NOMY IN A Ct VENANT POLITY Donald Fieenan [Every unit of the charch, wai'e in covenant wich the other units, as a anonctransfetrab’¢ responsibility to ciscemn and ressand tn the cal’ of Gost 1o€-Gns will end way for tin sis ume and place. Vie abave senlene ‘the working definition of auronomy proposed for churches with eevensnt polities in this essay, The vemaincer uf the essay expuaizs it, Whecher the wired "zuronomy” is tetsined ‘or no: (and perhaps itis too abused and maligned to mer: retention), associated with it are seine very positive values for she charch waick need to 2e eta ‘The primary contex: te which is ewsy efers* the ted Chezeh of Carist, wl and more 6 define its polity in covenatal tens. is coming more Background Prized by some anc detested by uliters, he svertom of loce_ church autonemy,sleng wit the ‘ovconomy of instumertatities and institutions cf tae church, has beer. one of tke mest coatraversial atures ofthe peity ofthe Ur.ted Chueh of Clist. Lang betare the 19 and Re‘ormed Churck ead the Cong-egsticnal Christian charches te form the Unitec Chure! of Christ, ss ccmeer (or the frowiom fhe local chursh “9 manage its av life had teen manifested not only ‘amerg Congregational anc Chuistia chureies but, io a lesser eaten, in ReZormei anc var 2elical church etcles as weil. Shortly defers 1957, sutonoray=-of sot only the leeal church but a's0 tis susizes of certain exdewurents and fumes waa key iste in some of the eons i civil courts 19 block tke anion, The Basts cf Usior, its Iuerpretations, ané the Constitution and Bytans weve ail ashioned in a ‘context ia whils che vary vishility of the union deper ded in par on the 2ssarmce er Ioeal caursh stoncmy, whi at the sams time che cngcing life of the merged church depended on the aest-an comnscteduess Paragrap’a .£ of the Constinion (the paragraph on 1ocal shech autonoruy) is careul.y sot ke-ween sarsgrephs 1¢ ard 16, which cmahasize mn tur” lations srieng the vious hades and ‘ana berh ee in tie ecatent of @ damental confession of faith in the Prearat (oarageap 2, (Church of Christ acknoviledges as fs ale scared in Chsiet all who sha 16 Christ, Sone Gad and cenfessicn, 14, The Local Churches of che Umi Curtin of Cluist have, in Sllewship, a God-given respesibi ily fue shat Chuzch, its labers an¢ its extension, even as tie Ur:teé Chure bas, in fellowship, a God-given seapensib iy fer Liz wellbeing and needs and aspirations 0° ins Loca: Chureies In mutval Custian concern and in dedication w Totus Chiist, the Head of the Church, she one end she macy Sante im eomnmen Chrstiaa exsesience and respars LE The autonomy ef the Loe Church: isinaveat and modifiable enly Nothing inthis Coastituton ane the Bylaws of the Unite’ Chrzeh of Chrst sit] czseoy er ‘ght of cl Lasal Chua s eoaticus to operas inthe way customary to; nor shal ae constued as givirg to tke Genera! Synod o tc ony Conference a Association now, 01 sy fiers time, the power io abridge ot impair the autonoray of aay Local Church in “be rmaragement of is ov affss, which af iclodo, bot ae no ited to the rig o ain orsdopt its awe meibods of ganization, worship and education tc tetan cr secure its own chart and name; te adopt is vm coostuton and bylaws to formate ts own covenants and confessions of tach, wn edinit erabersn its wa Way ané to prcvide “or their diecpline nd diszss's 19 call o= dismiss :s pestor or pastors by such preculore 1s it ell dete=min, o anquie, oon, mnmge end Foe property and funds; to corto its ov: benevolences; and te withdraw ty its own decision tor: the United Church of Chest et any time withoct oreize of comeeab:9 oF control of any seal or peraeval rene y waved hy ik 16. Acions by, or decisions nr ulvice emanating fier, the Genere! Syaoe, a Conferease ot an Associstion, shoule ke held in the aighest regard ky every Local Cure, DIMENSIONS OF AUTONOMY Tae assertion of autocomy in paragiap’ 15 is, to be sure, pretty sweeping and uncompromising. It has beer: cited and acted cut by a aumber ef local churches in varies clarion ar teminevion of relations ish Assoeissions and offer citings eT he ehureh, Buc how is ito be andersioed eonsazuct vely? “Autonomy as Responsbiin: Freedom For, more hve Freedom Fram "The war’ "aulisnory" exomes ‘rom classical Cn law, from ner (aun, sli; ad noms; porien, custom, pollen, ‘pallot} end mexis, funéamerraly, seYf'governance, Peshaps the mos: infiversial nse of the term fer eur ovr: Himes was hy che Germain Er lighterrnent philonpher trranel Ket in he 1780s, whose ethic ealled for tae highs: sense o personal responsisilty to define and manage inte face of the multitude of voices and o2portunities calling for oc attention anc response Kant contmeted evtenoray with hetermomy, gevemanee hy ang dependence upen another or others bulside oneself, aud chilenged all humans to “dare te use yous owa teasen"~whish he called "the sieve of enligienmem." Iris abot boing of gs" Hewevor, Rant apposed the esscciation of eutcncrey with any form off -ampiint incividslian o Finertnist Auiocomy is furslancenuiy fewdor, for, noi merel: freedom from. Ieis he highest ie Cf Immaracl Kant, Foundations ofthe bictaphy! if Moris td Wt te Enlighten? tx arded, Lewis Whi Bevs dhdiampecis: Botbs-Mert 1989), 57-88, 85.92 ofparsonal responsibil, not treapansibility. To be sure it emule «kid of figedom from tke rule of thers, batts is nota Feedom 2 ignere wha thers command o: have wo sy, is reedom 9 kato, evalua, deed and act for oneselthrcugh the highest exercise ofraticaal'y, lis po: freedom font seesumsbiity, but acceumabilty 0 ths eanaws of reason: whick Kam bel'evedl to be athe core of khumen personhoed. And stkougi itis specificlly nersona, ts daar: is eve even "ooamepotitical" ot merely private tndividuai ifs. For persons, ztcuoyay refers to seleefiition, sol mastery ane sell-yoveriment, but i lao seers to one's of social existeice and ctizsaship; ca iste self-govemazee of potitical unis ay thei- fnfovied ci ‘We iursans have. seemingly inevitable talent for reductionist, howeved, 2nd autonomy is of ‘ecueed Stom Kant's acble conception of responsibility 20 the very privatisielibertiaism which Kant Sought to avoid: mietely endo from. In tae case of the Lived Chursh ef Christ, the smpkasis has olin been en feecom from any end al Zonns of cocrciex. 9: conlm from shureh guthorties outside the seal church ex othe: init ite? Ard for lack of a ernfident chaaterinziva 0” mocomy ik Dositve tems ths neyasive definiten has often led the day. This say isan eteraps lo elaborate sucit a positive characterization, Aatonomy a8 Capacity to Coven ‘The United Church of Cast hus been chacaccetizl by Lonés Guianemana, ina now widely actestit Phase as “a coveranted relatiouship o® metonomous units of er rch lfe-aTelalonstip delineated bu: iw regule:ed by a Gonstiterior and Sylaws."3 Constituted by divine prace, wha: holds te Utes Chat. of Christ together from the humar: side axe we things: (1) s common faith in "lesus Christ, fon cf God aid Savion” and "sole Head” ofthe churchs and (2) sets of covenant promises exchanged by the vnits and persons af wrich itis thereby composes, ‘Autonomy has ofter beer incerpreted te mean "independene atomistic separateness-~and thus to authorize cithosor of ceperdence/senarstencss is a fase di sndeed it 8 been argued that only persons and social unite with a hirly clear sense of who they ars vtocomy!~kave whut it akes toowa covemmis and maimain mutcslily. Only auch a seuse oc sel ond ther Gan allow for boch :aterpenesation and respect of bourdiries atthe same cine Vary few human relationships invcive parses wo are equal in every rogerd, ané only nespect fer te icegety al the er-antenomy|~car. sauble mstun'ity when te partis involved re not equal: ior sxamp:e in terme owe: not sivaply nea-éependénce but lone ranger” syle of persona. and shusrch life. But the ‘omy. Mutuslity, for instrnce, is neither, ane Autonomy as Loca Respansibilty Poersien or centro] fom governmental soure isnot alsenys consistently race 3 Louis #. Gonmamenn, "Cxder anc léeulity in-he Uaised Church of Christ" New Conversations 40,2 Gall 1979}, .5, Reunen A. Shomes claborates ou this in a mancs: very similar te the present stay ir "A Covenas: Polity," chap, 7 in Thealogy and Htentin: Trade, Mevarsents, and Polity the United Church of Christ, 3, Drie: L Tokason aud Charles Hambrise-Stowe (New York Pilzrim Press, 1980), 67-73, ess often comtested, The clait io eutoromy soeaeh 19 of he UCC Constitution can be road grisly es esdara from. Its fill of phiasey about “its ow he local chsrehs): "is owa alas" Nits own —nethods of organtactin" covenants and ccnfessiens of faith," "ts own way," "by auch procedure sit shall dete “bill ofrighne "is om 18" Nisa ‘But paragraph 13 oun ard eres out ua ne rend 4 list of resounvibtities wel the local chure’ assure Zor itself, All of he rights here listed ste, a re seme cime, shurch body its furamema! responsivity '8 to discern the call af God to ian—in Ite place arid te {such 2 dissemmen process tia wise to tam te others for counsel, eritque and suppers, That is ‘whe Yassociating® (Associaicr) and "coaferring’ (Cosferenee) are about. In maay trstances the ‘ministry nay be earied out collshoratively. Bu tis is tke mest=-ane the leant--he other unite can (hter, Sor although they stm? in he same (me, they de not stan in oxncty the same place. Only the local body stands i es place ine time, as Chrst stands with ‘rand that is why it cannon ah ether to make its decisions fori, Th responsibilty nen-transferraale Others may ke uhle to de vith Bul they etnrot Co fer, The sume js tru Zor an adil chuck membex: other members provide counsel and suppent end may collaborate, but camnat de for! Autonomy nnd Misses uate and Timeliness Each chureh body bas its own srimary sphere of vespuasibity and inlusace, mut in diferem settings the scope 9 that responsibility ané nfluenece has its own maga.tude o- scale. Thus the Ioeal couch bas the local social unit in whick iti situated: aco, township, nelghnarhood or section ofa iy Associations hav he's cw mors-cr-less ea-responting sevial un, such as cvntioe ov rosions Conferences keve tits, ypically stetes or regions. The General Synod has i sohere: the satire (h-osgh instrumentntes suc’ asthe Un ted Chusch Boare fur soreland Mins=: throvgh tbe Waited Church Bone for Werke Ministries. The Uaited Chunch of Christ is actively ‘engaged in eex-menical bodies as well- locally, egional’s,nzlionally and glota'Ty~hat:a, each UCC. dsney in its ovm primary sphere cf responsibility und indluens ‘be said Sor each member: there ism personal, rcerpersonal and social sphere for wkich is rimarily saitedin-minisiry. al for which co cerporate church Docy is sa wel suited, But fora apere on the scale of the Commonweal of Pennsylvania tee Peausy vamia Council ou ntersbusch Cooperation snd Pennsyvan 4 Covzeil of Churees are beter suited thar. ay one member 6 oval hatch o= Asseciainn, ora united chuich voice om 4 matsaing (sated) seale is mor likely. he heeded tum thousands of Ina church veices cr Goveus ol judicetory voices oy cherraelves, ‘This Eoes not mean “ant these sphe:es of ministry ate exclusives in fact, tie dernoeraticnrocesces of citi there is an optinal sca sof minis ae interswined ay vive does sigges that soneept of autonomy (Collatoration is especially important ze an embediment and symbol of donnestedaess, as we as ollen more cSeerive, But in tae collatoresion cf eovenan: partners, the parcner neares: 10 the isoue- fn whose primay sprete at on whose seale or terms the fesue is Kest addzessed-—wormally takes the ewe nndo-seorss the specific, nom-tan aainistry ca its own able responsi lity exc! has for its own primary here of A correlative virtue o> this localization of esponsibility for ministry ia the ability of wutencmous annistries tobe timely. Each unit of the shursh fs ele to respond or 19 take fnitatve when the tine fe ripe or when the need cries cut, because itis uot aecessary 20 work throug ocher channels for authorization, Couasel frou and soV aboration ith others is e'svays desirable ane to be sought when possible, hut “hers may’ no: be tane 1p obtain ft Ther is risk tole ture: there have box: times when the actions of one ur‘! arear io have been hascy and il-adhised, egreited by others and somerimes by tsel®, Buta strength of UCC polity is precisely this autaority of each hoddy-ocal, regional, natienal~and eat aremer to diseers the moment ard minister accovdingls LIMITATIONS TO AUTONOMY Nutomomy, Authority. and Asvomneabiny ‘The autho:iy af an autonomies body in a coverc-t polity, however, is tot absolute se:f-gensteted, ané its seeoumcability is not merely 1b tse, Acthority flows from an accounts aliy isto es telativushin wh the soe Hend cf “he Counc, Jesus Chis. This ‘nas several ic:plicatioas. + Chris is rove Head. Jesus is remembered to have challenged the tiae'ples 9 ley dewm seou'sr relations of loxds:ip of snme war others, rather to engage f= mutual servanthood (Mark 19.25-45 ane parallels). Amanomy is a say of saying tbat no body in say Setting of the UCC hus wuthority over any lier boty: Beiore Christal are on equel footing + Wut each had sce ave authority visaevie the otkess. Covenzntal polizy means tuat ezcl is o be taken seriously, patcule-y as i: embodies, gives view (9 anc lives cut wat it discems to be God's ‘voll nd way. This isthe assertion of aragrapis 14 end 16 inthe constiution.§ + Each Sody is aeecuntable to al the others. Accouttability calls for grac-ous eonirenlaion--the proce ci rejoicing in, bearing, with, sm forgiving ane anothe=~toget:er with the courage te sped ia love the ‘euth which needs tobe said (Eplaesians 4.25), esyecial’y if woven is =ppwar to have been ‘react Communication among Avtomomnows Bodie an with the Pubic Fach boty othe United Chatch of Caeis: bas tae responsibil ; WE aind-spesk for sel: ivan eut of punticulur plac iné time, Because ne otke: body is precisely rere no otter Sody cen speaic Jer t. But each carmand haste sesyonsibilly 1o~spe ane liste:te she ethers, Ttis appropriate for aulone-neus bodes is covenslal relstions te supgest ~eqpest, recomsaené, urge ard peskaps even (rarely, pletse) demand: to cuest on, grieve, regret ané pech=ps eves depione; Bul nat lo coxsiand, require, onder or condeuu, Reuben Sbeares called this she © Cf time as kofras in tae New Testemem: "he righ tim ¢ —Wisashoraming ¢°915 that it steies the selatioasip ir one-way rath: tuan ese te=ms iG reeds te be understocd in the Langage of 14 ‘Frankly, tis hes sometimes prover frustiting for some persons. A. case in point occured at Genet! ‘Synod 19 (St. Louis, 1993), when ¢ motion was introduced to direct the United Church Board for ‘Homelanc Ministries lo muke some apon'flc changes ic the propesed Mew Cemtary Frymmat in theend the ver was chimes to “recsmmen¢," and the Board s hexanal cam itee made somie—bat not lof anges recocrcnded. ie more general usstion, Koweves, sight be putchis way: Is Oe rte merey of one or another of the aulunamious bodies of waic” iris composed? Autonomy is sometimes experienced a5 “out of eontrl," unceslying wie: one me ght export to fd teelings ef helplessness of impotence, Autonoay soln enhances tnd imate some A related point of frustration and confisior atoune autonomy ir the UICC isthe question, Who speaks Jer the Urited Church of Chis The General Syned, for instance, speaks for itse:, and is not to be ‘construcc rs speaking fer all other besies ard settngs of the curch--even trowgh itis mode v> of delegates from alc? tie eoaferences of the exstea, all ef whom ar> members of oeal churches The ‘resident of the charch is a sgokespesson for the General Syned, iastramants'ily executives aro spoiespeison (er “ier instramentalities; ste, But ¢guin there is she question, Is there no ve ce for he cebrch av 2 whole? PPothaps the most honést asswer is "No xu Ves." No, no bovly ean ever presume to spea for every ‘body ef the United Church of Christ. But Yes, it car often said, "We taay at all he of one mind about this, bul the acexaiking mid of tae United Church of Christ is..." Ttraay sometimes neec to ‘be added. "A sizeable minority, hewever,.. Ar this point tis essay is advancica a point ef view which is currently not widely ielé-end sometimes Field auspect~in the UICC: the responsibly of Isaders to represent... Representation = hers te be understood in specific aad limited meer: that = designated lenéer in this church--by elestien, crc:nation, instalation or other authorizaticn~-has a representative responsi lsty to desert tothe churck aad to the public tae eoavictiozs, posilions und netions of the various bodies inthe various seliings of ie church, ard most parculely the bedy ene is called and installec te serve. Instat a5, ene is eccurare in suca deseziptin san be sail to sreat or the hodiss whose actions tre ‘iowrihec. This is pariculerly tue when tae speaker has d.scetned a widespread eorsirsus in the ureh. Local chusel: pastors tave a maje~ -espersibiliy-reprecably net always ovmed-to kees snformed and to speak in this regard and eltaough not specifically chargec wih such swponsibility. it Dehooves every member of the church <9 da 7 Techrically, thers are constitutional mandates in respect of the Vatlous se:tings ard instrameatal:ties; bodies which ersate ccher bedies as their agencies ean cerymrnd a8 we'l 9s Weornate ther. This is tue, for ‘astasee,c: tis Genstal Syno¢ ir relation to inetsumentalities whch it has established, out ne: those iz has recognized, Even where la der vars are legal hos uusuelly ave!tog eease they v.olie the spsit, the ethos, ofa covenarsal syle of boarder vb, “diveet,” however, + nore nflen faurd in direcias to Tiare abwul implementation of setions; Eat even fe these eases iis mor® fe the spit of stoprlety thes command Bat secular media, the goassal publi nd-fogrtebly-maaiy UCL members are not ciscipiced te ‘make these distinssicns, esperially if taep axe accaslorsed to iasttational sirsctres with rao centvaliene centro. Ibis a aever-erding responsiblity to attempt to comraunica’s the &stiresve ‘abe oF the United Caureb of Cri inthis regex, inorder io Homo and tpbole the variery of convictieas or vasious rats which exists ‘hroughoct the churck. But the elrrch wll be songer ad its leadership mere effecsve when IF represe-tative ‘ecurage ane care, jams WIT 13 owned and execcised wits Autonor aad Test Ji mab: appear that to abide in such & de-ceuncalized caumeh--cne without ¢ central mechazism of soctcl als for an extcacrdinary amount of trast wo be placed ita wide variety of human bet and ‘atituions, pagued ws they re by shortsigatecness,Friteé perspectives, and sin, Thetis only one side of the cruth, Tetaies ar oqua.y ex:rcorcinery emount of fa to believe that God, Cust, ‘he Holy Soir is truly present and active inthe chu: in every penermion, including uur own to thst that ‘whe: comes forth ftom tadies of church people, impecfect asi: may be, is in regen to divine Dromptings; and to crus chat thereffom—soley from this é:ving eeater—ccmes the cammmonenadediiess tense which we el ace called anu for which, with greate: anc lesser dogrees of agony anil inet. we year. CONCLUSION -Auloaciny a responsibility in these five tegerds-slf-definiion and self-governance; covenanting ix nxt sespec: locality 0° sea as primary sphere of ministry; timeliness of resporce, and aber all sdiscemment of Goals willis = distetve feature of a coveauntal polity suck as taat of the United ‘Churca of Christ. Its sesitive virtue is thet mission ané ministry are there2ay empowered and sere likey tobe effective. itis censistent wich a church whic’ believes tat the [oly Spit, er the Head of the Chur, js truly present to guice whenever and wherever people of faith garher ia the name ard service of Christ. Perhups the more theologically accurate term ‘s theonomy, gavernance flor God. ‘The Unised Cnurch of Christ pays a high price ty be this Kizd of churcl, The pesitive cluster of virtues associaced with autenoray--by whstever narae--will always run tse nsk of being disterteé, perveried wr redueec: Nothing gocd escapes chat isk. Henue wnereas catenomy rans the risk 0 ‘dependent Hbe-tnism witlnl sceoumrability, theanomy’ rans t2¢ 1c ul reversion to a ‘:ecexonomy ell things unde: excemal audhot.y- with the incv:tabe issue ves human interpreters, ‘ediatore or stand-ins for God. Sore cf us may find one of these risks tore tolerable thau tie ole, and.viee verse. For now, at cas, this esay is sypportive of cortaming “a soveneates reationship of sexmnomous bodies! while siiving agaiast te distortions (9 whieh auleromy may lend self ‘Aad so the secay urd asi begea, with chis propesed defiition ef autoramy for eoversntal polities, ‘aud particalirly for tke Ursted Church of Ci ‘This is en kistcric contusion. Mos: protew ant, Crthotcx and sectarian systematic theolccies| have datived the doe-rine ofthe ezures fom tae doctrine ofthe Huly Spit; most Roman Cevhelie and some pro-rstart ‘neciogies, ficam Ciscalegs Every unit of se ckurek, while in covenant with ce ether units, hes @ hon-transteerable resgonsihI-y to discern ar respond to -ke call af Gee 1 iteGod's wil and way for it i ie sie and place. emiscy (998 fn Frasn, ve. 11 ne 2, Pall 1996; pp 07-28