madly off in all directions as an expression of their autonomy.

It would be uncomfortable at least.

But that would be appealing to an absurd extreme to try to prove that autonomy is a bad thing. It would also misrepresent the meaning of the practice which is embraced by churches and denominations all over the world and has been for centuries.

I was once a part of the Christian Church/Church of Christ, um, non-denomination. There are almost 2,000,000 members worldwide and almost 12,000 congregations in the United States. They come from the “Restoration Movement” that was all about getting back to the Bible and calling Bible things by Bible names and speaking where the Bible speaks and being silent where the Bible is silent. They got their start back in the early 19^th Century. Their staunch practice of local autonomy hasn’t stalled their growth. And we didn’t even have a home office to send in a percentage of our offerings to.

While I personally wouldn’t belong to a Christian Church/Church of Christ today, it’s not because of their local autonomy.

Shouldn’t we be honest for a second? Isn’t it true that there are pastors who have behaved very badly and isn’t local autonomy to blame for creating the atmosphere where their bad behavior could flourish?

Here’s the real issue and it’s not autonomy.

Bad actors will be bad actors and wolves will gather wherever sheep come together. Even the most casual awareness of current evangelical and mainline church world will acknowledge that there is no system that prevents people from behaving badly. The sacrifice of autonomy won’t change that. But it can create more problems.

The real issue is the centralization of power in individuals or small groups and the platforming and support of pastors just because they have crowds of people coming to their Sunday service. The real issue is that people with power tend to use their power to stay in power. And creating a more powerful individual or institution might work in the comic books but in real life it’s simply trading one despot for another or one broken system for another broken system. The kingdom of God operates on an entirely different value system from that which seeks to have power over.

By now you may be sensing that I’m a fan of autonomy. The idea that someone far away from my local community of faith knows us and in fact knows us better than we know ourselves, is absurd. I’ve experienced first hand being misunderstood and misrepresented by leaders in my own denomination. I’ve vicariously lived through the trauma my daughter experienced when a denomination floundered through an attempt to exert their influence over a local church in Michigan that only compounded their troubles and relieved none of them. I’ve collected countless stories of friends in ministry and friends in churches who have been harmed by the insertion of the hierarchy of power into their situation.

But let me be clear. I’m not advocating for nothing. I’m simply suggesting that autonomy is not the problem and that the problems we face when times get hard between us can still generally be solved by showing up in person, sitting around tables, listening to stories, respecting those who feel harmed, not siding with our friends, working on conflict resolution instead of conflict escalation, reminding everyone involved of the story we are in, rejecting our tendency to give up on reconciliation, keeping our own egos out of it and working on solutions together for the good of all. And autonomy doesn’t get in the way of doing that. It’s just harder than sending an email.

Perhaps, and I’m just thinking out loud, but maybe if I was in this scenario, I could be persuaded to give up my local autonomy if the National Team gave up theirs. Maybe if the constituent members were given binding votes on who the National Leaders were and what national policies and positions were adopted, if we all were giving up some of our autonomy, I could more easily be persuaded that this was to the benefit of everyone and not just to the home office.

But help me think this through. What am I missing about autonomy and why has it become a threat to some people?