Hierarchal structures and submission

I was discussing the nature of authority to my daughter several years ago, and who she is to obey when she gets conflicting requests by those in authority over her.

Scripture teaches that people are to submit to authority as is appropriate. There are several examples given in the Bible. Men to God, citizens to the king or the state, children to parents, slaves to masters, church members to elders. And by analogy other situations such as employees to employers.

I think there is a good argument to be made to obey authorities in most situations, even if the authority is not righteous. I will not defend this position here, it is a common position among Christians, though I am aware there are arguments otherwise.

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed. (Romans 13)

The question arises about what someone should do when he is commanded something that conflicts with a higher authority he is answerable to.

While we are answerable to those above us, we may also be answerable to those above them. The basic structure I see is this:

1. God
2. Government
3. Citizens
4. Children

And there are different structures within this. The church as a whole is not under the government, but individuals within the church are (in this age).

Some structures are voluntary and others compulsory. Compulsory structures may change. All governments are always under God, as are all men. Christians are under their elders, but they are free to leave their local church, or even Christianity. Slaves are not free to leave, but employees are. Children become adults and are no longer answerable to their parents. A voluntary structure does not permit you to disobey your superiors, though you are free to leave the structure if you find their requirements repulsive.

The flow of authority means that people are permitted to disobey an immediate authority if obedience to him means disobedience to a higher authority. However it must result in disobedience to the higher authority, not just inconsistent with his preferences. Further, you must also be under the higher authority.

So if you are a slave to a soldier who is under a commander, but you are not answerable to the commander in any way, then you do not need to take the commander's objection into consideration in your obedience to the soldier. Though it may be prudent to consider the likely consequences.

If you are also answerable to the commander, and the request of the soldier is inconsistent with how the commander would act, but performing such a task would not mean you are disobeying the commander, then the duty to obey remains in effect.

One can transfer authority. When discussing this with my daughter I used the example of school. I transfer my authority over my daughter to the teachers and principal during her time at school. The teachers are not under my authority at all. Still, because I am the primary authority over my daughter, she is allowed to disobey her teachers in deference to me.

It is also important to note that people have authority if they are delegated it, not because they are part of a structure. In a monarchy the king is the ultimate authority (under God), but the king's attendants do not necessarily carry any power. A person working for the state does not have intrinsic authority based on his employment, it is based on his position. So a policeman or a judge has authority delegated by the state, and government teacher does not.

This is how I see God has set up the authority structures on earth. And while it is appropriate to disobey an authority to obey a higher one,

But Peter and the apostles answered, "We must obey God rather than men...." (Acts 5),

it is important that this only be the case when obedience to the lower authority would constitute active disobedience to higher one. There are many situations where authorities abuse their power and request things that are not ideal, things that a better steward would not command of his subjects. But it is these authorities who are answerable to those above them. It is no sin to obey a wicked ruler in some of his poorer rulings, in fact it may be a sin not to obey him.

Inerrancy and interpretation

Derek Rishmawy in his article Inerrant Text ≠ Inerrant Interpretation states

We often hear that appealing to an inerrant text shuts down conversation and identifies one's own interpretation with the Word of the Lord. The argument claims that a basically trustworthy, but still fallible text means we have to wrestle and humbly open ourselves to conversation with others, experience, and so forth.

I can't say I've ever found this a mildly convincing argument. Yes, there is a serious temptation for believers trained in certain conservative circles to short-circuit the dialogue and to shun tension, questions, and the deep trust required to believe in the midst of questions. That can, and sadly does, happen. All the same, the higher a view of the text you affirm, the more it should lead to real struggling with the text, given that you think it's the truth of God somehow.

When dealing with the issue of contradictions in the Bible, G. K. Beale points out that, far from cutting off wrestling and intellectual struggling with the text, a high view of Scripture's truthfulness has led to deeper study, prayer, conversation with other interpreters, and wrestling to see how it's true.

I concur. It is too easy to say that the text is wrong when it contradicts another text or worse, your own opinion. Now the Bible in either inerrant or it isn't, and the ease at which one may disregard Scripture does not determine its errancy status; though it may influence your belief in errancy—do I not like what Scripture teaches, well perhaps the Bible has mistakes.

But if the Bible is inerrant this does not make interpretation always easy or simplistic. I have found that apparent contradictions force me to examine the text even more closely. God has given me reason thus I do identify difficult passages. But I am fallen and my reasoning is broken. Scripture helps me reason rightly.

The authority of Scripture

Augustine writes

On such terms we might amuse ourselves without fear of offending each other in the field of Scripture, but I might well wonder if the amusement was not at my expense. For I confess to your Charity that I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the Ms. is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it. As to all other writings, in reading them, however great the superiority of the authors to myself in sanctity and learning, I do not accept their teaching as true on the mere ground of the opinion being held by them; but only because they have succeeded in convincing my judgment of its truth either by means of these canonical writings themselves, or by arguments addressed to my reason. I believe, my brother, that this is your own opinion as well as mine. I do not need to say that I do not suppose you to wish your books to be read like those of prophets or of apostles, concerning which it would be wrong to doubt that they are free from error. Far be such arrogance from that humble piety and just estimate of yourself which I know you to have, and without which assuredly you would not have said, “Would that I could receive your embrace, and that by converse we might aid each other in learning! (Letter 82:3)

His approach to Scripture is that it is always true, though there may be problems at the level of

• Manuscript quality
• Translation accuracy
• Personal interpretation

If there are no issues identified in these 3 components then what Scripture teaches is true and completely free from error. He yields to Scripture by virtue of it being Scripture, but only to other literature in as far as it convinces him by reason.

This is my approach and as such makes Scripture completely formative. Where I disagree with Scripture I am incorrect and I must modify and correct my worldview to accommodate Scriptural teaching on the issue. It is a little more subtle in that there are passages that are quite tricky to understand and I do not need to come down definitively on a conclusion. Further, I think all Scripture is inerrant thus I need to consider what I have learnt elsewhere in the Bible. Even so, as much as I am aware and am honest with myself, my beliefs are subservient to the word.

Now other books can be formative as well, I have learnt a lot from literature over the years. Yet I still pass judgment on the truthfulness of books. I fell free to agree with anything from 0 to 100% of what a book claims. Again, I may defer a conclusion awaiting more information on a topic. The difference is that I place myself (and Scripture) over what I read, not because I am an expert on everything I read, but because I am (somewhat) responsible for what I choose to believe. Conversely I place myself under what Scripture teaches. God is its ultimate author and therefore the Bible is God's authority over my mind.

As Geisler writes in Christian Apologetics,

Jesus is God incarnate. As God, whatever He teaches is true. Jesus taught that the thirty-nine books of the Old Testament are the authoritative, written Word of God. Likewise, Jesus, who is God’s full and final revelation, promised that the Holy Spirit would guide His twelve apostles into “all truth.” The only authentic and confirmed record of apostolic teaching extant is the twenty-seven books of the New Testament. Hence, the canon of God’s revelation is closed. With these sixty-six books we have the complete and final revelation of God for the faith and practice of believers. Every spirit or prophet who claims to give a new or different revelation is not from God.

This does not mean that there is no truth in other religious writings or holy books. There is truth in Greek poetry (Acts 17:28), in the Apocrypha (Heb. 11:35), and even some truth in pseudoepigraphical writings (Jude 14), as is manifest from the New Testament of these books. The point is that the Bible and the Bible alone contains all doctrinal and ethical truth God has revealed to mankind. And the Bible alone is the canon or norm for all truth. All other alleged truth must be brought to the bar of the Holy Scriptures to be tested. The Bible and the Bible alone, all sixty-six books, has been confirmed by God through Christ to be His infallible Word

Hat tip: Calvinist International

Authority or responsibility

Authority is closely connected to responsibility. Many are familiar with the idea that those who have authority are responsible for the outcome. They take the rap for the outcome, and also the glory. Some modernists would wish to disassociate these. All authority and no responsibility. This just allows us to feed our pride without needing to consider or reap the consequences of our actions.

I think it is helpful to think of the situation in the reverse. What we have responsibility for we need authority for. People are given responsibilities for persons and property, and if we are to realise good outcomes we need the authority to action things.

This places the focus back on duty and not power. The parent, the politician, the manager are responsible for people or property placed under their care. They are seeking raise godly children, or manage interactions between citizens, or develop skilled workers and maximise productivity. Thus the focus is on the responsibility. Authority is required to do this well. But the obedience of the children isn't arbitrary (though it may seem so to them), it is because there is real authority, and the real authority is there because the father has been given the responsibility by God to raise up godly children.

People still make their own choices, and outcomes are not guaranteed, or determined; nevertheless, the job is nigh impossible without authority.

When we are under authority we should behave appropriately: respect, honour and usually obedience. This is important because such people will be held accountable for their actions. When we have authority we are to use it based on the realisation that we will be held accountable for those under our authority.