We North Americans have an uneasy relationship with authority. We admit that we need it to order our lives in community, yet we are suspicious of it at the same time. “Question authority” is an adage that appeals especially to the young, as they struggle to find their own place in the world after moving out of the parental home. But some would go even further, as the image above indicates: “Stop believing in authority; start believing in each other.” At first glance, this sounds appealing. We should all look out for our neighbours and readily co-operate with them for the common good.
Philosopher Yves René Simon (1903-1961) observed that, since at least the French Revolution, authority has acquired something of a negative reputation. It is not difficult to see why. We need only look at the sexual abuse scandals plaguing church communities ranging from the Roman Catholic to the Independent Fundamental Baptist Churches to see how so many have abused their offices to prey on the weak and vulnerable. Or we might consider the age-old problem of corrupt leaders attempting to enrich themselves at the public expense.
Postmodern philosophers, under Marxist influence, have further sought to strip authority of its mystique, asserting that it amounts to little more than self-interested power holding the masses in its sway by means of something akin to Plato’s noble lie. If so, then all institutions, even those appearing to be foundational to human flourishing, are mere social constructions, arbitrary power arrangements supporting the privileges of a certain advantaged class of persons.
However, authority is not eluded as easily as some people would like. Even the clever saying above is self-defeating because it comes to us as an authoritative command: “Stop believing in authority!” But why should I heed this imperative in preference to one issued by a visible and duly constituted authoritative office, such as plant supervisor or prime minister? “Question authority” appears to be based on the expectation that others will, dare I say, obey. Thus it cannot possibly apply to itself. In this case, we are faced with one authority undertaking to subvert every other authority, which, in political life, is the path of totalitarianism.
And make no mistake: the questioner does indeed have authority. Authority cannot be shed like a woollen overcoat on a hot day. Authority is the flesh and blood capable of feeling the heat and of deciding to discard the coat. It is so much a part of who we are as those created in God’s image that to reject it would be to reject ourselves. The image of God implies a grant of authority, which manifests itself in a variety of activities and circumstances. Even personal freedom, so often considered the opposite of authority, is in reality one more manifestation of this authority that God has given us, as I have pointed out in We Answer to Another: Authority, Office, and the Image of God.
If everything we do is an outworking of this basic grant of authority, then we must also reject understandings of authority that limit it to hierarchical settings. During my teaching days, I would make this point by asking my students who had authority in the classroom. Invariably they would point to me, assuming that my position as instructor made me the authority in this context. I was, it is true, the one who set the terms of the course, scheduling tests and due dates for assignments. By enrolling in the course, the students agreed to the terms of the syllabus and were obligated to fulfil them. Moreover, I possessed the authority to evaluate their performance and to assign marks accordingly.
Nevertheless, I was quick to remind them that, as students, they too possess an authoritative office conditioned by the classroom setting. The office of student is one which I as instructor must respect. I must assess their work fairly, follow the course outline, prepare for lectures, and deliver them as well as could. They in turn were obligated to attend class, pay attention to lectures, participate in discussion, do the readings, take notes, and study diligently. Naturally not everyone measured up to the responsibilities of this office. Yet all in principle possessed the authority that it entailed. Of course, the two offices of instructor and student are not interchangeable. In this respect they are not egalitarian. Each implies different responsibilities, and indeed the student’s authority is under that of the instructor. But that in no way lessens the authority of that student.
The same can be said of our relationship to the God who has revealed himself uniquely in the person of Jesus Christ and who has spoken to us authoritatively in the Scriptures. Everything we do depends on his ultimate authority as Creator and Redeemer. Our authority does not originate with ourselves but comes from a loving and merciful God. That authority is limited, above all by God himself, but also by the existence of other human authorities. As Victor Lee Austin observes with respect to a symphony orchestra, the conductor’s authority allows for a greater expression of the instrumentalists’ freedom to which a solo performance cannot attain. Similarly, choral music has a richness that eludes the vocal soloist. Yet all the musicians can be said to exercise authority whether as soloists or as choir or orchestra.
When authority is abused, one or more of the following comes into play:
- The office-holder acts as though his own authority trumps every other authority. Hobbes’s sovereign ruler and Rousseau’s general will err in this respect. Neither can admit the presence of other authoritative agents limiting sovereignty.
- The office-holder is unwilling to admit that those under her care also exercise an authoritative office. She becomes autocratic, treating others within a community as mere factors of production or subjects to her superior knowledge or will.
- The office-holder continues to try to exercise his authority over others beyond its temporal limits. Parental authority exists in the active sense only during the immaturity of the offspring. Too many parents try to control their children’s lives after they have grown. Simon called this form of authority substitutional, in that it substitutes for the as yet missing maturity of the child. When properly exercised, such authority aims at its own disappearance.
- The office-holder employs means that are inappropriate to her office. No sane parents would think of summoning the police to discipline a disobedient child. No church institution would consider trying to make the local public library revoke the lending privileges of an unfaithful member. Nor would a parliamentary body attempt to excommunicate a citizen from his or her church.
- Finally when and if the office-holder declines to recognize that his authority does not originate in himself, the possibility of abuse rises. It is no accident that the mid-twentieth-century totalitarian regimes were officially atheistic. To recognize even the possibility of a transcendent God would be to admit that their proposals for revolutionary change were subject to limits not of their own making. Of course, revolutionaries typically appeal to the superior authority of history or some other abstract idea, and this effectively becomes their god as they willingly sacrifice huge numbers of human beings in its service.
What then does legitimate authority look like? Authority, properly understood, belongs to everyone created in God’s image. Each of us possesses multiple authoritative offices relevant to the communities of which we are part. We are fathers, mothers, sons, and daughters; educational administrators, support staff, instructors, and students; government officials and citizens; employers and employees; church overseers, presbyters, deacons, and lay members; bricklayers, construction workers, dancers, painters, and carpet cleaners. And individuals. None of these exhausts who we are as image of God. Each of these offices functions within limits set by a loving and gracious God for our benefit. The child growing to maturity grows in the exercise of the authority rightly belonging to her. Eventually she will exercise authority over herself and others in the various callings which she assumes.
Plainly we cannot live without authority. Contrary to the sign above, we cannot even begin to believe in each other unless we recognize everyone’s God-given authority, which cannot be separated from the ordinary aspirations and responsibilities of his image as manifested in every calling under the sun.
authority, freedom, Image of God, office, Victor Lee Austin, Yves R Simon
