Nostbakken, Roger W.

English

Wilfrid Laurier University

ConsensusVolume 2 | Issue 1 Article 11-1-1976Authority in the ChurchRoger W. NostbakkenFollow this and additional works at: http://scholars.wlu.ca/consensusThis Articles is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars Commons @ Laurier. It has been accepted for inclusion in Consensus by anauthorized editor of Scholars Commons @ Laurier. For more information, please contact scholarscommons@wlu.ca.Recommended CitationNostbakken, Roger W. (1976) "Authority in the Church," Consensus: Vol. 2 : Iss. 1 , Article 1.Available at: http://scholars.wlu.ca/consensus/vol2/iss1/1AUTHORITY IN THE CHURCHRoger W. NostbakkenIt is over against an absolutist and authoritarian view of the Church, asexamplified in the decrees of the First Vatican Council,' that Lutheranismgenerally stakes out its position on authority in the Church. One thing we are allsure of is that we do not hold theoretically or doctrinally to such a position. Weare also careful in our statements to reject the presuppositions upon which such aview is predicated, namely, a qualitative distinction between clergy and laity andthe assumption that there is a unbroken line of succession from Christ throughthe apostolate to the existing clerical order.We also all affirm that our primary authority is the Scripture and that all otherauthority in the Church is subordinate to that. We therefore assign only relativeauthority to ecclesiastical organization or to statements made by councils orsynods or assemblies. We are reminded of Luther’s insistence that popes andcouncils can and do err. (Lutherans have traditionally made a distinction betweenthe Scripture as norma normans and the statements of the Church as normanormata.) Further, in affirming the Reformation doctrine of the priesthood ofbelievers, Lutherans generally tend to see a functional rather than a qualitativeseparation between clergy and lay.In spite of these elements which, since the Reformation, have been held incommon within Protestantism the fact remains that there are substantialdifferences among us with respect to the way in which we both understand andpractice the exercise of authority in the Church.My principal thesis is that the only valid basis of authority in the Church is anevangelical authority, i.e., the authority of the Gospel. In all confessional andconstitutional statements which state formally and officially the position of theLutheran Church, it is maintained that all authority in the Church derivesultimately from Jesus Christ the Lord of the Church and this authority isexercised in the Church principally through her allegiance to the Scripture.Everywhere the Confessions assume that they stand under the Scriptures asnormative. The one thing that emerges with fundamental clarity from a reading1. "... the pastors and teachers appointed by Christ . . . rule the Church of God with laws that arenecessary and binding in conscience, with judicial decrees and, finally, with salutary punishmentsfor offenders even though they are unwilling; and this applies not only in matters of faith andmorals, of worship and of sanctification, but also in those matters which pertain to the externaldiscipline and administration of the church^'Ch. 10, "The power of the Church", from the DogmaticConstitution of the Church, the Vatican Council 1869-70, The Church Teaches {Herder and Herder,1955 ), pp. 93-94,.4 Consensusof the Lutheran Confessions is their studied attempt to faithfully and truly presentand proclaim the heart of the Scriptures. Every position, every approach isjudged over against Scripture, which is everywhere regarded as the authoritativenorm.This position is taken quite self-consciously over against that which vestsauthority in the teaching office of the Church or in the private judgment of aperson’s conscience. (Luther rejected both Roman Catholic authoritarianism andAnabaptist individualism.)The relationship between confession and Scripture is thus seen as subordinateand dynamic. It is subordinate in that the authority of confession stands in aderivative relation to Scripture. It is dynamic in that confession, as a humanresponse to the work of Scripture, is never a final and complete word but is alwaysproximate and fallible, and for that reason open to change, revision andexpansion. In this respect it is also understood that the Confessions teach nothingnew. They represent what the Scripture teaches, albeit in different ways atdifferent periods in history. But for an evangelical church the Gospel is the basisof and constituent of all authority.The Confessions do not call attention to nor use the Scripture superficially, i.e.,they do not speculate about their origin or manner of writing, but consistentlyappeal to their content and intent. The Confessions assume the Scriptures to bethe Word of God in written form and as such the heart of Scripture is the Gospel.The Gospel, then, is a kind of norm within the Scripture. It is the interpretativekey to the Scriptures. Article V of the Formula of Concord, which treats of Lawand Gospel, argues for a proper distinction between the two and it in effect saysthat Law is all that which terrifies conscience, and Gospel is that which consolesconscience through the proclamation of the forgiveness of sins.This is consistent with the position taken by Luther who argued that Christ wasthe Lord and King of Scripture and is the clue through which Scripture isunderstood. For Luther the key to Scripture and the ultimate base of its authoritywas this fundamental Christocentricity. The intention of Scripture is to proclaimsalvation.This principle of the Gospel as the normative center of the Scripture, thoughoften forgotten in practice, is generally affirmed with consistency in Lutherantheology. C.F.W. Walther, a theologian of major importance to 19th centuryNorth American Lutheranism, delivered a series of 39 lectures on Law and Gospelin 1884-1885. He propounded 25 theses in which he urged a proper Biblicaldistinction between Law and Gospel and a discriminating proclamation of them.His lectures are remarkable for their positive and evangelical emphasis and heclosely reflects the historic Lutheran insistence on the centrality of the Gospel. Inhis 25th thesis he asserts, **the Word of God is not rightly divided when theperson teaching it does not allow the Gospel to have a general predominance inhis teaching”. 2 He goes on to insist that the burden of Jesus’ message andministry is the Gospel and this characterizes all of Scripture.It is evident therefore that for historic Lutheranism the concept of authority isrooted in the Scriptures and is in turn based on the Gospel as the central force2. C.F.W. Walther, The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel (St. Louis; Concordia PublishingHouse, 1929), p. 403.Authority in the Church 5and interest of Scripture. This naturally suggests some important implications forthe exercise of authority in the Church. This is especially relevant to anevangelical understanding of confessional authority.As has been pointed out, the authority of confessions is proximate. If theprimary authority rests in the Scripture it follows that the authority of theConfessions or other statements made by men has to do with the relation of thosestatements to the Scripture. In other words confessional authority is predicatedon the Confession being a faithful reflection and interpretation of the Scriptureand principally of the Gospel as the center of Scripture. For Luther this was acardinal issue. He was to insist on the authority of Creeds and Confessions overagainst the Anabaptists and the enthusiasts. However, he did so not becausecredal statements were issued by the authoritative voice of the church, butbecause such statements were in agreement with the Scripture. Thus, on thematter of the authority of tradition in the Church, Luther maintained the positionthat the consensus of the Church in a doctrine or action is binding insofar as it isnot contrary to Scripture. On this latter point Luther understood the Scripture notin a Biblicist sense, but in terms of the Gospel which is its center.The crucial issue here is the understanding of the way in which the Confessionis in agreement with the Scripture. If the Confession is understood as being arepresentation of the Scripture then it must have the same authority as Scripture.If, on the other hand, the Confession is understood as being a reflection orinterpretation of Scripture then its authority is secondary. At this point it .isimportant to emphasize that the normative character of a Confession must reflectthe normative character of the Scripture, namely the Gospel.When we talk then about the derivative and secondary authority of Confessionand tradition it must indeed be recognized as precisely that. The authority ofChurch and Confession is conditional. Luther once said, “Let all obedience bedamned to the depth of hell which obeys the government, father, mother, or eventhe chuch in such a way that it disobeys God”. (WA 28.24) The Condition is, theConfession’s reflection, interpretation and re-presentation of the Gospel.Authority then in the Church is relative inasmuch as the interpretations may bein error. It is binding, however, inasmuch as it is a true and faithful reflection ofthe Word of God. Thus, while the Confessions have a derivative, relative andsecondary authority for Lutherans, they nevertheless do have a binding authorityfor the Church. Lest this be regarded as double talk it is important to rememberthat such authority is predicated on the assumption that the Confessions are infact a faithful summary of Scripture and witness to the Gospel. This of course iswhat the Confessions present themselves as being, i.e., an acknowledgement andaffirmation of what God says to man in the Scriptures.The authority of Confessions is predicated further on the assumption that theHoly Spirit is operative in the Church moving her faith at certain decisive pointsin history. This means that Confessions are the consensus of the Church notsimply the statements of individuals. An individual therefore places himself under6 Consensusthe authority of the Confession unless, or until, he feels that as a matter of**Scripture and right reason” he cannot do so. It is then his responsibility as atheologian to argue for a confessional statement, or perhaps such changes inconfessional statement as will be consistent with his understanding of the Gospel.If he is successful in achieving consensus on his point he will have discharged hisresponsibility; if he is not then he must in all good conscience, re-examine his ownposition.The Church must operate on the basis of consensus in confessional matters.There is no such thing as absolute authority for confessional statements, theauthority is the relative one of consensus. However, that does not make it onlyrelatively binding. It is relative in the sense that it stands under the judgment ofScripture, but is binding inasmuch as it represents the consensus of the Church’sunderstanding of Scripture on given matters. The authority of Confession relatesto the Confession as summary of the Scripture. The Confession in this sense bindsthe Church to the proclamation of the Gospel and it is the gospel which gives theConfession its obligatory character. For this reason as well a Confession isbinding not simply for the historical period in which it is written but universallyinasmuch as it is a summary of the Scripture.The question may be raised, **What then distinguishes such confessionalauthority from that of the Roman Church?” The answer clearly is that theConfessions are not regarded as absolute authorities. Their statements arealways open to challenge. It is in fact the theological responsibility of the Churchto be continually and critically reflecting upon the statements which she makes interms of their relation to the Gospel. Not do do this is to fail to understand therelationship of Confession to Scripture. The fact that Lutherans have historicallynot normally done this points up two tendencies. One is the tendency to drift to anabsolutist confessional position (rigid objectivism). The second is the tendency todrift towards an individualistic and sectarian view of Confessions (self-righteoussubjectivism). Neither takes seriously the relative authority of Confession.THE PURPOSE OF STATEMENTSThe purpose of a confessional statement is two-fold. Primarily it is the positiveone of mutually confessing the faith of the Church in as clear, unambiguous andhelpful a way as possible. Implicit in this is the responsibility of providinginterpretation and guidance for the Church in her self-understanding and for herunderstanding of her role in the world. Secondly the purpose is the negative oneof defining the doctrine of the Church over against error in those forms whichthreaten the Gospel.Fundamentally, a Confession is an act of consensus. It is a word which theChurch speaks in response to the word spoken to it by God. It is intended to bethe voice of the whole church. A Confession can be understood as a word ofclarification and encouragement which the church addresses to herself; and as aword of witness addressed to the world at large.It is within the word of clarification and witness that there are implicitly thosenegative elements which distinguish the faith of the Church from other faiths andother positions. As the members of the Church are in constant dialogue with one7Authority in the Churchanother respecting their faith there arise opportunities and needs to agree onthose statements which can provide essential clarity of understanding for themembership of the church. When some member of the family advances aposition which disturbs (or conflicts with) the understanding of the othermembers of the family then the differences must be resolved by discussion underthe authority of Scripture.As far as those outside the family of the Church are concerned the confessionalstatements are intended to be assertions of what is held in consensus by theChurch. This provides a standard by which the person outside the Church canevaluate his position. It also provides a prophetic word over against other wordsand other perspectives which prevail in society. It is an ongoing responsibility forthe Church to speak the reconciling, humanizing and restraining words in a worldwhich always stands in need of reconciliation, humanity and restraint.The purpose of confessional statements is also apparent in the Church’s need todefine her theology over against error. This is both a negative and a positive task.It is negative in that it involves the specific rejection of particular formulations ofdoctrine. It is positive in that it requires the kind of statement which can resolvethe current issues of dispute and contribute an enlarged perspective in theChurch’s understanding of a given issue.An obvious illustration is provided by the formulations which led to the presentAthenasian Creed. Threatened with a theology which diminished the Biblicalview of Jesus Christ, the Church was forced not only specifically to reject theformulation of Arius but to state in a fuller form her consensus on the relationshipof Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Imperfect and cumbersome as the resultant creedhas proved to be, it has remained an important and fundamental ChristianConfession. Negatively it prevented the erosion of biblical Christology. Positivelyit affirmed the Church’s determination to bear undiminished witness to the Lordof the Scriptures.This negative or positive balance in the Church’s attempt to guard against erroris, however, a very precarious one. When the negative is over-emphasized thechurch’s Confession is distorted in the direction of an authoritarian rigidity whichdoes not allow for the freedom to exercise critical reflection on the church’sstatements. The eventual result of such a posture is an arid and sterile docilitywhich loses touch both with the life of the Scriptures and the world in which theChurch exists.When the positive is over-balanced a casualness of spirit develops whichpermits theology to degenerate into a kind of extension of humanism. This will inturn issue in an essentially immanental theology which finds its focus in man andnot God. The failure to appreciate critical theology presupposes a view of manwhich assumes a greater comprehension than he actually has.THE NATURE OF AUTHORITYIn any discussion of the authority of the Church, one of the most important anddifficult questions is that of the nature of authority. Authority is commonlyunderstood as the power or right to give commands and require obedience.Implicit in this traditional understanding is the power of coercion and the exercise8 Consensusof discipline. Implicit in this also is the paternalistic notion of a superior order orlevel which instructs and commands those at a lower level and imposes thediscipline of reproof and corrections where necessary.Historically the Church has understood authority primarily in this coercive anddisciplinary way. Authority has been exercised in the Church principally at thosepoints where heresy or disorder has threatened the life of the Church. But thismeans that authority is conceived primarily in negative terms as that powerwhich restrains, reproves and corrects. Authority is then essentially aconservative power; it puts on the brakes, it safeguards, it limits. It is that actionby which the Church prevents a person or movement from going too far.To understand authority in this way, however, gives little place to its positivecharacter. In the New Testament the word translated as **authority** is exousia.Power is implicit in this word also, but it is a power which derives ultimately fromGod. And the exercise of that power is not seen as a primarily negative orrestrictive or limiting exercise.Perhaps one of the most striking usages of the word is found in Matthew 7:29where it is recorded that Jesus taught **as one having authority**. The force of thatpassage is not one of exercising control over people or imposing demands onthem or limiting their expression in any way. Rather, by the very creative powerof His person, Jesus spoke with an authority which elicited respect and response.The scribes also had an authority but it was the legal authority of position. Theybased their remarks on the tradition ofwhat had been said before. Jesus spokewith authority, out of His own person, and His words do not demand or require aresponse, but rather call forth a response.In the Church when we talk about authority we normally talk about it as thatpower which issues from a legal position. Power is a term normally associatedwith the person or institution in a legal position to exercise power. In the Church,therefore, power, authority and law are terms which go together. We do not talkmuch about the authority of the Gospel or of the authority of the Church asresting primarily in the Gospel rather than the law.To a certain extent we, in the Church, have abdicated the position of authoritywhich is founded in the Gospel and have functioned primarily with an authorityfounded in the Law. The intention of a Confession is to ipake a clear, positive andinviting statement of the Church*s faith. Involved in dping this are the sometimesnecessary actions of rejecting certain points of view. But a Confession remains, inintention at least, a positive statement which leads rather than blocks, whichaffirms rather than negates. This would suggest that the authority of the Churchshould be exercised prinicipally in a positive way and only incidentally in anegative way. We have here, a question of fundamental importance and it is oneto which we need to give attention.

Authority in the Church

Scholars Commons

Consensus
Volume 2 | Issue 1 Article 1
1-1-1976
Authority in the Church
Roger W. Nostbakken
Follow this and additional works at: http://scholars.wlu.ca/consensus
This Articles is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars Commons @ Laurier. It has been accepted for inclusion in Consensus by an
authorized editor of Scholars Commons @ Laurier. For more information, please contact scholarscommons@wlu.ca.
Recommended Citation
Nostbakken, Roger W. (1976) "Authority in the Church," Consensus: Vol. 2 : Iss. 1 , Article 1.
Available at: http://scholars.wlu.ca/consensus/vol2/iss1/1
AUTHORITY IN THE CHURCH
Roger W. Nostbakken
It is over against an absolutist and authoritarian view of the Church, as
examplified in the decrees of the First Vatican Council,' that Lutheranism
generally stakes out its position on authority in the Church. One thing we are all
sure of is that we do not hold theoretically or doctrinally to such a position. We
are also careful in our statements to reject the presuppositions upon which such a
view is predicated, namely, a qualitative distinction between clergy and laity and
the assumption that there is a unbroken line of succession from Christ through
the apostolate to the existing clerical order.
We also all affirm that our primary authority is the Scripture and that all other
authority in the Church is subordinate to that. We therefore assign only relative
authority to ecclesiastical organization or to statements made by councils or
synods or assemblies. We are reminded of Luther’s insistence that popes and
councils can and do err. (Lutherans have traditionally made a distinction between
the Scripture as norma normans and the statements of the Church as norma
normata.) Further, in affirming the Reformation doctrine of the priesthood of
believers, Lutherans generally tend to see a functional rather than a qualitative
separation between clergy and lay.
In spite of these elements which, since the Reformation, have been held in
common within Protestantism the fact remains that there are substantial
differences among us with respect to the way in which we both understand and
practice the exercise of authority in the Church.
My principal thesis is that the only valid basis of authority in the Church is an
evangelical authority, i.e., the authority of the Gospel. In all confessional and
constitutional statements which state formally and officially the position of the
Lutheran Church, it is maintained that all authority in the Church derives
ultimately from Jesus Christ the Lord of the Church and this authority is
exercised in the Church principally through her allegiance to the Scripture.
Everywhere the Confessions assume that they stand under the Scriptures as
normative. The one thing that emerges with fundamental clarity from a reading
1. "... the pastors and teachers appointed by Christ . . . rule the Church of God with laws that are
necessary and binding in conscience, with judicial decrees and, finally, with salutary punishments
for offenders even though they are unwilling; and this applies not only in matters of faith and
morals, of worship and of sanctification, but also in those matters which pertain to the external
discipline and administration of the church^'Ch. 10, "The power of the Church", from the Dogmatic
Constitution of the Church, the Vatican Council 1869-70, The Church Teaches {Herder and Herder,
1955 ), pp. 93-94,.
4 Consensus
of the Lutheran Confessions is their studied attempt to faithfully and truly present
and proclaim the heart of the Scriptures. Every position, every approach is
judged over against Scripture, which is everywhere regarded as the authoritative
norm.
This position is taken quite self-consciously over against that which vests
authority in the teaching office of the Church or in the private judgment of a
person’s conscience. (Luther rejected both Roman Catholic authoritarianism and
Anabaptist individualism.)
The relationship between confession and Scripture is thus seen as subordinate
and dynamic. It is subordinate in that the authority of confession stands in a
derivative relation to Scripture. It is dynamic in that confession, as a human
response to the work of Scripture, is never a final and complete word but is always
proximate and fallible, and for that reason open to change, revision and
expansion. In this respect it is also understood that the Confessions teach nothing
new. They represent what the Scripture teaches, albeit in different ways at
different periods in history. But for an evangelical church the Gospel is the basis
of and constituent of all authority.
The Confessions do not call attention to nor use the Scripture superficially, i.e.,
they do not speculate about their origin or manner of writing, but consistently
appeal to their content and intent. The Confessions assume the Scriptures to be
the Word of God in written form and as such the heart of Scripture is the Gospel.
The Gospel, then, is a kind of norm within the Scripture. It is the interpretative
key to the Scriptures. Article V of the Formula of Concord, which treats of Law
and Gospel, argues for a proper distinction between the two and it in effect says
that Law is all that which terrifies conscience, and Gospel is that which consoles
conscience through the proclamation of the forgiveness of sins.
This is consistent with the position taken by Luther who argued that Christ was
the Lord and King of Scripture and is the clue through which Scripture is
understood. For Luther the key to Scripture and the ultimate base of its authority
was this fundamental Christocentricity. The intention of Scripture is to proclaim
salvation.
This principle of the Gospel as the normative center of the Scripture, though
often forgotten in practice, is generally affirmed with consistency in Lutheran
theology. C.F.W. Walther, a theologian of major importance to 19th century
North American Lutheranism, delivered a series of 39 lectures on Law and Gospel
in 1884-1885. He propounded 25 theses in which he urged a proper Biblical
distinction between Law and Gospel and a discriminating proclamation of them.
His lectures are remarkable for their positive and evangelical emphasis and he
closely reflects the historic Lutheran insistence on the centrality of the Gospel. In
his 25th thesis he asserts, **the Word of God is not rightly divided when the
person teaching it does not allow the Gospel to have a general predominance in
his teaching”. 2 He goes on to insist that the burden of Jesus’ message and
ministry is the Gospel and this characterizes all of Scripture.
It is evident therefore that for historic Lutheranism the concept of authority is
rooted in the Scriptures and is in turn based on the Gospel as the central force
2. C.F.W. Walther, The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel (St. Louis; Concordia Publishing
House, 1929), p. 403.
Authority in the Church 5
and interest of Scripture. This naturally suggests some important implications for
the exercise of authority in the Church. This is especially relevant to an
evangelical understanding of confessional authority.
As has been pointed out, the authority of confessions is proximate. If the
primary authority rests in the Scripture it follows that the authority of the
Confessions or other statements made by men has to do with the relation of those
statements to the Scripture. In other words confessional authority is predicated
on the Confession being a faithful reflection and interpretation of the Scripture
and principally of the Gospel as the center of Scripture. For Luther this was a
cardinal issue. He was to insist on the authority of Creeds and Confessions over
against the Anabaptists and the enthusiasts. However, he did so not because
credal statements were issued by the authoritative voice of the church, but
because such statements were in agreement with the Scripture. Thus, on the
matter of the authority of tradition in the Church, Luther maintained the position
that the consensus of the Church in a doctrine or action is binding insofar as it is
not contrary to Scripture. On this latter point Luther understood the Scripture not
in a Biblicist sense, but in terms of the Gospel which is its center.
The crucial issue here is the understanding of the way in which the Confession
is in agreement with the Scripture. If the Confession is understood as being a
representation of the Scripture then it must have the same authority as Scripture.
If, on the other hand, the Confession is understood as being a reflection or
interpretation of Scripture then its authority is secondary. At this point it .is
important to emphasize that the normative character of a Confession must reflect
the normative character of the Scripture, namely the Gospel.
When we talk then about the derivative and secondary authority of Confession
and tradition it must indeed be recognized as precisely that. The authority of
Church and Confession is conditional. Luther once said, “Let all obedience be
damned to the depth of hell which obeys the government, father, mother, or even
the chuch in such a way that it disobeys God”. (WA 28.24) The Condition is, the
Confession’s reflection, interpretation and re-presentation of the Gospel.
Authority then in the Church is relative inasmuch as the interpretations may be
in error. It is binding, however, inasmuch as it is a true and faithful reflection of
the Word of God. Thus, while the Confessions have a derivative, relative and
secondary authority for Lutherans, they nevertheless do have a binding authority
for the Church. Lest this be regarded as double talk it is important to remember
that such authority is predicated on the assumption that the Confessions are in
fact a faithful summary of Scripture and witness to the Gospel. This of course is
what the Confessions present themselves as being, i.e., an acknowledgement and
affirmation of what God says to man in the Scriptures.
The authority of Confessions is predicated further on the assumption that the
Holy Spirit is operative in the Church moving her faith at certain decisive points
in history. This means that Confessions are the consensus of the Church not
simply the statements of individuals. An individual therefore places himself under
6 Consensus
the authority of the Confession unless, or until, he feels that as a matter of
**Scripture and right reason” he cannot do so. It is then his responsibility as a
theologian to argue for a confessional statement, or perhaps such changes in
confessional statement as will be consistent with his understanding of the Gospel.
If he is successful in achieving consensus on his point he will have discharged his
responsibility; if he is not then he must in all good conscience, re-examine his own
position.
The Church must operate on the basis of consensus in confessional matters.
There is no such thing as absolute authority for confessional statements, the
authority is the relative one of consensus. However, that does not make it only
relatively binding. It is relative in the sense that it stands under the judgment of
Scripture, but is binding inasmuch as it represents the consensus of the Church’s
understanding of Scripture on given matters. The authority of Confession relates
to the Confession as summary of the Scripture. The Confession in this sense binds
the Church to the proclamation of the Gospel and it is the gospel which gives the
Confession its obligatory character. For this reason as well a Confession is
binding not simply for the historical period in which it is written but universally
inasmuch as it is a summary of the Scripture.
The question may be raised, **What then distinguishes such confessional
authority from that of the Roman Church?” The answer clearly is that the
Confessions are not regarded as absolute authorities. Their statements are
always open to challenge. It is in fact the theological responsibility of the Church
to be continually and critically reflecting upon the statements which she makes in
terms of their relation to the Gospel. Not do do this is to fail to understand the
relationship of Confession to Scripture. The fact that Lutherans have historically
not normally done this points up two tendencies. One is the tendency to drift to an
absolutist confessional position (rigid objectivism). The second is the tendency to
drift towards an individualistic and sectarian view of Confessions (self-righteous
subjectivism). Neither takes seriously the relative authority of Confession.
THE PURPOSE OF STATEMENTS
The purpose of a confessional statement is two-fold. Primarily it is the positive
one of mutually confessing the faith of the Church in as clear, unambiguous and
helpful a way as possible. Implicit in this is the responsibility of providing
interpretation and guidance for the Church in her self-understanding and for her
understanding of her role in the world. Secondly the purpose is the negative one
of defining the doctrine of the Church over against error in those forms which
threaten the Gospel.
Fundamentally, a Confession is an act of consensus. It is a word which the
Church speaks in response to the word spoken to it by God. It is intended to be
the voice of the whole church. A Confession can be understood as a word of
clarification and encouragement which the church addresses to herself; and as a
word of witness addressed to the world at large.
It is within the word of clarification and witness that there are implicitly those
negative elements which distinguish the faith of the Church from other faiths and
other positions. As the members of the Church are in constant dialogue with one
7Authority in the Church
another respecting their faith there arise opportunities and needs to agree on
those statements which can provide essential clarity of understanding for the
membership of the church. When some member of the family advances a
position which disturbs (or conflicts with) the understanding of the other
members of the family then the differences must be resolved by discussion under
the authority of Scripture.
As far as those outside the family of the Church are concerned the confessional
statements are intended to be assertions of what is held in consensus by the
Church. This provides a standard by which the person outside the Church can
evaluate his position. It also provides a prophetic word over against other words
and other perspectives which prevail in society. It is an ongoing responsibility for
the Church to speak the reconciling, humanizing and restraining words in a world
which always stands in need of reconciliation, humanity and restraint.
The purpose of confessional statements is also apparent in the Church’s need to
define her theology over against error. This is both a negative and a positive task.
It is negative in that it involves the specific rejection of particular formulations of
doctrine. It is positive in that it requires the kind of statement which can resolve
the current issues of dispute and contribute an enlarged perspective in the
Church’s understanding of a given issue.
An obvious illustration is provided by the formulations which led to the present
Athenasian Creed. Threatened with a theology which diminished the Biblical
view of Jesus Christ, the Church was forced not only specifically to reject the
formulation of Arius but to state in a fuller form her consensus on the relationship
of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Imperfect and cumbersome as the resultant creed
has proved to be, it has remained an important and fundamental Christian
Confession. Negatively it prevented the erosion of biblical Christology. Positively
it affirmed the Church’s determination to bear undiminished witness to the Lord
of the Scriptures.
This negative or positive balance in the Church’s attempt to guard against error
is, however, a very precarious one. When the negative is over-emphasized the
church’s Confession is distorted in the direction of an authoritarian rigidity which
does not allow for the freedom to exercise critical reflection on the church’s
statements. The eventual result of such a posture is an arid and sterile docility
which loses touch both with the life of the Scriptures and the world in which the
Church exists.
When the positive is over-balanced a casualness of spirit develops which
permits theology to degenerate into a kind of extension of humanism. This will in
turn issue in an essentially immanental theology which finds its focus in man and
not God. The failure to appreciate critical theology presupposes a view of man
which assumes a greater comprehension than he actually has.
THE NATURE OF AUTHORITY
In any discussion of the authority of the Church, one of the most important and
difficult questions is that of the nature of authority. Authority is commonly
understood as the power or right to give commands and require obedience.
Implicit in this traditional understanding is the power of coercion and the exercise
8 Consensus
of discipline. Implicit in this also is the paternalistic notion of a superior order or
level which instructs and commands those at a lower level and imposes the
discipline of reproof and corrections where necessary.
Historically the Church has understood authority primarily in this coercive and
disciplinary way. Authority has been exercised in the Church principally at those
points where heresy or disorder has threatened the life of the Church. But this
means that authority is conceived primarily in negative terms as that power
which restrains, reproves and corrects. Authority is then essentially a
conservative power; it puts on the brakes, it safeguards, it limits. It is that action
by which the Church prevents a person or movement from going too far.
To understand authority in this way, however, gives little place to its positive
character. In the New Testament the word translated as **authority** is exousia.
Power is implicit in this word also, but it is a power which derives ultimately from
God. And the exercise of that power is not seen as a primarily negative or
restrictive or limiting exercise.
Perhaps one of the most striking usages of the word is found in Matthew 7:29
where it is recorded that Jesus taught **as one having authority**. The force of that
passage is not one of exercising control over people or imposing demands on
them or limiting their expression in any way. Rather, by the very creative power
of His person, Jesus spoke with an authority which elicited respect and response.
The scribes also had an authority but it was the legal authority of position. They
based their remarks on the tradition ofwhat had been said before. Jesus spoke
with authority, out of His own person, and His words do not demand or require a
response, but rather call forth a response.
In the Church when we talk about authority we normally talk about it as that
power which issues from a legal position. Power is a term normally associated
with the person or institution in a legal position to exercise power. In the Church,
therefore, power, authority and law are terms which go together. We do not talk
much about the authority of the Gospel or of the authority of the Church as
resting primarily in the Gospel rather than the law.
To a certain extent we, in the Church, have abdicated the position of authority
which is founded in the Gospel and have functioned primarily with an authority
founded in the Law. The intention of a Confession is to ipake a clear, positive and
inviting statement of the Church*s faith. Involved in dping this are the sometimes
necessary actions of rejecting certain points of view. But a Confession remains, in
intention at least, a positive statement which leads rather than blocks, which
affirms rather than negates. This would suggest that the authority of the Church
should be exercised prinicipally in a positive way and only incidentally in a
negative way. We have here, a question of fundamental importance and it is one
to which we need to give attention.


https://scholars.wlu.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2283&amp;context=consensus

Authority in the Church

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Wilfrid Laurier University

Scholars Commons