Where does the moral authority of the Church come from?

A comment on Facebook recently directed at me, and with me other Christians who likewise would proclaim that an objective Right and Wrong exists, can be known, and should be followed, stated that I (we) have no moral authority on any given issue of poverty or injustice unless I (we) are personally involved in helping to solve said problem.  In other words, I (we) cannot have a legitimate moral viewpoint on homelessness unless I (we) are running our own home as a homeless shelter, nor on abortion unless I (we) have adopted unwanted babies, or on the treatment of immigrants (illegal or otherwise) unless I (we) have opened up our home to house them.  The basis of this viewpoint is both dismissive and absurd, for it would limit morality to only those issues that one is personally involved with, and require silence on all others.  Since nobody can be involved in every moral crisis and issue relating to poverty and injustice in this world, for sadly there are far too many, such an assertion would, in essence, eliminate the moral authority of virtually everyone, creating a vacuum; perhaps this is the intended outcome, but it would create moral anarchy.

Before explaining where the moral authority of a pastor, such as myself, or a Christian in general, does indeed come from, let me simply assert that even on the basis of a premise designed to tell the people of God to "shut up and let immorality continue unless you're fixing it yourself" that the Church, and its leaders and people, are in a far stronger position to pass that "test" than any others.  For the past two thousand years the Church has been at the forefront of poverty relief, social justice, education, healthcare, disaster relief, and countless other efforts to better the lives of those around us, both in our own neighborhoods and countries, and around the world.  No government or institution has been as consistent, pervasive, and selfless in helping those in need as the Church of Jesus Christ.  Even as you read this, millions of Christians are volunteering their time to help those in need, not to mention giving of their resources to a vast array of causes supported by local churches, denominations, and a host of para-church organizations too numerous to count, working in virtually every country of the world.

For example: Our one local church, through both volunteer hours and financial support, contributes to a local multi-church food pantry (Shepherd's Green Food Pantry at St. John's Episcopal), a crisis pregnancy and motherhood support organization (ABC Life Center), a poverty relief agency (Community Services), a charity aimed locally at housing repairs, providing furniture and appliances to those with none, and giving rides to medical appointments (Mustard Seed Missions), the variety of efforts of our local Salvation Army, two local youth and teen evangelism and outreach efforts (Child Evangelism Fellowship, and Youth for Christ), a homeless shelter providing emergency housing here in Franklin and soon also in Oil City (Emmaus Haven), as well as a Central Help Fund contributed to by a dozen Franklin churches that helps dozens of families each year with their rent and utility bills.  In addition to these local efforts, 1st Baptist of Franklin supports the regional (PA/DE) efforts of ABCOPAD regarding disaster relief and economic development, the work of ABCUSA nationally and globally, and the missionary efforts of two missionary families in America, one in Papua, and one in Haiti.  Are these efforts collectively sufficient to grant the people or pastor of 1st Baptist of Franklin the moral authority to have a viewpoint on issues of poverty and justice??  If not, how much greater involvement would be required before our viewpoint on such issues is taken as sincere and not self-serving?  I could, in answer to the charge that was directed at me of not being personally involved in helping solve one particular moral dilemma, point out my own involvement in these causes and organizations, I could assert moral authority based upon my own years of work with those in need, but that too would be a fool's errand.  For indeed, my authority as a pastor does not rest primarily upon what I alone contribute to, for I am not alone in my efforts, I am a part of a far greater whole, the shepherd of a whole flock.  We as a local church are collectively making this effort, and we as a local church are but one part of the entire work of the universal Church.  We have, as individual Christians contributing to such efforts, as a local church, as a region within our denomination and our denomination as a whole, and as a universal Church around the world, a vast storehouse of moral authority based upon service to others.

And yet, I don't believe this approach to be the correct way to speak of the moral authority of the Church, of my own denomination, of my local church, or of myself.  Our authority is validated and enhanced by our service to others, but it is not where it begins.  The authority of anyone demonstrating a true commitment to being a disciple of Jesus Christ comes directly from the Word of God itself, the Bible.  Why must we care for the homeless, the widows and orphans, the aliens, refugees, outcasts, and more?  Because God has commanded it.  Not once, not with subtlety, not by allusion or inference, but repeatedly, clearly, and with grave warnings attached.  "Because the Bible says so", is not an evasion or a cop-out, it is a bedrock and fundamental principle for the people of God.  We do these things, act this way, make these sacrifices, because the God who sent his Son to shed his blood and save our lives and souls has commanded us to obey his Word.  Christians may disagree on the interpretation and application of the Bible, sometimes disastrously, but our authority rests squarely upon that which we have received from God.  Here's the thing you may not understand: The Church didn't write the Bible, it did not fashion the Word of God after its own passions, prejudices, or preferences, it received it from those who were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write it.  We do not obey the Bible because it is convenient or profitable to us, far from it, God's Word demands of his people sacrifice after sacrifice of self-denial and service, we obey the Word of God precisely because it is the Word of God.

If I had to defend my record, or that of my church, or the Church as a whole, against a charge of moral posturing without moral action to back it up, whether historically or in the present day, I could easily do so, the evidence is by God's grace ample.  But I don't need to, it is God who has ordained holiness, righteousness, justice, and love, and it is God who has revealed to humanity what our obligations to our Maker, our neighbor, strangers, and ourselves really are.  Complain to me if you want about the demands of Biblical morality, but in the end, I just work here, you need to take that objection up with the Boss; good luck with that.

Sermon Video: The Supremacy of the Son of God - Colossians 1:15-20

Having finished his introduction, Paul now turns in his letter to the church at Colassae to the budding heresy there that prompted the writing of this letter.  The proto-Gnosticism at Colassae denied the full deity of Jesus Christ, Paul chooses to confront this error head-on by repeatedly emphasizing the nature of Jesus as the one in whom the "fullness" of God dwelt, and the one who was intimately involved in the creation of everything that exists, both in the physical and spiritual realms, going so far as to say that "all things" were created, by, through, and for him.  In addition, Paul confirms that Jesus was both the means and the end of God's reconciliation of humanity to himself.  In the end, Paul rejects soundly the still to come Arminian heresy, a heresy that will later be revived by the Jehovah's Witnesses.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Serving Two Masters: the Southern Baptist Convention and V.P. Mike Pence

In case we needed another reminder of the danger of trying to serve two masters (in this case, God and power/politics), the Southern Baptist Convention's annual meeting once again reinforced the applicability of the warning of Jesus in Matthew 6:24 against split loyalties.  The delegates to the Southern Baptist Convention's annual meeting were presented with a speech from the current Vice-President of the United States, Mike Pence.  Had the speech focused exclusively upon Gospel-centered issues, it would still raise the question: Why was a politician given this opportunity, here at a gathering of the leaders of the church, above a minister of the church?  A powerful politician is not being asked to address a gathering of the church because of his/her theological expertise or relevant experience as a church leader, but because of his/her possession of political power.  In the case of the speech by Vice-President Pence, the primary topic was not Gospel-centered, nor even centered upon moral issues of relevance to the Church, but rather a touting of the political accomplishments of the administration to which he belongs.  It was, in essence, a campaign speech.  Choosing to allow a campaign speech at a gathering of the leaders of a church, who have been designated to conduct the business of the church, whether from a Republican or a Democrat, or any other party, raises a host of issues all of which are potentially damaging to the Church's given mission to make disciples and share the Gospel: (1) It identifies the Church with a particular political party, thus discouraging anyone who does not support that party from attending/visiting churches affiliated with the denomination (and frankly other churches too, those on the outside looking in don't typically grasp our denominational divisions). (2) It creates an atmosphere within the church/denomination where dissent/disagreement regarding political issues and how to solve them (which is normal and to be expected) is treated as a spiritual matter.  In other words, if two people disagree on immigration policy or tax policy, one is viewed as more spiritual than the other because that person agrees with the church/party/politician and the other does not.  The line between politics and theology becomes hopelessly blurred, to the detriment of theology. (3) It opens up the church to legitimate questions of hypocrisy when the inevitable moral failings of political leaders are ignored in the pursuit of an ongoing relationship to those in power, failings that would be absolutely disqualifying for any leader within the church. (4) It opens up church leaders to temptation regarding the pursuit of wealth, fame, and power, an unholy trio of temptations that the Church has fallen victim too far too often throughout its history. (5) It treats the teachings of the Word of God, and by extension the ministers of the Gospel, as secondary to those of politicians, thus elevating earthly power and its pursuit above spiritual power and discipleship.  Within the Church, the Word of God ought to be the ultimate authority, and those called and ordained as ministers ought to be the guardians of God's Word.  Of what value to the Church is the opinion, influenced by political realities, of a politician?  The Church's role is to share the Word of God with the world, not receive the word of man from those who wield earthly power.

Below are links to one news article, and one opinion piece regarding this topic.

ABC News: Pence Gives Campaign-Style Speech to Southern Baptists

The Gospel Coalition: Truth, Power, and Pence at the SBC

I've written extensively about the danger of mixing religion and politics, from the perspective of history and current events.  Over the past two generations, the Church in the United States has moved closer to power and wealth, not further away.  It has been more willing to make moral compromises, and less willing to confront the influence of affluence.  This trend is not universal, some Christians, churches, and denominations, have rejected it, but overall the trend is clear.  The Church has become less spiritual, more material, less interested in service, more interested in power.  This flirtation with power/wealth/fame is dangerous, it is foolish, and it has already harmed, and will continue to harm,  both the Church and its mission.

As I have stated previously, this is not a political statement or endorsement on my part, that would obviously defeat the purpose.  The same warning applies two both liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats, to Baptist, Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, and all the rest; the siren's call of power is threatening to shipwreck us all; "What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul?" (Matthew 16:26)

To not "look Catholic" is a terrible rationale for a Baptist Church to base decisions upon.

The Red Bank Baptist Church of Lexington, South Carolina, recently voted (in Baptist Churches all members have a vote, and can vote at regular congregational business meetings regarding matters both great and small, i.e. the church budget, the calling/dismissing of a pastor, program and building issues, etc.) to remove a 7 ft. statue of Jesus which had been displayed outside the entrance to the church for the past decade.  According to Pastor Jeff Wright, "This is not a denomination issue, its a church decision.  We are removing it to end some confusion.  Some people have seen it, guests that have been here and have asked, 'Why is this on the front of a Baptist Church?"  In a letter the church sent to the artist, Delbert Baker Jr., Pastor Wright explained that the statue brings into question, "the theology and core values" of the church.

AP story: Baptist church's 'Catholic' Jesus statue to find new home

The Jesus statue at Red Bank Baptist Church that is being removed.

We live in interesting times.  On the one hand we have an ongoing debate that roils people's emotions and has led to protests and bloodshed concerning the removal of statues on public land which were erected to honor those who fought to retain slavery in America, and at the same time, we have a congregation choosing to remove a statue of Jesus from their property because it makes the building appear "too Catholic".

Whether or not a Baptist Church has a statue or painting of Jesus prominently displayed is not the most pressing theological question facing most churches, but the line of reasoning that led to the decision made by the people of Red Bank Baptist Church is of import to all churches, regardless of denomination.  We, as local churches and/or as part of a denomination, ought not to be deciding how we carry out our Biblical mandate to share the Gospel and make disciples on the basis of not doing so "like them".  The "them" in this case is the Catholic Church, but it could just have easily been the Methodists, Lutherans, Pentecostals, or a host of others.  Why we do what we do, and how we do it, are questions far too important to be decided based upon a desire to have a unique "brand" as a church.

What is the proper standard for a church to base its decisions upon?  The bedrock standard is the Word of God itself.  Does the Bible encourage, prohibit, or is it silent on the issue at hand?  If the Bible encourages/commands the behavior/attitude in question, the discussion is over.  Our task is simply to obey.  If the Bible prohibits/condemns the behavior/attitude in question, again, the discussion is over, our task is to obey.  If the Bible is silent on the particular issue, we then look to see if principles contained in God's Word apply, we consider the wisdom of the collective Church's viewpoint on the issue over the ages, and we examine our own God-given reason and consciences as well.  These are the proper channels for discussion and debate among a local church or denomination regarding the choices we face and decisions we must make.  However, being "not Catholic", "not Pentecostal", or "not Presbyterian" is an invalid viewpoint, one that heightens divisions, encourages emotional instead of reasoned decisions, and in the end, leads to faulty theology.  In case you're wondering, making a decision based upon trying to mimic another church is an equally faulty methodology, albeit one that at least has a positive connotation.

Baptists are not alone in falling to this temptation.  Historically speaking many of the Counter-Reformation decisions of the Catholic Church were made on this same basis, to be "not Protestant", with less than helpful results.  Time and time again, churches have made decisions that were not based upon a careful and obedient understanding of God's Word, or upon wisdom received from our ancestors in the faith combined with our own reasons/consciences, but rather upon lesser criteria.  When we make decisions based upon reasoning and motivations that are less than ideal, or even downright foolish, how can we expect the decisions themselves to be God honoring and wise?

Not being privy to the internal discussions that took place at Red Bank Baptist prior to the decision, I don't know why they believe that the "theology and core values" of their church are threatened by an artist's depiction of Jesus, but if the answer contains any of this sentiment, "because it makes us look too Catholic", whether in the end they came to the right decision or not, the reasoning was dangerously faulty.




For some perspective, I write this as the pastor of an American Baptist Church with a rather unique architectural and artistic style among baptist churches that reflects the oil boom heritage of the Franklin area when the church sanctuary as it looks now was completed in 1904.  We have more art than most churches on the walls, including two giant murals of Jesus flanking the pulpit.  It would be a tragedy if a future generation decided to whitewash those murals to avoid looking like other Christians.

The sanctuary of First Baptist Church of Franklin

Sermon Video: In Him we have redemption - Colossians 1:12-14

The 4th of Paul's examples of what it means to "live a life worthy of the Lord" (The first three were: bearing fruit through good works, growing in the knowledge of God, and being strengthened by his power) is the one that he chooses to expound upon: giving joyful thanks to the Father.  We have, as followers of Jesus Christ, ample reasons for ongoing gratitude toward God, here Paul chooses to focus upon how we became disciples of Jesus in the first place: God rescued us from darkness and brought us into the light.  All of the verbs that Paul uses to describe our redemption are passive and past tense.  In other words, it is something which God, and he alone, accomplished, and it is something that has already happened.  In addition, Paul reminds us that the mechanism by which God rescued us was the payment of our sins (redemption) by the Son, which made the forgiveness of our sins possible.  In the end, we have every reason to continue in joyful thanks to the Father.

To watch the video, click on the link below: