The Reality of Boundaries

January 12, 1964
Sermon Series: The Free Church in the Changing World

VI World Religion and Outreach
12. The Reality of Boundaries

Out of the many deep-reaching lines in Robert Frost's poem, '^Mending Walls," I put these two before you:

"Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out."

The existence of religious boundaries should be a constant invitation to examine what is being kept in and what is being kept out. The dramatic visit, a week ago, of Pope Paul VI to the sacred places in Jordan and Israel places in context some fascinating questions about the reality of boundaries, for he crossed boundaries of tradition, culture, geography and hostility. In so doing, he set in motion all sorts of speculation and discussion. I would like to speak of this pilgrimage, compare it with the journey of another man named Paul; review the boundary existing between Latin Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy; inquire about the nature of holy places; comment on the interesting boundary crossings made on the two journeys between church and state; and propose that the reality of boundaries is a central issue in the nature of the Universalism we profess.

About 1900 years ago, a young man of Jewish faith, Saul, who had been trained as a rabbi, took the Roman name of Paul, journeyed from Israel to Rome. The consequences of that man's life have been of immeasurable consequence for the religious life of the world ever since. About a week ago, an Italian man, Giovanni Batista Montini, who this year has taken the Roman pontifical name of Paul VI, journeyed from Rome to Israel. The results of this journey may not yet be evaluated firmly, but the implications are considerable.

In both instances ancient and current, there were numerous departures from tradition. Paul VI was the first pope to travel by airplane; first pope to leave Italy in 150 years. Paul VI was the first Pope to meet the Patriarch of Constantinople, now Istanbul, in 500 years. Paul VI was the first Pope to visit the land where Jesus lived and died.

Some observers see the pilgrimage of Paul VI as an indication that the process of change in Vatican affairs, so notably begun by John XXIII, will be continued. Paul VI reconvened the Vatican Council, but in the sessions just adjourned, two key issues were not brought to a vote: The proposal to remove the onus of guilt from the Jews as a people for the death of Jesus; and the proposal to liberalize the official position on religious liberty. It is said that on both issues the conservative cardinals within the Vatican administration outmaneuvered a liberal majority which included most of the U.S. members of the hierarchy.

Perhaps the papal pilgrimage to Palestine, undertaken in an attitude of piety, was also an object lesson to the obstructionists that all roads do not lead to Rome, but that in modern times, religious leadership must head out on all roads to all places; that the 100 acres of the Vatican State are no longer the authentic boundary of all the centers of Roman Catholic influence.

The gesture of Paul VI in securing a meeting with Athenagoras, Patriarch in Istanbul of the Eastern Orthodox Church, is a movement across another boundary which has been deeply scarred with estrangement for 900 years. Disagreement between the Latin West and the Hellenistic East is nearly as ancient as the entire Christian movement. The churches in Asia Minor and North Africa have always challenged the claims for supremacy by Roman bishops. The climax of conflict occurred in 1054 a.d., when Pope Leo IX sent two emissaries to Constantinople, where they deposited on the high altar of St. Sofia's a writ excommunicating Patriarch Michael Cerularias and all his followers. The Crusades, which began 42 years after that, did more damage to Eastern Christians and their properties than to Moslems, culminating in the infamous sack of Constantinople during the 4th Crusade, in the pontificate of Innocent III, one of the most powerful of popes.

There have been negotiations from time to time during these 900 years, usually broken off, with each side claiming bad faith. Prior to last week's gathering, no Pope and Patriarch of Constantinople had met since the Council of Florence in 1433. But the negotiations have been to no avail. Even when Constantinople fell to the Turks in 1453, no Christian union was forthcoming.

While the meeting between Paul VI and Athenagoras is a striking event, we should not overestimate its meaning. There have been no negotiations for reunion; none are likely soon; but they have re-opened conversation where there has been silence for 500 years.

Next I would remind you that although the Pontiff of the Eternal City made a pilgrimage to the Holy City, the reality of religious boundaries cannot be limited by the dimensions of St. Peter's Cathedral or the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. The journey by this supreme Catholic bishop to the holy places – the stations of the cross, the waters of the Jordan, the grotto at Bethlehem, the scene of the crucifixion, the Mount of Olives — represents acts of veneration appropriate for his faith. But religion always breaks boundaries, for the whole earth is holy.

"Where is our holy land?
Within the human soul,
Wherever strong men truly seek
With character the goal."

You will recall the vivid illustration of this found in the Christian gospel of John, (4-19ff) where the Samaritan woman at the well, remembering that in her part of the country there was a temple on Mt. Gerazim, said to Jesus, "Sir, I perceive you are a prophet. Our fathers worshiped on this mountain; and you say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship." Jesus said to her, "woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father...God is spirit and those who worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth."

This seems a tradition true to what the attitude of Jesus must have been. He was saying that there was no special holiness attached to any place of worship. There is no reality to geographical boundaries for worship. Whether you step into a church, or enter the Damascus gate, or pick up the tools of one's job, worship and holiness depend on the spirit and earnestness one brings to the place, not to any infusion of holiness acquired by stepping across boundaries from the allegedly secular to the allegedly sacred.

"Where is our holy church?
Where race and class unite
As equal brothers in the search
For beauty, truth and right."

The pilgrimages of the two Pauls, one still news, the other buried in the traditions of the primitive Christian Church, stimulate point and counterpoint about Church and State. One can think of few places in the world where nationalistic feelings ran so powerfully and bitterly as the hatred and fear of Israel vis-a-vis Jordan and the other Arab states.

Some of the stories about news coverage of the Pope's trip demonstrate the pathetic depth of hostility. More than 1000 news and TV men covered the Pope's landing at Jordan's Ammon airport, but not one Israeli newspaperman was permitted to cross "no-man's land" to cover the story. After the fantastic entourage entered Israel, the Israeli government gave the correspondents sets of news releases in convenient black plastic covers. These brief covers had a small emblem of a Menorah on one cover. Knowing that this would ignite hostility in Jordan, when the crossing was made back to the Arab side, the correspondents pinned the little picture badges of King Hussein, which they had received in Jordan, over the Menorah emblem, thus preserving their brief covers and possibly, the peace.

Anyone with elementary knowledge of religions knows that in the encounter of world religions, the whole-hearted believer must reject all or some of the truth claims of others. Certainly this is true of the Roman Catholic, Moslem, and Jew, respectively. Yet this pious journey of a Roman Catholic Pope was greeted with tumultuous and warm welcome by both Moslems and Israeli. For once, because of sheer inability to cope with the press and TV coverage, the stringent rules for passage between Israel and Jordan were eased for foreign newsmen and other travelers connected with the papal journey. One can almost say that the sentimental journey of an official Roman Catholic – the supreme bishop of their bishops, created less of an impasse between two hostile states, at least for a few hours.

When we think of the first Paul, there is wide contrast. According to the Christian gospel, Paul was being persecuted by religious fanatics who had treated him violently and from whom he could not expect a fair deal. Paul, a Roman citizen by birth, was entitled to trial at Rome. So he appealed to the Roman State for protection and for legal rights. This was his reason for the hazardous voyage from the Holy Land to Rome.

This may be an unimportant observation, but the feelings between Israel and the Arab States, Pakistan and India, and others, provide us with ample evidence that nationalism is a quasi religion. Nationalism has all the appearances of religion, stirs the impassioned loyalties that religions once did. Perhaps it is an index of our time that those who worried about the Pope's visit, feared an incident or a plot to injure the Pope in order to provoke hostility between two fiercely nationalistic states. No one seemed to fear that the Pope was in any danger from a devout Moslem or a devout Jew. The hazards existed in the possibility of a fanatic nationalist, motivated similarly to Gandhi's assassin.

What a difference from the time of Moslem conquests or Christian crusades! When one considers how varieties of nationalistic spirit have almost everyone in the world in the tight grasp of patriotic emotion which can be led down almost any path, the need for a God, or human goals, bigger than any one nation is a painful necessity of our time.

This leads to the final point that I would make today that the whole magnificent visit should remind us that the reality of boundaries is basic to a relevant Universalism for our times. Three great faiths, Roman Catholicism, Judaism and Islam all have their roots in the ancient monotheism of Israel and Judah. When one surveys 2500 years, one knows that these three faiths, now clearly opposed in theology, dogma, faith and practice, share common rootage.

These three great world religions, and others as well, affirm that there is one God or that God is one, everywhere. The Christian does not say to the Moslem, and the Jew, "I have my Father God, revealed in Jesus Christ, you Moslems have Allah, and you Jews have Yahveh. These are three separate Gods." In the universe we have learned to experience, it would be incongruous to think of three separate Gods with three separate jurisdictions, like governors of neighboring states. That would be no more than the ancient, tribal, henotheistic beliefs, where each tribe had its deity, and none denied that other tribes had deities too. These were territorial gods, not one universal god. But today, I surmise that most people, who think of religion at all, would agree with the Hindu, Vivekananda, "the same light shines through all colors and in the heart of everything, the same truth reigns."

The idea of a Universal God was the driving force behind the Christian missionary movement. Because Christians believed that the true nature and will of God had been uniquely revealed to them, they were convinced that it was their religious duty to procure converts, even at the point of the sword. Christian Roman Catholics have spent unmeasured sums of money and the lives of a multitude of missionary priests in order to convert people to the "true" faith. Christian Protestants of many sectarian groupings sent missionaries, medicines, books and money so that "heathens" could learn the "true" religion of Protestantism; and the even more precisely "true" faith of the denomination which was financing the particular effort.

I shall speak more particularly of our attitudes toward motives and missions another time, but people of any faith are partialistic until they come to terms with the human reality that differing cultures, with different traditions express themselves in ways that may be mysterious to the outsider. No one can yet justify the closed mind until there has occurred a great deal more communication between peoples than has yet occurred. The explorer Steffansson in one of his arctic explorations, was traveling due north. After passing over the top of the world, he discovered he was traveling due south. But all the time he had not changed direction. The directions, north and south, were relative to the position of the expedition and the North Pole.

So with truth. One culture may seem to be traveling due north, while we are headed south, But, like Steffansson, it is quite possible that we are headed precisely in the same direction; that we have the same dreams; hold basically the same values; but the present limitations of communications prevent understanding.

In our liberal faith, we have cast our lot into the framework of truth-seeking, not truth claiming. It is the effort within this structure that produces religious meanings for us. We should feel a more important obligation to understand the implications of the universal religious hopes and fears of men everywhere.

What is important for us to apprehend, and we can learn from the strange encounter of last week-end, that irrespective of how other sects and denominations may deal with the truth-claims of other faiths, we have an obligation to maintain a generous receptivity to the faith of all we meet. This does not mean that we shall assure everyone that his belief is true and he has convinced us, when he has not. This does not mean that we shall turn our religious energies like a weather-cock in whatever direction the strongest winds of dogma may be exerted for the moment upon us. To be a universalist carries the obligation to make the effort to appreciate that there may be excellence in some aspect of every faith that man holds. We do well to commend that excellence and appreciate its contribution to the total human deposit of the meaning of truth. There are varieties of religious experience and practice; we have the opportunity to live with generous understanding of all the good hopes and sincere prayers of the human family.

You may recall the puzzling bit of scripture attributed to Jesus, "be ye perfect, even as your Father in Heaven is perfect." This has always been a problem, for who can be perfect like God? Who among us has ever met a perfect man or woman? Who would make the most remote prediction that the perfect man could be found anywhere in any time? Paul Tillich has suggested that this verse lends itself to a slightly amended translation that might well direct our attention to the true nature of religious boundaries. This translation is, "be ye all-inclusive, even as your Father in Heaven is all-inclusive."

The religious boundaries are present; they are as real as the Damascus gate and the contradictory theologies. Yet to raise our sights above the barriers requires us to be receptive, and generous, with a continuing sympathy for the goals and means of faith, as well as the many statements of faith from which we might properly dissent.

"Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out."

The benediction is the one Pope Paul VI used to close his statement of greeting to the Moslem King Hussein of Jordan:

"May God grant our prayer and that of all men of good will, that living together in harmony and accord, they may help one another in love and justice, and attain to universal peace in true brotherhood."