CHAPTER THREE: CHRISTIANITY

CHAPTER THREE: CHRISTIANITY

AUTHORITY IN RELIGION:

PRIVATE VERSUS APPOINTED AUTHORITY

3.1 The apostolic and early period

In the New Testament wherever there is reference to Scripture it means the Old Testament. Moreover, nowhere do we read of any command of Jesus that his disciples should write books. They were sent out as witnesses, to preach and baptize.

Some of the earliest preaching, however, took the form of letters; some of Paul’s letters are earlier than any of the gospels. The gospels themselves are collections of material that originally was in the form of preaching. It was natural, therefore, for the writings of the eyewitnesses of Jesus (and by extension Paul) to become authoritative for the Church.

On the other hand, prophetic witness continued to be important in the Church. On the one hand this took the institutionalized form of “presiding elder” (Tit 1:5 etc.l), on the other hand that of unappointed prophets (1 Cor 14:29ff). For the first millennium and more of Christianity there was tension between these two forms of witness, but almost no tension between the authority of Scripture and that of a witness (a problem brought to a peak with the Reformation).

As far as institutionalized witness is concerned, we can utilize the note of the New Jerusalem Bible on Titus 5:5:

In the earliest days each Christian community was governed by a body of elders (“presbyters”, whence the English word “priests”) or prominent people. This was the case both in Jerusalem (Ac 11:30, 15:2ff, 21:18) and in the Dispersion (Ac 14:23, 20:17) and it merely continued both the ancient practice of the OT, Ex 18:13ff, Nb 11:16, Jos 8:10, 1 S 16:4, Is 9:14, Ez 8:1,11-12, and the more recent practice of the Jews, Ezr 5:5, 10:14, Jdt 6:16, Lk 7:3, 22:66, Ac 4:5; see Josephus, Philo etc.

These episkopoi (supervisors, overseers, watchers, guardians), who are not yet “bishops” and who are mentioned in connection with the diakonoi (servants, attendants, assistants, deputies, ministers: “deacons”: Ph 1:1, 1 Tm 3:1-13, the Apostolic Fathers), seem in some passages, Tt 1:5,7, Ac 20:17,28, to be identical with the elders.

The Greek word episkopos, taken over from the gentile world probably as an equivalent for a semitic title (cf. the mebaqqer of the Essenes, and see Nb 4:16, 31:14, Jg 9:28, 2 K 11:15,18, 12:11), indicated the duty of an officer, while presbyteros indicated the status or dignity of the same officer. The episkopoi in the college of presbyters may have taken turns to carry out their official duties, cf. 1 Tm 5:17. It is quite certain that Christian presbyteroi or episkopoi were not merely concerned with the practical side of organising things; they had to teach, 1:9, 1 Tm 3:2, 5:17, and govern, Tt 1:7, 1 Tm 3:5. They were appointed by the apostles, Ac 14:23, or their representatives, Tt 1:5, by the imposition of hands, 1 Tm 5:22, see 1 Tm 4:14, 2 Tm 1:6; their powers derived from God, Ac 20:28, and were charismatic, 1 Cor 12:28. The word episkopos eventually replaced analogous titles like proistamenos (official), Rm 12:8, 1 Th 5:12, poimen (Pastor, shepherd), Eph 4:11, hegoumenos (guide, leader), Heb 13:7,17,24.

These heads of the local community who developed into our priests (presbyteroi) and bishops (episkopoi) were helped by diakonoi (deacons). The transformation of a local assembly ruled by a body of bishops or presbyters, into an assembly ruled by a single bishop set over a number of priests (a stage reached in some churches by the time of Ignatius of Antioch, who died c. 107) may have involved the intermediate state when a single episkopos in the community was given the same powers over the local community which had previously been exercised over several communities by the apostles or their representatives like Timothy or Titus.

The leadership just described is personal, and is conferred by the laying on of hands. Yet it did not go unchallenged. The early Church was never the philadelphian society of friends we might idyllically imagine it to be. There were struggles, tensions, and breakaway groups and individuals. We see echoes of such troubles throughout the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers. We are familiar with the abused charismatic tendencies of the Corinthians.

The next group which made appeal to the direct authority of the Holy Spirit as opposed to the authority of Church elders was Montanism, which we have seen in Chapter 1. It not merely opposed spirit and clergy within the Church, but announced a new dispensation or covenant of the Spirit replacing the Church of the Son. The movement became influential mainly through the propaganda of Tertullian. Yet it did not strike roots except in its native Phrygia, where the traditional cult of Cybela, the great mother of the gods, had been known for its frenzy throughout the ancient Roman world.

Donatism, which we also saw in Chapter 1, likewise challenged the existing authority structure in the Church. It maintained the apostolic succession of laying on of hands, but added the necessity of personal worthiness for a minister to have authentic authority, the recognition of which depended on the judgement of the Donatist leaders.

3.2 Medieval times

The Middle Ages saw very many heretical sects, which seem to fall under two main movements, the Waldensians and the Cathari (Albagensians). The Waldensians were basically a reaction against the power and wealth of medieval ecclesiastics, and gradually moved to the Donatist position that only worthy ministers are valid priests, and finally that all worthy Christians are priests. Finally, the Catholic Church ceased to be the true Church when it accepted the alleged “donation of Constantine” in 343. It survived only as an institution, a “carnal Church”, whereas the spiritual and true Church is invisible, consisting of those who are written in the Book of Life. These people, moreover, refused to swear oaths or even recognize the civil power of the unspiritual (Wycliffe taught that dominion was founded on grace), and likewise condemned capital punishment.

The Cathari, on the other hand, were inspired by a Manachaean dualism of spirit and matter. Considering matter evil, they rejected all sacraments and marriage and pretended to a spiritual life which was above material things. They were divided into “listeners”, who were uninitiated, “believers”, who were ordinary members, and the “perfect”, who had received a kind of sacrament called the consolamentum and were forbidden to have any sex or to eat any animal product. The latter were the clergy and authorities of the movement.

Both movements rejected the authority of reason and discounted education, understanding Paul as saying that one must be ignorant to be saved, and that God does not admit the wise to eternal life.

3.3 The Reformation

Church preaching as well as governmental intervention kept the above movements in check up to the time of the Reformation, but they continued to exist underground. All it took was Luther’s toppling of the existing order to release prophetic currents which astounded him. A loosely organized movement emerged, known as Anabaptism, because they “rebaptized” those who were baptized as infants. Luther’s colleague, Melanchthon, writes:

I have given them a hearing and it is astonishing what they tell of themselves; namely that they are positively sent by God to teach, that they have familiar conferences with God, that they can foretell events and, to be brief, that they are on a footing with prophets and apostles. I cannot describe how I am moved by these lofty pretensions. I see strong reasons for not despising the men, for it is clear to me that there is in them something more than a mere human spirit; but whether the spirit be of God or not, none, except Martin [Luther], can easily judge.^[1]

At this time Luther himself wrote, in his preface to the Magnificat, that “no one can understand God or God’s word unless he has it revealed immediately by the Holy Spirit; but nobody can receive anything from the Holy Spirit unless he experiences it.”^[2] Luther’s appeal to experiential faith was the basis of his own challenge to Catholic Church authority. In spite of the fact that the Anabaptists paved the way for Protestantism by destroying the old order: breaking images, looting churches, sacking monasteries and other landmarks of the Catholic past, Luther saw in the movement a threat to his own reform and called in government troops against them as they led the peasants in revolt. Zwingli did the same in Zurich, and the Catholic bishop in Münster.

Luther’s arguments against the Anabaptists were not consistent with his own principles. He wrote: “The universal agreement of the whole Church about infant baptism is a special miracle; even the heretics acknowledge it. To deny it is to deny the Church itself.”^[3] Luther initially thought that everyone who read the Bible would be guided by the Holy Spirit to interpret it for himself in the right sense. When he saw the madness of the Anabaptists, he dropped the principle of private inspiration as a rule of faith. Thereafter the faithful had to be guided by Scripture as interpreted by Luther, or other reformers in other localities.

After 1535 prophetism was suspect and kept in check in Protestantism. Protestant ministry became as institutional as the Catholic priesthood, and held to dogmatic interpretations of Scripture enforced not by any mystical charism of its leaders but by government authority.

3.4 17th & 18th century prophetic inspiration

Private prophetic inspiration could not be so easily killed. In 17th century England Quakerism, led by George Fox, held the inner light of God’s inspiration to be the ultimate authority. Christ, for the Quakers, works at present among the faithful just as much as he did in his earthly life. The Bible is secondary to the voice of the Master speaking directly in one’s heart. Quakers were also fuzzy about how Jesus dwells within the faithful. Some took it to be an identification, and James Nayler was worshiped by his followers as Jesus himself.

In Catholic France, Jansenism was a movement of moral rigorism, but also set much stock on religious experience. One of the famous members of this movement was the philosopher Blaise Pascal, author of the phrase “The heart has its reasons which the head does not know”. He was an existentialist before his time. The Jansenists took good feelings in prayer as a sign of grace, and its absence as a sign that one did not have the love of God. Later, in the 18th century, Jansenism developed into an ecstatic cult carried out at the cemetery of Saint-Médard at the tomb of the Jansenist mystic, François de Paris. The “convulsionaries” ceased to be a popular movement when the French police intervened and closed the cemetery.

Another 17th century movement within Catholicism was Quietism, meaning that one should leave all effort and activity, especially in prayer, to God who works within a person, and to struggle or hope for anything, being indifferent even to one’s salvation. Concern for heaven was taken as a sign of love that is not pure. Once a person makes an act of pure love of God, this act was believed to continue governing the person for life, making sin impossible. The inevitable temptations and sins that the Quietists experienced when they thus let down their guard were attributed to the outer self which is not responsible, whereas the inner self always remained unsullied and at peace with God.

In Germany Luther entered into negotiations with the Bohemian Church of the Brethren, which was of Hussite origin, but the Brethren mistrusted the Lutherans because of their emphasis on theological learning and their worldliness. Within Lutheranism itself, towards the end of the 17th century the Pietism movement arose, led by Philip Spener. In the 18th century Count Zinzendorf, brought up in the Pietist tradition, welcomed some Church of the Brethren refugees from Moravia (in Bohemia), and they formed a settlement which, through its ecumenical interest, had a world-wide influence (for example, on John Wesley). The Brethren believed in a conversion which gives an assurance of salvation in the next life and in this life security from all danger. So they cultivated a passive spirituality, avoiding both activism and searching after religious feelings. Their reliance on divine providence led them to give importance to casting lots to decide practical questions.

John Wesley was one of the most influential persons to disseminate the quest for experience as a fundamental part of religion. Yet Wesley speaks very little of his own experience, only to say that he found himself lacking in faith in comparison with the Moravian brethren who traveled in a ship with him and who showed no fear in a storm. Because of his hesitations about a one-time perfect conversion experience, the Moravians refused to recognize him as a converted Christian and advised him to wait until he was given the gift. Wesley, however, rejected the Moravian criterion of subjective experience and appealed to “the Law and the Testimony” as his rule of faith. By this he meant the Bible as interpreted by himself.

In spite of his distrust of the inner light, Wesley wanted his movement (throughout his life within the Anglican Church) to be a matter of joy and good feelings. The hymns and the ecstatic experiences his preaching induced in his audiences were all taken as evidence of the work of the Holy Spirit, but were not absolutized as to preclude any possibility of back-sliding. Wesley was a practical man and an organizer, who recognized the weakness of the human condition, and held that assurance in the full sense of knowing that you were bound for heaven was the privilege of a very few. Although he laid so much stress on feelings and “heart-work”, even saying, “I feel at this moment that I do not love God, which therefore I know because I feel it,”^[4] he also wrote of exceptions: “Possibly some may be in the favour of God and yet go mourning all the day long.”^[5]

In the 20th century Pentecostal or charismatic movements and churches have brought religious experience once more into prominence. At the same time they often set up a tension between private prophets and ordained Church elders.

3.5 The present day situation

From most Protestant Churches we continue to hear Luther’s “sola scriptura” as the ultimate authority in Christianity. In practice this is modified in the “mainline” Churches by certain confessional statements, such as the Anglican 39 Articles or the Lutheran Augsburg Confession, the Smalcald Articles, Luther’s large and small Catechism and the Formula of Concord. In addition, synods and conventions set norms of faith and practice to which members must conform or leave the Church.

Even the so-called “evangelical” fellowships or movements, which reject an institutional Church and insist on the authority of Scripture only, in practice organize themselves with an authority structure and insist on certain interpretations of Scripture (e.g. a literal 6 days of creation, or an absolute prohibition of alcoholic drinks) which they say is the obvious and only possible interpretation, but which other Christians, who equally admit the authority of Scripture, interpret differently.

The Pentecostal or Aladura Churches modify the absolute authority of Scripture by maintaining that the Holy Spirit continues to inspire believers. In this they differ from those evangelicals who look upon the Bible as an authority handed down from the past, like a “paper Pope”. The Aladura look to the influence of the Holy Spirit to help interpret and apply Scripture to everyday life today.

The role of scholars is increasingly important in determining the meaning of Scripture. Over the past century archaeologists and Scripture experts of every denomination have thrown vast new light on the Scriptures and have come to a consensus about many matters which most Churches have come to accept. Yet many popular preachers are ignorant of these advances and just preach according to their feelings or handed down misconceptions.

3.6 Vatican II on Divine Revelation (excerpt)

[7] God graciously arranged that the things he had once revealed for the salvation of all peoples should remain in their entirety throughout the ages, and be transmitted to all generations. Therefore Christ the Lord, in whom the entire revelation of the most high God is summed up (cf. 2 Cor 1:20, 3:16- 4:6) commanded the apostles to preach the Gospel, which had been promised beforehand by the prophets, and which he fulfilled in his own person and promulgated with his own lips. In preaching the Gospel the were to communicate the gifts of God to all men. This Gospel was to be the source of all saving truth and moral discipline. This was faithfully done: it was done by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received)whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit; it was done by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing.

In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them “their own position of teaching authority” (St. Irenaeus). This sacred Tradition, then, and the sacred Scripture of both Testaments, are like a mirror in which the Church, during its pilgrim journey here on earth, contemplates God, from whom she receives everything, until such time as she is brought to see him face to face as he really is (cf. Jn 3:2).

[8] Thus, the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time. Hence the apostles, in handing on what they themselves had received, warn the faithful to maintain the traditions which they had learned either by word of mouth or by letter (cf. 2 Th 2:15); and they warn them to fight hard for the faith that had been handed on to them once and for all (cf. Jude 3). What was handed on by the apostles comprises everything that serves to make the People of God live their lives in holiness and increase their faith. In this way the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes.

The Tradition that comes from the apostles makes progress in the Church, with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts (cf. Lk 2:19,51). It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth. Thus, as the centuries go by, the Church is always advancing towards the plenitude of divine truth, until eventually the words of God are fulfilled in her.

The sayings of the Holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer. By means of the same Tradition the full canon of the sacred books is known to the Church and the holy Scriptures themselves are more thoroughly understood and constantly actualized in the Church. Thus God, who spoke in the past, continues to converse with the spouse of his beloved Son. And the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel rings out in the Church - and through her in the world - leads believers to the full truth, and makes the Word of Christ dwell in them in all its richness (cf. Col. 3:16).

[9] Sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal. Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit. And Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching. Thus it comes about that the Church does not draw her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Hence, both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honoured with equal feelings of devotion and reverence.

[10] Sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God, which is entrusted to the Church. By adhering to it the entire holy people, united to its pastors, remains always faithful to the teaching of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread and the prayers (cf. Acts 2:42). So, in maintaining, practising and professing the faith that has been handed on there should be a remarkable harmony between the bishops and the faithful.

But the task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. Yet the Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.

It is clear, therefore, that in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.

[11] ...To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their powers and faculties so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more.

Since, therefore, all that the inspired authors, or sacred writers, affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the sacred Scriptures...

[12] Seeing that in sacred Scripture God speaks through men in human fashion, it follows that the interpreter of sacred Scriptures, if he is to ascertain what God has wished to communicate to us, should carefully search out the meaning which the sacred writers really had in mind, that meaning which God had thought well to manifest through the medium of their words.

In determining the intention of the sacred writers, attention must be paid, among other things, to literary forms, for the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts and in other forms of literary expression. Hence the exegete must look for that meaning which the sacred writer, in a determined situation and given the circumstances of his time and culture, intended to express and did in fact express, through the medium of a contemporary literary form. Rightly to understand what the sacred author wanted to affirm in his work, due attention must be paid both to the customary and characteristic patterns of perception, speech and narrative which prevailed at the age of the sacred writer, and to the conventions which the people of his time followed in their dealings with one another.

But since sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted with its divine authorship in mind, no less attention must be devoted to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture, taking into account the Tradition of the entire Church and the analogy of faith, if we are to derive their true meaning from the sacred texts. It is the task of exegetes to work according to these rules towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgement. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God.