A Question of Authority

Recently it was suggested to me rhetorically that I don't think we should submit to church leadership, based on a point I was trying to make about the church.  This raises a question.  What is the extent to which a church leader can exercise authority and I be expected to "submit"?

It comes down to a question of authority.  Really it does.  What authority do church leaders have?  Do they have the authority to tell me what I can eat and drink?  Do they have authority to dictate to me what movies I can and cannot watch, or even if I am allowed to watch movies at all?  Do they have the authority to dictate to me which translation(s) of the bible I may read?  Do they have the authority to tell me just how much I need to give, and how much I need to give to the church - their church?  And do they have the authority to demand to see my paycheck to make sure I'm giving the correct amount?  Do they have the authority to demand that I believe every jot and tittle of their church constitution, confessions, creeds and by-laws before I am allowed to attend?  Do they have the right to have control over the who, what, when, where, why and how of using my spiritual gifts in the edification of others?  Do they have the authority to tell me I cannot blog about theology?  Do they have the authority to determine whether blogging about theology is biblical in the first place?  Do they have the authority to tell me what kinds of cars I'm allowed to drive?  And, do they have the right to not be questioned about such things?

If they demand certain of these things, and their demands are beyond the authority given to them by scripture, may I act contrary to them?  Is there a higher authority over my life in these areas than church leaders?

No matter how absurd any one of these questions may seem - or all of them together - they are real questions that a great many people have to deal with on a daily basis.  Sometimes discernment on these issues may take a great deal of time.  Sometimes people notice over time that "submitting" to these things as put forth by church leadership results in bruises, aches and pains in life.  Then they start to question.  They may actually search matters out for themselves and come to the conclusion that they have been led astray all along.  Did Jesus or the disciples submit to all the teachings of the religious leaders of their day?  No?  Then why expect it from the rest of us?

Evangelicalism: Government Programs vs. Church Programs

It has been my observation in almost 20 years of exposure to conservative evangelicalism - and if your observation and experience are different, good for you and those you have observed - that there is a tendency to hold opposite practices in the church that one believes in for society.  It's a strange phenomenon for which I don't have an explanation.

Example.  Government programs.  Many conservative evangelicals (CE's) are not only conservative in their theology, they are conservative in their political and civil beliefs.  They will talk about the Christian values that made America great.  Freedom.  Freedom from civil tyranny.  Freedom of speech.  Freedom of religion, economic freedom, freedom of association, etc.  They despise government programs.  Red tape.  Bureaucracy.  Micromanagement, top-down nanny state.  They don't like the power the politicians have.  They hate socialism, communism and third world dictators.  They want small government with little interference.  They like private solutions to society's problems.  And although they don't really have a problem with people who work for others, they do have a special place in their hearts for the entrepreneur.  The innovative spirit.

But oddly enough, when it comes to the church, many of the things they despise about civil matters they adopt for the church.  They hate government programs, but love church programs.  Problem in society?  Let people work things out for themselves.  Problem in the church? Appoint a committee.  They hate when politicians cry for a tax increase, but will love when the pastor calls for a tithe and offering increase.  They don't like government red tape, but are just fine with numerous layers of church committees, micromanagement from leaders.  They can't stand despots, but the pastor?  He's da man and what he says goes.  They always point out when a politician is an elite that has never worked a real day of work in his life, but are perfectly fine with a pastor who spent years in seminary and has never worked a real day of work in his life either, and holds a full time paid position behind a desk in an office.  This kind of politician is "out of touch" with ordinary people, yet this kind of pastor is just what the church needs.

If the government were to engage in censorship, banning or burning of books, the CE would not only protest but call for getting those politicians out of office.  But in the church?  Well, the leadership needs to spend an extra amount of time reviewing all the books in our bookstore so nothing with questionable theology will be available to the congregation.  And what about spiritual entrepreneurs?  Freedom of speech in the church?  Freedom of religion in the church? (I'm assuming all hold to the Christian religion here, of course)  Do something out of the church program and you're a suspect.  To dissent in regards to a politician is a divine right, but to dissent in regards to a pastor is being divisive.

Again, these are my general observations.  Yours may vary, and I hope they do.

On Authoritarian Church Leadership

Recently the disturbing story about "church discipline" at Mars Hill church broke.  Mark Driscoll was in the spotlight again, and a new conversation about authoritarian church leadership started. (I will provide links in another post) Numerous other people commented and responded with blog posts of their own.  All of this came on the heels of the less popular topic of problems with CJ Mahaney and Sovereign Grace Ministries not long before.

One of the more interesting things to me as I read the story of "Andrew" and how he was treated by his church is that there are many more very similar stories out there about Mars Hill, SGM, and other like-minded churches.  I am no exception to this myself as I have attended my share of what I would call authoritarian churches.  The attitudes and treatment that others have received are similar to what I have experienced, both by myself and others I have known.

In upcoming posts I hope to comment on authoritarian churches, deal with some of the theological issues behind their ideas, and maybe relate my own stories.  I hope also to look at Andrew's story and the reaction to it that comes from all sides.  Authoritarian leadership has been a problem for God's people for ages.  Understanding it is a first step for Christians in dealing with it head on.

Not In The Bible Either, Rev. Sproul

A huge hat tip to Arthur Sido at The Voice Of One Crying Out In Suburbia for pointing out a post made by R.C. Sproul Jr. on the Ligonier Ministries website.  The title of Sproul Jr's post is "5 Things I'm Surprised I Can't Find In The Bible."  The title of Sido's post is "Make that six things" and you can use your imagination as to why.

Sproul Jr. lists five things that are relatively unclear in the bible.  They are: 1) Proper form of church government; 2) Proper form of a service of worship; 3) Proper form for preaching the word; 4) Proper way to move from single to married; and 5) More information on the incarnation and the Trinity.  But contained in Sproul's No. 1, Sido finds No. 6, with my emphasis added:

The Bible is crystal clear that women are not to rule in the church, and that we are to submit to the elders over us. See Hebrews 13 for the latter.  Thus the Reformers were correct to list discipline as a mark of the true church. If you are not under the authority of name-able specific elders, you are not part of the visible church and thus do not have a credible profession of faith. You should get under authority.

Sido has some choice things of his own to say about this, some of which I'll lift and place here:

It always bothers me and should always cause you to pay close attention when someone airily claims that a whole chapter of Scripture [Sido references Heb. 13 in his argument] supports the point they are making without attempting to engage in the text at all and you should especially be on guard when they make statements with enormous implications to your very salvation based on these sweeping generalities. The idea that if you are not a member of a “proper” local church with name-able elders who carry out church discipline that you don’t have a credible profession of faith is a dangerous and Scripturally untenable statement. It sounds sweet to the ears of those who embrace certain church traditions but to question the salvation of someone because they don’t cling to your ecclesiastical traditions is arrogant and prideful.

And he concludes with:

 

The lesson here is that just because someone refers to a passage of Scripture and is published by a famous ministry doesn’t mean you should just take them at their word, especially not when they are questioning the salvation of other Christians.

Now I want to bring up the point I was making in my previous post on Ezekiel 34.  God's sheep can be lost, scattered, dominated, sickly, diseased, broken, wandering and slaughtered all at the hands of shepherds who did not care properly for the sheep.  And God doesn't blame the sheep in that passage.  Many people today who aren't currently involved in a church, or maybe are but are minimally involved, or who even are completely involved but haven't "signed the dotted line" of the membership papers can all fall under the pronouncement of Sproul Jr. and others who believe similar things.  I love to hear Christians' testimonies and life stories.  It amazes me how many people - including devout pastors - have had short periods of time or even seasons of their lives without the kind of church involvement Sproul Jr. speaks about.  And for many of these people, myself included, having your spirituality, level of humility or even salvation continually questioned or doubted doesn't help the cause any.  Especially for those who are younger in the faith.  Men like Sproul Jr. need to stop the "my way or the highway" authority trip and see God's sheep for who they are.  God's.

Proper Church Authority and Submission To It

Ron McKenzie at Blessed Economist paints a portrait of pastoral authority in the church and what submission to that authority looks like. What Ron describes looks nothing like what most of the church today looks like. Quoting:

Christian submission is different from worldly submission, because its purpose is protection against error. Christians submit to an elder by giving the elder permission to speak in to their life. ... The elders will know the Christian well, so they will notice any mistakes. Elders have authority ask the tough questions, that no one else will ask. ... Elders must know their disciples well enough to see their hidden mistakes, and they must love them enough to challenge them, even at the risk of losing their friendship. Many Christians fall away when they make a bad decision or slip back into persistent sin. This often happens, because no one loves them enough to challenge them, at the time of their first mistake.

I constantly hear of people leaving churches in large numbers. What I never hear is how these people departed only after the shepherds left the other 99 sheep in the flock to pursue them. Either shepherds don't know their sheep or they know enough about how to control them with improper authority that they leave. I suspect both in today's evangelicalism.

Church Government: I've Recently Changed Positions

There are and have been numerous forms of "church government" now and throughout history. But the "biblical" form of government, or so I have been taught in my circles, is the one known as "elder rule." Churches are independent from denominations or other outside influences, but within the church, the ordained elders rule within the congregation. The ideal of a plurality of elders (the term "elder" is interchangeable with "pastor", "overseer" and "bishop") is the guiding principle to prevent authoritarian dictatorship by one man.

But I'm now convinced of a different form of church government. I'll call it the "Christ rule/elder servant" model. Jesus told his disciples that whoever wants to be first among us shall be servant of all. I see from the bible that godly leaders lead by example, not by dictation, overlording, politics or the like. The pastor/elder position is a ministerial position, not a magisterial one. Followers witness a life of self-control in their leaders and then imitate that life. According to Galatians 5 it is self-government, and not church government, that is the fruit of the Spirit.

The problem I think lies in the common view (taught in the seminaries, unfortunately) that the church is not an organism but an institution. In an organism, which is what the body of Christ is, Jesus and the Apostles through Scripture delegate authority directly to individual believers over their own lives, the use of their own gifts, the working out of their own salvations, the carrying out of their own responsibilities to love one another, the very work of the ministry itself, and on we can go with this. So much authority is delegated directly to individuals that not much authority is left over for the pastors. Yes, they have the authority to preach, teach, exhort, admonish and rebuke, but it is the individual believer that must apply these things to their own lives. This is the sense that Scripture says to obey our leaders.

But in an institutional idea of church, those formally trained in theology see that the Scriptures say very little, if anything at all about government of an institution. They then take this lack of restriction as liberty to govern how they see fit. This would of course be true if the church were an institution, but it's not. The result is close to a totalitarian bureaucratic system run by the clergy with little decision making by individuals. This can lead to the individual believer feeling like he can do nothing without the approval (in triplicate form sometimes) from the leadership. When multiple generations have been taught and experienced this junk, then it is all the tougher to debunk. The pastor(s) is(are) the man(men) in charge, mainly because they completely miss the delegated authority to individuals.

Since all this authority comes directly from Christ ("all authority has been given to me....") it is a "Christ rule" model that the bible outlines.

Jesus: A Man With No Credentials

Gene Redlin at Northern Gleaner posts this about Jesus' higher education:

Maybe the fact that we think we need so many Doctors in the modern church in America is because we really are SICK.