As you know by now, Steve Hays over at Triablogue and I have
had another difference of opinion regarding a theological issue. We have been
going back and forth over the issue of authority in the Christian Church. So
far, Steve has said that Christians need so submit to Scripture since we all
have access to Scripture and can read it for ourselves. I have challenged this
thinking, accusing Steve of taking a purely pragmatic approach to biblical
submission. Specifically, Steve’s statement implies that the command for
Christians to obey and submit to their elders was given only until such time as
the canon was completed. Once we had the canon, well, we could read it for
ourselves. Therefore, according to this line of reasoning, we no longer need
elders conferred with authority to whom we should submit. In addition, Steve
has argued vociferously that there are numerous false churches and false elders
in existence today and this leaves the Christian with little choice, than to be
their own self-attesting authority regarding which session of elders they
should obey.
Contrary to this line of reasoning, there were false elders,
preachers, pastors, and prophets in antiquity as well. This did not deter the
NT authors from commanding believers and instructing Christian communities to
obey and submit to one another and to their elders. What shall we say in
response to Hays? I have already said quite a bit. But there are a few more
things I wish to drive home as I leave this discussion. My hope is that this
blog will provoke others to take an honest look at what Scripture teaches about
ecclesial authority rather than take mine or Hays’s word for it.
First, I want to review Hays two objections and then provide
a brief survey of the NT teachings on authority, eldership, and some practical
steps for how a Christian must relate to their elders even during times when
they think God is moving them in a different direction as far as ministry goes.
Does the completion of the New Testament Canon nullify the
biblical command to obey and submit to one’s elders? In order for this to be
true, the sole purpose of elders had to be for the dissemination of the
teachings and dogma of divine revelation. Once this revelation was committed to
writing, collected, acknowledged, and preserved, the office would no longer be
needed to carry out this duty. Hays may retort that he has made no such
argument. However, his rejoinder that we submit to Scripture would be entirely
meaningless if this were the case. In addition, nowhere has Hays even attempted
to present a positive case for biblical submission. He has only spouted off
about how wrong Frank Turk and Ed Dingess are about the matter. There is no
exegetical or even philosophical support for the argument that individual
access to authoritative revelation nullifies the need for obedience and submission
to elders and the body of Christ. Presumably, if one does not have to submit to
their elders, then they would not have to submit to the local body either.
After all, what is true of false elders is equally true of false communities.
In fact, I would argue that it is nigh impossible to have a true body if the
elders are false. If Hays is right, then not only are we under no obligation to
obey a session of elders, we are not obligated to obey the local Christian
community either.
In Hays view it seems then, that the command to obey and
submit to one’s elders and to one another was only applicable until we closed
the canon in the fourth century. Even if we move beyond Hippo and Carthage to
Athanasius, that puts us at around 300 years for these commands to be in
effect. But there is still a problem with this thinking. If Hays is right, it
really does not depend on the objective closing of the canon, but rather the
subjective ability of the individual to read it. Hence, for those who cannot
read, we must presume the command remained firmly in place. And this is a
serious problem. I wonder if Hays has actually given this view the
consideration it deserves. Even in our day, there are Christians who cannot
read the Scriptures. There are cultures where there are no Scriptures. This
would mean that the idea of biblical submission, and obedience to one’s elders
and the local Christian community would be remarkably different from culture to
culture. In one culture, where men have access and can read, the command may be
ignored for all intents and purposes. However, for the next culture where the
situation is different, Christians may still be required to toe the line in
terms of obedience and submission.
It seems to me that Hays’s view of ecclesial authority is
radically pragmatic, not to mention entirely arbitrary. If it is true that
Scripture is our sole authority, then where exactly does that authority itself
instruct us that we are free from our obligation to submit to elders and to one
another? Nowhere does the authoritative, divine revelation of Scripture ever
inform us that we are no longer obligated to submit and obey once we ourselves
can read the text. Hays seems to rest this argument on absolutely nothing in
the text whatsoever. There isn’t an ounce of exegetical support for the position
that the command for obedience and submission was temporal. I suspect this is
why Hays has refused to provide a more robust response, choosing rather to
engage in what I deem to be foolish and childish satire when what is needed is
an honest and respectful discussion in a Spirit of love and respect.
Does the principle of the authority of Scripture in any way
negate the concept of authority within the Christian Church? The view that
access to the authority of Scripture somehow negates the command to submit to
our elders and to one another is a logical non-sequitur as well as a
self-refuting position. Why it is a non-sequitur? The reason it does not follow
is because the nature of the authority of Scripture is non-derived and final
while the nature of the authority of the church is derivative and imperfect.
The authority of the Church is imperfect because it involves human beings with
a sin nature. It is derivative because it is informed entirely by Scripture.
The Word of God was just as authoritative in its oral form in the ancient
Church as it is in its written form. One has just as much access to it when
they hear it rightly as they do when they read it rightly. If Scripture
commands us to submit to the Christian community while at the same time informing
us such submission is not necessary because we have Scripture as our authority,
the command is reduced to absurdity. In essence, Scripture would be commanding
us to do something while instructing us that we do not have to do it after all.
As it turns out, the authority of Scripture, rather than being the ground for
no authority in the Church turns out to be the very ground of all authority in
the Church. The entire principle of loosing and binding in Matt.18:15-20 is
founded on the idea that the authority of heaven is bestowed on the Christian
community in matters of sin and forgiveness.
Does the presence of false elders invalidate the NT command
for Christians to obey and submit to elders? There were false elders everywhere
in the NT world. Nearly every NT project was written to deal with false
teachers in some way. The existence of false teachers would be all the more
reason for us to submit to godly elders, and to one another. It does not follow
that false paths produce a state of affairs that lead to individual
self-determination and sufficiency. Exactly the opposite is true. The last
thing the NT authors had in mind was that Christians would eventually become,
as in America, islands unto themselves. But this is precisely where the
hermeneutics of Hays leads us. At the end of the day, in Hays logic, I will
determine for myself what Scripture teaches and I have no obligation to submit
to anyone with whom I disagree, to include my pastor, my elders, and my Church.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is American Christianity at its core. It is why we
are in the mess we are in today. Each Christian believes and does what is right
in his own eyes. Unity and diversity has been swallowed up by individual
autonomy.
Finally, what are the consequences of a Christian community
without authority? There would be no way such a community could call on the
authority of Scripture with any conviction whatsoever. She would be powerless
to impose Scripture’s commands in any manner. How could she deal with the
heretic? Someone has to bear the sword. Given that she has no authority, and
each person’s hermeneutic is as valid as the next, what would her basis be for
purging folly and leaven from her community? How could she deal with the man
who took his father’s wife for himself in ancient Corinth? Would there be any
way she could put those out who refuse to follow Paul’s commands as Paul instructs
in Thessalonica? How would she address the impenitent? By what mechanism could
she ensure continuity in leadership for the next generation? Hays offers no way
through this maze of devastation. In addition, we end in doctrinal skepticism
and moral relativism. In other words, Hays’s approach brings us to the current distressing
and contemptible state we see today. No doctrine of the Church is secure and no
practice so sacred that even the most inexpert among us can recast it into whatever
his heart desires.
I need to say one final thing about the consequences of
Hays’s view. One of the single greatest challenges confronting the contemporary
Church in America is the complete lack of accountability. The nature of sin
that continues to confront the Christian after conversion demands that we be
held accountable for everything from our beliefs, and our thinking, to our
daily behavior. Accountability furnishes the indispensable structure required
for spiritual growth. Hays’s view, as I understand it, seemingly offers no accountability in support of spiritual
growth and in defense of heresy and immoral behavior. This is because, after
all, each person must decide for themselves what to think, and how to live. And
this they will do without any oversight from anyone else. After all, we can
read a commentary the same as our brothers and sisters and elders.
Accountability is destroyed in this paradigm. Accountability only works if
there is someone to whom we feel obliged, responsible.
A brief survey of biblical texts that show that genuine
Christianity would collapse absent the authority paradigm. Matt.18:15-20 sets
out the guidelines for when the Church must act to remove the impenitent
from her community. You see, without some sort of authoritative structure, the
Church is lacks the mechanism necessary to keep leaven from the body. The
Church is said to be a light on a hill, a city that cannot be hid. But if the
Church has no authority to keep darkness from her ranks, how on earth is she
able to continue to be this light? The answer is simply that she cannot.
Acts 20:28 commands the Ephesian elders to watch out for
themselves and for the flock of God over which God has made you overseers.
Implicit in this oversight is authority: the authority to influence and lead
into truth, sanctification, and spiritual growth. Without followers,
submitters, there would be no one to watch over.
1 Peter 5:1-5 gives us great instructions for how godly
elders are to lead. They are to exercise oversight, meaning they have
responsibility for the care of the saints. They are to do this not by
compulsion but voluntarily. In addition, they are not to lord it over the
community allotted to their charge, but instead they are to be examples. This
is to say that their authority is not secular, not Roman, not worldly. But it
is authority nonetheless. Without some sort of authority, this function would
be impossible. Think about it from this perspective: if the congregation were
filled with one-hundred Steve Hays, how would the elders ever be able to carry
out this service? I submit that it would not be possible. After all, Steve has
access to the very same authority these elders have and he does not need their
oversight. In addition, Peter informs the young men to submit to their elders.
This word means to submit to the orders or directives of someone. This word is
in the imperative mood, indicating it is a command. In other words, this is not
an option. How can such a situation exist without authority? It simply cannot.
1 Th. 5:12 tells us that we are to appreciate those leaders
who have charge over us in the Lord. Once more, this points us up to a formal
structure of authority already established very early in the Church. Such a
structure is obviously necessary for the spiritual welfare of the Christian
community. Without it, we are like a ship at sea without a compass. Spiritual
growth is impossible. Doctrinal purity is impossible. Unity of values is
impossible. Each man does what is right in his own eyes.
Paul informs Timothy (1 Tim. 5:17) that the elders who rule
well are considered worthy of double honor. There is no question that elders
are placed out front, in charge of the very health of our souls individually as
well as collectively as a community. It is heavy load to carry but a most
rewarding one as well.
Acts 16:4 is a perfect picture of ecclesial authority as it
relates to the Galatian controversy. As a result of this controversy, the
apostles and elders sent out a decree that was to be observed by the Gentile
Christians. This decree carried inherent, implicit authority.
The authority paradigm is anchored, not only in Scripture
but is everywhere present in the context of group thought in Mediterranean
cultures. The idea was indispensable to the social setting of that time. The
authority of the collective group was one each person willingly submitted to in
that culture. This is true to a very large degree even to this day. The idea is
radically antithetical to the extreme individualism we witness in American
culture. This is why it is so difficult for us to appreciate and understand.
The group would police its own. The group had inherent authority to shame and
excommunicate anyone who insisted on not identifying with it by living up to
its values. The Christian group’s authority is derived from Scripture. As such,
it has the authority to excommunicate anyone who is not actually part of the
group by dealing harshly with obstinate behavior.
No comments:
Post a Comment