Sermon

Religious Authority

The Rev. Jack D. Bryant

Hope Unitarian Church

August 7, 2005

First Reading: Parker, Theodore. The Transient and Permanent in Christianity. Rpt. in Three Prophets of Religious Liberalism: Channing-Emerson-Parker. Skinner House. P. 129. Delivered at the Ordination of Rev. Charles C. Shackford in the Hawes Place Church, Boston on May 19, 1841.

[Th]e current notions respecting the infallible inspiration of the Bible have no foundation in the Bible itself. Which Evangelist, which Apostle of the New Testament, what Prophet or Psalmist of the Old Testament, ever claims infallible authority for himself or for others? Which of them does not in his own writings show that he was finite, and with all his zeal and piety, possessed but a limited inspiration, the bound whereof we can sometimes discover? Did Christ ever demand that men should assent to the doctrines of the Old Testament, credit its stories, and take its poems for histories, and believe equally two accounts that contradict one another? Has he ever told you that all the truths of his religion, all the beauty of a Christian life should be contained in the writings of those men, who, even after his resurrection, expected him to be a Jewish king; of men who were sometimes at variance with one another and misunderstood his divine teachings? Would not those modest writers themselves be confounded at the idolatry we pay them? Opinions may change on these points, as thy have often changed -- changed greatly and for the worse since the days of Paul. They are changing now, and we may hope for the better; for God makes man's folly as well as his wrath to praise Him, and continually brings good out of evil.

Another instance of the transitoriness of doctrines, taught as Christian, is found in those which relate to the nature and authority of Christ. One ancient party has told us, that he is the infinite God; another, that he is both God and man; a third, that he was a man, the son of Joseph and Mary, -- born as we are; tempted like ourselves; inspired , as we may be, if we will pay the price. Each of the former parties believed its doctrine on this head was infallibly true, and formed the very substance of Christianity, and was one of the essential conditions of salvation, though scarce any two distinguished teachers, of ancient or modern times, agree in their expression of this truth.

Almost every sect, that has ever been, makes Christianity rest on the personal authority of Jesus, and not the immutable truth of the doctrines themselves, or the authority of God, who sent him into the world. Yet it seems difficult to conceive any reason, why moral and religious truths should rest for their support on the personal authority of their revealer, any more than the truths of science on that of him who makes them known first or most clearly, It is hard to see why the great truths of Christianity rest on the personal authority of Jesus, more than the axioms of geometry ret on the personal authority of Euclid, or Archimedes. The authority of Jesus, as of all teachers, one would naturally think, must rest on the truth of his words, and not their truth on his authority.

Sermon

I wonder how many of you know the name Charles Hodge? Hodge is the standard bearer for modern fundamentalism's declaration that the Bible is the infallible and inerrant word of God. Writing in the nineteenth century and claiming to speak for all Protestants, he asserted that the writings contained in the Bible are infallible as the divinely inspired words of God and, therefore, "free from all error whether of doctrine, fact, or precept;" that the Scriptures are the complete corpus of God's revelation; and that the meaning of the Scriptures is clear enough to be understood by every person independent of what Hodge called any "infallible interpreter."

The infallible interpreter to whom Hodge referred was Pope Pius IX, who, in 1870, announced the doctrine of papal infallibility. It was an idea unknown prior to the nineteenth century. However, for over a thousand years there had been a de facto doctrine in the Catholic Church of deference to tradition - with the Pope being the accepted interpreter of what the tradition was. It was only with the invention of the printing press, the Protestant Reformation, and the widespread reading of the bible by the masses that things began to change. One of the watch words of the Protestant Reformation became Sola Scriptura - scripture alone. This led some to charge that the Protestants had created a paper Pope - and I believe the accusation has merit.

The question Hodge and Pope Pius IX addressed is one that also confronts Unitarians. It is a question of religious authority - a question that Theodore Parker addressed in the 1840’s in his sermon “The Transient and Permanent in Christianity”. At the time Giovanni Maria, the man who would become Pope Pius IX, was a young priest who had just written a controversial paper suggesting for the first time in writing the idea of papal infallibility as we know it today. I don’t know if Parker knew of that paper, but it is possible. Parker was struggling with the same question. Where and what is religious authority? That struggle led to one of the most famous theological declarations in Unitarian History:

[I]t seems difficult to conceive any reason, why moral and religious truths should rest for their support on the personal authority of their revealer, any more than the truths of science on that of him who makes them known first or most clearly. It is hard to see why the great truths of Christianity rest on the personal authority of Jesus, more than the axioms of geometry ret on the personal authority of Euclid, or Archimedes. The authority of Jesus, as of all teachers, one would naturally think, must rest on the truth of his words, and not their truth on his authority.

Truth in general and religious authority in particular are not dependent on any source. Truth is truth and religious authority is religious authority. It doesn’t matter if its in the bible, it doesn’t matter if I say it; it doesn’t matter whether you believe it or the Pope pronounces it. But the idea was not original to Parker. He was echoing and elaborating an idea that Thomas Jefferson expressed in the 1779 Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom:

"Truth is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless, by human interposition, disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate; errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them."

Truth - and by extension - religious authority stands by itself. I believe that proposition is central to our religious tradition. It is why we do not limit the idea of scripture to the bible. It is why we have both a free pulpit and a free pew. I am not called to preach what you want to hear and you are not obligated to believe what I preach. Rather, each of us is called to speak the truth as best we know it. Each of us is called to be accountable to that religious authority which transcend any book and any prophet.

For most people the identification of the source of religious authority is sufficient. Because it is tied to a specific book or a particular person - whoever or whatever that might be - all one must do is obey. Throughout most of human history that has meant - as a practical matter - that religious authority was about human obedience to other humans. That’s why the words of Thomas Jefferson and Theodore Parking were and are controversial. Even among Unitarians Parker’s words were so controversial at the time that most of his colleagues shunned him. And as for Thomas Jefferson, all you have to do is listen to the news to know that there is an entire industry devoted to proving that when Thomas Jefferson spoke of religious liberty he didn’t really mean it. What he meant, according to some of those voices, is the supremacy of fundamentalist Christianity and religious authority as that which suppresses any effort to contradict the truth as some people see it.

I think that’s what Charles Hodge had in mind. His entire argument for scriptural infallibility boils down to his personal assumptions about the bible. Not facts, but his own personal assumptions. While he denied and sneered at the idea of Papal infallibility, he actually set himself up as a Protestant pope declaring - infallibly - the infallibility of the bible. All that was necessary was for people to accept him as the infallible interpreter he claimed to reject.

But if we are not tied to the teachings of this prophet or that; If unthinking obedience to a human ruler isn’t possible; if we are not compelled to accept the bible or any other scripture as our final authority; and if we genuinely reject the notion of any infallible interpreter - then the question is not just where is religious authority, nor who we are supposed to obey - but what is religious authority. The question is not the source of religious authority, but what is the nature of religious authority? What is the truth that stands above all other truths?

I’ve known this was the question I wanted to explore in this sermon for several months, but I wasn’t quite sure what to do with it. I thought about it off and on, but never really came up with anything. A week ago I realized I only had a week to go and I still didn’t know what I wanted to do with this question - and I was leaving to go on vacation - a vacation I was determined to make a real vacation. I had bought a sack full of John Grisham novels and didn’t intend to do any serious thinking - just sit on the beach, play in the ocean and read for fun - not work. But truth is independent of its source and I found myself fascinated by one of Grisham’s books.

You may recall that Grisham practiced law for several years before breaking out as a novelist. I like his books because he understands the anguish and joy of practicing law as only a lawyer can. I connect with what he writes on a level that’s difficult to explain because I spent twenty years practicing law before my call to ministry. But his novel, “The Testament”, surprised me. It surprised me because I found him writing about religion - a story of religion that spoke to me not about the source of religious authority, but about its meaning.

It’s a novel about a man of extraordinary wealth. His fortune is just over eleven billion dollars. He has three ex-wives and six children - and they are all worthless. And he’s no better. A brilliant business man, he’s been a terrible husband and father. The six children believe his fortune will be split amongst them. It’s clear from the description given by Grisham that the money will destroy them and they, in turn, will use the money to destroy those around them. But in a bizarre twist he changes his will at the last minute - disinheriting all six of his known children - and his three ex-wives - and leaves his entire fortune to a seventh and unknown child, a daughter born out of wedlock years earlier. He then commits suicide.

Everyone is in shock. And what follows is predictable. Everyone is after the money. It is like a feeding frenzy amongst sharks. There is no human compassion, feeling or concern by or for anyone. His children, his lawyers, his business associates, all are trying to figure out how to get the money. For them, the ultimate authority is money. For them, the only thing that matters is the money and they will do whatever it takes to get the money or keep control of it. And amidst this feeding frenzy the executor of his estate has to find the missing daughter, a women, about forty years old, who has spent her adult life in the jungle of Brazil as a medical missionary. Much of the action of the book is about a lawyer, an alcoholic and drug abuser, who has destroyed his life and his family and faces possible jail time for income tax evasion, sent into the jungle to find her so she can come back and claim the incredible fortune that everyone else is fighting over. And everyone knows she will do so because that is what every character in the book wants - and they cannot even imagine the possibility that anyone would want anything else.

But there’s a problem. The lawyer finds her. She lives with a stone age tribe in a hut with neither doors no windows. She has no personal possessions except the clothes she wears. A devout Christian, her whole life is about trying to provide the Indians medical care and to convert them to Christianity. That is her calling in life. And when confronted with the need, the necessity, to return to the United States and to accept the eleven billion dollars she refuses. There is no hesitation. There is no anguished inner struggle. There is no turmoil. She does not want the money.

Everyone is stunned. No one can believe it. No one can comprehend that she wouldn’t want the money. Money has become their God and they assume that money is the God of everyone. They assume that money is the ultimate religious authority. Obviously there was a miscommunication. Obviously, the lawyer needs to go back and explain the situation so that she will leave the jungle and enter their world, become a part of their world and take the money. The details of what happen aren’t important. It’s only necessary to know that she did understand and she really doesn’t want the money. She doesn’t want the money because money has no power over her.

I’ve known a lot of people who were controlled by money. That doesn’t mean I think money is bad. I’d love to have more. I imagine most of you would also. That’s not the issue. The issue is whether the desire for money - or the desire for power - or control - or fame - or anger - or anything else controls you. The issue is whether you can hear something else amidst all the noise and confusion of life.

I think that’s the nature of religious authority. It’s that something that can make a person realize there is something more than money or fame or power, something more than the self. I’m not talking about surrendering the self. That’s the path to a cult, the kind of cult that strips a person’s identity, that destroys the essence of who a person is. I think religious authority is that something that pulls on a person to be a full and complete person, a full and complete person who can also commit their life to something larger than the self.

The character of the daughter in John Grisham’s book is not anyone I will be. I don’t intend to go to the Brazilian jungle. I much preferred last week sitting on the beach in Florida. The daughter’s theology is not mine and never will be. But her fictional character is one I deeply admire. She is a person who lives her life, who chooses to live her life for something larger than herself. I believe she is a person who has recognized a genuine religious authority in her life.

Most of us, I suspect, are like the two people walking down the street, together. That’s just how life is. It’s a life filled with a hundred kinds of noise. Voices tell us life is about who has the most money, who has the most fame, who gets the most votes, who chairs a particular committee. Such voices tell us life is about meeting our needs. Or, as some would have us believe, life is about acknowledging the infallibility of a book - be it the bible or the Koran, or the infallibility of a leader - be it Charles Hodge or the politician of your choice. And that last points to where I think the truth is.

Each of us has a choice. For better or worse, we choose to believe the bible or Charles Hodge or the Pope is infallible. We choose what we will hear. To which voice will you listen? Somewhere amidst the cacophony of the world is a voice that calls each of us to be a genuine person. Not an unthinking follower, nor one who is different for the sake of being different - but a genuine individual, a whole and complete person who has the courage to see and hear a single cricket amidst the roar of life, the courage to be yourself and at the same time to commit yourself to something greater than yourself. I believe that is the nature of religious authority. I don’t know where you will find it nor the form it will take. But I believe it is there for each of us. What is it that you hear? Where will it lead you? I think the answer for each of us is a little different. But I believe we are called to walk together as we search for it. Amen.