A response to the comments of the previous blog

Well,

The last post seemed complicated. We talked about grace, we talked about church, we talked about history. I want to focus things back a bit. I want to get on that razor edge line that slices through the different understandings of authority by C's and P's. I know that there are a great many understandings of authority from the P side, and I haven't even discussed the Orthodox which is a shame. Anyway....

Let us take a step back and just talk about authority in general. Some one who has authority demands what? Respect and obedience. Now, there are levels of authority too. So I will respect my dad and obey him differently than I would a teacher or police officer. Are we in agreement so far?

So, how did God set up authority in his Church? I think we would all agree that any authority the Church has, it gets from God. So insofar as the chuch acts in accordance with God's will, its authority is true. No one should obey someone who poses as a police officer right? So, there must be a continuity between the Ultimate Authority and the human authority that claims to be under the Divine one.

My hunch is, that RC's believe that God gave MORE authority to the church, meaning there is more for the individual to obey and conform to. So authority of the church is more like a Fatherly figure, hence the phrase, "Habemus Papam" (we have a father!).

My hunch is that most Protestants see the church as more like a John the Baptist, pointing to the gospel, saying "look at this! It's the Gospel, come live it with us!"


Now, assuming these two quick classificaitons are correct (I'm sure you guys will not just assume it, but anyways) which one has more credibility from both Old and New Testaments and which had more credibility from history?

My initial thoughts:

The Old Testament: There was a sense in the OT that God was really in charge. That EVERYONE, including the king, had to answer to him. But underneath God, you had the priestly side of things and you had the prophetic side of things. The priests definitely had an authority, but what was it's nature? Well, you relied on the priests to bring the sacricial offerings to God for your sin. So while the priest himself didn't forgive you, he made it possible for you to receive forgiveness. The prophetic tradition was more moral in its scope and claimed to speak God's words directly. And God seemed to punish those who refused to listen to the prophets.

The New Testament: Jesus, is very critical of the established Jewish authority, especially in issues of morality and hypocrisy. He didnt' seem to challenge their doctrine, except when he believed they were putting human custom over the Scriptures. He also challenged the Sadducees about the resurrection and afterlife. Moving on to the disciples, they seemed to have power that was similar to Jesus'. They healed people, the preached like Jesus did, they pronounced punishments on church members, corrected people, etc. We have the passage where Jesus apparently gives Peter the keys to the kingdom and tells him he has the power to forgive or not forgive. Is this directed at Peter specifically or is it representative of the disciples in general?

Early Church: The church started off, going to the temple to worship, etc. But they didn't seem to report to the Jewish leaders. They formed their own communities which were designed for prayer, fellowship, communion, etc. As Nick noted, the bishop was seen as a very important figure, one, that stood in the place of the apostles after they died. They were seen as a continuation of the authority given by Christ to the first apostles.

I sort of see the priestly and prophetic offices running parallel lines throughout history and i wonder if RC's follow the more priestly side while most Protestants would be more along the prophetic side.

I must also say, a lot of this has to do with your view of history. RC's seem to think it's easier to read God's providence off the face of history than do most Protestants. Both sides read their history with bias.

In summary, I think we should think about what authority has looked like throughout Jewish and Christian history. I think we should probably privlege what Jesus has to say on the matter, but not ignore those before and after him. My main problem with Catholic authority is its treatment of dissent. Wasn't the major error of the Jews their refusal to listen to the prophet? the one individual, outside of the authority structures? It seems from a biblical standpoint, Jesus was very angry about that type attitude. I don't fully understand how dissent works in the Catholic church. On the Protestant side, there seems to be a problem DEALING with dissent. There is no collective voice. It seems like this balance has always been a fine issue in Jewish history and in the early church.