When Authority Goes Wrong

Foundational Scripture References

Ezekiel 34:1–10; Jeremiah 23:1–4; Matthew 7:15–23; Matthew 23:1–12; Acts 5:27–29; Galatians 2:11–14; 3 John 1:9–11.

Authority is intended to establish responsibility, provide direction, maintain order, and serve a purpose greater than the person who holds it. When exercised with humility and integrity, it can protect people, strengthen communities, encourage spiritual growth, and help others fulfill their responsibilities. Yet authority can become dangerous when the person entrusted with it begins to treat the position as a source of personal power rather than a responsibility before God.

The misuse of authority does not always begin with an obvious act of cruelty. Sometimes it begins with a leader who becomes uncomfortable with questions, a person who expects special treatment because of a title, or someone who gradually interprets disagreement as disloyalty. Over time, these attitudes can establish an atmosphere in which people become afraid to speak honestly. Decisions are no longer examined according to their merits, but according to the identity of the person who made them. Concerns are dismissed because raising them might threaten the reputation of the leader or the stability of the organization.

When this happens, the original purpose of authority begins to disappear beneath the need to protect the person exercising it. The leader may still speak about service, unity, submission, and obedience, yet those principles may be applied selectively. Followers are expected to demonstrate humility, while the leader refuses correction. Others are told to forgive, while the person responsible for harm avoids accountability. People are instructed to trust God, while being pressured to place unquestioning trust in a human being.

This contradiction must be recognized because spiritual language can make unhealthy authority difficult to identify. A person may speak confidently about biblical principles while applying them in ways that protect personal interests. A ministry may continue its outward activities while serious concerns remain unaddressed. The presence of sincere worship, public service, or impressive teaching does not eliminate the need to examine how people are treated behind the scenes.

The question is not whether a leader has ever made a mistake. Every human being is capable of error, and faithful leadership does not require perfection. The question is how the leader responds when a mistake is exposed, when a concern is raised, or when a decision causes harm. Does the person listen, examine the facts, acknowledge responsibility, and take appropriate steps toward correction? Or does the person use position, intimidation, spiritual language, or personal influence to silence the concern?

A leader’s response to accountability often reveals more about the condition of the heart than the original mistake. An honest error can become an opportunity for growth when it is met with humility. A pattern of denial, retaliation, and refusal to accept responsibility can turn an individual failure into a much more serious problem.

When authority goes wrong, the responsibility of the believer is not to respond with automatic rebellion or unquestioning compliance. It is to seek truth, exercise discernment, and respond in a manner that honors Jesus Christ. We must learn to recognize the misuse of authority without allowing another person’s failure to determine the condition of our own hearts.

Ezekiel 34:1 to 10

¹ And the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, ² Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel, prophesy, and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD unto the shepherds; Woe be to the shepherds of Israel that do feed themselves! should not the shepherds feed the flocks? ³ Ye eat the fat, and ye clothe you with the wool, ye kill them that are fed: but ye feed not the flock. ⁴ The diseased have ye not strengthened, neither have ye healed that which was sick, neither have ye bound up that which was broken, neither have ye brought again that which was driven away, neither have ye sought that which was lost; but with force and with cruelty have ye ruled them. ⁵ And they were scattered, because there is no shepherd: and they became meat to all the beasts of the field, when they were scattered. ⁶ My sheep wandered through all the mountains, and upon every high hill: yea, my flock was scattered upon all the face of the earth, and none did search or seek after them. ⁷ Therefore, ye shepherds, hear the word of the LORD; ⁸ As I live, saith the Lord GOD, surely because my flock became a prey, and my flock became meat to every beast of the field, because there was no shepherd, neither did my shepherds search for my flock, but the shepherds fed themselves, and fed not my flock; ⁹ Therefore, O ye shepherds, hear the word of the LORD; ¹⁰ Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against the shepherds; and I will require my flock at their hand, and cause them to cease from feeding the flock; neither shall the shepherds feed themselves any more; for I will deliver my flock from their mouth, that they may not be meat for them.

Ezekiel 34:1 to 10 presents a serious warning concerning shepherds who fail to care for the people entrusted to them. The passage describes leadership that has turned inward, focusing upon personal benefit while neglecting the needs of those under its care. Instead of strengthening the weak, caring for the vulnerable, and seeking those who have become scattered, the shepherds have failed in their responsibility.

The image is powerful because it exposes the difference between possessing a leadership position and fulfilling the purpose of that position. A shepherd is entrusted with responsibility for the flock, not given ownership over it. The role exists for the care and protection of those who depend upon the shepherd’s attention. When the shepherd begins using the flock for personal advantage while neglecting its needs, the responsibility has been distorted.

This principle remains important wherever people are entrusted with influence. A leader may receive recognition, financial support, opportunities, or other benefits because of the work being performed. Such benefits are not automatically wrong. Leadership may legitimately involve compensation, resources, and responsibilities that require support. The danger emerges when personal benefit becomes the priority and the people being served become secondary.

A leader who consistently expects others to sacrifice while refusing to accept personal responsibility may be revealing a serious imbalance. Someone who demands loyalty but offers no meaningful accountability may be more interested in preserving control than fulfilling the assignment. A person who expects constant service, admiration, or financial support while neglecting the well being of those who provide it must be willing to examine whether the purpose of leadership has been lost.

The warning in Ezekiel is not limited to financial misconduct. It also concerns neglect, exploitation, and the failure to care for people who are vulnerable. A shepherd can fail through harshness, indifference, favoritism, or the refusal to respond when someone is in need. A leader may be physically present and publicly active while remaining unwilling to address the problems that require genuine care.

Spiritual leadership should not be measured only by how well a ministry functions when everything is going smoothly. It must also be examined by how people are treated when they struggle, when they need correction, when they cannot offer anything in return, or when they raise concerns that are inconvenient. The character of leadership becomes particularly visible when serving others requires something beyond public performance.

A faithful shepherd recognizes that the people entrusted to that responsibility are not there to feed the leader’s ego. They are not trophies to display, resources to exploit, or possessions to control. They are people whose dignity and well being matter before God. The responsibility of leadership must therefore include a willingness to listen, protect, guide, correct, and take appropriate action when harm occurs.

The warning is also a reminder to those who follow. We must not assume that a person is a faithful shepherd simply because the person uses the title. Nor should we conclude that every imperfect leader is malicious. The proper response is careful examination of conduct, attention to patterns, and a willingness to distinguish ordinary human limitations from persistent misuse of responsibility.

When leadership becomes self serving, the needs of the people are pushed aside. The mantle becomes a means of personal advantage rather than a responsibility of care. God does not overlook this distortion, and neither should those who are entrusted with the responsibility to recognize and address it.

Few biblical principles are more frequently misunderstood than submission. Scripture calls believers to humility, respect, and an orderly approach to relationships. Yet these principles can be distorted when a leader teaches that submission means never questioning a decision, never raising a concern, or never refusing an instruction. Such a definition does not produce spiritual maturity. It produces dependence upon human approval and can leave people vulnerable to manipulation.

Genuine submission is not the abandonment of discernment. It is a willingness to respond to legitimate authority with humility while remaining accountable to the truth of God. It does not require a person to pretend that a harmful action is acceptable or to accept a false accusation without question. It does not transfer the authority of Jesus Christ to a human leader.

A leader who insists that every disagreement is rebellion may be creating an environment in which personal preference is treated as divine command. This is particularly dangerous when the leader claims that questioning the leader is equivalent to questioning God. The claim places the leader in a position that no human being has the right to occupy. It discourages believers from examining the teaching, conduct, and decisions of the person who is demanding their obedience.

Acts 5:27 to 29

²⁷ And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them, ²⁸ Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us. ²⁹ Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

Acts 5:27 to 29 establishes the importance of recognizing that human authority has limits. When the apostles faced a direct conflict between the instruction of human authorities and their responsibility before God, they remained committed to obeying God. Their example does not authorize believers to reject every instruction they dislike. It demonstrates that no human demand can rightfully replace the authority of God.

We must therefore distinguish between an instruction that challenges our comfort and one that violates truth. A leader may ask us to fulfill a responsibility we would rather avoid, receive correction we do not enjoy, or cooperate with a decision that differs from our personal preference. These circumstances may require humility and a willingness to reconsider our response. However, a leader cannot make dishonesty, abuse, exploitation, or other wrongdoing righteous simply by demanding submission.

There is also a difference between asking a sincere question and attempting to undermine legitimate leadership. The manner, motive, and circumstances of a conversation matter. Believers should strive to communicate respectfully, avoid spreading unverified accusations, and seek appropriate ways to resolve disagreements. Yet respectful communication does not require silence when a serious concern must be addressed.

When submission is used to silence truth, the language of humility becomes a tool of control. People may begin to doubt their own judgment, fear that God will punish them for raising a concern, or believe that leaving a harmful situation means abandoning their faith. These fears can be especially powerful when a person has been taught that spiritual security depends upon unquestioning loyalty to a particular leader.

The truth is that our relationship with Jesus Christ cannot be reduced to our relationship with a human authority. We are responsible for examining our conduct before God, and those who lead us are responsible for doing the same. Respect can coexist with disagreement, and humility can coexist with a firm refusal to participate in wrongdoing.

A healthy understanding of submission brings us closer to truth. It does not require us to surrender our ability to recognize the difference between righteousness and manipulation.

Matthew 23:1 — 12

¹ Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, ² Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: ³ All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. ⁴ For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. ⁵ But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, ⁶ And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, ⁷ And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. ⁸ But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.

⁹ And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. ¹⁰ Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. ¹¹ But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. ¹² And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.

Matthew 23:1 to 12 warns about religious leadership that emphasizes outward appearance while neglecting the heart.