Rollins Chapel
April 21, 2005
Richard Crocker, College Chaplain
This is not the sermon I intended to preach today. It has been prepared rather hastily, in response to the week's events. So if it is more informal than usual, I hope you understand.
The week's events to which I refer include the election of a new pope, and the world's reaction to that election. While no one knows what Pope Benedict XVI will actually do, we have a very solid record of his opinions, so there is good reason to anticipate the direction of his papacy. The predictions generally are a cause of rejoicing for those who call themselves conservative and a source of dismay for those who call themselves progressive. The election is, of course, of most concern to Roman Catholics, who see this man as the head of their church, the one who is ultimately infallible in pronouncements of faith and doctrine. But others of us who do not accord him that status, other Christians, and also non-Christians, recognize the importance of the papal office for the church and for the world.
Now you may remember that we are considering this term the theme of religion and morality. Last week I outlined four sources for moral convictions. The first is simply custom: we get our moral grounding from doing what is expected. The second is biological: certain kinds of behavior, some argue, are wired into us, genetically, and this universal wiring is the basis of morality. Third is reason. We are capable, many people argue, of basing our moral decisions on reasonable arguments; indeed, they argue (and this is certainly the dominant view at a place like Dartmouth), reason is the only reliable guide to moral judgment. And finally there is religion, which anchors moral judgment in the authority of a tradition that both encompasses and transcends all of the other sources. I talked about this last week; the sermon is on line if you want to read it.
The new pope has made clear his conviction that, without religion, and, specifically, without the Christian religion, and, more specifically, without the teachings of the Roman Catholic church, the world may succumb to the tyranny of relativism. The specific thing that prompted me to abandon the sermon I had written for today, and to preach this one, is a line from a column by Michael Novak in yesterday's New York Times. Novak, who is very sympathetic to the new pope, wrote: "He (Pope Benedict XVI) fears that Europe, especially, is abandoning the search for objective truth and sliding into pure subjectivism. This is how the Nazis arose, he believes, and the Leninists. When all opinions are considered subjective, no moral ground remains for protesting against lies and injustice." (Michael Novak, Rome's Radical Conservative, New York Times, April 20, 2005)
This is a very common argument among religious people. Without the absolute authority of God, and, presumably, God's word, everything becomes subjective and relativistic. Nothing is absolute and certain anymore. It's a common argument, but a false one. As you know, I hope, I believe in the importance of religious teaching. I am devoted to the teachings of Jesus Christ, and I believe they are absolutely authoritative, not only for my life, but for the life of the world. I will, by my actions and decisions, endeavor to provide a Christian witness. I do not believe that all religions teach the same thing. They do not. There is no moral core common to all religions. There are areas where many religions agree, but not all. Ultimately, I make the commitments that I make because I believe that they are true. This is called subjectivism. I am the judge of the commitments I make. I do not and can not subscribe to beliefs that others tell me are authoritative, simply because they claim that they are authoritative. And I do not expect others to do so, either.
Subjectivism may be an enemy of human freedom and salvation, but what is the alternative? Authoritarianism? Mr. Novak argues that the new pope sees Nazism and Leninism as examples of subjectivism. That is a peculiar view, since both Nazism and Leninism advertised themselves as doctrines based upon reason, and as being objectively true. Those who opposed these philosophies did so because they prized the freedom of individual judgment. In other words, they opposed them in the name of what some might call subjectivism.
Each morning, after breakfast, I read a portion of scripture as daily discipline. It is a source of guidance for the day for me. And then I read the newspaper and do the puzzle on the comic page, and I read my horoscope. Horoscopes are of course absurd. Who can believe in them? The idea that one twelfth of the human population should receive the same specific guidance for the day, based upon astrological charts, is very hard to believe. I find it amusing to compare the advice given to me with the advice given to my wife. But today, my horoscope said this: "Don't waste your time on arguments about religious or political matters. Quit trying to make others agree with you. Just believe in what you want to believe." Well, if that isn't an endorsement of subjectivism, I never heard one. "Believe in what you want to believe." But that's the catch. How do beliefs become compelling or authoritative in our lives? How do we decide what we want to believe in? That's a topic for another day. The reasons for our beliefs are multiple, not simple. We choose beliefs because our parents taught us, or our church taught us, or our professors taught us, or MTV taught us. But ultimately we choose beliefs because they help us to make sense of the world, and because they give us hope. Don't you think that's true? Could it really be any other way?
copyright © 2005, Richard R. Crocker
|
