The nature of power in
Pastoral Ministry
Chapter 2
A New Testament
Understanding
As the New Testament forms
the basis of the understanding and beliefs from which today’s church operates,
or at least claims to operate, it
provides us with a basis for examining the structures of power and of authority
within which the present day Christian community works. The New Testament has much to offer in the
way of encouragement and criticism to the structures of the church today, as
Cyril H Powell (1963: 71) says
“No one has
faced the full implications of the New Testament who has not realised that it
is a series of documents witnessing to the inbreaking of power.”
In this chapter we begin
with a detailed look at the concepts of
‘power’ and ‘authority’ in the life and work of Jesus, and in the
records of what is commonly called the ‘Apostolic era of the church’, found in
the New Testament, and the relevance of these ideas to Pastoral ministry in the
Christian church today.
‘dunamis’- power
The first term that we will
consider is that of dunamis,
Grundmann (1964: 284) offers this, incomplete though useful, consideration of
its meaning, “Words deriving from the
stem duna- all have
the basic meaning of ‘being able,’ of ‘capacity’ in virtue of an ability…” This definition, when considered alongside
the meaning Harris gives to ‘power’, quoted at the beginning of this study,
offers us a start in considering how those who wrote about Jesus considered his
attitude to power.
As is nearly always the case
with the church of the apostolic era, that is the years following the life,
death and resurrection of Jesus, all major teachings are rooted and grounded in
Christ, and any teachings are given their
authority from the Incarnation and life, ministry, death and resurrection
of Jesus. There are certain difficulties
in approaching Biblical material of this time as we consider how much is
authentically ‘Jesus’ and how much is the result of a generation of believers
placing their own concerns on Jesus lips with half-remembered or heavily
interpreted phrases. Whatever the case,
the material itself has value both as an attempt to interpret the life of Jesus
and as the record of Christian communities struggling with many of the issues
we are considering here.
For the first generation of
Christians, who received their witness from the Apostles and from others who
actually knew Jesus, he was the example of one who had within himself the power
of God, and through whom the power of God is exercised. Jesus ministry is guided, inspired and
energised by the life of the Holy Spirit and his power is always exercised
within the will of God the Father and in fellowship with God.
This power is what makes
possible the life and work of Jesus. It
is imparted as part of his relationship with God, and in relation to his
obedience and working out the will of God.
It is a power that depends on his aligning himself and fellowship with
God the Father. It is a personal power
and contains the ability to change the lives of those he encounters. It is not a magical power, it is the
revelation of the will and purpose of God.
So for the author/editors of
the New Testament, the basis for the ministry of Jesus, the reason for his
successes in healing, miraculous works and exorcism are all rooted within his
relationship to God. His power is part
of, and the result of, his working within the will of God, a God of healing and
love, of righteousness and might. This
power was inherent in Jesus as a minister of God, as a person of ‘charismatic’
authority, as a mediator of God’s teaching and wisdom, and therefore as the one
who manifested the will and purpose of God through the action of the Holy
Spirit.
Beyond Jesus’ ability to
make real the power and activity of God, comes an equally important understanding
of the authority that allowed him to
speak the way he did of God and to do the work he was engaged in. Robinson (1962: 26) says “Since authority is
useless without the power to make it effective, the distinction between
authority and power is often ignored…”
The two terms have become entwined, particularly in the structure of the
church where they are intimately bound together, but Jesus had an authority
that was perceived by others and when he acted with a power that changed lives
that authority was strengthened.
‘exousia’ - authority
Jesus ministry is marked
throughout the Gospels by the recurring theme of authority, often in the
guise of the wonderment of those who saw : “’What kind of utterance is
this? For with authority and power he
commands the unclean spirits; and out they come’” (Cf. Mt. 7:28-29, 21:23, Mk 1:22, 27, 11:28, Lk
4:36, 20:2, 8, Jn 5:27) It related not
only to Jesus’ actions but also to his words
“… he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.’ Mk 1:22 It is this authority that is the hallmark of
Jesus distinctive ministry and a break with much of the rabbinical tradition
that weighed up the arguments and interpretations that had built up around a
passage and then offered an alternative or an addendum rather than a radical
break.
Though Jesus was educated
and grounded within a Rabbinical understanding and framework, his style was not
that of a traditional Rabbi, he presented his teaching in a different way, with
much of the past with statements framed in terms such as ‘you have heard it
said…..but I say…’ It is this authority
that astounds so many and challenges those both within and without the Faith of
the Jews. It is this authority that is
at the basis of Jesus pastoral encounters with those he meets during his
itinerant ministry.
Charismatic and Institutional Authority & Power
According to the Gospel
accounts Jesus’ authority and his power came from the security he gained from
his relationship with God, and his certainty that all he did was within the
will of God the Father. The authority
with which he taught was the basis for his ministry, Shogren (1992: 52)
examines at length the many different aspects of Jesus authority and his power
in his teaching and his work, and includes the observation that:
“On several occasions, Jesus states that the
Son of Man possesses unusual authority.
At the Parousia the Son of man will appear in power and glory (Mk 13:26
par.) But in the present the Son of man
can, for example forgive sins.”
Shogren tells us, “…Jesus is
demonstrating his personal authority
to interpret God’s law” (Italics
mine). This interpretation is only
possible because Jesus has a relationship with God and because those he
encounters are open to the transformative power that comes through that
relationship. On many occasions Jesus
explicitly cites the faith of those he encounters as the agent of change in the
experience, for example in Mk 5:27-32, Mk 9:24 , Lk 7:2-10, 50. In other parts of the Gospel Jesus talks about
the need for faith and prayer throughout his ministry he talks of the need to
obey God in order to receive the power and authority needed to be ministers of
the Gospel.
Jesus power was a charismatic power, it was based in
himself, his relationship with the divine and the way he lived and acted. There was no institutional backing for his
power, he took no authority from position or status, he held no title or office
and his function was not clearly defined.
He was a leader, a pastor, a teacher, but none of this was recognised by
the institutions of his day. His
pastoral relationships were based on his own authority, and seemed to need no
recognition by the religious or social structures of his society.
Subverting misuse of power
Jesus did not hold on to
power in such a way that he could be accused of controlling or manipulating
others. He offered a critique of power
by his words and his actions and left the church with an example of using power
that did not take advantage of those in need or abuse those who sought help or
guidance.
Jesus used the word servant
about himself on many occasions and was, from very early in the church’s life,
identified with the figure known as the ‘suffering servant’ in the writings of
Deutero-Isaiah the . The Gospel of St
Luke, 22.25-27, recounts these words of Jesus:
“But he
said to them, ‘The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those in
authority are called benefactors. But
not so with you; rather the greatest among you must become like the youngest,
and the leader like one who serves.’”
Jesus himself lives out his
radical critique of power in the way he speaks out against abusive religious
structures or practices, in the way he touches those alienated and oppressed by
society, and, ultimately, in the moving act of washing the feet of his
disciples on the night before he died.
Actions such as the symbolic
washing of feet at ‘the Last Supper’, particularly when held alongside Jesus’
teachings contradict expected notions of power which seek to place leaders over
followers and masters above servants.
Jesus life and teaching are all the more striking from the mouth of one
who held such personal authority, and such obvious power to change people’s
lives. Based, as many of his teachings
were, in notions of radical subversion of unjust or abusive systems, Jesus is
keen to prevent ‘power’ being used to enslave rather than to free. Early on in St Luke’s Gospel Jesus is said to
have spelled out his agenda by quoting the prophet Isaiah. In the synagogue he is quoted as reading:
“The Spirit of the Lord is
upon me,
because
he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor.
He has send me to proclaim release to the
captives
and recovery of sight to the blind,
to let the oppressed go free,
to proclaim the year of the
Lord’s favour.” Lk. 4:18-19
Jesus’ ministry was one
characterised by a charismatic style of leadership, brought about by his own
conviction of the authority, and the corollary of power, given to him by his
calling. He acted decisively, often disturbing
the preconceptions of those he ministered to and those who sought to criticise
his work. But, alongside this confidence
and the effectiveness of his pastoral care, the Gospel records tell us that
Jesus was also aware of the fact that all of his ministry took place within
limits, the limits of the faith of those who sought his help, and of this own
human frailties. As part of this his
life was lived in response to his understanding of God’s care and provision for
human beings and was punctuated by prayer and reflection which allowed him to
assess and direct his actions.
This model was passed on to
the first followers of Jesus, who became the Apostles, leaders of the first
generation of the Church. Following the
earthly life of Jesus we see further developments in the way that power and
authority come to be a part of the ongoing life of the Church.
The Apostles
The power and the authority
that Jesus demonstrates throughout his ministry is conferred to the disciples
both throughout his life and after his resurrection. Shogren (1992: 52) says
“…even
while he (Jesus) is on earth he enables his disciples to duplicate his deeds:
to preach and to do powerful acts in his name, such as exorcism, healing and
raising the dead.”
Jesus also delegates to the
Apostles the authority to forgive sins, as they are told they may ‘bind and
loose’ (Jn. 20:22-23), and Jesus says that they will surpass him in the works
that they will perform. They are to
carry on the work of proclaiming and of living the Gospel, the good news, which
means they will share in the work that Jesus declared was his, of freeing
people from injustice, the misuse of power and of abuse.
The ‘charismatic’ authority
given to Jesus by his relationship to God is, it seems, to be carried on by
those who follow him, who also must continue in relationship with God, who will
be guided and inspired by God and from whom all power that they might exercise
will come. Those who carry on the work
of Christ, who follow the example of his ministry and who perform similar
healings, exorcisms and ‘signs of the Kingdom of God’ exercise their
evangelistic and pastoral ministry within the framework of the power and
authority that Jesus advocated. Not only
this but they gain their identity and their raison
d’être from this relationship with the Christ who they believe to be alive
and active in their own lives and the lives of those they encounter.
Probably the greatest
exponent of these apologetics is St. Paul, who through an encounter with the
‘risen Christ’ turns from persecuting the church to being an apostle alongside
those who lived with Christ through his ministry, death and resurrection. St Paul himself has the experience of a life
changed through the intervention of Christ and he adds to the debate on the
nature of power in pastoral relationships as he teaches what he believes the
church should be as Christians follow the example of Christ.
‘kenosis’ - emptying
One of the most startling
terms that Paul uses with reference to Christ is the verse from the letter to
the Philippians in Chapter 2 verses 6 and 7, he states,
“who,
though he was in the form of God,
did not
regard equality with God
as
something to be exploited,
but emptied
himself,
taking the
form of a slave,
being born
in human likeness.”
The key Greek term in this
passage is ‘ekenwsen’ - from
the root verb ‘kenow’ - ‘to
make empty’. This is an important factor
in St Paul’s understanding of power and authority in the Christian church.
For St Paul, one of the
foundational theological understandings he held and taught was the divinity of
Christ alongside the humanity of Christ.
This contains the understanding that alongside the loss of ‘divine
status’ in the incarnation Jesus allowed himself to lose the inherent
superiority, power and control that is part of the divine nature. In this Jesus is an exemplar for those who
seek to continue his ministry and continue the work of proclaiming the ‘reign
of God’ in the lives of human beings, and its concomitants of bringing healing,
love, liberation, peace and ‘life in abundance’ ( a paraphrase of Jn. 10:10) to
those who respond to the ‘evangel’ -
the good news.
This first generation of the
Church took their grounding in the charismatic style of Jesus. They led from personal authority rather than
from institutional backing. In one of the
New Testament Epistles St. Paul even disparages those who rely on ‘letters of
commendation’ to give them authority claiming that his authority came from
Christ alone.
In this St Paul continues
the charismatic style of leadership.
Having no ‘institutional’ power or authority vested in him, he is keen
to explain his credentials in terms of his encounter with Christ and his
faithfulness as an Apostle. Many of his
letters contain long passages concerned with spelling out his right to be
called an Apostle and to exercise leadership in that manner. For St Paul the concept of being an ‘Apostle’
would seem to be a mainly functional concern, being an Apostle is something he does,
it represents the task assigned to him by Christ. At this point there is no concern between
clarifying the relationship between office, title and function: a concern that
would arise in the next generation of the church.
This tension, between
‘charismatic’ and ‘institutional’ power is one that carries on through the
first generation of Christians up to the church of the present day. In simplistic terms ‘charismatic’ aspects of
power are personally based and gain their authority from the character of the
individual minister. On the other hand,
‘institutional’ aspects are based in the structures within which the church,
caring agency or community operates and mean that the minister is accountable
beyond his or her self, as well as holding a certain depth of power offered by
the minister’s place in a larger organisation.
The Post-Apostolic Era
As the church becomes
established and grows, we see in the New Testament accounts the development of
a framework within which leadership take place. In the time following the
apostolic era, as those who had personally known Jesus died out, the authority
given to leaders by virtue having been part of Jesus life on earth began to die
with them. The Post-Apostolic Church of
the second century would have been made up of many diverse groups who up to
that point were in contact with an apostle, or one of those who was close to
the first followers of Jesus.
With the death of the
‘Apostolic generation’ comes a need to bind the ekklesia, the ekklesia, together: moving from the ‘charismatic’
model of those inspired by their contact with Jesus to a more structural,
‘institutional’, model of leadership which would bind together the many groups
of Christians spread throughout the Near and Middle East. It is in the light of this that the idea of
‘overseer’, the ‘episkopoV’, takes on
more meaning. Those who were recognised
as gifted leaders of small groups of Christians were probably given a
structural role in the Church as they sought to bring together various separate
groups of Christians under a more consolidated leadership.
As leaders take authority
within the burgeoning church fellowships there comes a need to rationalise and
explain their roles and create an apologetic for their function, authority and
administration of power. It is widely
accepted that initially the early church had two models of ministry , diakonoV (diaconos, deacon) & episkopoi (episcopoi, bishops), the former
of these terms means ‘servant’ and the latter ‘overseer’. The individuals who filled these offices were
considered to be the ‘ecclesiastical descendants’ of the apostles who were the
original followers of Christ.
In the New Testament,
however, we have no clearly defined roles for these individuals beyond their
titles. It seems obvious that the bishop
existed to bring together groups of disparate believers who lacked a common
leader. Likewise within the small units
of Christian fellowships there was a need to have certain individuals who
‘serviced’ the community, taking care of daily considerations and the care of
the everyday running of the fellowship - these became ‘deacons’,
It is as this development
occurs that we discover a tension between title, office and function. At what point did being a bishop become a
recognised office over and above the general function of ‘keeping people together’,
and therefore have an implicit role of being ‘in authority’ over Christian
believers. Likewise, when did bishops
become ‘title-holders’ in recognition of that ‘implicit authority’. These questions may be unanswerable, but
asking them means we recognise that the structures of the church changed
drastically in the time of the Post-Apostolic era.. Broadly speaking the church goes from being
small groups loosely bound by allegiance to charismatic leaders to a structure
that endeavours to hold itself together by transmitting authority through
office and title, so the functions of leadership and the function of the church
can continue.
