Authority

The Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) program is a federally funded law enforcement initiative that trains officers to recognize symptoms of drivers under the influence of illegal substances. It’s like a field sobriety test, but for harder drugs instead of alcohol. Proponents of the program argue that it's the best available tool to detect drugged drivers.

But various industry experts are criticizing the program for its questionable scientific basis and lack of consistent testing protocols. They are calling it a process that can be easily manipulated by officers seeking to make drug-related arrests.

Haley Butler-Moore, a nurse, experienced the controversial nature of DRE firsthand when she was pulled over in Colorado for speeding. Despite denying any recreational drug use, the officer insisted her eyes suggested otherwise. At the officer’s suggestion, Butler-Moore agreed to undergo a DRE evaluation, unaware of its implications.

After observing her behavior and vital signs, the DRE officer concluded she was impaired by a double dose of her prescribed depressants. Butler-Moore insisted on her sobriety, which was later confirmed by a blood test revealing no traces of drugs or alcohol. She said, “I just felt like I was another test subject for them, and that felt really unfair.” The attorney representing her in a suit against the arresting officers said, “It's such utter nonsense. A cop can use it to manufacture whatever conclusion of impairment they want.”

In 2012, a group of Maryland defense attorneys sued creators of the DRE program, presenting to the judge a group of cases that they felt was police misconduct under the guise of DRE. They called a number of expert witnesses. Judge Micheal Galloway ultimately ruled in their favor, saying that “the DRE protocol fails to produce an accurate and reliable determination of whether a suspect is impaired by drugs and by what specific drug he is impaired.”

Despite this ruling, the DRE program has continued to expand, training more than a thousand new officers every year.

Possible Preaching Angle:

God cares about justice for people; leaders who abuse their position dishonor the authority they have been given.

Michael Meyden, a 57-year-old father was sentenced to two years in prison for spiking fruit smoothies with a prescription sedative during a sleepover, in an attempt to make his daughter and her three friends go to bed. After Meyden dosed the girls, two of them blacked out, leading the third girl to text her mother in a panic, leading to the discovery of the incident. The girls were taken to Randall Children’s Hospital where they tested positive for benzodiazepine. Meyden pleaded guilty to three counts of causing another person to ingest a controlled substance, a felony.

The three 12-year-old victims and their mothers spoke in court, expressing their deep sense of betrayal and lasting harm.

One girl said, “Adults are not people I can simply trust anymore. They are people who scare me and make me think twice: What if they were to hurt me the same way as Mr. Meyden?”

Another girl, whose best friend is Meyden’s daughter, tearfully stated, “I trusted him because he was my best friend’s dad. He abused that trust.”

The third girl directly addressed Meyden, saying, “I am disgusted by the look of your face and your actions and all that you have done. You are horrible and I will always hate you for what you have done.”

“You played Russian roulette with my child’s life,” one mother told Meyden. She detailed how her daughter, “barely five feet tall and on a good day 70 pounds soaking wet,” had dangerously high levels of the drug in her system.

Another mother condemned Meyden’s behavior, stating, “No decent parent feels the need to drug their own child and her friends. No decent parent puts their hands on drugged and unconscious young girls without nefarious intent.”

Meyden explained he had spiked the smoothies because he wanted the girls to sleep so he could rest, but admitted he was overly fixated on getting them to bed. “My whole life is destroyed,” he lamented. Judge Ann Lininger acknowledged his remorse but emphasized the severe impact of his actions, telling him he had “created some tremendous wreckage through your decisions.” She praised the victims for their bravery and pursuit of justice, describing them as “strong, articulate young women who experienced an unfathomable injustice.”

Possible Preaching Angle:

This is an example of how extreme selfishness can lead to behavior that harms others resulting in a dramatic betrayal of trust that children place in those in authority over them such as parents, teachers, or church leaders.

George Orwell’s book 1984 is one of our society’s most frequently referenced illustrations of what life would be like under an authoritarian government. In the book, citizens of the fictional nation of Oceania are under constant government surveillance, including in their own homes. Devices called telescreens display propaganda and record peoples’ actions. This allows the government to monitor people even in what should be the most private place they know—their homes.

Historically in the US, the Fourth Amendment protects Americans from "unreasonable searches and seizures" by the government, acknowledging the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects." It is a bedrock principle of the Bill of Rights.

But a new survey reveals that an astonishing number of Americans, particularly younger Americans, would be comfortable throwing this fundamental protection on the ash heap of history. The Cato Institute survey of Americans finds:

29% of Americans aged 18 to 29 respond affirmatively when asked, “Would you favor or oppose the government installing surveillance cameras in every household to reduce domestic violence, abuse, and other illegal activity?”

20% of Millennials between the ages of 30 and 44 also want everyone watched.

However, among Americans 45 and older, support for such totalitarian surveillance drops considerably to 6%.

From Ivy League campuses to the digital domains of Facebook, there is an Orwellian sense of perpetual emergency. There is an irrational fear that misinformation and hate speech will overwhelm society unless every utterance is subject to a censor’s scrutiny.

If these trends continue, the US may confront a very different privacy landscape in the future. It is possible that at some point, the American public will be open to extreme government overreach.

Possible Preaching Angle:

Christians might think that if we aren’t doing anything wrong what does it matter if we are being watched? But do you spank your children? Might some government official somewhere want to recast that as abuse? Do you teach your children that God made us male and female? Do you insist that marriage is between one man and one woman? What might some in the government think about that? To be constantly monitored is to be constantly assessed. And knowing, as we do, that our governments don’t measure right and wrong by God’s standards, we should fear the prospect.

In late May of 2023, U.S. Attorney Rachael Rollins formally resigned her position after two federal oversight agencies launched wide-ranging investigations into her behavior. Those investigations concluded that she both lied to investigators and used her position to influence a local election.

Investigators say Rollins leaked information to the media for a story intended to sabotage Kevin Hayden, who was campaigning to replace her as U.S. attorney. The story contained the false accusation that Hayden was under federal investigation himself.

The initial investigations into Rollins’ behavior were sparked after she was seen at a fundraiser for the Democratic National Committee. This was a significant departure from the agenda of Rollins’ boss, Attorney General Merrick Garland, who repeatedly ensured that his agency’s top priority would be maintaining political independence. After Rollins was seen at the fundraiser, Garland barred any political appointees from attending fundraisers or other campaign events.

Rollins’ behavior was said to have violated the Hatch Act, a law that curtails political actions by government employees. Violations included an instance where she solicited 30 free tickets to a Boston Celtics game for youth basketball players, including a pair for herself.

According to the inspector general’s office in the Justice Department, Rollins’ behavior was among the “most egregious” in the history of the agency.

Possible Preaching Angle:

God cares about the delivery of justice, and doesn't look kindly on people who abuse their positions of power for personal gain.

On January 15th, 2009, US Airways flight #1549 departed New York City’s LaGuardia’s Airport. Within a few minutes, the plane collided with a flock of geese, taking out both engines. Captain Sully Sullenberg made an emergency landing in the chilly waters of the Hudson River. Before he left the plane and got to safety, he walked the plane twice to make sure no one was onboard. As the captain, he knew that he must be the last person on the plane. “Sully” became a national hero.

Three years later—almost to the date—on January 13th, 2012, a massive Italian cruise ship called the Costa Concordia crashed into the rocks and started to sink. An investigation would determine the cause of the crash: the ship’s captain, Francesco Schettino, was trying to impress a younger female dancer on board when he veered too close to danger. The ship started sinking with its 4,000-plus passengers on board.

In the confusion and chaos, Schettino escaped on to a lifeboat before everyone else had made it off the ship. A coast guard member angrily told him on the phone to “Get back on board, d--- it.” Schettino later claimed that he fell into a lifeboat because the ship was listing to one side. But the court didn’t believe that story. Instead, he was found guilty of manslaughter, causing a shipwreck, and abandoning the ship with passengers on board. He was sentenced to ten years in prison.

Think of yourself as living in an apartment house. You live there under a landlord who has made your life miserable. He charges you exorbitant rent. When you can’t pay, he loans you money at a fearful rate of interest to get you even further into his debt. He barges into your apartment at all hours of the day and night, wrecks and dirties the place up, then charges you extra for not maintaining the premises. Your life is miserable.

Then comes Someone who says, “I’ve taken over this apartment house. I’ve purchased it. You can live here as long as you like, free. The rent is paid up. I am going to be living here with you, in the manager’s apartment.” What a joy! You are saved! You are delivered out of the clutches of the old landlord!

But what happens? You hardly have time to rejoice in your new-found freedom, when a knock comes at the door. And there he is—the old landlord! Mean, glowering, and demanding as ever. He has come for the rent, he says. What do you do? Do you pay him? Of course you don’t! Do you go out and pop him on the nose? No—he’s bigger than you are! You confidently tell him, “You’ll have to take that up with the new Landlord.” He may bellow, threaten, wheedle, and cajole. You just quietly tell him, “Take it up with the new Landlord.” If he comes back a dozen times, with all sorts of threats and arguments, waving legal-looking documents in your face, you simply tell him yet once again, “Take it up with the new Landlord.” ln the end, he has to. He knows it, too. He just hopes that he can bluff and threaten and deceive you into doubting that the new Landlord will really take care of things.

When Shandle Riley was stopped outside the home of her ex-mother-in law late at night for a traffic infraction, it’s possible she might’ve silently prayed for deliverance. But surely, she didn’t expect what happened next.

Deputy Daniel Wilkey found marijuana during the traffic stop. But Wilkey also told Riley that God was talking to him. In addition to citing her for possession of a controlled substance, Wilkey told her that she wouldn’t go to jail if she agreed to be baptized. Not by a pastor at a local church, but by Wilkey himself. At his prodding, Riley went inside to get some towels saying, “I guess I’m fixing to get baptized.” They drove to nearby Lake Soddy, where Wilkey baptized Riley, who remained fully clothed as she was submerged in the water. Another deputy, Jacob Goforth, witnessed the event and recorded footage on his phone.

Riley later filed suit against Officers Wilkey and Goforth. During her deposition, Riley testified of the baptism, “it had nothing to do with God ... or being a good person.” Rather, “it had something to do with power and control.”

Back in 2019, a judge dismissed the claims against Goforth, but still allowed the rest of the suit to proceed. Judge McDonough said, “No government interest is furthered by the baptism of a detainee by an on-duty law-enforcement officer.”

Riley died from an accidental drug overdose in April of 2022. However, Riley’s attorney said that her case will still go forward. The attorney said, “Baptism by a police officer in the line of duty, in exchange for leniency in a criminal case is beyond the pale.”

Possible Preaching Angle:

Authority figures who exploit the vulnerable in the name of Christ bring dishonor to the faith.

The Lion King tells the story of a king's ascent. From the moment the movie begins, Simba is branded as the heir to the throne. He is designated to the office at the start of the movie by the baboon Rafiki, who lifts up Simba before the animals of the kingdom as they bow before him. He is the future king.

The rest of the story describes Simba's exile and his homecoming to Pride Rock. When Simba returns to Pride Rock, he must battle for the throne, which has been seized by his uncle Scar. Simba conquers Scar and the hyenas, but even though he has been designated, appointed, and even conquered, the forces of darkness, his work remains incomplete.

At the end of the movie, immediately after the battle, an important scene occurs that is sometimes overlooked. The camera suddenly shifts to Rafiki, bringing the story full circle. Rafiki takes his staff and points Simba to Pride Rock. An old era has ended; a new one is about to begin. In order for Simba to claim his kingdom and be installed as the king, he must ascend Pride Rock, the rightful place of the ruler, to ritually demonstrate he has conquered.

Simba dramatically ascends the rock and roars. When he does, the other lions acknowledge his victory, dominion, and authority. Though Simba has been designated as the king from the start of the movie, though he has conquered in battle, he still is not installed as king until he ascends Pride Rock.

In a better way, Jesus is designated as king and Lord from the beginning of the Gospels and from all creation really. But Jesus had to be installed as king; he had to be enthroned; he had to be recognized as king; he had to ascend to the right hand of the father, sit on the throne, and receive from God the Father all dominion and authority. The Ascension is about the triumph of Jesus the king.

The Springtide Research Institute recently surveyed more than 10,000 Americans ages 13 to 25 (Generation Z) about their religious views and involvement. What surprised the researchers are the views of those who claim to be affiliated with a mainstream religion.

Josh Packard, executive director of Springtide, reveals: “They’re checking the box that says they are Jewish or Catholic or whatever, but over half of them are saying, ‘even though I checked the box, I don’t trust organized religion.’ This is sort of stunning and not what you would expect from somebody who checked the box.”

The report advises more one-on-one mentoring between adults and youth:

They also respond to “relational authority,” which means authority that is not based on hierarchy or titles so much as a genuine interest in young people as individuals. 4 in 5 Gen Z members surveyed said they were likely to take guidance from adults who care about them.

The report pinpoints five values that characterize this relational authority: listening, transparency, integrity, care, and expertise. (Expertise comes last on the list intentionally, because 65% of young people say an adult’s expertise doesn’t matter unless the adult cares for them. Listening comes first in establishing a genuine, non-transactional relationship.)

General Jonathan Wainwright was captured by the Japanese, he was held prisoner in a concentration camp. Cruelly treated, he became "a broken, crushed, hopeless, and starving man." Finally, the Japanese surrendered and the war ended. A United States army colonel was sent to the camp to announce personally to the general that Japan had been defeated and that he was free and in command.

After Wainwright heard the news, he returned to his quarters and was confronted by some guards who began to mistreat him as they had done in the past. Wainwright, however, with the news of the allied victory still fresh in his mind, declared with authority, "No, I am in command here! These are my orders." From that moment on, General Wainwright was in control.

A single mom was heartbroken after her teenaged daughter was sentenced to Juvenile Hall. What was the offense that warranted such a punishment? Failing to finish her homework. ProPublica reported that Charisse and her teenage daughter Grace were given a strict warning from Judge Mary Ellen Brennan of Oakland County after Grace was placed on probation following theft and assault charges.

Brennan said, “I told her she was on thin ice and I told her that I was going to hold her to the letter of the probation.” She required that Grace submit to GPS monitoring, counseling, visits from a case worker, restrictions on phone and internet access, and keep up with her schoolwork.

The problem arose after Grace’s school responded to the COVID-19 pandemic. According to Charisse, Grace’s mood disorder and ADHD required an individualized education plan that mandated extra teacher support to help keep her on track with assignments. Once classes went online, that support went away.

Nevertheless, new caseworker Rachel Giroux heard in a check-in that Grace had fallen asleep during class and failed to turn in an assignment. Giroux filed a violation of probation report on Grace, despite failing to check in with Grace’s teacher to verify her progress. After the violation was filed, Grace’s teacher told Giroux that she was “not out of alignment with most of my other students.” But that failed to change her mind. Giroux asked the judge to place Grace in detention because she “clearly doesn’t want to abide by the rules in the community.”

Possible Preaching Angle:

In our effort to train up our young people, our punitive actions should be guided by grace and mercy as acts of restoration, not retribution, lest we sentence punishments that make things worse in the long run.

There is a movement within evangelicalism that is trying to argue that the Bible affirms, or at least does not prohibit, same-sex sexual relationships. But renowned progressive New Testament scholar Luke Timothy Johnson disagrees with this approach, even though he himself also holds an affirming position.

He writes, “I have little patience with efforts to make Scripture say something other than what it says, through appeals to linguistic or cultural subtleties. The exegetical situation is straightforward: we know what the text says.”

He continues:

I think it important to state clearly that we do, in fact, reject the straightforward commands of Scripture, and appeal instead to another authority when we declare that same-sex unions can be holy and good. And what exactly is that authority? We appeal explicitly to the weight of our own experience and the experience thousands of others have witnessed to, which tells us that to claim our own sexual orientation is in fact to accept the way in which God has created us.

Possible Preaching Angle:

While we disagree with Johnson’s conclusions, we have to admire his intellectual integrity. On this subject of same-sex sexual relationships, the Bible is clear: “We know what the text says.” The only question is whether that is the authority one chooses to live by.

The city of Detroit was in a campaign to reforest its streets after decades of neglecting its depleted tree canopy. However, the tree-planters met stiff resistance: Roughly a quarter of the 7,500 residents declined offers to have new trees planted in front of their homes.

Researcher Christine Carmichael found that the rejections had more to do with how the tree-planters presented themselves than it did with how residents felt about trees. The residents understood the benefits of having trees in urban environments—they provide shade, absorb air pollution, increase property values, and improve health. But the reasons Detroit folks refused was not that they didn’t trust the trees; they didn’t trust the city.

A couple of African-American women Carmichael talked to linked the tree-planting program to a painful racist moment in Detroit’s history, when the city suddenly began cutting down elm trees in bulk in their neighborhoods. As the women understood it, the city did this so that law enforcement could have better surveilance on their neighborhoods from helicopters after an urban uprising.

However, the government’s reason was that the trees were dying off from the Dutch elm disease. But it was the women’s version that led to their decision to reject the trees. It’s not that they didn’t trust the trees; they didn’t trust the city.

The women felt that the city just came in and cut down their trees, and now they want to just come in planting trees. But they felt they should have a choice in this since they’ll be the ones raking up the leaves when the planters leave. They felt that the decisions were being made by someone else, and they were going to have to deal with the consequences.

Failing to meaningfully involve the residents in the decision-making is a classic mistake. After all, who would turn down a free tree? Perhaps these people just don’t get it.

One Detroit resident whom Carmichael interviewed told her: “You know, I really appreciate you today because that shows that someone is listening. Someone is trying to find out what’s really going on in our thoughts. And maybe next time they can do a survey and ask us, if they would like to have us have the trees.”

Possible Preaching Angle:

Churches and small groups can learn from Detroit’s mistake. It is best to ask for members’ participation in planning and decision-making rather than making authoritative decisions without explanation or discussion.