IDENTIFYING THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY

Those of you who read my account of the story of the Stone-Campbell movement in a 739-page book with that title will observe that I lay part of the blame for our many divisions at the feet of authoritarian preachers and editors. I call them “Editor Bishops,” a term applied to them early on in our history. Not all editors were authoritarian, of course, but in our turbulent history we have had more than our share.

Whether in yesteryear or today the authoritarian personality needs to be identified and, if need be, marked, to use an overworked biblical term, in an effort to circumvent the mischief he will do both to himself and the church. If our Lord would assure us that we have the poor with us always, he might assure us as well that we have authoritarian leaders with us always. Perhaps he says as much when he warns us to Beware of men.

A book by T. W. Adorno, written a generation ago, entitled The Authoritarian Personality, helps us to follow Jesus’ warning to guard ourselves and the church against a certain type personality. Our Lord’s assurance that “By their fruits you shall know them” applies to these manipulative leaders. And a study of their traits will help us to examine ourselves lest we ourselves be guilty. Adorno believes there are clearly defined marks in the authoritarian person, such as:

1. His relations with others is based on authority rather than love and friendship. Friendship and acceptance depend on one’s loyalty to whatever may be the authority symbol, whether a rigidly defined set of doctrines or a party where the lines are clearly drawn. You are loved only if you are “faithful” to the system and its leadership. Such ones are extremely domineering over those in subordinate positions and those viewed as inferior to themselves. And they show great deference toward those who have authority over them.

2. He emphasizes conventional behavior and stresses close conformity to group norms. One who is inclined to ask questions will be uncomfortable around him, for he supposes he has already given all the answers and there is nothing to question. Conformity is demanded, especially in those areas he has come to champion. His group is expected to behave and think a certain way, and deviation from this is not tolerated.

3. He has an exaggerated sense of his own moral goodness and doctrinal rightness. Because of this he tends to deny his own immoral impulses and may even project them upon others as a defense mechanism, especially on those outside his group. He lacks self-understanding and is usually undisciplined in his own personal life. He seeks to control others with a rigidity he does not impose upon himself.

4. He is rigid in his thought processes. He may be more “logical” than reasonable, and of course he has to be right. He may even glory in the fact that he never changes his mind. He is intolerant of other groups and is critical of them. He is so stereotyped in what he says that one can anticipate “what comes next.”

5. He tends to use others, depersonalizing human relationships. He may even have masochistic and sadistic tendencies. Others become the means to his own selfish ambitions, not sacred ends in themselves. He is willing to hurt people so long as it helps to uphold what he has canonized as right.

These traits are undergirded with rigidity, inflexibility, and censoriousness. Such a person is reactionary to change and feels personally threatened when change is called for, for like the God of heaven he changes not. And he is usually conceited and has an exaggerated estimate of his own importance. One Editor Bishop, for instance, fell upon the floor crushed when he heard of Alexander Campbell’s death, saying, “It is not that he has gone that I am grieved, but that his mantle must fall upon my unworthy shoulders.” However “unworthy” he viewed himself, Campbell’s mantle did not fall upon him. Campbell’s mantle fell upon no one, which was probably just as well. Mantles are too often garments of pride that can just as well be left to Elijah and Elisha.

Austerity is his badge, not conciliation. He is more the lawyer than the diplomat. He is strong in logic but weak in sweet reasonableness. While he demands to be listened to, he is not often a good listener. But why should he listen when he has nothing to learn? This is the authoritarian personality, and he is dangerous to have around. His potential for harm may lie in his insecurity. Hardly anyone is as dangerous as a frightened man.

How are we to respond to such ones? The old adage of being forewarned is to be forearmed applies here. Jesus warns us to Beware! We will never get lost by following ambitious leaders so long as we remain disciples of Jesus. We follow him, not men. Unless they point to Jesus, we are not to go the way they point. We are never to take that first step away from our Lord. The best antidote against manipulative men is for us to be a people who cannot be manipulated. We do not let anyone sell us a bill of goods for the simple reason that we do not buy phoney goods. That puts the manipulators out of business quickly.

Another antidote is hearty laughter. While laughing at people rather than with them is usually impolite, I am persuaded that we need to laugh in the face of some of these phonies. An effective way to handle the pompous, overly-serious super saint, or the brother who is ready to debate at the drop of the hat is not to take him seriously.

But still we are never to give up on such people, realizing that the grace of God triumphs even over authoritarianism. Even when we laugh at their sobriety and ignore their antics, we are to keep on loving them with a love that is evident. —the Editor