The Question Isn't Certainty. It's Normative Authority.

One thing I’ve noticed is that conversations between Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox often end up talking past each other.

Someone will bring up the Church, and immediately the conversation turns into epistemology.

“How do you know?”

“Can anyone be certain?”

“What if the Church gets it wrong?”

Those are interesting questions, but I don’t think they’re the first question.

The first question is much simpler.

Who has the authority to make a decision that is binding on the Church?

That’s a very different question.

You Can Interpret Correctly

One misconception is that Orthodoxy teaches ordinary Christians can’t understand Scripture without some infallible interpreter.

I don’t think that’s true at all.

People read Scripture correctly all the time.

A Protestant can read a passage and arrive at the correct interpretation.

An Orthodox Christian can misunderstand a passage.

A Catholic can misunderstand a passage.

That’s not really the issue.

The issue is whether your interpretation has normative authority.

Can your interpretation bind the Church?

Can it settle a dispute?

Can it define doctrine?

Those are different questions from whether you happened to be right.

The Constitution Analogy

Imagine three people reading the United States Constitution.

One is a lawyer.

One is a history professor.

One is a random citizen.

Any of them might interpret a passage correctly.

But none of their interpretations become law simply because they’re correct.

The Supreme Court has been given the authority to issue rulings that are binding.

That doesn’t mean the Court is incapable of making mistakes.

It means the Court possesses normative authority within the constitutional system.

That’s the distinction I think often gets missed.

Being right and having authority are not the same thing.

The Church Works the Same Way

When I read the New Testament, I don’t see Christ leaving behind only a book.

I see Him establishing a body.

He appoints apostles.

He gives them authority.

“He who hears you hears Me.”

He gives Peter the keys.

He gives the apostles the authority to bind and loose.

Paul commands churches.

He rebukes churches.

He even excommunicates people.

Those aren’t merely suggestions.

They’re exercises of authority.

The Church is called “the pillar and ground of the truth.”

That sounds like more than a collection of individuals comparing interpretations.

Acts 15 Is the Pattern

The clearest example is Acts 15.

A serious doctrinal dispute arises.

The local churches don’t simply continue debating indefinitely.

The matter is brought before the apostles and elders.

There is discussion.

A decision is reached.

The churches receive a binding judgment.

“It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…”

Notice what isn’t happening.

Everyone isn’t simply following his own conscience.

The Church acts as the Church.

That pattern continues throughout the early centuries.

Councils are called.

Bishops gather.

Disputes are resolved.

The Church receives those decisions over time.

The early Church had real authority, even though it didn’t operate like a permanent worldwide supreme court.

This Isn’t About Epistemology

One objection I hear is, “But what if my conscience tells me the Church is wrong?”

Of course conscience matters.

We all answer to God.

But eventually someone has to decide whether a teaching is binding.

Otherwise every disagreement ends with the exact same sentence.

“I’ve studied it, and I disagree.”

At that point, your conscience has become the highest court.

Whether we intend it or not, the individual becomes the final authority.

That’s what I think happened during the Reformation.

Luther stood before the Diet of Worms and famously declared, “Here I stand.”

I understand why he said it.

But once private judgment becomes the final court of appeal, every believer possesses the same principle.

The result isn’t merely disagreement.

The result is that no visible authority possesses the ability to settle doctrinal disputes in a way that binds the whole Church.

Every Society Has Binding Authority

Think about almost any institution.

Families have parents.

Businesses have managers.

Cities have courts.

Nations have governments.

None of those authorities are perfect.

Yet we all recognize that some authority has been established to make decisions that are binding.

So why would Christ establish His Church differently?

Why would He give the apostles authority to bind and loose, command churches, and exercise discipline if every Christian ultimately becomes the highest authority over doctrine?

The Canon Raises the Same Question

The question even shows up when discussing the canon.

Scripture doesn’t contain an inspired table of contents.

Someone had to recognize which books belonged in Scripture.

That wasn’t merely an academic exercise.

The Church exercised authority.

The same Church that settled doctrinal controversies also recognized the books received throughout the apostolic tradition.

Again, this isn’t primarily an epistemological question.

It’s a question of authority.

Where I’ve Landed

The more I think about it, the less interested I am in arguments about certainty.

I don’t think Christianity depends on achieving perfect epistemic certainty.

The real question is much more practical.

When the Church faces serious disagreement, who has the authority to speak for the Church?

The New Testament seems to answer that question by pointing to the apostles and, after them, the bishops who preserved the apostolic faith together.

Not because they’re incapable of error.

Not because every bishop is holy.

But because Christ established His Church as a real body with real authority, not simply as a collection of sincere Christians reading the same Bible and hoping they reach the same conclusions.

That’s ultimately why I find the Orthodox understanding of the Church more compelling.

It isn’t because it promises certainty.

It’s because it preserves the kind of normative authority that I believe Christ actually gave His Church.