Ex-Church of Christ Support Board

CoC preaches AUTONOMY! over all. Each church is an island, with its Elders and Deacons independent of each other - completely! BUT... after preaching autonomy over and over, they proceed to tell every other group what they should do, how they should do it, and when they should do it.

How do they not see the irony of demanding autonomy with one breath, only to tell every other group in the world what they should be doing with the next breath. If every group is autonomous, they have no right to tell other groups what they should be doing or judging. But then again, that's just one of the many contradictions in their doctrine.

williamray123 wrote:CoC preaches AUTONOMY! over all. Each church is an island, with its Elders and Deacons independent of each other - completely! BUT... after preaching autonomy over and over, they proceed to tell every other group what they should do, how they should do it, and when they should do it.

How do they not see the irony of demanding autonomy with one breath, only to tell every other group in the world what they should be doing with the next breath. If every group is autonomous, they have no right to tell other groups what they should be doing or judging. But then again, that's just one of the many contradictions in their doctrine.

Williamray - that sort of behavior always confounded me as well. And then they turned right around and pointed to all the dutifully conforming coc congregations as 'proof' that all someone needed to do was 'read their Bible!' and they would RECREATE EXACTLY THE SAME PATTERN.

I think they call that sort of thing a circular argument. That, and cognitive dissonance.

Two reasons. They have to preach according to their unwritten script to protect the brand and they have to fill the time (3 times per week equates to a lot of time to fill).

They really are not autonomous, they just say they are; over and over and over....

They all had a magazine pope watching to make sure they did what they were supposed to.

One thing I like about the CoC is its stance on autonomy, as long as it's truly autonomous. Too many churches are controlled by a super leader, controlling board, or an etched in stone creed that often spreads all kinds of strange teaching throughout hundreds of satellite churches. At least being autonomous helps keep the whacko ideas at home rather than spreading them everywhere ... this allows each church to create their own wackiness.

Autonomous is not hermetically sealed and isolated on remote islands. Where is the notion that being "autonomous" relieves one of all ability to recognize error or to be concerned about the error/wellbeing of others? The Apostles were autonomous (Peter was not the head Apostle) but they were still concerned with each other, because even being autonomous from each other they were still to be following the common authority of God. Many congregations were concerned about and took collection for the congregation(s) in Jerusalem, were they violating this notion of being autonomous? Were they now in control of Jerusalem? And IMO. the lack of a controlling hierarchy is what is mostly meant by the CofC autonomy talk. And while Paul was autonomous, he still pointed out the error on Mars Hill and of other religions. So being autonomous mean that one church cannot and is not responsible to go "fix" another congregation. But to say that congregations cannot and shall not exhort, encourage, help, rebuke, or support each other because they are "autonomous" is without basis IMO.

If 5 regional coc's decide to drop Sunday night services and your coc decides to copy them are you really autonomous?

That decision making process is how the doctrine has evolved into what it is today.

klp wrote: So being autonomous mean that one church cannot and is not responsible to go "fix" another congregation. But to say that congregations cannot and shall not exhort, encourage, help, rebuke, or support each other because they are "autonomous" is without basis IMO.

Being autonomous doesn't exclude working with other churches; it does exclude being controlled by another church, person, or whatever. As an apostle, Paul influenced all the churches in their infancy, but as they matured elders were selected by each church ... perhaps, just perhaps, an inkling of autonomy is evident in this decision.

B.H. wrote:They all had a magazine pope watching to make sure they did what they were supposed to.

They had (have) several is more like it. My late cousin (Foy Wallace's son-in-law) published one of "The Brotherhood" rags for years and years and years.

They were all pretty good at outing the autonomous congregations that got a little TOO autonomous.

I was just pointing out that whatever "autonomy" means, it does not require a complete separation and isolation (but it certainly can include isolation). So I pointed out some examples of interaction. If something makes sense to one congregation it might just as well make sense to another. Similarity does not disprove autonomy. 1972 Ford Pinto's were very similar in look and function, but they were still autonomous. But bolting on some aftermarket items or re-painting it yourself pretty much destroyed the notion of it being "stock" and likely voided the warranty.

Updated: Sorry, I was thinking about the 1970 Pinto