The Balance of Power
| Contents |
|
1. Introduction 2. Authority and Submission 3. Liberty of Conscience 4. The Work of The Individual 5. Conclusion: The Balance of Power |
Introduction
We thank you for this opportunity to gather together before you, difficulties and distance notwithstanding. We pray for those who wish to be with us, that they might be enabled to do so shortly, and receive a blessing with us. We ask your presence with us during this High Day, as we recall both your judgment and the rest and rejoicing we have in it. In the name of Yahshua we pray, amen.
As I have said in previous studies, I am not a huge fan of “reactionary” preaching; that is, something happens in the news – you preach a sermon. Some event takes place in the world – you preach a sermon. Of course, sometimes current events are a sign of the times, and do require a response, and one of the things that led to my thinking of this topic is what has happened most recently with the SDA/CSDA lawsuit.
I am not going to go into the specific details, but the general idea is that the judge and the prosecuting attorneys have come to believe (at least on paper) that the CSDA Church is a cult – in the negative sense of the word. Now, I am not sure if they have ever used this term, but they way they describe its members and their actions, they are espousing the position that there is a high degree of “control” over some by others. This is papist, and not Christian, yet there is no distinction made in the minds of these individuals. I said “in the negative sense of the word,” because the true meaning of the word “cult” is simply a religious movement with an exclusive set of beliefs, founded by a single, revered individual.
Following this academic definition, Buddhism, Baha’i, and – at least to some degree – Islam and Christianity would be classified as “cults.” However, the anthropological definition of the term is hardly ever used, and the word has come to mean any religious group considered unorthodox, weird, fringe and probably dangerous. Furthermore, it is a group in which one person, a “cult leader,” has complete or near-complete control over the other members of the group.
Seventh-day Adventism has certainly spawned a number of cults – using this more modern and negative definition. A number of CSDAs, in fact, have had conversations with members of SDA-based cults, whose leaders believe they are Christ incarnate (or something to that effect), and whose members follow them without any level of critical analysis or reference to their own consciences. As such, we are rightly offended when people – especially people who are supposedly chosen for their intelligence and analytical skills – make statements and judgments that would suggest we have anything of consequence in common with the authority models of these misled assemblies.
While we can understand that a carnal mind has difficulty grasping spiritual topics, and that the culture of today certainly muddies the water were issues of authority figures are concerned, there really is nothing complicated about the Biblical model for Church authority. So because of this issue with the courts and Bro. Luke, and also internal questions about matters relating to Church discipline, I would like to go over this today to discuss our official position, and our actual practices where this is concerned.
Are there any initial questions about the intended topic?
Authority and Submission
“Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves, for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief, for that is unprofitable for you.” (Heb 13:17)
“And we have confidence in the Lord touching you, that ye both do and will do the things which we command you.” (2Th 3:4)
“Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility, for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.” (1Pet 5:5)
“And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.” (2Th 3:14)
“Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Yahshua the Messiah, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.” (2Th 3:6)
You may be able to think of several others like these. Additionally, if we see Church society as a modern and spiritual representation of Israel, then we may add those verses that speak of Moses and the other prophets exercising great authority over Yah’s people. Some may object, saying, “But that was a theocracy, and now we are under grace.” It is certainly true that we are not under a theocracy, but this does not mean that any of the principles Yah manifests among His people are any different. Indeed, the principles of Yah’s worship are reflections of His own unchanging character, and the only significant difference between a theocracy and the time of grace is the penalty.
In the Old Covenant, where an example was being set for all future generations, the penalty for sin was visited upon individuals in a visible, and often public, way. Sin has not become less “sinful,” less destructive, since then. In the time of grace, the wages of sin is still death – in fact, it is the New Testament that spells it out just so explicitly (Rom 6:23) – but this penalty is generally deferred until the Day of Judgment when all accounts are settled at the same time. In this age of grace we have already seen the penalty for sin visited upon offenders in the records of the past, but we have now also seen Christ, the perfect example of obedience. The emphasis, in a most righteous fashion, has been upon the good example, and not the bad ones, in the vast majority of cases.
Now, it is certainly possible to take this idea of Church authority too far. I mentioned the papacy earlier. While they may not be as vocal about “church authority” as they once were, there is still a very clear message that in order to be a “true” Catholic, or at least an orthodox one, you must believe that the statements of the pope are infallible, the voice of God Himself, and not to be questioned. In recent years, for example, the papal office has expressed an acceptance of evolution; this automatically obligates all Catholics to believe likewise, regardless of what the Scriptures and empirical science may tell us. This actually and veritably makes them the world’s largest and most accepted cult. Of course, because of what that word has come to mean, a “cult” cannot be accepted by society, therefore that statement is likely to be met with a lot of resistance, (even among “Protestants!”) despite the fact that it perfectly fits the definition in terms of its authoritarian, hierarchical power structure.
No human is above question, or infallible. While it is certainly true, as Paul says, that Yahweh has set some in the Church for the specific purpose of “perfecting” them, (Eph 4:12) it is important for us to realize that these individuals are also in the “perfecting” process, and are therefore learning as they go along.
There must be order and structure in the Body of Christ. Paul says, “Let all things be done decently and in order.” (1Cor 14:40) This is the only way that progress can be achieved in the Gospel and its related work. And yet, the authority must be of the right kind, and originate at the right source, or it will be worse than ineffective. It will become a curse. We will go into the “right” kind of authority shortly, but are there any questions on what has been covered so far?
Liberty of Conscience
The life of the Protestant, just like the name itself, was a testimony to the world of the character of the Creator. And further still were the beliefs espoused and publicly revealed (thus, the need for a bold testimony of the truth) as a rebuke to the errors and ecclesiastic corruption that was then prevalent. One of the ideas that the original Protestant movement protested was the arbitrary authority of religious figures. For the first time in centuries, a people were proclaiming the undiluted and unfiltered message of the Bible, and exalting the Word of Yah as the only legitimate standard of truth.
The people of the Reformation era had never heard of this concept before; many – weary of the oppression leveled against them by Romanism – eagerly embraced it. It should be understood that the most insidious power wielded by the papacy was not manifest in its political might or earthly wealth, although both of these were quite considerable. Instead, the true power of the Roman Catholic Church was fear.
It was fear – fear of everlasting torture in “hell,” fear of purgatory even for the relatively righteous, fear of loved-ones being burned for centuries for lack of a few earthly dollars – that funded the Church’s reign of corruption, and furthered the cycle of oppression. Because the various popes were above reproach in the eyes of their congregations (in true cult-leader fashion) all manner of vice and dissipation was tolerated. There were certainly some conscientious and devoted clerics in service of Roman Catholicism, and one can only imagine the struggle they must have endured to support the cause they knew to be deeply flawed.
What a relief, then, when the Protestant movement proclaimed the Bible as the standard of righteousness, and the Spirit-led conscience the highest authority for the individual worshipper. It was not the pope who held the “final word” on matters of faith and doctrine. It was not the cardinals or bishops who held the only key to unlocking the truth in the Bible. While these men (if the Church were still faithful to Christ) would have a work to do in terms of determining policies and principles of doctrine and behavior, they were not the judges of a believer’s final destiny.
Now yes, it is true that the Bible says Church members have the responsibility to “judge” one another to see the fruit of righteousness or the works of the flesh. (1Cor 6:1-5, 1Cor 5:12, Mat 7:5) This is in order because the Church has two functions, and not just one. The first function is the sanctification of its individual members in preparation for eternity. That is a personal matter between the individual and the Savior, and is the aspect of religion that people will make their point of focus when they say, “Religion is a private thing.” But that is only one of the two functions of a Christian Church, and the other is necessarily public – evangelism. And this is where public behavior, external standards, and so forth have real value.
Those who do not have a firm testimony of faith, or some other deficiency in their walk, will latch on to that “private thing” view in willing ignorance of the clearest of Christ’s instructions to His people: teach the Gospel. This was not intended only for the leaders of the Apostolic movement. They in turn raised up congregations with teachers, and those teachers instructed the laity for their benefit, and to equip them to “give an answer to every man” on matters of faith and doctrine. (1Pet 3:15)
And what is that “answer?” That answer, for a Christian, will never be, “I have hope for my salvation because I have found a wonderful man/woman who has explained the Bible so well.” It will never be, “I have found a group that really speaks to my spirit.” It will never be “I now have good fellowship with faithful believers.” No. These things may be true – I would hope they are true within the setting of the Body of Christ, but none of these things are the reason for the hope within us. And why not? What is wrong with these answers?
This is the Protestant view of salvation. It acknowledges the service of human beings, but gives glory, honor and final thanksgiving to Yahweh alone. Conscience is the highest authority for the individual Christian… but it must also be a trained conscience that is in harmony with the Creator. This is where it becomes difficult for the eyes of the flesh to understand this fully. If it were a simple matter of obeying the elders, this would be something the flesh can understand, because control and dominance are encoded in the flesh just as much as in the spirit. They are instincts even within the animals. If it was a matter of following the conscience without due respect for the apostles, prophets, teachers and pastors, this is also something the flesh can understand, for then it would be free to follow its own inclinations – and the flesh has no problem with that at all.
But absolute freedom can only be experienced with absolute power, which no mortal can possess. We cannot be truly free to do as we like if another individual is just as “free” to take our property or our life, thus restricting our freedom. We share the universe with other free creations, and therefore we must willingly restrict our freedom in order to avoid restricting theirs. This, when done out of love for others, is really the foundation for Yahweh’s Law. It is true that Yah’s Law has, as its core, agape, but all that this means is that we must appreciate our neighbor’s right to enjoy this gift of life as much as we do. As we do that, we would never steal, kill, commit adultery, or do anything that would limit that experience of Yahweh’s life for him or her. And as for the commandments that deal with our connection to Yah Himself, that is simply the way that we learn and enjoy our own freedom from sin and death.
Does everyone understand this?
A Spirit-led conscience is the highest authority. Church leaders are aware of this, and must avoid applying force either directly, or through coercion and manipulation. What we do is point out principles in order to train that conscience, and if the individual will not let his or her conscience be trained by the Biblical pattern, we do nothing “to” that person, but we simply release them from the commitments of the Covenant to which they were attached. While most will probably see disfellowship as a negative thing (and it’s certainly not a pleasant one!) it is actually a blessing for the individual so discharged.
It is the strongest possible indicator that they are not in harmony with Yah’s people. It is a call for fervent prayer and repentance. It is, indeed, a measure that may save that individual’s soul for, while they are in that condition where they are not fit for membership, if they continued to be members of the Covenant, their sins would count against them far more severely than if they were seen as worldlings in Heaven’s eyes. Let me put that another way, because it is not a minor point: If you do something to defraud me, I will be rightly offended at that occurrence. If you and I are in a business arrangement, an agreement, and you defraud me, the offense is much worse, because, in addition to your taking my property, you have also betrayed trust. And if I, having fallen victim to your criminal activity, maintain that bond, I am acting quite foolishly, doing both of us a disservice. I open myself up to further betrayal, and I enable your wicked ways. It would be better for both of us for me to dissolve that partnership and, if there is evidence of your true repentance sometime thereafter, may consider forgiveness and a rebuilding of those bonds.
For those within the covenant, we do walk this paradox that is difficult for the world to understand. We submit to Church authority, but we also submit to our consciences. In different situations, one or the other may take precedence. If we are given instructions by Church officers and our consciences do not object as a matter of conviction, we are bound by loyalty to Christ to follow these instructions. If conscience demands that we act a certain way, we follow this; however, if there is a conflict, then we must examine the situation very carefully. If conscience is out of order, then this means it must be trained further to be in accord with the Word and the servants of the Word. If the Church official is out of order, there will undoubtedly be evidence of this that can be shown to witnesses and the congregation as a whole if necessary. In either case, the Law and the Testimony, the principles behind them, constitute the foundation of our faith, and allow us to clear up potential conflicts between the two driving forces of the Protestant Christian: the conscience and the authority of the elders.
This recent situation with Luke, in which the court arbitrator cannot seem to grasp the idea that Church members obey their own individual consciences in resisting papal claims over our faith, even while being in harmony with the will of the Body in general, demonstrates just how difficult this balance is to understand to the world. Just like New Moons and the Holy Kiss, Yah has hidden these things from the world and its churches, for they would be abused. They would not be able to walk the narrow road between the two deep ditches of error that accompany every truth.
Are there any questions about this?
The Work of The Individual
We understand, from a multitude of verses (both Old Testament and New) that unity with the Father, the Son and the brethren through the Holy Spirit, is not an informal affair. We do not simply say, “Oh, yes, I am a member of that group.” Not at all. There is a call, which may be initially given through either natural or supernatural means. (Acts 2:40, Acts 10:1-6) There must be an acknowledgement by the called individual that he or she has accepted unity with the Body. (Acts 10:44) There must also be acknowledgement by the Body that the new member is accepted, (Acts 10:47) and finally there is the formal union with baptism. (Acts 10:48)
So what did I mean, when I said “there is salvation in CSDA membership?” Let me clarify. There must be a receiving of Salvation before membership. Note that I do not say there is to be an achieving of salvation! In accepting the call of Yahweh, one is pronounced “just” by the Father and Son – this is all that “Just-ification” is. There is nothing complicated about it from our perspective; we are declared just, and because the Word of Yah is that which has the power to “cleanse us from all unrighteousness,” (1John 1:9) the very declaration of it is the reality of it.
But after Salvation is received, what do we do with it? Do we, the saved, go back to our lives before being declared just?
This new life seeks unity with the Father and Son through fellowship with others who have similarly received salvation. This is both a natural and divine law, that we seek out our own “kind;” and we cannot be made separate in spirit any more than the Father, Son and their Holy Spirit can be made “separate” from each other. In this unity we find the preservation and expansion of the life we have already received, as if we were branches joined to a vine. But as it is written, “Every branch in me that beareth not fruit He taketh away.” (John 15:2a) Every soul that is saved contains the “fruit of the Spirit;” and since we bring forth after our kind by the order of creation, (Gen 1:24) as long as we are connected to the Vine (Christ) we will bear fruit in turn. If that branch does not bear fruit, and instead returns to the works of the flesh, it is evident that the connection to the Vine has been severed, and that branch will (again, by the order of creation) wither away and die. Maintaining connection to the Vine, which can only be perfectly done within the setting of the Body of Christ, (Acts 2:42, 1John 2:19) is what I mean by saying “salvation in membership.” The saved unite in membership by natural and divine order; those who do not so unite are witnesses against themselves that they have not received the life that binds us to one another in agape.
There is also, and of course, Salvation in Heaven. This is the fulfillment of the promise. This is the inheritance of those who “endure unto the end.” (Mat 24:13) These three ideas, together, correspond to the “three Seals” of past New Moons, wherein we see that Salvation has different aspects. We “have been saved” (i.e., He “hath saved us” – 2Tim 1:9) by Christ’s love for us, and acceptance of our repentance. We “are saved” (Rom 8:24, Eph 2:8) by our unity with Him through the life lived by faith. We “shall be saved” (Rom 5:10) in the glorification of our bodies as foreshadowed by our baptism, the formal entrance we make into the Covenant of believers.
Now, what do these things have to do with the balance of power between Church authority and individual conscience? They have much to do with it.
While most Churches emphasize the first kind of “saved,” and look forward to the third kind (although they misunderstand the sanctification necessary to experience it), they focus very little on the second, if they even regard it at all. And it does take a spiritual mind to grasp it: how do individually saved beings operate in a covenant? How do many act as one? How does mutual submission and obedience function when we have so many different personalities, cultures and backgrounds? It can only happen by faith, and not faith alone, but “the faith of Yahshua.” It can only happen when our characters are formed after the divine model, with humility and authority balanced on the point of a spiritual needle… and then we have power.
Now remember, it was this – it was failing to understand this idea – that caused Lucifer, who had the greatest of all created minds, to fall away. Angels were created as free beings, as holy beings, and yet they were to be obedient to the Father of Spirits. Isn’t this a contradiction? Isn’t this a paradox? How could truly free, truly holy, beings, submit to the will of another? Church Membership is exactly the same way: it is the entrance of individually saved beings into a society of morally responsible, spiritually free creatures who nevertheless recognize and submit to authorities: the Law of Yah, the laws of men (when at all possible) and the counsel of elders.
We must understand this perfectly. We, humans, must succeed where the greatest of the Cherubim failed. We must learn from the mistakes of those greater than us in wisdom, intelligence and power, standing on the shoulders of giants (as the expression goes) to reside among the clouds. And by the power and authority of Christ Yahshua, we have all that we need that pertains to life and godliness. (2Pet 1:3) We are certainly empowered to understand and fulfill this teaching.
Are there any questions about that?
Conclusion: The Balance of Power
“Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Yahshua.” (Gal 3:24-26)
There have been some misunderstandings about this verse, partly because the role of the Law under the New Covenant has been rejected by so many people. It is also partly due to the fact that “schoolmaster” is not the most accurate translation in modern English of the Greek word peidagogos. The word literally means “child guide.” The pedagogues of the old world were generally slaves, not professional educators, who would oversee the actions of the young ones until they were mature. It is important that the peidagogos were slaves: they were servants of the house, and not masters (as the English translation would imply) of either the household or the subjects in which they were guiding the children.
The Law was never to have taken the place of Christ; humans have always been saved by grace and faith. The Law was to point forward to Christ; but now that Christ has appeared, do we discard the guide? No, for all the guide did in our younger period of growth was correct. You do not use a sign that points in the wrong direction to get to a destination. Our reason for obeying the guide is not now because of authority, but agreement. Our parents may have to have “forced” us to brush our teeth when we were younger, but do we disregard this now that we are adults?
Similarly, young SDAs (particularly those young in age as well as in the faith) may “remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy” because “the Law commands it,” but when we reach maturity, we keep the Sabbath day because “there remaineth a rest for the people of Yah,” (Heb 4:9) and “blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that layeth hold on it; that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth his hand from doing any evil.” (Isa 56:2) Those ideas are not to be separated from each other.
So then, just as the Law was a guide leading us to Christ, but one that we do not discard after He has appeared, so it is in this matter as well. Our spirit toward both the Law and Church authority ought to be precisely the same:
“And He gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ; till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ. That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; but speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ.” (Eph 4:11-15)
Just as most Christians misunderstand the role of the Law in the life of the Christian, so they often misunderstand the role of Church authority and individual freedom (the balance of power) in the walk of the Redeemed. And why? Because the underlying principle is exactly, precisely, the same. We are given gifts, and we are given freedom; but the gifts are necessary for the preservation of that freedom, because although we are free, we are not infinite creatures. We do have limitations placed upon us by our very natures, and Yahweh, knowing this, has given us the tools to deal with these in a blessed, sanctified, and edifying way. For this, we must be eternally grateful.
Are there any questions as we close?
Thank you for this concise study on church authority. May we remain balanced in our application, keep our minds renewed moment by moment, and preserve liberty of conscience. We thank you for the “faith of YAHSHUA” that makes it all possible and fulfilled in us.
In the name of YAHSHUA, our Messiah, AMEN!
