The Basis of Authority

By Russell E. Boatman

     Authority has been defined as the right to command and enforce obedience. Such a right, in our generation, is only grudgingly given anyone, even God! Or, to state the case more correctly as it applies to the subject of Divine authority, even the divine right (inherent though it is in the very nature of God as creator and supreme being) is not readily recognized by our "freedom" touting generation and even more rarely is it revered.

     The modern thought world is autonomous, if not even anarchist. It tends to be a law unto itself. It recognizes neither revelation nor any other standard of truth or righteousness exterior or superior to the human mind. Reason, experience and utility are the great triumvirate of our times. A new trinity has come into ascendancy-rationalism, empiricism and utilitarianism. Our generation regards these as the only valid source and storehouse of truth.

     Descartes, the French mathematician and philosopher of the 17th century, is commonly regarded as the father of modern philosophy. Descartes, you may recall, began his search for truth by proceeding to doubt everything that can in any way be doubted. Nothing, he reasoned, may be accepted as fact so long as any reasonable doubt concerning it exists. In applying this principle, Descartes found he could doubt even the existence of the material universe. Only one thing pressed upon him as indubitable--the fact of his own existence. "I think, therefore I am." For one to be aware that one is thinking is to know one's self exists.

     Beginning with this basic postulate Descartes proceeded to construct his own thought world and to decide for himself such other reality as may be concluded to exist beyond all doubt. It is significant that a second indubitable reality soon fixed itself upon his mind--the existence of God as the one and necessary existent cause of all things.

     At this point the modern thought world lags behind the founder of its own philosophical system. Modern man prefers to view reality from a humanistic rather than a theistic viewpoint. Such a view is more flattering to the human ego. If all the forces of countless eons have combined to evolve mankind, then man represents in himself reality in its highest form of expression. But if the idea of God as an ever existent and transcendent cause of all things be allowed man is still but a creature. However high on the scale of created things he may be he is still a creature. Now, creaturehood implies subordination, whereas evolution implies an ascent, a rising above both environment and antecedents.

[Page 18]

     In an age when man's technological advancement and material acquisitions are surfeiting his vanity and selfishness, that philosophy which is most flattering to man's ego and least demanding upon his selfishness will confront the human mind with almost irresistible appeal. And such is the clime in which modern man now contents to sun himself.

     The Christian faith has a vital stake in the foregoing development. Christianity is rooted and grounded in supernaturalism, mediated through revelation and demanding upon the human spirit. In short, the Christian religion confronts the human spirit with a basis of authority both exterior and superior to the human mind. It is our purpose in this study to determine what is that basis and as a secondary consideration its validity for our times. This involves the whole question of religion as a valid vehicle of truth.

     Actually, all religion presupposes revelation to some degree. There can he no religion without some measure of revelation, real or imaginary. It is only as beings of any kind reveal themselves to us that we can enter into relation with them. Only through their own self-revelation can we ascertain their will.

     An unrevealed God is a practical nonentity. Men may conjecture the existence of an unrevealed God. They may even build an altar to such a figment of the imagination as did the men of ancient Athens. But by the very act thereof they confess that such a one has for them no actual identity and toward such a one they can perform no certain duty.

     Religion implies revelation and revelation carries with it the force of duty. When God speaks it is with the voice of authority. From the revelation of His will there can be no appeal nor is there any desire to appeal from it on the part of the devout and believing heart. The truly devout soul ever bows to the will of God whenever and howsoever that will is ascertained. Submission to divine authority is inherent in the very essence of religious faith.

     2. The authoritarian character of religion as a principle of thought is further strengthened by the social and institutional aspects inherent in every religious system. No social structure of any kind is possible without a super-individual or some form of authoritative bond. This bond may be only a consensus of agreement, democracy in its truest form, but authority there must be somewhere. The very idea of social organization and of government implies it. No society can exist without it. Atomistic individualism would destroy every social institution from simple friendship of one person toward another to the home, the school, the church, the state, the nation. The very fact that religion is social in one of its more basic concepts and tends to assume an organized form and to manifest itself in institutional expression links religion with the authoritarian principle.

     One may theoretically distinguish between religion as a duty toward God and organized religion, and try to have one without the other. (The Jehovah's Witnesses, you know, boast of such accomplishment. But the proof of that of which they boast is no part of their weird witness. The fact is that there are few religious systems more highly and compactly organized or more manifestly coercive and authoritarian.) Christ was fully cognizant of the necessity of both organizational form and institutional expression, and bore witness of that cognancy when He announced at his approach to Caesarea Philippi, "I will build my church and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it." It is profoundly significant that Jesus did not acquit himself of responsibility in this regard, leaving the faith which He had wrought in the hearts of men to find such expression in doctrine, practice and

[Page 19]

organizational form as time and circumstance might suggest. He commanded his chosen envoys to hold themselves in restraint, to not depart from Jerusalem until such time as He should send the Holy Spirit to guide them into all the truth. It is as equally significant that with the coming of the Holy Spirit the church He had promised was forthwith established, and to that church, we are told, God added daily those that were being saved.

     3. One other factor gives to religion an authoritative character. Age creates authority. This is so in the life of an individual. It is also true in the development of society. Habit and inertia are not alone responsible for this. Time is constantly testing all things and the mind reasons that anything which has stood the test of time (however much it may have been coddled, notwithstanding) has some validity by reason of its antiquity. Thus tradition unites with revelation and institutionalism to form the basis of authority in religion.

     Modern science was cradled in the lap of the Christian religion. The late Thomas Newton Carver, the great Harvard economist, in his book, The Religion Worth Having, noted: "It is no accident that every protestant country has outstripped every Catholic country, as every Catholic country has outstripped every pagan country." As the shrinking of distances by ever more rapid means of transportation and communication facilitates an increasingly more rapid dissemination of culture and technology the statement of Mr. Carver with respect to all Catholic countries outstripping all pagan countries may be challenged, but his general observation remains valid. The history of the spread of the Christian faith, especially the non- Catholic form thereof, and the spread of western civilization are too closely allied to be called "accidental."

     But though science has found its most favorable clime where the creative and transforming light of the Christian faith shines the brightest, science has scarcely been an appreciative and respectful beneficiary. Modern science appeals to man's love of novelty and attacks incessantly all things handed down from our fathers. Scientists tend to be individualistic rather than institutional in their perspective, and humanistic rather than theistic in philosophy. And because scientists, in self-adulation, worship at the shrine of the new trinity--rationalism, empiricism and utilitarianism--the modern scientific movement is hammering away at the foundations of the Christian faith and threatens to dis-establish the basis of authority in religion.

     2. It is to the credit of Satan's cunning that the chief assaults upon religion are not wasted on the accessories and accruements of the Christian faith, much less upon the pantheon of superstitions that yet hold uncounted millions in their spell. Satan has employed the best minds of the successive ages to challenge the Christian documents of revelation.

     Insofar as I am able to learn there is no movement abroad to challenge the historical and scientific accuracy, and hence, the trustworthiness, of the sacred books of the Orient. Neither are any indigenous uprisings in evidence among the uncivilized tribes of the earth aimed at the downcasting of witchcraft, voodooism and kindred systems of superstition which hold them in blindness. In our own country, no learned society has yet been endowed

[Page 20]

to investigate the claims relative to The Book of Mormon or to apply the principles of textual criticism and religious syncretism to Mrs. Eddy's Science and Health. Not even the glaring inconsistencies of Roman Catholic tradition have been the focal attack of infidels and atheists.

     By the same token the institutional aspect of the Christian religion is of little concern to unbelievers. Satan knows that man as a gregarious being will ever create institutions and will hallow the hollow shell of inherited institutions long after they have been emptied of the purpose which brought them into being. The continued existence of scores of historic churches under the name and in the guise of long abandoned creedal positions is mute testimony to that fact. But the sacred scriptures of the Christian faith as the documents of revelation have been and are now being scrutinized and assailed at every point.

     3. Herein is the basis of authority in the Christian system and Satan well knows it even if we sometimes forget it. Roman Catholics contend that the church (which technically is the Roman Catholic hierarchy and not their multiplied millions of dull and devoted members) is the seat of authority. Satan could not care less should the whole world acquiesce in that claim, for that quickly would divine revelation be supplanted by human tradition and the true basis of authority be left stark and desolate like the naked foundation of a house consumed or swept away by fire, flood or tornado.

     With the foregoing as background may I now direct your thoughts to such aspects of the subject as are more generally treated.

     2. Secondary, or delegated authority, is that which one attains by reason of election or appointment. It is derived and contingent. It can both be bestowed and taken away. I have been given the right (authority) to address you from this platform. This right could be taken away from me at any moment, or, at the least, be not reassigned should I be judged as having betrayed a trust or to fail to measure up to the demands of such an occasion. All persons in positions to which they have been elected or selected stand in like circumstance. Their authority is no greater than the measure delegated or approved by those who put them into office or assign them to duty.

     3. The third class of authority is usurped. This is authority taken upon oneself and imposed upon others. Men of all walks of life are ever tempted in this regard. Lust for power has been the curse of the human race from Adam until now.

     It is in this danger area that the modern heirs of the Restoration movement do well to bring themselves into self-examination. The authority of the Scriptures we may not challenge but the temptation to equate our interpretations of the Scriptures with the Scriptures per se, bids fair to be an exception to the divine promise that no temptation shall come upon us greater than we are able to bear.

     One of our treasured shibboleths expresses an ideal which is rarely realized

[Page 21]

among us--"in faith unity, in opinions liberty, in all things love." In faith--in matters where God has spoken, declaring the truth about a matter or revealing his holy will--unity! In opinions--as touching matters God left to our consecrated judgment--liberty! But what are such matters? In the final analysis do we permit either ourselves or others to have opinions. Theoretically, according to our profession, yes; but actually, according to our practice, no, at least not many!

     May I illustrate. Would you care to have an opinion about some religious matter that has nothing whatsoever in the Scriptures to suggest it, much less to commend it? Neither would I. So what happens to such opinions as arise in the course of our study of the Scriptures? They simply do not live long under that label. If we can find anything whatsoever in the Scriptures to support our opinions, by virtue of the fact they are "supported" (?) we incline to count that support as proof, and our opinions thereupon become matters of faith. In faith we must have unity, you know. The very mention of the word ''opinion'' suggests the possibility of diversity. So we feel bound to bind our private faith, drawn from inferences, upon the general public, in order to safeguard the purity of the church and the unity of the faith. To behave otherwise is to respect the right of others to interpret the Scriptures differently. This is more easily said than done. Once such right is freely granted our dreams of a united church, united on our terms at least, fades. The coercion of orthodoxy cannot be maintained except at the point of denying to others what we insist upon ourselves. The Protestant Reformation (our own movement included) has fragmented at this point.

     Permit me to be a bit more specific. We have divided over cups and classes and colleges. We have divided over organs and orphanages and orders of worship. We have divided over missionary methods and millennial theories and many other matters which God left in the area of private judgment. How did this come about? There is not a man among us that would sign his name to a statement affirming that his view on any one of the foregoing is taught in the Scriptures succinctly and directly. Our differences with regard to these matters have grown out of the fact that our judgments concerning these are based on inferences, and not even necessary inferences, just inferences! But by reason of the fact that we insist that inferential judgments, and hence our private interpretations of the Scriptures are to be equated with the Scriptures per se, we have become the divided church of Christ, while an amalgamation of denominations has arisen in our times to bear the banner and brandish the signboard United Church of Christ. What a travesty! What a tragedy!

     The oldest messianic promise bears the disconcerting warning that the seed of the serpent shall bruise the heel of the seed of woman. The Achilles' heel of the protestant reformation has become our weakness and affliction also. Roman Catholicism claims for herself as "the custodian of infallible truth" the right to be heard and heeded on all matters of faith and morals. The Protestant Reformation repudiated the doctrine of the infallibility of the church but insofar as the various denominations each base their distinctive and exclusive tenets upon their own understanding of the Scriptures they claim for themselves practically what they repudiate in Rome vehemently. We are in no wise the least of those so doing. In attempting to force unity of opinion upon our own constituents in the name of the unity of the faith we have usurped a measure of authority that is not ours to have and are become apostles of discord and division.

     What is to come of all this? The modern Protestant movement, thrust on the horns of a dilemma, has abandoned hope of finding fixed truth in the Scriptures. Being unwilling to turn to Rome, high ranking Protestant ecclesiastics have set about to construct their own world church with the trinity of the scientific movement--rationalism, empiricism and utilitarianism--providing the basis thereof. This is not to say that the Scriptures have been abandoned by the ecumenical move-

[Page 22]

ment. They are included in the rational basis of contemporary religious thought as comprising the loftiest sentiments and aspirations of our spiritual forebears. They are included in the empirical basis of contemporary religious thought as the resume of the religious experiences of other generations. They are included in the utilitarian basis as being those concepts which have proved useful in the past. But the Bible is no longer regarded as a revelation, a body of fixed and final truth, once for all delivered to the saints, thoroughly equipping the man of God unto every good work. In short, contemporary religious thought no longer looks to the Bible directly as the basis of authority.

     God's universe is constructed on a system of checks and balances. There are two great forces in nature constantly in operation. One of these forces is called centrifugality. It is a movement outward from the center and is the driving force in nature. The other is called centripetality or, more commonly, gravity. This is a force or movement inward and is the drawing force of nature. These two forces must be kept in delicate and perfect balance. Were there too much centrifugality the universe would be torn asunder. Were there too much centripetality the universe would come crashing together in a holocaust of destruction.

     That which is true in the realm of material nature is true in the spiritual realm. Here again a system of checks and balances is both necessary and discernible. In the realm of the spirit there is a driving force called liberty or freedom, and a drawing force called loyalty or love. These, too, must be kept in perfect balance. The man who seeks only to be free is a rebel. The man who seeks only to be loyal is a slave. A bird cannot fly very high, or very far, or even straight, without two well-balanced wings. Liberty and loyalty are the wings of the soul! God is as much the author and perfector of the one as He is of the other.

     2. The right of private interpretation of the Scriptures is grounded in the very nature of man as a free moral agent. In the final analysis, every man is his own authority in all things. Man's right of self-determination is inherent in his constitution as a moral volitional intelligent being. But, as we noted at the beginning of this discussion, atomistic individualism leads to anarchy and chaos. We use, therefore, our intelligence and freedom of will as God does His. We put limits upon ourselves and choose according to the loftiest elements of our natures what those limits shall be.

     Every man could elect to be his own physician and surgeon, his own police officer and fireman, his own fashion authority, and even his own religious authority. But to so elect would be neither wise nor practical. And so we take the right of self-determination which is inherent in our nature as a moral volitional intelligent being and we delegate this authority to three areas of our common life--wisdom, power and custom. We readily recognize that we cannot be intelligent and accomplished authorities in every field of human thought and endeavor and so we choose the areas in which we shall content ourselves to be ignorant or inept, trusting in the law of averages that others will fill the void.

     When we are sick we call a doctor. When we have legal problems we consult a lawyer. When we have a construction project we employ a contractor. When we lack understanding in an area wherein we

[Page 23]

believe it would be to our advantage to have personal knowledge we consult a teacher or some written authority.

     In the governmental realm we submit ourselves to the powers that be. One could obtain a permit to carry a gun, and could elect to protect his person and property by a show of force. But we delegate this authority to duly appointed officers of the law, and on the wider level to state militia and our national armed forces. By the same token, when our house is on fire we call the fire department.

     In the realm of fashion we go along with what custom decrees, within limits, of course. We certainly do not wear neckties because they add to our comfort, or serve a useful purpose as bibs to protect our shirt fronts. We simply wear them to go along with custom, and insofar as custom does not violate our sense of dignity and decency we acquiesce to the generally accepted standards.

     In all areas of authority we maintain certain reservations. In the governmental realm we may, on certain counts, be conscientious objectors. We may sometimes have to choose between one power and another and elect to obey God rather than man. In the realm of knowledge we certainly reserve the right to think for ourselves. To please God we must! God invites us to reason together. The saints at Berea were commended above those of Thessalonica in that they not only listened attentively, they listened critically. We may well add it is not suggested that they listened hyper-critically, in the spirit of the carping, cynical sophisticate, but they tested what they were being taught by laying those things alongside of that which they believed to be true. It is worthy of note in this connection that the basis of authority they were commended for having employed was the Scriptures. These, we are told, they searched daily to see whether the things they heard were so.

     3. There must be a basis of authority. Objective judgment demands it. A manufacturer perfects a useful product and merchandises it upon the open market. With every unit the producer packages a set of detailed instructions stating both the manner and purpose of use, and a guarantee--"satisfaction or money back." If a certain purchaser or any number of purchasers fail to follow the directions, whether they misunderstand the directions or ignore them, the result is the same. The written instructions contain the basis of agreement between the producer and purchaser. The customer's interpretation does not change what the manufacturer has written. In any disputation that may arise subjective considerations must give place to objective documentation. The written guarantee and printed instructions are the point of reference and are binding. It is even so with the sacred writings. These are able to make one wise unto salvation. To fail to handle aright the Word of truth or to ignore what is written to walk in our own wisdom is to void the surety of salvation.

     The writer of the Hebrews once warned lest haply there should be in any one of us an evil heart of unbelief. God does not condemn head unbelief. In fact He invites such. "Come, let us reason together," saith the Lord. But heart unbelief, a disposition to doubt and deny, this is the rebel spirit. This is the right of self-determination perverted into the outlaw spirit, and is the curse of our sophisticated age. The basis of authority in matters wherein God has seen fit to declare His counsel is to be found in the written word. To be more specific, the Bible is the basis of authority in religion. The Scriptures do not just contain the Word of God. They are the Word of God. They are the record of what God has spoken. They are the revealment of His will. That record, that revealment, we may believe and obey, or we may disbelieve and disobey. The omnipotent and all-wise God has placed this limit upon Himself--He will not force any man against his will either to believe Him or to obey Him. That choice He made when He elected to make man a creature of free moral choice.

     Even as the man who is wise in the ways of the world delegates his individual freedom to experts, to those who have the rule over him and to social custom in those areas beyond his ken and attain-

[Page 24]

ment, choosing (or at least recognizing) the areas of his ignorance and ineptness (or the degrees thereof); and this, not in surrender but in the exercise of His God-given right as a free moral agent, so the man who is wiser still yields his mind to the wisdom that is from above, bows humbly in reverence of Him who is Lord of all and conforms his life to those things which are pleasing in the sight of Him who left us an example that we should follow in His steps. This, too, is in the full exercise of our inalienable rights as a free moral agent.

     In closing I should say one thing more with respect to revelation. A revelation is not a revelation unless it reveals. The Scriptures were written to be understood and to be obeyed. They are the disclosure of perfect Mind to minds which God knows how to address, being their author. Let us use our minds to discern what God has spoken. We may then be sure that when we have believed and have obeyed what God has caused to be written we have builded on that basis of authority that shall not be destroyed, though heaven and earth shall pass away.

--------------------------