2 minute read
Britannica defines authoritarianism as the “principle of blind submission to authority.” Spiritual authoritarianism demands rank and file submission to religious leaders who’ve ascended to positions of institutional power. It’s a centralized structure that functions through a chain-of-command mentality like the military. Christian culture justifies this with nesting set of umbrellas of protection. It’s a system where one follows Christ via submission to representative leaders. The specifics differ, but it’s the same basic story within Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and Protestantism.
I’ve got four issues with Christian culture‘s authoritarianism. First, it’s toxic. That culture of blind adherence provides fertile ground for abuse and corruption. It directly produces a tidal wave of religious trauma syndrome. Second, it’s cultish. That shit gives me the willies. Third, it’s wrong. I strenuously object on the grounds that Jesus is King, but His Kingdom ain’t a military. Our Lord is a benevolent monarch. Fourth, it’s misguided. That whole submission to God thing? I don’t have a delicate way of saying this. That’s literally the meaning of Islam, not The Way of Jesus.
Some years ago I was pursuing Holy Orders in the conservative Anglican world and sat down for lunch with my new bishop. After some extensive bureaucratic drama, he’d been warned I was an “unbroken horse” who and needed to learn submission to authority before being ordained. He asked, “If ordained, would you honor my episcopal directives?” I believe in critical faithfulness, not uncritical loyalty, so I thought for a moment before answering, “None of us are Jesus, right? I’d honor your authority insofar as your conduct is Christ-like in being godly, healthy, and wise.”
Apparently that wasn’t the right answer. My conscience is clear, though. I don’t care if it violated the norms and values of Christian culture. That was the right answer. I pastorally re-centered the discussion on Jesus’ character, then pledged to follow all directions that are faithful to our Lord. Yet that wasn’t acceptable. Why? Because the powers that be have maintained their institutional power for nearly 2,000 years through pious variations of In persona Christi theology where finite and fallen men receive uncritical loyalty as they “stand in for Christ.” That’s abhorrent.
The original beatniks had a mild sensitivity to authority and a severe allergy to authoritarianism. They were suspicious of anyone who demanded their deference. That suspicion is still there, but Beatnik Christianity has a bit more of a nuanced take. The goal isn’t Christian anarchism. Some form of spiritual authority is necessary and can be used for good, but only with a pair of caveats. Any top-down ecclesiastical polity requires equal and opposite bottom-up accountability through a system of checks and balances and nobody EVER pretends to stand in for Christ.
