Authority?
Who or what is the Authority in Christianity? For you?
It seems to me there was a paradigm shift in history.... and we may not be as aware or sensitive to this as perhaps we should?
WHO/WHAT is the teaching authority for Christians? WHO/WHAT? Christians are to submit to WHO/WHAT?
Before the Renaissance, it seems the universal "answer" (except by some heretics) was "the church." An authority OUTSIDE individual Christians. We can see this even today in the Catholic Catechism #85 and 87 - a bit shocking to modern folks but this reveals this pre-Renaissance, pre-modern mentality, the "answer" for 1000 or 1500 years of Christianity. The "answer" that the ECF's (and Christians generally) was "the church." Jesus gave us "the church".... the Holy Spirit guides "the church".... WE (all Christians - including the bishops) are to submit to "the church."
Now, historically, there was SOME sense of "the church" as US.... all of US.... the one, holy, catholic church, the communion and community and family of ALL believers, together (the Protestant view of "the church") more an "us" (together) than an "it." BUT there was ALSO (along with this) a sense of "the church" as visible, institutional, "in the world but not of the world" reality that can speak and act in visible ways that even non-Christians can "see" and "hear." In the EAST, these two come together (meet) in the Seven Ecumenical Councils (and really, only then) as the WHOLE church, the entire church catholic, audiably speaks, otherwise (outside an ECUMENICAL Council), the church cannot speak and has no grand, universal authority. But in the WEST, this increasingly became an issue of DENOMINATION, which denomination is the lord over all, the ruling body, "the church" in all its fullness (and power, that being the point). For nearly 1000 years, this was just a power struggle between East (the patriarchs together) and the West (the Pope) as East and West ever grew further apart. Functionally, these became separate (and warring) denominations but careful to at least theoretically be one since there can be only one "visible" church. All that crashed in 1054 with the mutual excommunications But for the EAST, this was not a crisis - the church still exists... it's just that now ecumenical councils are impossible and "the church" can no longer speak until the schism is healed; the Authority is still "in the church" it's just the schism has made "the church" unable to speak in such. In the WEST, with its very denominational emphasis, it was a case of screaming "But I"M 'the church'.... obey ME!" We see this is Unam Sanctum and those references to the Catechism. in the west, it became who could scream the loudest, "I'M the (right) church, so listen to ME!"
BUT still remaining in both East and West was that "the church" is the authority.... individual Christians theoretically needed to choose WHICH was "the church" (increasingly hard as the two grew further apart). Which of course, opened a whole can of worms! Now SELF chooses!!! "The church" remained the Authority.... individual Christians submitted to "the church" and docilicly listened to "the church' - BUT they chose which one, which "church." This was a paradigm shift that 1054 created. I realize no one actually chose, they were born into one or the other... and laity were often completely unaware of the alternatives but still there was this paradigm shift, this emphasis that self (or the individual king who ruled there) chooses.
IMO, I wonder if all the Reformers simply fell into this, this situation East and West necessitated by their mutual excommunications in 1054, five centuries earlier? I think of Luther's "here I stand" speech, which strikes me as a very modern speech... King Henry's (more Eastern perspective) that he could create his own denomination (a more western perspective). The Reformation is an extension of this "you choose" mentality 1054 created.
Now, it's extremely interesting that Luther himself decried this (even though it seems to ME the Reformation in a sense depended on it). He STRESSED the unity of "the church" ... he stressed the Ecumenical Councils and church history..... he repudiated individual "feelings" and radical views that had no "legs" in the whole of the church catholic..... he felt (passionately) that where he diverged from Tradition (ecumenical ... Luther had a more Eastern than Western view of Tradition) then he had a VERY high bar to meet, he better make a STRONG case from Scripture AND Tradition... for Luther, going BACK to Scripture and "the church" mattered - not his feelings or his choices. The Spirit speaks to US, not ME. But I'm not sure this rant of Luther's was heard. Luther was very critical of the "radicals" who seemed to look in the mirror, to their own opinions, their own feelings of how the Spirit lead THEM (self). Again, I think of Luther's "Here I Stand" speech..... was Luther in a sense guilty of the very thing he repudiated? Or was he trying to hold onto a tension that he felt others ignored? I sense it was the later (the brilliance of Luther, IMO, is often that he held to tensions and sought a balance).
But however it came about, today it's all self. Authority belongs to the one we see in the mirror. This is MODERN Christianity (pretty much regardless of what denomination our parish may belong to), especially of the last 300 years or so. It's not a matter of submitting to an authority OUTSIDE self but to SELF. Self listening to self, self submitting to self. "What do I think? How do I feel? We decry the egotistical claims that the RCC made in the Middle Ages and Reformation..... while making even bigger ones for SELF. The individualism that entered things in the Renaissance now entered Christianity (IMO more than Luther realized). And this got a HUGE kick in the Enlightenment, becoming very extreme. The EAST largely avoided this (immune from both the Renaissance and Enlightenment) until recently...now it's there, too. SELF appoints SELF to CHOOSE. Self is the authority. Self is the one God leads. Self is the smart one, the good one. SELF will listen to the voices.... glean from such what SELF chooses to glean... and create the Religion of Self. Christianity today is just one BIG smorgasbord.... MUCH of Christianity today is like going to a cafeteria.... self chooses his own unique plate from what is out there. And in this age of the internet, what is offered is vast!
YES, the Protestant will talk about the Authority of Scripture! And to Luther, the interpretation and application of such is largely a matter of TRADITION but that's been lost in most of Protestantism, so insisting SCRIPTURE is the Authority doesn't mean a whole lot when self insists that self is the one who knows what God MEANT to say in the Bible (even if He obviously didn't), when self appoints self as the Authority to determine what God MEANT in Scripture. Read just about any thread at any discussion website and you see this all the time. Luther stressed that "the church" (us) interprets Scripture... the Holy Spirit lead us... but it seems to me, in practice in modern Protestantism this has become "the Bible was given to ME, the Holy Spirit leads ME, I'm the authority over Scripture because I'M the one to say what Scripture means." (This is part of the reason for Protestantism's increasing hatred of Tradition - Tradition is not me).
This is just as true in Catholicism as it is in Protestantism, IN SPITE OF the constant mantra of The Catholic Church to the contrary, the loud and ever-present call of that denomination for all to submit to IT. The deacon at my Catholic parish said that probably 10% of Catholics are Catholics (meaning they submit to IT), the rest are what he called "cafeteria Catholics." I think he's probably right. I think it's worse in Protestantism (where it's 0% submit to the denomination - often not even the clergy).
This radical individualism.... this appointment of self ... this coronation of the brain of self.... has lead to the fractionalization of Christianity... self is the authority of self. It's a very modern view. And Christians have bought into it - hook, line and sinker. Everywhere.
IMO, Luther sensed a need for balance, for tension, for great care. His emphasis on humility ("Humility is the foundation of all good theology), his emphasis on Tradition (in a more Eastern than Roman Catholic sense), his frequent quotes of the 7 Ecumenical Councils and Fathers, the high bar he set for when it even appeared he was diverting from history.... they all show a respect for Authority OUTSIDE self. On the other hand, his embrace of accountability. his awareness that error can happen even at the top all lead him to reject a blind docility to raw power exempting self from accountability. If so, this is an honorable position.... but I'm not sure how "doable" it is.... I'm not even sure how good Luther was at this. And yup, seems to me the vast majority of the worlds 70 million Lutherans are "Cafeteria Lutherans."
What do you think?
Josiah
.
Who or what is the Authority in Christianity? For you?
It seems to me there was a paradigm shift in history.... and we may not be as aware or sensitive to this as perhaps we should?
WHO/WHAT is the teaching authority for Christians? WHO/WHAT? Christians are to submit to WHO/WHAT?
Before the Renaissance, it seems the universal "answer" (except by some heretics) was "the church." An authority OUTSIDE individual Christians. We can see this even today in the Catholic Catechism #85 and 87 - a bit shocking to modern folks but this reveals this pre-Renaissance, pre-modern mentality, the "answer" for 1000 or 1500 years of Christianity. The "answer" that the ECF's (and Christians generally) was "the church." Jesus gave us "the church".... the Holy Spirit guides "the church".... WE (all Christians - including the bishops) are to submit to "the church."
Now, historically, there was SOME sense of "the church" as US.... all of US.... the one, holy, catholic church, the communion and community and family of ALL believers, together (the Protestant view of "the church") more an "us" (together) than an "it." BUT there was ALSO (along with this) a sense of "the church" as visible, institutional, "in the world but not of the world" reality that can speak and act in visible ways that even non-Christians can "see" and "hear." In the EAST, these two come together (meet) in the Seven Ecumenical Councils (and really, only then) as the WHOLE church, the entire church catholic, audiably speaks, otherwise (outside an ECUMENICAL Council), the church cannot speak and has no grand, universal authority. But in the WEST, this increasingly became an issue of DENOMINATION, which denomination is the lord over all, the ruling body, "the church" in all its fullness (and power, that being the point). For nearly 1000 years, this was just a power struggle between East (the patriarchs together) and the West (the Pope) as East and West ever grew further apart. Functionally, these became separate (and warring) denominations but careful to at least theoretically be one since there can be only one "visible" church. All that crashed in 1054 with the mutual excommunications But for the EAST, this was not a crisis - the church still exists... it's just that now ecumenical councils are impossible and "the church" can no longer speak until the schism is healed; the Authority is still "in the church" it's just the schism has made "the church" unable to speak in such. In the WEST, with its very denominational emphasis, it was a case of screaming "But I"M 'the church'.... obey ME!" We see this is Unam Sanctum and those references to the Catechism. in the west, it became who could scream the loudest, "I'M the (right) church, so listen to ME!"
BUT still remaining in both East and West was that "the church" is the authority.... individual Christians theoretically needed to choose WHICH was "the church" (increasingly hard as the two grew further apart). Which of course, opened a whole can of worms! Now SELF chooses!!! "The church" remained the Authority.... individual Christians submitted to "the church" and docilicly listened to "the church' - BUT they chose which one, which "church." This was a paradigm shift that 1054 created. I realize no one actually chose, they were born into one or the other... and laity were often completely unaware of the alternatives but still there was this paradigm shift, this emphasis that self (or the individual king who ruled there) chooses.
IMO, I wonder if all the Reformers simply fell into this, this situation East and West necessitated by their mutual excommunications in 1054, five centuries earlier? I think of Luther's "here I stand" speech, which strikes me as a very modern speech... King Henry's (more Eastern perspective) that he could create his own denomination (a more western perspective). The Reformation is an extension of this "you choose" mentality 1054 created.
Now, it's extremely interesting that Luther himself decried this (even though it seems to ME the Reformation in a sense depended on it). He STRESSED the unity of "the church" ... he stressed the Ecumenical Councils and church history..... he repudiated individual "feelings" and radical views that had no "legs" in the whole of the church catholic..... he felt (passionately) that where he diverged from Tradition (ecumenical ... Luther had a more Eastern than Western view of Tradition) then he had a VERY high bar to meet, he better make a STRONG case from Scripture AND Tradition... for Luther, going BACK to Scripture and "the church" mattered - not his feelings or his choices. The Spirit speaks to US, not ME. But I'm not sure this rant of Luther's was heard. Luther was very critical of the "radicals" who seemed to look in the mirror, to their own opinions, their own feelings of how the Spirit lead THEM (self). Again, I think of Luther's "Here I Stand" speech..... was Luther in a sense guilty of the very thing he repudiated? Or was he trying to hold onto a tension that he felt others ignored? I sense it was the later (the brilliance of Luther, IMO, is often that he held to tensions and sought a balance).
But however it came about, today it's all self. Authority belongs to the one we see in the mirror. This is MODERN Christianity (pretty much regardless of what denomination our parish may belong to), especially of the last 300 years or so. It's not a matter of submitting to an authority OUTSIDE self but to SELF. Self listening to self, self submitting to self. "What do I think? How do I feel? We decry the egotistical claims that the RCC made in the Middle Ages and Reformation..... while making even bigger ones for SELF. The individualism that entered things in the Renaissance now entered Christianity (IMO more than Luther realized). And this got a HUGE kick in the Enlightenment, becoming very extreme. The EAST largely avoided this (immune from both the Renaissance and Enlightenment) until recently...now it's there, too. SELF appoints SELF to CHOOSE. Self is the authority. Self is the one God leads. Self is the smart one, the good one. SELF will listen to the voices.... glean from such what SELF chooses to glean... and create the Religion of Self. Christianity today is just one BIG smorgasbord.... MUCH of Christianity today is like going to a cafeteria.... self chooses his own unique plate from what is out there. And in this age of the internet, what is offered is vast!
YES, the Protestant will talk about the Authority of Scripture! And to Luther, the interpretation and application of such is largely a matter of TRADITION but that's been lost in most of Protestantism, so insisting SCRIPTURE is the Authority doesn't mean a whole lot when self insists that self is the one who knows what God MEANT to say in the Bible (even if He obviously didn't), when self appoints self as the Authority to determine what God MEANT in Scripture. Read just about any thread at any discussion website and you see this all the time. Luther stressed that "the church" (us) interprets Scripture... the Holy Spirit lead us... but it seems to me, in practice in modern Protestantism this has become "the Bible was given to ME, the Holy Spirit leads ME, I'm the authority over Scripture because I'M the one to say what Scripture means." (This is part of the reason for Protestantism's increasing hatred of Tradition - Tradition is not me).
This is just as true in Catholicism as it is in Protestantism, IN SPITE OF the constant mantra of The Catholic Church to the contrary, the loud and ever-present call of that denomination for all to submit to IT. The deacon at my Catholic parish said that probably 10% of Catholics are Catholics (meaning they submit to IT), the rest are what he called "cafeteria Catholics." I think he's probably right. I think it's worse in Protestantism (where it's 0% submit to the denomination - often not even the clergy).
This radical individualism.... this appointment of self ... this coronation of the brain of self.... has lead to the fractionalization of Christianity... self is the authority of self. It's a very modern view. And Christians have bought into it - hook, line and sinker. Everywhere.
IMO, Luther sensed a need for balance, for tension, for great care. His emphasis on humility ("Humility is the foundation of all good theology), his emphasis on Tradition (in a more Eastern than Roman Catholic sense), his frequent quotes of the 7 Ecumenical Councils and Fathers, the high bar he set for when it even appeared he was diverting from history.... they all show a respect for Authority OUTSIDE self. On the other hand, his embrace of accountability. his awareness that error can happen even at the top all lead him to reject a blind docility to raw power exempting self from accountability. If so, this is an honorable position.... but I'm not sure how "doable" it is.... I'm not even sure how good Luther was at this. And yup, seems to me the vast majority of the worlds 70 million Lutherans are "Cafeteria Lutherans."
What do you think?
Josiah
.
