Authority is a difficult subject to write about. It is a difficult subject, and it is difficult to exercise. There’s too much or too little. It is too severely exercised, or too leniently, too autocratically or too democratically. And it seems easy for a person to bypass proper authority and to live as if he is a law unto himself, especially in this age of permissiveness and endless talk of self-realization.
Despite the difficulties of the subject, we can pinpoint the basic principle for a Christian. That basic principle is simply this: Christ is Lord.
After Christ had accomplished His victory over the final enemy, death, by His resurrection and He was about to take His place at the right hand of the “Father Almighty,” He declared, “All authority in heaven and earth has been given to me” (Matt. 28:18). This is the final authority, the same authority that called the world into being (John 1:3), the authority that bade Moses go to Pharaoh to demand the release of God’s people, the authority that brought the mighty Nebuchadnezzar to his knees (Dan. 4:31–37), the authority of the sovereign God Himself. The Victorious Christ’s authority is the same authority indeed, but refined and refocused by the actuality of the divine love in the saving work of Jesus Christ.
Most Christians would agree with most if not all of what has been said so far. Much more must be said, however, when one asks the question, “How does the Lord exercise His authority?” Let us restrict that question to the exercise of His authority among men, and leave to one side the question of the exercise of His authority in “nature” and over the march of time and circumstance by His providence.
The supreme authority of the Lord comes to expression among men through civil government (Rom. 13:1–7, I Peter 2:13–14), through His Word written, and through centers of authority established by God in the family and in the church. In His Word God has not seen fit to specify the structures by which civil governments are to exercise His authority. But He has made clear in His Word what are the main lines of authority in family and church. These are the structures in which and by which those who are party of God’s covenant live in fellowship with God and with one another.
The concern of this essay is to examine how the matter of divine authority has been dealt with in the Christian Reformed Church in recent years, years in which authority in any form has been receiving less and less respect in society at large. Also in the various churches respect for the authority of God’s Word has been weakened by the new hermeneutic’s (or “interpretation’s”) emphasis on the cultural and historical conditioning of the Scriptures.
How has the matter of God’s authority been faring in the Christian Reformed Church in the last decade or so? Our answer to that question will not deal with the subject of the divine authority as that was involved in the report on capital punishment approved by synod in 1981. Some feel that regard for the sovereign rule of divine justice in the punishment of evildoers was overshadowed in that report by considerations of social consciousness and prudence. We will lay aside this question of God’s authority in civil government and concentrate rather on different facets of the exercise of God’s authority in the covenant community, that is, in the church and also in the home. To do this we will examine two reports that have played prominent roles in the Christian Reformed Church in recent years, namely, the report on The Nature and Extent of Biblical Authority (Report 44–1972), and the report on Ecclesiastical Office and Ordination (Report 44–1973). And then we will consider the matter of headship, an important aspect of the issue of women in the special offices of the church, which is to be considered by the synod of 1983.
Erosion of the Place of Divine Authority
The thesis of this essay is that these studies indicate an erosion of the place of divine authority in the church, and that this erosion will be accelerated if the Christian Reformed Church does not act biblically in the matter of the headship of our Lord as expressed in the special offices of the church.
Some readers of this magazine may by this time have become a bit weary of discussions of Report 44—1972 on biblical authority. I shall seek to be brief and to the point. Report 44—1972 is in no way a direct assault on biblical authority. At no point does it say or suggest that the authors of the report wish in any way to lessen or dilute the authority of God’s Word. In fact the report says a number of good things about God’s authority in His Word. For instance, the report declares, “What Scripture says, God says. The entire ‘God-breathed’ Scripture is the authoritative Word of God. This is Scripture’s claim, and the Christian believingly responds to God’s Word in confession” (Acts of Synod 1972, p. 505). And the report is right on target when it declares that “Scripture is a redemptive, saving revelation of God in Jesus Christ,” and failure to recognize from the heart the saving character of the revelation of God in Jesus Christ means failure to see the authority of Scripture.
We heartily agree. If the report had stayed on that track there could hardly have been a serious problem at this point. If the report had simply said that the genuine discovery of Jesus Christ in the Scriptures as Savior and Lord is discovery of the real authority of the Bible, the report would have declared what is the kernel of the subject of biblical authority. Not all questions of interpretation would be settled by that declaration, of course, but the key to biblical authority would then be in the hand and heart of every believer. For every believer hears the voice of his Savior and Master in the Word of God.
Report 44–1972 did not stay on that track. It veered off when it said a number of things which remove biblical authority from the perception of a majority of the members of Christ’s church. The following citations from Report 44–1972 should make that statement unmistakably clear.
“While the entire Scripture speaks with divine authority, this authority is understood concretely and specifically only when one takes account of what God said, how he spoke, to whom he spoke, etc.” (Idem, p. 506).
“The Bible is a unique book and it has been inspired with a particular purpose in view. Unless one acknowledges that purpose and uses it as the key for understanding, even though he confesses the inspiration and authority of Scripture, he has not submitted himself to the real authority of Scripture” (Idem, p. 509).
“And when Christian interpreters, although confessing the full authority of Scripture and believing in Jesus Christ, derive from the Scriptures teachings which do not reflect the intended meaning of Scripture, then they are not submitting to the authentic authority of the Word of God” (Idem, p. 509).
“Such a concentration upon the content and purpose of Scripture implies, among other things, the following for an understanding of the nature and extent of biblical authority. It implies that the authority of Scripture is properly understood only when the various parts of Scripture are interpreted as functioning in their role within the history of redemption and revelation. It implies further that the authority of Scripture is properly understood only when one takes into account that the Scripture is written by men and that it is originally addressed to a people living at a certain time and under particular circumstances” (Idem, p. 510).
These citations from Report 44–1972 call for comment on the frequent use of question-begging expressions like “real authority,” “authentic authority,” “actually understood,” “properly understood.” These recurring expressions mar a piece of work that otherwise has many marks of solid scholarship. What are we to understand is the difference between the authority of Scripture and the “real authority” of Scripture? Is there a hint of some sort of elitism here?
But more important is the observation that these citations say rather clearly that unless one is a fairly advanced student of the Scriptures he doesn’t know the authority of God’s Word. This simply means that valid appreciation for the authority of Scripture is outside of the experience of the large majority of those who confess to be members of the body of Christ. I am not insensitive to the point the authors of Report 44–1972 are trying to make in the statements quoted above. But the report is saying too much in its insistence that proper understanding of the divine authority of the Bible hinges on this point, especially when appreciation for this point is elaborated to include a well-tutored understanding of some of the finer aspects of biblical interpretation. A presentation of the subject of biblical authority that places true appreciation for that authority beyond the reach of the average sincere, believing and obedient listener to the proclamation of God’s Word on any given Lord’s Day is plainly unacceptable. It is too bad that Report 44–1972 did not stick to its own statement that “The divine authority of the Word of God is actually recognized only when one has submitted himself to the one of whom the Scripture speaks” (Idem, p. 509).
Office and Authority
Report 44–1973 on “Ecclesiastical Office and Ordination” is one of the more significant studies to appear in the Christian Reformed Church in modern times. The roster of its authors looks like a blueribbon selection of leaders in the church –four college professors of Religion and Theology, the seminary president and a seminary professor, and the Stated Clerk of t he denomination.
This report first appeared before synod in 1972. At that synod a ministerial delegate said to me, “That report is the most revolutionary document to appear in our church in a long time.” Numerous readings of the report bear out the pertinence of that remark. Synod did not deem the report acceptable, and returned it to the study committee with a mandate to clarify certain questions with respect to the matter of authority in the special offices of the church.
The study committee reported again in 1973, when synod acted on the report. But again synod did not find the report satisfactory on the question of authority in the special offices. Synod’s advisory committee stated flatly that “the recommendations of the study committee do not reflect the fruit of the study of authority” (Acts of Synod 1973, p. 61). The synod, reading the report in much the same way as the Synod of 1972 had done, sought to correct the report’s shortcomings by adopting some “observations” which should serve as a “framework within which the ‘guidelines for understanding the nature of ecclesiastical office and ordination’ are to be understood” (Idem, p. 62). Observation number two signals the problem as it says, “Nowhere in the New Testament is there a conflict between authority and service, or between ruling and love” (Idem).
No one can fault Report 44–1973 for its description of office in terms of service. Every office-bearer must always remember he is a servant of Christ and His church, and office may never be thought of in terms of status or domination or special privilege. He is not to “lord it over the flock,” as Peter tells us in chapter five, verse two of his first epistle.
Yet it is just at this point that the report’s failings appear. Disagreement with the report’s main line of argumentation appears in the small but significant changes that synod made in the study committee’s basic statement of its position in guideline number one. The study committee said this: “The term for office in the Greek New Testament is DIAKONIA, meaning ‘service’ or ‘ministry’” (Idem, p. 714). Synod adopted guideline number one with the critical sentence reading as follows: “The general term for ‘office’ in the Greek New Testament is DIAKONIA, meaning ‘service’ or ‘ministry’” (Idem, p. 63; italics by E.H.). The insertion of the word general is to be noted as well as the quotation marks around the word office. These small but important changes in the reading of guideline number one as adopted by synod, when seen in the “framework” of observations set up by synod, can only mean the rejection of the oversimplified and inadequate understanding of office set forth in Report 44–1973 and the guidelines flowing from it. Synod’s overhauling of guidelines two and five underscores this dissatisfaction with the report, as a quick look at the Acts of Synod 1973, pages 63 and 715, will show.
The writer of this essay vividly recalls two incidents which illustrate what happens when a church seeks to do its business in a manner that fits the thinking developed in Report 44–1973 and its proposed guidelines. Both incidents occurred in churches in a denomination that does not have a Reformed type of church government. In the first instance I approached the pastor of the church to ask him the number of the congregation}s total membership. His reply was, “Six hundred,” but he quickly added that I should make that three hundred. When I asked him about the striking difference between the two figures, he said that the larger figure was the number of people on the church records while the smaller figure more exactly reflected the church’s actual live membership. When I asked him further about the matter, he replied that his church had no means by which the unfaithful ones could be dealt with; the church governing body had no such authority. “We preachers talk about this almost every time we get together,” he informed me.
In the second incident the seriously deviant views, openly published views, of a minister were involved. The church had no means by which it could deal with the errant brother other than to appeal to him to retract or resign, even by way of a public letter printed in the local newspaper and signed by a number of clergymen. When discussing this matter with a discerning individual who had a Presbyterian background and had joined the denomination involved, I was given this assessment of the situation by my friend, “I told the good folks at my church that their trouble is that they have no elders with authority.” Incidentally let it be observed that these churches subscribe wholeheartedly to the teaching that the total ministry of office is Christ’s ministry and that it is committed to all the members of the church. And that ministry is often pursued in these churches with plenty of love and with plenty of service. But there is no acknowledged authority in the special offices or ministries.
Authority exercised in properly constituted settings under the governance of Christ and His Word is an indispensable ingredient in any discussion of office in the church. This is in agreement with the leading definition of office in the language we use to set forth our meanings. “Office,” says Webster in his first definition of the word, is “a special duty, charge, or position conferred by an exercise of governmental authority and for a public purpose: a position of authority to exercise a public function . . . a position of responsibility or some degree of executive authority.” The authority in the case of ecclesiastical office is the authority of Christ, a unique authority that flows forth from a perfect blending of the divine attributes of truth, holiness, love, wisdom and power; an authority marked especially by Christ’s love for the church He redeemed with His blood. One called to exercise such authority as an elder, for instance, “ruling in the name of the ascended King,” can only be humbly aware of his servanthood. The frequent use in Report 44–1973 of the prejudiced word authoritarian to describe the traditionally Reformed view of office is as inappropriate as it is revealing.
Report 44–1973 and its consequent guidelines are still with us and are part of our church’s life. The guidelines are playing a part in the church’s adjudication of moot questions among us (see Acts of Synod 1981, pp. 512ff.). And it appears obvious that if the position set forth in the 1973 report and its gu1dehnes as recommended by the study committee is followed by the church, all the special offices in the church should be opened to women at once. How the guidelines as altered by synod and understood within the framework set up by synod may affect that discussion as it continues in the church remains to be seen. The next and final installment of this essay is expected to deal with this matter.
Edward Heerema is a retired Christian Reformed pastor living in Florida.