The value of relgious authority

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

We live in an individualistic world where most of us are free to develop our own ideas about religion and spirituality. In a previous age we may have been told what to believe, had no personal access to any kind of scriptures or spiritual writing, and simply had the choice of accepting what others say about God or be punished as a heritic.

Obviously when I put it like that, I am glad that there is personal freedom to make our own choices. However, at what point is there value in spiritual authority? We may be all be clever individuals, but maybe hundreds or thousands of years of other minds thinking about the same problem have far surpassed our own personal abilities. Maybe submission to some kind of religious authority without really understanding why could actually accelerate our spiritual progress rather than hinder it?

Where do you come down on this issue? Is all spiritual authority bad? Have you had experiences where you have submitted to a religious authority or rule that you did not understand? Was the outcome good? Or bad?

My story is one of good and bad. I can see how religious authorities can become corrupt and place burdens on people that are heavy to bear, including myself. Yet I think it is arrogant to think that I have the capabilities to always know what is best for me…

2

Hurray for Authorities!

We can all benefit from the collected wisdom of previous times. Not to tap into this vital resource is hybris. Yes, some of the journey must be done on your own, but to think that you can do it all?

Foolishness.

3

It’s overwhelming to consider the amount of philosophical and theological thought that has come before us. To ignore it seems like pure negligence. That’s not to say that one should necessarily just pick some prior authority to submit to. But there are ideas and concepts already put forth that one couldn’t in a lifetime dream of conjuring up on one’s own.

4

I think that Jerry is right in many ways. It would be really ridiculous to ignore the previous efforts of some very fine minds.

However, I don’t think authority or submission is the answer. As I see it this is a dialogue. All the collected works of all the thinkers who ever were (in religion and philosophy) is like this ongoing conversation.

The price of admission: being able to read and willing to think. That lets you into the company of the greats. (Note, it doesn’t make your ideas great unfortunately) [NB. someone talked about this somewhere in a book I read - I’m aware I’m probably stealing it but I cannot think of the reference - so credit where its due - I didn’t make this up but I really agree with it.]

To submit ourselves to the authority of another though is to remove ourselves from that conversation. Reading, questioning, arguing, and thinking about as many different viewpoints as we can on what we find interesting to think about regardless of our beliefs.

This is so much more important than submitting ourselves to an authority.

A bit rambling I’m afraid, sorry to impose it on all of you.

Cheers,
gemty

5

The last thing that we need is a “spiritual” beurocracy built in the honor of the god that wasn’t even there.

6

Ok, well let’s agree to agree on that then.

I think I hear what you are saying. That we should take the best of the conversation and use it to advance our understanding.

The problem I have with that approach is that it is very similar (almost indistinguishable) to the situation of having no authority at all, since I am the ultimate arbitrator of what is “good” and what is “not good” in the writings of others. It’s actually not so different from rejecting everything except my own ideas.

However, the alternative, of true submission to another spiritual authority seems to raise other problems that I may not want either. In a different thread Jerry raised the possibility that maybe we should trust our “gut instinct”. Maybe that’s the best we can do. But it seems to be that submission to a spiritual authority could be valuable in some circumstances, but maybe not in others. But I’m not sure to what extent we can do “both” as it pleases us. To do “both” seems to involve so much of my own opinion as to be closer to having no spiritual authority. Does that make any sense?

7

I tend to lean towards geriocratic thinking when it deals with matters of spiritual importance . . . but I think that age is the best arbitarator for one’s submission to spiritual authority.
The young are filled with ideas. Some new, some re-discovered, but they invariably lack the view that is imparted by living life. As one lives life and studies the authorized version of the spiritual truth, we naturally find some ideas that we agree with more than others.
However, these ideas are those which have been held by our elders and betters for a long time. So, it is best to respect them.
If you respect these time-honoured virtues, eventually people will see the virtue within you and begin to heed your word. Once you’ve attained that position of spiritual authority, you may begin to disagree with those that were once your elders and betters, but are now your equals.

Age, study, and practice. Once a person has accumulated enough of each they may begin building a new path.

8

I want to ask this: Is spiritual authority different than other sorts of authority in any important way? Anything we’re saying here, can we also say about submitting to authorities in matters of politics, medicine, and automotive repair?

9

That’s an interesting question. Maybe it would be worth throwing in an example at this point.

As I understand it, the RC church takes the position that individual members must submit their biblical insight to the authority of the local priest, who then submits his understanding to the bishop…all the way to the pope. In practice, I’m not sure that this actually happens since there is quite a lot of theological variety in the RC church.

Now I’m not knocking the RCs, but if we use this as a model of spiritual authority I think it is quite different to politics, mdeicine, and car repair. In all of these examples if I don’t like the “service” I can just go someplace else, right. Although I delegate some authority (fix the muffler but call me if it will be more than 250…) I retain the ultimate authority.

A closer example to real spiritual authority might therefore be the police. If I get caught driving 60 in a 35 area I can’t just say, “well, actually I prefer the authority of the police in some other state”. I understand that even in this example, as a society we have delegated authority to the police and may change the law. But I guess I’m thinking of spiritual authority as something more like the police than the car repair shop. But others may think differently.

Anyway, I don’t know where I’m going with this train of thought other than to say I think submission to a spiritual authority seems like quite a rigid thing to do. But maybe it has a lot of value that we can’t really see individually because we’re just too dumb…

10

By choosing who you submit to, you have a great deal of choice. If I submit myself to a New-Age guru, I’ll have a very different spiritual understanding at the end of the journey than I would if I submitted myself to an Opus Dei Priest.

There is a great deal of versitility in submission.

11

True. But if I submit myself to one and then later choose the other, I can conclude that I never really submitted myself to the first one at all. I still retained ultimate control.

12

Ahhh, but for a time you did. And for that time you learned what it is that you do and do not like about that particular tradition. It’s mark will always linger with you, subtly affecting the way you act.

Submission needn’t be forever. That’s why there are safe words :wink:.

The biggest problem with this approach is that if you serve many masters, even at different times, it is very difficult to become a master yourself. Everytime a piece of iron is recycled, it accumulates more imperfections until it is, ultimately, unusable.

13

I suppose that is true. It sort of depends on how much submission is really submission, but I take your point.

Well said. I agree with this completely. Too much messing around does no-one any good, least of all yourself.

Since you favor a “geriocratic” authority, I’m guessing that you must be really, really old? :slight_smile:

14

Can’t say I am . . . but if you style yourself a Confucian, supporting any other system doesn’t make too much sense.

15

I think there is an important difference between spiritual and automotive/medical/political authority.

Certainly, in medicine and automotives there is a demonstrable outcome of your submission to the authority. For automibiles, your car works again, for doctors, yoyu get better and feel better.

You see, if you take your car to the mechanic - an authority and deliver yourself to his care (and hand over a sum of money) you can see the proof of his authority - your car drives properly again.

The same for the doctor - you lab results normalise, the pain disappears, etc.

But for the spiritual authority there is not automatically a mechanism for accountability. Especially with the religions that promise a reward after death, that makes me feel really skeptical.

We wouldn’t go back to a mechanic who said “the clutch works in mysterious ways… perhaps it is not working as test to you” But we will take this kind of saying on the spiritual plane.

Is that a bad thing? No, not neccessarily, but it makes the mechanic different from the priest.

Ned:
I think we need to seek the path that’s right for us… some are comforted by submitting themselves, some are not. I think we need to be humble and genuinely open to new experiences, and then we don’t have to worry so much about rejecting other’s ideas. We take what we can from as many places as we can with an open mind and arrive where we do.

16

Here is an authority we ought all listen to:
chp.edu/mryuk/mryuk_web.mp3

Much better than pirates.

17

Ned asks:

I say “Shoot da bastards.” Nah just kidding. I’ve been battling experts long enough that it seemed an appropriate introduction to a very tough question. Though I know that the majority of these experts or authorities are really just the one eyed man leading the blind, I also know that there are those whose authoritative influence is absolutely essential both for the sincere seeker and as a mediating influence in societal conflict.

First, from the sociological perspective, I don’t think a free society could function on secular values and needs religious values as a policeman so to speak. You know for example when you’re driving and cars are cutting in and out, all of a sudden a police car drives by and like magic everyone is driving sanely. A healthy religion serves this purpose in a society that is both mechanical and healthy as it develops.

People are different and desire and or expect different qualities from their religion.

We all know what the first education is. We learn about societal values from family, peers, schools and such and this education is necessary to allow us to function in our society. We have no real trouble accepting authority figures that we see as fair and just in by our standards. A good student accepts a good teacher as more knowledgeable and having qualities he wishes to learn.

Religion religious education as contrasted with secular teachings is similar but harder to accept. It is the second education.

A person may come to a point in their life where they are successful, part of a good family, respected in the community, and with some good friends. It has been the first education that has provided this. Now he may start to think what is it all for. I’ve done this but what really am I doing? I seem to be defined by everything around me but who really am I? Is this all there is? Do I have a soul or at least something that strives to feel deeper, a quality of meaning that is beyond all the good that has come to me but deprived me of?

The teaching of how to learn is the second education. There are those who do know these things but how does one separate them from the misguided, blind well wishers, and obvious charlatans? A person not knowing themselves in the slightest is prime for all sorts of nonsense since they are moved by what they believe to be as their heart which has become a slave to egotism, secularism and self justification only serving to deny what the person has become attracted to.

Unfortunately, it seems to be partially a matter of luck. While I do believe that when the student is ready the teacher appears, it is only possible under the right circumstances.

This is the great irony for me. I do believe that a person must learn from one who knows and all this modern spirituality is only good for feeling good, but at the same time, how do we find it. What are the qualities of the genuine religious authority? For me it requires then acceptance of something out of fashion and very un PC. It is the idea that not all are equal in these matters and that there is a hierarchy of understanding. We need new ears to hear and eyes to see. It has become natural to try and pull everything down to our level as opposed to raising our level in order to understand something. But what does raising our level mean? Does it mean just becoming more knowledgeable or the display of better social values? IMO it means developing our “being” but in these times we don’t even know what this is anymore and everything is just considered the same.

Spiritual authority can only be considered good or bad then in the context of our need or goals. I believe it is necessary for the objective good of our being and but when genuine is also volitile so can also change to absorbing certain qualities leading to the destruction of its potential. In Christianity, this is what is meant by the sin against the Holy Spirit. It is being possessed by an unchangeable state of egotism that is too thick to allow for the entry of the Spirit.

For others it serves only as a guide for established social customs and is all that is wanted.

For the person that has gone beyond the question of whether or not to accept or deny themselves in favor of impartially knowing themselves as part of the second education, it requires an impartiality we are incapable of sustaining and the good teacher keeps us on track. We need this spiritual authority of one who has moved along the evolving path of “being.” The hope is to allow these two educations to compliment each other but more often than not, as we are, they only serve to conflict with each other.

The only meaningful answer I believe is not deciding the worth of spiritual authority as we understand it but how to be able to open ourselves to what the psychological need for the second education indicates without contaminating it by pulling it down to our own emotional preconceptions of right and wrong. By conscious attempts at impartial self knowledge, perhaps we can become able to discriminate betrween the real and illusory qualities of authority for our benefit.

18

Indeed a difficult question to answer Ned, but I’ll try.

I think that faith is the most important virtue or quality that we need when we are cultivating our spirituality. Without faith it is impossible to move in any direction regardless of right or wrong, good or bad, black or white etc. If we have blind faith then we are giving our power away. Our faith must surely come from a part of us that trusts the relevant authority no? It is not arrogant to know what is best for you if you indeed do know what is best for you spiritually speaking. But knowing what is best for us and acting on what is best for us are really two different things. It helps sometimes to have an example to follow. Finding out who the examples are isn’t really that hard. We just have to observe their actions very carefully to understand what kind of heart they have.

A

19

We all operate under authority in practically every part of our lives, but accepting spiritual authority is an entirely different issue. It seems to me that we’re speaking of an intangible. There are those who even dispute the concept of spirit or soul. The whatever this consciousness is and its relationship to the ineffable something we call God is the most unique and personal understanding possible. We take from our direct experiences, our exposure to the wisdom of others in whatever form, and from that arrive at our own knowing. To do less is to abdicate the responsibility of the gift of consciousness that life has bestowed. Ultimately, our understanding, whether self-generated or adoption of authority is ours and ours alone. We stand alone and naked before that which is.

20

Very good point. Maybe that is why we find it so hard to submit to spiritual authority. However, I think there may be some benefits that we can see. The Christian faith talks a lot about the “fruit of the spirit”, love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, self-control etc… These should be evidence of growth. As Jesus said, “you will know a tree by it’s fruit”. Maybe we don’t get everything at once, but we should see some benefit of spiritual authority.

That attitude takes a lot of self-confidence. Maybe that’s also part of the issue in spiritual authority.