One of the various issues which exist in faith communities is the issue of whether the voice of the community (especially the leadership) is the same as the voice of the one they seek to serve and worship, i.e. God. In the Jewish community, the prophetic word was considered the same as "the word of the Lord." The written witness to the prophetic word, i.e. the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament), and the commentaries which came afterwards, i.e. the Talmud and other writings, were also considered to be "the word of God" in written form. In the Islamic (Muslim) community, the oral word of the Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) and the subsequent written document, i,e, the Holy Qu'aran, we considered to be the word of Allah speaking to the community.
In the Christian community, the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are considered to be "the Word of God" in written form. But a question which arises often time among Christians is whether the Church and its leadership can be considered the oracle of God, i.e. mouthpiece through which the word and will of God are made manifest. That is a very difficult question to answer, since different churches have different views and practices concerning that. The Catholic Church believes itself with its leadership (magisterium) to be the "depository" of divine revelation. They also believe that when its main leader, the Pope speaks on matters of faith and morals, that he is speaking infallibly. They believe that the Pope is the Vicar (substitute) of Christ on earth. The Orthodox Church believes that God speaks through the Scriptures and the Traditions from which the Scriptures emerged. The Protestant churches believe that God speaks primarily, if not exclusively through the Scriptures.
There is some difficulty with the Protestant position. While most, of not all, Protestant churches believe that the Bible is the primary or exclusive source of faith and practice, they differ with each other as to the interpretation and meaning of "what the Bible says." They also differ with each other as to the correct policy of interpretation regarding leadership, style of government, and policy.
If we believe that the existing leadership in our churches is "placed by God," do we not then, have a moral obligation and responsibility to "follow the leader?" If the leadership of the Church is divinely appointed, should we not take their word to be "the word of the Lord"?
In an individualistically oriented society such as the one we live in (USA), it is very difficult to equate the voice of the Church with the voice of God. We are given to so many divergent views and perspectives. Many people have the attitude that "I believe in God but not in the Church." Many people disassociate themselves from "organized religion," because they believe that it is corrupt. They prefer to go the route of having an individual "pipeline" to heaven. In essence, this position opens up the door for "do your thing, do what you like to do, I can't tell you who to sock it to." Such persons believe that "organized religion," twists and corrupts God's intentions for humanity.
This writer humbly and respectfully submits that while there may be corruption and danger in "organized religion," there is as much danger in individualism. Each person believes and practices that which is "right" in their own eyes. They hold on to the view of "let a thousand flowers bloom." The biggest danger is when they have the attitude of "everybody thinks they're right, but I KNOW they're wrong.
I also humbly and respectfully reject the notion of "I believe in the Bible, but not in the Church." This position is contradictory in that the Bible was written by the Church, both Jewish and Christian. To set aside the voice of God which comes to us through the Scriptures, the Traditions, and the Church, and replace it with our own individual "voices" that we each hear, is to open up the doors for individualized and privatistic religion.
This type of "lone ranger" spirituality lends itself to arrogance and presumptuousness.
Please share with us your view as to whether the voice of God and the voice of the Church are one and the same, or are they two different voices.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Word, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
This essay is written with the assumption that denominations speak with one voice and that is no longer the case. For instance in the United Methodist Church we have people whose believes are represented by different denominations. There is no longer a Methodist Theology accepted by every Methodist. People believe what they want to believe as the denomination attempts to be fully inclusive. For instance President Bush and Hillary Clinton are both United Methodist. It is clear that their social positions are either not informed by their Methodist theology or they are informed by different Methodist teachings.
ReplyDelete