Freedom and Authority in a Covenant Community
I want to get back to my postings on Michael Kinnamon and Jan Linn's book Disciples: Reclaiming our Identity, Reforming Our Practice, (Chalice Press, 2009). I'm now past the half-way mark in reading the book, but I've yet to finish blogging the chapter on Covenant. But as I read further in book, this is definitely a call for Disciples of Christ (my denomination) to take a close look at their heritage as they prepare to gather at General Assembly in July.
In the previous posting I noted how the authors coupled covenant with accountability as a way of understanding our freedom, something that is central to Disciple understanding. That is, we have emphasized freedom of thought and practice as Disciples, but in the 1960s, as we "restructured" we (I should say they because I was in elementary school and still an Episcopalian at the time) appealed to covenant as a way of reining in the individualism that had plagued our community. As they close the chapter on covenant the authors raise the question of authority. We're not a hierarchical people, but the question is -- how do we, without either creeds or magisterium (clerical teaching office) define our identity as a people?
They note that while Roman Catholics and Southern Baptists struggle with freeing themselves from the domination of the church, among Disciples the problem is the church being dominated by the individual -- that is we also struggle with maintaining the tension between "personal freedom and interdependent community." They go on to write:
In issuing this statement the authors have a couple of entities in mind as authoritative voices. One would be the General Assembly, which has little real impact on local congregations. And, in recent years there has been a move away from taking votes or stands on divisive/controversial issues. They would also suggest that more respect be given to the teaching office of the pastor, especially the prophetic role. They note:
How then do we balance authority and freedom in a tradition that is historically committed to individual freedoms of interpretation and application of scripture, one that has strong anti-clerical convictions? And, how do I raise the question without it seeming like I'm asking for more power?
In the previous posting I noted how the authors coupled covenant with accountability as a way of understanding our freedom, something that is central to Disciple understanding. That is, we have emphasized freedom of thought and practice as Disciples, but in the 1960s, as we "restructured" we (I should say they because I was in elementary school and still an Episcopalian at the time) appealed to covenant as a way of reining in the individualism that had plagued our community. As they close the chapter on covenant the authors raise the question of authority. We're not a hierarchical people, but the question is -- how do we, without either creeds or magisterium (clerical teaching office) define our identity as a people?
They note that while Roman Catholics and Southern Baptists struggle with freeing themselves from the domination of the church, among Disciples the problem is the church being dominated by the individual -- that is we also struggle with maintaining the tension between "personal freedom and interdependent community." They go on to write:
Every church, if it is to be church, must exercise authority. It must, that is, develop ways of making decisions and teaching the faith that (1) ensure the community's identity as a people of the gospel, (2) enable the body to engage faithfully and corporately in mission, and (3) provide guidance for members as they struggle to enact the gospel in their daily lives. A healthy church, as we envision it, will allow, even encourage, the "three d's" -- dialogue, diversity, and dissent; but its members will also recognize that the teachings and decisions of the community have a claim on them. (Disciples, p. 24).
In issuing this statement the authors have a couple of entities in mind as authoritative voices. One would be the General Assembly, which has little real impact on local congregations. And, in recent years there has been a move away from taking votes or stands on divisive/controversial issues. They would also suggest that more respect be given to the teaching office of the pastor, especially the prophetic role. They note:
In the absence of some sort of communal teaching, the prophetic teaching role of local pastors is likely to be further blunted. As long as pastors are accountable only to the congregation without a body of teaching to which to appeal, we can hardly expect ministers to speak with prophetic authority, no matter how idolatrous the community may become. It is astonishing how many pastors still manage to preach prophetically, but the point is that they are not supported in this by the wider church. (Disciples, pp. 25-26).
How then do we balance authority and freedom in a tradition that is historically committed to individual freedoms of interpretation and application of scripture, one that has strong anti-clerical convictions? And, how do I raise the question without it seeming like I'm asking for more power?
Comments
As a pastor I feel you every right to ask for more power, to be prophetic is your talking. Even on this blog, I often pause to consider my thoughts if I find we disagree. My prayer is that you have spend time in studying the Word over the years and God has gifted you with a talent for teaching. This is by means no out to say that I simply accept a statement as fact, but rather search the scriptures to confirm your teaching. Its a good little like "checks and balances" for both of us.
Chuck
You ask how to raise the question, I think the simple answer is that you should emulate Jesus of who it was said: "They were astounded at his teaching, for he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes." (Mt 1:22)
When you are not vested with the authority of a scribe, then you cannot speak with their authority. You are left to speak and teach 'as one having authority,' claiming through the power of your words the authority others gain from the power of their office.
You said: "appealed to covenant as a way of reining in the individualism". I think we should not seek so much to rein in individualism as to provide a focus for unity within the context of our diversity.
John
David Mc
The question then is: what should be the focus of our unity that would allow for this diversity. Or maybe I should ask, which comes first -- the presumption of unity or the presumption of diversity? When the Campbell's began, they had a vision of unity first and then suggested that the means to that unity was seeking to follow Scripture rather than creeds.
By the way, the next chapter of the book is about Scripture!