2000 Annual Council - Petersen Devotional

Devotional Message

October 1, 2000, 8:00 a.m.

The devotional message entitled "The Word of God and Unity of Decision" was presented by Paul Birch Petersen, Field Secretary for the South Pacific Division.

The issues involved in the topic I have been given for this presentation, may be viewed from two different, yet complimentary angles. One is from the viewpoint of the leadership of the Church, the other from the viewpoint of the individual member.

As leaders of the Church, we evidently share an interest in persuading members in general, that they, as well as all of us, should submit to and be united in the decisions taken by the various boards and sessions of the Church. Furthermore, we would like the believers to accept that the authority with which these bodies speak originates in Scripture, in the Word of God. Part of the purpose of this presentation is to investigate to what degree and in what sense this is true.

On the other hand, as Adventists we regularly emphasize that the fulfillment of the gospel commission goes hand in hand with the filling of the individual believers and their local churches with the Holy Spirit. We want to encourage members to develop a personal relationship to our Lord, to study the Word of God for themselves, and, led by the Spirit, to take initiative in evangelistic outreach. Therefore, it is important for the mission of the Church that the decisions we take as a unified body are Biblically based, that they are generally perceived as such by most members, and that these decisions are felt to be relevant for and supportive of the evangelistic outreach of the local congregation. As another aspect of this presentation, I will also touch upon the relationship between the Spirit, the individual, and the Church as the body of Christ.

Summarizing, I approach the topic with two closely connected questions in mind. The major question will be, What does Scripture teach about authority and, in particular, about the authority of the Church? The related question is, What is the proper relationship between the individual believer and the Church as a whole in regard to this authority?

The scope of these questions is very wide, and I have no intention to provide all the answers. It may very well be that more questions are raised than answers given. But I hope to be able to clarify some basic principles of Scripture that may help the Church to progress.

I will begin in and with Scripture. If we want to know what kind of authority the Word of God lends to any institution on earth, the Church included, we first have to understand with which authority the Scripture speaks; that is, what authority does the Scripture attach to itself?

Before looking at some of the most essential biblical texts dealing with this question, let me underline one important thought, a consequence of what is often called the sola scriptura principle, that is, "from the Scripture alone."

Our concept of authority should not be based upon a general, philosophical notion about authority which we subsequently impose upon Scripture. Rather, it should rise from the very texts themselves. Let me illustrate. Even when reading the book of Esther, we believe that the author was inspired by the Holy Spirit and, therefore, that the book has authority. However, its authority is linked to what the text actually is speaking about. It is specific. We do not turn to this book to find the answers on the nature of Christ for the simple reason that this is not its content. This theme is not what the author was inspired by the Spirit to address. Consequently, when asking for authority we will always--in order to avoid imposing our own concept of authority upon the texts--also have to ask the question, "authority in regard to what?" So, we maintain belief in an identical inspiration for all the Biblical writings, or writers, and we do believe in their authority. But we also believe that some texts or books (like, for instance, the gospel of John) obviously are of higher importance than others (like the Book of Esther) when it comes to some issues, like the question of who Jesus is. The authority of the holy writings is specific. It should not be imposed from without, but has to be understood against the background of the actual content. In this sense, not all Biblical texts are of equal importance, nor are all themes of the Bible, nor are all laws. There are various levels of importance.

In consequence of this view of inspiration and Biblical authority, we as Adventists have generally employed what has been labeled the historical-grammatical approach to the study of Scripture, demanding a historical, contextual reading of the inspired writings.

Let us turn to the text. The three examples I have chosen have been of great importance throughout the history of the Christian church. Better than any, the discussion surrounding these texts illustrates the basic issues.

Simon Peter answered, "'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' And Jesus said to him, 'Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.'"--Matt 16:16-19, NAB

The important issue here is to identify the keys. What is the power given to Peter by which he will be able to open or shut the gates of heaven? The Catholic church has interpreted the text in an ecclesiastical manner, understanding the power to be entrusted to the church as an organization, as a hierarchy extending through the popes from the apostle Peter himself. The reformers, however, and Martin Luther in particular, read the text differently. Not surprisingly, Adventists have followed their lead. The power is not the office of the church, but the proclamation of the gospel. The power and authority is the Word, the Word that confesses Christ as the Son of the living God and the Saviour of men. Whenever this Word is truthfully proclaimed, people will hear and believe and thus enter the gates of heaven--or they will not believe and consequently be eternally lost.

"But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God" (2 Peter 1:20, 21, NAB).

"At the same time, we must recognize that the interpretation of scriptural prophecy is never a matter for the individual. For no prophecy ever came from human initiative. When people spoke for God it was the Holy Spirit that moved them." The New Jerusalem Bible.

In the history of the church, two interpretations of the term private or man's own compete. The first one has, not surprisingly, been shared by most interpreters from the major churches, and it is therefore also reflected even in many modern translations. According to this interpretation, the Greek term (from idios) has been understood as referring to any individual who as a private person pursues his own understanding of the Biblical text in spite of the prevailing view of the church. Not surprisingly, I personally support the alternative interpretation which I find confirmed by the context. In this understanding, the contrast is not between the individual man and the power structure of the church, whether exemplified by the office or by the staff of professional theologians. The contrast is between man on his own and man guided by the Holy Spirit. As the Spirit moved and inspired the writers of the prophecies of old, so every man today needs the guidance of the Holy Spirit to understand and interpret the divine messages contained in the Scriptures.

"For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things" (Acts 15:28, NKJV).

Throughout the history of interpretation, many church leaders have been tempted to read this text without proper attention to its historical and textual context. "The Holy Spirit and we have decided" has at times been turned into "we have as leaders decided, and you as members have to agree, because whenever we as leaders decide, it is a decision made by the Holy Spirit."

However, reading the flow of events in Acts and taking note of the specific discussion at this early General Conference Session in Jerusalem, we come to understand the text differently. Leaders, representatives for the various Christian churches, were gathered to discuss the problem of whether gentiles could be part of the church on an equal footing with those Christians who were born as Jews and still kept the Mosaic laws. Within the book of Acts, the move from Jerusalem through Samaria and towards the end of the world (cf. Acts 1:8) was already taking place. The persecution of the Christians following the martyrdom of Stephen had led Philip to Samaria and sent him on his way to Gaza where he baptized the Ethiopian noble. But this earliest baptism of a gentile was not a public event and at this time it was probably unknown to the church in general. Not unknown, however, were the strange circumstances surrounding the conversion of the Italian centurion named Cornelius. To overcome the prejudices of the Jewish Christians, the Holy Spirit changed His usual procedure and imparted His particular gifts to the gentile Cornelius even before the ritual of baptism had occurred (Acts 10:44-48). This was understood by those present as a sign from God of His approval, and Peter went on and performed the ceremony. In the face of human traditions and social prejudices, the Holy Spirit had shown the way.

During the heated discussions at the meeting in Jerusalem, Peter raised up to defend the proposal that the Gentiles should become part of the church without having to obey the Mosaic laws. In doing so, Peter argued by referring to what happened to Cornelius. Note his words, "Peter rose up and said to them: 'Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us'" (Acts 15:8-9, NKJV).

Fortunately, the leaders of the early Christian church decided to side with the Holy Spirit. It was a choice. Later in history there may have been situations in which the leaders by their decisions disagreed with what the Spirit had already previously revealed, whether through the inspired word of Scripture or through His guidance in the evangelistic mission of the church. The leadership of the church is not to take the place of the Holy Spirit by making the claim that whatever it decides, it is thereby also automatically expressing the will of the Spirit. The Church is a channel to be used by the Spirit. Its leadership is neither a replacement for the Holy Spirit nor a substitute for the Son of God.

The conclusion is that the Scripture emphasizes the authority of the Word of God over against any other channel, the church and the offices of the church included. To understand the nature and the authority that the church has been given, it is necessary to view it in the context of what the Scripture teaches about authority in general.

Let us be surprised by the text: "Worthy are You, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, and because of Your will they existed, and were created" (Rev 4:11, NAB).

Have you ever wondered how it is possible for God to receive not only glory and honor, but also power? Is He not already in possession of all power?

The answer to that question reveals what I find to be a unique aspect with the Adventist understanding of history, that is, the great conflict between good and evil. The story of a Norwegian peasant from the 16^th century illustrates the point. He was sentenced to death and executed for blasphemy. At the funeral of his wife, obsessed with anger and probably partly possessed by strong beer, he lashed out against God, grasped his axe, and publicly claimed that if God were only present he would use his tool as a weapon against God.

His execution for blasphemy reveals the hardness of the age, but also contains a paradox. The poor peasant only reacted against what he had been taught all his life. Sunday after Sunday he had been told that God is the absolute Sovereign, and that nothing happens that is not His will. This teaching was only contradicted by the regular repetition of the Lord's prayer, according to which we pray that God's will should be done in earth as it is in heaven. We pray so exactly because it is not already the case. God's will does not always happen. Though God is the almighty Creator, the Sovereign, He has shared His sovereignty with His creation. And He has also entrusted man with power and given us a certain amount of freedom.

This truth is evident in the apocalyptic books. In the book of Revelation, power is in various forms given to entities like the horses and the riders (Rev 6:2, 4, 8), the locusts

(Rev 9:3, 5), and the beast from the sea (Rev 13:5, 7). In general, it is understood by what is at times called a "divine passive," that the power is entrusted by God. (The exception found in

Revelation 13:2 in which the dragon "gives" of its power to the beast, may be seen as a ironical illustration of the dragon's ambition to be like God.)

In the book of Daniel, the giving of power to human entities is one of the major themes. The book opens with a struggle in which the king of Judah is "given into the hand [power]" of the king of Babylon (Dan 1:2). In the following chapter, Daniel praises God who "removes and installs kings" (Dan 2:21), and in his subsequent interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar's dream, Daniel repeats this basic lesson: the power of Nebuchadnezzar is but given him by God

(Dan 2:37, 38). Years later, the Babylonian king finally acknowledges the lessons God has taught him, that all power belongs to God who gives it to man according to his will (Dan 4:14, 22, 29).

These narratives of the first part of the book help us to understand the events described in the visions of the second part. Even the beasts receive their power from God alone. (See

Dan 7:6, 12, 25; cf. 8:12, 24. The texts from chapter 8 are only partially clear in most modern translations.)

The overall theological message of these scenes is double: God has entrusted human beings and institutions with power and responsibility, a gift that involves a certain amount of freedom. But at the day of judgment, God will once again take back or receive His power. At the present, evil powers create innocent suffering, but when His kingdom comes, His will shall be done. At that day He will ask everyone how the freedom given has been used. And we will all be held accountable for the power we have been given freedom to exercise.

In Daniel chapter 7 the focus is on power systems, on kingdoms and states and governments. The Bible makes it clear that human societies have been given the right to exercise civil authority (cf. Rom 13:1), though this right unfortunately is often misused. But man is also put in many other roles or positions in which power is exercised. We may do it as spouses, as parents, or as teachers. Or we may have been given power or authority as leaders in the church. In all these situations, for all these roles, God provides a standard, and the Holy Spirit sets some limitations.

As the judgment scene in Daniel 7 reaches its climax, and the kingdoms of this world all have been tested and found wanting, yet another character arrives at the scene and is acclaimed as the worthy regent for eternity: "I saw one like a human being coming with the clouds of heaven. And he came to the Ancient One and was presented before him. To him was given dominion and glory and kingship, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall not pass away, and his kingship is one that shall never be destroyed."--Dan 7:13-14, NAB

In comparison, just as was the case with the beasts, power is given to the Son of Man. But in contrast, His kingdom will never pass away. Another contrast is worth noticing. In the visionary symbols, the "son of man" as a man is the weaker part (cf. Dan 7:4). It would seem evident for any viewer that his chances, when facing the beasts in battle, are extremely limited.

Exactly the same contrast meets our eyes in the book of Revelation. Going forward as the divine warrior to meet the terrifying monsters, called even by the name of the Lion of Judah, is none other than a slain and bleeding lamb (Rev 5:5-6). In the eyes of the reader, the outcome of the battle seems settled beforehand.

But the battle is not fought by power or might. This is the paradox of the gospel. The word beats the sword (Rev 1:16). The one who lays down his life will gain it. Love conquers death. The one who is willing to relinquish all power and die for the sake of love, will go forth as victor.

For that reason, Jesus is acknowledged as worthy of receiving power for all eternity--in Daniel 7 as the Son of Man and in Revelation 5 as the slain lamb. He alone is worthy to be trusted with all power because He is the only human being ever who has never misused it. He did not seek power for himself, but was willing to risk all He had and lose it. He is worthy. His exercise of power is the divine standard against which all other powers and authorities will be finally measured.

The Holy Spirit has set up a principal limitation for any exercise of power and drawn clear lines to mark the boundaries for each role of authority entrusted to men.

Does this statement surprise you? Many Christians have grown accustomed to associating the work of the Holy Spirit with a life or an experience in which there is no limitation whatsoever. Religious revivals happen, and at times they are shown on TV in a way that identifies a manifestation of the Holy Spirit with a complete lack of control. Some preachers claim that the time of the Word has been replaced by the age of the Spirit.

Such claims are not founded in Scripture. The Spirit that inspired the prophets to write the Bible, will never work to replace the Word. It is interesting that in the list of the gifts of the Spirit in 1 Corinthians 12:7-11, at least half of these gifts are directly linked to the utterance of words. Any genuine prophet will always point toward the inspired Word of God. And even though you and I are not prophets, the responsibility we have been given to teach or preach, should never be misused to attract people to ourselves or to make others dependent upon us for their spiritual welfare. We should always, always, always point to Jesus, leading to the Word, helping others to establish a personal relationship to Jesus and in their daily walk with Him be guided by the Holy Spirit through the inspired writings of the Bible.

I want you to see the connection at this point between the life of the individual and the authority of institutions. In the life of an individual, he or she is always to depend on and be guided by a power outside of himself or herself--by the Word of God. At times, the charismatic experiences of some professing Christians replace their dependency upon that Word as a reality outside of themselves. In such cases, their religious ecstacy, their own human spirituality, is taking over the role intended for God alone.

Likewise, the various principalities are given the right to exercise their authority within certain limits. Whenever they extend these limits, they are playing the role of God.

The state, for instance, is given the right to exercise its power in civil matters for the sake of order and peace in a world of disorder and rebellion (Rom 13:1ff.). But it is not allowed by the Word of God to enter the area of personal religion and force anyone to support a worship contrary to his or her convictions. Parents are put in a role in which children may regard them as gods, and parents have been entrusted with a certain amount of power. But as parents, or as government officials, or teachers, we are but human. We are all to kneel down together with our children, worshiping our Heavenly Father and confessing to our common Saviour that we are all sinners in need of divine mercy. And if we demand of our children what is unbiblical, they do not break the divine commandment by not obeying our rules.

As a body, the Church has also been invested with authority. And as with other institutions, the Spirit of God has also delineated certain boundaries for the exercise of this authority. To explore these boundaries, I will briefly discuss the Biblical definition of church.

In the comparative study of the Christian churches and movements, four categories are often employed to describe the various denominations, distinguish between them, and underscore the peculiarities of each of them: dogmatics (teaching and theology), organization (hierarchy, ecclesiastical law, etc), liturgy (worship style), and ethos (life style and moral values).

Not all churches emphasize the same categories to the same degree. To the orthodox churches, liturgy has been and still is the major issue causing conflicts and splits, while theological discussions such as the debate on justification by faith historically has been of lesser significance. To the Lutheran church, the foremost important question has been that of theology, of dogmatics. To the Catholic church, however, theology has been of less importance, while maintaining the authority as expressed in the church hierarchy and in the offices of the church is, I believe, still all essential.

How is the Adventist Church best described? Though we have had heated discussions on both organization and liturgy, these areas have had only relative importance in comparison to our doctrinal discussions. From the reformers we inherited a quest for defending and describing the truth in many details. And from the Calvinistic and Armenian branches of the protestant movement in particular, we have also inherited a very strong emphasis on life style issues.

With these categories in mind, I will turn to the Scriptures to see whether the Bible attaches more significance to some aspects of church than to others.

No better text is found to define what the church is than the great gospel commission in Matthew 28:18-20, NRSV. Below follows the text printed in a manner that underscores the various aspects of the definition of church.

authority: All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.

mission: "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations,

ritual/liturgy: baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,

teaching/ethos: teaching them to observe all that I commanded you;

promise: and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.

As a first observation, I notice that in this text the authority is but "given." Jesus has received it on the basis of His sacrifice. Second, Jesus keeps the authority as His own. It is not left to the church. He is still the head of His church (Eph 5:23). The leader of the church is not an earthly figure, but a heavenly High Priest, and the church on earth has no authority in or by itself. One of the implications is that church is never to be state. The church must continually receive the power of Jesus in order to carry out the gospel commission. If a professing church is no longer faithful to this call to mission or becomes basically disloyal to the teachings of Jesus, it has no longer any divine authority.

Third, in defining the church, the mission and the teachings of Christ are primary-- worship style and church organization/office are secondary. In other words, the church is organized to serve an evangelistic purpose and, where and if the particular form of organization no longer fulfills this purpose, it should be replaced. There may be situations in which certain ways of organizing or conducting worship are contrary to the teachings of Christ. This should obviously be avoided, not because liturgy or organization are primary, but because part of the purpose of mission is to help people observe what Jesus has taught. Let me add as a fourth observation that to become a part of the church is to be incorporated into a fellowship of worship. I believe that is implied by the concept of baptism. But the unity of the saints in worship is not secured by a particular form of worship, demanding uniformity in style and culture, but maintained by unity in purpose and mission and a basic unity in the understanding of the teachings of Christ.

My final observation has to do with these teachings. They not only consist in doctrinal truth, but also, as underlined by the covenant language employed, contain issues of life style and ethos.

Having looked at the Biblical teaching regarding the related concepts of authority and church, it is time to summarize.

First of all, it is a basic Biblical truth that the authority of the Word of God can never be replaced by any other authority, not even by the church. The organization of the church, as well as its worship style, is to serve the missionary purpose of making disciples who observe the teachings, that is, the words of Jesus. Therefore, mission and the proclamation of the Word are the primary reasons for the church's existence. If the church as a body attempts to make liturgy or organization just as important and generally binding as the theological teachings of Jesus or as its evangelistic vision and outreach, it may misuse or go beyond its God-given authority.

Second, while this basic truth delineates the boundaries of the offices of the church, it should not be taken as an excuse for anarchy within the church. Also seen from the perspective of the individual believer, the theological truth of the priesthood of all believers is, in reality, the very foundation for supporting the majority decisions within the church. The doctrine of the priesthood of all believers implies that any leader who is elected or appointed derives his or her authority from the church itself. The church has a divinely given right to organize for the sake of order and for the purpose of mission. If he or she, as a leader, is faithful to the teachings of the Bible and does not extend the entrusted authority beyond the appointed boundaries, every member can be expected to stay loyal to the elected leadership. In such a case, disloyalty to leadership is disloyalty to the church as a whole.

In closing, I will first briefly identify some of the practical problem areas related to the decision process of the church, next I will summarize the Biblical principles for governing as discussed in this presentation.

Let me point to a few problem areas:

1. The two extremes: bureaucratic hierarchy and charismatic cult leaders.

2. The challenge of distance.

a. between the business of the church and its frontier mission, the local churches in missionary outreach, the youth of the church, etc; and

b. between the scholarship of the church and the individual believer in his or her personal reading of as well as evangelistic testimony to the Word of God.

3. Submitting to authority: levels of importance.