Hello all! Since we have the group going, I thought perhaps we could share reflections and thoughts on the text as we go along. I plan to post periodically on Facebook with my thoughts (partly as a way to write about and thus retain what I'm reading), so I thought I would share the same thought here. This is what I posted on Facebook tonight. Please feel free to post your own thoughts or reflections!
The corruption and misuse of a key part of Christian belief or practice does not make that practice invalid.
In Christian circles, there is the constant danger of abuse of authority. In the Middle Ages, monks seized the church income and used the money to live high and comfortably while the poor suffered. In cults, the leaders wield religious threats and doctrine in order to force the members into service and subjugation. In American fundamentalist churches, pastors use their pulpit to pry into churchgoer's lives and control entertainment choices, time management and family relationships. Wade Burleson, a pastor and blogger in central Oklahoma, write that one of the primary problems in the church is pastors and leaders attempting to assert "moral authority" on other members, by virtue of the title; he reminds us that, as Christians, we are all prophet, priest and king before God. Thus, authority is a particularly dangerous weapon, capable of great harm both to individual believers and to Christian faith and practice.
Yet that does not mean, apparently, that authority should be discarded altogether. Clement of Rome writes to the Corinthian church (same Corinthians as Paul wrote to), and among other things, he rebukes them for their treatment of authority. Apparently, a few troublemakers had begun speaking out against the Corinthian elders, the rest of the church had leaned ready ears to this gossip, and suddenly the church was in an uproar, which the whole world (according to Clement) heard about. He reminds them that their leaders were set in place by the Apostles, that the leaders had taken care to serve the church in a gracious and loving manner. Thus, Clement points out, the Corinthians are violating the laws of brotherly love and church unity by listening to the troublemakers instead of the longtime leaders.
As I read this, I was thinking thus: "Yes, Clement. Great points. But please don't forget that some leaders are really bad leaders, that some leaders hurt people, that some leaders should be overturned because they're using their position for evil. Remind your readers of this!" Then I caught myself: Just because some wolves have abused power within the church, does it follow that a discussion of leadership always need include a warning against abuse of power and those who do? C.S. Lewis writes in his masterpiece The Great Divorce that the fact that the Inquisition erred in imposing doctrine on believers under penalty of death does not mean that doctrine is not indeed important. I think the same idea applies here: One, or several, or many leaders who have corrupted the power that God gave them does not mean that every leader has done so. The fact that we the church have to oust a leader, or two, does not mean that we have to oust every one. Respecting leadership is still a valuable part of the Christian church, an ideal to be respected even if the ideal and real life practice do not often correspond.
Of course, the principle is much wider than simply concern for authority: The fact that life in a sinful world corrupts ideal Christian practice and belief does not make those ideals and beliefs worth less. The fact that some people are unlovable does not make the Christian goal to love without discrimination any less important. The fact that some people waste money and opportunities given to them does not mean that we should not give anyway.
Ultimately, this is perhaps part of the Christian life: the ability to distinguish between the practical and the ideal, and the ability to follow the ideal even when the practical interferes with our progress.
The corruption and misuse of a key part of Christian belief or practice does not make that practice invalid.
In Christian circles, there is the constant danger of abuse of authority. In the Middle Ages, monks seized the church income and used the money to live high and comfortably while the poor suffered. In cults, the leaders wield religious threats and doctrine in order to force the members into service and subjugation. In American fundamentalist churches, pastors use their pulpit to pry into churchgoer's lives and control entertainment choices, time management and family relationships. Wade Burleson, a pastor and blogger in central Oklahoma, write that one of the primary problems in the church is pastors and leaders attempting to assert "moral authority" on other members, by virtue of the title; he reminds us that, as Christians, we are all prophet, priest and king before God. Thus, authority is a particularly dangerous weapon, capable of great harm both to individual believers and to Christian faith and practice.
Yet that does not mean, apparently, that authority should be discarded altogether. Clement of Rome writes to the Corinthian church (same Corinthians as Paul wrote to), and among other things, he rebukes them for their treatment of authority. Apparently, a few troublemakers had begun speaking out against the Corinthian elders, the rest of the church had leaned ready ears to this gossip, and suddenly the church was in an uproar, which the whole world (according to Clement) heard about. He reminds them that their leaders were set in place by the Apostles, that the leaders had taken care to serve the church in a gracious and loving manner. Thus, Clement points out, the Corinthians are violating the laws of brotherly love and church unity by listening to the troublemakers instead of the longtime leaders.
As I read this, I was thinking thus: "Yes, Clement. Great points. But please don't forget that some leaders are really bad leaders, that some leaders hurt people, that some leaders should be overturned because they're using their position for evil. Remind your readers of this!" Then I caught myself: Just because some wolves have abused power within the church, does it follow that a discussion of leadership always need include a warning against abuse of power and those who do? C.S. Lewis writes in his masterpiece The Great Divorce that the fact that the Inquisition erred in imposing doctrine on believers under penalty of death does not mean that doctrine is not indeed important. I think the same idea applies here: One, or several, or many leaders who have corrupted the power that God gave them does not mean that every leader has done so. The fact that we the church have to oust a leader, or two, does not mean that we have to oust every one. Respecting leadership is still a valuable part of the Christian church, an ideal to be respected even if the ideal and real life practice do not often correspond.
Of course, the principle is much wider than simply concern for authority: The fact that life in a sinful world corrupts ideal Christian practice and belief does not make those ideals and beliefs worth less. The fact that some people are unlovable does not make the Christian goal to love without discrimination any less important. The fact that some people waste money and opportunities given to them does not mean that we should not give anyway.
Ultimately, this is perhaps part of the Christian life: the ability to distinguish between the practical and the ideal, and the ability to follow the ideal even when the practical interferes with our progress.