TEACHING

Daryl Wood

(Daryl is a fivefold teacher on the Kingdomquest apostolic team.)

DON’T DRINK THE KOOL AID!

(Part 1)

DON’T DRINK THE KOOL AID! Teaching Series - Read [Part 1] [Part 2] [Part 3] [Part 4] [Part 5] [Part 6 ]

I confess that proper relationships with authority figures have been points of perplexity and confusion for me for much of my life. Whether being on the receiving end of oppression and abuse, on occasion meting out the same, or still other times observing while others assumed the role of either victim or tyrant, gnawing and unresolved issues have lingered for me. It is only in the relatively recent past that I have had both the courage and the determination to press into God’s heart for answers that have provided me with any real measure of clarity and understanding. In fact, step one has been to seek His help in formulating the right questions.

It is my intention to pen a multi-part series on this topic. It seems appropriate to open with some of the resulting questions, allowing the reader to trace my stream of thought through the process. Since this is, for me, a project still very much under construction, I have no guarantee that all will be addressed at the conclusion of the series. I step forward into the light that is presently at my feet (Ps. 119:105). Here are the questions, along with a few more that were added by friends:

1. Is authority a function of title/position? Relational connection? Both? If both, which is greater?

2. Does God ever sanction the overthrow of existing governments, or authorities? (Eg., the Declaration of Independence in 1776, and the Civil War.) If yes, under what conditions?

3. Why did David say that he "refused to stretch out his hand against the Lord’s anointed" (1 (Sam. 24:6, 26:11) in reference to Saul, who had already been rejected from being king (1 Sam. 15:23)? Note that David declared this after being anointed king (1 Sam. 16:1-14).

4. Is submission to the constitution, or to laws of the land in our democratic society identical to submission to a king or governor? (See Rom. 13:1-4; 1 Peter 2:13.) If not, what are the differences?

5. Does the Lord require strict obedience to the speed limit postings? Are issues like this really matters of submission to Him? Why, or why not?

6. What does the proper exercise of church government look like? In contrast, what have we chosen for it to look like, and why?

7. If Jesus is truly the authority in one’s life, does he need any other authorities?

8. Are leadership and authority identical? If not, how are they different?

9. Does the role of authority in one’s life change as he grows and matures? If so, how?

An excellent starting point for exploration is the defining of terms. Vines Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words offers an assortment of definitions for "authority" (exousia). I extracted several that seemed relevant. Among them are the following:

The right to exercise power

The power of rule or government

The power of one whose will and commands must be obeyed by others

Liberty of action, freedom to act

Merriam-Webster’s dictionary adds a particularly thought-provoking alternative definition to the mix. While I did not find a parallel nuance in Vines, it seemed too good to overlook. It lists among several definitions of authority the . . . "power to influence or command thought, opinion, or behavior". I will return to this point directly.

As to authority vested in a title or position, this seems to be the more conventional consideration of the term. It is noteworthy that even wicked Caiaphas, who was high priest at the time of Jesus’ crucifixion, prophesied accurately of the necessity of His death for the salvation of the Jewish nation (Jn. 11:46-53). Notwithstanding his evil intention, Caiaphas paradoxically made a true statement. His judgment stemmed not from himself, but from God, who in one sense ruled and spoke through this appointed official.

Authority roles are most commonly viewed from this positional backdrop. The "title" gives one the authority to declare and command. Jesus recognized and seized upon this fact to drive home a point.

"You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave—just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many (Matt. 20:25-28)."

"The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those who exercise authority over them are called ‘benefactors’. But not so among you; on the contrary, he who is greatest among you, let him be as the younger, and he who governs as he who serves. For who is greater, he who sits at the table, or he who serves? Is it not he who sits at the table? Yet I am among you as the One who serves (Luke 22:25-27)."

Clearly, Gentile government is predicated on the powerful exploiting those under their charge through what they command. No one within that system expects any different treatment, because everyone accepts this as one of the perks or privileges of being at the top of the totem pole. Right? The lord is the benefactor.

Yet Christ came to usher in a new regime. Within His Kingdom, the LORD makes His subjects the benefactors. All who bear His Name and His authority do likewise! This is a complete role reversal from the operating rules dictated by the world system.

It also produces an entirely different motivation for obedience in the subjects. Those serving under Gentile government do so out of a fear of the consequences for disobedience, and perhaps some hope of reward from the king. Those who truly serve the Lord do so gladly and willingly, knowing that He always has their best interests in view in His every directive.

"You call Me Teacher and Lord, and you say well, for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have given you an example, that you should do as I have done to you (Jn. 13:13-15)."

Because He rules with love, and because He sets the example through His leadership, He wins the hearts of all within His Kingdom. In so doing, He also widens the scope and extends the depth of His authority. Instead of merely issuing commands that are to be externally obeyed by the hearer, He actually persuades them to "buy off" on the totality of His program. He has harnessed their obedience internally. This results in a greater authority.

The operation of this principle is evident in Paul’s ministry, as he tackled the matter of a slave named Onesimus, whom he had led to Christ. With great tact he wrote to Philemon—a dear friend, and also the owner of the runaway servant. While he could have "pulled rank" and dictated to Philemon what the Lord required of him in terms of love and forgiveness, he chose rather to appeal to him graciously.

"Therefore, though I might be very bold in Christ to command you what is fitting, yet for love’s sake I rather appeal to you . . . (Philemon 8, 9a)."

Being aged and imprisoned, Paul could have benefitted from Onesimus’ company. He also had a "right" to order Philemon to do what was proper. Based on their relationship, Philemon no doubt would have submitted. However, by exercising care not to use his apostleship to secure any personal advantage, Paul chose the high road. While the end of the story is not provided in the scriptures, it seems probable that Philemon joyfully cooperated without Paul playing the "heavy". If that is the case, everyone won. Paul’s graciousness, wisdom, and diplomacy inspired Philemon to be even more Christlike. Onesimus was forgiven, and abundantly blessed. All relationships between the three parties were strengthened in unity, peace, and love.

"I am sending him back. You therefore receive him, that is, my own heart, whom I wished to keep with me, that on your behalf he might minister to me in my chains for the gospel. But without your consent I wanted to do nothing, that your good deed might not be by compulsion, as it were, but voluntary (Philemon 12-14)."

"Having confidence in your obedience, I write to you, knowing that you will do even more than I say (Philemon 21)."

Closing with a sincere affirmation of his high regard for Philemon, the tonal emphasis in his communication was relational instead of authoritative.

Many probably recall the neurotic Deputy Barney Fife of the Andy Griffith Show. He had very limited authority, and that only because he wore a badge and carried that single bullet in his pocket. On the other hand Andy, who had considerable authority, was almost never seen with a gun. His influence spoke far louder than his office as sheriff or his law enforcement paraphernalia.

The power to influence is greater than the power to command. This is why many organizations, companies, churches, and families function under the direction of someone other than the designated authority. Leadership always implies authority, though those in charge from a positional standpoint are not always leaders.

Sometimes those who carry lofty titles and occupy positions of status in reality have very little authority. Prince Charles of England is a case in point. While he possesses considerable recognition, he is merely a figurehead. His power to command has been neutered by governmental restructuring. His power for positive influence has been eliminated through his life practices.

All this is not to say that positional authority is non-existent. It does, however, clarify its relative value. For example, those who are parents recognize that there are going to be times when the best answer is, "Because I said so." It is also true that if this is the sole, or even the frequent foundation from which a parent connects with his child, it is indicative of a serious lack in the development of mutual love and trust. The same holds for other authority relationships as well, though perhaps to a lesser extent.

Paul and others were commissioned with apostolic authority for the building up of the body of Christ (2 Cor. 10:8, 13:10). He, Titus, Timothy, etc. appointed elders for the furtherance of leadership within those churches that they established. At times this necessitated rebuking the insubordinate, the idle talkers, and the deceivers. In the absence of sufficient relational connection, and particularly with troublemakers, positional authority provides a certain leverage to enforce God’s rule within His house. It is essential that the mouths of subversive individuals be stopped, and that they not despise or "think around" God’s delegated authorities (Titus 1:10-16).

"Speak these things, exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no one despise you (Titus 2:15)."

Without the functional check provided by delegated authority within the church, the rebellion and disorder of a few would tear down the whole. The cancer would spread, and the result would be anarchy.

Delegated authority, however, carries its own inherent risks. The abuse of power, which translates into lording over the faith of others, is commonplace within the church. Its grave impact there is potentially even more insidious than in other realms of human authority, since it is performed "in the name of Jesus". Many times church members are all too ready to bow to over-lording from one whom they perceive to be a man of God.

"For you put up with it if one brings you into bondage, if one devours you, if one takes from you, if one exalts himself, if one strikes you on the face (2 Cor. 11:21)."

The false spiritual authorities who oppressed and took advantage of the church in Corinth were received. Ironically, it was Paul’s healthy exercise of spiritual authority that resulted in the Corinthians’ questioning, even challenging, his apostleship.

"Did I commit sin in abasing myself that you might be exalted, because I preached the gospel of God to you free of charge? . . . And when I was present with you, and in need, I was a burden to no one, for what was lacking to me the brethren who came from Macedonia supplied. And in everything I kept myself from being burdensome to you, and so I will keep myself (2 Cor. 11:7,9)."

He did so to draw contrast with, and thus expose, the motives of false apostles who operated selfishly for personal gain.

"Why? Because I do not love you? God knows! But what I do, I will also continue to do, that I may cut off the opportunity from those who desire an opportunity to be regarded just as we are in the things of which they boast. For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ (2 Cor. 11:11-13)."

"For I ought to have been commended by you; for in nothing was I behind the most eminent apostles, though I am nothing. Truly the signs of an apostle were accomplished among you with all perseverance, in signs and wonders and mighty deeds. For what is it in which you were inferior to other churches, except that I myself was not burdensome to you? Forgive me this wrong! Now for the third time I am ready to come to you. And I will not be burdensome to you; for I do not seek yours but you. For the children ought not to lay up for the parents, but the parents for the children. And I will very gladly spend and be spent for your souls; though the more abundantly I love you, the less I am loved (2 Cor. 12:11b-15)."

It is a well documented fact in social service circles that past victims of abuse are among the most vulnerable targets for molestation and other forms of exploitation. It is usually not an easy task when one attempts to assist these individuals in getting untangled from perverted co-dependencies. They may appreciate at some level that things are twisted, but familiarity causes it to "feel right". The victim therefore not only accepts, but even seeks out such mistreatment from others. In essence he becomes an "abuse magnet", as he continually forges relationships with others that further reinforce his terrifying previous experiences. This makes him easy prey for predators who have an instinctive eye for this particular weakness.

This set the stage for what happened on November 18, 1978. Most recall the Jonestown cult massacre in Guyana, where religious leader Jim Jones initiated what for many would be more accurately termed a mass suicide. Members of the People’s Temple drank a cyanide and sedative-laced grape drink which was a facsimile of Kool Aid. Like lemmings lining up and hurling themselves over a cliff, adults forced the poison down the throats of their children and infants before taking their own lives. It is astounding to think that more than 900 people would follow such a sinister scheme to their own demise. Yet in that fateful hour the power of "group think" prevailed under the charismatic but corrupt leadership of one man. This is but one of many such events that captures the destructive potential that is latent in abusive authoritarian relationships. It bodes as an admonishing example to all who claim Christ, that they might seek the Holy Spirit’s enlightenment regarding a healthy understanding of authority roles in family, in church, and in all other arenas of life.

. . . to be continued.

DON’T DRINK THE KOOL AID! Teaching Series - Read [Part 1] [Part 2] [Part 3] [Part 4] [Part 5] [Part 6 ]