Moral Authority - Glenn Conjurske

Moral Authority

by Glenn Conjurske

No man can exercise authority aright unless he has moral authority which is equal in measure to his official authority. We have all known small men—-and small women too—-in large positions, and their position of authority inevitably becomes a detriment both to themselves and those who are called to submit to them. I met such a man once in a large furniture factory, where I was operating the freight elevator. As soon as I began to unload the freight on his floor, he came up with the air of a dictator, and informed me that nobody could put anything on that floor without his permission—-thus demanding that I ask his leave to do my job. I declined to do this, but told him the freight belonged on his floor, and asked him where he would like me to put it. He was in a passion by this time, and would only order me to take the freight back where I got it, along with threats to report me to the manager. I ignored him, and unloaded my freight, for I plainly perceived that he had no concern to do his job, or to serve his employer, but only to flaunt his own authority.

Nothing is more common than to see parents who lack the moral weight to effectually wield the authority which they hold in their hands. Being large enough in body to have children, and so to obtain parental authority, they are too small in soul to use that authority aright. They cannot command the respect of their children, and they seem to know this intuitively. They must operate, therefore, from a position of felt weakness. Yet little does it occur to them to change their ways, and so earn and deserve the respect of their children. Instead of this, they compensate for their felt weakness by an obtrusive officiousness, and a continual flaunting of their position. They must be always cracking the whip. They must raise their voice, and yell. They must speak reproachfully and sarcastically, endeavoring thus to transfer the blame to their children for their own lack of moral weight. They must bolster their own position by enacting petty and oppressive rules. They are unwilling to give their children the liberty which becomes their age and their character, but require them to ask permission to do those things which they ought to be able to do at their own discretion. And such parents seemingly delight to deny the permission when it is asked—-not for any good which might be pretended to the child, but only to make him feel the weight of their authority, only to “show him who’s boss.” Thus they uphold their own authority, at the expense of the reason for its existence. Their own felt weakness gives them an inner compulsion to keep everything under their own control, and the less they have of moral power, the more they must flaunt their official power. They do not look to the real good of their children, but only to maintaining their own position of superiority, and so exercise their authority in a manner which is consistent with neither love nor righteousness. They use their position to deprive and demean and humiliate their children. They threaten what they will do, gloat over what they can do, demand the unreasonable, deny the reasonable, and practice petty persecution in a hundred forms. Such parents I have known.

But so far from strengthening their own position, all such ways invariably weaken it. Unable to earn the respect of their children, they resort to high-handed and oppressive measures, and so earn their contempt. I have known a father who never referred to the Bible at all, except to quote “Honor thy father and thy mother.” Being unable to earn that honor, he must continually demand it. But the more honor is demanded, the less it will be received. Those who deserve the respect of their lessers have no need to demand it. Those who demand it prove by the very fact that they must do so, that they do not deserve it.

The man who has moral weight can rule without such tactics. What he is commands respect. He has no need to crack the whip. This is true even in governing animals. Egerton Ryerson Young was a missionary to the Indians in the Northwest. His travels in winter were all by dog-train, and he kept a good number of dogs for that purpose. He did not hesitate to use the whip when it was needed—-even felled his favorite dog to the ground with an oak axe handle when the occasion called for it—-yet he says of his rule over his dogs, “By kindness and firmness they were easily broken in, and then a whip was only an ornamental appendage of the driver’s picturesque costume.” The man who has moral weight may generally rule without the whip.

And so it is in every sphere. The more a man has of moral weight, the less occasion he has to assert his official position. The less he has of moral weight, the more he is obliged to flaunt his position. Official authority is often oppressive, and a good deal of the rebellion, revolution, and democracy in the world has been brought about by an abuse of authority, on the part of men who wielded official power, but who lacked all the elements of moral power. This brings authority itself into disrepute.

Moral authority, on the other hand, is not subject to such abuse. In the nature of the case, it can’t be. It consists of an elevation of spirit and character, which is altogether above the petty tactics of abusive power. It consists of a moral superiority which is readily recognized and owned, and to which men readily submit. The men who possess such moral worth may rule others without possessing a scintilla of official power. Such we believe, were the judges of Israel. “The Lord raised up judges,” and the people submitted to their rule, though they apparently had no official position at all. This is by all means the best kind of authority, whether it is accompanied by any official position or not.

D. L. Moody never had any official position of any sort, yet he wielded authority. God, says William R. Newell, “gave him spiritual authority in the consciences of Christians throughout the whole world.” A corps of evangelists did his bidding. Singers “were more or less under Moody’s direction.” They yielded to the behests of a man who had no official authority, because he was a man of moral weight.

John Wesley had no official position over the Methodists. God raised him up, God gave him his authority, and his moral authority was quite sufficient to maintain his position. Some resented his authority, others envied it, and some repudiated it, while better men gladly submitted to it.

Frances Asbury exercised the same power in America. He had official authority, given to him by John Wesley, ratified by the Americans, and his authority over American Methodism was absolute. There was no appeal from his judgement, and of course this was resented by the proud and the willful. Yet his moral authority was such that the whole Methodist Connexion gladly submitted to him. His funeral discourse, preached by Ezekiel Cooper, contains the following description of his moral power:

“His episcopal charges, official directions, and constitutional appointments and orders, in general, were punctually observed, and respectfully, willingly, and cheerfully obeyed. Very few, either primitive or modern, ever knew, or acquired the art, better than he, of obtaining, exercising and supporting, the pastoral and episcopal influence and authority; and of using it, with so much dignity, respectability, usefulness, and approbation. He had a particular qualification for governing; his peculiar temperature of mind and spirit, his dignified manner of conversation and deportment, his stern reserve, tempered by a social freedom, his authoritative decisions, softened down by gentle soothings, and his apparent inflexibility and independent opinion, placidly yielding to reasonable and amicable accommodations; carried with them an impressive, and almost irresistible influence; and gave him a kind of patriarchal ascendency and superiority. And which, had a powerful tendency to inspire others with filial reverence, and profound respect for the man, and to create a respectful diffidence, almost to embarrassment, in his presence; and to produce a pliable and courteous disposition of yielding, to his opinions, words, and wishes. Thus, in almost every circle, where he moved, he gained a kind of irresistable ascendency, influence, and authority, like a father in his family, and a ruler in Israel. We well know, what influence his presence had, what weight his words carried, and with what decision and precision, his opinion and judgment, would put to silence, and settle, the knotty, or the doubtful question. Who of us could be in his company without feeling impressed with a reverential awe, and profound respect, for the man, the christian, the minister, and ambassador of God? It was almost impossible to approach, and converse with him, without feeling the strong influence of his spirit and presence, upon our minds, sentiments, words, and actions. There was something, in this remarkable fact, almost inexplicable, and indescribable. Was it owing to the strength and elevation of his spirit, the exalted and sublime conceptions of his mind, the dignity and majesty of his soul; or the sacred profession and authority, with which he was clothed, in his distinguished character; as an eminent christian, remarkable for piety, and an ambassador of God, invested with divine authority? But so it was, it appeared as though the very atmosphere in which he moved, gave unusual sensations of diffidence and humble restraint, to the boldest and most undaunted confidence of man.”

This is moral authority, and when this is found in conjunction with the official authority which Asbury bore, it is a most propitious combination, and of unspeakable benefit to all who are governed by it. And who but small minds and petty spirits, who but the proud and the ambitious, who but the headstrong and the willful, would object to such a man holding the supreme official authority which Asbury held?

It is the absence of such moral power which brings official power into disrepute—-which brings the very institution of authority into disesteem. This is most unfortunate, for the authorities which God has established are designed to be a boon and benefit to men, and men stand in need of that benefit. I have seen souls enough who repudiate ecclesiastical authority, and march off under their own banner, and most of these fare no better than a child would do, who ran away from home. That God leads some in such a path—-the Luthers and Wesleys of the world—-I have no doubt, but most of those who take that path are too small to walk steady in it. They are sheep without a shepherd, having none to correct them and none to lead them, and their dreams and visions and doctrines and standards are all awry, and generally full of self.

But there are two sides to the question. While many who renounce the authority which God has set in the churches are moved by nothing more than their own pride, others are forced to this by the abuse of that authority on the part of men who have no fitness for the positions which they hold. Official power they have, but nothing in the way of moral power. Surely such rulers must bear the blame when the poor sheep are driven away. A selfish or egotistical man in a place of authority, lording it over his subjects by petty oppression and high-handed measures, using his position for his own ends or his own glory, is one of the greatest evils under the sun, and there is really no excuse for allowing such men in authority in the church of God, though there may be no recourse in the state or the family.

Those who occupy places of authority will rarely have occasion to assert their position—-I do not say never—-if they make it their first business to deserve that position, by what they are, and to honor that position, by what they do. Mildness and gentleness, caring and yielding, mercy and clemency, goodness and faithfulness, firmness and reasonableness, consistency and stability—-these are the elements of moral power, and those who would govern must have all these in a measure large enough to constitute moral superiority. Men of a right spirit will gladly submit to felt and acknowledged superiority. The proud and headstrong, of course will submit to no one, nor will they acknowledge any superiority above themselves, poor and petty though they be. Being superior is an unpardonable sin in their eyes. They can brook anything but this. It is primarily for such folks that authority exists. “The law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient,” and upon them it ought to be brought to bear, with whatever rigor their case requires. The use of bare authority, however, ought to be a rare thing, reserved for the headstrong and the refractory. In general it is no business of the shepherd either to drag or drive the sheep, but to lead them, and this can be done by none but a man of moral weight.

Glenn Conjurske