More thoughts on authority, or, how the Roman Catholic church destroyed Western Culture

As I pointed out in the last article, Jesus flipped the concept of authority on its head. Authority was about service and protection, not control and submission. This concept, however, got skewed over history to become again, flipped on its head. The servant became the servant-leader and the protector became the abuser. Instead of maintaining the leadership model of Christ, the church adopted the leadership model of the world. This leadership model has become, perhaps, the most destructive force in our Western culture.

Consider this in Ezekiel 34:1-10

Then the word of the Lord came to me saying, “Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel. Prophesy and say to those shepherds, ‘Thus says the Lord God, “Woe, shepherds of Israel who have been feeding themselves! Should not the shepherds feed the flock? You eat the fat and clothe yourselves with the wool, you slaughter the fat sheep without feeding the flock. Those who are sickly you have not strengthened, the diseased you have not healed, the broken you have not bound up, the scattered you have not brought back, nor have you sought for the lost; but with force and with severity you have dominated them. They were scattered for lack of a shepherd, and they became food for every beast of the field and were scattered. My flock wandered through all the mountains and on every high hill; My flock was scattered over all the surface of the earth, and there was no one to search or seek for them.”’” 

Therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the Lord: “As I live,” declares the Lord God, “surely because My flock has become a prey, My flock has even become food for all the beasts of the field for lack of a shepherd, and My shepherds did not search for My flock, but rather the shepherds fed themselves and did not feed My flock; therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the Lord: ‘Thus says the Lord God, “Behold, I am against the shepherds, and I will demand My sheep from them and make them cease from feeding sheep. So the shepherds will not feed themselves anymore, but I will deliver My flock from their mouth, so that they will not be food for them.”’”

With that in mind, consider this passage:

John 21:1-11

So when they had finished breakfast, Jesus *said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me more than these?” He *said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.” He *said to him, “Tend My lambs.” He *said to him again a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me?” He *said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.” He *said to him, “Shepherd My sheep.” He *said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me?” Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, “Do you love Me?” And he said to Him, “Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You.” Jesus *said to him, “Tend My sheep.”

Peter was to be a shepherd of the sheep, a high calling. He was to protect and feed the sheep from wolves. In fact, Paul is forced to call Peter out when Peter sides with the Judaizers and begins to dissociate with the Gentiles.

This brings me to the point of the article. The authority church leaders have is not primarily in forcing their will on the sheep, but is instead for the protection of the sheep. But, that authority soon became what was condemned in Ezekiel "with force and with severity you have dominated them". This is the theme of Western culture, the superiority and dominance of the authoritative.

There are two sides of this shown in 1 Cor 5:1-8:

It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father’s wife. You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst. For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present. In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough? Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed. Therefore let us celebrate the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

It should be no surprise that Western Christians see this as Paul authoritatively asserting his judgment and condemnation, but instead, this is a call to protect the sheep. "A little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough" - instead of being faithful shepherds and protecting their flock, they fed themselves at their sheep's expense (became arrogant). Then it seems, they go overboard in their continued punishment. In a passage that many see as a conclusion to the matter (2 Cor 2:5-8).

But if any has caused sorrow, he has caused sorrow not to me, but in some degree—in order not to say too much—to all of you. Sufficient for such a one is this punishment which was inflicted by the majority, so that on the contrary you should rather forgive and comfort him, otherwise such a one might be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. Wherefore I urge you to reaffirm your love for him.

If this is truly the same person, we can see that the purpose of church discipline is not "making an example" or "punishment", but protection of the flock and seeking the lost sheep, and those leaders who are "arrogant" are the ones who are more concerned about being well-fed rather than serving those around them.

This is important to understand because it puts the Papacy in perspective. Early in the history of the church, the leadership forgot about service and remembered obedience and being served. There became hierarchies of church leaders and finally, the Archbishop of Rome declared himself to be the supreme leader (Pope) of the church. From there, matters got worse, much worse. Is it any surprise that the church did everything it could to protect the abusive shepherds who molested children rather than protect the sheep? To a lesser extent, the Presbyterian form of government, which is meant to protect the sheep, commonly protects abusive shepherds instead.

This perspective overflowed into Western culture as a whole. The "Divine Right" of kings is to require complete obedience of their subjects, immediately and without question. The hierarchies of corporations are supposed to protect customers and employees, but instead cover up abuse and protect the leaders from scrutiny. We see this problem when policemen kill innocent civilians and then their superiors, who are sworn to protect the citizens, instead defend the guilty.

Why do we see pastors rail against the "ME" generation? Yes, there is perhaps a problem with this innate selfishness, but perhaps it's the rejection of false authority that irks pastors the most. People who say "Why?" instead of "Yes, sir!".  Is it significant that the priest sex abuse scandal broke during this generation? Do we blindly assume that the church never had a problem with molestation until the last 30 years? Is it significant that authoritarian churches are imploding when members stand up to their abusive pastors? Consider Bill Gothard who hid his impropriety in plain sight for decades until the "Me" generation exposed him. Those from generations past are still trying to defend him. In fact, RPCNA pastor Roy Blackwood served on Gothard's board for much of this time.

Thoughts on authority

Growing up in an authoritarian denomination, authority is all about who makes the final decision. We were reminded that submission meant following the leader, whether it was the best decision or not, and that authority was being responsible for those decisions.

It's surprised me, then, that I've never been in a position to do that as the "authority" of my family. Not only do I value my wife's opinions, but I have never tried to overrule her. We have often had heated discussions about the best approach, but we've never gotten into a situation where I was forced to make a decision against her will. I don't even know if that's biblical.

But, that is what we learned in the church. Authority is primarily about who calls the shots and who submits. Why? Well let's look at a family argument.

We, as good RPs, decided that homeschooling was the way to go. The public school was public enemy #1, and parents who gave their children over to the state were handing them over to the devil. Since homeschooling was "God's Way", we should expect that everything would work out, but in second grade, homeschooling our eldest was heading for disaster. We opted for an "enrichment program" for third grade that was created even more friction. Two months in, my wife had enough and wanted to enroll her in public school. We discussed it quite a bit and we both gave in somewhat. We researched the schools around us and decided on our top preferences. The top school had a waiting list a mile long, the second school was good, but we couldn't get her in until the next Fall, and our default school had relatively poor ratings of teachers and administration. So, I gave up the homeschool is best philosophy, and my wife stuck it out until the Fall to enroll in the school we both agreed was better. After that, we've never looked back, even for the other children, all of whom opted for public school.

Now this seems like a reasonable approach, but things could easily have been different for the RP macho husband and the RP submissive wife. Consider Doug Wilson's article here (he did "retract" it here, although only this specific example rather than the thrust of his argument)

She can learn on a representative problem. She would be overwhelmed with a requirement that she change everywhere, all at once. If, for example, the problem is one of poor housekeeping, he should require something very simple, i.e. that the dishes be done after every meal before anything else is done. 

The first time the dishes are not done, he must sit down with his wife immediately, and gently remind her that this is something which has to be done. At no time may he lose his temper, badger her, call her names, etc. He must constantly remember and confess that she is not the problem, he is. By bringing this gently to her attention, he is not to be primarily pointing to her need to repent; rather, he is exhibiting the fruit of his repentance. 

He does this, without rancour and without an accusative spirit, until she complies or rebels. If she complies, he must move up one step, now requiring that another of her duties be done. If she rebels, he must call the elders of the church and ask them for a pastoral visit. When the government of the home has failed to such an extent, and a godly and consistent attempt by the husband to restore the situation has broken down, then the involvement of the elders is fully appropriate.

So, here, the role of the authoritative husband is to tell his wife what her duties are, in this case, keep the house clean. If she neglects her duties as assigned by her husband, he needs to remind her that those are her duties (because he said so) and that she needs to do them. If she persists in her "rebellion", then he needs to call for reinforcement (church discipline).

Even if the situation is far-fetched, the idea of authority is not. There is no real difference between wife and child, except perhaps for the means of discipline. The husband picks the stuff he wants to do, assigns the rest to his wife and when she fails to accomplish it takes her before the church. While many husbands and wives do enjoy the "traditional" separation of duties, Wilson baptizes them with some well-twisted scripture and makes them Biblical roles.

This is the same way we think of church authority(in fact all authority). The pastor and leaders decide what they want to do and then direct the church to do the rest. Those who drop everything to submit become the next generation of leaders, and those who don't stay bottom-feeders or worse.

If the dishes need to get done and my wife is putting the kids to bed, will God strike me down if I dare get my hands soapy? Or is the family a team effort? Is this within my authority?

The symptoms can of course vary. He may be distressed over her spending habits, television viewing habits, weight, rejection of his leadership, laziness in cleaning the house, lack of responsiveness to sexual advances, whatever.

Seriously? "Hey honey, you seem to have gained a few pounds, go get on the treadmill or I'm gonna call the pastor on you!" Is that the model of leadership Jesus displayed? In John 13, we first see an affirmation of Jesus's authority:

Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into His hands, and that He had come forth from God and was going back to God, got up from supper, and laid aside His garments; and taking a towel, He girded Himself.

Also consider Mark 10:

Calling them to Himself, Jesus said to them, “You know that those who are recognized as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them; and their great men exercise authority over them.  But it is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant; and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be slave of all.

In our standard Pharisaical way, we flip this on our head - you see the husband "serves" his wife by the proper use of his authority (i.e. lording it over her), just as the church leaders "serve" their congregation through dictate and fear of church discipline. Jesus instead demonstrated his authority by taking the job all of his disciples considered beneath them.

In fact, I think this may change the way we should look for church leaders. Instead of looking for people who are found leading every charge, maybe we should be looking for the ones who are found cleaning up afterwards?