Friday, April 22, 2005

When to Submit

The train of thought on the previous post has become long and interesting enough to warrant a new post. Here's the thread:

Schenck: I guess I would consider the authority of a community in an "absolute" sense to be in proportion to its correspondance to the faith of the ages, the faith "catholic." By the way, I consider this touchstone to apply to the Roman Catholic church as well :>) In other words, the authority of the Roman Catholic Church depends on its correspondance to the true catholic faith rather than its own understanding of the faith catholic.

On the other hand, I believe that communities can be prophetic on various issues, in which their authority is tentative in relation to the catholic faith, but potentially absolute in relation to what the catholic faith might become.

But what I mean when I speak of being in submission to the communities of faith to which I belong will often be something much less than either of these in terms of its relation to absolute faith. It is about my submission to those in authority over me. Whether it proves also to be submission to the church catholic will often be highly debatable in any absolute or even prophetic sense.

Chris: So there are times when we can't be or shouldn't be submissive to our church's authority [meaning the authority of our particular local church and its respective denomination]? or do you just mean the church-at-large?

New Schenck: With the danger of being a hypocrite, here goes.

A person should never submit to any authority over them when that authority is in conflict with the faith catholic (e.g., Trinity). Can we create a category, the "ethic catholic," issues of consensus with regard to practice (e.g., homosexual practice)?

But take the issue of drinking alcohol. There's clearly nothing unbiblical about drinking in moderation. Yet, the communities of faith to which I belong prohibit it. I believe on an issue like this one it is my duty to submit to their authority and not drink. Such rules are often part of what brings group cohesion and are sociologically significant (e.g., not dancing). It does me no harm to submit to such rules, and it does a body good (the body of Christ in terms of cohesiveness).

I don't think it will be a perfect world when every church looks and acts and believes the same way. The diversity allows for the whole counsel of God to come through. Forces in tension have much more "strength" than a lukewarm, watered down unity.

There may be other issues where I believe the authorities over me are in conflict with truths that are not a part of the core faith and that are in the end detrimental to the church. While the Wesleyan Church mostly ignores the personal practice of tongues these days, there was a time when individuals who privately spoke in tongues got into big trouble. What of the days when people were prohibited from translating the Bible into vernacular languages? These aren't core issues, but they would seem to be positions that conflict with either the Bible or the trajectory of faith. Must we submit on them?

I feel that some people may called to be "prophets" on issues like these. Maybe God calls a Wycliff or a Bence to move the church in more biblical or Christian direction when a practice is actually detrimental to God's plan. Does God call us all to change the church on these issues? I know some people who feel that it is their job to correct everything that is wrong with everything. Most of the time I doubt they are truly called to be prophets.

I think there are other and often better ways to change the church than direct confrontation or disobedience. There is the "wise as a serpent, harmless as a dove" method. There is the "subtle change agent" model. The "frog straight into hot water model" backfires a lot of the time, I think.

Then there's the model "choose your battles." For various reasons, I've taken the easy route and chosen to play the kind of "prophetic" role with the issue of women. It's safe because it is one of the things that my own tradition is most prophetic on in relation to the broader church. I can submit to my communities of faith and yet speak out. I feel similarly about the power of God to live victoriously over willful sin.

Are there issues where I should speak out within or in a prophetic role toward my communities of faith? That's so tricky. There aren't any that I personally feel called to be prophetic on. How about you?

5 comments:

nathan richardson said...

authority. who has it? why should we follow it? our church is half way through a series called "under cover" by john brevere.

he says authority is... 1. God, 2. God appointed, and 3. anyone who disobeys God or God appointed authority is trapped in sin.

we do not follow hitler (who obviously was in authority) because he disobeyed God's law. when he disobeyed God's law then his authority was able to be questioned.

many times in the wesleyan church they ask us to do things that we might not necessarily like, but i dont question the wesleyan church because they are obeying God's law in what they say.

we might agree/disagree about the ideas that the wesleyan chuch has on alcohol, toungues or another issue. but in the long run these are issues that are non essentials to our faith.

without authority the wesleyan church would be chaotic. i might not agree with everything the church has to say but since i choose to be a wesleyan i choose to listen to the authority that is placed above me (sr. pastor, lba's, dba's, dbmd's, ds, gs) that is until i see something that is defiantly disobeying God but realistically i do not ever see that happening in the wesleyan curch.

Anonymous said...

Rev. Dr. Schenck and Nate,
This still seems pretty subjective. Do we base our "prophetic voice" on our individual thoughts on what is essential, Biblically or with the faith catholic? This seems contradictory to being in submission.
If I don't believe in ordination of women, because I have proof texts to support a male-dominated system without love, but my denomination allows for ordination of women, then do I have any recourse? How do I be prophetic without being disruptive? How do I submit to an authority which I believe is unbiblical? Who gets to say what is unbiblical? out of the faith catholic? unessential?

What a paradox!

Anonymous said...

Chris sais, How do I be prophetic without being disruptive?

THAT is the key question...one I have pondered for 34 years...and done well at timnes and other times done poorly. I like Schenck's approach to the prophetic role--the trouble with implementing it is we all name ourselves prophets. I too reserve a role for the "prophetoic slice" in the "rings of authority" but I treat all such prophetic calls with skepticism--including those I have made own.

What I have not yet figured out is the extent to which "the winners write the history." That is, when a prophetic slice comes out against slavery and they win, they are honored as prophets. But when a slice loses in their attempt to change the church they are rejected or made into heretics. Have all the "sides that won" been right? Are there any "sides that lost" who were right?

--Keith Drury

Ken Schenck said...

My personal key verses on debatable issues are Romans 14:22-23, from which I draw two principles: 1) act from a convinced faith and 2) you can be wrongly convinced. It definitely appears very subjective from our standpoint. However, I believe that the whole ball of wax is objective to God and the figuring out is a human problem.

With Drury I'm willing to see periods of history where the winners were false prophets or concessions by God to particular ages (e.g., divorce in the OT).

Nate, I like your spirit! Here's my question for you. What happens one day when you wake up and find that you are a leader in the Wesleyan Church (e.g., a GS or DS) or an "expert" on a particular knowledge area that relates to faith? What happens when you become Bud Bence and realize that you have a knowledge, spirit, and authority comparable to the individuals that framed the Discipline. I suspect that the idea of submission to the more particular aspects of a Wesleyan perspective begin to look a little different--not that you disagree with them but that you recognize those aspects of them that might be more time- and or culture-bound.

nathan richardson said...

schenck
i just wrote a long response and lost it. so here is a shorter summary.

many people have defied authority in the past. my favorite being deitrich bonhoffer. unfortunately his assassination of hitler failed.

as for your question. i have seen reformers in the wesleyan church and they have changed thoughts and views of the church. (eg keith drury- with his many writing and speaking) we have also seen not as wise decisions made by gs, ds and other wesleyan thinkers.

however my faith has never been or ever will be in the church as a whole. i will always have issues with some of its views. but i am always reminded about the essentials and non essentials of christianity. drury explains it as pencil, ink and blood.

there will always be room for reform. the question is how do we go about reforming the church? there are right and wrong ways to do this.

thanks for the dialogue, especially from a young kid like i am it is always nice to hash things out.