On Authority

On Authority

William Berry

Theology-ish Website

April 20, 2024

What is authority? This is always a relevant question for the Church. What is it, who has it, how should it be exercised, how can they use it well, and how are we to respond to its use? All of these loom in the background when it comes to questions of church hierarchy, the role of the Scriptures, and the Church’s relationship with the State. I hope, in this brief essay, to establish basic facts regarding the nature of authority so that these more practical questions may be better addressed in the future. If we want to know who has authority, how they are to use it well, and how we are to respond properly to that exercise, then we must first and foremost establish what authority is. In this essay, I will argue that authority is always a function of violence

In the interest of clarity, I will begin by establishing what is meant by violence. Violence is any use of physical force, or verbal intimidation, by one person to coerce, harm, damage, or otherwise influence another person or their property. This includes actions that limit others abilities to act in accordance with their own free will by restrictions imposed on them, be those restrictions physical or otherwise. This includes the seizure, unauthorized use, or withholdings of another's belongings irrespective of the item's monetary value. This definition of violence also includes actions that result in manufactured consent from one party to another, such as one person “agreeing” to pay another a fee for protection, when the choice to decline the protection fee would clearly pose a danger to themselves and their properties. Given the above, it is important to note that the use of violence is not necessarily malicious, illegitimate, or ultimately harmful to those acted upon; but violence is always an imposition of one’s will onto another free agent, irrespective of harmful or helpful outcomes.

If we investigate real world examples of authority we will find, time and again, that the relationship between an authority and its underling will include the actual use, or understood possibility of, violence as previously defined. Let us begin at the most basic level of authority, one all people of goodwill will assent to being a legitimate expression of authority, and that is the authority a parent has over their child. The parent must teach the child how to be a human being. The child must learn not to touch a hot stove. The child must learn how to wash a dish. The child must learn how to talk to other persons in a way that is acceptable. The parent must snatch the child by the wrist to keep their hand from being burned. The parent must withhold the child’s playthings until the dishes have been washed. The child must be restricted to standing only in one corner for calling another person naughty names. The parent must impose themselves and their will onto the child, so that the child might learn how to be, and to be well. This will includephysical restraint at times, coercive discussions meant to bend the will of one in line with another, and the manipulation or withholdings of certain properties. This is a legitimate exercise of authority, and it is violence aiming toward the good of those afflicted.

If we move outside of the home, and into the public sphere of work, we will again find a necessary relationship between authority and violence. Most people work in a system where there are managers and employees. The manager will dictate what times the employees are to report for duty. The manager will dictate what the employees tasks for the day will be. In many instances, a manager will determine how long an employee must work before being allowed to leave and return to the affairs of private life. If the employee does not report for duty at the determined time, the employee will likely face repercussions in the form of a written warning. This warning says, in spirit if not in the letter, “continue to be late in the future, and we will no longer allow you to work for us.” If the employee fails to complete their assigned tasks, they run the risk of receiving a bad review from the manager in the future, which will cause a loss of income and potentially lead to loss of employment. An employee who leaves before their manager has agreed to release them for the day may face written warnings, verbal correction, meetings with human resources about company expectations regarding insubordination, and loss of promotions or raises in the future. All of these things are, in themselves, fairly benign. Yet, in a capitalist system, those who do not work do not eat. The reality is that most people cannot afford to lose income via the loss of employment; the manager knows this. The manager dangles a pink slip in front of the employee, and demands greater productivity, they demand a dress code, they demand hours from the employees life, and they demand compliance with standard operating procedures. If the employee does not comply they may face a loss of employment, which could cause a loss of housing, sustenance, and creature comforts. In short, the manager derives the ability to make demands of the employee through the implicit threat to deprive the employee of the means to meet their physical needs. The manager may cause harm to their employees, if the employees do not comply with the manager’s demands.

Beyond the immediate interpersonal levels of daily life we find the authority of the State, which is too broad to sufficiently address here. Therefore we will constrain our discussion to the State’s collection of taxes. The State, by one method or another (it seems to be based in tyromancy to me) determines that Jones, Davis, and Smith owe the State money. The State informs them of their debts. Jones pays, but not enough. Davis pays nothing. Smith pays the fullamount. Smith is left alone. Davis loses his home, and is thrown in jail. Jones receives threatening correspondence from the State until he has paid the last penny. The State has the authority to demand payments from their citizens, and those who do not conform their own wills to the will of the State, will experience violence at the hands of the State. Perhaps, even Smith has had violence done against him, for he knew what the cost would be if he refused to give the State its due, and compiled from fear rather than fidelity.

In all of these examples, we find violence wherever we find authority. Perhaps there are other examples I have not considered where this is not true, but I can think of none. Teachers have authority over students, because they can give them a failing grade. Military personnel have authority over other military personnel, because the difference in rank allows for court martials, or other punishments. Coaches have authority over athletes, because they can make them run laps. All of these relationships entail a cause and effect where the cause is insubordination, and the effect is violence as previously defined. This is not to say that the exercise of authority is inherently wrong, harmful, illegitimate, or otherwise unacceptable, only that violence seems to be connected to the exercise of authority. It may even be the case that authority itself is derived from the authority’s ability to inflict violence on another.

I want to bring us back to questions of authority surrounding the Church. There was a time historically where the Church would expel those who were not interested in pursuing the things of Christ. This practice, which came to be called excommunication, has Biblical roots. Paul instructs us to expel those who continue in wicked behaviors and treat them as though they are unbelievers (1 Corinthians 5:9-13). There is clear evidence that this was still the case in the early days of the Church. Marcion of Sinope was excommunicated circa 120 AD for teaching that the God of the Old Testament, and the God of the New Testament are different Gods. Tertullian of Carthage was excommunicated for his affiliation with the Montanists circa 200 AD. Basil of Caesarea tells us the duration that a lapsed Christian must undergo penance before being readmitted into the Church circa 310 AD. In short, if you taught contrary to accept Christian doctrines, you will be treated as an unbeliever. Those who circled back could be reintegrated into the Church, but only after they had shown true penance over a significant time horizon. I believe Basil says incest carried a penance period of twelve years before a person could be allowed back into the Church, but I don’t have the text in front of me (nor do I remember what document I read that in).

The practice of excommunication carried on well into the middle ages. At one point when there were rival Popes, who each claimed authority, they excommunicated each other in an attempt to establish themselves as legitimate authorities and their opponents as illegitimate. It is important to remember that historically, those who were excommunicated could not receive the Eucharist. Given that whoever does not eat His flesh or drink His blood has no part in Him, something the Church used to take that seriously, excommunication was a BFD. Excommunication was an act of violence. When one king, or another, acted unjustly (or insubordinately to the Church), he potentially faced excommunication from the Church through the Pope. The Church used to exercise an authority that carried weight, because it could do violence. It could correct, coerce, and instruct through the use of violence, and sometimes the violence was the withholding of Christ’s blood rather than the shedding of men’s (although that happened sometimes too).

It wasn’t until the 16th century when Zwingli freed us from the superstitions of Christ’s teachings that excommunication lost its teeth, at least in protestant circles. If the bread and wine are only bread and wine, then being unable to receive them for one reason or another is of no consequence. Moreover, if one protestant says to another protestant that they are not allowed in their church for practicing incest, they may leave and start an equally qualified protestant church that does not denounce incest. The good protestant will be unhappy with this characterization, and will likely point to the Bible as the ultimate authority in the life of the Christian. I have a Bible beside me as I type this. It does nothing unless I act on it. It may correct, teach, inform, condemn, challenge, or make the mind of God known to me, but only if I read it. If I do not read it, it sits quietly. It is docile. It can do no violence on its own. But in the hands of the Church, it becomes a dual edged sword, sharp enough to divide bone from marrow; if only the bride of Christ be bold enough to take hold of it, and exercise her authority.