Has anyone else noticed how some groups anoint everything with the idea of the 'sacred'? Mormons don’t simply have conferences, they have ‘solemn assemblies.’ Their proceedings may be shared and discussed, but any questioning of these ‘sacred’ meetings is seen as crass. After all, the prophet has spoken and we all should be grateful. ‘Sacred’ here means beyond criticism.
To Mormons, the place where Joseph Smith had his ‘First Vision’ (note the official capitalisation) is called the ‘Sacred Grove’ (also capitalised). ‘Sacred’ here means unimpeachable, so we had better respect it or we will just let ourselves down. Sacred groves are not and never have been part of the landscape of the Christian faith. Here in the United Kingdom churches were often built over the sites of pagan Anglo-Saxon sacred groves. These groves have been associated with paganism, animism, polytheism, the cult of the dead, but never Christ.
Mormons also build and operate temples, considered so ‘sacred’ that what takes place in them is not open to discussion. Talk of Mormon temples and their rites never gets past the question of ’sacred or secret?’ They insist on sacred but most struggle to the difference. I mean, if you won’t talk about it...
The most prosaic things are off limits to scrutiny once deemed 'sacred.' Another one is 'anointed.' If someone has been to the mountaintop and returned with the anointing they are beyond profane questioning, criticism, or accountability. It happens a lot in certain parts of the Christian Church today.
Jehovah’s Witnesses achieve a similar dichotomy between the sacred and the profane by identifying two distinct groups; the ‘little flock’ and the ‘great crowd.’ The 144,000 are to go to heaven, to be the ‘body of Christ’, while the great crowd are the governed on earth. On the issue of government, Jehovah’s Witnesses are led by a governing body whose decisions and counsel are never to be questioned and, like the ‘sacred’ and ‘anointed,’ are above reproach.
As Christians, we believe in the sacred. We take seriously those things regarded as spiritually significant. The problem with the cults arises when sacred language is recruited to create the sense of an ‘in’ group and an ‘out’ group, even within the group, when those things labelled ‘sacred’ are too sacred to be talked about, investigated, shared and discussed.
As Christians, we believe in the sacred. We take seriously those things regarded as spiritually significant. The problem with the cults arises when sacred language is recruited to create the sense of an ‘in’ group and an ‘out’ group, even within the group, when those things labelled ‘sacred’ are too sacred to be talked about, investigated, shared and discussed.
We see this in groups that employ a different language to create a barrier between the sacred and the people gathered around the sacred. We see it when people come to regard their leaders as so close to God as to be beyond scrutiny and criticism. We see it in groups that use rites and sacraments, not as an open invitation to the seeker, but as an initiation into the inner workings of the group. We see it in the gnosticism of the early church.
We smile sometimes at people who try to nurture an air of the sacred around themselves. They can look comical, even ridiculous. The prophet on his mountaintop, the priest with his ceremonies, the preacher in his inner chamber. However, this is very dangerous as leaders become unaccountable, practices are beyond being challenged, and the spiritual lives of those oppressed by this kind of ‘sacred’ are excluded, stunted, damaged, ultimately destroyed for want of honest and open discussion.
This profane use of the sacred is the root of all judgementalism in cults, and in cultish churches. You won't hear a Mormon inviting an investigator with the words, 'come to church as you are.' There is a dress code. I remember one particularly warm Sunday morning back in the seventies the bishop addressing the missionaries, 'brethren, you may remove your jackets.' At the time we considered it thoughtful. Now it seems really creepy and controlling that you should need permission.
People are drawn to the sacred, and for good reason. God has made us for himself and it is through the sacred, such as the sacraments, prayer, fellowship, and Scripture, that we approach him. We must remember, however, that God’s purpose in the beginning was that we should have intimate fellowship with him without barriers (Gen.3:8-10).
In Christ, the barrier that sin created between us and God has been demolished, as has the barrier between male and female, Jew and Gentile, bond and free, (Gal.3:28). It is important to recognise that Paul wrote these words because Judaizers were trying to build a barrier of the sacred between potential converts and the Christian Church.
It stands as a warning to us to be watchful for those who would erect similar ‘sacred’ barriers today. Ours is a gospel of open grace not a secret religion for a select group.
Paul, in his second Corinthian letter, made clear he was not prepared to make the gospel a mystery, instead being determined to proclaim an open statement of truth to everyone:
‘Having this ministry by the mercy of God, we do not lose heart. But we have renounced disgraceful, underhand ways. We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God’s word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God.’ (2 Cor.4:1-2)
As Christians, we believe in the sacred but ours is not a mystery religion, rather it is a plain and simple invitation to all to come and see what God has done for us in Christ.
Comments