There seems to be a sufficient amount of confusion regarding the Christian duty to “submit to the authorities placed over you” to warrant yet another a discussion on the matter. I have wrestled with confusion over it, having read differing “interpretations” of Scriptural references, and having heard a variety of teachings that also differ in fundamental ways. I’ve become an inveterate investigator over the decades, learning to launch myself into research whenever I read or hear something that seems a bit off kilter, or something that I am unfamiliar with and want to know more about, so I launched myself into a study of this topic in order to alleviate the conflict in my own mind.
I mentioned fundamental differences, distinguishing these from variances that may not directly contend with Biblical doctrine. Fundamental, referring to those items, concepts, materials, etc., that form the foundation of something. For example, the apostle Paul wrote that one man’s faith allows him to eat whatever he chooses, while another man eats only vegetables. (Romans 14:2) The eating of meat or vegetables is not a fundamental doctrine, as this personal choice does not affect a person’s eternal dispensation. Conversely, the opposing doctrines that proclaim the deific stature of Jesus, and that Jesus was an angel or merely a good man, are a fundamental issue which must be resolved.
Submitting to the authorities placed over us is a fundamental issue because it is given in Scripture as a command, not as a matter of personal conscience. (Romans 13:1-7) The Scripture declares the authorities that exist have been established by God. Now, this may seem a dubious affair on the surface, since most authorities in the world have rejected the Creator and impress upon their subjects to do likewise, but the Creator has gone so far as to declare some ungodly authorities to be his servants, as he did about Cyrus. (Isaiah 44:28, Isaiah 45:1-4, Isaiah 45:13, Ezra 1:1-3, Ezra 4:3, Ezra 5:13-17, Ezra 6:3, 2 Chronicles 36:22-23) Although, it may be reasonably and logically argued that Cyrus became a worshiper of the Creator at some point during his time, so becoming a true servant of the living God, as did Nebuchadnezzar after his seven year bout of insanity. (Daniel 4:28-37) There are other instances of God speaking to and using persons who are otherwise ungodly, such as Darius, and Neco. (Ezra 6:6-12, 2 Chronicles 35:20-24) And Jesus validated the authority of the religious rulers when he told the people and his disciples they must do everything those rulers instructed, while avoiding their hypocrisies, because those men occupied the seat of Moses. (Matthew 23:2) I think the primary concern when submitting to authority is one of obedience to the Creator’s plan, and the purpose he’s appointed for each person. To rebel arbitrarily or peremptorily against his established authorities on earth is to wax contentious against the course he’s plotted.
But there remain instances of rebellion orchestrated by the Creator toward the upset of these very authorities. Consider the situation in Egypt when the progeny of Jacob were four hundred years in slavery. God established the authorities of Egypt, yet he raised the prophet Moses to lead Israel out of slavery. This was in direct conflict with the command to submit to authorities over them. Someone might argue this situation was quite different because it came about prior to commands given in the new testament books, so that the submission to authorities was not in effect at that time. I would argue there is no difference.
Consider the work of the apostles. Jesus, the Messiah, the Christ, the Son of God, who is God himself, ordered the disciples whom he designated as apostles to go and preach the gospel, and to do a variety of other things which contradicted not only Jewish laws, but laws of the nation that had conquered Israel. They were all persecuted, along with the nascent church, and many of them were executed as a consequence of their rebellion against the laws.
There are differing forms of government, some more pleasing than others, and their authorities are also different. In a monarchical form of government, the king or queen generally establishes authoritative laws. Some monarchies are subject to a religious authority of some type, which levies authoritative influence in the government. In a constitutional monarchy, the king or queen shares power with an elected body, and between them the authority of law is established. A dictatorial government has absolute power vested in one person, and that person is the authority. In a socialist government, the people exert power over the entire society, determining laws and rules in accordance with the current social sway, independent of any fundamental guides, such as a constitution. In a communist government, the people have essentially handed over their rights and freedoms to an elected body which directs their lives so that no one has advantage or success that would exceed that of a fellow countryman. Everything belongs to the people in common, whether housing, money, culture, political ideology, thought processes, property, education, religion, children, environments, art, etc., and all of it is administrated by the elected body. Communism and Fascism are more severe forms of Socialism, but all of these are grown from the same deeply seated root. They are democracies in a sense, since the people have elected to subject themselves to this form of government, but self determination and individuality have been waived in favor of absolute governmental decision and the communal identity. Other governments are democratic, but with the people having preserved their right to self determination, such as the United Sates. As our preeminent document declares, the Government governs by the consent of the Governed. Laws are established by an elected body, enforced by another elected body, administrated by another elected body, and judged by another elected body, but all of this may be dismantled and reformed at any time by the people, since the people retain their right to self determination. The members of this government are servants to the people. They are employees. Although our government has been infected with socialism and is separating itself from the rightful authority of the people, which authority is meant to maintain and regulate government through adherence to the fundamental guide of our constitution.
So, whatever the authority in whatever nation, it is that authority to which the dutiful Christian must submit. In our nation, the authority is the law. But that law is subject to essential principles, principles which inform the Constitution of our nation. Any law that contradicts, countermands, intervenes or interferes with our Constitution, is void. The point is this, if you are accosted by a police officer, or any public servant, and are being goaded to obey an order that you are not lawfully obligated to obey, it is not a contradiction of Scripture to disregard that unlawful order. The law is the authority in this country, not the public servant. And, again, the law is subject to the authority of essential principle as delineated in our nation’s constitution.
Policing agencies, and other law enforcement agencies, have been allowed to act unilaterally for so long that they believe they are the authority. It is the duty of every Christian who is a citizen of these United States to know the laws of our nation and to hold our servants accountable. This is nowise a contradiction of the Christian mandate to submit to authority. We are not encouraged to be a brave people, we are commanded to “be strong and courageous” in many instances throughout Scripture. (Joshua chapter 1, Deuteronomy chapter 31, 2 Samuel 10:12, Daniel 10:19, Psalm 27:14, Psalm 31:24, 1 Corinthians 16:13) This means performing our duty as citizens, our corporate duty to preserve what so many have died to bring about. Freedom. We are not to idly, or passively, or pacifistically, sit by and allow tyrannical agencies to impress their tyranny on our nation, while citing the command to submit to authority. We are to strongly and courageously remind them that we are the authority by means of our Constitution and subsequent laws, and they are the servants whose offices were established for the purpose of preserving of our rights.
Someone might argue, “But God is the one who fights for us. If we act, then we are interfering in the work of God.”
In some cases, yes. In many more cases, no. For example, God gave the land of Canaan to the progeny of Jacob. He raised up the prophet Moses to lead them in rebellion against the authority placed over them, then promised them the land of Canaan. However, when they arrived at its frontier, God didn’t immediately give the land over to them and drive the inhabitants out as he said he would do. Instead, he commanded Israel to go in and take possession of the land. He commanded Israel to drive out, and oftentimes utterly destroy, the inhabitants. No one was idle, no one sat back passively and waited. They acted first, then God gave the land into their hands and drove out the inhabitants before them as he said he would do, accomplishing the deed through Israel’s physical frame. And none of this came about as a result of pacifistic ideologies. They were warriors.
It was a similar situation when the Hebrews departed Egypt. The Creator ordered them to ask their Egyptian neighbors for their wealth. They did so. And in this way the Israelites plundered the Egyptians. (Exodus 12:35-36) God manipulated the Egyptian people so that they forked over their goods to those who were still, technically, their slaves. But Israel had to act first, demonstrating faith and obedience, then God levied his power on their behalf. We are to be active, to be strong and courageous, to be innovative and effective as human beings, not pacifists. We are, remember, created in the image of God, and God is not a passive weakling.
Someone may argue further, “But the Bible teaches us that we are not to live in rebellion. It points out that a rebellious heart is a despicable thing. (1 Samuel 15:23, Romans 13:2, 1 Peter 2:13-20) In fact, it says that a slave is to submit and be obedient to a master.” (Ephesians 6:5-8)
That is a very good observation. And there is a continuation to that admonishment, which is that if you are able to gain your freedom, then do so. (1 Corinthians 7:21) And, once again, it is dependent on the authority of the land. In the United States, slavery is expressly prohibited. So, to rebel against someone who has subjected you to slavery would not contradict the adjuration of Scripture. The same applies to anyone and anything that is set up against the Constitution of the United States. Rebel against it. Enthusiastically. That is your right, and it is your duty as a Citizen. Be very careful, however, that you are knowledgeable of the Constitution, as well as law.
The argument contrived from 1 Peter 2:13-15 that we are to submit ourselves to “every human institution” has been used, along with other Scripture, to decry the American Revolution, as well as every instance of civil disobedience or rebellion in the United States today. The American colonies were under the purview of the English Monarchy, which was itself under the Church of England, and to apply this adjuration from Peter’s epistle onto the rebellion fomented by these colonies against the English king would mean condemnation for them. It would mean explicit impeachment not only on their war for Independence, but on their profession of belief in our Holy Father. This argument would also be necessarily applied to the Apostles, the church, Jesus Christ himself, and every human who has chosen obeisance to our Maker in priority over obedience to a contradictive appendage of human society, since that Scripture commands us to submit ourselves “for the Lord’s sake to every human institution.” Believers living in countries where Scripture is outlawed would be obligated to reject a Bible, or portions of a Bible, or even reading any of it, because doing so would violate the law of that human institution. The Apostles were reprimanded by a human institution for disregarding their order to forgo teaching in the name of Jesus. Their rebuttal was a declaration of loyalty preferring God over man. (Acts 5:28-29) It is paradoxical to apply the command to submit oneself to every human institution against the very Apostle who wrote it, since he also advanced a requisition to obey God despite the orders levied on him by a human institution. So this argument opposing all forms of rebellion becomes untenable.
To augment the preceding paragraph, 2 Kings 18:7 records that God prospered King Hezekiah, and that Hezekiah also rebelled against the king of Assyria. And there are recorded many other occasions of rebellious deeds engaged in by men who were validated by God, or outright ordered by God to do so. Conversely, there are times when God directs a person or persons, or nation, to capitulate, such as when, through his prophet, Jeremiah, he advised Israel to surrender to Babylon. (Jeremiah 7:8-17, Jeremiah 38:17-18) And after their surrender, they were to tucker in, considering this foreign land to be their home. (Jeremiah 29:4-7) When God gives the order to surrender, any ensuing rebellion against the captor is an act of rebellion against God. (Jeremiah 28:15-16)
The Holy Scriptures direct us to love justice, to do justice, to seek justice, and to treat injustice in an opposite manner. It also emphasizes the significance and importance God endues to justice. In Deuteronomy 16:20, Israel is told to “pursue justice, and justice alone.” Jeremiah 22:3 commands us to “rescue the victim of robbery from the hand of his oppressor.” What if the oppressor is one of those human institutions we’re to submit ourselves to? Which command are we meant to obey? Psalm 82:3 commands us to “defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; uphold the rights of the afflicted and oppressed.” What if government is the perpetrator of these injustices, such as the governments we warred against during the two World Wars, or the wars against terrorism and violations of human rights perpetrated by various human institutions of the earth? Are these acts of disobedience, or obedience? I opine our Government commits injustices and violations of rights on the Citizenry of the United States, and I cannot believe it’s a sin to oppose these things, despite the aspect of rebellion being tacked to it. Furthermore, Proverb 25:26 calls to account anyone who does not stand against injustice, saying they’re “like a muddied spring or a polluted well.” And in Matthew 23:23 Jesus issued calamity against the hypocritical Jews who neglected justice in favor of those matters that would polish their affectations to the people. (Luke 11:42, also)
Additionally, there are a few other instances in Scripture that express acclamation for justice. Isaiah 1:17, 9:7, 30:18, 42:1, 51:4-5, 56:1, 61:8, Micah 6:8, Psalm 33:5, 37:6, 37:28, 89:14, 99:4, 101:1, 106:3, 112:5, 140:12, Proverb 2:8-9, 18:5, 21:3, 28:5, 29:7, 31:9, Leviticus 19:15, Deuteronomy 10:18, 24:17, 27:19, 32:4, Ecclesiastes 5:8, Hosea 12:6, Jeremiah 9:24, 23:5, Matthew 12:18, Exodus 23:2, 23:6, Job 8:3, 34:12, 37:23, 2 Chronicles 9:8, 19:7, Amos 5:15, 1 Kings 10:9.
In the matter of 1 Peter 2:18, and Ephesians 6:5, there is, in my opinion, some unwarranted conflation with two concepts of slavery, as it’s mentioned in the Holy Scriptures. In some cases, slavery is very similar in function to the position of a servant. A servant is hired help, whereas one who has sold himself into servitude is called a slave. Then, there is the more contemporarily understood concept of slavery, in which a person is forced into labor, and is an unwilling participant. I believe the instances where slaves are entreated to obey their earthly masters can be equated with instances where servants are told to submit to their masters, and that such instances are referring to hired help and the sale of one’s person by that person. This is what, in my opinion, Paul says to obtain your freedom from, if you are able. I don’t believe the slavery being confirmed in these two cases can be the situation of forced, and unwilling servitude. (Ephesians 6:5, 1 Corinthians 7:21) Still, Scripture does have descriptions of conquered people being subjugated and forced into labor by Israel, as well as Israel being made captive to conquering nations. Whenever one of these captive Hebrews is obedient to God, and serves a captor well, he is granted success and favor by God within the circumstances of captivity. So it remains for us to practice discernment in every situation we’re situated in. The judgement of such is in your purview.
There is also a difference between an act of rebellion that is motivated by adherence to essential principle, and one that is motivated by a rebellious heart. A rebellious heart causes one to rebel against every authority, not only those that are unjust. A rebellious heart will rebel against the Creator, too. Having a rebellious heart does not refer to an act of rebellion itself, but to the motives of the heart. An act of rebellion may be good, or it may be bad. The same applies to violence. Jesus told Peter that “those who live by the sword will die by the sword.” He did not say, however, that anyone who utilizes a sword as a tool will die by the sword. (I know what the various translations say, “those who take the sword,” “those who draw the sword,” “those who use the sword,” but the context is one where violence is used as a resolution to every inconvenient circumstance, or used to contravene the purposes of God, and not the use of violence when it is reasonable or necessary.) Violence itself is not prohibited by Scripture, but it is the violent and disobedient heart that is spoken against.
Making this behavior inveterate requires effort. Many people are loathe to put out any effort in this way. They much prefer to go about their lives with a minimum of conflict or confrontation, and so it is much easier to “just go along with” an act of tyranny or injustice, no matter how minor the infraction. This is a selfish habitude. We who are commanded to be strong and courageous by the Creator we worship will be guilty of selfishness, (As well as guilty of disobedience to the word of God, in my opinion.) if we fail to hold our public servants accountable for their tyranny or dereliction of duty, no matter how slight the infraction. We’ll be failing in service to our neighbors, and we’ll also denigrate the sacrifice of all who have died for the sake of Freedom, throughout the entirety of world history. The believer also, I propose, stands against the work that our Creator has done, in standing idly by as freedom is subverted. We are told that it was for the sake of Freedom that we were set free, that we are to stand firm in that freedom. (Galatians 5:1) To be inactive as freedom is subverted is to behave in conflict with the significance of Freedom itself. A significance delineated by God.
To be effective in our civic duties, we need to know the law. We also need to maintain an intimacy with the Constitution. But this isn’t enough. It is vital to know and understand the history behind our Constitution. It is vital to know the intent of any particular law. This information is readily available to the public, it just needs to be researched. We cannot simply abide by the decisions of the courts, where those decisions countermand the essential principles that inform the Constitution. We must hold even the courts accountable for going astray. We don’t merely have the power to do so, it is our duty to do so. And it is the duty of the Christian to be strong and courageous. This is not good advice, this is an order from our Commander.
What if we don’t like a law, or find a law to be inconvenient? Obviously, the affinity we may have for a law neither validates nor invalidates that law. There are a slew of laws that we may find distasteful for a multitude of reasons, but if the law does not firstly contradict or circumvent the Scripture, and secondly the Constitution, then we are to submit to it. And as ambassadors for Christ, we are to be respectable whilst going about it. (There is a difference between being respectful and being respectable.) Otherwise, raise your objection. Inform the enforcer of his/her violation, and your refusal to submit to an unlawful order. Wield the authority you have as a Citizen of the United States. William Faulkner said that it is not enough to claim freedom, freedom must be practiced. Thomas Jefferson said when people fear their government, there is tyranny, but when governments fear their people, there is Liberty.
Now we arrive at a place where form and principle diverge from another possibility. The possibility that God is directing an individual into an act or behavior that may seem counterintuitive to everything written in the above arguments. God’s will for us is not static, it is dynamic. His word and his commands are not formulaic, they are dynamic. Discerning the propriety of an action in any given situation requires wisdom. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Sometimes the Creator exhorts us to actions that we may find abhorrent because of our natural inclinations. Actions such as “turn the other cheek,” or “go with him a second mile,” or “if someone sues you for your tunic, give him your cloak, as well.” (Matthew 5:38-48, Luke 6:27-36) These things are not mandated by law in the U.S., but they are mandated by Scripture. We may also be ordered to submit when submission is not warranted by essential principles, even though all essential principle is derived from the nature of God.
Let’s suppose you are pulled over by a patrol vehicle one day. You’ve broken no law, but the officer decides to practice intimidation tactics and utilize falsehood to get you to allow him to search your car. A person who is unfamiliar with the law, or who is, to put it bluntly, a timorous person, will probably comply immediately with the unlawful order. Conversely, a person who has a rebellious heart will immediately and without due consideration rebel against the unlawful order, just as they would against a lawful order, even if the person is unfamiliar with the law. You, however, are not a weakling, nor do you suffer from a rebellious heart, and you are quite familiar with the law.
So, what will be your course of action? Generally, you would practice your civic duty. But if you worship the Creator, you will be attuned to his voice above everything else. If he tells you to submit to the unlawful order, you ought to do so. God has a supreme purpose for each of us, even for the offending officer, and to be rebellious for the sake of rebellion is to be disobedient to the Creator. The command of God enjoys priority in the life of a believer. Again, this requires wisdom, and wisdom comes from a relationship with the Creator.
This also requires your motives to be free from emotion. What I mean is that, if you are overly angered by the unlawful tactics of the police officer, or if you are overly fearful of the consequences of declining to submit to the unlawful tactics of the police officer, then your eventual decision will likely be tainted. Just like violence and rebellion, emotions are not inherently bad, (They are useful for goading an expediently rapid response when necessary.) but they can motivate a person to make bad decisions if that person hasn’t adopted a habitude of reason and being sensible of their duty to the Creator.
We should all be enamored with essential Liberty. We should all perform our civic duty and practice our freedom. We should all perform our civic duty to hold our public servants accountable. We should all perform our civic duty to conduct ourselves lawfully. And in all things, principle ought to be our motor for deciding when to submit, rather than emotion, superseded and preempted only by the direction of the Holy Spirit, who is the Creator himself.
Which brings us to the final point about submitting to the authorities placed over us, a point which is, perhaps, the most difficult for many believers to reconcile themselves with. For the Christian, a Christian being defined as a disciple of Christ (Acts 11:26), there are two hierarchies of authority. One taking its substance from the physical reality, and the other being that of the spiritual reality.
The spiritual reality is superimposed over the physical, but the physical is perishable, and so it is second in the line of priority. This is why we are to give obeisance to the command of the Creator where the law of man is contentious with it. Many members of the Creator’s family have suffered torture and death because they refused to renounce their freedom, enduring these things even into the modern and contemporary times. (Hebrews 11:36-38) The spiritual reality is eternal, and its value exceeds that of the physical. Which is why we’re exhorted to “store up our treasures in heaven.” (Matthew 6:20) The spiritual reality always preempts the physical reality. This is significant to mankind because, although we are presently encapsulated in a physical form, we are spiritual beings in our essence. This is due to the Creator’s status as spirit. Not a spirit, but spirit itself. The same spirit that was breathed into man and from which we derive life, however temporal it is in the physical form, but eternal after the physical form has expired. Eternal life and eternal death are distinguished by their form, not by their function, since all mankind is eternal, but only a few will enjoy the benefits of heaven.
So, the Christian is subject to the hierarchical system formulated by the Creator for the orderly conduct of his Church. His Church is the corporate body of Christ, and not a particular congregation in a particular building. (1 Corinthians 12:12-30, Ephesians 1:22-23) There are also ideologies the Christian is meant to adhere to which have brought confusion to those who use Scripture as justification for promoting a socialist or communistic government. There are many Christians who have been deceived by the evil of socialism because they are not able to discern between the physical reality and the spiritual reality, and this obfuscates the status of freedom in their comprehension. Being subject to the rule of a spiritual framework within the church cannot be applied to the framework of state government. For instance, when Paul retracted his statement against the high priest, he quoted Exodus 22:28 as the motor for his self admonition. (Acts 23:1-5) Jesus also instructed everyone to obey those bearing religious authority over them. (Matthew 23:1-3) The command to avoid utterances against rulers is in respect to those who are rulers in the church, but only in the matter of cursing. In the matter of exposing false teachers, this order cannot reasonably be applied, since an application of that sort would contradict other Scriptures. This command cannot be reasonably applied, in my opinion, to state government.
The Church of the Creator is, also, the family of God. Within a given family there is a hierarchical structure. There are rules, regulations, punitive strategies, traditions, modes of conduct, etc., to which a family member is expected to adhere. But none of these things are the law of the land. The law of the land is under the purview of state government. The conduct of a family works because it is restricted to that particular family. We’re all different as persons, so state government must be as general as possible in order to avoid specific conflicts. Family structure can be as specific as desired, since it incorporates a small segment of society, a small portion of personalities. Because of this, socialist ideals can only succeed within a family, or maybe a small community, since the selection of ideals are specific to a particular personality, or homogeneous group. They are not generalized, so there is no large scale conflict. And if there is any conflict within the family, it can be easily resolved by changing the selection of ideals the family wants to utilize. This doesn’t work on a larger scale, like state government, because of the clash of personality, and because it is now a compulsion and no longer voluntary. A family member can leave the structure of a household, but cannot always evade the structure of state government.
So, when the Bible refers to selling possessions to assist church members, or working with your hands so that you have something to share with others, it is referring to the conduct of the church, and not state government. (Acts 2:44-47, Ephesians 4:28) And it isn’t really socialism being talked about here, because these things must ultimately be volunteered (free will), whereas in a socialist state these things are mandated. These communal activities in Scripture are merely socialistic in a derivative sense.
And this is where that difficulty I mentioned before makes its entrance. Since our submission to church rule is effected by free will, we have the opportunity to extract ourselves from it. There is a prevailing theme in my fiction writing, an admonishment as much for myself as others, perhaps more for myself, a theme that comes from Scripture : From the one to whom much is given, much will be required. (Luke 12:48) Those who enjoy greater success, do so because of what God has given them. (John 3:27, Exodus 35:30-35, and many others) Every skill, ability, intellectual capacity, intelligence, wisdom, knowledge, mental acuity, wit, physical advantage, position, status, etc., has been vested in us by the Creator. And all these things have been vested in us for the benefit of the Church. For our family. (1 Corinthians 10:24, 1 Corinthians 12:4-26, Romans 12:4-8) And I am convinced this includes future family members, which we might refer to as spiritual children. (1 Corinthians 10:33, 2 Corinthians 12:14, Acts 2:39, John 11:52)
Now, it doesn’t mean we aren’t permitted to enjoy what has been given to us by God. He is the giver of good things, and we are to believe it. (Hebrews 11:6, 1 Timothy 6:17) But what it does mean is that we are not to be exclusive with our good things. How is that accomplished? I am convinced it is accomplished today through the administration of church hierarchy. This includes the spectrum of spiritual gifts as described in Scripture, those specifically geared to the spiritual edification of the church, as well as any other gift, or skill, or mental ability, etc., that may be utilized indirectly for the edification of the church. Part of our wealth is to be subjected to this administration, also. We are told there is an undesirable consequence for anyone who stockpiles personal wealth, but is not rich toward God. (Luke 12:21) And those who teach ought to receive recompense for their work. (1 Corinthians 9:4-14) And we are to share with our brethren who are in need when we’ve encountered unexpected prosperity or provision. (2 Kings 7:5-9)
This brings us to the authority of God’s purpose, a purpose indicated by the skills and abilities vested in each person. The Creator’s purpose for the shepherd, David, was to replace the disobedient King Saul. Accordingly, this shepherd, a boy of low station, was equipped for that purpose. It took a few years for his purpose to be fulfilled, but David gripped the promise of God, despite the difficulties and fears, and he became one of the greatest kings in history. What if David had dismissed this appointment, choosing instead to cite the onus of humility and unworthiness? He would have rebelled against the authority of the Creator, and his purpose.
God vests people with a variety of skills, abilities, and equipment. Some excel in business, some in sports, some in entertainment, some in counseling, some in medicine, some in the arts, some in teaching, some in preaching, some in pastoring, some in engineering, some in politics, some in soldiering, some in technical trades, some in singing, some in speaking, some in serving, some in managing . . . the list is extensive. Some are vested with the skills and abilities to administrate the church. These are the church authorities. The rulers. (Hebrews 13:17) Not everyone is to enroll in a seminary, or pursue a position in church administration. Most of us are equipped for other deeds. If one is equipped mentally and physically to enter the sphere of automotive technology, and a church official comes to deter that person from it and exhorts that person to enter a seminary instead, should that person submit to the church authority or to the authority of God’s purpose?
I propose Scripture would place the authority of God’s purpose above that of fallible man. Additionally, the Creator lays out a system of repetition to confirm his appointments. Where two or more are gathered, by two or more witnesses, (Hebrews 10:28, Matthew 18:16, Matthew 18:19-20, Deuteronomy 17:6, John 8:17-18), and so on, not relying on a single proclamation, but on the claim of others, as well. Apocalypses were repeated throughout Scripture (an apocalypse is a prophecy that relates future events, a prophecy is a communication from God), and the authority of the prophet was validated by the confirmation of prophecies fulfilled in a short time, (Deuteronomy 13:1-4, Deuteronomy 18:22) as well as the prophet’s adherence to prophecy already established, and by demonstrations of power through the Holy Spirit. There are a great many of these examples throughout the Scriptures, in the case of Moses, Samuel, Elijah, Elisha, Isaiah, and others. No church administrator should dictate actions to an individual that are contradictory to the individual’s purpose, unless there is a confirmation of this divergence from the individual’s prior purpose, in which case, the individual will be equipped for this new purpose. Ideally, a church administrator will act in concert with other church leaders, as well as the elders, when directing an individual into, or away from, any particular career.
Sometimes the Creator lays a foundation in the first half of a person’s life that will support a different purpose in the second half of the person’s life. It’s exciting to see these things happen, to look back over your life and realize what has occurred and fit together to shepherd you into this purpose. The point is, the ultimate authority is Christ, who is the head of the church. And the church is to administrate that authority faithfully for the people, being faithful in recognizing individual purpose, and working to abet that purpose, especially since individual purpose is intended to nourish the church, the body of Christ.
In order for church administration to be effective, we must submit to its authority. Church rule, according to Scripture, is the primary authority on this present earth to which we must submit ourselves. Again, I am not referring to a particular church, but to the corporate church and its rule. There should not be any “denominations” of the church. The Apostle Paul spoke against such divisions. (1 Corinthians 1:10-13, Ephesians 4:4-5, John 17:21) Each church should be viewed as an outpost of sorts, or better still, an embassy. And each of these embassies are subject to the order that God has established, and we, in turn, are subject to those in authority over the particular congregation of believers. (1 Corinthians 14:33, Ephesians 5:23, 1 Corinthians 11:3, Colossians 1:18) God’s established hierarchy ensures order in his church, and ensures an environment in which our individual purposes can be fostered.
Now, in hoping that I’ll not be misunderstood by anyone slogging through my prattle up to this point, it will be in accord with propriety that I clarify what is meant in my mind regarding rule and authority. Scripture asserts that Christ is the head of the church. No pastor, no elder, no deacon, has authority in himself over a congregation of believers. Christ is the head. But, to maintain order in the church, as God is a God order, (1 Corinthians 14:33) certain men have been vested with skills and abilities by the Holy Spirit for the purposes of administering and administrating the conduct of the church and its many congregations. An example is made in Israel, when Moses was counseled by his father in law to divide responsibilities among leaders of gradually lesser groups, establishing a hierarchy of administration for the Law and other commands from God. (Deuteronomy 1:17-26) Unlike Israel, the body of Christ is being governed by the directives of the new covenant, which are administrated by appointed rulers, so that believers are not subject to a national religious law. New covenant church rulers are authoritative in the sense of being authorities in the subject matter of their position, or in directing matters within, or for the stewardship of, a particular church building. They do not hold legal authority in the way the religious rulers did over the Hebrews in Biblical times. The religious rule at that time was legally binding over the Jewish communities, in the manner our Constitution provides over the United States. So, when we are commanded to submit ourselves to those who rule over us, we are being commanded by the Creator to submit ourselves to that which is being administrated by those vested with skills and abilities by the Holy Spirit. We are not expected to obey whatever whimsical adjuration a church leader spins out for us one Sunday afternoon, such as, “From now on, you are to wear pink socks and purple undershirts. I’m the ruler over you, now submit!” That would be absurd. Our submission is to the authority of the word of Christ, which is administrated by the appointed leaders.
Finally, consider this. When we submit to the authorities placed over us, exerting the free will given to us by the Creator that we might love him, we are actually submitting to God. When we rebel unduly against the authorities placed over us, we are actually rebelling against God. (Colossians 2:10) As King David acknowledged, “Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight.” (Psalm 51:4) Be strong and courageous. Be wise. Be merciful. Be humble. Stand up for freedom and submit to the authorities placed over you. We can do both.