Evangelical Reformation

Our society hates authority. That is because it loves autonomy, and autonomy and authority don’t mix.

Make no mistake about it, the existentialism of the sixties is still with us, is still the underlying force that shapes our attitudes and dominates our culture. Therefore, the guiding principle of our society is, “I have a right to do my own thing.” That cliché leaves no place for authority.

I bought a recently published book on authority to discover how authority could possibly be fit into our current cultural context. The writers accomplished this by redefining authority to not mean authority, but something else.

They asserted that the word authority comes from the root “to author.” Therefore, to exercise authority over someone entails helping them “to author” their ideas, i.e. assisting them in doing their own thing. Consequently, through some lexical gymnastics, they drained the concept of authority of all its authority.

Not only so, but they assigned to those traditionally in authority the task of enabling those traditionally under authority to exercise autonomy.

This is precisely the mechanism at work in our culture. Our authority structure has been turned on its head. Students are now in charge of the classroom, children run the home, our laws give criminals the upper hand over policeman, and evangelicals are assured that it’s okay to be angry with God when he doesn’t meet their expectations. Those previously under authority are now in authority. The inmates are running the asylum.

All this to say that it is no easy task for a husband and father to exercise authority in his home. Even much of the evangelical world has bought into the theology of “mutual submission,” stripping the husband of his authority.

Notwithstanding, the fundamental law of management and leadership is that authority and responsibility must match. A person assigned responsibility can only meet that responsibility if he is also given authority. A person can only be held responsible to oversee a budget if he has the authority to control expenditures.

A person given authority must also be held responsible or he will abuse that authority. A person given authority to spend money without responsibility of the accounting for his expenditures will abuse the privilege.

Therefore, a husband and father must have authority. God has given it to him, but society and his family may resist it. Nonetheless, to meet his responsibility, he must exercise authority regardless of any resistance.

It is no fun to be in a position of authority because authority is always challenged. I don’t mean that every time a leader makes a decision it is challenged. Rather, I am saying that every person under authority will ultimately challenge that authority to see if the leader will fold or stand.

When such tests come, the husband and father who stands may have to pay a price. His family may respond with hostility or with a silent treatment—passive aggression. In the anticipation of or in the midst of such opposition, most of us feel afraid, intimidated, and inadequate, but being a leader requires that we exercise the discipline to rise above those emotions and take the heat.

Of course, as suggested above and asserted in previous posts, our purpose for exercising authority should never be self-serving, but rather to meet our responsibilities to our family.

The church should support husbands and fathers in their exercise of authority in their homes. Correspondingly, the church should challenge husbands and fathers to use that authority to meet their responsibilities.

Unfortunately, the evangelical community finds itself influenced by unbiblical aspects of the anti-authoritarian and feminist orientation of our secular culture. A return to a biblical understanding of authority and responsibility would require an evangelical reformation.

George was a sharp guy. He was very intelligent, a nice looking fellow, personable, had a good job, and maintained a sweet spirit. He was faithful at church, and lived for the most part a good Christian life.

I say “for the most part” because George had a flaw. His wife and kids were engaged in an ongoing battle with one another, and George did nothing about it. He avoided the trauma of disciplining the kids for showing disrespect for their mother, and had no desire to discuss with his wife how she might have a better relationship with the kids.

His wife became embittered because he failed to support her in her attempts to discipline the children, and the children became hostile because they believed, perhaps for good reason, that their mother acted irrationally at times.

The battles raged while George hid behind his newspaper or sought refuge in a peaceful spot outside the home. Today George and his wife are divorced, and the kids all display the scars of their dysfunctional home environment.

Being a leader demands accepting responsibility. If there is a problem in your home, it is your problem. You may not be causing it. You may not be contributing to it. However, you have the responsibility to address it and implement an effective solution.

In counseling I have run across many Georges. The budget won’t balance, the cars keep breaking down, the roof is leaking, the kids are failing in school, and these Georges keep wondering, “When is my wife going to do something about all of this?”

This irresponsible approach to life reflects the culture of our world and our nation. Everyone in the world is wringing their hands over Iran developing a nuclear capability, but no one is willing to do anything substantive about it. (A UN resolution is nothing substantive.) We have been fretting for decades about Social Security going bankrupt, but no one will take responsibility to resolve this problem. Illegal immigrants keep crossing the border by the thousands every day, but no one has the resolve to deal with this issue. With a national and world culture of irresponsibility, it is not surprising that we find it in our homes also.

Most husbands and fathers put in a hard day’s work. When they come home, they crave peace, quiet, and relaxation. The last thing they want to do is solve problems.

This is especially true because problem-solving is messy business and hard work. For most problems there are no quick fixes. Frequently the problem and its solution involved people and relationships, which usually means emotional stress for the problem solver.

Part of the price of leadership is to implicate ourselves in these messy situations whether we feel like it or not. This takes us back to the concepts of sacrifice and initiative discussed in our two previous posts.

As husbands and fathers, we are responsible not only to deal with problems, but also to deal with them effectively, and to keep dealing with them until they are resolved. Often this entails making unpopular decisions. Balancing the budget may require some spending cuts. Responsibility includes a willingness to take the heat.

Because problem-solving is difficult and demanding, taking it on is a sacrifice. It requires that we take the initiative to broaden our focus outward from our personal world in order to maintain awareness of the well-being of our family.

However, the rewards of taking responsibility are significant. When a husband and father assumes responsibility, this not only provides a healthy environment for his family, but also it creates an atmosphere of security. Someone is in charge—someone is taking care of us.

Of course, assuming responsibility requires that the husband and father possesses the authority to implement solutions. The issue of authority, Lord willing, will be our next leadership issue.

I can remember the exact moment when the light went on. It was about 9 p.m. Connie and were traveling down the Maryland shoreline. We had been married a couple of years at the time. As we approached the exit for Ocean City, she suggested that we might pull off and look for a motel room.

Two things bothered me about that suggestion. The first was that it was her idea, and the second was that it was a good idea.

It suddenly dawned on me that my wife was making most of the decisions in our relationship. I further realized that this was because she had most of the good ideas. Or, more accurately, she had most of the ideas.

At that moment, it occurred to me that if I was going to take the leadership role in our family, I would have to take initiative. This was not because my wife was seeking to steal that role from me. Rather, it was because my lack of initiative left a vacuum that someone had to fill, and she was the only other person in the relationship.

My lack of initiative in the practical aspects of our marriage did not result from a lack of mental activity. My mind was hard at work. But its concerns were the more significant issues of life, such as how the sovereignty of God and the free will of man might be reconciled and why liberals controlled the media.

Somehow, it seemed to me that with such issues needing solutions, it would be wrong to interrupt my pursuit for the answer by thinking about a motel room at 9 p.m. However, for whatever reason, at that point the implications of not thinking about the practical issues of life, the ones related to us as a couple, dawned on me.

In response, I made an effort to become more mentally proactive regarding practical concerns. I even looked up in the Yellow Pages some places that we might eat breakfast the next morning.

I soon discovered that if I took some initiative, Connie was happy to follow. She just wanted to have a place to sleep and something to eat—not unreasonable objectives.

Since this discovery, I have observed that many husbands abdicate leadership in their homes merely by failing to take initiative—specifically mental initiative. By nature, many guys excel in this area, but there are many that do not.

Deep concerns over developments in the NFL, angst regarding whether Hillary will run, and other pressing issues take precedent over the mundane affairs of life such as the family budget or disciplining the kids.

Leadership begins by taking mental initiative, by analyzing the various dimensions of family life to determine areas of need and solutions in those areas. The scope of our analysis must include both immediate needs like motel rooms, and big picture items like budgets.

Of course, our purpose for taking initiative should not be merely so that we can be in charge. Rather, it should be our desire to advance an effective agenda that will benefit our families. God has called us to do so.

However, we will miss the opportunity to fulfill that leadership responsibility by merely failing to focus our minds on the needs of our families. An obvious reality missed by a significant number of husbands is that leadership requires mental initiative.