Authority, Culture, and Tradition

There is a rather interesting discussion that my best friend Jared Coleman has started on his blog. The particular blog entry regards authority. The questions he raises are foreign and incomprehensible to many people from a traditional Christian background. You can not generate questions to analyze issues one has never conceived of before. That is why many will not understand the question, much less try to answer it.

I have thought of these very same questions that he raises. Because my particular spiritual background holds a self-conception of being the "New Testament church," I have at various times sought connection (and authority, by extension) to the early church. While doing my undergraduate work at Grand Canyon University, (a Southern Baptist college at the time), I took advantage of the expanded religious section at our university library and read about the "Ante-Nicene Fathers" as well as read some of their writings.

While I can't possibly begin to answer the questions that Jared poses, simply because I barely have enough foundational knowledge to begin such musings, something has been whirling in my head. I have been pondering the nature of the relationship between authority (legitimacy), culture, and tradition.

As you begin to pose challenging and exciting questions like Jared and Scott, it becomes difficult to tease out what is God's intention (Did God intend for there to be a physical, unified church?) and what is the result of the cultural interpretation of the Word (and the word), or even interpretations founded entirely on tradition. The early church (starting around 100 C.E.) apparently was organized with each church (congregation? city?) having one bishop, a board of elders (called the presbytery), and deacons. Authority and/or legitimization was established by the laying on of hands. To some extent, many feel that these early leaders were the "spiritual" inheritors of the apostles' teachings and authority. The implication is that orthodoxy was maintained by having a visible "seal of approval" by the laying on of hands by those with the most "knowledge" of these teachings and traditions.

Where am I going with this? I don't even know for sure. But I wonder, was this "chain of authority" inherent to God's design and plan, or inherent to the culture or traditions of those people? At that time, the written word was not available. All teachings were oral, with some letters sent around the Empire with brief references to widely held doctrine. It would have been culturally vital to show which individuals had been "taught" and which had not by something such as the laying on of hands. But does this cultural necessity require us to view it as God's intention?

This become more relevant as we apply this thinking and reasoning to other issues very similarly related. (Keep in mind, I am not taking a position; I'm just exploring ideas and toying with concepts.) Take, for example, the role and status of women. There is a very strong tradition codified with much authority, that keeps women out of direct spiritual leadership in the church. There seem to be some very direct "biblical" statements on this issue generating a view that the early church fathers certainly embraced. If we accept that authority and church structure can be passed down, doesn't that imply that such codified teaching should be too? Were those statements, and views, set contextually in that society, or set as inherent views of humanity?

Of course, there are other issues, and I'm still chewing on it. I look forward to seeing the discussion develop further.