Circumcision of the Heart

The subject of my sermon on Sunday was the sign of the covenant between God and the People of God.  The Old Testament reading pointed to the sign of the original covenant between Abraham and God as circumcision of every male, “Every male among you shall be circumcised.  You shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you”.  The appointed reading actually skipped over that part of the passage.  Perhaps the men who developed the Revised Common Lectionary thought the congregations would not be comfortable hearing about the details of circumcision.  It does sometimes make men uncomfortable.

In any case, circumcision was the sign of the covenant between God and the descendants of Abraham and continues to be the sign of the covenant for the Jewish people.  It no longer represents that for Christians.  With Jesus as our saviour, we have a new covenant which does not have circumcision as a sign of the covenant between God and us.  We have the Eucharist which is a re-membering of the sacrifice of Jesus as our sign of that new covenant.

However, Paul proposed, or I should say proclaimed, that with Jesus Christ with have a new circumcision. As a good Jew and a Pharisee, he knew that circumcision was vital to the Jewish people who he believed should recognized Jesus as their long-awaited Messiah.  He also knew that if Gentiles were to be welcomed as followers of Jesus Christ, they would need a new sign to replace circumcision. He addresses this in his letter to the Romans; circumcision as an initiation right would certainly have discouraged some prospective members:

Rather, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart—it is spiritual and not literal. Such a person receives praise not from others but from God. (Romans 2:29)

Paul is speaking of circumcision of the heart.  In effect it is a spiritual sign rather than a literal sign of the new covenant between God and God’s people.  It is unfortunate that this has not become a more prevalent symbol in Christianity today.  It is spoke of in some parts of our religion but it is not as prevalent as many symbols.  The heart if a very powerful symbol which does resonate as a symbol of love even in our scientific materialistic world today. 

The heart traditionally represented the feeling world of human existence at the deepest level and going back to ancient times.  Indeed, as noted by theologian Marcus Borg:

the heart in biblical tradition is an image of the elf at its deepest level.  For the ancient Hebrews, the heart was not simply associated with feelings or courage or courage or love, as in common usage.  Rather, the heart was associated with the totality of the human psyche: not only emotion but also intellect, volition, and even perception”. (The God We Never Knew 113)

So, when Paul speaks of circumcision as a matter of the heart, he is bringing a depth of meaning to his call for people to begin a new relationship with God.  It is a relationship which is not focussed on being praised by other.  He is calling us to do those things which are pleasing to God.

We all know what it means to be hard-hearted.  We probably know someone or perhaps more than one person who we consider hard-hearted.  We know how that person behaves towards others. 

Indeed, the news is full of examples of how people behave when they are hard-hearted.  Hard-hearted people do not let their feeling and emotions get in the way of how they behave towards others.  They do not show others compassion and believe that people should not be given a second or even a third chance when they don’t live up to the expectations they have for others.  They certainly don’t believe in forgiveness despite what Jesus says about forgiving someone seventy times seven.  If they forgive someone that person must earn their forgiveness and meet their terms which are probably very strict.  They are people who believe that the consequences of offenses should be retributive and they don’t really believe in punishment that is redemptive.  They are in support of mandatory minimum sentences for crimes. 

Well what is the opposite of being hard-hearted?  Of course, it is being soft-hearted which doesn’t always get very good press.  Being soft-hearted has the connotation of being a push over, of being an easy mark, of being taken advantage of. 

I proposed that a better way of conceiving of the opposite of heard-hearted is being open-hearted.   This is Jesus’ message in the beatitudes.  He doesn’t speak specifically of being open-hearted but for me that is behind much of the what Jesus is speaking of when he talks of righteousness and mercy and the pure of heart. 

I try not to be hard-hearted.  I make an effort to be open-hearted; I try but God knows I do not always succeed. 

So, there is a great deal packed into that short statement by Paul―real circumcision is a matter of the heart.  This Lent I invite you to practice a heart that is open.

The Meaning of the Cross

This week I want to continue my exploration/musings on theological issues.  I know it is the dog days of summer and my mind should be on a murder mystery or other cottage reading rather than a theological mystery.  However, that seems to be where I am there days.  Perhaps it is because I am writing a sermon regularly as I help out in the parish here.

In any case rather than a murder mystery by Sue Grafton or Agatha Christie, I would like to explore the ultimate murder mystery of the cross i.e. Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross.  One of the principle ways of understanding this event is “substitutionary atonement” i.e. Jesus died for our sins.  In effect, God required ‘His’ only begotten son to be sacrificed on the cross as a way of redemption for humankind.  God’s greatest creation, made in ‘His’ own image could only be redeemed by sacrificing ‘His’ son in the most horrible way imaginable. 

This has not been the only way of understanding the events of Good Friday as noted by Richard Rohr recently drawing on Marcus Borg:

Theologian Marcus Borg (1942-2015) points out that the substitutionary understanding of Jesus’ death “was not central in the first thousand years of Christianity.”  Borg explains:

[The] first systematic articulation of the cross as “payment for sin” happened just over nine hundred years ago in 1098 in St. Anselm’s treatise Cur Deus Homo? [Why Did God Become Human?] Anselm’s purpose was to provide a rational argument for the necessity of the incarnation and death of Jesus.

Unfortunately, this became the primary lens through which the Hebrew Scriptures and New Testament were read. The substitutionary atonement “theory” (and that’s all it is) implies that the Eternal Christ’s epiphany in Jesus is a mere afterthought when the first plan did not work out.

The “substitutionary atonement” understudying of the cross is not one that I can accept.  It makes no sense on so many different levels and one I cannot resolve with my belief in a Loving God.  I must concede that I have no assurance that my particular belief is the absolute truth any more that we can know that the “substitutionary atonement” theory is correct.  It is one in which makes sense within my overall understanding of God and my relationship to God, who in case you didn’t pick up on the earlier hints I do not understand to be solely a masculine father figure. 

So I’m sure you are now eager to know what my understanding of the crucifixion is.  First, I believe that it was a willing sacrifice by Jesus as shown in the Garden of Gethsemane.   Jesus did ask his Heavenly Father (which admittedly the way he primarily thought of God) to remove this cup from him.  However, that was not a question of God demanding the sacrifice.  Jesus throughout his life became aware of who he was created by God to be.  He was for us a model of a person, indeed the Third Person of the Trinity, who showed us what it means to live fully and completely the life he was created to live. 

For Jesus to fully realize who he was and is i.e. the person he was created to be meant that he would inevitably be murdered by the authorities of this world.  To be true to who he was meant that he could not do anything else.  As he told his disciples he must go to Jerusalem that knowing that meant he would be executed by the Roman authorities with the collusion of the religions authorities.  He did this willingly knowing he could do nothing else if he was to be true to who he was—the unique person fully human and fully divine. 

That is my challenge and calling i.e. to discover and be as fully as possible the person God created me to be.  That is something I know I will never fully succeed in doing or being but it is my lifelong quest of my journey; Blessings on your journey.