Sunday, April 29, 2012

“H.D. and the Lifted Being of God: In Our Time”

The Fourth Sunday of Easter
29 April 2012
The Reverend Jonathan A. Voorhees
St. Joseph’s Chapel
Kent School
Women at Kent Weekend

There are many things we celebrate on this beautiful spring morning.  This is the fourth Sunday of Easter as we continue to celebrate new life and resurrection.  Today is called Good Shepherd Sunday in the church calendar with readings from the 23rd psalm and the gospel of John.  Here at Kent School, we also celebrate the lives, and witness, of Kent alumnae—the women of Kent--who have enriched this institution over the last 50 years.  I would like to especially welcome our female graduates who are here in St. Joseph’s Chapel this morning.  This morning is also a moment to celebrate our current female students as we recognize the experience of women who have come through this school before you.  Today we wake up the echoes of the girl’s campus, and St. Mark’s Chapel, here in St. Joseph’s. 
My sermon this morning will be in honor of our female graduates, as I focus on the life of an extraordinary woman poet from the twentieth century: Hilda Doolittle, who wrote under the name of just her initials, H.D.  In her epic masterpiece of a poem called Trilogy, H.D. explores the major Mary figures associated with Jesus: Mary, his mother, Mary Magdalene, his follower and disciple, and also the often forgotten Mary of Bethany who is the person who anoints Jesus before his death in John’s gospel.  The fact that most people have never heard of H.D., or know very much about the three Marys of Christian womanhood, is truly amazing.  This Women at Kent weekend is the perfect time to do some spiritual and literary education this morning, and I hope you will enjoy my approach—part lecture, part sermon--on Good Shepherd Sunday.  At any rate, I won’t go on for too long.  I’ll have you on your way.          
H.D’s major work called Trilogy presents the female poet as a seer in culture and history.  The narrative poem is a proposition for the poet to be a partner in God’s redemption, the new thing that is happening.  The poem is utterly unconventional among modernist works, or poetry from any period.  The more apt comparison is with the mystics who seem to be above time: St. Teresa of Avila, St. John of the Cross, and Dame Julian of Norwich.  Though an American from Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, H.D. wrote in London while Hitler bombed the city daily, and nightly, during the blitz.  H.D. wrote Trilogy, three narrative poems, in a war zone, and the three poems are “The Walls Do Not Fall,” “A Tribute to the Angels,” and “The Flowering of the Rod.”  The last poem is about the flowering of the cross, the rod, or the rood, like in the old English poem The Dream of the Rood.  In H.D.’s vision of the sacred, she experiences the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ in the modern scenes of warfare.
On a personal level, I should note that H.D.’s work affected me as dramatically as any work of art ever has in my lifetime.  I experienced my calling to the priesthood while reading Trilogy for the first time at the age of twenty-one.  It was like opening a magical book of ancient runes.   
There are sacred stories and visions in our time as well as in ancient times, I learned from H.D.  From her birth in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, Hilda Doolittle was fascinated by the idea that each of us has a sacred birth and sacred life to live.  She was a patient of Dr. Sigmund Freud who encouraged her poetic genius at a time when she lacked confidence; he also remarked that he found her to be simply enchanting as a woman.  Trilogy begins during a time of war, when the cross was twisted by Nazism.  Her poem is directly intended to straighten out human values—to straighten out the swastika.  She writes: “The Christos-image/ is most difficult to disentangle.”  The “incidents” of the bombing of London, as the British press called them, provide the context for a new sacred witness.  From H.D.’s opening words:“An incident here and there,/ and rails gone (for guns)/ from your (and my) old time square.”  The destroyed neighborhoods are the setting for H.D. to search for God in a world at war.  The poet stands in her own time, but also goes back to the moments of ancient witness to God, the moments of revelation.  She writes: “there as here, ruin opens/…the tomb, the temple; enter,/ there as here, there are no doors.”
H.D. is entering the sacred temple on one level of her composition.  Back in London, she is literally walking through the damaged churches of her adopted city: “the shrine lies open to the sky,” she writes.  War, paradoxically, produces intimacy with the sacred; or perhaps it is just that we need God the most during wartime.  World War II is the new crucifixion.  The beginning motif of destroyed churches and the broken human body convey that the human spirit has been shaken from its moorings.  But the churches, and humanity, haven’t lost God.  God just needs to be sought, and found, by the seer, the new prophet.  The Spirit of God is loose in the world, and the female poet responds to the Word of God like the first prophet of old.  H.D. writes: “unaware, Spirit announces the Presence;/ shivering overtakes us,/ as of old, Samuel.”  H.D. had many religious dreams and visions in London, including a vision of her own death.  In “The Walls Do Not Fall,” H.D. experiences a sanctuary of the human soul that God protects, even when human beings are doing their worst to the human body: a sacred center that can hold the individual psyche, as well as human civilization, together.  The terrifying war triggers a search for wholeness in a female writer.  In the first two poems of Trilogy, H.D. gives thanks to God for her and our spiritual survival during wartime.  She writes: “…we pause to give/ thanks that we rise again from death and live.”
The implications of her vision are far-reaching in “The Flowering of the Rod,” the final poem, especially with H.D.’s emphasis on the Mary characters of Scripture: the Virgin Mary, Mary Magdalene, and Mary of Bethany.  The last poem remembers the feminine principle in God’s redemption, both ancient and modern, through the trinity of Marys that H.D. explores poetically.  Some background on these Marys we think we know.  As Mary gave birth to Jesus’s life, Mary Magdalene was the mid-wife of his death: the one who anointed Jesus before his crucifixion.  However, this would be following solely Luke’s Gospel, and only by a logical leap: “And behold, a woman of the city, who was a sinner, when she learned that he was at table in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster flask of ointment, and standing behind him at his feet, weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears, and wiped them with the hair of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment.”  The woman is unnamed in Luke, but Mary Magdalene is introduced at the beginning of Luke’s very next chapter: as a woman of means, a wealthy woman and patron, not as a prostitute.  In no biblical tradition is she described as a prostitute. 
The proximity of the woman who is a sinner (still not necessarily a prostitute) to Mary Magdalene in the text of Luke provides the connection; they must be the same woman.  Mary Magdalene, the woman who is a sinner, is then the one anointing Jesus so intimately.  This connection was first made official by Pope Gregory in the sixth century, six hundred years after the fact; there is no proof for it.  But, lost in the sound and fury of Mary Magdalene’s alleged status as the woman who is a sinner, is the fact that Matthew, Mark, and John all agree that Jesus was anointed by Mary before his death.  But she was not Mary Magdalene.  It was more likely Mary of Bethany because the anointings all take place at Bethany.  Only John’s woman is explicitly Mary of Bethany in his anointing at Bethany.  A logical assumption would then be that Luke’s unnamed woman is also Mary of Bethany because it follows the same structure of the anointing scenes of the other three gospels; it just doesn’t locate it specifically at Bethany.  Despite the overwhelming agreement of three gospels, and the anonymity of Luke’s woman, the anointing tradition is most often associated with Mary Magdalene.  The tradition of anointing the human body was not embraced by the early church, and there is a great deal of mystery surrounding Mary Magdalene as a result.  Bruce Chilton, a Religion professor at Bard College and also an Episcopal priest, attempts to rectify the repression of this remarkable woman in his biography of Mary Magdalene.
“Mary and her nameless colleague in chapter 7 of Luke’s Gospel both show what other ancient documents demonstrate: Women in Jewish antiquity, particularly within the folk wisdom practiced in Galilee, exercised a prominent role as anointers.  Their domain extended far beyond the conventional household, and there is evidence that significant groups of practitioners looked to these women to guide them in their quest to leave this world behind them and experience the divine world.”
Mary Magdalene’s suppression as an early leader in the church, which she was, as well as the first apostle—the first witness to resurrection in the gospels, which she was, is likely the result of the early church’s discomfort with physical anointing, especially its physical component.  There is an unhidden element of eros in all four gospel traditions with the woman anointing Jesus with oil from the alabaster jar.  For his part, Jesus is not embarrassed by it; he is instead deeply moved by the woman’s love and tender devotion.  But the male witnesses are quite alarmed.  In all but one case, they are too disturbed to even name the woman directly.  The evangelists share the taboo panic with the witnesses; or rather they project it on to them.  The scenes with the anointing woman show that the evangelists and the early church were uncomfortable with powerful women anointing others as a spiritual practice of the church, yet it was too important for them to fully cover it up.  So it’s there, but confusing.  Jesus also approved of it; all the gospels agree on that point, however reluctantly.  Despite this institutional discomfort, the church has retained the remnant of the anointing tradition in four of its seven sacraments: Baptism (with the chrism, the oil anointing the forehead), Confirmation, Holy Orders, and Last Rites, with laying on of hands; as the bishop did to our five confirmands this past Thursday, along with our student who was baptized.  The hidden history is actually in front of our eyes, hiding in plain sight, in the sacraments of the church.  What a strange way for an institution to continue its past while repressing the mystical female tradition of Judaism and the early church, and completely forgetting its first priestly practitioners.  H.D. remembers all of the Marys for who they really were.    
The last poem of Trilogy is “The Flowering of the Rod,” the poem which celebrates the ecstasy of the cross in the full joy of resurrection.  The rod is both the cross and the writing implement of the poet.  The recovered writing implement, the rod and the rood, the stylus and the sacred tree, celebrates the full creativity of the masculine and the feminine now united, finally, in humankind and in the divine.  Their balance has been restored in nature.  The flowering of the rood and the rod is thus the full circle of resurrection.  As much as any poet in the English language, H.D. writes about Easter.  She is fully in touch with resurrection joy, with the resurrection ecstasy that came first to Mary Magdalene of all people.  What does it say about human culture that it is far easier for us to imagine crucifixion than resurrection?  What does it say that we have forgotten, and then misrepresented, the first person, a woman, who experienced the Easter miracle?   In her own day, H.D. not only imagines resurrection, she presents the real experience of Easter.  H.D. encounters the Risen Jesus in her broken modern world. 
            In resurrection, there is confusion
            if we start to argue; if we stand and stare,

            we do not know where to go;
            in resurrection, there is simple affirmation,

            but do not delay to round up the others,
            up and down the street your going

            in a moment like this, is the best proof
            that you know the way;

            does the first wild-goose care
            whether the others follow or not?

            I don’t think so--he is is happy to be off—
            he knows where he is going…”

“do not think of His face
or even of His hands;
do not think how we will stand
before Him;”
           
“Now having given all, let us leave all;
above all, let us leave pity
and mount higher
to love—resurrection.”

            Thanks so much for your attention this morning.  Welcome back to Kent, ladies.  At the heart of H.D.’s religious witness and modern experience of revelation is the heart of the Christian faith: the central understanding of Good Shepherd Sunday is that God is with us.  God is still with us, just as in olden times, and we are in God’s image, as male and female.  God loves each of you in a way that surpasses all human understanding.  And God will be with us to the end of the ages: all will be well.  May God bless our female graduates and students, and all of us at Kent School on this Good Shepherd Sunday.  

Friday, April 6, 2012

“The Open Door of Suffering”

6 April 2012
Good Friday
St. Joseph’s Chapel
Kent School

For some of you, dropping everything on this Friday to come to chapel, in the middle of the day, is a new experience.  Weird.  What’s going on?  What’s this all about?  The foot washing last night was strange enough (ending in darkness), but now, this day called Good Friday.  For others, those who have a history with this day, there is more experience—some spiritual muscle memory, and understanding of this day.  For me, images of the crucifixion go very far back into my memories of childhood, with three hour services on Good Friday, like the death itself.  Jesus died after just three hours on the cross, all of the gospel writers report.  We won’t go that long today.      
For everyone, both new and veteran, the question inevitably is posed by someone who is paying attention: Why is this day called “good”?  Isn’t it actually terribly depressing?  This is torture, a painful and humiliating death for the Son of God.  And yet the cross is the foundation of the Christian faith.  Last weekend, this very question was asked in my Confirmation class.  “Why do we call it Good Friday?”  The question was put to our recent guest from Cambridge, the Reverend Canon Brian Watchorn, who responded: “Because of the good that came out of this day.”
This day is good because people have done some theology, some attempt to explain what the death of Jesus accomplished.  And the Church grew wildly, by embracing the cross, not running from it.  But at the heart of the day is the execution of Jesus of Nazareth—an innocent man suffering for all humanity.  And, as our guest Father Watchorn said on Palm Sunday, “Crucifixion is not a pretty business.”  That is British understatement for you.  It was a horrible way to die, with suffocation of the human body after days on the cross for some. 
There are many different theological and academic explanations for what is happening on the cross on Good Friday; what the death of Jesus accomplishes for us and for the world—the good that came out of it.  Jesus is the great sacrifice within the sacrificial system of his own Jewish religion.  Like the perfect, or sinless, lamb led to slaughter, Jesus is often thought to be the culmination of the old system of atonement through sacrifice: a great and lasting climax of religious understanding which begins a new covenant, reconciling humanity and divinity through the body and blood of Christ.  But does God really demand the death of animals, or especially an innocent human being, to forgive humanity?  A deeper theology of the cross can still be sought, but we will need to go further into the mystery of suffering in order to find it.  Yes, I am saying that there can be more than one theology, more than one way to explain the goodness of Jesus bringing God into the mystery of human suffering, and the reality of human suffering into the heart of God.  
     The last two verses of the Gospel of John—two very fascinating verses—point to this; they acknowledge the limitless legacy of Jesus with a reference to the literary productivity resulting from the life and death of Jesus:
     “This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true.  But there are also many things that Jesus did; if every one of them were written down, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.”

     We are still talking about the cross—that’s the amazing thing--two thousand years later; we are still approaching it with awe, dread, and wonder.  For all of the theories about the cross, this day is not intellectual at all, not really.  Good Friday moves us into the blind side of the human heart where there aren’t easy answers or convenient theologies.  And there shouldn’t be.    
To be comfortable with the cross is to no longer see it.  We’re not supposed to be comfortable or intellectually confident today.  We’re supposed to live by faith, as Jesus did.       
     At our safe and reasonable distance of two thousand years, we forget the enormous taboo of the cross within the early Church.  Why should Christians even wear crosses?  So strange.  It’s a symbol of violence, of state terror, absolute power over human life.  Dr. Greene actually sighted chocolate crosses at Wal-Mart this week.  Only in America.  The crucifixion was never portrayed in art by the early Church.  It was too raw, too painful.  It took five hundred years for images of the cross to reach the canvas of Western artists; to come to grips with the portrait of suffering.  This portrait of suffering collects the pieces of our broken world, the bloodshed and violence, especially of the innocent, in our fallen world.
There is a short poem from G.K. Chesterton, the British writer and unabashed Christian, that takes us faithfully towards the cross.  How can God redeem the death of Jesus?  How can God redeem the tragedies of our world?  This poem has been a guide for me this week, with its British understatement.  From Chesterton: 
     “Good news; but if you ask me
     What it is, I know not.
It is a track of feet in the snow.
It is a lantern showing a path.
It is a door set open.”


Good Friday is about suffering and pain and faith all mixed together.  It is a door set open. 
One of the major truths I have come to understand, somewhat late in my life, is that the avoidance of pain is one of the ways that we increase human suffering.  The avoidance of pain creates more pain.  This seems illogical, or counter intuitive, but I have found it to be almost axiomatic, in ways both large and small.  The avoidance of work makes it more difficult to do the work at all.  Skipping a class can make it even harder to go the next time.  Or avoiding questions about your health can lead to greater problems later on.  Seeking to escape stress can create more stress.  It can lead to addiction and tragedy.  And then there is the experience of Kent karma.  If you have a problem with someone, they will be the very next person you see.  Count on it.  This past week I was having a miserable time until I had to admit to myself I was getting sick.  Then things got better. 
The avoidance of pain creates more pain. 
So, today we put the cross of Jesus in the center of the school day.  We choose not to avoid pain, but to embrace it on Good Friday.    
My current class Buddhism and Western Literature has been studying the life of the first Buddha, Siddartha Gautama.  Like Jesus, he was the great spiritual thinker of his age.  But he was also being groomed to be a great ruler of a kingdom, and his father didn’t want him to experience anything that would make him depart from his path of privilege and power.  But Siddartha was curious—perhaps he felt like he was even being told a lie by those hiding pain and suffering from him, one that human culture often perpetuates.  It was a shock for me when I first discovered that my life would not be one success after another.  So Siddartha begins to leave the palace, all on his own.  On four occasions, he witnesses the four passing visions.  He sees an old man, a sick man, a corpse, and, on the last visit to what is now the real world to him, he sees a monk—a figure who has found balance, even serenity in the face of suffering.  Aging, illness, death are the nature of reality.  Siddartha then begins a spiritual journey; he goes forth from his palace to seek the ultimate reality.  He no longer avoids the normalcy of suffering, or the dignity that can be found by those who enter it openly, freely.       
Our culture runs from aging, illness, and mortality.  We want to hide in the palace of eternal youth.  We don’t want to see our elders, let alone hear their wisdom, or see their courage (or even joy and curiosity) when facing mortality.    
The avoidance of pain creates more pain.  On this day, this one day in the calendar, we don’t run.  We stand fast, in faith.  We stay with a suffering and dying Jesus—as young man, dying man, and corpse, the holy one of God who suffered with all of us on his heart.  On Good Friday.    
“Good news; but if you ask me
     What it is, I know not.
It is a track of feet in the snow.
It is a lantern showing a path.
It is a door set open.”