An essay on Autonomy and its role in keeping the gospel

  • Nick Davis
  • Aug 24, 2009
    An essay on Autonomy and its role in keeping the gospel

    An Essay on Autonomy and its Role in Keeping Gospel-Bearers Free
    Nick Davis, 11 October 2008

     

     

     

    DEFINITION OF “AUTONOMY”
    Autonomy – self-government or the right to self-government; freedom to determine one’s own actions and behavior; a system not controlled by outside forces

    ANTONYMS FOR AUTONOMY
    Heteronomy; dependence; subjection; colonized; under the influence; ruled

    ROOT OF THE WORD “AUTONOMY”
    The root for “autonomy” is found in the combination of two Greek words – “auto” and “nomos”, which mean “self” and “law”.
    Likewise, the main antonym for autonomy, which is “heteronomy”, comes from “hetero” and “nomos”, or the “law” of “others”.
    In other words, I am autonomous when governed by inner truths, rather than controlled by external forces, cultures and people.
    A little child is not yet autonomous, as she needs teaching, guidance and discipline of others.
    Public health officials would tell you that prisoners and committed mental health patients now enjoy “reduced autonomy”, as the jargon goes.

    AUTONOMY A PRIORITY FOR PEOPLE’S RIGHT TO INDIVIDUALITY
    Why has “autonomy” been so fiercely fought for over the ages?
    Well, the first clue is in scripture. The Old Testament laws were the classic establishment of a heteronomous system. Men would be controlled more by the fear of punishment – to achieve civic peace – than by their own good intentions and pure-heartedness.
    Why?
    Because we are born wicked, and the heart is wicked above all things. All men without Christ tend towards selfishness; self-preservation and the elevation of self while suppressing others.


    In the 1980’s, a survey was carried out in the United States, wherein random men on the street were asked whether they would rape a woman if there was no chance whatsoever of them ever being caught or found out. Almost 90% said “yes”.


    So, without heart replacement, heteronomy is most needed, hence police forces, courts and prisons.
    But now Christ is born in a manger in Bethlehem. And this Christ lived a sinless life and died a sinner’s death at Calvary, and by faith in this Christ we are “born again”. Not just legally righteous, but internally renewed. No longer with the law on tablets, but now written on the tablets of our hearts, so that “you do not need anyone to teach you”. (1 John 2v27)

    AUTONOMY A PRIORITY FOR THINKING AND THINKERS
    Now clearly we all have need of others. We stand on the shoulders of giants. We start off as novices and are surrounded by gifts of men, placed there by God.
    But only one God.  


    So while we are tutored through every Sunday sermon and home group teaching, God’s aim is to form inner revelation, the illumination of which becomes the lamp to our path.


    “Independence of thought” does not mean a right to unlimited Independence of action, as we act in community and the community has the right to be blessed by our actions.
    But it does mean that we need churches where:
    •    believers are encouraged to search the scriptures for themselves like noble Bereans;
    •    where truth is not imposed with latent or patent consequences (“conform or else”);
    •    where believers’ actions are governed firstly by Christ-light, not by peer dynamics; and
    •    where students can go beyond masters because the environment extols the pursuit of Christ, above obedience to tradition.


    Those hungry for more of God will always be compelled, sooner or later, to step outside religious structures or collectives, because our human natures are too weak to withstand corporatization of inner convictions. This is what kept Augustine of Hippo away from Hippo for years.


    I am not voting for isolation, although more ministers need more alone time. I am voting for each man’s inner sanctum being dignified with the autonomy that Jesus Christ won for him on the Cross.  

    AUTONOMY A PRIORITY FOR LOVERS
    To underline the autonomy of thought, I turn to autonomy of romance.


    Marriage was designed for two, not three or more.


    The Roman Catholic institution has destroyed the sacredness of this romance and anathematized the gospel, not only by de-deifying Christ, but by appointing men as mediators in Old Covenant style. This was never God’s intention.
    Even in the Old Covenant, God sought out unmediated friendships with men. Even for the 12 ancient tribes, God’s plan was best expressed for all 12 tribes in Exodus 19v6, “You will be for Me a Kingodm of priests” – a first call echoed in 1 Peter 2:9 – that we are all now “a royal priesthood”.
    We priest together often. We stand in worship together. We listen to messages together. We watch football together. We sometimes travel together, witness together, walk together.
    But still in our own skins, all the while walking towards the day of Judgment of works done in the body – on which Day I will stand alone, before entering the Great Congregation.


    I think of the funny duo in “Flight of the Concordes”, where in one episode Bret falls in love with a girl, but Jermaine insists on coming on every date!


    Heteronomous leadership is like Jermaine – regulating and monitoring other men’s date nights.
    The reality is that most of our lives, we live alone. Teachers need to trust the Word put into people. And keep repeating the major themes of the Romance; encouraging all believers to participate in their own romance, and do it also through the local church.


    A marriage between two people produces babies, so the fruitfulness of the church is utterly dependent upon the hot romance happening between each member and Jesus. Our role, is to set the right scene, and then back off.


    And I guess, a leader’s role is also to show the fruit of his own love affair with Jesus too. Not just talk about it.
    “I am my lover’s, and my lover is mine”.
    At the end of the ages, there will be no more gifts, apostles, preachers or local churches. Only individual believers standing together to worship their King.
    Even now, in church worship, the only way there can be true worship on a Sunday with the many, is when the individuals who make up the many, have been monogamously passionate in the week.

    AUTONOMY AS A PRIORITY FOR LOCAL CHURCHES
    We must fight to keep local churches radically autonomous. And yes, “self-governed” is a far cry from “independent”.
    But the interdependence that comes with Ephesians 4 gifts needs to be uncontrolling, spiritual, exemplary and always maturing.


    So, while a fresh church plant would call for help more often from “fathers in the faith”, the fathers had better not begin to own the plant, nor claim it as a number, nor insist on “payback” given in the early years.


    And that payback may not be as crude as money – it may just be a call to surrender a portion of the elders’ autonomy; an insistence upon support; upon collusion; upon conformity to values and principles, ventures and vehicles.
    But this would deny the scripture that says “when you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed…” (1 Cor 15:37). Because now some are insisting that the seed of a new church must already conform to the “body” of the structure or denomination.
    And, as with infants, as a local church matures she needs to walk into more and more autonomy. Any leader who loves his people enough to keep them free, will also keep his church free of external controls, whether institutional or psychological.

    AUTONOMY THE PRIORITY FOR EPHESIANS 4 MINISTERS
    For churches to be free, the men who minister into them must be free.


    Like produces like. Men who are:
    •    Autonomous of corporatized opinions. Like Paul, who said, “Gal. 1:10-12  Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ. I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.”
    •    Autonomous of the fear of big cheeses in the church. Again, the heart of Paul in Gal 2:11-14 “When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?”
    •    Autonomous of church expectations as the main driver. Mark 1:36-38 Simon and his companions went to look for him, and when they found him, they exclaimed: “Everyone is looking for you!” Jesus replied, “Let us go somewhere else—to the nearby villages—so I can preach there also. That is why I have come.”
    •    Autonomous of government intimidation, like Peter in Acts 5:29 Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God rather than men!
    •    Autonomously controlled by one Judge. 1 Cor. 4:2-5 Now it is required that those who have been given a trust must prove faithful. I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court; indeed, I do not even judge myself. My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me. Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men’s hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God.

    SO WHAT ABOUT APOSTOLIC TEAMS?
    I am nervous of the word “team” at this stage, because it is being misused. A team by definition is:
    •    "a small number of people with complementary skills who are committed to a common purpose, performance goals, and approach for which they are mutually accountable." (Katzenbach and Smith, 1993)
    •    "People working together in a committed way to achieve a common goal or mission. The work is interdependent and team members share responsibility and hold themselves accountable for attaining the results." (MIT)
    •    “a co-operative unit” (Thesaurus)
    in an article written by Australian Business Limited and Australian Commonwealth ITR Department, several distinctions were drawn between a “team” and a “group”. I highlight a few of them below:
    [For our purposes, I would like to compare “covenant collaboration” with “church collectives”…]
    Creativity and Contribution.   In a group, members are told what to do rather than being asked what the best approach would be.  Suggestions and creativity are not encouraged.  In a team, members contribute to the organization's success by applying their unique talents, knowledge and creativity to team objectives.
    Trust.   In a group, members distrust the motives of colleagues because they do not understand the role of other members. Expressions of opinion or disagreement are considered divisive or non-supportive.  In a team, members work in a climate of trust and are encouraged to openly express ideas, opinions, disagreements and feelings. Questions are welcomed.
    Common Understandings.   In a group, members are so cautious about what they say, that real understanding is not possible. Game playing may occur and communication traps be set to catch the unwary.  In a team, members practice open and honest communication. They make an effort to understand each other's point of view.
     Personal Development.   In a group, members receive good training but are limited in applying it to the job by the manager or other group members.  In a team, members are encouraged to continually develop skills and apply what they learn on the job.  They perceive they have the support of the team.
    Conflict Resolution.   In a group, members find themselves in conflict situations they do not know how to resolve.  Their supervisor/leader may put off intervention until serious damage is done, i.e. a crisis situation.  In a team, members realize conflict is a normal aspect of human interaction but they view such situations as an opportunity for new ideas and creativity. They work to resolve conflict quickly and constructively.
    Participative Decision Making.   In a group, members may or may not participate in decisions affecting the team.  Conformity often appears more important than positive results.  Win/lose situations are common.   In a team, members participate in decisions affecting the team but understand their leader must make a final ruling whenever the team cannot decide, or an emergency exists.  Positive win/win results are the goal at all times.
    Clear Leadership.   In a group, members tend to work in an unstructured environment with undetermined standards of performance.  Leaders do not walk the talk and tend to lead from behind a desk.  In a team, members work in a structured environment, they know what boundaries exist and who has final authority.  The leader sets agreed high standards of performance and he/she is respected via active, willing participation.
    Could the first step towards the robbery of autonomy from “team” members, come from simply calling a group a team?
    The authenticity of the an “apostolic team” will come from three major measurements, amongst others:
    •    Are the individuals on the team still sovereign, free to move, equal in dignity, exhorted to excellence and applauded in the unprecedented?
    •    Is the captain leading by example, inspiring not colluding, bleeding not counting his troops, full of joy and a desire to see others go beyond him?
    •    Is there immediate release once revelation is received, for example once team members hear the call to captain their own futures? Any hesitancy enlarges heteronomy and diminishes autonomy.


    Here it is vital to once again remind ourselves of the stark difference between secular and true spiritual authority. Authority stems from ultimate power, so the distinction is clear when the source of power is revealed.  Secular authority is released through men and men’s systems that promise favor and threaten disfavor. Spiritual authority is released by submission to God, unmediated by human promises.


    We are children of Abraham, who against hope in hope believed. Who walked amidst people but walked by his own faith in a God of the Impossible.
    If we ever want to see great ventures, we had better strive to keep all men free of humanistic submission and mediation.
    Is this a vote for wild living? Yes and no. Yes in that we are saved into an unhindered romance. No in that we should use our freedom to serve one another in love.


    But just because I serve you, it does not make me your servant – I am God’s servant, set free from sin, and commissioned to serve others, as unto Him.


    Likewise, the wife is the man’s help-meet, but God’s, commissioned to help His weak son!
    The distinction is vast. And the ramifications are as vast.

    SO, IS THERE PLACE FOR “CAPTAINCY” AMID AUTONOMY?
    Yes, as has already been hinted.  Although we do not see the word in the New Testament except for reference to worldly captains of guards etc.


    If by captaincy, we mean in the purest sense, a man who leads others by force of anointing and example, amen to that. God mediates His truth through personalities, but not His salvation and neither His Romance.


    If by captaincy, we mean an office (real or virtual) that men must always consider before taking action or applying revelation, then no I cannot agree there is place for this. This is secular authority, no matter how subtle.
    We can also contemplate the contemporary use of the word “tribe” here. Classically, this means “a group of people or clans with a common ancestor”. It is largely used referring to ancient civilizations.
    It only appears in the New Testament in reference to the history of Israel. Gentiles are never placed into tribes in the New Testament.
    Biblically, we are now one “tribe”, with Abraham as our common ancestor.
    More recently, we all owe a debt of love to Luther, Calvin and Zwingli in the birthing of protestant Christianity and a return to the purity of scriptures (a study of the 5 “solas” also reveals the priority of autonomy!).
    Tribalism artificially divides the body of Christ, and is often used as a cover for doctrinal and orthopraxical differences.
    I believe in many local congregations. I believe there are God-given spheres of influence. But I believe God wants these congregations and spheres determined by Him, through His people, and not drawn up by committee or defined as “tribes” now that Christ has broken down the dividing walls.

    CLOSING: THE CHALLENGE OF HONORING BOTH AUTONOMY AND ANTIQUITY
    Sometimes, men of the “now generation” are cautioned to not only honor the preferred future of the church, but also honor her “roots”.
    Good one. I believe in not slapping the shoulders of the men upon whom we now stand.
    So, both are important. But as always, this is not about truth in isolation and opposition to other truths, but truth in the right order.


    Which should we honor first? You tell me – Christ’s word in me, or the history of the church?


    Do they always have to contradict? Of course not? But should I be expending energy in worrying about whether I am trading one off against the other? Should there be any need for debate on HOW to honor the history, or should that merely be a state of the heart?
    The trouble comes when others try to impose their histories and nostalgias and cherished memories upon me, when I share little or none of them. Or if I try to do the same to others.  This is why church photo albums never seem to bring down a huge anointing.
    Imagine if I tried to do this across apostolic structures! I started off in one apostolic flow – imagine if I had said to the next one, “let’s please honor the legacy of Terry Virgo”. They would think me mad! Or they would say, “yes, Terry is a great man – now, can we please focus on the field God has called us to?”.
    And God has called each one of us to a field.  It is called “good works prepared in Christ”, as well as “one body many parts”.


    I believe in this little word, “autonomy”. And we had better remind the people we care for that one day each man will give an account.