CC48: The Crucifixion and Resurrection

Today is Second Advent, so this seems like a good time to talk about miracles.

You'd think that, with all my talk about science and brain chemistry, I'd be the sort of person who would reject the reality of miracles. Because practical people who believe in science are sort of obligated to reject the reality of miracles. Aren't they?

"When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb. They had been saying to one another, 'Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance to the tomb?' When they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had already been rolled back. As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man, dressed in a white robe, sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed. But he said to them, 'Do not be alarmed; you are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has been healed; he is not here. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him, just as he told you.' So they went out and fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had seized them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid" (Mark 16: 1-8). Sunset, October 2014: I captured this dazzling ray effect close to my home when my angels unexpectedly told me to pick up my camera, get in my car, and go! Photo credit JAT 2014.

Most United Church of Canada members seem to think so. They're squeamish about the idea that the soul exists as a scientific reality. Same thing with miracles. Officially, they won't talk about miracles. Off the record, some United Church members will confide they believe in unexplainable, God-given events. But when they talk about miracles, they speak awkwardly and self-consciously -- the same way people react when they're invited to sit at a formal dinner table where there are three different forks on the left and three different knives on the right, plus a whole bunch of spoons, and they don't know which utensils they're supposed to use first. So they spend most of their time trying to watch the other guests to see which fork they should use when. They're so busy paying attention to their feelings of embarrassment and discomfort that they can't enjoy themselves. The whole situation is stressful rather than enjoyable.

I'd like to be able to say that United Church members have gone on the defensive about miracles because of repeated attacks from atheistic scientists such as Richard Dawkins. But it's not that simple. United Church members are on the defensive because they've been repeatedly bullied by "progressive" Christian theologians (e.g. Rudolf Bultmann) who have loudly proclaimed that the miracles performed by Jesus in the Gospels couldn't possibly have happened.

In the view of Bultmann and others, no sensible Christian should believe in these miracles because to believe in miracles is to reject science. These theologians recommend that Christians read the miracle stories . . . symbolically. 

Symbolically. My favourite word (grrrr).

These same theologians call into question the reality of the Crucifixion and Resurrection. They insist we should understand the Resurrection metaphorically rather than literally. In their view, the Resurrection couldn't possibly have happened for real. Naturally, this makes it easier to believe that Jesus himself wasn't real, either, but instead was an invented religious symbol.

I think they've got it all backwards. They've started with the assumption that miracles aren't scientifically possible (an assumption that's not scientifically valid), and on the basis of this assumption they've concluded that the miracle stories (especially those in the Gospel of Mark) must have been invented by gullible, superstitious, scientifically uneducated 1st century authors who didn't know any better. Or maybe by authors who were just following a popular ancient trend of inserting invented miracle stories into their biographical narratives. (The fact that many of today's Christian televangelists are still inventing new miracle stories to dupe the public should remind us not to make blanket statements about the motives of all ancient writers.)

Queen's University history professor Dr. Jacalyn Duffin, who is both a practising hematologist and a professor in the history of medicine (a modern day physician scholar, as it were), has recently published a book* about the history of canonization and attested healing miracles in the Roman Catholic Church. She sums up medical miracles in this way: "The doctor is surprised."

The doctor is surprised. The doctor is surprised that, on the basis of current scientific understandings of the disease process, the patient somehow manages to fully recover despite all scientific predictions of imminent death.

I would suggest that when the doctor is surprised, it can mean one of two things: (1) the doctor was wrong from the beginning about the diagnosis or (2) the doctor isn't as smart as she thinks she is about the disease process, quantum biology, healing, and God.

Usually it's the latter.

The Resurrection as described in the Gospel of Mark is very sparse on details. (I agree with biblical scholars who suggest that the book originally ended at Mark 16:8, not at Mark 16:20). All we really know for sure is that Jesus was crucified, was declared dead, was taken down from the cross, hastily placed in a tomb, and somehow managed to disappear from said tomb. Mark's account leaves a lot of scientific wiggle room for a doctor to be surprised.

It's a powerful symbol, the cross that Jesus hung upon. (It's okay for symbols such as crosses or a stars to be symbols; it's just not okay for historical facts to be treated as symbols instead of as facts.) The story of the cross has something important to say to us, even today, because it's still a story where the doctors are surprised and we, the regular people of faith, are filled with awe.

For me, the miracle in this story is not that a man died and was raised from the dead. (I don't think that's scientifically possible.) For me, the miracle is that the man didn't die in the first place.

How did Jesus son of Joseph escape death on the cross? That is the miracle in question.

It's a much bigger question than Paul's Christ myth asks. Paul's Christ myth asks you to believe with blind faith that a human man fully died but was fully returned to life after three days because he was divine -- the chosen son of God. He furthers asks you to believe with blind faith that if you fully accept Paul's teachings about Judgment Day, then you, too, will be resurrected on that day. Sin is the enemy and death is its consequence. The great question for Paul is, "How can I escape death?"
 
The Jesus reality (as told by Mark) asks a different question. The Jesus reality urges you to ask new questions about God. The Jesus reality tells a powerful story about the relationship between God and God's children, and asks you to not rely on blind faith, but to use your common sense, your senses, and your heart.

The Jesus reality is a powerful story about the kinds of things that are possible in God's Creation when human beings walk side by side and hand in hand with Mother Father God.

It's a story about courage. And trust. And humbleness. It's a story about God's free will and our own. It's a story about miraculous (though still scientific) healing. And it's a story about grief.

One of the things we can be certain of when we read Mark is that Jesus is not trying to escape death. Jesus has no fear of dying. He tells his disciples he's going to die, but then he gets on with his life of service as a teacher and healer. He ignores all the Jewish purity laws around disease and death. He puts himself in harm's way by going to Jerusalem. His Last Supper is not a last supper but a first supper, where he rejects the Passover ritual of eating unleavened bread by choosing instead to drink water and to eat risen bread. He breaks all the laws designed to protect the pious from death. His message is not about escaping death. His message is about embracing courage and trust and gratitude and devotion in our relationships with each other and with God.
 
The Jesus reality is Mark's way of saying that death is part of human life, and no one -- not even a gifted physician scholar filled with learning and love -- can fight this reality. Jesus had to die because he was a creature of Earth, and all creatures of Earth will one day die. It's meant to be this way. It's part of the fabric of Creation. It's painful and emotionally overwhelming for us to lose someone we love, but it's the way it has to be. Our lives here are only temporary. When it's time for us to go Home to our eternal reality, God the Mother and God the Father (both of whom are brilliant scientists and brilliant healers), come and gently lift us out of our mortal body and tenderly carry us Home. There we're reunited with our loved ones, and our hearts break open to pour out all the tears and sorrows of our lonely human lives so we can be healed and restored in God's loving arms.

Yet, despite all this, we're left with a mystery. Despite the reality of Jesus' total trust in God, despite the reality of Jesus' courage in the face of death, we're left with the puzzling fact that God the Mother and God the Father in their wisdom decided that a man named Jesus of Nazareth would not die on the cross that day, but would, in fact, escape that terrible death, and live to tell the tale -- for a short while, anyway, before he, too, surrendered his human life, as all of us one day must.

What was God saying?

Thanks be to God the Mother and God the Father this Advent Sunday.

* Duffin, Jacalyn. Medical Miracles: Doctors, Saints, and Healing in the Modern World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.

CC47: Hidden in Plain Sight: The Cunning of Paul

You may recall that in an earlier post I put forward the thesis that the Gospel of Mark was written as a direct rebuttal of Paul's First Corinthians ("The Gospel of Mark as a Rebuttal of First Corinthians," August 18, 2010). Today I'd like to talk about that in more detail.

Maybe you're thinking that sounds pretty boring, and you'll go read the sports page for a little blow-by-blow excitement. Bear with me, though. This story is packed with more drama than an NHL brawl combined with a daytime Soap Opera.

“Toews2010WinterOlympics” from Wikimedia Commons – author Rosie Perera – originally posted to Flickr as G9-20100221-3457

 
On one side, we have Team Salvation (blue and white). Team Salvation comes onto the ice first with the biggest, meanest lines you'd ever want to see. Paul is the Captain. His best forward is Luke and his strongest defenceman is Matthew. These guys have stamina and brute strength in spades. They're not nimble. They're not fast. Their wrist shot sucks. Their overall strategy is to slam the other team into the boards, start fights, and keep the puck moving fast so the audience has trouble following the play. They've done this many times before, and they're the crowd favourite, so they're convinced their strategy will work.

On the other side, we have a rookie team, Team Redemption (red and black). Team Redemption is late getting on the ice. Mark is the Captain. His forwards are unknown draft picks. But they're fast and smart and they skate and stickhandle like a young Wayne Gretsky. Team Redemption has only one line, but they play with everything they've got. They put their heart and soul into the game.

Paul scores an easy first goal, as he expected, but then Mark gets the puck. Mark is not like any of the opponents Paul has played before. Paul keeps trying to check him, but Mark seems to have wings on his skates, and he dekes the goalie to score three quick goals. Paul starts a fight and slams Mark's head into the boards. Mark won't quit. So Matthew gets the puck and moves the play across the centre line. It's offside, but the refs don't call it because they're paid on the sly by Paul's team. Mark's wingers retrieve the puck, score another goal with a beautiful slap shot. Paul is furious. He tells Luke to kill the clock until Team Redemption's line drops from exhaustion. Which they do.

Just for the thrill of it, Paul pummels every red jersey who drops to the ice.

Okay. That's the gameplay for the 1st century battle between Paul's team and Mark's team. Only the stakes were much higher for Paul and Mark, and the play was much more brutal than anything you'd see in a 1980's NHL game.

And you thought the New Testament was talking about boring ol' topics like peace, love, and hope!

The biblical book known as First Corinthians is a letter that was written by a confident "team captain." You can tell by the tone of the letter that Paul believes his preaching mission is going fairly well, despite some kinks that have be worked out with the Christian groups who live in the Greek city of Corinth. He's sure of his own authority. He describes himself in glowing terms as "like a master builder [who] laid a foundation" (1 Cor. 3:10). "For no one can lay any foundation other than the one that has been laid; that foundation is Jesus Christ."

In other words, Paul, the master builder, has chosen as the foundation for all his authority, all his church building, and all his theology one man whom he calls Jesus Christ. This man Jesus is already dead. So Paul figures he can use this man's name and this man's "face" with impunity.

For a while, he gets away with it. (Goal #1). But he doesn't count on a direct challenge to his fabricated claim about "the Christ." He doesn't count on copies of his letter to the Corinthians ending up in Palestine. He doesn't count on somebody -- a somebody who knows a lot about the actual Jesus in question -- reading the copied letter and objecting vehemently to the content. He doesn't count on this somebody writing a searing point-by-point rebuttal of Paul's claims. He doesn't count on the courage of a man who wants to tell the truth about the life and teachings of Jesus son of Joseph.

By the time Mark writes his rebuttal in the early to mid 60's (a few years before the Romans destroyed the Jerusalem Temple), Paul himself can't do anything about it. (He seems to have stopped writing in the late 50's, and we don't know for certain what happened to him.) But his successors can do something to undermine the dangerous assertions made by Mark. They can take Mark's manuscript and do a hatchet job on it, cutting and pasting the various fragments into new compositions (the Gospel of Matthew, the Gospel of Luke), new compositions that change the original meaning and intent of Mark's portrayal of Jesus. They can try to force a blue and white jersey onto a physician scholar who was clearly playing for the red and black team, and if they're lucky, the audience will be so confused by the changing scorecard that they won't contest the final score of the game.

Based on the lasting success of Paul's strategy, along with his successors' strategies in the orthodox Western Church, I'd say his plan was quite effective. Ruthless. Heartless. Cruel. Inhumane. But very, very effective.

CC46: Understanding God's Relationship With Us

My New Testament professor once said in class, "Give me 15 minutes and I can find a proof text in the Bible for anything you want to justify."

You'll have noticed by now that I treat the Bible with a great deal of caution. For me and for many others, the Bible is a lot like a pit bull with a hair-trigger temper. One minute it's wagging its tail at you, spouting happy thoughts. The next, it's trying to rip your throat out.

I'm not one of those mystics who thinks the Bible is a lap dog that will always treat you kindly -- an immortal, timeless lap dog whose eyes are always filled with serenity and bliss if you know the secret of looking at it the right way. Spiritual talk of secrets -- secret knowledge (gnosis) and secret interpretations (symbolic readings of the Bible) -- makes me very nervous. I'll tell you why. It's because spiritual leaders who say they can teach you how to unlock the secret biblical interpretations are making some powerful claims about God. They're claiming that God isn't a very loving God or a very nice God at all.

Take the example of the book called Song of Solomon (also known as Song of Songs). Here is a lyric poem about human love (eros). It's filled with erotic imagery and metaphors that nobody can miss. Scholars think the poem (or collection of poems) was probably written in the 4th or 3rd century BCE. Despite the extremely obvious fact that the Song of Solomon is part of an ancient tradition of erotic love poetry written for a pre-Viagra age, the Song of Solomon started to be interpreted symbolically by religious teachers sometime around the start of the Common Era.

For about 2,000 years, then, theologians have been teaching the faithful to read Song of Solomon symbolically -- as an account of the love between God and Israel. Pious and devout people are expected not to notice or respond to the explicit sexual content. And fourteen year old boys are not to read it late at night by candlelight.

If this is a sacred text about the relationship between God and God's people, I'll eat my hat.

I'm very unhappy that this symbolic interpretation can only be arrived at through some pretty twisted mental gymnastics. I'm also wondering why it's only through a special secret scholarly key that regular people can see the "light of truth" hidden in this poem. As many mystics would have you believe, the majority of people -- regular people who aren't privy to the secret key -- won't be able to see and understand the wonderful "truth" buried in this erotic text. Regular people are too dull to see the "truth." Their corrupt, inferior human senses make them too stupid to understand what's actually written here.

And, of course, that's the way God wants it to be! (according to Gnostic teachers). God, in God's infinite wisdom, decided that most human beings are just too darned stupid and weak and untrustworthy to be entrusted with divine truth. So God hid it. God hid the light of truth in the deepest, darkest swamps, where regular people can't find it, and then God chose a few select warriors to go out and find the light and guard it. Because God is too weak and stupid to protect it. God, Creator of all Creation, is too weak and stupid to parent trustworthy children. God is too weak and stupid to share divine truth with all children equally. God is too weak and stupid to tell the honest truth honestly. God is too weak and stupid to communicate clearly to all people without the help, aid, or benefit of that trusty band of "specially chosen warriors of light."

Maybe it's because God is too busy thinking lascivious thoughts about the luscious gazelles and wild does in the Song of Solomon.

I hope the last sentence creeped you out. I know it creeped me out. But don't yell at me. I'm not the one going around claiming that Song of Solomon has an elevated message about the sacred love God feels for a few chosen children.

We have a term we use today for parents who engage in sexual conduct with their own children: we call them child abusers, and if we catch them, and succeed in convicting them in a court of law, we put them in jail. As we should.

The God I know is nothing like this. Nothing like this at all. The God I know and talk to every day as part of my mystical practice are my divine parents. God the Mother and God the Father are wonderful people. They're kind and thoughtful and generous and funny. They're extraordinarily patient. They always explain things in a way I can understand with my very human brain. If I don't understand something, they don't call me weak or stupid, but instead they always try a new tack to help me "put it together." They love me as their child, but I know I'm not loved more than anyone else. They love all their children with as much ferocity as they love me. It's the ferocious love that all loving parents know towards their children. It's lifelong devotion, commitment, sacred trust. It's safety. It's eternity.

There are precious few passages in the Bible that convey this sense of God's relationship with us as angels-in-human-form. The passages that do exist are almost buried under the holy mountain of piety, righteousness, law, fear, and obedience.

I say "almost."

Beautiful things grown in marshes. These blue flags from the iris family grow in many wet spots in Ontario. Photo credit JAT 2014.

 

The really cool thing is that the truthful passages "somehow" survived all the cuts, revisions, and ruthless doctrinal choices made by narcissistic theologians in the past. "Somehow" the Letter of James made it into the Christian canon, although many influential theologians (including Martin Luther) were openly hostile towards this letter. "Somehow" the Gospel of Mark was preserved, despite the best efforts of the authors of Luke and Matthew to eradicate its message by "improving" on it. "Somehow" the non-elitist Psalm 116 got tucked in there among the more famous Royal and Zionist Psalms.

I just love the way these truthful messages are "hidden in plain sight" where anyone with an open heart and a lick of common sense can find them.

Even better, these passages say what they say in an open, honest way. No special training is required. No promises are made to you about the hidden truth that will one day be revealed to you if only you submit to blind faith.

Divine truth needs no embellishment. It's beautiful just the way it is. Today. Not centuries from now, but today.

Which is pretty much what you'd expect from a wonderful, loving God.

CC29: 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 called 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. 

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." 

One thing that's very clear in the Gospel of Mark is the rejection of Paul's implied teaching that everybody who knew Jesus loved him and stood by him till the bitter end. Peter, who is loudly proclaimed by the Church as Jesus' "rock," is shown by Mark to be a coward and liar who is never reconciled with Jesus: "While Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the servant-girls of the high priest came by. When she saw Peter warming himself, she stared at him and said, 'You also were with Jesus, the man from Nazareth.' But he denied it, saying, 'I do not know or understand what you are talking about.' And he went into the forecourt. Then the cock crowed. And the servant-girl, on seeing him, began again to say to the bystanders, 'This man is one of them.' But again he denied it. Then after a little while the bystanders again said to Peter, 'Certainly you are one of them; for you are a Galilean.' But he began to curse, and he swore an oath, 'I do not know this man you are talking about.' At that moment the cock crowed for the second time. Then Peter remembered that Jesus had said to him, 'Before the cock crows thrice, you will deny me three times.' And he broke down and wept" (Mark 14:66-72, NRSV translation). Shown here is the head of Sulis Minerva found on the site of the Roman Baths, Bath UK. Photo credit JAT 2023.

  

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 and printed 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 that scholars generally agree were tacked on by a later scribe). Now you have your very own free Biblical Synopsis chart like a biblical scholar with a PhD!  

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 afterwards. 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 movable 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)? Don't you think it's strange that Mark's account of the Tomb scene is nothing like the proclamations of mystery made by Paul?

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 isn'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, 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.

CC28: 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.

CC27: Jesus: The Anti-Status Teacher

There is currently no major world religion that bases its doctrines and spiritual practices on the teachings of the man who once lived as Jesus.

There are several world religions that owe a significant doctrinal debt to ancient Egyptian mystery cults. There are several world religions that would not be recognizable in their current form without the legacy of ancient apocalyptic groups. There are several world religions that have incorporated the teachings of ancient Wisdom literature into their texts. But there are no major world religions that approach the deep questions of spirituality and relationship with God in the way that Jesus approached these concerns.

This isn't new. At the time Jesus was teaching and healing, many different religions and philosophies were competing with each other to attract devoted followers. Many of these "pagan" religions were quite successful, far more successful than the modest house churches that sprang up in response to Jesus' message. So successful were these "pagan" religions, in fact, that in the end they won out over the teachings of Jesus.

Most Christians believe it's the other way around, that Christianity's "truth" won out over paganism's "heresy." But orthodox Western Christianity isn't based on the teachings of Jesus. It's based on the teachings of Paul and his vigilant successors -- men such as the author of Matthew and the author of Luke-Acts (whose writings were decreed canonical), and men such as Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Cyprian of Carthage (whose early Christian writings helped shape orthodox thought). These men took the ancient teachings of the mystery cults, the apocalyptic groups, and the Wisdom sages, and repackaged them -- rebranded them -- into a "new and improved" religion called Christianity.

So while early orthodox Christianity had everything to do with Christ -- an ancient saviour figure who was central to Egyptian, Persian, and Greek mystery cults -- early orthodox Christianity had nothing to do with the teachings of the physician-scholar named Jesus son of Joseph. In fact, the doctrines promoted by Paul and the men of the "apostolic succession" are the antithesis of Jesus' teachings about God.

Paul wanted desperately to preserve the ancient teachings of the mystery cults, the apocalyptic groups, and the Wisdom sages because these three approaches to religion, though very different from each other on the surface, all share one fundamental feature: they encourage people to become addicted to status.

Paul offered people a new religion that gave them "bonus points" in their drive for status. Paul promised people more status, extra status, new and improved status, special status, irrevocable status. It's a status-addict's dream! 

Jesus, meanwhile -- as evidenced in the Gospel of Mark, the reconstructed Q source, and parts of the Letter of James -- desperately wanted to get rid of the ancient teachings of the mystery cults, the apocalyptic groups, and the Wisdom sages. Why? Because he understood that widespread addiction to status was the single greatest impediment to people's understanding of God.   

"If I speak in the tongues of mortals and of angels, but do not have love, I am a noisy gang or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give away all my possessions, and if I hand over my body to be burned, but do not have love, I gain nothing. Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends (1 Corinthians 13: 1-8a)." Shown here is Hawthorn Cottage in Kingston, ON. It was built of sturdy limestone in 1866 to house a family of villagers; eventually, it became part of the Pittsburgh branch of the Kingston Frontenac Public Library. It may not be the grandest of buildings, but its simple elegance has long served its families and its community with enduring comfort. Photo credit JAT 2020.

You've probably heard the biblical saying that it's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God (Mark 10:25). This is usually interpreted as a condemnation of money and wealth, the idea being that if you give away all your money and wealth, you'll be closer to the kingdom of God.

This is too simplistic. "Rich" people can give away all their money and wealth, and still not feel God's presence because all they've done is exchange one form of status addiction (wealth acquisition) for another form (asceticism, a.k.a. purity acquisition). Money per se isn't the problem. Money can be used for hospitals, schools, meal programs, and so on. It's not money that's the root of all evil -- it's status addiction.

The only way for people to feel God's ongoing presence in their lives is for them to acknowledge their addiction to status and to make a commitment to heal this addiction.

It goes without saying that status addiction is rampant in our society. It's not an easy thing to heal (about as easy as that camel going through that narrow gate). But it can be done. To be free of status addiction is to be kind and loving towards others in the guileless manner of a young child.

For this reason, Jesus compares those who want to enter the kingdom of God to little children (Mark 10:13-16). Young children haven't yet been taught to hate others on the basis of class, race, or gender. They haven't yet been taught that they're "better" than others, that they're more loved by God than others, that God will save them and their families but not others. They haven't yet absorbed the cultural norms of competition, superiority, perfectionism, or purity (all forms of status addiction). Young children are still free. They still have free will. They still have the ability to love. They still have the ability to forgive. They still have the courage to look at other people and see them as people, not as slaves, property, or lesser beings.

A young child knows nothing of Law or Covenant (both of which are hopelessly interwoven with status). Nor does a child care about "whole burnt offerings and sacrifices" (Mark 12:33). What a young child cares about is love -- love that's infused with respect, and dignity, and egalitarianism, and empathy, and mature relationship, and simple kindness. Love that doesn't boast (since boasting is food for status addiction). Love that doesn't presume to prophesy (since prophesying is food for status addiction). Love that doesn't claim to be centred in the Mind (since pure logic is food for status addiction). Love that doesn't punish the body through ascetic practices (since asceticism is food for status addiction). Love that never seeks revenge (since revenge is to status addiction what crack cocaine is to substance abuse). Love that can't be taken away or withheld as a form of punishment. Love that isn't co-dependent. Love that isn't synonymous with "obedience." What a young child wants is love that forgives. Love that's . . . well . . . divine. 

What children need, and what they in turn give to others, is divine love -- the kind of love our God (God the Mother and God the Father) feel for all their children. The kind of love that Jesus wrote about in a text that Paul subsequently "borrowed" for his letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 13:1-8a).* The kind of love the orthodox Western Church doesn't teach you about.

This is a love based on the power of the soul, the power of free will, the power of forgiveness, and the power of redemption. It has nothing to do with sin, separation, sacraments, and salvation. It's a love that can be difficult for human beings to understand. It's a love that can be difficult for adults to master (the whole "camel squeezing through the narrow gate" thing). But once it's yours, nobody -- not even an angry Church cleric or an angry Temple priest -- can take it away from you, because it's a sacred trust that exists between you and God.

It's a sacred trust that fills you with wonder, and devotion, and gratitude, and humbleness. It's a sacred trust worth dying for, as the man named Jesus once knew. It's a sacred trust that opens the door to the kingdom of God while you're living here as a somewhat confused but unquenchably hopeful human being on Planet Earth.

The keys to the kingdom are not found in the person of Jesus. The keys to the kingdom are found in the teachings that Jesus introduced to anyone who wanted to listen to his annoying and exasperating attacks on the status quo.

If you're a Christian, and you want to start to work on the problems of status addiction in your own life, you're going to have to let go of the doctrine that Jesus is your Saviour. This doctrine is food for your status addiction. There is no Saviour. You don't need to be saved, because God don't make no junk. There's nothing wrong with your soul. Your soul is just fine, thank you very much.

It's okay to think of Jesus as a teacher and mentor in the same way you think of Mahatma Gandhi or the Dalai Lama or Martin Luther King, Jr., as inspiring teachers and mentors. But please don't put Jesus on a pedestal. That's the last thing he'd want anybody to do. 

Jesus wasn't trying to teach his followers about himself. That would have been the height -- the very pinnacle -- of status addiction. He was trying to teach his followers about God the Mother and God the Father. He was trying to take out the "middle men" -- the prophets, priests, and philosophers -- whose grandiose, narcissistic musings about the One God had made it all but impossible for anyone to have a loving, trusting, forgiving relationship with the God who is Two.

If the church of the third millennium wants to follow the teachings of Jesus, it must let go of its apocalyptic, mystery-ridden, wisdom-elevated "Saviour," and shift its focus to God. Now there's a radical idea.

* It's fashionable these days for theologians and biblical scholars to express their profound regret that Jesus wrote nothing down because he was an illiterate Galilean carpenter who spoke only Aramaic. This is nonsense. No lasting Indo-European movement has ever got off the ground without an articulate, knowledgeable leader and a written record of the movement's main tenets. To those scholars who insist that Jesus couldn't write down his own original and penetrating observations about God, healing, and psychodynamics, I want to say, "Get a life , , , and a history book!"

CC20: Further Update on the Vatican's "Sin Within"

Last Friday, on June 11, 2010, Pope Benedict XVI addressed 15,000 priests who were in St. Peter's Square to mark the end of the Vatican's Year of the Priest. In his homily, Benedict asked forgiveness from God and from affected people for the sins of the sexually abusive clerics in the Roman Catholic church. He also promised "to do everything possible to ensure that such abuse will never occur again" (Nicole Winfield, "Pope Begs Forgiveness, Promises Action on Abuse," The Globe and Mail, June 11, 2010).

While I'm quite certain that God the Mother and God the Father do, indeed, forgive Benedict for his own errors, and do, indeed, forgive the priests who've intentionally harmed the faithful in their care, I'm equally certain that hidden abuse will continue in the Roman Catholic church.

Many Christians want to make this a question of theodicy: how do we explain evil in the world while at the same time preserving our image of God as good and loving? If God allows abuse to continue in the church, does it mean that God is powerless and ineffectual? Impotent against the powers of the devil? Or does it mean that God is actually not a very nice person?

Many of the Christians I know would much rather blame the problem of evil on God and/or the devil than put the blame where it belongs: on the values and moral beliefs held by both individuals and by cultural groups.

The Roman Catholic church is a cultural group. It teaches particular cultural beliefs. (These comprise its theological doctrines). It has a consciously promoted schedule of active teaching. Its goal is to teach its people early on in life how they should conduct themselves in relationship to God, church hierarchy, and empire. Traditionally, it has punished members who question its teachings or its authority (the Inquisition). It has conferred upon itself the mantle of infallibility. It claims it is the one true church, the only legitimate path to salvation. 

The Roman Catholic church has long held a vision of how society should be -- how society should look, act, and "feel." Its body of theological doctrines has been carefully cultivated so that only kind of garden can grow in its presence. The church has no one but itself to blame for this.

At the Vatican. Photo credit J MacDonald 2011.

 

The conditions in a garden dictate what kinds of plants will thrive there. A garden that has full sun, lots of water, and lots of nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, etc.) will grow very different plants than a garden that has shady conditions or a high pH in the soil or low nitrogen. If you restrict certain nutrients, you restrict which plants will flower abundantly. If you water some plants and not others, you control which plants will flourish, and which plants will live a miserable life of bare subsistence before dying a premature death. 

Throughout its history, the orthodox Western church has been heavily committed to the lessons learned from gardening. Hewing closely to the principle that the person who controls the conditions of a garden will control the ultimate harvest of said garden, the church has intentionally chosen a specific blend of nutrients for its religio-political garden. The nutrients in this case are its doctrines. The doctrines are what "feed" the hearts and minds of the faithful. If you precisely control the "mix" of doctrines available to your people, you precisely control the rate at which people's hearts and minds can grow. If you balance this mix with the precision of a master botanist, you can ensure that the people in your congregations grow just enough to offer you the occasional flower without ever getting big enough to overshadow you.

It's a new idea, this idea that the introduction of particular belief systems can alter the physical structure and biochemical functioning of a person's central nervous system and brain. I suppose I should amend that to say it's a new idea among neuroscientists -- unfortunately, it's not a new idea among history's power mongers.

Long before the advent of brain scanning technologies, would-be tyrants had empirically observed that people's behaviour could be altered through the careful repetition of certain ideas. These tyrants didn't understand the changes at a biochemical or neurophysiological level, and they didn't need to -- all they needed to understand was the result, the harvest of their ideological campaigns. Early orthodox Church Fathers understood this principle well.

Early in the history of the church, orthodox Christian teachers made a conscious decision to take an axe to the teachings of Jesus as represented in the Gospel of Mark, and to overshadow Jesus' sunny, open "vineyard" with the giant magic beanstalk of spiritual ascent (a beanstalk seen later in the children's fairy tale of that name). They've been feeding this beanstalk of "elevation" for the "elect" with their repeated assertions that the devil exists, that Judgment Day is coming (soon, very soon! -- or at least sometime, maybe, we're pretty darned sure, because it says so in the apocalyptic books), that the soul is tainted by original sin, that Jesus is your only hope of salvation, that Holy Mother Church is the only portal through which you can gain access to the gold at the top of the beanstalk.

This set of teachings was well established by the mid-3rd century CE. It's not new (and it certainly didn't originate with Jesus himself!). The problem with the church's teachings is that their doctrines damage your biological brain. When you fully embrace these teachings as "divine truth," your brain stops working the way God intends. Your brain responds exactly like the plant that's been crippled because the gardener has intentionally withheld the water, nutrients, and care you need. Your heart and mind don't really grow. You spend all your life sitting in the shadow of the towering beanstalk and feeling like crap. You feel like crap because all the truth -- all the spiritual nutrients -- about the actual nature of your relationship with God have been artfully concealed from you. You wouldn't recognize the plants that grow in a sunny, lush, well-watered garden if they came chasing after you. 

Such as forgiveness. Would you be able to recognize forgiveness if it entered your life? Probably not. Most Christian's can't. That's because the orthodox Church has never taught people about forgiveness (which is why I'm somewhat sceptical about the Pope's current pleas for forgiveness).

Why hasn't the Church taught people how to forgive when it's obvious from reading the Gospel of Mark that Jesus insisted on the message of forgiveness? The Church doesn't want to teach people how to forgive, because once people catch onto the feeling of forgiveness, they'll be able to figure out for themselves that divine forgiveness is the antithesis of "salvation" and "grace." They'll realize that the church has been lying to them for centuries about their souls. The garden of orthodoxy might start to look like a thorny patch of weeds and thistles instead of the prophesied paradise!

It's no mystery why some church clerics have been sexually abusing vulnerable people in their care. You can't expect a human being's brain to produce a harvest of compassion, integrity, inclusiveness, and enlightenment when all you do every day is try to fill that person's brain with a steady diet of dissociation, lack of forgiveness, hierarchical control, and suppression of learning.

If Pope Benedict really means it when he says he wants to do "everything possible to ensure that such abuse will never occur again," the only truly effective strategy will be for him to call a Council along the lines of Vatican II, and embark on the painful path of rescinding some of the church's most cherished doctrinal beliefs.

Somehow I'm not holding my breath.

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."

CC13: Choosing Between Paul and Jesus

Orthodox Western Christianity (both Catholic and Protestant) would like to have its Paul and keep its Jesus, too. But as the old maxim about keeping cakes and eating them reminds us, we have to make a decision. The church of the third millennium is going to have to throw in its lot with either Paul or Jesus. It can't have both.

The United Church of Canada is valiantly struggling to cobble together Paul's theology with Jesus' praxis. This would allow them to keep their Articles of Faith (which ultimately originate in Paul's Christ teachings) while "freshening things up" on the social justice front (thus allowing them to claim unity with Jesus' teachings).

You can't blame them for trying. But a continuing pattern of downward membership in the UCC speaks quite eloquently to the "success" of their patchwork solution.

The Mission and Service initiatives of the United Church are important, and I'm not trying to undermine them (well, not the service part, anyway). This is the best part of the UCC experience, as far as I'm concerned. But the theology . . . I can't abide the theology. The blunt truth is that the theology is driving me away from the church. I love the sense of community in my church, I love the people there, I love the commitment to volunteering, and I especially love the way in which children are uplifted. But I have to sit there and listen to readings from Paul, and I'm not happy about this

"Then his mother and his brothers came; and standing outside, they sent to him and called him. A crowd was sitting around him; and they said to him, 'Your mother and your brothers and sisters are outside, asking for you.' And he replied, 'Who are my mother and my brothers?' And looking at those who sat around him, he said, 'Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother'" (Mark 3: 31-35). This delicate Hellenistic gold wreath, dated to the 3rd century BCE, is on display at the Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto. According to the ROM, such wreaths, often representing laurel, olive, or oak leaves, were placed in Greek burials as expressions of reverence for the dead. Photo credit JAT 2017.

Rather, I should say I'm not happy about the way the church tries to insist that Paul and Jesus were simpatico. Paul and Jesus were anything but.

These two men had dramatically different things to say about God. They had dramatically different goals in mind when they tried to spread their respective teachings. They had almost nothing in common except a childhood strongly influenced by Jewish teachings.

Paul doesn't write much in his letters about his own life. (Acts of the Apostles is a secondary source, probably written three decades or so after Paul's last known letter, Romans. Acts, which gives us far more information about Paul's life than Paul himself gives us, was written by the same man who wrote the Gospel of Luke.) Paul himself doesn't actually describe the famous conversion experience on the road to Damascus. The famous story of Saul struck blind by a light from heaven is only found in Acts 9:1-9; 22:6-11; 26:12-18.

For Paul, a mere conversion experience as an adult wasn't good enough. Rather than saying he was brought to Christ through a vision from Jesus, Paul actually makes a much more radical claim for himself: Paul was so special in the grand scheme of things that God "set me apart before I was born and called me through his grace . . . so that I might proclaim [his Son] among the Gentiles" (Galatians 1:15-17). Paul says he was chosen by God while he was still in the womb, just as prophets of old in the Jewish scriptures had been chosen.

Note: Paul has placed himself at the top of a very small and very select group of people -- the prophets. Nobody who truly believes that God treats all people equally would make such a presumptuous claim about himself or God. Paul, according to his own testimony, has provided himself with an impressive pedigree. Yet most biblical commentators fail to note that in the first century CE, as in the third millennium, an impressive pedigree means nothing to people who aren't driven by the needs of status addiction. Pedigree doesn't sway people who truly believe that all creatures are equal in God's eyes. Paul says that all people are one in Christ, but Paul means that some people are more important to God than others -- starting with himself.

Christian authors such as John Dominic Crossan and Jonathan L. Reed have bent over backwards to try to prove to modern audiences that Paul really was "a saint not only for then, but for now and always" (page 413 of In Search of Paul: How Jesus's Apostle Opposed Rome's Empire with God's Kingdom, A New Vision of Paul's Words and World (New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 2004)). In their book, Crossan and Reed try to minimize the brutality of the Letter to the Romans (which, of the letters we still have from Paul, is probably the letter that was written last). And they insist that Paul's Saviour is identical to the man who taught and healed as Jesus of Nazareth.

Whoever wrote the Gospel of Mark a few years after Paul's last known letter was clearly trying to refute what Paul had been writing about the man named Jesus. There's no other way to explain the vast differences in their respective portraits of Jesus. I think it's naive to suggest that the author of Mark didn't know about Paul's teachings, which predated Mark's in both time and influence. Paul admits he visited Jerusalem and met with Jesus' brother James (Galatians 1:18-19), and Paul claims he travelled widely in the Eastern Mediterranean. Can we really imagine that Mark, who knew so much about the details of Jesus' actual life, knew nothing at all about Paul's strategy to co-opt Jesus as the new face of the anti-emperor Saviour?

Barrie Wilson covers many of these points in the book I mentioned on March 6/10, How Jesus Became Christian. If you want to know more about the background historical elements of this complicated first century CE saga, I recommend Wilson's book (although, for the record, I don't agree with Wilson's comments on the Gospel of Matthew).

Paul had a plan and a mission. But it was not a plan to spread Jesus' dangerous teachings. It was a plan to minimize and control the subversive effects of Jesus' dangerous teachings.

It was a plan to eradicate the rapidly spreading story about a man from an aristocratic family who voluntarily gave up his status, his wealth, and his family connections in order to serve the poor in small towns because he was an educated God-loving scholar-physician (cf. Doctors Without Borders).

Can't have the nobility slumming it, you know. It might just catch on.

God forbid that regular people might start to believe that real, live, flesh and blood, aristocratic males could WANT to give up all that power and status, and live a life of humble service to God!

How to fix the problem? Great idea -- put the man back on a pedestal, only this time make the pedestal so tall that nobody else can reach it, or even want to reach it.

That'll keep them in their place . . . .

For me, this subtext is audible every time I hear a reading from one of Paul's epistles. It makes me want to gnash my teeth, shake my head, and bellow out loud, "Come on -- Paul is lying to us."

But, since none of these reactions would be considered popular at church during worship, my solution is to stop attending worship. I've decided to hang out with God in Nature, in song, in kind words, and in the people I love until such a time as the church decides to follow the teachings of Jesus instead of the teachings of Paul.

I sure do miss UCC Coffee Time, though!

CC10: The "Mind" of God

I'm really sick of hearing about "the Mind of God." 

Don't get me wrong -- I'm not saying that God the Mother and God the Father are brainless. I'm saying there's a lot more to our Divine Parents than 100% pure mind power. Well, sure, you say, of course God is more than just mind power -- God has a loving heart, too! And you would be right . . . except the church wouldn't agree with you officially. Off the record you'd probably get some senior church officials to agree with you that God has both mind and compassion. And lots of regular Christians instinctively understand this. But none of the mainline churches, either Protestant or Roman Catholic, have yet been willing to reexamine their official belief systems about God's "substance." As far as the church is concerned, God is a transcendent and trinitarian being who values "reason and righteousness" above everything else. God is "oneness" with three different forms of expression. This "oneness" is serene and detached and highly logical -- just the way Plato described God four centuries before Jesus!

This portrait of God is very convenient, because it gives people an excuse to ignore the reality that God has feelings. According to the church, however, God doesn't have emotions. Therefore nothing you think, say, or do can make God cry. You can make God angry, says the church, but that's different. God's anger is simply his (its?) logical reaction to your disobedience. There is a divine book of laws, you see, and even God is required to follow those laws. It's all very logical.

Hah! 

Not only do I personally disagree with this assessment of God (because my work as a mystic has shown me a very different understanding of God), but I also think that Jesus himself was teaching his followers that God is more than pure, transcendent "Mind." I think Jesus knew about the Platonic teaching of God as "One Mind," and I think Jesus was trying to overturn this idea. I think Jesus was talking in a truly radical way about God as a "he and a she" who together watch over all Creation: Abba and Ruah.*

"Happy are those who find Wisdom, and those who get understanding, for her income is better than silver, and her revenue better than gold. She is more precious than jewels, and nothing you desire can compare with her. Long life is in her right hand; in her left hand are riches and honor. Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace. She is a tree of life to those who lay hold of her; those who hold her fast are called happy. The Lord by Wisdom founded the earth; by understanding he established the heavens; by his knowledge the deeps broke open, and the clouds drop down the dew. My child, do not let these escape from your sight: keep sound wisdom and prudence, and they will be life for your soul and adornment for your neck. Then you will walk on your way securely and your foot will not stumble" (Proverbs 3: 13-23). Photo credit JAT 2025.

Biblical scholars who study "the historical Jesus" have often tried to figure out what Jesus actually said and did that could have provoked such a strong reaction among both followers and adversaries. Some of these scholars see Jesus as an unextraordinary wisdom sage whose "golden rule" teachings weren't much different from the teachings of his contemporaries.

Hah!

While it's certainly true that "golden rule" teachings had been around for centuries before Jesus taught and healed in first century Palestine, it's not true that Jesus' own understanding of God was a rehash of ideas found in all major Ancient Near East religions. Jesus had a rare understanding of God shared only by the Jewish teacher we know as Job. It might be called "Modified Monotheism" -- but it certainly wasn't the monotheistic understanding of Judaism's post-Exilic Yahweh, nor was it the monistic understanding of Plato's Divine Truth. Jesus' understanding of God was inflammatory in its first century context. That's because Jesus thought of God as two people -- a Mother and a Father -- whose chief attributes were not transcendence, power, and Mind (as in both Hellenistic philosophy and in Second Temple Judaism), but instead were immanence, trust, and Heart.

True, there had been a minority religious voice in Judaism that saw God as immanent. But in the Zion Covenant that appears in the writings of early Judaism (e.g. certain Psalms), this immanence meant something particular: it meant that God physically lived in a specific location on Mount Zion. Since God had chosen to live in the temple built on Mount Zion, great status was conferred upon the people of the Zion Covenant.

This idea of God living on a particular mountaintop was not unique to early Judaism. Other Ancient Near East religions taught the same thing, except that the holy mountain where God lived was, of course, a geographical site within their own political borders. Yet in the Gospel of Mark (Mark 9:2-9), Jesus rejects the idea of living on the holy mountain in the company of Judaism's revered prophets Moses and Elijah, both of whom had followed a spiritual path of ascent. For far too long, Christian commentators have overlooked the significance of this passage in Mark. They focus on the fact that Jesus suddenly appears in dazzling white clothes, but they forget the fact that Jesus wants no part of the holy mountain. He immediately returns to the community below, a community of real people in need of real healing. There he wades into the crowd and unflinchingly heals the epileptic boy without any care or concern for religious laws. In this way, he emulates the compassionate devotion that loving parents share with a sick child.

For Jesus, who spent little time in Jerusalem (Jerusalem, not coincidentally, was the site of Mount Zion), the traditional claims of a male god who lived exclusively in a man-made temple were nonsense. For Jesus, the distinct male and female attributes of God were visible everywhere. So, too, God's emotional attributes were visible everywhere you looked. How could people look at the wonder of all Creation and believe that God had no feelings? 

"Six days later, Jesus took with him Peter and James and John, and led them up a high mountain apart, by themselves. And he was transfigured before them, and his clothes became dazzling white, such as no one on earth could bleach them. And there appeared to them Elijah with Moses, who were talking with Jesus. Then Peter said to Jesus, 'Rabbi, it is good for us to be here; let us make three dwellings, one for you, one for Moses, one for Elijah.' He did not know what to say, for they were terrified. Then a cloud overshadowed them, and from the cloud there came a voice, 'This is my Son, the Beloved; listen to him!' Suddenly when they looked around, they saw no one with them any more, but only Jesus. As they were coming down the mountain, he ordered them to tell no one about what they had seen" (Mark 9: 2-9a). People come to shores of Lake Minnewanka in the Alberta Rockies to feel the beauty of earth, water, air, and love painted by the hearts of our beloved Divine Parents. Photo credit JAT 2015.

For those biblical scholars who wonder why Jesus provoked such a strong response in people, they need look no further than his teachings on the nature of God. Even today, people are infuriated when you tell them that God is not a distant, unemotional, trinitarian "he," but instead (and quite obviously) a "he and a she" who together infuse their love, courage, trust, devotion, and gratitude in everything they create. (Take the Son out of the Trinity, and what do you have? Abba and Ruah, except that in Jesus' time the Aramaic noun Ruah was always feminine!) 

That's why I can safely say that "God don't make no junk." Our God is way too amazing to allow something so stupid as the "law" of Original Sin. 

To our beloved Mother and Father I want to say to you today and always . . . you both rock!

* Abba is a masculine-gender Aramaic word for "father" or "papa." Ruah is a feminine-gender Aramaic word for "breath, "spirit," or "wind." Because words in the English language don't have gender, English-speaking people often forget that gendered languages give subtle shades of meaning through the choice of nouns. As in Romance languages such as French, Italian, or Spanish, the gender of the noun (that is, its status as male, female, or neuter) determines the conjugation of other parts of speech in a sentence.