The Authority Complex
I follow Dr. Jordan Peterson on Twitter/X. I admire him and his perspectives and occasionally I find he has something to say which is thought provoking to me. Dr Peterson tweeted a message some time ago, which interestingly coincided with a particular topic I had been thinking about at the time. Certainly I don’t imagine that he would have noticed my response, and if he had, perhaps it wouldn’t have been that compelling to him. Never the less I responded:
I’m not a well read, articulate, well educated man like Dr. Peterson so it’s not easy for me to explain the meaning of my response concisely, as it is no small matter. The disputes and fractious state of Christendom is a situation that has developed over millennia, and also one that spills over into the Jewish traditions (Pharisees, Sadducees, Zealots, Essenes, etc.). If one is to take their faith seriously there is a consequence, an ultimate effect of living out or putting that faith into action. There is a significance to adopting a faith which I’m sure many can appreciate no matter the state of their own faith. It is about adopting a worldview, an acknowledgement of eternal accountability, a commitment to righting one’s self and orienting one’s self toward a concept of truth, duty, purpose, meaning and responsibility, which culminates in action; it is a determination of how one will choose to live their life, and to what “truth” one will adhere. It becomes something you are, as Dr. Peterson suggested. So deciding which faction to put our trust in, which group represents the truth, has a magnitude that cannot be overstated. Furthermore, each group claims the other is heretical, and engaged in a deception that can jeopardize our soul. This, much like many questions in life is ultimately a matter of, as I stated in my reply: “to whom do you attribute authority.”
While I appreciate much of what the good Doctor has to say, I don’t always agree with his views. The matter of “Sola Scriptura” which I believe Dr. Peterson has addressed——suggesting that this doctrine is the cause of the fractures in the church——is one instance where I might disagree with him. This is a doctrine of authority not one of autonomy or the ability for each of us to establish our own doctrines or interpretations per se, but a matter of authority specifically. Indeed all factions, all disputes, and all denominations exist as a result of differences of opinion, not arising broadly from interpretational disputes or doctrinal disputes while those things do exist, but rather disputes over authority. More specifically these are disputes about to what degree we are to grant divine authority to men and the traditions of men. Certainly he is not wrong that Protestants argue for the perspicuity of Scripture, that it can be understood, but this is not the intent of the principle of “Sola Scriptura”. Protestants developed this view when confronted with the Roman Catholic assertion of their leadership having complete and infallible authority over the salvation of each individual, which culminated in the practice of selling indulgences. They also forcefully prohibited the layman from possessing, translating, or even reading the text for themselves throughout history until the reformation and the printing press took this control out of their hands. It is precisely those who have read the text for themselves that were and are the most ardent opponents of these claims to authority.
In the past few years I have been making an attempt to write, something I find to be quite daunting. My first venture was to write an article (or blog) about why mankind needs governance and laws, specifically ‘Why do we need the Ten?’, I’m sure some conversation of Dr Peterson’s led me to do this. This has in turn led me to attempt to write a book——which I’ve spent thousands more hours editing than actually writing and have yet to complete——a layman’s investigation of the Ten Commandments. What’s interesting to discover is how each faction has a distinct numbering or organization of these Laws, and considering how that organization leads to their views or perhaps how their views, lead to that organization. I would contend that each group which asserts a certain divine authority belongs to them, has an interesting habit of obfuscating what Protestants would call the Second Commandment:
“You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath, or in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them nor serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, inflicting the punishment of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing favor to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.”
~ Exodus 20:4-6 NASB
I wouldn’t claim that this obfuscation is entirely malicious or carefully regulated, there’s a lot of text if one were to memorize the Commandments and certainly they are simplified in any tradition to some degree for the sake of brevity. I’m making an effort to avoid accusations and rather attempting to make observations, but the litmus test for which faction claims that someone other than God Himself has divine and infallible authority seems to always coincide with this missing Commandment in my estimation (if not missing then absorbed into the first, and therefore not taught or recited).
My ultimate conclusion in investigating the First Commandment for my book (using the Protestant numbering of course) is that it is a claim to authority, the Second (as given above) a prohibition on the attribution of God’s authority to anything other than God. I’ve written likely 50 pages about these two Commandments alone so of course there’s far more to the story, and as Dr. Peterson has observed a seemingly infinite depth to this text. But this question of authority clearly seems to be an important part of the message, and the Commandment that follows being an admonition mostly directed toward those who proclaim authority using God’s Name.
I would not claim, nor do Protestants generally claim, that men or traditions cannot have authority or be authoritative. There are a great many men like Dr Peterson with wisdom to share, teachers and learned men with much to offer; and traditions long established also holding great wisdom as the doctor has attested to in many of his discussions. Protestants do not reject these things, they simply distinguish the authority of that which is earthly from that which is divine, or rather which claims of divine infallibility to accept. The claims, as I understand them, roughly look like this:
- Catholicism: The “Magisterium”, Tradition, and Scripture have infallible authority
- Orthodoxy: Their body of leadership (rejecting the Papacy), Tradition, and Scripture have infallible authority
- Protestantism: Scripture alone has infallible authority——“Sola Scriptura”
When making this ultimate decision of whom to trust, whose authority to recognize, I think it’s worthwhile to consider the question: How is authority legitimately obtained? and Who’s authority is legitimate?, before answering the question: to whom will I attribute authority? I will go out on a limb and make my own claim: Authority is not had simply by claiming it.
Considering this question has led me to attempt to write yet another article, or book perhaps if I ramble on too long as I am now. This was something I was working on at the time I responded to Dr. Peterson’s tweet. In my estimation:
- Authority is either bestowed by something or someone of greater authority, or:
- Authority is ceded to someone by the act of submission
Of course one might suggest that evidence can also be given to obtain authority, but I would say this coincides with both, evidence being authoritative in it’s own right, as well as being the impetus to submit. God Himself seems to establish a precedent in Exodus 20:2, that claims of authority should be substantiated. This verse is a proclamation of Godhood, of ultimate authority, given on the basis of an evidence from action: the ten plagues of Egypt, the emancipation of Israel from slavery, and the parting of the Red Sea; all of the events culminating in the giving of these Laws. God provides evidence and substantiates His claim, before giving and requiring an adherence to His Decrees. This is also a pattern repeated throughout the Scriptures, God has seemingly no fear of our questions, and no anxiety about substantiating His position as God. Consider the assurances and signs God gives to Moses from the burning bush so that Pharaoh would believe him: turning his staff into a snake, and withering and cleansing his hand (Exodus 4), or perhaps Elijah’s challenge to the Israelites to provide proof of who is God (1 Kings 18:20-39).
Moses of course has the interesting claim to authority which includes both of my proposed mechanisms. In the text we read that God granted to Moses the authority to speak to Pharaoh, to perform signs and wonders, and to lead the people of Israel to Sinai, but God did not grant him the authority to convey His Law to the people. God Himself speaks these Commandments (Exodus 20:1) to the nation, who then for fear of death, ceded authority to Moses to convey God’s Word to them (Exodus 20:19). We also find that when Moses steps outside the bounds of this granted authority, he is corrected by God and held accountable and was forbidden from entering the “Promised Land” (Deuteronomy 1:37). Even with a credible, and a divinely granted authority, Moses is not infallible. We find a similar passage regarding Peter in Matthew 16:23 where he is rebuked by Jesus, something often not included in the papal claims arising from the Catholic interpretation of the preceding verses.
The fact that God Himself speaks directly to the people, might give support to the notion of the perspicuity of Scripture, but there are many other passages which tell us the same:
if you obey the Lord your God, to keep His commandments and His statutes which are written in this Book of the Law, if you turn to the Lord your God with all your heart and soul.“For this commandment which I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it far away. It is not in heaven, that you could say, ‘Who will go up to heaven for us and get it for us, and proclaim it to us, so that we may follow it?’ Nor is it beyond the sea, that you could say, ‘Who will cross the sea for us and get it for us and proclaim it to us, so that we may follow it?’ On the contrary, the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may follow it.
~ Deuteronomy 20:10-14 NASB
The unfolding of Your words gives light; It gives understanding to the simple.
~ Psalms 119:130 NASB
At that time Jesus said, “I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent, and have revealed them to infants.”
~ Matthew 11:25 NASB
In each claim to authority by these factions of Christianity, the source of this authority is said to be Scripture itself. According to my understanding, this places Scripture as the higher authority, and seemingly suggests that the doctrine of “Sola Scriptura” is very near the mark. It certainly would be sensible in order for us to make an informed decision, for us to use discernment, how can we be discerning without a certain degree of clarity in Scripture? At the very least, whenever someone claims that Scripture grants them authority over us, we should be able to find and confirm their claim in the text. If someone claims interpretive authority over Scripture, yet verifying that claim depends on simply accepting their interpretation of it…well, that could certainly be described as circular reasoning. We also find many passages, which I am boldly interpreting for myself, that call us to test what we are told, and to use caution when others claim divine authority, that there are those who may seek to deceive us.
but examine everything; hold firmly to that which is good, abstain from every form of evil.
~ 1 Thessalonians 5:21-22 NASB
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
~ Matthew 7:15 NASB
And if you say in your heart, ‘How will we recognize the word which the Lord has not spoken?’ When the prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, and the thing does not happen or come true, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you are not to be afraid of him.
~ Deuteronomy 18:21-22 NASB
If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder comes true, of which he spoke to you, saying, ‘Let’s follow other gods (whom you have not known) and let’s serve them,’ you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer of dreams for the Lord your God is testing you to find out whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.
~ Deuteronomy 13:1-3 NASB
I am of course not a scholar, not a religious leader, not a wise or learned man, so my understanding of Scripture and these passages may be flawed, but I don’t see it as unreasonable to expect those who claim infallible authority over my salvation to provide some support for their claim before I am willing to submit myself to them. How do I verify claims of authority derived from Scripture if I am not to seek for myself confirmation in Scripture? Tradition is a bit more tricky, tradition is established generally by men in positions of authority. There is often great wisdom to be found in traditions, but what if that tradition is founded on a lie? So for me, and I suggest a start for all of us if we choose to pursue this line of thinking, there is an investigation necessary to answer these questions. The most simple way to solve our dilemma, would be to examine the passages that grant this “authority” as well as their context, and the surrounding narrative or any supporting passages. If they pass the test, then so be it, if not…what do we do now? If we cannot allow ourselves the latitude to read and interpret these passages, because we’re told that laymen are not permitted to interpret the text, how can we substantiate those claims? This is a dead end. The claim isn’t simply a claim of authority, it is one of divine infallibility. It’s quite a claim to make, and quite a claim to accept. A claim one might think could be threatened by considering carefully the full text of what Protestants call first three Commandments (Exodus 20:2-7). If we begin with the premise that Scripture is authoritative for Christendom, which no group disputes, if we acknowledge that Scripture is the source of their alleged authority as they themselves attest to, then I’m not sure there’s much choice but to interpret the text ourselves as best we are able.
Of course we can rely on wise, learned and authoritative men, and their traditions…but when they compete and dispute over foundational and consequential things, like the means of securing our eternal salvation, how else are we to discern the truth? In my estimation, and by my own fallible interpretations, their claims to authority are suspect——they either require such an acrobatic interpretation of the text and a reliance on some far reaching connection made between many disparate and out of context passages, or selectively reading scripture while ignoring the inconvenient parts, or a dependence on accepting only those approved traditions which confirm their authority, and ignoring those that don’t——so I have been left with no choice but to reject them. If any of these groups hold the truth (and I suggest there should be no fear in examining and verifying the truth if you’re on it’s side) then why such a strong history of actively limiting the availability of the text to the layman, and such a history of questionable behavior like martyring those who dissent? Are we not known by our fruits? These men literally claim to be seated in the chair of Peter, an odd assertion to make considering the text in Matthew chapter 23 that they use to substantiate this claim.
It may also be worthy to note, my practice so far of offering passages in Scripture to support my statements, this is a practice which is uniquely Protestant. The others seem to rely more heavily on their own writings, the traditions of men “of authority” and their own dubious interpretations of the text.
0 Leave a Comment