ul

What liver Happened to Authority
Marl 1:1—22
Janaury 26, 1969

It seems that we are spending more and more time recuntly reminiscing
about the "good old days". And the topic of these nostalgic reminiscences
seens always to have something to do with authority. As we look back ~ even
to the recent past - we recall a feeling of safety, security and stability.
Authority was respected. Children obeyed their parents; students obeyed
their teachers; the people respected the police and the courts; the world
respected America; and everybody respected the church.

Of course, there is a certain favorable distortion that takes place
whenever we engage in this kind of reminiscence. Things were never cuiic
that simple. And yet there can be no denying that we are, today, in ao new
situation, and that authority is, in fact, under siege from several quarters.
Now before we look more deeply let mo hasten to add that this siege of
authority may not be nearly so cminous as it erpears- The radical right would
have uc equate the questioning of aithority with the death throes of the
Republic. I would merely suggest 2+ this point that quite the reverse nay
be truc; that it is a healthy, alvcit prinful, exercise for authority to
be questioned with the result thal teie suthcrity is finally established

and false authority unceremoniously thrown te the wind,

In any case, this is whers we ere. At ao tine in our history has
constituted civil authority in ihe form of government, law enforcement
agencies and the judicial structure been less sure of itself,

less effective, or commanded less razpeot. In the cities, on the campuses,
authority has yet to be established notwithstanding modern weaponry,
National Guard invasions, police dogs and the strong talk of Governor
Reagan. It just hasn't worked. In fact, it appears that efforts in this
direction serve only to increase tne ever-widening gap between those who
exercise authority and those who question the right to its legitimate
exercise.

Parents, since the days of Socrates, have bemoaned the disrespect of
children toward authority. In this sense the generation gap is rathor old-
hat. And yet, here too, we are dealing with something new. This is different.
The old gap has noticeably widened. And, in fact, parental authority is not
what it used to be.

Probably the most significant illustration of the authority
crisis in which we find ourselves, however, has to do with the church.

For a thousand years the Roman Catholic Church has been synonomous with
authority. The Church had and exercissd a commonly accepted authority over
the lives, beliefs and behavior of iis members. In relationship to the
world cbout it, the church claimed for itself a certain divinely ordained
authority to act, to influence and to wield power. That, too, has passed.
The liberal Protestant journal "The Christian Century" several months ago
was otrongly critical of Feope Paui's encyclical on birth control, talking

it to task for its lack of realism ond its failure to speak to the needs

of people and at the same time the mest important single problem facing

the whole world. But in the very next issue, “The Century” called attention
to the fact that thereally sicuificént tainge about the Bneyclical was

that priests were openiy criticizing it. and Roman Catholics were openly
and consciously ignoring it. That is i> say, ecclesiastical authority
simply isn't what it used to be, And the CUhvistien Century was quick to
see that all churchly authority ia ot the came impasse. That ia, it's
crumbling fast. What there was o° t1¢ old authority, is mo more, and sorie

Che
Pd

ats

new basis, some new reconstruction of a .base for authority mst be devised,
or we are all in serious trouble.

I believe part of the problem is an inherent suspicion of all anthori ty
that is simply built-in to the American mentality. It has stood us in good
stead in days past. It was born in a revolution, expressed in a syston of
checks and balances, and nurtured in the evolution of Republican Democracy.
But it has its less noble expressions as well. A great American pas tine
Lan always been stealing from the Government. Political slander and character
assassination have been table talk in millions of homes. And long before the
hippies were calling the police "fascist pigs", millions of Americans were
deriding and disdaining them in the presence of their children. How far is
it between the obscene gesture of the radical student and the quiet disdain
of his very respectable father? After all, our respect for the police
generally is mirrored in the fact that a man can earn more money doing
almost anything olre.

All things considered, then, I think it very clear that we are in the midst
of an authority crisis of the first ragnitmde. Carl Sanburgs' words about the
Civil War era apply with equal precision todey: "Something is dying and some
thing is being born." \%ere it will lesc, culturally and politically, is
anyon's guess. But one thing is certain. You and I and everone else who is
alive and functioning in 1969 will tnovitably influence the final course. By
what we do - or don't do ~ new forns of authority will emerge to give structure
and statulity to our common life. As Christiens this places a special res—
ponsibility on ;us ~ mainly becavse this whole matter of authority is verv «*,
closely related to our feith.

Individual authority is an extremely slippery concept. A man with a
gun has authority. As long as he has the gun and no one else does, he can
make things happen the way he wants them to happen. That is authority based
on coercion - and it's easy enough to understand. But thereare those without
guns who have authority -- and here difinitions become difficult. Some men have
it —- others .“o not, and it''s not always easy to understand why. In fact a man
have authority for me -- and leave you cold, and here we get into the nobulous
erea of personal response to other people. For instance, there are political
figures who, for some of you, have authority, While for others of you these
same politicians have absolutely no personal authority at all.

Jesus of Nazareth was one man, who for some p*ople had authority. In
fact, from the very beginning this one was one of the more remarkable things
about him: he had authority. In the first chapter of the Gospel according to
licxk, immediately efter he had enlisted Andrew and Simon, James and John, he
went to the synagogue at Caperniun and began to teach. Mark reports that the
people there were astonished at his teaching, for he taught them as one who
had authority, and not as the scribes. The same comment is found in Tuke, ‘®
following his teaching in the Nazareth Synagogue: and in Matthew, at the con-
clusion of the Sermon on the Mount, Whatever individual authority ic, Jesus
had it.

It's very significant that in cach case the authority of Jesus is con-
trasted with a lack of authority on ~he part of the scrites. "The people were
astonished becouse he taught with authority, not like the scribes." That's
significant because if anycne had authority in the culture of first century
Judea, it should have. been the soribus. They were the interpreters of the
religious law: scholarly men, their task was to apply the ancient, Ilosaic legal
code to the daily situations of life. They had going for them the law itself
and the ontire tradition of the people of Israel. When they spoke, poople should
have listened. So it is quite significant that it is these men with thom the

-3-

authority of Jesus was contrasted.

Of course we read back into the New Testament our own belicfs and feelings
about Josus. To see — twenty centuries later — He is the divine Son of God.

For us that is the base of his authority: He is Lord of all: He had all the
truth of God on His side. But His first century listeners certainly didn't

know that or belitve it. To them he was just an itinerant teacher from the city
of liazare th, ‘

vo understand the full significance of this remarkable contrast, then,
wo must note that he had no religious credentials: the scribes did. [fc had no
ecclesiastical status: the scribes did. He had no power of influence with the
establishment: the scribes did. And yet he had authority; and the scribes did
not.

Vy?

Jesus spoke from experience: that's why. The scribes based thoir teaching
and judgements on tradition. Jesus spoke out of the context of life itsclf.
When Iie taught E> told stories people could understand; situations in which his
listoncrs had been involved. He posed questions they had asked and gave answers
that were realistic. That is to say Jesus, was relevant: His teachings net
people where they were because they were coming from one who knew what life
was like for the common man. Jesus had this authority. But there was nore.

It was an authority of love: deep, compassionate, personal cor.ccrn for
people. They knew his reputation. He had defied tradition by stooping to lift
& prostitute from the gutter: He had compassion for the adultress, the loper,
the tax collector, the riff raff. The scribes did not. Or if they did, their
fellings were well desguised in the costume of respectable peity. So he had
authority: when He talked about a man's social responsibility for his neighbor
the people knew exactly what he meant because he was living it daily. ‘Jo use
the cliche, "he practiced what He preached" and so He «had authority.

Vinally, there was an authenticity about Him when He spoke. ‘There was
nothing pompous or presumptious here. People responded because this was a
gcniune man. George Arther Buttrick has put it well: "People listonod to Jesus,
end then said, That is what I have always known deep down, even though I have
no words to say it" (I.B. P336, Vol. VII) That's a perceptive commont. lvery
so oftcn it happens to me. Someone will put into words a feeling, an wnder-
standing, that is inside me, but which I've never been able to articulate. And
when that happens, the person who makes it happen suddenly has authority for me.

there, is more, of course, Jesus had that quality «so much in the nows at
election time called charisma. He spoke - and a spark was kindled: pcople
listened. You can't put it down — but some men have it, and others do not.
But mainly His authority was based on his life experience, His leve and Tis
honest authenticity. And it was for this that people were astonished.

liow, it seems to me that this little exercise ought to be helping us with
our om concerns about authority. I+ seems to me that we ought to lear here
that parental authority based on either coercion or tradition isn't going to
be very offective. To put it even more bluntly, if we expect children to res-
our authority 1)because we will punish thom if they don't, or 2)becausc we are
parcnvs and children ought to obey parents - are in for a rude awakoning. I+
doesn't work - at least for long.

find yet that is an extremely difficult lesson to learn. We wish it were
the other way. It would be so much simpler if our homes could operate on the
same basis as Marine "Boot Camp". But the homes in which I've observed real
authority ~ effective authority - are the homes in which love is so genuine
anyone cun feel it; when parents honestly attempt to participate in the
thought -worlds of their children: where judicial decisions are not handed
dowm coremoniously, but gently, in love, and out of a mutual participation in

an

al

the complexities of life.

That's a hard lesson to learn: but it is even more difficult in tho area
of public authority. I have the notion that civil authority is respected when
it is authentically responsive to the needs of people. That is to say - if thé
police in the ghetto have the image of an oppressive, ovcupying army ~ which in
fact they have - it is absurd to assume that their authority will be respected
simply berause they have a badge on. It doesn't work. ‘The people didn't res~
pect the scribes because of their office remember. Fortunatly there arc more
and more public adminstrators who are learning this conspicuous but difficult
lesson. The Police Department's that do their job most effectively an not
those with the heaviest weaponry but those enlightened departments with a good
public relations and community action program. The cities where civil authority
is respected are those in which the Mayors have walked the streets of tho ghetto
and honestly attempte to speak and listen - instead of grandly le~islaoting from
City Iidll. The Campuses that are peaceful are those on which authority is based
on the administration'sconspicuous cencern for the identity of its aneegiich
where adminstrations have come out from behind their desks to talk with students
and to take their concerns seriously.

ucclesiastically, the same hard lesson must be learmed. For centuries,
the outhority of the Church - or religion generally - has been based on coercion -
in the form of the fear of hell — and tradition. Neither one goes very far today.
People are neither afraid of holl, nor much impressed with ecclesiastical tradition.
John Calvin may have had a point, but most people today could care loss.

Chruch authority will be established when people see the Church loving
people. It's that simple. Church authority and influence will be cffective
when the gap closes between what we say on the one hand, and what wo do on the
other. ‘The Christian Paith will begin to speak with authority to the needs of
the World, when the World observes the Church discarding any traditional status,
any pedlesiastical pomposity and getting its hands dirty and bloody in the suf-
fering of humanity.

liow about us? Who has authority for us. If it is not Jesus Christ, perhaps
somothing is missing. Perhaps we are not seeing or hearing clearly. [Ile had
authority, the Biblical writers note, and it was astonishing ~ not logical, but
surprising, remarkable.

Porhaps we suffer from over—-exposure. Perhaps we've said the creed, and
sung tho hymms and prayed the prayer so often that it's all very old hat.

Perhaps our persistant religiosity serves only to keep Jesus Christ at arms length,
and this deprives him of any authority in our lives.

If this is so, and I expect it is, perhaps we need nothing so muich-as a
now, uncluttered look at who he was and is: what He did and said. Forthis same
Jesus who taught hemble men is the Lord of all creation. That is our faith.

This same one whose compassion was so commonly conspicuous is the cosmic Lord
of the whole universe. That is our faith. This same man who lived. and died
2,000 years ago —- is risen and alive and working in our midst and in the world
to reconcile and bind up and heal. That is our faith.

Stated matter —- of —- factly, that is astonishing. May this Lord, about
whom we so casually affirm these things, become the authority in our lives.

Anon.