Not Whether but Which: Authority Part III

Any debate on religious authority usually takes the form of those in favor of authority versus those against it. Thus conservatives will argue for obedience to authority (Catholics stressing hierarchy, Protestants the scriptures) while liberals or progressives argue against it. But it's never really a question of whether or not one obeys an authority, but rather which authority one respects. [1] The mistake then is made by both sides in this debate. Indeed, the mistake is to have the debate at all.

Authority in and of itself is not inherently bad, nor is it inherently good. Authority is good when it is properly oriented toward good ends. Thus the progressive side of the debate, couching its argument in terms of liberation and freedom, is to my way of thinking, just substituting the tyranny of the self for obedience to an external authority. (I think the way to view this is in how celebrities clearly seem to be enslaved to the image of themselves that they propagate in the culture - genuine celebrities being just an extreme version of the average self-centered American ego.)

The conservatives do the disservice of granting the terms of the debate instead of pointing out that there is no rejecting of authority but only a switching of allegiances. Conservatives thereby come across as being against freedom instead of more fruitfully stressing the classic distinction between freedom-from (negatively defined) and freedom-for (positively defined).

If what I've said so far seems to be taking the 'side of authority', reneging on my claim that the debate over authority is a false one, it is only because in our time and place, 21st century America, we exist at an apogee of individualism (blogs themselves being an interesting manifestation of ego-extension) and so we really are in no danger of accidentally becoming overly submissive to authority. (At least as a culture. It should be noted that some individuals, because of personal psychological makeup, can be more prone than others to the abuse of authority.)

So while on the one hand the extreme individualism of our society makes anti-authority tendencies stronger and thus more in need of counter argument, on the other hand I do think it is the case that recognizing no authority other than one's own self, what I've called the tyranny of the self, is the more pernicious of the traps to fall into. There are two basic reasons for this.

One is that, because one whose only master is oneself imagines that they are without a master, they mask from themselves the nature of their enslavement and are in far greater danger of never achieving true liberation.

And two, while one who seeks to submit to some kind of external authority will always have their inherent selfishness and pride to call into question abuses of authority, submission to the self is self-reinforcing, a kind of feedback loop that has nothing outside itself to break the vicious cycle of pure self-servitude. We need something other than ourselves to call us out of ourselves.

It goes without saying that authority can be easily abused, though it is important to keep in mind the afore-posted distinction between authority and power. We might say that the mistake those in authority make is to rely on the exercise of power while the anti-authority mistake is to throw out the need for authority because of the misuse of power.

There is a sense in which the complete jettisoning of authority in our culture because of abuses has the positive outcome of opening space for submission to the Church to be truly free. Finally, nothing I've said so far assumes a conclusion to the necessary discussion on what form Christian authority should take in terms of ecclesiology or family life, etc. However authority is manifested in the Church it is always through mutual submission and whoever is in a position of authority need always lead in terms of service above all.

Another picture to reflect the distinction between the question of which authority versus the false debate for and against authority is in Jesus' claim that his yolk is easy and his burden light. The first thing to note is that there is no question in this statement (let alone the rest of the New Testament) as to whether or not becoming a Christian involves submitting oneself to Christ. The Christian is nothing if not a follower in the way of one who has gone before.

The other thing I've often wondered about this statement of Jesus' is what burdens and what yolks are being held up for comparison. I think a common tendency would be to assume the heavier burden alluded to is the Law of Judaism, especially of those legalistic Pharisees. There may be something to this, but while I have no exegetical basis for it, I think it is more useful (again, in our context) to see the heavier burden, the harsher yolk as that of subservience to ourselves.

----

1. This writing is a riff along generally Hauerwasian lines. It isn't based on any work in particular but after writing it, I realize that the basic idea isn't any new insight of mine. In addition to various Hauerwas essays, it is probably most indebted to Jamie Smith's reading of postmodern thinkers such as Foucault. (See especially his chapter on Foucault in Who's Afraid of Postmodernism.) The usual caveat applies: the above authors get credit for any useful insights and I get credit for any mistakes, oversimplifications etc. etc.