Who has authority within the church? And how should that authority be exercised? These are very important questions. So what does Scripture and the patristic church (church of the first four centuries) tell us about the role of ministerial authority?
Let me say at the onset that the aim of this survey is not to substantiate the validity of clerical authority. It goes without saying that Scripture inarguably espouses that elders/pastors (these two are the same in Scripture) are vested with authority. This authority is of course bestowed upon them from the one head of the Church, Jesus Christ. Necessarily then, it must always be borne in mind that this authority is a representative or derivative authority in contradistinction to an autonomous or independent authority.
The latter expresses itself in a Christologically detached style of authoritarianism that is quick to magnify or accentuate the authority of the elder/pastor while being ever vigilant to promote or exercise that endowed authority carte blanche or without restraint. It is a quick to the trigger mentality. Submission is injuriously demanded through use of various different biblical verses or texts that underscore ministerial/clerical authority. These verses though, while indeed in the bible, are more or less used as leverage to bend someone or others to the will of the cleric wielding the authoritarian club. (This manner of governing is more comparable to the Nietzsche Ubermensch or "superman" myth and his theory pertaining to "the will to power". Frederich Nietzsche was a German philosopher who postulated that "might is right". In so doing he was asserting that the will to dominate is the zeitgeist (spirit of the age which is a defining mood), of every societal echelon bar none. In his myth of the “overman,” or “superman,” he presents the cult of a strong personality who overcomes the bourgeois world individualistically, operates beyond all moral norms, and is extremely cruel. This philosophy was the hotbed of Nazi thought and helped to give ideological substance to the the tyranny of the abominable German/Nazi Third Reich.)
Needless to say this way of governing is categorically opposed to biblical nomenclature. Christ likens such belligerent expressions of governance to the world of heathenism. When the disciples were arguing over who would be the greatest amongst them Christ's remark is nothing short of incisively corrective. (Luke 22:24-27) He proceeds to contrast how they are to lead and rule, knowing very well that they will be thrust into the ranks of being the harbingers of the church after His ascension. They would in fact occupy the place of unique "foundational stones" as the church's leaders and apostles. With this undoubtedly in mind he describes the way they are not to govern via negationis or by way of a negative analogy. His opening example of how not to govern is the Gentile or secular paradigm:
He said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who have authority over them are called benefactors" (Luke 22:25)
This manner of governance is authoritative and domineering. Christ even posits, with reference to this abusive aulhoritarian model, that those who willed authority more or less do so for some type of gain or advantage to them; thus rendering them benefactors. It is a form of authoritative usury. When you find a man within the clerical ranks who delegates or rather relegates while be completely uninvolved or withdrawn you will find the secular paradigm. These men elevate themselves above the exemplary service they are to render by using others to do it for them in the name of manipulative delegation, spiritual authority, or exemplary service. In so doing they rise to the place of papal primacy. They demand and insist upon some form of Gentile loyalty and commitment to their reign while never truly reciprocating loyalty and commitment to those under them.
This model necessitates that the person or persons being ruled or governed are only as important as their use. A congregants intrinsic worth or value is dictated by what you can do for them. Under this tyrannical rule persons are discarded when their use has run its course. If a person disagrees with the 'ruler' or 'governor' they are frowned upon and scorned until they are willed into submission by the authoritative position that is unabashedly lording over them.
Parenthetically, the proponents of dictatorial models and colonialism would remedy the problem by means of brute force and would usually disappear the threat to their oppressive rule. Interestingly, this is what the the ruling class of Judaism did with Christ...or so they thought. Their connivance against Christ was purposed to remove the threat to their abusive and uber-authoritative reign over Israel. Didn't Christ speak of the Pharisee's putting burdens on the people that they could not bear. Didn't Christ classify them as hypocrites because they would require things of the Israelites that they would not require of themselves. He also associated the ruling priestly caste of His day with those abusive and oppressive shepherds of ancient Israel (Eze.34 & John 10)...Hmmm. There seems to be a rather distinct portrait of what scripture eschews within the ranks of the clergy within the church.
This indeed contradicts incarnational ministry and the manner in which His ordained representatives are to conduct themselves. Christ inculcates for his disciples/apostles to rule and govern differently than the secular structure of lordship and usury enlarged upon in the preceding:
"But it is not this way with you, but the one who is greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like the servant" (Luke 22:26)
Peter appears to have grasped and internalized this leadership and governance model Christ envisaged and promulgated to the apostles. In his exhortation to the elders he proscribes governing "under compulsion" and for "sordid gain" while disapproving of, "lording it over those allotted to your charge". (I Peter 5:1-3) This seems strikingly familiar to the Gentile/secular paradigm Jesus rejected (above). In fact it is exactly the same. In stark contrast Peter expects that the elders will "exercise oversight... voluntarily", with "eagerness" while "proving to be examples to the flock." To exercise lordship when occupying a position of authority is repugnant to the offices Christ instituted within His Church.
Lording over the church and humankind in general also betrays creational design and thus original intent. Man was not created to be dominated in the same manner as the rest of creation. The one subject glaringly absent from the dominion mandate was mankind. (see Gen.1:26-30) Augustine posits, "God willed that man, who was endowed with reason and made to His image, should rule over none but irrational creatures; not over men but over cattle" (De Civ. Dei, xix. 15) Ministers or elders who noticeably govern their flocks in a dominating and domineering manner are not true elders within the borders of Christendom. Their sordid and maleficent governance is not biblically affirmed thus rendering them a maleversation (misrepresentation of office). They are a cancer that wreaks havoc on the flock through oppressive and brutal methodologies all the while using scripture to advocate their actions and measures. When this is done passages on authority are accentuated while passages on meekness and humility are egregiously discarded. The medieval Roman Catholic Church is of course the historical bane of this form of what has been coined as hierarchical monarchism. Within this structure the flock of God was treated slavishly and regularly oppressed by the RC's clerical orders.
Perhaps this is why Paul requires that elders/overseers are to be temperate, prudent, respectable, not pugnacious but gentle peaceable, not self-willed, not quick tempered, not fond of sordid gain, sensible, devout, self-controlled, not accused of dissipation or rebellion et cetera (II Tim.3 & Titus 1). Men who operate in a manner and method contrary to those characteristics are contrarians to biblical precedent and thus not true elders/pastors. They are thereby disqualified from office.
Lordship within the ranks of the ministerial ilk should never be embraced. Thomas Aquinas gives credence to this salient truth in his Summa Theoligica. He articulates what he describes as Mastership, within the ranks of those who execute official ministerial authority, having two fundamental meanings.
"First, as opposed to slavery, in which sense a master means one to whom another is subject as a slave. In another sense mastership is referred in a general sense to any kind of subject; and in this sense even he who has the office of governing and directing free men, can be called a master"
Aquinas of course gives approval to the latter definition and role of mastership, or governance. He goes on to better define this distinction by stating that the first definition of mastership involves a dominion that, "implies of necessity a pain inflicted on the subject" He of course maintains that scripture rejects this model of mastership or authority. While approving of the latter explanation of mastership he says in conjunction, "a man is the master of a free subject, by directing him either towards his proper welfare, or to the common good." This of course is congruous with the scriptural portrait of how churchmen are to govern and comport themselves. Aquinas concludes this article of his Summa by quoting Augustine:
"Just men command not by the love of domineering, but by the service of council", for "The nurtural order of things requires this; and thus did God make man" (Augustine, De Civ Dei xix.14)
A true churchman is acutely aware of his representative role as an authoritative figure in Christ's Church. He is acutely aware of his role and derivative position while consciously making painstaking efforts to walk humbly and contritely before the Lord. Ignatius (bishop during the late first and early second century) clearly understood the derivative nature of clerical authority when he stated in a written exhortation, "It is not I but the Lord Jesus through me," in an epistle he sent to the Philadelphians. He also perspicaciously recognized the limitations of authoritative endowment in saying, "For what is the bishop but one who beyond all others possesses all power and authority, so far as it is possible for a man to possess it." (epistle to the Trallians) He undeniably affirms the authority of the position he occupies as bishop but only insofar as that recognition is guided by an apprehension of humiliation. This understanding is why you will find his letters interspersed with prayers and requests for meekness as well as humility.
This mentality was predominant in the patristic church as can be seen in the following excerpts extracted from extant patristic letters:
"I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you. They were apostles of Jesus Christ, but I am the very least [of believers]; they were free (free =probably from human infirmity), as the servants of God; while I am, even until now, a servant" Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans - (Italics and emphasis mine)
"I do not ordain these things a as apostle: for "who am I, or what is my father's house," (I Sam.18:18; II Sam.7:18) that I should pretend to be equal in honor to them? But as your "fellow-soldier" , I hold the position of one who simply admonishes you" Ignatius to the Philadelphians - (emphasis mine)
"I do not issue orders to you, as if I were some great person.... Ignatius to the Ephesians
"Nor am I such a disciple as Paul or Peter" Ignatius to the Trallians
Polycarp rightly juxtaposed the gravity and authority of his letter to the Philippians with that of Paul's letter to them by acknowledging that "I, nor any other such one, can come up to the wisdom of the blessed and glorified Paul"
Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians
It is evident from this phraseology that it was not commonplace in the early church culture to presume upon ones clerical position as an office to dispense unconstrained and domineering authority!!!!! They deliberately distinguished themselves from their apostolic predecessors as well as the level of authority that they operated with.
"Having beheld your bishop,....whose meekness I was struck with admiration, and who by his silence is able to accomplish more then they who accomplish a great deal and his stability as well as freedom from all anger is after the example of the infinite meekness of the living God" Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians (emphasis is mine)
Speaking of Christ as the true shepherd over His flock Clement writes the Corinthians, "For Christ is of those who are humble minded, and not of those who exalt themselves over His flock. Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Sceptre of the majesty of God, did not come in the pomp of pride or arrogance, although He might have done so, but in lowly condition"
Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians Clement goes on to belabor the necessity of meekness and humility for many chapters.
To lord over the church of Christ is a dereliction of ministerial duty. To govern humbly while being ever cognizant of the derivative nature of the offices within the borders of the church is to glorify the King who is the only Head of the Church.
"Just men command not by the love of domineering, but by the service of council", for "The nurtural order of things requires this; and thus did God make man" (Augustine, De Civ Dei xix.14)
''Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive..'' This excerpt from Sir Walter Scott's poem, Marmion amorphously speaks to the effects of lies. The imagery of a "tangled web" immediately brings to mind the actions of a spider. A spider expends immeasurable effort and energy into constructing an elaborate web with the aim to trap its unsuspecting prey. This web of course serves as a feeding net of sorts. The spider waits in the periphery until its prey becomes entangled in its trap. Upon the preys entrapment the spider than moves in to devour its catch. Its sticky webs entangle the prey as the spider then proceeds to divest its meal of life and vitality. The spider then feeds on the object of its deception. The crafty arachnid derives satisfaction, nourishment and self preservation and the like from its victim. The art of deception is more or less a game of destructive consumption.
On the other hand it is beneficial to consider some alternate interpretation's of Scott's words from others besides myself. The following protions of commentary were ascertained from an inquiry into the meaning of Scott's phraseology:
1.) Deception is a false reality imposed on a true reality. It is a fragile and complex weaving of truth, half truths', lies and lies of omission. To successfully deceive another or several people, one must be skilled in the art of deception. To create a deception worthy of belief one must be able to create plausible details that help create the illusion of truth. It is the details that people listen to and remember and the one deceiving is obligated to remember these detail in order to avoid having the lie exposed. The problem with remembering the lies we tell is that all people are basically good and we tend to forget the bad things we've done. In order to successfully perpetuate deception, the liar must be willing to live that lie when necessary. This becomes the tangled web we weave, especially when first we practice to deceive.
2.) It means if you tell lies you'd better have a really good memory or you'll end up in a tangle of lies, half-truths and truths.
3.) Habitual liars can frequently be easily recognised because they like to keep various groups of friends and acquaintances separate for fear they'll exchange notes, thus causing the web to unravel.
4.) It's amusing to watch a confirmed liar finding themself at a function where, say, workmates and friends are present together; they fidget and glance nervously at the various groups...who'd probably never wonder about their tales except for their nervous behaviour.
5.) I think that the above explanations are very interesting, but would add that a web is what is woven by a spider, and its function is to trap flies with its stickiness; the more they wriggle to get away, the more they entangle themselves in it. Scott is warning us that the liar spins and weaves his own trap for himself, not realising he has done so until he's caught in it. Oo, nasty
6.) _______________________________ I wonder if some people try to deceive to keep others sleep
These six interpolations, though by no means exhaustive explications, do help to enlarge upon prevalent notions and conceptions of deception. I, of course, prefer my own aformentioned analysis germane to Scott's poem.
Nevertheless, the "web" undoubtedly represents an alien construct of the liar/deceiver or person perpetrating and perpetuating a false or untruthful reality of their own making. The reasons for such scheming are for present purposes inconsequential. A lie or deception is nothing more than an effort to alter someones perception of reality. More often than not it is done for the benefit of the pernicious deceiver to the detriment of the one being deceived. Lies or deception often masquerade as half truths, misinformation, selective memory, manipulation, information control, silent passivity, secrecy, word play, diversion, language games so forth and so on.
The account in Genesis of the serpent deceiving Eve is essentially an account of word play and language games that resulted in an altered reality. It goes without saying that Eve's credullity was the tool of her own descent into a sin altered reality. But her, as well as Adam's, fall into madness of sorts was not without a harbinger of deception and lies.
That agent of deception if you recall reared its ugly head in the wilderness with Jesus Christ. His methods were very much the same, as the devil employed half truths and lies of omission. Christ, as scripture records did not succomb to such verbally bellicose tactics. He did not allow himself to surrender truth for an alluring presentation of deception.
The ninth commandment of the biblical decalogue (Ex.20) speaks to this serpentine practice. Bearing false testimony against ones neighbor was considered a capital offence within rabbinical tradition. And Deuteronomic law proscribes that such a "malicious witness" and "false witness" who has "accused his brother falsely" have done to them what they sought to do; "you shall do to him as he meant to do to his brother" (Deut.19:15-21).
Moreover, if a man is aware of such a deception or sinful matter, "though he is a witness, wether he has seen or come to know the matter, yet does not speak, he shall bear his iniquity..(Lev.5:1). To ignore the "web/s" of deception is to be complicit in those very webs. To stand silently and passively by or to exercise selective hearing/listening in crimes of deception is the same as participating in them. In other-words, to ignore Scott's "web" is to find oneself trapped in that same web of deceit subsequently becoming assimilated into it and supporting its interwoven design of delusion.
"but as for...all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur.." (Rev.21:8)
Credo ut Intelligam
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
