Christ Church Cathedral
Epiphany
January 6, 2008
Audio:
Matthew 2:2 We saw his star as it rose
The three great festivals which we celebrate in January - Epiphany, Jesus' Baptism and Transfiguration each contain a reminder that the central events of our religion were originally believed to be the result of a great cosmic plan. In this way, the religion of the Bible is understood as part of a history already defined within the heavens - one which could be rendered in its entirety in the stained glass of a large medieval cathedral. Although we continue to celebrate these events within the liturgical year - the location of our faith as disappeared into a galaxy which is but one of an uncounted number of galaxies. It is also unclear what would count as the beginning of our human history much of which is irretrievably lost save for the remains of mitochondrial DNA. For those of us locked inescapably in the 21st century, the cosmic significance of our history is no longer available so we must seek our modes of understanding without the friendly setting of a divinely ordained cosmos. 1
Our faith as religion, however, remains as a recognizable part of human history and within its unfolding we can trace the zigs and zags of our response to the presence of God and particularly what has been revealed in the person of Jesus the Messiah. Even with their cosmic grounding no longer possible, these foundation stories still remain central to understanding the relationship of Christ's followers to the world of which they are a part. So let me now suggest a contemporary remodelling of one of these events. It may be that no longer are the Magi led by a star but rather they come to us to enquire as to the meaning of Jesus' coming. They offer their own contributions of gold, frankincense and myrrh - the symbolic gift of kings to kings, but now indeed they are revealed as the treasures of Hindu, Buddhist and Muslim. The problem for us is what to do with these offerings?
The religious life of mankind from now on, if it is to be lived at all, will be lived in a context of religious pluralism. This is true for all of us; not only for "mankind" in general on an abstract level, but for you and me as individual persons. No longer are people of other persuasion peripheral or distant curiosities of traveller's tales. The more alert we are and the more involved in life, the more we are finding that they are our neighbours, our colleagues, our competitors, our fellows. Confucians, and Hindus, Buddhists and Muslims, are not only in the United Nations, but down the street. Increasingly, not only is our civilization's destiny affected by their actions; but we drink coffee with them personally as well. Wilfred Cantwell Smith, THE FAITH OF OTHER MEN 1962 p11
But, the history of our faith has given us a unique Jesus who is seen either as the fulfillment of human longing for one who will lead us to salvation, or in another view, as the ultimate replacement for all other human religious expression. This legacy leaves us thoroughly unprepared to cope with other religions which must be taken as seriously as our own. As the study of religion has developed particularly in the latter half of the 20th century it has become apparent that religion generically speaking is an integral part of human culture and is inescapably conditioned by the culture and language in which it is located. There is good evidence to suggest that religion and language go together in a manner which suggests the words which we are taught shape the reality which we observe and the structure we give to it. While the exact process by which words and sight interact, it is clear that this process is one which as post modern interpreters argue make impossible the kind of universal truth claims upon which religions have traditionally been founded.
In the words of Ludwig Wittgenstein
When we find the foundations , it turns out they are being held up by the rest of the house. 2
It is as if we had gone to sleep one evening and upon awakening the next morning we look out to discover that while our immediate surroundings have not changed we are surrounded by a strange and foreign landscape into which our role is uncertain. The neighbourhood has suddenly and permanently changed. What are our options?
It should be clear to us that Christians are by no means agreed as to the exact situation or to what action to take. The NT has many claims that Christianity is the sole source of life or salvation e.g. 1 John 5:12 Whoever has the Son has life: whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life. The implications of this understanding for other religions is quite clear. Here are the words of Bishop Stephen Neill:
{Christian faith} maintains that in Jesus the one thing that needed to happen has happened in such a way that it need never happen again in the same way. The universe has been reconciled to God. Through the perfect obedience of one man a new and permanent relationship has been established between God and the whole human race. The bridge has been built. There is room on it for all the needed traffic in both directions, from God to man and man to God. Why look for any other...? For the human sickness there is one specific remedy and this is it. There is no other.
The liberal wing while not renouncing the implications of NT Christology has been recently more interested in the kind of discussion that has typified the ecumenical movement. In general it has tried to deal with the residue of historical conflict between various Christian traditions with emphasis upon so-called doctrinal differences. In the last century the increasing presence of the new-churches - the results of earlier missionary activity particularly in Africa and Asia produced a more sophisticated awareness of the effects of culture and language on our understanding of the nature of life as a Christian. It was significant that many of the new churches occupied minority status in the areas from which they came and there were serious discussion about religious freedom. The bottom line tended to be that it was the Christian contribution to these other cultures that was assumed to be paramount and little time was given to considering what Christians might learn from other faiths. More importantly perhaps, it was clear that the Christian Church did not have a clue as to how to go about learning from other faiths. Part of our problem was that most of the time and energy of the church was given over to intellectual formulations and not the actual situation of people- it took the Marxian revolution to suggest to understand someone's faith you had to think in terms of her praxis. At the time this term became common, its definition remained a mystery to most of us. Our term spiritual life does not begin to indicate the dynamics involved in praxis. A slightly vulgar rendition might be put your life where your mouth is. (A doggerel version of the mot put your money where your mouth is.) We can note two results of this discussion which involved almost the entire of the last century. The first, with the emergence of visionaries such as Wilfred Cantwell Smith and Raimundo Pannikar has been to call into question the presuppositions which underlay the whole modern missionary enterprise particularly its ties to western colonial exploitation Their likes have been able to construct a more general picture of religion as a human enterprise from the viewpoint of its praxis. The second has been the realization that there is a universal awareness that social justice and the plight of the neglected poor is a theme that runs through all of the major religions. A final but significant development has been the general acceptance of the notion that dialogue and non-violence must be the tools employed to understand the relationship of religions to each other.
The challenges which religious dynamics present to the human community are awesome. Christians are not alone in the existence of internal divisions which makes dialogue within bitter and contentious and relationships to others problematic. So far most of the structure for inter-religious dialogue has come from the west e.g. the very concept of pluralism as we interpret it is unfamiliar to African and Asian cultures. They suggest it is just another way the west has of controlling the outcome of so-called dialogue. The paradigms which we in the west employ to signify say our understanding of fundamental moral precepts often sounds phony and contrived to non-western ears - the best example of which is the Holocaust. The very notion that there is a single event or characteristic that is absolutely universal that is, without cultural mediation, suggests that the language issues themselves are formidable at best.
There are also some exciting and significant opportunities. Starting at the local level, the present discussion in Quebec about accommodation has given the impression that the existence of multiple faith communities is a problem. The demands for special status for Christianity is a convenient tool for ultra nationalists. It all too easily can lead to a facile secularist response. But it is also an opportunity for the religions, now an integral part of our society, to talk to each other - believer to believer. Global market capitalism can be challenged because it has no real interest in social justice and the plight of hundreds of millions of poor who are its victims. Within the religions women, gays, divorced couples, teen-agers can begin to share how their religious praxis contributes to a common good which they will clarify. For us in Quebec this will undoubtedly be a culture based upon the French language but clearly transformed by the needs and creative ideas of its members.
In a way it is all about our understanding of what the visit of the Magi means for us. It is perhaps not too much to say that over the years, our response has been to take the money and run. It will not do to suggest we give it back with interest as a kind of historic reparations. This will not do since it is the flip side of the same response. Why not invite them in and hear what they have to say?
1. See particularly Charles Taylor, A SECULAR AGE, 2007 pp.60ff
2. Quoted by Paul F. Knitter, THEOLOGIES OF RELIGIONS, 2002, P176
For further reading: Paul Knitter, The Myth of Christian Uniqueness, 1987 and NO OTHER NAME?, 1985
The Rev. Roger A. Balk, Ph.d.
