In response to Tealizzy and Mr. Gugg on Spiritual Dependence REMIX
I think the crux of the matter is that I believe respect, guidance, and even obedience are all very different from spiritual dependence.
Mr. Gugg says, “It is interesting to me to note that, as my wife pointed out, Christ does not, throughout this entire diatribe against the Pharisees, attack their authority to teach, but rather their abuse of that authority. The problem is not the existence of spiritual authority within the Church, but rather the usurpation of that authority for self-aggrandizement rather than service.”
I agree with this. The problem as I see it is that very frequently this usurpation of authority DOES happen and that most Christians go along with it and become spiritually dependent upon a person in instances where they should be spiritually dependent upon Christ instead. What is even worse is that often these very people usurping authority think that they ARE serving God and do not even realize that they are doing many a disservice in taking more spiritual authority than God gave them and in making the very people they think they are serving so spiritually dependent upon them that they are stunting their spiritual growth. Another outcome of this is that they begin (or started out) viewing themselves as higher than they ought. Christ remarks:
“You know that those who are recognized as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them; and their great men exercise authority over them. But it is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant; and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be slave of all. "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many." (Mark 10:42-25)
I think something very natural has happened in the church, which is, that we think about leadership the same way the world does. Unfortunately, what is natural is not good and the philosophy of the world in this case is absolutely devastating.I also somehow doubt that John Stott does not agree with respecting people, going to them for guidance, or maybe even obeying church leaders (although that one is more controversial, so I am not certain.) For one, nothing he has written that I have ever read would suggest that and two, he is Anglican, so I think he probably pretty firmly believes in church leadership.
I do think you (Tealizzy) are very lucky to have rarely seen Christians spiritually dependent on their pastors, priests, or other church leaders. I have noticed too much how many people unhealthily depend on their pastors and other church leaders to the extent that Christ as their head is replaced by their pastor as their head. This goes varies from extreme to being very subtle, but both are sick. I do not think I am imagining either, because I have held several conversations with others who have noticed this as well.I do know Paul refers to himself as a spiritual father (I don’t remember to which church), but I believe that statement cannot be interpreted apart from Christ himself saying (just a few verses after saying to obey those who sit in the seat of Moses) [paraphrased] "Call no one Rabbi [except Christ] and call no one Father except God." (Matt 23:7-10). I do not remember the specifics of why Paul was calling a church his spiritual children, but I cannot think that it was their spiritual dependency upon him, because it seems pretty clear that Christ alone is our rabbi (teacher) and God the father alone is our father (our head that we are spiritually dependent upon). God gives some to be shepherds (or pastors) of the body, and elders (leaders who make decisions for the body), but I don’t think anyone is supposed to be our head but Christ, or our spiritual father, except God the father. I think it is more likely that Paul was discussing a sort of spiritual “generational transfer” of the gospel. He believed and passed it onto them and they believed, acting as their father in that he was the messenger through which the gospel came, and also because he was then their shepherd, gently (or not so much, knowing Paul):-) showing them the path to being true “followers of the Way.” However, since I cannot find that darn passage, I cannot remark on it overmuch. Only that I am not going to take it to mean something that I see as contradicting what Jesus himself has said.
Again, I would also say that obedience and dependence are two entirely separate things. Paul and Peter both say to be obedient to our government and to the specific people who hold power in our government, but I very much doubt either would say to be dependent (spiritually or otherwise) upon our government. Also, I very much doubt either of us are currently obedient to those who "sit in the seat of Moses", as we do not obey Pharisees and scribes today. I think you might be hard-pressed to tie the seat of Moses to any contemporary church leader. And even then, later in that same passage he says not to call them “rabbi” or “father”, illustrating that obedience to one in authority is quite different from giving him the respect or authority due God alone.
In addition to the scripture in Hebrews mentioned by Mr. Gugg, I think either Paul or Peter did write a passage that is about obeying those in authority over you that can be interpreted to mean church as well as government leaders, but I do not think that means that any church leader today sits in the seat of Moses. If you know of another verse that discusses this though, let me know. This does not mean I necessarily believe that we should all be disobedient to our church leaders; I think, depending on the circumstance, that that action would be the equivalent of shooting ourselves in the foot. God put those people over us for a reason after all. (The circumstances I can think of if it went against my conscience. Of course, my question is this, “Who IS in spiritual authority over me?” rather than “Should I obey those in spiritual authority over me?”)
The verse in Hebrews does talk about obedience and even submission, but all Christians are called to submit to one another (1 Peter 5:5) anyway. I do agree we are supposed to obey those in authority, but again I think this is very different from spiritual dependence.
I believe as well as Mr. Gugg that leadership is a position of sacrifice and that only when leadership goes wrong is it bad, but I think it frequently does.
Um, I think I answered the questions, but let me know if I did not.
Mr. Gugg says, “It is interesting to me to note that, as my wife pointed out, Christ does not, throughout this entire diatribe against the Pharisees, attack their authority to teach, but rather their abuse of that authority. The problem is not the existence of spiritual authority within the Church, but rather the usurpation of that authority for self-aggrandizement rather than service.”
I agree with this. The problem as I see it is that very frequently this usurpation of authority DOES happen and that most Christians go along with it and become spiritually dependent upon a person in instances where they should be spiritually dependent upon Christ instead. What is even worse is that often these very people usurping authority think that they ARE serving God and do not even realize that they are doing many a disservice in taking more spiritual authority than God gave them and in making the very people they think they are serving so spiritually dependent upon them that they are stunting their spiritual growth. Another outcome of this is that they begin (or started out) viewing themselves as higher than they ought. Christ remarks:
“You know that those who are recognized as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them; and their great men exercise authority over them. But it is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant; and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be slave of all. "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many." (Mark 10:42-25)
I think something very natural has happened in the church, which is, that we think about leadership the same way the world does. Unfortunately, what is natural is not good and the philosophy of the world in this case is absolutely devastating.I also somehow doubt that John Stott does not agree with respecting people, going to them for guidance, or maybe even obeying church leaders (although that one is more controversial, so I am not certain.) For one, nothing he has written that I have ever read would suggest that and two, he is Anglican, so I think he probably pretty firmly believes in church leadership.
I do think you (Tealizzy) are very lucky to have rarely seen Christians spiritually dependent on their pastors, priests, or other church leaders. I have noticed too much how many people unhealthily depend on their pastors and other church leaders to the extent that Christ as their head is replaced by their pastor as their head. This goes varies from extreme to being very subtle, but both are sick. I do not think I am imagining either, because I have held several conversations with others who have noticed this as well.I do know Paul refers to himself as a spiritual father (I don’t remember to which church), but I believe that statement cannot be interpreted apart from Christ himself saying (just a few verses after saying to obey those who sit in the seat of Moses) [paraphrased] "Call no one Rabbi [except Christ] and call no one Father except God." (Matt 23:7-10). I do not remember the specifics of why Paul was calling a church his spiritual children, but I cannot think that it was their spiritual dependency upon him, because it seems pretty clear that Christ alone is our rabbi (teacher) and God the father alone is our father (our head that we are spiritually dependent upon). God gives some to be shepherds (or pastors) of the body, and elders (leaders who make decisions for the body), but I don’t think anyone is supposed to be our head but Christ, or our spiritual father, except God the father. I think it is more likely that Paul was discussing a sort of spiritual “generational transfer” of the gospel. He believed and passed it onto them and they believed, acting as their father in that he was the messenger through which the gospel came, and also because he was then their shepherd, gently (or not so much, knowing Paul):-) showing them the path to being true “followers of the Way.” However, since I cannot find that darn passage, I cannot remark on it overmuch. Only that I am not going to take it to mean something that I see as contradicting what Jesus himself has said.
Again, I would also say that obedience and dependence are two entirely separate things. Paul and Peter both say to be obedient to our government and to the specific people who hold power in our government, but I very much doubt either would say to be dependent (spiritually or otherwise) upon our government. Also, I very much doubt either of us are currently obedient to those who "sit in the seat of Moses", as we do not obey Pharisees and scribes today. I think you might be hard-pressed to tie the seat of Moses to any contemporary church leader. And even then, later in that same passage he says not to call them “rabbi” or “father”, illustrating that obedience to one in authority is quite different from giving him the respect or authority due God alone.
In addition to the scripture in Hebrews mentioned by Mr. Gugg, I think either Paul or Peter did write a passage that is about obeying those in authority over you that can be interpreted to mean church as well as government leaders, but I do not think that means that any church leader today sits in the seat of Moses. If you know of another verse that discusses this though, let me know. This does not mean I necessarily believe that we should all be disobedient to our church leaders; I think, depending on the circumstance, that that action would be the equivalent of shooting ourselves in the foot. God put those people over us for a reason after all. (The circumstances I can think of if it went against my conscience. Of course, my question is this, “Who IS in spiritual authority over me?” rather than “Should I obey those in spiritual authority over me?”)
The verse in Hebrews does talk about obedience and even submission, but all Christians are called to submit to one another (1 Peter 5:5) anyway. I do agree we are supposed to obey those in authority, but again I think this is very different from spiritual dependence.
I believe as well as Mr. Gugg that leadership is a position of sacrifice and that only when leadership goes wrong is it bad, but I think it frequently does.
Um, I think I answered the questions, but let me know if I did not.
posted by Xana Ender @ 1:29 PM
2 Comments:
At 11:58 AM,
TeaLizzy said…
Well, I think I have a better idea of what you think dependence is NOT, but I'm still not really clear on what you think it IS. I understand we have may have to get into the nitty-gritty here, but it doesn't seem like the conversation can go much further without a definition of dependence.
Perhaps it would be easier if you were to describe several situations in which you felt someone was too dependent on their pastor or church leader. That might help clear up what you mean.
In response to a few particulars:
Even assuming that usurpation of authority is a regular thing among church leaders, I don't see that there's much can be done about it by the people qua people. The only options I see are regular rebellion (changing your pastor regularly, or refusing to obey/follow him when he's there) or setting up somebody to be in charge of a number of pastors and thereby keep them in check (an overseer or episcopos, to use Paul's term--in these latter days, generally translated bishop). The latter, of course, is the route my Church went. It carries with it the risk that your bishops get too uppity, but then you have bishops over them etc. By the time you get to a Patriarch (and we have four of them to keep each other in check) there is admittedly a lot of pomp and circumstance, but to be frank I've seen a lot less people with unhealthy idealizations of the Patriarch than of a local priest-monk.
Please don't think that I've never seen people that I consider are not in a healthy relationship with their church leader. I've seen plenty. I've seen many more who pay too little attention to him than who are fanatically devoted, but the latter do exist. I've noticed two things about them: 1) they are voluble in their praise of Fr. X, but their devotion is seen more in their willingness to drive a long distance for a 'retreat weekend' experience with him than in appropriate spiritual growth in their daily lives. In many cases, the leader has never met these people and never will; they just turn up at a busy monastery for a couple of days every month or so. 2)They are, in a sense, already in rebellion from their local leader--they usually gather not around their actual pastor but around somebody else's, usually a monastic who's not really supposed to be gathering a 'secular' flock and is somewhat in contention with his bishop. These cases are not good but it's fairly clear for everyone with a little discernment to see what's going on and stay away from it.
In terms of your arguments on names for leaders, I think that's about what it comes down to--names for leaders. You have a choice between calling them "Pastor/father/brother/rabbi/mister/etc. Bob" and calling them "Bob." I think an honest reading of the passage in which Christ critiques every honorific used at His time and in His society reveals that He is doing just that--critiquing every honorific used. And yet those honorifics, or ones like them, continue to be used as descriptive titles throughout the NT. I think Christ was attacking the pride, but I don't think an honest reading of that paragraph in context of the entire rest of the NT is sufficient to ban the use of the term "father." (Nor do I think it's fair or wise to set the words of Christ against the words of the Apostles, considering that the former come to us through the latter--it's not like Christ penned the Gospels Himself.) If it is, then I am quite sure that it should be sufficient to ban any other mark of respect given to a pastor.
Beyond those little nit-pickers, I think we're still just trying to establish a definition of dependence, or at least an idea of what precisely you're objecting to when you object to dependence, so I will await your further comments with interest. :-)
At 4:04 PM,
Xana Ender said…
I think about it. It could be that it'll turn up in the same way a politician in DC used recently to talk about porn, "I don't know how to define porn [the different between a work of art and porn when both subjects are naked], but when I see it I know it." hee hee
Post a Comment
<< Home