The point of my sermon was to awaken (perhaps, I hoped) my
hearers to a fresh awareness that the purpose of the Church is actually to
create a humanity modeled on who Jesus was (or is, if you believe he lives) and
what Jesus did, namely obliterate the divisions of all sorts with which human
beings seem enchanted. Now that I find
myself not in the same congregation week after week but rather in a series of
different places—maybe a dozen or more different congregations in a year’s
time—I notice a recurrent theme in my thought and preaching. It is the incarnational
notion that God actually makes a dwelling in human beings. In a very real sense, human beings are just
one of the myriad phenomena on earth or indeed in the universe, each and all of
which are manifestations of that great creative force that brings all things
into being and makes itself known in every atom and molecule, string and quark
that inhabits space. The thing about us
humans that makes us special, if anything does, is that our peculiar brand of
consciousness (if we can call ourselves a conscious species) is the universe
reflecting on itself. I don’t know, of
course, whether we are the only instance of such reflection in all the
galaxies. I suspect not: we might in
fact not be special at all. But in our
limited earthly experience it appears that we alone among creatures have
evolved to reflect. Hence the quintessential thing that humans have developed
is the art of storytelling in its multifarious forms as a means of transmitting
survival information. We humans tell and
share stories in word, art, music, games, play, and so on, as our way of
reflecting on the reality—ourselves and our context—that we are constantly
perceiving.
The conversation got me thinking more about the gap between
my vision and the reality of the church I see.
In the first place, I don’t see the church as having an answer or an
approach or a template for living in the world that is superior to anybody else’s. The question for me is not whether it is
superior or whether it is unique, but whether the fundamental core of the
Christian reality works at all. If
Chesterton was right in his quip that the Christian vision has not been tried
and found wanting but rather has been found difficult and never tried, then it
follows that we don’t actually know whether it works or not. I’m not talking
about whether some things that
Christians believe and practice work for
them. I’m talking about whether this
notion of being a new humanity embodying a reconciling love is something that
can really be done, and, if done, effective in making this a better world at
the very least—possibly even transforming it radically.
St. Francis of Assisi: the most admired and least emulated of them all |
On my more hopeful days I ponder the story of great examples
of Christian faith, such as St. Francis of Assisi, St. Columba, St. Cuthbert,
Mother Teresa, the Little Sisters of the Poor, Desmond Tutu, Oscar Romero, St.
Xenia of Petersburg, and I see a cloud of witnesses that together say, “Yes! It can be done. It works.” On other days I wonder why I can
come up with relatively few people who seem actually to have followed Jesus in
his radical renunciation of tribalism, in criticizing his own tradition, in
growing personally to the point of seeing that there need be no barrier between
Jew and Gentile, male and female, barbarian or Greek, but that all are children
of the Parent of the Universe.
Frankly, what I find thoroughly disturbing is that, for the
most part, the Church in America, while certainly praiseworthy for a number of
things, seems so timid and tepid when it comes to confronting issues that
really matter. Most of the time when
somebody makes an assertion like that it seems to me that they think there is a
serious shortage in works of justice. I
would agree. But I think that there are
other equally serious ways in which the churches constantly back away from
addressing the real stuff of people’s lives. Whether we do what we can or not
about it, we’ll talk forever about economic justice, racial justice, doing away
with gender discrimination and homophobia.
But when it comes to talking about our bodies, especially our sexual
lives, the Church blushes, stammers, and runs the other way. We stick a naked man on a cross in front of
congregations implicitly suggesting that he in that state is the central image
of humanity in its most godly form, and yet we get hysterical if somebody is
sunbathing at a nude beach a few miles away.
And now we have an even less tenable situation with a host of “Christian”
people supporting policies that are rife with corruption, packaged in lies, and
unabashedly designed to oppress the most vulnerable among us. White evangelicals are at latest count in
support of Trump administration policies to the tune of 80% in some cases. And the narrative that people are using to
justify themselves is that Trump is delivering on appointing anti-abortion
judges to the Supreme Court. For the
record, I find abortion as a form of birth control a horrendous choice, but
that is not the point. When did we ever move so far into moral idolatry that a position
against aborting fetuses overrides common human decency to children who happen through no fault of their own to show up in America with their parents in many cases fleeing the economic oppression that US companies have been instrumental in creating and perpetuating?Apparently
no amount of raising that issue is sufficient to dislodge white evangelicals
from their support of a President who professedly and openly spurns the very
core tenets of personal morality that they themselves espouse and teach.
I could go on, working myself into yet another round of
head-scratching impatience and depressive exasperation. But to come back to the central point, there
is nothing about Jesus that suggests support for hostility towards the poor,
the wretched, the vulnerable. Nor is there a whit of evidence that he himself
bedded down with political regimes of any sort.
On a purely personal level, I continue to believe, or maybe
it’s more that I continue to hope, that the Christian vision of a new humanity
might actually catch on. Surely there
are people who are in perhaps increasing numbers signing on to that hope,
sharing that dream. At the end of the
day I’m left with just myself. I don’t
know that I can give any account of myself at all, or whether I could pass even
my low-bar test of Christian authenticity.
I surely don’t see myself as a model, an exemplar of the very thing I
believe. I share St. Francis’s name, but
there the similarity ends, I fear. The small piece of transformation that I’ve
claimed as mine to hold on to is a re-visioning of the place of the body in the
scheme of redemption. I think there is
no place at all where God is not, and that includes everything on, in, or pertaining
to the human body. And as for being
alone at the end of the day, that is only true in one sense. I know that I am a part of all I have met and
that all and sundry in the universe is a part of me.
Reconciling enemies, creating a new humanity |
Maybe the thing that really hooks me into the vision of a
new humanity is that the Love of God, the love of neighbor, and the love of
self are all part and parcel of the one love that sustains everything. Thus, connected, I can enter into solitude
knowing that solitude is only a different mode, a less obvious mode, of
community. Everything is connected. And so everything is to be loved and
accepted, even the people and the things that we find most repellent.
Even Trump and his followers.
Even Putin and his country’s efforts to sabatoge American
democracy.
This thing of being a new humanity is more challenging than
I’d bargained for.
© Frank Gasque Dunn, 2018
© Frank Gasque Dunn, 2018