From "power, weakness, and the hope of transformation" at Next Reformation:
"Authority is different. If you obey because me you must, I have power. If you obey me because you want to, I have authority. Jesus, unlike Pilate or Herod, did not speak with power, but as “one having authority.” Max Weber says that all authority comes from love and sacrifice. The more sacrifice, the more authority."
I've been pondering the difference between power and authority lately. I think this is something we have been confused about in North American Christianity and have often sought after power (legal power, political power, cultural power, or power within our ecclessia relations with one another) rather than seeking after authority. It seems to me that power is not a kingdom value, but authority is. When I look at Jesus and His explanation of His authority, He points to His willingness to lay down His life.
John 10:17-18:
"For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again. 18 "No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father."
Not only that he chose to sacrifice for love, but that this sacrifice was initiated by His Father. And reflects the nature of the Father, since Jesus said if we've seen Him, we've seen the Father.
My take: I will only have spiritual authority in the things the Father has initiated. My own initiation (no matter how well-intentioned, no matter how "good") will go absolutely nowhere. And I only have spiritual authority to the degree that I love, and am willing to lay aside my own interests for the interests of the other. All authority is based on consent. We choose who we allow to influence us, and we do so wisely if we only do so with those who demonstrate love and self-sacrifice toward us (and vice-versa, we can only expect to influence through spiritual authority those whom we love selflessly).
But this also applies on a larger scale:
Here's an example from my charismatic background: Some people go into a city or nation or region to pray with power. They are well-intentioned, but believe that their purpose is to bind and rebuke the ruling forces of darkness and displace them.
Other people go into a city or nation or region only on Father's initiative to discover how they can be an agent of healing, reconciliation and restoration. They seek to see the kingdom of God expand in that area simply because they have tasted God's love for it and His love for its inhabitants, and agree with that love. Their prayers may include rebuking darkness, but that's not their primary focus.
The first group has a paradigm of power, the second has a paradigm of authority. One approach does little to transform, the other is a catalyst wherein God brings reconciliation, repentence, restoration and healing to the land and the people. I've seen it happen. God is still in the business of calling nations and ethnos to Himself (we see it throughout scripture).
It grieves and troubles me that there has been so much misuse of power in the charismatic stream, that we would reject and deny even godly conceptions of spiritual authority since we're so disgusted by the counterfeit version and the mixture.
Any thoughts? Anyone?
Monday, May 05, 2008
Power vs. Authority
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
Magnificent post Sarah! I love the way that you have delineated power and authority. I heartily agree with Max Weber when he says that all authority comes from love and sacrifice. Of course I was saying this 3 years ago :)
Sarah,
What a great way to look at it, differentiating between power and authority. I also thought using the two different approaches to prayer presented a very interesting analogy. I'll probably be chewing on that for days. :)
I especially related to the last paragraph, and I am concerned about people throwing the baby out with the bathwater on this issue, rather than returning to a Godly concept. Very timely thoughts.
K-Bob, it's true that this isn't new revelation. I've heard great teaching on this from more than one source. Much of which has been around for at least the past ten years. I guess the problem lies not in the knowledge, but in the practice. :(
Meeting people who walk in true kingdom authority without the mixture of worldly conceptions of power have been few and far between in my experience. And I've worked in int'l ministries with access to *lots* of different ministers. This is an area I am praying that God will mature His Church in more and more.
Jeff, finding the right language is difficult. For instance, I have "testimonies of power" on my sidebar. But I distinguish between God's supernatural power and power that arises from other, man-centered sources (social status, position, reputation, manipulation and control, money, the list goes on and on).
But I really believe that if we repent from the use of worldly power, and embrace true spiritual authority that comes only through authentic love and selflessness, then I think both revival (in the Church) and harvest (of new believers) will be inevitable. I think this is a *very* pivotal issue!
Just to be clear, it goes without saying that when I say, "in the Church" I mean among the people of God (I am referring to a people, not referring to institutions or organizations).
I so agree Sarah that the problem lies not in the knowledge, but in the practice. Unfortunately some of the most externally loving leaders (I wish that I didn't understand this one so experientially) operate from a paradigm that reflects power rather than authority. I guess you really don't know this about them until you have to work for one of them :(
This is something I need to think about for a while. Thanks for sparking the thought.
Sarah,
I'm going to be thinking about this for a while as well. I guess I never really thought about the difference or separation of the two.
Thanks!!
Interesting take on the difference between power and authority. I'm not saying you are necessarily wrong, but I've always thought of power and authority differently. One of numerous definitions Webster has for power is "possession of control, authority, or influence over others" I look at power over others as the ability to produce a desired effect, no matter the source of that power. It could be good or bad. I've always thought of authority in a legal sense, as in having the *right* to tell someone to do something. Someone under someone else's authority has the legal obligation to obey them. (note that I use legal broadly, to include natural law instances such as children obeying parents). Authority doesn't always come with power (e.g., the parent trying to tell the rebellious teenager what to do), but it often does.
To flesh this idea out, I have a different spin on the final example NextReformation gives. When my children are grown, they will have no obligation to listen to my suggestions about whom to marry, what job to take or where to live. I will have no legal authority over them. However, I do expect to have some level of power over them because of my influence. By no means will this be complete, but I doubt that they will completely ignore my suggestions or ideas. The source of my ability to produce a desired effect in their adult lives (i.e., power) will not be a legal authority or right to tell them what to do, but the power of my influence based on decades of trust and love.
The biggest difficulty one finds is when a person in authority is corrupt/immoral. Does a drunk father have any authority over his children? What about a pastor drunk with the power of his own influence? Is all spiritual authority merely voluntary (i.e., do we always get to "pick and choose" who our spiritual parents are or are there relationships that exist outside of our own volition by virtue of geography of birth or other incidentals)?
MB
Thanks everyone for your comments!
MB, yes, the language or vocabulary is limiting. I guess I chose the word 'power' to indicate a top-down, coercive means of influence. And I chose 'authority' to indicate an inspirational influence. Largely, do people allow themselves to be influenced because they want to (consent) or because they have to (coerced). Even God chooses to allow us the free will decision to obey or not, to be open to His influence or not. If we choose not to be, of course there are consequences. But we have the freedom to choose.
I *really* liked your question "Do we always get to 'pick and choose' who our spiritual parents are or are there relationships that exist outside of our own volition by virtue of geography of birth or other incidentals?" This is a fantastic thought. I think we may have limited access due to some of these things, but if there are no spiritual parents walking in selfless spiritual authority in your area - then you don't just choose to be influenced by someone that's available, but not mature. That seems crazy.
Thankfully, we have communication technologies that allow us a much wider context. At the same time, all of us wish to be near to authentic mothers and fathers in the faith. Or, to be those authentic mothers and fathers for others in our locality.
"but if there are no spiritual parents walking in selfless spiritual authority in your area - then you don't just choose to be influenced by someone that's available, but not mature. That seems crazy."
I hear what you're saying, obeying an immature person or even worse a totally corrupt hypocrite seems rather crazy. At the same time, Jesus didn't seem to have a problem with the concept in John 23. Right before he lays into the scribes and pharisees with his million woes, "suggestions" for improvement and condemnations (v. 4-39), Jesus tells his followers to obey them (v. 2-3). Talk about cognitive dissonance for Jesus' audience (both then and today).
MB
MB, My Bible only goes up to John 21, and then starts the book of Acts. ???
Your Bible doesn't have John 23?!? The shame. Try Matthew 23 instead. It might do in a pinch. :-)
I'm starting to get worried here. The next thing I know, you're going to be saying your Bible has left out entire verses like Matthew 17:21, 18:11, 23:14; Mark 7:16, 9:44, 9:46, 11:26, 15:28; Luke 17:36, 23:17; John 5:4; Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7, 28:29; Romans 16:24 and I John 5:7.
Kids these days. Can't stick to the Divinely Inspired KJV and have to go reading those newfangled translations like the NIV that are missing parts.
MB
Actually, I use NAS (don't know for sure, but I think it's more accurate than the NIV). I pulled out the ol' "Holy Bible containing The Old and New Testaments and The Apocrypha in the AUTHORIZED King James Version" (So glad to have King James interpreting the truth for me! I'm a monarchist at heart!) Ok, all joking aside, that KJV doesn't have John 23 either. It stops at 21. What Bible are you reading?
I think MB is just kidding about the John 23 and the KJV Sarah. I'm with you about the NAS.. been my translation of choice for the last 30 years. Of course I have been known to diversify over the years and buy/study/read other translations.. here is the way my hermeneutics teacher put it - sort of:
If you want word-by-word translation use something like NAS or NKJV.
If you want sentence-by-sentence translation use something like NIV or NLT.
If you want paragraph-by-paragraph translation use something like the LB or the Message.
All depends on what you are trying to accomplish - study, reading or ?
Thanks, K-Bob. Maybe my sense of humour is not as highly developed as I had hoped! :P
Sarah,
I had typed John 23 when I was reading from *Matthew* 23. I have no excuse except being in a rush and being stupid (if being stupid is an excuse).
K-bob was right, I was joking when I tried to clarify it, but don't feel too bad. As an engineer, I have a hard time understanding and communicating humor to the average person. Most people don't put in the included extensive listings of translation/manuscript controversies when making a joke (though I would have thought that a Catholic promoting the KJV as "Divinely inspired" would have tipped you off).
FYI, I typically use the Revised Standard Version when quoting Scripture. It is somewhat similar to the NAS in translation approach (I think), but is commonly used and approved of by Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant scholars/clerics/laity. I find the ecumenical aspect appealing, since I know the editors/translators aren't biased to one particular branch in their work and pretty much all Christians (minus a few far-out radicals) will be comfortable with it.
MB
Trivia time: What part of the Lord's prayer is left out of the NIV, but not the NAS (and mysteriously didn't even make my heresy list above)?
(Answer: ygoloxod eht)
MB, D'oh! ;) Sorry, I don't know a lot of Catholics. Please forgive my ignorance...
Yes, Mt 23:1-3 are especially interesting. It seems that Jesus is saying that they are teaching the scripture, but not doing it. Which ties in nicely here with the knowledge versus practice thing. Thanks!
The funny thing about Matthew 23:1-3 is that Jesus doesn't even say that the Scribes and Pharisees should be obeyed specifically when they teach the Scripture (the extent of which was a hot topic in His day), just that they should be obeyed. Certainly, much of what they taught was midrash. The reason he gives for obedience is that they sit in Moses seat, a position of religious authority.
I've always found it odd how deferential Paul was in Acts 23, apologizing for calling the high-priest a whitewashed wall for having Paul struck contrary to the law, yet Jesus used very similar words when condemning the scribes and pharisees in Matthew 23. Scripture has always struck me as rather nuanced when it comes to how far to go in our obedience/deference to religious authorities who act wrongly or go beyond the undisputed interpretation of Scripture (as if such a thing exists). It is my understanding that in Jesus and Paul's day the Romans were even involved in the appointment of the high priest and deposed of him at their will, making the whole process less than ideal.
MB
Wow! So many responses! I like the conversation going on here! I have to say that I agree with MB on some of the things he mentioned. I'll comment again later, but I want to do a study on the terms power and authority with the Greek and Hebrew Bible I have. I've been so incredibly busy this last week! I don't have a negative feeling towards the word power because it's used in the scriptures to describe confirmation of the gospel and also the work of the Spirit.
This is very closely related to my new blog that you commented on Sarah! Intriguing topic!
P.S. Did you know that there is a HUGE atheist community on blogger?
Post a Comment