Chaitanya Jyothi Museum Opening, 2000

RAMANAM
In the Name of The Father, and of The Son and of The Holy Spirit, Amen.

Countrymen,

ORBIS NON SUFFICIT
SOLUS DEUS SUFFICIT

I wanted to say how very happy I am to see word of the SEAD (Scholarly Engagement in Anglican Doctrine) discussions in The Episcopal Voice. It is a most necessary thing you and your associates are doing with that initiative. At the risk of appearing tendentious, I would like to suggest a theme for a meet. I know that you will grasp the importance of it.

The theme is: “Monsters.”

“Monsters” in this case are not the usual pop-culture thing; they are the areas of our discipline we are disinclined to examine because to do so threatens the stability of current consensus and the continuance of careers as well.

Every discipline has its monsters. Some are fairly trivial, some are systemic. Some famous systemic monsters in the medical profession were biologics and blood-letting. Lister and Hahnemann, respectively, conducted the inquiries, experiments and demonstrations which forced physicians to regard the former and cease the latter. Another famous monster, stone-walled by ‘science’ but accepted by the laity, is Kurt Godel’s ‘Proof,’ which demonstrates that nothing can be proven.

As you are aware, in theology and biblical studies we have had several monsters, at different times of our history.

All through this century one systemic monster has hovered over us, stoned-walled by scholars and clergy but accepted by laity, especially the younger ones, who are going to be paying the bills or not. This monster has several faces, several persona, if you will. All threaten the stability of current and long-standing consensus as well as that of careers, incomes and therefore families. The repercussions are not unpainful, which is why the monster has been stone-walled.

But as we all know, stone-walling satisfies a few temporarily but inspires disrespect or contempt in the gallery and ultimately it is unsuccessful. In the case of the monsters facing the churches, it can be argued that the general decline of energy and membership in all branches of the nominally orthodox communion is due primarily to the laity’s contempt for scholars and clergy for not leveling with anyone, including themselves, about what they know or suspect to be true regarding the lineaments of the religion, the nature and mission of its founder and the origin and purpose of its canon.

Even if people cannot detail what scholars and clergy are dissembling and how, they can well enough feel that it’s happening and they know how to respond: withhold funds, energy, etc. And not only the laity are nourishing contempt. Many who would otherwise contribute as scholars and clergy stand aside and go their own way because they are contemptuous of the leadership, whom they regard, in general, as low-minded and third or fourth string businessmen at best. One can argue that contempt is inappropriate in any circumstance and of course it is — but one can also argue that the churches are going nowhere if the best minds and hearts of the culture are taking their ecclesial leadership for rubes.

My argument, therefore, is that the monsters be faced squarely and that respect and vitality of and for the religion be upbuilt accordingly.

I won’t say that some careers won’t be affected — negatively, in the view of many affected — and I won’t say that resistance won’t be met — from high places — and I won’t say that scorn won’t be poured upon the proceedings — by some whose good opinion we had hoped to sustain. It would be an invitation to a dance, even a war of sorts, and I wouldn’t head towards it thinking to minimize the inevitability of casualty and even fatality. My attitude is that of a doctor or a mechanic: had you brought the vehicle in earlier, the needed repairs would have been less extensive and the needed work less expensive. Better late than never ….

I am certain the laity and the best minds and hearts are going to continue their exodus until the scholars and clergy who occupy positions of responsibility for the welfare of affairs face the monsters in our midst and call all the clan together to generate some monster-cide, to face facts.

Some details on the monster’s personae:

The 18-year period of Jesus’ life, from age 12 to age 30, is the largest segment of Jesus’ career and seems to be deliberately omitted from the Gospels. Even taking the Gospels, and especially the fourth one, as kerygmatic rather than as historical literature, this lacuna is suspicious. There is word — Buddhist, Hindu and Islamic — that during this period, as well as after the resurrection, Jesus was in India and Tibet. Some Templar traditions make similar noises. This is a face of the monster.

Authorship of the NT canon is essentially indeterminate. This means that the real question is the intent of redaction. This is a rather more serious issue than at first it might seem to be. It compels inquiry of the mother’s milk(s) in which the canon took shape, and such questions open scholarship to an untidy range of intuition and opinion. The untidiness is intensified by the fact that the literary evidence is so scarce. Of course, our forebears intended that it should be when they set about, at several moments, to burn it all. You know that there isn’t a shred of NT text generally extant dating from earlier than the 4th Century. This is a remarkable feat, considering we have Plato and Pliny in plenty. Our bishops and other clergy were nothing if not thorough. And we expect our laity, knowing this history as they do now, to piously accept the word of bishops and other clergy — ? ! The question of intent of NT redaction is a fortiori a crisis of confidence in the leadership par excellence. One does not have to point out that crises of confidence are an infirm building material for any institution, including the churches. This is a face of the monster.

The NT canon contains indications that Jesus was not a divine being such as tradition, especially lay tradition, makes him out to be. There are indications that he was an ordinary seeker, like any of the rest of us, except with a specific Mission as Messiah. Certainly, He was a unitarian monotheist, not a trinitarian one, in His piety. Several avenues of inquiry open from this awareness. One of them is that the office of Messiah and the construction of the Third Person of a Holy Trinity are not necessarily co-extensive. Indeed, the identification of that office with that status can be taken as an historical howler: a pretext, not a fact, a reification, not a given, a way to enhance the prestige of clergy, not a way to promulgate Christianity. This is a face of the monster.

You are familiar enough with the ins and outs to grasp what is being offered here. I am fully alive to the “danger” as which these thoughts can be regarded, as I am sure you are also, and I am also alive to what I regard as the far greater danger of continuing to stone-wall them, as I am sure you are also. So, ‘nough said.

My suggestion is that SEAD take the monsters for a theme. You are aware of the dangers as well as the opportunity for reputation and leadership. I hope you will accept my warmest thanks for initiating SEAD in the first place and for continuing it in any case. It is hard enough being theologians in this world which ignores or hates God and theologians about equally. I warmly support your efforts to carry forward this great profession, The Queen of the Sciences, as our forebears rightly regarded her.

AUM NAMAH SHIVAYA