Shuck and Jive


Thursday, December 07, 2006

Lord and Serfs

The PCUSA fundies have their panties in a wad regarding the St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church of Austin, Texas. St. Andrew's is a progressive congregation that encourages its members to think rather than simply to regurgitate. Specifically, they think about language. What language do we use to speak about God or Jesus? Is the language that we have inherited helpful in pointing to Mystery or has it become a hindrance?



Here is the issue. The earliest confession for Christians is Jesus is kurios which is the Greek word that is rendered in English as lord. The folks at St. Andrew's question the exclusivity of using the word "lord" to describe Jesus. The fundies think that you must mouth "Jesus is Lord" or you are not a Christian. They are willing to take you to church court over it.

There will be a symposium at Austin Seminary to discuss this. I think it is a great idea. Discussion about theology and language is a good thing. To get the discussion on the table, you need to speak out. I applaud St. Andrew's and its pastor, Jim Rigby, for doing just that.

What is the problem with "Jesus is Lord?" I am not speaking for Jim Rigby or the St. Andrew's church. This is my way of stating it. I will say right away that given its limitations it is a valuable metaphor in certain contexts. In a post entitled, "Jesus is Lord!" I contrasted the lordship of Jesus over against the various incarnations of the lordship of Caesar in our time. It can be a metaphor to orient the values of Jesus over against the values of Caesar. I personally think that this is what the gospel writers were getting at when they wrote their narratives about Jesus.

The problem for English speakers is that the word "lord" has medieval overtones. Here is a helpful definition from Wikipedia:

A Lord (Laird in Scottish contexts) is a male who has power and authority. It can have different meanings depending on the context of use. In Scotland the word 'Laird' means owner of a landed estate, or more simply 'landowner'. The Scots "Laird" title is generally easier to achieve, but is as valued as that of an English "Lord". Many ladies will take the title 'Lady' instead of Laird or Lord. In a religious concept, The Lord is a name referring to God, mainly by the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Islam, and Christianity). The etymology of the English word lord goes back to Old English hlaf-weard (loaf-guardian) – reflecting the Germanic tribal custom of a superior providing food for his followers. The female equivalent, Lady, may come from words meaning "loaf-kneader."

Lord is not a word that we use anymore except religiously. It comes from the medieval feudal system. A lord was a landowner. We might as well say that Jesus is our "loaf-guardian." To use lord as a metaphor for Jesus emphasizes power, authority, and maleness. Our relationship to Jesus is then one of serfs to lord.

Some people are perfectly fine with that I suppose. If you are fine with it, great! I would not advocate banning the metaphor. I question its use as the only or the guiding metaphor for our relationship with Jesus. Not that I question someone else using it as his or her only or guiding metaphor. The question is this: must everyone use it as the guiding metaphor? The answer to that is "no."

The St. Andrew church is saying that this metaphor has problems for many people. The metaphors we use for the Divine or for Divine figures such as Jesus betray how we view our relationships with one another. Are our relationships primarily "power over" or "power with?"

When I think of Jesus in the gospels, I think of him as giving power to his friends rather than keeping them subservient to him. Other metaphors such as friend, guide, or teacher might be more appropriate. Not to proof-text, but the Gospel of John has Jesus say this to his disciples:
"No longer do I call you servants, for a servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I heard from My Father I have made known to you." (John 15:15)
At one point, Jesus scolds his disciples for power-grabbing. He says:
"You know that among the Gentiles those whom they recognize as their rulers lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. But it is not so among you; but whoever wishes to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you must be slave of all." (Mark 10:42-44)
Even though I am a clergyperson, I have a real problem with much of institutional or organized religion. It has to do with power. Rather than allow people to explore, we tell them what to think. We reward obedience rather than thoughtfulness. "Recite these words or you are not in the club!" "Believe this or you are not a Christian!" "Say it this way and do it this way or you are in error and are going to hell!"

I suppose that some people like to be told what to think, what to say, and what to do. For them, I am pleased that there are certainly a lot of churches that will tell them what to think, say and do.

But thankfully, there are churches like St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church in Austin and there are churches all over this country, that provide safe communities to grow, to think, and to make their own decisions--a place where people are free adults not serfs.

Thanks, Jim and St. Andrew's. Keep up the good work!

11 comments:

  1. I have never liked the word "Lord", either with respect to God or to Jesus. I agree that it has medieval, authoritarian connotations, that does not coincide with my conception of either Jesus or God.

    The quote that you gave from John is interesting. It is the source of the name that Quakers officially give to their denomination (the Religious Society of Friends).

    ReplyDelete
  2. I relate very well to the metaphor "Lord," and also am not uncomfortable with the medieval overtones, though I don't think that everyone hears those. You have to know something about medieval social structures to get into those meanings.

    But, it's really irrelevant if I relate well to the metaphor or not when talking about a church like St. Andrews. There is simply no reason why a congregation can't decide they don't like the metaphor, that it does more to distract them from God than to bring them closer. Everyone needs to cool it a little and let people work out their salvation with some fear and trembling rather than with strident accusations and recriminations.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Jesus is Lord, by the way, which means He is our Master. The other Lord or Master is called sin. The choice is a no-brainer.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The inherited language and concepts (Lord, sin, salvation, etc.) work for some people but not others. (I think I am being generous in saying that. Personally, I don't think the system we have inherited holds water at all any longer). We are in the midst of major changes in regards to how we see ourselves, our environment, and our meaning. All language all theology and philosophy is up for grabs. I agree with Brett that we should allow charity so that people can work this out.

    If we can imagine Mystical seeker, Brett, Jim, and myself as a little church, then charity is called for which will allow each of the four of us to work with the metaphors that are meaningful, share with others, and ultimately find our own way.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This reminds me of the changes that Patriotic Anglican clergymen made (in an unauthorized manner) in the Book of Common Prayer during the Revolutionary War. (Mostly crossing out all references to kings and princes, regardless of the referent, as a reaction to their anti-royalist sentiments.)

    Tell us, John, if it's all up for grabs, could "Capitalism is Lord!" become a charitably accepted declaration of Presbyterian faith?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Don't know much about the revolutionary anglicans. Although I find your use of "unauthorized" interesting. Who is "authorized" anyway?

    Much of Christianity operates as if capitalism is lord. Jesus has been reinvented throughout history in service to one ideology over another.

    Tell us Chris, what is your ideology?

    ReplyDelete
  7. The changes were unauthorized because they were not authorized by a body with constitutional powers to ammend the Book of Common Prayer. I don't have time to go into the importance of the BCP for the unity of Anglican witness, especially as it relates to the editions between 1544 and 1662 (not to mention what all of that meant for church-state relations in Britain or the thrust of Protestantism in their bishop-driven reformation). However, I'm sure you can refer to your favorite, reliable source for historical analysis (Wikipedia). However, if you can manage to put down the latest Spong book, I commend to your reading Christian England, vol 1 by David Edwards. It will help you understand how the uniformity of the church was maintained through a uniformity of practice within a latitude of doctrine.

    As for my ideology, you've had the chance to read a thorough account of it in your presbytery packet. Your readers can do the same by opening the publicly-available minutes of Holston Presbytery for December 2006 where my statement of faith appears in a relatively full fashion. WE don't determine what to call God - he does that for us in the pages of Scripture.

    As for your derogation of the "fundies" who get tied up over language, I hope that you think it equally silly when some middle-aged divorcee with authority issues has trouble with God being addressed as "Father" in public prayer.

    Jesus gets reinvented for every age when ever "enlightened" people go looking for him anyplace other than the Bible (yes - both Old and New Testaments). Whether they be papal hosts, 19th c. German liberals, 20th c. German fascists, 20th c. American racists, or postmodern revisionists - the result is the same: a recasting of our Maker in our own image.

    For those who want some significant insight into the nature of this struggle, I recommend Will Spotts' comments about the presenting issues in this particular case.

    ReplyDelete
  8. It's just a word and maybe it does have some connonatations we disagree with, if some say they don't like or some say they do, what is that to anybody - it's just a word. But it brings up a great point...are some people willing to 'die' for that word or for the 'intent' behind those words. I think Schucks is hitting a nerve with some (which I find alright) and asking a hard question - is it the word or the intent you seek?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thanks, Society. Glad to have you here! I think you are asking a good question: Why is this such a big deal?

    ReplyDelete
  10. I've been reading Elizabeth Johnson's "She Who Is", and she makes the point that when we become too attached to a particular label or attribute that we assign to God, it becomes idolatrous. The label is not God; it is only a metaphor for God.

    That being said, I think we all have our own favorite ways of conceiving of the divine mystery. I, for example, prefer to think of God as a loving presence, and I find the idea of God as a "master" to be particularly unsavory. But hey, that's just me.

    ReplyDelete