Authority is a far broader concept, I suppose, than the one we grew up with. In the Gothard/Dignity model, the right to be obeyed absolutely descends unchanged in force from God in a direct line through whomever God appoints, and whomever the appointee appoints, and whom the apointee-apointed appoints, and so on to infinity.
Sometimes the authority was not, in theory, absolute - one could refuse obediance only if the scripture were explicitly contradicted. Given that the people with authority were intrerpreting the scriptures for us, that didn't help much.
Thus it is, among other causes, that pastors can prevent people from reading the scriptures in a translation they will understand, that families wronged by their pastors, with no redress, are afraid to leave their local church for a different one, and that children are forced to sing songs laced with the name of God that the children instinctively know are "stupid." And a multitiude of other things.
I wish I knew more about the true concept of authority, but I perceive that rather than the right to demand obedience authority is more like the ability to compel it, and not by outward force, but by some consistency of credibility, with legitimacy. I need to explore what this means. I believe it is this that has been lost, as much as people's ability to percieve authority when they do see it.
Perhaps more.
7 comments:
Hmm. God can certainly inspire willing obedience, and that has been seen as due to His sovereignty, though as far as I know the idea of His authority is considered as reflecting rather His right to rule.
But if you are correct, I think there would need to be in addition some way of distinguishing authority from mere charisma: consider the obedience that Jim Jones or David Koresh was able to inspire in people, and not all of it was through humiliation and fear.
Yes, I see the problem.
I think my idea of legitimacy, if developed, could adress that. It seems to me that the very word 'author'ity contains in its etymology a concept something like that. (I wish I had an etmological dictionary.)
When we talk of the right to do things we often have a rather legal or technical view. In whose name was the deed on the day in question, that sort of thing. But I think the right with God is based in his being and excellencies. And I suspect that those with whom God shares his authority are supposed to share in his likeness in a sense related to the nature of their charge, and that where they do not they undermine that claim to obedience and credibility.
For instance, take a father who claims the authority to help his daughter choose her husband. She's twenty-eight and a guy who meets the requirements he's set finally comes around. The guy gets the dad's permission, does things his way, and the relationship takes off. Suddenly the dad changes his mind. He won't give a reason, he just "doesn't have peace." Now if this is a man who has proved selfless and thoughtful over the years, he might be able to pull that off - to his daughter's great sorrow however. But if the man is known for being abritrary, inflexible, a control-freak, and taking advantage of people, that authority is greatly diminished. And the daughter might try for a while to get his approval back but in the end she is going to marry the guy anyway. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about.
Yes, I think, genuine authority must be based on character, in us. It is always more difficult to make that kind of statement about God because of His simplicity. But certainly His authority is (in view of His simplicity) not divided from His glory, His sovereignty, His goodness, or His omnipresence.
Yet here too there is a danger: it is that we would believe real authority is demonstrated when it conforms with what we think it ought to be. If this were held with reference to God, it would be impertinence escalated to blasphemy. "We ought to obey God rather than men, at least in so far as what God commands seems just, or prudent or loving to me."
Have you been in Gothardian churches before?
Not exactly, lilrabbi. The church I was in from grades 6-10 had been influenced by Bill Gothard's early teaching by way of the Senior Pastor's Father's friendship with him. In later churches, we saw many Gothardites trying to infiltrate various churches. They always made things worse.
My husband went through the ringer as his family was deep into AIT, as were a number of my male friends'. Josh's pastor in MI has a ministry to present and former ATI homeschooling families and has helped most of them out of it (ATI, not homeschooling.)
If I had to unite with fundamentalism against Gothardism I would do it. Unfortunately the ethos of fundamentalism is such that while a majority of them are not as bad as the Gothardites, they are invariably impressed by Gothardite families and get sucked in far too easily. I think I belong to a certain type of person to whom temptation comes in religious garb and its that type that tends to be attracted to both fundamentalism and Gothardism. That's one reason why all of this makes me so upset. I feel like my conscience has been preyed upon and has never been the same since. Which damages my ability to do my duty towards God and his church. Sometimes I get angry but there are many times I just cry.
Why, were you?
I wasn't, although I have come in contact with some of his mellow followers; nobody too fanatical. Even the mellow ones can be a bit kooky. There is truth to the appeal of Gothard. I saw it as appealing once. Then I heard at teacher give his support and acceptance of the Rhema doctrine. It was so absurd I was quickly disabused of any enchantment with Gothard's conservatism.
Post a Comment