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.
One of the things I have tried to cultivate in my black heart is an undying desire to see the people I think are heading for a pit avoid it entirely and reap the benefits I intent to by my own path. I praise God when, whether by field or road, we arrive at the house together. I am grateful to hear of your experience and would say that I often have much more affinity for the folk who read the books than the books themselves--and I do genuinely love to bits quite a few nine marks Jacobins!
As with many of our podcasts, the topic(s) discussed are an admixture of the intended and the inspired, and I would say that we ended up treating nine marks, qua nine marks, in a more tangential way. I would very much enjoy your staying tuned and responding should we make a more directed and comprehensive critique in future.
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.
You make an excellent point well. I have often said to Joel that the "one man show" makes everyone else into children. The elders of a town are not the only important people in it, the only gifted people, the only leaders, or even the only authorities. It would be an absurdity to boil the entire town down into the magistracy. As you so eloquently depict, the authority of exemplifying maturity is both available to all people and able to reform even the institutions established by God as judge and governor. Christ Himself was made a priest by the power of an indestructible life and taught with authority, despite not sitting in the seat of Moses.
I do want to suggest that "professional pastoral expertise" is depicted in Scripture, but it is missionary and medicinal in quality and episodic in character. Paul sent Timothy to establish elders in each city, spent time with churches in the midst of turmoil or lacking something essential or wholesome, and wrote to address concrete issues. The main work of making disciples, however, is done by one another and the leaders, authorities, and officers of each local congregation. The service was then--and ought to be now--full of the contributions of those with gifts, men and women, overseen by elders who ensure that the boundaries of good order, right doctrine, and a spirit of unity and love permeate the whole.
I fear that our modern penchant for rigidly scheduled activities and the simultaneously eviscerated liturgies and bloated sermonizing of many Evangelical services would make even something as simple as opening the floor to questions, prayers, or any of the contributions Paul expects of gathered believers and commends them for feel like utter chaos. The more tragic element is that most Christians are so ill equipped to use their gifts or to speak to the benefit of others that beginning to be faithful in this matter would likely lead to sanctimonious head wagging by the party of professionally pontificating pastors.
I have two masters degrees in the history and theology of Christianity, but it has taken ten years and a handful of churches for someone to ask me to so much as teach a Sunday School class--I promise I behave a little better at church than on here. I got to do that for the first time a couple weeks ago and it might have been one of the happiest moments of my life. I don't think that I have seen my wife prouder of me than at the end of the lively and edifying discussion--entirely the fault of the students.
Institutional participation cannot be underestimated. In many ways, those of us who did not enter the pastorate feel what many of our sisters in Christ have expressed about church for a long time: it is a place of dull silence and tedious busywork for all but "the man". I don't think that God intended for anyone to feel that way in His house. I don't think that the early church felt like that. I don't think that the modern church will return to the unity and harmony of the early church--which was in no ways perfect--by fighting gender wars with frontier cosplay family photo sessions on Instagram. Rather, we will empower all the many members of Christ's bride by, as you say, cultivating, respecting, and following "the natural authority of truth".
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.
One of the things I have tried to cultivate in my black heart is an undying desire to see the people I think are heading for a pit avoid it entirely and reap the benefits I intent to by my own path. I praise God when, whether by field or road, we arrive at the house together. I am grateful to hear of your experience and would say that I often have much more affinity for the folk who read the books than the books themselves--and I do genuinely love to bits quite a few nine marks Jacobins!
As with many of our podcasts, the topic(s) discussed are an admixture of the intended and the inspired, and I would say that we ended up treating nine marks, qua nine marks, in a more tangential way. I would very much enjoy your staying tuned and responding should we make a more directed and comprehensive critique in future.
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.
You make an excellent point well. I have often said to Joel that the "one man show" makes everyone else into children. The elders of a town are not the only important people in it, the only gifted people, the only leaders, or even the only authorities. It would be an absurdity to boil the entire town down into the magistracy. As you so eloquently depict, the authority of exemplifying maturity is both available to all people and able to reform even the institutions established by God as judge and governor. Christ Himself was made a priest by the power of an indestructible life and taught with authority, despite not sitting in the seat of Moses.
I do want to suggest that "professional pastoral expertise" is depicted in Scripture, but it is missionary and medicinal in quality and episodic in character. Paul sent Timothy to establish elders in each city, spent time with churches in the midst of turmoil or lacking something essential or wholesome, and wrote to address concrete issues. The main work of making disciples, however, is done by one another and the leaders, authorities, and officers of each local congregation. The service was then--and ought to be now--full of the contributions of those with gifts, men and women, overseen by elders who ensure that the boundaries of good order, right doctrine, and a spirit of unity and love permeate the whole.
I fear that our modern penchant for rigidly scheduled activities and the simultaneously eviscerated liturgies and bloated sermonizing of many Evangelical services would make even something as simple as opening the floor to questions, prayers, or any of the contributions Paul expects of gathered believers and commends them for feel like utter chaos. The more tragic element is that most Christians are so ill equipped to use their gifts or to speak to the benefit of others that beginning to be faithful in this matter would likely lead to sanctimonious head wagging by the party of professionally pontificating pastors.
I have two masters degrees in the history and theology of Christianity, but it has taken ten years and a handful of churches for someone to ask me to so much as teach a Sunday School class--I promise I behave a little better at church than on here. I got to do that for the first time a couple weeks ago and it might have been one of the happiest moments of my life. I don't think that I have seen my wife prouder of me than at the end of the lively and edifying discussion--entirely the fault of the students.
Institutional participation cannot be underestimated. In many ways, those of us who did not enter the pastorate feel what many of our sisters in Christ have expressed about church for a long time: it is a place of dull silence and tedious busywork for all but "the man". I don't think that God intended for anyone to feel that way in His house. I don't think that the early church felt like that. I don't think that the modern church will return to the unity and harmony of the early church--which was in no ways perfect--by fighting gender wars with frontier cosplay family photo sessions on Instagram. Rather, we will empower all the many members of Christ's bride by, as you say, cultivating, respecting, and following "the natural authority of truth".
Wonderful! Looking forward to it