Sermon January 21, 2001

SERMONS

Voices of Courage: Heresy

The Rev. Mary Katherine Morn
January 21, 2001

In the complex and sometimes contentious world of denominations many Christians today hold the view that theirs is the true expression of Christian faith. One of the common ways for this claim to be made is in an argument that one’s practice best resembles the practice of Christianity in the time immediately following Jesus’ death. Trouble with that is that it took several centuries for Christianity to institutionalize as a coherent tradition.

Early Christianity was even less unified than Christianity today—though the scale of it all in today’s world is certainly something new. You can see the beginnings of the struggle even in parts of the Christian New Testament. Much of the material contained in the Epistles is written for the purpose of clarifying right doctrine and right practice—evidence that there was diversity of doctrine and practice.

Unitarian Universalism is a child of the Jewish and Christian traditions. Our heritage is complex. We can trace our roots to the history of the doctrines for which we are named. (Unitarianism and Universalism) But that doesn’t make a tremendous amount of sense when those theological doctrines (as originally conceived) have become virtually irrelevant for many of us today. We can massage our definitions, broaden the use of the words and find a great deal of relevance, certainly; but, it is takes some work to make this lineage very direct.

I like to begin an examination of our heritage with the creation of orthodoxy within Western Christianity. In many ways Christians sought to establish both a rule of dogma and a seat of power. For example various collections of writings were canonized—some were in and others out—but the canon wasn’t finalized until the fourth century. The first written listing of the writings that form the Christian New Testament as we have it today was in a letter from Athanasius in 367. There were many writings used by early Christians which were ultimately not included in the canon.

The most significant step toward unified dogma and power came with Constantine’s ascension to power in the Empire. Ultimately he saw fit to settle some of the more significant differences in Christianity by the use of church councils. With rulings at the councils orthodoxy, or right belief, was established on many matters. With the creation of orthodoxy comes the reality of heresy. This is where I like to begin an examination of our heritage. While the question of one of the early councils: the question of the nature of God and Jesus: did indeed lead to the doctrine of Unitarianism being considered heretical—this is far less relevant, I think, to our religious tradition, than the response of some to the idea that a different view of God would necessarily lead to the exclusion of those who hold it.

But I am getting ahead of myself. It took many centuries for most who held such heretical views to finally embrace a freer approach to faith. It was during the Protestant Reformation that many began to express confidence in a person’s ability to judge theological ideas for herself or himself. The shift in authority away from the Church and back in the direction of the individual was significant. For the majority of the reformers the shift was subtle. No more papacy. Scripture available in the language spoken. Wine (as well as bread) available to communicants. Others desired more radical change. One such radical was Michael Servetus.

In 1531 Servetus, at the age of 20, published On the Errors of the Trinity. It was an appeal to the leaders of the Reformation to go further with their reform and acknowledge the fact that there are no scriptural grounds for a doctrine of the Trinity. The reaction to this heretical book was so violent that Servetus had to move to France under an assumed identity. He worked as a physician with the name Michael Villanovannus. He published another book on Christian doctrine, The Restoration of Christianity. When it was revealed that he was the author, Servetus was arrested in France for heresy. He escaped to Geneva, where John Calvin was. His effigy burned in France. He himself was burned at the stake in Geneva, that very year. Guilty of heresy. Killed for ideas considered dangerous. His life taken for his commitment to speaking his truth. (Funny how that casual contemporary saying has such a radically different feel in this context.)

The story of Servetus is relatively well-known. Fourteen years before his death, though, another less-known Reformer met the same fate. She was Katherine Vogel. Some have suggested she was influenced in her theology by the Jews with whom she associated. They were radical monotheists. She affirmed the unity of God. For ten years she was locked in a chapel in Krakow, Poland, an effort to force her to recant. She did not. At the age of 80 she was burned at the stake. She died for her commitment to truth as she understood it. She gave her life rather than giving over her freedom to believe as she must.

Another radical of the reformation was Francis David. He became the court preacher in Transylvania when it was under the rule of King John Sigismund. David’s Unitarian views influenced the King. David also influenced the King’s decision to issue an Edict of Toleration—insuring the free practice of religion for Calvinists, Catholics and Unitarians. This mid sixteenth century period in Eastern Europe marks the only time in history when a nation was ruled by a Unitarian. It didn’t last long. Sigismund, the Unitarian King, died at 31. A Catholic family came to power, soon passing a law against innovation in religion. Under this law Francis David was arrested and put in prison. He died there.

John Biddle died in prison as well. He came to be known as the father of British Unitarianism. His book arguing for the humanity of Jesus was published in 1644. The British Parliament answered Biddle’s intellectual exploration with a law making denial of the trinity a capital crime. He spent more than half of his life in prison, dying there at the age of 46.

The last few centuries has seen fewer of our leaders forced to sacrifice so much for their beliefs. Abner Kneeland is the only Unitarian or Universalist of the modern era to be convicted of heresy. He was a Universalist minister and publisher. He published provocative things in his newspaper. It was 1833 and most were shocked to read his own words denouncing God, Christ, miracles, and the resurrection of the dead. He was immediately arrested. Ultimately he spent 60 days in prison for blasphemy.

And of course in the horror of the Holocaust, in this century just past, within the lifetime of many of us, there were many tortured and killed for their ideas. One was a Unitarian minister from Czechoslovakia. In addition to originating our flower communion ritual and writing some beautiful hymns that are included in our hymnal, Norbert Capek lived his faith with integrity until the end of his life at Dachau.

Today, the worst most of us have to fear for our liberal faith is a puzzling look, perhaps discrimination at the workplace, or maybe loss of prestige. Yet, while the consequences pale in comparison with those of our forebears, I sincerely believe that the need for our faith in the world is no less urgent. The need is great for those who are willing to live for the cause of freedom and justice for all people. Sadly, it seems that as the diminishing stakes for such a life have made it possible for even common people, people like us, people with only a common amount of courage to hold these ideals, that we may have forgotten the importance of them. That we who will not be asked to die for what we believe in are somehow less likely to live for what we believe in.

My friend and colleague Suzanne Meyer asked this question in a newsletter column recently. “If Unitarian Universalism were against the law today, would there be enough evidence to convict you?” It is a good question for all of us in our part of the world. We live in a time and place when it is easy to grow comfortable with our affluence. And so to become forgetful. To forget the relevance of Katherine Vogel’s life. Or Norbert Capek’s. To distance ourselves from their struggles and their ideals.

Yesterday we heard our new president articulate some of the ideals I’m talking about. Well, I didn’t actually hear him—but I read his words after the inauguration. Moving words to read. I was most touched by these:

We have a place, all of us, in a long story--a story we continue, but whose end we will not see. It is the story of a new world that became a friend and liberator of the old, a story of a slave-holding society that became a servant of freedom, the story of a power that went into the world to protect but not possess, to defend but not to conquer.

It is the American story--a story of flawed and fallible people, united across the generations by grand and enduring ideals. The grandest of these ideals is an unfolding American promise that everyone belongs, that everyone deserves a chance, that no insignificant person was ever born.

Last Sunday I used words by Archbishop Desmond Tutu which expressed much the same sentiment. In the President’s words, or under them, we can hear the North American tendency to contaminate the idea of freedom with a patronizing tone. I hope and pray that Bush will bring the ideals of freedom and justice to his presidency. But we cannot assume that his actions will be consistent with his rhetoric. We cannot ever assume this, with any politician. It is our responsibility to watch, to listen, to understand, and to respond when necessary.

There are two areas I believe we will have to be especially vigilant in the next four years. That is in freedom of religion/separation of church and state, and in the environment. And we have already seen evidence that we may need to actively respond. Concerning the environment Bush’s nomination for Interior Secretary confirms the fears of many that he has little understanding of the importance of preserving our environment for the generations to come. Concerning his beliefs about freedom of religion there has also been evidence that supports the concerns many have raised.

Compassionate Conservatism is an idea originating with some very conservative Christians who advocate allowing sectarian groups to take over much of the government’s assistance to people who are receive assistance. They openly ridicule separation of church and state. They see no problem with assistance programs, government funded assistance programs, requiring faith-tests for applicants. This is one of the most dangerous ideologies I have heard propagated in our country.

In addition to supporting this idea, the President has demonstrated his inconsistency concerning the value of every person in this country with his nomination for Attorney General. Perhaps he will, as he has said, be able to uphold the laws of our nation. But I feel concern over someone in this position drawing on an old slogan, “We have no king but Jesus,” as a concept he considers fundamental to our great country. He said this at Bob Jones University in May of 1999.

This is a perfect opportunity for us to remember those who died for the ideals we hold dear. And this is a good time for us to get serious about living for these same ideals. The thing I like the most from Bush’s remarks is that he acknowledges we are a flawed and fallible people. This will always be true. We will always have the capacity to squelch freedom and perpetuate oppression.

We are fortunate to have a heritage of people who, with vigilance and courage, defended the ideals of freedom and justice. Now it is ours to be vigilant and courageous. We could sit back and take for granted the privileges we enjoy. I consider this a pretty risky course of action/inaction. Or we could act in ways deserving of our inheritance of liberal religion. We could live, as many others have, for freedom and justice.