Elusive Altar

May 5, 1963
Rochester

Throughout the ages of man, worshiping at the wrong altar not only has been the criticism that men have directed at other men, but also the men hurling the charge usually have been guilty of the same self-deceit. The true altar for the experience of worship with integrity is a most elusive reality. Note that I said is elusive; note that I said it is real.

The old Hebrew scripture records in the grand, epic 12th chapter of Genesis, how Abram went from his father’s home to settle a new land. At Schechem Abram built an altar; when he moved on to Bethel, he pitched his tent and built an altar and invoked the name of the Lord. The altar was not an elusive search for Abram. Wherever he camped, was the site of the altar and there he constructed it. But as with so many aspects of human experience, there comes a time when the old simplicities are no longer adequate for the mind of questioning man.

The famous story (found in the gospel of John 4-16 ff.) of Jesus and the woman of Samaria is an enduring illustration of both the inadequacy of easy answers and the complexity of the search for truth. Although there are many currents of theology in this story which could carry a long distance in to the nature of the Christian story and how its theology accumulated, I would propose that we consider the elusive altar as we examine three aspects of the old story:

The two temples and the displacement of worship.

What can be involved in Jesus’ proclamation that God is spirit and must be worshiped in spirit.

How does one worship in truth?

In order to understand the bitterness that existed in Jesus’ time between Jews and Samaritans, one must review quickly nearly 800 years of history before the beginning of the common era. In 722 BCE the northern part of the divided kingdom, Israel, had been conquered by the Assyrians (Sargon II). Thousands of primarily wealthy and upper class people were carried off into exile. Most of the peasant class were left in Samaria, where they mixed with the colonies brought in by Sargon II, thus creating over the years the Samaritan people, a blending of Israelites, Babylonian, Syrian and other peoples. This [heterogeneity] of people made the Samaritans hated by the Jews of the southern kingdom (Judah) who were proud of the myth that there had been no blending and mixing of culture and blood.

This cultural chasm created a religious gap also. The center of worship for the Jews was Jerusalem, first in Solomon’s Temple, then after the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, the Second Temple. The Jerusalem Temple housed the only proper altar for sacrifice. For the people of Judah, the Jerusalem Temple was the altar of the eternal Yahveh, and one of the most eloquent tributes to its place in the heart of the Judeans in Psalm 84 -

The Samaritans believed that they preserved the true heritage – they accepted fewer scrolls of scripture (only Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy – the Law) than the Jews who held the prophets and the writings to be the Word of God as well as the books of the Law.

In the fourth or fifth century, BCE, the Samaritans erected a temple on Mt. Gerizim, traditionally a sacred site (Deut 11 24). There they worshiped and brought sacrifice to the altar. Even after this mountain temple was destroyed by the Maccabeean John Hyrcanus in 138 BC, the Samaritans continued to worship at the temple ruins.

Thus, the Samaritan woman at the well, recognizing Jesus as a Jew, commented, “our fathers worshiped at this mountain and you say in Jerusalem in the place men ought to worship.” But Jesus did not confirm her suppositions. Rather, “Woman, believe me, the hour is coming, ....”

Although the words are accurately attributed to Jesus, there is a note of chauvinism, nevertheless. Jesus, with a great reach of theological comprehension, grasped the area where religious emphasis is displaced commonly, widely, historically, currently. What was vital, was not the where of worship, but the how of worship.

Is not the common error in religion, that the where overwhelms the how?

This does not mean that we should destroy our church, dismantle our religious education facilities and abolish our office, programs, and communication. But we do not need to be reminded constantly that the temple is to serve religion, not religion to serve the temple.

Perhaps because a building is tangible, external and religious feeling is intangible, internal, we readily seize the objective thing as the depository of faith. We worship at a Temple – Jerusalem, Mt. Gerizim, Rome, Mecca, Canterbury ... and Court. We go to a church ally in denomination and are prone to be ruled by the where of religion – a building, an address, a room. But we are called back to wisdom by this story of Jesus when he told the woman at the well – not where you worship, but how you worship.

This may seem an out-of-focus comment, particularly at a time when canvassers are completing their annual calls for financial support and the maintenance and improvements on a building represent an impressive percentage of the needs. But this is precisely a point of clarification. As the object of worship, the altar of allegiance, no building is worth a dime. But as the servant of religion, the structure which houses the ways of worship, the place where we are inspired by the “how” of religion, the program deserves your support. A temple, church, chapel, meeting house, can be one of the most efficient and helpful servants of religion, but the building is not the god or the end result of our religious strivings. This is the first of the imperishable truths of the story of Jesus and the Woman at the Well.

Secondly, Jesus asserted God is spirit and must be worshiped in spirit and truth.

When the words, “spirit” and “spiritual” are used, a certain degree of assurance is implied, but when one is asked to define “spirit”, “spiritual” the information seems difficult to come by. “Spiritual” is always a desirable adjective to apply to a person – fine and noble acts and attitudes are indicated, but vagueness is also present, seemingly.

We cannot be at all sure what Jesus meant by “worship in spirit.” The word has numerous shades of meaning in the Hebrew and Christian scriptures. The root of the word indicates that spirit means movement of air, wind (Ruach) ergo breath. In Genesis the creation story is more accurately translated (1-2 f)”the wind was moving over the face of the water.” In the Old Testament, the spirit performs in various ways. Spirit is a life principle which strengthens warriors (Judges 2 10 11, I Samuel 11-6). In the valley of dry bones, Ezekiel has the vision that God will put his spirit in them and the dry bones will live. The spirit inspires prophets and this is a conception which the New Testament preserves and .... Many would believe that the spirit is the divine power operating within history. Because spirit is not objects to be counted or assets to be accumulated, it is not victim of the partialisms of place, the partialism of race or the partialism of government.

Although definitions are difficult of what the meaning is of worshiping in spirit, Francisco Romero, a modern sociologist, gives us a real clue when he says, “spiritual activities and spiritual creations are realized by the subject when he operates not as a concrete and individual empirical center but as universal subject, i.e., as a representative of the ideal community of all persons created equal.” (In loc. “Ideological Differences and World Order, edited FCS Northrup, p. 401). When you are loyal to what ought to be, you are worshiping in spirit.

A form[er] postman, William Moore, walked the highway of Alabama a few days ago wearing a sign proclaiming what ought to [be] – a land where dark skin color does not deprive a person of rights and equal opportunity. William Moore is dead – a sacrifice on the altar of what ought to be. I have no notion of what William Moore acknowledged as his religion, or even if he acknowledged any. But he was operating as a “representative of the ideal community of all persons created equal.” For him the hour came and was when he was worshiping in spirit.

Hallowell Bowser’s editorial (SR 4/27) spoke of the examples of “sweet spontaneous humanity”, the Steingrubys, the Johnsons, the Flying Samaritans who acted in terms of what ought to be – and in alt least two instances suffered because of that loyalty. With no knowledge of whether these persons had any religion – or not in any formal sense, they were worshiping in spirit. Anyone of you could multiple the illustrations of persons who were better than they needed to have been to get in the society of which they were a part.

What I am saying is that there are few limitations on worshiping in spirit – most assuredly to be better persons than we are required by law or custom to be, is never defined by religious creed, political party or national loyalty.

In the 4th century AD, there was a Roman Senator, Quintus Aurelius Symmachus who acquired a niche in history by his resistance to easy accommodation to things as they were. Christianity had become official. A man of great wealth and high character, Symmachus, called a Pagan, was a champion of the rights of those who resisted official, coercive Christianity. When the emperor Gratian removed the statue and altar of Victory in the Senate, Symmachus protested because he believed that the shrine was a visible and outward sign that Rome’s greatness had been achieved by loyalty.

Symmachus was speaking for tolerance and his comment endures, “So great a mystery cannot be arrived by one way alone.”

Is this not like unto Jesus’ comment that neither on the mountain or in the city is the true altar found? The altar is elusive but the way to it is the way of spirit – loyalty to what ought to be.

Lastly, where is the altar, where one worships in truth? Pilate asked the question, “what is truth?” and there is no end to the qualifications and reservations that must be made to any statement asserted as truth. Truth too is a great altar, but elusive.

It is not my purpose today to dwell at length on philosophical discussions elaborating all the distinctions that can be made on the nature of truth. Permit me to summarize, that when in one’s own experience of mind and feeling, one arrives at a conviction that to him seems true; then guides his purposeful existence in harmony with that conviction, then he is worshiping in truth whether inside or outside the walls of church or synagogue. Truth that stirs one to worship is actable. Truth that breaks the bounds of mountain shrine or city altar is actable. One is worshiping in truth when one becomes aware and convinced of some great reality and transformed because of it.

There is a prime contemporary example, Albert Schweitzer. You know how fifty years ago he abandoned successive notable careers as theologian, philosopher, artist and scholar in music to devote his life to being a medical missionary in the Congo. One half of a century, two great wars, incalculable social change have transpired, but Albert Schweitzer still serves human need on the banks of the Ogowe River.

In his book EDGE OF THE PRIMEVAL FOREST, Schweitzer describes how the parable of ... and Lazarus pointed to a truth about human existence in the 20th century:

(copy -)
p. 19 – Payne

Albert Schweitzer has been faithful to that shrine of truth he found in his own heart and mind. Schweitzer is an artist – he loves the great pipe organs of the European churches with deep affections. He is both a master guilder of organs and a sensitive artist. He is a scholar among scholars. Many disagree with the conclusions of his wide-ranging mind – but none there is who does not respect his intellectual stature and universalistic comprehension. But the actable truth for him was caring for sick and wounded in the African jungle. This for him was worshiping in truth.

In conclusion then, this wonderful story from John’s gospel has immense relevance if we recognize that religion is not primarily where, but how; in the spirit of what ought to be; or the procedure of actable truth. Simple ... and arduous. But we may learn from Lincoln – a prime example of what we have discussed today. A delegation from Missouri came to him with complaints. Lincoln told them, “I desire to so conduct affairs of this administration that if, at the end, when I come to lay down the reins of power, I have lost ever other friend on earth, I shall at least have one friend left, and that friend shall be down inside me.” (Sandb. War Years, p. 381).

So may it be with us in the life-long search for the elusive altar of spirit and truth.