In recent years and hours, lots of discussion has been given to the subject of authority. Who has authority to close the Southern border? Who has authority to mandate vaccines? Who has authority to teach children about the birds and the bees? Who has authority to close churches or constrict their practices? And in the church, who has authority to rule the congregation (1 Tim. 5:17). Is it the congregation? The elders? One elder? The most vocal or influential members? Or some combination?

Who has authority?

Of all the books I have read on the subject, the one that is most promising (I’m still reading it) is David Innes’ book, Christ and the Kingdom of Men: Foundations for Political Life. In a section on understanding differing spheres of authority, Innes describes authority in the church. He writes,

[C]hurch government has its authority from Christ. The apostles of Christ appointed the original elders in the first churches. The apostle Paul instructed his legate Titus to “appoint elders in every town” (Titus 1:5). They are ministers of Christ who must give an account to Christ (Heb. 13:17). In the first centuries of the Christian church, civil governments were pagan, as they are today in many lands where Christ has gathered his people, and so they could not have had an organizing or overseeing role in the formation of the churches. (32)

Underscoring the source of church authority coming from Christ, Innes turns to the way churches should not receive their authority from the state. “Over many centuries, churches have had to resist civil authorities’ attempts to exert control over church leadership” (32). Indeed, in our day this is a lesson we have had to relearn. As Western civilization has rejected Christ, other gods have filled the void. And we have already seen how the god of statism is rising to power.

At the same time, however, challenges between church and state are not the only place we have a conflict in authority. We also find difficulty in understanding how the church and the self are to be related. Interestingly, Innes includes the “individual person” in his list of spheres. He explains,

It is odd to think of each individual person as a sphere of authority, but there is a God-given authority that one has over oneself. God’s creation mandate for everyone without distinction of rank or role to exercise dominion in vice-regency communicated God’s moral expectation that people would govern themselves and their personal affairs in righteousness. Self-government at this level is the moral responsibility of every human being and thus the moral right of every adult. (30)

While we mostly think about authority at the level of institutions (e.g., family, church, state), self-governance, or what Scripture labels “self-control,” is a sphere of sovereignty. God has given each image-bearer a body, and those bodies can be used as instruments of righteousness or wickedness (Rom. 6:12–23), and thus we must learn to glorify God with our bodies (1 Cor. 6:20). Such glorification certainly includes sexual purity (1 Cor. 6:12–20), but it would also include the way we use our tongues (James 3), minds (Rom. 8:7; 12:1–2), shoulders (Ezek. 34:21), and fingers (see all the bodily features of sin in Romans 3:10–19). Long story short, we must learn to govern ourselves and to say no to the sinful impulses that rise up within us (James 1:13–15). Yet, this is exactly where the modern church is struggling.

Expressive Individualism as a New Authority 

Instead of taking up a posture that says not to ungodliness (Titus 2:11–13), the modern church often follows the course of the world. As expressive individualism has catechized a generation, many in the church are now urging authenticity and self-expression as the path to true godliness. By extension, the church is grappling with, and has been for some time, an authority located in the authentic individual.

As Shai Linne highlights in his recent rendition of “Farm Talk,” a play on Animal Farm, the unabashed affirmation of self is deadly. It is deadly for the individual and for those who would dare oppose those who being true to self. Just watch. Spoiler: The song ends with a clear pointer to Christ!

In the church, then, there is a modern crisis of authority and a conflict of visions. One of those visions is the unrestrained desire to serve the Lord with the full authority of the Bible in the hands of the individual. This vision does not fall into the trap of Roman Catholicism, which gives authority to some external tradition. But it does assume authority for the individual the the Bible may not authorize.

The other vision is more restrained, as it waits and submits to the authority vested in the congregation. This vision does not deny the place of individuals to serve the Lord; it simply begins by recognizing that the Word of God creates a people. And that individuals, as children of God, are born again into a family, and that service to the Lord is a family endeavor, not an individual one.

The Americanization of Church Authority

Mark Noll, in America’s Book: The Rise and Decline of a Bible Civilization, 1794–1911, has explored how this individualistic vision of interpreting and applying the Bible came to prominence. Embracing the democratic spirit of the new world, Americans took the Bible alone as their sole authority. Yet, this was not the sola scriptura of the Reformation, this was a new and *not-so* improved solo scriptura or nuda scriptura. In America, a new brand of “Bible and Me” Christianity emerged, and to this day, many Americans see themselves as sufficient to interpret, obey, and do what Scripture says.

Yet, the Bible does not come to individuals alone, nor should we interpret the Bible as individuals. The Bible is given to the church. And in the church, the baby Christians is surrounded by a loving family of faith who nurtures that child of God in the truth. Instructing, correcting, catechizing, and rebuking are all parts of life in the body, and elders are given to the church in order to equip the whole body to build itself up in love (Eph. 4:11–16). In short, the locus of authority, in the New Testament, is in the church, not the individual.

And thus, the mature saint does not entrust himself for his or her own authority. Rather, with personal authority and Spirit-given power, he receives the Bible in the community of a local church and then exercises his gifts in that body, under the watch-care fo the elders, all for the glory of God.

In short, then, there is a radical difference between an American Christianity that authorizes the self to do church or something else and an Apostolic Christianity which centers on the local church and invites individual believers to be a part of that work. Apostolic Christianity sees the local church as “an elect lady” and individuals as “her children,” just like John begins 2 John.

By contrast, American Christianity centers on individuals who are effectively children with no mother. Or more precisely, they are children who operate without the need for a mother (a local church). And without a mother, these children seek for themselves a way in the world that centers on their own aims.

Often, these aims come from a genuine desire to serve the Lord. And equally often, their energy is rewarded. We are a nation of inventors and entrepreneurs, after all. But what is lacking in American Christianity, is the familial nature of Apostolic Christianity. In truth, God’s people need a Father in heaven, an elder brother on the throne, and a mother on the earth. That mother, following the typology of Isaiah, is the church who gathers at Mount Zion (Heb. 12:22–24).

A Sign of The Times: A Conflict in Authority

So, there is a conflict of authority in the church today, and that conflict is making regular challenges in the church more difficult. For instead of having fruitful disagreements that argue for best practices based on a shared vision of ministry, there are now two foundations setting out to gather the church, equip the saints, or evangelize the lost. And while these two foundations may be able to co-exist for a time, eventually if a disagreement arises, the foundations of iron and clay will separate.

Today, it appears that two different types of authority are at work in the churches. There are those who think the Word of God (the Bible) comes to them and gives them sufficient authorization to act, and there are others who see the Word of God as creating the church, which is the place where ministry has spiritual beachhead. While such a difference may not appear large, when material differences are debated the lack of formal agreement (i.e., where is the locus of authority) becomes a yawning chasm.

Practically then, those who affirm a “Bible and Me” Christianity are ever-ready to do ministry on their own and in any number of different ways. By contrast, those seeking to hold fast to apostolic pattern of preaching the gospel, planting churches, and moving out from those locations, are concerned that such individualistic efforts are not found in Scripture. And the result of these two visions is a “sharp disagreement” between brothers and sisters in Christ (Acts 15:40).

Two Visions of Authority

To widen our gaze, we should acknowledge that genuine believers have faced these kinds of divisions before. Yet, in recent decades (centuries?), the rise in expressive individualism has led to a new challenge. And for all the discussions about authority in the church, faithful Christians should be able to tell the difference between an American version of authority and an Apostolic one. And to that end I offer a sixfold comparison.

The schema relating (1) the Bible to (2) the individual to (3) the church is something I saw online recently. (If it was you, let me know; I’d love to give credit where credit is due). But the rest of this comparison comes from questions about authority in the church and reflections on what it means for the church to equip the saints for the work of ministry. Certainly, this outline is not a full argument, but perhaps it will help visualize two competing visions for authority in the church, two visions which can be better understood and discussed.

1 American Christianity: Bible >> Me >> Para/Church

Under Christ, the individual is preeminent, the church is created by the will of the people.

1. Membership is a token I can give to or takeaway from a church.
2. Gospel Ministry results in a variety of different institutions – Bible studies, parachurch, church, etc.
3. Christian Identity is an individual believer connected to the universal church through a variety of institutions (see #2).
4. The Universal Church is the space where Christians follow Christ in ways they think best.
5. Pastors are appreciated but also dispensable, because all Christians have the same authority.
6. Authority rests in the priesthood of the believer (singular), as in the Baptist Faith & Message 1963.

2 Apostolic Christianity: Bible >> Church >> Me

Under Christ, the church is preeminent, the individual is a member of the church.

1. Membership is conferred by the church to a baptized believer.
2. Gospel Ministry results in regeneration, baptism, churches, and various outreach, ministries, and good works that extend from the church.
3. Christian Identity is found as an individual covenants with other believers in a local church.
4. Local churches are the place where Christians live, move, and have their blessing. The Universal Church is composed of local churches, and Christians who meet outside the church are identifed by their local church.
5. Pastors are indispensable to a local church, because churches recognize their teaching gifts and authorize them to feed, guard, lead, correct, and guide the flock.
6. Authority rests in the priesthood of the believers (plural), as corrected in the Baptist Faith & Message 2000.

Much more needs to be said and qualified, but these six points give a flavor of the difference. And by outlining these differences we see how a small difference in authority can lead to a significant challenge for unity in a local church.

A Plea to Embrace the Apostle’s Conception of Authority

By framing the differences in this way, it is not hard to tell which side I am taking. Like the churches in Revelation 2-3, I believe local churches often resemble the strengths and weaknesses of their ambient culture. In the case of America, a hyper-individualized approach to life and ministry is one that has sunk itself deep into the church.

This authorization of the individual, in my estimation, is not healthy. In the estimation of others, this concern may appear to be unwarranted. And yet, that just sets the same division on slightly different grounds. For truly, in a day when expressive individualism runs rampant and churches, and their pastors, refuse to affirm all desires, the question of authority is going to be an ongoing debate.

In such a context, then, we would do well to go back to the Bible and consider, where does authority lie? Who has authority in the church? And how did they get it? Can gifted individuals authorize themselves for ministry? Can eager disciples run ahead of the elders? How do elders properly and improperly wield authority? Do elders have the right to direct ministries in the church? What about ministries the extend from the church? And where do they get the right to lead, teach, rebuke, and equip the congregation? These questions and more are worth answering.

And today, they are worth answering because the locus of authority will continue to be a challenge for the modern church. With the breakdown of the family, the tyranny of governors, the arbitrary construction of the law, we cannot assume that people will rightly understand or appreciate good authority. And similarly, with all the misuses of power in every sphere of life, we cannot assume that those in authority have a proper understanding of their role or the source of their authority either.

This needs to change. And thus, we need to return to Scripture to see what authority is and where it came from. And more, we need to consider the fundamental difference between the American conception of authority and the Apostolic conception. For one of approaches is biblical and the other is not. And so, we need to test our understanding by what we find in the Bible, and then by God’s grace, we need to make changes accordingly.

Wonderfully, Christ as the head of the church continues to sanctify his bride the church, and thus we can trust that what he has said in his word is for our good. And so let us continue to look to him, until we all together look like him.

Soli Deo Gloria, ds

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com