Authoritarianism I. Prayer II. Introduction A. A poll question to illustrate our purposes for today: please consider the following pairs of qualities which you would desire children in modern society to have, and choose which of the two you think are more important for healthy functioning in life 1. Independence or respect for elders? 2. Obedience or self-reliance? 3. Considerate or well-behaved? B. Please do not over-think it, but go with your initial gut impulse; please write down which attributes you think are more important C. What do you think about these comparisons and contrasts? D. For some people, respect for elders, obedience, and being well-behaved are more important: they think children do well to understand their place in society, and conforming to social norms is important to them E. For other people, independence, self-reliance, and being considerate are more important: they think the child's self-sufficiency and independence are of the greater importance, and social norms not as important F. For many others, the choices seem unfair: they see equal value in independence, respect for elders, obedience, self-reliance, being considerate, and being well-behaved, envisioning all of these attributes being held in balance, upholding social norms of value but able to go their own way when necessary G. You have just answered the same question as given since 1992 in the National Election Survey, and believe it or not, but your answers to these questions are the most compelling predictor of support for political parties and politicians than any other consideration! H. How can a question regarding characteristics in children explain political preferences, and what would that have to do with life in the faith? III. Authoritarianism and Nonauthoritarianism A. The contrasting elements of the question regarding qualities in children suggest what is either called "authoritarian" or "nonauthoritarian" personalities 1. Those who would favor respect for elders, obedience, and being well-behaved are reckoned as more "authoritarian" in personality (Hetherington and Weiler, Authoritarianism and Polarization in American Politics, 2009, for all definitions and data points) 2. Those who would favor independence, self-reliance, and being considerate are reckoned as more "nonauthoritarian" in personality B. The terms are challenging, the binary sometimes less than helpful, but the core concepts are very much present and have significant bearing on politics and life in faith 1. The "authoritarian" personality type has been the focus ever since Karen Stenner's analysis in 2003 put it on the political map; "nonauthoritarians" and the importance of their behavior patterns is addressed in Hetherington and Weiler 2009, but even then in contrast with "authoritarians" 2. The study had begun in the days after World War II in an attempt to understand how people were prompted to follow the authoritarian fascist and communist regimes of the day (hence the term "authoritarians"); it did not prove very predictive of anything in American culture until more recently 3. No one is happy with the term "authoritarian," since it does have a lot of negative connotations; unfortunately, no other term or pair of terms have yet been found which proves any better C. Working definition of "authoritarian": a tendency to submit to authority with a strong emphasis on social conformity 1. "Authoritarians" tend to see things more in black and white: they value simplicity, and find complexity and "gray" as uncomfortable and/or intolerable 2. They value social cohesion and "sameness," and are easily primed toward intolerance and/or hostility toward those who are "the other" 3. They prize uniformity and want to suppress differences 4. Such is why they value respect for elders, obedience, and being well-behaved for children: these qualities privilege social conformity 5. To this end they are very open to those politicians who would uphold and maintain cultural mores, exalt what is held in common, and be willing to punish difference; they are also open to strongmen; they can take or leave (small d) democratic norms, especially if the situation is seen as dangerous enough that it would overthrow the status quo D. Working definition of "nonauthoritarian": a tendency to value personal autonomy and an aversion to prejudicial thinking with a strong emphasis on fairness for social out-groups 1. "Nonauthoritarians" prove more comfortable with the "gray": they recognize the complexities of life and prove skeptical about simplicity and black and white thinking 2. "Nonauthoritarians" put a lot of emphasis on thinking: they do a lot of it, and try to get information from different sources, and are willing to pursue the best idea, or the accurate information, even if it is detrimental to social cohesion or the status quo 3. They prize fairness and diversity and abhor ethnocentric and prejudicial thinking 4. Such is why they value independence, self-reliance, and being considerate for children: these qualities privilege personal liberty and strength and fair treatment of all 5. To this end they are very open to politicians who emphasize the common good, fairness and inclusion of out-groups, recognize the complexity of the world, seek diplomacy over war, and who will pursue what is good, right, and true even if it is not in alignment with partisan leanings; they very much value (small d) democratic norms E. Authoritarianism is on a spectrum; while there are some people who are extremely nonauthoritarian or authoritarian, most are somewhere in-between F. Some other matters are important for our consideration 1. Hetherington and Weiler explain modern political and cultural polarization in terms of the divergence of nonauthoritarians from authoritarians: authoritarians as generally remaining constant in their views, but issues will become polarized when nonauthoritarians consider a group to no longer be a threat (recent examples include civil rights, gay rights, post-9/11 wars and legislation) 2. There is some disagreement in sociology about authoritarianism and threat activation: Stenner is convinced that authoritarianism is often latent until "activated" by a threat to social cohesion; Hetherington and Weiler see authoritarians as consistent in their preferences, but note that the real movement is among the nonauthoritarians, whose preferences become indistinguishable from authoritarians when they feel sufficiently threatened 3. While there is likely some level of truth to the "threat activation" of authoritarians, that they may not consider a given group to be a threat until they are prompted to on account of events or fearmongering, the evidence seems stronger for Hetherington and Weiler's position 4. Thus, one's position on the "authoritarian" spectrum is not fixed; if the threat is sufficient, "nonauthoritarians" become as "authoritarians"! G. As could be expected, in the partisan sorting of the past 50 or so years, those who tend toward authoritarianism have drifted toward the Republican party, which has in turn begun to reflect a more authoritarian posture; those who tend toward nonauthoritarianism have drifted to the Democratic party, which also generally maintains a nonauthoritarian posture, unless it feels threatened H. Such is why it seems as if there are two different nations, two different groups of people with very different ideas and who struggle to find common ground I. But what does all of this have to do with life in faith? IV. Authoritarianism and Nonauthoritarianism in the Faith A. The contrast between authoritarianism and nonauthoritarianism is not just a matter of politics and society; it has bearing on the life in faith and life together in Christ B. Authoritarianism goes a long way to describe many of the tendencies of many among the people of God, past and present 1. Authoritarianism is highly correlated to a view of Biblical inerrancy (Pearson .43) 2. White Evangelicals are significantly more authoritarian than any other religious group (mean score of .709; 0=nonauthoritarian, 1=authoritarian) 3. Yet we would not need these statistical forms of evidence to perceive this; we can see it in a lot of the way things get framed and discussed 4. As those who emphasize submission to authority, the authoritarian personalities will gravitate to emphases on submission to Jesus, seeking authority for all behaviors, and center matters of authority in argumentation and discussion; the primary answer to questions is going to involve "God commanded it" (cf. Ephesians 5:22-33, Colossians 3:17) 5. As those who emphasize obedience, the authoritarian personalities will emphasize the need to obey God in Christ, to follow the rules God has established in Christ, and center obedience in faith, argumentation, and discussion: in its extreme form, it becomes legalism and works-based salvation, but even in milder forms it centers the Christian and what he or she is doing relative to obedience over almost everything else (cf. Romans 1:5, 6:14-23) 6. As those who emphasize social cohesion, sameness, and adherence to social norms, the authoritarian personalities might compromise with culture in ways related to social cohesion and norms, but more likely will insist on particular ways of doing things in the assembly and express great discomfort with any kind of change with how anything is done in the assembly, making much of 1 Corinthians 14:40: those who expect a certain level of attire, a certain order of assembly, etc., and who will find comfort in homogeneity 7. As those who emphasize black and white thinking and value simplicity, the authoritarian personalities appreciate, and often insist upon, fundamental and "simple" preaching, and look skeptically on anything that provides nuance, shades of gray, or which to them might lead to unnecessary complications and difficulties 8. As those who are willing to punish difference and will support a strongman, the authoritarian personalities have often centered disputes and arguments with those in the world and in denominations, and have often served as "brotherhood watchmen," willing at the drop of the hat to "write up" anyone who was understood to preach something outside of what was deemed the consensus view in the church; for years churches of Christ cultivated the "fighting style," with many pugnacious and acerbic preachers who would call out error, gain great reputations in the process, and carried on 9. We can see the influence of authoritarianism in the emphasis on obedience and relative neglect of grace, the inability of many to process what Paul is trying to accomplish in Romans 14:1-23, the tendency towards ecumenical sectarianism, and the struggle to work effectively with those who have broken the rules C. Yet there can also be nonauthoritarians in the church, and their tendencies also influence congregational attitudes, environments, and cultures 1. As those who value personal autonomy, the nonauthoritarian personalities rank personal conscience very highly, and bristle whenever the individual is being suppressed on account of the whole, for better or for worse (cf. Romans 14:1-23) 2. As those who value cognition and prove wary of prejudicial thinking, the nonauthoritarian personalities think about everything: they might try to be as circumspect as they can, but they can easily think themselves out of faith, or think themselves into missing the forest for the trees, or just think to the exclusion of doing much else (1 Corinthians 8:1, James 2:14-26, 1 John 3:17-18) 3. As those who can appreciate "gray matters" and complexity, the nonauthoritarian personalities are more comfortable with nuances, unanswered questions, textual difficulties and challenges, and can dig into them with zest and zeal; yet they may struggle with communicating the Gospel and handicap their efforts because they resist simplicity in communication, and cause consternation for those who are not edified by exploring the difficulties (1 Corinthians 1:18-2:15) 4. As those who prize fairness and "the other," the nonauthoritarian personalities fret over the treatment of others and wish to find ways to lift them up; this can be done consistently with the Gospel mandate of Matthew 25:31-46, but may at times lead to an attempt to get away from applying church discipline or to be willing to fully condemn sin (cf. Romans 1:18-32, 1 Corinthians 5:1-13) 5. As those who value autonomy, independence, and the value of the individual, nonauthoritarian personalities are on the lookout for tyranny or oppression but may easily fall into relativism or a lack of appreciation for the collective and the imperative toward interdependent joint participation as fellow members of the body of Christ in God (John 17:20-23, 1 Corinthians 12:12-28) 6. The emphasis on the individual in the church might well stem from nonauthoritarian tendencies; the influence of nonauthoritarianism can be seen in attempts to mitigate some of the excesses of authoritarianism, but on their own can manifest themselves as challenges, for better or for worse: challenging traditions that might not always be profitable, or challenging misunderstandings in doctrine and faith, but also challenging well-established doctrines or practices, challenging the standing of Scripture, challenging the truth of the faith, etc. D. Thus we can see that authoritarian and nonauthoritarian personalities, tendencies, emphases, and postures are at work among the Lord's people; what should we say about these things? V. Authoritarianism, Nonauthoritarianism, and Life in Faith A. Frank admission: there is much that is challenging about the discussion of authoritarianism and nonauthoritarianism 1. The Bible does not explicitly talk about any such ideology or posture; the framework has been developed in sociology as a means of understanding mentalities and divisions among groups of people 2. Even if no better term has yet been established, "authoritarianism" is highly prejudicial: who wants to be known as an authoritarian? 3. It does not help that for those who investigate and write about authoritarianism, authoritarians are "the other": most of those who are going to study the subject are going to be more on the nonauthoritarian side of the spectrum, and it would not be hard to go from an attempt to merely "explain" to an attempt to marginalize or suppress 4. A lot of questions are still begged: we can see authoritarianism or nonauthoritarianism displayed, but from whence comes these distinctions? From birth? Family culture? Culture in general? Experiences? How fluid are the categories? Do we change in our levels of authoritarianism or nonauthoritarianism over time, and if so, by what influences? And many others! 5. Furthermore, if we take authoritarianism and nonauthoritarianism as binaries, we are going to be misdirected: few, if any, are purely one or the other; most all of us will see some authoritarian and nonauthoritarian tendencies B. And yet the explanatory power of more authoritarian tendencies vs. more nonauthoritarian tendencies, not just in the political/social/cultural realm, but all the more in the spiritual realm, means it is profitable for us to consider C. We must not pathologize either authoritarianism or nonauthoritarianism 1. We have explored the differences between the authoritarian and nonauthoritarian posture 2. In the current climate of the Western world, nonauthoritarians have done well for themselves and are prominently placed in social and cultural authorities; authoritarians have been doing better in the political realm as of late, but their hold on power is tenuous compared to previous days 3. It is therefore in the worldly nature of the nonauthoritarians to hold authoritarians in contempt; it is in the worldly nature of the authoritarians to condemn and suppress nonauthoritarians 4. Right now, authoritarians tend to feel maligned and held in contempt by society; they can feel more at home in their churches, and can easily value and appreciate diatribes against not just nonauthoritarian excesses, but nonauthoritarian postures in general! 5. Nonauthoritarians these days tend to feel more at home in society, where they can generally find groups who share similar frameworks of thought; they often feel that church is more hostile ground, and have often felt pushed or driven out by the authoritarian posture maintained among many churches 6. While we expect this kind of behavior in the world, in which difference is often and easily weaponized, it must not be so among the Lord's people (Matthew 20:25-28, Ephesians 2:1-18)! 7. The main challenge is that the differences between authoritarianism and nonauthoritarianism are being pathologized by the other when we ought to recognize that we need both authoritarians and nonauthoritarians in the Body of Christ! D. Authoritarianism is not without its strengths which will be necessary for the church to endure 1. God has called upon all people to submit to the Lordship of Jesus and to live under authority (Matthew 28:18-20, Romans 13:1-7, Hebrews 13:17); this needs to be proclaimed 2. God has called us to obedience in faith (Romans 1:5, 6:14-23, 2 Thessalonians 1:6-9); we must encourage and exhort to this end 3. There are false teachers out there, and false gospels cannot save (Galatians 1:6-9, 1 Timothy 6:1-10, 2 Peter 2:1-22, Jude 1:3-21); warnings about error and exhortation to maintain the shared faith are needed (2 Timothy 4:1-4, Jude 1:3) 4. Jesus found ways to communicate the truth of the Kingdom of God in simple ways (e.g. Matthew 13:1-44); simplicity in communication is a virtue 5. God's purpose in Christ is to reconcile everyone into one man in Jesus; the vision of life in faith is collective, not individualist, and joint participation in the Kingdom is essential (John 17:20-23, Ephesians 2:1-3:12) 6. Those who are more authoritarian in temperament will more naturally gravitate to these truths and emphasize them, and this need not be a bad thing! E. Yet the strengths of nonauthoritarianism are just as necessary for life in faith 1. None of us can earn salvation; none will be saved because of their merit, but only through the grace and mercy God has displayed in Christ (Romans 3:20-27, Ephesians 2:1-10); our obedience and submission is imperfect, and we need to remember this 2. While Christians are to prioritize one another (Romans 12:10, Galatians 6:10), we must remember that God would have everyone come to a knowledge of the truth, and we are to prove to be neighbors to everyone with whom we come into contact (Luke 10:25-37, 1 Timothy 2:4): Jesus in many ways privileges the other and the marginalized, and a faith which does not seek the good of the other is not pleasing before God (Matthew 25:31-46) 3. Upholding the truth is one thing; equating the traditions of men with the truth and insisting on both is a danger Jesus warns about in Matthew 15:1-9, and this also needs to be preached 4. Not everything is simple; complexity and nuance can help us both in navigating the challenges of life in the faith and in communicating and relating with those within and without the body of Christ (Colossians 4:9) F. We do well to understand where we are on the authoritarian - nonauthoritarian spectrum, be aware of our strengths, and be aware of our blind spots, and be willing to accept the critique of the other as we critique the other so that we may not become imbalanced in the faith G. To this end nonauthoritarians have some awkward and challenging questions for authoritarians to consider 1. Is it the Lord Jesus Christ whom you serve, or a vestige of civic religion? 2. Where is there space for grace and mercy in your emphasis on obedience? 3. Is there any room in the congregation for people who do not look like you, do not share your experiences, and do not have any desire to become conformed to your particular culture? 4. When does "decently and in order" stop being about Scripture and start being about personal or shared cultural norms and customs (1 Corinthians 14:40)? 5. Can you perceive that insistence on certain shared cultural norms can easily alienate those who do not share them to the detriment of shared life in faith? 6. Is there not more to maintaining faith in Christ than emphasizing how wrong everyone else is? 7. Are there not plenty of matters in faith and practice which resist overly simplistic answers, in which more harm is done than good when nuance and complexity are denied or degraded? 8. Can the temperament and posture of the strongman really glorify God? Was the "fighting style" really healthy or productive for the people of God? Can championing any strongman reflect well on our faith in Jesus? 9. Are you willing to see the limitations and challenges in the posture which comes naturally to you and how you can overemphasize order, obedience, simplicity, uniformity, conformity, and cohesion? 10. Will you interrogate your impulse toward threat activation? Should you fear all the things you fear? Can you handle complexity and discomfort so as to glorify God? Can you see how fear can blind you, leading to overemphasis on what is of lesser importance, and neglect of a common shared humanity? H. Likewise, authoritarians have some awkward and challenging questions for nonauthoritarians to consider 1. Is it the Lord Jesus Christ whom you serve, or an avatar of yourself? 2. In emphasis on grace and mercy, is it not possible for us to excuse a lack of diligence in faith? 3. To what end is all the thinking and questioning? Might you not think yourself out of the faith? Could you not "restudy" us out of what is good, right, and holy? 4. Does everything have to be complicated? Do you not sometimes miss the forest for the trees? 5. Should we not have expectations and standards for conduct in the faith? 6. At what point do you confuse "personal preferences" with Biblical truths and mandates, and end up questioning and challenging what ought to be held in faith? 7. If we do not share in a common faith with common customs, how can we maintain group identity as the body of Christ? At what point must the individual sublimate his or her preferences to the benefit of the whole? 8. If we never call out error for what it is, will not some among us be more easily deceived? If we maintain no boundaries, have we not lost our distinctiveness? 9. Who gets to decide what is fair or not? Are you not liable to become prejudiced against people like you in your quest to welcome people unlike you? 10. Are you willing to see the limitations and challenges in the posture which comes naturally to you and how you can overemphasize thought, fairness, intolerant of "intolerance," independence, and autonomy? 11. Are you also willing to interrogate when you abandon the nonauthoritarian posture and align with authoritarians, i.e. what threats are sufficient for you to abandon your posture, for better or for worse, and how can you strive to avoid abandoning healthy principles in a rush of fear? I. Thus one side is not intrinsically right or wrong; each has its strengths and weaknesses, and each proves necessary VI. Conclusion A. We have explored authoritarianism and nonauthoritarianism B. We have seen the distinctions between authoritarianism and nonauthoritarianism, and can understand why each looks at the other with hostility and suspicion C. Among the Lord's people we need both authoritarian and nonauthoritarian postures, and for them to work in balance and to serve as a check on each other D. An overly authoritarian church will be cold and harsh to outsiders, liable to legalism, overemphasizing obedience, rightness of the in-group, and errors of out-groups E. An overly nonauthoritarian church might seem welcoming, but may not stand for much, will overthink things, revel in complexity without any coherent way forward, and manifest relativism F. God is neither pure authoritarian nor non-authoritarian; few humans prove purely authoritarian or non-authoritarian G. The people of God must balance authoritarian and nonauthoritarian tendencies: both have strengths which benefit the whole, and both need to be reminded of the dangers of their emphasis H. May we seek to glorify God in Christ in all things, whether more or less authoritarian or nonauthoritarian, and obtain the resurrection of life! I. Invitation Scripture, Meditation, and Application 1: And whatsoever ye do, in word or in deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him (Colossians 3:17). Authority exists; God has authority and gives authority to whom He will. Christians ought to do all things by Jesus' authority. Authority can be good and healthy. Some people naturally gravitate to authority, order, and maintenance of social homogeneity and norms. They are often deemed "authoritarian." Authoritarians can glorify God in their lives and faith as long as they remember their deficiencies and limitations. May we all seek to accomplish God's will in Christ and be saved! 2: One only is the lawgiver and judge, even he who is able to save and to destroy: but who art thou that judgest thy neighbor? (James 4:12). While some people gravitate toward authority, order, and social norms, others gravitate more toward individual freedom and autonomy and concern for the other. Such people also recognize complexity and nuance and look suspiciously on prejudice in social norms. They are often deemed "nonauthoritarian." Nonauthoritarians can glorify God in their lives and faith as long as they remember their challenges and temptations. May we all trust ourselves unto our Creator while doing good! 3: But Jesus called them unto him, and said, "Ye know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. Not so shall it be among you: but whosoever would become great among you shall be your minister" (Matthew 20:25-26). In the Western world today it is the difference between authoritarians and nonauthoritarians which is emphasized, and rarely for good reasons. Nonauthoritarians easily hold authoritarians in contempt; authoritarians easily yearn to suppress and marginalize nonauthoritarians. Deep hostility is the result. Thus it may be in the world, but it ought not be so among the people of God! May we not divide according to the ways of the world, but serve one another in Christ! 4: But now hath God set the members each one of them in the body, even as it pleased him (1 Corinthians 12:18). God is not glorified if either authoritarianism or nonauthoritarianism is emphasized above the other. In truth, the Kingdom of God requires both authoritarians and nonauthoritarians. Each needs to bring their strengths to bear fruit for the Kingdom of God. Each needs the other to remind them of their deficiencies, weaknesses, and temptations; each has something to gain and learn from the values of the other. May we manifest God's wisdom to the powers and principalities through our joint participation in the faith, and glorify God in Christ!