In the Bishop Soto thread below, a discussion has broken out about the relationship between the personal credibility of a church leader (in this case, a bishop) and the authority they exercise by virtue of their office. It's a complex phenomenon, and I thought it might deserve its own thread.
As a way into the discussion, consider President Bush the other night on TV, asking for the public's support of his proposed economic bailout plan. Nobody doubts that George W. Bush legitimately holds all the powers of the office of the presidency. But it's hard at this late date in his failed presidency to ascribe much authority to him, given how poorly he has governed (which is to say, how incompetently he has stewarded the authority granted to him by the office). You see the difference? Nobody doubts the presidency itself, but the lack of personal credibility of the current holder of that office makes this particular president weak.
If we had a long succession of presidents who seriously misused the authority of the presidency, people would likely begin to doubt the legitimacy of the office itself. This, as the historian Barbara Tuchman pointed out, was a critical factor in the Protestant Reformation. Six successive Renaissance popes so badly misgoverned the Church, and failed to heed the requirement of personal holiness and rectitude in upholding the authority of the papacy and, in turn, of the Roman church, that whole nations were lost to Catholicism. Of course the story of the Reformation is more complicated than that, but it cannot be denied that the persistence of corruption in the Roman church institution was a major factor in provoking the Reformation, and its shattering of Western Christian unity.
I find it so mysterious why the leadership class of any elite organization fails to perceive the importance of their personal credibility to the institution's fundamental validity over time. Again and again in the Catholic scandal, orthodox Catholics who do not deny the reality of episcopal and clerical corruption, stood firm on the authority of the episcopate and the institution as legitimate despite the obvious failings of the persons occupying the offices within the institution. This is logical. That G.W. Bush is a failed president doesn't erode the authority of the presidency itself. That many US Catholic bishops have badly misgoverned their dioceses does not destroy the legitimacy of the episcopate.
But to rely on the power of syllogism and tradition is shaky. There is in every human heart a hunger for justice. The passion for justice is elemental to our nature. Wise heads know that perfect justice is unattainable in this life, and understand that making an idol of justice can have grotesquely inhuman consequences. But the wise also understand that an unjust ruler -- which is also to say an unjust institution or system -- will over time lose the hearts of those over whom he or it rules. And when the heart goes, the head will soon follow. This too is human nature.
This is why the struggle in my own church communion, the Orthodox Church in America, is so important (it's chronicled here -- and please understand that my linking to that site does not constitute an endorsement of anyone's particular views expressed there). Bishops have to be held accountable for their misgovernance -- not in any sense of retributive justice, but because the credibility of the Church and its mission of the salvation of souls depends on it. A reader named Anglican in the thread below indicates that he or she would like to leave the Episcopal Church for the Roman church, but the corruption of so many American Catholic bishops re: the sex abuse scandal gives her pause. A Catholic reader posted that she should become a Catholic because she believes the Catholic Church teaches truth, not because of the credibility of particular bishops. Which is true. But it's also true that it's hard, as a fallible human being, to hold on to the faith when those who are in spiritual authority over you are so corrupt, and when you can plainly see that there is no justice for what they've done.
Indeed, when you see things like this, you have to just shake your head:
tonight in Manhattan, Cardinal Egan is going to induct into the Knights of the Holy Sepulchre a man who directed a 2003 play called "My Big Gay Italian Wedding," in which a priest "marries" a gay couple. (A Catholic blogger delves into the play's content here. A gay culture website does a five-minute video report on the play here. The play's director is being raised to a Catholic knighthood for his service to the Church as a singer, but come on, there are lots of dedicated church singers. Why is a purportedly orthodox cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church giving such an extraordinary church honor to a Catholic with this kind of reputation? What kind of signal does that send to faithful Catholics and to those traditional Christians outside the Catholic Church who are interested in becoming Catholic? How seriously is one supposed to take the authority of a cardinal who does something like this? And in turn, how seriously is one to take the authority of a church that elevates to the episcopate men so indifferent to the Church's integrity and witness?
Understand that I'm not just cracking on the Catholic Church. The Orthodox Church suffers, as does the Episcopal Church, from similar troubles. Every church does. The church is always in need of reformation. The point of this post is to draw attention to the critical need for the leadership class in the Church (churches) to reform itself, and to be mindful of the spiritual, emotional and psychological connection between their own personal holiness and morality, and the credibility of the offices with which they've been entrusted. To fail to do this is to betray a belief that the hierarchy believes the Church exists for itself, and not for a higher purpose. What they do is far more important than what they say.
The end of all our Christian lives is not to be a loyal Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Methodist or come what may. The end if to be a good Christian -- that is, to know God and to be transformed in Christ. If the leaders of the churches forget this, the world will not take them seriously when they testify to the saving truth of the Gospel. Nothing less than the eternal fate of souls is at stake.
Like the saying goes, "The corruption of the best is the worst." This is a law that every leader of every institution should keep at the forefront of their minds -- that, and Christ's words, "To whom much is given, much is expected."
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
"Respect my a-thor-i-tie!"-Eric Cartman
I realise I'm going against the grain of this honorable conservative blog by saying this, but when it comes to the question of homosexuality that problem cuts both ways. While conservatives such as yourself, Rod, see a diminishing of authority in being too accepting of homosexuals, many younger and/or more liberal people find that it is animosity towards homosexuals that undermines the authority of the church. There are many who think they see, just as plainly as you think you do above, that there is no justice in the condemnation of homosexuality, and who find as a result that they cannot believe in the authority of religious leaders who rail against it.
[Full disclosure: I'm an atheist and always have been, so I've never actually had to deal with the problem of religious authority myself.]
Opps,Anglican is a twenty something guy,not sure how people thought I was female. Anyways, I do not entirely blame baby boomers for everything,however the damage the so-called Generation of 68 did to many of institutions is massive and my generation and the slightly older gen X crowd have the task of trying to fix some of that.
The trouble is, Cranky, that one never quite knows whether the spirit that is moving one to do or not do something is God or not, outside of some notion of authoritative teaching.
Your question brings me to a realization that your view of faith and doctrine must have a very different angle than mine. I have tried, but I am unable to understand the premise behind your question, which leaves me without an understanding of your thoughts so I can address them coherently. No insult intended, I'm just not, in this short space, able to figure out a way to convey my thinking. Perhaps some of what I say further on might address this.
>Take one issue, the prohibition in the Gospels on divorce. Does it mean, as we Catholics believe, that divorce and remarriage isn't allowed? Does it mean, as other Christians take it, that divorce is sometimes allowed? Is divorce always allowed, so long as the couple divorcing feels that God is permitting them to do it? But if divorce is always allowed, what are we to make of Christ's words? Was He speaking merely symbolically? Did His apostles make up that bit of Scripture to advance their own agenda? Do moral laws change over time, as people "evolve" into the kind of beings who really need divorce? Or are moral truths always true regardless of the times--and if they are, who is to say what they are? Is the prohibition on divorce more binding, less binding, or as binding as St. Paul's expressed notion that widows shouldn't remarry?
I have to ask rhetorically here... Do you wish to make up your own mind from what you read Biblically, or do you wish to have someone make your mind up by telling you what to think? It's an honest question, though, one many people never ask of themselves. Ultimately, if your belief about an issue is based on someone else's understanding and faith, of what value is it to you?
If everyone can decide all these questions for himself without reference to any other authority and each is equally right in his answers, doesn't this mean that Christianity is whatever the individual decides it is?
But we have an authority. God is. He has an authoritative book here to tell you. I'm of the firm belief that many people have written inspired things to help others understand, but ultimately, they are not an authority, NOR IS ANY MAN or organization.
And doesn't this mean that there is no such thing, really, as truth? How do we square *that* with what the Bible says about truth? etc.
This particular sentence is why I'm confused about your whole post, especially the first paragraph quoted.
Let's remove the faith aspect for the moment, and pretend that we're discussing the Constitution. What is the ultimate authority? The Constitution. Do we all agree about what it means? no. Did the writer have a specific meaning in mind when he wrote it? yes. Does this mean that the Constitution merely means whatever we want it to mean? no.
Point: The writers of the Constitution are dead. The author of the Bible is alive and wants to spend eternity with you.
Now do you understand why I'm puzzled about your question? It seems self evident, to me at least, that God is the ultimate authority, and He will lead you to understand, as far as you can, if you let Him. But understanding is a work of a lifetime, not completed in a lifetime. Thus, though we may disagree about what 'truth' is, if we agree that the Author is the sole authority, then we resolve any conflict between us, and can live in peace with each other.
My somewhat flippant answer would be: No, truth is not just whatever we want it to be. It is what it is, and as we progress in our spiritual life, we will get closer to it in understanding.
Cranky, thanks for getting back to me. I hope you won't mind if I unpack what you wrote a little.
Let's start with your example of the Constitution. You write, "What is the ultimate authority? The Constitution. Do we all agree about what it means? no. Did the writer have a specific meaning in mind when he wrote it? yes. Does this mean that the Constitution merely means whatever we want it to mean? no.....Point: The writers of the Constitution are dead. The author of the Bible is alive and wants to spend eternity with you."
Cranky, who has the authority to interpret the Constitution? Sure, you can argue that the Second Amendment (for example) means A, while I may argue that it means B. But who, in a very real sense, gets to decide what the Second Amendment means in terms of the law?
The Supreme Court does, right?
And why do we have a Supreme Court? Isn't the Constitution clear enough all on its own?
As some like to say, the Constitution is a living document; that is, though it was written in one time period, it's meant to reach across time and be the referential document which forms the foundation of our American government. This means that in each generation new people will have to be added to the Court to replace the ones who have resigned or died.
The directions for the formation of the Supreme Court, the fact that its members are appointed instead of elected, and several other aspects of the Court are defined in the Constitution, mostly in Article III, I believe, though the executive duty to appoint judges and the legislative duty to approve those appointments may be elsewhere.
But why have judges--why have a SCOTUS? Why not just let each person read the Constitution and figure out for himself what it means, perhaps consulting some writers and others here and there as helps?
It's pretty obvious that that would be chaos. Every man would in effect be his own law, and could decide that "constitutional" or "unconstitutional" meant whatever he decided it did; and since no two people would be likely to have the same opinion about these things, soon there would be little basis left for any sort of community of citizens.
Now, you also write: "I have to ask rhetorically here... Do you wish to make up your own mind from what you read Biblically, or do you wish to have someone make your mind up by telling you what to think? It's an honest question, though, one many people never ask of themselves. Ultimately, if your belief about an issue is based on someone else's understanding and faith, of what value is it to you?"
Let's look at this. Suppose that my great-great-great-great grandmother was a noted cook who wrote down a book of recipes in her native language; but of course, such things as exact measurement and electric oven temperatures weren't even possible for her. But she gives the book to her daughter, who has seen her cook, and who adds notes in the margins of the recipes; then this daughter passes it to her daughter, etc. The first daughter saw her mother cook, could see with her own eyes what a "pinch" of this or a "handful" of that really meant, and could clarify this for her own daughter before passing along the treasured book.
Eventually, in my fictional scenario, the book will come to me. I have the book, let's say, and I even have some writing from the eyewitnesses to the original cook's efforts--but if the book had simply sat in a box after that point it would be very hard to follow the recipes! Fortunately, in each generation the new "owner" of the book had cooked with the recipes, passing along by word of mouth some instructions that turned archaic terms for ingredients into modern ones, that "translated" the recipes so they were able to be used in a modern oven or on a modern stove top, that eliminated some ingredients that were found to be inessential but adhered strongly to the ones that gave the food all its unique and delicious flavor, and so on. I can then use the recipes with confidence, because the eyewitness to my talented ancestor's amazing cooking skills had made sure to pass along more than just the book, important--indeed, central and essential!--though the book itself is.
God is, of course, the ultimate authority; He is the Truth! But in this earthly life few of us will ever be answered directly by Him when we ask Him what we ought to do, or how we can please Him.
And He, knowing this, not only came and lived among us as both God and Man, not only suffered and died to save us, but also made sure that we would have some very necessary help in our life of faith: His Word in the Bible, His Church with her apostles (the eyewitnesses) and those whom they selected to take their places when they were called to their reward, His sacraments to strengthen us against every trial and give us a sharing in His life.
To look at it one more way, you wrote: "Ultimately, if your belief about an issue is based on someone else's understanding and faith, of what value is it to you?" But isn't it the same for you? Your belief is based on someone else's understanding that the Bible is necessary for a believer. But why should it be? If coming to understand in our spiritual life is going to take a lifetime anyway, what insights could the Bible offer that we couldn't learn just by listening to God speak to our hearts as we go about our life? What do we gain by reading other people's words about Him?
In appealing to the authority of the Bible, you are still holding up an authority outside yourself. But why should the Bible be the authoritative Word of God? Where in the Bible does the Bible say that the Bible is this authoritative Word?
And if the Bible is the authoritative Word, but there is no authoritative interpretation, don't we end up with the same situation as I described above in re: the Supreme Court? Don't we end up with chaos, with no basis for a community of believers or the unity which Christ Himself prayed that we might have?
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.