THE DILEMMA OF CREATION

7 26 09

GENESIS 1:1-2:3

ANTHONY E.ACHESON, M.DIV.

As a minister, it is surprising to me how many churchgoers are unaware that there are two different creation stories at the beginning of the Bible. These two stories were written several hundred years apart and are significantly different in both content and flavor. In the first of these stories, found in the first chapter of Genesis, as well as the first three verses of Chapter two, we hear a poetic depiction of the stages by which life unfolded. There are actually nine stages mentioned, but they have been compacted to correspond to the more familiar seven days of the week, six devoted to creating, one to resting.

The main distinguishing feature of this first creation story lies in two repeated phrases. The first begins with the words, ‘Let there be…’ and signals each new round of creating: ‘Let there be light…..let the dry land appear,’ and so forth.  The second is the phrase, ‘It was good.’ In correspondence to the first six days of his labors, the voice of God declares his work to be ‘good’ six times. And when God finally steps back to survey the overall finished product, his approval is even more emphatic. We are told that ‘God saw everything he had made, and indeed it WAS VERY GOOD.’ These two phrases are the defining skeletal structure of this story. They are like the life-sustaining strands of a double helix which mirror and nourish each other in a mutually reinforcing dance. In the world of Genesis 1, each new show of life is good. [And what is especially good is the WHOLE, which merits the emphatic encomium of being called, VERY GOOD.] And all that is good is an expression of that Great Universal Mystery that generates Life Itself.

These first thirty four verses of the Bible constitute the foundational and primary creation story of Western religion. The people who assembled the Bible made a skillful editorial decision by placing it first. By highlighting it in this way, they were telling: ‘When you set about your quest for vision and value, always begin by focusing your attention on that which creates, and on the process of creating. Always make it your main priority to focus on that Power pulsing within the universe that generates life and is continually generating new forms of life. That creating Power alone is the source of all good. And for anything in your lives to be good, it must fulfill this one requirement, that it reflect and express that creative Power.’

They did well to guide us to begin with that.  But they also appear to have believed that their desire to explain human origins would be significantly incomplete unless it recognized the dilemmas that human beings had fallen into; the parts of human experience that have not turned out to be, ‘good’, let alone, ‘Very good.’  That is why the compilers of the Bible included the second creation story that was added into the Book of Genesis. This also has its role and function.  This is the story of Adam and Eve and the serpent and the two trees and God issuing commands and the man and woman not following those commands and as a result of that finding themselves in the state of suffering.

That story, the Adam and Eve story, of which we heard a part a few moments ago, expresses a foundational fact about reality; namely, that there is suffering that takes place in the human condition; and specifically that much of that suffering is self-inflicted. To put it simply, the second story expresses the reality that in our experience of the human condition something has gone wrong; or we could say there is something that is profoundly problematic.  Or we could say that within the human condition there is a fundamental dilemma. I think for those of us who work within the Judeo Christian tradition we serve ourselves poorly if we read a story like this Adam and Eve story and wonder too much about the specific particulars in it. What’s much more important than specific particulars it seems to me is the overall effect of the story, of the two stories taken together. The overall effect of the two stories is, first, to affirm that the foundational original reality is profoundly beautiful and good. But then, secondly, these two stories taken together also acknowledge that something has come into the human condition and the human experience that is profoundly problematic.  The second story of Adam and Eve conveys the fact of that dilemma, even though we today may not find helpful some of the particulars by which that story explains what that something is that has gone wrong.

In the ancient world there were three main kinds of explanations that were offered as to what that ’something wrongness’ was or is.  One explanation was that the gods, were angry at us. As time went on, at least in the Jewish tradition, the concept of ‘the Gods’ became centralized or collected together into the idea a single God [who in this instance was angry at us.]

The second explanation for the dilemma that we find commonly in the ancient world is the idea that the Gods or a single God was capricious and had created a universe that was fundamentally unfair or unjust or unpredictable.  And there was a third concept that was prevalent in the ancient world of 2500 to 3000 years ago, roughly two to three thousand years ago, the period in which some of these ancient texts were generated. That third explanation for why and how something fundamental had gone wrong was that human beings were in some fundamental, inherent way wicked, evil or sinful.

Today to the modern mind those ancient explanations are increasingly unsatisfying to many of us; the idea that there are Gods or a God who punishes us and keeps score for all the deeds that we do; the idea that there are Gods or a God who is capricious is increasingly unsatisfying to more and more modern educated people as also is the idea that human beings are fundamentally evil or wicked in some way.  How much sense does it really make to believe or to assert that this stupendous divine intelligence that has created the world and that runs this remarkable universe would create, off in one tiny corner of the universe, this one species that has all these remarkable gifts and potentials that the human race displays, but at the same time would make this race and species be also fundamentally evil and wicked. That idea certainly does not make any sense to me that such a supremely stupendous universal intelligence would approach this profoundly mysterious phenomenon of creation in such an arbitrary and even perverse way.  So for many of us these old explanations do not work.  And I understand that for many people that affirmation that those old explanations no longer work can constitute a tremendous stumbling block because those explanations are so richly woven into our tradition. The belief in them is part of the religious identity of many people. For some people that affirmation that those ancient explanations no longer work can constitute a crisis of faith.  To that I would say I deeply understand that, but I think that that reaction is, ultimately, an unnecessary reaction.

Let me give you an example as to why I say that.  Suppose hypothetically that you met a scientist or mathematician who argued strongly and emphatically that his or her science or mathematics needed to be grounded rigorously and primarily on texts that were written 2 to 3 thousand years ago.  Suppose somebody came and presented a view of physics or astronomy that says that when we use geometry perhaps that we need to base our work primarily on the work of Archimedes or Euclid or mathematical thinkers who were active at the time of Socrates and Plato.  How would you react to that?    I think most of us would say that that person probably did not have great potential to go very far with geometry or mathematics.

Suppose two scientists or mathematicians came to us. Suppose that the first said, ‘I base my work on Archimedes and Euclid. The principles of Euclid are still valid today and have never been disproved, so I rely primarily on them and never accept any points of view that contradict them.’ And suppose the second scientist said, ‘The principles of some ancient scientists are still helpful today. The principles outlined by Euclid are still valid.  So, yes, I still read those ancient scientists and I use some of what they had to say, but I base my work primarily on those in my field who have been expanding our base of knowledge and understanding in recent times.  I base my knowledge primarily on figures such as Einstein or Heisenberg or Niels Bohr or other people of that kind.’  Of these two scientists, whose science would we tend to trust more?  I would tend to trust more those, who, yes, were educated in what the great thinkers of 2,000, 3,000 years ago were putting forward; and who, yes, used SOME of that ancient wisdom that had stood the test of time and was still valid; but who had also allowed that body of knowledge to expand and grow and increase and include the learning’s of the last 200 years, the last 100 years, the last 50 years and indeed our own time.

I believe that that same principle needs to apply to resources that we look to for the extending and the expanding of our spiritual understanding and our spiritual experience. Should we value, listen to and take seriously ancient texts, including the Bible? Of course we should. We take them seriously because there are many profound insights in them. But should we be bound to any particular world news that we find in them?  To that question the answer should be, ‘No,’ because in many cases the world views we find there are outmoded and anachronistic.  This passage that I just read to you from Genesis Chapter three is attempting to answer a fundamental question, and the fundamental question is, ‘What explains all the human-created suffering in the world?’ The basic premise of that Chapter and that passage is that there is a dilemma; that there is a fundamental problem and that we need to seek out what that problem is. That affirmation that there is a fundamental dilemma, and that question as to what the root nature of that dilemma is, continues to be valid not only for that era but for us today also. But I would suggest, on the other hand, that the specifics of the attempted explanation for what that fundamental problem or dilemma is that was offered in those texts from 2500 years ago, no longer provide models that are fundamentally appropriate to us.

This is a subject that we can only address in sections especially given the time limits of this Sunday morning sermon format. But I want to suggest as a closing point today for us to be able to take home with us that we examine closely the underlying model for the human condition that is put forward specifically in this second Genesis story, in chapters 2 and 3 of Genesis.  What I would suggest is that when we look at this second story we find that it is fundamentally a model that is based on dominational relationships.  It is fundamentally a model that is based on an external legal authority that has the right to say, ‘You can do this and you cannot do that.’  As we look at other biblical texts we see that another version of that same model is the parental model.  These are the two primary models that are found in stories such as this.  That the ultimate reality is depicted as an external authority who is either a king or a political ruler speaking to a subject, or is a parent speaking to a child. Those are both basically two versions of the same model, which is a dominational model. It is a power model in which there is an external authority that has the right to say, ‘You can do this and you cannot do that.’ And then, in this model, there is an inferior subject, either a political subject or a child who must either must do what the dominational figure says, or not do what the dominational figure says, but if not be subject to punishment.  And that model underlies this story, certainly in Genesis Chapters two and three, and this same core model also underlies many of the images of the relation between the ultimate reality and us humans in our tradition.

I would further suggest that that dominational, authority-based model is a model that we need to grow beyond. We need to grow beyond having a fundamental religious or spiritual stance of mind in which we continue to see ourselves as children answering to an ultimate reality that is political [a king or any ruler],  parental [father or mother]. To the degree to which we frame our religious understandings in such ways, we will in effect be engaging in a form of self-sabotage by subtly and unconsciously maintaining a stance of immaturity. By maintaining that model we subtly locate ourselves-and thus maintain ourselves–at a lower level of mental development in our mental self-attitude. Twenty first century religious people, especially those involved in the main western religions, need to let go of a spiritual and religious model, in which we see ourselves as children [or legal or political subjects] and in which we believe in a God, in an ultimate reality, which is depicted as a parent [or a king or ruler or judge, etc.]  We need to grow beyond a fundamental model of the spiritual life and the religious life which depicts our relationship with the ultimate reality as being one of a legal subject who is required to follow the laws of a dominational authority.  I believe that we need to replace that model–or we might also say, grow beyond that model–into a fundamentally new model for understanding our relationship with ultimate reality that is not an authority-based, dominational model, but that is fundamentally a developmental and evolutionary model.

We humans have come a long way in the last 2,500 years. We have come, specifically, to understand that life is fundamentally evolutionary in nature.  It is fundamentally a developmental process.  The universe itself has gone through a profound evolutionary development since the big bang eighteen billion years ago  Biological life on this planet has gone through a profound evolutionary development over the last  four or five billion years.  Homo sapiens, since it has risen to make its way around this world on two legs rather than four, has gone through a profound  developmental and evolutionary process over these last hundred thousand years or so. To the best of our ability we need to learn to step back and look at the human condition and look at the human phenomenon more as a naturally occurring and naturally developing phenomenon and ask ourselves what does the underlying intelligence that has created this universe want to happen next in the development of our consciousness, and in the development of the consciousness of our species.  We need, to the best of our ability, to learn to ask ourselves the question:  ’where do we fit in this larger developmental process; and what does it mean to surrender ourselves to it?’  Another way of asking this same question is: ‘how can we best learn to surrender ourselves to Life Itself, and to the profound intelligence and wisdom that has created life?’ This is the same life each developmental stage of which can be looked at and be described as being ‘good,’ if not, ‘VERY GOOD.’

My prayer as we end for today is that each of us might grow in our hunger first, to have a greater understanding for who we are and where we stand within this larger unfolding which is life itself; and, second,  to do all such things as we can and may to increase both our connection with that divine process and the unfolding of its further purposes as it expresses itself increasingly within us.

We ask all these things today trusting in the power of life itself and in the expression and wisdom of  that life. In Christ’s name we pray it.

AMEN

FISHERS OF METAPHORS

7 5 09

MATTHEW 4:18-22

ANTHONY E.ACHESON, M.DIV.

Today’s passage from Matthew describes a time near the start of Jesus’ public life when he is summoning new followers and building momentum for spreading his teaching. His call to Peter, James and John urges them to move beyond being fishermen only. Jesus wants them to also become, “fishers of men,” as those words are phrased in the King James, or, ‘fishers of people’, as in more current language. The implication is that at least some of what they already knew from their life of fishing could be put to use in the new forms of life that Jesus was promoting. What does this arresting phrase, ‘fishers of men,’ really mean?
The admonition to become, ‘fishers of men,’ has frequently been seen in church history as a call to an evangelistic task, namely, extending the size and reach of the visible, institutional church. But if we look closely at these words and their context this view does not hold up.
To see the Christian Church [this includes both ‘Christianity,' and ‘the church', which are not synonymous] in Jesus’ teachings is an example of what in the world of law would be described as a legal fiction…..because at the time of Jesus there was literally no such thing as, ‘Christianity’, and no such thing as, ‘the church.’ Both what we now call, ‘Christianity’, and what we now call, ‘the church’, were created decades, and even generations, after Jesus was physically present.

This call to being fishers of men is not really about the church, at least not in its original meaning. It has a meaning different and potentially larger than that. Becoming fishers of men does not refer to building the ‘church,’ as we have come to use that word, with all its criteria of institutional structure, and membership requirements, determined by agreement with specific beliefs and doctrines. None of those things existed at the time of Jesus. To the contrary any such concept of ‘church’ was an idea that developed long after the time of Jesus.

When we consider the ways in which the historic flesh and blood Jesus actually did respond to the religious institutions of his time, we can only conclude that Jesus would have been horrified at a good deal of what came to be called ‘the church’ in the centuries following his life. Jesus resolutely opposed much of the religious institutional life around him for at least three reasons: first, because of its rigidity of practice; second, because of its overreliance on predetermined and well-entrenched beliefs from the past; and third because of the frequently appearing hardness of heart and lack of compassion which Jesus found within it.

After Jesus’ life, these same three qualities became repeated and recycled as all too frequent characteristics in the movement that we now call, ‘the church.’ There have been exceptions, of course. In fairness it should be stated that there have been and are significant segments of the church that are not rigid and inflexible, and which are not excessively influenced by the past; and which are not characterized by hardness of heart and are indeed instruments of great love. But given how resolutely Jesus opposed much of the entrenched religious institutions of his own day, and given how some of those same qualities have been represented in much of the institutional church throughout history, we can only conclude, and to be more specific we SHOULD conclude, that Jesus would have opposed with equal passion a significant portion of what became ‘the Christian Church’ in the centuries since his time. And in the context of today’s story from Matthew, and its imagery of Jesus calling Peter, James and John to be fishers of men, it should be evident that these are not words by which Jesus is calling his disciples to build or expand what we today would think of as the church. As we have seen, to view this passage through that lens would be both anachronistic and out of keeping with Jesus attitude toward institutional religion. Simply put, this call to be fishers of men is not a call to evangelism as that term is most commonly understood, and as this passage is commonly interpreted.

But if that is the case, then what does this passage refer to, and how should we rightly interpret it? This morning I would like to suggest that this section of Jesus’ teachings has two major streams of meaning that have the potential to help us spiritually, and should be seen as part of his authentic, original teaching. Today I want to focus on the first of those meanings, and then I will return to the second in a later sermon. [I apologize in advance that when we get to the end of this time today, these thoughts will not be complete; and I do want to complete them with you in the next few weeks. But part of the reality of this format is that 15 minutes, hopefully less, has some limitations.]

As we look at this image from Jesus of becoming ‘fishers of men’ the first significant meaning of this phrase and teaching is that it offers us a set of clues about the nature of how spiritual language is grasped, apprehended and communicated, and of how spiritual reality can be experienced. Specifically, it gives us an important set of clues about the nature of spiritual and Biblical language. This may seem academic and theoretical, but I would like to remind you that everything that we know about the historical Jesus [and every great spiritual teacher from the distant past] comes to us through language. We don’t have the benefit of any eyewitnesses or video. There is no way to read Jesus’ body language, or feel his aura or physical presence. This means that if we want to connect to the spiritual reality that was in Jesus; if we want to connect to the spiritual reality that Jesus was pointing to, it is essential that we have a clear and accurate understanding about the nature of religious language through which information about him comes to us because that is all we have available to get a clear picture about who Jesus was and what he was about.

We live in a period of history in which many people in the mainstream church are struggling to make sense of the Bible. At the very least the Bible is difficult to understand. Beyond that is the added difficulty that the Bible is so frequently used by some segments of the church in ways that are hard-hearted, not to mention inaccurate. In this difficult process of trying to locate both the teachings of Jesus and the Bible itself in a healthy and legitimate place in the spiritual life, we need most essentially to be people who have an accurate understandings of the nature of religious language, and of Biblical language especially.

In this regard it is particularly important to understand the primacy of metaphor in religious speech and language. To begin with, we would do well to notice how often Jesus asks the question, “To what shall I liken, or compare the kingdom of God [the realm and reign of God]? Think about those words, “liken,” and, “compare.” Likening and comparing are precisely the functions of metaphor. That is what a metaphor is or does. A metaphor says, ‘consider this area over here that you already know something about; and then be aware of the way in which there is something about that that can teach you about another reality that is over here……That there is somewhat like this here; that over there can in some ways can be compared to this over here. There are some parallels. Look for them and notice them.’ What religious and spiritual metaphors do specifically is that they tell us to consider certain areas of our lives where we already know something; to look at certain areas of our lives where we already have allowed certain principles and truths and patterns and approaches to become a part of our flesh and blood understanding. Once we have done that, metaphor says to us: ‘well, you already understand how this principle works in this tangible, specific area over here; so now over there in the spiritual realm, there is God and spirit, which are invisible and which you don’t fully understand; but here are some clues that can give you at least a little bit of a likeness of what’s happening over there. When this is compared to that, here are some parallels.’

So when Jesus’ taught about spiritual truth; when Jesus taught specifically about the kingdom of heaven which was one of his major themes, one of his over-arching conceptual categories, he would usually start by asking, ‘What might we compare this to?’ In response to his own rhetorical question, he offered a series, a whole range of these comparisons, of metaphors, that are already a part of our experience. He said, if you want to understand the kingdom of God, [the realm and reign of God,] it can be compared to a sower going out to sow seeds, where the same kind of seed falls on different kinds of soil with highly different results. He says elsewhere that the realm and reign of God is like a field where seeds of wheat and weeds are sown together, requiring the farmers first to differentiate, and then to sort out, the weeds from the wheat when fully grown. We hear that the reign of God is like a tiny mustard seed that becomes a large plant. [It is interesting, isn't it, that Jesus uses metaphors from nature so frequently.] Jesus says, ‘Look over here and see what happens with yeast and flour. When you have flower with no yeast in it, it remain flat. You add the yeast, and that cause the bread to rise.’ In another example he says, ‘Look over here….consider a treasure in a field. The kingdom of God is like that. It is like a treasure in the field that will command so great a price on the open market that a smart merchant will sell, will give away or let go of all he or she has to buy it. The realm of God, says Jesus, ‘is like a net thrown into the sea that is able to catch a great haul of fish……It is like a small child……It is like a vineyard with a loving, generous master….. It is like a wedding banquet that a king gives for his son and daughter-in-law, inviting not only the rich, but common folk as well.’ Over and over, what Jesus is doing is he is trying to describing the true nature of a reality that is invisible to us, that is not fully accessible to the human mind, by saying, ‘Well, even though that is invisible; even though God and the sprit are invisible and are not fully accessible to the human mind, here is something that can help, through this range of comparisons I am offering to you. You can compare it to this, or draw an analogy to that.’ This frequency of his use of metaphor shows the centrality of the language of metaphor not only for Jesus but for spiritual language generally.

We need metaphor because of this foundational truth, one that is difficult, especially, for well educated people to get sometimes. It is not possible for human beings to know God directly through the cognitive, intellectual or rational mind. It is not possible for human beings to know God directly through descriptive language or through the process of logic, which uses discursive language.

Think about what it says in the New Testament where it speaks about the peace of God. It describes the peace of God as an experience that passes all understanding. The peace of God is an experience that is beyond the power of the rational, logical cognitive part of us to grasp. Consider the wonderful statement found in the Tao Te Ching, one of the greatest pieces of spiritual literature ever written, about 500 hundred years before Christ. In the Tao Te Ching, Lao Tsu says, ‘The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao.’ That word Tao is a hard word to translate into English. It is often translated as, ‘The Way,’ or the ‘Divine Way.’ It refers to the pathways by which the Divine moves and operates through things. It could also be thought of as Life Itself, or as the ways that Life Itself moves. Consider how Jesus talked about the opportunity we have to find the ways of the Divine in seeds and yeast and vineyards and sheep. He is talking about what Lao Tsu is talking about in seeking out the Tao: the Divine ways that are found in the healthy workings of the natural world; the natural intelligence of Life at work in and through things. Lao Tsu says the Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao. You see, the mind only takes us a few steps. Our mental apparatus is simply not equipped either to see or to tell what God is in strictly rational, cognitive, verbal terms. It is not well equipped to communicate what the Spirit is by writing it down on paper, or uttering words about it. Our mental apparatus is not by nature equipped to convey what God is by writing theological or philosophical definitions that say God is this, or spiritual reality is that. Words can at times approximate, but they can not definitively describe.

We all know the wonderful and profoundly true phrase, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone.’ We would do equally well to know that ‘God can not be known by mind alone.’ This does not mean that God cannot be known. Nor does it mean that the mind is worthless. God in fact can be known. But God cannot be known primarily through the mind. God can only truly be known by being felt and sensed through the full range of our being. God can not be known by mind alone. But the mind can help us a little to know more of the unknown and one of the ways that the mind can help is by pointing out parallels and comparisons with things that are already known. One of the ways that the mind can help in at least that little bit is by saying, see this area over here, it is a bit like that. Do you want to know what that spiritual realm is over there, well then over here in this area that you already know, here are some clues and hints and comparisons; here are some things to which the Ultimate Reality can be likened, as it appears in this material, physical, visible reality.

This is where metaphoric language becomes an important part of the spiritual life. The metaphoric speech of Jesus, and all the world’s great spiritual teachers, is frequently and consistently the language of metaphor.
This language of metaphor is also, essentially the language of poetry. And poetry, let us remember, is a form of art. Jesus’ repeated use of metaphor, which is also a repeated use of artistic/poetic language, gives us a key clue about the spiritual life. It reminds us that one of the main ways we experience the divine is through creativity and the arts. There are times when our greatest sense of God’s presence comes through poetry or painting, through music or the architectural beauty of churches or cathedrals. Alongside our use of intellect, these various versions of the arts are vehicles for the presence and power of God that are at least as important as their better honored religious cousins, those scriptures and creeds, those theologies and philosophies that for so long have over-influenced our definitions of faith.

Honoring the realm of metaphoric, artistic and creative expression offers a major tool for the revitalization of faith. As the mainstream church feels its way through this dark, dry season of its life marked by declining numbers, deadened energy and growing disregard from the cultural powers, we in the church need to embrace this major conceptual shift: moving away from thinking of faith as conceptual belief, and moving towards thinking of faith as an overall stance of our inner being; or we might say as an overall attitude of our entire being; not just our conceptual mind but our whole being. Faith, at root, is an attitude of the heart. It is the possible, characteristic stance toward life compounded of confidence and trust, openness and receptivity, creativity and innovation, optimism and hope. Faith is a way of life built not from the cognitive mind out, but from our whole being out.

Jesus called his followers to be fishers of men. What that phrase does is it starts us out with a reminder of Jesus’ use of the language of metaphor. And that repeated use of metaphor is itself a reminder of one important part of the religious life which is that spiritual truth cannot be communicated directly through ordinary, descriptive, logical, cognitive, rational language. When it comes to words and language, and indeed when it comes to the cognitive mind itself, spiritual truth cannot be stated. It can only be hinted at, and it can only be experienced by opening ourselves with our whole beings, not just with our educated minds.

This is one of the reasons these elements on this communion table come in the form of actual food and tangible drink. That too is a reminder that spiritual truth comes to us not just through the mind but through our whole being. We ask that through this spiritual food God’s grace will nourish us to that end. In Christ’s name we pray it. Amen.