Myth and Metaphor

 Recently, I was watching a debate on-line between Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks and Richard Dawkins.   Sacks is the former Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth. Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist, is what I would describe as the chief atheist and apologist.  The debate was a typical one on the topic science versus religion and does religion have any significance in the modern world – at least that is how I would sum up the focus of the debate.

One point in the discussion summed up for me the reductionist approach that Dawkins and other scientists of his ilk have in their approach to the world and their dismissal of many things religious.  Dawkins pressed Sacks on the story of the intention of Abraham to follow YHWH – God’s order to sacrifice his son, Isaac.  Dawkins pressed Sacks as to his belief on the literal nature of the story i.e. was there actually a person named Abraham who had the intention to sacrifice his son in response to the command.  For Dawkins, there had to be a concrete basis for the story for it to be meaningful.  Sacks responded that it was representative of the movement of the Israelite people away for the practice of child sacrifice which was common to the people in that part of the world at that time. 

There seemed to be a complete misunderstanding by Dawkins of the importance of story as metaphor for people throughout history and the importance of it today.  Theologian and author Marcus Borg notes in his book, The God We Never Knew, that all images of God are metaphors.  Though metaphors, he states:

are not literally true, they can nevertheless be true…Metaphors are evocative. Suggestive of more than one meaning, they are resonant; they have multiple associations and cannot be translated into a single equivalent literal statement.

Metaphors cannot be weighed or put under a microscope and viewed in a telescope but they are true nonetheless.  That is something that Dawkins apparently does not seem to comprehend.  Myths can be understood in the same light as metaphors - actually, myths might be seen as extended metaphors and have a Truth that has resonated with people throughout the ages when you understand them metaphorically. 

To elaborate on the distinction between the approach of Dawkins and that of Sacks, it is helpful to look at the distinction between a sign versus a symbol as denoted by Carl Jung – the founder of Jungian psychology.  Jung notes in Man and His Symbols, that signs, “do no more than denote the objects to which they are attached.”  In effect, they have a one-to-one correspondence i.e., a stop sign on the side of a road means that traffic on that side of the road should stop.   

A symbol, as Jung declares, “is a term, a name, or even a picture that may be familiar in daily life, yet that possesses specific connotations in addition to its conventional and obvious meaning.”  Jung continues to elaborate, “It implies something vague, unknown, or hidden from us.” 

Religion, in its essence, is an attempt to understand the ineffable of life which cannot be reduced to a sign.  It is the undiscovered country which people are attempting to discover as best we can by exploring that which is hidden in an effort to see its truth.

May you be blessed to explore those hidden things which are revealed on your journey.

 

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.