|
Choosing Heresy A Worship Service by the Reverend Mark W. Christian Presented to the First Unitarian Church of Oklahoma City Sunday February 26, 2006
Reading One From “Guiding Principles for a Free Faith” James Luther Adams (A) major principle of religious liberalism is that all relations between persons ought ideally to rest on mutual, free consent and not on coercion. … All responsible liberals recognize the necessity for certain restrictions on individual freedom. They also recognize that "persuasion" can be perverted into a camouflage for duress. Nevertheless, free choice is a principle without which religion, or society, or politics, cannot be liberal. … Historically, the more profound forms of liberalism began in the modern world as a protest against ecclesiastical pecking orders … This protest often found its sanction in the basic theological assertion that all are children of one Father, by which is meant that all persons by nature potentially share in the deepest meanings of existence, all have the capacity for discovering or responding to "saving truth," and all are responsible for selecting and putting into action the right means and ends of cooperation for the fulfillment of human destiny. These religious affirmations are thus the basis of the liberal's belief that the method of free inquiry is the necessary condition for the fullest apprehension of either truth or justice, and also for the preservation of human dignity… Now it should be clear that if some people wish infallible guidance in religion, they are not going to find it in liberal religion. Of course, orthodox mentors will claim that this is the reason we need a divine guide, in a book or a church doctrine. Further, they sometimes tell us that the mortal sin of the liberal is the unwillingness to submit to divine authority and that this unwillingness grows out of intellectual pride. What the orthodox overlooks, however, is this: the most pretentious pride of all is that of the man who thinks himself capable of recognizing infallibility; he must himself claim to be infallible in order to identify the infallible. In contrast, the liberal seeks in the words of prophets, in the deeds of saintly men and women, and in the growing knowledge of nature and human nature provided by science meanings that evoke the free loyalty and conviction of people exposed to them in open discourse.
Reading Two Cherish Your Doubts By Robert T. Weston (SLT 650) Cherish your doubts, for doubt is the attendant of truth. Doubt is the key to the door of knowledge; it is the servant of discovery. A belief which may not be questioned binds us to error, for there is incompleteness and imperfection in every belief. Doubt is the touchstone of truth; it is an acid which eats away the false. Let no one fear for the truth, that doubt may consume it; for doubt is a testing of belief. The truth stands boldly and unafraid; it is not shaken by the testing: For truth, if it be truth, arises from each testing stronger, more secure. Those that would silence doubt are filled with fear; their houses are built on shifting sands. But those who fear not doubt, and know its use, are founded on rock. They shall walk in the light of growing knowledge; the work of their hands shall endure. Therefore let us not fear doubt, but let us rejoice in its help: It is to the wise as a staff to the blind; doubt is the attendant of truth.
Prayer and Meditation The Manifold Richness of Life Von Ogden Vogt Let us rejoice in the manifold richness of life, about us and within: within us as understanding and choice, about us as a fair and bountiful nature, and the works of generous souls; We rejoice in the abundant life. In the immemorial story of humankind; of struggle and venture, of sowing and reaping, of mirth and zest, of rites and assemblies, of mating and feasting, of ordered custom and new liberties won; We rejoice in the story of humanity. In the finding of facts and in shapes of molded form, in motions of the dance and of melody, in storied images of grief and ecstasy, in new visions of order. We rejoice in the beauty of art and the power of knowledge. For the rest of home, the comfort of friends, and the unending charm of persons; for the desire to work and to create, for the broad earth and the affairs of toil open before us. We are thankful for home and friends and life’s labor. For prophets and reformers who cry shame upon social wrong, for leaders of the people who are wise in the policies of state, for many forms of effort to build a commonwealth where all may reach their highest good: we are thankful. Let us cherish the state that mighty ends may be achieved. For shrines of faith where goods are praised and evils faced, where sorrows are healed and high purposes kindled, where our spirits are brought to that accord with all things which is at once our noblest task and most sublime joy: we are thankful. Let us upbuild the church in strength to minister ever more abundant life and peace to all the world.
Choosing Heresy A Sermon by the Reverend Mark W. Christian Delivered to the First Unitarian Church of Oklahoma City Sunday February 26, 2006 The Universalist side of this faith tradition had its heyday somewhere in the late 19th century. Some assert that in the period following the Civil War that Universalism might have been the fourth or fifth largest church in America. One saying—probably originally coined by detractors but later adopted by the Universalists—stands out from the period. It’s said that if asked “Where the Universalist Church stands?” the proper reply is “Universalists don’t so much stand as they move.” That sounds good to me. I have discovered that my spiritual orientation evolves over time. I have described my theology, at various times in various ways. A different points in my life I have considered myself to be Atheist and Agnostic, Buddhist and Radical Monist, Secular and Christian, Pantheist and Panentheist. I have been an amalgam of many of these things. These days, armed with a degree in theology, I describe myself as a Panendeist—but I admit I may have made that one up. I have considered myself to be all these things, yet I have never stopped being a Unitarian so I have a deep connection with the observation that Universalists don’t so much stand as they move. For many the idea of an evolving theology is frightening. Religion should be fixed and universally adopted they maintain. Some want to see the church “Same as it ever was,” ordained by Christ Jesus, unchanging. Despite our Universalist roots—that kind of universal church is not our way. We diverge from that school not because of the “Christ Jesus” part but because of the “Same as it ever was” silliness. Ironically, those who would speak detrimentally of a church with “moving” beliefs forget that they were once reformers. In the history of religion—everyone was a reformer and seeker of freedom at one point. Many, though, view their changes as a return to the true, pure and ancient, church instead of an adaptation of the religious spirit to the changing needs of changing people in changing times. My experience leads me to observe that there never has been a uniform church—but there have always been those interested in enforcing their orthodoxy on others. The beliefs of our Universalist mothers and fathers changed significantly over a relatively short period of time. American Universalism is typically dated to John Murray’s 1770 immigration. Murray had reasoned, initially following John Wesley, that the salvific act of Christ could save all persons and not just the elect as the dominant Calvinist church maintained. That idea never fulfilled the Universalists and in three or four generations they moved from the notion that all could be saved, to the experience of hell as long—but not eternal with everyone eventually restored to oneness with God. Then they began to assert that all are saved from hell, then on to deny that hell exists at all. Eventually the Universalists asserted that Christianity, while superior in many ways, has no unique claim to salvation because there are truths in all religions. If asked “Where the Universalists stand?” the most accurate answer is that “They don’t so much stand as they move.” This chapter from the history of Universalism brings me to the fourth “Core Revelation” of the Liberal Tradition I’d like to share with you. This meta-belief holds that faith is an inherently individual experience and must be achieved through free means by free persons. The Liberal Tradition holds that true faith can never be developed using threat and coercion but must, of its own means, be persuasive. The Liberal Tradition holds that God is alive in the world in the form of freedom. Liberal, you will recall, is derived from the same root word as Liberty. Freedom and liberty demand that faith may never be forced, that faith be affixed to something because of its own virtues and attractions as manifested in the heart and mind of each individual. I shared the story about the evolving faith of our Universalist ancestors to show that the Spirit can be bound only by the dictates of goodness in the soul. The Spirit is forever progressing, self-surpassing, eternally evolving, uncontainable—made new in different times and in different ways. The challenge in this is that our religious zeal and fervor must never be used to dictate another’s faith. Letting people make free choices, however, can be a frightening thing. Freedom, if we truly honor its self-surpassing nature, will never let us sit comfortably for long. Nor can freedom be inherited, it must be claimed anew by each generation. In fact, each person in each new setting must claim a free faith. This faith tradition responds to the deeply held human tendency to universalize our personal truth into orthodoxy. Most of us feel we have found something we never knew could exist. Why, we wonder, doesn’t everyone believe like we do? We humans are finite creatures and it is easy for us to forget that even when we have glimpsed the eternal, even when we feel we have a grasp on the ultimate that this means nothing to the next person. Our experiences, be they of love or pleasure or hope or truth or God, are simply ours. Freedom demands that we allow each person to discern the dictates of the spirit as made known to them—not us. We can share them. We can offer our perspective as direction. We can even hold that our beliefs are superior to other beliefs and experiences. Actually, I would say we are called, required, to make such testaments as people as faith. We can, however, do little more than offer and suggest. The moment we move from persuasive means, we err. The moment we adopt any type of force, any type of subterfuge, any type of coercion, to see our beliefs handed over to another we have put chains upon freedom. The moment we try to impose our faith on another we have sinned against the truest Spirit of God, which was once manifest to us in the form of freedom. That being said, I admit that it happens all the time. One can even argue that my preaching violates the inherent individualism of belief. It can be asserted that I am trying to project my personal faith on you. If I had the power to force adherence to the faith I articulate that would be true. So far as I know, however, the power given to me as a minister of this church won’t let me imprison, penalize or punish you. You are free to quit coming here. You are free to get up, even now, and walk out and there is nothing I can legitimately do to change your mind, alter your belief or restrain your legitimate exercise of faith. Evangelical zeal can only go so far as persuasion will take it if it is to be true to the liberal spirit. The workings of the spirit, the communication of faith, must rely on persuasive means. Of course, in the real world, faith is often contaminated with coercion. Those who are unwilling to rely entirely on persuasive means often begin by condemning those with recalcitrant beliefs as heretics. They claim that there is only one right form of belief and the correctness of that belief authorizes extreme measures to insure its spread. “No one expects,” after all, “The Spanish Inquisition,” Monty Python reminds us. But perhaps we should. People of differing faith, belief and behavior have been accused of heresy, stripped of life, liberty and property, throughout history. Heresy is, for many, a serious charge. To be called a heretic is to some a fate far worse than to be called a thief or a cheat. Many in fact would rank being called a Heretic on par with being called a liberal or a homosexual. Actually, so do I! Some of you have heard me say this so many times that you are thinking, “Here we go again.” Nonetheless. The word heretic, as derived from Greek through the Latin, means—“One who chooses.” One can best understand the meaning of heretic when it is compared to the word “Orthodox” which means “Right Belief.” Believing that one holds the right belief is not bad. I hope that each of you feel you hold “Right Belief.” If you don’t then I am an utter failure as a preacher and this church deserves to wither and decay. Holding “Right Belief” is not contrary to being a heretic, though. In fact it is absolutely required of heretics. To choose anything that you do not, at a deep and existential level, feel to be a right belief is—well—wrong. Woody Allen, when asked if sex is dirty, once replied, “It is if you do it right.” I would echo that by following the question “Can heresy be right belief?” by saying “It better be.” At the base of this Core Revelation that faith cannot be coerced, is the essential idea that the ultimate truths of the world are discernable, that nothing is categorically blocked from our view. This meta-belief depends upon an assertion that none of us are given insight of a peculiarly different kind, making our perspective right beyond all others. This doesn’t mean that truth is easy to find. This doesn’t mean that we actually see all we need to understand the outlines of faith. This doesn’t mean that some of us aren’t more adept, more practiced, more attuned to this task than others. What this means is that we hold each person to be the competent arbitrator of their own faith—if provided with facts and freedom. We hold that each person can and must decide, can and must choose. Make no mistake there is much loose in the world today that would have us abandon persuasion for coercion. We seem to be steering toward a place where the legitimate power of government to exercise control over its citizens is being co-opted by those who would use that power, instead of persuasion, to advance their religious, “right beliefs,” as universal. Not only is turning our democracy into a theocracy an abuse of civil rights and secular law—it is an abandonment of one of the key precepts of our faith—that religious ideas must prove themselves compelling on a fair and even playing field. When we, as a church, speak and act in favor of separation of church and state we do so not only because the amalgam is bad government—but because it is bad religion. Faith depends upon freedom. This same tendency to restrain freedom can be seen even in the Liberal Tradition. There are some who believe, for example, that because one of those places we Unitarian Universalists moved to, for a time, was to eschew (or at least restrain) using words like God, Sin, Grace, Salvation and Christ that these ideas and this language are forever excised from our midst. One cannot be true to the spirit of freedom that demands persuasive power if one is to trump ideas from the free market of faith before they can prove their worth or folly. There are some, even amongst us, who act as though we should automatically oppose things like intelligent design or removing books from the public stacks at libraries. Make no mistake here, I oppose each of these movements, but I want to oppose them as a result of free and open discourse and not because of knee jerk liberalism. That same knee jerk liberalism leads some in our midst to automatically side with organized labor or environmentalists or animal rights groups in public debate. These positions may well be appropriate expressions of our faith—but to accept them without free discourse is another form of coercion. Knee jerk, automatic, responses are antithetical to the true spirit of this religious tradition. If we simply refuse to consider a belief, a position, an idea or an action, because of who proposes it or because we have traditionally opposed it, the liberal sprit becomes conservative. It becomes intent on conserving the status quo rather than trusting liberty and relying on freedom. Our true spirit is lost when we are more interested in conserving previous belief, prior faith, than allowing freedom and liberty to lead us. Those who would cling to hereditary faith, or the presumptions of previous discourse, embody a form of coercion—less pernicious perhaps but different only in degree from Witch-Hunt and Inquisition. Our spiritual health and livelihood depend, I have come to believe, on the nurturance of certain Wellsprings of Faith. We hold an array of personal beliefs in this community—theist, atheist, Christian, Jew, Buddhist, humanist, Taoist, deist, agnostic. We are united in covenant more than creed, oriented to institutional promise over common belief. Still we share common ground. There are key things we must nurture, support and explore if they are to serve us well. We see life as a gift. We directly experience that which is ultimate. Good and Evil are both real—one leads toward and one lures us away from our truest selves. Today I add to that list that faith must be freely chosen, that all authentic faith is heretical. While each of us must find “Right Belief,” forcing an orthodoxy on others is a form of spiritual violence that erodes the spring that feeds our faith. Words written by Terry Weston seem appropriate at this juncture. As we come to understand what it means to rely of a freely chosen faith—to be forever heretical—to be heretics choosing heresy—these sentiments of doubt and truth seem as good a place to end as any… Let no one fear for the truth, that doubt may consume it; for doubt is a testing of belief. The truth stands boldly and unafraid; it is not shaken by the testing: For truth, if it be truth, arises from each testing stronger, more secure. Those that would silence doubt are filled with fear; their houses are built on shifting sands. But those who fear not doubt, and know its use, are founded on rock. They shall walk in the light of growing knowledge; the work of their hands shall endure. AMEN
|
