How to Establish Authority in a Church

I intended to give the poor Protestants a break, but now I read that the Lutherans are imploding or exploding, depending on your point of view. It seems that the two largest Lutheran “churches” in America have broken up, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (LCMS) and the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA).

The first split occurred in the 1960’s and 1970’s after a long battle between resurgent conservatives and liberals, the latter including especially the faculty of Concordia Seminary. The liberal losers in the LCMS moved on to help shape the ELCA in the late 1980’s, but they crafted a self-destructive mode of governance. Insisting on disproportionate minority representation in all governing bodies and committees, the ELCA ultimately shifted power to special interest groups, hastening an inevitable disintegration in the last few years. Meanwhile, the more conservative LCMS seems doomed to be locked in constant theological squabbling, encompassing spiritual, social and political concerns.

A brief survey of what has gone on is available from First Things in Robert Benne’s The Trials of American Lutheranism. One of the key problems in all this is unwittingly raised by Benne when he notes that “the refugees from the first conflict were instrumental in shaping the flawed foundation for the second.” After all, when it comes to shaping the structure and governance of a “church”, one must surely wonder how—as a purely human enterprise—the foundation could be anything but flawed. What would constitute an unflawed foundation?

The incredible confusion in Protestant circles on this subject is captured nicely in Benne’s final paragraph, as he closes his commentary on the shattered fragments that remain:

These Lutheran perspectives retain crucial importance as distinctive insights into the Great Tradition. They of course are not the whole and should not be taken for the whole. But they do provide flashes of illumination and insight for the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. That is justification enough for their preservation.

Here we go again with the Great Tradition, which nobody can adequately define. What is part of it and what is not? And once again we meet a sort of ideal but non-existent “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church”, which apparently the Lutherans have been attempting to approximate with flawed foundations by forming or reforming their own “churches”. So how do we know that anything these groups provide qualifies as an “insight”? Which “insights” are to be retained, and which rejected?

Please. My friends, none of this works, and the sad thing is that it should be obvious to anyone capable of basic reflection that none of this works. Protestantism is capable of offering some goods conducive to salvation only to the degree that it continues to cherish what it has inherited from a real and identifiable “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church”. Insofar as it progressively abandons this inheritance, Protestantism has less and less help to offer, less and less “insight” into the relationships between God and man, less and less similarity to what it means to be a church.

The whole matter depends on the basic principles of what we might call Religion 101. Any Revelation which God discloses to us must necessarily include details of the ongoing authority by which that Revelation is to be transmitted and implemented over time. Without this, God has no means of making His Revelation effective; His Word would return to Him void (Is 55:11). The ultimate structure and authority of a Church, if it is to be taken seriously as something which can achieve God’s purpose despite human weaknesses, cannot be drawn from human imagination or fashioned through human debate and compromise. In other words, to avoid being irremediably flawed and inherently self-destructive, the mechanism of authority in a true Church must come from God Himself.

However, when an organization holds itself out as THE EXCLUSIVIST AND PRISTINELY INFALLIBLE ONLY SUPREMELY KOSHER BODY OF CHRIST WHILE showing horrific flaws chronically . . . it gets to be a bit much .

I've tried to address this before, and not too long ago. At some point you're going to have to break down and read Dominus Iesus if only to be able to aim your missiles more effectively.;-)

The above, not -- I assume -- intended to be expressed with theological refinement (Admit it: I am AWESOMELY perceptive!) -- would be so far off base as to be impossible to debate IF it assumed that we feelthy Papists thought of "denominations" the way others do.

Did you read the bread analogy I made to somebody else? If not I'll repeat it. -- or you could wait for it to come out in a greatest hits release ...

You know our claim of infallibility only pertains to a certain few things and always admits sin and errors in judgment.

And in any case, I can't speak to when things get to reach the gag-me-with-an aspergillium level. Our gag reflexes may vary, and there are times when I, loyal as only a convert can be, detect a certain jumping of the esophagus.

Actually I did see that sentence. And I saw the subsequent sentences as well! And a few words later you posted:

The Protestants petitioned the duke of Savoy against these missionaries, whose insolence and ill-usage were become intolerable; but instead of getting any redress, the interest of the missionaries so far prevailed, that the duke published a decree, in which he declared, that one witness should be sufficient in a court of law against a Protestant, and that any witness, who convicted a Protestant of any crime whatever, should be entitled to one hundred crowns.

And so I see that the orders and permissions not only did not come all the way from the top but even the poor Protestants thought they had a reasonable hope of restraining the missionaries by appealing to the duke -- who evidently (IF this source is to be trusted) was a jerk.

I don't consider the 17th century to be medieval, so I'm not sure what that remark is about.

The medival church is without excuse , it put to death people for not agreeing with them , it plundered what ever wealth they had ....

Well just as there was a confusion about the Pope's involvement in the Piedmont, there may be a little over-simplification in saying "the medieval church did this or that.

Non Catholics still seem to believe the portrayal of the Catholic Church in movies, where shrouded emissaries carry unbreakable secret commands from the Pope to willing assassins.

IF that image had anything like a realistic basis, there never would have been a Francis, Dominic, of even a Catherine of Siena upbraiding the Pope for being a wussy.

It is such an interesting phenomenon. The really interesting history would be to track the decline from the REALITY of the Spanish Inquisition through the accounts in which it got more and more lurid, sadistic, and cruel -- and THAT image came to dominate the culture so much that any attempt to describe what happened is dismissed as 'Revisionism' while Monty Python and comfy chairs dominate discourse.

And I think to look down on the very idea of religiously based armed conflict, while I quite agree (unless it's defensive), is a little like sneering at Washington and Jefferson for owning slaves. Our almost automatic clarity about the wrongness of such things is informed by the mistakes of our predecessors.

So I think the 'apples and oranges' problem is there and the whole question is complicated. But our "denominations" while they may get up in each other's grill sometimes,are all in communion with Rome and all hold to the same teaching (more or less) and submit to the same authority. Is it not right that the divisions among non-Catholics are about differences in doctrine and discipline -- and differences so important to the holders that they lead to the establishment of different bodies with, and this is important, different authorities?

I think the problem is more the eagerness some have to just toss out an arbitrary number (20K, 30K, 35K???) to try to prove that "Protestants" don't have it together and only Catholics do. As you say, there are many divisions within Catholicism. You say but they are all "in communion with Rome" yet you leave out those who ARE considered Catholic (i.e.;Eastern Orthodox) but do not submit to the Pope of Rome.

As the article I quoted said, the source of the number, though called "comprehensive and painstakingly detailed" was still not derived by "empirical" evidence. Those who quote with glee from David A. Barrett’s World Christian Encyclopedia: A Comparative Survey of Churches and Religions in the Modern World A.D. 1900—2000 (ed. David A. Barrett; New York: Oxford University Press, 1982) leave out the fact that there is only one source that mentions this figure independently. All other secondary sources (to which Roman Catholics sometimes make appeal) ultimately cite the same original source.

Also according to the article, Barrett defines “distinct denominations” as any group that might have a slightly different emphasis than another group (such as the difference between a Baptist church that emphasizes hymns, and another Baptist church that emphasizes praise music). The article also says "In reality, Barrett indicates that what he means by “denomination” is any ecclesial body that retains a “jurisdiction” (i.e., semi-autonomy).". You asked the definition of "Protestant" by which all those called such could agree. I guess you'd have to go back to when the term was first used. It could be called a generic slur for all those who departed from the Roman Catholic organization. They were called "Protesters", hence Protestant. Some people see it has a badge of honor that they separated from the hierarchy that perverted the true Christian faith.

Personally, I think the term is not even needed anymore and I know of no denomination that goes by the name of "Protestant" something or other. It has merely become a catch-all phrase to differentiate from Catholicism. The real test would be do they hold to the basic tenets of the Christian faith? The next question would be, what are the basic tenets of the Christian faith? The article points out that there is barely a dime's worth of difference in the various denominations and instead of seeing them as a diluted faith where everyone has their own version, they should be seen for what they really are. My own empirical evidence shows me that, doctrinally, a Southern Baptist church is not any different than an Evangelical nondenominational church. I've been to a Lutheran church, too, and the faith is identical. I could attend a Methodist or Presbyterian or Anglican church and feel at home because the faith is the same. The differences are mainly in organizational structure, rules of order and general order of worship. Are there some churches that do not adhere to orthodox Christian doctrine? Yeah, but they didn't start out that way. Just as there are traditional Catholics and Reformed catholics now, would you say they are not in agreement about what are the major things?

You asked if your perception was mistaken concerning: But it seems that when there is a disagreement among non-Catholics about theology or discipline, somebody goes and builds (or rents) a new meeting place, establishes a new community which is somehow "over and against" his former community. I don't think that it is a correct observation that because there are divisions, it automatically means brand new religions get created. Like I said, the tenets are the same. If they weren't they wouldn't be called Christian anymore. For example, the Mormons call themselves Christian (now) but no other Christian denomination recognizes them as such because they radically depart from what it means to be Christian. If Catholicism is to be considered a single ecclesial tradition then, on the same level, Protestantism should also be considered as a single ecclesial tradition.

Finally, your concern about different "Authorities" only shows a preference for a unified single front that dispels all disputes. You admitted that this rarely happens in real life. The early churches were also autonomous but they held to the basic tenets of the faith based upon the teachings of the apostles that we now have in written form as the Holy Bible. I think the CHURCH of Jesus Christ is across denominational lines and the work of the Holy Spirit is not hindered by the labels we chose to wear or the signs we have on our buildings. It truly is universal. Thank you for your response, I enjoy the conversation and your gentle and thoughtful ways of expressing yourself.

"The foundations of Protestanism came from reading the WORD. You know the one your cult made illegal for the people to read under the penalty of death."

The reading of the actual Bible was never illegal under Catholic doctrine. Your misrepresenting the issue doesn't make it fact to anyone other than those predestined to ignoring evidence.

The mistake the Reformers made after recognize Rome for what it was is they still kept some of your cult's leftist Escetology."

Perhaps you could explain exactly what you think "leftist Escetology" means. Is that some kind of code word?

It's becoming crystal clear to many now though as they see what is happening to the Protestant churches that are again aligning themselves to Rome ... the curse is becoming very visible

Be more specific. There are too many Romes to choose from:

1. Presbyterian Church of Rome, Rome, PA
2. Rome Presbyterian Church, Rome, Ohio
3. Rome Presbyterian Church, Proctorville, OH.
4. Rome Presbyterian Church, Rome, PA
5. Presbyterian Church of Scotland – Rome, Italy
6. First Presbyterian Church, Rome, GA
7. First Presbyterian Church, Rome, New York
8. First Presbyterian Church. Rome, Italy
9. St Andrew's Church, Rome, Italy
10. Westminster Presbyterian Church, Rome, GA
11. New Rome Presbyterian Churches, New Rome, OH
12. Rome Scottish Presbyterian Church, Rome, Italy
13. New Lyme Presbyterian Church of Rome, Rome, OH

"So you want to deny what they did to the people who tried to leave Rome during the Reformation ?

Yes, to the same extent Protestants deny the atrocities committed by themselves. Fat more Catholics died at the hands of Henry VIII (78,000+) than at the hands of Catholics.

Your limited, one dimensional perspective of history would be laughable were it harmless.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.