Authority, Submission, and "Being Right"

[Jeremy D. Scott]

I don't think anyone accepts church authority these days. Doesn't matter if one is as concerned as it gets, or as liberal as it gets. Or anything in between. The truly honest hymn of the Western Church is sung by Mr. Sinatra: "I Did It My Way".

So we read the Bible as we please (there goes its authority), we choose the church we like (illusory authority indeed, you are right, Jim) and the bottom line is we only trust ourselves. This being the case, the least we can do is being honest about it, lest we lose all credibility whatsoever. (Some might argue that this doesn't matter because we actually have none left. I might agree)

I have come to wonder if submitting to an authority outside of myself - particularly when I disagree with the specifics of the given situation - might be a spiritual discipline. I think we see it in the example of the kenotic Christ. And I think that the great commandment implies it at the very heart of what it means to "love."

In part, to choose to submit to an authority when I disagree is to say, "There is something more important than being right."*

Some will look at this and call it futile, ignorant, and foolish.

But it might be the message of the cross.

Some examples:
1. For those who are married, we may find that we practice this with our spouses. There are times when my wife asks me to do something that I have absolutely no desire to do. Further, there are times when I think that something other than what she asks is what needs to be done. But, in choosing to do what she asks anyway - regardless of my lack of desire or lack of agreement in its necessity - is to participate in something bigger than my desires or orthodoxy. (We might call this love.)

In this situation, I am submitting to the authority of my wife.

2. Often, as the pastor of North Street Church, I make decisions or lead in a certain way that I wish would be otherwise. For instance, I wish we would worship in different ways. I prefer high-energy music with the words of aged hymns, highly-reflective mediums, and weekly Eucharist (to name but a few). But the collective authority of my local church doesn't. And so I submit to that. I'm not always the greatest at it, but that's why we all need the grace of God working through us.

In this situation, I am submitting to the authority of my church community.

3. I disagree with some of the conclusions of the Church of the Nazarene. If I had written the Manual myself, some parts would be very, very different. But for the most part, I follow the Manual and teach it.

In this situation, I am submitting to the authority of the Church of the Nazarene.

I have come to know God in some way through each of the above relationships. And in submitting in some ways to each of the above relationships, I believe that I am submitting to God...even if I come to find out later that I was "right" or that what I had thought should have been done (and chose not to do) would have been better. We love in the moment, as much as it might hurt, and in doing so we hope for greater things. To me, this is the picture of the Christ's passion and death, and then resurrection.

There have been and will be times when saying, "No" to my wife or to the Church seems to be necessary because the given act at the moment does indeed have greater implications (like my understanding of what it means to love a third party). Finding and choosing when these times are is a hard thing...and hence, why grace must abound, not necessarily in giving the ability to discern what is right, but all the more to heal, form, and restore when we find out that what we chose was wrong (or vice versa: what "they" chose was wrong).

Either way, grace must abound.

Choosing not to submit is to take power unto myself. While this isn't always wrong, more often than not, it can be wrong and certainly can lead to bad things. Paul says, "It's no longer I that live, but Christ that lives in me." Paul has learned to completely submit to Christ in this statement. This is our goal, both today and in the long run. I'm still learning. And I believe that we can learn this by practicing it with the authorities that exist in our lives (= "spiritual discipline").

So for me, the authority of the Church is very, very important. A lot of my peers disagree with me in this. They see that the Church has been deeply wrong in the past and even now. And they are right. But the quest to be right is futile in and of itself, and ultimately, not the point of following Christ. For in following Christ, the only goal is love. And love, while hoping to be right, isn't chiefly concerned about being right.

*We might look at Adam & Eve's grasp of the apple as the desire to "know everything". The desire to know everything ("being right") might be considered the beginning of sin. Apparently, it wasn't in God's plans for humanity and creation. Relationship and submission were primary.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

I'm reminded often of this Oswald Chambers quote: " It takes God a long time to get us to stop thinking that unless everyone sees things exactly as we do, they must be wrong."

Sometimes we submit out of a humble evaluation of our own judgment and knowledge (or lack thereof).

[Ian Gentles]

Mmm! Do we submit to authority or just keep our heads down...Maybe thats the same thing?
I'm glad Luther didnt submit to catholic church or there would be no reformation. Think of Wesley submitting and not preaching outdoors??
There is a danger of interpreting the Bible for ourselfs, we do need guidance. Though again we tend to be molded into the image of our churches, denominations, dont we?
I beleive the church has to have authority, but only if scriptures back its position

This is going to be an interesting thread.

[Mike Schutz]

I have come to wonder if submitting to an authority outside of myself - particularly when I disagree with the specifics of the given situation - might be a spiritual discipline. I think we see it in the example of the kenotic Christ. And I think that the great commandment implies it at the very heart of what it means to "love."

In part, to choose to submit to an authority when I disagree is to say, "There is something more important than being right."*

Some will look at this and call it futile, ignorant, and foolish.

But it might be the message of the cross.

Some examples:
1. For those who are married, we may find that we practice this with our spouses. There are times when my wife asks me to do something that I have absolutely no desire to do. Further, there are times when I think that something other than what she asks is what needs to be done. But, in choosing to do what she asks anyway - regardless of my lack of desire or lack of agreement in its necessity - is to participate in something bigger than my desires or orthodoxy. (We might call this love.)

In this situation, I am submitting to the authority of my wife.

2. Often, as the pastor of North Street Church, I make decisions or lead in a certain way that I wish would be otherwise. For instance, I wish we would worship in different ways. I prefer high-energy music with the words of aged hymns, highly-reflective mediums, and weekly Eucharist (to name but a few). But the collective authority of my local church doesn't. And so I submit to that. I'm not always the greatest at it, but that's why we all need the grace of God working through us.

In this situation, I am submitting to the authority of my church community.

3. I disagree with some of the conclusions of the Church of the Nazarene. If I had written the Manual myself, some parts would be very, very different. But for the most part, I follow the Manual and teach it.

In this situation, I am submitting to the authority of the Church of the Nazarene.

I have come to know God in some way through each of the above relationships. And in submitting in some ways to each of the above relationships, I believe that I am submitting to God...even if I come to find out later that I was "right" or that what I had thought should have been done (and chose not to do) would have been better. We love in the moment, as much as it might hurt, and in doing so we hope for greater things. To me, this is the picture of the Christ's passion and death, and then resurrection.

There have been and will be times when saying, "No" to my wife or to the Church seems to be necessary because the given act at the moment does indeed have greater implications (like my understanding of what it means to love a third party). Finding and choosing when these times are is a hard thing...and hence, why grace must abound, not necessarily in giving the ability to discern what is right, but all the more to heal, form, and restore when we find out that what we chose was wrong (or vice versa: what "they" chose was wrong).

Either way, grace must abound.

Choosing not to submit is to take power unto myself. While this isn't always wrong, more often than not, it can be wrong and certainly can lead to bad things. Paul says, "It's no longer I that live, but Christ that lives in me." Paul has learned to completely submit to Christ in this statement. This is our goal, both today and in the long run. I'm still learning. And I believe that we can learn this by practicing it with the authorities that exist in our lives (= "spiritual discipline").

So for me, the authority of the Church is very, very important. A lot of my peers disagree with me in this. They see that the Church has been deeply wrong in the past and even now. And they are right. But the quest to be right is futile in and of itself, and ultimately, not the point of following Christ. For in following Christ, the only goal is love. And love, while hoping to be right, isn't chiefly concerned about being right.

*We might look at Adam & Eve's grasp of the apple as the desire to "know everything". The desire to know everything ("being right") might be considered the beginning of sin. Apparently, it wasn't in God's plans for humanity and creation. Relationship and submission were primary.

Jeremy, while I know you didn't exactly intend this, my honest opinion of what you have written is "this will preach."

[Susan Unger]

Mmm! Do we submit to authority or just keep our heads down...Maybe thats the same thing?
I'm glad Luther didnt submit to catholic church or there would be no reformation. Think of Wesley submitting and not preaching outdoors??

I agree - there are times to submit and times to stand one's ground and do what one knows God is telling them to do.

[Hans Deventer]

Already thanked you but thanks again, Jeremy. I agree. As long as we define truth as dogma's and being right, we'll only devour one another. I'm not favouring a contentless kind of Christianity, but I do believe the dogmatic core might not need to be a whole lot more than "all who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved" and similar phrases.

Primarily, the truth of what I believe will be shown in my life by being a changed person, by having the love of God flow through me. Only to the extent that this happens, I have any right to talk about truth. Long ago I already wrote that the issue is not whether I have the truth, the question is, does the Truth have me? Which is not a rethorical question, it is one that can and must be answered. For if the answer is no, we can cry: "Lord, Lord, didn't we do ....... in your name?" We know the answer He gave to THAT question.

[Eric Frey]

I like what you've written... alot. But it is tricky. Especially in Christian leadership. There is the leadership part (being set apart by God through the church to lead the church). There is the servant part, which might be the submission part, but I think serving another is far more textured than submitting to them. I think of the relationship I have with my physician. My physician serves me best by giving me the best most honest diagnosis and most effective course of treatment possible. He infact does me a great disservice by merely submitting to my every whim and idea. The reality is that health cannot be acheived without mutual submission. That mutual submission has to be built on an element of trust. He has to trust that what I tell him is accurate, and I have to trust that he is working in my best interest.

Anyway, then there is the issue of "what church?" The local congregation? The East Ohio District? The Church of the Nazarene? The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church? And what when submitting to one means denying the other? What if submission is actually detrimental? or unethical?

Yes, holiness is kenotic, but it is not simple...

[Billy Cox]

Choosing not to submit is to take power unto myself. While this isn't always wrong, more often than not, it can be wrong and certainly can lead to bad things. Paul says, "It's no longer I that live, but Christ that lives in me." Paul has learned to completely submit to Christ in this statement. This is our goal, both today and in the long run. I'm still learning. And I believe that we can learn this by practicing it with the authorities that exist in our lives (= "spiritual discipline").

Interesting that you quote Paul in Galatians 2, given that Paul most certainly did not submit to the Judaizers, who were almost certainly acting on the authority of the apostle James. And Paul's rejection of their authority was not merely a passive resistance, but outright disrespect...suggesting that the circumcision activists not stop at the foreskin but cut off their own genitals.

So for me, the authority of the Church is very, very important. A lot of my peers disagree with me in this. They see that the Church has been deeply wrong in the past and even now. And they are right. But the quest to be right is futile in and of itself, and ultimately, not the point of following Christ. For in following Christ, the only goal is love. And love, while hoping to be right, isn't chiefly concerned about being right.

How do you discern between a prideful insistence on being right and making a righteous stand against wrong?

I think that once again, Paul's story is instructive. The Jerusalem Council gave instructions to the Gentile Christians to avoid food sacrificed to idols, blood, and sexual immorality. Based on the letters, Paul's application of these 'advices' varies from wholehearted agreement (abstain from sexual immorality), to advising discernment (dietary laws). This is hardly an example of Paul submitting for the sake of taking one for the team even when the team made a stupid decision. He appears to have weighed Jerusalem's rules alongside the values and spirit of the gospel and then modified the rules accordingly.

Even when Paul made a show of submission to Jerusalem's authority by delivering the offering and then following the instructions that were supposedly going to assuage the law-zealots, Paul didn't stand silently before his accusers like a lamb to be slaughtered. Acts contains the story of Paul's vigorous defense against the abomination that the Jerusalem church had become.

This doesn't mean I reject your call to unconditional submission to human authority when those humans happen to appeal to a higher power. Not every hill is worth dying on, after all. I just take it under advisement and resolve to more carefully choose those hills.

[John Reilly]

Ephesians 5:20-21 (NIV) "... always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ."

[David Graham]

I don't believe that we can make a blanket statement about submission.

For me personally, it's easier to "say nothing", "make no protest" and "keep my head down" when I see things that I don't agree with going on, particularly with regard to decisions made by denominational leaders. But, do we allow "injustice", or "evil" or "foolishness" to advance by doing or saying nothing?

One of the guiding principles behind the Reformation was to speak up and take a stand on the basis of individual conscience. In other words, because of my conscientious principles I must speak up on particular issues or I cannot conform to certain directives. Many Protestants gave their lives in the process of following their conscience during the Reformation for they believed that the established church was corrupt and they could no longer submit to its authority.

Were most of these Protestants simply being "rebellious"? Were they in fact rebelling against God?
The fact that most of them believed that they were following the divine "rules" within their conscience indicates otherwise.

Interestingly enough, the oversight structures set up by the Reformers, in most cases divested power away from individuals to groups of people because they believed that the abuse of power would be minimised if there were more people involved in the decision making process. And I think they were right to do so.

The whole idea of conformity and "submission" can more likely be abused by individual "charismatic" or cultic leaders to either stifle debate or put others in their "place". I can point to an example of this within the history of the CotN in Australia which was obvious for many people of my generation and older who felt disinfranchised by a particular leader. A former District Superintendent often quoted a bible verse out of context to deter anyone from speaking against either himself or his decisions. (David's words about not laying his hand against God's annointed. And yes, the particular DS believed that since he was God's annointed the same principle applied to him in everything.... including criticism) When this was coupled with an application the Manual's admonition to "not inveigh" against the church, many who had contrary opinions to the DS either went to ground or left the church. Such a sentiment was foolish however, for it only drove such "opposition" underground. He won the battle, but not the hearts and minds of many people in the church, and so the church was really divided even though it had an outward facard of unity.

From this painful experience (and another one later with another DS) I cannot trust a leadership model that involves the whims and decisions of a single person be they Superintendent or Bishop. It is also the reason why I chose to join my present denomination where the "powers of the episcopacy" are placed within the councils of the church. In other words, it is the body of Christ at a congregational level (Congregational Meeting), or regional level (Presbytery) or State level (Synod) or National level (National Assembly) who collectively (generally by concensus) make the decisions for the church in that particular designated jurisdiction. I can have confidence in that model and therefore find it easier to submit because there is more likely to be a greater sense of obtaining the mind and wisdom of God than in the decisions of one person alone (or with the advice of their political allies).

Ideally we all need to submit to one another in love; i.e. my love for the Christ in you, and your love for the Christ in me. But human nature being what it is, that is not likely to happen soon.

Therefore who we submit to becomes important especially in matters of conscience, and therefore the model of oversight is important, for people need to have confidence in those to whom they do submit. For me, that model involves the body of Christ.

[Mike Schutz]

I'm wondering the opinion of my esteemed colleagues regarding a group of scripture passages, and if my own view of them is idiosyncratic or has some connection to the issues Jeremy has raised so eloquently.
I am thinking about the several times Jesus discusses children and the kingdom of God - being like children, accepting children, welcoming children, causing children to stumble and fall.
I think I think (one of my fav Reuben Welch phrases) that there is a relationship between these illustrations and the concepts of submission, establishing authority, acquiescence, and getting one's way.
What think you?

[Susan Unger]

I think of the plethora of women that I know who have had the bible twisted so that they are forced to submit to abusive power structures. Can't ever erase their miserable lives and beliefs that they are garbage according to God's will and word. When I hear of someone [even in innocence like Jeremy's comments] extoling the virtues of submission to authority especially if it is unquestioning submission I tend to go into an emotional tailspin.

Extoling the virtues of mutual submission doesn't have that tailspin at all.

[Pete Vecchi]

Anyway, then there is the issue of "what church?" The local congregation? The East Ohio District? The Church of the Nazarene? The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church? And what when submitting to one means denying the other? What if submission is actually detrimental? or unethical?

Exactly. This is why I believe that we should be aware of Jesus' words in the book of John when He said that the Counselor would lead us into all truth. I believe that the Church of the Nazarene is just one part of the universal Body of Christ, and we all realize that the Church of the Nazarene has differences of opinion with other denominations when it comes to matters of faith. Personally, I believe that God is so big that two things that might seem totally different from each other can both be right--especially when viewed from a certain aspect (such as when God called Peter to be the Apostle to the Jews and Paul to be the Apostle to the Gentiles--or better yet when Paul used Titus as an example of a Gentile who did not need to be circumcised, but then shortly thereafter Paul had Timothy circumcised).

Ephesians 5:20-21 (NIV) "... always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ."

We can't always submit to one another. Any pastor who has had to mediate a dispute between two parishioners realizes that he or she will almost certainly not be able to "submit" to (at least) one of them.

To me, the bottom line is that the greatest authority to whom we need to submit is the Holy Spirit who dwells within us as believers.

[Mike Schutz]

To me, the bottom line is that the greatest authority to whom we need to submit is the Holy Spirit who dwells within us as believers.

Yes, of course. And yet our epistemology of the will of God has been so faulty that people look inside themselves to know God's will. Looking inside is not a bad thing, if you want to know your own will, even your own sanctified will. But when it comes to real human relationships, we must call people to submit to the will of God, and that begins with knowing how to interpret scripture - and we all know how messy that gets.
It's so much easier if people would just submit to me.

[Pete Vecchi]

Yes, of course. And yet our epistemology of the will of God has been so faulty that people look inside themselves to know God's will. Looking inside is not a bad thing, if you want to know your own will, even your own sanctified will. But when it comes to real human relationships, we must call people to submit to the will of God, and that begins with knowing how to interpret scripture - and we all know how messy that gets.
It's so much easier if people would just submit to me.

I'm not disagreeing with you at all here, Mike. I am reminded of the immortal words of the Cubs' legendary baseball announcer, Harry Caray, who would say in a potentially difficult situation for the Cubs, "There's trouble here, mon cherie."

The question comes down to just how the Holy Spirit works and speaks to God's people. I believe that oftentimes--probably the vast majority of the time--He uses the Scriptures. At times He uses the authority of the Church and its traditions (but which part of the church and which traditions need to be examined carefully by the believer; the Pharisees were rebuked by Jesus for letting their human traditions take precedence over the Word of God as found in the Old Testament Scriptures). At times the Holy Spirit uses the combined and (hopefully wise) counsel of other believers in Christ.

But at still other times, God speaks directly to the heart of the individual believer through that person's spirit or conscience.

You know, in the Church of the Nazarene, we believe that God imparts, rather than imputes holiness to us. In other words, He doesn't just declare that a change has been made in our lives when we surrender to Him, but He actually makes the change in us. If this is so, why are we at times so afraid to let people seek God apart from the authority of the collective church? Could it be because the church is afraid that things might get messy for the church and/or that the church might lose semblance of control or order?

By the way, right now I am seeking God on an issue that I feel is quite important, but it's something that I can not really find an answer to in Scripture. To date, the collective wisdom of the Church really hasn't shed much light on the subject either. I would be happy to discuss the issue with people, but it is a delicate matter that would have to be held in confidence. So therefore, I am struggling with it before the Lord, and I am not necessarily getting a clear answer from Him yet. Sometimes, I think that's exactly how He wants it, so that we will learn to come to Him as individuals. After all, He does want us to have individual relationships with Him, doesn't He?

[Ryan Plott]

I like what you've written... alot. But it is tricky. Especially in Christian leadership. There is the leadership part (being set apart by God through the church to lead the church). There is the servant part, which might be the submission part, but I think serving another is far more textured than submitting to them. I think of the relationship I have with my physician. My physician serves me best by giving me the best most honest diagnosis and most effective course of treatment possible. He infact does me a great disservice by merely submitting to my every whim and idea. The reality is that health cannot be acheived without mutual submission. That mutual submission has to be built on an element of trust. He has to trust that what I tell him is accurate, and I have to trust that he is working in my best interest.

Anyway, then there is the issue of "what church?" The local congregation? The East Ohio District? The Church of the Nazarene? The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church? And what when submitting to one means denying the other? What if submission is actually detrimental? or unethical?

Yes, holiness is kenotic, but it is not simple...

Thank you for this post Eric. I spend a lot of time wondering if my choice to leave the ordination process in the CotN was more about personal pride, ethics, whether it could have been prevented, if I handled it the right way, etc. This thread has given me a great deal to think about because at times I was accused of being non-submissive and your post validated the complicated messiness of the situation for me and I really needed to read that thought you shared. I don't really have any resolution, but it was good to read someone say that at times it's not crystal clear and it's ok to struggle with this kind of thing. Thanks again.

[Pete Vecchi]

Thank you for this post Eric. I spend a lot of time wondering if my choice to leave the ordination process in the CotN was more about personal pride, ethics, whether it could have been prevented, if I handled it the right way, etc. This thread has given me a great deal to think about because at times I was accused of being non-submissive and your post validated the complicated messiness of the situation for me and I really needed to read that thought you shared. I don't really have any resolution, but it was good to read someone say that at times it's not crystal clear and it's ok to struggle with this kind of thing. Thanks again.

Remember that Paul said that to your own master you will stand or fall, and that the Lord is able to make you stand.

[Billy Cox]

I think of the plethora of women that I know who have had the bible twisted so that they are forced to submit to abusive power structures. Can't ever erase their miserable lives and beliefs that they are garbage according to God's will and word. When I hear of someone [even in innocence like Jeremy's comments] extoling the virtues of submission to authority especially if it is unquestioning submission I tend to go into an emotional tailspin.

Extoling the virtues of mutual submission doesn't have that tailspin at all.

Yeah, the submission message rings a bit hollow when it is preached by the one expecting to be on the receiving end of that submission. The Apostle Paul is no help either, because despite his history of quite vigorously standing up for himself, a plain reading of scripture has him instructing slaves to make the best of their bondage.

[Steven Burton]

Well if human history has shown us anything it is that "being right" trumpet everything else.

[Todd Erickson]

Thank you for this post Eric. I spend a lot of time wondering if my choice to leave the ordination process in the CotN was more about personal pride, ethics, whether it could have been prevented, if I handled it the right way, etc. This thread has given me a great deal to think about because at times I was accused of being non-submissive and your post validated the complicated messiness of the situation for me and I really needed to read that thought you shared. I don't really have any resolution, but it was good to read someone say that at times it's not crystal clear and it's ok to struggle with this kind of thing. Thanks again.

It does seem a lot of the time that it's only submission so long as nobody else (important) has an opinion. No subjectivity there...

[Ryan Plott]

It does seem a lot of the time that it's only submission so long as nobody else (important) has an opinion. No subjectivity there...

I could see that scenario occurring fairly easily. What would be interesting to me would be an articulated theology of compromise, decision-making, submission etc. from church leaders of a denomination. I guess the manual could be seen as a theology in practice, but thoughts on how the church as a peculiar people handle conflict would be a read that I would make time for.