Chapter 11.
"By What Authority?"
And when he entered the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came up to him as he was teaching, and said, "By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you this authority?"
Jesus was a Jewish rabbi, perhaps without much formal training, but nevertheless a recognized teacher. A rabbi was presumed to have a certain amount of teaching authority in the Jewish community. But on occasions Jesus went beyond mere teaching and became an activist.
One example of this was when he entered the temple and drove out the money-changers who had turned the House of God into a commercial enterprise. But there was a problem, because the money-changers were in league with the scribes, chief priests, elders, Sanhedrin, and Pharisees of Jerusalem--the political authorities under the Roman sovereignty. These "movers and shakers" were upset when Jesus had the audacity to interfere with their authority by cleansing the temple. This was the start of an open and continuing conflict between Christ and the temple leaders, which would end with his crucifixion.
So these chief priests and elders came to Jesus, publicly challenged him, and asked by what authority he did such things as drive their currency exchangers out of the temple. Now the worshippers wouldn't have the proper currency to buy their animals for the temple sacrifices. "How dare you?" they demanded. This specific question Jesus refused to answer, because, since they didn't accept his authority, no answer he could have given would have changed their minds.
We cite this event from the life of Christ to introduce a burning question of our day, the question of authority in religion. What does authority have to do with a book on reading the Bible as literature? Everything, because the Bible is used by most Christian groups and believers in establishing their positions on the question of authority. Extremely conservative Christians depend most upon the words written in the Bible. Others depend to a lesser degree on the literal words of the Bible, but even liberals do not totally ignore what the Bible says. However, as we will see, to many believers, there has to be a higher authority than the Bible alone. In order to look at this issue, we shall first consider the biblical position that all authority is derived authority, that is, ultimately derived from God. Early in the chapter we will present some of the various views of the meaning of authority in several religious communities, and then proceed to discuss some of the peculiar problems which these views entail. Finally, we will consider the significance of literary analysis as applied to the problems of biblical authority.
Derived Authority
It is the position of the Bible that all authority is ultimately derived from God. This basic presupposition is implied in the answer Jesus gave when questioned about the authority of the contemporary prophet, John the Baptist. He said that John's authority was ultimately derived from God, not from the religious hierarchy of the political establishment. The people, the mass of citizens, recognized this, although the religious leaders did not. These religious leaders and political puppets refused to believe that their own authority was derived from God. They assumed that it was derived from the Romans, or even moreso from their innate merit, heritage, and position.
"In a democracy like we have in the United States, we attest that the authority of the government is derived from the people and from God, or the Natural Rights of Man. Our Constitution begins with the famous phrase, "We the people . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Our Declaration of Independence sets forth the philosophy that there is a station in life which "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God" entitle all people. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness; That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed" (emphasis added).
Authority and freedom have been very important to all nations throughout the twentieth century. Two great world wars and numerous smaller wars have occurred all over the world to clarify the meaning of authority and to identify who wields that authority. Individual freedom and human dignity and rights have been emphasized and fought for in many nations and in the United Nations. Political, civil, and religious freedoms are uppermost issues in the older established nations and in the developing nations.
The Nüremberg trials after the end of World War II attacked the notion of blind obedience to totalitarian authority. Convictions were obtained on the basis of the principle that, under certain circumstances, citizens are not only free to disobey orders of an inhumane and unjust dictator, but they are responsible and sometimes obligated by higher laws to do so. Undoubtedly these ideals concerning freedom and authority will continue to be promoted and advocated throughout the twenty-first century.
In this social situation it behooves religious people to place a premium on biblical freedom and a better understanding of the Bible in a free society in the twenty-first century. All Christians in particular, and all religious believers generally, of whatever faith or persuasion, need to take a new look at their old scriptures or holy books. They should be extremely wary of uncritically accepting these ancient books as authorities for all current situations in society. They should remain free to reinterpret their sacred scriptures in the light of the demands of modern life.
For example, some Christians cite Romans 13:1 as the basis for acceptance of the policy of "My country, right or wrong." The text of this passage of scripture is: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God" (RSV).
A reader who takes the text literally might conclude that Paul meant that Roman authority came from God and was to be respected as God-given. However, we must remember that Paul wrote the book of Romans at a time of great controversy between the conservative Jewish Christians of Jerusalem and the more liberal Gentile Christians of the Hellenistic World. Among the Palestinian Jews, certain zealots advocated resistance to, and even rebellion against, the Roman authorities.
Paul did not subscribe to this extreme view. He was more of an international evangelist, and he could not carry on his work unless he had a good relation with the civil authorities. Moreover, the Gentile Christians among whom he worked basically had no problem with the Roman government as long as the Romans did not persecute the Christians and demand supreme allegiance.
So Paul advocated a peaceful coexistence with the Romans. In Romans 13:1 he proposed the idea of derived authority in the general sense that government has been instituted by God. Had Paul lived later when the Romans began persecuting Christians and claiming allegiance above that to God, he would likely have changed his tone in the matter of relations between church and state. But at that time, and for Christians in that cultural and political situation, Paul gave a reasonable bit of advice.
Paul certainly was no revolutionary zealot, and he knew nothing about democratic societies like the United States, where the people are the government through the democratic process. Paul's theological point corresponds to modern political science principles that ultimately all authority is derived from higher sources, whether we call it Natural Rights, Human Rights, certain "Inalienable Rights", or in some sense from God. As Nels F. S. Ferré wrote in Know Your Faith, "In the final analysis, of course, God alone is authority" (19).
Danger of Governmental Authority in Religious Affairs
Much of the history of religion shows the danger of civil authority over the synagogue or church. This was the prevalent pattern from the time of Moses and Pharaoh to instances of the state church in our times. The plea of Moses was "Let my people go." Similarly, other religious groups down through history have had to implore the government, "Let us do this, let us do that." This has happened each time rulers or governments have had authority to grant or withhold permission to a religious group, whether to meet for public worship, to perform weddings, or to practice their faith in any overt way.
Although experience has taught us that both religion and governments thrive better when they are separate and do not meddle in each others affairs, governments and their rulers continue to seek authority in religious affairs. Communism required all religious groups to register with the government and to conform to the authority of the state. European and early American colonies required religious groups to obtain permission to have their own churches, to worship and preach, perform marriages, and to practice their faith.
Adolph Hitler used the authority of the state and the policy of National Socialism in an attempt to force German Christians to give unqualified allegiance to himself as Führer. This laid the foundation for a totalitarian state, to which they were expected to give unquestioning patriotism, including support of the state's anti-Semitic program and repression of "undesirable minorities." David L. Mueller, professor of theology in Louisville, KY, in an excellent introduction to Karl Barth's Church and State accurately describes how this policy undermined the Bible's authority "by subordinating its teachings to the Nazi ideology."
Hitler's efforts were only partially successful, for many brave believers and leaders in "the Confessing Church" refused to submit to Hitler's pressure. Karl Barth refused to swear unconditional allegiance to Hitler as required of every civil servant in Germany. Because he refused to begin his university lectures with the required greeting, "Heil Hitler!" he was expelled from Germany to Switzerland in 1935. From there he continued to write and speak freely and to call for the overthrow and defeat of Nazi Germany.
Other nations should have learned the lesson of the danger of the state's authority over religion from Nazi Germany, but again and again we find examples where nations today try in various ways to exercise authority over churches, temples, and synagogues. This always leads to disaster both for the church and the state.
Danger of Religious Authority in Governmental Affairs
The First Amendment to the Constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Because of that Amendment, the United States, since its beginning, has maintained a separation of church and state relations. The degree of separation or accommodation, and the ways this constitutional principle is applied and implemented, have frequently been debated, but the basic principle has been clearly interpreted by the courts.
Support appears so strong for this principle that no major political party overtly advocates that the government should have authority over religion, or that religion should have authority over the state. On the individual level, very few responsible Americans, except those who want official governmental support for their own church, without placing restraints on their own religion, seek for the government to get involved in church or spiritual affairs. Neither do many citizens wish for organized religious groups, in whatever guise, to interfere in government, or to impose their particular brand of theology upon unwilling individuals or groups.
Perhaps the most important foundation of this concept came from English philosopher and political theorist John Locke, who stated that the church was a voluntary institution rather than a national institution. He taught that matters of faith and religion were not under the jurisdiction of civil government. Even those religious leaders who repudiated Locke's deistic ideas read his works and acknowledged their indebtedness to him for his political philosophy.
The First Amendment to the Constitution was adopted in 1791. Four of the original thirteen colonies—Rhode Island, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey—never had established state churches. Moreover, five more states (Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Vermont, and Virginia) disestablished their state churches by 1802, and the rest of the states followed between then and 1833. Thus was broken the authority of any church or religious group to exert "influence" on the government, and full religious freedom was constitutionally guaranteed.
In a landmark decision upholding the First Amendment, the Supreme Court, in the Everson v. Board of Education (1947) case established the principle that "Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa." Notice the justices' phrase "and vice versa." This means that no church or religious organization can legally participate in the affairs of a state or Federal Government.
Thus we find that the Constitution, the First Amendment, the Supreme Court, and America's citizenry all agree that the mission of churches is to participate in spiritual endeavors, but not in the civil government. The strength of this agreement makes it inconceivable that the church could use civil authority to enforce its religious ideology, through government, upon unwilling citizens.
Because the authority of the church is a spiritual authority, rather than a civil authority, the church derives its authority (whatever it is) from God. The Apostle Paul said explicitly that the church fights its warfare with spiritual weapons rather than with carnal (or "fleshly," human, material, civil, or political) weapons: "for the weapons of our warfare are not worldly but have divine power to destroy strongholds," 2nd Corinthians 10:4, RSV). Whenever the church has had authority to try civil cases and impose punishments up to death, the result has been disastrous to society, the government, and to the church itself.
Various Views of the Meaning of Authority
All religious groups recognize the need for some kind of authority to hold the community together, to provide guidance to its own members, to maintain the unity and integrity of the group, its religious tradition, its way of life, and its doctrinal teachings. This section will summarize five Christian positions on this subject. As will be shown, each position hinges upon the way its adherents read and understand the Bible.
The Ultra-Conservative or Fundamentalist Position
This position is that God has revealed himself in the Bible in direct and objective concepts and propositions, to include the very words and way truths are expressed. John Newport and William Cannon discuss this position and the next two that we shall present in their valuable little book Why Christians Fight Over the Bible (51-59).
Ultra-conservatives and fundamentalists believe that the Holy Spirit inspired the biblical writers so that they were miraculously able to transcend their cultural environment as they wrote the words of the Bible. They believe in the verbal inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible, and they prefer usually to interpret it literally, unless they perceive clear evidence that it should be interpreted otherwise. They believe that the Bible speaks with final authority, and they place this authority above any other authority as a sure guide for beliefs and conduct in all ages and cultures.
Almost all Christian churches state that they believe in the inspiration and authority of the Bible. They, however, differ on the nature and extent of inspiration and authority. Even among conservatives there are differences of opinion (as there are differences among others). Ultra-conservatives declare that the Bible is inerrant and authoritative in all matters. Other conservatives say it is inerrant and authoritative only in matters of faith and practice. Some conservatives take a very dogmatic position on the doctrine of verbal inspiration and the authority of the Bible, while other conservatives take a less dogmatic approach. For the fundamentalists and those ultra-conservatives who are quite close to them on doctrinal matters, authority is a verse from the Bible.
The Fundamentalists and ultra-conservatives are represented by individuals such as B. B. Warfield, C. I. Schofield, J. I. Packer, J. Gresham Machen, W. A. Criswell, Harold Lindsell (author of The Late Great Planet Earth), Carl Henry, M. G. "Pat" Robertson, and Jerry Falwell. This is not to say that they all believe the same thing about every theological point, but they do represent the central issues of biblical inspiration and authority which we are discussing in this context.
The Classic Liberal Position
Most conservatives and evangelicals think the liberal Christian considers all authority as "relative and subjective," according to Newport and Cannon, (53). For the Fundamentalist, liberals are those who begin by denying such doctrines as the inspiration of the Bible, the virgin birth, deity, and resurrection of Christ, the supernatural and miraculous in the Bible, Heaven, Hell, and most things Christians have traditionally accepted in the ancient creeds of the church. Then liberals are perceived as continuing their theological platform, not on the basis of what the Bible says, but what agrees with their prior assumptions.
Liberal Christians and theologians do not deserve or accept this wholesale condemnation. They would state their faith in other terms. But they do believe that the writers of the Bible were conditioned and affected by their culture and environment, as all people are. They hold that biblical writers and scribes were not miraculously kept from all error or inconsistencies in all of their writings, and that they used contemporary sources that were not always perfect. They maintain that the message of the ancient biblical writers must be understood and interpreted in the light of the discoveries of higher criticism, most of which conclusions they easily accept. For most of the classic liberals, authority is largely located in their informed subjective opinions.
Hence liberals say that the authority of the Bible, like all authority, is "relative and subjective" and that God reveals himself "indirectly and nonobjectively" (Newport 54).
We may or may not agree with them, but we should try, as with all branches of the church, to understand what they do and do not believe and why. Liberals do not believe in all religious truth as held by other Christians, and they believe such truths are relative, for them and for everyone. As a consequence, they maintain that the church of later generations may see more fully than the original writers and readers the implications of the original writings. They do not mean that the original writers misrepresented God, but that the writers merely represented him to the best of their ability with the tools and knowledge available to them in their times. Thus, their ancient messages would need some development and reinterpretation in later centuries as cultures, societies, and conditions change.
Two examples of this are biblical teachings on the subjects of women, who were not treated at all as they are today, and slavery, which was presented as a natural condition of conquered peoples.
The classic liberal position is represented by theologians like Rudolph Bultman, Richard Niebuhr, Reinhold Niebuhr, Paul Tillich, John A. T. Robinson (author of Honest to God), and Harry Emerson Fosdick.
The Moderate Evangelical position
The terms "Neo-Orthodox", "New Evangelical", or (more commonly) "Moderate Evangelical" are used to describe this position on the nature and meaning of authority. The Moderate Evangelical holds views that are approximately midway between the Fundamentalist and the Liberal extremes of the Protestant theological spectrum on most issues, and slightly more conservative than the mainline protestant churches.
Moderate evangelicals are represented by Asa Gray of Princeton (Darwin's contemporary and correspondent), James Orr, F. F. Bruce, Karl and Marcus Barth, George Ladd, E. J. Carnell, Ronald H. Nash (author of The New Evangelicalism, 1963), Bernard Ramm, James D. Smart, Dan Fuller, Mark Noll, and Tom Sine.
Moderate evangelicals recognize both divine and human aspects of the Bible. They believe that God indeed had much to do with the writing of the Bible. However, those who believe in the verbal inspiration of the Bible seem not to be aware of the inconsistency of their assertion that the Holy Spirit verbally inspired the original writers who wrote the original manuscripts, but that this inspiration did not necessarily keep them from writing what we see as errors today.
To many moderate evangelicals, the writers were inspired human beings, with imperfect sources, and were influenced by their culture, times, and environment. They wrote with their own vocabulary, style, language, and literary conventions of their day. They did not intend to be taken literally in all instances, or even in most instances. But for these evangelicals the Bible is still the authority.
For other moderate evangelicals, authority is not so much in the written Word of God in the Bible as it is in the Living Word of God in Christ. Their Bible, therefore, is not threatened by the application of literary analysis in the interpretation of Scripture.
The Mainline Protestant Position
We have stated that there is great diversity concerning the meaning of authority in the various churches of the Protestant faith. But, speaking generally, contemporary theologians of protestant churches like the United Methodist Church, some local Baptist churches, the various branches of the Presbyterian denomination, Lutherans (except the Missouri Synod, which is strongly conservative), Congregational churches, United Churches of Christ, etc., take a common position on authority. This position lies between the evangelical position and the liberal position, but probably is closer in many respects to the liberal position.
Usually the clergy is more liberal than the laity in these churches, because seminary graduates are more likely to comprehend and accept the findings of higher criticism than are the lay members of the churches.
The Roman Catholic Position
Most people know the Roman Catholic position on authority much better than the various Protestant positions because the Catholic position is clear and consistent. Catholics do not spend their time in controversy about the Bible, because they see the locus of authority in tradition and in the church, not in the Bible. Catholics in general are more concerned about papal authority than they are about biblical authority. They correctly state that there was a church before there was a Bible or a New Testament. The church produced the Bible. The Bible did not produce the church.
Modern Catholics, especially in America, are demanding the right to read and interpret the Bible for themselves in the light of scholarship which is now readily available to all, ordained or not. Unlike the mainline Protestants, the catholic laity is more open minded and liberal than the clergy, which has been very conservative and slow to change.
Four Sources of Authority in the Christian Faith
Experience as the Standard of Authority
We remember that Eve said to Adam in Paradise Lost, "On my experience, Adam, freely taste" (IX, 988). Eve's source of authority in spiritual things was her own experience. Like Eve did in her day, many in our days depend greatly on experience as a primary source of authority. For example, scientists demand that scientific truth be verified by proper observation and experiments. Indeed, our society depends largely on the corporate experience of the people, nation, or culture.
But when our experience tells us something as individuals, and some ideology attempts to convince us otherwise, most of us follow our individual experiences. As Nels F. S. Ferré wrote in Know Your Faith: "No one can get outside or beyond his own experience. . . . Whatever convinces us must gain the assent of our experience" (22). Any recourse beyond our own experience must involve in some way the larger experience of others.
Thus experience in some form must be considered in a search for authority in the Christian faith. However, this does not mean that experience is the main channel.
The Bible as the Standard of Authority
It is evident from our study that the Bible is a strong candidate for authority in the Christian faith. Ferré points out that, since Christianity is a historic religion, and the Bible is the only record of its historic foundations, it is appropriate that the Bible be considered as a source of authority (24). Moreover, the Bible is a very objective standard. It does not vary from century to century, except as the discovery of older and more reliable manuscripts takes us back nearer to the originals. But this, in itself, may not necessarily mean that the Bible, as a written and printed book, is the main channel of authority.
The Church as the Standard of Authority
Episcopalians join Roman Catholics in affirming that the Church is the main source of authority in the Christian Faith. The Episcopal Church, or Anglican Church, however, does not include the Roman Catholic Pope in its tradition of church authority. It has its own head of the church in the person of the Archbishop of Canterbury, or in the national sense the King or Queen of England as the head of the church and the defender of the faith. Anglicans agree with Catholics that logic requires that "an authoritative revelation of Christ requires an authoritative organ of interpretation and application" (28). Anglicans or Episcopalians believe that the Church "represents the corporate judgment of the believers, not infallibly, but authoritatively."(29). The Church is the place where corporate ecclesiastical and theological decisions are made. These decisions affect the lives and morals of all obedient believers who have submitted to this authority and have become members of the organized body.
Jesus Christ as the Standard of Authority
Some Christian believers and theologians across a wide spectrum assert that Jesus Christ alone is the authority for the Christian faith, as we have noted above. They may mean different things by this. Many mean that Jesus Christ is God's communication to the world just as much, or moreso, than the Bible is. Some, but not all, believers in the moderate conservative or evangelical churches, and also in the mainline Protestant churches, emphasize that Christ is the incarnate and Living Word (John 1:1-14). For them, he is "the Truth" (John 14:6), and he, not the Bible, is God's supreme and final revelation of himself to mankind. They profess that God's presence and love are revealed in his Son, Jesus Christ. However, they also hold that God has spoken, and still speaks, through human experience, the Bible, and the Church.
Thus, many believe that human experience, the Bible, and the Church provide only partial expressions of God's revelation to us, and are not the final, complete, and perfect authority of the Christian faith. Ferré wrote, "Christ is always more than experience, the Bible, and the Church" (34). For him, human experience, the Bible, and the Church are all in the world and touched with human fingerprints. However, Christ existed as the Son of God before the world was created. Thus Christ was and is in the world and beyond the world. This cannot be said of any other source of authority.
The Problems of Authority
Our discussion of authority to here reveals that, not only do churches differ widely on the meaning of authority, but also these various churches, denominations, and major groups within Christendom have severe problems in the application of their understanding of authority within their communities. Some of these specific problems will be considered in the following sections.
The Problem of Authority in Liberalism and Mysticism
Both liberalism and mysticism, regardless of many differences between them, share the trait of excessive subjectivism. To both classic liberalism and spiritual mysticism the important standard of authority and truth is "How is anything authoritative and true for me, within myself?" This precludes the use of any objective standard. Consequently, for the liberal the Bible can not be a standard of authority, because it is too objective. And for the mystic the Bible or the church can not be a standard because neither is sufficiently of "the spirit" to leave room for an "inner voice." The only authority that counts is the inner authority of the spirit. This attitude toward the nature of authority is also shared to some extent by various movements known as revivalism, spiritualism, pietism, or pentecostalism. Each of these movements seeks authority from a personal, direct encounter with God.
Liberalism teaches that authority is relative as well as subjective. To a liberal not only is the Bible conditioned culturally, but also all conceptual thinking is conditioned in the same way. Thus, the Bible merely reflects the thinking of men of a particular age and culture. The truth of the Bible, for the liberal, is not complete in itself, but it is a good general guideline for action. This means that it is up to our generation to apply these general guidelines and principles, by the aid of our intelligence and inner spiritual philosophy, to modern conditions and situations. John Newport and William Cannon write that "For the liberal, the Bible has no objective authority until the Holy Spirit makes the human words become the Word of God" (Why Christians Fight Over the Bible 55).
There are many varieties of mysticism as there are of liberalism, but perhaps the writings of Ralph Waldo Emerson best describe the kind of American Protestant mysticism we discuss in this context. Emerson was early in his life a Unitarian pastor who became disillusioned about the state of religion in American life. As he addressed the Harvard Divinity School in 1838 he set forth what then seemed to be radical views that challenged the sources of religious authority in his day. Emerson asserted that religious experience was very personal and could not be received "second hand" from someone else or on their word. For him religious authority rested not in scripture nor in the founders of the various faiths, churches, or denominations, but "only in the personal experience of God in the soul."
Emerson and most other American Protestant liberals and mystics contributed to the debate about the problem of authority by proclaiming that religious authority does not consist in creeds or holy books or holy men or in organized religion. But these prophets of the spirit failed to offer a sufficient or adequate objective basis for authority, and this left most people suspended in an incomprehensible and intolerable vacuum.
The Problem of Authority in the Roman Catholic Church
Most of the following comments about the Roman Catholic Church can equally be applied to faiths like the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Russian Orthodox Church, the Anglican Church, and others holding to similar authoritarian traditions. They might not have similar concepts of a pope which Roman Catholics have, but they usually substitute another authoritarian figure or a hierarchy which has similar ecclesiastical authority over the faithful clergy and members of their church. This means that whenever the pope, or the hierarchy, has spoken, debate ends and dogma or policy is to be enforced.
One problem of authority in the Roman Catholic community is that authority comes from the top of the hierarchy and leaves the theologians, the thinkers, and the common people out of the real decision-making process. This closed-end process does not adequately deal with the role of the laity as related to the question of authority in the church today. The Reformers raised a question that will not go away. What do Christians do when papal authority and church councils, traditions, and policies conflict with each other and with the teachings of the New Testament? The answer of the Catholic Church is that biblical teachings must be interpreted by ecclesiastical authorities, not by untrained laity. And, in their view, such biblical teachings, as interpreted by competent church authorities, do not conflict with papal authority or church tradition. For the devout and obedient Catholic, then, authority is an "ex cathedra" papal encyclical or a clear ecclesiastical pronouncement from a recent church council.
This concept of authority in an age of democracy and individualism seems very inadequate. Nathan Mitchell, OSB (Order of St. Benedict), Professor of Theology at St. Meinrad Seminary, in Indiana, wrote a fine article in 1978 which sheds some light on this subject. Professor Mitchell pointed out that early New Testament Christianity was not an idyllic time free of tension and conflict, or free of power and coercion:
Doctrinal and disciplinary conflicts litter the pages of the New Testament. Disagreements abound: about christology, about the extent and purpose of the Christian mission, about tradition and how it should be carried forward, about the relation of Christianity to Israel, about the political significance of state authorities. Indeed the history of the New Testament is a history of conflicting interpretations. (203)
The early Christian church felt a need for some kind of authority, and, Mitchell adds, they actively sought such authority. The question was, "What kind of authority?" Paul asserted his own apostolic authority, but we know it was denied and rejected by others in the church. So the questions about the nature of spiritual and pastoral authority were not immediately answered. The early Christians kept asking, "How can legitimate authority in the church be recognized and affirmed?" and "What are the marks of authentic authority in the community of faith?"
The most valuable contribution of Mitchell to this discussion is his suggestion that such authority is "recognized through testing by the community" (204). He states, "It is the community that sifts, discerns, and tests a person's claim to authoritative power." Seminary professors of theology and other biblical scholars are asking why they can not be included in the process by which doctrines are developed, defined, and transmitted. They feel that their claim to theological insights, and to a significant place in the pronouncements on church life and faith, should be included along with that of the Vatican, the College of Cardinals, and the episcopacy. Such professors, teachers, and scholars are at least a part of the community which could examine and test the claims to authority in the church. Moreover, there are many others in the community who have the spirituality and intelligence to contribute much to the debate about authority. There are certainly many informed and dedicated members, even lay members, of the community who are capable of testing the claims to ecclesiastical authority, and the encyclicals issuing the reform. Many ask, "Why not use their talents and abilities?"
The Problem of Authority in American Fundamentalism
Perhaps few writers have defined and described the problem of authority in American fundamentalism more sharply than Ernest R. Sandeen, Professor of History, Macalester College, St. Paul, Minnesota. His book The Roots of Fundamentalism (1970) and his 1978 article in Review and Expositor cogently state the essential facts on this subject.
A certain group of Christians has always felt the need of a solid and systematic theology based on absolute biblical authority. Among such are the fundamentalists who demand a verbally inspired Bible, literally interpreted, and securely providing a foundation for their faith. They readily confess that they have a vested interest in biblical inerrancy and literalism, for their faith will stand or fall depending on the authority of that Bible. Their theology and doctrinal systems are so tightly-knit that no part can fall without causing the collapse of the entire structure.
For a time there was a substantial community agreement on this general theology of biblical inerrancy and literalism, but with the spread of biblical criticism this consensus broke down. There was just too much undeniable evidence for historic errors, cultural coloring, scribal mistakes, inconsistent weaving together of various sources, personal literary styles and preferences, and linguistic differences that could not be ignored by educated and intelligent people. As this consensus broke down, the fundamentalists "circled their wagons" and decided to fight to the end, often falling back on cultural and social traditions rather than on scriptural interpretations.
Sandeen emphasizes that much of the fundamentalist objection to biblical and literary criticism of the Bible was a mistaken allegiance to the Bible as "the quest for a real, unshakable world of truth and its accompanying fear of the fictional" (213). The fundamentalists have misunderstood the nature of the literary terms "fiction" and "myth." In their minds, and in the minds of many conservatives today who do not understand literary analysis, "story," "myth," and "fiction" are the opposites of "truth," "history," and "fact." Those people need to take a high school or college literature course and to read some of Northrop Frye, C. S. Lewis, Robert Alter, Stanley Fish, or any of scores of other similar scholars in the field of literary criticism. Any number of students of literature can explain that myth can be an excellent mode of teaching truth, story can teach history, and fiction can sometimes unfold history better than books of cold, hard facts, dates, names, and events. We suggest that those seeking more enlightenment about this matter read again chapters 2, 3, and 4 of this book and go to the library and check out and read some of the books on the "Selected Reading List" in the appendix of this book.
One enormous problem, then, with the fundamentalist view of biblical authority is that it has no adequate answer to the challenges of biblical or literary criticism.
The Problem of Authority in the Southern Baptist Convention
The problem of authority in the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) is similar in many respects to a controversy about biblical authority which occurred in the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. Both conservative communions went through a prolonged and bitter controversy about the nature of scripture and whether it is verbally inspired and inerrant. Both denominations believe strongly in the priesthood of the believer, that is, that the individual believer can go directly by faith to God, without need for an ecclesiastical mediator. But the crucial difference between the Southern Baptist and the Missouri Synod experience was that Southern Baptists violated several of their traditional principles in submitting to an ultra-conservative takeover of the denomination.
Baptists in the United States ever since the days of Roger Williams, have practiced religious liberty and have embraced Christians who held a broad spectrum of beliefs about the Bible and other doctrines. Diversity was welcomed, because Baptists were held together by a sense of fellowship among believers who had personally confessed their faith in Jesus as Savior and Lord. They had a desire to worship in the Free Church tradition and work together voluntarily in common Christian missions and enterprises. The Baptist locus of authority at a local level has been the congregation. Thus they practiced strictly congregational government rather than operating within a hierarchy of ecclesiastical bodies, where one body would have authority over churches.
About 1979 a highly organized untra-conservative group within the SBC began a movement toward a narrow definition of authority and the nature of the Bible. This group began exercising control over the seminaries, boards, and institutions of the SBC. It dominated the national leadership and the election process and attempted to bring unbearable pressure against seminaries and institution presidents which failed to adhere to a narrow interpretation of the SBC "Statement of Faith and Message." They hounded from office or fired seminary administrators and professors who failed a doctrinal test regarding inerrancy and a literal interpretation of the Bible.
In response, many moderates joined together to form an organization called the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, to support the publication of an independent paper Baptists Today, to aid in the establishment of moderate seminaries, to encourage the creation of a new publishing house, and to support missionaries and send forth new missionaries who could not conscientiously work with the new authoritarian leadership of the SBC. In short, these moderate Baptists rejected the narrow doctrinal views of the nature and interpretation of scripture, and accepted the traditional diverse understanding and historic principles of freedom in biblical interpretation.
Thus the SBC faces a traumatic problem of authority, contrary to its own historic principles, which is having a serious effect upon the entire denomination. There now are two camps. In one are those who continue to support a Free Church position, and in the other are ultra-conservatives who look to inerrancy and literal interpretation for their authority. Undoubtedly, each would use its own interpretation of the words we quoted in the beginning of this chapter, By what authority? But, unfortunately, unless and until the right wing extremists become more open to academic freedom and enlightened biblical and literary criticism, it appears unlikely that they would be able to accept and use the principles we propose in the next section.
Biblical Authority and Literary Analysis
A reasonable and defensible position of authority in Christianity in the 21st century could be described in the following terms:
A believer can and should respect the Bible as a unique and powerful expression of the Word of God. This does not mean that it is necessarily the only or final expression of the Word of God. For example God reveals himself to some extent through nature, experience, the human conscience, and through the Church.
Believers can and should accept their scriptures, as properly understood and tested by the religious community, within the context of literary analysis, historical criticism, and spiritual sensitivity. They should carefully apply the abiding principles to modern life. Likewise, the Jewish community of faith can so accept the Hebrew Bible, Moslems can accept the Koran, and other faiths can accept their holy scriptures.
This means that the scripture should be viewed, at least in part and from one standpoint, as literary texts, with human fingerprints and input on every page. It must be properly correlated, to the best of our ability, with the authors and original readers,and with the understanding of present readers in the community of faith. Regardless of their view of the nature and authority of the scripture, all contemporary Bible readers must ask the question "What does this text mean to me" and "What authority does it have over my conscience and life today?"
A dedicated Christian must consider the real question of the authority of Jesus Christ relative to the authority of the Bible as it is today and as it has been transmitted and handed down through the centuries. This leads to the essential question of the authority and Lordship of the Son of God as the Living Word versus the authority of the Bible as the Written Word.
An Irreverent and Light-hearted Postscript
A reader who doesn't like the above suggestions could follow someone like the Reverend S. Paul Parsonwell, D.D. (honorary degree, not earned, but bestowed by a small unaccredited, unheard of, religious college). Dr. Parsonwell loudly preaches every Sunday that the Bible is the perfect, inerrant Word of God, and a clear and objective standard book of rules to be strictly and literally observed by believers of all ages. According to Dr. S. Paul Parsonwell's sermons, tapes, and books (mostly written by "shadow writers"), the Gospel is a systematic theology which is coherent, unified, logical, scientific, and historical. He states that the seven dispensations or ages by which God has directed and judged his people are rigid temporal boundaries and divine patterns which together culminate in the coming of the Antichrist, the Battle of Armageddon, the Second Coming of Christ, the Millennium, and the Last Judgment. The Bible is to be interpreted literally, even so far as stoning adulterers and killing disrespectful and rebellious children. Dr. Parsonwell claims the God-given pastoral authority, derived from the plain teaching of scripture, to discipline, humiliate, abuse, and excommunicate from his church membership all who question his authority.
Alternatively, our reader could become a disciple of Professor Albert Scholasticus, who has a long string of earned and honorary degrees from the best universities of Europe and America. He has written scores of books and learned articles in prestigious journals asserting that the Bible is just a collection of untrustworthy and archaic human writings, and that God (if there is a God) had nothing to do with it. Professor Scholasticus delights in pointing out the defects and errors of the Bible, while he finds little in the Bible to praise or admire. He has no place in his philosophy for permanent spiritual principles or moral values. After all, for him, the world we perceive through our five senses is the only world there is. Religion is for him and his colleagues still "the opiate of the people" and our "collective aspirations for the transcendent." The Church is a useless and completely irrelevant institution, and as we approach the 21st century it will soon just "fade away."
Or, on the other hand, our reader could consider the experience of Jason Love, who finished medical school and married a beautiful, intelligent young lady named Irene. Her religious background included occasional attendance in her home town Unitarian Universalist church and exposure to the Professor Scholasticus type in her educational training in adolescent psychology in a liberal university. Some folks thought it strange that she would be attracted to Jason, who had a mostly ultra-conservative or almost fundamentalist background in his youth, but love had its way. They both had deep religious longings for inner peace and meaningfulness which they had largely missed in their life up to their marriage. They discussed this and decided to look for a church in the middle way between the two extremes. They found this "Via Media" in a mainline church with a pastor trained in a moderate theological seminary known for its progressive evangelical stance toward the gospel. There they found a loving fellowship, an open non-judgmental attitude, and biblical teachings both intellectually stimulating and spiritually fulfilling. To Jason and Irene the Bible became a new, old book with a beautiful and challenging current message and affirmation that they never imagined before.