Rethinking Authority

We’ve finished looking at the character of a leader and will soon look at some necessary skills. In this brief intermission, I’m attempting some gentle-but-clear challenges to common misconceptions about leadership which I see in our Anabaptist context.

Leadership usually includes the use of authority of some form. Which means that how we think about authority shapes how we lead. Incorrect views of authority lead to unhealthy leadership practices. Though these misconceptions are primarily about authority, they form (or malform) how we think about leadership and how it is practiced.

Misconception #1:
All authority includes the right to require people to obey.

Of the five spheres of authority outlined in the Bible (all under God’s authority, cf. Rom. 13), three come with an enforcement mechanism. The government has the sword, churches have the keys, and parents have the rod. In these areas, the Bible authorizes not only the right to tell people what to do but also the power to bring consequences when there’s a failure to comply. This is what Jonathan Leeman calls authority of command. In these spheres, God has given the authority not only to say “you should” but to say “you must.” This kind of authority includes the right to require compliance (though they are still governed and limited by God’s word).

However, in the two other spheres (husbands and wives, elders and church members) the Bible gives no enforcement mechanism. This means they have the responsibility to give direction but may not punish failure to comply. Leeman calls this authority of counsel. Husbands and elders may say “you should” but their authority stops there; “you must” is beyond what the Bible authorizes. Neither husbands nor elders are given the right to require obedience. Leeman rightly says, “A husband has no right to raise a hand, raise a voice, issue threats, or force his wife to do something against her will.”

If you understand this, it will reshape how you think about husband-wife relationships. Husband, your relationship with your wife is not primarily in dominion over her, but in companionship beside her. You are her partner, not her boss. It’s important to remember that God gave the creation mandate to Adam and Eve together, not just to Adam. And though Eve is called Adam’s “helper”, the Hebrew word doesn’t imply a lower rank. The next time this word appears is Exodus 18:4, and it’s used of God: “The God of my father was my help.” To be a helper is to provide something that would otherwise be lacking. God intends wives to live side-by-side with their husbands, not subjugated to them.

We ought to see a husband’s headship within this basic framework. As head, he has a unique responsibility to care for his wife — to protect and provide — but his headship does not give him unquestioned authority over her. It’s less like a lead sled-dog blazing the trail for the pack and more like a yoke of oxen where one (usually the more experienced) sets the pace for them both.

Similarly, this shapes how we think about elder-member relationships. Elders do not hold the keys, the church does. Matthew 18 is clear that the ecclesia binds and looses. The gathered assembly of believers is the final authority in the local church. This doesn’t mean the elders do not have a real responsibility, but it does mean that they do not have the biblical right to demand others to conform to their wishes. They can teach Scripture, they can provide reasons and try to convince, they can appeal and even beg, but they are not given a disciplinary mechanism. God gave that to the church.

We need to reckon with this because two of the most common places where abuse happens are husbands to wives and elders to church members. In both cases, the leader takes far more authority for himself than the Bible permits.

Misconception #2:
God-ordained authority may never be questioned or disregarded

In addressing this misconception, we need to think a bit about the nature of authority. Any authority that a person holds is derived from God. It is not inherent in them or in their position; it is delegated (and regulated) by God. As the Apostle Paul makes plain in Romans 13, “There is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.” Jesus claimed all authority for himself in Matthew 28:18 when he said, “All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth.” God alone possesses unqualified, unlimited, unquestionable authority.

Because all authority held by a human is delegated, it is limited by the one who gave it — God. Most of us understand that we must “obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). When any authority tells us to do something God has forbidden, or not to do something God has commanded, we must defer to the higher authority and obey God. We can disregard authority when it tells us to sin.

What’s less often understood is that we may also disregard commands which are outside the purview of a given authority. All authority — civil, religious, or domestic — is specific and limited. Civil authority is given to promote justice in a society; they do not have divine authorization to regulate worship. Likewise, the church (ecclesia) has authority to admit and remove people from the Christian community; it does not have the authority to raise an army, charge taxes, or appoint judges. Parents have authority to raise their children to be decent, responsible, and self-controlled; their authority ends when the children become adults. Any time someone in authority reaches outside his God-ordained sphere, we are free to disregard his demands.

Similarly, we are free to disregard authority when it is used to harm us rather than help us. This requires a fair amount of wisdom in practice, but it’s important that we have it as a category. God instituted authority to benefit us. When it is used instead to harm us, it is acting contrary to God’s design. A husband who uses authority to subjugate his wife rather than protect her and provide for her is outside biblical bounds.

All authority (except God’s) is limited. Though most of us would affirm this on paper, many leaders function as if they have the right to be obeyed without question. It’s not uncommon for someone who disagrees with a leader to be labeled as divisive or rebellious. In fact, I read an article in a conservative Anabaptist paper recently that equated disagreement with divisiveness. In practice, that kind of approach functions as if leadership should never be questioned. And therefore, it functions as if leadership is absolute. This is unhealthy, and it can quickly slip into abuse.

Because all authority is delegated by God, all authority is open to scrutiny and questioning. Asking questions of an authority should not be perceived as a threat. Of course authority may be questioned! We should assume that fallen humans will misuse their authority. Anything they require should be tested against biblical commands and principles to determine if they are permitted to require that of us.

Doesn’t this breed anarchy? It shouldn’t among those who are conscious that they will one day appear before Christ and give an account of their life. When you appear before him, will you be able to explain why you disregarded an authority he established? There are good reasons, but you must be able to ground them in Scripture. This isn’t about disregarding all authority and living for ourselves. It’s about submitting to Christ as our only Lord and testing all other authorities against what he says.