I Read Letters!

August 22, 1992

Wherever I happen to have a newspaper, I read the “Letters to the Editor.” This habit is not necessarily to become better informed because the writers, more often than not, are misinformed and frequently illogical, irrational or both. I hope I am not sounding like an intellectual snob because I, too, have rash impulses and angry reactions to news stories, but usually cool down a bit before mailing a heated diatribe to the editor.

In July I was stimulated by a letter in an English newspaper from a man who thoroughly disapproved the ordaining of women to the Anglican priesthood, a decision which had been approved by a majority of bishops in the Church of England.

(As context to these reflections, the following is a quotation from a statement by the Rt. Rev. John S. Spong, Anglican Bishop of Newark, N.J.):

“When the Anglican bishops of the world met in Lambeth, England, in 1988, Pope John Paul II wrote Archbishop Robert Runcie a widely publicized letter suggesting that the ecumenical movement would be seriously impaired if the Anglican communion moved to legitimize women bishops in the various branches of our church (women bishops exist today in two Anglican provinces, the U.S. and New Zealand). The Pope’s letter was, in fact, a threat, and it was used by conservative Anglicans to strengthen their opposition to women as priests or bishops.

“The Anglican communion heard the message of the Pontiff, considered it, and respectfully disagreed with it.”

The gist of the letter-writer’s complaint was: How could the majority of Anglican bishops vote to ordain women as priests when, according to the writer, most bishops disbelieved in the Virgin Birth, the physical resurrection of Jesus, the divine inerrancy of the Bible, and other miraculous foundation beliefs of traditional Christianity?

First of all, the argument is a non-sequitur. It doesn’t follow that if a bishop, or any other person, believes or disbelieves the basic Christian tenets as exact historical events, that therefore women should or should not be ordained as Anglican priests. Logic is absent.

I, for one, applaud the ordination of women to the Anglican or any other clergy. But then, I am from a Universalist Unitarian tradition where women have been in our ministry for almost one hundred and fifty years. More and more women are being elected as senior ministers in many of our large Unitarian Universalist churches and they more than justify the confidence placed in them.

Other thoughts came to mind as I reflected on the protest of the letter-writer. I have attended Anglican services, Evensong, mainly, drawn by the musical excellence of the choirs. Boys and young men comprise the choirs – no girls or young women. It is paradoxical that a woman may be an Anglican priest but not in the choir that responds liturgically to the priest.

The Anglican liturgies are ancient and orthodox. There are bishops and priests who do not accept the creedal statements of Christian salvation, but recite them publicly in religious services.

Are these religious leaders hypocrites? Not usually, in my estimation. They have had to wrestle with Biblical scholarship, the complex history of “heresies,” and perhaps the most difficult snag, the origins and development of the Christian church and gospel. There is general agreement that Matthew, Mark, and Luke did not exist in anything like their present form earlier than 65 A.D. and the gospel of John perhaps as late as 120 A.D. The authors were not Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

From some reading, I know that some of these Anglican church leaders maintain that whether or not the New Testament accounts contain precise historical events, the gospels, the creeds, the sacraments and rites are metaphors to mourn the human condition and celebrate the possibilities of renewal and redemption (sin and salvation). It is not unfair to appraise this stance as taking the Christ Myth seriously but not literally – theology not as history but as proclamation of faith.

The writings of the eminent Christian scholar, Hans Kung, converge on these very issues (although he is now forbidden to teach theology by the Roman Catholic hierarchy). When asked directly about Jesus’ resurrection, he commented, “Jesus’ resurrection is not just one sort of miracle among others. This it cannot be because we are not concerned here with an event in the life of Jesus. What is really involved is that which constitutes the end of human life – that is, death – which in every case raises the question of what it is into which man (sic) dies. Does he simply die into nothingness? Or is there a reality other than the reality of this life?

“The answer of Christian faith runs: Jesus and – looking to him – we too die, not into nothingness, but into an absolutely final, most real reality which we call ‘God.’” (SIGNPOSTS FOR THE FUTURE, p.48/49).

From such and other writings in Kung’s works, one can fairly say that Kung does not believe in a physical, bodily resurrection and ascension of Jesus or anyone else. But Kung proclaims that death is not the end but an entrance into ... “the most real reality which we call ‘God.’” I find it intriguing that Kung puts quotation marks around the word God.

Many of these observations apply to other world religions although the saviors, myths and rites differ. But all attempt to speak to our human condition of fear, hope, guilt, and our need to praise and behave ethically. Two brief quotations from George Santayana, philosopher and aesthete, point to my own point of view:

“The only truth of religion comes from its interpretation of life, from its symbolic rendering of that aspiration which it springs out of and which it seeks to illuminate.”

“Each religion has its own mythology expressing the moral discoveries of its founders and the needs of its adherents who are loyal to its poetry.”

The philosopher’s reference to the poetry of religion leads my thoughts in a similar direction. If we like poetry at all, we do not usually respond to all poets. If one is a fan of Edgar Guest and James Whitcomb Riley, it is a fair surmise that he/she does not spend much time with John Donne or W. B. Yeats. I enjoy both Carl Sandburg and Robert Frost. Usually I prefer Frost because his images are more evocative of subtle depths in our human wisdom and folly. There are countless options; and no so-called “authority” could or should dictate anyone’s choice or taste.

So it is with our religious beliefs and loyalties; and the issues which are vital to our understanding of ourselves, others, and the universe in which we live. To each his/her own.

Andy Rooney, the columnist, writes with down-to-earth wisdom, as well, sometimes, with provocative dissent. In one column he wrote:

“I am not a religious person, but I believe that religion sometimes helps people be better than they might be without it. I regret that they feel religion is necessary for them to support their goodness but if it helps, I don’t knock it. I wish they were moral and ethical because their brains lead them to believe it’s the best way to behave, but if belief in some other-worldly power helps them live better lives, that’s preferable to not living a good life at all.”

Andy, you are right; and you are wrong. You are correct when you state that we should be moral and ethical because our brains (and I would add, compassion) lead us to better human behavior and purpose. You are wrong when you seem to exclude these virtues from “religion.” You seem to believe that religion is “belief in some otherworldly power.” That may be “religion” for many, perhaps, most persons. But there are multitudes who act ethically without “hope of Heaven” or “fear of Hell.” Read the lives and teachings of the founders of religions. When one does such study, I believe it becomes increasingly clear that the world’s “saviors” stressed ways of ethics, purpose and happiness in THIS world.

Persuasion based on authentic conviction is a prime virtue in human inter-communication. But coerced or imposed conformity is a large evil, whether in religion, government, or community. Our laws are good when we are protected from dictators of all stripes, criminals and swindlers .

I am as surprised as you may be that a crochety letter from a Brit to an editor set me off on these rambles.