Authority and Authoritarianism
Abusus Non Tollit Usum
Debate has been ongoing recently regarding the nature and extent to which wives are meant to submit to husbands, and likewise when are they duty bound to resist a wayward husband. During these discussions, David Fairchild, a Regional Director of A29, writes:
Guys, if you have to pull out the “submit” card on your wife on the regular, you’re doing it wrong. Same thing for elders. If this is a go to for you, may I suggest you’re not a great leader. Grabbing a verse to prove you’re worthy of trusting and following is a recipe for disaster. You can make it easier or harder for someone to follow. Using a verse without the commensurate character is a form of authoritarianism.
To be fair, I’ve heard many a pastor and theologian say something along these lines. My pastor may have said something along these lines. I’ve even said something along these lines. So, I want to make sure we know what is being said, what is not being said, and what should be said.
Back to the Bible
Fairchild describes the same action in several different ways. He criticizes those who, “pull out the ‘submit’ card on your wife on the regular” where “this is a go to for you.” He mentions, “Grabbing a verse” and “Using a verse.” He has in mind here a husband or elder who pulls out, goes to, grabs, or uses a verse. Fairchild is objecting to that, even though he will raise other objections.
Strictly speaking, Fairchild believes a great leader need not go to the Bible. If the Bible is a go to for you, then you’re not a great leader. So, if you are a great leader, then the Bible is not a go to for you (B⊃~L, L, ~B). And that seems, well, backwards.
The most charitable read of Fairchild suggests he assumes a good leader has a wife, or church, who knows the Bible well enough that he need not quote or cite it in order to apply it. Unfortunately, Fairchild appears to argue that he should not quote or cite it in order to apply it. Of course, it does not follow from the fact that the husband or elder need not quote Scripture that he should not do so. More than that, wouldn’t we expect a great leader to lead in teaching and applying the Bible to his wife and church?
Abusing the Bible
We can parse apart a threefold form to Fairchild’s objection. First, one must not go to a Bible verse “on the regular,” or “you’re doing it wrong.” Second, one must not go to a Bible verse “to prove you’re worthy of trusting and following,” since doing so “is a recipe for disaster.” Third, one must not go to a Bible verse, “without the commensurate character,” since that would be “a form of authoritarianism.”
As already alluded to above, we can all agree with Fairchild that something really is wrong if we must “go to” the Bible every time biblical submission is in order. That would be an indication of stunted sanctification on the part of the superior, the inferior, or both. Internalizing, applying, and obeying Scripture is essential to sanctification. We can also agree that going to a Bible verse to prove our worth, or trustworthiness is at the very least an odd thing to do. I do not know of a verse that establishes such worth or trustworthiness without misconstruing it. I am open to revisiting what is being communicated here. Finally, having a character that contradicts Scripture, and asking that others follow in that character, is a cultish sort of behavior. Perhaps that is what Fairchild means by authoritarianism.
So, all are agreed that not knowing Scripture, seeking self-worth in Scripture, and contradicting Scripture are problems. However, in no way does it follow from this simple observation that husbands or elders who pull out, go to, grab, or use a verse are engaging in wrong behavior. The problem is not with using Scripture, as Fairchild suggests. In each of three cases, the problem would be with the potential misuse of Scripture (abusus non tollit usum).
Now we have a great practical problem. When can a person who is biblically commanded to submit not use Fairchild’s examples as an excuse for disobedience? Suppose a father instructs his children to go clean their rooms, and quotes a verse which states, “Children, obey your parents.” Is that father doing it wrong? Is he following a recipe for disaster? Is he an authoritarian? Of course not.
So, what exactly is so troubling about going to a Bible verse to prove God commands obedience? Well, it could be the person doing so is a bad leader, of poor character, or an authoritarian, but it does not follow that the biblical command no longer holds. It could be the person who is to submit is ignorant of the biblical command or contentious and rebellious, which is likewise a problem. But it does not follow from this, either, that the Bible must not be cited or quoted. Of course, it could be that in all this discussion there is hiding an implicit rejection of God’s authority, which is made even more plain when the attack is on the act of quoting Scripture itself, rather than on these other elements of leadership and submission.
Quoting God is Good, Actually
Does Fairchild really think a husband or elder who believes in biblical submission is in sin? Surely not! What about a husband or elder who implies, in exercising authority, that his wife or church should submit? Submission is implicit wherever authority is involved. So, what exactly is Fairchild objecting to? Perhaps he complains about those times when a husband or elder commands his wife or church to submit. Here’s the thing: quoting or citing Scripture, in such an instance, does not make the authoritative command contingent on the man, but on God. In attempting to oppose authoritarianism by forbidding the use of Scripture, Fairchild would actually undermine biblical authority.
Now, some may argue “forbidding” is far too strong. Fairchild does not forbid the use of Scripture. He does not balk at the Bible. He permits the use of Scripture. Right? Well then, a husband is okay to say to his wife, “You must submit to me, as this verse says.” Setting aside the worries with which we dealt above, the only reason we would cringe is because we have a problem with God’s authority.
Suppose the husband is generally a bad leader, of poor character, and is an authoritarian. In that case, the husband must recognize the authority of God’s word, and submit to it. But the wife, who attempts to use these observations as a reason to disobey her husband, must also recognize the authority of God’s word, and submit to it. The husband has no authority apart from God’s word. That would be a really good reason for quoting it. The command doesn’t come from him, it comes from God. If it’s okay for him to do this once, then what’s wrong with him doing it “on the regular”?
Our State is Family
We can extend these observations out to any other biblically arranged hierarchy as well, such as parents and children, or citizens and their civil government. The form of the latter is based on the former. The ultimate reason we obey those placed in authority over us in civil government is because God says so, and it would not be wrong, in principle, for our governors to quote that to us. In fact, we much prefer that scenario, wherein they are acting as God’s deacons, and carrying out biblical justice.
We’ve no doubt witnessed plenty of examples of the abuse of would-be biblical authority. But we also suffer from patricide, a hatred for the Father by whom every earthly authority is established. Feminism cost more than we can fathom, children want leeway to mutilate their bodies, and graffiti covers what statues of our founders remain. The solution in every case is still the affirmation of Scripture, which serves as the basis for the command, implied or expressed. We see this set up in nature as well. Patricide is a proxy war on God. But the problem is never with him. The problem is always us.
True biblical leadership is aspirational. That is no excuse for our sins. We must not be harsh with our wives, provoke our children, or lord it over those in our care. Husbands, parents, pastors, and governors are sinful. And yet, they are to be obeyed. For the Bible tells me so.
Image Credit: Unsplash