Thoughts on Luke 9

Today’s reading: Psalms 87-88; Luke 9

I don’t necessarily expect to sway anybody with this post today, but there is a sizable movement today away from especially non-denominational evangelical Christianity toward Catholicism or Orthodoxy, and I personally feel like this chapter in Luke, as well as Mark 8, coupled with Matthew 18, undermines the doctrine of the papacy, which is a big part of that transition for many people.

I have heard, read, and talked to a number of people exploring or making this transition, and some of the main drivers tend to be tradition, formalism, doctrine, and authority. Tradition appeals to some from a standpoint of, “If this is how it has been done for so long (since the days of the Apostles), why should we innovate rather than continuing on in the tradition?” There are issues I would take with this, not the least of which is that these churches, despite their claims, are demonstrably not a continuation of the Apostolic church, but this argument would be a topic for a different post. The formalism appeals to others for the space and attitude it creates. While especially non-denominational Christian churches tend to focus more on the ever presence of the Lord, bringing Him into daily life, these other traditions focus more on the holiness and otherness of God, creating a space and an atmosphere of reverence and worship, trying to recreate that of the temple. I would argue that both have their merits, but how that should weigh in on the decision of church affiliation would also be a separate post. For others, the highly defined doctrines inspire a confidence they haven’t otherwise had in previous churches. While non-denominational churches tend to have distinct statements of faith, and distinct doctrinal stances on specific questions and issues, there is generally a lot more freedom to question or quibble over other issues and doctrines that are less clear in the Bible. This reflects the reality of the Scriptures, that God has not given us every detailed answer to every question, but that inherent ambiguity makes many modern Westerners uncomfortable, and they are attracted to a church that will give them a distinct answer to every possible question, whether they like the answer or not. I don’t think this is how God intended His church to operate, or He would have given us a lot more detail in His Word, but that would also be a full other post.

So finally we get to the question of authority. A significant basis for the Catholic doctrine of papal authority and infallibility is in Matthew 16 where Jesus asks His disciples who people say that He is, and Peter ultimately answers that He is the Christ. Matthew records that, after Peter answers, Jesus tells Him that this answer was revealed to him by the Spirit, possibly calls him a rock on which the church will be built, and tells him that what he holds bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and what he holds loosed on earth will be loosed in heaven. This is taken to be establishing Peter as the doctrinal foundation of the church with the unique authority to declare doctrine because it is being directly revealed to Him by the Holy Spirit.

So how does Luke 9 (or Mark 8) undermine this understanding of Matthew 16? Primarily I feel this is undermined by being missing from Luke’s account entirely, as well as from Mark’s account. Both Luke and Mark record the same story of Jesus asking who people say that He is, and both record Peter’s answer, but neither includes the rest of the conversation that Matthew records. If this interaction is Jesus establishing a perpetual, unique, authoritative office within the global church, wouldn’t that be an important conversation to record? Especially if that office can uniquely, and infallibly, declare doctrinal truth, wouldn’t it be even more important for Luke and Mark to preserve that? I would say this even more strongly when we consider that Luke is writing as a historian, and this would be an essential detail of church polity to capture, and when we consider that Peter is generally considered to be the authority behind the gospel of Mark (i.e. this is really Peter’s gospel, but Mark was the scribe that actually penned it), then we would be saying that Peter himself left out the conversation that gave him a unique role and authority within the church.

Maybe it's because I was raised Catholic, but I can never read Luke 9 or Mark 8 without stewing on this issue for a while. I don't believe that Jesus, in Matthew 16, is establishing the office of the papacy, especially when you consider that the same "binding and loosing" authority is also given by Jesus to the broader group of His disciples just two chapters later in Matthew 18. So the fact that I don't believe the doctrine is derivable from Matthew in isolation is then strengthened by it's lack of attestation in Luke and Mark while otherwise recounting the same story, and this just jumps off the page at me every time I read these accounts.

While I get, to some extent, the desire for more spiritual and doctrinal authority than most, especially non-denominational, churches have today, I think it's worth considering, if that is what you are looking for, where else that might be found outside of the Catholic and Orthodox traditions. But even in that, I do think it's essential to remember that if God intended for us to have a clear answer to every question of spiritual life or doctrine, He could have provided those answers, but in His infinite wisdom He has chosen not to. That alone gives me pause about affiliating myself with any church or organization that declares you must agree with them fully on every point of doctrine they declare, no matter how small the issue or unclear the Scriptural witness on the topic.