I have been doing a great deal of thinking about the nature of authority over the past several years. At the present time I am doing some intense learning, some challenging and painful learning. Part of this is coming as a father, as a person in authority. The other part of learning is as an employee, as a person under authority. Each has been particularly painful, though in different ways. As an employee, I have learned that being under authority means that you have little to no input or say. As a father, I am learning that I can have too much say, that I can overstep the nature of this thing called authority.
Failure to submit to authority is that which has been called rebellion. I was asked last night, "What is rebellion?" Good question. My reply was something like, "When one refuses to obey, or seeks to dodge, or is outright defiant to authority." But all that assumes that one can define authority. What is authority, where does it come from, and how does it transfer to individuals, and how does one know if one is over or under?
So here is my current thesis when it comes to the nature of authority. Authority has an ultimate source; and I think that the source of authority is God. God gives this authority to various individuals holding various positions in society. The Scripture says that we are to obey our civil authorities for the Lord's sake, or ultimately, because that is what is required to be in obedience to God. In the family, the children are to obey their parents, once again for the Lord's sake, or once again, in order to be in obedience to God.
My children, however, struggle with the conundrum, "So what happens when I believe that God is telling me something other than you?" "Who do I obey?" "And what do I do with the passage that says that I am to obey God rather than obeying human authority?"
The specific issue was Youth Group. The conviction the child had was that I had taught them that they should be in church every time the church doors were open. But then as a punishment -- because this particular child actually enjoys going -- I told the child that there would be no Youth Group this Wednesday. Well now then, came the question, "Who do I obey, God or you?" My conviction is what you have taught me, to be in church when the church doors are open. And yet you have forbidden that; now I am in a conundrum.
My explanation to my child is that their only command in the matter is that children are to obey their parents in the Lord. This is the only command to them specifically, as children, in relationship to their parents. There was no command being given by the parent which was specifically against the expressed law of God. If there was a command to steal, to sell one's body on the street, or to murder another child's parents, or something like that, where there was clear violation of the law of God, then one would have to obey God. But short of that, the command was to obey the parent. Therefore, despite the conviction of the child, the parent's command must be obeyed. And that was because God has channeled His authority in this case to the parent, and not to the child; thus the parent was in authority, whereas the child was under.
My wife has told me that she has struggled with this as well. What does Biblical authority look like when dealing with husbands and wives? Well, this is a hot one, and I am sure that this answer will generate some differing opinions. But here is my wife's dilemma: what do I do when I know that your leading is disastrous and your decision are just flat out wrong?
Now if you knew me, you would know that I make no mistakes. My wife, however, who knows me better than anyone, simply has not found that out. But what does she do? My answer would be that the command to her in this position is that she is to submit to her husband, even if her husband is wrong(which, in truth, he often is) -- AS LONG AS that command is not in specific violation of her higher law, which in this case would be the law of God. (Yikes! I can hear it. You dictator you; how can you be so obscurantist?!?)
I have to admit that my opinion here is formed by my military experience. As a soldier, and a Private, I was under authority. My job was simply to obey orders. "Jump!" "How high, Sergeant?" It didn't matter if I liked it, if I thought it was smart, if I thought it was wise, if I thought it would be successful; no, I was to obey. If there was a problem with the command, that was not my concern, unless it was in direct violation of the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice).
If the command was uncalled for, my Sergeant, or my Commander took the rap. If it came from above, at the Battalion Level, then the Battalion Commander took the rap. I was not responsible for the outcome, only for the obedience rendered. If the whole thing went wrong, well, so be it. It wasn't my responsibility, for I was not the one in authority.
I wonder if this is how authority and obedience should be understood and exercised and rendered. Two Biblical stories lead me to this opine. First, the story of the Centurian who came to Jesus and ask for a healing for his servant, and told Jesus that he did not even have to come to his house. He said that he was under authority, that he says to this one and he comes, and to this one and he goes. And Jesus said, "Sir, you are not far from the kingdom of heaven."
The other story comes from the life of Jesus Himself. Jesus has stayed behind with the teachers and scribes in the temple. His parents have gone down the road, couldn't find him in their company, and are not back in the temple to confront their insensitive Son -- if I can tie the word insensitive to Jesus. Jesus says, "Did you not know that I would be about the Father's business?" Jesus felt the need to be obeying His Father and fulfilling His mission. But that does not appear to sit well with Mary and Joe; for He goes with them, returns home to Nazareth, and is subject to them until He is apparently freed up by them some 18 years later.
Jesus was given His mission by Almighty God. He was Almighty God; and yet He learned obedience in all that He suffered. We will never fully understand; but I think His example helps us to see the limits of Biblical submission. As a child, He was under His parents authority; and thus His divine mission would have to put off until Mary and Joe say ok. Well, better stop. Let me know what you think.
"Now if you knew me, you would know that I make no mistakes."
ReplyDelete- You claim to be perfection? As a Christian?
"If the whole thing went wrong, well, so be it. It wasn't my responsibility, for I was not the one in authority."
- As a soldier without responsibility or authority? Every military person, of any rank, holds a responsibility, and with that, comes an authority.
I find the fact a Christian claiming himself to be perfection ("make no mistakes"), and someone in a service who evades responsibility and authority, to be preaching these comments about being a good Christian with these facets, to be conceited and a hypocrite.
As for the child following Gods' authority and being told by a lay preacher to miss a youth group - maybe if the childs parents felt their child were being taught the wrong message by a Christian would create a bigger confusion, and force the child to look elsewhere for faith and a truth.
They're mixed messages and words, with alot of evasion and no acceptance of responsibility of guilt.
I'm disappointed in a modern Christian thinking, and movement, that has now lost its way.
Unfortunately, you missed the tongue-in-cheek comment. I make no claims to perfection. I was not really and truly claiming to be perfect. I make many mistakes -- that is the whole point of the problem with authority. My wife pointed out to me one time that the only time submission is difficult is when one thinks that the authority is wrong or misguided anyway.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, in the military, I suppose one holds authority. As I Private, I did have authority over my own body. I could command it to obey or not. However, I was taught in the military that the only command I did not have to obey was the unlawful command, such as if I were told to go into a village and murder innocent civilians. Those commands which were lawful, which I did not agree with -- and even those command which contradicted my convictions -- still needed to be obeyed. Only after the orders were carried out could I go back to my supervisors and let them know that I thought the orders were inappropriate.
The way authority was channeled in the military when I was in (1991 - 1994) was that the one who gave the orders bore the responsibility for the fallout should things have gone wrong. If it was a Company Commander, he bore the blame; if the First Sergeant, he bore it; if the Battalion Commander, he bore it, and so on. The one who carried out the orders was only responsible to see that they were carried out in their entirety.
Hope this explanation helps. Sorry for the miscommunication. I should have been more clear with my comments that I was only speaking euphemistically when I stated that I was perfect.
Keith, it occurs to me that all parents should be so unfortunate as to have a child who wants to go to youth group. It is astounding to us that you would choose to withhold attending youth group as punishment for your child and then use scripture to try and validate that choice. Though your oration was quite eloquent I doubt, though I have no personal knowledge, that it effected the desired result. If we're going to throw scripture about, what about fathers not provoking their children to anger? Sometimes apologizing to our kids, though it is humbling, puts skin on Jesus and brings healing and a new found respect for one another.
ReplyDeleteTo Anonymous, if you are a parent, then you surely must know that all discipline is situationally dependent. What might be appropriate in one case may not be appropriate in another. To rule out ever using Youth Group, for example, as a possible punishment may miss what might be the most effective punishment at the time. I am not trying to use the Scripture to validate any particular form of punishment; that is not the point of the posting. The Youth Group story was just an example of a potential situation in which a child could feel like there was a conflict between what the parent had said and what God has commanded. It was the only example I could think of at the time which was real and personal and not contrived and manufactured.
ReplyDeleteAs to fathers not provoking their children to anger; yes, this is a command to the fathers. It begs a question, and that is, what is provocation? It seems to me that provocation is at least partially a deliberate act, such as the imposition of punishment specifically to provoke an angry response or an outburst. It is possible that not all provocation is intentional; anger could arise in a child or an adult from a situation which was not intended to incite it, however, how this would then become the subject of a prohibition of God would not make sense to me, as it seems to me that God is aiming his command here at a certain knowable action.
The command against provocation begs another question also: does this command prohibit a parent from doing anything that will provoke anger in a child? If I know that my child will respond to my grounding him or her from an activity will produce anger in the child am I, as a parent, prohibited from imposing that punishment? If so, then must I negotiate with my children before punishing them, or ask them ahead of time, "Hey, if I restrict you in this manner, will you get mad at me," and then only impose those punishments to which they answer "No?"
I do not think that this is what God intends. Rather, I think what God is commanding here is that we do not intentionally do things simply to produce an angry response in our children. If we get a kick out of making them angry, and we simply want to see their angry response, then we have a problem. If we are trying to incite our children to anger, we are not disciplining properly. I know of few parents who specifically discipline to make children mad. To cause pain, or loss of privileges, or impose restrictions which will cause the child to think about the consequences of an action, or the like; these are the typical aims of parents with children. Now the child may respond to any of these in anger, but that does not make the parent guilty of provoking the child to anger, rather that anger is produced by the rebellion in the child, and his or her natural response to the blocking of his goals and agenda or disobedient motivations.
As to apologizing to children, of course. Parents make mistakes. When they are wrong, they need to apologize. I have apologized to my children hundreds if not thousands of times. In writing this blog, I am by no means stating that I have been a perfect parent or that I have this authority and rebellion thing figured out. These are thought which are to provoke other thoughts, not statements of teaching from an already perfect master.
The key to the "provoke not..." verse lies in the Greek word chosen for the type of anger. It refers to the type of anger that festers deep inside, the kind that has had to be stuffed there because it is not allowed expression. It would be better translated into English as 'smouldering rage'. In summation, "Fathers... provoke not your children to a deep burning rage" is a direct command to fathers to be aware of which of their actions causes powerful anger in their children and to avoid those actions. There is no limit placed on how MUCH or how many he is to avoid; therefore he is to avoid them, entirely. The second part of the command- and it is command language, not suggestion or wise sayings (proverbs- lies in the form of the noun, anger, as I stated previously. This shows us that the second part of the command is for parents to allow their children generous expression of their anger, in order that it not turn to deep, burning, poisoning rage.
DeleteIn order that no one is hurt physically and property is not destroyed, certain limits may be placed on how the child expresses anger, ie: "You are angry, and you may not hit daddy", and a placing of the child at a safe distance from vulnerable people and things.
Apology from parents must be real and not conditioned in any way, if smouldering anger is to be avoided. "I did the wrong thing. I am sorry." "I was rude." "I hurt you."
I agree with you as far as the type of anger that is referred to in Ephesians 6:4; however, the presence of this anger in the heart of a child is hardly indication that it has been provoked by the father. In other words, we are dealing here with an active verb: Fathers, do not produce in your children this kind of anger. You seem to imply that this means that fathers should allow the child to vent, or to express his or her feelings of anger. Yet, it is also incumbent upon the parent to teach their children proper expressions of anger, how to be "angry and sin not," according to Ephesians 4.
DeleteChildren who refuse to be trained in this area, or those who are willful, stubborn or rebellious and who refuse to be correted may still present with deep-seated anger. But this is not the fault of the father, it is a problem with the child. This is not a provoked anger, but a willfully harbored one. As the rest of your post bears out, there will be need for much give and take in a typical family situation. If the child refuses to forgive and harbors bitterness, this will end up in a smoldering rage that cannot be traced back to the father.
You must also recognize that we are only looking at part of this command. The passage continues with "but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." In other words, don't do this, but do this instead. Proper teaching and training in God's discipline and in God's ways should be a strong corrective to smoldering rage. But once again, a child has to heed this instruction. When a child refuses to comply with godly instruction they bring down upon their own heads great grief at times, and also a significant amount of frustration, anger (which may be intensified, I suppose, from continued fatherly attempts to address the situation).
It should also be noted that rebellion generates its own anger. Ruminating about what one cannot do instead of finding joy, comfort and freedom in what one leads one to the kind of anger that is described. I have found this out in my own work situations, as well as in my stint in the US Army. But enough said: deep, burning rage in the heart of the child cannot always be charged to the father. I came out of my own home of origin angry and bitter, but largely this was fault; and that which may have been interpreted as my father provoking this anger was actually self-produced, as I sat in judgment over my father's standards, considering them to be stupid, and I became angry about them and finally flat out refused to obey them.