Editorial: A way past the problem with local autonomy

Baptists are at it again, and once again, autonomy of the local church is being deployed in an effort to settle the dispute.

Autonomy of the local church is the historic Baptist principle—a core value—that holds each congregation governs itself with no outside interference. As a core principle held for hundreds of years and propagated around the globe, it makes sense for Southern Baptists to swing with it in their current fight over women in ministry.

There is a problem, however, that the principle can’t solve, because the principle creates the problem. The problem is that the independence provided the local church by local autonomy collides with the independence of every other local church, association or convention—each of which also is autonomous—when they try to work together.

For Baptists to continue working together without giving up the principle of local autonomy, I see one way forward.

Autonomy a historic Baptist principle

Before describing the way forward, a look at the historic understanding of autonomy of the local church is warranted.

E.Y. Mullins, one of Southern Baptists preeminent thinkers and president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, published Baptist Beliefs in 1912. In the section on “The Church,” he describes autonomy of the local church as follows, starting with a reference to religious liberty. I will quote him at length because it’s that important.

[The church] must not form alliances of any kind with the state so that it surrenders any of its own functions or assumes any of the functions of civil government. Its government is democratic and autonomous. Each church is free and independent. No church or group of churches has any authority over any other church.

Co-operation in Christian work, however, is one of the highest duties and privileges of the churches of Jesus Christ. Yet in so doing they do not form or constitute an ecclesiasticism with functions and powers to be authoritatively exercised over the local bodies.

The voluntary principle is the heart of the Scripture teaching as to the individual and as to local churches. … [T]he organization and government of the local church proceeds on the principle of the voluntary association of free individuals in obedience to Christ and for purposes set forth by him.

Church discipline is simply the group protecting itself against the individual. The church has no power of coercion in the religious life of the individual. … The right of the church, however, to protect itself against the disorderly individual is an unalienable right in Christ.

Mullins then applies the principle to the relationship between local churches and “general bodies,” which he explains “are not composed of churches but of individuals.” Set aside that Mullins seems to equivocate on the composition of churches when he refers to how they relate to “general bodies.”

In all such co-operation or refusal to co-operate … the church neither assumes authority over the general body, nor submits to the authority of that body. The relation is voluntary on both sides.

Where a church is out of harmony with a general body it cannot legislate the general body into harmony with itself but it can withdraw if necessary without the consent of the general body.

… General bodies are themselves autonomous. No Baptist general body has authority over another. … Each body is self determining …

There are certain necessities which arise out of these principles of Baptist organization. 1. The necessity for clear thinking in order to avoid confusion in ideals and collision in the practical work of the Kingdom. 2. The necessity for well defined limits of function and aim in the general body to avoid the assumption of church functions. 3. The necessity for courtesy and respect as between Baptist general bodies (pgs. 64-67).

It is noteworthy that Mullins’ explanation of Baptist beliefs is predicated on the New Hampshire Declaration of Faith—a decidedly Calvinist document—which he notes was “adopted by the Landmark Convention and the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary” prior to publication of his book (p. 84).

Recent skirmishes over autonomy

In the interest of “clear thinking” and “courtesy and respect,” Baptists—particularly Southern—need to reexamine their understanding and use of autonomy of the local church.

I raised this issue in a June 2019 editorial about boundaries. Then as now, I was concerned about what appears to be differing understandings of autonomy of the local church. The example I cited was the debate surrounding whether churches who affirm same-sex marriage should and could be excluded from the Baptist General Convention of Texas.

Those who favored the inclusion of affirming churches argued the BGCT should not impinge on the decisions of a local church by excluding affirming churches. Ultimately, the BGCT messengers exercised their autonomy by voting in 2016 to exclude affirming churches.

Given Mullins’ description of the principle, one could ask, “Whose autonomy carried the day—the messengers or the local churches who remained affirming?” Some argue both retained their autonomy, but only up to a point. The affirming churches’ autonomy did not grant them authority to remain in the BGCT against the will of the majority.

The prior summer in a July 2018 editorial, I described the issue in relation to Southern Baptists being at odds over how to hold their churches and leaders accountable for sexual misconduct and abuse.

SBC denominational leaders insisted autonomy of the local church meant they could not hold local churches accountable. Many grassroots Southern Baptists weren’t buying that defense. Ultimately, the messengers overruled the convention’s top leadership in 2021 and called for a third-party investigation and the establishment of accountability measures.

A local church has the autonomy to employ a minister convicted of sexual abuse or assault, and SBC messengers have the autonomy to exclude that church from membership in the convention. Here again, the two spheres of autonomy seem to collide at the point of cooperation.

Present dispute over autonomy

The presenting issue for the 2023 SBC annual meeting is the denomination’s position on women in ministry. Specifically, messengers will decide whether to approve a constitutional amendment proposed by Virginia pastor Mike Law that would exclude churches from the SBC who “affirm, appoint, or employ a woman as a pastor of any kind.”

Messengers also will vote whether to approve Saddleback Church’s appeal and reinstate the church to fellowship with the SBC. The SBC Executive Committee voted in February to disfellowship Saddleback for “having a female teaching pastor functioning in the office of pastor.”

Rick Warren, founding pastor of Saddleback, released an open letter and a series of videos in response to what he characterizes as some SBC leaders’ denial of decline in favor of “in-fighting over secondary issues, like what you call your staff.”

In the first video of the series, Warren contends “the SBC has been ‘creeping toward a centralization where the local churches are losing their independence and autonomy, and we are increasingly controlled by our institutions and bureaucracies who have been systematically increasing their power to enforce uniformity.’”

In his open letter, Warren charges: “The current ruling of the Executive Committee … will open a Pandora’s box of unintended consequences unless we reject [the ruling]. It will fundamentally destroy FOUR historic Southern Baptist distinctives upon which the Convention was organized by our founders.

“It will: 1) change the basis of our cooperation 2) change the basis of our identity 3) centralize power in the Executive Committee and take away autonomy from the churches, and 4) turn our confession into a creed, which Baptists have always opposed.”

To defend Saddleback’s position on women in ministry alongside its continued relationship with the SBC, Warren deploys autonomy of the local church. As with the two examples cited above, the question will come down to whose autonomous assertion will carry the day.

Recent history shows two autonomous bodies cannot maintain their full autonomy—as each understands it—and still cooperate. Autonomy is not boundless.

The way forward with autonomy

I’ll say it again: In the interest of “clear thinking” and “courtesy and respect,” Baptists—particularly Southern—need to reexamine their understanding and use of autonomy of the local church.

Such a reexamination is necessary because what may have made perfect sense to Baptists in 1912—enough so for it to be championed by Baptist apologists at least since then—no longer is understood clearly.

What seems clear is if Baptists are to maintain cooperation among and beyond local churches, a moderated autonomy needs to be described. A moderated autonomy would spell out what essential agreements are necessary for local churches to cooperate in such things as associations and conventions. SBC President Bart Barber has advocated for as much.

The Baptist Faith and Message—all three versions of which were adopted after Mullins’ Baptist Beliefs was published—used to be enough of a reference point for cooperation. The divisions within Southern Baptist life over the last 40 years, however, make it clear the Baptist Faith and Message no longer is commonly understood, as Barber himself suggests.

To get to this moderated autonomy, Baptists need to ask such questions as: “Does local church autonomy supersede the autonomy of associations and conventions, or are those autonomies equally authoritative? How should the autonomy of those ‘general bodies’ be defined to allow for cooperation?”

If Baptists are to cease fracturing into ever-smaller groups, they will have to agree to a moderated autonomy that holds the collective as important as the individual. Unfortunately, such a position seems an increasingly harder sell, especially for Baptists in America—where polarization is strong and fewer people care about denominational peculiarities.

Eric Black is the executive director, publisher and editor of the Baptist Standard. He can be reached at [email protected]. The views expressed are those solely of the author.