Anabaptist politics and pastoral authority…
Dave Black has published his fourth aritcle about the Anabaptists: “What I Have Learned from the Anabaptists (Part 4)” In this article, Dave discusses the Anabaptists response to politics and governments. He says:
They [the Anabaptists] taught that the church is not only apolitical but antipolitical in the sense that it regards political power as inevitably idolatrous. The church is to seek the kingdom of heaven and its righteousness. It therefore refuses to confer any value on political power but instead radically questions it. With Constantine’s victory at the Milvian Bridge, however, the church became invested with political power, and it has sought political power ever since. It acquiesced where Jesus resisted: the church accepts all the kingdoms of the earth from Satan. It forges an alliance with the state, which it now seeks to Christianize.
On a different topic, Emily Hunter McGowan has written a guest article for SBCOutpost called “Who Should ‘Have Authority Over a Man’?” She begins by discussing 1 Timothy 2:12, but concludes the article by discussing authority in general. She says:
“Pastoral authority” is invoked in support of all kinds of actions, events, and propositions. In more mundane uses, “pastoral authority” becomes a catchphrase signaling the need to acquire permission from the pastor to take action or make a public statement. Along these lines, you might hear someone say, “I disagree with Pastor Tom about this issue, but I don’t want to undermine his pastoral authority.” More extreme applications, of course, include the forceful silencing of dissent and the legitimization of unfortunate personality worship. In this vein, something like this is more likely: “Don’t you know our pastor has authority over you?”
To be clear, in my criticism I do not take away from the responsibility of our local church pastors to shepherd our congregations. The apostles left us careful instructions regarding the need for us to recognize, honor, imitate, and submit to our leaders (1 Thess 5:12-13; 1 Tim 5:17; Heb 13:7, 17), as well as details regarding the characteristics that qualify and disqualify leaders from service (1 Tim 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9).
Yet, if you survey the teaching of the NT epistles on the matter of elders, overseers, leaders, or shepherds, you will find no mention of “authority” or “exercising authority over” anyone. In fact, 1 Peter 5:3 contains explicit instruction for shepherds to oversee the people “not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock.”
These are the same conclusions that I’ve reached, as discussed in my posts “Exercising Authority“, “Ruling or Leading?“, and “Obey and Submit? (Hebrews 13:17)“.
Historical ecclesiology
A couple of days ago, Josh from “A New Testament Student” asked some very good questions concerning the study of the church in a post called “Some thoughts on church“, which he followed up with another post called “More thoughts on church…” Mike from “εν εφÎσω: Thoughts and Meditations” replied with his own post called “A Handbook?” This is my part in this discussion.
In his opening post, Josh asks:
For whatever reason, I’ve been suckered into Ecclesiology. I enjoy figuring out what exactly the “Church” is. There are a great many blogs out there dedicated to this topic. However, something I’m noticing is that they stay only within the New Testament for their views on the Church. Is this proper? Is the New Testament the handbook on ekklesia? My answer: It’s not *the* handbook. We have to look not only at the New Testament, but also at the history of the Church and how the Apostolic Fathers viewed Church, etc. How did the earliest Christians do it after the New Testament period?
He further explained his position in his second post:
I’ll start with why Patristics is so important. I view it as being essential because it allows us to see how the earliest Christian communities, some shaped by the Apostles themselves, interpreted Scripture. We know that we don’t have the full record about Christ, early Christianity, etc in the New Testament. These were men who had received tradition through a chain in the early church. Bishop to Bishop, etc. Look at 2 Timothy 2:2 where Paul encourages Timothy to share what Timothy has heard from Paul with other people. Not, “Make sure and copy this letter down word for word, because this is all there is.†No, that’s silly. Of course Paul taught Timothy a great deal more than is written down. So where did all of that go? To the Fathers! They are our windows into how this tradition helped shape the church, hermeneutics, etc. They allow us to see Orthodox interpretation of Scripture from the outset of this movement. How do we know what the Apostles taught? Not only by their writings, but the writings of their students, and their students, etc.
Josh continues this second post with three examples of how the apostolic fathers can teach us about the church: 1) the early church was more Catholic than not, 2) the book of Revelation hints at an early liturgy, and 3) the hermeneutic of the fathers was more informed than ours.
I am one of those who “stay only within the New Testament” for my views on the church, and I hope that this post explains why. At this point, I do not plan to answer Josh’s three points, instead I hope to make three points of my own in order to explain why I prefer to learn about the church from Scripture. To begin, here are a couple of boring definitions:
Historical theology is a branch of theological studies that investigates the socio-historical and cultural mechanisms that give rise to theological ideas, systems, and statements. Research and method in this field focus on the relationship between theology and context as well as the major theological influences upon the figures and topics studied. Historical theologians are thus concerned with the historical development of theology.
In Christian theology, ecclesiology is the study of doctrine pertaining to the Church itself as a community or organic entity, and with the understanding of what the “church” is — ie., its role in salvation, its origin, its relationship to the historical Christ, its discipline, its destiny (see Eschatology) and its leadership. It is, therefore, the study of the Church as a thing in itself, and of the Church’s self-understanding of its mission and role.
Thus, combining these into my own definition, historical ecclesiology would be concerned with the historical development of ecclesiology. Historical ecclesiology is very important to New Testament studies, as is any type of historical theology. It is true that through studying the writings of the second and third generations of believers we can understand how they interpreted the apostolic traditions and Scripture.
However, there are at least three reasons that I look to Scripture in order to develop my ecclesiology instead of looking to sources outside of Scripture: 1) even during apostolic times people turned away from the apostolic teachings, 2) the post-apostolic authors were not consistent in their ecclesiology, and 3) I believe that Scripture is authoritative and sufficient.
First, even during the apostolic times – while the apostles were still alive – people regularly turned away from apostolic teaching. Many of the books of the New Testament were written to correct disciples who had strayed from earlier teachings. First and Second Corinthians, Galatians, Hebrews, and James are examples of letters written to remind believers of what they were taught and to exhort them to return to what they were taught. Other books, while not written specifically to correct believers, include instructions of how to deal with people who were teaching or acting contrary to the gospel and to the teachings of the apostles. For example, in 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, and Jude the readers are encouraged to beware of those who no longer live according to the teachings of the apostles. Perhaps most strikingly, of the seven churches mentioned in Revelation, most of them are rebuked because of their failure to live consistently with what they were taught. If believers strayed from the teachings of the apostles while the apostles were living, there is reason to believe that those who lived after the apostles could also stray from the apostles’ teachings.
Second, the post-apostolic writers were not consistent in their understanding or description of the church. For one example, consider what the early writers said concerning leaders within the church. The Didache (2nd or 3rd century AD) mentions two different types of leaders: those who travel away from their home (called prophets, teachers, or apostles) and those who stay near their home (called bishops or deacons). In this early document, there is no distinction between bishops or elders. Ignatius (35-107 AD) recognizes three levels of leaders (bishops, elders, and deacons) and exhorts the church to submit to the bishop as to Jesus Christ. Meanwhile, Polycarp (69-155 AD) – who received a letter from Ignatius – exhorts the church to be subject to the elders and deacons, but does not mention the bishop. Similarly, Tertullian (155-230 AD) says that authority lies with anyone who possesses the Spirit and not to bishops. If we examine the writings of the patristic era concerning other areas of ecclesiology we will find that they were not consistent in those areas either. Consistency did not come along until later.
Finally, while the historical writings of the post-apostolic period are important, I believe that Scripture is authoritative and sufficient, while other writings give us a view of someone else’s interpretation of Scripture. I admit that this is a personal belief, and many may not agree with this belief. However, for me, if Scripture is sufficient, then Scripture includes what I need to know about the church. If Scripture is authoritative, then I should obey what is revealed to me in Scripture concerning the church. Historical and theological writings are important, but I do not give them the same weight of authority or sufficiency.
This does not mean that academic studies should not include a study of the patristic writings. On the contrary, writings of different periods of history are important and should be included in academic studies, including studies of the church. For example, for my dissertation, I hope to include a diachronic (through history) view of ecclesiology; specifically, I hope to study how different authors from different time periods viewed the meeting of the church. These views will be different. How will we determine if a view is “correct”? We only have one source of comparison: Scripture.
In conclusion, I’d like to comment on the “form” vs. “function” distinction that Mike mentions in his post (see above):
The New Testament does not give us a specific form for doing church. There is actually very little discussion at all about what the first century church looked like. Now before anyone protests, I am quite aware of the Book of Acts. There are some discussions about form. But I do not see these descriptions as necessary for the church today. A couple points are in order:
1. If you notice, the New Testament church in Acts adjusted its form depending upon its needs.
2. If you read 1 Timothy and Titus, you’ll see that the focus when it comes to church leadership positions are not on form, or function, but character.
Mike makes a great observation concerning “form” and “function”. He is correct that Scripture says very little about “form” and much more about “function”. However, every believer should be concerned about “form” when that “form” hinders scriptural “function”. For example, most believers would not be satisfied by a “form” of church meeting that did not allow for teaching. Teaching is a valid, scriptural function for believers. But, what about other functions? Does our “form” allow us to teach one another, or only one person teach everyone else? Does our “form” allow us to “consider one another in order to stir up love and good works”? Does our “form” allow us to use our spiritual gifts for mutual benefit? Does our “form” allow us to exhort, comfort, admonish, bear with, and forgive one another?
If the “form” hinders “function”, then one of the two must change. I would suggest that, for years, we have ignored “function” in order to maintain “form”. Instead, I would also suggest, we should modify “form” in order to encourage “function”.
Patristic authors – those who followed the apostles – are important and their writings should be read. However, Scripture is more important and should mold our ecclesiology. Similarly, “form” can be adjusted, as long as “form” does not hinder “function”.
Anabaptists and Christendom
Dave Black has published his third article about Anabaptists: “What I Have Learned from the Anabaptists (Part 3)“. At the beginning of his article, Dave says, “One of the greatest threats to Christianity is Christendom.” This statement may trouble many people. In fact, the return to Christendom is sometimes purported as the goal of the modern church. But, how does the idea of Christendom correspond to what we know about the relationship between the people of God and the world in Scripture?
His second paragraph lays the groundwork for the remainder of the article:
Now at the same time and in a corresponding manner, the sixteenth century Anabaptists, led not by Protestant or Reformed thought but by the Scriptures themselves, radically challenged the entrenchment of Christendom in European culture. A major difference between the Anabaptists and the Protestants was their view that the Scriptures provided models both for theology as well as for church organization. The Anabaptists were interested in restitutio, not reformatio. They considered themselves neither Protestant nor Catholic but a third way. The Bible, not tradition, provided the patterns for church organization just as plainly as it revealed the basic theological content of the faith.
I have attempted to build my understanding of the church of God on a reliance on Scripture – what is actually revealed in Scripture – instead of on tradition. This is difficult when so many prefer to walk the well-trod and comfortable paths of tradition. Certainly, everything traditional is not bad. Neither is everything traditional good. Some things traditional are simply unnecessary or unimportant. However, what God has chosen to reveal in Scripture is always necessary and important. When we must choose between the two, we should always choose scriptural revelation over tradition.
He ends with this paragraph:
In a similar way, the sixteenth century Anabaptists challenged the Catholic, Lutheran, and Reformed establishments. Centuries later Barth and Brunner would question the church-state system from within. Why, then, should it surprise us today when churchmen engage in responsible criticism of their own denominations? The goal of the Anabaptists, as has often been said, was to cut the tree back to the root and thus free the church of the suffocating growth of ecclesiastical tradition. That this goal is being revived in our day should be the cause of great rejoicing.
I hope you take the time to read all of Dave Black’s article. He raises some great questions from the perspective of the Anabaptists. Then, we all need to ask ourselves on what we base our understanding of the church. Do we base our understanding of the church on tradition or on Scripture? Then, when we recognize that some of our understandings about the church are based on tradition instead of Scripture, are we willing to change even if no one else changes with us?
Anabaptists and the priesthood of all believers
Dave Black has published the second article in his series on the Anabaptists. It is titled “What I Have Learned from the Anabaptists (Part 2)“. In this article, he discusses the Anabaptist understanding of the priesthood of all believers and compares this with a sacerdotal view of Christianity. The doctrine of the priesthood of all believers does not negate the need for leadership, but it does change the method of leadership. He says:
We can go a step further. In 1 Thess. 5:14 Paul specifically requests the “brothers†– not the church leaders – to admonish those believers who were unruly. Why, if the believers were to defer to their leaders in the case of church discipline, did Paul command the church to expel the unrepentant sinner in 1 Cor. 5:4-5? We have no right to go beyond the clear pattern of the New Testament and insist upon a clergy-laity distinction. It is clear that the New Testament elder was not a proud, prestigious, and powerful ruler but rather a humble, gentle, and deeply spiritual brother (see Matt 23:8) who in the spirit of Jesus was called to serve rather than be served.
To the Anabaptists, then, a clerical ministry seemed out of step with both the spirit and the letter of the New Testament. As Heb. 13:7 shows, the authority of leaders was based not on their position or title but rather on their example (anastrophe) and faithfulness (pistis). The relationship of members to leaders was not one of duty but of love and respect.
We have to recognize that theologians themselves have done much to create this confusion. Jesus’ model of church leadership has nothing to do with status or office. This monumental misunderstanding of the New Testament seems to me to be one of the flagrant proofs that the Anabaptists’ return to the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers was both necessary and inevitable for a group so earnestly seeking the truth of the Word of God. I see this same spirit at work today when I see younger leaders eschewing grand titles such as “Reverend†or “Minister†or “Senior Pastor,†preferring instead to be called “Brother So-and-so†or simply by their first names. This kind of thinking is contrary to every manmade system or philosophy. A Christianity that seeks no power, no prestige, no position but instead prefers humiliation, service, even suffering? Unthinkable – except, perhaps, to an Anabaptist.
So, according to Dave, the type of Christian leadership supported by Scripture is different from the normal leadership patterns of this world. Instead of exercising authority, Christian leaders exercise service, humility, and suffering. As far as I can tell, this is the kind of people that Jesus told his disciples to follow. He said to follow those who were servants, not those who attempted to exercise authority.
Anabaptists…
Today, Dave Black began a series on the Anbaptists called “What I Have Learned From the Anabaptists“. At one point, he says:
Like the Anabaptists of the sixteenth century, who longed for a restoration both in the structures and the practices of the church and whose vision differed from the magisterial model, so I believe it is time for an alternative vision of church and society, one that is Christocentric and follows the pattern of Jesus by obedience to His teaching and His example. More than anything we need a return to the pure Word of God as the only guide to Christian conduct and thought. A classic case in point: today we find congregational participation in our gatherings squelched by an unbiblical emphasis on the “clergy” and a corresponding passivity among the “laypeople.” The motivation behind limiting congregational participation is undoubtedly noble (to ensure “quality,” to protect against heresies, to maintain order, etc.). Still, such motivations seem biblically unsustainable.
He later describes why these motivations are “biblically unsustainable”. Read the remainder of the article. And, then, ask yourself, “Do I understand the church and the church meeting through studying Scripture, through tradition that I’ve been taught, through business models, or another method?”
Luther and the Church…
In the preface of “The German Mass and Order of Divine Service” (1526), Martin Luther describes three different kinds of “divine service”. The first and second kinds of “divine service” are differentiated only by the languages used (Latin and German, respectively). Importantly, this is what Luther says of these two kinds of “divine service”:
Both these kinds of Service then we must have held and publicly celebrated in church for the people in general. They are not yet believers or Christians. But the greater part stand there and gape, simply to see something new: and it is just as if we held Divine Service in an open square or field amongst Turks or heathen. So far it is no question yet of a regularly fixed assembly wherein to train Christians according to the Gospel: but rather of a public allurement to faith and Christianity.
Thus, for Luther, the public service in both Latin and German are for the purpose of exposing unbelievers to the Gospel. Notice that he does not see these services as being for Christians. So, what does Luther proscribe for believers? Keep reading for his “third sort of divine service”:
But the third sort [of Divine Service], which the true type of Evangelical Order should embrace, must not be celebrated so publicly in the square amongst all and sundry. Those, however, who are desirous of being Christians in earnest, and are ready to profess the Gospel with hand and mouth, should register their names and assemble by themselves in some house to pray, to read, to baptize and to receive the sacrament and practise other Christian works. In this Order, those whose conduct was not such as befits Christians could be recognized, reproved, reformed, rejected, or excommunicated, according to the rule of Christ in Matt. xviii. Here, too, a general giving of alms could be imposed on Christians, to be willingly given and divided among the poor, after the example of St. Paul in 2 Cor. ix. Here there would not be need of much fine singing. Here we could have baptism and the sacrament in short and simple fashion: and direct everything towards the Word and prayer and love. Here we should have a good short Catechism about the Creed, the Ten Commandments, and the Lord’s Prayer. In one word, if we only had people who longed to be Christians in earnest, Form and Order would soon shape itself. But I cannot and would not order or arrange such a community or congregation at present. I have not the requisite persons for it, nor do I see many who are urgent for it. But should it come to pass that I must do it, and that such pressure is put upon me as that I find myself unable with a good conscience to leave it undone, then I will gladly do my part to secure it, and will help it on as best I can.
It seems that Luther is calling for a different type of meeting for believers. In this meeting, Luther does not have to order things. Instead, he sees that “the form and order would soon shape itself.” (I would add that it is the Spirit that forms and orders the meetings.) In fact, Luther sees baptism and the Lord’s Supper happening in this group – not in one of the public meetings that are meant for unbelievers. Notice also that in this meeting, believers would teach one another and take up money to give to the poor.
So, why did Luther not pursue this type of service? Well, he tells us here that he does not know “earnest” Christians willing to participate in this type of meeting. History tells us that Luther later relented from this position in order to appease the state church.
Everything that follows this point in “The German Mass and Order of Divine Service” describes how to carry out the first two kinds of “Divine Service”, which Luther said were not intended for believers, but for unbelievers. We will never know what would have happened historically if Luther had held to his convictions: “I will gladly do my part to secure it, and will help it on as best I can.”
Another Anabaptist on baptism and the supper
From the Schleitheim Confession (1527) presided over by Michael Sattler (1490-1527):
So it shall be and must be, that whoever does not share the calling of the one God to one faith, to one baptism, to one spirit, to one body together with all the children of God, may not be made one loaf together with them, as must be true if one wishes truly to break bread according to the command of Christ.
An Anabaptist on baptism and the supper
This is from “The Church of God” by Dietrich Philips, c. 1560:
The two tokens [baptism and the Supper] are left us by the Lord that they might admonish us to a godly walk (Col 2:6; Rom 16:18), to a mortification of the flesh, to a burial of sin, to a resurrection into the new life, to thanksgiving for the great benefits which have been given us by God, and to the renewing and confirming of brotherly love, unity, and fellowship (Matt 26:26; Mark 14:23; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 10:17; 11:25).
Unity. Real or Ideal?
In this week’s ecclesiology seminar, we will discuss patristic ecclesiology. The patristic writers (especially Cyprian and Augustine) focused on the unity of the church. They believed that this unity was real, not ideal. This reading raised several questions for me:
- Is the unity of the church real, or is it an ideal that we can only know in eternity?
- If the unity of the church is real, how do we live in the unity of the church today?
- What reasons does the Bible give for separating (breaking unity) with other believers?