Redefining the Seven Basic Principles: Authority

It is difficult for me to remember as I write these posts, that my purpose is not to 
speak about these principles as they have been taught to me, but rather that I am looking
for the underlying truths that can be taken away from those teachings. This does not mean 
that I will not be relating the principles as they were taught to me by word and deed.
but as a reminder to myself not to get bogged down in the dogmas of the principles.


The principle of authority is probably one of the most controversial of the Institutes' 7
Basic Principles. It is the lynch-pin of the seminar...the "one to rule them all." the
success of each of the other six principles hangs on this one.

Day two of the Basic Seminar (or just "the Basic" as we called it) started promptly at
7pm, and the next 4 hours were spent explaining how the Principle of Authority is
honoring the responsibilities of parents, church leaders, government, and other
authorities and learning how God works through them to provide direction and protection.
On the surface this sounds innocuous enough, right? I'll go so far as to say it even
sounds good.(Especially if you happen to be the parent of a teenager.) but, as is
demonstrated by the Turkey Vulture in Character Sketches... things are not always what
they seem.

There is an absolutism to the concept of authority as taught by Mr. Gothard. Almost
militaristic in it's definition, respect is given to "office" or "position" rather that
character(which, ironically enough is at odds with other core teachings of the 
Institute). Young people are taught that character is the end all, be all... but then are
expected to honor(read: unquestioning, immediate obedience) any authority figure
regardless of their character, or lack thereof. The concept of earned respect was unheard
of unless you were a child, and a child could only earn respect by continual 
demonstration of a meek and quiet spirit, unquestioning, immediate obedience,
and a single infraction destroyed months, even years worth of good behavior.

One of the worst things for me was that every time anything untoward happened...down to a
paper cut... it was the result of my being out from under authority, that any negative
occurance was the direct result of moral failure on my part. The guilt from carrying that
much responsibility for circumstances beyond my control was agony. I think the biggest
problem with this part of this system is that it seems to breed abuse since the gist of
the teaching is that the father is right, even when he is wrong. This attitude that
"whatever I say is right because I am the father and God put me in charge", is the epitome
of a power trip and creates an extremely nurturing environment for abusive authorities.
Because this authority is so absolute there is a sense that, rather than being held to a
higher standard, parents are above the rules.

I think this is the most difficult of the principles for me to reconcile with any
positive take-away.The obsession with authority is unhealthy at best. While it is true
that the purpose of authority figures is to provide direction and protection, they do not have
a direct line from God and should never have absolute power over any individual but
themselves.

But the Institute's idea of authority moves in two directions. The first deals with the
one in authority... whose primary responsibility is to make the rules and enforce them.
The second is the one who should be under authority. Unfortunately a disservice is done
to both parties. It was said long ago that absolute power corrupts absolutely... while
this is very true, it also works in reverse...Absolute submission stunts subconsciously.
The biggest problem, in my opinion, with this principle is where to draw the line. Within
this system, fathers are still authorities over daughters(regardless of age) until they
marry. Sons are also still to remain "under authority" until they marry, and while in
concept this could be a good thing, logistically it is a nightmare. Children do not learn
how to make the "wise decisions" that they are expected to make.

So, what do I take away from this twisted view of authority?

Honestly?... a healthy respect for people who do not have this view of the subject.


To this day the word AUTHORITY leaves a taste in my mouth that is somewhere between
rotten milk and the backspray of a concentrated bathroom cleaner. I cringe and bristle when
someone dares to tell me that I should give them respect that they haven't earned. Maybe
my takeaway is that I do not have to respond the way that I was taught, understanding
that this is not a healthy lifestyle for me. The realization that authority is given to
others regardless of their worthiness, but true power to change my life or the lives of
others is only manifested through mutual respect. The idea that having a position of power
is not the same thing as having power and that no-one regardless of position can have any
power over me that I do not give them or that I cannot take away from them.
The reality is, though, that the idea which carries the least weight is the one that is
expounded on and multiplied and carried to a whole 'nother level, and authority is that
idea.