The Authority of the Church in the World:  A United Church of Christ Perspective, Rev. Dr. Susan E. Davies
 

Authority of the Church in the World: An Evangelical Perspective

Dr. R. Keelan Downton, Ph.D.
Faith and Order Post-doctoral Fellow (2005-07) 

The combination of the three terms, authority, church, and world, is unusual within evangelical discourse.  The term “evangelical” itself is subject to a myriad of definitions but may be broadly construed as a loose collection of affirmations: God’s work of salvation centered in Jesus Christ, the authority of the Bible as the unique expression of God’s Word in human language, conversion as appropriate language to describe the experience of salvation, mission as the primary Christian responsibility, and transdenominationalism.[1]  It is assumed therefore that any legitimate authority is ultimately grounded in scripture.  Whether it is appropriate to refer to “church” as a subject capable of posssessing authority is a question rooted in the ambivalence with which evangelicals regard the term.   

In the recent Evangelical-Catholic International Consultation (1993-2002) evangelicals reiterate the description found in the Lausanne Covenant (1974) “The church is the community of God's people rather than an institution…”[2] Within common evangelical language, however, “church” may carry such diverse meanings as the mystical body of Christ, a local group of believers who meet together, the physical place of meeting, or uniquely, a cipher connoting the least desirable facets of institutional life.  In this way, the pejorative label “churchianity” may be applied to any perceived preoccupation with institutional affairs as a reminder that the primary focus of the believer should not be the church (as institution) but Christ.  Any use of language that presumes a necessary connection between Christ and the institutional church breaks down upon encountering this fourth understanding that sets up a radical separation between institutional expression and spiritual life.  Thus to understand the authority of the church in the world, it is necessary to distinguish in what sense the word church is being used and more importantly to recognize that any connection of authority to institution is immediately suspect.[3] 

Within these four definitions of church, the last two are obviously inappropriate vessels of authority.  It might be possible to theoretically affirm the authority of the mystical body of Christ, but because it is primarily conceived apart from institutional structure,[4] there can be no expression of authority distinguishable from the will of Christ[5] (since Christ is, after all, the head of this body[6]). This leaves the second understanding of church as a set of believers as the only sensible vessel for authority. For this reason, making sense of “authority of the church in the world” within familiar categories requires a translation something like “authority of believers in the world”.  

The authority of the church (as the set of all believers) in the world must take into account the calling each believer has to make disciples.[7]  The Great Awakening focused on bringing people to a critical point of decision described as conversion, but during the twentieth century evangelicals placed an increasing emphasis on the more holistic concept of making disciples.[8]  This broader concept functions as a back door through which the institutional church is re-legitimated.  Rick Warren’s popular The Purpose Driven Church[9] has become a model for evangelicals to (re)focus their institutional activities on the dual tasks of conversion and spiritual development.  The institutional church in this sense is not an authority per se, but rather a tool through which believers may exercise their authority more effectively. 

From the perspective of this goal of disciple-making it becomes clear that the concept of world certainly includes potential disciples, but that is not a complete picture.  World also includes those who have rejected God’s grace and spiritual forces which inhibit reception of the gospel.  The perceived admixture of needy souls and hostile entities is expressed variously as missionary impetus, engagement in public life, or withdrawal from society.[10]  The surprising commonality between such expressions is that they are all understood as a means of bearing witness.   

Thus, to consider believers in the context of world is to place them in the role of witness.  This role may be conceived of in three parts that both make the primary calling of disciple-making possible and constitute its center.  The first task is to bear witness to those metaphysical truths that comprise the propositional content of the gospel message.[11]  The second task is to bear witness to the possibility of appropriating those propositions in such a way that relationship with God is achieved.  The third task is then to bear witness to moral truth, not merely as a subset of metaphysical truths, but as necessary in itself in order to prevent moral corruption from inhibiting the world’s capacity to accept the other forms of witness.  It is important to recognize that many evangelicals affirm this moral role while at the same time criticizing attempts to do so “through legislation and control”[12], thus maintaining the distinction between believers and institution.  

Each of the synoptic gospels records Jesus giving authority to the disciples for the purpose of proclaiming the kingdom of God.[13]  Furthermore, since each believer has been called to make disciples, it follows that each believer possesses sufficient authority to do so.  This authority is not inherent, but wholly derived, so that a believer’s authority is limited to expressing those metaphysical truths described in scripture, testifying to experiencing God in the way that scripture describes, and advocating behavior consonant with the commands of scripture. 

Response to this proclamation is of critical importance because it has eternal ramifications, but this does not imply that such authority may be exercised through any means whatsoever.  The distinction the World Evangelical Alliance makes between proselytism and evangelism reveals the conviction that coercive or dishonest methods are incompatible with disciple-making.[14]  Others warn that the message of the gospel is in danger of being supplanted by mass-marketing techniques.[15] 

If individual believers have authority to make disciples in this way, it is possible to read the authority of believers back into the institutional church. When the institutional church is understood as a tool for enabling believers to fulfill their calling, it has authority to do whatever is most conducive to the calling of disciple-making.  This allows evangelicals to embrace a variety of institutional structures measured pragmatically against the standard of disciple-making.[16]  Such structures may be a means to exercise special authority, such as dogmatic interpretation of scripture,[17] in a collective way but are not understood to possess authority in themselves. 

There is the further dimension that, since the community of the redeemed has a real existence as the mystical body of Christ that cannot be identified with an institution, the spiritual unity of believers must itself be an object of faith.  That is to say, believers are not called to believe in the church so much as to bear witness to it, to proclaim that such a community exists.[18]  When the call to bear witness to the church is understood in this way, it becomes synonymous with a call to bear witness to the kingdom of God.  A growing emphasis on this more robust category seems to affirm the words of the Chicago Call (1977) “We deplore the tendency of evangelicals to understand salvation solely as an individual, spiritual and otherworldly matter to the neglect of the corporate, physical, and this-worldly implication of God’s saving activity.”[19]  Thus, there is not only a responsibility to bear witness to the kingdom as an eschatological reality, but to serve as instruments in ringing it about.