I know we didn't completely finish the conversation initiated in the last blog, but with all the comments it gets a little long. So this time around I will keep my first blog concise with a question of clarification:
I would like to invite any protestants out there to explain to me if there is any human authority (councils/creeds, pastors, popes, bishops, ?) that you see as being in line with God's authority and therefore binding on you in your thoughts or actions.
EZE and Balthacalvin, I would especially encourage you to let me know what you think.
Thanks.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
27 comments:
I'd agree. I tried to post a similar sentiment, but there were technical difficulties and I think it got lost in the blogosphere somewhere.
Anyway, Jesus showed authority, but he also served the disciples by washing their feet. In this sense, I think that a true authority isn't the leader on the stage, but lowly people as well.
The kind of community I believe Jesus to have envisioned is one where the Spirit moves through everyone differently and so it takes the whole community to truely have "authority" as they listen to God and read Scriptures.
theyod,
I think your specific question will def. help shape this conversation more towards what you are looking for. There are a couple of things that I'd like to clarify for discussion's sake, so I'm not necessarily saying this is what you think:
1. Is there any human authority in line with God's authority? If one means by "authority in line with God's authority" that a person may posses in his/her own being the power to govern the church and create doctrine then the answer is unequivocally no.
God does not "give" authority to individuals that they may posses it--this would completely compromise the ongoing presence and work of Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit.
2. If there is any type of human authority will it be binding? If you mean by this must I believe everything that the church/creeds/fathers etc. teach/declare or burn in hell then the answer is again most assuredly no. As we all know there are certain allowances within the one holy catholic church--room for the human misinterpretations if you like.
With those no's out of the way I would like to give what I think you long to hear about protestants theyod, but just can't seem to believe. Yes, protestants do recognize human authority as valid in the order and governance within the church--most even affirm a type of hierarchy. The central factor for P's is that 1. Christ is the head of the church, 2. Christ is still present among us through the HS doing the work of the Father, and 3. The role of the church is gospel oriented. A whole lot needs to be filled in after these statements, but I'll cut to the most minimal point pertaining to this discussion. Christ himself speaks and works through the Holy Spirit within the offices of the church i.e. apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers etc. It is not the individual who possesses authority, but the office which he/she is called to. What's the difference? The first relegates the work of Christ to days gone by and claims to continue Christ and the Spirit's sanctifying work in his own human person; the second continually subjects the individual to Christ's living presence acting as a servant--nod to blorge--to the saints. Fellow Christians can mutually honor the authority of the office whether they like the individual or not because it is Christ/the Word of God they are subjecting themselves to. The authority is really always God's authority--as humans we simply "indicate" the living presence and authority of Christ's own self. This is how this authority can be binding, because it is the Lord of life commanding. We are not bound to follow another Christian in a particular office simply because they hold the office, but because, as they continually subject themselves to Christ/the Word of God, we know that Christ is addressing us through them. Is there a level of subjectivism here--I mean what is to stop the ______(insert generic name here) from going across the street to Eagle Community Church? Yes--nod to baltha--, a type of subjectivism which sees the church of God as the gathering of the saints bound to eachother in Christ, and not simply self-sufficient individuals who happen to believe the same things. We do not become our own Popes, but in conjunction with the rest of the church we "test the spirits". Nothing will stop the (generic xn name) from simply leaving one church for another except faithful subjection to Jesus Christ, because it is not necessarily the pastor they are kicking against, but Christ himself (of course most people hop from church to church for cosmetic reasons--which indicates something severe, nevertheless the same couuld be said for C's). It seems like there will always be (generic names) in the West who continue to hop from church to church. This doesn't necessarily indicate a lack of human authority within protestant churches as much as faithlessness to Christ, consumerism and perhaps--and this could be and has been just as prevalent for the C's--a squandering of the offices of the church by those called to them.
This certainly doesn't cover other important things that need to be said here, but who like to read 3 inch columns 10 miles long?
Yes! I agree with a lot of how you 3 articulated things. Maybe I'm not Catholic after all? :)
But, I think it's obvious from history that the people involved in the council of Nicaea and Constantinople, Chacledon, etc. thougth they were definitively and authoritatively laying out doctrine for Christians. None of you believe this and our departing from the majority position in Church history. So, do you care to explain yourselves a bit?
theyod,
All that work and that's all I/we get? Alright this time you get the low budget version!
Why did you think I was denigrating councils? They hold an extremely important position within the church's life. The reason they are important though is that they attempt to expound Scripture. Councils are not authoritative because they are councils or because they are presided over by bishops. Councils that come together in the name of Christ will subordinate themselves to Him. Councils that push for doctrine etc. outside of what Scripture proclaims overstep their boundaries. Should we account councils the same priority as Scripture? Simply put--No. I'm not sure how you think the C's do any better job by saying that councils are "authoritative" when they are able to reverse decisions and contradict each other throughout history. I still really feel like you are holding onto some kind of static idea of authority that God gives over to the church as a possession.
Well, I think "static" today is considered a bad word. All the cool kids are dynamic
That's besides the point. I think you guys have a misguided sense of how authority works in the RC church. For example, E, you say that the councils contradict each other. okay, well that's a negative spin on it. A positive spin would be they adjust and react according to current context. Which seems to be very dynamic to me.
I'll write more later. Nick any thoughts?
Blorge, John Henry Newman (as a catholic) would say the same things you are saying about the importance of the laity. Don't you ever think though that your description of an egalitarian community might be shaped more by American Democratic culture than by Scripture? I feel like in my own life, I may have let that happen. But who knows.
Balthacalvin,
You are completely right that my last post was way of topic. I think it just came out of my suspicion that you guys mean "dynamic=the real life of the holy spirit=protestant" and "static=heavy handed authority, lifeless rules=Catholic." But, that is what i used to think, so maybe I am projecting.
Ok, back to the points of clarification that E mentioned.
1. RC's would agree with your "no." there. RC's do NOT create doctrine. RC's do NOT believe that a person has in themself the power to govern the church.
2.Here I think that finding the RC position is more complex. I did seem like they pick and choose their fathers/creeds.
Then you go on further in your post to say three more points, that, in their concise form there, I think a Catholic could easily say as well.
And your distinction between office and person is one Catholics would make as well.
You say:
"Fellow Christians can mutually honor the authority of the office whether they like the individual or not because it is Christ/the Word of God they are subjecting themselves to."
I think C's could agree to that. I think C's would use a lot of the same language you are using. Could you articulate how RC's are different than what you said in your in your first post?
EZE,
You said:
"I still really feel like you are holding onto some kind of static idea of authority that God gives over to the church as a possession." I do feel like God gives authority to the church and they do posses it. But it is because the church is possessed first and foremost by Christ, his living body. I think that you are making a such a radical distinction between God and humanity/church. I am uncomfortable with that.
i guess there is no difference then!! i don't know what the heck the reformers were thinking.
you are uncomfortable distinguishing God from humanity? maybe we should be talking about something esle then!
the church is called into creation by christ at every moment, you seem to want to speak about some type of participation, which makes me uncomfortable because it infringes on Christ's present work--his actuall life giving and sustaining work right now.
what is your conception of grace again?
EZE,
I think the Reformers were living in a different era and the absues they saw might not be applicable today. That's why i'm trying to update my understanding of RC.
Second, i do think there is a distinction bet. Humanity and God, obviously. But, maybe i have a less clear idea of what that is.
I think I do see something of participation going on in the Church.
Lastly, I think I have a really confused idea about what grace is right now. I can't nail it down exactly, but here's a preliminary idea. grace is the presence of God in sinful human life that establishes a relationship betwen God and human. Is that vauge enough for you or what? :)
Oh, i would also like to expand grace to include fallen creation. Maybe? I don't want to be too anthropocentric.
(a shake of the head)
I'm not really sure what to say theyod--the reformation may have begun over "abuses" but it blossomed into a quite substantial theological differenciation. I don't think those theological distincitions have changed much. Also I think i'm tired of the way these conversations are playing out. I feel like balthac and I are putting ourselves out there to be examined and taken apart. I'd like to see more of what you think--because obviously I am much closer to what you think catholicism is than I do.
sorry,
I'm not trying to rip you guys apart. You guys have really given me a lot of important things to think about.
I wish I could give you guys a more substantial argument for what I believe. I think maybe the usefulness of the direction of these posts is used up. Maybe now after all this discussion, I can come to a clearer understanding of what I am believing.
I'm sorry if I am saying that you are basically C. I don't mean to put words in your mouth. I'm just really trying to find the deep down difference between RC and C on authority. And maybe it is just the obvious statement that RC's see God acting through the Roman hierarchy, councils, and unwritten tradition as much as he was acting in the Bible. Maybe it just comes down to accepting that position or the Protestant one on faith. It probably does and we are just spinning our wheels here.
Now there is the sensible theyod I'm looking for--thank you for your kind words.
although...not to spin our wheels any more than necessary it seems like a little jab to say that Catholics think that God is working as much today in councils/church etc. as he did in the bible--surely protestants believe that as well, perhaps i'm just over reading you :)
true dat Balthavoncalvinstein!!
EZE,
the comment wasn't meant as a jab. I'm part charistmatic remember? I think P's have the Spirit working in their midst. I just meant that RC's have a different conception of this AND, many in the charismatic world would see the RC's as dead and lifeless. I was just trying to correct those things.
Balthamacher, what do you mean, "don't for get to spite" ?
What would you dudes think of me using Noll's Book, "Is the Reformation Over" to continue this convo? Or are we board to death of this topic and we should revisit it later?
peace twice,
tim
theyod,
I haven't read Noll's book so you'd have to fill me in--i'd be up for a bit more. I also wouldn't mind causing some chaos in a different area.
Yod,
I'm not sure how to answer your question. First, I'm still trying to think through whether I'm reading my culture into the text, or not so I don't know if I can answer that right now.
Second- I would like to point out that the early church took existing ideas and concepts and included them in their polity. This also happened later on when the Roman empire fell, they took Roman structures and imported them to the church. I'm not saying it was an event or that they were intentionally doing this, it's just that we take what we know and we use it in a new way.
Third- the church I envision is not democratic, it is anarchaic, communistic, missional, blah, blah blah. I'd argue that a better root metaphor is that of family and that whichever ways families operate in culture, the Church should use in Christianized ways to reflect the fact that we're all God's children.
theyod,
I've read a whole bunch of summaries and reviews of Noll's book. I think it might be good to discuss some of the stuff in it, but in the end I don't think the answers it provides will deviate a whole lot from our discussion. There are still some highly significant theological differences--especially as we've been discussing--in the area of ecclesiology. My hunch is that even though the sticking point between P's and C's now seems to be ecclesiology instead of perhaps soteriology they both run straight back to the same thing: the nature of grace and the means of its communication--as perhaps you may remember (a loving smile here) is what I initially was all in a huff about in the very first post :) What do you think, should be explore the book a little? I really want to push you theyod to find out what the new found similarities between P's and C's has done for you. What issues should compel us to become Catholics, or maybe admit that we already are? (i know you'll want to answer that question first, but don't forget to comment on the first part of this) What say you balthac., Nick and blorge?
What's with updating your book list but not responding to us you fish. Don't you know we live and breath this blog!! Get it goin theyod.
hehehee,
Yeah, it's easier to fiddle with technology than answer you geniuses. I'm at a point where I'm going to have to hold off on the blogging for a bit because I have a billion papers due and its the end of the semester. So, don't expect much from me.
While theyod's away we could develop a diff. conversation on my blog site. I haven't written anything on it in a while but I did reformat it a little. I think balthac. and theyod would appreciate its new title. same address: ezetheo.blogspot.com
I think it would be great to have balthac. give us a topic to pursue. Let me know if you want to and i'll create a new heading and you can just post on there baltha. Then we can get theyod hooked on a diff. topic and really try and draw the secret catholic side of him out.
I'm not going to draw the secret Catholic side of him out 'cause I'm not Catholic, and because then I won't be able to call him a "closet case" anymore. Well, there's always that other thing, too...
Its like a ghost town up in here. You better get'r cranked back up again--being that i'm in the USA again!! Write me.
Post a Comment