As long as the Seventh-day Adventist Church exists in the world, it has work to do and tasks to fulfill. It must live to give glory to God (see Eph. 1:3, 4, 11-14), share the gospel of Jesus Christ with all humanity (see Matt. 28:19, 20), serve those who are in need of comfort and help, and to build up and provide for the spiritual well-being of those who are drawn into its fellowship by the Holy Spirit (see Eph. 4:16; Jude 20; 1 Cor. 14:26). It is not merely a gathering of people who come together to celebrate Jesus Christ and His teachings, but a people called together by God as part of His plan of redemption for humankind. The church does not exist for its own sake, but rather to accomplish the commission that was given to it by its Lord.

In the course of carrying out this commission, the church is constantly confronted by the issue of authority. Thus, while the gospel message remains unchanged, the expression of its claims can hardly remain unaffected by the historical and cultural nature of the various contexts, geographical and others, in which it is proclaimed and lived out. How is the church to know to what degree it is fulfilling the divine intention? How will it make sure that in its teaching and proclamation it has proved itself to be independent of the spirit and philosophy of the age, and that it is really allowing the gospel message and it alone to speak reliably and authentically? Where shall such authority be found, and how will it express itself? We are faced here with one of the most difficult and most challenging issues the church never ceases to face.

It is the purpose of this paper, first of all, to recall briefly the biblical view regarding authority as it relates to God, Jesus Christ, and the apostles; second, to indicate how and why, on that basis, authority is expressed in the local and in the universal church; third, to point out what I regard as major characteristics of the earliest Christian council that met in Jerusalem (see Acts 15) and its relation to church authority as well as to the charismatic nature of the church; and finally, to suggest how believers should respond to authority conceived by the New Testament writers as diakonia.

It is hardly possible within the brief space of this presentation to do more than suggest some of the more important issues that need consideration and a general way in which they might be addressed.

Authority as a person

The concept of authority, in general, is largely influenced by the notion men and women have of the society in which they live or in which they wish to live. "Authority" is not an easy term to define, and there seems to be no limit to what it may mean. Yet there are components of the concept that one can ill afford to change.

Seventh-day Adventists share with all other Christians the conviction that God is the source and ground of authority for the Christian church. He alone is self-existent and supreme (see Ex. 3:14; Isa. 44:6; 1 Tim. 6:15, 16); He is Creator,¹ Redeemer² and Sustainer.³ As Lord and King of all creation and history, He has the right to exercise authority over humanity. To Him the whole universe is accountable. Yet our knowledge of God must be a knowledge from God, for only as He reveals Himself does God make Himself known to us.

In revelation, we hold, God discloses Himself and shares His word with us. This divine speaking came to a remarkable expression in the prophets, who proclaimed God's word to His people (Heb. 1:1). Yet the supreme agency of God's self-revelation is Jesus Christ, the incarnate Word of God (John 1:1-3, 14; 1 Tim. 3:16) at once the locus and content of God's revelation (John 1:18; 3:31; 8:23). His incarnation is the culminating act by which God disclosed Himself (John 14:9; 2 Cor. 14:6). In Him divine revelation and authority find focus and finality. As both Saviour (Luke 19:10; John 3:17; Acts 13:23)⁴ and Lord (Rom. 14:8; 1 Cor. 7:22),⁵ Christ Jesus is the final authority as the ultimate Revelation of God. He is the divine Sovereign of all (Matt. 28:18; Acts 10:36; Rom. 9:5),⁶ the King of His people (1 Tim. 6:15; 1 Peter 3:22; Rev. 11:15), the Word of God (John 1:1-3, l4). Declared "Son of God with power" (Rom. l:4)* by His resurrection, He is the Lord (Phil. 2:9-11). To Him "all authority. . . in heaven and on earth" is given (Matt. 28:18). All creation is subject to Him (Phil. 2:10), and He will sit on God's judgment seat (2 Cor. 5:10) to judge the living and the dead (see Acts 10:42).⁷

In other words, in the Christian faith the Word of God, which holds authority over us, is known first and foremost as a person, i.e., Jesus Christ. While on earth He revealed the Father to us, announced the kingdom of God, and proclaimed the gospel of reconciliation. He also chose a handful of apostles so that His word and testimony might be faithfully proclaimed and interpreted in later generations (Mark 3: 13, 14). They were not merely witnesses to the crucified and risen Lord, for this would aptly describe, as 1 Cor. 15:6 indicates, "more than five hundred brethren." Not only had the apostles seen the Lord (1 Cor. 9:1; Acts 22:6-8); they had also been commissioned by Him (Matt. 28:18-20; Acts 2:1-4; Rom. 1:1; Acts 13:2-4; 22:21). They were the instruments of God's grace (1 Cor. 15:10; Rom. 1:5), and their primary task was the preaching of the gospel of salvation (see 1 Cor. 1:17).

The apostles and the spoken word

In the narrowest sense of that flexible term,⁸ the apostles were the twelve appointed by Jesus Himself (Matt. 10:1-4), Matthias replacing Judas, and Paul.⁹ As the commissioned witnesses to the word of Jesus, crucified and risen, theirs was a unique position of authority. Their authority was not their own, an authority under their control but mediated authority, Christ's authority mediated through them. Their proclamation and interpretation of Christ was not an intrusion upon God's revelation in Christ but very much part of it. They were not correctors, but conveyors of it.

As preachers and teachers they were endowed with a special anointing of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:18-20; John 20:21-23). Among other gifts they were granted an inspiration remembrance (to recall Jesus' life and teachings) and an inspiration of guidance (into new truth) (John 14:15-17, 26: 16:13, 14).

Their whole intention, writes John, was directed to proclaiming "that which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled concerning the Word of life" (1 John 1:1). To them, explains Paul, "the mystery of Christ" had been "made known" "by revelation" (Eph. 3:3-5). "Whether by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15; cf. 2 Peter 1:12-15), in obedience to Christ they announced the "word of God" (1 Thess. 2:13, NKJV), the "word of life" (Phil. 2:16), "the living and abiding word of God" (1 Peter 1:23), a word that lives and abides forever, as announced by the Old Testament writings, which they regarded as "Scriptures" and "the oracles of God" (Rom. 15:4; 3:1, 2; 16:26; 1 Cor. 10:11; 15:3, 4), given by inspiration of God (2 Tim. 3:16).

There is little doubt that from that perspective the apostles occupied a crucial and unique position in the transmission of God's word and the edification of the church. They embodied the authority of Christ and from that perspective had no successors. Having personally encountered the risen Lord and having individually been commissioned by Him, they became His representatives and assumed an authoritative position within the early Christian communities (Eph. 3:5; 2 Peter 3:2: cf. Jude 17). They were the founders and builders of the church (Eph. 2:20), and spoke with the authority which "the Lord gave" them (2 Cor. 10:8), for Christ was speaking through them (2 Cor. 13:3). And though their preaching came in words of human beings, it was "the word of God" (1 Thess. 2:13, KJV) and they expected the early believers to accept it as such-a command of the Lord (1 Cor. 14:37; 2 Thess. 3:14).

When under inspiration of the Spirit of God, the apostles put their oral message in written form, the latter carried the same authority as that attached to their spoken word (1 Cor. 14:37; 2 Thess. 2:15; 3:14), an authority which, in Paul's case at least, Peter puts on a footing of equality with the Old Testament Scriptures (2 Peter 3:15, 16). Referring to his own writings, Peter explains that they were put in writing "to remind you," so that after his death, they would "be able" "at any time. . . to recall these things" (2 Peter 1:12-15). The apostolic message had found embodiment in the Scriptures. The Word that holds authority over us and is known to us primarily as a person, i.e., Jesus Christ, came to be known secondarily in the form of the spoken and written language of the apostles.

Is this, as some have suggested, throwing a book between the believer and God? Not at all. God is, and remains, the source and ground of authority for the Christian. The Scriptures are not a veil. On the contrary, they are a rent in the veil between man and God, for as God's revelation their function is to lead to Christ (Gal. 3:24). The Bible is not merely a testimony to revelation, but it is revelation itself. Christ, Revelation of God, is the supreme object of the witness of the Spirit and the supreme content of Scripture, which witnesses supremely to Him, the incarnate Word of God. Therein lies the authority of the Bible. In accepting the authority of the Scriptures, we are bowing not before the authority of a book, but before Christ's authority, for the only authoritative Christ we know is the Christ of the apostles. While they are "the standard of all doctrines and the basis of all reforms,"¹⁰ the Scriptures are only a means to an end, that of bringing each believer under the supreme Lordship of Christ. In unity with the Father and the Holy Spirit, our Lord Jesus is our ultimate authority. God alone possesses authority for time and eternity, and as Seventh-day Adventists we accept unreservedly the authority of His revealed Word, both incarnate and written.

Thus, under the leadership of the apostles, the earliest church consisted of a fellowship of mainly Jewish believers who recognized in Jesus of Nazareth, risen and glorified, the true Messiah of Israel, and who continued in Jewish religious practices and worship (cf. Acts 2:46, 47; 3:1; 5:12). They gathered together in homes (Acts 2:46; 4:23) for common meals and the celebration of the Lord's Supper (verses 46, 42), for praise and fellowship (verse 42), "devoting themselves to the apostles teaching" (ibid.). The apostles were their leaders (verses 14, 42; cf. 4:23, 32, 33), Christ's heralds and the authentic interpreters of the Old Testament Scriptures (Acts 2:14-36; 13:16-42, 44, 48; 17:1-3).

Of deacons and elders

It appears that early in their history early believers recognized the need for proper administration, in order, to be precise, to further the proclamation of the Word. This need was first met by the appointment of the seven, who are generally regarded as the original deacons (Acts 6:1-6). It is noteworthy that they were chosen by the congregation (verse 3) and appointed by the apostles by the laying on of hands (verse 6) to superintend the distribution of food, thus freeing the apostles for their tasks of preaching and teaching (verse 4). That this office was widely recognized in the early church is clearly suggested by the list of qualifications as laid down by Paul (1 Tim. 3:8-13), as well as by the Philippians 1:1 statement.

Soon after, a group of elders appears in a leadership position in the Jerusalem church (Acts 11:30), probably chosen on the basis of the same process that led to the appointment of the seven to help the apostles in their leadership role.¹¹ A few chapters further we note that indeed the elders shared this role with the apostles at the time of the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:2, 22). In a similar fashion, elders were chosen and appointed in the churches that Paul and Barnabas (founded in Asia (Acts 14:23).¹²

Next to the apostles, elders (presbyteroi) and bishops (episkopoi)-the two terms were used interchangeably in the early days (Acts 20:17, 28; Titus 1:5, 7; cf. 1 Peter 5:2)-seem to have consistently enjoyed the greatest authority in the local churches. One of their main functions was general pastoral care and oversight (Acts 20:17-28; 1 Peter 5:1-3), with special tasks such as visiting the sick (James 5:14), giving instructions in sound doctrine, and confuting those who contradicted it (1 Tim. 3:1, 2; Titus 1:5, 9). They labored among fellow believers and had charge "over [them] in the Lord" (1 Thess. 5:12), admonishing them clearly in positions of authority. Those who ruled well were to "be considered worthy of double honor," and more particularly so if they labored in "preaching and teaching" (1 Tim. 5:17).¹³ Their permanent role is evidenced by the list of qualifications necessary for such leaders as found in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 2.

The local church's authority

Guided by the apostles, the church was gradually developing into a flexible but reasonably structured organization. As it grew in size and spread throughout the Roman empire, its organization became more involved and more clearly defined. Administrative and organizational functions were predominantly in the hands of the apostles, though in addition to them, elders and deacons served in various capacities as preachers, teachers, and administrators. Thus, while the early church continued to recognize the final authority of the apostles, much of the government of local churches rested in the hands of local congregations. We learn, for instance, that these local congregations exercised authority with respect to the selection of their local leaders, as mentioned earlier (Acts 6:1-6; cf. 14:23); they appointed messengers to be sent to other churches (Acts 11:22) or to accompany apostles (2 Cor. 8:19), sometimes accrediting them by letter (1 Cor. 16:3). The church at Antioch appointed Barnabas along with Paul, "and certain others" to represent its views at the council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:1, 2).

The local churches also bore responsibility for purity in doctrine and practice. Testing the spirits was part of their responsibilities (1 John 4:1), since every believer is anointed by the Holy Spirit (1 John 2:20) and thus is able to discern truth (verse 27). As early as in his first epistle Paul insists that the local church is to "test all things," and "to hold fast what is good" (1 Thess. 5:21, NKJV).

The same is true regarding the exercise of church discipline. All other means of reconciliation having failed, a matter under dispute between members of a congregation was to come before the local church (Matt. 18:15-17). Our Lord Himself refers to the authority of the local congregation in the following terms: "Truly, I say to you, whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 18:18), a terminology all too familiar to the disciples who heard it on that occasion. In synagogal and rabbinic usage it meant primarily to prohibit and to allow something; next, to impose penalties, or excommunication, on someone or to acquit the same.¹⁴ In other words, the local congregation is to settle the conditions of membership and the rules of the house.

The universal church, its oneness and unity

Yet, according to the same Scriptures, it is evident that the local church does not live in isolation or in independence from other local churches. No church government, and therefore authority, that fails to recognize the reality and unity of the universal church is biblical. This is not to say that the local church would be merely a section of the universal church, for it is the church itself, fully present in each of its local assemblies. Nor is the church the total number of all local churches. Rather. as G. E. Ladd expresses it, "the local congregation is the church in local expression."¹⁵ While most likely the relation between the two cannot be adequately verbalized, the fact remains that the church is one and indivisible. In Hendrikus Berkhof's words: "One cannot simply add up the local churches to get the church. It is not a matter of addition, but of multiplication in which one times one remains one."¹⁶ This is clearly reflected in the way the word ekklesia is used in the New Testament.¹⁷

This oneness is expressed both in common faith and in practice as well as in cooperative actions. Time and again Paul points the churches to what is going on in other parts of the Roman empire. They are to be aware of the global relationships in which the gospel has brought them together (Col. 1:6, 23; 1 Tim. 3:16). Likewise, Corinthian believers are to see themselves united "with all who in every place call upon the name of our Lord, Jesus Christ," who is both "their Lord and ours" (1 Cor. 1:2). There is "a common faith" (Titus 1:4; 2 Peter 1:1), "the faith which was once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3, KJV).

This spirit of unity is conveyed in greetings from church to church (Rom. 16:16; 1 Cor. 16:19; Phil. 4:22) and is evident in the letters of recommendation sent from one church to another or from well-known leaders, commending God-given teachers to other churches (Acts 18:24-28; 2 Cor. 3:1; Rom. 16:1, 2; Col. 4:10). What happens in other congregations or parts of the world must have their full interest (cf. 2 Cor. 9:2-5; Col. 4:16). They are exhorted to participate in all that is being done elsewhere and to accept being guided by the same line of conduct (1 Cor. 16:1-4; 11:16). "This is the rule I lay down in all the churches," writes Paul to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 7:17, NIV), adding that "God is not a God of confusion, but of peace" (1 Cor. 14:33). Wishing to admonish them as a father, he sends them Timothy to "remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach everywhere in every church" (1 Cor. 4:17), and reprimands them for their independent attitude: "Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached?" (1 Cor. 14:36, NIV). Evidently unity in the New Testament is not merely an end-time reality to be eagerly expected (Eph. 4:8-14), but very much a part of the church's present experience. United in their Lord in one body, of which Christ is the Head, all early believers were exhorted to remember that "there is. . . one Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Eph. 4:4, 5).¹⁸

The desirability of this oneness and close interrelationship does not proceed merely from its practical helpfulness or the need for cooperation, mutual advice, or brotherly assistance. Its basis lies first and foremost in the very nature of the church, which is one. The use of ekklesia clearly underlies this, and the New Testament "body" metaphor reaffirms it (1 Cor. 10:16, 17; 12:12, 27). Christ does not have many bodies, but one, and that one body must manifest itself in the unity and closeness of the whole church, local and universal (Eph. 4:1-6).

The universal church, its authority

What about the universal church and its authority? Some have wondered whether church order, or church law,¹⁹ is not a contradiction in terms. Doesn't the Spirit blow where He wills? From a scriptural perspective, however, it appears that the Spirit is not so "spiritual" that He has nothing to do with order.²⁰ Paul reminds us that "God is not a God of confusion, but of peace" (1 Cor. 14:33), and that, therefore, all things should be done "decently and in order" (verse 40, KJV).

As a spiritual organism in which all constituent parts are vitally interrelated as the spiritual body of Christ, of which He is the head, it is to be expected that the church discloses this inner unity in a visible manner and seeks as much as possible to express it in some external organization. While a spiritual body, the church is, nevertheless, a tangible reality, the temple of the Spirit, a priesthood, and a holy nation. All these terms point to a visible unity.

Moreover, if indeed, Jesus intended His visible church to proclaim and share the gospel, one can hardly deny it the right to exercise a measure of administrative authority. It is probably in the realm of determining truths of revelation that the role of the church, as "pillar and support of the truth" (1 Tim. 3: 15), will be more particularly difficult and important. It is true that "the faith. . . once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3) has been fixed with the last witness of the apostles, yet it needs interpretation, a need made even more urgent with the passing of time.

The Jerusalem Council: Advisory or Binding?

This is strikingly illustrated in Acts 15, which tells of the gathering of a large assembly in the city of Jerusalem. Here, following discussion and disputation in the church at Antioch over the role of circumcision in salvation (Acts 15:1-5), Paul and Barnabas, "and certain others" were urged to go up to Jerusalem, "to the apostles and the elders" about this matter (verse 2). They were, adds Luke, "sent on their way by the church" at Antioch (verse 3), as its representatives. As they made their way through Phoenicia and Samaria, telling everyone about the conversion of the Gentiles, their story gave "great joy to all the brethren" (verse 3). Clearly, early believers placed great value on solidarity among local churches. Far from being content to live in mutual isolation, they shared their experiences and sought reactions from each other.

As they arrived in Jerusalem, "they were welcomed by the church," along with the apostles and the elders (verse 4). The council gathered together (verse 6), and allowed "much debate" (verse 7), evidently giving each side an opportunity to argue its case. In seeking to arrive at the truth in this disputed matter, different perspectives were listened to, for all of the ones present were sincerely committed to the gospel. Having listened to Peter's view (verses 7-11), they paid careful attention to the testimony of Barnabas and Paul (verse 12), followed by James' discourse (verses 13-21). It seems particularly significant that throughout the discussion, and in spite of the authority of the main speakers, appeals were frequently made to the authority of the Scriptures. Even James' concluding speech, however important, was essentially built on a combination of the prophets and Moses (Amos 9:11, 12; Lev. 17:8-16;18). The Scriptures held final authority. The council heard and listened to the authoritative Word of God and therefore acted and spoke with its authority.

A conclusion was reached, and a letter-decree was drawn up by "the apostles and the elders" with the concurrence of "the whole church" (Acts 15:22). As Luke tells it, the letter sent out mentioned that "it seemed good to us" in assembly (verse 25), literally, "with one mind and purpose," a common mind attributed in verse 28 to the Holy Spirit.²¹ In other words, they had been seeking to grasp the intentions of the Spirit for the whole Christian community. Then follows the decision reached by the assembly, which went counter to the wish of those who wanted to require circumcision from Gentile converts, but it still imposed four regulations (verse 29).²²

That this admonition would have been merely a recommendation and addressed only to Christian Gentiles living in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, as some have suggested on the basis of Acts 15:23, is hardly plausible. Acts 16, the very next chapter, indicates that during his second missionary journey, Paul, accompanied by Silas, came to Derbe and Lystra in Lycaonia, clearly west of Cilicia. On their westbound journey to the region of Phrygya and Galacia (see verse 6) "as they went through the cities, they delivered to them the decrees to keep, which were determined by the apostles and elders at Jerusalem" (verse 4, KJV). Notice the expression "to keep" in relation to the decisions reached by the Jerusalem council. As a result, adds Luke, "the churches were strengthened in the faith and increased in numbers daily" (verse 5). There is little doubt that the council's conclusions were regarded as binding upon the churches-and not merely those of Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia-as the sound interpretation and application of God's will.²³ Here we have a clear example of a major assembly that spoke not merely in an advisory capacity, but with binding authority.²⁴ Major assemblies, which address matters that pertain to the churches in general and concern the preservation of unity, therefore exercising authority of a broader and more extended scale, are unquestionably warranted by Scripture.

Lessons from the Jerusalem assembly

To us Seventh-day Adventists, who read it in the light of our own experience, the conciliar process, as Luke portrays it in Acts 15, provides a most valuable apostolic model for the exercise of authority within the church at large. It also affords an exceptionally helpful paradigm for suggesting processes and methods needed to handle controversies that might arise within God's church. Obviously, a polarized church is a scandal, negating the very essence of God's church. If, in fact, the church is Christs spiritual body, its members must show care for one another, and processes as well as structures must exist for achieving universal solutions to issues and problems that are universal. Just as decisions regarding local matters are to be handled locally, those affecting the church as a whole are to be addressed and resolved by those representing the church at large.

In any such assembly, believers of different perspectives should be included, and the cooperation of lay members is indispensable in arriving at decisions about the formulation of truths.²⁵ All decisions reached should be in submission to the Word of God in Scripture, for it contains the normative and authoritative revelation in which the church is permanently rooted.

As Seventh-day Adventists, we hold that the representative form of government and teaching authority practiced among us agrees with the pattern found in the New Testament Scriptures.²⁶ In Seventh-day Adventism, authority and responsibility are vested in the constituency and shared by delegation with duly elected-or appointed-representatives who fulfill their representative tasks regarding matters falling under their jurisdiction. This representative form of church government and teaching authority operates in four steps, all familiar to us: the local church, the conference, the union conference, and the General Conference. The broadest authority, widest in extent, under God and the Scriptures, among us, is found in the body of the universal church as expressed in the decisions reached by the General Conference in session, composed of representative men and women from all parts of the earth, gathered for that purpose.²⁷

The authority of such decisions depends, of course, on their faithfulness to the Scriptures.²⁸ Such pronouncements are authoritative, first by virtue of their agreement with the Bible, and second, on account of the authority of the council from which they proceed, i.e., inasmuch as the latter is an assembly set up on conformity with the pattern set by God to that effect in Acts 15.

This pattern includes a design that is representative and "conciliar" in character. Inspired by the scriptural model, we have labored at implementing it in the life of the church, and it seems to have worked effectively. The extent to which this conciliarity is achieved may vary, but conciliarity is what Seventh-day Adventists desire, profess, and, I hope, constantly seek afresh.

The charismatic structure of the church

One should not forget that theological reflection on the church's beliefs and standards is, in its simplest terms, "faith seeking understanding." This task is first of all the business of the whole church and not merely of a small group of professionals. This implies that the teaching authority of the church cannot function properly without broad collaboration and consultation. To say this is not to negate the utterly essential task of the professional and administrative leadership in the church in helping the reflection and experience of the church to come to authoritative expression. It is only to put this task in better balance. More specifically doctrinal definitions and moral teachings, as the Scriptures show, are to be seen not as "directives from above"²⁹ but as the culmination of a reflective process that involves the whole church.

The universal priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:9) is the foundation that makes it possible for lay members³⁰ to participate in extended assemblies. As Adventists, we might even be willing to learn from those Christian communions whose conciliar bodies are equally divided between ministers and laypersons at all levels. Such inclusion should be urged not merely because we live in an age of democratic participation, but first and foremost because it is the outgrowth of what I hope is a genuine recognition of the scriptural doctrine of the charismatic structure of the church.

We misunderstand the nature of the charisms, or gifts of the Holy Spirit, when we think of them as limited to the apostles or restricted to extraordinary and sensational phenomena such as healing or speaking in tongues. For a while these special charismata get particular attention in 1 Corinthians 12-14, they are not mentioned at all among the gifts of grace listed in Romans 12 and Ephesians 4. The gifts of the Spirit are in no way limited to the spectacular, but they have been granted to the whole church for its renewal and expansion, for the implementation of its God-given task.

Nor are these gifts (as listed in Romans 12:6-8; 1 Corinthians 12:8-10; 28-30; and Ephesians 4:11) concentrated in a few persons, such as leaders or officeholders, thus supplying us with a kind of leading class or officeholders that would stand apart from the community and rise above it to lord it over it. In the Scriptures the spiritual gifts do not fall under the heading of "official offices," but ecclesiastical offices do fall under the heading of "charismata," They are granted to all believers, for "to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good" (1 Cor. 12:7), and "each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that" (I Cor. 7:7). In Peter's words, "as each one has received a special gift, employ it in serving one another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God" (1 Peter 4:l0).³¹

In this sense one can, and indeed should, speak of a "charismatic structure" of the church, which embraces and goes beyond the structures of its government. These are God's gifts of grace, granted to individual believers in view of specific services within the community and the world wide field, including the ability to perform these services. More than "the fruit[s] of the Spirit" (Gal. 5:22), which are given mainly for individual sanctification, the charismata are granted "for. . . the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fulness of Christ" (Eph. 4:12, 13; cf. 1 Cor. 14:12), and thus for the exercise of authority.

Informed believers and conciliar authority

Informed believers should, therefore, be called to participate in church and conciliar affairs, as attested in the book of Acts, which tells us about the participation of such lay members in the deliberations and decisions reached at the Jerusalem Council.

This participation can express itself in two ways: either by direct representation-i.e., laypersons representing laity-or by indirect representation-ordained ministers being elected to represent the laity. It would not be fitting to declare the former mode of representation alone as legitimate. Still, in the light of the Acts 15 episode, greater attention should be given to the desirability of the first and obvious expression of this representation at all levels of our conciliar system.

There seems to be room for progress on this particular point. While it may be said that in our midst the local churches elect their representatives, or delegates, to the local conference constituency meetings, at which time local conference officers are chosen, the practice calls for delegates to union conference and General Conference sessions to be appointed by conference and union conference officers and committees, respectively. Whom do such delegates represent if not essentially those who appointed them? Shouldn't careful attention be given to the feasibility of adopting a pattern closer to a representative process at all levels? Why couldn't delegates be chosen, i.e., elected, rather than appointed at all levels? Elected by their local congregations, the delegates to local conference constituency meetings would elect delegates to union conference sessions as their representatives. The latter, in turn, would elect delegates to represent them at General Conference sessions. This seems to me closer to our convictions regarding the priesthood of all believers and a representative model, not to mention the intent of Ellen Whites advice.³² In fact, the end result may not be significantly different, but a new sense of participation and involvement, which must have characterized the early church at the time of the Jerusalem assembly, would almost certainly pervade the church.

Where this representation is indirect, i.e., when ordained ministers or administrators speak and act for the laity, great care should be taken before articulating the faith of the church, not merely to listen to the testimony of the Word of God as found in the Scriptures but also to engage in as broad a consultation of the people of God as possible. Consultation, along with the gathering and weighing of evidence, prepares such an authoritative body to make a twofold judgment: (1) that the matter at issue is true and in accord with revelation; (2) that there is a pastoral need to teach this matter with the authority of the church. This would also contribute to the necessary exercise of discerning between the sensus fidelium and voices of false prophets. Clearly, the teaching authority of the church has to be understood within the context of the whole church, in which the Holy Spirit is given to all and works through all.

The believer's response to authority

If this is the case, what should we say regarding the believers response to the church's teaching authority, whether local or universal?

Earlier on I hinted at the fact that I conceive of authority in the church as concentric rather than pyramidal, and that the teaching function of the church cannot be implemented without broad collaboration and consultation. Against this background the proper response to the teaching authority of the church, as I perceive it, is not so much immediate obedience or assent as what I shall refer to as a basic religious docility³³ and deference- always on the assumption, of course, that authority has proceeded properly-especially when there may not be total agreement with the decision reached.

What I am referring to is no sheepish, spineless neutralism. It is, rather, a cast of mind that expresses itself in a succession of ways. First, it means a readiness to go beyond the privacy of ones own views and to open up to the persuasion of a broader wisdom. Next, it implies a willingness to reassess ones own position in the light of the church's decision. Third, it means a considerable reluctance to conclude right off that the church's decision is erroneous. Even after one may have concluded that the arguments and foundations used are far from convincing, I suggest, from having gone through that experience myself, that in genuine humility one adopt the attitude that for the time being the teaching of the church is doubtful rather than erroneous, precisely because, from the perspective of the charismatic dimension of the church, the wisdom of the entire church, instructed by the Scriptures, has gone into its formulation. This is not placid neutralism.

This attitude of respect will generally lead to assent, though assent, or even acceptance, may not be the immediate response. If eventually there is dissent, it should be the terminus of an arduous and willing attempt to understand and appropriate authentic teaching; in truth, an inability to assent.

It is unrealistic and romantic to pretend that the church, local and universal, has no need for an authoritative function. But ultimately this authority exists to one end only, as an aid to mission. As all the other means which the Spirit wishes to use and does press into service for equipping and building the church, authority is intended to serve for instructing, admonishing, and equipping the people of God, as well as for the effective direction and government of the church.

Authority as diakonia

As an expression of the Spirit's ministry among us, authority bears the characteristic of the supreme gift of grace, namely love. Like all functions of the church, the exercise of authority is a function of love, a diakonia, a service.

In fact, how can one overlook the striking fact that in the New Testament the usual governmental vocabulary in secular Greek for civil and religious authority is consistently avoided in connection with the offices and ministries of the church or with the latter's exercise of authority? Arche (primacy, authority, power),³⁴ time (value, honor, respectability),³⁵ and telos (end, conclusion, total official power)³⁶ are ostensibly ignored, most probably because they express a relationship of ruler and ruled, which makes them unusable.³⁷ Exousia is used occasionally, such as in relation to the ministry of Jesus, the work of the apostles, and Paul's apostolic authority to build up the Christian cornmunity.³⁸ The word that is deliberately chosen carried no overtone of rule, dignity, or power. It was the word diakonia, service. This term, denoting service or ministry, is in no danger of being misinterpreted as synonymous of power and rulership.

As prescribed in the Scriptures, the exercise of authority within the church finds its roots and model in Jesus Himself, who conceived of His mission and authority in terms of service: "The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve [diakonein]" (Mark 10:45); "I am among you as the one who serves [diakonein]" (Luke 22:27). Jesus insistently warned His disciples against any style of authority resembling that exemplified by the rulers of His own age (Matt. 20:25-28; Mark 10:42-45; Luke 22:25-27).³⁹ His instruction to the disciples is explicit on this point. It reads, "If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant [diakonos] of all" (Mark 9:35).

This pattern for the exercise of authority within the church, to which some have been called by the Spirit and their fellow Christians, is unquestionably something of a paradox. Upon closer inspection, it can be seen to have been determined by the cruciform shape of the paschal mystery itself.⁴⁰

By way of conclusion

I have suggested various things that will have to be argued in detail on other occasions, and probably by others than myself. My aim is not to give an integral and flawless theory, but merely to project a kind of image of how authority operated in the early Christian church and how it might continue to function in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, even more successfully than in the past. As a theologian, I would hope that a great many would participate in this study, making their individual contribution-for theology is the task of the whole church-so that God's people as a whole will be able to fulfill its God-given mandate more efficiently.

*Unless otherwise noted, Bible texts in this article are from the New American Standard Bible.

The first part, "Church Authority: Its Source, Nature, and Expression," is a paper presented to the Commission on World Church Organization at Cohutta Springs, Georgia, in 1994.

Supplemented to the May 1995 Ministry General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists 12501 Old Columbia Pike, Silver Spring, MD 20904