The Galilean Fellows is a community of scholars engaging the culture and thought of the contemporary world with Jesus and the Scriptures
The Nature of Spiritual Authority in the Church
CONTENTS
I. Authorities in Conflict
. The Biblical Basis of Authority
. The Challenge of Jesus’ Authority
. The Nature of Spiritual Authority
II. Discerning Which Authority to Obey
. The Problem of Obedience – People Who Follow Hirelings
. The Problem of Authority – Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing
. Discerning True Spiritual Leadership
INTRODUCTION
In the past 200 years western thought has changed its concept of authority. Whereas previously authority was the premise from which one argued to a conclusion, today authority is seen as the conclusion arrived at by argument.1 The basis of any kind of authority must be demonstrated to a modern person, and authority which appears to be illegitimate is sure to be ignored and resisted. In many people’s minds, however, religious authority still carries weight as premise, and it is often easy to perpetrate abuse in the name of religious authority because this authority supposedly comes from God. It is the purpose of this paper to explore the nature of spiritual authority in the church as taught by the New Testament, clearly contrast spiritual authority with non spiritual, or spurious authority, to explore why people would follow false authority, to show that there are Biblical norms for identifying improper authority in the church, and to provide criteria for recognizing the true authority by which God’s kingdom will triumph.
In the Old Testament the Hebrew verb, taqer, carries the meaning of overpowering. The one who is stronger has authority over the weaker. The noun, toqer, “refers to the power of authority of a kingdom or a ruler.”2 The implication seems to be that the one who rules is the one who is stronger. While the Greek word, exonsia, is much broader and includes the right to bear authority of the freedom of action, it also includes the governmental function. Vine describes exonsia this way: “From the meaning of leave or permission, or liberty of doing as one pleases, it (exonsia) passed to that of the ability or strength with which one is endued, then to the power of authority, the right to exercise power.”3 According to Vine, then, there is a historical progression of meaning from the strength and ability to the imposition of governmental authority. The meaning of both toqer and exonsia implies the superior strength to impose the will of the one who carries authority upon another.
In Romans 13 Paul writes that there is no authority except that granted by God. The authority of God over the nations was axiomatic for the Hebrews. The establishment of the monarchy was God’s work, and afterwards under oppression the Hebrews hung on the conviction that God still reigned.4 The lesson that Nebuchadnezzar had to learn in Daniel 5 was that ultimately God rules the world, and in Acts 17 Paul tells the Athenians that God has set the times and boundaries of every nation’s life. Jesus told Pilate in John 19 that Pilate’s own authority to rule had come from God. The witness of scripture proclaims that the superior strength by which authority is maintained is a gift given by God to the possessor.
We have seen that taqer is the means by with the stronger exercises authority over the weaker. We have also seen that exonsia shares a historical progression from the idea of liberty to the idea of strength to the idea of control, and we have Paul’s declaration that this order is ordained of God. Here we have Biblical support for the “survival of the fittest,”5 and for the idea that the stronger shall rule the weaker. Authority is a gift from God as part of the natural order.
Jesus said, “I came not to bring peace on earth, but a sword” (Luke 12:51). However we may interpret this passage, it is clear that Jesus came to initiate conflict. The entire book of Revelation is a description of conflict between the evil rulers of this world and the authority of God’s kingdom (Rev. 11:15). Matt. 28:18 declares that as God has given Jesus the supreme authority over all others. Jesus parable of the strong man in Matthew 12:29 teaches the same thing. First you must tie up the strong man, Jesus said, and then you can destroy his house. A new government was taking over. “The binding of Satan associated with the last days (cf. Ass. Mos. 10:1:t. Levi 18:1) [was] already taking place.”6 A new authority with greater strength has appeared in the person of Jesus, and conflict is what one should expect. Luke 12:51
In Matthew 7:29 the people were amazed at Jesus teaching because of his authority. There was no external investment of authority in Jesus by either the religious or the political authorities. The authority of Jesus came from himself. It was his own personal qualities as an authority that gave him authority. This authority was self evident. In Matthew 21 when the local authorities questioned Jesus about his authority, he did not even feel the need to answer them, as his authority was self evident in his work and teaching.
Max Weber describes three types of authority, charismatic, traditional, and legal-rational.7 The first is based on personal qualities and involves an immediate situation. Once the situation is resolved, the leader’s authority evaporates. The second occurs when the need is permanent, spanning generations, and a role of leadership is routinized. Authority is then invested in a function, and the community recognizes certain individuals as right for the job. Legal-rational authority goes with the office, not with the person. In this case the person carries authority only by virtue of assignment to the office. In this scheme, the first two authority types depend upon personal strength, and in the third, the authority is based upon the power of an office.
New Testament authority is typically of the traditional type rather than the legal-rational type.8 The qualifications listed in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9 are really personal characteristics. The authority of the leaders to whom the believers in Hebrews 13:17 are asked to submit is an authority of the person rather than of the office. “They are keeping watch over your souls and will give an account.” The former leaders mentioned in Hebrews 13:7 carried authority by their faith and the outcome of their lives, and the present leaders have the same kind of authority.9 When his listeners demanded evidence of Paul’s authority, he typically appealed to two things (1) his appointment by Christ to preach the message and his fidelity to that message (Gal. 1:6-9) and (2) his record, based on relationship and example (Phil. 2:16; Gal. 1:11 ff; 2 Co. 7:2 1 Thess. 2:1-12).
The spiritual authority of a church leader is that of person and not that of office. The spiritual authority of a spiritual leader is the authority of Jesus manifested and recognized in the quality of life, which Jesus lives in the person. This is Paul’s final appeal in Gal. 2:20. After defending the integrity of his message, he appealed to the authority of the life that Christ was living out in him.
Up to now, I have argued that spiritual authority is essentially personal in nature, and that Jesus’ authority originates in his person, not in an office. Jesus does carry, however, the authority of office as well. The New Testament ascribes to him the authority of both priest (Hebrews 7) and King (Rev. 11:15). But in each case it is his person that qualifies him for the office. As priest, he is appointed to the superior priesthood of Melchezidek because of the quality of his own sacrifice. As king he is appointed because he is the unique son of David (Matt. 21:9; John 12:13) who shares the character of David in the quality of his obedience to God, even surpassing that of David.10 In contrast to the high priest who was appointed by political authorities of his time and in contrast to the emperor, Jesus’ authority still originates in his person and not in the office.
Spiritual authority is personal in nature and is invested by Jesus Christ in leaders whom he chooses, and this authority will be evident in the quality of life which these leaders live.
DISCERNING WHICH AUTHORITY TO OBEY :
THE PROBLEM OF OBEDIENCE-PEOPLE WHO FOLLOW HIRELINGS
In John chapter 10 Jesus warned against hirelings who do not care for the sheep and suggested that such people are really thieves and robbers. In this section we want to look at some of the reasons why believers would obey leaders who lack true spiritual authority, and the problems some of these leaders bring into the church.
2 Tim. 3:6-8 describes some of the persons who are susceptible to be led by false spiritual leaders. Verse 6 says they are swayed by their desires, corrupt mind and counterfeit faith. From a social science point of view Meissner has observed the characteristics of people who are susceptible to unhealthy obedience patterns.
Meissner describes the importance of mutual trust in a healthy relationship between a leader and follower. A problem in trust can result in basic mistrust or an excess of trust. “If a relationship …is governed by mistrust, to that degree it is impossible for the authority relation to work itself out in any but the terms of power and position.”11 The authority of personal character does not work, and the legal-relational basis of authority is all that can be effective (apart from transforming grace).
In the case of an excess of trust, mature obedience is also impeded. Self-reliance and objectivity are undercut. The hierarchical model of obedience based on the power [of office] takes over. 12 Meissner discusses the results of a trust deficiency in both the case of the leader and of the follower. In either case, lack of trust results in a relationship of authority based upon the legal-rational model rather than upon trust earned by the quality of the leader’s life and testimony. The authoritarian personality, whose need for power is rooted in a sense of powerlessness, allies himself with sources of power and control in the environment. He sees the relationship as dominance/submission, and trust is impossible.13 Excessively needing the security of rules and structure, this person chooses to follow a hireling who carries (figuratively, at least) a sword to maintain the impersonal legal-rational structure, and who is willing to dominate in the name of God.
Meissner lists three kinds of pathologies that tend to result in leader-follower dysfunction. The obsessive/compulsive individual who is rigidly focused on rigid structures and rules, the paranoid individual who is rigid and suspicious, afraid of being controlled, and feels shame when having to submit, and the narcissistic individual who thrives on approval of others to maintain a sense of self worth.14
Each of these persons, deficient in trust, overwhelmed by their shortcomings and swayed by many desires are susceptible to manipulation by leaders of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith who oppose the truth (2 Timothy 3:6-8). Weak in faith, those who are spiritually weak seek authorities who by the power of position give them the security they desire.
THE PROBLEM OF AUTHORITY: WOLVES IN SHEEP’S CLOTHING
In Galatians 2:4 Paul writes about false believers who slipped in to enslave the Galatians. In chapter 6:12-13 he goes on to say “Those who desire to make a good showing in the flesh try to compel you to be circumcised, simply that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ. For those who are circumcised do not even keep the Law themselves, but they desire to have you circumcised, that they may boast in your flesh. This then explains the pressure you feel to perform religious behaviors in spiritually abusive contexts. If you perform as they say you must: (1) it will make them look good; (2) their self-righteousness will escape the scrutiny of the cross of Christ as the only means to God’s favor; (3) it will allow them to examine you instead of themselves; (4) they will be able to ‘boast in’ or gain a sense of validation from your religious performance.”15 As in Galatians, here again the authority resorts to the legal-rational structure of the law in order to benefit from the performance of the followers.
In Mathew 7:15 Jesus warned his followers about following wolves in sheep’s clothing, and then mixed the metaphor by saying that these people would be known by their fruits. What were these fruits? They loved to judge other’s behavior, but considered themselves exempt from the same standards they applied to others (7:15). They loved public honor and were notably ostentatious in their display of piety (6:1-18). They loved material wealth (6:19-20; also see 1 Timothy 3:3b and Titus 1:7). Lacking the authority of character, they claim for themselves the authority of office and use this power to devour the sheep.
We observed earlier that all authority is from God.16 The legal-rational basis of authority is ordained of God, as we observed earlier, but it is not the basis of authority in the church. The superior power of God at work in the believer is destined to conquer the temporary power of the sword by love. Whether the sword is represented by brute force, deception, manipulation, or shame, it is still the hierarchy of this fallen world. It is significant that the first mention of hierarchal authority is mentioned in Genesis 3:16 immediately after the fall into sin. God told Eve he (her husband) would rule over her. But this rule is based on position (legal-rational) and is temporary, being part of the fallen world. 17
In Mathew 20:25-26 Jesus contrasted the legal-rational power of Gentile rulers with the kind of leadership expected of his followers. He said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. It will not be so among you; but whoever wishes to be great among you must be your servant”(NRSV). The personal quality of service, not the office is what qualifies the Christian leader.
This is not to say that the servant leader cannot make demands. Paul demanded the response of love and loyalty form his hearers based upon his relationship with them. In this Paul was following the example of the Lord who also commands love and loyalty. (But) “Love and loyalty were never forced from any one; they are the instinctive response of the soul to noble and loving personality. No other power has ever been able to elicit their higher values.”18
Even though Paul severely castigated the Corinthian church, he made his appeal on the basis of his own personal character and on his relationship with them. What authority he had as apostle was the authority of message bearer, not the authority of rule maker. He says, “I do not mean to imply that we lord it over your faith; rather, we are workers with you for your joy (2 Cor. 1:24).” Throughout Paul’s letters he continually appeals to the relationship he has built with his hearers as a reason they should listen to him.
CONCLUSION
In this paper we have explored the nature of authority in the church as taught by the New Testament, both in terms of what is legitimate and what is spurious, and have shown the Biblical norms to distinguish between true spiritual authority and false authority which opposes God in the name of religion. While the concept of authority has changed in the west over the last 200 years so that it is difficult to argue deductively form an assumption of authority, the authority of a person of integrity as a servant of Christ will still have an effect. When the authority of office or position is exercised in the church apart from the personal authority of one in whom Christ truly lives and rules, this exercise of authority is spurious. But when a person demonstrates the personal character of Christ in his or her life, this person ought to be invested by the church with an appropriate degree of spiritual authority on this basis alone commensurate with this person’s gifts and calling as demonstrated in his or her service. What we have not answered is how spurious authority may legitimately be resisted. How should one respond when the worldly authority of an office created by the church is used to demand compliance with non-spiritual objective? Giving attention to how Jesus managed his relationship with religious authorities and how Paul responded to challenges in the church directed against his own authority should be our primary sources. Rather that provide a check list of do and don’t, I suggest the reader follow up this study by examining the New Testament examples Jesus and his disciples provide. A list of possible scriptures to study are provided below.
Matthew 10:17-42, 11:25-27, 12:1-21, 17:22-27, 20:17-28, 21-23, 26:57-27:38,
Matthew 28: What is Jesus relationship to the local religious and political authorities after his resurrection? How does his authority confront and resist them today?
Mark 3:1-6: How does Jesus strategy of sending out his disciples challenge the authority of the official authorities here and in Matthew 10 and Luke 9?
Mark 7:1-13, 8:14-21: How is it that Jesus has one and the same criticism for both political and religious authorities?
Mark 9:33-37, 10:35-45, 11:1-12:17, 14:43-15:39,
Luke 1:46-56, 241-50, 6:1-11, 7:36-50, 11:37-12:34, 13:10-17, 13:31-14:24, 19:28-20:26, 22:47-25:56,
Acts 3-11, 16:1-18:17, 21-28.
John 2:1-3:21, 4-5, 7-9, 7-10, 11:45-12:19, 18-19.
1. Atkinson, Field, Holmes, and O’Donavan, editors, New Dictionary of Christian Ethics and Pastoral Theology. (Dowwners Grove;intervarsity,1995),179.
2. Haris, Archer, and Waltke, Theological wordbook of old Testament
(Chicago:Moody,1980),979.
3.Vine, W. E., Expository Dictionary of New Testament words. (Westwood:Revell,1966),89
4.Dunn, James D.G, words Biblical commmentary,vol.38B (Dallas:word,1988),761.
5.Darwin, Chrales, Origin of the species ( Philadelphia,J. C. Winston 1860)
6.Gardner, Richard B., Believers church Bible commentary, Matthew (Scottsdale:Herald Press,1991)201.
7.Willis, Timothy M. “’Obey Your Leaders’:Hebrews13 and leadership in the church,”
Restoration Quarterly 36:4 (1994): 317, quoting Max Weber on charisma and institution building, selected papers(ed S.N Einstadt: Chicago: University of Chicago Press,1968) 46-47.
8 Ibid 319.
9.Bruce, F. F The New International Commentary on the New Testament, the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1991) 385.
10.Jesus also is called a prophet, but a prophet’s authority is essentially traditional, not legal-rational as is the authority of priest or king.
11. Meisssner, William W. The Assault on Authority, Dialogue or Dilemma? (Maryknoll:Orbis1971) 239.
12 lbid. 240.
13. lbid. 257.
14 Ibid.260-270.
15.Johnson and Van Vonderen. The Subtle Power of spiritual Abuse (Minneapolis: Bethany House,1991) 37.
16. In Romans13:1 believers are told to be subject to government authority. The sword is given to human authorities to govern. But another reason for submission is given as well, and that is for conscience sake. Two authorities are invoked at this point. Both are given by God., but it is necessary to recognize each for what it is. In the end the first will bow the second. The second is stronger, and it is the second which has been invested in us for the sake of the witness according to Mathew 28:18-19. It is for our witness sake that we follow our conscience and submit to the first. But we submit only temporarily to temporary authority, first of all because this authority IStemporary, and second because our own authority is of a different nature. The greater strength of Jesus authority lies in being spiritual and eternal.
17.Both the rule of Adam over Eve (Genesis3) and the power of the sword (Romans1) need to be understood as God’s temporary means of retaining sin and preventing utter chaos in disobedient world. If God is not allowed to rule, then the strongest on earth will rule as temporary measure. But as Meissner has observed, there is no trust in this relationship. Romans 13 and various commands for women to obey their husbands should be read together. Respect for God’s temporary order is commanded, but in order, and that is one of mutual trust and commitments of love.
18.Robbins, Henry B. Aspects of Authority in the Christian Religion (Philadelphia: Griffith &Roland,1911)146
The Nature of Spiritual Authority is licensed by Philip Friesen under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.