Freedom and Authority

May 18, 1958
Akron

Freedom and Authority – Religion’s Continuing Debate

The source of authority for religious beliefs is the key difference between liberal religion and the more orthodox beliefs. A rather clear picture of any person’s religion can be inferred from his answer to the question, “By whom or what are you directed or commanded in your religious attitudes and actions?”

In republican government, authority resides in the constitution and statutes of various political structures. Elected and appointed officials legislate, enforce and interpret the law. Authority ultimately rests with the people who exercise their franchise to vote.

In scientific research, the seat of authority is the scientific method. Discoveries and inventions are examined by testing procedures formulated to demonstrate in actual performance the truth or error of the hypothetical proposition. This is the authority of experiment.

In the United States, military affairs find the President as the seat of authority. Many religious groups find no difficulty or confusion in locating the seat of authority. They know in whom or where power originates; and they obey its commands.

Because religious liberalism has cast off the bonds of the traditional centers of authority in religion, there is some danger in discovering that one is on a confusing merry-go-round of rootless directions. This hazard, pictured by some modern poets as that of lost men wandering in a wasteland, seems real enough so that some investigation of the foundations of our faith is in order. We should be good enough architects of our fate to check the undergirding, to verify – to see if our faith is founded on substantial rock, rather than shifting, treacherous sand.

We can begin to carry out this introspection by re-tracing our steps, by thinking through the claims of the authorities of other days to whom liberals and rebels have said, “Good-bye, we can no longer trust our lives and our faith solely in your hands.”

Most recently in the long dialogue of history, we have cast off the authority of the Bible as the seat of religious power and direction. A few generations back, Universalism stated its case for universal salvation in terms of proof-texts from the Hebrew-Christian scriptures. While the cause provided logic, arguments against hell-fire and brimstone were clinched 75 years or so ago, by citations from the gentleness and forgiveness of Hosea, the penetrating good-will of Jesus, or the comprehension of universality that Paul expressed at times.

Universalism has long since abandoned biblical authority. This is clearly demonstrated by a study of the various affirmations of faith which have evolved. (Winchester 1803, Boston 1899, Washington 1934, and the amendment to the liberty clause in 1953.)

We have separated from the main line of Protestantism. Most Protestant denominations still seem to accept the authority of the Bible. “Holy scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not required of any that it should be believed as an article of faith.” This quotation from one orthodox group is typical of nearly all denominations.

Liberals find moral, ethical and literary values in the treasured writings of the Hebrews and the early Christians, but no longer do we see in these documents the final seat of authority for religion revealed by God himself breaking into history.

Facts have been sifted and established by painstaking methods and intellectual integrity by the scholars who have studied the origins and growth of sacred scriptures. We can no longer doubt that biblical writings have gone through a social process of additions and alterations in order to accommodate various notions of differing religious leaders in many historical periods.

An open-minded study of only small portions of scripture reveals many contradictions that cannot be reconciled. The four gospels do not state a single story, but express four different points of view and [they] disagree on facts. These things you know, generally. Acceptance of biblical scholarship has been a common-place attitude among religious liberals for 50 years, at least.

The Bible as the seat of authority in religion is also on questionable grounds when we realize what history plainly demonstrates – that even if the origins of scripture were literally from the pen of the Creator, the meanings inferred, and the power that has been claimed has always been a matter of individual interpretations that usually contradict each other.

Most Protestants would affirm that the authority of the Bible is the spark that ignited the Reformation and led to Protestantism. Although there is considerable ground for this belief, it is a generalization that needs some modification. John Hus, John Wyclif, and Girolamo Savonarola all were noted Bible preachers and leaders of the pre-dawn of the Reformation, “the morning stars,” as they have been called. Luther was the fountain-head of revolt in Germany; Calvin in Switzerland. Both insisted with zealous determination and dictatorial method in the authority of the Bible. John Calvin was quite sure that only he knew what God intended man to know from scripture. Luther was equally positive that his position was the one that was blessed by the holy ghost, and was thus authoritative.

It has been pointed out (RELIGIOUS SYMBOLISM, p. 25), “While Luther understood worship, like faith to be determined by scripture, his understanding of the Bible was such that anything in Christian worship was permissible which was not explicitly prohibited. Thus, Luther was able to justify the continuance of vestments, candles, incense and liturgy. For Calvin, only that which was specifically authorized, had precedent in scripture, was valid in Christian worship. Therefore, he was outraged by images, windows, altar, vestments and organs.”

Beyond the obvious difficulty of locating the seat of authority when such different religious interpretations have been made, the historian, reasonable free from sectarian bias, notices that most of Calvin’s interpretations had the effect of securing and maintaining political power in Geneva. Martin Luther studied the Bible intensely, gave the German people the scripture in their own language, and preached Bible-centered sermons with oratorical power. But when the Reformation became a political reality in the German states, the seat of authority was not the Bible. The seat of authority was found in the decision of each individual who headed one of the many small German principalities and states. The Princes considered their political future and economic well-being at least as much as their evangelical conviction. The princes made the choice – Latin Catholicism or State Lutheranism – and all their respective subjects had to abide by that authority, irrespective of any individual convictions about the authority of either Bible or Church. Imagine Jesus saying that a political prince had the right to choose conviction for every one of the people!

Consequently the high-sounding principle of placing the seat of authority in the Bible is not a simple, but rather a vague, complex and frustrating assignment.

There is little doubt that all sixty-six books are of varying value. Just compare Job with Leviticus, or Mark with 2nd Chronicles. Some books are pertinent, clearer and much more human than others. It follows that not all parts of the Bible have equal authority. The scripture cannot be an authority for faith unless you start with a primitive biblioatry and find relevant scripture to support such faith (and ignore contradictions).

It is this sort of inevitable intellectual compromise that confronts any serious student who attempts to use the Bible as complete authority; it is this sort of difficulty that has led many Protestants back to Rome for a more positive authority, or has led many people on to liberalism or skepticism.

John Henry Newman, author of “lead kindly light,” Anglican minister and scholar, became not only a convert to Roman Catholicism, but a Prince of the Church, receiving the cardinal’s hat in 1879. He traveled the Road to Rome because he believed that only in the authoritative Church could he find the religious certainty he desired hungrily.

Most of the Christians in the world believe that the Church is the seat of authority in religion. Not an infallible book, but an infallible church is the source of command and power for the Roman Catholic.

For more than 400 years Protestants have rejected the “infallible” church with its “Vicar of Christ” who is the Bishop of Rome. But the energetic power we observe in Roman Catholicism today is reason enough for us to examine its claims. We would not be treating this subject of authority in religion fairly unless we thoughtfully reconsidered their position.

Historically the first reference to the Catholic Church is not in the Bible, but in an early letter written by Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, from about 120 to 150 a.d. Ignatius wrote, “Let no man do anything pertaining to the Church apart from the Bishop. Let that be a valid eucharist which is under the Bishop or one to whom he shall have committed it. Wheresoever the Bishop shall appear, there let the people be; even so where Jesus may be, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful apart from the Bishop either to baptize or hold an agape; but whatsoever he shall approve, this is well-pleasing also to God.”

The Roman Catholic Church would assert (Martineau’s analysis) that the Church has a right to command complete and unquestioning allegiance because it is more than a historical organization. It is that, but also, “it is a living body, permanently and forever animated by the third person of the Trinity.” There are four marks which prove to the Latin Catholic faithful that their obedience is justified:

UNITY: the church has been the same in all ages.
UNIVERSALITY: the church has been the same in all places.
SANCTITY: the church has been the home of holy-men.
APOSTOLICITY: Peter was the first Bishop of Rome and he was specifically entrusted with authority by God: “Thou art Peter,” etc. On these bases the Roman Catholic church claims to be the exclusive trustee of revelation, the sole channel of supernatural grace, and infallible witness and divine interpreter of divine truth” in faith and morals.

But again, unless one is a partisan historian or an obedient follower, all these alleged proofs are vulnerable to the challenge of historical fact, reason and experience.

The Church has not been the same in all ages. The dogmas accumulated through 1900 years – and are still accumulating – as evidenced by the various dogmas of the cult of Mary.

The church has not been the same in all ages. The church in the early days was very much under the influence of a resident Bishop. Harnack cites the Bishop of Trophimus as an example of the way the early Christians were dominated not by the Church, but by the Bishop. When that Bishop went over to paganism during a persecution, most of his Christians followed him. When he came back to Christianity and did penance for his apostasy, the others followed him again; all would not have come back to the church had not the Bishop led them.

The church of the Apostolic Age was not a church like the Roman Catholic Church. Only the Roman Catholic historian is certain that Jesus did give the keys of the kingdom to Peter. Most certainly, St. Paul did not believe this, as any examination of the Book of Acts or Paul’s letters will verify. Nowhere is there any assurance outside of Catholic tradition that Peter was the Bishop of Rome.

Within 125 years after the death of Jesus, Bishops (or Elders) had been given great powers, at least so Ignatius asserted, when the word “catholic” is used for the first time, of which we have record, in the 2nd century. Cyprian of Carthage, who lived in the third century after Jesus, was one of the early Bishops to insist there is no salvation outside the Church. But this, we may judge fairly, is a later development in the early Christian Church. Such a judgment is certainly out of character for Jesus. But there is no convincing evidence that the Bishop of Rome was the supreme power over all the other Bishops for many centuries.

The contest for power between the Eastern (Greek-Asia Minor), and Western (North African – Latin) branches of the church in the early centuries of Christianity, gradually saw the Bishop of Rome acquire more and more power as he acted in the role of mediator and advisor in the power struggle.

As the Roman political structure crumbled, because of a long process of internal decay and external attack, the Latin church assumed initiative and direction in a chaotic age, became the greater power. The Bishop of Rome became the supreme Pontiff – but this occurred 400 years after the ministry of a Nazarene named Jesus.

Following the fall of the Roman Empire, and until the beginnings of the Protestant revolt, nearly 1000 years alter, Christians had to accept religion without inquiry, without questioning. The church assumed that outside the clergy, the people were incompetent to interpret religion. Liberty of opinion was not a value. St. Ignatius Loyola had much the same viewpoint of may of today’s structures of power elites: “there is no greater mistake than to suppose the mass of mankind sincerely crave for liberty – they crave for comfort and convenience – they want to do what they please.”

But however much the authoritative church may be a comfort to those who cannot or will not guide themselves in religion, it is quite apparent to some of us that assertions of unlimited authority for the Church have not been made by limited human beings like ourselves; that selfish institutional ends have been served, and individual brilliance squelched. Furthermore, the insight of a Roman Catholic of the last century, Lord Acton, that “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” is more and more illuminating in the light of Church history, not to speak of all areas where social relationships occur.

Many persons say, “let’s really get down to fundamentals; we cannot accept the seat of authority in a book or a church, but we can find it in a person – Jesus.”

Certainly his disciples and followers were impressed that Jesus was a source of trust. Here was a divine direction that couldn’t be challenged. Jesus must have possessed unique personal appeal and moral power that was enormously impressive. “The common people heard him gladly.” It was remarked of him that he “taught with authority and not as a scribe.” If we yearn after authority, perhaps we need to take the advice in Matthew 11 28/30, “Come unto me, all who labor and are heavy laden and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your soul.”

This is an attractive invitation to people in troubled times, but as Professor Cadbury and Dr. Albert Schweitzer have both pointed out, there is a “peril to modernizing Jesus.” He is apt to move back into his own time into his own Nazarene ways and we find him an elusive source of authority for specific instructions on today’s problems.

First of all, we can’t be positive he said everything attributed to him. The documents have gone through the process of religious editing. The difficulty of securing objective views not only of history, but of current political and social problems is an indication of the complexity of finding accurate reports of 2000 years ago.

Even if we knew with certainty exactly what Jesus said, we would need the courage to accept the authority of a rebel who rejected accepted religious authority, who was considered a threat to the established government, and who thought so little of the institutional life that we prize, that he did not even have the simplest kind of permanent gathering place for the followers of his movement.

Religious liberals, then, seemingly, have deserted all the places of certainty. When we do not find the seat of authority for religion in an infallible book, or an infallible church, or an infallible person, where then is our “rock of ages?”

A generation ago, Walter Lippmann reminded the liberals of the question that the fundamentalists were asking then, and are asking now, “Where is your fundamental certainty?” What is the basis of your authority? Where is the faith that will strengthen the nerve of your people. Be a “preface to morals?”

Our authority must be the authority of truth. This is not accepting Jesus as “Lord and Savior,” but I believe the authority of truth was HIS seat of authority: “The kingdom of God is within you.” “We do not regard Jesus as an absolute authority, that is, we do not accept any principle just because he is reported to have said it. Rather, if we accept it, it is for the same reason we accept any teaching, because it accords with what we believe.” (John Murray Atwood).

Most religious liberals believe that our quest should not be for the seat of authority in religion, but rather a constant examination of various authorities who present their case and ask for our allegiance.

This is guidance by inner honesty, by conscience, and has a long history. The Friends have always held all other authorities secondary, giving supreme place to the testimony of the spirit. Another Universalist has said, “We are a people who take our beliefs so seriously that we will not even permit our church to tell us what to believe.”

Jeanne D’Arc was burnt at the stake because she obeyed the voices of her inner vision rather than yielding to the authoritative church.

Now I am quite aware that to place our source for authority in individual conscience presents as many problems as it solves. Persons of equal sincerity will arrive at different decisions because the voices of conscience do not agree. Differences of personality, education, conditioning, social backgrounds, and natural ability all combine to ensure that there is no unanimity of conscience. This difficulty is formidable. An attempt at reconciliation must be made.

The discipline of the rule of God which is withing you is not an easier authority than the infallible book, church or person. Conscience is a more arduous and tormenting discipline, involving greater personal hazards.

In Christopher Fry’s THE FIRST BORN, Moses tells Pharaoh Seti the reason he has returned to dangerous Egypt from safe Midian,

“A man has more to be
Than a Pharaoh. He must dare to outgrow the security of partial blindness.”

Shortly after Moses says to his brother Aaron,

“Though civilization became perfect? What then? We have only put a crown on the skeleton.
It is the individual man
In his individual freedom who can mature
With his warm spirit the unripe world,
What would you make of man? If you diminish him
To a count of laboring limbs, you will also dwindle
And be an unmeaning body, decomposing
Imperceptibly under heavy ornaments.”

The common characteristic of the liberators of mankind has been the strong courage of inner honesty. You know the list – it includes brave persons in all ages – Akhenaton in the Egypt of 1500 bc through the line of Hebrew prophets – Jesus is the towering example, through the centuries and across the continents.

Who will be the great man of our century? Gandhi, almost surely – Schweitzer, probably; - Woodrow Wilson, Einstein, Nehru, possibly. Like the heroes of other times these valiant warriors for the dignity of mankind bow only to the authority within – the truth as individual conscience conceives it, AS THAT CONSCIENCE HAS BEEN GUIDED BY THE SEVERE DISCIPLINES OF HISTORY’S MOST ILLUMINATING LESSONS ON HUMAN BEHAVIOR. The conscience of the great liberators is not the spirit of an unguided emotionalism. It is a conscience that has been molded by the hammer blows of fact, reason and experience with human beings – in history and in current hopes and fears.

This is the authority for liberals. It is neither irrational nor unfounded in fact. The liberal conscience builds upon a foundation of faith. That faith assumes that the human individual is of supreme worth, that mankind is in some sense free, and that the highest purpose of the human enterprise cannot escape involvement with freedom, fellowship and human dignity of persona all over the earth.