I won't be talking about the authority the Kingdom of God has over the kingdom of darkness, or the authority the Kingdom of God has over sickness, brokenness, death, etc. That would make an interesting blog too. But not today.
What is authority?
There are two main answers to this question, even in just using everyday language (at least in English language). I'll talk about those two types and then take a look at what the Bible says about authority.The first answer: Authority is telling people what to do, and making them do it.
The second answer: Authority is influencing others' hearts and lives through one's identity, experience and expertise.
Let's look at both of them along with some common examples.
The first type of authority is what we find in the military, and among police, the fire service and ems (Emergency Medical Services). The way we know who has the authority in a given situation is by looking at the position of the people involved. A Major has authority over a Captain, who has authority over a Lieutenant, etc. There is a hierarchy of power and authority that gives order to the relationships, and lets everyone know their place in that hierarchy.
The down-side of this structure is that it must be enforced to work. There must be consequences for disobedience, for failure to follow orders. There must be a reason for those under authority to do what they're told, beyond the charisma of the one with the position - not because charisma and rapport in leadership aren't important (they are!), but because there are always those who will not submit to it without some sort of coercive incentive, and because there are times when fear would make someone hesitate from doing what is necessary. There is much more I could say about this, but I'm not writing a book!
This type of structure is extremely helpful in crisis situations, such as a battlefield, or a domestic emergency scene (such as a fire, a hostage situation, a medical emergency). In an emergency there simply isn't time to take an inventory of what jobs the responders would prefer. Conferring for the purpose of consensus takes too long. If we already know who the decision-makers are, the whole company can respond quickly and address the situation before it gets worse. I trust this is obvious. As a former volunteer firefighter and fire captain, I fully understand why this authority structure is so helpful.
The Biblical support for this type of authority can be found in Romans 13:4: For he [the governor/ruler] is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.
The second type of authority is found in people like Emily Post (an authority on etiquette), Dr. Phil (on relationships, etc.), Neil Anderson (on spiritual warfare), and others such as John Piper, Tim Keller, Bill Johnson, John & Carol Arnott - some of whom are authorities in some circles and not in others. This is the kind of thing that makes us say that someone is an authority on Shakespeare, or on certain medical procedures, or wood-working, or Egyptology.
We look for these authorities when we go into a research library, or research something on the internet. We don't want to hear what just anyone has to say, we want to know what the experts have to say--the authorities in the fields we are looking into.
This is not a denial of what is sometimes called "positional authority" (see the first type of authority, above), it's just a different way of looking at authority. In fact, these two types are often comingled, so that the ones with the position of authority, are the best ones for the job.
In churches, and other Christian organizations, positions and positional authority is necessary to make the organization work. But this works best when we fill positions with people who are already walking in the kind of authority the position recognizes or confers. We want to install elders who are already functioning as and recognized as spiritual leaders in the church in some way. We want treasurers who we know to be good at managing bank accounts, budgets, etc. (even if it's just their family budget). We want directors of organization who have some ability to lead people, administrators who have shown they can administer, and so on.
What is Biblical Authority?
I believe the starting point for understanding Biblical authority is Jesus teaching on authority in Matthew 20:25-28 (cf. Mark 10:42-45; Luke 22:24-30).25Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 26Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— 28just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (NIV)In this text there are at least 6 things we can learn from Jesus about authority:
1. Authority
as it is practiced outside the kingdom is not the model for authority in the
Kingdom. (vv.25-16a)
2. The
model of authority in the Kingdom is not structured as a chain of command. (vv.25-16a)
3. Authority
in the Kingdom serves others in the Kingdom. (vv.26-27)
4. Authority
in the Kingdom does not seek to be served (v.28a).
5. Authority
in the Kingdom is sacrificial for the sake of the many (v.28b).
6. Jesus’
way of exercising His authority is our model (v.28).
Explanation of these points:
#1 Jesus says, in effect, look at the world in and around Judea. Do you see how they do authority? Don't do it that way here.
#2 Jesus points out the hierarchy of rulers lording it over, who have high officials over them. This model he specifically rejects: Not so with you. This passages follows directly upon the request of James and John's mother to set up her two sons over the rest of the disciples. Jesus is saying: that's not how things are supposed to work in my Kingdom.
#3 It's clear that Jesus sees that the nature of authority in the Kingdom is about serving others. That is, authority in the Kingdom by nature seeks to serve those under that authority.
#4 Jesus, pointing to himself points out that He never used His authority to get others to serve Him. He is not the General ordering the Lieutenant to get him a cup of coffee. He is the General getting the cup of coffee for the Lieutenant.
#5 The nature of the authority as service, extends to the point of being self-sacrificial. The General doesn't send the Privates to die on the battlefield, while he is safe behind the lines. The General goes out on the battlefield and to die, so that the Privates stay safe.
#6 Strongly implied in that last verse, is that we take Jesus' way of relating to His disciples in His authority as our model for relating to others in our authority. To do that thoroughly, we would need to do an in depth study of the relational dynamics between Jesus and His disciples throughout His ministry. (I'll leave it to the reader to do that.)
But is this for all relationships in the Kingdom, or just how the Apostles are to relate to each other?
Some commentaries I consulted suggested that Jesus was obviously not talking about the relationship of the Apostles to the churches, but just the Apostles as they related to each other. Others suggested that Jesus is talking about all relationships in the Kingdom where there is an authority aspect in play. Which is right?Let's look at the Bible again. I'll give two examples where the Apostles apply the principles from the passage above to the churches:
Paul following up on a major ethical issue in the church in Corinth:
Not that we lord it over your faith, but we work with you for your joy, because it is by faith you stand firm. (2Cor. 1:24)
This is Paul's interpretation of his actions in 1Corinthians 5. He is not claiming the right of Apostolic authority over them, requiring their obedience, that is, he was not trying to lord it over your faith. Instead he interprets his actions as working with you for your joy, because it is by faith you stand firm. In reading 1Corinthians 5 in this light, one can see Paul using persuasion; he wants them to agree with him on how to look at and deal with this situation. He speaks forcefully, but still wants them to buy in to his way of approaching the issue.
Peter addressing the elders of the scattered churches says:
Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. (1Pet. 5:2–3)It's clear here, that Peter is applying the same principles we find in the Matthew 20 passage to the relationship between elders and the church in which they exercise authority. It's also evident that Peter is urging what I referred to above as type 2 authority. Note this: eager to serve and being examples to the flock.
I'm going to briefly mention Paul's letter to Philemon
In this letter Paul keeps balking at using his authority to tell Philemon what he so obviously wants him to do: set Onesimus free. Although he urges, appeals to, and drops some obvious and strong hints, he doesn't tell Philemon what to do. He leaves the final decision in his hands.
Here are some examples of what I mean:
Phm 8-9a Therefore, although in Christ I could be bold and order you
to do what you ought to do, yet I appeal to you on the basis of love.
Phm 14 But I did not want to do anything without your consent, so
that any favor you do will be spontaneous and not forced.
Phm 21 Confident of your obedience, I write to you, knowing that you
will do even more than I ask. (BTW,
the word for “obedience” here can also be translated “response/answer”)
What seems so clear in a careful reading of this passage is that Paul is empowering Philemon with all he needs to do the right thing, but not by directly telling him what to do. In effect, he, by persuasion, destroys the foundation for slavery in Philemon's heart & mind, but let's him be the one to push the wall over. This is such a great example of what Biblical authority is supposed to look like.
Church Office, AKA, the 5-Fold Ministry
Ephesians 4:11-16Some of my friends would challenge on grammatical grounds whether we should see 5 offices or 4 in Ephesians 4:11 (seeing pastors and teachers as one office). I'm not going to debate the point here, though I'm attracted to the way someone put it, there are grammatically 4, but practically 5. Regardless, resolving that question won't help us answer ours, so I'll just leave it where it lies.
After listing these positions in the church, Paul gives us the purpose of these positions. The purpose of these places of positional authority is not to consolidate power, it's not to get people to obey, or keep them in line, or make them do what they wouldn't do otherwise. The purpose of these offices is clearly stated: to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the whole body of Christ may be built up (Eph 4:12). This includes exercising that authority in such a way that the result is spiritual maturity (Eph 4:13), giving the members strength to stand firm in the face of lies and opposition (Eph 4:14), and helping them grow spiritually into their place in the body (Eph 4:15), all because the body is not held together by these offices, nor those who hold them, but by Jesus Himself (Eph 4:16).
The biggest problem with authority as telling people what to do, is that it creates dependence. If you can only do what the pastor says, if nothing can be done, unless someone in authority orders it, we become dependent on those in authority to do anything. Domineering parents, who control everything that happens in the home, create dependent children, who do not have the maturity to stand up to the temptations of the world, once they are out of the nest. Domineering spiritual leaders create spiritually immature followers, who don't know what to do, unless they are told.
But authority in the church, as Paul says in this passage, is not for creating dependence, but maturity. Authority in the church is supposed to be exercised in a way that develops spiritual maturity in others. Parents of young children know that they must be told what to do. But as children grow up, they transition from being told, to being persuaded (often by consequences, enforced or 'natural'). To be an adult means you know how to navigate through the many confusing choices in our world, and if we mess up, what to do about it. Similarly, in the Church, the purpose of authority is to help people grow up into their own identity in Christ, until they know how to respond to the wind and the waves of change, temptation, and doctrine that are sure to come.
To put it simply what my Reformed friends call the 4/5 offices, and my Pentecostal friends call the 5-Fold Ministry, exists for the church, not the other way around. They exist to serve the church, not to be served by it.
What about Hebrews 13:17?
Some of you may already be thinking of the one place where we seem to be told to obey our leaders (following the Type 1 style of authority noted above). Let's take a quick look at that, in context.Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you. (Heb 13:17)
Most translations have Obey here. But if you hover over the link, you'll see the NIV2011, which has Have confidence in.... What's going on?
The word for Obey in the original language (Greek) is “Peitho” (πείθω), not one of the more common words for "obey" in the New Testament. The basic meaning of the word, is "to persuade," and in the passive voice (as here) "to be persuaded," or "believe." It has the sense of following someone's example. It doesn't mean what the word obey usually implies in the English language: comply whether you like it or not. But it does mean that one's actions will be shaped by the one you are persuaded by. In other words, we ought not to see in this verse a call for people to blindly obey their spiritual leaders, but to do something along the lines of what verse 7 in this chapter says.
Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith. (Heb 13:7)
If the author of Hebrews wanted to emphasize the relationship of member to leader as one of obedience, he would have had to make his point more clearly than he did. As it is, he urges them to imitate [the] faith of their leaders (v.7), or to obey/be persuaded by them, suggesting that the relationship is not one of submissive/dominant, but of learner/model.
How does this affect the marriage relationship?
I'm so glad you asked!
Let's take a look at Paul's most extensive discussion on the marriage relationship: Ephesians 5:21-33. (I'm not going to put that entire long passage here. If you have a Bible handy, you may want to open it to that passage.)
You'll note first of all, that I'm beginning with verse 21, not verse 22. Although most English versions make a split between verses 21 and 22, in the original language, verses 21 and 22 are part of the same sentence. In fact, that rather long, Pauline sentence begins with verse 18! The "submitting to one another" in verse 21, is fourth in a list of participles that tell us what it means to be filled by the Spirit. When we are filled with the Spirit, according to Paul, we will Speak to one another..., Sing and make music... be always giving thanks..., and Submit to one another... To be more literal we would read this passage something like this "Be filled with the Spirit, speaking..., singing..., giving thanks..., submitting..."
So, one thing it means to be filled with the Spirit is to Submit to one another... (v.21). That's because we need each other. Paul says in Philippians 2:3 ...in humility consider others better than yourselves. Here's how I understand that passage: God is at work in your life in ways He's not at work in mine. Some things in you are better than those things in me. There is no one I can't learn from and become a better person than I am now, if I am ready to receive from them. Submitting to each other (back to our Ephesians passage now), has that benefit and blessing. The moment I believe there is no one for me to submit to, is the moment I believe that I have 'arrived' spiritually, and therefore bought into a lie.
A further aspect of submission is one that, if it were present in some fallen leaders, it may have prevented their fall. When we submit to each other, we invite them to speak into our lives, speak truth to us. We invite them to show us our 'gold' and help us see our 'muck.' Too many times, leaders surround themselves with people that submit to them, but to whom they will not submit to. The results are almost always the same: their ministry collapses. I'll not point to specific examples, but know that this happens in small ministries as well as big ones.
Paul applies this principle of submission to one another, to the church first and then to marriage.
In verse 22 of our passage the word 'submit' does not occur in the Greek text. It literally says (from verse 21) "Submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ, wives to your own husbands as to the Lord..." Paul moves without a breath from submission as applied generally, to a more specific application in the context of the marriage relationship.
Let's not pull any punches here, The way that wives are called to relate to their husbands requires surprising devotion: as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. That's a tall order! My goodness! There's not much wiggle-room in here is there!
Let's take a look at the word "submit" though. This word literally means to place oneself under. We should rightly infer that here it means to place oneself under the authority of one's husband. (I'm not going to address the hotly debated concept of headship here, since even if we resolved it, it wouldn't help us, as I hope we'll all see as the rest of my discussion unfolds.). It means to place oneself under someone or something else.
However, it's also important to note what it doesn't mean. Submit does not mean to allow oneself to be coerced. It does not imply blind obedience. Being connected with "out of reverence for Christ" strongly implies, that if a husband should tell his wife to do something that would violate a wife's reverence for Christ, she should refuse. If he tells her, to go and sacrifice to the goddess Dianna (the celebrated deity of Ephesus), she should tell him that she won't do it.
In thinking about the concept of the wife submitting to her husband, it's very significant to know one more important fact: the Bible nowhere, in not a single place, tells wives to obey their husbands. Nor does it tell husbands to make their wives obey them. Never. Not once. Anywhere. Look it up yourself, if you must. Paul does tell children to obey their parents, and slaves to obey their masters (chapter 6), but he doesn't tell wives to obey their husbands. Not here, not anywhere.
Whatever submission means it is not a synonym for obey.
I need to say something about husbands here too, don't I? If I don't, this whole thing would like like a one-sided submission, when this section on marriage in Ephesians 5 is introduced with submit to one another.
Husbands are called (IMHO) to even greater selflessness than wives are. Look at this: Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her (Ephesians 5:25). Paul doesn't stop there, but let's pause for a moment. How does Christ love the church? How much? What does He do for her? Remember our passage above: I did not come to be served, but to serve. A husband who treats his wife as his 'gopher' or his live-in maid, is not treating her as Christ treated the church.
But wait, there's more! ...and gave himself up for her means that husbands are to relate to their wives self-sacrificially. They are to lay down their lives for the sake of their wives. That's a Christ-like husband.
Further, the husband's job is to make his wife look brilliant: radiant, stain and wrinkle free (Eph 5:27). Pointing out all her mistakes and failures to her or anyone else, is certainly contrary to what it means to present her as holy and blameless.
Before moving on, let me say one more thing about this to married couples. Wives, it's not your job to make sure your husband does his. Husbands, it's not your job to make your wife do hers. Wives: submit to him as the church does to Jesus; Husbands: love her like Christ loves the church. Help each other, encourage each other in your respective parts in the relationship, but the very nature of each of your places in the relationship prevents you from putting forcing the issue on the other.
In most cultures, the husband has authority over his wife. In some relationships wives seem to have the authority. Whoever actually has it: use it to bless the other partner; don't use it to get your way. Period.
The Bottom Line
As we have looked at these texts above, and as we reflect on the nature of authority in the church and in the kingdom, I believe we must come to one conclusion:
The only legitimate purpose of authority in the Kingdom of God is to serve and empower those under that authority.Any other purpose is from the wrong kingdom.
No comments:
Post a Comment