Post by philiprosenthal on Jul 24, 2006 11:35:05 GMT
Authority: Are you a rebel, a repressor or a reformer?
In the mega-power struggle that is going on in EveryNation, I feel one of the core issues at stake is that of authority. Questions in debate are things like: Where does authority come from? Who holds it? What right do they have to do so? How does one reconcile if different authorities disagree? What right do followers have to hold their leaders accountable. Who has the right to interpret the Bible? What if we disagree? etc.
In this debate, I feel there are three types of people:
1. Rebels: People who have been burned and disillusioned with church authority, who want to disgard it altogether. They want anarchy. Often they don't even want to be part of a church anymore. I admit this is a highly understandable approach in a dysfunctional church context, but it is not scriptural.
2. Repressors: Those who defend those above them and the EveryNation hierachy uncritically - often even when they see stuff wrong. Dissent below is squashed, because the hierachy represents God.
3. Reformers: Those who respect church authorities, but believe that authorities must be held accountable with checks and balances to prevent abuse of power. The Biblical reformer views all authority as decending from God. This authority must be respected, but at the same time, no human authority is absolute. Every human authority must be in submission to God and his will as revealed in the scriptures. Power is balanced, because everyone may hold the human authorities accountable to the scriptures according to due procedure (not just by arbitary rebellion).
Jesus for example, acknowledged Pilates authority, even though he knew Pilate was using it unjustly. Paul, when being attacked by the High Priest in Acts, nevertheless repented of having cursed the High Priest, since this was against the law. These men opposed unjust human authority, but not in rebellion - but in greater fear of the God above all of them.
Now I am agitating for reform, but I don't want anyone to misunderstand me as being a rebel. I respect human church authorities. Please don't take my posts as an excuse to arbitarily rebel against all church authority - or to abandon church membership altogether. I uphold church authority. But I reserve the right to hold church authorities to be accountable to the scriptures. If they instruct me to do something or participate that is opposed to the scriptures, then and only then will I go against them. And then only following the due procedure God has given in the scriptures. That I have done, following the procedure outlined in Matthew 18 and 1 Timothy 5.
The authoritarian repressors pretend to be defending God's authority, but actually, what they do is to elevate their hierachy above God and the scriptures. They make an idol out of the ministry. They try to create unaccountable authority within the church - where no one can hold them accountable to anyone except their own little sociological cult hierachy. We reformers must confront them with their disobedience to the scriptures.
In the mega-power struggle that is going on in EveryNation, I feel one of the core issues at stake is that of authority. Questions in debate are things like: Where does authority come from? Who holds it? What right do they have to do so? How does one reconcile if different authorities disagree? What right do followers have to hold their leaders accountable. Who has the right to interpret the Bible? What if we disagree? etc.
In this debate, I feel there are three types of people:
1. Rebels: People who have been burned and disillusioned with church authority, who want to disgard it altogether. They want anarchy. Often they don't even want to be part of a church anymore. I admit this is a highly understandable approach in a dysfunctional church context, but it is not scriptural.
2. Repressors: Those who defend those above them and the EveryNation hierachy uncritically - often even when they see stuff wrong. Dissent below is squashed, because the hierachy represents God.
3. Reformers: Those who respect church authorities, but believe that authorities must be held accountable with checks and balances to prevent abuse of power. The Biblical reformer views all authority as decending from God. This authority must be respected, but at the same time, no human authority is absolute. Every human authority must be in submission to God and his will as revealed in the scriptures. Power is balanced, because everyone may hold the human authorities accountable to the scriptures according to due procedure (not just by arbitary rebellion).
Jesus for example, acknowledged Pilates authority, even though he knew Pilate was using it unjustly. Paul, when being attacked by the High Priest in Acts, nevertheless repented of having cursed the High Priest, since this was against the law. These men opposed unjust human authority, but not in rebellion - but in greater fear of the God above all of them.
Now I am agitating for reform, but I don't want anyone to misunderstand me as being a rebel. I respect human church authorities. Please don't take my posts as an excuse to arbitarily rebel against all church authority - or to abandon church membership altogether. I uphold church authority. But I reserve the right to hold church authorities to be accountable to the scriptures. If they instruct me to do something or participate that is opposed to the scriptures, then and only then will I go against them. And then only following the due procedure God has given in the scriptures. That I have done, following the procedure outlined in Matthew 18 and 1 Timothy 5.
The authoritarian repressors pretend to be defending God's authority, but actually, what they do is to elevate their hierachy above God and the scriptures. They make an idol out of the ministry. They try to create unaccountable authority within the church - where no one can hold them accountable to anyone except their own little sociological cult hierachy. We reformers must confront them with their disobedience to the scriptures.