CC37: More on Harpur's "Pagan Christ"

I'm still feeling grumpy about Tom Harpur's suggestions for Christians who want to find "the only way ahead," so I'm going to talk some more about that. 

"Four things on earth are small, yet they are exceedingly wise: the ants are a people without strength, yet they provide their food in summer; the badgers are a people without power, yet they make their homes in the rocks; the locusts have no king, yet all of them march in rank; the spider can be grasped in the hand, yet it is found in kings' palaces" (Proverbs 30: 24-28). You don't have to choose between mystery and science. Jesus understood this, as did Job before him. The back of the moon wasn't visible until the space program revealed it. But seeing the moon through the eyes of science hasn't lessened the sense of wonder and awe we feel when her silvery beauty gleams. Photo credit JAT 2021.

Early on in this blog, I stated -- in bold letters, no less -- that I am NOT a Gnostic (March 6, 2010: Some Reference Books I Read & Recommend). Even though I'm a practising mystic, and even though I believe in a number of things that can't be seen by the human eye (so sue me -- even radio waves can't be seen by the human eye), this doesn't make me a Gnostic. It's only sloppy thinkers who haven't done their homework on Gnosticisms would insist on calling me a Gnostic. (Note here that I've used the plural form of Gnosticism because careful researchers know there's no such thing as one single historical form of Gnosticism any more than there's one single historical form of Christianity or one single historical form of Judaism.)

In order for a person to be included under the umbrella term of Gnosticism, he or she has to hold certain beliefs about the nature of humanity's relationship with God. Central to all Gnosticisms is the idea that the soul is a tiny piece of God's essence that is trying to find its way back to God. Immortal souls end up in mortal bodies, but this isn't really a good thing, according to Gnostics, because our physical bodies drag the soul down into a "prison" of matter. The spiritual task of Gnostics is to recognize the spark of God/Christ/Divine that exists within, and to go about freeing that spark by raising their consciousness to a higher level. The method is to seek "wisdom" and hidden knowledge (gnosis in Greek). This knowledge leads to transcendence.

If this sounds a lot like Plato's teachings about the soul's journey, it's because Plato's teachings and later Gnostic teachings have a lot in common. Most orthodox Western Christian scholars don't want to admit it, but these teachings also strongly influenced the apostle Paul. The famous passage about life after death in Chapter 15 of First Corinthians is a fascinating blend of Jewish apocalyptic thought (future resurrection) and Platonic thought (incorruptibility of the divine): "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Listen, I will tell you a mystery! We will not all die, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed." (Cue Handel's Messiah.)

Tom Harpur is quite up-front about the fact that he admires Gnostic thinking. On page 175 of The Pagan Christ, he says, "What's really important is that Paul's spiritual view of Christ (his Christology) and Gnostic Christianity held the early Christian movement up to a truly high standard of intellectual and philosophical excellence."

Bear in mind that Harpur himself doesn't believe there ever was an actual man named Jesus Christ who lived in1st century CE Palestine. He believes the gospel stories about Jesus should be read typologically, not literally. He believes the story of Jesus is pure symbol. An important symbol, but a symbol nonetheless. A myth, not a fact.

In fact, Harpur believes that all Scripture should only be read symbolically, not literally or historically. For Harpur, "the enigma of the Bible has been largely solved. Dark passages, cryptic narratives or events -- all have been shot through with a new, though long-lost, light because of this awareness that the key to all Scripture is to be found in the doctrine of Incarnation (page 181)."*

And what is the long-lost light that Harpur sees in this symbolic reading of Scripture? Why, it's the ancient wisdom of the Egyptian mystery cults!

Here's where I have a really big problem with Harpur's thesis. He recommends without reservation that Christianity of the third millennium reclaim "the wisdom expounded by the Egyptians, the Orphics, the Pythagoreans and Plato, as well as by St. Paul, the Gnostics, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and a host of others . . . (page 191)." (Can't argue with the historical links that existed among these groups, although I would have added Manicheans and Albigensians.) He thinks the choice to reclaim this long-lost light will arm us "with the moral and intellectual courage to live our lives to the fullest for the advancement of all . . . (page 193)."

Me, I think such a course of action will demolish whatever moral and intellectual courage Christians have. 

Shown here is part of 19th century building at York Redoubt near Halifax, NS. According to Gnostics of all traditions, this is what you look like: old, ugly, stained, and walled off eternally from God unless you accept the cult teachings that will grant you "escape." Naturally, for the price of your human obedience, worship, and financial contributions, Gnostics will be happy to sell you the secret knowledge that blasts open the door to ascendance. Photo credit JAT 2021.

Why do I think this? I think this because I've lived through the devastating effects of ancient mystery teachings on the human brain, and although I've fully recovered from the effects of my Big Fat Idiot Stage, I'm alarmed when I see reputable scholars using their positions of authority to urge dangerous spiritual practices on vulnerable, less well educated people.

It's irresponsible, and there's no excuse for it.

Harpur is advocating a return to what is indisputably a cult psychology based on status addiction. He's kidding himself if he thinks the leaders of these ancient cults were nice people who truly found divine wisdom and willingly shared it with all people. Pythagoras (of whom Harpur seems fond) founded a sectarian cult with strict rules where only a small group of chosen disciples were initiated into the secret knowledge and rituals. (That's status addiction!) Hellenic mystery cults such as the Orphic mysteries and the Eleusinian mysteries engaged in bizarre, ritualistic, occult practices that most people would find abhorrent today. Addiction issues and sexual misconduct were rampant in these cults. Later, especially in the Eastern Roman Empire, Christian monks, nuns, contemplatives, and mystics separated themselves from regular communities and engaged in self-harming ascetic practices so they could "imitate Christ" and be "closer to God." (Again, status addiction.) Needless to say, addiction issues, sexual misconduct, and other forms of abuse continued to take place in monastic communities and continued to be blamed on evil forces such as demons, incubi, and the devil.

Is this what Harpur wants? Because this is what he's going to get if he naively places these ancient mystery cults on a pedestal. Where he sees a "long-lost light" in these ancient teachings, I see only a "darkness of abuse" we're well rid of.

As for Harpur's claim that he wants to help bring science and religion closer together and "highlight Nature's guiding role" in a renewed Christian faith, I just want to choke. There is no hard science in his book, but there are lots of superficial cliches and lots of references to the spiritual symbols seen in Nature. When Harpur says, "I never see the moon without being reminded of its reflecting the solar glory and its monthly telling of the story of our incarnation and ultimate resurrection (page 188)," I gotta say that don't impress me much. (Cue the Shania Twain song.)

There's tons of light and wonder and goodness and love in the natural world -- the scientific world -- that God the Mother and God the Father have created for us. But we won't find it by looking backwards to the mystery cult teachings of people who believed in a status-ridden journey of spiritual ascent, and we won't find it by pretending that all Scripture is "good" if only we understood how to read it symbolically! Christianity has been there and done that. It doesn't work.

The only forward for the Church, as I see it, is for us to come at spirituality from a whole new angle. We have to let go of "traditional teachings" and "infallible doctrines" that don't line up with new findings in neuroscience, quantum physics, quantum biology, astronomy, and so on. Other fields of endeavour have had to let go of cherished beliefs that eventually proved false. Why should Christianity be any different?

Does it make sense to you that God would make special rules for the Church that hold us to a LOWER standard of scholarship than the standard observed by secular researchers in fields such as teaching, environmental science, or psychiatry?

Maybe it's our unwarranted sense of entitlement -- not the devil -- that's the source of our ongoing problems in the Church.

I think I'll sign off now and go read Discover magazine's latest special issue on The Brain. Although I don't always agree with the scientific conclusions I find there, there's plenty of good food for thought, and I'm grateful for that.

Happy Thanksgiving!



* In his glossary, Harpur defines "incarnation" as "the God within each of us -- the 'Light which lighteth every person coming into the world.'"

CC25: How the Church Puts Free Will On a Very Short Leash

Not long ago, on Canada Day to be exact (July 1), I headed out from Toronto on the 401. It was early afternoon and the weather was good. For all intents and purposes, the trip should have been easy and stress-free. There were no construction sites (a miracle in itself) and there were no accident sites (thank goodness). The traffic should have flowed smoothly. But it didn't. If someone had been watching from a helicopter, they would have seen an accordion pattern on the highway: traffic speeding up and spreading out, then suddenly squeezing together into compressed knots as large groups of drivers hit the brakes at the same time.

Now, I'm a person who enjoys driving. I like to feel the sudden kick of acceleration when I hit the gas. I like to go down country roads just to see where they go. I like a road that demands you pay attention to what you're doing as you navigate tight curves and steep hills. So I find driving on the 401 kind of boring, to be honest. But I'm a careful driver, too, and I think it's asinine to tailgate. So when traffic is heavy, I usually stay in the right-hand lane, and I keep my distance from the vehicle in front of me. This way, I have choices open to me in the event of an emergency or unexpected problem. I have choices open to me because I have time and space. I have time to see a problem, assess a problem, react to a problem, and hopefully get my car (along with me and my passengers!) safely out of harm's way.

Many other drivers don't share this opinion about driving on the 401. They inexplicably believe that the laws of Newtonian physics don't apply to them, which, of course, gives them an excuse to join the large pack of vehicles spaced a mere 3 car lengths apart in the left-hand passing lane.

(When I took driving lessons many moons ago, the rule of thumb for determining a safe distance between cars was one car length per 10 miles/hour of speed -- in other words, six car lengths between you and the guy ahead of you if you were driving at 60 mph in dry weather. And this was the minimum recommendation!)

As reality would have it, the laws of inertia bow to no man.* This strikes home when the driver at the front of the left-hand string of traffic suddenly decides to hit his brakes. All the drivers following close behind him must hit their brakes, too. They have no other option, except, of course, to swerve onto the left-hand shoulder or smash into the neighbouring cars. A chain of red brake lights appears. This in turn causes the people in the right-hand to brake, and within moments everyone on this section of the 401 is travelling at a snail's pace. There's no external reason -- such as a lane closure -- for this slowdown. This kind of slowdown is entirely the result of the choices these drivers are making.

Although each of the drivers in the left-hand lane might like to blame somebody else for the slowdown, in fact each person who chose to travel at high speed with no safe buffer of time and space ahead of him is a co-creator of this mess. Each of these drivers has free will. Each one used his free will to make an initial choice (the choice to drive this way). No one forced these drivers to drive 3 car lengths apart. Each driver chose this action independently and autonomously of his neighbour (free will). Yet, in doing so, each driver independently and autonomously volunteered to give up -- surrender, eliminate, erase -- some of the choices open to him. Each person willingly decided to give up his time and space, the precious and irreducible time and space that would have preserved for him a wider range of options.

You could say -- without exaggeration -- that each driver used his free will to intentionally (if temporarily) relinquish his free will, and hand it over to the lead driver in the string. Why so? Because it's the lead driver who sets the speed and who chooses the time when everybody else will have to brake in unison. Once you agree to join his string, his pack of drivers, you don't get a say in these things.

The Church's teachings on free will remind me a lot of these traffic strings on the 401. In the orthodox Western church, theologians like to remind their faithful flock that God gives each person free will at birth. This doctrine of free will prevents people from falling into a tar pit of fatalism and despair, because people still have a glimmer of hope with regard to their own free will. Although the doctrines of original sin and grace dictate that they don't have a lot of free will, they know they still have the choice to pay attention and brake on time, and thereby prevent a major pile-up!

Of course, if they make a mistake, and misjudge the timing, and cause a major pile-up in the left-hand lane, they'll accused by the Church of a massive failure of piety. 

The Church, unfortunately, has long conspired to prevent Christians from learning about the existence of the right-hand lane -- the spiritual lane where people can more fully exercise their free will, the spiritual lane where there's no leader of the pack to restrict the traffic flow.** In fact, the orthodox Western Church is founded on the premise that you -- poor, weak, sin-ridden creature that you are -- need to be in the left land and want to be in the left lane because you're rushing as piously as possible toward the future goal of salvation. You're rushing anxiously with the rest of the flock, and you're following as closely as possible to the guy in front of you so you won't get lost. And you're grateful to the leader at the front of the pack -- oh, excuse me, I mean the flock -- because he's so wise and strong and so much better than you. You know you can place all your trust in him. You can trust him to know when to brake. And you're grateful when he decides to brake, because then you yourself have a rare opportunity to apply your free will and choose to brake! And what better way could there be to prove your love for God!

"For it is as if a man, going on a journey, summoned his slaves and entrusted his property to them; to one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability. Then he went away. The one who had received the five talents went off at once and traded with them, and made five more talents. In the same way, the one who had the two talents made two more talents. But the one who had received the one talent went off and dug a hole in the ground and hid his master's money. After a long time the master of those slaves came and settled accounts with them. Then the one who had received the five talents came forward, bringing five more talents, saying, 'Master, you handed over to me five more talents; see, I have made five more talents.' His master said to him, 'Well done, good and trustworthy slave; you have been trustworthy in a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.' And the one with the two talents also came forward, saying, 'Master, you handed over to me two talents; see, I have made two more talents.' His master said to him, 'Well done, good and trustworthy slave; you have been trustworthy in a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.' Then the one who had received the one talent also came forward, saying, 'Master, I knew that you were a harsh man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not scatter seed; so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours.' But his master replied, 'You wicked and lazy slave! You knew, did you, that I reap where I did not sow, and gather where I did not scatter? Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and on my return I would have received what was my own with interest. So take the talent from him, and give it to the one with the ten talents. For to all those who have, more will be given, and they will have an abundance; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away. As for this worthless slave, throw him into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth'" (Matthew 25: 14-30).  In this parable, the only slave with the courage to tell the truth about the master is cruelly punished. As the honest slave learns, the path to knowing God is neither straight nor paved nor predictable. Photo credit JAT 2014.

What Jesus knew, and what Jesus taught, is that the road to God is neither straight nor level (Isaiah 40:3 notwithstanding). The right-hand spiritual path -- the path the Church doesn't want you to know about because it would lessen Church authority -- curves and climbs and enters the most unexpectedly beautiful landscapes. Sometimes you can't see a darned thing on the road because it's so foggy and misty. Then you have to slow down and try to listen to God's voice. And that's okay, because sometimes God's voice is very, very quiet, and very, very shy, and you'll miss it unless you tell yourself it's okay to listen to God's shy voice instead of the loud voice of the guy who's leading the long string of Church traffic.

You should be aware, though, that if you decide to pull into the right-hand lane you'll be considered a heretic. Or a Concinnate Christian. Or a person who trusts God. Or a follower of Jesus' message.

Free will is a pain in the ass, don't you think? 

* My apologies for exclusively using the male gender in these paragraphs. My intent is not to point fingers at male drivers, but simply to avoid the awkward use of he/she and his/her phrasing in my sentences. Next time I'll try to remember to use "she" as the gender in my example.

** In countries such as the United Kingdom, where the convention is to drive on the left and pass on the right, these references to "right-hand" and "left-hand" lanes would be reversed for the purposes of discussion. I'm not in any way endorsing the ancient and misguided view that lefties and left-handed things are somehow tainted or inferior to right-handed people or things.

CC24: The Emperor's New Clothes: Psychopathy in the Church

There's a fellow in my graduate theology program who is a constant reminder to me of how the orthodox Western church ended up preaching the doctrines of sin, salvation, sacraments, and separation from God (the four S's). If we were to put this fellow -- I'll call him Titus -- in a time machine, and send him back to Carthage in the early fifth century CE to argue with the famously tortured Christian theologian Augustine of Hippo, I'm not sure which of the two would prevail. That's because, in traditional parlance, "they're both cut from the same cloth." They share certain dysfunctional psychological traits along with certain coping mechanisms to compensate for their dysfunctional traits. They're also both deeply sincere in their beliefs. This is why both men cause so much suffering in the lives of others.

It's important to emphasize that the man I know, Titus, is absolutely convinced that he's been called to ministry by God. He's not a con man or a criminal with a conscious intent to harm others. In fact, if you asked him about his motives, he'd look you straight in the eye and tell you that he's a humble servant of God. He truly believes this.

But Titus has serious issues -- as in unresolved psychodynamic issues. He's a walking powder keg of narcissistic bullying, and he's utterly blind to this. (His classmates, who are the targets of his behaviour, see his issues quite clearly). So serious is his lack of empathy and his lack of respect for boundary issues that I suspect he suffers a great deal. I suspect he suffers inside his own head. He's tormented by his own "demons," and, like so many other people, he's looking for some form of relief from his inner despair. And who can blame him? It's not fun to feel like crap all the time.

Secular treatments have given him no long-term relief. So now he's looking to the Church -- traditionally, one of the great sanctuaries for narcissistic men (and narcissistic women). Here he can find a logical explanation for his suffering. Here he can be absolved of personal responsibility for the current state of his life. Here he can finally use his intellectual gifts, his musical gifts, and his badger-like tenacity in order to create something meaningful in his life. I'm not being facetious here -- Titus is a talented, well educated man.

I have no doubt that he's finding psychological comfort and relief in the teachings of men such as Paul the Apostle, Augustine of Hippo, and Martin Luther. That's because these famous theologians were also talented, well educated men who were suffering from the effects of their own unaddressed issues. They were not stupid, nor ill-informed, nor criminally minded. But they knew something was wrong, and they earnestly wanted to fix it. If they found themselves forced to alter everything Jesus once taught in order to fix it, then so be it. Once they'd found a theological solution that offered some relief for their personal feelings of emptiness, well, who can blame them for wanting to tout their solution to others? Who can blame them for intentionally supplanting Jesus' message of personality responsibility and forgiveness with a message of sin and salvation? It's a much easier "sell" than Jesus' message, and besides, each of these men had personally felt the relief that came with the "4-S package." So they weren't really lying -- they were just improving on Jesus' message.

 

Silenos was a figure from Greek Mythology. He was said to be a close companion of the Greek god Dionysos and was known for his drunkenness, one of the "sins" that human beings tend to blame on everyone but themselves until they find the courage to take responsibility for their own actions. Anyone who has succeeded in leashing an addiction to alcohol knows that this particular "sin" can be overcome with the right sort of help (which doesn't include being told you're a worthless, hopeless, "demon-possessed" wretch who has no control over your unloving choices because of Original Sin). This Roman marble after a Hellenistic work of the 3rd C BCE is on display at the Royal Ontario Museum. Photo credit JAT 2019.

 
The problem is that this package of theological doctrines -- the 4-S package of sin, separation, sacraments, and salvation -- only offers psychological relief to a certain subsection of the population that's suffering from certain kinds of psychiatric dysfunction. It enables the narcissistic bullies to feel a lot better about themselves. But it doesn't do a damned thing for anybody else.

This notion will be extremely unpopular among devout Christians who cherish their traditional, orthodox beliefs about original sin, etc., etc., and this notion will be especially offensive to those who insist that Church doctrines are the handiwork of God instead of the handiwork of a few dysfunctional theologians. But there you have it -- the Church has codified within its body of sacred laws a self-correcting, virtually impregnable suit of body armour to protect the "rights" of a select group of self-entitled, selfish, controlling, abusive, HUMBLE (!!!!) servants of God.

How could such a self-serving system survive for so long if it wasn't God's true intention?

Well, that's an easy question to answer. Have you ever tried to live with a severe narcissist? Or work with a severe narcissist? Or live in a community (or even a country) ruled by a severe narcissist? Once a narcissist crosses the line into full-blown psychopathy (and this happens more often than good-hearted intellectuals want to admit), the rule of terror takes over. It's very hard to think straight, let alone challenge official doctrine, when you and your loved ones are being terrorized, abused, relentlessly persecuted, tortured, raped, imprisoned, and silenced in every way imaginable.

We've recently seen this kind of psychopathic behaviour emerge in group form in the European Holocaust, the Cambodian Holocaust, and the Rwandan Holocaust. These holocausts were all instituted by "revered leaders." The Church, I would argue, has had its own share of "revered leaders" who relentlessly preached holocausts (crusades) against "heretics" who rejected official church doctrine.

Am I saying that some of the Church's revered theologians and past leaders would match today's understanding of psychopathy?*

That's exactly what I'm saying.

* For more information, please see Robert D. Hare's Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among Us (New York & London: The Guilford Press, 1993.)

 

CC23: Seeing God in Black and White: A Parable

Here is your class assignment for the day: using only two tubes of paint, one white and one black, you are to paint a full-colour picture of something beautiful. 

Lilies of the Field (c) Image*After

Get to work, everyone! Now! And don't complain to me that the assignment is unfair. If you're truly righteous, pious, and devout, God will show you how to paint a full-colour picture using only black and white paint. If you fail, well . . . if you fail, you obviously don't have enough faith in God. Don't blame me for your failure. I didn't make the rules. If you fail, it's your own fault (you poor sin-saturated thing, you).

Pray, people, pray! Pray with all your might! If you pray correctly, maybe God will grant you the grace of being able to paint pictures in glorious, divine colour. Prove to me that you have faith! Pick up your paintbrushes and paint! Anyone caught cheating by bringing in tubes of red, blue, or yellow paint will immediately be brought before the Inquisition. Possession of any paints except Lead White and Carbon Black will be considered a shameful act of hubris, because only God is allowed to have coloured paints. Those other tubes you've seen at the store are the work of the Devil.

That's right, class -- everyone down on their knees. That's better. And remember not to look up while you're painting. Don't look up at the trees or flowers or clouds or hills that you're trying to paint. Such viewing is an unpardonable sin. You will paint beautifully coloured images based solely on the black and white words I'm about to recite aloud to you. Are you ready, everyone? Good. Here we go. In the beginning was the Word . . . .

Ah. A question. What is your question, child? You want to know what the colour red is? Well, as all the great mystics have taught, you'll only be able to see the divine colour red once you've let go of all desire to know what red is. Once you no longer care what red is, perhaps God will open your eyes for you so you can see it. But until then, there's nothing you yourself can do. No one can learn how to see red, or be taught how to see red. To claim this would be the height of human pride and arrogance! Be grateful you can see black and white, child! Some people can't even see that.

If you tell me you can already see red and blue and yellow, it's proof that the Devil has captured your soul, you poor thing. Resist, resist! Pray harder. Ask for deliverance from the torment of False Colour. Ask that you may be given the divine gift of Church-Approved Sunglasses to block out those dangerous visions of colour. Life is much simpler in black and white. Everything is less confusing when I tell you what to do. Naturally, I always have your best interests at heart, you poor, weak, inferior creature, you.

I promise to look after you, as Christ looks after us all! It's the least I can do in this broken, corrupted, black and white world.

Well, the day is over, and I see that once again no one in my class has enough faith in God to produce a thing of explosive beauty from the paints I have humbly provided.

You in the back corner! Joshua, Yeshua, whatever your name is! You will be turned over to the Inquisition, and tried on charges of heresy for presuming to tell the class that all people can learn to see red lilies in the field if they listen to God with open hearts and not with closed minds!

As if God even wants to talk to regular people!

CC16: The Difference Between Mystics and Prophets

This morning, I happened to hear a radio interview with Mike Holmes, Canada's famed "make it right" building contractor, teacher, and advocate for families in distress. Mike Holmes had been asked to speak about the "home inspection business," and he was lamenting two current realities. First, many home inspectors have little or no hands-on experience in the contracting industry (so they don't know what they're talking about), and second, many home inspectors simply don't care. The practical and ethical standards aren't high enough, in Mike Holmes's view, and this means that home buyers who rely on shoddy home inspection reports will end up with "lemons" -- houses with major structural problems.

"Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind: 'Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge? Gird up your loins like a man, I will question you, and you shall declare to me. Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements -- surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone when the morning stars sang together and all the heavenly beings shouted for joy?'" (Job 38: 1-7). As you can tell from this biblical passage written by the mystic Job, God (the creator and architect of all) has an opinion about human beings who demonstrate hubris instead of respect for God's careful, patient designs. Shown here is a team washing the windows of the entrance pyramid at the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto, ON. It's no easy task, and you shouldn't try it unless you're an expert and have the all the proper equipment. Teaching about the soul, the brain-soul nexus, and ethical mysticism is no different - it takes proper training. Going to a weekend energy-healing workshop doesn't qualify you as an expert. Be patient, be humble, and take the time to overcome your own status addiction issues before you seek to become a mentor to others. Photo credit JAT 2017.

Anyone who has ever lived in such a house knows how stressful, how exhausting, how infuriating it is to be told there's nothing wrong with your house, even as you watch your basement fill up with water after every rainstorm.

This is how I feel about the "mysticism business." Practical and ethical standards are pretty much non-existent in this field. And I'm not talking here about the charlatans and the New Age preachers who knowingly take advantage of vulnerable people. I'm talking here about the church.

The orthodox Western church has given itself prime credentials as THE "home inspectors of the soul" without having any solid knowledge, experience, or compassion to back this up. They hung out their shingle centuries ago, and it's been hanging there for so long that most Christians just assume the church must know what it's doing when it comes to "home inspections of the soul."

But it doesn't. When it comes to matters of the soul, the church is no different than the slipshod home inspector who tells you that a nice, new coat of paint on your outside walls will fix your leaking basement. Just because a home inspector gives this advice loudly and often to all his clients doesn't make it right. You can paint the upper walls as often as you like, but it won't make a damn bit of difference to your crumbling foundations. The only way to fix the basement, of course, is to dig up all the soil around your house (even though it makes an ugly mess of your gardens for a while) and methodically repair the hidden cracks. It's a lot of work. But in the end it's worth it.

If you're an earnest spiritual seeker who wants to know more about your soul, don't bother asking the United Church of Canada for guidance. They have no official answers for you. They would prefer that you not embarrass them with your questions about the soul. The soul, you see, is perilously close to being a four-letter word in the United Church lexicon. It's no longer uttered in polite company. Polite company -- which includes professors of theology and United Church ministers and policy makers -- wants you to speak about grace and Spirit and God's justice breaking in proleptically.* But they don't want you to speak about the soul. They want you to be part of a soulless church -- at least, that's what they're implying.

Mike Holmes worked as a hands-on contractor for many years before he signed on to do his first TV show. (If I remember correctly, he grew up in a home where his father worked in the building industry. Mike Holmes's children, now grown, have also been learning the ins and outs of home contracting and home renovation.) People who watch Mike Holmes's TV shows trust him. They trust him because they can tell he's not an actor -- he's a real contractor who knows what he's doing. People learn a lot from watching his shows, because he's also a good teacher and a dedicated advocate. He puts his money where his mouth is.

I'm not a home renovator (even though I wield a pretty mean paint brush!), but I do have a particular talent, and I'm trained in what I do. My particular talent is mysticism. My talent isn't better than anyone else's talent. It's different, but it's not better. Like Mike Holmes, I have a set of professional tools, and I know how to use them. I also insist that these tools be used according to the highest ethical standards.

In my view, few Christian mystics in the history of the church have used their talents ethically.

Furthermore, many of the men and women who've been traditionally revered as Christian mystics have not, in my opinion, been mystics at all. Rather, they've been apocalyptic prophets.

There's a big difference between a mystic and an apocalyptic prophet. I know this because of my experience, training, and academic research. The church, however, often doesn't make a distinction between mystics and apocalyptic prophets. The church tends to conflate them -- which is kind of like saying there's no difference between a real contractor and a TV actor who doesn't know which end of a hammer is up.

This is why the church's doctrinal garden is filled with the weeds of teachings based on mental illness (i.e. apocalyptic prophecy). These weeds include ancient traditions from Plato, apocalyptic literature, the apostle Paul, and later Christian theologians such as Tertullian and Augustine of Hippo, all of which have choked out the original teachings of Jesus.
 

The church’s teachings on the soul are filled with weeds (as on the left). Many people seem afraid that, if they pull out the weeds, they’ll have no tangible mystery teachings left to sustain the spiritual roots of the church. In fact, when the weeds are pulled, what remains is the beautiful underlying structure of the soul’s courage and goodness. Gardens (and churches) are always healthier and stronger when the weeds are pulled. Photo credit JAT 2014.

Jesus was a mystic -- a mentally healthy person capable of holistic thought, empathy, intuition, creative learning, logical thought, industrious actions, and advanced philosophical inquiry. Jesus was not an apocalyptic prophet -- a mentally dysfunctional person who demonstrates a consistent pattern of dissociation, dualistic thinking, narcissistic entitlement, anti-social behaviour, and a need to gain attention from admirers by making "divinely inspired" prophetic claims about the future.

Mystics are content to TRUST God, and have no need to make predictions about the future. Mystics know that God will do what God needs to do when God needs to do it. Mystics make no claim to having the keys to the future. Only those who don't trust God insist on guarantees about what will happen and when it will happen. Bullies and narcissists are drawn to prophecy. Jesus was not a bully or a DSM-IV narcissist.

Mystics believe in the eternal soul in a positive, uplifting, holistic way, and they don't try to scare the crap out of other people by making dire predictions about what will happen to somebody else's soul. They believe that all souls are good because “God don’t make no junk.” Bullies and narcissists enjoy making threats about the fate of your soul because it gives them a twisted kind of high. It's an addiction -- not a very pretty one, but an addiction nonetheless -- just like any other DSM-IV addiction problem.

Mystics (the real ones, anyway) are emotionally mature. They understand boundary issues. They understand that other people ARE other people. (Seriously dysfunctional people don't see you as "real" in your own right, with your own distinctive personality -- they see you merely as an extension of their own self-entitled needs, which is why they try to force you to comply with their wishes at the expense of yours.) Prophets love to give other people big, long lists of laws -- required thoughts, required behaviours, which you're expected to follow. Prophets tell you that their laws are divine laws. But most often the laws are designed to provide some sort of psychological relief to the prophet himself or herself. Usually, the laws entrench the "divine authority" of the prophet, and place the prophet in an elevated position. This is just narcissistic bullying in a more sophisticated form.

Mystics don't talk about fearing God. Mystics talk about having a positive, mature relationship with God. Mystics don't fear death. Mystics don't believe in cosmic evil. Mystics don't believe that human beings are more important to God than God's other creatures. Mystics don't believe that human laws are infallible. Mystics know that God is always listening and always acting in the world whether we pray for help or not.

Mystics trust in the fantastic goodness of God.

Apocalyptic prophets believe in their own power and their own status. They don't trust anybody, especially not God.

Jesus was a mystic. He trusted God the Mother and God the Father. It's time for the church to let Jesus' teachings about God re-enter the hearts and minds of our community of faith in the twenty-first century.

It's time for us to learn to trust our beloved God.



* If you don't know what "prolepsis" means, then I'd like to suggest you're a lucky person. You'll sleep much better at night if you're not wasting your time trying to embrace the scientifically impossible feat of time-travel.

CC14: Why I Think Jesus Was A Physician-Scholar

Among Progressive Christians in Canada these days there's a popular new trend in church reform. This is the "Jesus-is-obsolete" trend.

Well-known authors such as Gretta Vosper and Tom Harpur, along with less well known but influential biblical scholars such as William Arnal (plus my own New Testament professor), have concluded that even if we could figure out who the historical Jesus was with some degree of accuracy, it wouldn't matter to the church today. According to these authors, if Jesus has any remaining importance to us in the third millennium, it's only in a symbolic way. In other words, the symbol of Jesus is more important than the reality of Jesus. Our acceptance of this reality will help the church move forward, say these authors. Tom Harpur is so convinced of this that he no longer believes a real individual called Jesus of Nazareth even existed. For him, Jesus the Pagan Christ was an entirely fictitious character from the get-go.*

I guess you wouldn't be surprised to learn that I don't agree with these authors or my New Testament professor.

"He left that place and came to his hometown, and his disciples followed him. On the sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astounded. They said, 'Where did this man get all this? What is this wisdom that has been given to him? What deeds of power are being done by his hands! Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?' And they took offence at him. Then Jesus said to them, 'Prophets are not without honour, except in their hometown, and among their own kin, and in their own house.' And he could do no deed of power there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and cured them. And he was amazed at their unbelief" (Mark 6: 1-6). Limestone ossuaries (bone boxes) such as the one shown here were used in Jewish burials in Palestine for a fairly limited period of time just before and after the start of the Common Era, so they’re a useful archeological tool for gathering information about Palestinian Jewish families from the late Second Temple period. This one, with a common motif of rosettes, was found in Jerusalem and is dated to the Herodian Period. (It’s on display at the Royal Ontario Museum. Photo credit JAT 2017.) If you want to know more about this topic, you can read my post called “Excavating James: The James Ossuary and the Talpiot Tomb."

 
On the other hand, I wouldn't dispute the level of confusion and disagreement among scholars of the historical Jesus. These are the researchers who use historical, archaeological, anthropological, and linguistic data to try to piece together the facts of Jesus' life -- things like his actual date of birth, his actual date of death, the identity of his family members. They're looking for information from verifiable sources outside the Bible to try to make sense of the conflicting biblical accounts of who Jesus was. This "Quest for the Historical Jesus" has been going on since the time of the Enlightenment, so it's not new. Albert Schweitzer was so frustrated by the whole process that he gave up on theology and went off to Africa to work as a doctor. (There's a certain irony in this, as I'll show.)

A couple of years ago I stumbled across a really cool website called "Historical Jesus Theories," put together by Peter Kirby (www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html). On the first page, you can see at a glance how much disagreement exists among scholars of the historical Jesus. You'll notice that some scholars have studied the "facts" about Jesus, and have concluded that Jesus is best described as "Jesus the Myth: Heavenly Christ." But don't stop yet! There are also eight more theories! There's the theory of Jesus the Myth: Man of the Indefinite Past -- Jesus the Hellenistic Hero -- Jesus the Revolutionary -- Jesus the Wisdom Sage (a popular one) -- Jesus the Man of the Spirit -- Jesus the Prophet of Social Change -- Jesus the Apocalyptic Prophet (also a popular one) -- and last but not least, Jesus the Saviour.

Wow. All these theories based on the facts, and not a single one that suggests Jesus was a physician-scholar. It's my own thesis that Jesus is best understood as a physician-scholar, so I can't suggest any books for you to read on this theory because as far as I can tell there aren't any books (apart from the one I'm writing).

I also think Jesus was a practising mystic alongside his role as a physician-scholar. (If you think I ruffled a few feathers in my theology classes with my theory that Jesus was a physician-scholar, you should have seen my Christology professor's eyes almost pop out of her head when I suggested in a class discussion that Jesus had been a mystic!)

I have to admit I'm somewhat puzzled about the resistance to the idea that Jesus was a physician-scholar. To be frank, this understanding of Jesus fits much better with historical and psychological realities than any of the other theories. It fits like a hand in a glove when you read the Gospel of Mark. When you read only what Mark says, and you try to completely ignore what the other gospels say, you have a story about a guy whose priorities are healing the sick, forgiving people, teaching people, spending lots of time with people (even when they make him slightly exasperated), and trusting God.

Right near the beginning of Mark, Jesus says, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick; I have come to call not the righteous but sinners" (Mark 2:17). Today's commentators seem to want to interpret this allegorically: they say that Jesus wasn't actually a physician, but was more like a healer of the soul for those who had sinned. So when Jesus self-identifies with the role of medical practitioner, it's okay for Christians to ignore it. But when other people who don't even like or trust Jesus call him "the carpenter" in Mark 6:3, that's not allegorical -- that's factual! Jesus is a poor, illiterate carpenter! Jesus is a poor, illiterate, Jewish, Aramaic-speaking carpenter who probably couldn't speak Greek! Jesus is a poor, illiterate, uneducated, Aramaic-speaking carpenter from Galilee who obtained his amazing ability to engage in sophisticated debate with scribes and Pharisees because . . . well, because the Spirit had chosen him! And, to prove this fact, we can easily see that the history of Christianity has been similarly shaped only by men who imitated Jesus in his illiteracy; who were all were poor, uneducated tradespeople; fluent only in their local dialect; and unable to use the tools of rhetoric to argue their case except when the Spirit moved them! Yes! History and psychology prove that Jesus must be seen in this light! Why, all of Christianity's thinkers fit this model!

Don't they?

What . . . you mean you think that history and psychology prove the opposite -- that the great religious thinkers who've been remembered for centuries (regardless of their respective religious traditions) have -- to a person -- been highly educated and charismatic but emotionally humble? Like, oh, like maybe Gandhi. Or Martin Luther King, Jr. Or the Dalai Lama. These men are from our own era, yet it's pretty hard to imagine that any of them could have made a difference if they hadn't used their personal charisma and advanced education in service to the people they love(d).

Do we have to imagine that Jesus was a carpenter and only a carpenter? (Not that I have anything personal against carpenters. My own father is a tekton in every sense of the Koine Greek word, and has always spent his spare time building and repairing things in his workshop -- but my father is also one of the smartest people I know, and he earned a Master's degree in Chemical Engineering in the 1940's. The fact that he's an amateur carpenter doesn't negate his other training.)

There are many other clues in Mark that together build a portrait of Jesus as an educated physician-scholar. (I won't go into all of them in this post, or this post would end up as long as a book chapter.)

I've wondered from time to time whether today's scholars can't "see" Jesus in this light because they're thinking of "physicians" through their own hermeneutical lens. Let's face it -- modern Western medicine of the allopathic variety is not doing much these days to impress people with its compassionate bedside manner. This is especially true if you live in the United States, where health care decisions are increasingly being made by for-profit insurance companies. If your own personal experience has led you to equate physicians with cold-hearted, scientifically-based, profit-oriented medical care, then you're probably not going to be looking for Jesus to be a physician. In fact, you probably wouldn't want Jesus to be a physician, because then you wouldn't be able to relate to him anymore.

This is where it's important to step back and apply the criterion of "historical context" to Mark's picture of Jesus as a physician-scholar. Jesus lived in a time when healing and religion were intertwined in a way we don't fully relate to in this era of modern medicine. So when Jesus is quoted in Mark 2:17 as saying that sinners are in need of a physician, he means that both medically and religiously. Mark is giving readers the clue they needed in the first century CE to understand what claims he is making about Jesus' training and background. It would have been obvious to readers then that Mark's Jesus was a physician-scholar. It also would have shocked many pious people, because according to the "righteous" (who also make an appearance in Mark 2:17) only priests sanctioned by the Temple had the power and the right to heal the sick.

Mark's Jesus is a rogue healer. He doesn't follow any of the Laws when he does his healing, either Jewish laws or Greco-Roman laws. This is why I call Jesus a founding member of Doctors Without Borders. He put the suffering of the sick ahead of the Law.

Only those who've had a doctor fight for them or their loved ones against today's institutional medical bureaucracy and conventional scientific wisdom will understand the courage it took for Jesus to do this.

Thanks be to God.

*  For a scholarly update on some of the early non-biblical sources that talk about Jesus or imply his historical existence, please the article by Dr. Lawrence Mykytiuk called "Did Jesus Exist? Searching for Evidence Beyond the Bible" in the Jan/Feb 2015 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review. In an update to Dr. Mykytiuk's 2015 article, he provides extensive endnotes that didn't appear in the original BAR article. 

 For more on Jesus’ approach to healing, please see my post “Spit-Wives and Dead Goats.” For my introductory exegetical commentary on healings in the Gospel of Mark, please see "The Way, the Truth, and the Life."

CC12: Update on "the Sin Within"

Yesterday, the Globe and Mail published an AP story by Nicole Winfield (May 16, 2010, updated on May 17) entitled, "Thousands Flock to Vatican to Back Pope Over Abuse."

At the Vatican. Photo credit J MacDonald 2011.

 

According to the report, approximately 150,000 people showed up in St. Peter's Square on Sunday, May 16, in a spontaneous show of support for Pope Benedict XVI. Banners had been hung in the colonnade, including a banner that said, "Don't be afraid, Jesus won out over evil."

The article quotes the Pope as saying, "The true enemy to fear and to fight against is sin, the spiritual evil that unfortunately sometimes infects even members of the church." 

The mayor of Rome, Gianni Alemanno, was among the faithful in the Square. Alemanno told AP journalists that "we want to show our solidarity to the pope and transmit the message that single inidividuals make mistakes but institutions, faith and religion cannot be questioned."

Meanwhile, on the home front here in Canada, the Roman Catholic Primate of Canada, Cardinal Marc Ouellet, is in hot water because he was "simply stating church doctrine" when he told a reporter that it's always morally wrong for a woman to have an abortion, even in cases where the woman has been raped (Nelson Wyatt, "Statement From Catholic Cardinal About Abortion and Rape Causes Uproar," The Globe and Mail, May 18, 2010).

Notice here that church doctrines -- the formal belief statements touted by the church as "truth" -- are being placed on a pedestal. The doctrines themselves are sacred. Sacrosanct. Holy. They act as a divine shield against that horrible cosmic power called "sin" or "the Devil." Unfortunately, individual people sometimes get attacked by evil despite the protective power of these doctrines. Therefore, the faithful must redouble their efforts to obey the moral laws contained within the doctrines, says the Church. In other words, it's all right to challenge the actions of individual abusers, but it's not all right to challenge the doctrines that contribute to the creation of these abusers. Even when the doctrines violate all common sense and all common humanity, the doctrines are right and you are wrong.

These Christian leaders show us that they are cowards. They lack the courage to trust in God, they lack the courage to take responsibility for the historical errors of church doctrine, and they lack the courage to make meaningful changes.

I see no evidence in their teachings or in their behaviour that they actually believe in a loving God. However, I see plenty of evidence that they believe in a God who loves some children more than "he" loves others (i.e. election), who is too stupid and too weak to prevent cosmic sin from entering Creation, who thinks it's okay to hold a major grudge-fest for all eternity against one man and one woman who made a mistake (i.e. Adam and Eve), who is required to follow all the laws and doctrines that male church leaders have dictated to God over the centuries, who is going to have a really big yard sale one day in the future to clear out all the unwanted garbage (according to the church's teachings about Judgment Day, that garbage might be you!), and who is so touchy and narcissistic and sensitive to an attack on "his" sense of honour that he couldn't stand the thought of fixing the sinful world alone, and had to send in a pinch-hitter (Jesus) to save "Team Humanity" from that wily guy who's pitching for the other side.  

Does this sound like the kind of God you want to get close to? Because this is the God that fills the pages of orthodox Western Christian theology. This is the portrait of God that "cannot be questioned." This is the portrait of God that cowards like to hide behind.

Not every church leader is a coward, and not every Christian is a coward. These days, individuals from all religious traditions are challenging the teachings of their conservative leaders, and are asking daring questions about God. Some of these people are so distressed by the narcissistic intransigence of their own conservative religious leaders that they're leaving the church and seeking spiritual solace in other ways. 

Please ask all the questions you can. Only through our honest questions and honest answers can the church of the third millennium heal the sense of "brokenness" that many writers have described.

Please help find a way to invite God the Mother and God the Father into our hearts and our lives. Our beloved Mother and Father are nothing like the fickle, judgmental, authoritarian dude described above. Jesus knew this. I've had the privilege to come to know this. I invite you to know this, too. God loves all their children. 

Even you.

CC11: Okay, I'm a Heretic. But So Is Jesus!

Okay, I admit it . . . I'm a heretic.

I refuse to accept the teachings of orthodox Western Christianity on a whole bunch of topics. 

I refuse to accept that God is "One."  

I refuse to accept that God is a "Trinitarian One."  

I refuse to believe that a cosmic evil force (called Satan, among other names) exists. 

I refuse to accept that the sacrament of baptism has any magical powers to save people. 

I refuse to accept that the sacrament of communion has any magical powers to save people. 

I refuse to believe that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God or is the Saviour. 

I refuse to believe that God's children are unworthy of God's love or incapable of having a relationship of integrity with God.  

You might think this puts me in the camp of Progressive Christianity or Unitarianism. But wait! I'm not finished yet! 

I also refuse to believe in a world where God the Mother and God the Father don't intervene. 

I refuse to believe in a world where angels don't exist. 

I refuse to believe in a world where miracles don't exist. 

I refuse to believe in a worldview that's exclusively Newtonian. I'm a quantum gal all the way.  

"Meanwhile, when the crowd gathered by the thousands, so that they trampled on one another, he began to speak to his disciples, 'Beware of the yeast of the Pharisees, that is, their hypocrisy. Nothing is covered up that will not be uncovered, and nothing secret that will not become known. Therefore whatever you have said in the dark will be heard in the light, and what you have whispered behind closed doors will be proclaimed from the housetops'" (Luke 12: 1-3). The church of today reminds me a lot of this porcelain lamp that belonged to my great aunt. The functioning parts that once held the light source have long since been lost. Only the forms and traditions of the base have been retained. The base is quite lovely, but without the truth of Jesus’ original teachings, the forms aren’t able to shed the full light of God’s love on our lives. Photo credit JAT 2015.

I'm a heretic as far as the United Church of Canada is concerned because I don't believe that Jesus is our Saviour. And I'm a heretic as far as Progressive Christianity and UU adherents are concerned because I'm a mystic who believes in miracles.  

But here's the thing . . . (and you're probably not going to like this part) . . . everything I currently understand about God, all my heretical ideas -- I got them from the angel who once lived as the man named Jesus. This is what my mystical life has entailed: listening to Jesus. Just listening to what he has to say about God. Just listening with all my heart and all my soul and all my mind and all my strength to Jesus' own take on what he said and what he did and what he was trying to accomplish in his life.  

What Jesus has told me during thousands of hours of contemplative work over the past 10 years is radically different from what the United Church and the Anglican church taught me. It also diverges from what my theology professors have said. But what Jesus has been telling me isn't "new." It's not a bunch of hot-off-the-press New Age hooey.* The evidence for what he's been telling me is right in the Bible. It's been there all along, sitting in plain sight for everyone to see. 

The problem for readers is that the Bible doesn't contain just one truth. The Bible contains many competing storylines and conflicting agendas. It's hard to sort them all out. It's hard to figure out who said what, and, more importantly, why they said what they said.

Jesus has patiently shared much time and knowledge to help me understand why. It took me years to understand "why," but once I did, I began to see that certain passages of the Bible resonate strongly with Jesus' continuing message, and other passages sound like the opposite of Jesus' teachings.

In my time working with Jesus, he has always insisted on rigorous scholarship. Therefore, as part of my mystical journey, I've had to learn the tools of biblical exegesis as they're currently taught in a modern university setting. I've studied the basic grammar and vocabulary of Koine Greek. I've delved into church history and the development of church doctrine over the centuries. I've read translations of Paul, Tertullian, Augustine of Hippo and the like. I've done a deep dive on the polity manual of the United Church of Canada (including the appendices). On the basis of my mystical work in combination with my ongoing academic training, I'm totally confident in saying that what Jesus taught his followers 2,000 years ago is not what the church has been teaching.

I'm a heretic because I've listened carefully to what Jesus has taught me about God, and I think Jesus is right. 

Jesus was (and still is) right when he says the best model for understanding God is for us to think of the most wonderful set of parents possible, and go from there. (This would not exclude two wonderful homosexual parents!)

Jesus is right when he says that no single ritual such as baptism or communion can replace the need for people to take responsibility for their own choices towards other people, themselves, and God.

Jesus is right when he says that institutionalized religion has never taught the faithful what forgiveness is.

Jesus is right when he says that the true journey of faith is one of redemption, not one of salvation.

Jesus is right when he says the core consciousness of a human being -- the soul -- is beautiful, worthy, and amazing. The problem of suffering is not created by sinful souls. The problem of suffering is created by many factors, one of which is damage in the biological brain that prevents people from taking responsibility for their actions.

I think Jesus is a pretty smart guy. 

* If you want to see an example of what I mean by "hot-off-the-press New Age hooey," I invite you to read a copy of The Mystical Life of Jesus by psychic Sylvia Browne.

CC8: The Question of Suffering

This week I was checking out the remaindered book section at Chapters, and I found a copy of Bart Ehrman's 2008 book God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question -- Why We Suffer. As I mentioned in my post of March 6/10, I really like Bart Ehrman's books (though I don't always agree with his conclusions). So I bought God's Problem.

I knew a bit about it before I started to read it this week. That's because last year -- in July 2009, to be exact -- I bought and read Ehrman's 2009 book Jesus Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (and Why We Don't Know About Them). In Jesus Interrupted, Ehrman talks about his earlier book on suffering. Still, it's always better to read the original book rather than the precis of it, even if the precis is written by the author him/herself. So I was glad to find God's Problem on the sale rack.

In God's Problem, Ehrman explains why he lost his faith and now considers himself an agnostic. It wasn't a sudden decision on his part, nor an easy one. He says, "I came to the point where I could no longer believe. It's a very long story, but the short version is this: I realized that I could no longer reconcile the claims of faith with the facts of life. In particular, I could no longer explain how there can be a good and all-powerful God actively involved with this world, given the state of things. For many people who inhabit this planet, life is a cesspool of misery and suffering. I came to a point where I simply could not believe that there is a good and kindly disposed Ruler who is in charge of it." (page 3) 

I think Ehrman clearly expresses a belief shared by a whole lot of people. And who can blame them? There's no disputing that suffering exists, and there's no disputing that centuries-old Christian theology has been pretty useless in helping thoughtful, compassionate people understand how to cope with suffering.

Mind you, Christian theology has been pretty useless in helping thoughtful, compassionate people understand a lot of things. Readers who, like me, attend the United Church of Canada (UCC) will understand when I say that the United Church scores a "B" and sometimes an "A" on social justice issues, but earns an "F" on questions about the soul, about death, and about spiritual practices. We don't get to hear sermons that tell us how to relate to a God who allows the suffering in the first place. But we're given lots of opportunities to help fix the suffering by rolling up our sleeves and supporting various social justice causes.

Don't get me wrong -- praxis is very important. Good works are incredibly important, and these days a lot of dedicated individuals who don't even believe in God put the rest of us to shame with their manifold good works. It's pretty obvious that Christians by no means have a monopoly on "Christian charity."

In the past 12 years, I've asked the same questions about suffering that Ehrman asks. I agree with his questions, and I agree with his willingness to point fingers at the parts of the Bible that simply don't help. Yet, for me, the end result has not been a loss of faith. For me, the end result has been a sense of frustration and sadness at the obstinate refusal of most Church leaders to be honest -- honest with themselves and honest with their parishioners about the history of church doctrine, and the extent of the damage that's been caused by this body of doctrines.

Never in any of the UCC or Anglican churches I've attended have I heard a minister say to the congregation, "Today's readings will be taken from Plato's Phaedo. Let us now hear what Plato has to say about the soul." Yet the Church's formal teachings about the soul have far more to do with Plato than with the teachings of Jesus. Most Christians (including many ministers) just don't know this.

And this is to say nothing of the fact that the God of orthodox Western Christianity owes far more to Plato's ideas about God than to Jesus' teachings on same. 

Too often, we think of the human journey as a few fleeting moments of beauty and happiness that are quickly stripped away, only to be replaced by the pain of loss and grief. If we’re patient, however, and wait for the fruits of insight, meaning, and transformation to evolve, we see the many ways in which God’s love sustains us even during the harsh hours of winter.

 

I sympathize tremendously with Ehrman's struggle over God, faith, and suffering, and like him I've read books such as Elie Wiesel's Night and Viktor Frankl's Man's Search For Meaning, but in the end I decided that the problem for people of faith is not the question of suffering.

The problem, as I see it, is that Christianity has not been teaching people anything about God as God actually is. Christianity has instead been teaching its own portrait of God for purposes that have nothing to do with God -- purposes such as authority, political power, empire, cultural hegemony, and wealth.

Christianity in the third millennium must be willing to confront its own historical role as a creator of suffering if we are to heal our relationship with God the Mother and God the Father.

If I sound a bit like a Liberation Theologian, I suppose that's because I share some of their reasoning.

Honesty precedes healing. It's time for the Church to be honest about its past motives and actions, especially with regard to its body of doctrines (that is, its formally accepted truths). Only then can we proceed to a state of full healing.

Thanks be to God.

CC3: Some Reference Books I Read & Recommend

I think it's important that readers have a chance to assess a writer based on the writer's own influences. The contents of a writer's own bookshelves tell you something about the core perspectives of the person.

(Notice how I've made the assumption that writers have more than one bookshelf!)

The books related to Christianity that I resonate most strongly with are books that are written for a lay audience by highly respected academic researchers who are not afraid to ask difficult questions, and are not afraid to cross the tightly drawn lines that artificially separate academic disciplines from each other. (For instance, biblical scholars and systematic theologians and religious studies scholars often won't speak to each other.)

In other words, I like books that are clearly written, well researched, and interdisciplinary.

"Now the whole earth had one language and the same words. And as they migrated from the east, they came upon a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there. And they said to one another, 'Come, let us make bricks, and burn them thoroughly.' And they had brick for stone, and bitumen for mortar. Then they said, 'Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves; otherwise we shall be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.' The Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which mortals had built. And the Lord said, 'Look, they are one people, and they have all one language; and this is only the beginning of what they will do; nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. Come, let us go down, and confuse their language there, so that they will not understand one another's speech.' So the Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of the earth, and they left off building the city. Therefore it was called Babel, because there the Lord confused the language of the earth; and from there the Lord scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth" (Genesis 11: 1-9). Some books I'd read by 2010. Photo credit JAT 2015.

I write notes all over my books, which is why I buy books rather than borrow them from the library. I'm on a budget, though, so I look for good reference material in used bookstores, etc. I've never met a dictionary I didn't like.

A lot of today's progressive Christians are reading books by Marcus Borg, John Dominic Crossan, and John Shelby Spong. I have books by these authors on my bookshelves, but these aren't the books I go back to, and these aren't the books I recommend. These well-respected scholars are trying to reenvision Christianity, and I respect their motives, but I disagree with their suggestions about how to do it. I don't think they're asking the right questions.

One book I really like is York University professor Barrie Wilson's How Jesus Became Christian (Toronto: Random House Canada, 2008). Don't be put off by the cover, which is really, really dreadful (sorry Dr. Wilson!), and is a good example of why authors should try to get "veto rights" in their publishing contract for the title and book design. Interestingly, Wilson says he was raised Episcopalian, but converted to Judaism because of the latter's emphasis on praxis rather than "belief." I've been wondering if the word he was really looking for was "fideism" (blind faith) rather than "belief."

I also like Bart Ehrman's books.* He has written a lot of material for lay audiences, and some of it has enraged conservative and evangelical Christians. (After his 2005 book Misquoting Jesus became a hot seller, angry rebuttals in book form began to appear.) I don't agree with Ehrman's interpretation of Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet, but at least he's not afraid to boldly outline the many inconsistencies and competing agendas of the biblical authors and their early Christian followers. Ehrman, like Wilson, has allowed his research to affect his personal life. In his youth, Ehrman was a devout evangelical Christian. He is now an agnostic.

I enjoyed Elaine Pagels's 1988 book Adam, Eve, and the Serpent (New York: Vintage-Random House, 1988). Her historical synthesis was daring for the time, and her conclusions were controversial. (She dared to suggest that Christianity ought to reappraise Augustine's "singular dominance" in Western Christianity.) Pagels is better known, though, for her work on the Nag Hammadi texts, and the Gospel of Thomas in particular. I would like to emphasize here -- strongly, and in bold letters -- that I, personally, am not a Gnostic. As I continue to post on this blog, it will become clear why I feel I must clearly state that I do not hold Gnostic beliefs. (I guess I'm a little touchy because some Christians I've encountered who ought to know better, because they're experts in their fields, have an unfortunate tendency to conflate Gnosticism with anything non-Newtonian. I don't think this is an acceptable scholarly attitude in the new era of quantum entanglement/non-locality.)

I also really enjoy reading the bimonthly magazine Biblical Archaeology Review, which is available on good newsstands, including Chapters/Indigo. Ya gotta love editor Herschel Shanks's pluckiness. Plus the photographs and maps that accompany the articles add an interesting dimension to the material. (As I mentioned in my profile, I come from a family of teachers and artists, so I'm drawn to educational materials that have a strong visual component.)

One last reference source I should mention is the Bible. In my research, I mostly use The New Oxford Annotated Bible: New Revised Standard Version with Apocrypha and The Jewish Study Bible: Featuring the Jewish Publication Society TANAKH Translation. Both these Bibles include extensive footnotes and scholarly articles. The translations are based on the most current and most comprehensive translation methods. But no translation of the Bible is written in stone. I use the Bible as historical source material, not as "inviolable truth" or the literal "Word of God." There's good stuff in the Bible, but there's also some stuff that's gotta go. When I say it's "gotta go," I don't mean it should be physically removed from the Bible, because that would be the same thing as burning books, and burning books is too close to fascism, if you ask me. I mean there are parts of the Bible that need to be reappraised in light of what they actually say about our relationship with God. We need to be honest about what some parts say, and we need to decide whether or not those parts can be "redeemed."

That was kind of long and boring, but I'm trying to show that I hold the methods of historical research and scientific research in high regard.

This is why it may come as a shock to you to learn that my first calling (well, my second calling, actually -- beginning in 1983, when I became pregnant with my first child, my highest calling has always been motherhood) . . . my primary spiritual calling is my ongoing commitment as a Christian mystic.

Yup. I'm a scientifically oriented, liberal, blond, United Church mystic.

Now there's an oxymoron for you.

Have a great day!

 * Addendum July 2026: Although I benefited from the research in Bart Ehrman's pre-2011 books, I believe his shift to outright atheism has created fertile ground for cognitive dissonance and strident polemics in more recent books.

CC1: Welcome!

Welcome to my blog! This is a blog about liberal Protestant Christianity in Canada in the third millennium.  

"You do well if you really fulfill the royal law according to scripture, 'You shall love your neighbour as yourself'" (James 2:8). The spiritual pathway of Concinnate Christianity isn't straight and narrow, but instead winds through life with moments of deep connection to your inner self and God. The focus is on healing and redemption rather than sin and salvation. I often wander through this Toronto park, James Gardens, because its harmonious blend of natural features helps restore me. Photo credit JAT 2017.

You've probably never heard of a branch of Christianity called "Concinnate Christianity." It's a name I used for a few years on a Progressive Christian message board to describe a modern church based on Jesus' teachings about love, forgiveness, healing, freedom, and humbleness.

My Random House dictionary defines "concinnate" in this way: Trans. verb "to arrange or blend together skilfully, as parts or elements; put together in a harmonious, precisely appropriate, or elegant manner." 

There's also a noun ("concinnity") and an adjective ("concinnous"), but I don't really like the sound of "Concinnous Christianity," so in the time-honoured tradition of the English language, I'm using the verb as a new form of the adjective. I can't promise I'll always be elegant in my posts, but I'm going to try hard to be clear, precise, and balanced. If I fall short of this goal, you can let me know.  

Thanks for reading. Best to you all.