This article was downloaded by permission of the author from www

This article was downloaded by permission of the author from www.RethinkingFaith.com, where other free articles are available on similar subjects.

Thoughts on Equality & Spiritual Authority

by Dave Leigh

I think we have to be careful to make some important distinctions when we talk about authority.

First, there is such a thing as legitimate authority. For example, anything that is true has authority. People who are honest and reasonable and reliable and well meaning also have a kind of earned authority for us, in that we are inclined to trust them and cooperate with them based on their proven character.

Jesus has authority, not because he has more power than we do, though he does, and not just because as the Creator he has rights over his creation and holds the place of preeminence by virtue of who he is. He deserves our love and gratitude and so we are be predisposed to comply with his will. But the greatest reason for his authority is that he is Truth. He possesses the character qualities I mentioned in my previous paragraph. And he possesses them with perfect knowledge and wisdom. Jesus therefore taught and spoke and acted as one having authority. The force and impact of this authority came from 1) the fact that what he spoke was truth attested to from the depths of each person's heart of hearts, and 2) what he did was God's will. He knew this and had confidence in it. Therefore he amazed people not only by what he said and did but in how he said and did it. Though human, he possessed divine authority in that he was a human authorized to manifest and represent God. He was God incarnate. Hence the source of his authority.

Second, the apostles in turn were sent out empowered by his authorization. But this authorization was limited to their speaking and acting within the parameters of his Word, the truth. When any of them departed from the truth, they were rightly challenged, as Paul describes rebuking Peter in Galatians 2. Apostolic authority lay in the apostles' conformity to the Word of God as taught to them by Jesus, not in their position as "apostles." Paul likewise spoke and acted using this same authority. He knew that so long as he spoke the Word of God regarding doctrine or practice, he spoke with authority. Even his opinion might hold some authority (in a secondary sense) since he was viewed as having the character qualities I've mentioned above, and because he was intimately acquainted with Christ. He was therefore a likely person to infer correctly what God might want on those occasions when there might be gaps in the church's recollections of Jesus' teachings (e.g., 1 Cor 7:12, 40).

By extension, church leaders and all believers possess authority not by virtue of their titles but they earn it by the exercise of godly character and by demonstrating their grasp of God's Word. It belongs to the priesthood of all believers that we each have the right and access to discover and speak God's Word. This, for example, is why a preeminent seminary scholar may be disbelieved and an everyday housewife believed if she holds a more biblical position than the scholar. In this latter case we can say that she holds more authority than he does because in holding the biblical position she speaks for God and he does not. Since God's Word is the ultimate authority, those who teach it may be said to "command" others when they direct them in what to believe or do. The commands are not the teacher's commands and do not hinge on the teacher's title or even personal attributes. They are God's instructions and therefore command our acquiescence. This belief in the Scriptures as the only remaining apostolic authority for today lies behind the Reformation's rejection of apostolic succession and the Radical Reformation's rejection of clericalism.

In baptistic and congregational traditions the belief in 1). the Truth as authoritative, and 2) the priesthood of all believers, has translated into a respect for consensus as a means of decision making in the church, be it by democracy or by some other means of gaining a corporate sense of the Spirit's witness. Historically, in Baptist circles the authority of the New Testament has been pitted against the authority of all human documents and human sources. The right and responsibility of every individual to deal personally and directly with God translated into every church member having one vote, no more, no less, regarding church decisions -- even church disciplinary matters, regardless of one's position or title. Administrative authority may be given to various church officers, but it is done so with the expectation of accountability back to the authorizing source, which in these groups would be the congregation. It is remarkable, given the historic nature of this mentality as a Baptist distinctive, that the two leading complementarians, who vest authority in gender and position, and who believe in leaders exercising authority over others, should identify themselves as Baptists!

How do these principles fit with what we've been saying about the commands of Christ and of Peter not to "lord over" others? One more distinction to note is that "exercising authority over" is slightly different in the Greek from simply "exercising authority." It's the "over" part that Jesus and the New Testament object to. Our authority is not a power invested in us to obtain blind compliance of others. Our authority consists in the authorization to speak God's Word into any situation. In so far as we do that, our words should be respected and heeded. In so far as we do not, we have no right to expect respect or cooperation. Paul concluded therefore that he possessed authority to build up and not tear down (2Co 10:8; 13:10). What's more, EVERY BELIEVER POSSESSES THIS KIND OF AUTHORITY -- or can, depending on whether or not theyy are in accord with God's Word.

Authority and Source

When a person is a source of information or knowledge, that person will be viewed as having authority regarding that information or knowledge. When a person is the source of another person, there may even be a period of time when the source has authority to care for and be responsible for the person whose being stems from the source-person, and whose well-being depends on them. Complementarianism accords with this idea well. But the problem is, complementarianism stops here. What it fails to realize is that individuals mature, and that knowledge (and therefore authority) can be separated from persons. In other words, if a "source" of information begins to contradict itself or other sources of truth, then we would naturally question the authority of that source. Why? Because the authority is in the truth or accuracy of the information, not in the sources themselves.

Likewise, our parents are our sources and therefore once possessed authority over us (yes, "over us"). Mom once could say, "Do it because I'm the Mommy, that's why." Why could she do this? Because as more advanced, mature beings our parents knew better than we did (or were supposed to) and were responsible to use that knowledge on our behalf. But as we became adults ourselves, we acquired our own knowledge base and learned to evaluate our parent's input. As adults, we might still want to please our parents or give their opinions and views weight in our lives. But the fact is that as adults we are no longer obligated to obey simply because "she's the Mommy." Though our parents are our "source," they are no longer our authority.

In a similar way complementarians treat Christ as eternally subordinate to the Father, as though Christ were forever immature, or less than fully divine. They then take Paul's statements of comparison between the Trinity and the marriage relationship and infer from it that women are eternally the lessers of men. If Christ, in their view, can never achieve full partnership and functional equality with the Father in every divine perfection, then of course neither can women obtain this with men. Yet, ironically, in their view Christ continues to be the authority over the church and over all of creation while women apparently have no real authority at all.

The fundamental flaw in all their thinking, I believe, is their mistaken idea that any human being possesses divine authority over another mature believer by virtue of position or personal status. To then argue about which positions hold authority and who can hold those positions is to further perpetuate the authoritarian myth and to engage in an exercise of fiction as though it were a reality.