|
Religion on the Level: #4
What is the use of the Church? [Continued]
In a series of lectures delivered in London in 1998 just before he died, the
great Catholic New Testament scholar Raymond Brown pointed to this paradox.
Jesus was only interested in the lost. He was prepared to leave the ninety nine
in the wilderness in order to go after the one outsider. He forgave not seven
times but seventy times seven, or for ever. He expressed God's insane love for
those outside the great institutional enclosures and their ethic for survival
and power, and he went after them, lived among them, died as one of them.
But, as Raymond Brown pointed out, that is no way to run anything, not even
the Church! The Church has to care more for the ninety nine in the sheepfold
than for the one who is lost, not only because they pay the bills but because of
the utilitarian logic of institutional life which
says that losing one to save
the ninety nine makes mathematical sense. It is hardly surprising therefore that churches follow the Caiaphatic logic of expedience in order to keep themselves
together; and how can we
condemn them for their compromises when our own lives
are so cowardly?
The difference between me and Jesus is that he paid no attention to relative
cultural or institutional values. He always went after the lost, the ones
outside; but, and this is one of the heart-breakingly beautiful things about
him, he understood the corrupting compromises institutions and their leaders
have to make; he had compassion on their need to follow the ethic of expediency,
forgave them the necessity of his own crucifixion, smiled at Pilate and kissed
the pale and bloodless lips of the Grand Inquisitor.
It is the unconditionality of Jesus that is so breathtaking. The pain of
being the Church comes from recognising that we are supposed to mediate that
divine unconditionality and its promise of acceptance of all, while knowing that the mediation system we have invented to do the job will have to operate
conditionally, and go on choosing the ninety nine rather than the ones outside.
So, in trying to embody the unconditionality of God's love we have to
contradict it. No wonder that Paul said that the Church was an impostor through
whom the truth was spoken. The truth of God's unconditional love does get through the Church, often in spite of its own efforts to prove the opposite. The
thing that is most baffling about
Christian history is the way the
unconditionality of Jesus was, in time, converted not only into the
conditionality of the Church, but into cruel conditionality.
Worldly institutions operating the Caiaphatic ethic, throw people onto the
human scrap heap of unemployment in order that the company may not perish. The
Church absolutised the same ethic and threw them into hell. Jesus opened the
heart of God who comes running to meet us in
our brokenness, and we ended up in
his name proclaiming a God who seemed all too eager to get rid of us unless we
happened to stumble on the right salvation programme.
How did this happen? It clearly has something to do with the logic of
institutions that we have already looked at; but there is something else going
on as well, something that is intrinsic to religion itself. The curse of all
religious systems is perfectionism and the guilt it induces. Religion seems to attract insecure personalities who are so afraid of getting
things wrong that
they live in constant fear of sin or having the wrong ideas about God and
reality, so they create these cruel systems that rule them, telling them how to
act and how to think, how to qualify for God's approval.
They are obsessed with that need to be right that kills the spirit. All the
competing religions try to persuade people that they alone have the right
programme, are the place where, finally, we will be right: "Join us and
you'll be saved from the anger of God", they say.
Two of the prophetic geniuses of this century recognised the fundamental
irony of the nature of institutional Christianity and its claim to universality.
Simone Weil had a mysterious unconsummated love affair with Christianity. She
was such a lover of Jesus and was so
identified with him that she chose to stay
outside with the eternal outsider rather than be baptised and join the institution that both bore and contradicted his name.
She wrote:
…in my eyes Christianity is catholic by right but not
by fact. So
many things are outside it that I love and
do not want to give up, so many
things that God loves, otherwise they would not be in existence. All the immense
stretches of past centuries, except the last
twenty, are among them; all the
countries inhabited by coloured races; all secular life in the white people's countries, in the history of these countries, all the traditions banned as
heretical…[4]
The other great soul I want to quote is Thomas Merton. He was writing much
later and to someone else, but he might have been replying to Simone Weil
herself in what he said:
You don't know how well I understand what you
say about not wanting to
declare yourself a Catholic
and wear the label, which is a political one more
often than not, and which implies a certain stoical
stand, and an attachment to
certain institutional forms, with God far in the background. The only trouble is that this is not the meaning of the word Catholic. It is the complete
evisceration of Catholicity, but one which has been expertly and thoroughly
performed by Catholics themselves. Thus I feel a certain equanimity and even
smugness at the thought of my own possible excommunication. I cannot be a
Catholic unless it is made quite clear to the world that I am a Jew and a Moslem, unless I am executed as a Buddhist and denounced for having undermined
all that this comfortable social Catholicism stands for: this lining up of
cassocks, this regimenting of birettas. I throw my biretta in the river.[5]
The paradox, of course, is that we could not hear these prophetic voices,
could not be in touch with the spirit of Jesus, were it not for the institution
that carries his memory and meaning through time, however
much it obscures it in
doing so. It is an excruciating tension for us all, particularly for those who
represent the Church in some official capacity.
That is why we have to go on forgiving one another while we try to live the
crucifying paradox of Christianity, which is an essentially compromised
institution driven by the logic of its own survival, yet one that embodies the
absolutely unconditional love of the God who is
always on the side of the lost
and rejected.
To be honest Christians, we have to allow ourselves to feel both ends of that
tension. We have to meditate on and try to follow the way of
unconditionality;
yet we have to have compassion on the compromises our weak natures make,
remembering that we are more likely to be clear about the compromises made by
others than those we ourselves make.
We have to remember the forgiveness of Jesus for the ethic of expediency that
crucified him. But Jesus not only went after the lost; he challenged those who
thought they had been found.
So we must also remember that we are not here to preserve the Church from
conflict and challenge, not even those of us who are bishops, because we should
always be trying, imperfectly and through compromised institutions, to express
the absolute unconditionality of God.
One of the ways that gets expressed in Christian history is by prophetic
minorities who find themselves in the Church as signs of contradiction. One of
the heartening things about our own day is that there is an increasing army of
Christians whose love of Jesus and the outcasts he celebrated places them on the
critical edge of the Church, neither comfortably in nor comfortably out. It's
not a bad place to be, and
sometimes, right at the back of the crowd, it's
possible to see Jesus himself, smiling.
Richard Holloway
25 February, 1999
© Richard Holloway: This publication may
not be reproduced
in any form whatsoever without written permission from
the author
-----------------------------------------------
[1] George Mackay Brown, An Orkney Tapestry, p.11
[2] John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus, Harper Collins, p.229
[3] Ibid. p.105
[4] Simone Weil, Waiting on God, p.30
[5] Thomas Merton, The Courage for Truth, pp.78,79
[Home] [Back] |