"I Have Left You An Example": Authority in Servanthood

by Jon Zens

servant"Authority" is one of the most controversial issues in the church today. It is a very practical matter, for many have been severely wounded and disillusioned by the misuse of authority, and properly defining and submitting to Christ's authority is of utmost concern to the Christian conscience.

When I compare the traditional view of authority in the church (1) with what is revealed in the New Testament, I see little resemblance between the two. A fresh examination of what the NT teaches on authority is certainly called for in light of the assumption that traditional views of authority are correct.(2)

Such an examination is also warranted because of the perverted notions of authority being practiced that are foreign to the NT. Church leaders take it upon themselves to tell the flock what to eat, when to shower, when to fast, where to move, etc. A pastor tells the flock Sunday night that beards, mustaches and hair over the ears are suspect, and by Wednesday's prayer meeting all the men appear with army haircuts and no facial hair. A "Bible-believing" group in New England justifies child beatings on the authority of Proverbs 13:24. In one church, the members must notify the elders beforehand if they are going to miss Sunday meetings. Failure to do this opens the door to church discipline. A pastor's wife informs the church that God has revealed to her that all birth control is evil, and within a month most of the church's women are pregnant. One church makes not having a TV a condition for membership.

What does the NT teach? The study of a Biblical word usually reveals that you cannot put it in a box. But one thing is for sure: the traditional ideas about "authority" in the church are generally detached from the NT's presentation. Certain NT patterns are obvious and must shape our view of authority.

A Basic Definition of "Authority"

The Greek word for "authority" is exousia. It comes from the verb exestin which means (a) "that an action is possible in the sense that there are no hindrances... 'to be able'"; (b) "that an action is not prevented by a higher norm."(3) Exousia, then, means the right to do something or the right over something.(4)

With reference to God, authority is absolute and unchallengeable (Luke 12:5; Rom. 9:21). God can grant or delegate authority in various ways (Rev. 6:8; 14:18). The exousia of Satan falls into this category (Job 1:12; 2:5-6).

The church has "authority," but it is derived from Christ's action on her behalf. Christ "gives" the keys of the kingdom to the church. In Christ the church has exousia, or "freedom" (1 Cor. 8:9). But this freedom is to be used for the welfare of others, and not for self-gratification.

Christ possesses all authority, and this has significant implications for the expression of "authority" among Christ's people: authority is manifested through the sacrificial giving of one's life for others, and by admonishing one another with God's Word. When authority is said to reside in persons because of their "position," the way is clear for self-exaltation and the teaching of man-made rules.

New Testament Patterns of Authority

1. Actual (intrinsic) authority rests in the person of Christ. All exousia has been given to the Son by the Father (Matt. 28:18). Christ's earthly ministry can generally be subsumed under three headings: (1) a purposeful gathering ministry; (2) a powerful sign ministry; and (3) a positive teaching ministry. In each of these His authority is prominent. In gathering people, He has the authority to call them, save them, forgive them and gift/grace them for service (John 17:2; Matt. 9:6,8; Eph. 4:7,11,16). In miracles, His authority over the Devil, the natural elements, disease, etc., is manifest (Matt. 10:1; 8:27; Mark 1:27;4:41). In teaching, His words carry authority (Matt. 7:29; 18:20).

2. Christ delegates authority to His servants (Matt. 10:1; Mark 13:34; Luke 19:17). In light of Christ's absolute authority, it becomes apparent that any "authority" expressed among His people cannot reside in a person or persons inherently (or intrinsically). It can only be a derivative authority. Since the One with all authority (John 13:3) clearly gave the directive for how "greatness: in the kingdom would be attained (Matt. 20:26-27), authority in the church must be in line with Christ's example.

Most probably think of authority as attached to being in an "office." But where does the NT teach this?

Authority in the church--the ability to do something--comes as the body recognizes how a person has been functioning.

There is certainly no evidence that the kind of authority described in Matthew 8:9--"I say to one, 'Go,' and he goes; and to another 'Come,' and he comes"--is ever applied to leadership in the church. In fact, Christ's reference to the way unbelieving rulers exercise authority over others is excluded as a model in His kingdom: "not so among you" (Matt. 20:26).

3. Christ's model for authority in the church is opposite to the way unbelieving societies function (Matt. 20:25-28; Mark 9:33-35; 10:37-45; Luke 9:48; 22:25; John 13:14-15; 18:36; 19:10-11). Authority is exercised in Christ's domain by being the slave of others, not by being the master over others. Even though Christ forbids the church to copy the world in this regard, the visible church has more often than not modeled herself after the power structures of worldly governments and corporations.

Paul in his service for Christ was very concerned to never "lord it over" the faith of others (2 Cor. 1:24; 1 Cor. 2:1-5). Peter exhorts the elders to not "lord it over" God's flock (who are the kleron, or "clergy"; 1 Pet. 5:3). The power associated with traditional "offices" has not fostered obedience to this apostolic mandate.

4. Authority among Christ's people is expressed in servanthood, with a view toward the welfare and edification of others (Matt. 10:8; 1 Cor. 8:9; 2 Cor. 10:8; 13:10). We tend to think of authority in terms of "the guy on the top" or "the one who has the final word" (like the world does). But in Christ's domain, authority comes by being at the feet of others (Mark 9:33-35; 2 Cor. 11:23-33). Indeed, Jesus rules in an "upside-down" kingdom!(5)

5. Influence among Christ's people cannot be authoritarian (intrinsic); it must be authoritative (extrinsic). Christ, as the final voice in the church, rules it through His Word. Thus, all in the church--including leaders--are subject to the same Head. The "authority" in the church, therefore, is extrinsic; that is, the authority is outside of the members, and does not reside inherently (or because of "office") in any one or more of the members. This alone restrains authoritarianism, for in such relationships men usurp Christ's Headship and act as though authority rests in them.

Submission to others (wives to husbands, children to parents, flock to overseers) is always with respect to Christ, not in the place of Christ.

The importance of this can be seen in the marriage relationship. Wives are commanded to submit to their husbands, but this in no way implies that there is not a mutual dimension to marriage. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7:4 that neither husband nor wife has "authority" over their bodies; rather, the bodies of each belong to the other. Hence, they are not to withdraw sexually from one another unless it is done--not by a unilateral decree by the husband--but by mutual "agreement" (Greek, sumphonou; "symphony").

6. There are "authorities" (exousiai; which we call governments or earthly powers) to which Christians submit themselves. But they too are under Christ's Lordship and cannot be obeyed when they command what Christ forbids, or forbid what Christ commands (Acts 5:29; Rom. 13:1-3; Eph. 1:21; 2:2; 3:10; 6:12; Col. 2:10,15; Titus 3:1).

State "power" is not absolute. For various reasons, the exousia in Romans 13:1ff has been virtually equated with God's authority, as if most state actions have His approval or sanction. But we must remember that Satan has a derived exousia which obviously is not under God's blessing--although He does permit it (Luke 4:6; Acts 26:18; Job 1:12; 2:6).

God does not consecrate and hallow the civil authority; such hallowing is reserved for the Messianic community. But He does allot to the civil authorities a place, a role; they too, even in their covert violence or their raging, are not outside of His ordering of all things in this fallen world... Relevant also is the fact that Nero was Emperor when [Romans 13] was written. It is not said that God bestows on the exousia a divine consecration, but rather that He assigns it a place, a role.(6)

In light of the NT patterns, our definition and conception of "authority" in the church need to be re-evaluated. The traditional concept of "authority" emphasizes the "over others" aspect which characterizes the worldly outlook, and has the practical effect of "limiting" others. Exousia in Christ's church is not reached by being positionally "over" others, but by being at the disposal of others to meet their needs.

Footnotes
  1. Cf. James L. Ainslie, "The Powers of the Reformed Ministerial Order," The Doctrines of the Ministerial Order in the Reformed Churches of the 16th & 17th Centuries (T. & T. Clark, 1940), 62-90; Marjorie Warkentin, "Authority & Ordination." Ordination: A Biblical-Historical View (Eerdmans, 1982), 173-183; James Bannerman, "The Ministry A Divine & Standing Ordinance in the Church," The Church of Christ, Vol. 1, 421-435. (back to text)

  2. This fact is highlighted, for example, in an interview with four "clergymen" about "authority and power" in the church. They assume that the status quo notions about authority are a given, and are seemingly oblivious to what the NT says about authority. ("Power, Preaching & Priorities," Leadership: Power and Authority, 1:1, Winter, 1980, 11-28). (back to text)

  3. W. Foerster, "Exestin, Exousia, etc.," Theological Dictionary of the NT, ed. G. Kittel, Vol. 2, p. 560. (back to text)

  4. Ibid., p. 562. (back to text)

  5. Cf. Donald Kraybill, The Upside-Down Kingdom (Herald, 1978). (back to text)

  6. Dale Aukerman, Darkening Valley: A Biblical Perspective on Nuclear War (Seabury, 1981), 95,97. (back to text)

Note: This article originally appeared in Searching Together, Volume 13:1, pp. 13-16. Used by permission.

top