Who gets to speak for God? (part 1 of 3)

There is a great question you hear often in emerging circles: Who gets to speak for God? It's a good question, but it's more complicated than it might seem on the surface. I want to go through the two primary ways people use that question - what exactly do they mean, and what point are they trying to make?

Then I'd like to argue for a position somewhere in between the standard emerging mantra (if there truly is such a thing as a "standard" anything in emerging) and the traditional Protestant position. This will be a three-part series, then. So let's begin...

[Before we dive into this, let me just note that I don't pretend to know how everyone uses this question, nor even most. What follows is my general impression of the ways this question is bandied about in emerging circles. I consider myself fairly well-read on the subject, but by no means an expert.]

First, it's important to note that there are two ways people use this great question - who gets to speak for God? In this post we'll examine one:

The Egalitarian/Leaderless position: There are plenty of emerging (and otherwise) folk out there that seem to use this question to argue for either a generally egalitarian position or perhaps even a truly leaderless model. The argument goes something like this: since we're a "kingdom of priests", no one person has the right to speak for God exclusively on any given issue; therefore, we'll not have either a) traditional leadership roles, or b) traditional teaching/preaching formats.

Solomon's Porch is a good example of this. Doug Pagitt (a name you should definitely know in emerging circles) is the pastor there. This is what their website has to say about their "leadership co-op". Notice in particular that the only thing even bordering on a Biblical notion of qualified leadership is (perhaps) in the phrase "Demonstrate leadership consistent with the Biblical and Historical church example". This is a conscious effort on their part to do away with the notion of exclusively male, exclusively elder-based leadership. I'll not insult Doug and make the "he doesn't take the Bible seriously charge" that so many others have levelled at him. But clearly I understand things a little differently than he!

Doug's concept of preaching also falls into this category. He calls traditional preaching "speeching" and is not very fond of it. Instead, he argues for what amounts to an open mic night, guided loosely by the pastor. Again, "who gets to speak for God"? At Solomon's Porch, virtually anyone. What if a bona fide heretic takes the floor? What about a cultist? What about a grossly immature Christian? What about someone with absolutely no understanding of Biblical interpretation?

The answer? Remember - we're a kingdom of priests and therefore all get to speak for God.

The tough part about arguing against this approach is that it is right on some level. We are a holy priesthood - so says 1 Peter 2:5.

But that doesn't necessarily mean that egalitarianism is the more Biblical position, nor does it mean that monologue (traditional preaching) is less desirable than an open mic. The fundamental problem with this version of the "who gets to speak for God" question is that it neglects the many, many passages of Scripture that deal directly with leadership, teaching, preaching, etc... The Bible is very plain that certain people are set apart as leaders of the church. The Bible calls these people elders and lists very specific requirements that they must meet, and lists a number of the responsibilities of elders to the local church, and lists many of the responsibilities of the local church to the elders. We're not working with a lack of data here, folks!

If elders have a responsibility to keep the heretical "wolves" out of the assembly (and they do), how can you justify risking heresy in the name of egalitarianism? How can you brush off this terrible responsibility with a "who gets to speak for God"?

If elders are required to be capable teachers (and they are) and those especially gifted and able at teaching are to be commended (and they are), then how can we justify the "open mic" theory of preaching with a "who gets to speak for God"?

If elders are given a specific list of (probably minimal) requirements (and they are), how can we justify not including these in the discussion of "who gets to speak for God"?

There's something fundamentally American about the basic notion of egalitarianism, isn't there? We are, after all, rugged Individualists. We blaze our own trails, right? We have our rights, after all! As I've argued before, this kind of thinking has little place in the community of Christ's followers.

Having said all that, I'm not arguing for a position that only elders have the right to ever communicate, teach, preach, lead, etc. I'll get to my position after the next post...

Also, please understand that I'm merely using Solomon's Porch as one example. I don't know what goes on in their assembly nearly well enough to say that all of the above is true of them. This isn't about Pagitt; it's about a particular interpretation of "who gets to speak for God".

If you're asking that question in an effort to by-pass or ignore the God-given responsibilities of elders, you're on the wrong track.

Hatushili

PS: Just for JB...