by the Rev. Derek
Dunwoody
February 2010
I am very grateful to the Rev. David Howells for his article “P3~Liturgy” in the January issue of the “Diocesan Post”. It is encouraging to know there is a growing awareness among an increasing number of people in our diocese that “business as usual is no longer an option,” not only for how we do liturgy, but also for how we perceive the life and teaching of Jesus.
The author described the varying experiences of seekers and casual enquirers on entering an Anglican church on a Sunday morning; their first impressions are absolutely critical. Also, until changes are made in what happens and in what is said and sung during the service that follows then, as Mr. Howells points out, these potential church members are out the door, never to return.
The author mentions “atonement” as an example of church “code words”. This word identifies the reason why I, like most of my Anglican friends, cringe my way through the Sunday eucharist with the constant references to uncleanness, sin and generally what a rotten lot humans are. One does not read and reflect on such learned authors as Marcus Borg, Cynthia Bourgeault, Phillip Newell, Diamuid O’Murchu, Richard Rohr et al. without realizing that the doctrine of “original sin,” which is the foundation of our toxic liturgies, is very suspect. Though no doubt well intentioned during its gradual development, in the cultural, social and political environment of the early church, it is no longer a viable rational for what is sometimes referred to as “the Christ event”.
The concept that Adam and Eve’s sin of disobedience was passed down to us by means of sexual intercourse (I’m not making this up-check the the baptismal service in either of our prayer books) is why the Church is still lumbered with the concept of the need for a human sacrifice (Jesus) to put us to rights with an angry God. Without that sacrifice our consciousness will be eternally separated from God after our bodies wear out and die. This, by the way, is the same God who enjoins us to love compassionately without limit while not seemingly obliged to do so himself! Fr. Richard Rohr describes this concept as an “Achilles’ Heel of Christianity”.
How on earth did the Church come up with this? We can’t blame it all on St. Augustine of Hippo even though he did hone the doctrine to a knife’s edge.
All religious language is metaphorical by nature and it seems that this particular metaphoric imagery comes to us by way of the Judaism of Jesus’ time. On the great festival of The Day of Atonement, Yom Kippur, the high priest of the temple in Jerusalem would symbolically place on a “scapegoat” all the sins committed by the people of Israel during the year. The goat was then driven out into the barren wilderness to the east of Jerusalem where it was soon food for a hungry beast. That done, the high priest would then go to the temple and sacrifice a blemish-free lamb as a thanksgiving for the nation’s return to God’s good books, as it were.
How did this metaphor come to be applied to Jesus? It is easy to see how the Jewish companions and friends of Yeshua (Jesus) of Nazareth, in trying to make sense of what their dear friend was all about, would eventually believe that this man was perhaps not only the promised messiah but also the “Bearer of the Sins of the People” and the “Sacrificed Lamb of God”.
Other metaphors followed as the Church began to grow and spread into the Graeco-Roman culture and eventually beyond. Some of these were “Divine Wisdom” (Sophia), “Victor over Death and Powers,” “Divine Teacher,” “Cosmic Reason” (Logos) and “World Ruler.” Down the centuries, all these interpretations of Jesus have described the richness of experience of communities and individuals. It was the “Yom Kippur” metaphor that became predominant and provided the foundation of conventional and “traditional” Christianity. This no longer makes sense to a well-educated and culturally sophisticated population, especially when used in conjunction with the “Achilles’ Heel” of conflicting concepts of what the word “God” is meant to represent.
The problem with metaphorical language is that it is usually tied to the cultural and political contexts in which it evolved. Scholars tell us that metaphors do not survive the passage of time or the related changes in cultural environment. “No longer business as usual” is the inscription on the tombstones of the metaphors of the past and of distant cultures.
A dominant religious metaphor, however, becomes part of the image of a religious community. It starts to establish the boundaries of who is “in” and who is not. The group that identifies itself by this metaphor holds on grimly to it when it becomes the only way of describing itself to its members and to others. It becomes one way to define orthodoxy versus heresy; nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition!
At some point, as the centuries roll by, the image enters the last stages of its useful life cycle. This is when it becomes authoritarian, formal, rigid, and meaningless in the current context which is so different from the time and place of its origin. Finally, it collapses and then we are left dealing with power relationships. We are faced witch hunts and defections to “our roots.” (Sound familiar?) When an image functions to cement power relationships, there is huge resistance to change.
I was made aware of this on reading through the lengthy report to be debated at the diocesan synod. On page 10, in a subsection entitled “Specific Assumptions About Parishes”, there is an item which reads, “Encourage the freedom and flexibility to experiment, risk and try new things, because the status quo is never an option.” Yet the very last item says, ”Recite and teach the historic creeds, and use approved Anglican liturgies.” The current, approved liturgies are larded to the hilt with the ramifications of the concept of original sin. I submit that the first quote (from the same page) indicates that the diocese should have the courage to try another paradigm in the style alluded to by David Howells.
I suggest the concept of “The Wisdom Jesus” as the foundation for experimental liturgies. This forgotten way of perceiving Jesus is graciously described by the Rev. Dr. Cynthia Bourgeault in her book of the same title. Let us begin to “retire” original sin and instead begin to see the world, ourselves and one another through the perspective that Jesus had by “putting on the mind of Christ” (Phillipians 2:5). I would be surprised if a vibrant and exciting church community did not blossom forth if this were to be tried.
It is obvious that the majority of Canadians have long ago given up buying into the mind set required by the concept of original sin. So, I would add, have many if not most of the remaining members of the Diocese of British Columbia. We have outgrown our allegiance to this capricious, petty and easily offended God. The leadership of the diocese needs to recognize this fact and cease to blast us with a stentorian old paradigm style of evangelistic rhetoric.
Mr Dunwoody is a retired priest of the Diocese of Calgary, now living in Victoria.