Ángel Manuel Rodríguez

Biblical Research Institute

Silver Spring, MD

I.                   Introduction

One of the most difficult topics in the development of an ecclesiology is defining and establishing the nature, extent and function of ecclesiastical authority. What we offer here will hopefully challenge all of us to think about the topic, and about how to relate to it in the performance of our responsibilities. The terms "authority" and "power" are not radically differentiated in the Bible, particularly in the NT.[1] "Power" (Greek dunamis) is in a sense the capacity to carry out something[2] and is usually associated with the ability to produce change. "Authority" commonly puts the emphasis on the right of the person to exercise power.[3] The original Greek term is exousia; it basically means "freedom of choice, bearer of authority."

II.                Searching for a Model for Ecclesiastical Authority

In Christian theology supreme authority is located in God. If we were to ask why is that the case or what is the ground of that authority, two fundamental reasons could be immediately given: He is the Creator (Jer 32:17; Rom 1:20) and He is the Redeemer (John 10:18; Rom 1:16). The will of the Creator and Redeemer stands above any other will, and it is to be recognized as supreme. But the question lingers, why is that the case?

God's authority and power cannot be detached from His very nature. He is in Himself power and authority, and consequently the way we understand His nature will impact the way we perceive the previous two. The authority of God is the authority of the One who in His very essence is love and is constantly seeking the very best for His creatures. Whatever that authority and power require or demand, their intended purpose is to preserve the lives of His creatures. In other words, God's authority establishes what is indispensable for us to enjoy, the supreme good. Hence, God's authority is not limiting, but on the contrary facilitates our self-realization and the development of the potential with which He endowed us through creation, and which He restored to us after the fall through Christ's redemptive sacrifice.

God's authority and power are not that of a despot who uses them to manifest his or her search for self-satisfaction and self-aggrandizement. Neither does God use authority to display selfish power or egotistic dominion over others, but rather to exhibit His love. God's authority is fundamentally His freedom expressed through the use of His power to sustain and preserve His creation. The essential goodness of the divine power is incorruptible and manifests itself in acts of benevolence toward others. Since God's power is unique, the Bible does not acknowledge the existence of any other supreme power. In fact other powers and authorities have enslaved humans, but Christ defeated those powers (Col 1:15). It is precisely because of the goodness of God's authority that we should willingly submit to Him in worship and service.

The conceptualization of God's authority, in terms of His freedom to serve and work for the welfare of others, includes setting limits and controls to the incursion of chaos and anarchy into our world. It is impossible for intelligent creatures fully to enjoy life within the context of disruption and anarchy. Consequently the power and authority of God express themselves in opposing the powers that attempt to destroy the development of the potential God gave us, and that at the same time distort the character of God.

This understanding of God's authority was revealed in a singular way in the life and ministry of Jesus.[4] He had authority over the destructive power of nature (Matt 8:26-27), over demons (Mark 1:39), and over sicknesses (Matt 9:2-8). When he used his power and authority to overcome those forces, he was acting on behalf of human beings, offering them the chance to submit to him in freedom, in order for them to become what God intended them to be. He was mighty and powerful in speech (Luke 24:19) and in the interpretation of the Scripture (Mark 1:22, 27). By his authority, He freed humans from the darkness of the ignorance of God to the wonderful light of truth (John 1:4). In a very special way Jesus' authority consisted in his freedom to give His own life as a redemptive sacrifice for the human race: "No one takes it [my life] from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father" (John 10:18). It is this Christological understanding of divine authority that should not only inform but determine our understanding of the nature and the use of ecclesiastical authority.

III.             Understanding the Proper Use and the Limits of Ecclesiastical Authority

A.                 Ecclesiastical Authority: Sources and Nature

The question of ecclesiastical authority--its nature, expression, recognition, and subjection to it--is one of the most challenging issues the Adventist Movement faces.[5] Ecclesiology is grounded in the concept of authority and its recognition in the life of the church. The resurrected Lord endowed the church with authority (Matt 16:19; 18:18; 28:18-20; John 20:21-22); therefore this entrusted dimension of ecclesiastical authority is of major importance in the community of believers. It establishes that the authority of the church is directly related to the Lordship of Christ over the church, and that its expression should not be arbitrarily restricted to a limited group of individuals. This should be the point of departure in any meaningful discussion of the nature of ecclesiastical authority.

The church is fundamentally a community of individuals who voluntarily, albeit under the influence of the Spirit, surrendered their lives to the authority of God through Christ, and who permanently joined themselves to Him as their Lord. They accepted the biblical message according to which God's power and authority are active in their salvation and constantly working for their well-being, and they willingly recognized God as their supreme authority. In this case God's authority cannot be separated from its embodiment in the Bible, through which He continues to reveal Himself. In that sense the Bible is the objective record of the authority of God, and the source to define and understand ecclesiastical authority.

The role of the Spirit is also relevant for the topic of authority. Christ introduced Him as the one who would lead the church to truth (John 16:13-14). In Adventist thinking that does not mean that the Spirit works only through the collective spiritual life of the church as the body of Christ or through the leaders. The authority of the Spirit is revealed to us through the message of the Scripture, and consequently any claim of a manifestation of the Spirit in the experience of believers is to be tested by the witness of the Scripture. The Spirit, the Scripture, and the world community of believers work together in the exercise of ecclesiastical authority.

Adventists have also experienced the leading of the Spirit through the prophetic ministry of Ellen G. White.[6] We firmly believe that the Bible defines and determines the role of ecclesiastical authority, but we also affirm that her writings should seriously inform and illumine the use of that authority in the life of the church today. Here we find a case in which the Spirit was leading the church on how to address contemporary leadership issues of importance to the community of believers.

As already indicated, the community of believers is the body of Christ, and as such it was endowed with power and authority by the risen Christ. Since the gospel message calls individuals exclusively to submit to Christ as Savior and Lord, no one else should act as mediator of the authority of Christ over any individual. This means that when the Scripture calls a church member to submit to one another (e.g. Eph 5:21) and to church leaders (e.g. 1 Cor 16:16; Heb 13:17; 1 Pet 5:5), her or his submission is in fact an act of obedience, not to a human command but to the command of the Lord. When a believer obediently submits to others, Christ is being recognized as Lord over him or her and over the church. In this way we may be able to avoid assigning to the exercise of ecclesiastical authority by some a mediatorial role between the authority of Christ and the believer. Therefore ecclesiastical authority is always dependent on the authority of Christ within the community of believers itself defining and determining its message and mission, and preserving it in the midst of its conflict against opposing forces.

B.                 Ecclesiastical Authority: Organization and Leadership

If we look at the authority of the church Christogically, then authority should be defined as the freedom granted by Christ to the church to work with Him in the consummation of His mission.[7] In order for the church effectively to use the authority the Lord entrusted to it, organization is indispensable. In fact, organization belongs to the essence of the church.[8] The Spiritual gifts are in a sense the work of the Spirit within the church, organizing it in order to build up the church and to fulfill its mission. The community of believers acknowledges that among many other things the Spirit gives to some pastoral, administrative and evangelistic skills to be used to the glory of the Lord. The church also recognizes that individual members can speak through delegates who come together to make decisions on behalf of the larger community of believers (Acts 15:1-35).[9] These are the appointed leaders of the church.

Appointed leaders should use their delegated authority to procure the good of the church in the realization of its mission. Delegated authority implies the accountability of appointed leaders to the world church and the possibility of withdrawing of the authority granted to them. The community of believers delegates authority but does not surrender it. We as Adventists conceive ecclesiastical authority as authority diffused throughout the world church. Through delegation it has been placed in the hands of the leaders and pastors of local fields, and of many volunteers who function as local elders, deacons, etc., in their congregations.[10] In pursuing the goal of working together, the natural and proper tendency among leaders is to work through consensus--what was called in the early church the consensus of the faithful. This is useful, necessary and indispensable and takes place through the study of the Scripture and the work of the Spirit as He leads the church into all truth.

It could be useful for local congregations to realize that they participate in the fullness of the church of Christ as long as they identify themselves with the message, mission and unity of the global community of believers. This global perspective is indispensable for the proper function of the church.

C.                 Ecclesiastical Authority: Setting Limits

In a particular way the use of ecclesiastical authority by leaders will express itself in preserving the integrity of the biblical message, in their dedication to the mission, and in their unquestionable commitment to the unity of the church. These three elements were of central importance in the work of Christ. He said, "I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them" (John 17:8). In this statement, message and mission are inseparable; he did both. He came and He completed the work the Father gave Him to do on behalf of the human race (17:4). His union with the Father was never broken even under the most trying circumstances (17:11; 21; Matt 26:39).

That same commitment to message, mission, and unity should characterize the life of the church. In fact, that triad--integrity of the biblical message, realization of the mission, and the global unity of the church--is of fundamental importance in defining the role of ecclesiastical authority. In Adventist theology and praxis message, mission, and unity belong to the essential core of the nature of the church. They express the identity and role of the movement within God's plan of salvation, at the close of the cosmic conflict. Leaders received the message as a trust or treasure from the Lord, they do not own it; it belongs to the world church.[11] The Adventist movement received its mission as a call to restore biblical truth that is indispensable for the preparation of the world for the glorious return of Christ, and therefore leaders are to be totally committed to it. The unity of the church, for which Christ intensively prayed (John 17:21), is a power that enables the global church to speak with one voice to the world, in the exposition of the message and in the fulfillment of the mission.

The triad defines the sphere within which leaders are to exercise their authority, and at the same time creates the parameters within which the proper use or misuse of that authority could be identified. It is the prism through which every plan, every decision, and every appointment could be evaluated. It could be the objective point of reference that provides the fundamental criterion for the exercise of ecclesiastical authority and that frees leaders from the threat of authoritarianism and self-service.

D.                 Ecclesiastical Authority and Final Authority

The fact that delegated authority is exercised by different leaders and at different levels around the world does not mean that there is not within the church a final authority. The challenge is to define how that authority is expressed, who should exercise it, and what could limit it. Adventist ecclesiology does not allow for ultimate authority to rest on a person or a group of clergy or theologians. We believe that final authority resides in the world church in its subjection to the Lordship of Christ. Based on the model of the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), Adventists established that it is during a General Conference Session that the voice of the world church is authoritatively heard.[12] At the moment the GC convenes in session the world leaders technically become regular church members, until they are re-elected. They, together with representatives from the leaders of the church, pastors, and lay people from around the world, speak on behalf of the global community of believers. This is indispensable in Adventist ecclesiology, because in order for the use of ecclesiastical authority to be legitimate it has to be an expression of the will of the world church. But the ultimate control should always be faithfulness to the Scripture.[13] The expression of the will of the world church should be in clear agreement with God's will as revealed in the Scripture.

The General Conference Session is the nucleus of ultimate authority in the sense that it is the channel through which the world church authoritatively addresses itself in its multiplicity of national, ethnic, and cultural diversity to reaffirm its common message, mission and unity. In that specific setting the supreme concern of the assembly is not the narrow regional interests of the territories they represent, but the well-being of the global church. Thus is manifested within the church the authority of Christ.[14] It is in the setting of the General Conference Session that ecclesiastical authority should particularly seek to preserve and nurture the unity of the church. That task requires global thinking from church members and leaders at all levels.

E.                  Ecclesiastical Authority: Implementing the Will of the Church

Once decisions are made by the global church, ecclesiastical leaders are entrusted with the authority to implement the will of the church in their respective areas of the world. Since the decisions made were reached by representatives of the global church at all levels, the world community of believers should willingly abide by its own decisions. It should not be concluded that ecclesiastical authority should ignore regional needs and peculiarities. What is effective in one place of the world may not be as effective in other regions. Christ's authority within the church seeks to serve the well-being of the local communities wherever they are located.

It should be acknowledged that unity in expression and action includes an element of diversity. Uniformity appears to be an unachievable goal, because there are not two individuals that are exactly alike. Although diversity within unity is the goal, the controlling element should be unity, not diversity. In other words, diversity is subservient to unity; unity judges it and defines its limits and extent. When dealing with such sensitive issues the main interest of church leaders should be preserving the integrity of the message, the realization of the mission, and the unity of the church. They should keep in mind that diversity is natural, while unity needs to be promoted and nurtured.

IV.              Challenges in the Exercise of Ecclesiastical Authority

A world church is by nature very diverse, and yet the challenge of the gospel is to form a body of believers that is committed to a global message, mission and unity. Due to the diverse nature of the church, disagreements concerning the exercise of ecclesiastical authority are to be expected. Hopefully the triadic formula suggested above should help in the resolution of real or imaginary tensions.

Possibly one of the most threatening challenges that leaders confront, as they use the authority entrusted to them, is the natural human tendency to corruption. Power could corrupt any person. Leaders should occasionally examine themselves and the motivations behind the administrative style they use and the decisions they make. Corruption is not something that occurs from one instant to another; it is usually a process of change that at the beginning is almost imperceptible. No one should claim through his or her administrative style that ultimate wisdom resides exclusively with them. The life of leaders should combine external or delegated authority with their internal spiritual authority.[15] In other words, the exercise of delegated authority should always be accompanied by the authoritative presence of a life fully consecrated to the Lord. The personal communion of leaders with Christ should reveal itself in their words, their deportment and the kindness and goodness of their leading. The church will listen and follow leaders whose lives are unconditionally dedicated to the integrity of the message, the fulfillment of the mission and the unity of the church. Their demeanor will indicate that they constantly live in the presence of the Lord.

A second challenge leaders confront is that of balancing local needs with the needs of the global church. The risk would be to overemphasize the authority of a particular segment of the organizational structure of the church, over against the authority of the world church. If this happens it would be a sign of fragmentation and should be taken seriously. Fragmentation does not acknowledge any limits. The more leaders distance themselves from each other the more distance will be created within the individual units each leader represents. This could be avoided if leaders perform their responsibilities keeping in mind that their primary concern should be the global community of believers.

The third challenge leaders confront comes as a result of the need of the church to work through consensus. They should be alert to the fact that a consensus should be reached on the basis of what is the best expression of their authority in the areas of message, mission and unity. A consensus should not seek to establish the minimum common denominator concerning a particular item, but its most enriching biblical expression. In fact, the authority of the consensus is dependent on its faithfulness to the Scripture. Leaders should guard against the danger of using authority to formulate a consensus that allows for contradictory perspectives, or that accommodates dissonant views within the church in order to preserve unity. In such cases the authority Christ entrusted to the church would have been surrendered to the pressures of interest groups, and could threaten the unity that leaders would be attempting to preserve and nurture.

Fourthly, leaders also face the challenge of attempts to usurp their power by well intended individuals within the church. It has been correctly said that there are no power vacuums. Leaders are expected to use their power and authority or they will loose them; others will fill the vacuum usurping their authority. Uncertainty about the message, mission and unity of the church makes a leader vulnerable to the usurpation of power by those who have personal agendas they wish to promote within the church. Personal agendas are often promoted by individuals from outside the organizational structure of the church, through the creation of parallel organizational structures that compete with the appointed leaders for the attention of the world church. They usually promote a distorted view of the message, mission and unity of the church. Leaders have to address those challenges to God's appointed ecclesiastical authority. But what is possibly more damaging occurs when some of those individuals are able to usurp the authority of the leaders by influencing them to support their particular agendas, and to use the organizational channels of communication of the church to promote their personal views and opinions instead of the message, mission and unity of the global church. A clear understanding of those three elements could assist leaders to avoid power vacuums.

Finally, in the exercise of their ecclesiastical authority church leaders need constantly to recognize the inclusive nature of the global church of Christ. The realization that the Adventist Movement is formed by individuals from "every nation, tribe, language and people" (Rev 14:6) should force leaders to listen attentively and sincerely to the many voices of that global community, in order to learn from each other and to be enriched in their regional expressions of the church. Ethnic, gender and racial prejudice will have a negative impact on the leaders' use of their authority. Biblical authority listens to others as it seeks ways to operate more effectively for their benefit. We should not allow ethnic, gender or racial discrimination to ignore a segment of the global church or to conclude that others have little to offer to the global community of faith. As church leaders seek to create consensus they should not allow prejudice to silence or limit the influence of any segment of the church. The interaction of the different cultural segments of the church will enrich all of them.

V.                 Conclusion

Any definition of ecclesiastical authority has to begin with a basic understanding of God's power and authority as revealed in Christ. A Christological perspective will acknowledge that God through Christ exercised His authority and power in order to sustain, redeem and preserve His creation, making it possible for us to actualize the potential He gave to the human race at creation. God's display of His power reveals His goodness and love. Ecclesiastical authority is determined by a Christological understanding of authority that is oriented toward the well-being of the other. This is the theological grounding of the authority of leaders within the church.

Having said that, we should recognize that ecclesiastical authority is not by definition located in the person of a leader or a group of them who function as mediators of it between Christ and the believer. Ecclesiastical authority resides in the mysterious reality of the global church. This authority specifically consists of the freedom Christ gave to the church to work with Him in the consummation of His mission of redemption. Therefore, that authority is particularly expressed in the commitment of the community of believers to the integrity of the message, to the fulfillment of the mission, and to the unquestionable dedication to the unity of the church. This triadic formulation frames the use of authority within the church at all levels, and could be useful in the evaluation of the proper or improper use of ecclesiastical authority.

The subjection of the believer to the Lordship of Christ carries with it an ecclesiological dimension. Ecclesiastical authority is diffused throughout the world church, but in order for the global church to function as one body it is necessary to delegate some of that authority to properly elected representatives, through whom it authoritatively speaks to its different components around the world and to the world itself. This is particularly the case during the General Conference Sessions, where the global church speaks through its delegates with one final voice. The use of that authority by the elected leaders is legitimate to the extent that their understanding and use of it is Christologically determined. This will be evidenced in their commitment to the message, mission and unity of the church as they procure the well-being of the global community of believers.

Authority is a trust for which we are accountable to the global church and to our Lord. It was entrusted to us in order to serve the church. Any attempt to use that authority for personal gain would be a misuse of it. Modeled after Christ's authority, ecclesiastical authority constantly aims at the care of and the sincere concern for God's people (cf. 1 Pet 5:2-4). That explains why the apostles accepted persecution and even martyrdom in the fulfillment of the mission of the church. For them the most important thing as leaders was building up the church, not their personal reputation and self-image. The use of ecclesiastical authority requires that leaders will always do what is good and right, what ought to be done for the church, independent of how the decision would impact them.