"Submitting to the local church:" what does it mean, and how far does it go?

This is a phrase I never heard before, even growing up as an Evangelical. Maybe it's a 2010's phrase. I gather that it means being "plugged into" a local church (a phrase I have heard before): attending its worship, such as it is; participating in its parish life, such as it is; and being part of its community. I've seen it used in the context of choosing a church when an Anglican one is unavailable.

This makes me wonder: how far does it extend? While groups that reject the Trinity should obviously be out, what about others? Those that uphold the content of the Creeds, while being ignorant of the Creeds themselves? Those that are noncommittal on things like Baptism and the Eucharist? Non-denominationals?

Where do you personally draw the line?

 

It appears to be a slogan in non-denominational/free-church circles.
https://www.coolchurch.org/blog/2019/04/30/8-ways-to-submit-to-your-local-church

In my mind, it’s practically meaningless. To submit to the local church in a way that’s recognizably Christian from a historical perspective is to submit to the bishop in whose diocese one lives. But the ideal of “one city, one bishop” has been dead for centuries, and membership anywhere unavoidably begins with an active choice.

 

It's not as simple as that though, I think. What church did the apostles first attend? Did they stay in it or move around starting new ones. When they started a new one were they then subject to it, or to Christ who had comissioned them? Does the same situation have relevance to any disciple of Jesus Christ today? It is the responsibility of disciples of Jesus Christ to oppose the church whenever it opposes Jesus Christ and his purpose for that church, if through the Holy Spirit they KNOW what that is.
.

 

I had not heard this catchphrase either. I poked around a bit and don't see it having prominence before 2019. From what I observed, I suspect it is a reaction against the 'destination church' fad in evangelicalism. The point seems to be to join a local church rather than drive an hour to a megachurch. You may be aware, a lot of the megachurches actually have very low membership numbers - 10s of thousands of Sunday attendance but typically only a small percentage of formal members. Most people who prefer that format are also chronic church hoppers.

At the same time there is an implicit underlying expectation that most evangelical churches are basically the same. So I doubt the people using this language would be impressed by someone who drives across the County to go to the one Anglican or Lutheran or other traditional church either.

 

The funny thing is that I think I first encountered it here!

In that context especially, it makes sense. I'd prefer to be attached to a community of my neighbors than floating in a sea of strangers. I'd say the non-mega would also probably have better liturgy, but thinking of the evangelical churches where I live, almost all of them try to do exactly the same thing as the megas, just with lower production value.

 

I suppose before the phrase makes sense you would have to define 'local'.

In a lot of non-episcopal churches each congregation is independent so members are more likely to submit to what their local church/congregation decides on matters.

When you get to churches like the Anglican, Catholic and Orthodox communions, I believe local would refer to the diocese. However, in many cases that does not always apply. For example, in the C of E many decisions are made nationally in General Synod. In the RCC the pope is the ultimate authority to whom all are required to submit.

I don't know enough about the Eastern Orthodox churches to know how independent each diocese is. They may be subject to the patriarch/other primate and the synod of their church. Perhaps someone could tell us.

As for the Oriental Orthodox churches what I know could be written on the reverse side of a small postage stamp with room to spare.

 

My impression of the phrase goes something like this: when you belong to (or attend) a particular church, you are under the leadership of the pastor. Therefore, if you disagree with something the pastor teaches, don't go around among the other attendees and stir up dissension; don't try to convince them the pastor is wrong and you are right. This causes churches to split. If you can't abide by what the pastor is teaching, go find another church.

An example or two: let's say the pastor teaches that tithing is mandatory in today's church, and you think it was only mandatory during the OT era. Or let's say the pastor teaches that all drinking of alcohol is evil, but you think drinking in moderation is okay. Stuff like that. I'm not talking about a pastor teaching really heretical stuff, because you'd be doing everyone in the church a favor by exposing the heresy.

It's really more of an issue and a common problem in the congregational churches than in liturgical circles. Still, it can come up anywhere. My rector has told me how he handles this sort of thing. If he hears of someone teaching error to one or two other members of the parish, he'll go to that person and gently correct them in private. If they do it in a public setting in the church (such as before, during or after Sunday School), he will gently correct them in public. If they persist, his correction will become not-so-gentle! The principle is, the rector is the one who leads, guides, and protects the parish faithful by preserving truth and doctrine, not the other way around.