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.