> Hi ! > > I'd like to add a few notes to my last reply. In your reply, you seemed to > look only at the scriptures that were opposed to an oppressive ministry, > ignoring those that validly proclaimed a proper New Testament place for the > clergy, and thus arriving at what I think is a faulty conclusion. I'd like > to point out the scriptures you are ignoring here. I have listed them at > random, as I can find them, so the defence may seem a bit disjointed. > > The New Testament makes it clear that there is a group of people elected to > rule the church, to perform a sacramental role, and to provide teaching of > sound doctrine. Nowhere does the Bible allocate these functions to the > layman - every time it is listed in the New Testament, it is in the context > of the clergy - apostles, priests, bishops, and deacons being the 4 classes > of clergy listed in the New Testament.

The way to understand roles in the church is through the metaphor of the body. Everyone has a role to play in the church, and certainly not everyone can be organisers or theologians, but does that mean there is anyone who can tell us what to do as in an army - against our own conscience, against our own relationship with God? Even if we imagine that some "organs" of the church are "more important" than others, that still does not give any one organ the right to destroy the essential nature of the other organs. Everyone has the right to be heard, to say what they think, to be listened to with respect, and when they are speaking from their own area of "expertise" to particularly take seriously what they are saying. But at no point can anyone impose their beliefs or ideas on others, everything has to be done collectively, everything has to be done as a "whole".

No one can say "I am the teacher of sound doctrine and this is what you will believe".

> > Acts 2:42 presents us with Christians following the teaching of the > Apostles. Obviously there was a group of teachers here, and a group being > taught. Even once they were converted, it seems, the taught remained the > taught, unless they were ordained and became one of the priests or bishops. > Ordination (laying on of hands) is given as the mode of entry to the > ministry, as is shown in II Tim 1:6, I Tim 4:14, Acts 6:6, I Tim 5:22. > Titus 1:5-7 talks of Titus' new role as bishop.

In the case of an individual or group wanting to know what the church teaches, of course it is important to have a group able to clearly articulate church teaching. In the case of "the taught remaining the taught" my reading of the NT is of the church full of debate and discussion on every issue and doctrine, not of a passive group of sheep believing whatever they were told.

Even where there were "teachers" they had to put together a convincing argument or they wouldn't be listened to. They couldn't just say "this is what to believe and I'm not going to tell you why", Paul's letters show clearly people wanted to be convinced by argument and reason, not told what to think because their "commanding officer" forced them to.

> > The Bible tells us that the elders "rule" in I Tim 5:17, and that the > bishops are placed to rule over the church in Acts 20:28.

This is refering to organisational and logistical work, which of course had to meet with the concensus of the church as a whole, people wouldn't have had dictators imposed on them from above, they had to act "as a body", as one.

> > Paul tells us that there are certain requirements for being a bishop or > priest or deacon, these are listed in I Tim 3 where Paul spells these > things out to Timothy, a newly ordained bishop who will be ordaining > priests to serve in the churches under him.

"Serve" is the word to focus on here.

> > Obviously there is a group of people in the Church that is different to the > laity. From what I've listed above, the Bible is clear that there are > bishops and priests who rule the church. Naturally the message of the > Bible is that they are to rule in love, and not like the Pharisees. But > the message of the Bible is still that they are to rule and teach, and that > the people being taught must obey (Heb 13:7.) Naturally, if this > leadership is a biblical principle, it should be obeyed.

You can see from the letters of the NT that people didn't obey if they were not convinced, it was up to the teachers to put the case and make the argument. Historically it seems that the "teachers" didn't all speak with one voice, but each "teacher" was putting forward their own case to be listened to, so people were listening to what the different teachers said and making up their own minds - a bit like politicians today. Probably some people were in the "camp" of one teacher and some in another, while others took a bit from each and were in the middle.

The early church appears to be alive with different ideas, and as I say I don't believe God wants us all to be the same and believe identical beliefs, he wants us to be free to explore belief and celebrate difference. It was very damaging to the life and spirit of the church that this celebration of difference and creative understanding of God was destroyed and replaced by a very imperial "there is only one truth" view of the world.

> > Acts 1:15-26 shows us that new leaders are elected, whose purpose is to > teach, witness to the gospel, and rule the church.

Rule in the sense of manage, yes, rule in the sense of imposing their beliefs on unwilling laity, no.

> > Acts 15 shows us that it is not the laity who determine doctrine - when > there was a doctrinal decision to be made, it was the bishops and priests > who gathered in Jerusalem in a council to decide what to do, and it was the > bishops and priests who proclaimed the decision of the council. Obviously, > as explained elsewhere in the Bible, the bishops and priests are the > teachers, and the laity are those who are taught. Like Peter, the > representative Rock, who binds and looses, the clergy have that authority > to teach also.

Clearly not every member of the church could meet together at a church council, however those who attended represented other members, it was more like a democratic parliament representing many other members than the meeting of a Soviet council imposing its will on the unrepresented majority.

> > I Cor 12 talks of different roles, the first being Apostles (a term used > here to descibe the entire clergy) and then prophets (clergy and laity > combined), teachers (clergy and laity combined) etc. Some roles are more > glamorous than others, it says, but all serve a good and necessary purpose. > So we should not have objections when the biblical distinction between > laity and clergy is noted.

I think the terms have picked up a lot of historical baggage, and at the time meant something different to how we understand them today.

> > It is a mistake to dismiss lightly the biblically defined structure that > leads and teaches the church. The first century Christians, including > disciples of Peter and John, write to us in letters that survive today, and > tell us of the roles played by bishops and priests. The Bible itself > emphasises that the bishops and priests rule the church and we should > listen to them, for they have been placed in their positions by God. I > think that in light of the New Testament - taken as a whole and in context, > which I feel you are not doing - and in the light of the way the first > generation of Christians believed and interpreted what they were taught, > the Catholic clergy is indeed a biblical phenomenon.

Exactly - the early church showed us a community alive with ideas, debate, discussion. It is the later church which turned its back on this tradition and instead imposed something akin to a military occupation on the majority of the church by the "servants" supposed to serve the majority.

> > Now a bit on the authority of the Church to define doctrine. At one point > you objected, saying that what if God wanted to send a prophet to change a > doctrine once the Church had already defined it. I would like to add here > that such a scenario is impossible - God does not change his doctrines, and > once he has revealed a doctrine to the Church, there is no reason why he > would want to send a prophet to change the doctrine. Only Satan would want > to change the truth to something else.

Of course if we think there is a single "truth" it makes no sense for God to "change" it. If however we see truth like a painting - what is the "true" way to paint? What is the "correct" style or tradition? The question is absurd - the more styles and traditions the richer "painting" as a whole is. Similarly God wants us to understand him in all his unique and different roles and images, in all his different myths and sagas. God is too big to be contained in one truth, in one tradition, we need to fill our theology will many different and exciting passages into God. God is the god of freedom, he wants us to choose to be different, to create, to invent, to discover, to innovate, to imagine. The world is full of thousands of different creatures, the church should be full of thousands of different doctrines - let a hundred flowers bloom! Change is not to be feared, it is to be celebrated as the best celebration of the essence of God.

> > Again turning to Acts 2:42, we see the believers following the teaching of > the Apostles - they did not have a KJV open on their laps - as a matter of > fact the Canon of Scripture was not finally defined until much later, and > they certainly did not have the entire New Testament available to them. > These believers were following, not the Bible, not the New Testament, but > the oral tradition taught to them by the Apostles. This oral tradition is > spoken of in II Thess 2:15, II Tim 2:2, I Cor 11:2, I Thess 3:13, II John > 1:12, III John 1:13-14. It is considered to be as much the truth as > anything written by the Apostles, and the believers are told to cling to > it. They were not given a written manual of doctrines, or even a KJV. The > New Testament was compiled over several centuries, with much debate over > what was in and what was out. It was even unclear to Luther what was in > and what was out, and he tried to remove several books from the New > Testament. No, these early Christians believed what they had been taught > by the Apostles, not solely what they found in the Bible. In fact Peter > (II Peter 3:16 and II Peter 1:20-21) tells us that some parts of the Bible > are hard to understand, and that we should not interpret it privately. > Acts 8:31 demonstrates that sometimes guidance from the church is needed in > order to understand the Bible - we cannot always succeed on our own.

We can't contrast trying to work something out on our own with having some beliefs imposed on us from above. The true comparison is of a living, vibrant community living and working together, creating, prophesying, being filled with the spirit and creating a thousand truths, and a one-dimensional mass of "believers" all passively obeying everything they are told without question.

> > So these verses on oral tradition, obviously NOT mere traditions of men, > but Apostolic Tradition, of divine origin, clearly show us that it is not > just the written word, but the WHOLE revelation of God to man to which we > must cling. The Bible (undeniably the written Word of God) is a product of > that Tradition - it was Tradition that decided which books went into the > Bible, and which did not, and it was the divinely appointed leaders of the > Church - bishops and priests - who fulfilled their biblical role of > discerning which books were both doctrinally sound AND the Word of God, > which books were doctrinally sound but not the Word of God, and which books > were not doctrinally sound. This is historical fact, basically all > mainstream scholars accept this.

The church was filled with the spirit of this revelation. It was not something imposed on them but something so alive and exciting that it could not but be part of their "tradition". It is like some beautiful music that you can't help listening to, it is not like some school curriculum that is imposed on unwilling pupils.

You are missing out the ecstatic element in the role of revelation. Revelation chose the believers, not the other way around.

> > Furthermore, we are told in the New Testament that the Church is the Body > of Christ (Eph 1:23, 5:23, Col 1:18,24) and that by persecuting the Church, > Paul was actually persecuting Christ himself, so closely did God identify > the Church with Christ. Eph 5:25-26 tells us that God loved the Church and > died for the Church (not for each individual as some Protestants falsely > teach.) Matt 18:17-18 shows us that Jesus intended his Church to be the > final arbiter of all matters of dispute, doctrinal or otherwise. And > ultimately, I Tim 3:15 tells us that it is the Church (not the Bible) that > is the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Are you using the term "Church" the way a Leninist uses the term the "Class"? In both cases the collective term is used, but a very restrictied, small group is actually refered to. For Leninists when they use the term "working class" they actually mean their very small group. Of course they believe they act in the interests (even the "objective interests" of the class, but in reality they are referring to the party.

Similarly you use the term "his Church to be the final arbiter" when in fact you don't mean the church as a whole but a very small dictatorial group "representing" (even objectively representing) the interests of the church. Your argument tells against you - Christ identified with his church as a whole, not with some small part of it. Who was it who was being persecutited? The leadership? The teachers? No, the church as a whole, and it was with this whole that Christ identified. It is the twisted truths of those who come after the first believers who use the term "church" but actually mean only a very small and unrepresentative part of it.

> > So, what can we conclude from this ? If the bishops and priests > legitimately rule over the Church, and if it is their role to provide sound > doctrine, and if it is their role to discern sound doctrine from false > doctrine, as they did at the Council of Jerusalem, then it must be to the > bishops and priests that we must turn when we want to find out what the > truth is.

As we have discovered above, this is not the dynamics of the early church. Bishops and priests rule only with the consent of the laity, and they are listened to only so long as they have the arguments and reasons that the laity will find credible. Their arguments are applied to the whole on-going debate within the church, their reasons pre-suppose an intelligent and articulate laity already engaged in debate about the meaning of God, the world, the church and the purpose of the community of believers. To remove this atmosphere of creative understanding of God, and imaginative response to revelation is to reduce the bishops and priests to the role of crude brainwashing cynics, a function which belittles bishops and priests as much as it belittles the "laity".

> > Naturally any member of the laity who has something to say must say it. As > a member of the laity I am fully entitled to preach and provide access to > the truth to others. And I am fully entitled to write a book, to prophesy, > to preach from a soap box on a street corner, and in time, my words will > become part of the written tradition (don't confuse this with the written > Word) of the Church, and my words, even though I am not a priest, will have > their influence on the formation of doctrine as the Church reaches a better > understanding of the doctrines she holds now.

Of course I agree with this, but I fear it sounds very much as if you are saying this rather like someone who watches football may also sometimes play it - it really has very little to do with the "real" event. But God sends his spirit to everyone, and he doesn't enlighten bishops and priests any more than any other member of the church. Everyone has the right to explore the language of God, create their own theology ("God-Talk"), and this is more than a pointless but necessary right, it is an absolute precondition to the existence of a thriving and energised community of believers.

> > So, I think when both sides of the coin are viewed, the Bible still gives > legitimate authority to the clergy running the Church, and places the final > authority for doctrine not in itself, but in the Church which is the pillar > and foundation of the truth. This is the way the Bible presents it, and > this is the way all Christians for 1500 years before the reformation > interpreted it, and onwards within the original Church Jesus started, from > the first century Christians who knew the Apostles personally, right the > way through the modern teachers of the faith once delivered. If it was the > understanding of all orthodox Christians in times past, it must still be > the correct understanding for us today. And if it is biblical, then surely > the case is closed.

God is a god of creation - not just "at the beginning" but throughout the Bible we can see God creating new images and understandings, new covenants, new testaments, new messiahs, new prophets. It is so depressing to see believers witness to this small God of sameness and conformity, a closed, passive, orthodox, traditional God. God bombs tradition and destroys conformity, he changes himself everyday, what was true of him yesterday is no longer true today, He is an artist, a creator, an innovator, he has the energy of the universe and was bored of the Bible the moment the last book was written. He is alive, and has the continual challange of any artist to re-create himself every day. He wants new traditions, new understandings, new explorations of his depths and heights. We are living with a stone idol of a god of the past, we need to kick it over and find the real, living God of today.

> > That's the way I see it.

Ditto!

> > I'll leave some space at the bottom of the page for you to write your reply. >

John

Stephen Korsman is a Roman Catholic
John Mann is a Seventh-day Adventist

© John Mann 2000
New Perspectives on Seventh-day Adventism
jon.mann@btinternet.com