The Specter of Anarchy
In the last chapter of what may be called a sacramental theology, Body Politics, Mennonite theologian John Howard Yoder describes and propounds the "rule of Paul," which is the discernment of the mind of Christ by the power of the Spirit in the gathering together of a whole congregation. Known as the "church meeting" or "church conference" among Baptists (excepting where it has devolved into the "business meeting"), the rule of Paul reflects not a "low church" view but in fact a high one. It is a firm conviction, as stated by the early Baptist William Kiffin, that "Christ is the King of his Church; and that Christ hath given this power to his church, not to a hierarchy, neither to a national presbytery, but to a company of saints in a congregational way."
Early Baptists, alongside their Anabaptist cousins, were quick to point out that the responsibility and privilege of each church to discern the will of Christ in their context did not negate its responsibility to seek wise counsel of others. The long nineteenth and twentienth centuries have taken many of us through congregational independence and into autonomous individualism, but in following such a path under the guise of "soul competency" or "private rights" the original, theocentric vision has been diminished or even lost.
Seeing the course of this history, many will doubt the propriety of reclaiming this vision. Why not take the more stable route of a presbytery or episcopate? Isn't this claim for the local church just a path to anarchy and dissolution? Yoder reflects on these concerns in the final section of his chapter, "The Specter of Anarchy":
(Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1992), 69f.
Early Baptists, alongside their Anabaptist cousins, were quick to point out that the responsibility and privilege of each church to discern the will of Christ in their context did not negate its responsibility to seek wise counsel of others. The long nineteenth and twentienth centuries have taken many of us through congregational independence and into autonomous individualism, but in following such a path under the guise of "soul competency" or "private rights" the original, theocentric vision has been diminished or even lost.
Seeing the course of this history, many will doubt the propriety of reclaiming this vision. Why not take the more stable route of a presbytery or episcopate? Isn't this claim for the local church just a path to anarchy and dissolution? Yoder reflects on these concerns in the final section of his chapter, "The Specter of Anarchy":
But can we afford to let local meetings in every place claim the same freedom for all to speak and for conclusions to be validated by consensus? Will the result not be chaotic diversity? That has always been the standard fear of the threatened paternalists. A small part, and a reasonable part of the answer is to say that such decentralization, founded in the belief that the Spirit speaks to and through everyone, will enable wholesome and realistic flexibility in adapting to local occasions and needs. The stronger, more theological, part of the answer is, however, that because Jesus Christ is always and everywhere the same, any procedure that yields sovereignty to the direction of his spirit will have ultimately to create unity. What does not create authentic unity is the centralized power tactics of the Caesars, the Inquisitors, or any other patriarchs or paternalists. A monarchical decree is quicker than careful listening, but is usually wrong. A quick majority vote may reach a decision more rapidly but without resolving the problem or convincing the overpowered minority, so that the conflict remains. Quaker consensus modes of decision, as I said, can administer a relief agency or a college just as efficiently as can the "corporate models" to which Presbyterians and United Methodists are accustomed. United Methodists know that annual conference decisions or congregational ones reached by a bare majority create new problems for the future.
...Because God the Spirit speaks in the meeting, conversation is the setting for truth-finding. That is true int he local assembly and in wider assemblies, in the faith community and in wider groups.
(Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1992), 69f.
Labels: Baptists
That's a helpful summary. I have several questions on it but I am about to go to work. My first question,
1) How does the above model inter-relate with the Ecumenical councils? In other words, what kind of authority does the Ecumenical councils have for an anabaptist church?
Reformed Protestants never gave a good answer to that question. They wanted to acknowledge the authority of the councils but also acknowledge, via sola scriptura, the councils could be wrong, but not really (and on and on we go).
Posted by
Jacob |
Thursday, November 12, 2009 7:26:00 AM
Post a Comment