Limitations to Authority and Our Mandate For Cooperation

Limitations on Authority Delegated to Humans

All human authority is delegated to them by God and therefore limited. This principle applies to Church governance and to worldly governments. We are mostly going to discuss Church governance but lets get the limits upon worldly governments out of the way quickly.

John 19:10-11 Pilate flaunts his power over life and death, to which Jesus answers with an application of the limits God places on all forms of rulership.

God delegates authority from above, yet He also provides instructions on how humans should govern in a Godly way. Much of what He says relates to approach and attitude (fairness, justice, respect for human dignity, etc.). A Godly leader does not step outside those boundaries. The history of Israel and Judah’s kings shows that problems came up when they did not recognize where their personal authority ended. So it is with worldly leaders.

Authority Delegated to the Church

Jesus told the disciples that He was giving them the keys to the kingdom (to bind and loosen things in both heaven and on earth)… some see this as granting unlimited power over the Church and its members which Jesus said he would back up completely { Matthew 16:19 and Matthew 18):

This is even used as a rationale that Church leaders could change even the commandments if they chose. We (the Church of God) like to argue that point, stressing that human authority can only operate within limits. For example Jesus specifically said “not one jot or tittle would disappear from the commandments… He who teaches otherwise would be considered as nothing in the kingdom of God”. That sounds like a limitation on delegated authority to me.

2 Corinthians 10:13-17 even as an apostle, Paul did not see his authority as unlimited,

Romans 15:20 even in an administrative or jurisdictional matter Paul operated within limits.

2 Corinthians 1:24 no human can control the spiritual life of another. Humans can help, encourage, give understanding, even apply correction… but to have dominion over such thing is impossible and off-limits. The ministry has no control of a person’s level of love, joy, peace, gentleness, goodness, meekness, or self-control.

In all realms of governance… Church or worldly… humans must take care to not go beyond what God allows. That is when  trouble begins. So, the ministry must know where their authority begins… but also where it ends.

Making Decisions

Many people long for a simple situation where God provides us with a strong, decisive, and righteous individual who will call all the shots. Then we’d really start getting stuff done.

I definitely see this longing in the church… but I also see it in national politics. When a person you like, or agree with, is in power you want them to have greater autonomy… not having to wrangle with congress, or the senate. I have heard people say this about the current president… I have heard people say this about past presidents. 

Reducing decision making to a single person definitely makes the decision making process simpler. But it also can make it more dangerous… and lead to disastrous results.

This model of leadership is seen in the book of Judges for example… to get the nation out of trouble God would appoint a judge, empower them by His Spirit, and they would lead the nation. But then that person would die and the nation would start to fall apart again. But even when the judges were in power the record we have is full of chaos and violence.

When Israel demanded a king to rule over them… this is basically what they wanted. Strong, decisive, able to make decisions in times of crisis. God’s response to them was…’you’ll be sorry”... “you really don’t know what you are asking for”. Then He outlines all the oppressive things an autocratic ruler would do.

The Model of the 1st Century Church

The book of Acts and the Epistles give us insight and perspective on how Christ led the members and the ministry to resolve administrative problems… even doctrinal problems. Once again they do not provide us with a detailed procedural manual… rather we get general organizational principles, and how to work together in unity and mutual submission.

Replacing Judas

Acts 1:15-20 Even before the kick-off of the church at Pentecost the disciples determined a need to replace Judas. Apparently arising from the need to act on an unfulfilled prophecy (verse 20) rather than an administrative imperative or precedent to always replace “the twelve” when they die. In order to “let another take his office” they put their heads together… proposed two candidates… prayed, submitted themselves to God through fasting… then chose Matthias by casting lots (verse 26).

What Shall We Draw From This And What Not?

UCG does not see in this an imperative to maintain a specific administrative form (IE. twelve apostles), Which we retain by replacing any one of them who falls away, retires, or dies. Rather this is a specific response to an as of yet unfulfilled prophecy. Structure remains fluid.

UCG do not use the casting of lots to make decisions. After this instance the practice of casting lots is never again mentioned in the bible (but this is not the last time the Church had to make an important decision). What changed?

Before the pouring out of the holy spirit upon the Church, the casting of lots was a way for the people of Israel (who did not have God’s spirit) to determine God’s will. But in a few weeks Pentecost came and brought about a major turning point in God’s work. The holy spirit was now poured out upon the followers of Christ.

The holy spirit, which Christ promised, would “be in you”... would “teach you all things”... “guide you into all truth”... “tell you of things to come”... “take of mine and declare it to you” (John 14:17,26; 16:13-15). In this new era of the Church we have a new way in which God would direct and ratify the decisions of his spirit-led children (within limitations).

Acts 13:1-3 moving forward the example we have is of the Church appealing to God for discernment through prayer and submitting to HIs will in fasting. God’s purpose is not to make all the decisions for us. Rather His purpose is to teach us to make righteous judgments ourselves. Just as you fathers and mothers want to teach your own children to make good decisions rather than  you making all their decisions for them. Doing everything for your children is not good parenting.

Solving Problems

Acts 6:1-7 we have already looked at this with regards to building out offices and functions within the Church. Now let's view it from the perspective of solving problems.

They brought the Church members together, explained the problem, then enlisted the membership to help them solve it. “Therefore, seek out from among you 7 men of good reputation, full of the holy spirit of wisdom whom we may appoint over this business”.

The process is driven by goals and objectives established from the leadership… they sought consensus in having the members nominate the candidates… the candidates were ratified by the leadership (their responsibility/authority to refuse an unsuitable candidate is implicit).

God does not insist that we make decisions this way but it's a good model. In matters where sin is not the issue our Father is a gentle teacher.

In taking this approach the apostles (Church leadership) were themselves following a previously recorded biblical model Deuteronomy 1:9-18. In both OT and NT we see a collaborative process in which the people had a significant part to play.The entire process in Acts 6 is a blend of definition of process and goals by leadership figures, consensus building, seeking of input, then ratification. It demonstrates wisdom in problem solving; acknowledgment that no one person or group has all the answers… respect for members… and submission to the spiritual leadership who had the final say.

Does this Mean the Majority Rules in God’s Church?

Some have cited these biblical passages in support of the democratic constitution of the Apostolic Church. But the context shows that  the entire process was always in the hands of the apostles:

1. They defined the problem and how to solve it
2. They determined the qualification of those who would be chosen
3. They laid hands upon those selected

Principle: authority (and the executive power that goes with it) is delegated to us from God. Governance, power and authority are not ‘of the people’. Just as defining sin is not “of the people”... or an occasion for consensus.

Matters of Doctrine and Teaching

The council of Acts 15 gives us a precedent setting example for church government. They gathered in Jerusalem to discuss an important and sensitive issue that was dividing the Church: Circumcision. A meeting was convened among the leaders of the Church (apostles and elders).

Acts 15:1-2 Was it necessary to enter into the old covenant God made with Israel before one could then enter into the new covenant. A covenant of the flesh before a covenant of the spirit. There were differences of opinion and brought about “sharp dispute”.

At the council various opinions were passionately debated. The conclusions of this council would result in a major doctrinal position that would require a change in understanding for many members and ministers alike. Peter’s and James’ perspective and reasoning from scripture proved pivotal. Acts 15:7-21.

The next thing we read is that they reached a verdict. They wrote a letter for all the congregations to read explaining the doctrinal decision. We are not told how they reached that verdict using what procedures (as we have discussed previously: procedure in governance is not the most important issue nor one God dictates). 

Acts 15:28 Here is what is important: true submission to the holy spirit, reflected by first seeking God’s will and not one’s own… leading to an outcome of unity and understanding.

Who Made The Decision?

Was it Peter? Was it James? Was it Paul? No, the ministry made the decision.

Acts 15:22-23 the letter is sent out to be proclaimed in all the congregations and it comes from “the apostles and elders… your “brothers” .Acts 16:4

We are not given the details of the actual process they followed to formulate this statement. We assume that they were well informed, and given opportunity to consider before consenting to have the letter go out in their name. Were there some who remained skeptical? Did they vote?  Did they go with a simple majority? Did they seek an overwhelming majority?

In the same way UCG has to thrash through issues. We have to find ways to get things done… adapting to ever changing circumstances… procedures and policies. Sometimes I hear criticisms that the Church is using worldly methods to make decisions (we’re too political etc). Criticisms that are rarely accompanied by helpful or realistic alternatives. “We should follow the lead of the holy spirit”... “we should let God be in charge, follow His will”. But what does that look like in the flesh? We have to take the spiritual principles clearly spelled out by God in His word… but then make them happen in the flesh.

Social situations change, culture evolves, new methods of communication, transportation arise. And the Church has had to adapt procedures and policies to these changes over and over. But the principles of Humility, meekness, respect, obedience, authority, unity…. these never change.

We no longer follow exactly the early Church’s procedure for a division of work in providing for Hebrew widows and gentile widows. The world has changed over the centuries, and the Church has adapted. The world will continue to change and the Church will continue to adapt to it. But holding fast to the things which never change.