Authority Is Good for You

I must begin with a confession: I’m guilty. I’m a misuser of authority.

Jonathan Leeman’s book Authority: How Godly Rule Protects the Vulnerable, Strengthens Communities, and Promotes Human Flourishing begins with a similar confession.

Leeman writes, “Here is an unassailable fact: To some degree, you and I have misused our authority by lording it over others” (xvi). He confesses not only that has he misused authority but that apart from the grace of God, he’ll continue to do so. We’ve all used our authority to serve ourselves for our own purposes and gain.

Here’s another unassailable fact: to some degree, you and I have been sinned against when others have lorded their authority over us.

What hope is there for those of us who have misused authority or had it misused against us? This is an important question for our day.

Leeman is a man under authority who seeks to steward authority well as he manages several roles. He’s editorial director for 9Marks, cohost of the Pastors Talk podcast, an elder at Cheverly Baptist Church, a husband, and a father.

In Authority, Leeman gives an understanding of both good and bad authority. He seeks to equip those in various domains to carefully steward their gifts of authority. His work reflects a strong biblical argument for what God-given authority is and gives numerous illustrations from his experiences in these realms.

Good and Bad Authority

Leeman defines authority as a “moral license to make decisions or give commands” (27).

But what is good authority? It’s life-giving. For those who are under it and those who exercise it, it pushes both to mature in the Lord. It creates groups with a purpose. Good authority teaches about God’s immanence and his transcendence because of the healthy boundaries it sets. Fundamentally, good authority is submitted to God. It’s sacrificial, truthful, just, merciful, and compassionate.

Good authority is sacrificial, truthful, just, merciful, and compassionate.

In reading Leeman’s description of good authority, I longed to experience it and to share it with others. I had to stop and consider, Where do I see this in my own life? Do I recognize it when I live under it?

Unfortunately, experiencing good authority is probably more of an exception than a norm in the post-fall world. Bad authority longs to be “like God,” ruling next to him or replacing him instead of submitting to him (Gen. 3:5). Leeman describes bad authority as playing God in his omniscience, omnipotence, righteousness, and glory.

Good authority can quickly turn into bad authority. For example, complementarian theology describes differences in authority; the temptation exists for those with greater authority—pastors, husbands, parents, and so on—to use those differences for their own selfish ends. Using Leeman’s approach, we should be asking ourselves, “Am I avoiding counsel? Am I seeking control? Am I trusting in myself? Am I demanding to be honored?” None of these qualities should be present in an authority that seeks to complement those in their care. If we use Leeman’s approach as a tool for self-reflection it offers guardrails against abuses.

Limits of Authority

The other side of authority is submission to authority.

Leeman writes that submission involves “deferring by moral constraint to another person’s judgment and deploying your resources for the sake of fulfilling that person’s judgments” (65). The world sometimes recoils at the idea of submission because it’s conceived as nothing short of being a doormat. But Leeman argues submission isn’t dehumanizing or infantilizing—it doesn’t remove agency but rather trains toward growth.

Submission isn’t demeaning, because human authority isn’t absolute. There are boundaries that preserve our dignity as image-bearers. Leeman outlines three situations where we’re not required to submit: (1) when an authority figure requires us to sin, (2) when an authority figure requires us to do something God has not authorized that particular authority figure to require, and (3) when an authority is acting to wrongly harm us (see 77–79). These limits offer a strong defense against the abuse of authority.

Leeman also provides a taxonomy to encourage much-needed nuance when discussing authority. Authority comes in two distinct types: authority of command and authority of counsel. Both have the “right to issue directives that bind the conscience,” but only the authority of command has the right to enforce it (156).

Submission isn’t demeaning, because human authority isn’t absolute. There are boundaries that preserve our dignity as image-bearers.

Leeman limits the authority of command to parents, the state, and the church. Though the type of authority may be common, parents, the state, and the church each have different spheres of authority and permissible means of enforcement. For example, a local congregation may use exclusion as a means of spiritual discipline but not physical coercion. And the authority of parents transitions to counsel as children mature. Leeman carefully explains each aspect of authority, with emphasis on the limits of authority and the appropriate attitude for enforcing commands.

Husbands and pastors, though, are only given the authority of counsel. The authority of counsel “follows a gospel logic. . . . It doesn’t use force, but renounces force because doing so displays the beauty of whatever compels . . . new desires” (164). This is an important distinction in light of the real and potential abuses that occur when husbands and pastors take up the authority of command that isn’t theirs to wield. Pastors, for example, are given the authority to teach Scripture and oversee the congregation; they have no right to extend their authority where Scripture is silent.

Submission and Equality

God has placed us in a world where we are called to submit to governing authorities (Rom. 13:1), human institutions (1 Pet. 2:13), and the leaders of our churches (Heb. 13:17), among others. The weak tend to suffer most in a world that lacks suitable authority and where that authority is abused.

The world is a better place when authority is in place and is exercised within appropriate limits. There are fierce debates raging within churches, denominations, and our nation about these limits especially as they relate to the concept of equality.

“Equality” has largely positive connotations in our culture. But Leeman proposes that, just as there are good and bad versions of authority, there are good and bad versions of equality.

Bad equality “seeks to level all hierarchies because the self’s sense of the self is rooted in the self and can therefore tolerate few externally imposed limitations” (258). In contrast, good equality “delights in difference, trusting that every God-assigned distinction possesses purpose and contributes to the countless refractions of his glory” (259).

Differences can exist in authority because all serve God who holds all authorities accountable. Leeman’s arguments about equality challenge us to think about areas where we may be demanding sameness under the guise of justice. In some cases, we may be pushing back against God-ordained authority structures.

Simply by existing in this world, we have responsibilities to exercise authority and to submit to others. We don’t have the option to ignore the debates. Authority offers wisdom to navigate through them. In a world dominated by stories of abuse of authority, Leeman offers a reflective, balanced approach to a challenging topic. He helps show how distinctions between types of authority and the roles of those who have it are necessary to encourage flourishing relationships.