What do we mean by "authority"? To my parents, it might mean "law and order prevailing over the forces of anarchy and chaos". To my children it is more likely to mean "something which always stops me from doing what I want to do."
Parking signs, taxes, coins and the height of your roof are all symbols of authority at work in our lives. Each day we unconsciously decide whether or not we will obey the authority behind these symbols. Sometimes a more conscious decision has to be made.
For a Christian in Australia it could mean deciding whether to obey an employer's instructions to take short cuts or to follow the voice of conscience. For a Christian convert in a Muslim country, it might mean a life-and-death choice between obeying the law and obeying God.
Defining authority is not easy. It has to do with power, but where does authority end and coercion begin? How does the authority of a policeman in Australia differ from the authority of an Indonesian policeman in East Timor?
It also has to do with relationships, but is authority something which is demonstrated by those who exercise it, or something given by those who are subject to it? Does a teacher have authority over her class because she is a teacher, with all the power of the school and the law behind her, or because the students accept her personal authority?
One view of authority
Sociologist Max Weber distinguished three types of authority. First there is charismatic authority, based on an individual's personal charisma and power. It is the authority typical of gurus and "benign" dictators. St Francis and Mahatma Ghandi were charismatic leaders, but so were Jim Jones and David Koresh. This type of authority tends to end with its leader's death, or become institutionalised, as it did with the Franciscans.
The second type of authority is traditional. The right of the governing authority to rule is recognised on the basis that it is customary or has existed for a long time. Often there is some sort of myth to explain why one particular group has authority. Emperors and kings fall into this category.
Finally there is rational-legal authority, based on the acceptance of an impersonal set of rules, such as the constitution of a country. There is a general agreement about the goal which will be achieved by adhering to these rules, for example public safety and order. Those in authority have only the power given to them by their office.
In most cases, two or more types of authority can be seen in the same person. The Queen, for instance, has both traditional and legal authority. A company director has legal authority, but may have charismatic authority as well. Hitler and Mussolini began as charismatic leaders, acquired legal authority, and eventually used coercion to maintain their power.
One thing to note here is the underlying assumption that authority is something which is given to those who govern by those who are governed. The police have authority to arrest criminals, even if the criminals protest, because the majority of us agree to give the police that authority. Should we all decide to do away with the constitution, the legal system and the police force and revert to "every man for himself", then the government and police would have no authority to do anything, if this assumption is correct. Authority used without the consent of the majority of its subjects becomes illegitimate.
This view of authority coming "from the ground up" is the only one acceptable to an atheistic mind-set. If authority were to come "from the top down", the ultimate source of authority would be God.
The biblical view of authority
The biblical view is precisely that authority does come from above. Those who have been given authority by God have that authority whether those who are governed accept it or not.
The judges, prophets and kings of the old testament were appointed by God, and depended upon him for their continuing authority. This was true whether they came to power by being anointed, by military conquest or by acclamation. It remained true whether they were popular or detested.
The Pharisees understood this. "By what authority do you do these things?" they asked Jesus (Luke 20.2). No-one had the right to go around preaching and commanding demons unless he had been given authority to do so.
Unlike the Pharisees, the centurion recognised that Jesus' authority came from God. "I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me," he told Jesus. "I tell this one 'Go' and he goes, and that one 'Come' and he comes. I say to my servant 'Do this' and he does it." (Luke 7.6-8) The centurion had authority from Caesar to command soldiers. Jesus had authority from God to command even sickness and death.
Paul states the biblical view of authority quite clearly in Romans chapter 13. "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established" (13.1).
Unthinking obedience?
What are the implications of this? One is that disobedience to God-given authority is sinful. It remains sinful even if our disobedience makes us one of the majority. Whether we voted for those in authority or not, whether we like them or not, if their authority is God-given, we must submit to them.
So why, we could ask, is the bible full of people who have opposed those in authority? Ahaz and Jezebel would hardly have described Elijah as their most loyal subject. Jeremiah didn't find himself at the bottom of a well for being too submissive. For someone who wrote so forcefully about obedience to authority, Paul seems to have spent a lot of time in prison. And what about Luther, Bonhoffer and other Christian "rebels"?
The answer seems to lie in what Paul says is the reason for rulers being given authority by God. They are given the right to use force ("the sword") to maintain peace and good order and to punish wrongdoers. They are to use their authority to "do us good", i.e. what is best for us as a community. As servants of God they are to give their full time to governing (v 6). In other words, rulers have authority for the benefit of others, not themselves.
When those with authority attempt to use it for their own gain, or ignore the task of encouraging what is good and restraining evil, then there may be a case for rejecting their commands. Like Peter, Paul and many others, we may decide that it is better to obey what we know is God's will than to obey those who refuse to do his will.
The second implication of Paul's view of authority is that while we may choose our leaders and their policies, the authority they bear comes from God. They are ultimately answerable to God, not the electorate.
Although democracy is an excellent way to ensure that leaders do not misuse their authority, it is not an end in itself. The bible does not endorse any political system or power structure. It is more concerned with good government, whether within the family, the church or the state.
By Dr Stella Budrikis
© Copyright 1999