Someone
has to be in charge. It only makes sense. While we may dream of a
society where there are few laws, just imagine having no laws. Take away
all speed limits, all road rules, all laws dealing with lanes and
directions, and where do you think that will get us? Without
rules, authority, and the ability to back it up, society cannot long
survive in any civilized fashion. Even Utopia had its rules that were
punished upon violation. Read the book.
The same is true of other areas of life: school,
business, and the home all require authority. Acting like no one is ever
in charge is not a situation anyone can long stand. "Isn't anyone in
charge here?" bellows the customer who can't seem to find answers to the
most basic questions. "Can I talk to someone in authority? Can I see
your manager?" There is always an expectation that someone is in charge,
and we often recognize that going "to the top" is the only way to get
something done. Again, it only makes sense. And we know it does. No
further proof is needed.
So why should morality and religion be any different?
Suddenly we can become our own authority, acting like we are the ones in
charge of how to serve and glorify God. We want to be Christians. We
want to give God all the glory. We want to praise God with all our
hearts. But we want to do it our way, defining Christianity by our own
terms, expecting God to accept our "humble" service. After all, what
kind of a God would refuse to accept the praise of those who so lovingly
and whole-heartedly gave it? He is the passive audience isn't He? We get
to perform however we wish and God will just curtsy to us and tell us
how great we've done. That's what any parent will do for a little child
just doing his best.
A bit overstated? Perhaps, but I don't think by much.
Have we not read? "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord," will enter
the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in
heaven. Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not
prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your
name perform many miracles?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never
knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.'"
(Matthew 7:21-23, NASU)
Not that verse! Let's face it. Calling Jesus "Lord"
doesn't always work. What does work is the direct link between calling
Jesus "Lord" and actually doing what He says. Those who do what He says
from the heart are the ones who take His Lordship seriously. They are
the ones who have built upon the foundation of Jesus and His Lordship.
Read Matthew 7:24-29.
Jesus taught with authority. Since the Lordship of Jesus
is all about His authority
(Matthew 28:18),
then accepting His Lordship necessarily entails submitting to His
authority. How can it be any other way? It's not a choice between the
heart and obedience. It's obedience with heart. Let's not turn this into
some kind of false dichotomy.
Something else about
Matthew 7:21-23
screams authority: what do we want to enter but the
"kingdom" of heaven? When we see the word "kingdom," we ought to think
of God's rule. It is "of heaven," entirely within God's control and
power. Since God is in charge of heaven, He is not obliged to accept
just anyone who utters the words that pay lip service to Him. No. We
really must take His authority seriously. Calling Jesus, "Lord," then
minimizing His authority through our actions is hypocritical. "Why do
you call Me, 'Lord, Lord' and do not do what I say?"
(Luke 6:46)
We may feel offended by the idea. We may wish to buck
against it. But there it is. Fight it if you wish. Jesus and authority
are forever linked. And accepting His Lordship means we accept that all
the authority belongs to Him and none to us. That's right: "None of self
and all of Thee."
Suppose, though, that people wish to reject the idea of
authority altogether. Then where exactly will they turn? Themselves?
Others? Are we really to believe that they will reject all authority?
It's not even possible. The logic of authority is that there is no
escaping it. Authority is basic because no one can avoid it. It is
logically self-evident. Even if people try to avoid God's authority,
they will still rely on another source for the authority by which they
do anything--their own or another's. To contradict the point is
self-defeating. Try refuting it without thinking yourself or someone
else to be the authority somehow who is "in the know" with the power to
do anything about it.
But once we reject God as the ultimate authority, then we
are left with people. Really? Like atheist Jean-Paul Sartre once said,
without God somebody has to invent values and it might as well be "me."
But do we really want people to be our ultimate source of authority? Yet
this is the very choice Jesus put to the chief priests and elders of His
day
(Matthew 7:23-27).
They wanted to know by what authority Jesus did what He
did. After all Jesus was pretty brash. He was healing and teaching in
the Temple, paying no real regard to the position held by the chief
priests. And of all things He had the audacity to turn the tables of the
moneychangers over. What an embarrassment for them! Who does Jesus think
He is? Where did He get the authority to act that way? It was a good
question. But Jesus "turned the tables" again, this time on their
question. What was the authority for John's baptism? "From heaven or
from men?" What other options are there? If not from God, then who or
what? If we reject God's authority, then the only authority left is from
men. Fallible, selfish men. They knew they couldn't answer the question
without trapping themselves. Once again, Jesus was the Master of the
situation.
So people want to reject God's authority and only accept
the authority of men. Here then is an interesting dilemma for them.
Suppose the response is, "The Bible is just a book from men." The ones
who argue this are now relying on their own authority. For the sake of
argument, let's just say the Bible comes only from men, the same
fundamental source that the skeptics have. Then what makes the Bible's
authority any less or worse than the authority relied upon by its
doubters? If it is only from men, and the doubter's authority is only
from men, then who's to say that either is better or worse? Why can't I
use the Bible while they use other human authority? Why should they even
care? And why should I care what they think?
Authority is logical. It is self-evident. It is
necessary. Why not accept that and then make sure that our source for
authority is greater and better than we can provide all by ourselves?
Other Articles by
Doy Moyer
Baptism and the Blood
Was Jesus Literally Forsaken?
The Problem With Creeds
It Is What It Is