Sermon
The God of the Cannibals
The Rev. Jack D. Bryant
Hope Unitarian Church
November 14, 2004
First Reading: 2 King 21:1-9
Manasseh was twelve years old when he began to reign; he reigned fifty-five years in Jerusalem. His mother's name was Hephzibah. 2He did what was evil in the sight of the LORD, following the abominable practices of the nations that the LORD drove out before the people of Israel. 3For he rebuilt the high places that his father Hezekiah had destroyed; he erected altars for Baal, made a sacred pole, as King Ahab of Israel had done, worshiped all the host of heaven, and served them. 4He built altars in the house of the LORD, of which the LORD had said, "In Jerusalem I will put my name." 5He built altars for all the host of heaven in the two courts of the house of the LORD. 6He made his son pass through fire; he practiced soothsaying and augury, and dealt with mediums and with wizards. He did much evil in the sight of the LORD, provoking him to anger. 7The carved image of Asherah that he had made he set in the house of which the LORD said to David and to his son Solomon, "In this house, and in Jerusalem, which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, I will put my name forever; 8I will not cause the feet of Israel to wander any more out of the land that I gave to their ancestors, if only they will be careful to do according to all that I have commanded them, and according to all the law that my servant Moses commanded them." 9But they did not listen; Manasseh misled them to do more evil than the nations had done that the LORD destroyed before the people of Israel.
Second Reading: Ralph Waldo Emerson: “The Conduct of Life.”
In the last chapters, we treated some particulars of the question of culture. But the whole state of man is a state of culture; and its flowering and completion may be described as Religion, or Worship. There is always some religion, some hope and fear extended into the invisible,--from the blind boding which nails a horseshoe to the mast or the threshold, up to the song of the Elders in the Apocalypse. But the religion cannot rise above the state of the votary. Heaven always bears some proportion to earth. The god of the cannibals will be a cannibal, of the crusaders a crusader, and of the merchants a merchant. In all ages, souls out of time, extraordinary, prophetic, are born, who are rather related to the system of the world, than to their particular age and locality. These announce absolute truths, which, with whatever reverence received, are speedily dragged down into a savage interpretation. The interior tribes of our Indians, and some of the Pacific islanders, flog their gods, when things take an unfavorable turn. The Greek poets did not hesitate to let loose their petulant wit on their deities also. Laomedon, in his anger at Neptune and Apollo, who had built Troy for him, and demanded their price, does not hesitate to menace them that he will cut their ears off.[Iliad, Book xxi. l.] 455. Among our Norse forefathers, King Olaf's mode of converting Eyvind to Christianity was to put a pan of glowing coals on his belly, which burst asunder. "Wilt thou now, Eyvind, believe in Christ?" asks Olaf, in excellent faith. Another argument was an adder put into the mouth of the reluctant disciple Rand, who refused to believe.
Sermon
For better or worse the elections are over - and I think regardless of whether your candidates won or lost that we can all say, “thank goodness.” But the analysis of the elections has now begun, and I suspect that will go on for at least four years. A large part of that analysis has to do with questions about morality and how those who identified themselves as concerned about “moral” questions voted. I think most of what I’ve heard is nonsense. With just a few exceptions the commentary in the press reflects a shallowness and a lack of understanding of what words like morality mean. There’s also been a lot of talk about religion and how those who attend church more often tend to vote a particular way. Again, I think most of what’s been said is shallow at best. But all of the talk - along with a visit to a Vietnamese restaurant last week - got me to thinking about an aspect of religion in the public square that isn’t being discussed directly. It got me to thinking about the images of God that are most commonly seen in our public square.
I used to think the most important question about God was whether God existed. I felt that way for most of my life. That changed about ten years ago when I began to spend a lot of time thinking about images of God instead of whether God exists. I soon came to the conclusion that one’s image of God was more important than one’s belief or disbelief about such matters. I learned to savor the irony that - in general - the image of God held by fundamentalist believers is identical to the image of God held by atheists. Regardless of belief, regardless of the rhetoric that is tossed around, I believe it is the image of God that dominates and seems - to me - to have the greatest influence. So I ask this question: If we ignore the rhetorical posturing that goes on in the public square today, what images of God dominate and what do they tell us about ourselves and our society at large?
Let me begin with my visit to a Vietnamese restaurant. You may be wondering what that has to do with images of God. But that was the experience that pushed me over the edge to writing this sermon. After finishing our meal the waitress brought our ticket and fortune cookies. I opened mine and discovered - to my surprise - a bit of theology. It said, “Prosperity is our God given right.”
It wasn’t what I expected. I’ve seen a little bit of everything in fortune cookies, but I don’t recall ever seeing something as overtly theological. “Prosperity is our God given right.” It’s not an unusual message. It’s the standard message of most of the televangelists I hear. I just didn’t expect to see it in a fortune cookie. But seeing it made me realize just how much an image of God as someone who wants us to be rich has permeated our society - so thoroughly that it even appears in fortune cookies. The implication, of course, is that this is a God who can’t say no. I want a new car - a red one - and God wants me to have it. This is God as the parent who can’t say no to whatever his or her children want. It’s the sort of parent who believes his child is entitled to have whatever he or she wants, from the newest toy to the newest car.
Have you heard the stories about parents turning in applications to exclusive pre-schools when their children are born? It’s important, because their kids are entitled to the best and if they don’t get in the right pre-school it means their lives will be ruined. And do you remember the mother who thought her daughter had the right to be on the cheerleader squad? She tried to hire her ex-brother-in-law to murder a competing girl’s mother, thinking the girl would be so distraught she would drop out, clearing the way for her daughter to get what was her God given right. And, of course, as a last homage to the elections, one must mention the prevailing notion that some people have the God given right to have their candidate elected to public office.
All of these examples tell us a great deal about what passes for our sense of the ultimate, for our sense of God, these days. It says our image of ultimate value is that no one can tell us no. But it’s not just cheerleader moms and supporters of the religious right. A couple of months ago I read a critique of liberals - written by a liberal - that I found fascinating. This person said liberals had a tendency to want to identify a group of people as victims and do something for them - usually symbolic - so that the victims can tell the liberals how wonderful they are. Then the liberals can go home and feel good about themselves. This suggests to me an image of God, an image of ultimate values, that is a reflection of someone who is self-centered, selfish and narcissistic. It is an image of God that is all too familiar in our society. No one may be willing to say they believe in such a God, but as I said, that isn’t important. What’s important is that the image exists and that it is so prevalent. That’s what Emerson meant when he said “The god of the cannibals will be a cannibal, of the crusaders a crusader, and of the merchants a merchant.” No matter how hard we try the prevailing image of God will always bear a remarkable resemblance to the larger culture of which we are a part. And that’s why I included the reading about King Manasseh this morning.
Several books of the Hebrew Bible - among them first and second Kings - are devoted to an historical listing of all the kings of Israel and Judah, the two kingdoms of the Hebrews that resulted from the division of the united Kingdom after the death of Solomon. The listings also contain a critique of each of the Kings. Most of them get poor reviews. King Manasseh’s is one of the worst. He allowed the building of altars to foreign gods and other terrible deeds, including having his son walk through the fire. That last part, the statement that he had his son walk through the fire, is a euphemism that means he made his son a human sacrifice to one of the local gods. Not a very nice person. But I think he gets a bad rap, because in truth, what he was doing and promoting was undoubtedly a reflection of what was going on in the society as a whole. Think about it: What would a society be like if it had an image of God as requiring children to be killed as human sacrifices? The god of the cannibals will always be a cannibal.
But why was this list of the kings and criticism about them preserved? I think it shows that not all of the people in that society shared the same image of God. There were other images of God - the most prevalent alternative being that of the prophets who understood God as symbolizing justice. But both images are passed down to us today and people continue the conflict. Which is why I received a fortune cookie telling me that “Prosperity is our God given right.” Unfortunately, the image of God that we hear must often in the public square today is that which seems to me to be a reflection of people at their self-centered worst. But that’s not always the case. Think back to the civil rights movement. It was a time when there was also a lot of talk about religion in the public square. But instead of demands for our God given right to prosperity we heard people speaking about God as that which represented justice. That’s what Martin Luther King, Jr., was talking about in 1967 when he said,
Difficult and painful as it is, we must walk on in the days ahead with an audacious faith in the future. When our days become dreary with low-hovering clouds of despair, and when our nights become darker than a thousand midnights, let us remember that there is a creative force in this universe, working to pull down the gigantic mountains of evil, a power that is able to make a way out of no way and transform dark yesterdays into bright tomorrows. Let us realize the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." (“Where Do We Go From Here? - 1967)
This is not an image of a God that panders to our every want and need. It is not an image of God that reflects our basest instincts. It is an image of God that calls for the universe itself - which must necessarily include us, as much as we may wish to escape it - that the universe itself shall be bent towards justice.
And what a different conception of morality. The prevailing morality of a society, of any society - that much talked about topic - is, I believe, secondary to society’s prevailing image of God. Not only is the god of the cannibals a cannibal, the morality of the cannibals will always be cannibalistic, self-devouring and self-destroying. But when God becomes - as Dr. King imagined it - the creative force that bends the arc of the universe towards justice, then the morality of such a society can no longer be used to reinforce and justify greed. It can no longer be used to reinforce and justify homophobia. It can no longer be used to reinforce and justify partisan political activities. In such a society, morality becomes the servant of justice, not the justification for one’s personal prejudices.
In such a society morality becomes a function of leadership instead of the basis for manipulation and motivation. Morality becomes that which leads us to calmness in the face of crisis, challenges us when we seem unable to change, gives us focus in the face of bewilderment and the courage to change as circumstances demand. In such a society morality is no longer the self-devouring principles, but the principle that calls for us to turn aside from the easy path, the comfortable way, and instead leads us to the arduous task of bending the universe towards justice.
Emerson said,
In all ages, souls out of time, extraordinary, prophetic, are born, who are rather related to the system of the world, than to their particular age and locality. These announce absolute truths, which, with whatever reverence received, are speedily dragged down into a savage interpretation.
I think people drag down such souls because we want a comfortable life. Too often people want an image of God - even if they don’t believe God exists - that will make life easy. They want an image of God that will grant a paradise without requiring any work on their part, without requiring any change. This is an image of God - whatever its particulars - that is internal and private. But the image of God suggested by people such as Dr. King is external and public. It is an image that turns us away from what we want, that turns us away from God as the servant of humanity and says that it is people who are called to serve God, it is people who are called to serve something larger than our private, personal ends.
Is it possible to construct an image of God, to construct a sense of ultimate purpose, of ultimate value that is larger than the self? I think that is the question we confront as a society today. Yes, the god of the cannibals will always be a cannibal - but the people need not always be cannibals. As a people, as a nation, we have the ability to decide what kind of image of God we will have. We can choose - as some will - to have an image of God as vengeful and hateful, as justifying the smallness within ourselves. Or we can choose to have an image of God that challenges us, that imagines we are called to do the work of bending the arc of the universe towards justice. Imagine the difference it would make. Imagine a world in which you turned on your television set and instead of hearing about demonstrators from Westboro Baptist Church proclaiming an angry God who hates anyone who disagrees with them that you heard more stories about people building houses for old friends because their image of God told them that was the right thing to do. Imagine a world in which instead of fortune cookies proclaiming our God given right to prosperity we found messages that told us of the divine obligation to do justice and to work for a world in which justice flows down like water and righteousness like an ever flowing stream.
What is your image of God? What is the image of God that should prevail in our society? Some people will always choose the former, because the god of the cannibals will always be a cannibal. But others will choose the latter, because the god of the just will always be a god of justice.
Amen.