Priesthood or Discipleship? Where does authority truly lie?

One of the news items this week had me thinking, once again, about the programmed failure of organized religion to be equitable to all people. The pastor at small Roman Catholic parish in San Francisco has declared that girls will no longer be allowed to serve at the altar. The reason given is that serving at the altar is the first step toward becoming a priest, and since women can’t become priests, that role must naturally be reserved for boys. The Archbishop of the local Diocese allowed this decision to stand.

[Before I continue, I want to be clear that I am not a Roman Catholic, but belong to a Protestant denomination. I am a practicing Christian, but I constantly question doctrines and practices, believing that many of them are completely in error and beside the point.]

To my understanding, the person of Jesus showed himself to be a radical against the actions of the Temple priesthood. If you really read the canonical gospels, you see that Jesus conveys, in his actions and words, the notion that such hierarchical “management” schemes really only serve to allow a small group of people to control a large group of people (and money), and that the taking of such authority mostly leads toward a sense of entitlement and corruption among the “management class,” not toward justice or service or the addressing of need. More importantly, Jesus sees that the apathy of those who are not in power (all those who are disempowered or outcast) leads them to emulate bad behaviors or actions exhibited by those in control.

Said differently, many average people create and maintain a corrupt status quo by following the example of those in authority. When Jesus spoke to people, he was not interested in hearing about complaints or excuses. He seemed interested in the “what are you going to do about it?” part of any discussion. Whenever he was asked to do something or say something, to judge or to decide, to a great extent, he more often than not eschewed arbiter roles, preferring that people engage in their own problem solving, rather than allowing “the system” to offer the last word. As we know only too well from experience, when we leave anything “to the system,” the results tend to be unsatisfactory.

This is why I think Jesus was not pointing to a new kind of priesthood, but rather advocating for a discipleship of personal engagement and responsibility—even activism. Outcasts were assigned their status on whose authority? If the only authority and judge is a deity, then how can any temporal court make such a determination? Will healing and recovery take place? Will social justice be served? Or is this just a way of dismissing all who are deemed unsavory? These are the sorts of discussions Jesus attempted with his disciples. I rather think he expected such discussions to lead to affirmative action within his community. When affirmative action was not forthcoming, he would resort to “healing” people. He encouraged self-healing and renewed personal esteem.

When Jesus left the scene, things returned to more of the same old same old, all of which hinged (and still does to this day) on “authority.” Who had the authority and who didn’t? Was this to be a dynastic succession or a hierarchical elect? Yes, yes, the disciples were told… Peter and Paul… Stephen… James… someone was left in charge... but what actually happened? Why does “the Church” work in a way that is so different from what Jesus did and said while he was alive?

All we know is what has come down to us: the priesthood “after the order of Melchizedek.” However it was that this came about, whose ever bright idea it was, this is the foundation on which the Christian religion was built. And it is, I believe, in error. The error was made and exists primarily in order to establish and maintain an authority to control people, as well as to lend credence to all those people who have claimed such authority. This method of organization does not reflect what Jesus was teaching, and I am convinced Jesus would think much of what goes on today, under his authority and in his name, is sacrilegious.

If you think about it for a minute, you see that our entire frame of reference around what can be known is built on all that has been known before. College students are asked to express original thoughts, but only if they hang on some previous authority (hence, the need for footnote after footnote, reference after reference, and a pile of book titles). This is how we “prove” our knowledge and our thinking: we read what is out there and then we bring forth our own notions about it, but we must cite authority in order to make our claim.

This may be part of what happened to the early Christian community. Unfortunately, the original message got lost in a power struggle. How this happened, we will never know for certain, but what is clearer to see is that hierarchical power is involved, resulting in control over the masses. Constantine’s adoption of Christianity was purely in order to gain authority, control, money and conformity from a growing group of people. You could even say assurance of complicity was part of the bargain.

A more appropriate way to view the message of Jesus is through the window of the 20^th century Platonist philosopher, Iris Murdoch. Her book title “The Sovereignty of Good” is a kind of summation of what we should have ended up with. What might that look like? Sabbath meetings in which all were welcome, and all who came were fed; studies of Torah and how it could be applied to current community issues; presiders would be different each week, so all could experience and learn benign leadership; discussion of people and their needs, including ideas about how those could be addressed, who would volunteer to help, what could be given now. That is how I would characterize the Work of the People, the Sovereignty of Good.

Instead, what we see from the Roman tradition that has come down to us is an intercessory leadership. A priest is there to order or lend authority and to be an intermediary between an individual and God. In that role, the priest has the power to make rules, to demand obedience, oaths, confession and contrition, and to exact payment for wrongs done. Note: I am being simplistic in this to the purpose of illustrating how far away this is what Jesus presented.

Jesus told people to do the right thing, even if that meant going against a law or an authority figure. Doing the right thing, he suggested from within his understanding of Torah, is what God would want at all times. Doing the right thing is a happier way, a moral way, a peaceful way, the way of righteousness.

I further put it to you that one of the things Jesus did was overthrow the notion that a priesthood was required to lead people to righteousness. Priesthood demands obedience; discipleship requires personal will and action. Those who adhere only to obedience are liable to abdicate their personal responsibility and their will. I am sure that is not what Jesus meant for his followers; certainly, the gospel texts do not convey that message to me. I am convinced, for example, that the passage “render under Caesar what is Caesar’s; render unto God what is God’s” is a direct call to honor the best practices set out in Torah—merely following temporal laws alone is not sufficient to fulfill the commandment, “love thy neighbor.“

To honor Caesar, you must follow temporal laws; to honor God, you must have the will to be responsible, to honor and support all people in all ways, every day.

The author of the letter to the Hebrews declared Jesus to be a priest "after the order of Melchizedek." The person of Melchizedek figures very abruptly in, then disappears altogether (!) from Genesis; but for a mention in one Psalm. The reference from Genesis in the letter to the Hebrews is used to lend authority to the notion of Jesus as High Priest. The name Melchizedek means Righteous King, and he comes from Salem, which means Peace--clearly, this is highly metaphorical passage, intended to lend authority to people in the situation described in Genesis: a shift in dynastic leadership polity from the sons of Aaron to the sons of Abraham.

By contrast, Jesus calls us each to be responsible for our actions, and all responsible to one another—that each person's service to another is a sacrifice and a blessing that results in equity and peace. Neither gender, nor station in life, has anything to do with service or social responsibility, righteousness or godly love. These are all things self-governed, and will-propelled, by love, not ordered by a priest. That is discipleship.

It is too bad “the Church” lost that memo… It is working so hard at the wrong sort of corporate compliance.

Of course, I went through all of this just so I could make the observation that it certainly is most backward and unproductive, if not also decidedly unJesus-like to deny girls the opportunity to serve in fellowship. If the call was to serve, then all should.

First Amendment Convolutions

While reading my local paper, I came across the following letter to the editor:

It is disturbing that California's attorney general, Kamala Harris, believes that access to contraception trumps the First Amendment ("State questions corporations' religious rights," Nov. 11.). Religious business-owners should have the right to manage their own companies according to their most basic beliefs. The First Amendment does not simply guarantee the freedom to worship; it ensures "the free exercise thereof," which extends beyond Fridays at the mosque or Saturdays at the synagogue. Subtle attempts to undermine this guarantee to all Americans, masked in pernicious language like "regulatory obligations," should be what the attorney general is protecting us against, not standing up for.

This letter had been written by the pastor of a church. The name of the pastor, church and community from which this letter came are not important. It could have come from anywhere, been written by a religious leader of any denomination or faith.

This letter is clearly about denying rights to women. The pastor perhaps owns a business. Surely the church is not the business he owns, is it? Hopefully the employee in question is not a female church secretary…

What I find most interesting is the ironic twist accorded to the First Amendment. To me, it is clear that the author of the letter is unclear on the letter of the law, as well as a bit muddy on the tenets of his faith. The author of the letter seems to imply that the religious freedoms accorded by the First Amendment allow one person, in the context of practicing and keeping of their faith, to deny rights to another person.

This is, of course, not true under the letter of the law. This kind of confused thinking is what the separation of church and state is all about, and why it is essential. This is what the Women’s Movement, the Civil Rights Movement, the Labor Movement, the LGBQ Movement and all of the Movements since, have reared up to remind us all. We should all be equally treated under the law. It could also be argued that we should all be treated equally under divine providence.

Your beliefs and your practices are yours. You are welcome to them. You cannot impose them on others. The First Amendment applies to individual conscience, not collective consciousness. The First Amendment allows you to say you don’t like contraception, and to rail against contraception and to campaign against contraception, but it does not entitle you, because you practice a certain religion that has dogma and doctrine against it, to deny any person the right to access, have and use contraceptives. Even if you are a business owner, your business cannot deny any worker access to contraceptives, whether you pay all or part of the insurance coverage for your employee or not. To do so is to disrespect and violate the privacy and rights of your employee, which surely is not what any divine being would require of you, in order for you to be a good person, ostensibly living a life of righteousness and equity.

You are free to exercise your right to be a dogmatic doctrinaire, even a misogynist; you just cannot impose your personal will, whether or not it is informed by your religion, on others—and that means not in the work place nor in your church.

Pernicious is the language that claims the golden rule, yet excludes people from the rights and dignity they should naturally be accorded. Pernicious is the hate hidden in a convoluted, conditional and inconsistent rhetoric of love. Pernicious is the morality that counsels, “You must do as I say, or you will go to Hell!” The First Amendment is not a club to be wielded against someone else.

I am grateful that the attorney general of California is holding people, religious and not, to their regulatory obligations under the law.

Mr. Pastor, sir, if you don’t want contraceptives, the Good News is you are not required to have or to use them. The bad news is, you can’t force others to do as you would do, not even your wife. It is none of your business what other people do with their health coverage, and why should it matter to you? The sad truth is it costs you nothing that someone else can obtain and use contraceptives. While you may believe that the use of contraceptives is ungodly, —    though how you would arrive at that conclusion I don't know, as the Bible does not mention them at all — you have no legal grounds by which to deny their availability to or use by anyone. 

The Measure of Modern Morality

The world, as seen through the lens of the news media, seems to be playing itself out like a parable written by Nietzsche. War, abuse of power, betrayal of the innocent by wolves cunningly disguised as sheep, whether these wolves are politicians, clergy, bankers, generals… It seems like one bad joke that keeps playing itself into deeper and deeper territory. What was once faintly amusing amusing and treated as cliché (e.g., “death and taxes…”) now is far past its pall, and the thoughtful person reckons that the horrors of division that we see, playing themselves across all boundaries and senses, prove that Shakespeare was all too insightful about human nature when he has his character Hamlet observe that customs are “More honour'd in the breach than the observance.” What we see played out now is mostly breach, and little, if any, observance. Apparently, the breachers rule!

Surely, this is what Nietzsche meant when he emphatically stated “God is dead!” This statement was used as a battering ram against Nietzsche, of course, who was treated as a pariah by the academic establishment and the church.

It is very interesting that people judged Nietzsche based on that single quip, out of its context.

Here is more of the passage from The Gay Science:

"Where has God gone?" he cried. "I shall tell you. We have killed him - you and I. We are his murderers. But how have we done this? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What did we do when we unchained the earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving now? Away from all suns? Are we not perpetually falling? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there any up or down left? Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is it not more and more night coming on all the time? Must not lanterns be lit in the morning? Do we not hear anything yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we not smell anything yet of God's decomposition? Gods too decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, murderers of all murderers, console ourselves? That which was the holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet possessed has bled to death under our knives. Who will wipe this blood off us? With what water could we purify ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we need to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we not ourselves become gods simply to be worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whosoever shall be born after us - for the sake of this deed he shall be part of a higher history than all history hitherto."

Here the madman fell silent and again regarded his listeners; and they too were silent and stared at him in astonishment.

The passage was spoken by a madman—perhaps this is Nietzsche being tongue in cheek about himself; only a madman could make assertions that turn the world of the worldly upside down by stripping the worldly of their illusions. Nietzsche is the most famous pariah ever, for his polemics against the Christian Church Universal, of which this passage could be thought the crowning statement, if only by those who have not read Nietzsche’s oeuvre in the way Nietzsche himself read all the works that informed him; he called this way of reading lento—Italian for slow. Slow reading for maximum absorption.

Nietzsche was excoriated for reporting the truth of he saw about the way people act. Ironically, the seer actually did go mad, and died before his mature thought could be completely developed.

ÐÑ

The Church Universal is an interesting institution. It claims to ground itself in the teachings of Jesus, but patterned itself as a hierarchy in the image of Roman Empire. And so it is an Empire, one that has, over two thousand years, controlled kings and billions of average people, the very slaves that Nietzsche identified in his writings. Of course, Christianity has splintered itself off into denomination after denomination, sect after sect, starting since well before the Councils of Nicea. Each sect has defined and controlled the masses according to its own version of the truth and moral code that it claims to pattern after the very simple commandment of Jesus. The Roman Church has deemphasized women and marginalized quite a lot of diverse interests and ethnicities and thought by using morality and fear as swords and cudgels. Countless innocents have been given the sword or the fire, or some other ultimate punishment for their declared “sins”. There is no peace on earth because religions and governments are continually at war, in an endless effort to command power.

In the modern era, the moral authority of particularly the Roman church has never faced so many challenges. Two of the biggest have to do with the marginalizing of women and homosexuals. Sex scandals continue to rock the faithful, as well they should. The church has fought on this battleground for generations, by primarily using the tool called denial, and by sweeping all transgressions under the carpet. Women and children have suffered abuse of priests who have all taken oaths to uphold and maintain holiness and sanctity in all interactions; the church denied claims, until they could be denied no more; and has finally tried to sweep it all away by sheltering and shuffling the offenders through the Empire, rather than by handing them over to the law. Now, in the U.S., Ireland and, most recently, Belgium, cases are being settled and priests are being defrocked. But there are some wealthy, conservative Catholics (who can afford to take out full page ads in the New York Times, no less) who continue claim that the victims are the ones to blame, not the clergy offenders or the church. Homosexuality is to blame. Women are to blame. Children are to blame. Abortion is to blame. According to the conservative line, the church should not have to bear responsibility for the sins perpetrated within its hierarchy, and its moral authority must not be questioned.

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. wrote in his book “Autocrat of the Breakfast Table:

Sin has many tools, but a lie is the handle that fits them all.

ÐÑ

In Daybreak, Nietzsche speaks Moral Authority in the following manner:

Thus commands the authority of morality: an obscure fear and awe are at once to direct mankind in the case of precisely those actions the aims and means of which are least immediately obvious! This authority of morality paralyses thinking in the case of things about which it might be dangerous to think falsely—: this is how it is accustomed to justify itself before its accusers. Falsely: here that means ‘dangerously’—but dangerously for whom? Usually it is not really the danger to the performer of the action which wielders of authoritative morality have in view, but the danger to themselves, the possibility that their power and influence may be diminished if the right to act arbitrarily and foolishly according to the light, bright or dim, of one’s own reason is accorded to everybody: they themselves, of course, unhesitatingly exercise the right to arbitrariness and folly—they issue commands even where the questions of ‘how am I to act’ to what end am I to act’ are hardly possible or at least extremely difficult to answer. — And if the reason of mankind is of such extraordinarily slow growth that it has often been denied that it has grown at all during the whole course of mankind’s existence, what is more to blame than this solemn presence, indeed omnipresence, of moral commands which absolutely prohibit the utterance of individual questions as to How? And To what end? Have we not been brought up to feel pathetically and to flee into the dark precisely when reason ought to be taking as clear and cold a view as possible! That is to say, in the case of all our higher and weightier affairs.

Rather a frighteningly accurate description of the state of moral authority, as it was in the 1880s and even to the present day.

So we have this doctrinal hot potatoes constantly tossed at us—free-will and sin are juxtaposed to one another. We are offered the assurance of permanent lodgings of our eternal soul in Hell if we do not bow as slaves to the will an institution that is ancient, not modern.

Lost in all of this is the central teaching: Christ died for all.  Here is what Paul said in the first letter to the Corinthians (15:1-3):

Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures…

What Paul tells us is that we have all been saved, and that we are free. Then we are sent on to preach this release from the bondage of sin by proclaiming the gospel, loving God and cherishing our neighbors as we cherish ourselves.

But ever since the day that the Church patterned itself on Empire, we have been told that we have not been saved, but continue in sin, and further that we can only be saved if we follow the arbitrary doctrines of people who live in the world but are not of the world, and don’t feel bound to adhere to civil law or even their own arbitrary doctrines!  Many of which doctrines are not at all in keeping with the teachings of Jesus during his ministry!

Mark 2:27:

(Jesus) said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.

The Roman Church, and not this branch of the Church Universal alone, and not even just the Christian Church, has been acting as if this were the other way round, for far too long.

ÐÑ

Luke 4:18-19:

The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor.

Let us recall that in Baptism we enter the new life. The prisoners are free, the blind see, the oppressed are released from the bondage of authoritarian rule. This, and every year, is the year of the Lord’s favor.

Let us pray that all may be reacquainted with and reminded of this simple and humbling truth, that we may live lives of goodness and compassion because we have been freed to do so, in unity with our neighbors, eschewing the lies of power and arbitrary authority.

Amen.

Holmes, Sr., Oliver Wendell. The Autocrat of the Breakfast Table. H. M. Caldwell Co., 1900, p. 129.

Nietzsche, Friedrich; Hollingdale, R.J., translator; Clark, MaudeMarie and Leiter, Brian; . Daybreak, Cambridge University Press, 1997. p. 62: 107. Our right to our folly.

Holy Bible, New International Version, Biblica Inc., 1973; various passages.