What Has Happened to Authority?

THINKING people see the need for authority. Without some kind of authority structure, human society would quickly become chaotic. Hence, a classic French textbook on constitutional law states: “In any human group, two categories of people are to be found: those who command and those who obey, those who give orders and those who comply, leaders and members, the governors and the governed. . . . The existence of authority can be observed in any human society.”a

However, attitudes toward authority have changed since World War II and particularly since the 1960’s. Commenting on that period, the French Encyclopædia Universalis speaks of an “antihierarchy and antiauthority crisis.” Such a crisis is no surprise to students of the Bible. The apostle Paul foretold: “Remember, the final age of this world is to be a time of turmoil! People will love nothing but self and money; they will be boastful, arrogant, and abusive; disobedient to parents . . . ; they will be implacable in their hatreds, . . . uncontrolled and violent, . . . swollen with self-importance. They will love their pleasures more than their God.”​—2 Timothy 3:1-4, The Revised English Bible.

Authority in Crisis

This prophecy well describes our day and age. Authority is challenged at all levels​—family, public school, university, business enterprise, local and national government. The sexual revolution, hard-core rap music, student demonstrations, wildcat strikes, civil disobedience, and acts of terrorism are all signs of a breakdown in respect for authority.

At a symposium organized in Paris by the French Institute of Political Science and the Paris daily Le Monde, Professor Yves Mény stated: “Authority can exist only if it is backed up by legitimacy.” One reason for today’s crisis of authority is that many doubt the legitimacy of those in power. That is, they doubt their right to be in authority. A poll revealed that in the early 1980’s, 9 percent of the population in the United States, 10 percent in Australia, 24 percent in Britain, 26 percent in France, and 41 percent in India considered their government to be illegitimate.

Man’s Quest for Legitimate Authority

According to the Bible, man was originally under the direct authority of God. (Genesis 1:27, 28; 2:16, 17) However, very early on, humans claimed moral independence from their Creator. (Genesis 3:1-6) Having rejected theocracy, or God-rule, they had to find other systems of authority. (Ecclesiastes 8:9) Some asserted their authority by force. For them, might was right. It was sufficient that they were strong enough to enforce their will. Most, though, felt the need to legitimize their right to rule.

From earliest times many rulers did this by saying either that they were gods or that they had received power from the gods. This is the mythical concept of “sacred kingship,” claimed by early rulers of Mesopotamia and the Pharaohs of ancient Egypt.

Alexander the Great, the Hellenistic kings that succeeded him, and many of the Roman emperors also claimed to be gods and even demanded to be worshiped. Systems under such rulers were known as “ruler cults,” and their purpose was to consolidate the ruler’s authority over a mixture of conquered peoples. Refusal to worship the ruler was condemned as an act against the State. In The Legacy of Rome, Professor Ernest Barker wrote: “The deification of the [Roman] emperor, and the allegiance which he receives in virtue of his divinity, are obviously the foundation, or at any rate the cement, of the empire.”

This remained true even after “Christianity” was made legal by Emperor Constantine (ruled 306-337 C.E.) and later adopted as the State religion of the Roman Empire by Emperor Theodosius I (ruled 379-395 C.E.). Some of the “Christian” emperors were worshiped as gods until well into the fifth century C.E.

“Two Powers,” “Two Swords”

As the papacy became more powerful, problems between Church and State became acute. Hence, at the end of the fifth century C.E., Pope Gelasius I set forth the principle of the “two powers”: the sacred authority of the popes coexisting with the royal power of the kings​—with the kings subordinate to the popes. This principle later developed into the doctrine of the “two swords”: “The spiritual sword the popes wielded themselves, delegating the temporal sword to lay rulers, but the latter must nevertheless use the temporal sword according to papal directions.” (The New Encyclopædia Britannica) On the basis of this doctrine, during the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church claimed the right to crown emperors and kings so as to legitimize their authority, thus perpetuating the ancient myth of “sacred kingship.”

This should not, however, be confused with the so-called divine right of kings, a later development that was aimed at freeing political rulers from submission to the papacy. The divine-right theory holds that kings get their authority to rule directly from God, not through the pope of Rome. The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “At a time when the pope was exerting a universal spiritual and even temporal power over the heads of states, the idea of divine right put the kings of national states in a position to justify their authority as being equally divine with that of the pope.”b

The Myth of Popular Sovereignty

As time went on, men suggested other sources of authority. One was the sovereignty of the people. Many believe that this idea originated in Greece. Ancient Greek democracy, however, was practiced only in a few city-states, and even in these only male citizens voted. Women, slaves, and resident aliens​—estimated at half to four fifths of the population—​were left out. Hardly popular sovereignty!

Who promoted the idea of the sovereignty of the people? Surprisingly, it was introduced in the Middle Ages by Roman Catholic theologians. In the 13th century, Thomas Aquinas held that while sovereignty originates with God, it is vested in the people. This idea proved popular. The New Catholic Encyclopedia says: “This idea of the people as the source of authority was supported by the vast majority of the Catholic theologians of the 17th century.”

Why would theologians of a church in which the people had no voice at all in the choice of pope, bishop, or priest promote the idea of the sovereignty of the people? Because some European kings were increasingly restless under papal authority. The theory of popular sovereignty gave the pope the power to overthrow an emperor or monarch if it seemed necessary. Historians Will and Ariel Durant wrote: “The defenders of popular sovereignty included many Jesuits, who saw in this view a means of weakening royal as against papal authority. If, argued Cardinal Bellarmine, the authority of kings is derived from, and therefore subject to, the people, it is obviously subordinate to the authority of the popes . . . Luis Molina, a Spanish Jesuit, concluded that the people, as the source of secular authority, may justly​—but by orderly procedure—​depose an unjust king.”

The “orderly procedure” would, of course, be orchestrated by the pope. Confirming this, the French Catholic Histoire Universelle de l’Eglise Catholique quotes the Biographie universelle, which states: “Bellarmine . . . teaches as common Catholic doctrine that princes derive their power from the choice of the people, and that the people can exercise this right only under the influence of the pope.” (Italics ours.) Popular sovereignty thus became a tool that the pope could use to influence the choice of rulers and, if need be, have them deposed. In more recent times, it has allowed the Catholic hierarchy to influence Catholic voters in representative democracies.

In modern democracies the legitimacy of the government is based on what is called “consent of the governed.” At best, though, this is the “consent of the majority,” and because of voter apathy and political shenanigans, this “majority” is often in reality only a minority of the population. Today, “consent of the governed” often means little more than “acquiescence, or resignation, of the governed.”

The Myth of National Sovereignty

The myth of sacred kingship promoted by the early popes backfired on the papacy when it mutated into the divine right of kings. The theory of popular sovereignty similarly boomeranged on the Catholic Church. During the 17th and 18th centuries, secular philosophers, such as the Englishmen Thomas Hobbes and John Locke and the Frenchman Jean-Jacques Rousseau, reflected on the idea of popular sovereignty. They developed versions of the theory of a “social contract” between rulers and the ruled. Their principles were based not on theology but on “natural law,” and the concept culminated in ideas that seriously harmed the Catholic Church and the papacy.

Shortly after the death of Rousseau, the French Revolution broke out. This revolution destroyed certain ideas of legitimacy, but it created a new one, the idea of national sovereignty. The New Encyclopædia Britannica comments: “The French repudiated the divine right of kings, the ascendancy of the nobility, the privileges of the Roman Catholic Church.” But, says Britannica, “the Revolution had brought the new invention, the nation-state, to maturity.” The revolutionaries needed this new “invention.” Why?

Because under the system Rousseau had advocated, all citizens would have an equal say in the choice of rulers. This would have resulted in a democracy based on universal suffrage​—something the leaders of the French Revolution did not favor. Professor Duverger explains: “It was precisely to avoid this result, considered undesirable, that, from 1789 to 1791, the bourgeois of the Constituent Assembly invented the theory of national sovereignty. They identified the people with the ‘Nation,’ which they considered as a real entity, distinct from its component parts. The Nation alone, by means of its representatives, is entitled to wield sovereignty . . . Democratic in appearance, the doctrine of national sovereignty is not really democratic at all because it can be used to justify practically any form of government, autocracy in particular.” (Italics his.)

Human Efforts a Failure

Acceptance of the Nation-State as a legitimate source of authority led to nationalism. The New Encyclopædia Britannica states: “Nationalism is often thought to be very old; sometimes it is mistakenly regarded as a permanent factor in political behaviour. Actually, the American and French revolutions may be regarded as its first powerful manifestations.” Since those revolutions, nationalism has swept across the Americas, Europe, Africa, and Asia. Vicious wars have been legitimized in the name of nationalism.

British historian Arnold Toynbee wrote: “The spirit of Nationality is a sour ferment of the new wine of Democracy in the old bottles of Tribalism. . . . This strange compromise between Democracy and Tribalism has been far more potent in the practical politics of our modern Western World than Democracy itself.” Nationalism has not produced a peaceful world. Toynbee said: “The Wars of Religion have been followed, after the briefest respite, by the Wars of Nationality; and in our modern Western World the spirit of religious fanaticism and the spirit of national fanaticism are manifestly one and the same evil passion.”

By means of the myths of “sacred kingship,” “divine right of kings,” “popular sovereignty,” and “national sovereignty,” rulers have attempted to legitimize their authority over fellow humans. After considering the record of human rulers, however, a Christian cannot but share the thought expressed by Solomon: “Man has dominated man to his injury.”​—Ecclesiastes 8:9.

Rather than worship the political State, Christians worship God and recognize in him the legitimate source of all authority. They agree with the psalmist David who said: “Yours, Yahweh, is the greatness, the power, the splendour, length of days and glory, everything in heaven and on earth is yours. Yours is the sovereignty, Yahweh; you are exalted, supreme over all.” (1 Chronicles 29:11, The New Jerusalem Bible) Yet, out of deference to God, they show proper respect for authority in both the secular and the spiritual fields. Just how and why they can do this joyfully will be examined in the two articles that follow.

[Footnotes]

[Picture on page 15]

The Catholic Church claimed the authority to crown emperors and kings

[Credit Line]

Consecration of Charlemagne: Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris

The Christian View of Authority

“There is no authority except by God.”​—ROMANS 13:1.

1. To what is the word “authority” related, so why can it be said that Jehovah is the Supreme Authority?

AUTHORITY is linked to creatorship. The word “authority” is related to the word “author,” which means “one that originates, makes, or gives existence.” The Supreme One who gave existence to all creation, animate and inanimate, is Jehovah God. He is undeniably the Supreme Authority. True Christians share the feelings of the heavenly creatures who declare: “You are worthy, Jehovah, even our God, to receive the glory and the honor and the power, because you created all things, and because of your will they existed and were created.”​—Revelation 4:11.

2. How did early human rulers in a sense admit that they had no natural right to dominate their fellowmen, and what did Jesus tell Pontius Pilate?

² The mere fact that many of the earliest human rulers tried to legitimize their authority by claiming to be a god or to be the representative of a god was tacit recognition that no human has an inherent right to rule over other humans.a (Jeremiah 10:23) The only legitimate source of authority is Jehovah God. Christ told Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor of Judea: “You would have no authority at all against me unless it had been granted to you from above.”​—John 19:11.

“No Authority Except by God”

3. What did the apostle Paul state concerning “the superior authorities,” and what questions do Jesus and Paul’s statements raise?

³ The apostle Paul wrote to Christians living under the domination of the Roman Empire: “Let every soul be in subjection to the superior authorities, for there is no authority except by God; the existing authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God.” (Romans 13:1) What did Jesus mean when he stated that Pilate’s authority had been granted to him “from above”? And in what way did Paul consider that the political authorities of his day stood placed in their positions by God? Did they mean that Jehovah is personally responsible for the appointment of each individual political ruler of this world?

4. What did Jesus and Paul call Satan, and what claim by Satan did Jesus not deny?

⁴ How could this be so, since Jesus called Satan “the ruler of this world,” and the apostle Paul labeled him “the god of this system of things”? (John 12:31; 16:11; 2 Corinthians 4:4) Furthermore, when tempting Jesus, Satan offered him “authority” over “all the kingdoms of the inhabited earth,” claiming that this authority had been delivered to him. Jesus rejected his offer, but he did not deny that such authority was Satan’s to give.​—Luke 4:5-8.

5. (a) How are we to understand Jesus and Paul’s words about human authority? (b) In what sense do the superior authorities “stand placed in their relative positions by God”?

⁵ Jehovah delivered rulership over this world to Satan by allowing him to live after his rebellion and after he had tempted Adam and Eve and had caused them to rebel against His sovereignty. (Genesis 3:1-6; compare Exodus 9:15, 16.) Jesus and Paul’s words must, therefore, mean that after the first human pair in Eden rejected theocracy, or God-rule, Jehovah allowed estranged humans to create authority structures that would permit them to live in an orderly society. At times, in order to accomplish his purpose, Jehovah has caused certain rulers or governments to fall. (Daniel 2:19-21) Others he has allowed to remain in power. Of rulers whose existence Jehovah tolerates, it can be said that they “stand placed in their relative positions by God.”