Watch out what you're oversanctifying

I suppose most of us are distressed when we encounter people who behave as if nothing, really, is sacred, that nothing whatsoever deserves our awe and respect. Or is it that we are distressed because people don't agree with us over what is sacred?

They dance, they drink, they don't support war in Iraq.

To believe in the sacred is to admit that one's behaviour ought to be shaped by a power that transcends us in being and understanding. It is to testify that some things ought not to be done (and other things ought to be done) in deference to the divine.

Belief is demanding that way. Thus, there is always a temptation for the Church to go quiet on the sacred — maybe because we know our own life is not adequately responsive to the shaping power of the divine, and we don't want to get into controversies about that.

Yet a Church that consistently fails to testify to what it believes to be sacred, and to resist what it feels to be sacrilegious, takes a grave risk. If the Church repeatedly declines such controversy, it risks the confidence (the "shared faith") of the people.

The Church is where the Spirit preserves and restores humanity and all creation. This is worth standing up for.

The problem for a flawed humanity in a fallen creation is that no side is sacred — I mean really sacred, unequivocally deserving our awe and respect. When we treat ours as if it is, that's when things go really badly.

I'm in Greece right now, and an acquaintance here introduced me to the term, "oversanctification". He spoke of the Orthodox Church's attempts to avoid "oversanctifying" societal issues. For example, in a recent interview, a journalist asked an Orthodox bishop to define the church's "position" on homosexuality, contraception, extramarital sex — you know the list.

The bishop declined, pointing out that the church contained a great variety of opinion and custom on such matters, and asked something like the following: What with ecological collapse, mass starvation, terrorism, and so on, isn't it rather strange to think that the preservation and restoration of humanity and all creation could depend on the church siding for or against any of the items on that list?

As my acquaintance pointed out, by refusing to "oversanctify" everyday concerns, the Church has been able to remain a deep, energising spiritual influence on the whole society. This is not to say that Greece is a country with no ethical challenges in the area of sexuality. There are certainly people taking immoral liberties, and others suffering inhuman repression.
Sometimes, the Church must take sides if it is to be the place where humanity is preserved and restored. But this wariness of oversanctification seems to me like a wise and respectful attitude. It can help keep relations between the pious and the prodigals from degenerating into miserable resentment or barren indifference.

I know life is good in Australia, and we don't really have problems like Greece has, but even Australians might benefit from that.

Of course, we all want God on our side, and we all want to be on God's good side. Yet, if believing in God means admitting that one's life ought to be shaped by the sacred, then it also means appreciating our profanity a little. We are creatures, after all, not beside God, but below God.

The good news in this is, God is not bound by our choices. Whether the side we take turns out bad or good, God's power dwells in all creation, the Spirit is everywhere.

In this sense — such an important sense! — God is on everyone's side, no matter what side they're on. Therefore, when times come for choosing, we must always recall that we as the Church defer to the Spirit: the source of sacredness, which alone cannot be oversanctified.

Andrew Irvine is Assistant Professor and Associate Director of Comparative Religion and Culture for Long Island University Friends World Program, www.southampton.liu.edu/fw/crc.