Over the next three weeks, I’ll be posting a paper I presented at conferences in 2019 and 2021. The topic continues to be relevant as it is associated with one of the more overlooked topics in the church (authority) and one of the more overlooked verses (Hebrews 13:17).
I. Introduction: Authority, Obedience, and Submission
Few terms elicit stronger reactions than authority and submission. Words like “obey and “submit” can land quite severely with an individual, depending on the specific trauma he may have observed or experienced.[1] Regrettably, the abuse and misuse of power is regularly uncovered within educational, political, and religious institutions. For the last two decades, the Roman Catholic Church has been the ongoing subject of intense scrutiny because of its handling of widespread clerical sexual abuse and misconduct. Some have felt that the cover-up has been nearly as damning as the transgressions themselves. Protestants aren’t immune to such scandals either, as exhibited a few years ago by the Houston Chronicle’s reporting on the improprieties in many Baptist churches, including denominational leaders within the Southern Baptist Convention.[2] While many powerful people have been toppled due to the abuse of authority throughout corporate America, elected office, and Hollywood, judgment begins at the household of faith (1 Pt. 4:17). It probably appears to nonreligious observers that religious people have more to answer for considering the high moral standards they are known for articulating.
A complicating factor for church leaders in this current climate is the Scriptural appeal to obey and submit to authorities. Being faithful to teach and preach the whole counsel of God means giving attention to passages that unsettle many whom the church seeks to reach. Even some believers probably wonder about the contemporary significance of such texts. Fewer passages put the matter as starkly as Hebrews 13:17: “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.”[3] Tucked into the closing chapter of one of the most closely studied New Testament documents is an overlooked command. Like other verses, this one combines an ethical injunction and a direct appeal to authority. But the stark call for obedience and submission to authority for the good of the obedient and submissive makes it especially implausible to many modern listeners.
How can authority be good for the obedient, especially when the ones obeyed have the potential to inflict so much harm?[4] Naturally this question occurs readily to modern listeners given the abuses mentioned above. And to some, Jesus certainly looks like the poster-boy for the modern maxim “question authority.” He was a Messiah prone to defy conventional authority (e.g., Jn. 9:40-41, 5:16-17), who so passionately urged his disciples not to conceive of authority as the Gentiles did (e.g., Mk. 10:41-45). “Question authority” seems a far more fitting mantra for disciples than “obey your leaders.”
While Jesus’ discussion of authority is certainly a worthy line of discussion, my focus is on the pastoral and theological significance of Hebrews 13:17. This verse demonstrates a close connection between obedience to leaders and the spiritual flourishing of believers. However, what is the nature of that relationship? How might it be understood in times when religious authority is so deeply and widely questioned? Here we will demonstrate that obedience to church leaders, properly understood, is essential to the spiritual well-being of those under pastoral care. The context of Hebrews 13, the theological nature of authority, and the reality of Divine accountability for church leaders suggest that controversial truths such as those found in Hebrews 13:17 are integral to the formation of disciples and healthy churches. This paper will offer pastoral and theological observations about the manifestation of this principle in the church.
When taken together, these observations will demonstrate that Hebrews 13:17 is oriented around shepherding and stewardship, not primarily position or power. In advancing this argument, we must begin by reconsidering authority itself. As so many misconceptions surround the term and concept, clearing the debris field in our modern minds is an important first step. Moreover, as the concept of authority overlays and undergirds so many biblical texts, bringing fresh clarity to this inescapable concept is essential.[5]
II. Demythologizing Authority
Students of the twentieth century are familiar with the rise of totalitarian governments across the world. Whether of the Fascist or Communist variety, authoritarian leaders were literally responsible for the redrawing of political boundaries, as well as millions of freshly dug graves. This grim picture is often the backdrop against which people hear the term “authority.” After all, it is so closely linked with authoritarian. Accordingly, many people—Christians included—often balk at conceiving of authority as a spiritual or theological matter. Authority is merely another concession in a fallen world. Religious and irreligious people alike have lamented the decline of community, for example, but far fewer have lamented the decline of authority.[6]
A cynical perspective toward authority is further reinforced by ignorance of Scripture. Many Christians simply do not believe that authority belongs in the Christian lexicon. Of course, this belief is easily dispelled by a cursory reading of Scripture. Authority is regularly assumed, invoked, granted, delegated, and used (e.g., Jn. 8:28). Moses is authorized to lead God’s people out of Egyptian bondage. David is properly authorized to be Israel’s king. The prophets are authorized to speak for YHWH. Jesus constantly refers to the Father’s authority. Christ grants authority to his apostles for ministry. In the Great Commission he appeals to “all authority in heaven and on earth” (Ἐδόθη μοι πᾶσα ἐξουσία ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ [τῆς] γῆς) which has been given him. Even as Jesus himself is so often said to be repudiating earthly authority, we find that his message was not so much opposed to the exercise of authority. Rather, it confronted the wrong understanding and use of such authority.
One such illustration of authority is seen in the apostle Paul’s counsel to fathers concerning discipline. They are commanded, “Do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord” (μὴ παροργίζετε τὰ τέκνα ὑμῶν, ἀλλὰ ἐκτρέφετε αὐτὰ ἐν παιδείᾳ καὶ νουθεσίᾳ κυρίου). Paul clearly recognizes the possibility for excesses and problematic motivations in the exercise of parental authority.[7] However, authority to discipline is not denied; it is instituted with guidance. Similar forms of qualified, but rightful uses of authority can be found throughout both Old and New Testaments.
A responsible pastoral-theological engagement with Hebrews 13:17, and authority more generally, rejects reductionist pictures of authority. The philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein’s oft-cited remark about people being held captive by a certain picture of language applies here. We need better pictures of authority. We need to conceptualize authority not as brute ability, power, or institutional strength. Instead, we should envision it as a stewardship of responsibility. When we do, some of the visceral, gut-level suspicion is allayed so we can move beyond distortions and work toward a provisional definition.
a. Moving Beyond Distortions Toward a Definition
In his book Up with Authority, Victor Austin posits that there are many forms of authority operating in the world. He specifically examines social authority, epistemic authority, political authority, and ecclesiastical authority. Yet the definition he offers encompasses all forms of authority. He states that authority
is held by a person or persons who lead humans to a fuller exercise of their freedom to accomplish human tasks. Such an authority will customarily appeal to other ‘authorities,’ including texts . . . An authority is someone who is authorized (which is to say, an authority is also under authority). Conversely, to exercise authority is to be acknowledged as one who had authority (which is to say, normally, an authority is one who is able to summon free obedience).[8]
Austin posits several key components to authority that are coherent and theologically significant. First, authority can be thought of as a trust, deposit, or possession of an individual or group. This is probably how we usually think of authority—the right or ability to act in significant ways. Think of the manager who exercises his right to terminate an ineffective clerk. He acts on the stewardship or oversight with which he has been entrusted.
Second, consider the fact that another authority has granted this manager’s authority. While a Christian account would see that there is no earthly authority which is not answerable to a higher authority (e.g., Jn. 19:10-11; Rom. 13:1), even a secular perspective recognizes that most earthly authorities are answerable to someone or something else, whether it is a supervisor, shareholders, a board, or another similar entity.
Third, the grantor of authority may also serve a dual role. Not only may they be the one to whom other authorities are answerable, but their granted authority may be appealed to in order to justify the other person or groups’ exercise of authority. Think of our manager again. He may reference past actions of a former manager—perhaps now the business owner—to reinforce his decision. So other authorities not only may be those who grant authority in the initial sense, but they may reinforce or give credibility to the other authority’s decision.
A fourth dimension of Austin’s definition appropriate to our inquiry is the fact that authorities can and should lead other human beings to a “fuller exercise of their freedom to accomplish human tasks.” We recognize the signs of the abuse of authority when a person lacking social or institutional power is hindered, humiliated, or harmed. These outward signs are usually seen in the context of a person being unable to flourish as they perform the tasks or functions they were intended to fulfill. As we will show later, pastors who lead well and are obeyed do not work at cross-purposes with the well-being of their congregants.
The final aspect of this definition relates to the prior: a summons of free obedience. While this could be interpreted more in terms of the right of the authority to ask for obedience, I would argue that this should be understood as the ability for the individual to choose to yield to such authority. Being responsible to obey in a given situation also assumes the ability to choose to obey. In a fallen world, any rightly delegated authority, whether parents, judges, pastors, or the state, could ask something immoral of a person. Thus, the freedom to obey also implies (and necessitates) the freedom to disobey.
b. Toward a Vision of Pastoral Obedience
Having established a basic but substantial framework for our discussion of authority, we must test it against Scripture. Hebrews 13:17 may not be the most studied or discussed verse in Hebrews, but it deals directly with our subject. A commitment to biblical authority entails textual and theological sensitivity. Hebrews does not exist in canonical vacuum. It is a substantial contribution to our understanding of Christianity in the first century, and especially the spiritual struggles of our ancestors. Recognizing this forces us to take seriously its message about the superiority of the New Covenant over the Old, the potential of apostasy, and the need for perseverance. So then we will look to the context and message of Hebrews 13:17 to discern the nature of pastoral authority, submission, and obedience, and to help answer the question, “Should pastors be obeyed?” While this text and its context will be primary, some other general observations will be made with respect to related themes in other New Testament epistles. The thematic treatment of the subject will reinforce our assertion that Hebrews 13:17 supports the responsible stewardship of shepherding, not the oppressive power of the pastorate.
[1] W. Jackson Watts, “Hearing the Gospel Today: A Primer for Evangelists” (Theological Symposium Presentation, Welch College, Nashville, Tennessee, October 27-28, 2014).
[2] Robert Downen, Lise Olsen, and John Tedesco, “Abuse of Faith,” https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/investigations/article/Southern-Baptist-sexual-abuse-spreads-as-leaders-13588038.php; Accessed on 27 March 2019.
[3] All Scripture references, unless otherwise indicated, come from the English Standard Version.
[4] The presentation of this paper at the 2021 Theological Symposium ironically coincided with the unfolding podcast series, The Rise and Fall of Mars Hill.
[5] While the relationship between power and authority is widely discussed in the literature, it isn’t central to the argument advanced in this paper.
[6] Alan Ehrenhalt, The Lost City: The Forgotten Virtues of Community in America (New York: Basic, 1995), 16–25. Also see James Davison Hunter, The Death of Character: Moral Education in an Age without Good or Evil (New York: Basic, 2000), 112-13.
[7] When we consider the common practices of exposure and infanticide in the first century Roman world, Paul’s counsel to parents is rightly seen as counter cultural.
[8] Victor Lee Austin, Up with Authority: Why We Need Authority to Flourish as Human Beings (New York: Continuum, 2010), 21.