"I own part of these woods. The stone wall that runs not half a mile from here is the border of my property."
"It is all the King's land," says the gardener, "and under the King's rule through the authority He's given to His Ministers and to His Prime Minister."
"I recognize the King's authority, but not the Prime Minister's." I do not know why I am suddenly so offended, or why the bitter argument springs up out of me. But I am enraged.
"Regardless, His authority is the King's," says the gardener. "And, if I may, how can you recognize the King's authority if you do not recognize His Prime Minister's?"
I leave the garden angry. "He is a false Prime Minister," I say under my breath. "He reaches too far."
Why do I accept and even demand hierarchy and authority in every institution but the Church?
There is something in me that rejects human, spiritual authority. "I am Christ's man, and His man alone," I want to say. And that is correct: I serve no King but Jesus. But what if He has established His authority on this Earth in a man, in a council of men, in order to guide His Church? Or, to put it differently, is there another way, given the heart of man, to have His Church be one?
At the very least, can I say that perhaps it is true? If I could say, "Perhaps," then I may be able to approach the question honestly.
Unity is the fruit of charity. And without charity, who can be saved? What does that unity look like? Is it unity within diversity? Is it unity under the recognized authority of the Bishop of Rome? Or is it a completely invisible unity? Is invisible unity even unity? One thing becomes clearer to me as I get older: The gospel demands unity. In Question 3 of N.T. Wright's February 2006 Wrightsaid Q & A, Wright says that the existence and propagation of denominations is "a flagrant disobedience" to the teaching of the New Testament. That statement, if I believe it, demands something of me.
I walk through the woods, and then turn and run back toward the garden. The gardener stands and watches my approach as I crash gracelessly through the forest. He is grinning.
5 comments:
I've had very similar thoughts on hierarchy and authority in the church... and I can definitely say, "Perhaps."
It doesn't seem to me that the early church had unity.
Their faith unified them, but each "church" had unique problems that made them need different instruction to address those problems. The letters of Paul address those issues.
I think differences have been a part of the church from the beginning.
Jamie, you're absolutely right. And I think, if it ever happened this side of heaven (for lack of a better cliche), it would still be full of problems and full of diverse beliefs. I don't expect the issues, the problems, or the differences to ever vanish. But maybe someday we can find visible unity within the midst of many of our differences. To say, "I disagree," and to add whole-heartedly, "with my brother (or sister)."
Yeah, it may be a pipe dream, but one I feel obligated to nonetheless pursue.
I guess it depends on how you define unity. Just because the different city churches had different problems addressed in the NT epistles doesn't cry anarchy to me. They had the apostles to teach & correct them.
After the apostles, submission to the bishop and the celebration of the eucharist became the source of unity (ecclesial and liturgical).
Love your blog, Scott. I was laughing and reading portions to my wife last night as I dug through your archives.
Thanks for stopping by, Chad. I appreciate your thinking here.
Post a Comment