One of the issues which today is being discussed and debated among Christians and especially Adventists is that of “Ecclesiastical Authority.” Before we consider this important subject, let us make sure that we understand the meaning of the words “ecclesiastical” and “authority.” The word “ecclesiastical” means: “of the church, the organization of the church, or the clergy.” It comes from the Greek word ekklesia which means: “assembly of the people.” According to Webster’s New World Dictionary, the word “authority” means: “the power or right to give commands, enforce obedience, take action, or make final decisions; jurisdiction; this power as delegated to another; authorization.” Therefore, according to these definitions, the expression “ecclesiastical authority” should be understood to mean: The authority of the church in its organized capacity, and of its clergy—priests in the Old Testament times, and apostles or ministers, in the New.
In discussions and debates regarding “ecclesiastical authority,” emphasis is usually placed on that part of the definition referring to the clergy. However, this subject needs to be considered in its totality, according to the complete meaning and combination of the words, “ecclesiastical” and “authority.” Therefore, let us keep in mind that when we use the expression “ecclesiastical authority,” we are referring to the authority of the church, as delegated to it by the Word of God, unless we specifically refer to the clergy.
There are many professed Christians today, and even some Adventists, who are greatly affected by the spirit of independence. They are very much afraid of, and are reluctant, or actually refuse to submit to the “authority” of the church because of the possibility that those holding responsibilities in the church may abuse it, and deprive them of their freedom, or individual rights. But does this mean that we should do away with the “authority” which God has established in His church simply because some may abuse it? Definitely not!
“The spirit of pulling away from fellow laborers, the spirit of disorganization, is in the very air we breathe. By some, all efforts to establish order are regarded as dangerous—as a restriction of personal liberty, and hence to be feared as popery. These deceived souls regard it a virtue to boast of their freedom to think and act independently. They declare that they will not take any man’s say-so, that they are amenable to no man. I have been instructed that it is Satan’s special effort to lead men to feel that God is pleased to have them choose their own course independent of the counsel of their brethren.” 1
The discussion and debate regarding “ecclesiastical authority” actually began in heaven. Lucifer rebelled against God’s government, law, and authority, and especially against the authority of Christ, through whom God had created all things, and through whom He exercised the mighty counsels of His will. Although he was highly honored in heaven, and next to Christ in position, Lucifer was still not satisfied. He coveted the glory, power, and authority of Christ, but not His character. He aspired to be equal with God (Isaiah 14:13, 14) in influence and authority.
“The preference shown to Christ he [Lucifer] declared an act of injustice both to himself and to all the heavenly host, and announced that he would no longer submit to the invasion of his rights and theirs. He would never again acknowledge the supremacy of Christ.” 2
God did everything possible to bring Lucifer back from the abyss toward which he was heading. The loyal angels also pleaded with him and his supporters to return back to their allegiance to God before it was too late. Lucifer denounced them as being deluded slaves. Many of the disaffected angels were inclined to return to God, but Lucifer had another deception ready for them.
“The mighty revolter now de-clared that the angels who had united with him had gone too far to return; that he was acquainted with the divine law, and knew that God would not forgive. He declared that all who should submit to the authority of Heaven would be stripped of their honor, and degraded from their position. For himself, he was determined never again to acknowledge the authority of Christ. The only course remaining for him and his followers, he said, was to assert their liberty, and gain by force the rights which had not been willingly accorded them.” 3
In Abraham’s time, men chose to ignore God’s law and authority, and began to worship the false gods of their own imagination. Even those who claimed to worship the true God had compromised their faith. Abraham was one of the few who remained true to God. Therefore, God called him out of his country in order to preserve the “true faith” on the earth. Notice what the Lord was able to say about Abraham’s exercise of authority: “For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord.” Genesis 18:19.
“In early times the father was the ruler and priest of his own family, and he exercised authority over his children, even after they had families of their own. His descendants were taught to look up to him as their head, in both religious and secular matters. This patriarchal system of government Abraham endeavored to perpetuate, as it tended to preserve the knowledge of God. It was necessary to bind the members of the household together, in order to build up a barrier against the idolatry that had become so widespread and so deep-seated.” 4
“Abraham’s affection for his children and his household led him to guard their religious faith, to impart to them a knowledge of the divine statutes, as the most precious legacy he could transmit to them, and through them to the world. All were taught that they were under the rule of the God of heaven. There was to be no oppression on the part of parents, and no disobedience on the part of children. God’s law had appointed to each his duties, and only in obedience to it could any secure happiness or prosperity.” 5
The government of Israel in Moses’ time was a “theocracy.” This was a form of government whereby God was the King. He governed His people through His chosen servants, whom He “authorized” to delegate certain responsibilities to others. Those to whom God delegated authority were not empowered to legislate. They were merely to enforce the laws that God had already given. The principles of “authority” established by God in the days of Moses were and continued to be the basis of Israel’s existence, both as a nation and as a church.
“The government of Israel was administered in the name and by the authority of God. The work of Moses, of the seventy elders, of the rulers and judges, was simply to enforce the laws that God had given; they had no authority to legislate for the nation. This was, and continued to be, the condition of Israel’s existence as a nation. From age to age men inspired by God were sent to instruct the people and to direct in the enforcement of the laws.” 6
“The government of Israel was characterized by the most thorough organization, wonderful alike for its completeness and its simplicity. The order so strikingly displayed in the perfection and arrangement of all God’s created works was manifest in the Hebrew economy. God was the center of authority and government, the sovereign of Israel. Moses stood as their visible leader, by God’s appointment, to administer the laws in His name. From the elders of the tribes a council of seventy was afterward chosen to assist Moses in the general affairs of the nation. Next came the priests, who consulted the Lord in the sanctuary. Chiefs, or princes, ruled over the tribes. Under these were ‘captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, and captains over fifties, and captains over tens,’ and, lastly, officers who might be employed for special duties.” 7
In the days of Samuel, the Israelites wanted to change from a “theocratic” to a “monarchical” form of government. They wanted to have a human king to rule over them so they could be like other nations. Although it was not His will for the Israelites to be like other nations, God permitted them to have their own way, so they could exercise their freedom of choice and learn by bitter experience the result of rejecting His rule over them. However, before appointing them a king, the Lord instructed Samuel to tell them exactly what would be the result of their choice.
“But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the Lord. And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them. According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee.” 1 Samuel 8:6–8.
“And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the Lord will not hear you in that day. Neverthe-less the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us; that we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles.” 1 Samuel 8:18–20.
The Israelites asked Samuel for a king so they could be like other nations. This was just the opposite of what God wanted them to be! The heathen nations had rejected God’s authority and His law, and had set up their own false systems of worship which included all manner of abominable practices. They also established oppressive forms of government to suit their proud, selfish, and carnal hearts, and now the Israelites wanted to be like them. How tragic!
“When the Israelites first settled in Canaan they acknowledged the principles of the theocracy, and the nation prospered under the rule of Joshua. But increase of population and intercourse with other nations brought a change. The people adopted many of the customs of their heathen neighbors and thus sacrificed to a great degree their own peculiar, holy character. Gradually they lost their reverence for God and ceased to prize the honor of being His chosen people. Attracted by the pomp and display of heathen monarchs, they tired of their own simplicity. Jealousy and envy sprung up between the tribes. Internal dissensions made them weak; they were continually exposed to the invasion of their heathen foes, and the people were coming to believe that in order to maintain their standing among the nations, the tribes must be united under a strong central government. As they departed from obedience to God’s law, they desired to be freed from the rule of their divine Sover-eign; and thus the demand for a monarchy became widespread throughout Israel.” 8
By the time of Christ, the Jewish nation had lost sight of their high and holy privileges as God’s peculiar people. They failed to fulfill their holy mission. Instead of sharing the light of truth which God had given them with the world, they became reclusive and shut themselves away from the world in order to escape temptation. As a result, priests and rulers became fixed in a round of ceremonies, and became satisfied with a formal, legal religion. When the Messiah finally came, they were not prepared to receive Him.
“Priests and rulers became fixed in a rut of ceremonialism. They were satisfied with a legal religion, and it was impossible for them to give to others the living truths of heaven. They thought their own righteousness all-sufficient, and did not desire that a new element should be brought into their religion. The good will of God to men they did not accept as something apart from themselves, but connected it with their own merit because of their good works. The faith that works by love and purifies the soul could find no place for union with the religion of the Pharisees, made up of ceremonies and the injunctions of men.” 9
“As they departed from God, the Jews in a great degree lost sight of the teaching of the ritual service. That service had been instituted by Christ Himself. In every part it was a symbol of Him; and it had been full of vitality and spiritual beauty. But the Jews lost the spiritual life from their ceremonies, and clung to the dead forms. They trusted to the sacrifices and ordinances themselves, instead of resting upon Him to whom they pointed. In order to supply the place of that which they had lost, the priests and rabbis multiplied requirements of their own; and the more rigid they grew, the less of the love of God was manifested. They measured their holiness by the multitude of their ceremonies, while their hearts were filled with pride and hypocrisy.” 10
After the impartation of the Holy Spirit to the disciples on the day of Pentecost, the membership of the church increased greatly. We read that on one occasion about three thousand souls were added to the church (Acts 2:41). The word of God also states that, “the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.” Verse 47. This rapid increase in membership placed a heavy burden on the apostles, and a redistribution of responsibilities became an absolute necessity.
“No one man, or even one set of men, could continue to bear these burdens alone, without imperiling the future prosperity of the church. There was necessity for a further distribution of the responsibilities which had been borne so faithfully by a few during the earlier days of the church. The apostles must now take an important step in the perfecting of gospel order in the church, by laying upon others some of the burdens thus far borne by themselves.
“Summoning a meeting of the believers, the apostles were led by the Holy Spirit to outline a plan for the better organization of all the working forces of the church. The time had come, the apostles stated, when the spiritual leaders having the oversight of the church should be relieved from the task of distributing to the poor and from similar burdens, so that they might be free to carry forward the work of preaching the gospel.” 11
In the experience of Paul’s conversion, there are many important lessons which we can learn in connection with the way the Lord’s regards His organized church on earth, and the authority which He has delegated to His servants. Although Christ revealed Himself personally to the apostle Paul, and could have told him what he should do, instead, He directed him to His organized church where he was to receive instructions from His delegated representatives.
“Thus Jesus gave sanction to the authority of His organized church and placed Saul in connection with His appointed agencies on earth. Christ had now a church as His representative on earth, and to it belonged the work of directing the repentant sinner in the way of life.” 12
“Notwithstanding the fact that Paul was personally taught by God, he had no strained ideas of individual responsibility. While looking to God for direct guidance, he was ever ready to recognize the authority vested in the body of believers united in church fellowship. He felt the need of counsel and when matters of importance arose, he was glad to lay these before the church, and to unite with his brethren in seeking God for wisdom to make right decisions. Even ‘the spirits of the prophets,’ he declared, ‘are subject to the prophets. For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints’ (1 Cor. 14:32, 33). With Peter, he taught that all united in church capacity should be ‘subject one to another’ (1 Peter 5:5).” 13
“Before being sent forth as missionaries to the heathen world, [Paul and Barnabas] were solemnly dedicated to God by fasting and prayer and the laying on of hands. Thus they were authorized by the church, not only to teach the truth, but to perform the rite of baptism and to organize churches, being invested with full ecclesiastical authority.” 14
“God has made His church on the earth a channel of light, and through it He communicates His purposes and His will. He does not give to one of His servants an experience independent of and contrary to the experience of the church itself. Neither does He give one man a knowledge of His will for the entire church while the church—Christ’s body—is left in darkness. In His providence He places His servants in close connection with His church in order that they may have less confidence in themselves and greater confidence in others whom He is leading out to advance His work.
“There have ever been in the church those who are constantly inclined toward individual independence. They seem unable to realize that independence of spirit is liable to lead the human agent to have too much confidence in himself and to trust in his own judgment rather than to respect the counsel and highly esteem the judgment of his brethren, especially of those in the office that God has appointed for the leadership of His people. God has invested His church with special authority and power which no one can be justified in disregarding and despising, for he who does this despises the voice of God.” 15
All legitimate authority, whether parental, ecclesiastical or secular, comes from God (Romans 13:1–7). The Lord has delegated authority to His organized church on earth, and through the church to its individual officers. God also established the rights, duties, and privileges of the individual members of the church. The church of God on earth is to be governed according to the principles which He has already established in His Word. The church on earth is one with the church in heaven. The decisions of the church on earth, which are in harmony with the principles of truth revealed in His Word, are ratified in heaven (Matt. 16:19; 18:18). May the Lord give us grace, and help us to understand this important subject.