One of the recurring cries of leaders is a call to submission but that is only one side of the story.
Jesus said, in John 19:11 that “All authority is God given and God ordained” or “All authority is from God”. He effectively challenged those who sought His life, saying “You can do nothing against me except my Father allows it”.
That aspect of the teachings on authority is relatively easy to grasp. Its implications for us are harder to grasp, because of scriptures like Romans 3:1-2, which says, ““Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves”.
Peter went on to emphasize this further in 1 Peter 2:18-20, saying that we should even submit to harsh authorities.
To the last point it must be said that Human Scientists also advocate situational leadership, arguing that sometimes a harsh leader is quite necessary. Consider the role of a drill sergeant in instilling discipline in troops, so that they can learn to obey orders in the heat of battle – a requirement that is designed to save lives and win wars. It is important to bring this context, because I will later make a contextual case for harsher leadership styles.
The teachings of Paul in Romans and other scriptures, combined with the words of Jesus and Peter, have created some serious dilemmas for believers.
We find four authority tiers in the bible, namely God, The State (1 Peter 2:13-15; Romans 13:4), the family (Ephesians 6:10 relates to children and parents, whilst Ephesians 5:22-24 relates to husbands and wives) and the Divine (His Spirit (Rom. 8:14), His Word (2 Tim. 3:16), and Church leadership (Matt. 18:17-20, Heb. 13:17)). So God-given authority has a broad scope and God requires us to submit to and honor such authorities.
Where the dilemma comes in, is with individual leaders. Hitler comes to mind. Was he ordained of God? I doubt it. I know that is an extreme example, but it serves to test the boundaries of the principle of authority. Clearly it could not have been God’s intent to universally embrace all leaders within the scope of His authority. Here I make a very contentious point in saying that there comes a point where even husbands step outside of the principles of authority and invalidate themselves, which the church should consider before subjecting a battered wife to an abusive husband.
Note, that I define authority as a principle, not a person. When a person submits to Godly principles, they acquire Godly authority and the power to represent God on those terms. But they can later step out of authority through disobedience and that will invalidate them, whoever they are.
We have a tendency to confuse the principle or concept of authority, with the subject of authority. I fear that is a hangover of the Catholic era, where the clergy wielded oppressive and offensive power through their command of the scriptures and the seals of office. That is not leadership, nor is it legitimate authority – it is merely control and power.
People can disappoint and have proved time and again to be fallible, but God’s authority as a principle has never failed, not in one single dimension. This separates the authority of God from the person in authority, for authority is continuous, but people are temporary.
Jesus said, in John 19:11 that “All authority is God given and God ordained” or “All authority is from God”. He effectively challenged those who sought His life, saying “You can do nothing against me except my Father allows it”.
That aspect of the teachings on authority is relatively easy to grasp. Its implications for us are harder to grasp, because of scriptures like Romans 3:1-2, which says, ““Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves”.
Peter went on to emphasize this further in 1 Peter 2:18-20, saying that we should even submit to harsh authorities.
To the last point it must be said that Human Scientists also advocate situational leadership, arguing that sometimes a harsh leader is quite necessary. Consider the role of a drill sergeant in instilling discipline in troops, so that they can learn to obey orders in the heat of battle – a requirement that is designed to save lives and win wars. It is important to bring this context, because I will later make a contextual case for harsher leadership styles.
The teachings of Paul in Romans and other scriptures, combined with the words of Jesus and Peter, have created some serious dilemmas for believers.
We find four authority tiers in the bible, namely God, The State (1 Peter 2:13-15; Romans 13:4), the family (Ephesians 6:10 relates to children and parents, whilst Ephesians 5:22-24 relates to husbands and wives) and the Divine (His Spirit (Rom. 8:14), His Word (2 Tim. 3:16), and Church leadership (Matt. 18:17-20, Heb. 13:17)). So God-given authority has a broad scope and God requires us to submit to and honor such authorities.
Where the dilemma comes in, is with individual leaders. Hitler comes to mind. Was he ordained of God? I doubt it. I know that is an extreme example, but it serves to test the boundaries of the principle of authority. Clearly it could not have been God’s intent to universally embrace all leaders within the scope of His authority. Here I make a very contentious point in saying that there comes a point where even husbands step outside of the principles of authority and invalidate themselves, which the church should consider before subjecting a battered wife to an abusive husband.
Note, that I define authority as a principle, not a person. When a person submits to Godly principles, they acquire Godly authority and the power to represent God on those terms. But they can later step out of authority through disobedience and that will invalidate them, whoever they are.
We have a tendency to confuse the principle or concept of authority, with the subject of authority. I fear that is a hangover of the Catholic era, where the clergy wielded oppressive and offensive power through their command of the scriptures and the seals of office. That is not leadership, nor is it legitimate authority – it is merely control and power.
People can disappoint and have proved time and again to be fallible, but God’s authority as a principle has never failed, not in one single dimension. This separates the authority of God from the person in authority, for authority is continuous, but people are temporary.
Where there is right leadership of homes, children are more focused and self assured and wives are fulfilled. Where God’s Word overrules human whim, right decisions prevail. Where spiritual leaders rule well, they are worthy of a double reward. And individuals who learn to handle God's Word with fear and wisdom, will find victory through the authority extended to them by the Word.
Saul lost his (spiritual) authority to David, who not only acquired Saul’s anointing, but also inherited his throne. Saul held the kingdom hostage for years after, by holding onto the weakest element of authority, namely positional authority i.e. power and control. He occupied the throne and had the means to enforce his position, regardless of God’s greater intention for David.
David knew what the score was, but as is often the case in leadership tussles, he had to patiently wait for his moment knowing its inevitability and trusting in his anointing. There is such wisdom in his demeanor and I counsel leaders-in-waiting to learn patience, for it is in such times that God builds character. In fact, during his time of waiting, David built vital alliances and an army in waiting, a great example for leaders-in-waiting who should spend their waiting days constructively building alliances and support structures. It is a foolish leader who believes that his/her future role will be effective without the support of informal power bases. For no man/woman is an island.
There is so much yet to say, but let me close by saying that any principle is only valid if it holds true for all conditions. Authority as a person fails routinely and is, by all empirical considerations, invalid. But (godly) authority, as a principle is always valid and consistent for all observations.
(c) Peter Eleazar at www.bethelstone.com
Saul lost his (spiritual) authority to David, who not only acquired Saul’s anointing, but also inherited his throne. Saul held the kingdom hostage for years after, by holding onto the weakest element of authority, namely positional authority i.e. power and control. He occupied the throne and had the means to enforce his position, regardless of God’s greater intention for David.
David knew what the score was, but as is often the case in leadership tussles, he had to patiently wait for his moment knowing its inevitability and trusting in his anointing. There is such wisdom in his demeanor and I counsel leaders-in-waiting to learn patience, for it is in such times that God builds character. In fact, during his time of waiting, David built vital alliances and an army in waiting, a great example for leaders-in-waiting who should spend their waiting days constructively building alliances and support structures. It is a foolish leader who believes that his/her future role will be effective without the support of informal power bases. For no man/woman is an island.
There is so much yet to say, but let me close by saying that any principle is only valid if it holds true for all conditions. Authority as a person fails routinely and is, by all empirical considerations, invalid. But (godly) authority, as a principle is always valid and consistent for all observations.
(c) Peter Eleazar at www.bethelstone.com
No comments:
Post a Comment