Stephen
Terry, Director
Ministry
in the New Testament Church
Commentary
for the August 31, 2019 Sabbath School Lesson
"The goal is equality" 2
Corinthians 8:14b, NIV
Compared to a classless egalitarian society, the modern
Christian church is somewhat of an anomaly. Like the pigs in George Orwell's
novel, "Animal Farm," some within the church have managed to convince
everyone that while all are equal, some are more equal than others. Perhaps
this began early on in the church with the establishment of peculiar church authorities
such as the selection of the seven in Acts, chapter six.[i] The church had previously
tried to live out a voluntary[ii] socialist model,[iii] where wealth was
distributed from those who possessed it to those who were in need. But as seen in
the case of Ananias and Sapphira, in Acts, chapter 5, the socialist model was being
abused. Therefore, ironically, in order to deal with those who used their
position or wealth to subvert the system resulted in the early church granting
extraordinary authority to a few over the rest. This not only created a more
powerful class of individuals, it also elevated the apostles as well since they
granted this authority through the laying on of hands, the exercise essentially
defined them as being two levels above the rest of the church. Of course it did
not end there, for once the apostles had passed from this life, the church
needed surrogates to fill the authoritarian void above the level of those who
came to be called deacons. These higher individuals became known as the Presbuteroi or Elders, a term also sometimes
translated as bishop. Eventually, especially after the third century, some
bishops based on the influence of the city where they held their office, began
to rule as arch bishops over other bishops. This may have happened as a result
of certain bishops taking strong theological positions and other bishops
aligning themselves with that perspective. As the conflicts went on, the
authority of the bishop increased as he appointed to various offices those who
supported his theological perspective, carving out a clerical kingdom. An
example of such a theological conflict can be seen in the actions of Arius and
Athanasius toward one another that came to a head at the Council of Nicaea in
the early 4th century. Arius was defrocked as a result of that
council. Although he was later restored by the emperor, the propagation of the
Nicene Creed made sure that his view that Jesus was not God, but a created
being, would not be welcomed in the churches of the empire. Eventually the
church split between the Orthodox (Byzantine) and Catholic (Roman) portions of
the empire over other issues, the trajectory toward ever greater authority
within the church eventually gave us popes in Rome and patriarchs in the
Orthodox confession. Interestingly, while the Catholics assert the primacy of
the pope, the Orthodox insist the Patriarch is not a primus but instead the
"first among equals." This seems ironically to echo Orwell's idea of
everyone being equal but some more equal than the rest.
At this point, some might ask why any of this is
important? Don't we need someone to be in charge in order to effectively
organize for evangelism? The church has become such a global enterprise; don't
we need to grant extraordinary authority to some, according to their ability,
in order to run it all? Besides if we simply pooled everything in a common pot,
eventually wouldn't the resources run out and wouldn't we all then be equally
poor unable to care for one another? These are good questions and should be
examined. Let's look first at the issue of evangelism.
If we compare the modern church to the early church, one
thing becomes strikingly clear. Many eagerly joined the church, responding
readily to the vivid testimonies of those who had been with Jesus, and later
those who had been with the apostles and others of the first generation. Later,
as the church acquired civil power the conversions as well as the
excommunications for heresy tended to be at the point of a sword. even into the Middle Ages and beyond. This is still the case
in some countries around the world, not just for the Christian church, but for
other religions as well. We see this in Russia for example, where the Orthodox Church
has used civil political authority to outlaw Christian practice not in harmony
with Orthodoxy. Of course the Muslims, the Hindus, the Buddhists as well as
several others follow the same approach. Western Society prides itself on being
more tolerant of other faiths, but even there we see more intolerance than some
would willingly admit. For instance, those in southern Germany are far less tolerant
of the various Protestant iterations, while those in northern Germany are less
tolerant of Catholicism due to conflicts that have their genesis in the
Reformation. Accordingly, there is a lot of peer pressure in the various
regions to conform to the predominant faith in that area. As time has gone on,
the ability to use civil authority to coerce belief in the West has diminished.
The result has been to appeal to a more ethereal fear of an ever-burning hell
or eons in a purgatorial netherworld. The idea of the former being to secure
converts, and the latter to keep them in line with proper praxis that they might
avoid or shorten the time in Purgatory. The potential for the abuse of these
methods may be apparent if one claims to have such power over one's spiritual
fate. Tetzel's abuse of that power to coerce money from the people to build St
Peter's Basilica in Rome is an example of such abuse. Leading to Martin Luther's
eventual stand at the Diet of Worms and later to the Augsburg Confession of the
German princes, one might think that the Reformation would have broken the back
of such abuse, but that has not been the case.
We continue to have a modern church where the poor are
expected to support the monetization of vast ecclesiastical empires. Simony,
the sale of church office, continues to plague most denominations. Only the
wealthy, who can afford to pay the sums to buy the necessary power to do so,
have a voice in the direction of the church. Committees and conferences are
stacked with a clerical class who know full well who it is that contributes the
funds necessary to maintain them in their positions. In return, they are
granted extraordinary de facto powers, such as nepotism to advance the
interests of their families and opportunities for personal advancement as they
push the positions favored by the wealthy among the membership. This can be
readily seen even in local churches. For example, if a pastor is speaking with a
poorer member of their congregation about a matter of concern to that member
and a wealthy member approaches demanding the pastor's attention, many pastors
will immediately terminate their conversation with the poorer member and go off
with the richer one to address their concern first. To do otherwise might
jeopardize the financial returns to the church, and often the wealthy members
are not shy about making that clear to the pastor and the church board. And if
they refuse to budge in the face of such pressure, those same individuals are often
not hesitant to call in favors from those in higher administrative positions in
order to coerce compliance by the local pastor.
One can also see this in simple functions like church
potlucks. The pastor is often not likely to spend the meal at the table with
the homeless or infirm. Instead they are usually found at the table with the
"movers and shakers" within their local church. Sometimes it seems to
be so often the case that church leaders have to be cognizant of the political
aspirations of the wealthy congregants, 'a degree in political science or
business management may be more appropriate than one in theology for those
inclined to become clergy. Perhaps the church as a global enterprise channeling
rivers of funds to special interests around the world even demands such skills
from its leaders. The control of those funds and their availability for local
projects can easily be used as political bargaining chips to buy votes and to
advance the careers of those who are amenable to the agendas of those above
them. We would be naive to think that this does not happen. In fact, the
church's lack of transparency about these things argues strongly that it does.
Finally, in regards to the fear that if we care for the
needy in a more egalitarian manner the resources to do so would eventually come
to an end, the example of Jesus may be instructive. When Jesus fed the
multitudes with only a few loaves and fewer fish, everyone was fed beyond the expectation
of the available supply. It was not enough for Jesus to do this once. He did it
twice which implies emphasis. The lesson was important. If we do what we can
with what we have, there will be no lack. Money or resources are not to be the
criteria for determining whether or not we should do something. If we do, God may
reveal blessings not otherwise apparent.
Are we then to give all we have to the needy and ignore
our own needs or those of our family? Jesus certainly did that on the cross,
but we are counseled by Paul that such is not the case, for he wrote to the
church in Corinth, "For if the willingness is there, the gift is acceptable
according to what one has, not according to what one does not have." (2
Corinthians 8:12) If one can only buy a 99 cent ice cream cone from a fast food
restaurant to give to someone in Christ's name, they will not lose their
blessing.[iv] Each of us, rich and poor
belong to God, and when we show kindness and bless one another with our sharing,
we are giving to God the only offering that really matters, for it recognizes
the worth God has placed on each of us through the gift of his son, Jesus. It
also perpetuates the cycle of love that flowed from Bethlehem two thousand
years ago.
