(Missed part 1? Read it here.)
Not Off to a Good Start
The book proper begins by painting a picture of Nazi Germany and the Gestapo. It then moves on to reference dystopian fiction such as The Hunger Games, 1984, and Fahrenheit 451. Although it concludes this opening section by acknowledging (sort of) that authority isn’t meant to be abused, the reader is primed right out of the gate to have abuse of authority at the forefront of her mind. It also leads the reader to categorize the applications of authority Miller disagrees with, with these extreme and obvious abuses.
If you’re thinking I’m being a bit too nitpicky, just hang on, because we’re about to see her start building on the subtle psychological manipulation with more overt error.
The First Hint the Author Misunderstands “Authority” as a Concept
Miller tells us that “each of us has authority in some relationships and owes submission in others. Common sense tells us that we should recognize the situational authority of others.” (p. 23) So far, so good. But then the next sentence undermines the entire argument. “For example, when a doctor tells us that we have an illness and need treatment, it is wise for us to recognize his or her authority and to submit to the treatment.”
No, no, no, no, no. This is incredibly dangerous thinking! Authority is, according to the Oxford Dictionary as quoted by Google, “the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience.” Webster’s 1828 Dictionary offers the definition “legal power, or a right to command or to act,” and the closely-related “government; the persons or the body exercising power or command.”
These are demonstrably what is meant by “authority” as used in Scripture, and the meaning of the “authority” to which she objects later with relation to men and women. Doctors absolutely do not have this type of authority over their patients. They may have specialized knowledge, skill, expertise, etc., and it might well be wise for us to follow their advice, but they do not have the right to “give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience.” They work for us.
At best, this is equivocation with the alternate definition of authority as “the power derived from opinion, respect or esteem; influence of character or office; credit.” Influence is decidedly different from governing, and “influence” is certainly not what Miller spends an entire book arguing about.
Although I don’t recall the author ever defining authority outright, when we consider this and the other passages where she talks about authorities, what submission is, etc., it seems that her practical understanding, if not her theoretical belief, is that the source of authority is the decision of the one who chooses to listen to someone. This is an unbiblical belief.
Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. (Rom. 13:1-2, NKJV)
The biblical position is that the source of authority is God.
Confusing Authority and Submission
Miller goes on to demonstrate confusion in this arena, presenting encouragement to wives about submission as though they were instructions to husbands about exercising authority (and misrepresenting several authors in the process). She writes that “some think this [submission] means that a wife should cater to her husband’s preferences–for example, that a husband can use his authority to tell his wife how to do the dishes…” (p. 27) She goes on to also cite an example regarding the preparation of breakfast, and references articles by Martha Peace and Emily Jensen.
The problem with this argument is that neither of these articles is about a husband “using his authority to tell his wife” anything! They’re about wives choosing to “look out not only for [their] own interests, but also for the interests of others.” (Ph’p. 2:4) Even with submission and authority set aside completely, is this not godly counsel?
Ideals or Logistics?
“Authority and submission are one aspect of the husband-and-wife relationship—not the whole. A husband’s leadership isn’t about power and privilege or about figuring out who’s in charge or who should have the final say. A wife’s submission isn’t about catering to preferences. Submission in marriage is ‘appropriate, logical, and Christian’ because it’s ‘based on a love relationship in which one party yields to another who uses his power to sacrifice on her behalf.’ The Bible’s emphasis is on how husbands and wives are to serve together in Christ while working together as co-laborers.” (p. 27-28)
There are a couple things going on here. Careful readers might notice further “straw manning” here. But one practical issue is a false dichotomy. I don’t know any complementarians who would disagree with the statements about marriage as a love relationship involving yielding and sacrifice, and/or about serving together. I’m sure there are some fringe folks who would, but they aren’t representative of the norm, which is kind of the point.
We recognize, though, that addressing questions like “who’s in charge?” and “who should have the final say?” are not substitutions for yielding and sacrifice. They work together. The nitty-gritty “who makes the decision?” kinds of questions are the logistics that enable us to enact the ideal of serving together through yielding and sacrifice. It does little good to know what you’re trying to do if you don’t know how to do it.
Excessively Limiting Authority
Miller rightly understands that earthly authority is limited. However, she overstates these limitations. Perhaps it’s simply a matter of poor wording, but her claim that church leaders “don’t have the authority to tell you how to dress, how to vote, how to eat, where to live, or how to educate your kids” (p. 31) is, like the list of situational authorities, a mixed bag.
Church leaders have the authority and responsibility to address sin in those under their spiritual care, and there are items on this list that may involve areas of sin. It is incorrect, therefore, to say that church leaders lack authority in any of these areas. A savvy Amazon reviewer covered this point well.
“church leaders “don’t have the authority to tell you how to dress, how to vote, how to eat, where to live, or how to educate your kids”
This is another form of straw man argument, again. You (and your Amazon reviewer) both rightly point out that to some extent, church leaders do in fact have the authority to tell you what to do. But also, my saying they don’t have authority to tell you A, B, or C, does not negate the fact that they certainly DO have the authority to tell you to do X, Y, or Z.
She has used obvious exceptions to the rule, and neglected to bring in obvious valid examples of the rule, in an attempt to disprove the rule entirely.
Good point.