As a current member of a fairly well known nine marks church, which regularly hosts nine marks events, I feel it is my duty to offer a brief defense. Most of the more substantial critiques in this episode do not apply to my particular church. In fact much of what was said is being explicitly implemented in the life of the church. For instance, as a seminary student I was explicitly told to get some regular life experience by working an ordinary job before pursuing a ministry position, and that elders were nominated on the basis of who was already doing the work of an elder in the life of the congregation. Some of the critiques that do land, I think are more a reflection of the suburban/city context in which the church finds itself, or are not issues regulated to 9marks. To elaborate, the suburban middle class life is one that is divorced from many of the necessary experiences needed to develop a fuller real world wisdom. But this is not really a critique of 9marks persay.
Thank you for indulging me, and I still love the discussions and content.
This is going to get long, but only because I am very interested in what you are saying. Apologies in advance.
There is something deeply important about the natural authority of truth and wisdom. I really appreciated this discussion of how that natural authority might interact with the notion of pastoral authority. In my Quaker spiritual community, we don’t believe in pastoral authority and indeed traditionally we don’t believe in pastors, but this makes it all the more interesting to see how people who do have pastors might structure that relationship so as not to preclude a direct relationship with the truth and with God (if indeed there is any distinction between the two).
I find myself reflecting on the ways that I have seen Quakers respect expertise amongst members and attenders in order to discern truth collectively. One of the most striking occurred in my first few weeks of attending. I was very new, keeping respectfully quiet both in the sacred part of the meeting and (aside from introducing myself) in the more formal discussion afterwards. One week, though, the discussion turned to ventilation. I happened to have some colleagues who were researchers in that area, with whom I had worked directly on precisely that topic. On that basis, I remained seated, but made a quick remark of confirmation of some of what was already being said.
In response, one of the more respected members immediately directed me to stand up and repeat myself. I had thought I was making a quick remark in passing, but now I, an attender of a mere few weeks, was Speaking At A Quaker Meeting. Not in the officially sacred part of the meeting, but it was still daunting. It was also incredibly educational about how this community regarded truth, authority and discernment. In practical matters, expertise from anyone present is to be respected and included. Even from me, feeling small and new; my knowledge was already something to be heard.
Returning to your discussion, I was listening very closely to your back-and-forth about what kinds of authority or expertise a pastor might have, and how a congregation might contribute to that instead of merely being passive recipients. The natural authority of truth is — as we are told of God — no respecter of persons. It does not ask “Is this said by a pastor?” or “Is this said by a respectable person?” or “Is this written in a book?” It is what it is and it goes where it will. Much of what is rightly subversive about Christianity may be traced back to this.
The pastor cannot have authority over the natural authority of truth. A pastor can gain authority by way of the natural authority of truth, but even then the pastor does not have exclusive access to this.
It seems to me that there are two strands of reaction to this that you are alternating between, in this discussion. One strand is to say that the pastor’s authority ought to stem from truth, wisdom and maturity which the pastor then attempts to teach to congregants. Those congregants should be seen as trying to become like the pastor, such that in the end there will be no distinction between them.
Another strand is to say that the specific role of the pastor will always be different to those of many congregants, but that there are other roles in life that also provide paths to truth, wisdom and maturity. Distinctions will remain in expertise but, precisely because of this, it will often be important to hear from other people who are not pastors. The pastor’s authority is in some sense an organisational matter. It should be respected because it is an important part of how things work, in (this particular) church, but it should never be conflated with the deeper authority of truth.
Of the two, I think you should go with the second one. This is because otherwise you end up making statements like, well, “The appropriate way to approach it is that the pastor is really just the end stage of any godly man in the congregation who meets the qualifications." Which is to say, you end up with a description of the end goal of Christian formation that is restricted to men! Christian maturity cannot be conflated with pastoring, or even with eldership, for so long as those offices are barred to women — unless, of course, you claim (as some have about women, historically) that women simply aren’t capable of being “mature” in this sense.
Now, Quakers do go with a version of this first strand. Authority stems from truth, wisdom, and maturity (and nothing else). But Quakers, as a result, don’t place limits on the spiritual authority of women. To the extent that the truth is your authority, you need to allow for the way that it can come from unexpected places. If you don’t, it will just mock you by showing up in the mouths of precisely the people whom you have designated as unworthy of speaking it.
In light of this distinction between the expertise of the pastor and the (also deeply relevant) expertise of the congregation, I have to push back on the idea that pastoral authoritarianism is more justified in a missional context. A missionary is often even more ignorant of what is truly wise in the local context than a pastor who teaches people from the pastor’s own culture. Far from being more justified, I think high-handedness about pastoral authority over practical topics may actually be less justified in missionaries.
As a current member of a fairly well known nine marks church, which regularly hosts nine marks events, I feel it is my duty to offer a brief defense. Most of the more substantial critiques in this episode do not apply to my particular church. In fact much of what was said is being explicitly implemented in the life of the church. For instance, as a seminary student I was explicitly told to get some regular life experience by working an ordinary job before pursuing a ministry position, and that elders were nominated on the basis of who was already doing the work of an elder in the life of the congregation. Some of the critiques that do land, I think are more a reflection of the suburban/city context in which the church finds itself, or are not issues regulated to 9marks. To elaborate, the suburban middle class life is one that is divorced from many of the necessary experiences needed to develop a fuller real world wisdom. But this is not really a critique of 9marks persay.
Thank you for indulging me, and I still love the discussions and content.
This is going to get long, but only because I am very interested in what you are saying. Apologies in advance.
There is something deeply important about the natural authority of truth and wisdom. I really appreciated this discussion of how that natural authority might interact with the notion of pastoral authority. In my Quaker spiritual community, we don’t believe in pastoral authority and indeed traditionally we don’t believe in pastors, but this makes it all the more interesting to see how people who do have pastors might structure that relationship so as not to preclude a direct relationship with the truth and with God (if indeed there is any distinction between the two).
I find myself reflecting on the ways that I have seen Quakers respect expertise amongst members and attenders in order to discern truth collectively. One of the most striking occurred in my first few weeks of attending. I was very new, keeping respectfully quiet both in the sacred part of the meeting and (aside from introducing myself) in the more formal discussion afterwards. One week, though, the discussion turned to ventilation. I happened to have some colleagues who were researchers in that area, with whom I had worked directly on precisely that topic. On that basis, I remained seated, but made a quick remark of confirmation of some of what was already being said.
In response, one of the more respected members immediately directed me to stand up and repeat myself. I had thought I was making a quick remark in passing, but now I, an attender of a mere few weeks, was Speaking At A Quaker Meeting. Not in the officially sacred part of the meeting, but it was still daunting. It was also incredibly educational about how this community regarded truth, authority and discernment. In practical matters, expertise from anyone present is to be respected and included. Even from me, feeling small and new; my knowledge was already something to be heard.
Returning to your discussion, I was listening very closely to your back-and-forth about what kinds of authority or expertise a pastor might have, and how a congregation might contribute to that instead of merely being passive recipients. The natural authority of truth is — as we are told of God — no respecter of persons. It does not ask “Is this said by a pastor?” or “Is this said by a respectable person?” or “Is this written in a book?” It is what it is and it goes where it will. Much of what is rightly subversive about Christianity may be traced back to this.
The pastor cannot have authority over the natural authority of truth. A pastor can gain authority by way of the natural authority of truth, but even then the pastor does not have exclusive access to this.
It seems to me that there are two strands of reaction to this that you are alternating between, in this discussion. One strand is to say that the pastor’s authority ought to stem from truth, wisdom and maturity which the pastor then attempts to teach to congregants. Those congregants should be seen as trying to become like the pastor, such that in the end there will be no distinction between them.
Another strand is to say that the specific role of the pastor will always be different to those of many congregants, but that there are other roles in life that also provide paths to truth, wisdom and maturity. Distinctions will remain in expertise but, precisely because of this, it will often be important to hear from other people who are not pastors. The pastor’s authority is in some sense an organisational matter. It should be respected because it is an important part of how things work, in (this particular) church, but it should never be conflated with the deeper authority of truth.
Of the two, I think you should go with the second one. This is because otherwise you end up making statements like, well, “The appropriate way to approach it is that the pastor is really just the end stage of any godly man in the congregation who meets the qualifications." Which is to say, you end up with a description of the end goal of Christian formation that is restricted to men! Christian maturity cannot be conflated with pastoring, or even with eldership, for so long as those offices are barred to women — unless, of course, you claim (as some have about women, historically) that women simply aren’t capable of being “mature” in this sense.
Now, Quakers do go with a version of this first strand. Authority stems from truth, wisdom, and maturity (and nothing else). But Quakers, as a result, don’t place limits on the spiritual authority of women. To the extent that the truth is your authority, you need to allow for the way that it can come from unexpected places. If you don’t, it will just mock you by showing up in the mouths of precisely the people whom you have designated as unworthy of speaking it.
In light of this distinction between the expertise of the pastor and the (also deeply relevant) expertise of the congregation, I have to push back on the idea that pastoral authoritarianism is more justified in a missional context. A missionary is often even more ignorant of what is truly wise in the local context than a pastor who teaches people from the pastor’s own culture. Far from being more justified, I think high-handedness about pastoral authority over practical topics may actually be less justified in missionaries.
Wonderful! Looking forward to it