A philosopher once said “the meaning of a word is its use.” He didn't mean that a word can mean anything but rather that words can mean different things according to their context. I remember arguing with a former professor about this. I offered the word “circle” as having a singular meaning. Doesn't it always refer to something round and, well, circular? His response: “What about a women's circle?”
Similarly, how do we understand the word “autonomy?” When applied to the church, is autonomy a kind of individualism drawn large, another version of “me and Jesus got a good thing going?” So understood, autonomy contradicts the Scriptural vision that the oneness of the church is the will of God (Eph. 4:4-5).
Furthermore, if by autonomy we mean totally independent, can any particular church truly be autonomous? Scripture itself is a gift of the early church.
Given these concerns, I was delighted to see that the Baptist World Alliance recently held a symposium in Germany to address the question: “Are Baptist churches autonomous?”
From my perspective, the most interesting statement to emerge from the gathering is: “We affirm that for Baptists, the local church is wholly church but not the whole church.” The affirmation rightly emphasizes a commitment to the local gathering of God's people. Any particular gathering of the body of Christ is fully the church. The local church, no matter how inconsequential by dominant cultural standards, is Christ's body in and for the world. There is no mega-church that is more important.
A common emphasis in Baptist life has been the gospel promise that “where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them.” Since God gathers the church, we are free to celebrate the notion that small is beautiful. In this sense, autonomy does not mean independent. Rather, it lifts up the significance of God working through the particular.
To say the local church is wholly the church also recognizes that the local congregation is sui generis, or unique. The church is that body of people in continuity with Israel who participate in and witness to God's new creation. The church is not without sin and unfaithfulness, but the church knows what everyone will eventually acknowledge. In Jesus, God has broken the walls of enmity that separate us one from another and from God.
But the local church, the BWA symposium claimed, is not the whole church. Why not? Why can't a particular congregation — or denomination — see itself as more-or-less self-contained? Simply put, Christ desires to have one united body so the world might know that the father has sent the son.
Such unity does not mean uniformity. But it does mean that we look upon each other — in different congregations, in different Christian traditions — as brothers and sisters in Christ.
This is not the same thing as glossing over real theological differences and divisions. It is a call to acknowledge that because of Christ, there is one body, even if it is clouded over by our blindness and sinfulness.
Baptist forebears confessed a similar conviction. In the Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689, they wrote that “all members of each local church are engaged to pray continually for the good and the prosperity of all churches of Christ, wherever located, and upon all occasions to assist all other believers, within the limits of their own areas and callings, in the exercise of their gifts and graces.” It follows, therefore, that churches should seek fellowship with one another, they wrote.
The emphasis on the local church provides a window for Baptists and other Christians to see how we are members one of another under Christ.
-30-