Brian Hamilton-Vise

The twelve and church hierarchy

A very profound, usually subconscious difference between “hierarchical” and “non-hierarchical” readings of the gospels–using those terms very loosely–has to do with whether the twelve are interpreted as “the apostles” or as “the disciples.” In the latter case, the stress falls on the individual Christians identity with the twelve; so for example, the promise that “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven,” etc. (Mt 18:18), to can be understood as demonstrating a kind of egalitarian impulse. The forgiveness that disciples offer each other mediates God’s own forgiveness or vice versa. Thus John Howard Yoder in Body Politics (p. 3) says of this passage, “it denies that the authority to forgive is the monopoly of the priesthood.” When the twelve are understood primarily as apostles, however, what privilege is given to the twelve doesn’t necessarily translate into a privilege given to disciples in general. So the Catholic Catechism, quoting Lumen Gentium (22, §2), can interpret the same passage by saying, “the office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of the apostles united to its head” (#1444).

With respect to this particular passage, I’m inclined to think both interpretations slightly exaggerated. Part of Jesus’ point here is to declare the responsiveness of God to the united will of Christian disciples, “wherever two or three are gathered in my name”–not just to assign an office to the college of apostles. At the same time, I doubt if any really responsible reader of the synoptic gospels could deny that, in the tradition of early Christianity those gospels reflect, the memory of the twelve had come to anchor an authoritative teaching body with Peter as its head.

In my opinion, Christians looking for an “anti-hierarchical” strain in the New Testament need to be looking to the Gospel of John, not the synoptics. The Gospel of John reflects an early tradition which consciously resisted the headship of Peter and of the twelve more generally. The “Petrine tradition” is the one other cluster of Christians recognized by the Johannine tradition as genuinely Christian (though not quite as Christian, it should be admitted). Yet John’s push for a higher Christology includes within it the possibility for a more direct participation of the individual believer in Christ, obviating the need for a structure of authority that will faithfully pass down the traditions instituted by Christ. The unifying ground of Johannine ecclesiology is not any authoritative figure, though the Beloved Disciple of blessed memory is indeed worthy of special reverence; it is the mutual love of believers that binds them together, a love which is granted in their common and supreme love for Jesus.

1 October 2008 | Comments (0)
Tags: Ecclesiology, Gospel of John, John Howard Yoder, Roman Catholic