Ridgell's Originals

I am not sure how I feel about church autonomy. On the one hand, I agree with the historical church of Christ position that it is hard to find a multi-church structure in the New Testament. I think we have correctly taught that Peter was not anything other than a local church elder. It does appear that in the New Testament each congregation had elders that oversaw that church. But I have a hard time being dogmatic about it because of the Jerusalem church. Acts 15 seems to violate the doctrine of strict congregational authority to some degree. And if the men in Acts 6 were deacons, which congregation in Jerusalem did they serve? Or were there many house churches in Jerusalem under one eldership?

So is the model of various "campuses" under a local church eldership reflective of the Jerusalem church? Evangelical churches have long favored this model and you are seeing more churches of Christ try this approach. We at Southern Hills are wrestling with a model that incorporates Home Gatherings (house churches) into the Southern Hills family under our elders.

But my biggest question is why the incredible disconnect between a theology that insists on local church autonomy while in practice many congregations stick their nose into the business of other congregations? We have congregations that withdraw fellowship from congregations that they have never even met, much less had fellowship with. Congregations criticize other congregations and question decisions other elderships make. To claim we have no "denominational" structure is at odds with the many who want to construct lists of "faithful" churches.

Just reminds me that it is easy to claim right answers when looking at other groups, but hard to practice the same theology in our own group.

Just my thoughts.