Much of our life is spent in reacting to extremes in the practice of others. This is certainly the case in observing attitudes toward authority.

We have lived in an age that has witnessed a crumbling of the proper authority of parents, teachers and civil rulers. It is not uncommon to observe contempt being shown toward those who rule over us in Western society.

Some of us have been in churches which exercise almost no discipline. Officers make no attempt to apply authority to the lives of church members. Men and women are counted as members in good standing despite the fact that they have not attended any worship service in more than ten years. A man who is known by the entire community to be a drunkard on Saturday night is permitted to take the offering on Sunday morning. A young lady who has had a child out of wedlock continues to attend the Lord's Table. Though all are whispering about her scandalous behaviour, no officer in the church approaches her with loving correction. When the church makes no effort to address itself to the most obvious sins within an assembly, it is a disgrace to the name of Christ and an unhealthy sign for the church.

Reacting understandably to this neglect of church authority, many in our day have called for reformation of the church in its discipline of members. One of the foci of reformation has been the restoration of biblical authority and discipline within Christ's church. Indeed it is questionable whether an organisation may be considered a true church without some degree of discipline over the doctrine and life of its members.

Yet many have rushed to increase regulation over the conduct of church members without sufficient awareness of an opposite extreme. When reins which are too tight are placed on God's people it is just as evil as their having no discipline. It is equally damaging to the cause of Christ. Authoritarianism is an abusive degree of authority. Sometime churches have become completely lax in keeping order in their congregations simply because they are reacting in horror against outrageous misuse of church power.

We must seek a biblical balance in the use of church authority, as in all practices. It can be self-serving to suggest that I have found the golden biblical mean, while all to my right or left are off-centre. Honesty will disclose that I, too, have tended to err both in leniency and in overbearing harshness in the exercise of authority as a parent, and as a church officer. Yet failure always to succeed in Christlike perfection must not keep us from recognising that there is a biblical balance! Nor should our shortcomings keep us from being outspoken against church practices which are blatantly unbiblical and extreme.

It does appear that into many evangelical churches recently there has come an overbearing authority which is injuring the true flock of God. Perhaps simply because our generation has been so unregulated by proper authority, those who seek to rule have run to excesses. But it is not merely a modern crisis. Our Lord Jesus observed discipline gone sadly astray. In the experience of the man who was healed of blindness we see the evils of authoritarianism (John 9).

After Jesus had healed one who was born blind, and did so on the Sabbath day, the Pharisees decided to investigate the matter. The interviews to get to the bottom of this case were carried out in an atmosphere of intimidation. In verses 20-23 it is apparent that witnesses testified under fear. Nothing directly said by the Pharisees in the questioning contributed to this fear, though perhaps tone and facial expression did. The Pharisees had long ago established a reputation for their style of rule. It was harsh and unyielding. The leaders had let it be known that they expected unquestioning agreement on one matter — that is, who Jesus was. Anyone who failed to agree with their opinion of Jesus would be cast out of the synagogue.

The blind man's mother and father went to their interview under a very definite threat. They must say of Jesus what the rulers wanted them to say, or else...! No matter if they have been valuable members of the synagogue all their lives. No matter if they have never caused trouble in the assembly. No matter if all their friends and relatives were part of the body. They must agree with the officers or else the most severe measures would be used against them. This agreement was demanded on an issue for which there was no biblical justification. There could be no reasoning with them. Discipline had clearly run to excess.

A second sign of authoritarian abuse is a cruel dividing of family and friends in the process of discipline. Pharisees called family members to testify in the hope of using their testimony against the blind man and against Jesus. How far this is from the biblical pattern of using discipline in a matter which is open and known to all! They are conducting a thorough enquiry in the hope of building a case. They seek to use intimate friends and family members to dig up charges.

Through the tactics of the Pharisees, the parents were pressured to abandon their own son. They would not stand by their own child in a moment of need because they were manipulated by fear. What permanent impact this must have had on their family relationships! Could the son ever again respect his parents who had watched him suffer all his lifetime and then had not the courage to support him in this cruel inquisition? When the testimony of a man's intimate loved ones is required to establish a charge, and when testimony about private conversations is the thin evidence of a case, church authority has overreached its mandate from Christ.

A use of lengthy sessions to break a suspect or to establish his guilt is another evidence of authority turned sour. Again and again the Pharisees go over each detail of the blind man's story. They are determined that their interpretation of the event will prevail. It amounts to harassment. They review. They make ominous statements. They are certain Jesus is a sinner! They pressurise the man.

Under this bullying treatment, the blind man is provoked. His rising anger shows itself in sarcasm. 'I have told you already and you did not listen. Why do you want to hear it again? Do you want to become his disciples too?' (v. 27). The temperature rose yet more as the Pharisees hurled insults at their spirited victim. In response to abusive tactics his manhood rises to even greater heights. He boldly defends Jesus and rebukes them.

No doubt there was heat in the blind man's speech after being provoked. His outburst, his irritation at their injustice was used by his inquisitors as evidence that his spirit had been wrong throughout!

As the contention between the healed man and the synagogue leaders rose, the leaders grew indignant that a mere member would question them (v. 34). 'How dare you lecture us!' At the start the Pharisees sought to build a case, searched for grounds to accuse Jesus and the beneficiary of His work. In the end, the issue was daring to stand in opposition to themselves. A subtle shift had taken place. No longer is discipline used to correct heresy and scandalous immorality. Discipline is employed to defend the officers and their reputation. No sin is now more grievous than that of criticising the leaders (however true the criticism). They have become paranoid, believing that nothing threatens the church more than a challenge to their authority (however misused).

Finally, the Pharisees relentlessly persecuted the one who disagreed with their opinion and policy. When the healed man dared to grow more insistent in spite of their pressures and when he refused to concede to their unfair position, he was driven from their fellowship. Most severe measures of discipline were employed for insufficient reasons. No heresy nor shocking sin was present. But the ultimate measures of exclusion and social ostracism were employed against him.

These five signs of abusive authoritarianism have reappeared in evangelical and Reformed churches today. This sad fact demands that we reconsider whether we have achieved a biblical balance in discipline. Tyranny may never be used as a corrective to a libertarian spirit. Excesses in authority will drive people to opposite extremes once more.

It is instructive that when Jesus heard what the Pharisees had done to the man, He did not acquiesce in the abusive discipline of the synagogue! Those who had real authority but misused it as tyrants warned everyone to have nothing to do with the outcast. Jesus went to him and comforted him.

There have been cases where immoral or heretical people, justly and properly disciplined by one church, have been accepted into member­ship by some other church. That is most certainly a gross abuse. On the other hand, there are also people who have been improperly disciplined by one church, only to find themselves outcasts and 'untouchables' in many assemblies because they are under the unjust censorship of abusive church officers. Our Lord clearly shows us that tender and loving approaches to those who are victims of unfair church discipline is no sign of a person's being in opposition to biblical authority.

Authority is placed in the hands of church officers, not as a weapon of self-defence, but as an instrument to be used lovingly for the well­being of the flock. Justice and mercy to each child of God is a higher cause to serve than defence of authority and those who use it. Where churches abuse authority, we should follow Christ and act as He did. We should seek the outcasts and minister to them.