"The Nature of Authority in the New Testament" (Ch 15) by Walter L. Liefeld

Walter Liefeld's contribution to the volume Discovering Biblical Equality is customarily irenic and scholarly. His mostly measured assessments are those of a reverent theologian doing his best to read the Scriptures. Tat posture is always commendable. Especially notable is Liefeld's strong position regarding the nature of spiritual leaders viewed as considering themselves servants rather than asserting themselves as authorities or, in the language of Peter, as "being lords over God's heritage." Liefeld appropriately emphasizes the biblical perspective of servant posture. Much of the contemporary discussion regarding rights, privileges, authority, entitlements, etc. has missed the biblical mark by light years. Hence, one can only applaud the even-handed emphasis of Liefeld regarding authority, especially his emphasis that the only real authority is God's authority.

On the other hand, there are peculiarities in Liefeld's understanding which must be noted. One must begin with his definition of authority. Liefeld says, "Authority in the sense under consideration is a narrower term used to describe the right to command others and enforce obedience" (255-256). If the one with authority is Christ, this definition has possibilities. Although he did not coerce obedience while on earth nor does he do so in the present, there is coming a day when "every knee shall bow and every tongue confess." Certainly he does have the right to command others. However, this definition, if intended for the church, seems inadequate in its applicability. In keeping with the remainder of Liefeld's article, in which he stresses the servant posture, it is better to argue that the authority of the apostles and of all subsequent lesser forms of authority arise first as a result of the commissioning of Christ.

In the second place, this authority is sustained on the basis of a godly life and complete obedience to the commands that have been given by Christ. For example, the Great Commission (Matt 28:16-20), has as its raison d 'etre the fact that it is the command of Christ to take the gospel to the ends of the earth and to baptize and to teach those who respond affirmatively. The apostles clearly received this authority from Christ and mediated that authority to pastors and deacons in the church of God, and, through them, to all of the people of God. All of these, in turn, are entrusted with certain authority resulting from the authority that has been given to Christ. Their ability, however, to sustain that mandate is what my father loved to call "moral ascendancy." The authority is not sustained by force of arms or intellect but by force of character and faithfulness to Christ. Nevertheless, the authority that belongs preeminently to Christ has in fact been passed on to his church through the apostles, the ministers of the church, and to the people themselves. This is real authority when processed in the moral posture previously indicated.

The authority extends not only to evangelism but also to the "teaching of all things that I have commanded," which is the understanding of evangelicals in every era. This authority embraced not only the words of Christ but also the words of the apostles in Holy Scripture. Hence, when in 1 Tim 2:12 women are not allowed to be in authority over men or in a teaching position over men, this authority comes not only with the authority from the apostle Paul but also from Christ. The church or individual leaders within the church are not left with the right to abrogate the commandment of the Lord. Paul speaks specifically of his own writing, "If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord" (1 Cor 14:37).

As a consequence, it is not easy to see how Liefeld arrives at the conclusion that "in all these narratives the evidence is uniform that authority applies not to preaching but to exorcism and healing and only rarely hears arguments about whether women should perform the latter" (257). Certainly, Liefeld rightly notes in the particular text he has chosen that the authority involved has to do with exorcism and healing, but this conclusion is to overlook the fact that the entire New Testament is bound by the authority of Christ; and, hence, every syllable of it is critically important for the disciple both to honor and to obey. This authority certainly extends to preaching. Again, Liefeld says, "By contrast, it is noteworthy that the gospels do not say that Jesus' teaching authority was transferred to the twelve" (258). While that may be technically true in the sense that there is no expressed statement precisely to that effect, surely one cannot doubt that the apostles understood Christ's authority to be transferred to them to some extent. Otherwise, Paul's claim that if people are spiritual, they should acknowledge what he had written as the word of God (1 Cor 14:37) is an innocuous act of bluster void of any particular authority. Clearly that is not what Paul intended.

When Liefeld argues that the word for "obey" in Heb 13:17, "Obey your leaders and submit to them," is the Greek word paithō, which means "persuasion," he is precisely correct. Of course, if one is persuaded, then he is to submit, which is a stronger term. Not only is he to submit, but those to whom he is to submit are spoken of as "those who have the rule over you," an employment of the Greek verb hegeomai, a stronger term than Liefeld seems to suggest. Clearly, this word does not enjoin the power and authority of a king, but it does depict a very decisive leader who in fact carries serious spiritual authority.

Regrettable is Liefeld's representation of independent churches, and especially "Baptist" churches, as places where the senior pastor, especially if he is the founding pastor, exercises ultimate—per-haps absolute—authority. While there are certainly some cases of this injustice to which Liefeld might appropriately appeal, this injustice is hardly the rule since Baptist churches, and for that matter many independent churches, practice either congregational rule or elder rule, neither of which lend themselves to "absolute authority." On the other hand, those Baptist and independent churches who recognize the importance of the pastoral position do believe that as long as a senior pastor is not theologically heretical, morally reprobate, or spiritually bankrupt, the church should essentially follow his leadership, even while he labors as a servant to the church he serves. This misrepresentation of congregationalism on the part of Liefeld understandably raises the question of Liefeld's actual knowledge of modern congregational church life.

More disturbing still is Liefeld's dependence upon 1 Cor 7:4 in an attempt to prove that the authority of husband and wife in marriage is equal. While the particular subject under consideration is the most intimate relationship of human life, a relationship in which there is certainly equality does not necessarily transfer into the kind of universal equality for which Liefeld seems to argue. Certainly, ontological equality of husband and wife are established by virtue of the fact that they are both human, made in the image of God, and equally accountable to God. However, just as the same is true for each individual on the face of the earth, nevertheless, civil magistrates, while ontologically equal to the rest of us, are positionally vested with an authority to which we are to submit (Romans 13). So also is the relationship between wife and husband. Nevertheless, in the family relationship itself the wife is told to submit to the husband, and the husband is instructed to love his wife as sacrificially as Christ loved the church and gave himself for it (Eph 5:22-33).

Submission is a word that implies a voluntary recognition of an authority—in this case established by the Lord himself. Equally disappointing is Liefeld's inadvertent misrepresentation of those in the complementarian camp as having made the assumption that 1 Tim 2:12 forbids women "from ever having any authority" (263). Actually, I know of no complementarian who has ever held that view in light of the fact that women are, for example, specifically instructed to teach other women and children (Titus 2:3-5). By the same token, there are limits placed upon the public teaching role.

Again, Liefeld insists,

What is often overlooked in these discussions is that women traditionally were not welcome as teachers in either Greek or Jewish society. To restrict the ministry of teaching to men would not have been surprising to the world of the New Testament. If missionaries, like Paul, were to be all things to all people to win them to Christ (1 Cor 9:22), public proclamations of Christian teachings would ideally be done by men (265).

To begin, this is a defacto attempt to argue that some of what the New Testament says was subject to cultural conditioning. While this position is certainly one that many have argued, I find it troublesome, not only because it is unconvincing but also because the interpreter is left with the right to jettison just about anything that does not appeal to his own aesthetic sensibilities. More serious is the fact that his position is simply not accurate. For example, there is an explicit command in Titus for godly women to teach younger women the ways of faith. If this is so alien to Greek or Jewish society, why is this command not greeted with total astonishment? By the same token, the attempt to marshal arguments for public teaching ministry from the private instruction in the way of the Lord given by Aquilla and Priscilla to Apollos is an old argument that always fails. I know of no complementarian anywhere who does not believe that men can learn and do learn much from women. In the privacy of a situation that Aquilla and Priscilla had with Apollos, it was certainly appropriate for them to discuss theological matters. Apollos, apparently younger in faith than either of the other two, was able to sharpen his own understandings through those discussions. No violation of the public teaching limitation is discovered herein.

Finally, Liefeld resorts to anecdotal argument when he says, "One pastor recently asserted that to oppose him was to oppose God" (269). Certainly, there is no question but that some men abuse the authority God has given them through such statements and actions, but anecdotal evidence could be marshaled on all sides of this argument, even a notable one that occurred in the initial printing of Discovering Biblical Equality. But, such is hardly the point. On the other hand, 1 Tim 2:12 is a rather straightforward and easily comprehended mandate from the apostle Paul. The verse carries with it by virtue of the inspiration of the Bible the very authority of the triune God. It is thoroughly consistent with other instructions given throughout the Bible such as 1 Cor 11:1-12 where divine order in human relationships is plainly stated and where even the distinction between onto-logical equality and positional submission is implied. Furthermore, the entire lack of precedent in Scripture for providing instances of pastoral or diaconal service from women or of women having a public teaching role in synagogue or church has still not been shown to be in error. In conclusion, Liefeld is correct to insist that from the minister's perspective, the pastor should always perform his duties from the vantage point of a servant. By the same token, the pastor realizes that much of what he does is done with the authority of Christ and the biblical witness of the apostles. This position is stronger than the one Liefeld proposes in his article.

In sum, Walter Liefeld sounds an appeal for servant leadership that is critical for the church in a day of the assertion of rights, authority, power, and entitlement. Nevertheless, he also invokes essentially the same well known egalitarian arguments. These views amount to (1) ignoring precedent in Scripture; (2) marshalling revisionist and complicated interpretations of numerous passages in Scripture, which otherwise appear to be straightforward; and (3) largely ignoring 2, 000 years of Christian interpretation, guided instead by a "hermeneutics of interest," which allows a social concern to determine how one approaches the text of Scripture.

Perhaps complementarians may be forgiven for having higher regard for more liberal theologians who, while agreeing with egalitarian conclusions, do so without misrepresenting or reinterpreting Scripture. The position that Paul opposes women in pastoral roles but in so doing is simply mistaken seems to me to be a position of greater integrity. But, of course, the battle for feminism is already won in liberalism and liberal churches. Evangelical churches, on the other hand, remain as the last outposts of a concerted effort to read the Bible and follow its teachings regardless of conventional wisdom and social agenda. Therefore, I suppose, egalitarianism must attempt the impossible.