Wednesday, November 27, 2013

Authority (1)

Jesus came back to the Temple; and as he taught, the chief priests and the elders came to the servant of the word and asked, "What authority do you have to say these things? Who gave you this authority?"

Jesus answered them, "I will ask you just one question, and if you give me an answer, I will tell you what authority I have to do these things. Where did John's authority to baptise come from: was it from God or from human beings?"

They started to argue among themselves, "What shall we say? If we answer, 'From God,' he will say to us, 'Why, then, did you not believe John?' But if we say, 'From human beings,' we are afraid of what the people might do, because they are all convinced that John was a prophet."

So they answered Jesus, "We don't know."

And he said to them, "Neither will I tell you, then, by what authority I do these things." (Matthew 21:23-27)

At the heart of all theological debates, including debate over the role of Scripture, whether Sola Scriptura is a worthy summary of that role, is the question of authority.

Look Protestantly in askance at the hierarchy of Rome in relation to doctrine (Papal Infallibility, Magisterium, etc) and you are asking about authority.

Claim as one bishop in the church we are not allowed to criticise here that because the church wrote the Bible we can rewrite the Bible and you have smuggled into subsequent conversation the question of authority.

Pronounce from the pulpit as many preachers do that despite centuries of the church believing this or despite multiple commentaries of sound scholarship saying that, nevertheless 'I say unto you, We no longer need to believe this or that,' and authority in the life of the church is presenting itself.

Sigh and sit back bemused at Protestants tying themselves into Protestant knots or Romans entangling themselves in Roman doctrinal nets because as an Eastern Orthodox you know that everything was sorted out theologically with the cessation of the seventh Ecumenical Council then you have made a claim about where authority in the life of the church lies.

For that matter, in case a major church stream feels left out, get up in church this Sunday morning and confidently claim, 'Thus says the Spirit of God, the glory has departed this fellowship, ichabod, ichabod,' then a Pentecostal take on authority is being expressed.

At the heart of current Anglican controversies, whether we are in England sorting out a reasonable way forward on women bishops, or here in ACANZP wondering which way forward we should go on same sex partnerships, or, to also look into 2014, what is the gospel we should preach in celebration of Marsden first preaching the gospel, is the question of authority.

In particular the questions whether Scripture speaks authoritatively on such and such a matter, and whether Scripture charts a way forward when the church disagrees. But the question also sharply arises - should we find a way to, so to speak, neutralise Scripture on a matter - by what authority we will proceed to do a new thing in the life of the church?

Already I am in deep waters and time is limited so just a few more thoughts today ...

Recently some considerable efforts have been made in the Communion to understand what role or roles the Bible plays across the Communion and, we might say, across the spectrum of theological commitments which make up our collective Anglican life. This project's web presence is here.

The situation the report addresses is summed up in these words of ++David Moxon:

""The Anglican Communion has always cherished Scripture and given it a central place in its life. This emphasis was historically summed up in Article 6 of the 39 Articles, "Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation" and is confirmed by the way Scripture is so heavily drawn on in our liturgical life. In recent years the Communion has sought to handle the diversity of opinions in relation to moral and ethical issues. However, in turning to Scripture for insights we have discovered that we reach different conclusions as to the way forward. This raised the question as to whether we might benefit, as a Communion, by exploring in some depth the way we go about this engagement with and interpretation of Scripture.""

Necessarily the report is descriptive rather than prescriptive but I sense that one effect of the report has been for a slight raising of collective Anglican respect for Scripture. Some aspects of the controversies in our life currently have involved statements dismissive of Scripture: my sense is that we now recognise that being dismissive of Scripture is not a viable Anglican response to the controversies. However we may resolve them, they will involve serious engagement with Scripture because we have reminded ourselves that Anglicans are scriptural Christians.

Locally this seems - anecdotally - to be an outcome of the four Hermeneutical Hui held in ACANZP over recent years (driven forward by ++Moxon and directly catalytical of the report above). Our church now recognises collectively (so I am told by interpreters of the mood of our church) that however we move forward on these matters, we cannot do so by leaving the Bible closed in an anteroom to the room in which we make decisions.

But all the above is consistent with a generalised understanding that 'Scripture is important to Anglican life'. Can Anglicans say more than that? Should Anglicans say more than that? In particular, what about claims from evangelical Anglicans that Scripture is authoritative for our faith and practice?

An insight I would like to share is this: the authority of Scripture is like the authority of Christ.

But time is up and mundane but urgent tasks of the day call loudly, sands of time before Christmas falling fast and all that, I shall return to that insight ...

19 comments:

mike greenslade said...

Kia ora Peter,

This is an interesting topic. Thanks for raising it again.

I am not sure that there is such a division on accepting the authority of scripture. Unlike you, I have not heard preachers saying that "we no longer need to believe this or that". What I have heard is people asking the question of what we understand scripture to be saying, and of how we understand it. This is not a questioning of its authority, but of its message.

Father Ron Smith said...

Surely the authority of Jesus comes directly to us through the fact of the Incarnate Word Who is present in the Eucharist. Yes! We learned about Him in the Scriptures, but Jesus is mediated directly through our experience of Him in the Mass.

Once we have learned about Jesus through the medium of the written word in the Scriptures, we then need the actuality of His dwelling in us through our participation in the Eucharist:

"Do This, to Remember Me" - the Dominical imperative to the Body of Christ!

hogsters said...

Re:Surely the authority of Jesus comes directly to us through the fact of the Incarnate Word Who is present in the Eucharist. Yes! We learned about Him in the Scriptures, but Jesus is mediated directly through our experience of Him in the Mass.

Once we have learned about Jesus through the medium of the written word in the Scriptures, we then need the actuality of His dwelling in us through our participation in the Eucharist:

A question Ron, and forgive me I am being serious with this question and as one who was educated in a Catholic convent, was converted in a Baptist youth group and am an Anglican minister, my point being I have a diversity of churchmanship to call on.

Is a once a day mass person more in touch with Jesus than say one who has communion more irregularly like some denominations or not at all like the Salvation army?

blessings





Father Ron Smith said...

"Is a once a day mass person more in touch with Jesus than say one who has communion more irregularly like some denominations or not at all like the Salvation army?" - Hogster

I could not possibly judge what others experience of Christ in their less frequent access to the Eucharist, Hogster. All I know is that - in receptive mode - one CAN experience Christ directly by one's participation in the Eucharist. I guess that's why Jesus prescribed it for his followers, so that they might experience His Presence among them "Until I come again".

As a full-time parish priest, I felt the need to celebrate Mass every day - in order to gain grace and strength to perform the ministry 'en Christo' to which he had called me in the parish - by virtue of communing with Him on a daily basis. He became my ministry which was both His and mine.

Blessings to you, too.

Bryden Black said...

Thanks Peter for grasping the nettle!

Barth has a great definition of faith in CD IV.1, § 63: a human being, who acts in faith, now relates to God in a specifically threefold fashion, “in a definite acknowledgment, recognition and confession”. I love that!

MG speaks of interpretation and reading of Scripture’s “message” - as do you hint at this right at the end of Authority 2. Here lies the rub! For by what means do we actually legitimate full Biblical authority; i.e. practice faithful Biblical authority? If we think we can assemble all our rational ingenuity, to pry apart the bits and pieces of Scripture and even to reassemble them again, but lack the humility to sit at Rabbi Jesus’ feet and thereafter to faithfully act, to enter prayerfully and in secret into our Father’s Presence and thereafter to visibly display our discipleship before and in the world, to be feathers upon the breath of the Holy Spirit whose Voice is inscripurated throughout the Bible - then ... Instead:1 Cor 13 rules; OK!

PS The interesting thing about the 2012 Report, which I’ve read, is that it permits contradictory and not just complementary methods merely to sit side by side, in typical Anglican “comprehensiveness”, or rather, on account of the secular ideology of pluralism. Sadly therefore Scripture’s true Voice becomes a shrill trumpet off key, ala 1 Cor 14:8.

Bryden Black said...

Thanks for promoting Rom 12:1-2 again Peter. But I cannot take credit for the image of living sacrifices crawling off altars! I have taken it from a sermon of dear St Aug of Hippo!

MichaelA said...

"Once we have learned about Jesus through the medium of the written word in the Scriptures, we then need the actuality of His dwelling in us through our participation in the Eucharist:"

Where did Jesus teach that He dwells in us through participation in the Eucharist? Jesus and his Apostles taught that we feed on his flesh in the Eucharist.

But they taught us that He dwells in us through faith (Eph 3:17) and that he dwells in each Christian constantly (e.g. Rom 8:10-11). I can't think of anywhere that they taught that his in-dwelling is connected with the Eucharist....?

"I could not possibly judge what others experience of Christ in their less frequent access to the Eucharist, Hogster."

Well, precisely. But doesn't that mean that its an experience personal just to you, Fr Ron? Valid for you, no doubt, but not necessarily applicable to anyone else.

Bryden Black said...

Good question Michael - but I've one back to you (which might surprise both you and Ron, though for different reasons!):

How do you read John 6:56, which is taken up in the BCP 1662 Prayer, "We do not presume ..."?? And NB the typical Johannine verb 'menein'.

MichaelA said...

Bryden, that is a very interesting point. I will observe firstly that I agree that John 6:56 is referred to in the prayer of humble access, but so is Hebrews 10:22. That will become important. For clarity, here is the prayer.

"We do not presume to come to this thy Table, O merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in thy manifold and great mercies. We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under thy Table. But thou art the same Lord, whose property is always to have mercy: Grant us therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body, and our souls washed through his most precious blood, and that we may evermore dwell in him, and he in us. Amen."

Both John 6:56 and Hebrews 10:22, read in context, refer to a once-only event that results in a permanently changed state. What I mean is this:

Taking John 6:56 first, it is set within a series of parallels in John 6:47 - 58. In every case, the action of eating/drinking is a complete one, and the result is a never-ending state. Take verse 51: "whoever has eaten of this bread will live forever" (aor. + fut.). Or verse 53, "unless you have eaten of this bread, you do not have life within you" (aor. + pres.). So in verse 56, "the one eating my flesh remains in me" (pres. + pres.). Neither tense used for eating and drinking in John 6:47-58 (aorist or present) are appropriate for a regularly repeated action like the Lords Supper. But then perhaps that is not surprising, because Jesus taught this at least two years before the first Eucharist took place.

In Hebrews 10, we see the same sequence: Christ's once-only (aorist) entry into the heavenly tabernacle (Heb 10:12) results in the permanent cleansing and washing of our hearts and bodies (Heb 10:22).

So why does the prayer of humble access refer to both John 6:56 and Hebrews 10:22 in the context of the service of Holy Communion? I think the answer must be that Cranmer was trying to draw the minds of his congregation past the actual eating and drinking to the heavenly reality that lies behind it, where a single action (Christ entering the holy tabernacle with his own blood in Hebrews 10; the disciples showing true faith in Him in John 6) results in a changed and never-ending state (washed clean in Hebrews 10; mutual in-dwelling with Christ in John 6).

To which you will no doubt answer: "But Michael, doesn't that mean that there in fact IS a biblical connection between the Anglican Eucharist and Christ dwelling in us?". And in that sense, I would have to agree!

Of course, its not an in-dwelling that happens because of constantly repeating the ceremony of Holy Communion, but rather because we have in our hearts made the confession of true faith in Him, of which the ceremony is a figure or sacrament.

You did ask...!

liturgy said...

“Neither tense used for eating and drinking in John 6:47-58 (aorist or present) are appropriate for a regularly repeated action like the Lords Supper. But then perhaps that is not surprising, because Jesus taught this at least two years before the first Eucharist took place.” MichaelA

It’s great, isn’t it, to make dogmatic statements like the above without any evidence, rather than actually deal with the discomfort of grappling with the text and discovering it doesn’t fit with preconceived ideas we bring to it. Of course the present tense is used in Greek in the New Testament for a regularly repeated action like the Lords Supper!

Just one example:

Matthew 17:15 Κύριε ἐλέησόν μου τὸν υἱόν, ὅτι σεληνιάζεται καὶ κακῶς πάσχει πολλάκις γὰρ πίπτει εἰς τὸ πῦρ καὶ πολλάκις εἰς τὸ ὕδωρ

πίπτει is in the present! Sorry, Michael. We know from the context that falling into the fire is a repeated action. This iterative use of the present tense in Greek occurs regularly in the New Testament, and is met by any person reading the original texts. This is a habitual action.

Michael may very well hold to his position of Jesus teaching this at least two years before the first Eucharist took place, but the Evangelist could not have written it, nor the early Christians read and heard the saying, without conscious reference to the Eucharist.

Advent blessings

Bosco

Bryden Black said...

Wow! Michael and Bosco; exegetical exercises can certainly throw up interesting responses!

A series of opening questions for Michael. What do you think the literary structure of chs 5-10 in FG are about, with regards to the Feasts? What similarly are the miraculous “signs” about in the first part of the FG, chs 1-12? Lastly, why do you think there’s no Last Supper narrative in FG as there is in the Synoptics? How do you read the omission?

Next: “I am the true Bread from Heaven; I am the true Vine”. How do these two crucial statements, coming where they do, again vis-à-vis the literary structure of their respective sections, as well as the whole, colour our perception of the Eucharist (if at all)? For we need to factor in also the answer to an old hoary question about the relationship between “signs” and the sacramentality of FG.

All this bears upon the second part of your response re “two years” - which frankly is utterly irrelevant! I am sure the writer of FG would be most puzzled by the remark! Or are you unaware that times and/or timings in FG are fascinatingly and ‘awkwardly’ contrary to Synoptics and Acts. E.g. only Temple cleansing (ch.2) and giving of the Spirit (ch.20). For what IS meant by “the Hour”? But more crucially, the answers to my earlier questions are important, bearing upon the timing dimension, being precursors to any kind of answer.

Finally, the grammar. I wonder myself about the force of the aorist subjunctive! I also wonder about the present participle in v.56. Do either support your views? For example, before Robert Funk went all Jesus-Seminar-like, he edited the Blass/Debrunner Greek Grammar!

Bosco: I am puzzled about how the incident in Matt 17 relates to the Eucharist. Though naturally I do resonate with your other observation.

liturgy said...

Thanks, Bryden. In heated agreement with you.

I wasn't connecting Matt 17, if you read my comment again, with the Eucharist. I was picking it as just one clear example of the present tense being used for a repeated, habitual action, contrasting that with MichaelA's incorrect assertion of the way the Greek present tense works. I could just as easily have chosen a number of other examples.

Advent blessings

Bosco

liturgy said...

Hmmm... no response/reply from MichaelA or anyone else wanting to defend his exegesis...?!

Bosco

Anonymous said...

1. The present tense in NT certainly does not always denote a repeated action: you have to determine this by context or the usage of a particular writer. John 7:23 can’t be iterative (I hope!). Nor is John 10.11 iterative.
2. Frequently the present tense denotes the Historic Present, where it is used to create a vivid effect (or so I always thought, but Stanley Porter, one of the sharpest minds around on the koine verbal system, thinks differently). This is obvious in the narrative comments in John 1:29, 36, 38, 39, 41, 46, 51; 2:3, 4, 5, 7, 10; 3:4, 4:5, 7, 9,11, 15, 19, 21, 25, 26, 28, 49; 5:6, 8, 14; 6:5, 8, 12, 20; 7:6, 50; 9:13, 17; 11:7, 23, 27, 34, 38, 39, 40; 12:4 etc etc. Context is everything! (Speaking of contextual linguistics, do I need to point out, wrt ‘This is my body’, that the verb ‘to be’ has five different meanings in the NT, or would that sound worryingly Clintonesque?)
3. John 6:54, 56, 58 (‘ho trogon … kai pinon’) is a present participle, which by itself doesn’t tell you whether the action is singular/undefined (aorist) or iterative – that’s the nature of the Greek present indicative. But the use of the *aorist * subjunctive (rather than the *present* subjunctive) in the explicatory verses 51 and 53 (phage; phagete … piete) argues against an iterative meaning. The aorist subjunctive denotes a single event that can happen in the present and the future as well as the past. Leon Morris has correctly discerned the meaning of this discourse, which is not in any case *primarily about the Eucharistic rite as such, but is rather an extended metaphor on the meaning of the death of Christ and the benefits appropriated through faith (John 6.40).
4. Why is the present participle used rather than the aorist? I think because it is describing two simultaneous events of the present and the future: ‘eating/drinking’ and ‘living’. John 11.25 must have future believers in mind as well as Martha - a reminder that the present tense can sometimes denote the future as well! Or maybe it would be better to talk of the gnomic present: Stanley Porter, 'Idioms of the Greek NT', 32-33.

Martin

Bryden Black said...

Me thinks you spoke too soon Bosco. I merely hinted; Martin has truly spelt it out ...

liturgy said...

Yes, Martin. That's how I understand the grammar. No suggestion, of course, that every use of the present is iterative.

Advent Blessings

Bosco

MichaelA said...


"Hmmm... no response/reply from MichaelA or anyone else wanting to defend his exegesis...?!"

Hi Bosco, that was because its off the front page of AUD. I only noticed it because you referred to it on another thread.

"It’s great, isn’t it, to make dogmatic statements like the above without any evidence, rather than actually deal with the discomfort of grappling with the text and discovering it doesn’t fit with preconceived ideas we bring to it"

Your triumphalism is instructive, Bosco. It provides a textbook lesson in the need to be careful before making sweeping statement about Greek grammar. I understand that you feel a great deal of glee over what you think is a grammatical error by me. But I suggest some careful consideration is in order first, including more careful reading of what I wrote (not what you think I wrote) and more careful checking of your own dogmatic statements.

I agree with Martin's points above and have little to add, except the following minor clarifications:

1. The reason the subjunctive aorist is used is because it’s a subordinate clause (despite the word order). Therefore the verb must be in the subjunctive mood. There is no conditional effect. Using an aorist subjunctive has the same effect as using an aorist indicative in a dominant clause. For Fr Ron's interpretation to apply, St John would have had to use a present subjunctive.

2. There is no context to indicate that we should read the present participle "eating " in John 6:56 as a repetition of a punctiliar action (which was Fr Ron's implication, to which I replied). The obvious meaning is that the person is continually eating of Christ's flesh – that reinforces that Christ is not referring to the earthly ceremony of the Lord's Supper in John 6, but to the higher (and more real) spiritual truth of eating the flesh of Christ of which the earthly ceremony is but a sacrament.

3. On the issue of reading the present tense in Greek as referring to a repetitive punctiliar action – so far as I am aware, it is never read this way unless the context requires it. For example, in Luke 18:12: "I fast twice a week" and "I give away whatever I get". In the first case it is explicit; in the second it is necessarily implicit. But in the absence of such context, you don't assume that a present tense in Greek refers to a repeated punctiliar action.

You wrote:

"I was picking it as just one clear example of the present tense being used for a repeated, habitual action, contrasting that with MichaelA's incorrect assertion of the way the Greek present tense works"

Except that it wasn't incorrect. The problem was that you read my comment without thinking about Fr Ron's assertion to which I replied (context is important, Bosco), and indeed without reading my words carefully.

"I could just as easily have chosen a number of other examples."

And if you had ignored the need for context to find the sort of interpretation required by Fr Ron, those examples would be just as wrong.

MichaelA said...

Hi Bryden,

I don't know if you will see this now that the article is off the front page of ADU. I just wanted to say I regret not having time to respond to your further post above. It is probably something we can take up again on a future thread on ADU.

Bryden Black said...

No sweat Michael - hope you can consider those crucial literary contextual matters some time! Meanwhile: ponder that "glory" - 1:14!!