– May 2012
Authority in the Church
The issue of authority in the Church has come down to us through the centuries on a sea of blood and fire. The pages of church history tell the story. You can read of men slain by the sword or burned at the stake for questioning or acting contrary to the authority of the church. At the heart of the Protestant Reformation was the issue of church authority. The reformers declared that Christ alone was the head of the Church and the Bible was the ultimate authority. Many of our ancestors left their native lands to escape the heavy hand of a state church whose authority exploited rather than liberated the souls of men. Even today, there is still a vigorous discussion by churchmen, scholars, politicians and laymen as to the church’s authority on everything from birth control to baptism.
This discussion over authority in the Church may sound somewhat benign and empty to most of the people who will read this article. Their religious world does not include popes, archbishops, bishops or councils! Churches within the holiness tradition function as self-governing communities or are affiliated with denominations that have a very limited form of top-down government. Neither approach, however, has allowed the holiness church to escape the discussion or the problem of authority. The Call to the Conservative Holiness Movement Article VI states that the CHM has been marked by “the spirit of autonomy and even anarchy. . . . Too often . . . we have exhibited rebellion against the authority structures which God Himself has established, boasting our independence of them, and refusing to submit to their godly discipline. This has been evidenced by continuing divisions among us, often over matters unconnected with allegiance to Scriptural truth.”
This is a part of the Call with which I am not completely comfortable. The movement obviously faces issues with authority, but I think the Call paints the CHM with too broad of a brush. I do not question the fact that there are those within the movement who have exhibited a spirit of autonomy and rebellion. There are those whose self-serving ways and arrogant love for their own opinion has indeed spawned unnecessary division and bred much confusion. I have watched with sadness as people have violated their word, ignored standards of ethical behavior, and broken membership vows while barely masking their obstinacy. We have all met an Absalom, an Adonijah or a Diotrephes who would not heed any counsel but their own or follow any path but one of their own making. But honestly, this has been the exception rather than the rule. On the contrary, most of the conservatives I know are more than willing to be led and are actually looking for leadership. They are quite willing to take very unpopular stands and live out countercultural lifestyles in obedience to their church and conscience. I see very little evidence that would indict them as rebels against Biblical authority or Biblically ordained authorities. This of course is my perception, but I believe it to be a fair one.
Rather than seeing them as rebels, I see something that may be construed as rebellion. I see confused, frustrated, and at times angry souls who are weary with leaders more willing to bow to church politics and fear than to lead with Biblical conviction and common sense. This weakness in leadership can and does produce reluctant and sometimes resistant followers, but none that should be called rebels. I see church attendees, both young and old, who lack a proper understanding of Biblical authority. I also see something else. I see a generational difference in how authority is viewed and understood. A failure to understand this generational difference may lead to labeling sincere, sanctified people as “rebels” who are only following their conscience and understanding as best as they can.
A Biblical Understanding of Authority in the Church
The concept of authority has fallen on bad times over the last few decades. In some places if you just say the word people react negatively. This should not surprise anyone since we have had a sad parade of politicians, policemen, professors, pastors and priests who have abused their authority and betrayed those who served under them. This abuse of authority has bred a culture of cynicism and suspicion. It has created an environment where good authority, God’s authority, is regularly questioned. The cure is not to abandon the important role of authority in our culture but to carefully proclaim what God says in His Word about authority. My comments in this article are limited to authority in the church.
The classic passage quoted in the Call and in most other discussions on church authority is Hebrews 13:17a – “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account. . . .” This is a powerful principle that serious Christians seek to follow. It is also one that has been so terribly abused that it needs clarification. First, no preacher, teacher or leader by virtue of their calling has been granted an inherent right to rule over other people. When I was ordained, I was given the authority “to preach the Word and administer the sacraments.” The only authority that any pastor, teacher or church leader has is the delegated authority that comes through the Word of God and relates to the “spiritual guidance and soul safety” of those under his responsibility. (Read Wesley’s Sermon On Obedience to Pastors.)
Secondly, the application of Hebrews 13:17 applies only to those leaders who are faithful. All through Scripture we are warned to beware of false teachers and false shepherds. How do you judge the false from the true? You judge them by their fidelity to the Word of God, both in what they say and how they live. Those who teach the Word faithfully and live it faithfully deserve our respect and obedience. The pastor or leader who claims authority based on his position, or seeks to make his opinion equivalent to scripture, or tries to use religion and false guilt to make one conform to his will is completely out of line with his Biblical authority.
Thirdly, the NT does not describe the kind of church organizations we have today. This does not mean it opposes today’s denominational structures, it just means that it primarily sees the visible church as a local community of believers led by a body of elders and deacons. However, it does speak quite forcefully to the issues of order, authority, submission, discipline and accountability. A person who has willingly joined a church or denomination and has given their pledge to obey the rules of membership ought to do so. They should honor and obey those in leadership and submit to the accountability and discipline of the church as outlined in the Scripture and the covenant of membership. If they fail to do so or at some point decide not to do so, they should willingly and quietly withdraw from membership.
Church Authority and Generational Differences
The Greatest and Silent Generations
Christians born in the first half of the 20th century are referred to as the Greatest (1902-1924) and Silent (1925-1945) generations. They were born into what is called the “modern era.” Their way of thinking and subsequently their worldview primarily reflects “modernity.” They have an innate trust for the institutions of government, education and religion. They highly value rules for morality, decency and conformity. Issues of right and wrong fall easily and distinctly into black and white categories. They understand the way the traditional church works, see membership as important and think nothing of just doing whatever the church or church manual says. They do not need exhaustive exegesis or detailed explanations for demands placed upon them. This is not to say that they do not think, it is only to say that these generations accept the rules without the need for “proof” or “explanation” because they believe in and trust the church and its leadership! Even in areas they personally do not understand or do not fully agree, they are willing to go along and do what the church or pastor says because they trust the authority structures and believe it is important to obey and conform to what they are told.
As this way of thinking worked its way out in the more conservative churches, there developed a subtle emphasis on conforming to “group cultural rules of conduct.” Conformity became more of a priority than the development of vital piety based on scriptural reflection. Living the rules with no grasp of the principle behind them became far too common. This resulted in at least two things worthy of observation: (1) Externals became the focus or “proof” of real heart change; (2) It became far too easy to “look right” and thus “be right” without any internalization of character or sound Biblical understanding of why they did what they did. I hope this will not be misunderstood as an indictment of insincerity or an accusation of hypocrisy – it is not! It is an attempt to explain how this generation tended to think and act. I do not question their earnest desire to please God!
This is the generation that pulled out of the Mainline Holiness Denominations and formed what is now called the Conservative Holiness Movement. This is the generation that embraced without question and lived without fear what their leaders and churches had taught them. When the Mother Church started changing values that had been held for decades, this generation voted with their feet and left the church. I believe their actions were rooted in two things: their convictions and their culture. Neither root is necessarily connected to rebellion. Were there rebels who opposed the authority of the church and who were involved in the “come out”? Of course! But the vast majority of come outers were men and women of godly character who were simply standing by the things they had been taught.
The Boomer, Buster and Millennial Generations
By the late 1960s and early ‘70s America had fully made a dramatic shift from the “modern era” to the “post-modern” era. The second generation of conservative holiness people (Boomers) was influenced by both modern and post-modern thought. You can see the influence of both in the way they think and act. The third and fourth generations of conservatives were primarily influenced by post-modernism. Post-modern Christians think quite differently from those in the modern generation. The post-modern generation does not have a natural trust of the institutions of government, education and church. On the contrary, they have a deep suspicion of these institutions and the power they wield. They reject “blind acceptance” of anything to the point of being cynical. They grew up in the “advertising age” and learned quickly you could not believe what you read on the cereal box or heard from the media. They look at all unsupported assertions with suspicion — especially those given in church. They do not simply swallow what is taught or preached. They ask questions and want answers. Just because the preacher says it is wrong doesn’t make it wrong for them. They want a clear, intellectually defensible, Biblical answer. If answers are not forthcoming, they reject the assertions. A large number of the early post-moderns were lost to the church because some leaders tragically confused “questions about Biblical truth” with “questioning the truth of the Bible” and classified them as compromisers or rebels.
The post-modern Christian rejects the carefully “air-brushed, compartmentalized, and rote cookie-cutter religious expressions of the previous generations.” They prefer religious spontaneity and authenticity over mere appearances. This has caused a post-modern generation to be slow in accepting all the traditional life-style values and standards of the conservative holiness movement. It’s not that they reject Biblical values, but rather they reject “cookie-cutter” conformity for the sake of just “looking the part” or fitting in to the culture. They want to know the reason and see the value of the thing they are being asked to do. I don’t believe they have rejected the traditional values because those values lack veracity but because they have been given without explanation and applied without flexible common sense. Parents whose post-modern kids grew up in complete conformity to these values while at home are shocked when those same kids jettison those standards after leaving home. It some cases the rejection flows from a rebellious worldly heart, but in many cases it does not. It flows from a heart that is seeking spiritual authenticity and from a mind that wants intellectual “buy in.”
Addressing the Problem
Rebellion is a strong word and should be used wisely. True rebellion against proper authority reveals a deeper rejection of God’s authority and should be treated as such. That’s why the Bible compares it to the sin of witchcraft and idolatry. Only the Holy Spirit can root out rebellion and replace it with submission by a radical change of one’s heart. However, if we are dealing with generational ways of thinking, then we need to understand and respond accordingly. Christians of all generations desire authenticity. Authenticity begins with honesty. We must be honest with who we are, honest about our biases and prejudices, and honest in our interpretation and application of scripture. Authenticity continues with a willingness to differentiate between what is scripture and what is tradition, what is principle and what is preference – clarifying the role of both. However, authenticity also means that we refuse to conform to any cultural thought that is wrong but that we confront “unbiblical thinking” in every generation with the Word of God.
Romans 12:1-2 offers some remarkable insight: “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.” We can only replace bad thinking with biblical thinking by the faithful application of the Word of God. The Holy Spirit can enlighten the mind with Biblical truth and change any way of thinking that does not align itself with God’s point of view. The Holy Spirit can also discern between resistance to generational thinking and acting and rebellion to Biblically ordained authority. If real rebellion is present, then repentance and the relinquishment of self to God in holy surrender is the only cure for the rebel within. We must have both, the radical change of hearts and the renewing of the mind, if we are to effectively deal with the problem of authority in this generation and in the ones to come.