Loose Canons II: Authority vs. Authoritarianism

Libertarianism (and its more radical corollary, anarchy) is predicated on the idea that men are capable of governing themselves; Christianity, on the idea that they are not. God revealed His Law to humans with the intent that it would be obeyed, and it was specific on all counts because none of us are capable of knowing good except through divine decree.

Our propensity for lawlessness isn't absent within the Church. Doctrinal heresies like antinomianism are just one form it takes; probably the most prevalent is the readiness with which division is embraced. All division is ultimately a result of sin, whether of practice or belief, and therefore all division is in some way associated with lawlessness. It happens at all levels, within sects, denominations, and local assemblies—even the cliques that form among portions of individual church bodies are the result of lawless division, a lack of unifying love between Christians.

Every Christian is guilty of this. I am ashamed to think of the times I've participated in divisive talk or behavior. It doesn't help the Church of Christ in any way, it only keeps the Body from its ultimate goals and makes it harder for us to grow spiritually. If this is true on an individual level, how much more so on a denominational level?

Schism, however, is often accompanied by a yet more dangerous sickness: authoritarianism. Authority is required for the Church and individual churches to function properly. Pastors and elders are intended to care for congregations and larger groups, to hold one another accountable, and to guide their charges in holiness and doctrinal advancement. Since we can't govern ourselves, men are selected to govern the Body of Christ in God's name and with God's authority.

But they only do so with this caveat: That they are held accountable both above and below, by other elders and by the congregations which they serve. Without the accountability of the people they serve, elders are likely to fall into sin; without the accountability of other elders outside their congregations, they're likely to become authoritarian.

Authority is a delicate responsibility; authoritarianism is the reverse, in which the leader sees the delicate people beneath him as having a responsibility to him. True leadership in the Church is predicated on unswerving dedication to the Gospel, and to genuine servanthood. There is no "greater" or "lesser" among God's people; there are degrees of maturity, but no one has a right to rule his brothers and sisters, only the duty to obey Christ in all things. If an elder is chosen from among his peers, it's not because he deserves to lead, it's because through his character he's been deemed a worthy leader.

Leadership is never something a Christian should seek, at least not in a governmental sense (and here I mean specifically a Church governmental sense). It should be accepted in humility, and only with a sense of service to God and other Christians. In some sense, it should only be accepted reluctantly.

Forming a new denomination when things aren't going a certain way isn't a sign of servant-based authority, it's a sign of authoritarianism, even if only in its infant stage. A leader who decides to splinter from another group may not consciously desire to lead at all, but the kind of thinking that leads to division too often leads to control. If it's true that mankind is incapable of self-government, that the "masses" will always stray unless held back, isn't it equally true that the leaders of those people will find it hard to hold themselves back once they find themselves without constraint of their own?

Christians are all slaves to Christ, and His is the ultimate authoritarian rule. But that role belongs to Him alone, and any action that facilitates an assumption of too much power with too little accountability on the part of a leader of Christ's people is at the very least ill-advised, and at most a danger to the reputation and function of the Church universal.