Over the past twenty years or so, Christianity has from time to time found itself in disrepute due to scandal or moral failure among some of its perceived leadership.  I use the word “perceived” because many of those who are touted as leaders in Christendom are considered so for less than legitimate reasons, among them media savvy, personal charisma, or the number of letters, titles, or degrees after their name.  Some do have a genuine calling of God upon their lives, but far too many are self-motivated, self-willed, and self-marketing social technicians who can persuade the masses in some truly slick and remarkable ways.

            This is in stark contrast to the paradigm of Jesus, who exhibited His leadership by a servant-example model, relying on the Holy Spirit to impress upon His disciples the true communication of authority that was granted to them, which they in turn would be expected to pass on to others (see 2 Tim. 2:2).  Jesus easily carried the responsibilities which came along with His role as leader, demonstrating how authority that is delegated can be as effective as the same authority at its origin.

            The comprehensive topic of the authority of the believer is a very wide-ranging one, extending by necessity to authority exercised over demonic powers; such matters as deliverance and oppression go hand-in-hand with leadership.  But rather than taking on the daunting task of doing a study on authority in general, it has proven to be a wise thing to narrow the parameters a bit for the present purpose and only deal with that authority which some people are granted to exercise over other people.  Here, then, are the five basic principles of human-to-human authority I have uncovered in scripture.

Principle #1:  All authority is ultimately delegated by God

            The story of the centurion with a servant suffering from palsy that is related to us in Matthew 8:8-13 (and also in Luke 7:6-10) is illuminating on several levels.  First, it is remarkable that a man of Roman military rank and training would make himself so humble before Jesus that he would consider himself unworthy to have a visit from Him in order for the healing to be performed.  Second, he recognized an analogous relationship between Jesus’ authority over disease and his own authority as a soldier.  Third, he seems to have a grasp of the divine nature of this authority.  And finally, he proved his faith in the ability of Jesus to accomplish the healing act.  Jesus then not only healed the servant, but set forward the centurion’s example as one of great faith based on his understanding of the concept of authority and its delegation.

            The centurion recognized the source of his own military authority, how it was then delegated to him, how he should use that authority and delegate it to others below him when necessary.  He knew his place in the chain of command, and that helped him to see how Jesus fit in with the chain of command which originated from His Father.  But beyond what is described here, we go on to see that all authority has God himself as its ultimate source.  This is seen in Romans 13:1-7 in which Paul explains that “there is no power but of God; the powers that be are ordained of God.”  This is given in the context of civic authority, but written in such a way that allows it to be a general principle.  Jesus said the same thing to Pontius Pilate when Pilate asserted his authority to either crucify Him or release Him, saying that he could have no power at all “except it were given thee from above.”  This again is in a context of governmental authority, but Jesus’ response of “no power at all” again expands the application.

            It is to be expected that an all-powerful, sovereign God would be the ultimate source of every type of authority that man could exert.  So of course the second principle follows hard on its heels:

Principle #2:  Submitting to proper authority is not optional

            Scripture leaves us with no excuse to refuse to submit to any authority which God has legitimately raised up.  We read in 1 Samuel about David who, when he had an opportunity to kill King Saul, chose rather to not harm a person whom God had anointed.  David even felt remorse at the fact that he had cut off a part of Saul’s robe to prove that he could have killed him, if he had wanted.  His conscience would not allow him to glory in the fact that he could overpower his king, no matter how righteous his justification might have been.  In 1 Samuel 24:10 we read David’s words: “I will not put forth mine hand against ... the Lord’s anointed;” David had a strong grasp of the real importance of respect for the king, for even though the king was in error, judgment was left up to God.

            In Deuteronomy, Moses reinforces the idea of maintaining a submissive attitude toward national leadership as opposed to anarchy by stating in chapter 12, verses 8-9 that the Jews must not do “whatever is right in [your] own eyes,” and the reason is that they had not come into their inheritance.  And in Judges 17:6 and 21:25 we read that even though they had arrived in the Promised Land, they fell into that very trap because there was not a king in Israel.  Likewise, until we reach our ultimate reward of Heaven, we must also respect the established order on Earth given from above.

            Other exhortations given to us include 1 Peter 2:13-17, which echoes the passage concerning civic authority in Romans 13 referred to above, and also Hebrews 13:7 and 17, which tell us also to obey leadership in the church “who watch for your souls,” and follow their examples.  Also, Ephesians 6:5-9 exhorts servants and masters in their dealings with each other in ways which could easily apply in the modern world of business concerning an employer’s relationship with his or her employees.

            However, improper attempts at exerting authority should be at the very least ignored, if not vigorously rebuffed whenever possible.  The Old Testament contains several accounts of those in charge in Israel who overstepped the boundaries of their authority or else usurped it from others, and also speaks of the righteous ones who challenged them and of the final downfall of the unrighteous rulers.  Paul told the Galatians that even if an angel showed up, if he tried to preach to them another gospel, they should consider that angel anathema, which means cursed or excommunicated (see chapter 1, verse 9).  John wrote in his third letter about a man named Diotrephes who used the power of church leadership very dangerously.  In verses 9 and 10, John warns that this man seemed to love his position too much, and as a result refused to accept visiting brothers in Christian hospitality and punished those who did accept them, obviously because this would expose his abuse of his position.  Proverbs 29:2 puts it very well: “When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn.”

Principle #3:  Human authority is specific to a particular area of relationship

            There are identifiable areas of relationship between persons in any society, and there are corresponding areas of authority that are defined by these relationships, which I will refer to as “spheres” of authority (Some might express these in one-dimensional, linear terms such as a line or “flow-chart,” others might use a circle as an illustration; and these are both valid, but I prefer the three dimensions of the sphere for a more coherent depiction).

            Several spheres are easily identified: one is the civic sphere, which involves our relationship to anyone of governmental authority, whether it be president or policeman, governor or game warden, king or crossing guard; these people are charged with the enforcement of the laws of social order and the restraint of criminal behavior.  Another is the parallel but separate sphere of military authority.  Yet another would be the sphere of business relationships, in other words, the employer’s authority over the employee or the executive’s authority over a department or specific function of the company.  There is also the sphere of the teachers’ and administrators’ authority over staff and students within the schools.  Perhaps also as easily identified are two other spheres: the authority of elders and apostles in the church, and of the head of a household over family matters.  There are others, but these six seem to be the most basic.

            It is true that there is some overlap in these areas, but it is equally true that there are boundaries between them that should not be crossed.  One of the easiest signs to spot of the abuse of authority is when someone with legitimate authority in one area attempts to exert authority in another area where his authority does not apply.  Just as a pastor or elder cannot write us a speeding ticket, or an employer has no power to make us raise our children a certain way, any person with authority must understand the limits of that area in which he or she operates, and remain in it.  Where a sphere of authority lies depends on exactly which relationships are involved; for example, the centurion we spoke of previously knew that he had authority in the military, but not in the realm of healing or of the spiritual.

            An example which exemplifies this idea very well and warrants further attention is the sphere of familial authority, in which the husband/father is considered the head of the household.  Scripture gives us several passages which describe the ordering of this sphere, most notably Ephesians 5:22-6:4, 1 Corinthians 11:3 (and the following section through verse 16 which deals with the symbolism of head coverings), Colossians 3:18-21, and 1 Peter 3:1-7.  A striking application of the concept of familial authority can be found in Numbers chapter 30, in which the taking of vows is discussed; it is made apparent that any husband/father has the authority under Mosaic Law to nullify a vow taken by his wife/daughter if he decides that it was made rashly or improperly.

            It is interesting that in 1 Corinthians 11:3, Paul gives three steps in the chain of command, but the first one that he lists is the headship of Christ over the man as head of the household.  This should be for us an obvious reminder that we must lead as we are led.  Even more obvious is Ephesians 5:22-28, which includes the directive to husbands to love their wives “even as Christ also loved the Church, and gave Himself for it.”  But again, this comes in the greater context with the previous paragraph’s transitional verse, which is verse 21, “Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.”

            The sphere of familial authority also warrants further attention because it has historically been the area of some of the most blatant abuse.  Often Christian men have taken such statements out of context and used them to unfairly subjugate women, even those women who are not connected to their own family.  For example, 1 Corinthians 14:33 begins, “Let your women keep silence in the churches, for it is not permitted unto them to speak …”  However, in verse 34 this phrase is included: “let them ask their husbands at home.”  Note the connection to the family structure; this can be found in the greater context of all such passages in a variety of ways: sometimes in reference to the first family, Adam and Eve, sometimes in some other Old Testament reference, or sometimes in a very direct manner.  There is never a justification for male dominance or a patriarchal system outside this sphere, and within the sphere the proper means for wielding such authority is cogently described.

            The potential for misuse of any authority in any sphere is greatly tempered by the clarity provided by the final two principles, particularly when understood together:

Principle #4:  Authority does not equal superiority, nor does submission equal inferiority

            One of my favorite illustrations of this idea happens on Election Day.  Every time the voters go to the polls, that group includes the Mayor of my city, the Governor of my state, the President of the U. S., my Congressional representatives … and me.  When they vote, each of their votes counts as one—just as mine does.  Sure, they may have the authority to regulate or govern my life in some manner in which I do not govern theirs.  But as far as being a voting citizen, all of us are equal.  I am entitled to the same protections, rights, and general privileges under the Constitution as they enjoy.

            All of us who are members of the one body of Christ are equally citizens of the Kingdom of God.  All of the Scriptures which inform us that God is not a “respecter of persons” tell us so, as does the concept portrayed in Galatians 3:28: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female, for ye are all one in Christ Jesus” as well as Colossians 3:11: “Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free; but Christ is all, and in all.”  There is no superiority inherent in position, ministry status, or even in the possession of greater knowledge.

            Jesus’ leadership example was one of service and humility, not of coercion or of force.  He indicated this by saying to His disciples in Mark 10:42-45 that in order to be the highest in the Kingdom of God, one needs to take the lowest in attitude before those whom that person serves rather than using compulsion or intimidation, as was so often the case of the civic leaders of the day.

Principle #5:  Authority does equal responsibility, and submission does equal a respectful response to that responsibility

            When God grants authority to someone, it is clear throughout the scriptures that He will require that an account be given by the person delegated for the way in which that responsibility was handled.  This is ultimately the most fair and equitable way; those who call the shots should be those who answer for the actions taken, and those who will bear the burden really should have the say in the direction of the actions taken.

            As stated above, Hebrews 13:17 when taken in context with Romans 13 shows that it is the duty of all earthly authority figures in any sphere to stand before God and answer for the use of their position.  Just as in the parable of the talents in Matthew 25:14-30, those who are given something to be in charge of must act wisely with it, but also must freely take charge of it and do as they think best, because the responsibility truly is theirs and no one else’s.