January 29, 2023
Micah 6:1-8; Matthew 5:1-12
[W]hat does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?
This is a familiar phrase, one from our prayerbook. One that often opens our service. And it is an important phrase, a keystone of ethical teachings. Do justice, love kindness, walk humbly. What would be the alternative? Micah suggests it would have been offering the right sacrifices at the altar of God. Burnt offerings, thousands of rams, streams of oil. But God does not want any of that. Honestly, what would God do with any of that?
Some of you may have also noticed that the text this morning differs slightly from that in our prayerbook. That particular sentence comes from the King James Version of the Bible. “What doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?”It is different. Perhaps not unrecognizable, but different enough. What changed? For one, the old English endings were changed. “doth” becomes “does.” In case you were wondering, I doest, she or he doth.
We also lose “thee” and “thy.” There are several reasons for that shift, but one was quite interesting. After a certain point in time, if you referred to someone by the term “thou” it could lead to a punch in the face. You see, as the pronouns of English began to change, the term “thou” became used by someone of a higher class speaking to someone of a lower class, perhaps a servant. And yes, that means that English pronouns have been changing for many, many years. But that is a sermon for another time.
This formal pattern of speech using “thee” and “thou” endured among the Quakers, who strove to use Biblical language. The Quakers also thought that use of the singular “you” pronoun was improper and instead chose to maintain using “thou” for everyone, one imagines as a point of humility and egalitarianism. George Fox, a Quaker leader, wrote a whole book in defense of “thou.” It is also suggested by Fox that some non-Quakers who were targeted by such humble and egalitarian language were affronted by being “thou-ed” when they ought to have been “you-ed.”
Today we are continuing our consideration of the cultural influences on Christianity through the centuries. And today we cover one such culture that I am sure is near and dear to some of your hearts: English culture. England has had a lot of influence around the world, some good and some less good. I thought about the various influences of such an outsized culture. And I decided to look at one of the most dominate characteristics of English culture, the language itself.
About 1.5 billion people speak English, both native and non-native speakers. English is a dominant language in academia, science, medicine, and business. World-wide, air traffic controllers are required to speak English because it was decided to have one common language in the skies back in the 1950s. For these and other reasons, English has become the most common second language spoken in the world. That’s also the effect of colonialism, but I am also saving that topic for another day.
One of the high points of English culture is the King James Version of the Bible, also known as the Authorized Version. It is a cultural touchstone, but it is also a critical watershed for the English language. Why? Because you essentially had an official version of the language. You had an authoritative measure to compare language against, with the King’s name on top. Not every English word is in the Bible, of course, but as the most commonly read and published book in English, it would be a stabilizing influence for what was considered proper language.
Which is helpful because English is in many ways unusual. It is a motley assembly of words gleaned from many languages. By some accounts, only a third of Modern English is derived from its Anglo-Saxon roots. Another third or more come from French, Greek, and Latin. It has historically been a cosmopolitan language, willing to take from all corners of the world.
But not everyone was happy with this linguistic state of events. For example, some 16th century English writers had become frustrated that scholars were simply importing fancy European terms to replace plain old English. But they were not only upset with recent borrowings. They wanted to scrub away centuries of old additions from the time when England was conquered by the William the Conqueror and his Norman armies in 1066. These critics were proponents of what has become known as “Anglish,” a more Anglo-Saxon rich version of English.
One of these concerned “Anglishmen” was Sir John Cheke who took a stab at rewriting the Gospel of Matthew to conform with his notion of what true English should look and sound like. Handily for me, that includes today’s reading, the Beatitudes. Here are a few lines:
Happi be ye [the] beggars in spirit for ye [the] kingdom of heevan is theers;
Happi be ye [the] moorners, for ye [they] schal be conforted;
Happi be ye [the] meek, for ye [they] schal enherit ye [the] earth.
Happi be ye [the] hungry and thirsti of rightuousnes for ye [they] schal be filled.
Happi be ye [the] pitiful for ye [they] schal be pitied.
Happi be ye [the] cleen in hart for ye [they] schal see god.
Happi be ye [the] peesmakers for ye [they] schal be called godds childern.
The sounds of the words as spoken do not convey the complexity of the spellings. The word spelled “Y-E” covers a lot of territory, though it is never pronounced “yee” but as “the” or even “they.” Why? Because English did not retain the letter “thorn” [þ] in is alphabet which makes the “th” sound. For ease of substitution, printers used a “y” but it was never intended to be pronounced that way.
Colorful spelling aside, would this Anglish version have represented a major change? Like our move from King James this morning, it might have been just a slight shift in terms and still have been fairly comprehensible. But consider the words in the Bible you would also have to lose along the way. The word “prophet” has to go, it’s Greek, and it would be replaced by “foresayer.” “Lunatic” is no good, Latin you see, and it would become “mooned” meaning struck by the moon (not anything else). And “crucified” would need to go, being Latin, and would be exchanged for “crossed.” Again, over a third of the English language has Latin, Greek, or French roots. So, this would require a lot of cutting and pasting.
But even modern writers have complained about the bastardization of English. Just be warned that you also have to lose “bastardization.” That’s French.
George Orwell in particular was concerned about the importing of European philosophy and political jargon into the language. He wrote in an essay, “Politics and the English Language,” from 1946:
“Most people who bother with the matter at all would admit that the English language is in a bad way, but it is generally assumed that we cannot by conscious action do anything about it. Our civilization is decadent and our language – so the argument runs – must inevitably share in the general collapse. It follows that any struggle against the abuse of language is a sentimental archaism, like preferring candles to electric light or hansom cabs to aeroplanes.”
Orwell thought this was a problem of lazy writing, with unimaginative people copying words that they heard rather than even considering an English equivalent. You then get new words like proletariat or bourgeoisie. And this was a problem of becoming too abstract, adding in words that were political or philosophical conceits rather than descriptive or instructive terms.
Plus, you can hide behind such words. “Oh Mary, you are so bourgeoisie.” Mary, who might have no idea what the word means could be as much puzzled as insulted. And this is not simply insulting. One person is using a stilted vocabulary to try to stand above the other person. See, I am so smart I use words like this and you have no idea what I am saying.
Orwell was also concerned that this language could be used to gloss over political justifications for terrible things, making lies sound truthful, murder respectable, and giving “an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” If you are familiar with his work “1984” you can imagine how far he thought a totalitarian government could take this.
What did George Orwell want to change? He was looking for a few key adjustments in what he saw as sloppy writing and sloppy English. For example, he wanted to discontinue the use of trite and tired words, idioms, and metaphors. No just the old fashioned, but obscure terms like “toe the line” which is confusing if you do not realize it is a racing term telling you to get in place. Orwell suggested instead that writers and speakers use concrete images rather than obscure abstractions. In his own words, he suggested: “What is above all needed is to let the meaning choose the word, and not the other way about.”
Let the meaning choose the word.
Put another way, what are you trying to say? What do you want some person or audience to know from what you wrote or said? Are you trying to say “bourgeoisie,” or is that the only thing you could think of in the moment? Do you really mean someone who is middle class, but then again what does that mean? Did you actually mean someone who is small minded, someone with a certain set of views or opinions, someone who is pretentious? Why hide behind a precious sounding term?
I have some sympathy for what Orwell is trying to say, though I think he was fighting a losing battle in 1946. In 2023, that ship has not only sailed, but it has also sunk. This lack of clarity is a problem for the English language and it is a problem for religion. Why religion?
When dear old King James was having the Bible translated into English, he did so with the guiding purpose of smoothing over controversies. He told the translators that their work needed to support the hierarchy of the Church of England, affirm the divine rights of kings, and try to ignore any comments from the troublemaking English Puritans. He wanted them to write the Bible to fulfill his purposes and to resolve his difficulties.
As Orwell said, sometimes language can be about hiding the truth more so than making anything clear. And those objectives of King James of England in the 17th century were by no means what was intended by the actual writers of the various books of the Bible.
In our passage from Micah, the King James Version and our prayerbook ask “What doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with they God?” Lovely, edifying language, and not what was written by Micah thousands of years ago.
The more modern New Revised Standard Version puts this line slightly differently: [W]hat does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?” Kindness is not the same as mercy.
Mercy implies that something is being offered to someone who is undeserving. Someone who is guilty, someone who is a sinner. Kindness in this sentence can also be rendered as loving-kindness, a word that implies a blend of ideas but does not carry the hierarchical “Lord on high” notion of mercy. This is notably not God who is offering mercy, but you or me.
But isn’t it better to say that we should love someone, even if they are a sinner? No, it is not. It most certainly is not when that sentiment means that a readymade judgment has already been applied. Saying love the sinner, not the sin, is a downward spiral away from justice, kindness, and humility. Because where does any one of us get off declaring someone a sinner?
Yes, it is a theme in some Christian circles to call everyone a sinner. In one sense, that label makes us all equal. It is like the Quakers who were trying to bring back the use of the word “thou” as if that would level the social classes and not get you a punch in the face. This language about everyone being a sinner is an assumption about the nature of human beings. We are all sinners. We are all sinners in the eyes of an angry God.
But you see, for what it is worth, I do not believe that. I do not believe we are all sinners. In particular, I do not believe in what underlies that idea of everyone being a sinner, which is that every human being is tainted by Original Sin, the sin of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. That is a story to help us understand human nature, not to condemn all of humanity to lifelong anxiety about eternal damnation. Original Sin is also completely non-Biblical, a theological idea invented by Augustine. And for some reason Christian leaders decided this idea was just swell in the 4th century, likely because they also considered themselves to be the gatekeepers of heaven.
Well, I do not think Original Sin is swell. I think it is lazy theology. I think it has more to do with Augustine’s psychological issues than the nature of humanity. And I think it is a blasphemy against God. It implies that God has had it out for us since the beginning, that we are fundamentally and almost irredeemably corrupt.
Original Sin leads to the idea that Jesus died on the cross to save us from that repugnantly sinful nature. Again, Augustine’s self-loathing reaches a crescendo here. For three centuries, however, early Christians had no notion of Original Sin and yet Christianity somehow managed without it. And Original Sin was not adopted by wide swaths of Christians, notably the Orthodox.
And, lest we forget, Jesus never talked about it. Jesus does not talk about Adam and Eve, let alone Original Sin. You would think that would have come up. That the fundamentally corrupt nature of all humanity from the dawn of existence might have been mentioned by the man allegedly sent to die for that very reason.
Instead, Jesus taught us to love one another. Love each other, picking up on what Micah said centuries before. Do justly, meaning you need to be fair. Love kindness, meaning you need to be kind to others, not pitying them which is what mercy is all about.
In that translation of Matthew from John Cheke, he does not say “Blessed are the merciful, for they will receive mercy.” He wrote, “Happi be ye [the] pitiful for ye [the] schal be pitied.”
Pity isn’t love. Pity isn’t fairness. And pity does not imply any sense of humility. When a king does justly, loves mercy, and walks humbly with God, that is not the same as any of us common folk acting fairly, being kind, or striving to be humble in this life.
Think back to what George Orwell was trying to say. The meaning should choose the word. And what then is the Bible trying to tell us? What meaning were Micah and Jesus trying to convey? We know the Hebrew from Micah and the word was not mercy, it became mercy through the labors of the King James translators.
We know the Greek words recounting the lessons of Jesus in the Gospels. Admittedly, Jesus likely did not speak Greek—he would have spoken Aramaic. Which means someone translated what Jesus was saying from Aramaic into Greek, and then Greek into Latin, and then maybe Latin into Elizabethan English, assuming those translators got lazy and skipped a step. In other words, we have to make some educated guesses here. We have to consider what Jesus was trying to tell his followers. But we know a few things.
Not one of those followers was a king—not one. And Jesus likely had studied the Hebrew scriptures, because he quoted from them frequently. He may have read Micah and he very likely had read Isaiah. which is where Micah borrowed ideas about loving kindness in the first place. Which leads me to guess with some confidence that Jesus was talking about love and kindness, not mercy and pity. Those are ideas were leftover from what King James was trying to achieve with his translation, not with what Jesus was trying to tell his followers and us.
Love each other. Be kind to each other. Be fair to each other. And be humble about it all. Humble before God and humble with one another.
There are many purposes of language. Like with King James, language can be used to create something beautiful and it can also be used to convey a preferred message. Like George Orwell suggested, language can be used to provide clarity and truth, or it can be used to obscure or to deceive. And language can be about learning, about growing. About discovering how we are to live this one precious life we have and how we are to share that life and this world with others.
And I think it is fair to say this day, and most days, that Jesus asked us to live justly, to live kindly, and to live humbly before God and with one another. Amen.
0 Comments