The Authority of The Local Church, Revisited and Reviewed

Brandon Scalf’s attempt to rebut my article reconsidering church authority appears here. I encourage the reader to read them in sequence before continuing here.

Let us first review my own article and its stated intention. It is true that I did not define precisely what "(local) church authority" is, and that is for a very good reason - I have never been given a clear definition of the concept myself by anyone who professes that such a thing exists. I will, however, remedy that now and clarify my provisional conclusion on the matter, pending a convincing argument from someone else.

Defining "Authority" In Inter-Christian Relationship

In general, a person is exercising authority when they issue a directive to another person and that other person has a duty to obey the directive.

How is this statement relevant between Christians? Let's explore a few examples:

• One Christian is the supervisor of another Christian in an employment or similar situation
• One Christian is another Christian's commanding officer in a biblically-defined military context
• A Christian is the parent of another Christian of minor age

Even in these contexts, it is easy to see that the directive must not command what is evil nor prohibit what is good. In either of those cases, the Christian must disobey the directive in order to obey God. The employee is not in the right if he refuses to jump on the conference call. The private is not in the right if he declines to do twenty pushups when the drill sergeant tells him to. The child is not in the right if he refuses to clean his room when instructed to do so.

But the employee is in the right to decline sexual favors to the boss.
The private must refuse to pillage an innocent civilian's property.
The child is right to accept baptism as a born-again believer though sprinkled as a baby by a clergyman.

So even when an interpersonal relationship carrying authority (in some other context than a peer-to-peer Christian relationship), the content of the directive remains paramount. What is the message and does it accurately communicate a duty from God? is the foremost question.

Now, the most important example for this discussion:

• Two or more Christians have a relationship only in the sphere of Christian fellowship

In a peer-to-peer Christian relationship, can one Christian issue an authoritative directive to another? Can one priest of God impose a duty on another priest of God? Put simply: Only if that directive sums up Scriptural teaching, enjoining a God-breathed duty or communicating God's prohibition of an action.

Scalf Never Defined "Authority"

Since he never defined "authority", nor "local church authority", nor "authority of church elders", we are left wondering precisely what Scalf thinks "local church authority" is. He alludes to it several times, criticises my article for suggesting that employing the phrase "local church authority" is counter-productive and unbiblical, and suggests that "elders exercise ministerial, not magisterial authority", but never tells us what it actually is or means. I wholeheartedly invite him to give us specifics at his next opportunity.

What we can say is that my own article has told us what "local church authority" is not, and yet Scalf believes my resistance to authoritarian tyranny (the behavior and position I explicitly identified) warranted a written response, and that I have evinced "erroneous and harmful thinking". Yet if I am simply exposing authoritarian tyranny that does not apply to him or the clergymen he knows, it is unclear what precisely is so dangerous.

Some Key Questions

From Scalf:

Elders can rightly have authority without the biblical authors needing to use ἐξουσία to vindicate that authority.

but we are not told what it means that "elders rightly have authority". Here are some questions about that.
When? To command what? To whom? Under what circumstances?
And probably most central:
If a "church elder" tells you to do something good, are you more duty-bound to do it than if someone else told you to do it, simply because he is a "church elder"? If a "church elder" tells you to stop doing something bad, are you more duty-bound to stop it than if someone else told you to stop it, simply because he is a "church elder"?

An answer to those questions would go a very long way in clarifying just what Scalf is trying to teach us here. Yet if the answer to those last two questions is "No, he is not more duty-bound just because it's a 'church elder' instructing him", then my own thesis is affirmed, and it is far from clear what is so dangerous about my ideology. My own ideas are pretty simple - Let God be true and every man a liar. The unfolding of God's words gives light; it gives understanding to the simple. We must obey God rather than men.

In addition, I believe Scalf has shown his thinking to be somewhat muddled here, especially since...

Scalf Offered Virtually No Biblical Exegesis

In my article I examined numerous passages in context and drew conclusions from them that would fit into a larger whole so as to produce a harmonized systematic biblical teaching on the topic. At most, we see Scalf drop some Greek words, but there is no interaction with any of my own exegesis, no exposition of why he pasted those words into his own article. It is also notable that he fails even to understand my argument at several points. For example:

The argument that states, “unless the exact Greek term “ἐξουσία” is applied to elders, they cannot have any form of authority”

This quotation never appears in my article, and it just does not approach the thrust of my argument.
Another example:

Alan’s argumentation rests almost wholly on the meanings of πρεσβύτερος (elder), ἐπίσκοπος (overseer), and ποιμήν (shepherd)

My argumentation does not rest at all on those terms or meanings. I believe upon examination, one will find that it is Scalf's argument that rests partly on those terms and their meanings, not my own.

Now, for the claims that I engaged in logical fallacies.

Straw Man Fallacy

Scalf does not appear to be aware that something cannot be a logical fallacy if it is not an ARGUMENT. My comment about authoritarians is not an argument. It is an observation based on considerable experience on the part of myself and many other abolitionists. Scalf is in no position to tell us that our firsthand lived experience did not happen. He has no access to it. Ask any abolitionist who has run afoul of such ecclesiastical tyrants, like the apostle John did:

I wrote something to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to be first among them, does not welcome what we say. For this reason, if I come, I will bring to remembrance his deeds which he does, unjustly disparaging us with wicked words. And not satisfied with this, he himself does not welcome the brothers either, and he forbids those who want to do so and puts them out of the church (3 John 9-10).

Or like the Lord Jesus did:

And they tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger. But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men; for they broaden their phylacteries and lengthen the tassels of their garments. And they love the place of honor at banquets and the best seats in the synagogues, and respectful greetings in the marketplaces, and being called Rabbi by men (Matthew 23:5-7).

Or like the prophet Jeremiah did:

Then Pashhur the priest, the son of Immer, who was ruling overseer in the house of Yahweh, heard Jeremiah prophesying these words; and Pashhur had Jeremiah the prophet struck and put him in the stocks that were at the upper Benjamin Gate, which was by the house of Yahweh (Jeremiah 20:1-2).

Does Scalf think that such men don't even exist? If so, he can count his blessings since ignorance is bliss, yet at the same time one should consider whether Scalf has ever done anything that might cause the ire of wicked false brethren to wax hot against him. The prophets, the apostles, and the Lord Jesus lived lives such that they were under no illusion that that kind of man was out there. Scalf referenced Acts 20:28 (which is not relevant to any of my arguments), and the very next verses display a concern for precisely the same thing:

...know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them (Acts 20:29-30).

False Equivalence Fallacy

Once again, the statement he identifies as a fallacy was not even an argument. It was merely an observation and a comparison. A conclusion based on other arguments, which he did not interact with.

Scalf complains that I "equate the Biblical office of Elder with Roman Catholic hierarchicalism". I said that many of these office-holding men resemble papists in their behavior. I also intended to communicate that the way Roman Catholicism thinks about its hierarchy and offices resembles the way Scalf and other Reformed clergy think about their hierarchies and offices. There is no denying that Rome proposes the clergy-laity distinction and refers to its clergy positions as offices, so the comparison is apt in multiple ways.

Selective Evidence

Scalf complains I did not interact with Hebrews 13:17 and yet my article provides a link to extensive interaction with the passage, which I link (again) here. The video presents a serious exegetical case from the context of the verse. Where has Scalf provided any such thing? Or where does his article actually interact with my own exegesis?

he completely neglects key texts like... 1 Thessalonians 5:12–13

True, I haven't gotten around to it yet, but please keep in mind an important point of studying the Word of God -- Just because you can "counter-cite" different passages does not overturn the conclusions drawn by proper exegesis of another passage.
Rather, the responsible and respectful handler of the Word of God, as someone trained by Steve Lawson should be expected to be, would know that one must take all the relevant passages and harmonize them all. This is as shallow a response as a papist immediately blurting "James 2! James 2!" when he is exhorted to adhere to justification by faith alone.

Scalf is welcome to present an argument based on exegesis of 1 Thessalonians 5:12-13. Remember that, to create a doctrine drawn from Scripture, he must harmonize it with the content I have presented, with Jesus' words to the disciples as mentioned in my first article, and with passages such as Ephesians 5:21, answering precisely how it is that "a pastor has authority" and yet we are all commanded to submit one to another. My paradigm can account for all of that data. Can his?

Finally on this point, 1 Timothy 5:17, Acts 20:28, and Matthew 18:15–20 are irrelevant to this discussion.

Equivocation Fallacy

Alan continually makes the argument (in various ways throughout the article) that “Authority (ἐξουσία) is never used of elders in the in the New Testament”. Therefore, he concludes “elders have no authority.”

I have endeavored to flesh out my argument above. I do not believe it is appropriate to say "elders have no authority". I also do not believe it is appropriate to say "elders have authority".
Why is this?
Because I do not believe that in the context of Christian-to-Christian peer relationships, the idea that a man "has authority" can be coherently explained. Messages carry authority in those relationships. Men do not. We should say things that make sense. I invite Scalf to make the attempt.

Category Errors

Alan dismisses Titus’ authority because it was unique and temporary and therefore not relevant today

I do not see how I "dismissed" Titus' authority. It is not a dismissal to say that his situation was pretty unique; why is that controversial? Was any man alive today hand-picked by an apostle of the Lord and sent a New Testament epistle to help instruct him with God-breathed words specific to his situation?
Scalf argues that Titus and Timothy are "patterns for pastoral ministry". The term "pastoral" and "ministry" are heavily baggage-laden. Does Scalf present an argument for this, or mere assertion?
What is his argument that 2 Timothy 2:2 has anything to do with "authority"?
What is his argument that Titus 1:5 necessarily teaches that "elder" is an office, since "office" is translator gloss in English, not in the original Greek text?

Crucially, Scalf says this:

their function includes authoritative teaching and correction

What does "authoritative teaching" mean? Scalf never defines it. Indeed, he had earlier dropped this line indicating great self-unawareness:

depending, again, on how one defines the term authority

This is essentially a concession of the argument so far.

I above raised key questions. To help illustrate further, I offer here some more:

1. Consider a serial rapist in prison who hears the Gospel, is convicted of sin, and is born again. One hour later he tells a fellow convict: "Repent and believe the Gospel." Is this authoritative teaching?
2. If Pastor Scalf tells that convict the same thing, is that authoritative teaching?
3. Is the "authoritative"ness different in those two cases?
4. Suppose that convict is visited the next day by a Southern Baptist prison chaplain who tries to guide this newly born-again believer into Moralistic Therapeutic Deism. The convict tells the chaplain to repent and believe the Gospel. Is this authoritative teaching?
5. Is the "authoritative"ness different from when Scalf excoriates the Southern Baptist Convention from his pulpit for the same (assuming he would ever do so)?
6. Does the authority rest in the message or the messenger?

Then Amos answered and said to Amaziah, “I am not a prophet, nor am I the son of a prophet; for I am a herdsman and a grower of sycamore figs. But Yahweh took me from following the flock, and Yahweh said to me, ‘Go prophesy to My people Israel’ (Amos 7:14-15).

Argument from Silence

To repeat his refrain that ἐξουσία is never used for elders, therefore elders have no authority is to argue from silence.

This was not the argument from my article.

Either-Or Fallacy

the Bible teaches both mutual submission (Eph 5:21) and authoritative eldership (Heb 13:17)

Hebrews 13 does not mention "elders" (indeed, the word is absent from the entire epistle, as are the words "pastor" and "overseer"), and whether it is teaching "authority" is the very question at hand! And who has provided the exegesis so far? Only one of us.
Scalf would need first to define "authority" as he is using it, then show how it is possible to construct a scenario of church life, etc, and the interaction between "clergy" and "laity" such that

1. he has described a paradigm in which no caste system is in place, no Christian superior nor inferior to another positionally, in terms of rank,
2. the availability of a "layperson" to bring correction to a "clergy"man is upheld, and
3. he can present a coherent idea of what (mutual) submission means, based on his own paradigm. He has so far defined neither "authority" nor "submission".

In reality, the word "authority" has a meaning and a definition. The tyrants whom I criticise in my writings understand that and operate accordingly. Scalf suggests he is different than they. Clarification is welcomed.

Begs the Question

It goes something like this, “There is no biblical authority for elders because church authority is unbiblical”... Alan assumes that all ecclesiastical authority is unbiblical...

Hopefully on further reflection, Scalf will realize the difference between
-a (provisional) conclusion which is given after considerable exegesis
and
-an assumption I start with.
I started with "Bible = God's Word" and arrived at "we find the phrases 'church authority', 'authority of the local church'... and 'authority of the pastor(s)/elder(s)' to be without biblical support." If Scalf disagrees, some carefully-handled Scripture would be most welcome to demonstrate my error(s).

Reductionism

Alan’s article artificially flattens all New Testament teaching about leadership into mutual humility and denies genuine authority in church government.

Just what is "genuine authority in church government"? We're still waiting for the definition. That's where his argument can begin. As it is, he hasn't really even taken the first step.

Reducing the entire concept of church government to “just be humble” ignores the functional instructions in the Pastoral Epistles...

Which instructions were beyond the scope of my article. Yet remember, again, the keys to producing a harmonized and systematic whole when considering a biblical topic. Truth is not arrived at with a knee-jerk counter-attack of a passage that seems to teach the opposite of what another teaches. The truth of Scripture/tradition is that Scripture is the ultimate authority and judge of all traditions, not that zero tradition should ever be considered.
The truth of the mechanism of justification is that it is by grace alone through faith alone, not that good works are never expected to be present in the life of a born-again follower of Jesus.
The truth of the Hypostatic Union is that Jesus is both God and man, the God-man, not that He is a created being nor that He never became tired or hungry nor was tempted.

Similarly, the truth of this question is that leadership can (and should) be present in a local assembly, but it should not look like the ways Jesus condemns among the "Benefactors" among the Gentiles. Scalf's ideas seem to include some element of leadership as office-possession, where a given man is supposed to be trusted to be a leader apart from his having earned that trust and demonstrated that leadership. Take for example the common scenario, including Scalf's own move to Tulsa, where a clergyman is hired/"called" to "pastor" a congregation before the congregation knows him. But we will leave it to Scalf to define his own position, which he didn't do this time.

Review

In my first article, I gave considerable attention to what "authority" is not in peer-to-peer Christian contexts.
In this article, I have defined what authority is in those contexts, while reminding you that Scalf never did so.
I have shown that Scalf misunderstood my argument in multiple ways, while pointing out that he barely made an argument himself beyond simply nay-saying me.
I have exhorted Scalf to pay close attention to his next response, repeatedly reminding him and you that we must read all that Scripture has to say on a topic before conclusively forming doctrine.
I have, finally, contended that the oft-used phrase "church authority" is almost completely incoherent, and invited Scalf to show how I am mistaken.

May the Lord Jesus be glorified in the exposition of His Word and in His people now and forever.

Concerning him we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food. For everyone who partakes only of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is an infant. But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil (Hebrews 5:11-14).