'Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani ?'

‘Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani ?’
‘My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?’ (Matt. 27.46)

Tarjei Park


The scene could hardly have been more different from Calvary. It was a crystal clear autumn morning in New York City in the opening year of the twenty-first century. Millions of New Yorkers were beginning their working day. And something happened, something that was to horrify a nation. At 8.48 a.m. a Boeing 767 passenger airliner was flown into the north tower of the World Trade Centre. Fifteen minutes later America and millions more people around the world watched live news footage on their television screens of a second 767 flying directly into the south tower, it was a moment simultaneously horrifying and unbelievable. As this second plane ploughed into the tower 10,000 gallons of fuel exploded in a fireball against and within the building. Thousands would die, and the images that were seen over the following hours will never be forgotten by this generation. By the end of the day Manhattan was covered in ash. We had entered the twenty-first century as witnesses to an American tragedy which shook that nation to its core. The personal tragedies of the mourning families were shared profoundly across the USA and the world. Millions watched the scenes as they were televised and re-televised with tears in their eyes. Even in the days following it was impossible for many to look at the newspaper photographs of bodies falling from the towers without wanting to weep.

The reactions to that morning were many and various. Making sense of it was not easy. Here was violence visited on a nation whose people generally thought of themselves as being a good and upright nation among the nations of the world, and whose very banknotes expressed their trust in God. More specifically, here was violence visited upon working Americans just starting their day; here was violence visited upon Americans who happened to be making a domestic flight that morning, husbands, wives, fathers, mothers, children. For the citizens of the USA, and, indeed, for many across the world, there was something which made this ‘act of war’ rather different from others. Again and again came a motif: these victims were innocent.

Now, of course, the victims of 11 September were no more innocent that those of Dresden or Hiroshima. Large-scale civilian slaughter was not new and had been practised by most of the powerful nations in the twentieth century. The morning of 11 September was an horrific wake-up call to the reality of how hated the USA was by people who felt that they had been on the receiving end of American violence for quite some time. Yet for the USA and their friends a profound grief was expressed over the ‘innocent’ victims of 11 September. And there was innocence there, heartbreakingly it was there; young children holding the hands of parents onboard the planes as they struck the towers. There was such great love too; in all the horror men and women phoning answer-phones at home to say one last time to their partners and children, ‘I love you.’

In the days that followed there were many gestures and acts of solidarity inside and outside the USA. Places of worship were filled to overflowing as mourners lamented and prayed to God. Overwhelmingly trust in God remained. By and large, fists were not shaken at God, but at the demonised organiser of the outrage.

But why not despair of God? Why not believe that God is somehow answerable? Why not cry out ‘Why?’ to God. Did Jesus not do this on the cross, and in so doing echo the self-same cry made by millions of others across the ages? ‘My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?’

In the midst of life we are in horror. Yet in the western world it is often presumed that horror is an intrusive element into ordered community. When horrific and cruel things happen we ask why? This is particularly true when the seemingly innocent suffer or die. Grief-stricken we cry out, ‘Why?’

Jesus Christ’s cry of dereliction on the cross contains within it a painful paradox. For although it is formally a cry for explanation, it is also an affirmation of God and an anguished accusation. It is a recognition that God is still God, but also that God has forsaken the crier to a most sadistic execution. The horrifying reality is that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God who has an everlasting covenant with his chosen, has abandoned a faithful son of that covenant to a degrading, violent death. Furthermore, we must be clear as to what the cry of dereliction is not. It is not a denial of the existence of God, nor is it in itself a rejection of God. It is an affirmation and an accusation in the form of a painful cry for explanation, ‘Why?’

The cry of dereliction is an engagement with a pre-existing cry, for it is, of course, the opening cry of the psalmist in Psalm 22. Christ’s cry of dereliction from the cross has both the literal, immediate meaning in the suffering of Calvary, and a simultaneous meaning, which is the gesture to the narrative of the psalm. It thus is both particular and general – it connects with moments when human beings have cried the same cry both before, and since. Yet this connecting with the cries of others has sometimes been discouraged, as what happened to Christ on the cross was not ‘just’ suffering, Christ was bringing about the salvation of the world.

Clearly, what was happening on the cross to Jesus Christ has theological significance and ramifications beyond the moments of perceived abandonment which, however cruel and painful, happen every day to human beings. The christological narratives of atonement, redemption, and salvation by the cross do frame Christ’s agonies in such a way as to make them incomparable with the suffering of other innocents. It is not possible to equate everyday horror with what was happening on the cross. It is not theologically permissible. The suffering of Christ has salvific ramifications which other suffering does not, because Jesus on the cross was who he was. The suffering of Christ on the cross was ‘once, only once, and once for all.’ Yet the cry of dereliction from the cross, the cry for explanation from the cross, is a highly charged theological verse of scripture which has unsettled theologians over the centuries because it seems to question who Jesus was, and is. It seems to question the divine nature of Christ. If Christ is divine, how can divinity abandon him?

It is possible here, as a theological ‘shorthand’, to apply the christological hymn found in the second chapter of St Paul’s Letter to the Philippians:

‘Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus,
who, though he was in the form of God,
did not regard equality with God
as something to be exploited,
but emptied himself,
taking the form of a slave,
being born in human likeness.
And being found in human form,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to the point of death -
even death on a cross.
Therefore God also highly exalted him
and gave him the name
that is above every name,
so that at the name of Jesus
every knee should bend,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue should confess
that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.’ (Phil. 2.5-11)

Christ, although ‘in the form of God’, empties himself of divine power. The Greek word here, kenosis (emptying), has led theologians to talk of kenotic christology. That is, that those aspects that would have given Christ ‘equality with God’ are understood as having been emptied as Christ is ‘born in human likeness’. Thus the man hanging on the cross does not have some kind of divine potential waiting in reserve which he is deliberately not using. The man hanging on the cross is fully human, having emptied himself of the predicates of divinity, having at the heart of his identity an absence.

To the person suffering the cruel agonies that happen to human beings every day christological doctrine might have little relevance. Even to the person of faith the response might be, ‘Who cares about christology!? Why, God, have you let this happen? Why have you not stood by me?’ And this is ultimately what Jesus cries too from the cross, and by using the words of the psalmist, his personal cry has within it the cry as cried by others. ‘My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?’

There is no emotionally satisfactory answer to these questions when they are asked by people in despair. Talk of non-intervention as being part of the gift of free will is of little consolation, and seems to go against a good many passages from scripture. There are times when the blunt cruelty of a situation is so overwhelming that our faith in the goodness of God is tested beyond any casual theological speculation. This is movingly conveyed in David Scott’s poem ‘Dean Tait’. Archibald Tait was Dean of Carlisle, and later Archbishop of Canterbury, and in the space of one month, March 1856, five of his daughters died in an epidemic of scarlet fever.

‘Quite put aside were any thoughts
of the state of the Cathedral roof
Instead, a quiet agony, waiting
for the stethoscope’s final figure of eight,
and the click of the doctor’s bag.
He never thought there could be this routine
to death: the prayer book, the size of his palm;
his wife, half in doubt because of the fever,
hiding the sick-room drawings away;
and at their prayers each day
in a borrowed house, they tested
the Bible texts against a silent nursery.’ [1]

Where is God in all this? What responsibility does God have for it? When appalling cruelty and evil occur these are not idle questions, they are natural questions made by the faithful. The answer to these questions is not necessarily a comfortable one. And conclusions that have been reached can challenge our whole view of who God is.

Elie Wiesel recalls a hauntingly painful event that he experienced as a teenager in Auschwitz. A teacher of Talmud who had befriended Wiesel in the Nazi death camp took him one night back to his own barracks where three rabbis, ‘all erudite and pious men’, masters of Talmud, Halakhah, and Jewish jurisprudence, decided to put God on trial. They decided in ‘a rabbinic court of law to indict the Almighty’ for ‘allowing His children to be massacred’. Over several nights evidence was presented and then a unanimous verdict was reached: ‘the Lord God Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth, was found guilty of crimes against creation and humankind.’ Wiesel writes, ‘I remember: I was there, and I felt like crying. But there nobody cried.’ Then, after an ‘infinity of silence’, one of them looked at the sky and said, ‘It’s time for evening prayers’, and they all recited Maariv, the evening service. [2]

There can be no obvious response to this trial and to the prayerful reaction of those involved. The ambiguity remains powerfully, the God they prayed to had been found guilty.

Even to the devoutly faithful it is natural to ask questions relating to God’s responsibility when appallingly evil events happen. It is sometimes just not acceptable to lay the blame for moral evil on other human beings. And why not blame the Creator for physical evil? If God is a faithful God, what does this mean when there seems little evidence of it? If God abandons the faithful to horrific evil, what kind of God is God? Does it indeed make God morally useless?

Again, it offers little consolation to those who suffer such evil, but the default answer to such a question typically relates to the fact that as humans we have free will. That is, if we are truly free, we must be free to live without the ‘interference’ of God. So God in principal ‘abandons’ us to make of our lives what we will. But perhaps this is just part of the picture. Perhaps, our primary focus should not be on our sense of the absence of God, but rather that some of us may have a rather questionable sense of the presence of God, or more specifically, the intervention of God.

Now clearly within classical theism on one level it makes little sense to speak about the absence and presence of God. God by definition is present everywhere. What we can talk about is the perceived absence and presence of God, how far God is perceived to be part of a situation or event. We might want to draw a line between a formal theological requirement to assert that God is everywhere present and can never be absent, and the human perception of God’s presence and absence, and intervention. Yet such a line has not been so clear in the Judeo-Christian scriptural tradition. In the great historical narratives of the Old Testament God is understood as intervening for Israel, classically in the events of the Passover and escape from Egypt, and God’s presence is seen as specifically localised out in the wilderness with Moses and the Israelites. God is also understood to ‘hide his face’, and this understanding of hester panim, of the hiddenness of the face, reflects the experience of God not being there for us, and we shall return to this experience shortly.

Scripturally too though there developed an understanding of the omnipresence of God, that God is always there, beautifully evoked in Psalm 139:

‘Where can I go from your spirit?
Or where can I flee from your presence?
If I ascend to heaven, you are there;
if I make my bed in Sheol, you are there.
If I take the wings of the morning
and settle at the farthest limits of the sea,
even there your hand shall lead me,
and your right hand shall hold me fast.’ (Ps. 139.7-10)

Many faithful people speak readily of the presence of God in their lives, they give testimony to times and places when God has been with them and helped them – has readily intervened. Yet if God is indeed sensed as present in this interventionist way, the sense of his absence at other times is therefore most certainly guaranteed. And when the sense of an interventionist God is further influenced by personal projections, the result can be a very unhelpful misunderstanding of God.

For example, one of the distinctive shifts of emphasis or trends across the Western religious world in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries has been an increased interest in ‘spirituality’. In the Western world forms of practice which centred on experiential approaches to God or to things ‘spiritual’ have become very popular. Much of this has taken place outside traditional Church structures. Indeed, much of this interest is distinctly unstructured. ‘Spirituality’ is seen by many as an intensely individual aspect. It is, perhaps, an individualistic space in which personal identity is a defining factor. ‘Spirituality’ is about an individual’s experience of God or, very commonly, a spiritual realm, a realm that is often that individual’s ‘personal space’. The great danger in this understanding of spirituality is that the God who is perceived is done so from a self-interested perspective. The God perceived is often a God with all kinds of projected attributes that derive from a self-interested unrelated self. God is not the ‘hidden God’, but a God who is revealed to the individual. God is individually present, or perhaps, a very heavily projected God is present.

The ‘problem’ occurs when this sense of presence is not just presence but intervention. Claims of a sense of the presence of God can find expression in all kinds of attributes given to God, but claims of God intervening take us into further problematic areas both theologically and ethically, quite simply because God does not intervene in the way in which many people assume. We cannot say that a particular event was down to an individual act of intervention by God, as it would make God sadistically selective. Why is one child healed and not another – however faithful they, their family and friends? Why is the faithful airline pilot not given some intuition that tragedy will befall a particular flight? Yet the belief that God actively intervenes in events and lives persists. And this is where christology comes back - God’s intervention is not about halting or reversing consequences in life, but it is about presence without manipulation, it is about the absence of power. And this finds expression in Christ hanging on the cross. Divinity in humanity empty of manipulative power, but carrying the cruelty of the world.

The incarnate Son of God is in who he is the greatest example of divine intervention. The birth and human life of Jesus Christ are God intervening in human history. But the incarnation is about intervention and also self-gift. It is about being so fully present to humanity that divinity is emptied. Humanity is embraced, and transcendent powers are laid aside in a life of self-offering, self-offering which leads to the horror of the undeserved human violence of the cross.

Yet powerfully the crucifixion, and particularly the cry of abandonment, are among many things the exemplar for a mature ‘spirituality.’ Spirituality which finds expression in gushing affirmations of how God intervenes for a person every day in various events is often delusional and misguided, and can bring great bitterness and pain when at some cruel point God does not ‘intervene.’ The realisation that God is not going to live your life for you, so to speak, is not a loss of belief in God, but is the recognition of who God is and who we are. To live on earth is to live as people abandoned to our own brokenness, our own fallenness. We should not assume that order and civility should prevail, because chaotic cruelty and horror are as much the nature of reality as are occasions of goodness and love. When good and lovely things happen in life they are extras, gifts – glimpses into what we can achieve when we incarnate God’s will.

Emmanuel Lévinas writes the following:

‘What is the meaning of the suffering of innocents? Does it not prove a world without God, an earth on which man is the only measure of good and evil? The simplest and most common reaction would be to decide for atheism. This would also be the reasonable reaction of all those whose idea of God until that point was of some kindergarten deity who distributed prizes, applied penalties, or forgave faults and in His goodness treated men as eternal children. But I have to ask these people: With what kind of underendowed demon, what kind of magician did they people their heaven, if they now declare that this heaven is empty? And why are they still searching, under this empty heaven, for a world that is rational and good?’ [3]

Immature understandings of God which involve indulgent parental fantasies are not going to bring us closer to God but further away. Lévinas wrote the above upon reading what purported to be a text which had been found preserved in a bottle in the ruins of the Warsaw Ghetto, concealed amongst charred stone and human bones. A man by the name of Yosl Rakover is one of the last survivors of the ghetto, but aware that he will soon be killed as artillery fire and shells are exploding and shattering the walls of the houses round about him. He has lost his wife and six children in the horrors of the ghetto, all in the most terrible cruelty – one daughter, Rachel, ten years old, is driven by starvation to escape at night out of the ghetto with a friend in order to search for bread in the city garbage cans. She is discovered by the Nazi sentries and their Polish helpers, who pursue her. She attempts to run, but her weakness causes her to collapse, and ‘the Nazis drove holes through her skull.’ In his letter Yosl Rakover decides to call God to account, Why has God abandoned his people to the evils of the Nazis, the violence, disease and starvation of the ghetto? And he ends his letter in the following way:

‘I have followed Him, even when he pushed me away. I have obeyed His commandments, even when He scourged me for it. I have loved Him, I have been in love with Him and remained so, even when He made me lower than the dust, tormented me to death, abandoned me to shame and mockery.
…Here, then, are my last words to You, my angry God: None of this will avail You in the least! You have done everything to make me lose my faith in You, to make me cease to believe in you. But I die exactly as I have lived, an unshakeable believer in You.
Praised be forever the God of the dead, the God of vengeance, of truth and judgement, who will soon unveil His face to the world again and shake its foundations with His mighty voice.
“Sh’ma Yisroel! Hear, Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one. Into your hands, O Lord, I commend my soul.”’ [4]

This is the heart of the matter: to affirm God even when God’s hiddenness is at its most real. There is this in the now famous lines found inscribed on a cellar wall in Cologne where some Jews had hidden for the entire duration of the war:

‘I believe in the sun, even when it doesn’t shine.
I believe in love, even when I don’t feel it.
I believe in God, even when He is silent.’

The concept of the hiddenness of God is not new; it is not some modern or post-modern response to problems with theism. It is a profoundly scriptural understanding of God; a God who sometimes ‘hides the face’, hester panim. Towards the end of the Book of Deuteronomy we read, ‘The Lord…spurned his sons and daughters. He said: I will hide my face from them’ (Deut. 32.19-20), and in the Book of the Prophet Isaiah we read, ‘Truly, you are a God who hides himself, O God of Israel, the Saviour.’ (Isa. 45.15).

These understandings of the hiddenness of God stem from the human experience of the absence of God. They stem from the human inability at times to experience the presence of God. In classical theism God cannot be absent, because God is omnipresent. Yet the localised sense of the presence and, importantly, the absence of God is scripturally attested. The question ‘Where is God in all this suffering?’ is rather a way of saying ‘I cannot sense that God is present when all this suffering happens.’

To perceive that God is ‘hidden’ in this sense is not necessarily indicative of spiritual short-sightedness, but is perhaps a mature recognition of what we can know and experience of God. The God who is easily experienced is perhaps not really there.

This is not to say that all experience of God is delusional, but that discernment of our experience and understanding of the presence of God is essential. Without discernment indulgent fantasies easily develop and further delusion is never far behind.

Much of this can relate to our experience of God outside any experience of suffering. In Christian theology the notion of the hidden God, Deus absconditus, has been an important premise that has had the very necessary function of making sure that God is not completely domesticated and personalised by human psychological needs. There is always that of God which transcends human understanding; that of God which is hidden. And there are times when God seems to be fully hidden, and is perceived to be ‘absent.’

So the perceived absence of God is as much an issue in good times as in bad. But it is perhaps when we are at cruel and painful emotional extremes, that the sense of God’s absence, of the lack of intervention, is most acutely experienced.

So where do we go from here? Where does Christ’s cry of dereliction from the cross leave us? Or, rather, where does it take us? It takes us to a bleak place, a place of absence. It takes us to a place of cruel punishment. It takes us to a place where we have seemingly been abandoned by our closest human companions and by God. In Matthew’s Gospel ‘My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?’ are the only words spoken by Christ from the cross; Christ’s summary vocalisation of his suffering is his sense that God has abandoned him.

This should lead us to acknowledge that such a sense of abandonment is not a dangerous or erroneous sense – Jesus had it. Jesus, emptied of the predicates of God, truly human, knows that sense of abandonment and cries out that very human cry. But the dereliction of the cross is not the end of the story.

Jesus Christ suffered as a human being, and that human experience is taken up into divinity. We should not see this as a theological problem over how limited human perception can supplement unlimited divine perception. But the Christian mystery is surely this: that crucified humanity is taken up into divinity.

There is no evil which can separate us from Jesus Christ. Christ in his humanity was one of us, and in his humanity he experienced the human suffering and the dereliction of the cross. He experienced the sense of cruel abandonment, of God ‘hiding his face’, as he died. But Jesus was not abandoned ultimately; and no, that dark and desolate Friday afternoon is not the end of the story because through Jesus Christ’s risen and ascended crucified brokenness God searches out the broken of this world with the hope of new life. We could perhaps say that God ‘intervenes’ through the broken and healed humanity of Christ. And we could perhaps go further here and say that God ‘intervenes’ through all human beings who incarnate the will of God.

We could say that on a clear September morning in New York City in 2001 the love and goodness of God permeated the hearts and minds of members of the New York City Fire Department. As some were running towards the entrance to the tower they had to avoid being struck down by falling bodies slamming into the plaza around them; they were running through a twenty-first century vision of hell. Hundreds of the Fire Department died in the tragedy. We could say that such deaths are a known risk in the work they do. But few observers could fail to be moved by the dedication of the Fire Department that morning to saving whoever they could in that hell. There was something of sacrifice about their deaths. And it is not an unjustified superimposition to see something of the divine will in their saving work on 11 September; a solidarity with humanity in hell.

'Oh, where have you been, my blue-eyed son?
Oh, where have you been, my darling young one?
I met a young woman whose body was burning
And it's a hard rain's a-gonna fall.' [5]

Hell on earth is a reality. There are occasions in life that are so crushingly evil. There are sights seen that just should not be seen. There are extremes of cruelty that are just not acceptable. There are times of such sadness that they break your heart. There are places we just should not have to be.

Is it all redeemable?

He ‘was crucified, dead, and buried: He descended into hell.’

What was Jesus doing in hell? He was looking for his friend Judas Iscariot. Judas had done something so wrong he could not forgive himself, and feeling incapable of being forgiven, in bitter tears of regret, he hanged himself. Well, Jesus went looking for him, and in hell he found him. He walked over to him, kissed him, and took his hand.

Miracles occur in hell.

When we see images on the television or in magazines and books it is often evil visited on children that makes us cry: the girl on the pavement in the Warsaw ghetto holding her starved little sister, the Vietnamese girl burning with napalm running from her village, the terrified boy in Gaza tucked up against his father crying before he is shot. And these really are moments of hell on earth.

Loveliness happens too.

I remember seeing a brother and sister on the television news, he was about eight and she was about four, they had become separated from their family following the dreadful flooding in Mozambique in the spring of 2000; their family might not even be alive. They had managed to get a bag of maize meal from one of the relief camps, but they were not going to open it – it was to be a present for their parents when they found them. After talking to the news correspondent they ran off together to continue the search for their family. The boy was so caring of his sister. The love and responsibility of these two poor children was just heart-achingly beautiful.

Jésus le Christ, lumière intérieure,
ne laisse pas mes ténèbres me parler.
Jésus le Christ, lumière intérieure,
donne-moi d’accueillir ton amour.

Lord Jesus Christ, your light shines within us.
Let not my doubts nor my darkness speak to me.
Lord Jesus Christ, your light shines within us.
Let my heart always welcome your love. [6]


Notes

[1] David Scott, Selected Poems, Bloodaxe 1998, p. 47
[2] Elie Wiesel, The Trial of God, Schocken 1995, pp. vii, xxiii
[3] ‘Loving the Torah more than God,’ Yosl Rakover Talks to God, Jonathan Cape 1999, p. 81
[4] Ibid., p. 23-25
[5] Bob Dylan, ‘A Hard Rain’s A-Gonna Fall’, The Freewheelin’ Bob Dylan, CBS 1963.
[6] Ateliers et Presses de Taizé, F-71250 Taizé-Communauté.

Daily Prayer

The Order for Morning and Evening Prayer
Daily to Be Said and Used Throughout the Year

THE Morning and Evening Prayer shall be used in the accustomed Place of the Church, Chapel, or Chancel; except it shall be otherwise determined by the Ordinary of the Place. And the Chancels shalt remain as they have done in times past.

And here is to be noted, that such Ornaments of the Church, and of the Ministers thereof, at all Times of their Ministration, shall be retained, and be in use, as were in this Church of England, by the Authority of Parliament, in the Second Year of the Reign of King Edward the Sixth.

Readers and such other lay persons as may be authorised by the Bishop of the diocese may, at the invitation of the Minister of the parish or, where the Cure is vacant, or the Minister is incapacitated, at the invitation of the Churchwardens, say or sing Morning or Evening Prayer (save for the Absolution): and in case of need, where no clerk in Holy Orders or Reader or lay person authorised as aforesaid is available, the Minister or (failing him) the Churchwardens shall arrange for some suitable lay person to say or sing Morning or Evening Prayer (save for the Absolution).

The Order for Morning Prayer
Daily Throughout the Year

At the beginning of Morning Prayer the Minister shall read with a loud voice some one or more of these Sentences of the Scriptures that follow. And then he shall say that which is written after the said Sentences.

WHEN the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive. Ezek. xviii. 27.
I acknowledge my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me. Psalm li. 3.
Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all mine iniquities. Psalm li. 9.
The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise. Psalm li. 17.
Rend your heart, and not your garments, and turn unto the Lord your God: for he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repenteth him of the evil. Joel ii. 13.
To the Lord our God belong mercies and forgivenesses, though we have rebelled against him; neither have we obeyed the voice of the Lord our God, to walk in his laws which he set before us. Daniel ix. 9, 10.
O Lord, correct me, but with judgment; not in thine anger, lest thou bring me to nothing. Jer. x. 24. Psalm vi. 1.
Repent ye; for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand. St. Matt. iii. 2.
I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee, and am no more worthy to be called thy son. St. Luke xv. 18, 19.
Enter not into judgment with thy servant, O Lord; for in thy sight shall no man living be justified. Psalm cxliii. 2.
If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us; but if we confess our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 1 St. John i. 8, 9.

DEARLY beloved brethren, the Scripture moveth us, in sundry places, to acknowledge and confess our manifold sins and wickedness; and that we should not dissemble nor cloak them before the face of Almighty God our heavenly Father; but confess them with an humble, lowly, penitent, and obedient heart; to the end that we may obtain forgiveness of the same, by his infinite goodness and mercy. And although we ought, at all times, humbly to acknowledge our sins before God; yet ought we chiefly so to do, when we assemble and meet together to render thanks for the great benefits that we have received at his hands, to set forth his most worthy praise, to hear his most holy Word, and to ask those things which are requisite and necessary, as well for the body as the soul. Wherefore I pray and beseech you, as many as are here present, to accompany me with a pure heart, and humble voice, unto the throne of the heavenly grace, saying after me;

A general Confession to be said of the whole Congregation after the Minister, all kneeling.
ALMIGHTY and most merciful Father; We have erred, and strayed from thy ways like lost sheep. We have followed too much the devices and desires of our own hearts. We have offended against thy holy laws. We have left undone those things which we ought to have done; And we have done those things which we ought not to have done; And there is no health in us. But thou, O Lord, have mercy upon us, miserable offenders. Spare thou them, O God, who confess their faults. Restore thou those who are penitent; According to thy promises declared unto mankind in Christ Jesu our Lord. And grant, O most merciful Father, for his sake; That we may hereafter live a godly, righteous, and sober life, To the glory of thy holy Name. Amen.

The Absolution, or Remission of sins, to be pronounced by the Priest alone, standing; the people still kneeling.
ALMIGHTY God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who desireth not the death of a sinner, but rather that he may turn from his wickedness, and live; and hath given power, and commandment, to his Ministers, to declare and pronounce to his people, being penitent, the Absolution and Remission of their sins : He pardoneth and absolveth all them that truly repent, and unfeignedly believe his holy Gospel. Wherefore let us beseech him to grant us true repentance, and his Holy Spirit, that those things may please him, which we do at this present; and that the rest of our life hereafter may be pure, and holy; so that at the last we may come to his eternal joy; through Jesus Christ our Lord.

The people shall answer here, and at the end of all other prayers, Amen.

If no priest be present the person saying the service shall read the Collect for the Twenty-First Sunday after Trinity, that person and the people still kneeling.

Then the Minister shall kneel, and say the Lord's Prayer with an audible voice; the people also kneeling, and repeating it with him, both here, and wheresoever else it is used in Divine Service.
OUR Father, which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy Name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, As it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, As we forgive them that trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, But deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom, The power, and the glory, For ever and ever. Amen.

Then likewise he shall say,
O Lord, open thou our lips.
Answer. And our mouth shall show forth thy praise.
Priest. O God, make speed to save us.
Answer. O Lord, make haste to help us.

Here all standing up, the Priest shall say,
Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost;
Answer. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
Priest. Praise ye the Lord.
Answer. The Lord's Name be praised.

Then shall be said or sung this Psalm following; Except on Easter Day, upon which another Anthem is appointed; and on the nineteenth day of every month it is not to be read here, but in the ordinary course of the Psalms.

Venite, exultemus Domino.
Psalm xcv.
O COME, let us sing unto the Lord : let us heartily rejoice in the strength of our salvation.
Let us come before his presence with thanksgiving : and show ourselves glad in him with Psalms.
For the Lord is a great God : and a great King above all gods.
In his hand are all the corners of the earth : and the strength of the hills is his also.
The sea is his, and he made it : and his hands prepared the dry land.
O come, let us worship and fall down : and kneel before the Lord our Maker.
For he is the Lord our God : and we are the people of his pasture, and the sheep of his hand.
To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts : as in the provocation, and as in the day of temptation in the wilderness;
When your fathers tempted me : proved me, and saw my works.
Forty years long was I grieved with this generation, and said : It is a people that do err in their heart, and they have not known my ways.
Unto whom I sware in my wrath that they should not enter into my rest.
Glory be to the Father, and to the Son : and to the Holy Ghost;
As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be : world without end. Amen.

Then shall follow the Psalms in order as they be appointed. And at the end of every Psalm throughout the year, and likewise at the end of Benedicite, Benedictus, Magnificat, and Nunc dimittis, shall be repeated,
Glory be to the Father, and to the Son : and to the Holy Ghost;
Answer. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be : world without end. Amen.

Then shall be read distinctly with an audible voice the First Lesson, taken out of the Old Testament, as is appointed in the Calendar, except there be proper Lessons assigned for that day : He that readeth so standing and turning himself, as he may best be heard of all such as are present. And after that, shall be said or sung, in English, the Hymn called Te Deum Laudamus, daily throughout the Year.

Note, That before every Lesson the Minister shall say, Here beginneth such a Chapter, or Verse of such a Chapter, of such a Book : And after every Lesson, Here endeth the First, or the Second Lesson.

Te Deum Laudamus.
WE praise thee, O God : we acknowledge thee to be the Lord.
All the earth doth worship thee : the Father everlasting.
To thee all Angels cry aloud : the Heavens, and all the Powers therein.
To thee Cherubim and Seraphim : continually do cry,
Holy, Holy, Holy : Lord God of Sabaoth;
Heaven and earth are full of the Majesty : of thy glory.
The glorious company of the Apostles : praise thee.
The goodly fellowship of the Prophets : praise thee.
The noble army of Martyrs : praise thee.
The holy Church throughout all the world : doth acknowledge thee;
The Father : of an infinite Majesty;
Thine honourable, true : and only Son;
Also the Holy Ghost : the Comforter.
Thou art the King of Glory : O Christ.
Thou art the everlasting Son : of the Father.
When thou tookest upon thee to deliver man : thou didst not abhor the Virgin's womb.
When thou hadst overcome the sharpness of death : thou didst open the Kingdom of Heaven to all believers.
Thou sittest at the right hand of God : in the glory of the Father.
We believe that thou shalt come : to be our Judge.
We therefore pray thee, help thy servants : whom thou hast redeemed with thy precious blood.
Make them to be numbered with thy Saints : in glory everlasting.
O Lord, save thy people : and bless thine heritage.
Govern them : and lift them up for ever.
Day by day : we magnify thee;
And we worship thy Name : ever world without end.
Vouchsafe, O Lord : to keep us this day without sin.
O Lord, have mercy upon us : have mercy upon us.
O Lord, let thy mercy lighten upon us : as our trust is in thee.
O Lord, in thee have I trusted : let me never be confounded.

Or this Canticle,
Benedicite, omnia opera.
O ALL ye Works of the Lord, bless ye the Lord : praise him, and magnify him for ever.
O ye Angels of the Lord, bless ye the Lord : praise him, and magnify him for ever.
O ye Heavens, bless ye the Lord : praise him, and magnify him for ever.
O ye Waters that be above the firmament, bless ye the Lord : praise him, and magnify him for ever.
O all ye Powers of the Lord, bless ye the Lord : praise him, and magnify him for ever.
O ye Sun and Moon, bless ye the Lord : praise him, and magnify him for ever.
O ye Stars of heaven, bless ye the Lord : praise him, and magnify him for ever.
O ye Showers and Dew, bless ye the Lord : praise him, and magnify him for ever.
O ye Winds of God, bless ye the Lord : praise him, and magnify him for ever.
O ye Fire and Heat, bless ye the Lord : praise him, and magnify him for ever.
O ye Winter and Summer, bless ye the Lord : praise him, and magnify him for ever.
O ye Dews and Frosts, bless ye the Lord : praise him, and magnify him for ever.
O ye Frost and Cold, bless ye the Lord : praise him, and magnify him for ever.
O ye Ice and Snow, bless ye the Lord : praise him, and magnify him for ever.
O ye Nights and Days, bless ye the Lord : praise him, and magnify him for ever.
O ye Light and Darkness, bless ye the Lord : praise him, and magnify him for ever.
O ye Lightnings and Clouds, bless ye the Lord : praise him, and magnify him for ever.
O let the Earth bless the Lord : yea, let it praise him, and magnify him for ever.
O ye Mountains and Hills, bless ye the Lord : praise him, and magnify him for ever.
O all ye Green Things upon the earth, bless ye the Lord : praise him, and magnify him for ever.
O ye Wells, bless ye the Lord : praise him, and magnify him for ever.
O ye Seas and Floods, bless ye the Lord : praise him, and magnify him for ever.
O ye Whales, and all that move in the waters, bless ye the Lord : praise him, and magnify him for ever.
O all ye Fowls of the air, bless ye the Lord : praise him, and magnify him for ever.
O all ye Beasts and Cattle, bless ye the Lord : praise him, and magnify him for ever.
O ye Children of Men, bless ye the Lord : praise him, and magnify him for ever.
O let Israel bless the Lord : praise him, and magnify him for ever.
O ye Priests of the Lord, bless ye the Lord : praise him, and magnify him for ever.
O ye Servants of the Lord, bless ye the Lord : praise him, and magnify him for ever.
O ye Spirits and Souls of the Righteous, bless ye the Lord : praise him, and magnify him for ever.
O ye holy and humble Men of heart, bless ye the Lord : praise him, and magnify him for ever.
O Ananias, Azarias, and Misael, bless ye the Lord : praise him, and magnify him for ever.
Glory be to the Father, and to the Son : and to the Holy Ghost;
As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be : world without end. Amen.

Then shall be read in like manner the Second Lesson, taken out of the New Testament. And after that, the Hymn following; except when that shall happen to be read in the Chapter for the day, or for the Gospel on Saint John Baptist's Day.

Benedictus.
St. Luke i. 68.
BLESSED be the Lord God of Israel : for he hath visited and redeemed his people;
And hath raised up a mighty salvation for us : in the house of his servant David;
As he spake by the mouth of his holy Prophets : which have been since the world began;
That we should be saved from our enemies : and from the hand of all that hate us.
To perform the mercy promised to our forefathers : and to remember his holy Covenant;
To perform the oath which he sware to our forefather Abraham : that he would give us;
That we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies : might serve him without fear;
In holiness and righteousness before him : all the days of our life.
And thou, Child, shalt be called the Prophet of the Highest : for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways;
To give knowledge of salvation unto his people : for the remission of their sins,
Through the tender mercy of our God : whereby the day-spring from on high hath visited us;
To give light to them that sit in darkness, and in the shadow of death : and to guide our feet into the way of peace.
Glory be to the Father, and to the Son : and to the Holy Ghost;
As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be : world without end. Amen.

Or this Psalm,
Jubilate Deo. Psalm c.
O BE joyful in the Lord, all ye lands : serve the Lord with gladness, and come before his presence with a song.
Be ye sure that the Lord he is God; it is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves : we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture.
O go your way into his gates with thanksgiving, and into his courts with praise : be thankful unto him, and speak good of his Name.
For the Lord is gracious, his mercy is everlasting : and his truth endureth from generation to generation.
Glory be to the Father, and to the Son : and to the Holy Ghost;
As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be : world without end. Amen.

Then shall be sung or said the Apostle's Creed, by the Minister and the people standing : Except only such days as the Creed of Saint Athanasius is appointed to be read.
I BELIEVE in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth :
And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord: Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, Born of the Virgin Mary: Suffered under Pontius Pilate, Was crucified, dead, and buried: He descended into hell; The third day he rose again from the dead: He ascended into heaven, And sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty: From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Ghost: The holy Catholick Church; The Communion of Saints: The Forgiveness of sins: The Resurrection of the body, And the Life everlasting. Amen.

And after that these Prayers following, all devoutly kneeling: the Minister first pronouncing with a loud voice,
The Lord be with you.
Answer. And with thy spirit.
Minister. Let us pray.
Lord, have mercy upon us.
Christ, have mercy upon us.
Lord, have mercy upon us.

Then the Minister, Clerks, and people shall say the Lord's Prayer with a loud voice.
OUR Father, which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy Name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, As it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, As we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, But deliver us from evil. Amen.

Then the Priest standing up shall say,
O Lord, shew thy mercy upon us.
Answer. And grant us thy salvation.
Priest. O Lord, save the Queen.
Answer. And mercifully hear us when we call upon thee.
Priest. Endue thy Ministers with righteousness.
Answer. And make thy chosen people joyful.
Priest. O Lord, save thy people.
Answer. And bless thine inheritance.
Priest. Give peace in our time, O Lord.
Answer. Because there is none other that fighteth for us, but only thou, O God.
Priest. O God, make clean our hearts within us.
Answer. And take not thy Holy Spirit from us.

Then shall follow three Collects; the first of the day, which shall be the same that is appointed at the Communion; The second for Peace; The third for Grace to live well. And the two last Collects shall never alter, but daily be said at Morning Prayer throughout all the year, as followeth, all kneeling.

The second Collect, for Peace.
O GOD, who art the author of peace and lover of concord, in knowledge of whom standeth our eternal life, whose service is perfect freedom; Defend us thy humble servants in all assaults of our enemies; that we, surely trusting in thy defence, may not fear the power of any adversaries, through the might of Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

The third Collect, for Grace.
O LORD, our heavenly Father, Almighty and everlasting God, who hast safely brought us to the beginning of this day; Defend us in the same with thy mighty power; and grant that this day we fall into no sin, neither run into any kind of danger; but that all our doings may be ordered by thy governance, to do always that is righteous in thy sight; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

In Quires and Places where they sing here followeth the Anthem.

Then these five Prayers following are to be read here: Except when the Litany is read; and then only the two last are to be read, as they are there placed.

A Prayer for the Queen's Majesty.
O LORD, our heavenly Father, the high and mighty, King of kings, Lord of lords, the only Ruler of princes, who dost from thy throne behold all the dwellers upon earth; Most heartily we beseech thee with thy favour to behold our most gracious Sovereign Lady, Queen ELIZABETH; and so replenish her with the grace of thy Holy Spirit, that she may always incline to thy will, and walk in thy way. Endue her plenteously with heavenly gifts; grant her in health and wealth long to live; strengthen her that she may vanquish and overcome all her enemies; and finally, after this life, she may attain everlasting joy and felicity; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

A Prayer for the Royal Family.
ALMIGHTY God, the fountain of all goodness, we humbly beseech thee to bless Philip Duke of Edinburgh, Charles Prince of Wales, and all the Royal Family: Endue them with thy Holy Spirit; enrich them with thy heavenly grace; prosper them with all happiness; and bring them to thine everlasting kingdom; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

A Prayer for the Clergy and People.
ALMIGHTY and everlasting God, who alone workest great marvels; Send down upon our Bishops, and Curates, and all Congregations committed to their charge, the healthful Spirit of thy grace; and that they may truly please thee, pour upon them the continual dew of thy blessing. Grant this, O Lord, for the honour of our Advocate and Mediator, Jesus Christ. Amen.

A Prayer of St. Chrysostom.
ALMIGHTY God, who hast given us grace at this time with one accord to make our common supplications unto thee; and dost promise, that when two or three are gathered together in thy Name thou wilt grant their requests; Fulfil now, O Lord, the desires and petitions of thy servants, as may be most expedient for them; granting us in this world knowledge of thy truth, and in the world to come life everlasting. Amen.

2 Corinthians xiii.
THE grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Ghost, be with us all evermore. Amen.

Here endeth the Order of Morning Prayer throughout the Year.

*

The Order for Evening Prayer
Daily Throughout the Year

At the beginning of Evening Prayer the Minister shall read with a loud voice some one or more of these Sentences of the Scriptures that follow. And then he shall say that which is written after the said Sentences.

WHEN the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive. Ezek. xviii. 27.
I acknowledge my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me. Psalm li. 3.
Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all mine iniquities. Psalm li. 9.
The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise. Psalm li. 17.
Rend your heart, and not your garments, and turn unto the Lord your God: for he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repenteth him of the evil. Joel ii. 13.
To the Lord our God belong mercies and forgivenesses, though we have rebelled against him; neither have we obeyed the voice of the Lord our God, to walk in his laws which he set before us. Daniel ix. 9, 10.
O Lord, correct me, but with judgment; not in thine anger, lest thou bring me to nothing. Jer. x. 24. Psalm vi. 1.
Repent ye; for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand. St. Matt. iii. 2.
I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee, and am no more worthy to be called thy son. St. Luke xv. 18, 19.
Enter not into judgment with thy servant, O Lord; for in thy sight shall no man living be justified. Psalm cxliii. 2.
If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us; but if we confess our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 1 St. John i. 8, 9.

DEARLY beloved brethren, the Scripture moveth us, in sundry places, to acknowledge and confess our manifold sins and wickedness; and that we should not dissemble nor cloak them before the face of Almighty God our heavenly Father; but confess them with an humble, lowly, penitent, and obedient heart; to the end that we may obtain forgiveness of the same, by his infinite goodness and mercy. And although we ought, at all times, humbly to acknowledge our sins before God; yet ought we chiefly so to do, when we assemble and meet together to render thanks for the great benefits that we have received at his hands, to set forth his most worthy praise, to hear his most holy Word, and to ask those things which are requisite and necessary, as well for the body as the soul. Wherefore I pray and beseech you, as many as are here present, to accompany me with a pure heart, and humble voice, unto the throne of the heavenly grace, saying after me;

A general Confession to be said of the whole Congregation after the Minister, all kneeling.
ALMIGHTY and most merciful Father; We have erred, and strayed from thy ways like lost sheep. We have followed too much the devices and desires of our own hearts. We have offended against thy holy laws. We have left undone those things which we ought to have done; And we have done those things which we ought not to have done; And there is no health in us. But thou, O Lord, have mercy upon us, miserable offenders. Spare thou them, O God, who confess their faults. Restore thou those who are penitent; According to thy promises declared unto mankind in Christ Jesu our Lord. And grant, O most merciful Father, for his sake; That we may hereafter live a godly, righteous, and sober life, To the glory of thy holy Name. Amen.

The Absolution or Remission of sins to be pronounced by the Priest alone, standing: the people still kneeling.
ALMIGHTY God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who desireth not the death of a sinner, but rather that he may turn from his wickedness, and live; and hath given power, and commandment, to his Ministers, to declare and pronounce to his people, being penitent, the Absolution and Remission of their sins : He pardoneth and absolveth all them that truly repent, and unfeignedly believe his holy Gospel. Wherefore let us beseech him to grant us true repentance, and his Holy Spirit, that those things may please him, which we do at this present; and that the rest of our life hereafter may be pure, and holy; so that at the last we may come to his eternal joy; through Jesus Christ our Lord.

If no priest be present the person saying the service shall read the Collect for the Twenty-First Sunday after Trinity, that person and the people still kneeling.

Then the Minister shall kneel, and say the Lord's Prayer: the people also kneeling, and repeating it with him.
OUR Father, which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy Name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, As it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, As we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, But deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom, The power, and the glory, For ever and ever. Amen.

Then likewise he shall say,
O Lord, open thou our lips.
Answer. And our mouth shall show forth thy praise.
Priest. O God, make speed to save us.
Answer. O Lord, make haste to help us.

Here, all standing up, the Priest shall say,
Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost;
Answer. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
Priest. Praise ye the Lord.
Answer. The Lord's Name be praised.

Then shall be said or sung the Psalms in order as they be appointed. Then a Lesson of the Old Testament, as is appointed. And after that Magnificat (or the Song of the blessed Virgin Mary) in English, as followeth.

Magnificat.
St. Luke I.
MY soul doth magnify the Lord : and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
For he hath regarded : the lowliness of his handmaiden.
For behold, from henceforth : all generations shall call me blessed.
For he that is mighty hath magnified me : and holy is his Name.
And his mercy is on them that fear him : throughout all generations.
He hath showed strength with his arm : he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
He hath put down the mighty from their seat : and hath exalted the humble and meek.
He hath filled the hungry with good things : and the rich he hath sent empty away.
He remembering his mercy hath holpen his servant Israel : as he promised to our forefathers, Abraham and his seed, for ever.
Glory be to the Father, &c.
As it was in the beginning, &c.

Or else this Psalm; except it be on the nineteenth day of the month, when it is read in the ordinary course of the Psalms.

Cantate Domino.
Psalm xcviii.
O SING unto the Lord a new song : for he hath done marvellous things.
With his own right hand, and with his holy arm : hath he gotten himself the victory.
The Lord declared his salvation : his righteousness hath he openly showed in the sight of the heathen.
He hath remembered his mercy and truth toward the house of Israel : and all the ends of the world have seen the salvation of our God.
Show yourselves joyful unto the Lord, all ye lands : sing, rejoice, and give thanks.
Praise the Lord upon the harp : sing to the harp with a psalm of thanksgiving.
With trumpets also and shawms : O shew yourselves joyful before the Lord the King.
Let the sea make a noise, and all that therein is : the round world, and that dwell therein.
Let the floods clap their hands, and let the hills be joyful together before the Lord : for he cometh to judge the earth.
With righteousness shall he judge the world : and the peoples with equity.
Glory be to the Father, &c.
As it was in the beginning, &c.

Then a Lesson of the New Testament, as it is appointed. And after that Nunc dimittis (or the Song of Simeon) in English, as followeth.

Nunc dimittis.
St. Luke ii. 29.
LORD, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace : according to thy word.
For mine eyes have seen : thy salvation,
Which thou hast prepared : before the face of all people;
To be a light to lighten the Gentiles : and to be the glory of thy people Israel.
Glory be to the Father, &c.
As it was in the beginning, &c.

Or else this Psalm: Except it be on the twelfth day of the month.

Deus misereatur.
Psalm lxvii.
GOD be merciful unto us, and bless us : and shew us the light of his countenance, and be merciful unto us;
That thy way may be known upon earth : thy saving health among all nations.
Let the peoples praise thee, O God : yea, let all the peoples praise thee.
O let the nations rejoice and be glad : for thou shalt judge the folk righteously, and govern the nations upon earth.
Let the people praise thee, O God : yea, let all the people praise thee.
Then shall the earth bring forth her increase : and God, even our own God, shall give us his blessing.
God shall bless us : and all the ends of the world shall fear him.
Glory be to the Father, &c.
As it was in the beginning, &c.

Then shall be sung or said the Apostles' Creed, by the Minister and the people standing.
I BELIEVE in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth :
And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord: Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, Born of the Virgin Mary: Suffered under Pontius Pilate, Was crucified, dead, and buried: He descended into hell; The third day he rose again from the dead: He ascended into heaven, And sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty: From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Ghost: The holy Catholick Church; The Communion of Saints: The Forgiveness of sins: The Resurrection of the body, And the Life everlasting. Amen.

And after that, these Prayers following, all devoutly kneeling: the Minister first pronouncing with a loud voice,
The Lord be with you.
Answer. And with thy spirit.
Minister. Let us pray.
Lord, have mercy upon us.
Christ, have mercy upon us.
Lord, have mercy upon us.

Then the Minister, Clerks, and people shall say the Lord's Prayer with a loud voice.
OUR Father, which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy Name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, As it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, As we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, But deliver us from evil. Amen.

Then the Priest standing up shall say,
O Lord, shew thy mercy upon us.
Answer. And grant us thy salvation.
Priest. O Lord, save the Queen.
Answer. And mercifully hear us when we call upon thee.
Priest. Endue thy Ministers with righteousness.
Answer. And make thy chosen people joyful.
Priest. O Lord, save thy people.
Answer. And bless thine inheritance.
Priest. Give peace in our time, O Lord.
Answer. Because there is none other that fighteth for us, but only thou, O God.
Priest. O God, make clean our hearts within us.
Answer. And take not thy Holy Spirit from us.

Then shall follow three Collects ; the first of the day; The second for Peace ; The third for Aid against all Perils, as hereafter followeth : which two last Collects shall be daily said at Evening Prayer without alteration.

The Second Collect at Evening Prayer.
O GOD, from whom all holy desires, all good counsels, and all just works do proceed; Give unto thy servants that peace which the world cannot give; that our hearts may be set to obey thy commandments, and also that by thee, we, being defended from the fear of our enemies, may pass our time in rest and quietness; through the merits of Jesus Christ our Saviour. Amen.

The Third Collect, for Aid against all Perils.
LIGHTEN our darkness, we beseech thee, O Lord; and by thy great mercy defend us from all perils and dangers of this night; for the love of thy only Son, our Saviour, Jesus Christ. Amen.

In Quires and Places where they sing here followeth the Anthem.

A Prayer for the Queen's Majesty.
O LORD, our heavenly Father, the high and mighty, King of kings, Lord of lords, the only Ruler of princes, who dost from thy throne behold all the dwellers upon earth; Most heartily we beseech thee with thy favour to behold our most gracious Sovereign Lady, Queen ELIZABETH; and so replenish her with the grace of thy Holy Spirit, that she may always incline to thy will, and walk in thy way. Endue her plenteously with heavenly gifts; grant her in health and wealth long to live; strengthen her that she may vanquish and overcome all her enemies; and finally, after this life, she may attain everlasting joy and felicity; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

A Prayer for the Royal Family.
ALMIGHTY God, the fountain of all goodness, we humbly beseech thee to bless Philip Duke of Edinburgh, Charles Prince of Wales, and all the Royal Family: Endue them with thy Holy Spirit; enrich them with thy heavenly grace; prosper them with all happiness; and bring them to thine everlasting kingdom; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

A Prayer for the Clergy and People.
ALMIGHTY and everlasting God, who alone workest great marvels; Send down upon our Bishops, and Curates, and all Congregations committed to their charge, the healthful Spirit of thy grace; and that they may truly please thee, pour upon them the continual dew of thy blessing. Grant this, O Lord, for the honour of our Advocate and Mediator, Jesus Christ. Amen.

A Prayer of St. Chrysostom.
ALMIGHTY God, who hast given us grace at this time with one accord to make our common supplications unto thee; and dost promise, that when two or three are gathered together in thy Name thou wilt grant their requests; Fulfil now, O Lord, the desires and petitions of thy servants, as may be most expedient for them; granting us in this world knowledge of thy truth, and in the world to come life everlasting. Amen.

2 Corinthians xiii.
THE grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Ghost, be with us all evermore. Amen.

Here endeth the Order of Evening Prayer throughout the Year.

Prayers from the Church of England

A General Thanksgiving

ALMIGHTY God, Father of all mercies, we thine unworthy servants do give thee most humble and hearty thanks for all thy goodness and loving-kindness to us, and to all men; We bless thee for our creation, preservation, and all the blessings of this life; but above all, for thine inestimable love in the redemption of the world by our Lord Jesus Christ; for the means of grace, and for the hope of glory. And, we beseech thee, give us that due sense of all thy mercies, that our hearts may be unfeignedly thankful, and that we shew forth thy praise, not only with our lips, but in our lives; by giving up ourselves to thy service, and by walking before thee in holiness and righteousness all our days; through Jesus Christ our Lord, to whom with thee and the Holy Ghost be all honour and glory, world without end. Amen.




A Collect or Prayer for all Conditions of Men, to be used at such times when the Litany is not appointed to be said.

O GOD, the Creator and Preserver of all mankind, we humbly beseech thee for all sorts and conditions of men: that thou wouldest be pleased to make thy ways known unto them, thy saving health unto all nations. More especially, we pray for the good estate of the Catholick Church; that it may be so guided and governed by thy good Spirit, that all who profess and call themselves Christians may be led into the way of truth, and hold the faith in unity of spirit, in the bond of peace, and in righteousness of life. Finally, we commend to thy fatherly goodness all those, who are any ways afflicted, or distressed, in mind, body, or estate; that it may please thee to comfort and relieve them, according to their several necessities, giving them patience under their sufferings, and a happy issue out of all their afflictions. And this we beg for Jesus Christ his sake. Amen.




2 Cor. xiii.

THE grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Ghost, be with us all evermore. Amen.

Otto

The Priority of the Numinous:
An Analysis of the precepts of Rudolf Otto’s The Idea of the Holy


Tarjei Park




Introduction

This essay is not intended as a study of Rudolf Otto’s developed system of the numinous, but of its assumptions and precepts. I shall not be attempting a phenomenological analysis of the elements of Mysterium, Tremendum et Fascinans. There is ample scope for detailing prominent and representative religious experiences in differing World Faiths, showing how they deviate from or contradict Otto’s category, and subsequently developing a critique.

I have instead decided to concentrate on an area less touched upon by the few writers who have written on this subject. Of these few, most allow only sporadic paragraphs on Otto; at most a chapter. I shall deal with four aspects: The Rational and the Non-rational, The Numinous, Autonomy, and ‘The Holy’ as an a priori category. In each case I shall outline Otto’s argument and then respond.

The Rational and the Non-rational

Rudolf Otto draws a clear distinction between the rational and the non-rational. The indefinable starting point in all religions is subsequently rationalised through the process of conceptualisation. This process is the means by which a particular religion gains ‘high rank and superior value’. That Christianity contains conceptions about God in unique clarity and abundance is a very real sign of its superiority.

What should be made clear at the outset is that what Otto means by ‘non-rational’ is not ‘anti-rational’. It is not so much that the ‘rational’ is wrong, but that it is inadequate and secondary. The ‘rational’ functions as belief. It is through conceptualised thought in the form of belief that (by faith) religious knowledge is made possible; and hence an explicit theology. Yet what must be guarded against is the notion that ‘the essence of deity’ can be fully understood and transmitted by ‘rational’ conceptualisation. Conceptualisation stems more from traditional Western aims in the use of language than from a desire to understand God. As Otto states:

‘All language, in so far as it consists of words, purports to convey ideas or concepts;- that is what language means;- and the more clearly and unequivocally it does so, the better the language. And hence expositions of religious truth in language inevitably tend to stress the ‘rational’ attributes of God.’1

Otto regards this emphasis as seriously misleading. ‘Rational’ attributes of God are so far from exhausting the idea of deity that they ‘in fact imply a non-rational or supra-rational Subject of which they are predicates.’2 Although they are ‘essential’ and not mere ‘accidental’ attributes they are ultimately synthetic essential attributes.

An understanding of God is not possible by the exclusive use of conceptual thought. This does not necessitate an apophatic response. The ineffable can be elaborated upon as, Otto claims, is witnessed by the copious eloquence of mystics. What is being argued for is that the idea of God is not to be contextualised by rationalist conceptions.

What must be remembered is that rationalism is no recent approach. Orthodox Christianity itself is responsible for the intellectualisation of the supra-rational. By an emphasis upon doctrine the supra-rational became limited and diminished in importance. A system of language or a vocabulary must therefore be formulated that adequately represents the supra-rational; that being a vocabulary that does not depend upon a rationalist conceptualising frame of reference. What is explicitly argued is that language relating to religious experience must have complete autonomy:

‘For if there be any single domain of human experience that presents us with something unmistakably specific and unique, peculiar to itself, assuredly it is that of the religious life.’3


Reply

What must be addressed is how far two trends exist in representing God. How fair is Otto in arguing that a supra-rational response has been systematically supplanted by a rationalist response? In terms of Christian origins, Jesus seems, albeit figuratively, to have represented a God of parental concern that deals rationally over the actions of human beings. The human response to God was presented as a cause and effect dialectic grounded in the rationally conceived. Even the tone and content of Jesus’ notions of prayer very much tend to accessible images that dictate tangible actions on the part of humans. To expand this further, we must ask whether Christianity is essentially experiential or doctrinal. Which, if either, has priority? Is Christian experience of God dependent upon a moral mode of living, or does this mode proceed from an experience of God? Having said this, this does not mean that a linear relation between the two has to be entertained. A revelatory Damascus road experience would not seem to depend upon a prior moral mode of living. Yet the general Christian experience of living in the presence of God would seem to demand a morally characterised Christian intention however subliminal.

Otto argues that rational language systems have overwhelmed the more essential supra-rational character of and response to God. This presupposes to some length that doctrinal language is itself essentially ‘rational’. It is rather telling to note the level of negation present in credal formulations. It must be remembered that Chalcedonian Christianity was essentially defensive, as is exemplified by the negations dealing with Christ, asunchutos, atreptos, adiairetos, achoristos.

Furthermore, the contention that the primary aim of language is that of clarity, precision and hence diminishment is not entirely correct. The languages of conversation, poetry, emotional situations, and, indeed, creeds themselves are characterised by as much metaphor and abstraction as definition and confinement.

Although acknowledging the historical existence of supra-rational sounds and words used of deity, Otto does not display how widespread such an approach has been and is. Archaic language such as Latin and Seventeenth century English has acted as a linguistic method of experiential displacement; a stripping away of the mundane by use of an ‘other’ language. Liturgical formulations can scarcely be reduced to a rationalist response, its sacramental vocabulary itself defies such interpretation.

Interestingly Western converts to Buddhism have retained Sanskrit, Pali, Tibetan, Chinese, and Japanese terminology in their practice. What is here so ironic is that the essentially utilitarian methods of orthodox Buddhism have gained a mysterious quality that is clearly in contradiction with their intentions.

I should like to finish this chapter with what is most probably the essential problem encountered thus far in Otto’s argument. That is, is there meaning in such a thing as non-conceptual thought? Clearly it is hard to know of what a non-conceptualising response consists. This is most explicitly illustrated by reference to Ch’an Buddhism. The Platform Sutra asserts that a True Reality exists independently of the phenomenal world. Here ‘things in themselves’. let alone the conception of them, are deemed completely irrelevant, the sutra maintaining the singular importance of a non-referential True Reality. Non-conceptual thought itself seems a contradiction in terms. If we accept the justifiable assumption that language precedes logic, that is, that cognition is dependent upon culturally bound linguistic structures, then a radical negation of conceptual logic would necessitate a cognitive neutrality that was impossible to represent.

If True Reality is mentally perceived when conceptual thinking and the phenomenal world has been discarded, how far does it exist noumenously, that is, independent of mind or ‘in itself’? In the case of the Platform Sutra it would appear, as a result of the sutra’s theory of internalisation, that it is a reality that is restricted to mind and therefore a psychological construct only. If it is as such non-propositional and therefore non-referential phenomenologically, the charge that it is pseudological might seem warranted.

Such a problem is, of course, not restricted to the Platform Sutra. Of a theistic correlate to Ch’an Buddhist ‘True Reality’ Anthony O’Hear has stated:

‘The notion of pure being is one we have found wanting in intelligibility on a number of occasions, as being indistinguishable from a pure nothing.’4


‘Numen’ and the ‘Numinous’

Otto maintains that an uncorrupted word for this supra-rational experiential starting-point no longer exists. Specifically, the term ‘holy’ has acquired ethical overtones that do not represent its essence and that are secondary. Of ‘the Holy’ he states: ‘...if the ethical element was present at all, at any rate it was not original and never constituted the whole meaning of the word.’5 ‘The Holy’ has come to mean the perfectly moral, as is exemplified by Kant’s terming the will which remains obedient to the moral law a ‘holy’ will.

It is the meaning that exists independently of perfectly moral that Otto believes must be isolated. Yet to retain the term ‘holy’ would allow ethical content to remain. We must therefore ‘invent a special term to stand for “the Holy” minus its moral factor or “moment”, and, as we can now add, minus its “rational” aspect altogether.’6

This ‘unnamed Something’ is the ‘real innermost core’ of religion and has been previously rendered by the Hebrew qadôsh, the Greek agios and the Latin sanctus and sacer. Yet all these terms have subsequently been associated with absolute goodness, an association resulting from ‘rationalisation’ and ‘moralisation’ that constitutes a deviation from their original meanings. Originally, ‘the Holy’ was in itself ethically neutral and constituted a ‘unique original feeling-response’, that is, a non-rationally ‘conceived’, intuitive response to the ‘Wholly Other’.

The Latin word Numen (the most general word in early Roman religion for divinity or religious powers) is to represent the ‘...“extra” in the meaning of “holy” above and beyond the meaning of goodness.’7 The ‘numinous’ then being used of a unique category of value and the correlating perfectly sui generis mental state that is irreducible to any other. Although it can be discussed, this primary and elementary datum cannot be strictly defined. It can be understood only by means of intuition and direct experience.


Reply

Otto clearly believes that there exists a dual and separable content to the term ‘holy’ in which the ethical content can be stripped away from a primary meaning and discarded. This belief is dependent upon a particular history of religion; it is a syncretistic vision that does not fully acknowledge the radical evolution of religious perception.

It may do well to at least note that much of what Otto argues for relates to a hidden agenda. Without, at this stage, making judgements, it should be pointed out that an underlying universalism substantially colours Otto’s thinking.

Following Otto, John Oman has argued of the numinous: ‘in all religion it is perhaps the basis, as the world of touch is to the other senses.’8 He goes on to distinguish between ‘the undifferentiated holy’ and ‘the particularising holy...The one is a general sense of the supernatural as one absolute reality, and the other the feeling of this in almost any conceivable manifestation.’9 I think this argument might be best assessed by way of an analogy. What Oman seems to be arguing for is a common langue (‘the undifferentiated holy’) that obviously has different parôles (‘the particularising holy’), but that these all fully represent the langue. Yet that they contain a common mode of expression, which in religion might be ‘human response’, does not necessitate substantial similarly. That ‘Water contains Hydrogen and Oxygen’ and ‘John loves Susan’ share a langue does not necessitate their being even remotely substantially connected.

Otto clearly presupposes a religious ‘constant’ that has existed from time immemorial and has been retained in the great World Faiths of today. It is this constant that is the substance of the numinous, it is a constant that has remained through Primitive, Archaic, Historical and to Modern Religion. What this constant does not allow for is the disparate sense of what ‘the holy’ constitutes. There is almost a genetic fallacy at work in Otto’s thinking. That ethical content was not part of the etymological root of a term, excludes it from the genuine interpretation of that term. Otto subsequently develops the system of schematisation in which the ethical and rational becomes juxtaposed with the numinous to constitute ‘the Holy’.

All this can be more clearly illustrated by reference to Christianity. Christianity does not belong to the weltanschauung of Primitive and Archaic Religion, indeed, it is characterised by ethical monotheism and as an Historical Religion, both of which are not central to earlier religious forms. To isolate a non-ethical ‘feeling-response’ from Christianity involves, to an extent, a significant category mistake. What is so telling here is that Otto borrows the term ‘Numen’. This old Latin term was used with reference to an Archaic Religion that bears little specific resemblance to Christianity.

Furthermore, Christianity is largely founded upon the Christ-event. In Pauline theology the new found or restored relationship with God is dependent on and conditioned by the historical event of the Resurrection; an act by God is responsible for the subsequent Christocentric experience. Depersonalised experiences of ‘the Holy’ are rare in the New Testament and certainly not generally representative.

We must again note the influence of a certain syncretistic bias in Otto’s system, a bias (prominent in the early part of this century) that stems from an emphasis upon the group term ‘religion’, an emphasis that Barth was so aggressively to contest. This fashionable concentration on holiness in the context of ‘religion’ is forcefully exemplified by a statement made by Soderblom in 1913:

‘Holiness is the great word in religion; it is even more essential than the notion of God. Real religion may exist without a definite conception of divinity. The idea of God without the conception of the holy is not religion...Not the mere existence of the divinity, but its mana, its power, its holiness is what religion involves.’10

Such a statement might be adequate as a very general argument, however, it lacks a specificity clearly demanded when dealing with individual traditions; it certainly does not adequately cater for the essential Christocentric experience in Christianity.

In the light of this we must seriously question how far the numinous is the ‘real innermost core’ of Christianity. I would not want to deny that the numinous is experiencable by Christians, however, clearly the numinous is not the self-evident normative Christian experience of God.

It must be remembered that the vast majority of Christian experiences do not conform to Otto’s system. It is often easy to forget when talking of religious experience that the normative Christian experiences of a presence are not represented by those of Meister Eckhart or St John of the Cross. An awareness of the presence of God as Father, Son or the Spirit is most usually to be found in sacramental worship or private prayer. John Wijngaards, although not writing as an analytical philosopher, writes:

‘The core of our Christian belief is that God became visible to us in Jesus Christ ...It is as if God, who remains such a mystery as the ground of our being and the ultimate reality of the universe, has shown us his “face”.’11

For Wijngaards, meeting Christ ‘face to face’ constitutes the ‘inner circle of prayer’. Surely this constitutes, to use Otto’s phrase, the ‘real innermost core’ of Christian experience.

Otto’s claim that the numinous is sui generis, irreducible, indefinable and a ‘feeling-response’ is surely epistemologically weak. In allowing it such autonomy it is put beyond the reach of critical appraisal (I shall follow this up more in the next section). Yet, the numinous is given meaning that goes further than pure ‘feeling’. Otto in presenting the constituent parts of the numinous, Mysterium, Tremendum et Fascinans, details Creature-Feeling, Awe-fulness, Overpoweringness, Energy (or Dynamism) and Wholly-Otherness as prevalent aspects. These aspects go far beyond the rather ‘neutral’ response initially argued for. Furthermore, if these aspects are to be credible surely some framework for their substantiation is needed. Richard Swinburne’s Principals of Credulity and Testimony would seem to be apt examples of how this might be attempted. Yet, Otto explicitly denies the need for such a framework. What must be asked is how far such a denial is coherent.


Exclusivism and the Autonomy of the Numinous

According to Otto a personal acquaintance with the data is a crucial requirement in understanding the religious form of consciousness in question. Indeed, in this he is most abrupt:

‘The reader is invited to direct his mind to a moment of deeply felt religious experience, as little as possible qualified by other forms of consciousness. Whoever cannot do this, whoever knows no such moments in his experience, is requested to read no farther;...’12

What is important is the unique quality of religious states of consciousness rather than what is common to other similar states. It is for this reason that Otto is critical of Schleiermacher’s isolation of the ‘feeling of dependence’ as the central feature of ‘the quite unique and incomparable experience of solemn worship’13 The ‘feeling of dependence’ is undeniably analogous to mundane states of mind. Religious dependence differs only from other feelings of dependence by degree and not ‘of intrinsic quality’ and for this reason, Otto maintains, Schleiermacher is wrong. The numinous ‘cannot be expressed by means of anything else, just because it is so primary and elementary a datum in our psychical life, and therefore only definable through itself.’14 Yet Otto believes this experience can be given a name:

‘I propose to call it “creature consciousness” or creature-feeling. It is the emotion of a creature, submerged and overwhelmed by its own nothingness in contrast to that which is supreme above all creatures.’15

Yet this, it is emphasised, is not a conceptual explanation. Creature-feeling purely denotes a ‘submergence into nothingness’ before an ‘absolute might’. Indeed, only by experience is this to be understood:

‘...the character of this overpowering might, a character that cannot be expressed verbally,...can only be suggested indirectly through the tone and content of a man’s feeling-response to it. And this response must be directly experienced in oneself to be understood.’16

Schleiermacher’s formulation is deficient as it is primarily a ‘category of self-valuation.’ This, according to Otto, is entirely opposed to the ‘psychological facts. “Creature-feeling” is itself a first subjective concomitant and effect of another feeling-element, which casts it like a shadow, but which in itself indubitably has immediate and primary reference to an object outside its self.’17


Reply

Otto presents a dualism of pure religious feeling and the non-religious that he believes is separable. Yet the way in which pure religious feeling is defined is highly problematic. ‘Creature-feeling’ as defined is clearly derived from and dependent upon a Judeo-Christian ontology. The autonomy of the numinous, although intended to span religious boundaries, is firmly located within a Judeo-Christian frame of reference. Indeed, in no way could ‘creature-feeling’ accommodate an orthodox Buddhist ontology. Similarly, its pronounced dualism is clearly incompatible with major Hindu traditions.

Even if we apply ‘creature-feeling’ to Christianity alone significant problems remain unresolved.

Theologically, there is little scriptural material that substantiates Otto’s position. New Testament theologies strongly favour a conceptual and personal relationship between the God-head and the individual. The Johannine Prologue describes those who ‘received Him’ and were given the ‘power to become sons of God’. A similar Christocentric emphasis is repeated (at length) in Paul’s writings again and again (Rom.6 & 8, 2 Cor. 5, Gal.2 & 3, Eph.1, Phil.2 & 3, Col.1 & 3, etc.). Even the ‘Third Heaven’ experience described in 2 Cor.12, although in seemingly supra-rational language, still emphasises a personal encounter and exchange between Paul and God. There are, indeed, passages that emphasise the overwhelming power of God, these tend to be Hebraic or Apocalyptic (Heb.10:31,12:29, Rev.1 & 4) and although often employing heavy symbolism, they still tend to the conceptual and personal.

Otto very definitely criticises Schleiermacher for opposing the ‘psychological facts’. Schleiermacher is criticised for inferring God from a psychological ‘feeling’. Instead Otto argues for the primacy of the ‘object outside the self’. Otto seems rather pseudological here. How far can his notions of ‘creature-feeling’ and the other ‘feeling-element’ be representative of psychological fact? It would seem no more so than those of Schleiermacher. Furthermore, is Otto arguing we can experience that a non-conceptual object outside the self is ontologically prior? How is our experience experienced as being secondary? If the experience is non-conceptual how is it then sequential and detailed as it is?

Philosophically, Otto claims for the category of the numinous an autonomy from analytical discourse claimed by (so-called) Wittgensteinian Fideists for religious modes of discourse. A close affinity between Otto’s argument and the Wittgenstein of the Tractatus has been argued for. This is followed up by H.D. Lewis who, when speaking of doctrines that appear openly to ‘flout the ordinary criteria of good sense and consistency’, states:

‘If...God is “wholly other”, if He is altogether outside the sphere within which formal explanations are possible, we appear to be confronted with an overwhelming and irreducible mystery and there seems to be no reason why beliefs, if they are possible at all, should conform to ordinary standards.’18

Clearly many of the problems encountered by fideist defences effect Otto’s argument. For example, although the claim might be made that religious discourse has a distinctive logic that is quite distinct from the logic of science or ‘the rational’, this might be questioned by religious propositional claims made that refer to nature, human beings, the cosmos and so on. Similarly Otto does not refrain from making conceptualisations that refer to ‘the rational’. Yet, non-conceptual discourse would seem an impossibility, and silence (the logical response to the God detailed by Lewis?) must somehow be contextualised.


The Holy as an a priori category

Otto argues that ‘the Holy’, comprising both rational and non-rational components, is a ‘purely a priori category’:

‘The rational ideas of absoluteness, completion, necessity, and substantiality, and no less so those of the good as an objective value, objectively binding and valid, are not to be “evolved” from any sort of sense-perception.’19

These ‘rational’ ideas are not ‘accounted for’ by sense-perception but by ‘an original and underivable capacity of the mind implanted in the “pure reason” independently of all perception.’20 For the non-rational elements of ‘the Holy’ we are referred to that ‘still deeper than “pure reason”’ - namely the fundus animae or ‘ground of the soul’ (Seelengrund).

According to Otto, therefore, ‘the Holy’ is not reducible to empirical explanations. Rather, experience is merely a stimulus to intuition of the numinous. The proof of Otto’s argument is to be ‘reached by introspection and a critical examination of reason’21 Otto follows Kant to the extent that he argues that the ‘thing in itself’ exists prior to our experience of it and hence is not reducible to our experience. The numinous is merely apprehended by a ‘hidden “predisposition” of the human spirit.’22 This predisposition ‘begins in undirected, groping emotion, a seeking and shaping of representations, and goes on, by a continual onward striving, to generate ideas, till its nature is self-illumined and made clear by an explication of the obscure a priori foundation of thought itself, out of which it originated.’23


Reply

It might be very useful to compare the sequence and content of this last quotation with those of other influential thinkers. My straying away from the field of philosophy might be pardoned by Otto’s insistence upon the psychological factuality of his system. My comparison might be best carried out by the use of admittedly crude, though hopefully representative diagrams.

Otto


The Holy - Undirected, - Generation - Explication
groping emotions of ideas of the Holy

This then might be represented as:

HOLY - EXPERIENCE - INTERPRETATION


This would clearly be questioned by certain theorists. The Feuerbachian transference theory would counter both the content and sequence of Otto’s system by maintaining that socially agreed high qualities are personified and projected as a religious ideal. A Feuerbachian alternative to the above diagram would be:

Socially conceived - Experience - Perception of correlating
high qualities figures

A similar sequence would be that of Freud:

Parent/Child - Relationship experienced - Perception of correlating
relationship cosmically figures

Both Feuerbach’s and Freud’s sequences might be summarised thus:

HUMAN CONCEPTIONS (A) - EXPERIENCE - REINFORCEMENT OF A

What is essential here is that the starting point is human and historically relative.

As we saw earlier, certain aspects of the numinous corroborate a Judeo-Christian conception of divinity. This might be seen as arguing for the Feuerbachian/Freudian sequence. It must be borne in mind that even in Otto’s sequence ‘the Holy’ is latterly interpreted in a way congenial to prior non-intuitive doctrine. It is certainly supportive of conceptual systems. However, it must be emphasised that the mere fact that there does not exist utter discrepancy between the numinous and a conceptual system does not logically negate Otto’s a priori claim. His claim of a priori can, I believe, be supported by a Jungian sequence. It should be made clear that Jung fully applied this sequence to religious perception although it obviously covered ‘wider’ ground.

Collective unconscious - Realisation - Individuation
Archetypes
God imago
Numinous

Here the Collective Unconscious (that is not reducible to individual sense-experience or to a geographical or historical setting) is the original point of reference. The archetypes of the Collective Unconscious are gradually perceived by the individual in the process of individuation. One such archetype is named by Jung ‘God Imago’; the awe-inspiring God. Jung borrowed Otto’s term ‘numinous’ here and widely used it elsewhere.24 Clearly here the Collective Unconscious repudiates the a posteriori categories in the sequences of Feuerbach and Freud.

Now it is unlikely that Otto would have accepted Jung’s system. He might well have discounted it on the grounds that it did not adequately represent the ‘Wholly-Otherness’ of the numinous. Yet what must be emphasised is that the Collective Unconscious exists prior to and independent of its perception by the individual.

That the a priori category of ‘the Holy’ is universal and universally the same, is questioned by the diversity of religious phenomena and experiences. Furthermore, that which constitutes ‘the Holy’ is by no means universal. This can be most clearly illustrated by reference to orthodox Buddhism in which Otto’s category would have no relevance whatsoever. Indeed, experiences encountered in meditation similar to those of the numinous would be firmly dismissed as useless psychological manifestations that interfere with meditative progress.

Philip Almond argues that the Kantian framework used to substantiate the notion of the a priori category of ‘the Holy’ militates against Otto ‘taking note of the phenomenological disparities...and persuades him to place both theistic and mystical experience within the broad category of the numinous experience.’25 Yet although the Kantian foundation might substantiate the claim for ‘the Holy’ as an a priori category, it does not necessitate the syncretism of Otto’s system. As Bastow has stated of Otto, ‘he assumes a phenomenological unity based on religious experience, and considers that he merely has to find out its nature’26 (his italics).


Conclusion

In making the distinction between the Rational and the Non-rational Otto unfairly presents the former as dominating religious discourse. Furthermore, his promotion of non-conceptual thought or response is problematic in that by therefore being non-referential it attains a radical neutrality that renders it rather meaningless. His belief that a non-ethical experiential core can be isolated from the term ‘holy’ is only possible through the generalisation of historical religions. It is certainly difficult to isolate such a ‘pure’ experience from New Testament accounts. By claiming that this ‘pure’ experience is sui generis, irreducible and indefinable, Otto makes the category epistemologically weak in that lack of substantiation renders conceptual claims made for it open to justifiable attack.

The category of the numinous has a Judeo-Christian bias. Yet this is only insofar as the numinous represents a very general representation of Judeo-Christian notions of a ‘wholly other’ God. Specific New Testament theologies do not corroborate the experiential content of Otto’s category.

In maintaining that ‘the Holy’ is an a priori category I think Otto is on firmer ground. Certainly the weight of the correlating Jungian sequence undermines the disputation of such a position by the now classical, although rather naïve, reductionist sequences of Feuerbach and Freud.

It seems as if had Otto restricted himself to a more specific field of study his system would have been more feasible. His complete system of the constituent parts of the numinous might well be representative of certain Judeo-Christian traditions, yet in representing ‘religion’ it must be said that it is ultimately inadequate.


References

1. Otto 1958, p.2
2. ibid.
3. ibid. p.4
4. O’Hear 1984, p.240
5. op. cit. p.5
6. ibid. p.6
7. ibid.
8. Oman 1931, p.61
9. ibid. p.62
10. Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, VI, p.731
11. Wijngaards 1987, p.17
12. op. cit. p.8
13. ibid.
14. ibid. p.9
15. ibid. p.10
16. ibid.
17. ibid.
18. Lewis 1959, p.36
19. op. cit. p.112
20. ibid.
21. ibid. p.113
22. ibid. p.115
23. ibid. p.116
24. e.g. Answer to Job, p.93f.
25. Almond 1982, p.117
26. Bastow 1976, p.169




Bibliography

Almond, P. Mystical Experience and Religious Doctrine, Mouton 1982.
Bastow, D. Otto and Numinous Experience, Religious Studies 12 1976.
Lewis, H.D. Our Experience of God, George Allen & Unwin 1959.
O’Hear, A. Experience, Explanation and Faith, Routledge & Kegan Paul 1984.
Oman, J. The Natural and the Supernatural, CUP 1931.
Otto, R. The Idea of the Holy, OUP 1958 (1923).
Religious Essays, OUP 1931.
Turner, H.W. Rudolf Otto’s ‘The Holy’, Aberdeen Peoples Press 1974.
Wijngaards, J. The Seven Circles of Prayer, McCrimmon 1987.
God Within Us, Fount 1988.