3.17 - AUTHORITY
AUTHORITY I want to discuss today the question: What Constitutes Authority in Religion?
I read from Matthew 7:21-29 : "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then I will profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
"Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock; And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house: and it fell not; for it was founded upon a rock. And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell; and great was the fall of it.
"And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine; For he taught as one having authority, and not as the scribes." The Christ is here pictured in contradistinction to the scribes then prominent. By virtue of the fact that they copied the Law of Moses repeatedly, they were supposed to know quite a bit about what it said, hence were often consulted regarding legal matters.
Christ came publicly announcing that while Moses said this or that, I say unto you otherwise. Thus he impressed the world from the beginning that he spake as one clothed with authority from on high.
Therefore, he said all power in heaven and in earth has been delegated or given to me. My friends, in the religious world today, as well as in the political and social, there is much disturbance. A spirit of restlessness prevails. I may not know the cause of it, but, in my humble opinion, very much of this disturbance and chaotic condition everywhere in evidence is due to the fact that we are lacking in the recognition of the right standard of authority to govern us in our respective affairs.
Men do not always see matters in the same way. Disputes arise; conflicts over our rights and privileges abound; and, but for the fact that there has been established in this land, civil courts by which our troubles are to be settled, we would be hopelessly in a continued state of confusion.
I recognize full well that when I am abused, or my rights are trespassed upon, I can appeal to the courts of our land. These are arranged as a graded system so that from the lower I can appeal even to the supreme court of our state. The decision then rendered becomes authority and beyond it I cannot go. In the business world there are standards to govern our transactions. I go into the grocery store, to buy, for instance, a dollars worth of sugar. How do I know that I am getting 16 ounces to the pound? Of course, I see the merchant’s scales, but sometimes there has been doubt as to their correctness. What are you going to do about it? In the department at Washington there are standard weights and measures, and everyone’s scales are right or wrong according as they conform to the standard adopted by our government.
How do you ladies know, when you buy a yard and three-quarters of dress goods, that you are getting 36 inches to the yard? Of course, you see the merchant measure it, but there may be some doubt of its correctness. Our government has a platinum stick 86 inches long. By this others are to be determined, and thus the controversy is ended. In every department of life, there must be some standard of authority to determine our affairs. In religion it is, perhaps, more essential than anywhere else that a correct standard be adopted. With reference to what that standard is, there are two schools to which all conceptions and ideals may be reduced. These two opposite thoughts are challenging our attention and demanding consideration.
They are designated by terms that are rather new, namely, Modernism and Fundamentalism. The question then comes, Am I a Modernist? or, Am I a Fundamentalist? With one or the other I am almost forced to take my stand.
What do these terms mean? If I am to discuss matters that now attract attention, I must acquaint myself with these words, and find out their use and significance. I have read the literature and journals of both these schools of thought. I think I know what they themselves mean.
"Modernism" is a word coined by Pope Piux X, and first applied to teachers in Europe who, he thought, had departed from the original teaching and platform of the fathers. It has culminated into a great force, and there be many today, not among the lower, ignorant class, but among the very best minds of the land, that have drifted into its teachings, and stand as propagators of the theory summed up in it. What does the word mean? Modernism represents that attitude of the heart and trend of the mind which rejects the Bible as authority, and substitutes each one’s intellect as his sole guide and criterion.
I have nothing to gain, but all to lose, in misrepresenting anything, regardless of what I think about it. I have, therefore, been rather careful to try to frame up, from the writings of Modernists themselves, just what they indicate and signify in such a statement. So I repeat, Modernism rejects the Bible as authority; relegates it to the background; reduces it to a common plane with uninspired writings, and exalts the intellect of man as the sole standard by which one is to be governed.
I want you to think on that just a moment. Since the drift of men’s minds is not always in parallel lines, there will be, of necessity, everlasting conflicts. The ultimate analysis of that very thought would mean this, viz: each individual would become a standard of his own, and, therefore, the world has never dreamed of the confusion, the contradiction and the wonderful chaotic state of affairs that would result if such a thought were universally adopted.
Under such conditions, I would become amenable to no power on earth. In the courts of our land I could appear in my own defense and announce that what I have done meets with my approval. I see nothing wrong in it. My conscience is clear. Therefore, I am guilty of no wrong whatsoever. The ultimate thing to which Modernism objects is the idea of miracles. The theory is that whatever cannot be understood and thoroughly comprehended should be rejected as unworthy of acceptance. The adoption and the acceptance of a thing that one cannot understand is belittling to his good sense, and a reflection upon his mentality. Such is the essence of modernism.
But, friends, a moment’s reflection ought to suggest to you that this world is filled with miracles. There are hundreds of things I know to be true and, yet, I do not understand them. As to what life is, we know no more today than did the first pair in paradise sixty centuries ago. I know quite a bit about its principles, about the laws governing it, the rules and regulations for its perpetuity, and so on. But what is that thing which, having, a man moves around among his friends, and having not, his body lies cold in death and we bury it away in the kindly bosom of mother earth? What is that thing? The chemist can go into his laboratory, take a grain of corn, analyze it into all of its physical elements, and tell you exactly its composition. Then he can take the very elements out of which it was created and bring them back together in such accurate proportions and present you with a grain of corn that you cannot tell from the genuine; but you plant his into the soil, and you can bid it good-bye. Pluck one from the ear, and plant it, and it will burst through the crust of earth, be kissed by the sun, and caressed by the showers, and at last bring forth others after its kind.
What is that in the one, that is not in the other, that thing we call life? Why doesn’t the chemist put it in his? Don’t blame him. He would if he only knew how.
Friends, when you go into the dining-room to partake of the good things this country has, and eat to your satisfaction, do you understand how it is that some of that food goes to supply bones, some muscles, some nerves, etc.? A part of that food will make your nails grow and other parts will send you to the barber shop. Does the professor in the school understand these things? He does not, and yet, we all accept such as facts. The same food will produce white skin on you, black skin on the Negro, and yellow skin on the Chinaman. Why all this? Miracles never bother anybody in the kitchen or dining-room. It is only in the pulpit or in the school room. It becomes ridiculously absurd for us to talk about the rejection of miracles.
I wonder if some professor in Nashville can tell me why it is that a black cow can eat green grass and give white milk from which we get yellow butter?
But, friends, the serious part of this is, that Modernists reject the Bible on the ground that it contains miracles. Inspiration is a miracle. I don’t propose to explain it. I don’t understand just how God enabled Holy men of old to speak. Because of this inability, Modernists claim that the Bible should be rejected as all inspired volume and be reduced to a level with Bunyan’s "Pilgrim’s Progress," Milton’s "Paradise Lost," or any of the great classics that have come down through the ages.
Modernists reject the Virgin birth of Christ, on the very same principle, namely, they cannot understand it. Well, of course, they can’t.
They begin to reason as follows: In the vegetable world there must be two kinds of plants, male and female. They talk fluently and intelligently regarding the transportation of the pollen from one to the other, and the depositing of the very germ out of which new life springs.
They go to the animal world and ask of our boys and girls, did you ever see all animal, unless back of it there were both male and female as parents? Of course not. Then they make all appeal unto humanity. Did you ever know of a character born on this earth of just one parent? Surely not. Now, upon that process of reasoning they conclude that the story of the Virgin birth is incredible. Because he cannot understand it, and it is contrary to any of his observations or experiences in life, the Modernist thinks it belittling to his intellect to go along blindly, and accept that which he cannot understand.
Again, he asks, with a spirit of superiority, how is it that the blood of a man shed two thousand years ago, and eight thousand miles away from Nashville, can affect the sin of a man here in 1928?
Well, I don’t think he can understand it. I don’t myself. Then, because he doesn’t understand that, and see just the philosophy and just the connection, then what? He rejects the atoning power and the efficacy of the blood of Christ. But he wants you Christian parents to know that he believes the Bible all right; he just doesn’t accept its inspiration, and the atoning power of the blood of Christ.
Then again, the resurrection from the dead is contrary to our experience and observation. There is no data from which one can lay down premises and from them draw a sensible, logical conclusion, that all the dead will come forth. It is miraculous, and the Modernist says, "I cannot accept it on the ground that I do not understand it."
Friends, to a Modernist there is no resurrection; there is no power in the blood of Christ; the Bible was not penned as the Spirit moved holy men of days gone by; Jesus Christ was but a man. Notwithstanding all this, they have the monumental gall to tell me they believe the Bible. Not so. Absolutely not.
If they had the boldness to express their real sentiments, they would come out plainly and repudiate the Word of God.
If Christ has not been raised from the dead, and if he did not ascend to the Father where he was crowned both Lord and King, surely he will not come to earth again. Hence Modernists reject the second coming of Christ.
Modernism stands for everything on earth that was ever taught by old Voltaire, David Hume, our own Tom Paine, or any other skeptic of whom you have ever heard.
It has some exceedingly nice terms to be applied to such as I. By Modernists, I am called a reactionary, a non-progressive, uneducated, unscientific, uncultured, all ignoramus, all old mops back, a back number, a bigot, a crank, a legalist, etc. But these things move me not. These go to make up the devil’s effort to brow-beat, to bulldoze, and to run rough shod over all opposition. They announce that all the educated, the first class, and the learned of earth are marching under the banner of Modernism. That is not so.
God be praised because thousands there are who believe His word and crown Him Lord of all.
There are many more today as devout, as learned, as intelligent, and as scholarly, who accept God’s word, than there are of those who bid defiance unto Jehovah, repudiate his word, and make light of the cause for which Christ died.
I now turn to the other line of thought and call your attention to the term Fundamentalism. This word is the exact opposite of Modernism. Whatever one means, the other signifies the reverse. They are antithetic in all respects.
Modernism relegates the Bible to a common level with uninspired writings. Fundamentalism exalts the word of God and believes it was penned by inspiration. Modernists ridicule the story of the Virgin birth. Fundamentalists accept Christ as the Son of God. Modernists repudiate the atoning power of the blood of Jesus; they sneer at the resurrection; and they blight the hope of our Lord’s coming again.
Fundamentalists believe that the blood of Christ can cleanse a soul from sin; they entertain a hope of the resurrection, and look for his glorious appearance at the last day. To a Modernist, this life ends it all. To a Fundamentalist, this is but the beginning. He believes there is all existence beyond this vale of tears.
Unfortunately, Fundamentalists are divided into three classes, viz: Catholics, Denominationalists, and Christians. All claim to believe the Bible and to accept every miracle it contains. They are, therefore, classed as Fundamentalists. You have a right to ask, wherein do they differ? May I answer that the difference among these three classes is purely a difference of what constitutes authority? When any matter of doctrine or polity arises in the Catholic church, by what authority is such determined? Is the question settled by the Bible? Absolutely not. The pope calls together his cardinals who, with himself as chief justice, form all ecclesiastical court. Any question unsettled is thoroughly discussed and, at last, a verdict is rendered. That decision is by them counted infallible, and it is fastened upon the churches throughout the world. Their opinion is authority for any doctrine or practice among them.
Denominationalists and Christians repudiate their claims of infallibility and hence, while all are Fundamentalists, they are hopelessly divided on the question of authority.
But, practically all denominations are only a step removed. In becoming a member of them, one must take a solemn pledge and make a sacred vow to support the discipline, confession of faith, prayer book, etc. These little manmade books govern the denominations and become authority among them. Who made the creeds? Of course, they are written by uninspired men, and hence, they become authority in every denomination accepting them. Ask any member of these human organizations about any point of doctrine or practice, and he invariably turns to his creed for authority regarding such. They are all creed bound, and are as much under the authority of the uninspired as any Catholic in all the land. Among our digressive friends, the same principle prevails. They have accepted no human creed but parts of their doctrine and practice are determined by a majority vote of their members. The organization of societies, the introduction of mechanical instruments, and the reception of the unimmersed as members are all determined by the voice of uninspired men. These matters are voted on, and the worldly-minded and untaught usually are in the majority. This then becomes the doctrine and polity of the church. These things are fastened upon them by human authority, and they make of our brethren in error one among the denominations which hinder the progress of the cause of Christ and render impossible that unity so earnestly sought by Christ and the apostles.
Christians claim to be fundamentalists, but they cannot indorse such practices, neither can they recognize human authority. To them, the Bible and the Bible alone is the source of authority. Whatever it teaches, demands, or commands they are ready to accept. Beyond its declarations they dare not go. To them the Bible is to be taken in full or it is unworthy of serious consideration. It is either the sum of all authority or it is none at all. It is either the work of God or it is a product of man. It is either a lamp unto our feet or it is a shadow along our way.
Christians propose to take God at His word; believe what He says; become and be what He requires; try to live as He directs; and trust Him for the promises.
They claim to be nothing, preach nothing, practice nothing, for which there is no authority in the word of God. When any matter is presented, they ask: Does the Bible authorize it? Does God demand it? If so, they are ready to accept it and make it a part of their religious program. In the brief time allotted, I have submitted these conceptions of authority. I beg of you today to accept the Christian idea, and to plant your feet upon the Bible and upon that alone. If such be your will now, the invitation is extended.