Authority doesn't supplant personal responsibility

In a discussion at TitusOneNine last night, a commenter asked me, "... what authority is there in this matter? ... Do you submit to any authority?" I've had similar questions from scripturalists on other occasions.

The craving for authority

I don't fully understand the craving for authority that seems to prevail among some scripturalists. As one of my liberal commenter friends put it the other day (sorry, I can't remember who it was; Ross, maybe?), these "scrips" seem to think, in stark black-and-white terms, that:

• either we must have an authority that is eternally preeminent, in which we can be absolutely certain, and to which we owe all obedience;
• or (supposedly) we can't reliably know anything at all.

[These folks don't seem to believe you can provisionally know things, perhaps not with absolute certainty, but with enough confidence to warrant cautiously making our bets that way, and then we can learn from our mistakes to try to do better next time. For these people, it's almost as though we never have more than one shot to get it right; that life is a snapshot, not a movie.]

At the risk of making a sweeping generalization, I conjecture that this attitude may arise from —

• a conviction of utter human depravity;
• combined with fear of making a mistake;
• plus a shaky trust in God.

Some people seem so persuaded of the wretched unworthiness of humanity — including their own — that they lack the confidence to make moral judgments without the security blanket of what they deem "authority." I also strongly suspect there's an element of terror at work here as well: a fear that even an honest mistake will "provok[e] most justly Thy wrath and indignation against us ...."

[This, even though collectively we learn from our mistakes, albeit imperfectly, and over time, learning of various kinds has led to essentially all human progress.]

I daresay there may be a dollop of weak faith involved, too: a lack of real trust that, in the very long term, things are going to turn out unimaginably well.

Authority is for guidance, not for slavish obedience

It was still a thought-provoking question the commenter posed: Do I submit to any authority? 

My answer had to be yes, of course I do — but always subject to my personal, non-delegable duty (to God? to my fellow man? to conscience?) to make the best judgments I can about how to conduct my life. As my wife said once, God gave us brains, and presumably expects us to use them.

Maybe the best way to elaborate on this would be to discuss some hypothetical examples:

Circumstances may alter the worth of authority

Suppose the authority in question is a state statute that says drivers have to stop at red lights. Ordinarily, of course I'll submit to that authority.

But circumstances may alter the analysis. Years ago, my wife went into labor with our first child in the middle of the night. On the way to the hospital, I drove just a wee bit faster than the speed limit, and (carefully) jumped several red lights along the way. I had to make a decision: would it be be "better" to deal with the possible consequences of disobeying the law, or with the possible consequences of delay in getting to the hospital. I cautiously chose the former.

[Everything turned out fine at the hospital, by the way; in hindsight, I probably didn't need to drive fast nor to jump the lights. But that's in hindsight, which wasn't available to me at the time; I had to make the best decision I could, on the basis of the limited information I had. If I ever found myself in a similar situation, I might well do things in much the same way.]

Everyone makes mistakes sometimes — even authorities

If the authority were a doctor telling me he needed to amputate both my legs, I'd listen carefully, but I'd also want a second opinion, and in the end I'd make the decision myself. Doctors are human, and sometimes make mistakes. Unthinking obedience to their authority might end up crippling me for life, for no good reason.

Authority is a means to an end, not an end in itself

Suppose the authority were a harbor chart approved by the Coast Guard. Now suppose I knew the chart was slightly outdated because recent storms had altered the ship channel in a few places.

In that situation, I'd consult the chart in navigating the harbor, but I wouldn't slavishly follow it. No other mariner would ever fault me for this attitude; at the end of the day, what matters is whether I brought the ship safely into port, not whether I followed the charts sufficiently well. (See also "Submarines and Scripture: You Can't Always Trust Your Navigational Charts.")

Moral choices can't be delegated

Suppose the authority were the Gestapo in the Germany of, say, 1940, ordering me "in the name of the law" to reveal where Jews were hiding or be shot. I hope I'd have the courage to tell them where to stick their orders.

If I were to obey the Gestapo's orders, on grounds that German legal authority required me to do so, the war-crimes tribunal would not be interested in my defense that "I was only submitting to authority!"

We can't pass the buck for our personal responsibility

Perhaps it's the military subculture in which I was raised and came to adulthood: I happen to believe that each of us is ultimately responsible for our own actions, for doing the "best" we can with what we've got.

"Authority" is useful for guidance. In fact, in many situations, following authority may well be the the most responsible thing you can do. This will very often be the case with the authority of Scripture.

But authority or no authority, in the end it's you and I who are individually accountable — to each other, and quite possibly to God — for how we conduct our own lives.

Comments

[simon]

WHy did you say "quite possibly to God" in terms of accountability.

surely anyone who chooses to identify themselves as a christian would manage to accept that as inevitable?

Simon