I have a long quote from Barth CD I/2§20 on theory of authority vis-à-vis the Church. But it is too long, and I don’t want to transcribe the whole thing. But it resonates deeply with my own sentimentality on this issue as a Free Church proponent. Essentially what it reduces to is the idea that the Church is under the authority of Holy Scripture insofar that Scripture finds its reality in Jesus Christ. Basically, what Barth is communicating is that the clerics only have Church authority insofar as they accurately bear witness to the ‘Prophets and Apostles’ (or Scripture’s) witness to the Self-revelation of God in Jesus Christ; or we could say its kerygmatic reality. So, for Barth, and for me, Church authority is always already a relative one; it is never vested into a single person (the Pope), or Church tradition (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Reformed, Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist etc.). The authority of the Church is only authoritative in and when it ‘rightly divides the Word of truth.’ Even then, the Church’s authority is open to adjudication and exegesis (just ask the Bereans).

This militates against Church governments, or theories of Church where the ‘Shepherd’ is elevated to a higher status than those he ostensibly is shepherding. This is one point we can bring back to the so called Reformational ‘Priesthood of All Believers.’ It isn’t that there aren’t some within the Church (pastors/teachers) who might have more equipment to more accurately interpret Scripture, it is that even if that is the case they are always and only just human beings; thus subject to the correction and even contradiction of the Word of God.

Because of exposure to various ecclesial traditions via social media, I have found clericalism to be a pretty pervasive thing these days. It isn’t always related to the sort of Church government the person is tied to either. But typically ‘high church’ is more prone to elevating the episcopacy to a level that I think the Gospel reality itself contradicts. As a child of God I have the same authority vested in me as the local pastor or bishop. Yet there is this sort of arrogance, often, among clergy, and theologians, that goes something like: ‘I have this training and expertise; I have this pulpit, lectern, and platform because of my expertise in biblical studies and theology; therefore you need to heed what I am saying; if not I will run intellectual and biblical circles around you, showing you for the plebian you actually are.’ But as Barth rightly points out: nothing could be further from the truth. The truth is Jesus Christ, and as such we sit directly under His authority, and only indirectly under the Church’s authority; insofar that the Church accurately bears witness to the Scriptural reality in Christ. But the Church is open to being challenged, whereas the authority of Christ is not.

This remains a tenuous and raw issue for me, but really only because I have opened myself up to the exposure of various ecclesial traditions that I have online. I will never bow the knee to a pastor or professor, unless of course I can tell that they are first and accurately bowing their knee to Jesus Christ. This does not mean I don’t show respect to the office of pastor or professor, but it does mean that I will challenge the ones holding those offices when they, in my view, are not accurately bearing witness to the reality of Holy Scripture in Jesus Christ. There is still an authority, even a churchly authority to submit to; but it must be according to the proper order set out by the logic of the incarnation itself. I.e. that Jesus is Lord, because He is the eternal Logos made flesh; because Jesus is God and we are not.