Sermon

 

Immortality

 

The Rev. Jack D. Bryant

Hope Unitarian Church

April 13, 2003

 

Reading:  Tillich, Paul.  The Eternal Now.  P. 123-4.

We speak of time in three ways or modes -- the past, present and future.  Every child is aware of them, but no wise man has ever penetrated their mystery.  We become aware of them when we hear a voice telling us: you also will come to an end.  It is the future that awakens us to the mystery of time.  Time runs from the beginning to the end, but our awareness of time goes in the opposite direction.  It starts with the anxious anticipation o f the end.  In the light of the future we see the past and present.  So let us first consider our going into the future and towards the end that is the last point that we can anticipate in our future.

The image of the future produces contrasting feelings in man.  The expectation of the future gives one a feeling of joy.  It is a great thing to have a future in which one can actualize one’s possibilities, in which one can experience the abundance of life, in which one can create something new -- be it new work, a new living being, a new way of life, or the regeneration of one’s own being.  Courageously one goes ahead towards the new, especially in the earlier part of one’s life.  But this feeling struggles with other ones:  the anxiety about what is hidden in the future, the ambiguity of everything it will bring us, the shortness of its duration that decreases with every year of our life and becomes shorter the nearer we come to the unavoidable end.  And finally the end itself, with its impenetrable darkness and the threat that one’s whole existence in time will be judged as a failure.

How do men, how do you, react to this image of the future with its hope and threat and inescapable end? Probably most of us react by looking at the immediate future, anticipating it, working for it, hoping for it, being anxious about it, while cutting off from our awareness the future which is farther away, and above all, by cutting off from our consciousness the end, the last moment of our future.  Perhaps we could not live without doing so most of our time.  But perhaps we will not be able to die if we always do so.  And if one is not able to die, is he really able to live?

Sermon

When I think of immortality I am reminded of what Woody Allen once said:  “I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve immortality through not dying.”  I think that sums up how most people feel about the subject.  Immortality means living forever.  It means never dying.  Or if death does happen, it doesn’t really happen.  Immortality – as commonly understood in the western world – says there is something that transcends the body, that continues to live – something that is the real you or me that will live forever.  In other words, immortality is about life.  But I disagree.  I believe Paul Tillich is correct.  Our concern about immortality arises out of our concern about death.  Immortality is not about life, it is about death.  Regardless, when we talk about immortality, we use words that speak of life.

Immortality is no stranger to Unitarian thought.  Thomas Jefferson – a Unitarian – believed there was a life after death.  And William Ellery Channing, the greatest Unitarian preacher of the nineteenth century, said, “Immortality is the glorious discovery of Christianity.”  I have not crossed the River Styx, so I will not say if Jefferson was right or wrong – but Channing was wrong.  Notions of immortality are found in human history long before Christianity.  The Egyptians, thousands of years before Christianity, built the pyramids and practiced the art of mummification in pursuit of immortality, or eternal life.  And Christianity itself did not develop the idea of immortality as we understand it today.  They borrowed it from Greek Philosophy.  Ancient Judaism – from which Christianity claims descent – believed there was something that continued after life, but it was not the soul as we think of it today, and the nature of an afterlife for the Jews was fuzzy at best.  While some spirit continued, it eventually seemed to fade away.  There was a Jewish belief in resurrection – but it was bodily resurrection, not a continuation of something called the soul.

The idea of the soul comes from Greek philosophy – not Greek religion, but Greek philosophy.  It does not come from the bible.  Ministers today who speak of someone dying and going to heaven are preaching Greek philosophy, not the bible – although most of them don’t seem to know that.  I once attended a funeral for a six-year-old boy.  The minister said he was certain that little boy was walking the streets of heaven, hand-in-hand with Jesus.  I am sure he believed he was preaching from the bible.  But the New Testament is explicit on this point.  When people die, they are dead.  They are in the grave, and that’s where they stay until Jesus returns – which is when they will be bodily resurrected.  And if their bodies have been destroyed, they will be given resurrection bodies.  That’s a very different idea from an eternal soul going to heaven – or hell – as is commonly preached and understood today.

But neither the bible nor Greek philosophy has the final word when it comes to immortality.  Do you remember the UFO cult called Heaven’s Gate?  Forty-one of their members have committed suicide since 1997 in the belief they would leave their earthly bodies and move to a higher level of existence where they would be immortal.  And then there’s my favorite contemporary story of immortality – which takes the form of a movie.  It is my favorite because on one level it is a very funny story – and at the same time it succeeds – in a very serious way – in illuminating the traditional understanding of immortality.  That story is the movie “Groundhog Day.” 

The movie’s plot revolves around a cynical, self-absorbed television weatherman played by Bill Murray.  He travels with a cameraman and his woman producer to Punxsutawney, Pa., to record the annual Groundhog Day activities.  Murray’s character, Phil Connors, is bored.  All he can think about is himself.  He has a glib on-screen persona, but off-screen he is rude, arrogant, and demeaning to all he encounters.  The activities of the day go about as expected until that evening when a major winter storm makes it impossible for them to return home. 

The next morning Phil Connors awakes to discover he is reliving the previous day.  And this goes on day, after day, after day.  After recovering from his initial shock, he uses his special form of immortality to exploit and take advantage of other people – consistent with the character he has shown.  In particular, he tries to seduce his producer and another woman, taking advantage of the knowledge he gains by constantly reliving the same day.  But eventually he tires of the game and settles into a depression that leads him to commit suicide.  He kills himself over and over again.  But each morning he awakes to once again relive the same day. 

Eventually, instead of exploiting people he tries to help.  He begins to make the most of each day.  Repeating the same day over and over again he learns to play the piano, saves the same man from choking to death, takes a homeless person to the hospital, and catches a small boy who falls from a tree – day after day.  And instead of trying to seduce his producer, he reveals his true self to her – the true self he has always been so afraid to reveal that he has had to hide it behind cynicism and cruelty to others.  To his amazement – and hers – she likes him for who he really is.  Eventually, having lived a perfect day, he awakes to a new day. 

I find the conclusion particularly interesting because of two theological ideas.  First, his salvation is salvation by character – a thoroughly Unitarian idea.  And second, the salvation he finds is not immortality, not life eternal, but mortality.  When he was immortal, he wanted to die.  When he becomes mortal, he wants to live.  It is by becoming mortal that his life becomes worth living.  Remember what Tillich said?  “[I]f one is not able to die, is he really able to live?” 

It’s been said there are no atheists in foxholes.  I was only in the army for a brief period of active duty.  I was never in combat.  But I don’t believe the claim that there are no atheists in foxholes.  I believe that claim has less to do with the anxiety of those in combat and far more to do with the anxiety of those who say it.  Perhaps that doesn’t make sense to you, but it does to me.  It makes sense to me because of my experience in chaplaincy.

There’s nothing unique about the experience of working as a hospital chaplain.  Everyone encounters such situations.  It’s just that as a chaplain one does it several times a day.  The situation is the encounter with the anxiety and fear of patients – and their families and friends – facing serious illness and even death.  The first day I worked as a hospital chaplain, I was told there was one thing a chaplain must never do.  A chaplain must never deny a person’s pain or fear or anxiety.  Instead, one must acknowledge that pain and fear and anxiety.  Even if it is groundless; even if the person is wrong; even if you know to a moral certainty that he or she is wrong, it is essential to acknowledge the person’s pain and fear and anxiety – because to deny it will only increase it. 

For myself, I have always believed that immortality serves to deny a person’s fear of death.  That doesn’t mean a person who believes in an afterlife – some kind of eternal life – is afraid of dying.  Perhaps they aren’t.  But if they are, then I believe the “promise” of immortality, of eternal life, will increase their fear and anxiety of death.  That’s why I believe mortality was the gift of salvation for Phil Connors.  I believe his greatest fear was of living in a world in which he was not loved and in which he was incapable of loving.  Immortality became a burden.  That was why he tried to commit suicide.  But when he finally achieved a life worth living, he was able to joyously accept his mortality.

I know there are people who disagree with my view of immortality.  I believe there are people for whom a sense of immortality, of some kind of life after death, is a comforting thought.  I also admire what I believe is the motivation for the origin of the belief in a heavenly life.  I believe it is derived from the reality of life in the Roman World.  The history books tell us it was a world of the Roman Peace.  But for the majority of the people it was the world of the Roman terror.  There was no escaping the horrors of life under Imperial Rome – a world built on slavery.  There was no hope of a better life in that world.  But hungry for some sense of hope, I believe there evolved the idea of an eternal life where justice would reign forever.  This is not an idea to disparage as superstition – it is an idea that reveals the human hunger for justice.  It is an idea that reveals humanity at its best.

But I cannot personally accept it because I believe it is to give up on life.  I cannot accept it because I believe that it is the boundary of death that gives life meaning.  Without that boundary, I believe I would ultimately face depression and meaninglessness. 

But there is something of that idea that still calls to me.  It compels me to ask this question:  Is it possible to imagine a different kind of immortality?  Might this different kind of immortality be a true affirmation of life, instead of a reaction against death?  I believe this is possible. 

The liberal religious tradition is one rooted in individualism.  I stand in that tradition.  But suppose – as the philosophers Whitehead and Hartshorne have – that life is not an accident of a mechanistic world.  Rather, the world, the universe, is itself alive – not in the sense that we are alive as individuals, but in the sense that life is the very essence of all existence.  Life then does have its own meaning – and that meaning is the very meaning and purpose of the universe.  That does not mean that it is for us – personally – to understand the meaning of the universe – only to know that such a meaning exists.

In such a world I will someday cease to exist.  My personality will end.  But because my life is part of a greater life, that which I sometimes call the universe, and other times call God, then life does continue and I will be a part of it.  In the same way, those I have known, those I have loved, are still with me.  Not as personalities, but as memories – memories in the very mind of God – where God is understood as being the life of the universe as a whole.  Every life that has gone before is still a part of the greater fabric of life that is the universe.  I cannot have the comfort of thinking my personality will continue forever – but as I’ve said, I don’t think that is a comfort – rather, I have the knowledge that my life is part of something larger than myself; and my life has meaning – real meaning.  Most especially, my life is not just preparation for death, which is what happens in the traditional view of immortality.  To me, that’s the great problem with the orthodox view of this Easter season.  You can hear it in these words, the Apostle’s Creed.

I believe in God, the Father Almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:  Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.  He descended into hell.  The third day He arose again from the dead.  He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty, whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.  I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting.

The Apostles creed reduces the life of Jesus to a comma.  It says his life was unimportant.  It says all life is unimportant except as preparation for death.  This claim of resurrection and life eternal – as William Ellery Channing once observed – “place a gallows at the center of the universe.”  I believe we should place life at the center of the universe.  That’s why I am content not to have life eternal.  It is why I am content to have my life defined by a beginning and an end – a beginning and an end that give it meaning and purpose and make it dear to me, so long as I shall live.  Instead of celebrating death, I say we should celebrate the life we have.  I say, to life.  L’Chaim.

Amen.