Authority, Not Power

Our world is obsessed with the acquisition and exercise of power. Authority is often seen as not much more than a fig leaf used to provide some justification for using power.

I suppose this has always been true...but, in the Western world, the arc of modernism through hyper/post-modernism, combined with the unmooring of democracy from its origins in the idea that all humans are in God's image and therefore equal in value, has been especially effective in convincing folks that power is mostly accidental, usually arbitrary, and generally oppressive.

To put it another way, there's little if any moral justification (i.e., generally recognized basis in authority) for the possession or exercise of power.

This is the sort of thing that books are written about, so I'll try to throw out a few observations to consider.

• When modernism adopted a naturalistic epistemology (i.e., no knowledge of the metaphysical is possible) it denied that any knowledge of God was possible. A key turning point was Darwin's assertion that accidents could result in apparent design (i.e., distinctive species). As the denial of an overarching authority (God) that provided meaning and purpose worked its way into the social realm, a variety of alternatives were proposed (e.g., nihilism). The brutal results of this trend were seen in the French Revolution and especially in the 20th century (e.g., Hitler, Stalin). And, even though Mao, Pol Pot, and other dictators were not primarily grounded in modernism, they did use a framework created by a Westerner who was part of that shift (Marx). I'm not an expert in any of these areas, but it seems to me that there's much more emphasis on power than authority in these movements, though an appeal to some sort of moral authority is usually made to provide justification for the exercise of power.


• In places in the West where the loss of transcendent authority was not accompanied by revolution (e.g., the U.S.), the same kind of erosion in authority occured. This erosion was seen in the emergence of radical individualism, radical egalitarianism, and relativism, instead of violent revolution. Since there's no transcendent defininition of what's true or right or beautiful, it's up to each individual to create their own definition. And, no one else has any basis to challenge that definition. At the same time, the locus of authority shifted from the church to the state. The state's authority gradually became autonomous, and in democracies, entirely dependent on 50.1% of today's voters (and, increasingly, 5 judges whose sense of justice transcends law). The concept of "blind justice" and the "rule of law" faded along with a belief in transcendent norms...after all, why should I have to get a super-majority to amend the Constitution when it's clear that most "right-thinking" people know that some law is "clearly" unjust and is simply a reflection of an "antiquated" morality (echoes of modernism's notion that scientific and technological progress has a moral analog). The Founder's fears of a "tyranny of the majority" that denies any overarching moral authority seem increasingly justified.


• Postmodernism has thrown some especially combustive fuel on this fire. The assertion that language (and therefore meaning) is fundamentally about the imposition and reinforcement of power structures (a) tends to deny universal knowledge of general revelation (the natural world and morality), and (b) tends to undermine the belief that any propositional knowledge conveyed via language is sure. The fact that these postmodern propositions are captured in and communicated via words would seem to undermine them. But, many folks appear to be less disturbed by that contradiction than by the fact that humans have been unable to arrive at a universally accepted set of moral premises, reasoning, and conclusions.

During the past few years, I've often heard an encouragement to "speak [left-wing] truth to power." Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems that the actions most praised by these encouragers are those that "speak power to Truth."

So....what is a biblical perspective? Again, this is a book-length topic, but here are a few observations:

• We constantly make decisions and take action...i.e., exercise power...for specific purposes. This process almost always includes propositional knowledge of some sort, though it can never be purely propositional since propositional knowledge is silent on ends/purpose/telos.
• In the exercise of power, we are slaves. Romans 5-8 makes it clear that all humans are slaves...either to our own desire to disobey God (sin) or to righteousness (that leads to obedience). Our only choice is who will be our master. Paul argues that the old law is inherently good (since it came from God)...our problem is we constantly rebel against it and can only become slaves to righteousness by God's grace and Christ's sacrifice.
• From Genesis through Revelation, we see an unusual God. He is clearly transcendent in His goodness, love, justice, and authority, but He rarely intervenes in His creation by exercising power. Instead, He constantly entreats His people to submit to his authority. His divine and loving nature is seen in His commands (Psalm 119) that provide moral guidance in a fallen world, but His people constantly spit in His face. His call to submit to authority (in contrast to exercising of power) is seen in the other areas where God has delegated authority to specific roles (e.g., Christ-Spirit, Christ-church, elders-congregation, husband-wife, parent-child, government-citizen).
• From our perspective, this focus on submission to authority often seems unjust and unjustified. After all, isn't authority primarily about ensuring justice? And, shouldn't the focus be on how we should use legitimate authority to right wrongs? This line of reasoning tends to ignore our fallen nature. We are human and therefore imperfect...too harsh, too lenient, corrupt, etc. At the same time, since we are in God's image, we want to see justice done in this life (if not this very day). Satan takes that desire and distorts it by tempting us to "play God" by taking actions that are outside of the authority we have been given, including the exercise of power against those who rebel against God. Such an exercise can only be justified if it clearly involves acting under God's authority...and such instances seem far and few between, with the authorized power being limited to a very small set of actions (e.g., corporeal punishment for young children where rebellion is clearly seen).
• Where we have authority, we should follow God and Christ's example by using power sparingly. God does not force Himself on us, though it is well within his power to do so. The Father and Son lead by loving example...John records numerous statements by Jesus about his submission to the Father and about our obligation as the Son's slaves to obey Him. Just as a final accounting of failure to submit to God's authority awaits Judgement Day, so does a final accounting of failure to submit to legitimate authority.
• Where we are required to exercise power (e.g., punishing children), we must do so. We disobey God when we refuse to fill a role He has given us...just as we disobey Him when we take on a role He has not given us.

Satan constantly tempts us to "be our own god" and (a) exercise power unwisely, and (b) exercise power outside of our scope of authority. The world denies the existence of any transcendent authority and focuses on how humans exercise power.

Christians are called us humbly submit to legitimate authority, and to exercise power with fear and trembling in light of the commands and example of our Master.