Webster's defines the adjective "authoritarian" as "believing in, relating to, characterized by, or enforcing unquestioning obedience to authority, as that of a dictator, rather than individual freedom of judgment and action."  As a noun (i.e., someone who is an authoritarian), it means "a person who advocates, practices, or enforces such obedience"  (New World Dictionary, Third College Edition, 1988, p. 92).  Christians who exercise an authoritarian style of leadership either deny that they act like dictators, or they justify it.  If they deny it, they often do so by claiming that their followers have complete freedom of choice.  While this is true, it does not address the issue of dictatorial leadership.  It is a skillful dodge, a fallacy in logic, and a smokescreen.  If they justify it, they have to distort or contradict key and explicit Scriptures. 

    For those of us who have experienced the iron fist of authoritarianism within the context of an evangelical Christian environment, gaining an understanding of how such a thing could happen us is helpful in our recovery.  Such an understanding can be obtained by gaining the following perspectives on the current problem with authoritarianism in many circles.

The Historic Problem

    The Bible is opposed to authoritarianism.  Therefore, people who claim the status of "pastor," "teacher," "prophet," "apostle," or any other title of spiritual authority have no right to unquestioned obedience.  Jesus made this clear when He taught His disciples, 
 

    It may come as some surprise to you, and may even be contrary to what you have been taught, but according to the Bible, if a person comes into your life claiming to be a "spiritual authority," you should question him (or her)!  Many of the Old Testament prophets made entire careers out of questioning self-proclaimed spiritual authorities!  In doing so, they exposed many false prophets -- who, by the way, got pretty upset with them.  These prophets fulfilled a necessary role, because -- to put it bluntly -- God does not want hhis people to be suckers. 

    Just as no one can prophesy without subjecting their prophecy to careful scrutiny (1 Cor. 14:29), so no one can claim to be a "spiritual authority" without being accountable to the judgment of those in the church (1 Tim. 3:2-10; Titus 1:6-11). The criterion for judging a "spiritual authority" is always the same: that person's life and teaching must measure up against the standard of God's word, the Bible. 
 

    Spiritual authority begins and ends between the covers of the Bible.  The minute someone steps outside the text of Scripture and tries to tell you to do things that cannot be found in the Scriptures, they are deceiving you. 

    But it would benefit us to ask, "How is it that so many Christians seem to be deceived in this way?" 
 

 The Leader As Paragon

    According to the Bible, there is only one Person who is our paragon: the Lord Jesus Christ.  The best that any human being can hope to be is a very fallible, imperfect example.  But in spiritually abusive groups, any fallibility on the part of the leader is minimized, and the leader's supposed strengths are magnified to the point of veneration. 

    Depending upon how it is presented, the difference between an example and a paragon can be subtle, and manipulative people can create confusion between the two concepts.  The Bible sometimes uses the word "example" in the sense of Webster's third definition: "a person or thing to be imitated; model; pattern; precedent" (New World Dictionary, p. 472), as in the following Scriptures: 
 

While all of these Scriptures teach that a Christian leader should be an example, none of them teach that he has the right to set himself up as the example, much less a "a model or pattern of perfection or excellence."  Anyone who thinks of himself in this way is very likely to violate a deeper principle of Scripture, the principle of humility.  And yet humility is one of the spiritual traits that leaders must be an example of:
 

But it is impossible to think of yourself as a paragon -- "a model or pattern of perfection or excellence" -- and obey God's commandment to be humble. 

Spiritually abusive leaders trick people into treating them like paragons rather than examples by using the classic bait-and-switch.  They bait their followers with texts about following the examples of leaders, and then switch the concept of "example" with the concept of "paragon." 

You can tell when a leader is no longer simply a Biblical example and has become a paragon for his followers when any of these things are true: 

• His followers believe that he has greater "spiritual authority," "insight," "discernment," etc., than any other leader they know. 
• His followers believe that he is living a more godly life than anyone else they know. 
• His teachings, interpretations, etc., carry more weight than anyone else's. 
• When he is absent, the leader's followers share stories and anecdotes about the leader's knowledge, insight, wisdom, courage, purity -- or any other spiritually important attribute -- with a sense of awe for the leader.
• When he is absent, his followers struggle to discern what the leader would think, say, or do and to practice those things. 

What True Spiritual Authority Is

    The reason that this is the definition of true spiritual authority is that it was given to us by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.  He is also our chief model of spiritual authority, as He explained in Luke 22:27.  The primary mark of true spiritual authority, therefore, is neither spiritual-giftedness, nor boldness, nor courage, nor self-confidence, nor the ability to issue commands to others.  It is service.  When someone claims to be a "spiritual authority," you are responsible before God to evaluate that claim (1 Cor. 14:29), and Jesus Himself has given us the primary criterion for evaluation: whether or not the person acts like a servant. 

    Since the essential mark of true spiritual authority is service, and not issuing commands or telling others "what's best" for them, then the essential attitude of spiritual authority is humility.  A person who is humble may speak authoritatively, but he does not assume that he is always right.  He is correctable.  He understands that he may be wrong, and he has the ability to give others the same "freedom to be wrong."  If there is a disagreement, God will sort it out some day.  But the minute you stop allowing people the freedom to disagree with you, you have crossed the line from "authority" to "authoritarian." 

    True: there will be some issues on which we can neither ignore nor compromise on with others.  But a truly humble, service-minded person works on distinguishing between the essentials and the non-essentials, and he gives others freedom to disagree over non-essentials.  His guiding principle is always: "In the essentials, unity; in the non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity." 

    If you cannot distinguish between what is essential to the faith and what is non-essential, the result in your life will be a very rule-laden, legalistic approach to Christianity -- and vulnerable to the classic Spiritual Abuse bait-and-switch: exchanging authority for authoritarianism.  You will become puffed-up in your own self-certainty and self-righteousness, and you will lose both your humility and any claim to being a "spiritual authority." 

     True spiritual authority means sticking to the clear teachings of Scripture, and it just so happens that one of the specific clear teachings of the Bible teaches is that true spiritual leaders are not to be autocratic, despotic, or tyrannical.  In fact, this is one of the most obvious teachings in all of Scripture!  (For further insight into what the Bible says about this, please see the appropriate section of our Online Article on the Bible and Spiritual Abuse.) 
 

Internal Contradictions Created by Authoritarianism

 Not only is this an example of authoritarianism, but it is also an example of an internal contradiction.  While the leader claimed that he allowed differences, in actual practice he did not.  Each characteristic of spiritual abuse involves its own similar internal contradiction: the contradiction between the official position and the actual practice.  This contradiction helps explain how these groups are able to recruit new members, who only hear the official position while joining the group, and only learn of the actual practice after becoming deeply involved. 

    It is usually only after a leader feels secure in his power-base that he feels free to bluntly state his true attitude toward his congregation: 
 

Sometimes it's just plain ludicrous what so-called pastors think they can get away with saying to the Lord's people! 

    If you've never gone through something like this, it probably all sounds pretty incredible to you.  Why would any sane, intelligent person -- especially a Christian -- submit to such oppression?  Do these things really happen? 

    Sadly, the answer is yes.  My wife and I spent 5-1/2 years of our lives in such a group.  For those of us who have escaped from such tyranny, the fact that we were sucked into it in the first place is often a source of great embarrassment.  I had been a Christian for over a decade, I had been to Bible college, and had even served in church ministry.  How could it happen to me? 

How People Get Sucked In

    There is one thing that we all have in common that can at times make us vulnerable to an authoritarian leader: the desire to be led.  We all occasionally feel the need for a mentor, a guide, someone to "show us the ropes," someone to explain to us how the universe operates so that we can survive and succeed.  During times of great disappointment, or personal setbacks, this desire can become particularly acute. 

    This is not simply true of us as individuals, but it is also true of Christians as a group.  At times our desire for great leaders transforms itself into a kind of hero-worship, which soon borders on idolatry. 
 

     Sometimes people feel the need for someone to guide them so strongly that they turn over their personal freedom to that individual.  Not that long ago, millions of highly educated, and culturally accomplished people did this.  They were experiencing very difficult times together, and they felt the need for someone to guide them through the turmoil of their existence.  It was not long before they found the man they were looking for, and when they did, they called him their "Guide."  That was his title, in fact.  In their language, the word for "Guide" was "Führer."  And they trusted their Führer so much that tens of millions of people paid for it with their lives.  His name was Adolf Hitler. 

    Spiritual abusers are very much aware of people's desire for a strong, confident leader on whom they can rely for answers and direction.  And they also know how to take advantage of that desire. 

    Another factor that makes a people in a spiritual environment vulnerable to an authoritarian person is a lack of the kind of accountability mentioned earlier.  Spiritual abusers are experts at eluding accountability.  When others try to hold them accountable, they either find creative ways to out-maneuver them, or crush them, or they flee to some other place where they can be more successful at controlling people. 

    Our spiritual abuser was a charismatic individual who was running a parachurch organization, and had a legitimate board of directors when we began attending the organization's meetings.  But when the board tried to call him into account for his deceptive and sinful practices, he accused them of sin.  (This is the manipulative practice known as "turning-the-tables.")  He patiently wore them down until eventually they all resigned.  He soon replaced them with people whom he knew he could control -- in this case, people who attended his organization's meetings, which he was simultaneously seeking to transform from parachurch organization into a church.  All the while he kept details of his escapades from those of us he said were under his "spiritual care."  He also maligned his former board members in front of us, and cited his own "spiritual authority" as justification for his actions. 
 

The Failure of Today's Church

    Now, I cannot blame my own failure to avoid spiritual authoritarianism entirely on the failure of the church-at-large.  I should have known better.  I had access to many people, books and other resources that could have spared me.  Even if there was a lack of teaching on this where I came from, I still could have studied up on the subject.  By failing to avoid falling into the authoritarian trap, I was demonstrating that I was guilty of the same "bottom-line," "cut-to-the-chase" mentality.  I didn't do my homework. 

    Nevertheless, the fact is that the church has largely failed in this area, and this failure has created a teaching-vacuum which has been a large factor in the vulnerability of Spiritual Abuse victims.  Over the years, this teaching-vacuum has been filled with many ideas that were foreign to the authors of the Bible: everything from the notion of "umbrellas of authority," to "spiritual coverings," to a "chain-of-command," all of which is presented very thoroughly and logically, with many Scripture references.  The only problem is, nowhere does the Bible teach these things.  When you closely examine the teachings of those who claim that the Bible teaches some kind of authoritarian system for governing the church, you eventually discover that they are actually distorting the Bible. 

    The subtle manner in which this teaching has wormed its way into the church, along with its destructive effects, are illustrated by the following: 
 

    It seems that authoritarianism was not the only problem Jeri's pastor had.  He also held to the notion -- contrary to many Scriptures -- that praising God is a prescription for curing depression.  But the root of his problem was a false concept of spiritual authority. 

    The fact that so many pastors and spiritual leaders like this one can gain followings and rise to positions of "authority" in the church -- often going undetected for years by their peers and their denominational supervisors -- is ample testimony of the failure of today's church in this area.  But something can still be done, and you can be a part of it: 
 

Christians with truly critical, discerning minds will be resistant to both authoritarianism and spiritual abuse.  One key step we need to take in gaining that kind of a mind is to inform ourselves of our spiritual heritage.  We who are evangelical Protestants have a particularly strong tradition of resisting spiritual authoritarianism ... 

   Where do these false concepts come from, and how have they become so widespread in the church?  For evangelical Protestants such as myself, the fact that authoritarianism even exists among us is a supreme irony.  A large part of the Protestant Reformation in the 1500s was devoted to eliminating the myth that God had given anyone the kind of spiritual authority that Jeri's pastor was trying to exercise over her.  Jeri's pastor was acting just like the late-medieval church hierarchy that claimed to be the final authority in the lives of all Christians.  The Protestant Reformers rightly argued that only God's Word has such a place. 

    And yet there are a large number of professing evangelicals today who actively teach that church leaders have not only the right, but also the duty, to impose a very heavy-handed authority system on the church.  These people teach that to go against such "authority" is to go against God Himself!  And it appears that they all share one thing in common: either directly or indirectly, they have all been influenced by an early 20th century Christian author from China. 
 

    When I first read this, it sent chills down my spine.  In our spiritually abusive group, Watchman Nee was required reading.  Nee's influence had been exceptionally pervasive in the last half of the 20th century, but I didn't realize how dangerous it could be until I was indoctrinated in it. 

    I can testify that Ken Blue very accurately represents Nee's teaching on this topic.  Our leader was so enthusiastic about Nee's teachings that he scanned Nee's chapter on "delegated authority" into his computer and printed it out for our entire group to read.  I'm pretty familiar with Nee's concepts.  It is obvious to me now that we neglected to weigh all of his teachings against the Scriptures, and since our leader was already highly authoritarian, we were actively discouraged from doing so.  Since Nee had been a very popular author among many Christians whom we had previously known, and his titles were sold in most Christian bookstores -- I had even once heard him cited at length as a trustworthy authority on our local Moody Bible Institute radio station! -- we assumed that his books must be alright. 

The Maze of Mysticism

     Mysticism also tends toward the legalistic notion that we are rewarded with a relationship with God on the basis of our works.  Webster's defines "mysticism" as "the doctrine that it is possible to achieve communion with God through contemplation" (p. 898, emphasis mine).  Christianity, on the other hand, is the doctrine that it is possible to receive communion with God through simple faith in Jesus Christ.  In mysticism, the individual is required to somehow spiritually "ascend" in order to achieve a mystical union with God.  In Christianity, God Himself descends through the person of Christ, effectively bringing us true spiritual union with Himself.  The ultimate ideal of most mystical systems is an impossible one, for Jesus said:
 

Mysticism requires something of us that we cannot do.  Christianity presents that very thing to us as a gift: intimate, spiritual communion with God. 

    But this leads to another irony: while on the negative side, mysticism tends to lead toward legalism, on the positive side, it tends to lead away from authoritarianism, rather than toward it.  This is because mysticism emphasizes the individual's ability to have a subjectively experienced personal relationship with God.  If I can go to God directly, I shouldn't need an authority figure over me in order to make it happen.  So how did Nee's mysticism become so authoritarian? 

"Higher Life" Takes a Confucianist Detour

    But Higher Life mysticism also had a teaching that lent itself to authoritarian abuse.  It taught that before Christians could lead a holy life they needed to be "broken."  This "brokenness" had to be accomplished in the area of the human will.  So far, most Christians would agree with this, but with huge qualifications.  For one thing, most biblically-informed Christians would quickly add that any "breaking" that takes place is something God does, not something we do.  Mysticism, on the other hand, is based on what we do, and the Higher Life movement was essentially mystical.  So it was natural for Higher Life teachers to emphasize what we must do, and in doing so, they fell into a grave error: the idea that Christian sanctification is essentially a process of "breaking" ourselves.  But Christian sanctification is not essentially a process of "being broken," let alone "breaking ourselves."  Rather, it is a process of being renewed by God's Holy Spirit.  Any "breaking" that takes place is primarily the breaking of the power of sin, not the breaking of ourselves.  But Nee, following his Higher Life mentors, made this "breaking" of one's self a major part of his ministry. 

    It is only a small step from teaching that we must "break" ourselves, to the notion that others must help in "breaking" us.  This small step leads to the worst forms of authoritarianism.  And even though mysticism does not usually lend itself to authoritarianism, it almost always lends itself to a "guru mentality" -- i.e., the notion that we need someone more experienced than us to act as our guide, because mysticism's concepts are so far beyond the knowledge or understanding of most people.  Nee simply took the inherent logic of the Higher Life Movement to its next natural step, and in the process he also blended it with principles that every Chinese person learned from birth, and which westerners have always found fascinating: the teachings of Confucianism. 

    Confucius had taught that the loyalty of a child to a parent should be so strong, that if necessary, the child should cover up his parent's misconduct.  While not actually teaching that children should turn a blind eye to their parents' sins, he did teach things that came close to blind obedience: 
 

    This concept of authority has been deeply embedded in Chinese culture for over two millennia, and Nee did not escape its influence, despite the fact that it is contrary to the teaching of Christ.  Nevertheless, it is probably unfair to Nee to conclude that he would approve of the authoritarianism that spiritual abusers practice in his name.  Ken Blue was probably right to say that Nee "unwittingly" contributed to the problem, even though Nee's teachings on spiritual authority are difficult to misinterpret.

How Watchman Nee's Error Spread

• The successful publication of Nee's books.
• The popularity of Bill Gothard seminars.
• The introduction of the "covering" teaching among charismatic Christians.

    One individual in particular who listed Nee as a source in his unpublished master's thesis has a concept of spiritual authority so strikingly similar to Nee's, and has been so successful in promoting it, that he deserves special attention.  His name is Bill Gothard. 

    Bill Gothard is the president of the Institute in Basic Life Principles, which is headquartered in the Chicago suburb of Oak Brook, Illinois, USA.  Since the mid-1960s he has popularized his concept of "Umbrellas of Authority" through an immensely successful seminar ministry which claims more than 2.5 million "alumni." 

    Gothard insists that every Christians must be under the authority of another Christian -- someone "higher up" in a spiritual "Chain of Command," and to make this idea more palatable, he writes: 
 

The problem here is that the text of 1 Samuel 15:23 does not have anything to do with Gothard's point.  It does not say anything about authority acting like an "umbrella of protection."  Instead of providing us with a Scripture verse that does prove that point, Gothard diverts our attention to another issue entirely: he smoothly glides into a comparison of rebellion to witchcraft. 

    If this was the only example of Gothard trying to use the Bible to prove an unbiblical point, that would be one thing.  But it seems that Gothard does this habitually.  On the same page in which Gothard cites 1 Samuel 15:23, he also misused two other Bible passages in much the same way.  As Ronald B. Allen wrote (when he was Professor of Hebrew Scripture at Western Baptist Seminary in Portland, Oregon), 
 

    Gothard's view of authority is foundational to his view of the Christian life.  He considers it "The Basis of Achieving Great Faith."  "The size of our God," he says, "is greatly determined by our ability to see how He is able to work through those in authority over us" (Basic Seminar Textbook, p. 19), and yet he does not even attempt to provide a Bible verse to back up that statement!  These words have a nice sound to many people, but one should pause and ask: "If this concept of authority is so basic, why isn't it taught in the Bible?"  Gothard never provides a biblical foundation for his "umbrella" teaching.  He simply assumes it, and expects us to do the same. 

    Again we should note that Gothard does not credit Watchman Nee with any of his ideas.  Nevertheless, both Gothard's and Nee's teachings on authority appear so remarkably similar that it is reasonable to assume that Nee influenced Gothard. 

    On the other hand, those in the charismatic who hold to the "Covering" teaching do sometimes credit Nee with influencing them on the subject of authority, and it is quite interesting to note the parallels between Gothard's "Umbrellas of Authority" and the charismatic "Covering" doctrine. 

    Gothard teaches that by getting under an "Umbrella of Authority" we accomplish the following purposes: 

1. We grow in wisdom and character.
2. We gain protection from destructive temptations.
3. We receive clear direction for life decisions.  [see Gothard's Basic Seminar Textbook, p. 20]

    And notice the parallels between this and the charismatic "Covering" teaching: 
 

But the charismatic "Covering" doctrine has the same basic weakness as Gothard's "Umbrella of Authority" concept: 
 

    The leader of the abusive group to which my wife and I belonged simply assumed that the teachings of Watchman Nee and Bill Gothard (and hence, the "Covering" charismatics) were biblical on the issue of authority.  I have spoken with many people, and I have ready the writings of many others who belonged to intensely spiritually abusive groups that were based on these principles.  I can testify, along with countless others, that the implications and tendencies that Moriarty describes here are amazingly accurate, and -- thanks to Nee's books, Gothard's seminars, and the charismatic "Covering" teaching -- amazingly pervasive. 

    But the Bible does not teach that spiritual authority consists of some "Chain of Command" that we must follow, or some "Umbrella of Authority" that we must be under.  In fact, the Bible teaches precisely the opposite: 
 

Keeping The Baby While Throwing Out the Bathwater

    Based on Brown's quote from Nee, it's very possible that if he ever witnessed firsthand what today's spiritual abusers practice, Nee would have disapproved of it.  But we'll never really know in this lifetime.   After all: he promoted their authoritarianism so forcefully in principle.  And anyway, the damage has been done.  The negative impact of Nee's teachings has far outweighed any good intentions he might have had, and the scarred spiritual lives of countless Christians bear ample testimony to that. 

    As Christians, our first duty is to obey God's word.  The writings of other people may help us do that, if they first help us to correctly understand God's word.  But no matter how good they are, they can never replace God's word.  And yet if we find ourselves turning to books by human authors before turning to the Bible, then we have effectively replaced the Bible with those books. 
 

Resisting the Controllers

    This is a very good question, and the only honest answer would be: "I don't know."  Authoritarian leaders have been around for a long time among Christians.  They have usurped positions of power among diverse groups of Christians, and within a broad range of theological systems over the course of church history. 

    Nothing I have written here should be taken to imply that only one theological system or denominational background can provide a home to the kind of mentality I have described above.  I am simply describing how this mentality has asserted itself among many Christian groups leading up to the beginning of the 21st century, and how certain popular doctrines made Christians vulnerable to it. 

    There are some people who, through the sheer force of their personalities and driven along by an invincible sense of their own rectitude, seem to feel the need to subjugate all of the Christians in their sphere of influence under their "guidance."  These people will inevitably make a grab for power, regardless of their denominational or theological environment.  Jerry Bridges recently made some insightful comments about a type of personality he refers to as "the Controller:" 
 

    What more can be said?  Only that, whether authoritarianism is based on doctrine or personality, it has no place in the Christian church.

    Many Christians have replaced the Biblical teaching on spiritual authority with the unbiblical teaching that God sends orders to His people through a human "chain-of-command."  Perhaps your life has been damaged by this teaching.  You can be assured of two things: it did not come from the Bible, and you do not have to live under it anymore. 

    Other Christians have simply bowed in submission to a strong, dominating personality.  Perhaps you are one such person.  If so, your are living out a denial of a central teaching of the Bible: freedom in Christ.  You need to stop right away if you are to experience all of the grace that God has for you.