Forgiveness: The Free Lunch You've Been Looking For

Ask most Christian ministers what forgiveness is, and you won't get much of an answer. 

This infuriates me. Christian ministers have been given an incredible opportunity to help people of faith understand what forgiveness is and how to bring forgiveness into their daily lives. In fact, it's one of the few things the church can offer that isn't being offered elsewhere through service clubs, secular charities, and weekend workshops taught by various coaches and New Age gurus. 

I have a book called Helping People Forgive by David W. Augsburger (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996). According to the back cover, Dr. Augsburger is a Professor of Pastoral Care and Counseling at Fuller Theological Seminary. I'm sure Dr. Augsburger is a sincere, well-meaning man. But he doesn't know the first thing about the mystical reality of forgiveness. 

Early in his book, Dr. Augsburger says, "A major paradigmatic shift occurred two thousand years ago in the philosophical breakthrough that allowed persons to disavow their past and alter their future through 'forgiveness'" (page 9). 

I disagree. Forgiveness is not about disavowing the past, nor about reversing a moral judgment (Augsburger, page 11). Nor is it (as one of my classmates said, though he ought to know better, considering his interest in restorative justice) a state of "just not thinking about the harm at all."

Forgiveness is an act of great moral courage that requires the person who's doing the forgiving to dredge up from within their own soul all the divine love they're capable of. 

Forgiveness is not for the faint of heart. 

While it's quite within the capacity of all human beings to forgive themselves and to forgive each other (as Jesus taught), it's not something a person can learn overnight. For many people, it will take years to learn how to forgive. Part of the reason for this is that when you open up your heart wide enough that you can hear your own soul, you have to deal with a lot of intense emotions, including painful emotions. Many people don't want to deal with such emotions. 

If you've never learned to master intense, positive, mature emotions such as gratitude, trust, devotion, and courage, you're going to find it difficult to master the emotion of forgiveness. 

Not impossible, but difficult. 

This shouldn't stop you from trying. Each day, your beloved Mother and Father God forgive you for everything you do that's motivated by status addiction, or greed, or rudeness, or cruelty (to name some of the less-than-loving motivations you might choose in a typical day). They forgive you whether or not you ask for forgiveness. They forgive you for everything -- and I mean everything. 

Divine love and forgiveness are like this hoard of 1st century CE Roman coins found in an ancient pottery amphora in Egypt. The original owner buried the coins for safekeeping, but he and his heirs eventually lost track of it. Such treasure hoards, when found today, usually fall under national laws that require the finder to first offer the hoard to a public museum at a fair price. This allows the treasure to be shared equally by all those who visit the museum. In other words, like a museum treasure trove, forgiveness belongs to everyone. Photo credit JAT 2017

HOWEVER, the fact that they forgive you does NOT mean they consider such behaviours acceptable. They forgive you when you're abusive towards others, but they also have an opinion about your decision to be abusive towards others. 

God the Mother and God the Father have free will, just as you have free will. They're within their rights to have an opinion about your harmful actions. They're also within their rights to promptly respond to you, to share their thoughts and feelings with you about the choices you're making. This means, of course, that God is not transcendent and God is not unemotional with regard to your choices (although orthodox Western Christianity would have you believe that God would never cry about the choices you're making.) 

God forgives you whether you ask or not, and by the same token, God is always watching and listening whether you ask or not. God is always watching and listening to you, because this is how God knows when it's time to intervene to help you (whether you ask for help or not). 

God will intervene whether or not you recite the right prayer to God, whether or not you think you're worthy of God's love, or whether or not you think you're worthy of God's forgiveness. 

You don't get a say in these things, because it's not up to you to decide what God should be thinking, feeling, or doing. That's up to God. 

You can't make God stop loving you. You just can't, no matter how hard you try. 

You are one of God's children. They love you. They forgive you. There is no force anywhere in Creation that can block their divine love. The flip side of the coin is this: there's no ritual, no prayer, no temple, no church, no sacrament that can give you more divine love than you already have. God loves everyone -- from the North Pole to the South Pole and all points in between -- in the fullest, most wondrous way imaginable. God's love cannot be purchased. Ever. 

Anyone who tells you that you can only receive God's love by accepting baptism in Christ is lying to you. Give God some credit for being able to love you completely without attaching a bunch of religious strings. 

Trust in God's love and forgiveness as Jesus trusted in God's love and forgiveness. There's only one free lunch in all Creation, and this happens to be it. 

As a mystic, I've worked extensively on the question of forgiveness -- what it is, how to do it, how to let it transform your life. I'll continue to write on this topic in future. 

Thanks for listening. And thanks be to God!

The Gospel of Mark as a Rebuttal of First Corinthians

There's no excuse any longer for people of faith to accept the Church's interpretation of the Bible.  

For almost 2,000 years, the orthodox Western Church has successfully hoodwinked people into believing that Paul was an apostle of the man named Jesus of Nazareth. If the New Testament can be said to be a "testament" at all, it should be understood as a testament to the determination and marketing genius of certain men and women who wanted the kind of power that only comes through a theocracy. 

The Charioteer of Delphi, bronze statue, early 5th C BCE. Photo (c) Hemera Technologies 2001-2003

I can certainly understand how regular people would fail to understand the implications of what Paul and Mark wrote. Even though I had two university degrees before embarking on a Master's degree in theological studies, I had no understanding until the age of 49 that the Church had been lying to me all my life. I naively assumed until then that the Church was telling me the truth about Jesus, and that the Church was wanting to tell me the truth about Jesus.  

Then I went back to university. There, using the research tools my professors taught me, it soon became clear to me that the pages of the New Testament don't say what they're "supposed" to say if you're a good, pious, orthodox Christian. Instead, the pages tell a story about a family ripped apart, a man who longed to know God, a death that didn't come to pass, and the frantic attempts of other people to hide the truth about this man, this man's family, and this man's "non-death."  

What surprised me even more than what I saw in the pages of the New Testament was the reaction of my professors and classmates to what's written there. They did NOT want anyone to point out that Paul's theology is completely different from Jesus' theology as presented in Mark. They wanted to keep the myth that Paul was chosen by God to preach "the good news." They seemed content to ignore the avalanche of research material that now makes it impossible for a person of academic integrity to claim that Paul and Mark were even "in the same book," let alone "on the same page." The proof is right there in black and white for anyone who wants to take the time to examine it objectively.  

So different are Paul and Mark's theologies, in fact, that I contend here that Mark wrote his narrative biography about Jesus as a direct written rebuttal of the letters written by Paul in the short collection we now call First Corinthians.  

The vast majority of Christians have no idea (and why should they?) that the Gospel of Mark was written several years after the letters of Paul. Christians assume (and why shouldn't they?) that the books of the New Testament are arranged in the order in which they were written. So they read Matthew's Gospel, with its detailed Nativity story, and they conclude the Bible is reciting Jesus' story to them from the beginning (which only makes sense). But, as most biblical scholars will tell you, the Gospel of Matthew was written after the Gospel of Mark, not before. And Mark, in turn, was written several years after the uncontested letters of Paul.*  

The books of the New Testament would look a lot different if they were printed in the order in which they were written. If they were printed in this order -- first the Letter of James, then the Q Source, then parts of the Gospel of John, then Paul's 7 letters in the order mentioned in the footnote below, then Mark, then Matthew, then Luke and Acts back to back (because Luke and Acts were written as a two-part story by the same author), then the rest of John's writings (which grew increasingly erratic, paranoid, and apocalyptic over time) -- you'd be able to see without too much trouble what was actually going on during the time of Jesus and his immediate successors. 

To make the differences between Jesus and Paul even easier to see, all you have to do is find an internet site that offers the complete text of a solid Biblical translation such as the RSV, the NIV, or the NRSV, then cut and paste the text of First Corinthians into a word-processor chart beside the text of Mark's Gospel (minus Mark 16:9-20, verses which scholars generally agree were tacked on by a later scribe). Now you have your very own free Biblical Synopis chart like a biblical scholar with a Ph.D.!  

You'll probably find the hardest part of this exercise is the mental effort to ignore what Matthew and Luke say. Pretend Matthew, Luke, and Acts don't exist (because they didn't exist when Mark was written). Focus only on what Paul says and what Mark says a few years afterward. Focus on what Paul doesn't say about Jesus. Then notice what Mark does say about Jesus. Don't you think it's strange that the later source -- Mark -- refuses to agree with Paul about who Jesus was and what Jesus taught? Don't you think it's strange that Mark makes no mention of grace? Or "foolishness" in Christ? Or Spirit's gifts of prophecy and tongues? Or the moveable Temple that is Spirit dwelling in your body? Don't you think it's strange that Mark makes no mention of the chosen prophet Paul (an historical figure by the time Mark wrote), nor of "our Lord Jesus Christ" (supposedly also a famous historical figure by the time Mark wrote)?  

Are where, for that matter, can we find Mark's themes of forgiveness, courage, and healing miracles in Paul?  

We can't. Because they're not in Paul. Paul wasn't interested in the theme of forgiveness. That's because forgiveness and grace are antithetical to each other. Paul chose grace. Jesus chose forgiveness.  

Choose one. Because you can't have both. 

If you prefer Paul's theology, that's fine, but at least have the decency to be honest about it. Don't pretend you're following in the footsteps of Jesus when you're not. Have the courage to stand up and be counted as a follower of Paul. Then let the followers of Jesus' teachings go their own separate way, as they've been trying to do for almost 2,000 years.  

Can you tell I'm tired of the bullshit?  

* Biblical scholars have used a variety of tools to establish that some of the canonical books traditionally attributed to Paul were almost certainly written by other authors, and not by Paul himself. There are 7 books that are generally agreed upon as authentic to Paul himself. These books are First Thessalonians; Galatians; First Corinthians; Second Corinthians; Philippians; Philemon; and Romans. There is no general agreement on the order in which these 7 books were written. I place Romans last, though others think Philippians was written last. Second Corinthians is also problematic because the letter as we know today it is actually a compilation of at least three different letters written at different times.

Realspiritik

Last Christmas, when everyone was putting out their favourite Christmas decorations, I chanced to see an interesting item in a store. It was a Nativity scene. All the traditional details of the Nativity narrative that Christians love and cherish were carefully rendered in this modern-day creche, from the timbers of the stable to the angel on the roof. The nativity scene could be set on a tabletop, and enjoyed in this way as a reminder of the Christmas story. But for true fans of the story, there was more. The creche was fitted with a high-tech digital sound and lights device. At the touch of a button, the soothing, mellow voice of a male narrator suddenly filled the space around the creche with a reverent retelling of the Christmas story, as tiny moving "spotlights" highlighted each character in sequence. It was quite well done, and I'm sure whoever bought it will get a lot of pleasure out of it.

It's a touching story, this Nativity tale, and it's one that many people find great comfort in. They can't imagine Christmas without it. It's such a great story, with all the bells and whistles of a good Saviour myth: divinely chosen human parents, a virgin mother, mystical signs and portents leading up to the time of birth, a long-prophesied male child from a sacred bloodline who must be whisked away and hidden from evil kings until he comes of age. Why, it's a story worthy of Harry Potter! Or King Arthur! Or Aragorn son of Arathorn! Or Luke Skywalker! It's such a terrific, timeless story that it's no wonder there are two completely different versions of it in the New Testament -- one in Matthew, one in Luke. Why stop at one invented Nativity story when you can have two? That way, people can pick and choose what they like, and they can paste the details together in new and creative ways called "blended truth," and there's something for everyone, so all people can relate to the story -- even the lowly shepherd folk!*

Being told from early childhood that you're very, very special is a double-edged sword. Photo of 17th century Mughal ceremonial court dagger set with jewels from Royal Ontario Museum special exhibit. Photo credit JAT 2019.

Now, don't get me wrong. I love a good tale of intrigue, adventure, and heroism. Plus I think we really need good storytelling. Good stories teach us timeless truths, and help us understand our own lives and our own painful experiences. Stories told through books, visual art, music, plays, film, dance, and performance art are deeply important to the human experience. But stories are stories, and facts are facts, and a lot of damage is caused when the two become interchanged, when story is treated as fact, and fact is treated as story.

We can sometimes recognize situations where story is being treated as fact: we call it propaganda, spin, political manoeuvring, brainwashing, or manipulation. Our history books (and our newspapers) are filled with examples of leaders who've used "the big spin" to control political, religious, and economic events.

However, we're less familiar with examples of fact being treated as story. By this I mean we're less familiar with examples of individuals who spoke an honest truth and were ignored by their contemporaries until later commentators "took up the cause" and "improved" it to make it more appealing to a wider audience. This process of "improvement" involves the addition of a thick layer of myth to a foundation of fact. An excellent example of this is the way in which Lenin and Trotsky "improved" upon the writings of Marx and Engels to create Russian Communism.

The reality of Jesus' life and teachings -- the actual events, and the actual people -- is another instance of fact being turned into story. So many layers of myth, allegory, and invention have been added to a basic foundation of fact that orthodox Western Christianity now resembles a nutritious, single-layered, carrot cake that's been piled high with three feet of gooey, calorie-laden icing. There's so much icing, we don't realize there's still a cake inside there somewhere. All we can see is the icing. We eat piece after piece of icing, and always feel sick to our stomachs. But if we could get down to the carrot cake, made with wholesome ingredients such as eggs, oil, carrots, unbleached flour, spices, and a little sugar, we'd probably find our spiritual food nourishing instead of nauseating!

Let me ask you a question. A practical question based on realistic observations about realistic human behaviour. Okay . . . you've read the tabloid headlines (even when you don't want to admit it), and you've seen the TV interview shows, and you've been on Facebook or Twitter or YouTube. Over and over again you've seen the reports about famous child stars and their tragic lives as adults. Right? You've heard again and again about famous child stars who had everything, but ended up crashing and burning in early adulthood. Famous child stars who've been battling addiction disorders since their early teens. Famous child stars who can't sustain monogamous romantic relationships. Famous child stars who've become abusive towards others and are brought before the courts to answer for their abuse. Famous child stars who become narcissistically self-indulgent, no longer capable of understanding what empathy is.

What turns these talented young actors into narcissistic monsters (because they sure as heck weren't born this way)? The answer is status addiction. 

These young people, who started out as normal boys and girls, have been told countless times over many years that they're special, that they're different, that they're deserving of fame. They fall prey to status addiction at an early age. Once they're biologically addicted to status, they're much more vulnerable -- both psychologically and physiologically -- to other addictions, such as alcohol and street drugs. It's no surprise at all that they can't control their emotions or their choices by the time they're young adults.

So here's my question . . . just exactly how do you think a young boy raised from infancy to believe he's the long-awaited Messiah would escape the fate of these young Hollywood stars? How do you think such a boy would be any different?

Do you think his biology would be different? Do you think his physiology would be different? Do you think his DNA would be different? Do you think he'd be immune to the realities of status addiction? Do you think he'd be invulnerable to the slings and arrows of status addiction, like some sort of Jewish Achilles, dipped by his semi-divine mother into a baptismal pool of magic river water so he'll be divinely protected from almost everything real? Do you think he could spend years in a household where he's treated differently from his brothers and sisters, where he's trained from birth to fulfill "a special purpose" as Israel's Messiah, yet somehow not end up becoming a self-entitled, narcissistic, addiction-addled brat? (And, by way of comparison, isn't it interesting that Homer's Achilles grows up to become a self-entitled, narcissistic, addiction-addled brat?)

I can think of only one modern example of a person who was raised in such an elitist spiritual environment without losing all his humbleness and courage, and that person is the current Dalai Lama. My hat's off to him and his teachers because he's managed to preserve the sanity and compassion he was born with. I can't in all honesty say that orthodox Western Christian doctrines would be of any use to a boy or girl who genuinely wanted to be close to God.

The reality is that if Jesus had been raised to believe he was the Messiah, he would have been a pretty useless Messiah. He would have ended up "broken," broken in the way so many other men and women have become broken because they were raised to believe that God had chosen them before birth to become special prophets and leaders. If Jesus' family had raised him in this way, they would have turned him (without meaning to) into a garden-variety spiritual narcissist with serious addiction problems.

This is not the Jesus we see in the Gospel of Mark. Nor is it the family of Jesus we see in the Gospel of Mark.

In the Gospel of Mark, there is no Nativity story at all. In fact, Mark gives only hints to his readers about Jesus' family of origin, and these hints aren't very flattering.

Isn't it interesting that Mark thinks the historical facts about Jesus' mission speak more loudly to his audience than any myth could?

Ya gotta wonder what Mark knew that Paul didn't want you to know.


* Although most readers today assume that Luke is referring to sheep herders in Luke 2, there's good reason to suspect that Luke is alluding to Egyptian rulers -- shepherds caring for their people -- whose ancient symbols had long been the crook and the flail. If this is true, it means that Luke is showing Egyptian rulers (wise kings) travelling to Bethlehem to offer obeisance to the Christ child, just as Matthew shows the Persian Magi (wise kings) doing the same in Matthew 2.