by Roger Armbruster.
The following is the result of much discussion within FCA Canada about structure and leadership, especially in difficult times. It is offered here to elicit serious feedback from FCA ministers. Feel free to use the comment section below or respond directly to Roger Armbruster at canadaawakening@mymts.net.
Over the past couple of years, our FCA National Board of Elders has been wrestling with issues such as the restoration of fallen ministers, conflict resolution, qualifications for licensing and ordination, greater accountability and connectedness in our relationships, etc., and how we can see these relationships strengthened without by-passing the decision-making authority at the local level of our FCA church congregations. We want to avoid the twin dangers of a denominational hierarchy interfering with what we have called “local autonomy” on the one hand, and simply embrace the dysfunctionality of ministers signing into the FCA for ordination purposes only and without accountability on the other.
Interestingly, the word “autonomy” comes from the Greek word “autonomia,” where “auto” means “of oneself” and “nomos” means “law.” Simply put, “autonomy” at its very root means “a law unto oneself.” Here are a couple of the dictionary definitions of the word “autonomous.”
“Self-governing, independent, subject to its own laws only.”–Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language.
“In biology, independent from other parts in function and development.” –Gage Canadian Dictionary.
I believe that the word as it was used in our Fellowship’s beginnings was intended differently, yet in contemporary Canadian culture, traditional values of marriage and other institutions which build community are fast being replaced by the notion of “the autonomous self,” meaning the independent individual that does not recognize any law, or any authority outside of oneself. This is in keeping with the root meaning of the word, and it tends to result in relational dysfunction.
The apostle Paul stated that even though he was “free from all men,” to the Jews he would become as a Jew, but to those who were without the law, he would become as “without law,” not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ (1 Corinthians 9:19-21). If in biology and reference to the human body, “autonomous” means to be “independent from other parts in function and development,” I think we can see why it was in regards to his relationship to the Body of Christ that Paul declared clearly he was not “autonomous” or “without law,” but was “under law to Christ” as his Head.
To come under Christ means to be baptized into His Body, the Church, which is not a conglomerate of disconnected, isolated parts and members, each doing his own thing while professing Christ as his Head. To be under Christ means to be yielded to Him, and to have a connection with all of those with whom He has a relationship, and to whom we are all organically interconnected and interdependent. We are laborers together with and under Him, each in our own sphere.
Further, to come under the authority of Jesus Christ as our Head is to come under a spiritual covering for our protection, a relational authority to whom we are freely and fully submitted and surrendered, not an impositional authority that uses external laws coercively. Jesus Christ’s authority will not be extended to any place or area within our hearts where He is not freely welcomed and invited, but we reject His authority to our peril. Impositional authority tends to wound and injure, but the spiritual authority of Jesus Christ is the authority to forgive, and to heal inner wounds and relationships.
What we as elders want to see in the Fellowship of Christian Assemblies is the spiritual authority of Jesus Christ established in our midst, not the impositional, top-down, non-relational authority of the kingdoms of this world. To that end, we hear loud and clear those voices within our Fellowship who have concerns, or are worried about any hint of an encroaching denominationalism that would bypass the authority of the local church under Christ.
We recognize full well, that without knowing each other’s interior worlds, any changes made to our FCA Handbook to bring greater accountability and less isolationism among us can be interpreted as an attempt to bring in “the law” as if we were subject to a man’s law, or to a denomination, rather than (which is our intent) to walk in obedience and under the spiritual covering of the law of Christ, to which we are all subject if we want real relationship and fellowship.
The reality is that any changes we envision are not to in any way set up a denominational hierarchy, but to address the dysfunctionality of too many of our congregations who may have signed on to FCA for ordination purposes to perform marriages only, without engaging in any meaningful fellowship or relationship. What we find in all too many of these congregations is that when conflicts and divisions arise which bring disrepute to the Name of Christ, and the congregation is not able to handle it internally, instead of bringing in respected spiritual fathers or mature leaders from the outside who want to move relationally, they resist outside input on the basis that we, in the FCA, believe in the “autonomy of the local church.” “No one is going to speak into our lives, or tell us what to do” is too often the attitude.
This is a huge problem that needs to be addressed among us, and we are determined to address it, not in an impositional manner, or by becoming a denominational board of elders who will intrude where we are not welcomed or invited, but by developing a long-term relational model that will see our sponsoring churches take real responsibility for the ministers they ordain, and to not simply move out of convenience, but out of “real relationship” where there can be regular and ongoing fellowship, prayer, bridge-building at the heart level, and accountability.
The day of the “lone ranger” is over. We want to see our FCA congregations grow, increase, expand and multiply out of true “church planting,” not out of “church splitting.” The former is birthed out of prayer, hearing from God, and building bridges into the communities where church plants are made. The latter is too often birthed out of unresolved misunderstandings, conflicts, and the breaking of covenant relationships. This does not bring honor and glory to Christ.
What we want to contend for is transformation. Transformation results when spiritual walls of division come down, and we start to build bridges, and strengthen relationships with other parts of the Body of Christ. This cannot be done alone, or with an independent spirit that recognizes only our own sphere of authority, or that is not willing to be reconciled to the whole, or that is not willing to come out of our isolationism and disconnection.
Our vision and aim as national elders is to see more spiritual fathers raised up among us (1 Corinthians 4:15). We are determined not to impose ourselves where we are not invited, but at the same time, we want to know if our ministers are in relationship to their sponsoring churches, and to spiritual fathers who can transcend local divisions and conflicts, and who can bring in a spirit of repentance and reconciliation towards a long-term restoration of unity under Christ.
How does relational or spiritual authority differ from positional or hierarchical authority?
Relational or Spiritual Authority Positional or Hierarchical Authority
That of a “father” to a “son” (eg. Paul-Timothy)……That of an “official” to a “subordinate.”
Personal………………………………………………….Impersonal
Depends on goodwill……………………………………..Depends on position and title
Relationship meant to be permanent………………….Position tends to be temporal
A true father wants his son to go further than he has…Tends to keep people under him indefinitely
Has time to hear the heart of his children……………..Tends to simply issue orders and directives
The father says “we”………………………………………..The boss says “I”
Leads by role-model, example and mentoring………..Leads with the attitude “do what I say, not what I do”
Father admits when he is wrong………………………..The boss is always right
The father gives everything and expects nothing ……Expects at least as much as one gives
The list could go on and on, but I trust that this will give some idea of what we want to see emerge in the Fellowship of Christian Assemblies – a true community, a fellowship, a koinonia – where more and more mature spiritual fathers are raised up who can plant the seed of the Word for new life to emerge, resulting in “church plants” rather than “church splits,” congregations where God’s children can grow to spiritual maturity. Children grow up to become like their fathers.
The more that we mature into full-grown sons and daughters of God, the more we become self-governed under Christ, and the less we need external control. The more we develop trust in relationships under Christ, and walk in a ministry of reconciliation rather than isolationism and independence, the less we need external laws and restraints. The final fruit of the Spirit is “self-control” (Galatians 5:23). The more “self-controlled” we are, the more fit we are to govern “under Christ.” On a scale of 1 to 10, where would I, and where would you and your congregation fit on the continuum below?
Strong need for Strong need for
external authority internal self-government
_ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 _
My hope is that this assessment will raise the right questions so that we can come up with the right answers. One question is, “What happens to a Congregation or to a Fellowship where the leaders do not internally self-govern under the law of Christ, and yet use the phrase ‘the autonomy of the local church’ as their concept of self-government?” And, “What transformation could result in our long-term future if we welcomed spiritual fathers to speak godly wisdom into our lives that could help us rise above the polarization of family disputes that so often end in unresolved misunderstandings?”
Roger Armbruster is an elder with FCA Canada and Founder of Canada Awakening Ministries, Niverville, Manitoba.
