CHRISTIAN AUTHORITY: ITS MEANING, USE & ABUSE IN CHURCHES
“Jesus spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore & make disciples of all nations… teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” [Matt.28:18-20]
"If I your Lord and Teacher have washed your feet, you also should was one another’s feet. For I have set you an example, that you also should do as I have done to you, Truly a servant is not greater than his master, and no one who is sent is superior to the one who sent him.” [John 13:16]
“You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It must not be so among you but whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to take the first place among you must be your slave; just as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve and to give his life a ransom for many.” [Matt.20:25-27]
“If I should boast I will boast of the things that show my weakness”… [2Cor.11:30 - Paul writing of his qualifications and rights to lead and teach with authority.]
“Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death - even death on a cross. Therefore God also highly exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” [Phil.2:5-11]
This study was undertaken a result of experiencing and seeing severe bullying of clergy and especially trainees in the Diocese of Guildford, particularly by a senior member of the Bishop's staff, 'Canon Dr.' H....W........, who was at that time the Diocesan 'Director of Ministry, Training and Discipleship'. This combination of the worst characteristics of Mrs. Proudie and Mr. Slope in Barchester Towers has now thankfully retired! She acted in the diocese as though she was emulating Rosa Klebb, the controlling villainess in Ian Fleming's 'From Russia with Love', and with the same misandry. Complaints about her bullying were made to the diocese, particularly to the former Bishop of Dorking, who failed to reply to registered letters asking for pastoral and professional support after a victim of her bullying had a heart attack. That bishop had already said personally that one had to be careful of her: "...even bishops have to obey Hazel!". An archdeacon admitted that the situation had been one of bullying, but nothing was done to challenge her. Later a report of the situation was given in an interview with the present Bishop of Guildford, who ignored acting upon the reported abuse, even copying to the abuser the minuted details of the meeting where the complaint was made, in the same email in which he sent the minutes to the complainant for checking. The bishops and other officials had often been informed about the abuser's character and her abusive treatment of those for whose pastoral care and training she had been entrusted with responsibility. Her bullying, duplicity, coercive control and vengeful misreporting on those who she disliked, damaged the ministry and emotional well-being of at least 17 ministers and trainees to my personal knowledge. She especially connived to bully those in whom she detected weaknesses which she could exploit. (Documentary evidence of this has been saved.) The bullying was known about and covered up by senior staff, yet she continued to be promoted, expanding her area of influence and being given too much power and credibility in the diocese, which she abused for years. The present Bishop of Dorking didn't even reply to a registered letter of resignation, in which the resigning minister mentioned the bullying as his sole reason for resigning. The Bishop of Guildford passed it off with the comment "I am sorry that you are resigning on health grounds". In present terminology the 'Director of Ministry, Training and Discipleship' exerted 'Coercive Control' in the diocese, even over the bishops. Such behaviour is now regarded as an illegal use of power. In a secular organisation it would not have been tolerated. For a period of time the present Bishop of Guildford even put her in charge of Diocesan 'Safeguarding' even though he had been specifically informed about her bullying. This effectively meant that complaints were 'discouraged' by the powers in charge of the diocese. One who wanted to take his complaint about her bullying further, had tentatively contacted the Safeguarding team and had written a full report on the bullying, but was warned by an experienced senior minister in the diocese not to proceed: "It will be your ministry which is brought to an end; they won't do anything to damage hers!"
The Diocese and Bishops proudly advertise their 'safeguarding' credentials; they have a splendidly written Safeguarding Policy and Safeguarding Officers, which the bully helped to draft. However, like proclaiming one's faith and care, words about 'safeguarding' are easy; acting upon them righteously is more uncomfortable and challenging. It has been stated (professionally by officials and in 'safeguarding' documents published by both the Church and secular organisations) that "those who cover up abuse are as culpable as the abusers".
As a response to this individual and institutional bullying, I undertook this study to reflect on the true meaning of the term 'authority' in scripture and Church administration, having seen its abuse at close hand. As a minister one takes vows to 'obey' one's bishops 'in all things lawful', but when they disregard both secular law AND Christ's expectations of righteous behaviour, one recognises the limitations of the authority and failings of Church leaders. Some are more intent on building and arrogantly maintaining their social position, or that of their institution, professing their faith and righteousness shallowly, and maintaining a surface image of respectability, power and authority, than seeking the truth and working for true righteousness. Where this is the case in any Church leader. one has to question their suitability for the role with which they are entrusted by God and the Church. Real spiritual authority comes only if one adheres to truth and remains true to God's ways. Where a Church leader or any Christian, however important acts against truth or closes their mind to it, their authority is void. One is forced to question how they were chosen for their position, perhaps more through political ambition, social contacts or arrogantly pushing themselves forward, rather than the guidance and ordination of God, translating them to position and guiding their decisions and actions.
Authority is an important, often-used term in the teaching of Christ and the Epistles. But its use has been much abused, misunderstood and misapplied through Church history and continues to be today. Popes, secular rulers with authority over churches, archbishops, bishops, patrons, priests, church officials and those with ministries and responsibilities on every level of Christian service, Christian parents and every Christian witnessing in the world need to recognise that their use of the authorisation, which Christ has given us to represent Christ and God’s Truth in the world gives us tremendous responsibilities. Christ’s Body was never founded to be an imperial or democratic organisation. It is intended to be a ‘theocratic’ community, recognising the dependence of both leaders and members on the lead given and exemplified by the Holy Trinity. Just as we are commissioned to ‘rightly handle the word of truth’ [2Tim.2:15] we need to ‘rightly handle the powers, gifts and responsibilities with which we have been entrusted. I have been a victim of abuse of influence and power by Church leaders myself; it has damaged me emotionally, and damaged my health and the health of those I love, while being covered-up by arrogant church leaders. I have recognised and know church leaders of integrity, but have also witnessed authoritarian abuse several times over 60 years in different churches of various denominations, particularly recently and formerly at the end of a difficult time in an evangelical Bible College. So I have made this study to explore the true meaning of Christian authority and to encourage Christians in the church to revise their priorities and bring reform.
I deliberately use multiple scriptural quotations throughout this study to justify the argument. In my experience, (particularly during 15 earlier years in the Evangelical churches and a Free Church Bible-College, then experiencing more recent abuse of leadership positions), it is often those who insist on the authority of scripture and leaders, who are most selective in their use of biblical justifications, or who most insist on their personal authority. The teachings of Jesus especially need to be read more holistically.
EXAMPLES OF ABUSE OF AUTHORITY IN CHURCH CONTEXTS
Abuse of authority and power takes many forms:
· Factions damage the unity, peace, witness and encouragement to holiness that Christians should find together.
· Splits occur through limited interpretations of doctrines or aspects of faith not clearly defined in scripture.
· Influential factions blackmail the institution to follow their agenda by threatening to withdraw finance or support. Some evangelical groups in the Anglican church are doing this at present over issues of sexuality, marriage and doctrinal issues with which they do not agree. Liberal Christians can equally damage unity and witness to the outside world by insisting on the universal application of their own interpretations.
· Groups from different cultures and countries with varying approaches to Western European Christians may insist that synods follow their bias. This can hold back the development of Western churches in the Anglican Communion or Roman Catholic Church towards true application of faith in a changing world.
· Some people with a small amount of power or influence, some who lack vision or insight, some with too high opinion of themselves or low self-esteem, may try to force their own way, often without recognising the greater breadth of God’s truth. They damage the potential for others’ spiritual growth or the development of the Church towards reflecting the Kingdom of God by asserting their own will, not recognising the value of alternative spiritualities or variant interpretations.
· A lazy priest, neglecting pastoral duties, ill, personally insecure, needs to be regarded as spiritual ‘father’ of the parish. Jealous of his curate’s popularity for the unpaid work he does, he & his wife resort to putting the curate down in public, lying over the other’s ministry to assert their own social & institutional standing in the parish.
· A Director of ministry and training, with sociopathic character faults that makes her need to dominate those for whom she has responsibility, is over-promoted. She abuses her power to bully and undermine those entrusted to her. Despite several complaints to the diocese, and diocesan leaders knowing her character, she is given further authority.
· When her abuse and bullying causes a curate to have a heart-attack she arrogantly assumes the ‘authority’ to falsify reports of her actions, lying to higher authorities, confident that they will accept her word & authority due to her position.
· Diocesan officials close rank to cover up her abuses (also reported by other ministers for many years), as child-abuse by clergy was also covered-up elsewhere. Members of the victim’s church and local clergy are told not to contact him. The Diocese does not want her abuse known, so they leave the victim and his partner unsupported, except by secular friends and a few church-members who ignore the institutional ruling. Temple-priests similarly ignored a damaged man’s plight before he was helped by the Good Samaritan.
· When the victim prepares to send his written, full-account of the bullying in a complaint to the Safeguarding Team he is confidentially advised, by a senior member of the clergy, that it is his own ministry which will be threatened, not that of the bully, as has previously happened in bullying complaints by her other victims.
· Three bishops (one Anglo-Catholic, two Evangelical) who advertise their pride in ‘safeguarding’ and ‘pastoral care of their clergy’ maintain this cover-up, deliberately failing to give pastoral or professional support to her victims. The diocesan bishop even, for a time, puts the reported abuser in charge of the Safeguarding Team, which effectively deters the victim and others from reporting complaints.
· The bishops pretend that the curate has resigned from the diocese “for health reasons” when they have been told specifically in writing that the resignation is due to the ongoing effect of bullying by this senior-member of the bishop’s staff, “not for heath reasons”.
· The Diocese used ‘gagging orders’ to silence other victims of the same duplicitous bully, threatening the pensions of salaried staff.
· Some church leaders use their influence and authority to silence critics, destroy or put-down theological literature with which they disagree, or remove those who have different interpretations of faith from their own. They do not appreciate sufficiently or recognise the value of multiple approaches to spirituality and truth in order to build ideas and move the Church forward in its understanding of Truth to expand God’s Kingdom.
· Bishops should feel able to trust the integrity & wisdom of those the Church has chosen to employ in pastoral care. An Evangelical bishop who gives all outward impression of being self-satisfied & sure of his judgements, oversteps his authority and position by ordering a gay clergyman to limit to a handful the guests at his civil partnership registration & demands that no photographs should be taken. No leader, secular or religious, has such authority over the private life or freedom of another. Meanwhile he neglects reported clerical abuse.
· An archdeacon is sent to inspect the ‘sleeping arrangements’ of another gay clergyman and partner, again displaying lack of trust in the integrity of someone who the Church has trusted to be licensed for ministry.
· In the vestry, shortly before she is about to lead the main Christmas Carol Service, a liberal-catholic minister is informed insensitively by her Evangelical vicar that in the new-year the new Evangelical bishop, who has never met her or talked to her, has been advised not to renew here license for ministry.
· Some Church leaders seem to feel that their beliefs and their position in a religious organisation gives them ‘authority’ to ignore common courtesies or over-ride secular regulations and laws, including human rights.
· Some synod members, committees and diocesan managers feel that they have authority to make earthly rules, sometimes over-riding the ways in which God’s Spirit appears to be directing and advancing God’s Church.
· Many commit these abuses in the misapprehension or false understanding that they are ‘protecting the institution of the Church’ or ‘maintaining peace, unity and the status quo.’….
There are multiple further examples of such arrogance, misunderstanding of Christian authority and power or misapplication of how to use spiritual or institutional influence in a Christ-like way. Who do those church members or ‘leaders’ who falsify truth, abuse position or cover up abuse of power think they are? What do they think they are doing as disciples or leaders? Abuse of authority is little different from the authorities who used their power & influence to persecute and execute Jesus. There is room for ALL in Christ’s Body, but those with power-hungry, bullying, 'Diva-like' or sociopathic characters, or those with tendencies to coercive control (illegal in England & Wales) should not be promoted to high leadership in the Church or community. Church leadership is intended to be about humble service of God’s Truth. In my experience there is more abuse of authority & duplicity in some church leadership than is accepted in most secular organisations other than politics & local government. This does not detract from my belief in the truth of the tenets of Jesus’ teaching or that Christianity, if followed truly, has the answers to the world’s needs. We must recognise that most Christians, even church leaders, do not actually follow or apply Jesus’ teaching to the whole of their lives and most churches do not resemble the Kingdom of God as closely as Christ taught us to build it. But following God in Christ-like ways should be our aim. I have leaned by experience and seeing the abuse of others, not to trust leaders fro whom arrogance, pride in their social position, defense of the church as an institution, or personal ambition are of greater priority than following the example and precepts of Jesus.
Many Christians, including leaders, expect God or Christ to act as a constitutional monarch, rubber-stamping their plans, accepting their ideas and rules, and turning a blind eye to their sins or duplicity. This is false faith. The traditional belief that any leader appointed and anointed by the Church, has God-given, Spirit-confirmed, Spirit-led and Spirit-inspired authority is no longer literally acceptable, since all leaders are fallible and so many leaders have undoubtedly abused their position.
Some believe that their faith and ‘Christian conscience’ gives them the right to over-ride or reject human rights that the secular world accepts. (Good examples are seen in the mess Church councils have made over issues of acceptance of women’s ministries, gay relationships, critical biblical scholarship or freedom to critically explore spiritual mysteries.) All abuse of authority or misapplication of Christ’s teaching goes against Christ’s message about truth and service of others. Church leaders sometimes try to justify their false behaviour as ‘protection of the Church’. They are not ‘protecting Christ’s Church’ or ‘maintaining God’s Kingdom’.
All falseness moves the Church further away from resembling God’s Kingdom of truth, justice, equity, peace & love. Equally importantly, every argument, abuse or mistake is a terrible witness to the watching world. If we want those outside the Church to believe that we have the truth that could transform and bring abundance to their lives, (as I believe we have if we truly follow Jesus Christ,) we need to be seen to live by that belief and benefit from it.
CHRIST’S EXAMPLE OF USING AUTHORITY
When Jesus gave ‘authority’ to his followers, he gave us covenant responsibility for this earth and God’s people, and responsibility for promoting Truth, both the truths he taught and truth that would develop as Christian under-standing expanded and God’s Spirit guided. As he emphasised to James and John [Mk.10:45], his example of servanthood did not expect his followers to assert more power than he himself ever assumed in his own humble life-time. Philippians 2:5-11(cited at the head of this paper) demonstrates the effectiveness of leadership by humility and service. Seamus Heaney meaningfully called Christ’s activity of the Cross “the power of power not exercised.”
“…When soldiers mocked
Blindfolded Jesus and he didn’t strike back
They were neither shamed nor edified, although
Something was made manifest – the power
Of power not exercised, of hope inferred
By the powerless forever.” [Seamus Heaney, ‘Weighing In’]
In a world where we recognise that we can no longer trust many politicians, business or institutional leaders, a moral lead should and must be recognisable in Christians and the Church if we are truly to represent the truth and freedom that Christ achieved and offered. Christian witness is damaged by authoritarianism or inability to cope peacefully with varied interpretations of truth and divisiveness or division within the Body of Christ. We should be recognised as standing for truth, using God’s authority and human influence and authority responsibly, and rightly modelling good, holy, inclusive life for the world, which contains even more divisions of understanding and culture that the Church itself. The Church is not a sacrosanct institution. If it is doing wrong, as the prophets and Jesus regularly criticised the activities and leadership in the Temple, we have God’s authority and command to reform it. Malachi and Isaiah would not have used the trite platitudes to excuse abusers and abuses that we sometimes hear from spokespeople for the Church today.
THE NEW TESTAMENT MEANING OF ‘AUTHORITY’
The Greek term most frequently used in the New Testament for Christian ‘authority’ is ‘exousia’. Philologists apply several roots to it: It is a compound of ‘ex’ - ‘out of’ and ‘ousia’ - ‘substance’, suggesting that we are able and allowed to act because of what we are; our actions and lives should be appropriate to who we are. This is not related to our social or institutional position or our personal strength: Our ‘authority’ comes from who we truly are in Christ and through the integrity of our relationship with God. The use of the term ‘exousia’ did not originate initially in the idea of ‘power’ but in what is ‘lawful’ (‘exesti’). God gives certain people permission, authorisation, leave or liberty to exercise power on God’s behalf and according to what is right. Their authority does not just allow them to do what is right for themselves, or what seems right to them: As in Christ’s parables about stewardship, all leaders and believers are God’s stewards of Truth, trusted to exercise influence for the up-building of the whole Body of Christ and the extending of God’s Kingdom. Those with ‘exousia’ authority are responsible to God, to righteousness, to truth, and to those for whom they are given responsibility, to exercise their influence responsibly and truthfully.
Perhaps the Church should use the term ‘authorisation’ rather than ‘authority’ to translate Christian ‘exousia’, to distinguish it from authoritarian power. This might remind us that any power or influence we have is not our own; we are representatives, responsible like ‘ambassadors’ for presenting and bringing God’s authority to situations. People may be given the right to exercise power or to govern [Matt.9:6; 21:23; 2 Cor.10:8]. But being entrusted with position by God or the Church does not give anyone the permission to act as they like, outside God’s Kingdom-principles of justice, peace, righteousness, truth, equity and holiness. There is no room in scripture for ‘authoritarianism’, abuse, independence in use of power or the false exercise of strength, position or influence. When one is exercising rule responsibly the righteous should be able to recognise that the rule is lawful and Christ-like, encouraging them to follow the lead and example [Matt:28:18; Jn.17:2; Jude 25; Rev.12:10; 17:13]. It is God who people are obeying; the leader is followed and obeyed only according to their obedience to God. When priests, bishops or church officials make vow of allegiance to those above them in the institution their obedience should never be unconditional. It can only be “in all things lawful,” remembering that authority rests in allegiance to the will of God, not human demands. Too many decision-makers in Church institutions have interpretations or expectations that appear unlawful according to the Christian consciences of others. Differences of opinion or interpretation are inevitable as the Body of Christ is formed of people with so many different backgrounds, cultures, experiences, ways of thinking, and ways of relating to God.
OBEDIENCE TO AUTHORITY IN THE CHURCH
Scriptural injunctions that one should obey one’s appointed secular leaders as well as one’s religious leaders, because they are part of God’s ordering of society [Rom. 13:1-2; Eph.6:5; Col.3:20-22; Heb.13:17] are culturally understandable. The Church needs to be able to operate effectively and truthfully to witness rightly within the secular society if it is to communicate Christ’s message effectively to that society. Christians are intended to interact in the world and deserve a position where we are able to winsomely influence and challenge society, promoting and modelling truth, moving the community towards God’s Kingdom. We will not do this by adopting or aping secular trends, pretending to be spiritually orientated, maintaining irrelevant traditions, rebelling against secular rule or undermining others. Neither should the Church be bland, unchallenging, or try to maintain peace through mildly accepting an inadequate ‘status quo’. There are many areas of Church and secular life where we will need to challenge or work for social, political or cultural change. Opposition with integrity offers reform; it does not encourage destructive rebellion. Destructive revolution would be false use of Christian authority - an idea with which Bonhoeffer struggled.
Christianity itself has rarely if ever grown through times of inertia or when it has sought to maintain a comfortable status quo. It has grown through revolutionary periods when false or inadequate practices have been challenged: Jesus challenged the institutional religion of the Temple; the Letters to the Churches in Revelation 2&3 challenged inadequacies in early churches, as do many New Testament Epistles. Doctrinal arguments challenged Church councils to search for truth; Luther and later Reformers challenge the authority and practices of the Roman Church, as the Counter-Reformation and Vatican II Church challenged itself internally. Scientific, historical, archaeological and psychological research in the C18th and C19th Enlightenment challenged the Church to be less superstitious and take history and science seriously, rather than persecute as Galileo had previously suffered. Biblical scholarship and comparative religion challenge naïve, literal acceptance of scriptural texts. Appropriate new practices, understandings and ideas of worship, evangelism and truth challenge Church activities and beliefs today. We should be working towards an authority in the Church that is founded ‘in Spirit an in Truth’ [Jn.4:23]. Christ’s teaching was practical; our witness and influence in the world depends on our integrity and awareness of how Christ’s teaching applies to the world as it really is. If, as has become a common perception today. Churches are believed to be blinkered to science, scholarship or social realities, covering up abuses, not living according to Christ’s principles, acting primarily for their own good or being naïve in their belief and practices, people will not be encouraged to follow Christ. Many outside the Church recognise good and truth in Jesus and his teachings but would not consider joining a church, because they do not recognise in Christians that we are following him sufficiently. We don’t have the Christian ‘authority’ in society that we should be recognised as having because we don’t resemble Christ as we should. But Christ ‘authorises’ us to represent him truthfully to our world: We are stewards of a truth that should abundantly improve and deepen the lives of others as well as ourselves.
JESUS’ AUTHORITY
The Gospel writers claim that Jesus was recognised as teaching ‘with authority’ (‘exousia’) [Matt. 7:29; Mk. 1:22,27; Lk.4:32, 36]. This seems to refer to his ‘charisma’ as much as his persuasive, oratorical or spiritual power, although his miracles as well as his character affirmed the truth behind who he was and what he taught. Jesus spoke with a truth that was more compelling, attractive and felt more true than the contemporary religious and social traditions, laws and practices which enslaved people. His truths freed people’s minds and lives. His authority was recognised as having a different and higher source than the authority claimed by Scribes, Pharisees and Sadducees. Their power was based on ‘archŏn’ (also translated as ‘authority’) which came from their assumed high social and religious position [Jn.7:26, 48; 12:42]. They exercised ‘dunatós’ (’power’/’might’ also occasionally translated as ‘authority’ – Acts 25:5]. Christ usually exercised his authority far more gently and winsomely. Jeus practised ‘authority’ not so much through exerting ‘power’ over any, but by his teaching, example, love, healing, reconciliation and bringing peace. He explicitly told Pilate [Jn.18:36-38] and his disciples that his authority was different from worldly authority: “You know that those who are supposed to rule over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them but it shall not be so among you. Whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you, must be slave of all. For the Son of Man also came not to be served, but to serve and give His life as a ransom for many” [Mk.10:42-45].
The Gospels record that Jesus claimed God-given authority to forgive [Matt.9:6; Mk.2:10; Lk.5:24]; to have authority over spirits and demons: [Matt:10:1; Mk.3:5; Lk.9:1]; to judge and condemn [Lk.12:5; Jn.5:27] and to have been given “all authority in heaven and earth” [Matt.28:18], including over human beings [Jn.17:2]. But even Jesus acknowledged that any authority he had came from God and was reliant on his Father: " I can do nothing on my own… I seek to do not my own will but the will of him who sent me" [Jn.5:30].
THE AUTHORITY THAT JESUS PASSED TO HIS FOLLOWERS & ITS USE TODAY
The Gospels and Epistles claim that the authority which Jesus had to forgive and heal, he passed on to his followers [Mk.6:7; Lk.9:1; 10:19] even the authority to perform miracles [Lk.10:19]. This was recognised when he personally sent out and empowered the Twelve then the Seventy in mission [Mk.3:15; Matt.10; Luke 10:1-23]. But he reminded them “No disciple is above his teacher, nor the servant is above his master; it is enough for the disciple to be like the teacher and the servant like the master...” [Matt.10:24-25]. This humble exercise of dependent power and authority, modelled on Christ’s use of ‘exousia’ was then extended to Christ’s Church after Pentecost through the gift of the Holy Spirit. The Apostles exercised a particular ‘authority’ in the early Church because of their close allegiance to Christ. And through God’s Spirit a measure of that responsible use of authority, spiritual power and commission has been passed down to all Christ’s followers. When Jesus sent out his apostles he gave them authority and sent them to “proclaim the Kingdom of God, to heal the sick, and to cast out demons.” [Mk.3:15] After his resurrection he commissioned them to travel into all the world, make disciples and teach, authorizing them to receive his Spirit and to proclaim God’s forgiveness of people’s sins [Jn.20:22-23; Matt.28:18-20]. Our spiritual gifts, our calling and authority remain dependent on God; they are not for us to exercise power independently or for our own aggrandisement, as Simon the Magician discovered [Acts 8:9-24]. Some of the more arrogant Church leaders seem to neglect this and follow their own way, rather than humbly seeking spiritual dependency on the Lord. If people recognise arrogance, self-satisfaction and lack of humility in a leader, teacher or Church they are less likely to admire or follow them or accept their witness.
For thinking Christians today one uncomfortable area of Jesus’ teaching about authority is the authority to heal. Jesus gave the Seventy ‘authority over serpents and scorpions and the power of evil, but not over human beings’. [Lk 10:17-20]. This may, of course include later additions to Christ’s actual teachings, but Christ definitely appears to have exercised authority to free people from bondage and disease. He sent the disciples out with authority to act similarly, and passes to us the same commission. We can understand the attribution of illness and enlightened, scientific age, rightly sceptical over superstitions, should interpret the spiritual dimension of illness more carefully. Some with mental problems falsely believe themselves possessed. We must never exacerbate these problems, as some literalist Christian ‘healers’ do by irresponsibly assuming they have ‘authority’ over demonic possession. In the majority of cases this is not the problem. Conversely we do not understand much about the spiritual world and should not completely dismiss ideas about spiritual powers. Some aspects of illness can be psychosomatic. Giving someone confidence that elements of their illness have gone through Christ’s authority probably helps in the healing process. Our prayer for people must be alongside medical interventions to heal. Our authority in this context is not to automatically command spirits or personally heal others, as some Charismatic Christians assume. It involves taking responsibility to care for someone’s wholeness by sincerely praying and working with others for their wellbeing, strengthening and helping them towards wholeness. I feel confident that I have authority, or at least the authorisation, as a Christian minister to help people realise that Christ can free them spiritually to help them towards abundant, guilt-free lives. His saving activity can free people from sin and it is our responsibility to help people recognise, accept, understand and enjoy the implications of this. I feel confident to pray for and anoint people in trust that God can heal them. Such healing is always dependent on God’s activity, God’s intentions and God’s wisdom. But as far as I know, I am not given the spiritual gifts of a healer, certainly not an exorcist, so I do not fully comprehend the implications of the authority to heal and release from spiritual bondage. I do not feel confident to further explore it in this study. It is a specialist field, to be approached with care, as it has caused historic casualties in churches.
Christ offers and can give freedom; he intends people to attain the full potential for which they were created and for which God’s Spirit gifts & inspires us. Like God we should never force believers into conformity as some churches try to do. God made us all different; we respond to God in different ways. We are to teach as Christ taught, valuing all. God’s truth not our social or institutional position will give our teaching & message authority. Given ‘authority’ by Christ to preach & promote his Gospel means that we are entrusted with responsibility to communicate his gift to the world effectively and with integrity, in ways that can relate to the lives of all, not just attract ‘people like us’.
Charismatic churches which march around an area ‘authoritatively claiming’ the place for the Lord and ‘driving away’ hostile spiritual powers are, I believe, exaggerating Christ’s command. I consider that the authority that Christ intended us to exercise is more a ‘responsibility’ laid upon us and entrusted to us to effectively communicate Jesus’ message to the whole of the world around us. The authority and power remains with God’s Spirit, who can inspire and communicate through us. Some street preachers or evangelists put all responsibility for responding to their message on the recipient. They preach authoritatively, sometimes insensitively, but claim that responsibility for attaining Salvation is on the hearer. The preacher’s responsibility to communicate effectively and winningly is ignored. Some images in Hebrew Scriptures and the Book of Revelation imply that God works and influences people by fear, but any strong message must be balanced by the love, care, forgiveness and grace emphasised by Jesus. He talked much about judgement and sin, but balanced this by his teaching on grace and by showing his love for the hearer, as with the Woman Taken in Adultery: neither do I condemn you… Go and sin no more.” [Jn.8:11].
Our responsibility is to teach about Christ as winsomely, truthfully and as effectively as we can. We can no longer, nor should we, try to force Christianity into people’s lives or threaten people through fear of God’s judgement. That would put people off recognising the wholeness of Christ’s teaching. A bullying Church is not witnessing to the truth that Christ exemplified, nor is a Church that over-simplifies belief or leaves Christians with a simplistic, naïve faith that does not grow or challenge them to holy lives following Christ’s teaching and exploring Christian spirituality broadly.
Some churches act as though their message is only for people like themselves, neglecting wider mission. This disobeys Christs ‘Great Commission to’ communicate his gospel effectively to all the world [Matt.28:18-20]. Other church leaders have exercised authority with the feeling that they have the power to exclude from fellowship or communion those with whom they did not agree, or whose lifestyles are not acceptable to them. Such ‘authority’ was often overstepped by Protestant Reformers, Counter-Reformation zeal and authoritarian preachers of many eras. Catholic, Puritan, Evangelical, and Charismatic leaders, as well as cults, have ruined people’s lives for centuries by such authoritarianism. Our Christian authority is to treat people as Christ would, to offer Christ’s Salvation to all, to welcome and to challenge all with inclusive, forgiving love as Jesus did. True Christian faith gives people freedom to follow God of their own volition and in the ways that might most fulfil them. We should do all we can to present the Gospel winsomely, widely and truthfully. We have the authorisation to challenge with love but no authority to judge or exclude: only God can do that. When Jesus rebuked Peter, he also restored him [Lk.4:8; Jn.21:15-17]. When he confronted the Woman Taken in Adultery or the Samaritan Woman at the Well with the truth of their lives, he also showed them the ways to holy freedom. Our attitude towards others should be welcoming, inclusive & righteous in the spirit of Christ’s gospel, presented in the manner in which Jesus proclaimed it. Discipline should be without partiality, undertaken wisely, careful to not damage others [Matt.18:15-17; 1Tim.5:19-21]. Only in rare examples of deliberate rebellion did Paul exercise authority to remove or exclude people from fellowship [1 Cor.5:1-13]. Any leader’s ‘power’ in the church was intended for the right organisation of worship and ethical protection of the community, not to impose their will or restrictions over others.
The Church should never negatively threaten with exclusion as some did in the past, anathematising those with whose ideas or lifestyles leaders did not agree. In safeguarding situations it is right to protect from abusers. Churches may rebuke and protect but the intention is always to restore and reconcile the member of the Body of Christ to our community or to other Christian fellowship [Gal. 2:11-14; Matt. 16:23; Titus 1:13]. Perhaps persistent rebellion or sinful behaviour may lead to temporary exclusion, and leaders have some authority for this, but it should be the last resort and should always be with the intention of restoring the person and healing the fellowship. Scripture recognises several categories of rebelling against God’s or the Church’s authority, including:
· Violating God’s moral commandments [1 Cor. 5:10-11; 6:9-10; 2 Cor. 6:14-7:1; Gal. 5:19-21; Eph. 5:3-5].
· Indulging in unresolved relational sins: gossip, slander, anger, abusive speech [Matt. 18:15-20; Eph. 4:25-31; Gal. 5:19-21; Col. 3:8].
· Divisiveness in the church [Rom. 16:17-18; Titus 3:10; 3 John 9-10].
· False teaching on major doctrines [Gal. 1:8-9; 1 Tim. 1:20; 6:3-5; 2 John 9-11].
· Disorderly conduct and refusal to work [2 Thess. 3:6-15; 1Tim. 5:8].
Though Christians believe that we have the truth in Christ, we must recognise that, unlike God, we do not know everything. Our beliefs do not give us the right or authority to impose our ways, beliefs or interpretations on others, as evangelistic missions have tried many times in church history. Forced conversions of Jews, Muslims, Cathars, Incas, etc. under threat of death, punishment or enslavement , were completely against all that Christ taught about bringing peace, truth and freedom. The same is true of Catholic or Protestant persecution in the Reformation and Counter-Reformation (continuing today in some divided communities), or the white supremacy movement or Evangelical opposition to abortion clinics or gay communities, Justification for destructiveness or murder may have been invented through applying the supposed instructions of God to destroy opposition and false beliefs during the conquest of Canaan. But many scholars and archaeologists now believe those to be additions to the Hebrew Scriptures to justify Hebrew supremacy and violence in Israelite expansionism. Christ certainly taught a better way (1Cor.12:21); the way of persuasion through truth, support, righteous teaching and holy example. Getting one’s own way by lies or dominating others (as was the practice of an already-mentioned former Diocesan Director of Ministry) is heretical as well as abusive.
When Jesus forgave sin, he freed people from bondage, guilt and shame and set followers on the path of restoration. The authority he gives to us is to do for others what he has done for us. Too often the Church has encouraged guilt to build up, in order to exert authority over others, or to gain finance for the Church through guilt-offerings, as in the abuse of indulgences. Hell-fire preaching performed that function for centuries and is still resorted to by a few. This was not Jesus’ model of ministry, though he gave many warnings in language of judgement that spoke into the superstitious cultural understanding of his contemporaries. We do not have the authority to judge others [Matt.7:1-3]. Yet ‘authority’ does have an apocalyptic dimension: Christ’s gifts of salvation and grace have authorised us to share and enjoy future life with him and to offer and explain salvation to others. John wrote that “to as many as receive Christ, he gives the authority to become children of God” [Jn.1:12]. Revelation describes the future life in imagery of heavenly thrones. But, unlike the authority we have been given to proclaim forgiveness, the idea of our possible eventual heavenly enthronement does not imply that we have any authority to judge one another [Matt.7:1-3], just as we do not have authority to “lord it” over others [Matt.20:25]. We do not know what Christ meant to Peter about giving him the keys to bind and free [Matt.16:18-19.]. It has several possible interpretations, so we should not over-stress that authority, as the Roman Catholic Church, Charismatic and other authoritarian churches have done many times. Though scriptures speak of Christians being entrusted with authority to assess people according to truth [Lk.12:5; Jn.5:27], teach and evangelise [Matt.28:18-20], heal [Mk.6:7; Lk.9:1; 10:19], even drive out evil [Mk.3:15] we must exercise such authority with humility, gentleness, wisdom, forgiveness, understanding, care and other fruit of the Spirit [Gal.5:22-26]. That passage ends: “Let us not become conceited, competing against each other, envying one another.” We should always recognise that any power we have is as stewards dependent on and responsible to God. Christian authority is about having been ‘authorised’ or ‘commissioned’ by God. We serve, preach, teach, lead and guide under God’s leadership. Like the centurion who trusted Christ to heal his servant, we are people ‘under authority’ [Matt.8:9]. If we usurp or misuse this authority we ourselves are open to judgement and it would be righteous for God to remove such a leader from position.
Since the Apostles many Christians have been tempted to arrogance, misinterpreting their authority, or to over-stretch their powers and influence as, too frequently, some Church leaders still do today. This is partly due to a misconception or confusion between ‘exousia’ / ‘authorisation’ and the exercise of ‘dunatós’ / ‘power’ or ‘might’. Jesus reminded his disciples that ‘none should lord it over others’ [Matt.20:25]; “Whoever would be great among you must be your servant” [v.26] “serve not be served” [v.28]; “consider others better than yourselves” [Phil.2:3]; “take the lower place at table” [Lk.14:8-20]. Hierarchy in Christian institutions is false. The most important in the Church are those who we serve in order to bring others to Christ or strengthen their faith. The least ‘important’ in hierarchical terms should be the leaders – they should regard themselves as servants and act in that way. This counters those who swagger under Jesus’ promise to give us power and authority. Giving Peter and through him the Church: "the keys to the Kingdom of heaven" or the right to assess and make judgements [Matt.16:18-19] seems not to be about giving him or us excessive power over others’ lives, but authorising us with the responsibility to evangelise, spread an understanding of God’s promises and warnings effectively and extend the Kingdom of God.
Jesus assured the Church that his Spirit in us is greater than antagonistic powers in the world. The writer to the Ephesians prayed in the great opening prayer [Eph.1:15-23 & 3:14-19] that they might “begin to understand the incredible greatness of his power." … “that a spirit of wisdom and revelation will be given to you." That same power is in us, he says “which raised Christ from the death and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority, power and dominion… and put all things in subjection under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church.” This is a call for confidence in God and lack of timidity in mission, not a reason for the arrogance, self-satisfaction, self-assurance or contentment, which one sees in some church-people.
Jesus was more effective in his mission than much of the Church for many reasons. Primarily Christians believe that his authority was divinely sourced, inspired and gifted because of his nature. His authority was ‘ex’-‘ousia’; it came from ‘who he was’. Jesus prayed for guidance and expressed his reliance on God for what he said and did: [Jn.5:19-20; 8:28; 10:36-37; 12:50]. Jesus was far more confident about his message and actions than most contemporary Christians. Many church-goers say that they don’t evangelise because they wouldn’t know what to say. How many years have many been coming to church, hearing sermons and teaching on faith? Conversely some who claim confidence in faith, lead or evangelise with authority fail to exercise it with Christ-like humility and dependent reliance on God. Jesus was orientated in his mission by love, reconciliation, serving and meeting the needs of the world. Perhaps we do not have enough conviction, love, care or these humble sources of confidence.
LIVING BY GOD’S POWER AND AUTHORITY
How do we then live and work for Christ in this divinely-inspired power and authority? Christian understanding of the world recognises that there are different dimensions - natural and spiritual - which coexist and interact. Most of us have very limited, if any, power or authority in the earthly terms. (Many with high positions in the Church might not be capable of maintaining similar positions of responsibility in the secular world. Their recognition of their inadequacies or inferiority is sometimes the source of their bullying.) It is in the spiritual realm that most Christians find our greatest value, authorisation and responsibility. We recognise that we lack personal power and are reliant on spiritual strength from above…. “...not many of you were wise by human standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, things that are not, to reduce to nothing things that are, so that no one[i]might boast in the presence of God. He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification and redemption, in order that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.” [1Cor.1:26-31].
We need to live in such an abundant, holy way in the spiritual realm that our presence, words, actions and example can influence the natural or earthly realm. If we live righteously, our neighbours, colleagues or community might be influenced for good. If we pray with integrity, seeking God’s will, our prayers may effect change through our allegiance to God’s work, direction or mission. It is our spirit’s unity with God’s Spirit that brings true power to our lives. This is a ‘dependent’ use of God’s authority.
Paul visited Corinth partly to strengthen the church by his teaching and assess the spiritual power alive in them: "for the kingdom of God is not words, but it is power" [1Cor.4:19-20]. Jesus modelled for us what he wanted his community to do, to be, and how to live in God's power. A church leader should model Christ’s use of power as a model for all church members. Our authority is only to continue the mission and ministry begun by Jesus: "As the Father sent me into the world, I now send you" [Jn.20:21; 17:18]. Christ sent the Holy Spirit as the ‘Comforter’- strengthener, advocate, inspirer, supporter for the Christian life and ministry. We cannot be sure how much Jesus ministered as human being, without using his attributes as God [Phil.2:5-8]. He relied on God’s inspiration, guidance, strengthening and power. He expressed his dependency on God [Jn.5:19-20; 8:28; 10:36-37; 12:50], yet demonstrated how humans living in right relationship with God, inspired by God’s Spirit, should live, act and use the authority that God entrusts to us.
Many Christians recognise lack of power and integrity in themselves, and their dependence on God’s grace. The Church needs to be more powerful, but its power needs to be exercised through its integrity, keeping to God’s ways, rather than seeking imperial or numerical power. It does not need unconditional power and elevated position in society, which synods and campaigning groups try to exercise; it needs to win influence and respect by its adherence to truth.. Any power or influence we have or need will come, or will be recognised as deserved, if we are seen to be more in union with God and following Christ’s teaching with integrity. Often our actions and example witness far more loudly and effectively that our words. Christians often use spiritual words over-easily without living by their meaning as we should. Hearing the pontifications, promises, safeguarding assurances or simplistic, placating homilies of some I often feel like singing Lerner and Loewe’s lyrics “Words, words, words; I’m so sick of words… If you’re in love show me!” [My Fair Lady].
Jesus was sensitised to hear God’s guidance; he aligned himself to obey God’s will and ministered under God's authority. He did not act with the arrogant independence of some church leaders. All Christians would do greater works and have a more winsome witness in the world if we followed his example [Phil.2:5]. Christians and Churches talk much about the Kingdom of God but most do not live under God’s authority sufficiently to exemplify it as we should. We talk of Christ as ‘Lord’ and ‘King’ but much of the time we want God to justify or respect our own kingship of our lives, decision, plans. However ‘Truth’ is not intended to be a ‘constitutional monarch’; it is meant to rule and control life and the Church.
Any authority we have is due to our position in union with Jesus Christ. In Luke 9 Jesus gave authority and power to the Twelve and his Spirit performed miraculous signs and wonders through them. Seventy were sent out with a similar commission and authority in Luke 10. Yet all their powers were limited and dependent on God. In Mark 9:14-29 the disciples failed to heal a man’s son, perhaps because they were depending on themselves, not humbly reliant on prayer and God’s Spirit’s strength [Mk.9:28-29].
When Jesus left earth he commissioned us and gave us authority to go out and make disciples as he taught and did [Matt.28:18-20]. We are to continue what Jesus modelled it for us with dependence on the guidance, inspiration and the strength of the Spirit who Christ sent for us. The Gospels and several Epistles explore how to live, witness and regulate the Christian community by observing Christ’s power, teaching and authority. "In Christ all the fullness of deity exists in bodily form" ... "and you have been given fullness in Christ" [Col.2:9-10].
Our relationship with God through Christ can give abundance of life [Jn.10:10]. But we must recognise that God as represented by Christ must remain head and overseer over the Church, Christian leaders and every individual Christian, as he is over every power and authority [Col.2:15]. Christ’s headship and his empowerment of us through the Holy Spirit are not just for our own personal good and spiritual advance. He intends us to use his authority and gifting for the mission of building God’s Kingdom.
Too much Christian ambition (including the ambition for personal spiritual growth) remains self-centred: ‘How can faith in God and my place and position in Christ’s Body, the Church, benefit me or be used for my advantage?’ Our motivation should be others-orientated: to glorify God, promote Christ’s way, advance God’s Kingdom and improve the lives of others. After redeeming us Christ left us on earth to continue his work [Jn.17:15]. He gave us the responsibility and authority to advance God’s Kingdom and truth and to build up others in their faith and abundant lives. We are not put into position to advance us or to have dominance over others. Though coincidentally we may grow and feel fulfilled through advancing Christ’s mission, the opposite might happen: Christ suffered to advance his Father’s will. If we are servants why should it be any different for us? [Matt.10:24-25].
HUMAN AUTHORITY
Human beings are described in scripture as having been given earthly responsibility and authority by our position in Creation, derived from our relationship to God. The divine command to “fill the earth and ‘subdue’ it” [Gen.1:28], and being given ‘dominion over creation’ [Ps.8:6] have been interpreted in several ways. Some see this as a mandate to use the resources of the world as we like, even indiscriminately. Proponents of a ‘Prosperity Gospel’ sometimes even imply that it is our prerogative to destroy the natural environment and waste resources of earth if it leads to our personal advance. Others recognise this as a very responsible commission. I believe we are intended to be wise stewards, responsible to protect all while we develop the earth and human and natural resources for the best. Psalm 8:6-8 has been interpreted as recognising that God created humankind to use our authority on earth. Others interpret these verses as relating more specifically to Christ. But the psalm does recognise human beings as special within Creation: “..what are human beings that you are mindful of them, mortals that you care for them? Yet you have made them a little lower than God (or ‘than angels’ or ‘than heavenly beings’) and crowned them with glory and honour. You have given them dominion over the works of your hands; you have put all things under their feet…” This position gives us tremendous responsibility towards the world as well as privilege and value.
God is the source of authority in the universe. If Jesus is God and Lord, his authority should give him the right to command and enforce obedience (as some Church leaders through history and today have tried to apply to themselves as God’s representatives) [Matt. 28:18; Lk. 6:46]. Yet Christ used his exalted position with humility, grace and self-sacrifice, as should we [Phil.2:5-9].
DELIBERATE REBELLION AGAINST AUTHORITY
Scripture is often hostile to any idea of rebellion; order rather than anarchy is God’s way. Rebellion often expresses contempt towards any all authority other than the rebel’s own way of seeing and acting. Christ as Lord, should be our authority, fully “Lord” over us and the world, authorising us to act as we should. Romans 13:2 warns against resisting authority, seeing it as resistance against God, which can only expect judgment. Scripture sometimes attributes rebellion to Satan, Lucifer, demons or evil, which rebelled against God’s authority [1Sam.15:23; Prov.17:11; Isa.14:12-15; Eph. 2:2; 2 Pet. 2:10]. We have more psychological understandings of the rebellious nature today. But if dissatisfaction or the desire to rebel dominates us, it will infect our attitude towards God’s authority or the authority of the Truth.. It may even damage our personal wellbeing, peace and abundance of life.
Yet sometimes we need to rebel against false authority or false spirituality, as in Peter and John’s response to the Sanhedrin’s order that they should not preach [Acts 4:19-20]. Christian leaders are representatives of Christ. Hebrews says, “Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you” [Heb. 13:17]. Peace and unity in the Church depends on the integrity and responsibility of those leaders. The reminder that they must give account for their responsible use of the powers and gifts with which they have been entrusted is a strong incentive not to abuse or neglect their position. Yet I know and have known several who seem to disregard this call for integrity and accountability, almost as if they have no belief in the truth of the God they profess.
DISPUTES OVER AUTHORITY
Christ’s followers were commended to be obedient to secular laws and governments, for maintaining peace, concord and good witness. Secular authority is intended to ‘minister on behalf of God for good’ [Rom. 13:4; Heb. 13:17], serving God’s purpose and ordering the earth, though it rarely fulfils this purpose holistically. The First Epistle of Peter tells Christians: “...Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether to the king as supreme, or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good” [1 Pet. 2:13-15]. Many theologians from Bonhoeffer to Liberation Theologians struggled with this, recognising that there are times when, like Christ, we have to speak out against immoral authorities and disobey where right and truth are concerned.
Christ spoke out against false principles of the Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees. Yet he ‘rendered to Caesar’ what was required by secular authority [Matt.17:24-27; 22:21 ]. The Apostles disobeyed when ordered by the authorities not to preach Christ’s message [Acts 4:19-20]. Human laws must be regarded as subservient God’s will, but nor disregarded. For effective witness, responsibility and peace, Christ’s followers should cooperate with earthly laws or authorities and be law-abiding (including with complying with civil-rights and human-rights). Yet where secular rules depart substantially from God’s moral and righteous principles we have the authority to question, challenge or disobey and work to effect change. Where leaders are corrupt, or we disagree with policies, they should be treated with respect while we follow God’s direction in ways that witness winsomely to the world and work to build his Kingdom. There are times when Christians should feel prophetically responsible to challenge or rebuke authorities that are failing in their mandate [1Chron.16:21-22]. But as with our manner of disciplining church members we should rebuke in creative, positive ways that lead to restoration and healing.
Difficulties arise when Christians disagree about their interpretation of scripture and have different understandings of God’s ways (as in political, social, cultural, sexuality and gender issues, as well as decisions regarding specific issues in churches). We are called to live righteously and to influence for good but we have no authority to try to dominate. Even God does not rule the world in dominant ways. God works by providing, giving freedom, influencing for good and inspiring people towards truth, not by despotism. Christ worked by teaching and example, representing God authentically and humbly, as should we. When the world recognises the Church as argumentative, duplicitous, self-centred, divisive or unable to cope peacefully with division over ideas, we are failing to imitate Christ and not witnessing to God’s Truth.
Our only ‘authority’ is the authorisation and commission to imitate Christ in our lives and mission. The Church is not a democracy; we should not make decisions solely by consensus-voting (this is a problem with synodical government). As a ‘theocracy’ all Christian members of the Church are meant to work towards righteousness and God’s Kingdom. But when members disagree or have different interpretations of truth, leaders may need to make decisions, even if they are unpopular with some. Their priority should always be to think holily, to recognise their personal fallibility, to work for the Kingdom-good of the people of God and to extend God’s Kingdom by faithful witness. In decision-making, leaders, especially bishops, need to be broad in their application of Christ’s teaching, they should be aware of and encourage the spectrum of theological & spiritual understanding. Leaders should promote variations of spiritual understanding to feed the breadth of spirituality in the Church and the community. They should never make ‘executive decisions by just insisting on their way. No Christian, especially a leader, should subbornly maintain their personal position, rely on simplistic, literal interpretation of scripture, compromise truth, or timidly avoid righteous challenges, attempting with lack of Christian courage, to maintain a peaceful status-quo or ‘protect’ unrighteousness in their churches.
Paul encouraged the Church to change the world and the church-community through exercising our influence by praying for those in authority: “I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence” [1 Tim. 2:1-2]. This might include influencing them effectively to bring change or even in extremes praying for their removal from power: Paul was, at the time of writing some of his epistles, imprisoned under a despotic regime, which eventually executed him. Yet in his epistles he still viewed secular leaders as God’s servants, delegated to maintain law, order and justice [Rom. 14:4]
Scripture recognises other authorities which we should recognise: submission to the headship of Christ, exercised through his Spirit [Rom. 8:14], the authority of Christ’s teachings and God’s Word [2 Tim. 3:16], and respect for Church leadership [Matt. 18:17-20, Heb. 13:17; 1Thess.5:12-13]. The aim was unity, peace, growth towards righteousness, Christian maturity and the building of God’s Kingdom by reflecting that Kingdom in our lives and community. Within the family children are commended to obey their parents (Eph. 6:10] but conversely parents should not exasperate their children. The New Testament wife was expected to cooperate with her husband, submit to him “as to the Lord” [Eph. 5:22-24, 1 Tim. 2:12], and the husband was to ‘submit to Christ and love his wife’ [Eph. 5:23,25]. In Ephesians 5 this concept of the husband’s authority as head of the family was cultural. The writer and contemporary Jewish and gentile teachers believed that such leadership was delegated by God to extend God’s authority. To resist it was to resist God’s lordship. We now have more egalitarian understandings of relationship roles, and expect equality of responsibilities to one another. Yet even in the New Testament communities the idea of authority was not intended to be power over another, but to accept responsibility and accountability for others, to make lawful decisions considering others’ welfare before our own and to love.
THE AUTHORITY OF THE BIBLE
Christians speak of the ‘authority of the Bible’ and scripture’s authority in our lives. I believe that the all the books of the Bible are responsible sources of instruction for all Christian Life [2 Tim. 3:16-27]. How the writers were inspired by God’s Spirit we cannot be sure; the books may well have been inspired in a variety of ways. Certainly it is unlikely that the scriptures were orally dictated by God as a few naïve Christians still maintain.
Fundamentalists often speak of scripture as though it was directly dictated by God’s Spirit to the writers. If it were the direct teaching from the voice of God, one should rightly consider it as inerrant and authoritative. But there are too many errors in the biblical text that we have inherited to believe this.. Was it inerrant ‘as originally given’, as some claim? Most thinking Christians recognise that the biblical books are in many ways human creations and humanly edited, though inspired by God’s Spirit. Much of the teaching is probably the product of sincere human minds thinking through and revising ideas of faith and religion. They reflect religious ideas, ethics and communal rules and practices at different stages in the development of Hebrew belief. The Hebrew Scriptures especially developed and were edited over several centuries as Jewish culture changed, with augmentations from several editors with editorial agendas and biases. Much content that is presented in the literature as historic facts, including places, dates, figures of Jewish history and legend contains inaccuracies in detail, even if true events are depicted. God’s dictated words would not contain such inaccuracies. Perhaps the opening chapters of Genesis were never intended to be taken as a literal explanation of how Creation began, in the ways that some fundamentalists jealously defend Creationism versus more scientific explorations of how life on Earth evolved. Other ancient Creation myths were rarely accepted so literally by their contemporaries. Biblical books also vary in their teachings, as believers developed understandings over time. This is particularly true of references to death and what might await us beyond. We need to read and interpret each book of the Bible in the light of its literary genre and understanding the historical and social background and cultural ideas of the time in which it was written and edited. Filtering the words of scripture will help us find the truths expressed within the genre of the writing, whether poetry, legend, exemplary characters, warnings, historic examples or religious instruction.
As preachers have shown for centuries, stories, legends, even dodgy interpretations of history in the scriptures can be valuable to all if authentic meanings are found within them and their genre is correctly interpreted: “All Scripture is inspired by God- and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work”, says 2Tim.3:16-17. The biblical books contain spiritual truths that can strengthen us if we interpret them correctly, follow the truths we find and allow them to influence us. But all Christians should be careful not to regard their own interpretation of scripture as authoritative if other interpretations are possible. Scripture leaves much to the imagination or is silent or ambiguous about many things. It is not definitive on everything, just foundational, to be applied by us as it relates to changing situations in the world. No thinking Christian should follow the biblical text literally in every detail. That would be heretical, because it would mean that we are insisting on the letter of ancient Law, not being led by Christ’s Spirit, who is given to interpret, apply, and advance human understanding. Christ did not remove any ‘jot or tittle’ from scripture [Matt.5:15], but he reinterpreted it according to the truth he understood; so should we. Paul argued through the Epistle to the Romans that a literal following of laws and traditions led to dead, legalistic faith, not the living faith intended by the freedom brought by Christ. Human understanding has advanced enormously since the scriptures were written. We have a responsibility to Christ’s Spirit to advance the understanding of the Church, not to fossilise believer’s minds.
The ambiguity in scripture or silence over certain issues is possibly deliberate as it encourages us to think through meanings and contemporary applications of spiritual truths for ourselves. This can strengthen us spiritually and mentally. Thinking through its application, rather than naively obeying rules, makes believers take mature responsibility for life and our world. As cultures change our understandings of what is truth in the Bible modify, as in today’s wider understanding of Creation and evolution, worship, sacrifice, gender-roles, sexuality, democracy, lifestyle and international or inter-cultural responsibilities. So while scripture is to be regarded as ‘authoritative’ in its value for faith (as indicated in 2Tim.3:16-17) and of primary practical and spiritual use in forming us as disciples with spiritual understanding, it must be very carefully and wisely interpreted and applied.
TRUE MODELS OF CHRISTIAN AUTHORITY
Christ is the head of the Church [Eph. 5:23]; his teaching is paramount; not popes, archbishops, bishops, synods, priests, elders, churchwardens or church councils, or even our particular favourite translation of the Bible, which might state things in a way that we prefer. He commissioned leaders and authorises all Christians to represent him authentically, to use his gifts, listen to God’s Spirit and present God’s message and authority effectively to the world [2 Cor. 5:20, Matt. 18:17-20, John 14:12]. Church leaders are ordained to supervise and manage Christ’s Church [Acts 14:23, 1 Tim. 3:10-13], gifted by God to ‘equip the saints for service’ [Eph. 4:11-16]. But we are all accountable to God for our use of any authority invested in us. The spiritual harvest depends on God’s Spirit’s action, but we need to work authentically at the tasks, roles and gifts with which we have been entrusted. Christian leaders are only recognised as true if they follow a moral, godly and effective lifestyle [Matt. 7:15-16, 1 Tim. 3:1-7], and are uncompromising in faithfully being open to and living by God’s truth, as God continues to reveal it. We need to teach by example as well as by scripture [2 Tim. 3:16]. They are servants of God, who has the authority to correct and remove them if they are unfaithful [Ps.105:15]. Like any authorities all Church leaders need our prayer and encouragement. But they also need Christians to challenge them when they deviate from the truth, lose Christ’s humility or do not model Christ in their lives.
The sense of the authority of the Church altered in focus in C4th Europe with the establishment of the Church as an officially recognised and imperially supported institution. The reduction of persecution or suffering, accompanied by new responsibilities to the emperor may have led Christians to no longer feel the need to rely totally on God’s care, authority and protection. Through times of persecution, insecurity and growth they needed to rely on the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Now they also became dependent on the emperor local rulers and imperial power. Gradually church leaders, especially bishops, became figures of power themselves. This led to a change of imagery in churches from Resurrection symbols, the trials of Jonah or the pastorally caring image of the Good Shepherd, all found regularly in the catacombs. They adopted more confident imperial imagery - Christ in glory and the powerful presence of the saints. The authority given to the Church by Christian emperors led to the Church having reciprocal responsibility to the emperor, becoming partly reliant on and subject to imperial power and the emperor’s will. This was accompanied by a change in the Church’s own understanding of its power and the way in which powers were to be exercised by its leaders. Basilica churches enthroned the bishop, as a sub-‘emperor’ of the church with various levels of leadership below him. The structure of church hierarchies took on models of imperial power that survive in today’s ecclesiastical hierarchies. The aim for political, social and financial power became stronger when popes aimed to assert and enforce their authority and power over secular emperors and kings in the humanistic advance of the Church’s authority late Mediaeval, Renaissance and Counter-Reformation periods. The imagery used in the Vatican’s great Renaissance art and architecture is a display of papal and magisterial power, intellect and authority.
The Church has since adopted several other models of leadership that contradict Jesus’ teaching of servanthood, particularly the imagery of the ‘army of God’. Mediaeval Christians undertook crusades; Renaissance popes went to war to expand their territories. Reformers engaged in war against those they considered heretics or idolaters. Many justified this diversion from Christ’s teaching of peace, love, reconciliation and unity by using out of context Jesus’ and Paul’s encouragements to contend for the truth. Leaders adopted too literally the warfare imagery of Revelation or the conquest of Canaan in Joshua, rather than seeing it as a metaphor for our spiritual struggle for truth. Many Christians have taken metaphorical imagery in scripture over-literally. In many contexts the Church had subjugated believers and non-believers to leaders who often adopted an attitude of authoritarianism over others that was far greater than Jesus intended in Mark 10:42-45. Some even murdered opponents or those they considered heretics, supposedly in the cause of God’s truth. The truly greatest Christian leaders have often proved to be the humblest, most loving servants. Assuming that Church leadership is about power and protection of the Institution of the Church at all costs (even sacrificing truth and people) is sometimes taken to extremes that are more extensive than the humble, undemonstrative power that God uses in influencing the world.
The nature of Christian authority in Church leadership became confused, deliberately manipulated, or diverged from Jesus’ model early in the history of the Church and continues to be misinterpreted. The humility that Christ taught, encouraged us to serve all, not ‘lord it’ over any [Matt.20:25]. Humble servanthood soon became replaced by a hierarchical and deferential structure that we still see in most churches, with attitudes of deference towards popes, bishops, officials, priests or elders. When Philippians 2:3 taught “Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves…” the writer intended us to value and feel responsible for all, not to raise up and treat others as great or inferior. Clerics may often talk of ‘service’ as their model of leadership, but few truly act as ‘servant’ or ‘slave’ in the self-sacrificial way that Christ encouraged.
Today Church leaders are rightly trained to find the ways of leading that suit their personality and gifts. But the models used for teaching most often come from business-leadership methods and manuals, encouraging them to lead according to their preferred leadership style, according to their psychological character profile, rather than prioritising that they should apply the model of Christ’s humility to their character and ministry. This enables those who feel they are formed to be ‘dominant’ to develop the bullying and dominatrix tactics of the unscrupulous, dishonest Director of Ministry previously mentioned, or the self-protecting bishops who maintained her in power and neglected her victims. Secularisation of the models we use can lead to aberrations and power-ambitions that are experienced throughout churches from some unscrupulous ecclesiastical leaders.
Another problem with using business models for church-leadership is that business and management structures are orientated towards profit, efficiency, and control, not necessarily client-orientated or looking to improve life for people in the world. They work for the benefit of the owners and shareholders. Business ethics are not always righteous, despite well-known, good-practices, often from religion orientated entrepreneurs who have looked after their employees (e.g. Cadbury, etc.) Modern businesses often take their examples from American and Far-Eastern practices, which have created many of the pressures of modern life, particulalry expectations of 24 hour / 7 days a week commitment to the company and the iniquities of Zero-Hour contracts.
Although the Church should be ‘business-like’ in its stewardship of its people and resources, its personnel management should be a model of care and mutuality, since Christianity is God-and-people-orientated. Commitment to God is 24/7 and freely undertaken, but no Christian should be enslaved to church activities and church demands that have been occasionally experienced as coercive control. (That is a practice we condemn in religious cults.). Christ’s teaching encourages the enjoyment of an abundant life, even though he warned his followers that we would be treated as badly as he was.
In church and in businesses leadership by bullying is often done subtly to avoid complaints over safeguarding issues. But not always, as we have seen and experienced. Bullying extends right to the top of church hierarchies, and is often defended by the justification that it is for the ‘good of the Kingdom’, ‘protection of the institution’, ‘maintenance of Church order’ or ‘biblically justified’. Most blasphemously, bullying decisions or dominant behaviour has been justified as having been ‘guided by the Holy Spirit’.
The greatest biblical models for the Church are ‘a Family’ ‘a Body’ and ‘the Body of Christ’ where all parts are working mutually together, supporting the whole in a loving, not mechanistic manner and representing the reality of Christ in the world. Reasserting these Body and Family models of Church would enable and encourage leaders to be more like Christ-like, loving parents than business-leaders, and make the church community more attractive, more welcoming and hopefully make Diocesan Houses and Church Offices more personal and less institutional.
Christians’ personal authority depends on how authentically we model and follow the authority of Jesus, how we guide others to exemplify him and how we all live by the principles of God and God’s Kingdom personally and communally. In reforming the Church we need to reinstate the concept that all leaders should be servants not overlords. We also need to address confusion over nature of Christian authority and the use and abuse of powers in the Church. The hierarchical structure of churches needs to be re-examined and reversed. Today’s highest leaders need to recall that they should be the lowliest servant, willing to perform the lowliest tasks and take the lowest place to bring about the Kingdom. All ordained ministers rightly remain ‘deacons’ throughout their careers. They and others should recognise this as the role of ‘servants’, even ‘slaves’ of Christ’s truth, working for the good of Christ’s people. (‘Slave’ and ‘servant’ feel uncomfortable terms today: we far prefer to use the term ‘stewards’, regarding this role as suggesting our responsibilities and personal value, rather than accepting a low social position. (The ‘deacon’s’ role in secular society included carrying out the slop-buckets from latrines, and there is still plenty of ordure to remove from churches everywhere!) According to their titles, ‘arch’deacons should model the ‘most sincere or most powerful’ example of ministerial servanthood; bishops and ‘arch’bishops should model the ‘most sincere or most powerful’ example of pastoral care, rather than being regarded as positions that automatically deserve high institutional honour. The elaborate enthronement services for Popes and Archbishops of Canterbury seem today to be unnecessarily expensive, public spectacles; promoting the church’s hierarchy by international propaganda. No doubt they are promoting the international nature of declining Churches but the expense and panoply does little to demonstrate world-wide the authenticity of our mission to steward the world’s resources wisely and support and reach a needy world with Christ’s message. More modesty, like the investiture of a servant, might convince the world that the new incumbent may genuinely serve the world, not abuse power, influence or authority as some past popes and archbishops have done. Position and consecration in the Church evidently does not automatically confer holiness. Nor is it a guarantee of honesty or integrity, unless, in that position, we allow God’s Spirit and the example of Christ to continue to form us into Christ-likeness. In many cases power has gone to leaders’ heads and they regress to become officers of the institution. This could be why Jesus warned that social position and riches make it harder to attain God’s Kingdom, that the first will be last, [Matt.19:21-30] and that the disciples should regard themselves as servants or slaves not be ambitious for position [Matt/20:25-27].
Our sense and structure of Church hierarchies needs to be reversed to put service of our God’s truth, our neighbour, the world and the expansion of God’s Kingdom first, encouraging all Christians, including all leaders, to engage in our mission to those beyond the Church. The current ‘highest leaders’ in the hierarchy should be valued but, in Christ’s teaching, they come last in order of importance and self-importance, since they are the ones who should be serving with most rigour, humility and self-sacrifice, encouraging and facilitating mission and giving the greatest example of Christ-likeness and ministry: “Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave…” [Phil.2:5-7].
Jesus freed people to live abundant righteous lives. But we gain abundant life by engaging in the forms of humble, practical service that will improve the lives of others and establish the true Kingdom of God. Jesus did not intend Church leaders to be placed on pedestals. Nor should any leader, teacher or church authority try to force any believer to conform to stereotypes, restrict their spiritual growth by narrow teaching, or to bind, manipulate, falsify or coerce. He served in such a way that people saw he had the truth. It was the truth in his mission that helped those who saw or heard him to recognise his authority and attracted them to his way. “The sword of the Spirit is the word of Truth”, not the physical sword or the psychological sword of domination, coercion or biased teaching.
We need to be recognised to live by the same truth that Christ exemplified if we want to attract disciples and have influence. Our truth and integrity should help people recognise that our message, Christ’s message, has authority in the world, which offers so many alternatives. The intention of God’s gentle exercise of ‘exousia’ authority is to bring peace, unity, equity, holiness to Earth, to set people free. Christ loved and taught so authentically that he encouraged others to obey naturally the right ways of life - God’s ways - and to live totally fulfilled, holy lives, by our free wills, aligned to God’s Spirit, establishing the Kingdom of our God. The Church has no authority other than to represent God, Christ and the Kingdom of God in true, authentic ways.
“Jesus spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore & make disciples of all nations… teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” [Matt.28:18-20]
"If I your Lord and Teacher have washed your feet, you also should was one another’s feet. For I have set you an example, that you also should do as I have done to you, Truly a servant is not greater than his master, and no one who is sent is superior to the one who sent him.” [John 13:16]
“You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It must not be so among you but whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to take the first place among you must be your slave; just as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve and to give his life a ransom for many.” [Matt.20:25-27]
“If I should boast I will boast of the things that show my weakness”… [2Cor.11:30 - Paul writing of his qualifications and rights to lead and teach with authority.]
“Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death - even death on a cross. Therefore God also highly exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” [Phil.2:5-11]
This study was undertaken a result of experiencing and seeing severe bullying of clergy and especially trainees in the Diocese of Guildford, particularly by a senior member of the Bishop's staff, 'Canon Dr.' H....W........, who was at that time the Diocesan 'Director of Ministry, Training and Discipleship'. This combination of the worst characteristics of Mrs. Proudie and Mr. Slope in Barchester Towers has now thankfully retired! She acted in the diocese as though she was emulating Rosa Klebb, the controlling villainess in Ian Fleming's 'From Russia with Love', and with the same misandry. Complaints about her bullying were made to the diocese, particularly to the former Bishop of Dorking, who failed to reply to registered letters asking for pastoral and professional support after a victim of her bullying had a heart attack. That bishop had already said personally that one had to be careful of her: "...even bishops have to obey Hazel!". An archdeacon admitted that the situation had been one of bullying, but nothing was done to challenge her. Later a report of the situation was given in an interview with the present Bishop of Guildford, who ignored acting upon the reported abuse, even copying to the abuser the minuted details of the meeting where the complaint was made, in the same email in which he sent the minutes to the complainant for checking. The bishops and other officials had often been informed about the abuser's character and her abusive treatment of those for whose pastoral care and training she had been entrusted with responsibility. Her bullying, duplicity, coercive control and vengeful misreporting on those who she disliked, damaged the ministry and emotional well-being of at least 17 ministers and trainees to my personal knowledge. She especially connived to bully those in whom she detected weaknesses which she could exploit. (Documentary evidence of this has been saved.) The bullying was known about and covered up by senior staff, yet she continued to be promoted, expanding her area of influence and being given too much power and credibility in the diocese, which she abused for years. The present Bishop of Dorking didn't even reply to a registered letter of resignation, in which the resigning minister mentioned the bullying as his sole reason for resigning. The Bishop of Guildford passed it off with the comment "I am sorry that you are resigning on health grounds". In present terminology the 'Director of Ministry, Training and Discipleship' exerted 'Coercive Control' in the diocese, even over the bishops. Such behaviour is now regarded as an illegal use of power. In a secular organisation it would not have been tolerated. For a period of time the present Bishop of Guildford even put her in charge of Diocesan 'Safeguarding' even though he had been specifically informed about her bullying. This effectively meant that complaints were 'discouraged' by the powers in charge of the diocese. One who wanted to take his complaint about her bullying further, had tentatively contacted the Safeguarding team and had written a full report on the bullying, but was warned by an experienced senior minister in the diocese not to proceed: "It will be your ministry which is brought to an end; they won't do anything to damage hers!"
The Diocese and Bishops proudly advertise their 'safeguarding' credentials; they have a splendidly written Safeguarding Policy and Safeguarding Officers, which the bully helped to draft. However, like proclaiming one's faith and care, words about 'safeguarding' are easy; acting upon them righteously is more uncomfortable and challenging. It has been stated (professionally by officials and in 'safeguarding' documents published by both the Church and secular organisations) that "those who cover up abuse are as culpable as the abusers".
As a response to this individual and institutional bullying, I undertook this study to reflect on the true meaning of the term 'authority' in scripture and Church administration, having seen its abuse at close hand. As a minister one takes vows to 'obey' one's bishops 'in all things lawful', but when they disregard both secular law AND Christ's expectations of righteous behaviour, one recognises the limitations of the authority and failings of Church leaders. Some are more intent on building and arrogantly maintaining their social position, or that of their institution, professing their faith and righteousness shallowly, and maintaining a surface image of respectability, power and authority, than seeking the truth and working for true righteousness. Where this is the case in any Church leader. one has to question their suitability for the role with which they are entrusted by God and the Church. Real spiritual authority comes only if one adheres to truth and remains true to God's ways. Where a Church leader or any Christian, however important acts against truth or closes their mind to it, their authority is void. One is forced to question how they were chosen for their position, perhaps more through political ambition, social contacts or arrogantly pushing themselves forward, rather than the guidance and ordination of God, translating them to position and guiding their decisions and actions.
Authority is an important, often-used term in the teaching of Christ and the Epistles. But its use has been much abused, misunderstood and misapplied through Church history and continues to be today. Popes, secular rulers with authority over churches, archbishops, bishops, patrons, priests, church officials and those with ministries and responsibilities on every level of Christian service, Christian parents and every Christian witnessing in the world need to recognise that their use of the authorisation, which Christ has given us to represent Christ and God’s Truth in the world gives us tremendous responsibilities. Christ’s Body was never founded to be an imperial or democratic organisation. It is intended to be a ‘theocratic’ community, recognising the dependence of both leaders and members on the lead given and exemplified by the Holy Trinity. Just as we are commissioned to ‘rightly handle the word of truth’ [2Tim.2:15] we need to ‘rightly handle the powers, gifts and responsibilities with which we have been entrusted. I have been a victim of abuse of influence and power by Church leaders myself; it has damaged me emotionally, and damaged my health and the health of those I love, while being covered-up by arrogant church leaders. I have recognised and know church leaders of integrity, but have also witnessed authoritarian abuse several times over 60 years in different churches of various denominations, particularly recently and formerly at the end of a difficult time in an evangelical Bible College. So I have made this study to explore the true meaning of Christian authority and to encourage Christians in the church to revise their priorities and bring reform.
I deliberately use multiple scriptural quotations throughout this study to justify the argument. In my experience, (particularly during 15 earlier years in the Evangelical churches and a Free Church Bible-College, then experiencing more recent abuse of leadership positions), it is often those who insist on the authority of scripture and leaders, who are most selective in their use of biblical justifications, or who most insist on their personal authority. The teachings of Jesus especially need to be read more holistically.
EXAMPLES OF ABUSE OF AUTHORITY IN CHURCH CONTEXTS
Abuse of authority and power takes many forms:
· Factions damage the unity, peace, witness and encouragement to holiness that Christians should find together.
· Splits occur through limited interpretations of doctrines or aspects of faith not clearly defined in scripture.
· Influential factions blackmail the institution to follow their agenda by threatening to withdraw finance or support. Some evangelical groups in the Anglican church are doing this at present over issues of sexuality, marriage and doctrinal issues with which they do not agree. Liberal Christians can equally damage unity and witness to the outside world by insisting on the universal application of their own interpretations.
· Groups from different cultures and countries with varying approaches to Western European Christians may insist that synods follow their bias. This can hold back the development of Western churches in the Anglican Communion or Roman Catholic Church towards true application of faith in a changing world.
· Some people with a small amount of power or influence, some who lack vision or insight, some with too high opinion of themselves or low self-esteem, may try to force their own way, often without recognising the greater breadth of God’s truth. They damage the potential for others’ spiritual growth or the development of the Church towards reflecting the Kingdom of God by asserting their own will, not recognising the value of alternative spiritualities or variant interpretations.
· A lazy priest, neglecting pastoral duties, ill, personally insecure, needs to be regarded as spiritual ‘father’ of the parish. Jealous of his curate’s popularity for the unpaid work he does, he & his wife resort to putting the curate down in public, lying over the other’s ministry to assert their own social & institutional standing in the parish.
· A Director of ministry and training, with sociopathic character faults that makes her need to dominate those for whom she has responsibility, is over-promoted. She abuses her power to bully and undermine those entrusted to her. Despite several complaints to the diocese, and diocesan leaders knowing her character, she is given further authority.
· When her abuse and bullying causes a curate to have a heart-attack she arrogantly assumes the ‘authority’ to falsify reports of her actions, lying to higher authorities, confident that they will accept her word & authority due to her position.
· Diocesan officials close rank to cover up her abuses (also reported by other ministers for many years), as child-abuse by clergy was also covered-up elsewhere. Members of the victim’s church and local clergy are told not to contact him. The Diocese does not want her abuse known, so they leave the victim and his partner unsupported, except by secular friends and a few church-members who ignore the institutional ruling. Temple-priests similarly ignored a damaged man’s plight before he was helped by the Good Samaritan.
· When the victim prepares to send his written, full-account of the bullying in a complaint to the Safeguarding Team he is confidentially advised, by a senior member of the clergy, that it is his own ministry which will be threatened, not that of the bully, as has previously happened in bullying complaints by her other victims.
· Three bishops (one Anglo-Catholic, two Evangelical) who advertise their pride in ‘safeguarding’ and ‘pastoral care of their clergy’ maintain this cover-up, deliberately failing to give pastoral or professional support to her victims. The diocesan bishop even, for a time, puts the reported abuser in charge of the Safeguarding Team, which effectively deters the victim and others from reporting complaints.
· The bishops pretend that the curate has resigned from the diocese “for health reasons” when they have been told specifically in writing that the resignation is due to the ongoing effect of bullying by this senior-member of the bishop’s staff, “not for heath reasons”.
· The Diocese used ‘gagging orders’ to silence other victims of the same duplicitous bully, threatening the pensions of salaried staff.
· Some church leaders use their influence and authority to silence critics, destroy or put-down theological literature with which they disagree, or remove those who have different interpretations of faith from their own. They do not appreciate sufficiently or recognise the value of multiple approaches to spirituality and truth in order to build ideas and move the Church forward in its understanding of Truth to expand God’s Kingdom.
· Bishops should feel able to trust the integrity & wisdom of those the Church has chosen to employ in pastoral care. An Evangelical bishop who gives all outward impression of being self-satisfied & sure of his judgements, oversteps his authority and position by ordering a gay clergyman to limit to a handful the guests at his civil partnership registration & demands that no photographs should be taken. No leader, secular or religious, has such authority over the private life or freedom of another. Meanwhile he neglects reported clerical abuse.
· An archdeacon is sent to inspect the ‘sleeping arrangements’ of another gay clergyman and partner, again displaying lack of trust in the integrity of someone who the Church has trusted to be licensed for ministry.
· In the vestry, shortly before she is about to lead the main Christmas Carol Service, a liberal-catholic minister is informed insensitively by her Evangelical vicar that in the new-year the new Evangelical bishop, who has never met her or talked to her, has been advised not to renew here license for ministry.
· Some Church leaders seem to feel that their beliefs and their position in a religious organisation gives them ‘authority’ to ignore common courtesies or over-ride secular regulations and laws, including human rights.
· Some synod members, committees and diocesan managers feel that they have authority to make earthly rules, sometimes over-riding the ways in which God’s Spirit appears to be directing and advancing God’s Church.
· Many commit these abuses in the misapprehension or false understanding that they are ‘protecting the institution of the Church’ or ‘maintaining peace, unity and the status quo.’….
There are multiple further examples of such arrogance, misunderstanding of Christian authority and power or misapplication of how to use spiritual or institutional influence in a Christ-like way. Who do those church members or ‘leaders’ who falsify truth, abuse position or cover up abuse of power think they are? What do they think they are doing as disciples or leaders? Abuse of authority is little different from the authorities who used their power & influence to persecute and execute Jesus. There is room for ALL in Christ’s Body, but those with power-hungry, bullying, 'Diva-like' or sociopathic characters, or those with tendencies to coercive control (illegal in England & Wales) should not be promoted to high leadership in the Church or community. Church leadership is intended to be about humble service of God’s Truth. In my experience there is more abuse of authority & duplicity in some church leadership than is accepted in most secular organisations other than politics & local government. This does not detract from my belief in the truth of the tenets of Jesus’ teaching or that Christianity, if followed truly, has the answers to the world’s needs. We must recognise that most Christians, even church leaders, do not actually follow or apply Jesus’ teaching to the whole of their lives and most churches do not resemble the Kingdom of God as closely as Christ taught us to build it. But following God in Christ-like ways should be our aim. I have leaned by experience and seeing the abuse of others, not to trust leaders fro whom arrogance, pride in their social position, defense of the church as an institution, or personal ambition are of greater priority than following the example and precepts of Jesus.
Many Christians, including leaders, expect God or Christ to act as a constitutional monarch, rubber-stamping their plans, accepting their ideas and rules, and turning a blind eye to their sins or duplicity. This is false faith. The traditional belief that any leader appointed and anointed by the Church, has God-given, Spirit-confirmed, Spirit-led and Spirit-inspired authority is no longer literally acceptable, since all leaders are fallible and so many leaders have undoubtedly abused their position.
Some believe that their faith and ‘Christian conscience’ gives them the right to over-ride or reject human rights that the secular world accepts. (Good examples are seen in the mess Church councils have made over issues of acceptance of women’s ministries, gay relationships, critical biblical scholarship or freedom to critically explore spiritual mysteries.) All abuse of authority or misapplication of Christ’s teaching goes against Christ’s message about truth and service of others. Church leaders sometimes try to justify their false behaviour as ‘protection of the Church’. They are not ‘protecting Christ’s Church’ or ‘maintaining God’s Kingdom’.
All falseness moves the Church further away from resembling God’s Kingdom of truth, justice, equity, peace & love. Equally importantly, every argument, abuse or mistake is a terrible witness to the watching world. If we want those outside the Church to believe that we have the truth that could transform and bring abundance to their lives, (as I believe we have if we truly follow Jesus Christ,) we need to be seen to live by that belief and benefit from it.
CHRIST’S EXAMPLE OF USING AUTHORITY
When Jesus gave ‘authority’ to his followers, he gave us covenant responsibility for this earth and God’s people, and responsibility for promoting Truth, both the truths he taught and truth that would develop as Christian under-standing expanded and God’s Spirit guided. As he emphasised to James and John [Mk.10:45], his example of servanthood did not expect his followers to assert more power than he himself ever assumed in his own humble life-time. Philippians 2:5-11(cited at the head of this paper) demonstrates the effectiveness of leadership by humility and service. Seamus Heaney meaningfully called Christ’s activity of the Cross “the power of power not exercised.”
“…When soldiers mocked
Blindfolded Jesus and he didn’t strike back
They were neither shamed nor edified, although
Something was made manifest – the power
Of power not exercised, of hope inferred
By the powerless forever.” [Seamus Heaney, ‘Weighing In’]
In a world where we recognise that we can no longer trust many politicians, business or institutional leaders, a moral lead should and must be recognisable in Christians and the Church if we are truly to represent the truth and freedom that Christ achieved and offered. Christian witness is damaged by authoritarianism or inability to cope peacefully with varied interpretations of truth and divisiveness or division within the Body of Christ. We should be recognised as standing for truth, using God’s authority and human influence and authority responsibly, and rightly modelling good, holy, inclusive life for the world, which contains even more divisions of understanding and culture that the Church itself. The Church is not a sacrosanct institution. If it is doing wrong, as the prophets and Jesus regularly criticised the activities and leadership in the Temple, we have God’s authority and command to reform it. Malachi and Isaiah would not have used the trite platitudes to excuse abusers and abuses that we sometimes hear from spokespeople for the Church today.
THE NEW TESTAMENT MEANING OF ‘AUTHORITY’
The Greek term most frequently used in the New Testament for Christian ‘authority’ is ‘exousia’. Philologists apply several roots to it: It is a compound of ‘ex’ - ‘out of’ and ‘ousia’ - ‘substance’, suggesting that we are able and allowed to act because of what we are; our actions and lives should be appropriate to who we are. This is not related to our social or institutional position or our personal strength: Our ‘authority’ comes from who we truly are in Christ and through the integrity of our relationship with God. The use of the term ‘exousia’ did not originate initially in the idea of ‘power’ but in what is ‘lawful’ (‘exesti’). God gives certain people permission, authorisation, leave or liberty to exercise power on God’s behalf and according to what is right. Their authority does not just allow them to do what is right for themselves, or what seems right to them: As in Christ’s parables about stewardship, all leaders and believers are God’s stewards of Truth, trusted to exercise influence for the up-building of the whole Body of Christ and the extending of God’s Kingdom. Those with ‘exousia’ authority are responsible to God, to righteousness, to truth, and to those for whom they are given responsibility, to exercise their influence responsibly and truthfully.
Perhaps the Church should use the term ‘authorisation’ rather than ‘authority’ to translate Christian ‘exousia’, to distinguish it from authoritarian power. This might remind us that any power or influence we have is not our own; we are representatives, responsible like ‘ambassadors’ for presenting and bringing God’s authority to situations. People may be given the right to exercise power or to govern [Matt.9:6; 21:23; 2 Cor.10:8]. But being entrusted with position by God or the Church does not give anyone the permission to act as they like, outside God’s Kingdom-principles of justice, peace, righteousness, truth, equity and holiness. There is no room in scripture for ‘authoritarianism’, abuse, independence in use of power or the false exercise of strength, position or influence. When one is exercising rule responsibly the righteous should be able to recognise that the rule is lawful and Christ-like, encouraging them to follow the lead and example [Matt:28:18; Jn.17:2; Jude 25; Rev.12:10; 17:13]. It is God who people are obeying; the leader is followed and obeyed only according to their obedience to God. When priests, bishops or church officials make vow of allegiance to those above them in the institution their obedience should never be unconditional. It can only be “in all things lawful,” remembering that authority rests in allegiance to the will of God, not human demands. Too many decision-makers in Church institutions have interpretations or expectations that appear unlawful according to the Christian consciences of others. Differences of opinion or interpretation are inevitable as the Body of Christ is formed of people with so many different backgrounds, cultures, experiences, ways of thinking, and ways of relating to God.
OBEDIENCE TO AUTHORITY IN THE CHURCH
Scriptural injunctions that one should obey one’s appointed secular leaders as well as one’s religious leaders, because they are part of God’s ordering of society [Rom. 13:1-2; Eph.6:5; Col.3:20-22; Heb.13:17] are culturally understandable. The Church needs to be able to operate effectively and truthfully to witness rightly within the secular society if it is to communicate Christ’s message effectively to that society. Christians are intended to interact in the world and deserve a position where we are able to winsomely influence and challenge society, promoting and modelling truth, moving the community towards God’s Kingdom. We will not do this by adopting or aping secular trends, pretending to be spiritually orientated, maintaining irrelevant traditions, rebelling against secular rule or undermining others. Neither should the Church be bland, unchallenging, or try to maintain peace through mildly accepting an inadequate ‘status quo’. There are many areas of Church and secular life where we will need to challenge or work for social, political or cultural change. Opposition with integrity offers reform; it does not encourage destructive rebellion. Destructive revolution would be false use of Christian authority - an idea with which Bonhoeffer struggled.
Christianity itself has rarely if ever grown through times of inertia or when it has sought to maintain a comfortable status quo. It has grown through revolutionary periods when false or inadequate practices have been challenged: Jesus challenged the institutional religion of the Temple; the Letters to the Churches in Revelation 2&3 challenged inadequacies in early churches, as do many New Testament Epistles. Doctrinal arguments challenged Church councils to search for truth; Luther and later Reformers challenge the authority and practices of the Roman Church, as the Counter-Reformation and Vatican II Church challenged itself internally. Scientific, historical, archaeological and psychological research in the C18th and C19th Enlightenment challenged the Church to be less superstitious and take history and science seriously, rather than persecute as Galileo had previously suffered. Biblical scholarship and comparative religion challenge naïve, literal acceptance of scriptural texts. Appropriate new practices, understandings and ideas of worship, evangelism and truth challenge Church activities and beliefs today. We should be working towards an authority in the Church that is founded ‘in Spirit an in Truth’ [Jn.4:23]. Christ’s teaching was practical; our witness and influence in the world depends on our integrity and awareness of how Christ’s teaching applies to the world as it really is. If, as has become a common perception today. Churches are believed to be blinkered to science, scholarship or social realities, covering up abuses, not living according to Christ’s principles, acting primarily for their own good or being naïve in their belief and practices, people will not be encouraged to follow Christ. Many outside the Church recognise good and truth in Jesus and his teachings but would not consider joining a church, because they do not recognise in Christians that we are following him sufficiently. We don’t have the Christian ‘authority’ in society that we should be recognised as having because we don’t resemble Christ as we should. But Christ ‘authorises’ us to represent him truthfully to our world: We are stewards of a truth that should abundantly improve and deepen the lives of others as well as ourselves.
JESUS’ AUTHORITY
The Gospel writers claim that Jesus was recognised as teaching ‘with authority’ (‘exousia’) [Matt. 7:29; Mk. 1:22,27; Lk.4:32, 36]. This seems to refer to his ‘charisma’ as much as his persuasive, oratorical or spiritual power, although his miracles as well as his character affirmed the truth behind who he was and what he taught. Jesus spoke with a truth that was more compelling, attractive and felt more true than the contemporary religious and social traditions, laws and practices which enslaved people. His truths freed people’s minds and lives. His authority was recognised as having a different and higher source than the authority claimed by Scribes, Pharisees and Sadducees. Their power was based on ‘archŏn’ (also translated as ‘authority’) which came from their assumed high social and religious position [Jn.7:26, 48; 12:42]. They exercised ‘dunatós’ (’power’/’might’ also occasionally translated as ‘authority’ – Acts 25:5]. Christ usually exercised his authority far more gently and winsomely. Jeus practised ‘authority’ not so much through exerting ‘power’ over any, but by his teaching, example, love, healing, reconciliation and bringing peace. He explicitly told Pilate [Jn.18:36-38] and his disciples that his authority was different from worldly authority: “You know that those who are supposed to rule over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them but it shall not be so among you. Whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you, must be slave of all. For the Son of Man also came not to be served, but to serve and give His life as a ransom for many” [Mk.10:42-45].
The Gospels record that Jesus claimed God-given authority to forgive [Matt.9:6; Mk.2:10; Lk.5:24]; to have authority over spirits and demons: [Matt:10:1; Mk.3:5; Lk.9:1]; to judge and condemn [Lk.12:5; Jn.5:27] and to have been given “all authority in heaven and earth” [Matt.28:18], including over human beings [Jn.17:2]. But even Jesus acknowledged that any authority he had came from God and was reliant on his Father: " I can do nothing on my own… I seek to do not my own will but the will of him who sent me" [Jn.5:30].
THE AUTHORITY THAT JESUS PASSED TO HIS FOLLOWERS & ITS USE TODAY
The Gospels and Epistles claim that the authority which Jesus had to forgive and heal, he passed on to his followers [Mk.6:7; Lk.9:1; 10:19] even the authority to perform miracles [Lk.10:19]. This was recognised when he personally sent out and empowered the Twelve then the Seventy in mission [Mk.3:15; Matt.10; Luke 10:1-23]. But he reminded them “No disciple is above his teacher, nor the servant is above his master; it is enough for the disciple to be like the teacher and the servant like the master...” [Matt.10:24-25]. This humble exercise of dependent power and authority, modelled on Christ’s use of ‘exousia’ was then extended to Christ’s Church after Pentecost through the gift of the Holy Spirit. The Apostles exercised a particular ‘authority’ in the early Church because of their close allegiance to Christ. And through God’s Spirit a measure of that responsible use of authority, spiritual power and commission has been passed down to all Christ’s followers. When Jesus sent out his apostles he gave them authority and sent them to “proclaim the Kingdom of God, to heal the sick, and to cast out demons.” [Mk.3:15] After his resurrection he commissioned them to travel into all the world, make disciples and teach, authorizing them to receive his Spirit and to proclaim God’s forgiveness of people’s sins [Jn.20:22-23; Matt.28:18-20]. Our spiritual gifts, our calling and authority remain dependent on God; they are not for us to exercise power independently or for our own aggrandisement, as Simon the Magician discovered [Acts 8:9-24]. Some of the more arrogant Church leaders seem to neglect this and follow their own way, rather than humbly seeking spiritual dependency on the Lord. If people recognise arrogance, self-satisfaction and lack of humility in a leader, teacher or Church they are less likely to admire or follow them or accept their witness.
For thinking Christians today one uncomfortable area of Jesus’ teaching about authority is the authority to heal. Jesus gave the Seventy ‘authority over serpents and scorpions and the power of evil, but not over human beings’. [Lk 10:17-20]. This may, of course include later additions to Christ’s actual teachings, but Christ definitely appears to have exercised authority to free people from bondage and disease. He sent the disciples out with authority to act similarly, and passes to us the same commission. We can understand the attribution of illness and enlightened, scientific age, rightly sceptical over superstitions, should interpret the spiritual dimension of illness more carefully. Some with mental problems falsely believe themselves possessed. We must never exacerbate these problems, as some literalist Christian ‘healers’ do by irresponsibly assuming they have ‘authority’ over demonic possession. In the majority of cases this is not the problem. Conversely we do not understand much about the spiritual world and should not completely dismiss ideas about spiritual powers. Some aspects of illness can be psychosomatic. Giving someone confidence that elements of their illness have gone through Christ’s authority probably helps in the healing process. Our prayer for people must be alongside medical interventions to heal. Our authority in this context is not to automatically command spirits or personally heal others, as some Charismatic Christians assume. It involves taking responsibility to care for someone’s wholeness by sincerely praying and working with others for their wellbeing, strengthening and helping them towards wholeness. I feel confident that I have authority, or at least the authorisation, as a Christian minister to help people realise that Christ can free them spiritually to help them towards abundant, guilt-free lives. His saving activity can free people from sin and it is our responsibility to help people recognise, accept, understand and enjoy the implications of this. I feel confident to pray for and anoint people in trust that God can heal them. Such healing is always dependent on God’s activity, God’s intentions and God’s wisdom. But as far as I know, I am not given the spiritual gifts of a healer, certainly not an exorcist, so I do not fully comprehend the implications of the authority to heal and release from spiritual bondage. I do not feel confident to further explore it in this study. It is a specialist field, to be approached with care, as it has caused historic casualties in churches.
Christ offers and can give freedom; he intends people to attain the full potential for which they were created and for which God’s Spirit gifts & inspires us. Like God we should never force believers into conformity as some churches try to do. God made us all different; we respond to God in different ways. We are to teach as Christ taught, valuing all. God’s truth not our social or institutional position will give our teaching & message authority. Given ‘authority’ by Christ to preach & promote his Gospel means that we are entrusted with responsibility to communicate his gift to the world effectively and with integrity, in ways that can relate to the lives of all, not just attract ‘people like us’.
Charismatic churches which march around an area ‘authoritatively claiming’ the place for the Lord and ‘driving away’ hostile spiritual powers are, I believe, exaggerating Christ’s command. I consider that the authority that Christ intended us to exercise is more a ‘responsibility’ laid upon us and entrusted to us to effectively communicate Jesus’ message to the whole of the world around us. The authority and power remains with God’s Spirit, who can inspire and communicate through us. Some street preachers or evangelists put all responsibility for responding to their message on the recipient. They preach authoritatively, sometimes insensitively, but claim that responsibility for attaining Salvation is on the hearer. The preacher’s responsibility to communicate effectively and winningly is ignored. Some images in Hebrew Scriptures and the Book of Revelation imply that God works and influences people by fear, but any strong message must be balanced by the love, care, forgiveness and grace emphasised by Jesus. He talked much about judgement and sin, but balanced this by his teaching on grace and by showing his love for the hearer, as with the Woman Taken in Adultery: neither do I condemn you… Go and sin no more.” [Jn.8:11].
Our responsibility is to teach about Christ as winsomely, truthfully and as effectively as we can. We can no longer, nor should we, try to force Christianity into people’s lives or threaten people through fear of God’s judgement. That would put people off recognising the wholeness of Christ’s teaching. A bullying Church is not witnessing to the truth that Christ exemplified, nor is a Church that over-simplifies belief or leaves Christians with a simplistic, naïve faith that does not grow or challenge them to holy lives following Christ’s teaching and exploring Christian spirituality broadly.
Some churches act as though their message is only for people like themselves, neglecting wider mission. This disobeys Christs ‘Great Commission to’ communicate his gospel effectively to all the world [Matt.28:18-20]. Other church leaders have exercised authority with the feeling that they have the power to exclude from fellowship or communion those with whom they did not agree, or whose lifestyles are not acceptable to them. Such ‘authority’ was often overstepped by Protestant Reformers, Counter-Reformation zeal and authoritarian preachers of many eras. Catholic, Puritan, Evangelical, and Charismatic leaders, as well as cults, have ruined people’s lives for centuries by such authoritarianism. Our Christian authority is to treat people as Christ would, to offer Christ’s Salvation to all, to welcome and to challenge all with inclusive, forgiving love as Jesus did. True Christian faith gives people freedom to follow God of their own volition and in the ways that might most fulfil them. We should do all we can to present the Gospel winsomely, widely and truthfully. We have the authorisation to challenge with love but no authority to judge or exclude: only God can do that. When Jesus rebuked Peter, he also restored him [Lk.4:8; Jn.21:15-17]. When he confronted the Woman Taken in Adultery or the Samaritan Woman at the Well with the truth of their lives, he also showed them the ways to holy freedom. Our attitude towards others should be welcoming, inclusive & righteous in the spirit of Christ’s gospel, presented in the manner in which Jesus proclaimed it. Discipline should be without partiality, undertaken wisely, careful to not damage others [Matt.18:15-17; 1Tim.5:19-21]. Only in rare examples of deliberate rebellion did Paul exercise authority to remove or exclude people from fellowship [1 Cor.5:1-13]. Any leader’s ‘power’ in the church was intended for the right organisation of worship and ethical protection of the community, not to impose their will or restrictions over others.
The Church should never negatively threaten with exclusion as some did in the past, anathematising those with whose ideas or lifestyles leaders did not agree. In safeguarding situations it is right to protect from abusers. Churches may rebuke and protect but the intention is always to restore and reconcile the member of the Body of Christ to our community or to other Christian fellowship [Gal. 2:11-14; Matt. 16:23; Titus 1:13]. Perhaps persistent rebellion or sinful behaviour may lead to temporary exclusion, and leaders have some authority for this, but it should be the last resort and should always be with the intention of restoring the person and healing the fellowship. Scripture recognises several categories of rebelling against God’s or the Church’s authority, including:
· Violating God’s moral commandments [1 Cor. 5:10-11; 6:9-10; 2 Cor. 6:14-7:1; Gal. 5:19-21; Eph. 5:3-5].
· Indulging in unresolved relational sins: gossip, slander, anger, abusive speech [Matt. 18:15-20; Eph. 4:25-31; Gal. 5:19-21; Col. 3:8].
· Divisiveness in the church [Rom. 16:17-18; Titus 3:10; 3 John 9-10].
· False teaching on major doctrines [Gal. 1:8-9; 1 Tim. 1:20; 6:3-5; 2 John 9-11].
· Disorderly conduct and refusal to work [2 Thess. 3:6-15; 1Tim. 5:8].
Though Christians believe that we have the truth in Christ, we must recognise that, unlike God, we do not know everything. Our beliefs do not give us the right or authority to impose our ways, beliefs or interpretations on others, as evangelistic missions have tried many times in church history. Forced conversions of Jews, Muslims, Cathars, Incas, etc. under threat of death, punishment or enslavement , were completely against all that Christ taught about bringing peace, truth and freedom. The same is true of Catholic or Protestant persecution in the Reformation and Counter-Reformation (continuing today in some divided communities), or the white supremacy movement or Evangelical opposition to abortion clinics or gay communities, Justification for destructiveness or murder may have been invented through applying the supposed instructions of God to destroy opposition and false beliefs during the conquest of Canaan. But many scholars and archaeologists now believe those to be additions to the Hebrew Scriptures to justify Hebrew supremacy and violence in Israelite expansionism. Christ certainly taught a better way (1Cor.12:21); the way of persuasion through truth, support, righteous teaching and holy example. Getting one’s own way by lies or dominating others (as was the practice of an already-mentioned former Diocesan Director of Ministry) is heretical as well as abusive.
When Jesus forgave sin, he freed people from bondage, guilt and shame and set followers on the path of restoration. The authority he gives to us is to do for others what he has done for us. Too often the Church has encouraged guilt to build up, in order to exert authority over others, or to gain finance for the Church through guilt-offerings, as in the abuse of indulgences. Hell-fire preaching performed that function for centuries and is still resorted to by a few. This was not Jesus’ model of ministry, though he gave many warnings in language of judgement that spoke into the superstitious cultural understanding of his contemporaries. We do not have the authority to judge others [Matt.7:1-3]. Yet ‘authority’ does have an apocalyptic dimension: Christ’s gifts of salvation and grace have authorised us to share and enjoy future life with him and to offer and explain salvation to others. John wrote that “to as many as receive Christ, he gives the authority to become children of God” [Jn.1:12]. Revelation describes the future life in imagery of heavenly thrones. But, unlike the authority we have been given to proclaim forgiveness, the idea of our possible eventual heavenly enthronement does not imply that we have any authority to judge one another [Matt.7:1-3], just as we do not have authority to “lord it” over others [Matt.20:25]. We do not know what Christ meant to Peter about giving him the keys to bind and free [Matt.16:18-19.]. It has several possible interpretations, so we should not over-stress that authority, as the Roman Catholic Church, Charismatic and other authoritarian churches have done many times. Though scriptures speak of Christians being entrusted with authority to assess people according to truth [Lk.12:5; Jn.5:27], teach and evangelise [Matt.28:18-20], heal [Mk.6:7; Lk.9:1; 10:19], even drive out evil [Mk.3:15] we must exercise such authority with humility, gentleness, wisdom, forgiveness, understanding, care and other fruit of the Spirit [Gal.5:22-26]. That passage ends: “Let us not become conceited, competing against each other, envying one another.” We should always recognise that any power we have is as stewards dependent on and responsible to God. Christian authority is about having been ‘authorised’ or ‘commissioned’ by God. We serve, preach, teach, lead and guide under God’s leadership. Like the centurion who trusted Christ to heal his servant, we are people ‘under authority’ [Matt.8:9]. If we usurp or misuse this authority we ourselves are open to judgement and it would be righteous for God to remove such a leader from position.
Since the Apostles many Christians have been tempted to arrogance, misinterpreting their authority, or to over-stretch their powers and influence as, too frequently, some Church leaders still do today. This is partly due to a misconception or confusion between ‘exousia’ / ‘authorisation’ and the exercise of ‘dunatós’ / ‘power’ or ‘might’. Jesus reminded his disciples that ‘none should lord it over others’ [Matt.20:25]; “Whoever would be great among you must be your servant” [v.26] “serve not be served” [v.28]; “consider others better than yourselves” [Phil.2:3]; “take the lower place at table” [Lk.14:8-20]. Hierarchy in Christian institutions is false. The most important in the Church are those who we serve in order to bring others to Christ or strengthen their faith. The least ‘important’ in hierarchical terms should be the leaders – they should regard themselves as servants and act in that way. This counters those who swagger under Jesus’ promise to give us power and authority. Giving Peter and through him the Church: "the keys to the Kingdom of heaven" or the right to assess and make judgements [Matt.16:18-19] seems not to be about giving him or us excessive power over others’ lives, but authorising us with the responsibility to evangelise, spread an understanding of God’s promises and warnings effectively and extend the Kingdom of God.
Jesus assured the Church that his Spirit in us is greater than antagonistic powers in the world. The writer to the Ephesians prayed in the great opening prayer [Eph.1:15-23 & 3:14-19] that they might “begin to understand the incredible greatness of his power." … “that a spirit of wisdom and revelation will be given to you." That same power is in us, he says “which raised Christ from the death and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority, power and dominion… and put all things in subjection under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church.” This is a call for confidence in God and lack of timidity in mission, not a reason for the arrogance, self-satisfaction, self-assurance or contentment, which one sees in some church-people.
Jesus was more effective in his mission than much of the Church for many reasons. Primarily Christians believe that his authority was divinely sourced, inspired and gifted because of his nature. His authority was ‘ex’-‘ousia’; it came from ‘who he was’. Jesus prayed for guidance and expressed his reliance on God for what he said and did: [Jn.5:19-20; 8:28; 10:36-37; 12:50]. Jesus was far more confident about his message and actions than most contemporary Christians. Many church-goers say that they don’t evangelise because they wouldn’t know what to say. How many years have many been coming to church, hearing sermons and teaching on faith? Conversely some who claim confidence in faith, lead or evangelise with authority fail to exercise it with Christ-like humility and dependent reliance on God. Jesus was orientated in his mission by love, reconciliation, serving and meeting the needs of the world. Perhaps we do not have enough conviction, love, care or these humble sources of confidence.
LIVING BY GOD’S POWER AND AUTHORITY
How do we then live and work for Christ in this divinely-inspired power and authority? Christian understanding of the world recognises that there are different dimensions - natural and spiritual - which coexist and interact. Most of us have very limited, if any, power or authority in the earthly terms. (Many with high positions in the Church might not be capable of maintaining similar positions of responsibility in the secular world. Their recognition of their inadequacies or inferiority is sometimes the source of their bullying.) It is in the spiritual realm that most Christians find our greatest value, authorisation and responsibility. We recognise that we lack personal power and are reliant on spiritual strength from above…. “...not many of you were wise by human standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, things that are not, to reduce to nothing things that are, so that no one[i]might boast in the presence of God. He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification and redemption, in order that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.” [1Cor.1:26-31].
We need to live in such an abundant, holy way in the spiritual realm that our presence, words, actions and example can influence the natural or earthly realm. If we live righteously, our neighbours, colleagues or community might be influenced for good. If we pray with integrity, seeking God’s will, our prayers may effect change through our allegiance to God’s work, direction or mission. It is our spirit’s unity with God’s Spirit that brings true power to our lives. This is a ‘dependent’ use of God’s authority.
Paul visited Corinth partly to strengthen the church by his teaching and assess the spiritual power alive in them: "for the kingdom of God is not words, but it is power" [1Cor.4:19-20]. Jesus modelled for us what he wanted his community to do, to be, and how to live in God's power. A church leader should model Christ’s use of power as a model for all church members. Our authority is only to continue the mission and ministry begun by Jesus: "As the Father sent me into the world, I now send you" [Jn.20:21; 17:18]. Christ sent the Holy Spirit as the ‘Comforter’- strengthener, advocate, inspirer, supporter for the Christian life and ministry. We cannot be sure how much Jesus ministered as human being, without using his attributes as God [Phil.2:5-8]. He relied on God’s inspiration, guidance, strengthening and power. He expressed his dependency on God [Jn.5:19-20; 8:28; 10:36-37; 12:50], yet demonstrated how humans living in right relationship with God, inspired by God’s Spirit, should live, act and use the authority that God entrusts to us.
Many Christians recognise lack of power and integrity in themselves, and their dependence on God’s grace. The Church needs to be more powerful, but its power needs to be exercised through its integrity, keeping to God’s ways, rather than seeking imperial or numerical power. It does not need unconditional power and elevated position in society, which synods and campaigning groups try to exercise; it needs to win influence and respect by its adherence to truth.. Any power or influence we have or need will come, or will be recognised as deserved, if we are seen to be more in union with God and following Christ’s teaching with integrity. Often our actions and example witness far more loudly and effectively that our words. Christians often use spiritual words over-easily without living by their meaning as we should. Hearing the pontifications, promises, safeguarding assurances or simplistic, placating homilies of some I often feel like singing Lerner and Loewe’s lyrics “Words, words, words; I’m so sick of words… If you’re in love show me!” [My Fair Lady].
Jesus was sensitised to hear God’s guidance; he aligned himself to obey God’s will and ministered under God's authority. He did not act with the arrogant independence of some church leaders. All Christians would do greater works and have a more winsome witness in the world if we followed his example [Phil.2:5]. Christians and Churches talk much about the Kingdom of God but most do not live under God’s authority sufficiently to exemplify it as we should. We talk of Christ as ‘Lord’ and ‘King’ but much of the time we want God to justify or respect our own kingship of our lives, decision, plans. However ‘Truth’ is not intended to be a ‘constitutional monarch’; it is meant to rule and control life and the Church.
Any authority we have is due to our position in union with Jesus Christ. In Luke 9 Jesus gave authority and power to the Twelve and his Spirit performed miraculous signs and wonders through them. Seventy were sent out with a similar commission and authority in Luke 10. Yet all their powers were limited and dependent on God. In Mark 9:14-29 the disciples failed to heal a man’s son, perhaps because they were depending on themselves, not humbly reliant on prayer and God’s Spirit’s strength [Mk.9:28-29].
When Jesus left earth he commissioned us and gave us authority to go out and make disciples as he taught and did [Matt.28:18-20]. We are to continue what Jesus modelled it for us with dependence on the guidance, inspiration and the strength of the Spirit who Christ sent for us. The Gospels and several Epistles explore how to live, witness and regulate the Christian community by observing Christ’s power, teaching and authority. "In Christ all the fullness of deity exists in bodily form" ... "and you have been given fullness in Christ" [Col.2:9-10].
Our relationship with God through Christ can give abundance of life [Jn.10:10]. But we must recognise that God as represented by Christ must remain head and overseer over the Church, Christian leaders and every individual Christian, as he is over every power and authority [Col.2:15]. Christ’s headship and his empowerment of us through the Holy Spirit are not just for our own personal good and spiritual advance. He intends us to use his authority and gifting for the mission of building God’s Kingdom.
Too much Christian ambition (including the ambition for personal spiritual growth) remains self-centred: ‘How can faith in God and my place and position in Christ’s Body, the Church, benefit me or be used for my advantage?’ Our motivation should be others-orientated: to glorify God, promote Christ’s way, advance God’s Kingdom and improve the lives of others. After redeeming us Christ left us on earth to continue his work [Jn.17:15]. He gave us the responsibility and authority to advance God’s Kingdom and truth and to build up others in their faith and abundant lives. We are not put into position to advance us or to have dominance over others. Though coincidentally we may grow and feel fulfilled through advancing Christ’s mission, the opposite might happen: Christ suffered to advance his Father’s will. If we are servants why should it be any different for us? [Matt.10:24-25].
HUMAN AUTHORITY
Human beings are described in scripture as having been given earthly responsibility and authority by our position in Creation, derived from our relationship to God. The divine command to “fill the earth and ‘subdue’ it” [Gen.1:28], and being given ‘dominion over creation’ [Ps.8:6] have been interpreted in several ways. Some see this as a mandate to use the resources of the world as we like, even indiscriminately. Proponents of a ‘Prosperity Gospel’ sometimes even imply that it is our prerogative to destroy the natural environment and waste resources of earth if it leads to our personal advance. Others recognise this as a very responsible commission. I believe we are intended to be wise stewards, responsible to protect all while we develop the earth and human and natural resources for the best. Psalm 8:6-8 has been interpreted as recognising that God created humankind to use our authority on earth. Others interpret these verses as relating more specifically to Christ. But the psalm does recognise human beings as special within Creation: “..what are human beings that you are mindful of them, mortals that you care for them? Yet you have made them a little lower than God (or ‘than angels’ or ‘than heavenly beings’) and crowned them with glory and honour. You have given them dominion over the works of your hands; you have put all things under their feet…” This position gives us tremendous responsibility towards the world as well as privilege and value.
God is the source of authority in the universe. If Jesus is God and Lord, his authority should give him the right to command and enforce obedience (as some Church leaders through history and today have tried to apply to themselves as God’s representatives) [Matt. 28:18; Lk. 6:46]. Yet Christ used his exalted position with humility, grace and self-sacrifice, as should we [Phil.2:5-9].
DELIBERATE REBELLION AGAINST AUTHORITY
Scripture is often hostile to any idea of rebellion; order rather than anarchy is God’s way. Rebellion often expresses contempt towards any all authority other than the rebel’s own way of seeing and acting. Christ as Lord, should be our authority, fully “Lord” over us and the world, authorising us to act as we should. Romans 13:2 warns against resisting authority, seeing it as resistance against God, which can only expect judgment. Scripture sometimes attributes rebellion to Satan, Lucifer, demons or evil, which rebelled against God’s authority [1Sam.15:23; Prov.17:11; Isa.14:12-15; Eph. 2:2; 2 Pet. 2:10]. We have more psychological understandings of the rebellious nature today. But if dissatisfaction or the desire to rebel dominates us, it will infect our attitude towards God’s authority or the authority of the Truth.. It may even damage our personal wellbeing, peace and abundance of life.
Yet sometimes we need to rebel against false authority or false spirituality, as in Peter and John’s response to the Sanhedrin’s order that they should not preach [Acts 4:19-20]. Christian leaders are representatives of Christ. Hebrews says, “Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you” [Heb. 13:17]. Peace and unity in the Church depends on the integrity and responsibility of those leaders. The reminder that they must give account for their responsible use of the powers and gifts with which they have been entrusted is a strong incentive not to abuse or neglect their position. Yet I know and have known several who seem to disregard this call for integrity and accountability, almost as if they have no belief in the truth of the God they profess.
DISPUTES OVER AUTHORITY
Christ’s followers were commended to be obedient to secular laws and governments, for maintaining peace, concord and good witness. Secular authority is intended to ‘minister on behalf of God for good’ [Rom. 13:4; Heb. 13:17], serving God’s purpose and ordering the earth, though it rarely fulfils this purpose holistically. The First Epistle of Peter tells Christians: “...Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether to the king as supreme, or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good” [1 Pet. 2:13-15]. Many theologians from Bonhoeffer to Liberation Theologians struggled with this, recognising that there are times when, like Christ, we have to speak out against immoral authorities and disobey where right and truth are concerned.
Christ spoke out against false principles of the Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees. Yet he ‘rendered to Caesar’ what was required by secular authority [Matt.17:24-27; 22:21 ]. The Apostles disobeyed when ordered by the authorities not to preach Christ’s message [Acts 4:19-20]. Human laws must be regarded as subservient God’s will, but nor disregarded. For effective witness, responsibility and peace, Christ’s followers should cooperate with earthly laws or authorities and be law-abiding (including with complying with civil-rights and human-rights). Yet where secular rules depart substantially from God’s moral and righteous principles we have the authority to question, challenge or disobey and work to effect change. Where leaders are corrupt, or we disagree with policies, they should be treated with respect while we follow God’s direction in ways that witness winsomely to the world and work to build his Kingdom. There are times when Christians should feel prophetically responsible to challenge or rebuke authorities that are failing in their mandate [1Chron.16:21-22]. But as with our manner of disciplining church members we should rebuke in creative, positive ways that lead to restoration and healing.
Difficulties arise when Christians disagree about their interpretation of scripture and have different understandings of God’s ways (as in political, social, cultural, sexuality and gender issues, as well as decisions regarding specific issues in churches). We are called to live righteously and to influence for good but we have no authority to try to dominate. Even God does not rule the world in dominant ways. God works by providing, giving freedom, influencing for good and inspiring people towards truth, not by despotism. Christ worked by teaching and example, representing God authentically and humbly, as should we. When the world recognises the Church as argumentative, duplicitous, self-centred, divisive or unable to cope peacefully with division over ideas, we are failing to imitate Christ and not witnessing to God’s Truth.
Our only ‘authority’ is the authorisation and commission to imitate Christ in our lives and mission. The Church is not a democracy; we should not make decisions solely by consensus-voting (this is a problem with synodical government). As a ‘theocracy’ all Christian members of the Church are meant to work towards righteousness and God’s Kingdom. But when members disagree or have different interpretations of truth, leaders may need to make decisions, even if they are unpopular with some. Their priority should always be to think holily, to recognise their personal fallibility, to work for the Kingdom-good of the people of God and to extend God’s Kingdom by faithful witness. In decision-making, leaders, especially bishops, need to be broad in their application of Christ’s teaching, they should be aware of and encourage the spectrum of theological & spiritual understanding. Leaders should promote variations of spiritual understanding to feed the breadth of spirituality in the Church and the community. They should never make ‘executive decisions by just insisting on their way. No Christian, especially a leader, should subbornly maintain their personal position, rely on simplistic, literal interpretation of scripture, compromise truth, or timidly avoid righteous challenges, attempting with lack of Christian courage, to maintain a peaceful status-quo or ‘protect’ unrighteousness in their churches.
Paul encouraged the Church to change the world and the church-community through exercising our influence by praying for those in authority: “I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence” [1 Tim. 2:1-2]. This might include influencing them effectively to bring change or even in extremes praying for their removal from power: Paul was, at the time of writing some of his epistles, imprisoned under a despotic regime, which eventually executed him. Yet in his epistles he still viewed secular leaders as God’s servants, delegated to maintain law, order and justice [Rom. 14:4]
Scripture recognises other authorities which we should recognise: submission to the headship of Christ, exercised through his Spirit [Rom. 8:14], the authority of Christ’s teachings and God’s Word [2 Tim. 3:16], and respect for Church leadership [Matt. 18:17-20, Heb. 13:17; 1Thess.5:12-13]. The aim was unity, peace, growth towards righteousness, Christian maturity and the building of God’s Kingdom by reflecting that Kingdom in our lives and community. Within the family children are commended to obey their parents (Eph. 6:10] but conversely parents should not exasperate their children. The New Testament wife was expected to cooperate with her husband, submit to him “as to the Lord” [Eph. 5:22-24, 1 Tim. 2:12], and the husband was to ‘submit to Christ and love his wife’ [Eph. 5:23,25]. In Ephesians 5 this concept of the husband’s authority as head of the family was cultural. The writer and contemporary Jewish and gentile teachers believed that such leadership was delegated by God to extend God’s authority. To resist it was to resist God’s lordship. We now have more egalitarian understandings of relationship roles, and expect equality of responsibilities to one another. Yet even in the New Testament communities the idea of authority was not intended to be power over another, but to accept responsibility and accountability for others, to make lawful decisions considering others’ welfare before our own and to love.
THE AUTHORITY OF THE BIBLE
Christians speak of the ‘authority of the Bible’ and scripture’s authority in our lives. I believe that the all the books of the Bible are responsible sources of instruction for all Christian Life [2 Tim. 3:16-27]. How the writers were inspired by God’s Spirit we cannot be sure; the books may well have been inspired in a variety of ways. Certainly it is unlikely that the scriptures were orally dictated by God as a few naïve Christians still maintain.
Fundamentalists often speak of scripture as though it was directly dictated by God’s Spirit to the writers. If it were the direct teaching from the voice of God, one should rightly consider it as inerrant and authoritative. But there are too many errors in the biblical text that we have inherited to believe this.. Was it inerrant ‘as originally given’, as some claim? Most thinking Christians recognise that the biblical books are in many ways human creations and humanly edited, though inspired by God’s Spirit. Much of the teaching is probably the product of sincere human minds thinking through and revising ideas of faith and religion. They reflect religious ideas, ethics and communal rules and practices at different stages in the development of Hebrew belief. The Hebrew Scriptures especially developed and were edited over several centuries as Jewish culture changed, with augmentations from several editors with editorial agendas and biases. Much content that is presented in the literature as historic facts, including places, dates, figures of Jewish history and legend contains inaccuracies in detail, even if true events are depicted. God’s dictated words would not contain such inaccuracies. Perhaps the opening chapters of Genesis were never intended to be taken as a literal explanation of how Creation began, in the ways that some fundamentalists jealously defend Creationism versus more scientific explorations of how life on Earth evolved. Other ancient Creation myths were rarely accepted so literally by their contemporaries. Biblical books also vary in their teachings, as believers developed understandings over time. This is particularly true of references to death and what might await us beyond. We need to read and interpret each book of the Bible in the light of its literary genre and understanding the historical and social background and cultural ideas of the time in which it was written and edited. Filtering the words of scripture will help us find the truths expressed within the genre of the writing, whether poetry, legend, exemplary characters, warnings, historic examples or religious instruction.
As preachers have shown for centuries, stories, legends, even dodgy interpretations of history in the scriptures can be valuable to all if authentic meanings are found within them and their genre is correctly interpreted: “All Scripture is inspired by God- and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work”, says 2Tim.3:16-17. The biblical books contain spiritual truths that can strengthen us if we interpret them correctly, follow the truths we find and allow them to influence us. But all Christians should be careful not to regard their own interpretation of scripture as authoritative if other interpretations are possible. Scripture leaves much to the imagination or is silent or ambiguous about many things. It is not definitive on everything, just foundational, to be applied by us as it relates to changing situations in the world. No thinking Christian should follow the biblical text literally in every detail. That would be heretical, because it would mean that we are insisting on the letter of ancient Law, not being led by Christ’s Spirit, who is given to interpret, apply, and advance human understanding. Christ did not remove any ‘jot or tittle’ from scripture [Matt.5:15], but he reinterpreted it according to the truth he understood; so should we. Paul argued through the Epistle to the Romans that a literal following of laws and traditions led to dead, legalistic faith, not the living faith intended by the freedom brought by Christ. Human understanding has advanced enormously since the scriptures were written. We have a responsibility to Christ’s Spirit to advance the understanding of the Church, not to fossilise believer’s minds.
The ambiguity in scripture or silence over certain issues is possibly deliberate as it encourages us to think through meanings and contemporary applications of spiritual truths for ourselves. This can strengthen us spiritually and mentally. Thinking through its application, rather than naively obeying rules, makes believers take mature responsibility for life and our world. As cultures change our understandings of what is truth in the Bible modify, as in today’s wider understanding of Creation and evolution, worship, sacrifice, gender-roles, sexuality, democracy, lifestyle and international or inter-cultural responsibilities. So while scripture is to be regarded as ‘authoritative’ in its value for faith (as indicated in 2Tim.3:16-17) and of primary practical and spiritual use in forming us as disciples with spiritual understanding, it must be very carefully and wisely interpreted and applied.
TRUE MODELS OF CHRISTIAN AUTHORITY
Christ is the head of the Church [Eph. 5:23]; his teaching is paramount; not popes, archbishops, bishops, synods, priests, elders, churchwardens or church councils, or even our particular favourite translation of the Bible, which might state things in a way that we prefer. He commissioned leaders and authorises all Christians to represent him authentically, to use his gifts, listen to God’s Spirit and present God’s message and authority effectively to the world [2 Cor. 5:20, Matt. 18:17-20, John 14:12]. Church leaders are ordained to supervise and manage Christ’s Church [Acts 14:23, 1 Tim. 3:10-13], gifted by God to ‘equip the saints for service’ [Eph. 4:11-16]. But we are all accountable to God for our use of any authority invested in us. The spiritual harvest depends on God’s Spirit’s action, but we need to work authentically at the tasks, roles and gifts with which we have been entrusted. Christian leaders are only recognised as true if they follow a moral, godly and effective lifestyle [Matt. 7:15-16, 1 Tim. 3:1-7], and are uncompromising in faithfully being open to and living by God’s truth, as God continues to reveal it. We need to teach by example as well as by scripture [2 Tim. 3:16]. They are servants of God, who has the authority to correct and remove them if they are unfaithful [Ps.105:15]. Like any authorities all Church leaders need our prayer and encouragement. But they also need Christians to challenge them when they deviate from the truth, lose Christ’s humility or do not model Christ in their lives.
The sense of the authority of the Church altered in focus in C4th Europe with the establishment of the Church as an officially recognised and imperially supported institution. The reduction of persecution or suffering, accompanied by new responsibilities to the emperor may have led Christians to no longer feel the need to rely totally on God’s care, authority and protection. Through times of persecution, insecurity and growth they needed to rely on the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Now they also became dependent on the emperor local rulers and imperial power. Gradually church leaders, especially bishops, became figures of power themselves. This led to a change of imagery in churches from Resurrection symbols, the trials of Jonah or the pastorally caring image of the Good Shepherd, all found regularly in the catacombs. They adopted more confident imperial imagery - Christ in glory and the powerful presence of the saints. The authority given to the Church by Christian emperors led to the Church having reciprocal responsibility to the emperor, becoming partly reliant on and subject to imperial power and the emperor’s will. This was accompanied by a change in the Church’s own understanding of its power and the way in which powers were to be exercised by its leaders. Basilica churches enthroned the bishop, as a sub-‘emperor’ of the church with various levels of leadership below him. The structure of church hierarchies took on models of imperial power that survive in today’s ecclesiastical hierarchies. The aim for political, social and financial power became stronger when popes aimed to assert and enforce their authority and power over secular emperors and kings in the humanistic advance of the Church’s authority late Mediaeval, Renaissance and Counter-Reformation periods. The imagery used in the Vatican’s great Renaissance art and architecture is a display of papal and magisterial power, intellect and authority.
The Church has since adopted several other models of leadership that contradict Jesus’ teaching of servanthood, particularly the imagery of the ‘army of God’. Mediaeval Christians undertook crusades; Renaissance popes went to war to expand their territories. Reformers engaged in war against those they considered heretics or idolaters. Many justified this diversion from Christ’s teaching of peace, love, reconciliation and unity by using out of context Jesus’ and Paul’s encouragements to contend for the truth. Leaders adopted too literally the warfare imagery of Revelation or the conquest of Canaan in Joshua, rather than seeing it as a metaphor for our spiritual struggle for truth. Many Christians have taken metaphorical imagery in scripture over-literally. In many contexts the Church had subjugated believers and non-believers to leaders who often adopted an attitude of authoritarianism over others that was far greater than Jesus intended in Mark 10:42-45. Some even murdered opponents or those they considered heretics, supposedly in the cause of God’s truth. The truly greatest Christian leaders have often proved to be the humblest, most loving servants. Assuming that Church leadership is about power and protection of the Institution of the Church at all costs (even sacrificing truth and people) is sometimes taken to extremes that are more extensive than the humble, undemonstrative power that God uses in influencing the world.
The nature of Christian authority in Church leadership became confused, deliberately manipulated, or diverged from Jesus’ model early in the history of the Church and continues to be misinterpreted. The humility that Christ taught, encouraged us to serve all, not ‘lord it’ over any [Matt.20:25]. Humble servanthood soon became replaced by a hierarchical and deferential structure that we still see in most churches, with attitudes of deference towards popes, bishops, officials, priests or elders. When Philippians 2:3 taught “Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves…” the writer intended us to value and feel responsible for all, not to raise up and treat others as great or inferior. Clerics may often talk of ‘service’ as their model of leadership, but few truly act as ‘servant’ or ‘slave’ in the self-sacrificial way that Christ encouraged.
Today Church leaders are rightly trained to find the ways of leading that suit their personality and gifts. But the models used for teaching most often come from business-leadership methods and manuals, encouraging them to lead according to their preferred leadership style, according to their psychological character profile, rather than prioritising that they should apply the model of Christ’s humility to their character and ministry. This enables those who feel they are formed to be ‘dominant’ to develop the bullying and dominatrix tactics of the unscrupulous, dishonest Director of Ministry previously mentioned, or the self-protecting bishops who maintained her in power and neglected her victims. Secularisation of the models we use can lead to aberrations and power-ambitions that are experienced throughout churches from some unscrupulous ecclesiastical leaders.
Another problem with using business models for church-leadership is that business and management structures are orientated towards profit, efficiency, and control, not necessarily client-orientated or looking to improve life for people in the world. They work for the benefit of the owners and shareholders. Business ethics are not always righteous, despite well-known, good-practices, often from religion orientated entrepreneurs who have looked after their employees (e.g. Cadbury, etc.) Modern businesses often take their examples from American and Far-Eastern practices, which have created many of the pressures of modern life, particulalry expectations of 24 hour / 7 days a week commitment to the company and the iniquities of Zero-Hour contracts.
Although the Church should be ‘business-like’ in its stewardship of its people and resources, its personnel management should be a model of care and mutuality, since Christianity is God-and-people-orientated. Commitment to God is 24/7 and freely undertaken, but no Christian should be enslaved to church activities and church demands that have been occasionally experienced as coercive control. (That is a practice we condemn in religious cults.). Christ’s teaching encourages the enjoyment of an abundant life, even though he warned his followers that we would be treated as badly as he was.
In church and in businesses leadership by bullying is often done subtly to avoid complaints over safeguarding issues. But not always, as we have seen and experienced. Bullying extends right to the top of church hierarchies, and is often defended by the justification that it is for the ‘good of the Kingdom’, ‘protection of the institution’, ‘maintenance of Church order’ or ‘biblically justified’. Most blasphemously, bullying decisions or dominant behaviour has been justified as having been ‘guided by the Holy Spirit’.
The greatest biblical models for the Church are ‘a Family’ ‘a Body’ and ‘the Body of Christ’ where all parts are working mutually together, supporting the whole in a loving, not mechanistic manner and representing the reality of Christ in the world. Reasserting these Body and Family models of Church would enable and encourage leaders to be more like Christ-like, loving parents than business-leaders, and make the church community more attractive, more welcoming and hopefully make Diocesan Houses and Church Offices more personal and less institutional.
Christians’ personal authority depends on how authentically we model and follow the authority of Jesus, how we guide others to exemplify him and how we all live by the principles of God and God’s Kingdom personally and communally. In reforming the Church we need to reinstate the concept that all leaders should be servants not overlords. We also need to address confusion over nature of Christian authority and the use and abuse of powers in the Church. The hierarchical structure of churches needs to be re-examined and reversed. Today’s highest leaders need to recall that they should be the lowliest servant, willing to perform the lowliest tasks and take the lowest place to bring about the Kingdom. All ordained ministers rightly remain ‘deacons’ throughout their careers. They and others should recognise this as the role of ‘servants’, even ‘slaves’ of Christ’s truth, working for the good of Christ’s people. (‘Slave’ and ‘servant’ feel uncomfortable terms today: we far prefer to use the term ‘stewards’, regarding this role as suggesting our responsibilities and personal value, rather than accepting a low social position. (The ‘deacon’s’ role in secular society included carrying out the slop-buckets from latrines, and there is still plenty of ordure to remove from churches everywhere!) According to their titles, ‘arch’deacons should model the ‘most sincere or most powerful’ example of ministerial servanthood; bishops and ‘arch’bishops should model the ‘most sincere or most powerful’ example of pastoral care, rather than being regarded as positions that automatically deserve high institutional honour. The elaborate enthronement services for Popes and Archbishops of Canterbury seem today to be unnecessarily expensive, public spectacles; promoting the church’s hierarchy by international propaganda. No doubt they are promoting the international nature of declining Churches but the expense and panoply does little to demonstrate world-wide the authenticity of our mission to steward the world’s resources wisely and support and reach a needy world with Christ’s message. More modesty, like the investiture of a servant, might convince the world that the new incumbent may genuinely serve the world, not abuse power, influence or authority as some past popes and archbishops have done. Position and consecration in the Church evidently does not automatically confer holiness. Nor is it a guarantee of honesty or integrity, unless, in that position, we allow God’s Spirit and the example of Christ to continue to form us into Christ-likeness. In many cases power has gone to leaders’ heads and they regress to become officers of the institution. This could be why Jesus warned that social position and riches make it harder to attain God’s Kingdom, that the first will be last, [Matt.19:21-30] and that the disciples should regard themselves as servants or slaves not be ambitious for position [Matt/20:25-27].
Our sense and structure of Church hierarchies needs to be reversed to put service of our God’s truth, our neighbour, the world and the expansion of God’s Kingdom first, encouraging all Christians, including all leaders, to engage in our mission to those beyond the Church. The current ‘highest leaders’ in the hierarchy should be valued but, in Christ’s teaching, they come last in order of importance and self-importance, since they are the ones who should be serving with most rigour, humility and self-sacrifice, encouraging and facilitating mission and giving the greatest example of Christ-likeness and ministry: “Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave…” [Phil.2:5-7].
Jesus freed people to live abundant righteous lives. But we gain abundant life by engaging in the forms of humble, practical service that will improve the lives of others and establish the true Kingdom of God. Jesus did not intend Church leaders to be placed on pedestals. Nor should any leader, teacher or church authority try to force any believer to conform to stereotypes, restrict their spiritual growth by narrow teaching, or to bind, manipulate, falsify or coerce. He served in such a way that people saw he had the truth. It was the truth in his mission that helped those who saw or heard him to recognise his authority and attracted them to his way. “The sword of the Spirit is the word of Truth”, not the physical sword or the psychological sword of domination, coercion or biased teaching.
We need to be recognised to live by the same truth that Christ exemplified if we want to attract disciples and have influence. Our truth and integrity should help people recognise that our message, Christ’s message, has authority in the world, which offers so many alternatives. The intention of God’s gentle exercise of ‘exousia’ authority is to bring peace, unity, equity, holiness to Earth, to set people free. Christ loved and taught so authentically that he encouraged others to obey naturally the right ways of life - God’s ways - and to live totally fulfilled, holy lives, by our free wills, aligned to God’s Spirit, establishing the Kingdom of our God. The Church has no authority other than to represent God, Christ and the Kingdom of God in true, authentic ways.