CC40: How My Experience With Chemistry Has Influenced My Mysticism

Theology at its best is a language -- a language that helps individuals understand their relationship with God while not contradicting or denying one of God's other important languages: science. 

It's important for God's children to have access to the language of uplifting theology. This is because not all of God's children can easily understand or relate to the language of science. This is okay with God. In fact, it's more than okay. God's children (one of whom would be you) are not all the same. God's children are all different from each other, although we share some important traits in common, such as the ability to love and forgive.  

Your soul wasn't created by God the Mother and God the Father from a batch of dirt and a cookie cutter (Genesis 2:7 notwithstanding). In all of Creation (and it's a pretty darned big Creation!), there's no other soul quite like you. There's no other soul who thinks exactly the way you think, no other soul who expresses love exactly the way you express love. You're one of a kind.  

This means you "get" some languages better than you get other languages.  

Maybe you totally get music, which means you feel the rhythms and harmonies deep in your bones without anyone ever really teaching you how to do it. You just "get" it so deeply that your whole life is transformed by it, each and every day.  

Maybe you totally get poetry. That's a language, too. It's not the same as prose. Somehow it triggers different feelings and different responses in you than prose. You read a few verses of exquisite poetry and BAM -- powerful insights descend upon your soul and you're forever changed.  

Now don't laugh, but I react to chemistry the way many people react to music and poetry. It's not that I don't like music or poetry, it's just that, well, I really, really "get" the language of chemistry. 

“Tremble, O Earth, at the presence of the Lord, at the presence of the God of Jacob, who turns the rock into a pool of water, the flint into a spring of water” (Psalm 114: 7-8). Photo credit JAT 2017.

If you've studied a lot of chemistry,* you know that chemists don't think in quite the same way as physicists, or biologists, or computer scientists, or mathematicians. Physicists get excited about field theory. Biologists get excited about energy transfer in living organisms and ecosystems. Computer scientists can think in binary code (an amazing skill!). And mathematicians live and breathe for the wonder of tautologies (showing how two sides of an equation are actually equal).  

But chemists spend most of their time dealing with bonding. Molecular bonding. They want to know what holds atoms together into molecules. They want to understand the relationships between the constituent parts of both atoms and molecules. They spend a lot of time trying to figure out how to coax one little ion or electron from one spot to a different spot so it can do a different job. A chemist's stock in trade is the probability wave functions of electrons, those tiny little negatively charged particles that are so much smaller than an atomic "nucleus" and are so damned fussy about where they're willing to be located at any one time. Yet where would our material world be without them?  

Even though physicists now estimate that "ordinary matter" (that is, atoms and molecules) accounts for no more than 4-5% of all known energy in the known universe (they call this ordinary matter "baryonic matter"), baryonic matter has a lot to tell us about the nature of God. And this baryonic matter is what chemists really "get."  

A number of physicists these days are pulling out all the stops to try to find a unified theory of nature. (Hence the construction of the multi-billion dollar Large Hadron Collider). But, you know, for my part, as a student of chemistry and as a mystic, I'm wary of anyone in any field who starts to look for a simple unified theory of anything. This smacks of monism, the longstanding religious belief that when you get to the very heart of Creation, there exists only a singular, undifferentiated, divine "oneness." Plato's middle writings, such as Phaedrus (247c), speak of this colourless, shapeless, all-inclusive oneness. Many neo-Platonic Christian mystics have followed suit in the monism department. 

Needless to say, I'm not a monistic or apophatic mystic.  

Me, I think it's okay for us to listen to what God is saying to us through the language of chemistry. Even though baryonic matter (including the ordinary atoms and molecules that make up Planet Earth's waters, lands, and atmosphere, plus all life on Planet Earth) represents only 4-5% of the universe's energy, it's the only part of Creation we can directly access as human beings, and it's the only part of Creation that God seems to think we need while we're living here as angels-in-temporary-human-form, so I figure it's worth paying attention to! 

And as I said above, chemistry is all about bonding. It's also all about change.

Chemistry is a language that teaches us about the relationship and balance between the tiny negatively charged particles we call electrons and the much larger positively charged particles we call protons. It's also about the relationship and balance between certain probability wave functions and forces such as gravity, magnetism, etc. (I'm simplifying here and purposely skipping the whole subatomic particle thing, as it would needlessly complicate the discussion at this point). Chemistry is about the forces that bring particles together (sometimes for millions of years), but also about what pulls them apart.

When you think about a molecule such as sodium chloride (table salt), you probably think about it as salt. Me, I think of all the history behind this one molecule and its special importance in biological mechanisms across the planet. I give thanks for the way salt helps our physical bodies function so we can have the chance to better understand our relationship with God. I reflect on the wonder of the oceans, where the presence of salt creates a medium for life. I see harmony, balance, intentional cooperation, and divine love in our need for salt. There is a timelessness in this simple molecule -- sodium and chloride brought together, then pulled apart, over and over -- that speaks to the essential continuity of all life. The salt we shake on our french fries today was once part of ancient seas, ancient life. 

The science of chemistry is the language of change -- the constant reorganization of atoms and molecules (even when we can't see it). Yet it's orderly change. Though we, as humans, may not always like change, it's a necessary part of God's plan for Creation. If it were otherwise, we wouldn't see evidence of constant change in the rhythms and patterns of Earth's 4.54 billion year history.

There you have it -- my rebuke of Young Earth Creationism (the bizarre religious belief that the entire planet and everything on it are less than 10,000 years old).

In my opinion, Young Earth Creationism is an example of the language of theology at its worst.

* I studied chemistry as part of my undergraduate degree in Art History and Chemistry, and also in my Master of Art Conservation program.

CC38: An Ancient Mystery Revealed

I'm old enough to remember the 1984 Wendy's commercial that featured three little old ladies and the snappy line, "Where's the beef?" Sure, the commercial was meant to sell Wendy's bigger hamburger patties. But the catch phrase went deeper than that. It quickly became a cultural metaphor for something that was "all talk, no action." Something without real substance. 

Many spiritual teachers are interested in selling you books about how to "raise your consciousness" and "seek wisdom" and be "one with all Creation." These books are full of platitudes and cliches, and they remind me a lot of the big fluffy bun that was being parodied in the Wendy's commercial. The bun looks impressive on the outside, but when you bite into it, you discover there's precious little substance inside. There's just the same old mystery teachings that have been taught by cult leaders for . . . oh . . . for at least five thousand years now. 

We are all One. Blah, blah, blah. Your soul is a spark of the Divine. Blah, blah, blah. Your physical body and your physical mind are drenched in evil and must be transcended. Blah, blah, blah. Specially chosen spiritual leaders have consented to descend into this corrupt world to lead the forces of light against the forces of evil. Blah, blah, blah. You can help in this great battle. Blah, blah, blah. The time is at hand when human beings will rise to a new, never before seen level of consciousness and enlightenment. Blah, blah, blah. In order to reach this new level, you must surrender yourself, let go of yourself, live in the moment, let go of attachments, let go of illusion. Blah, blah, blah. Only then can you know the bliss, peace, and joy of oneness with the Divine.  

At the beginning of Eckhart Tolle's bestselling 1997 book The Power of Now (Vancouver: Namaste Publishing, 1997), he describes an episode of spiritual awakening that took place after a "dark night of the soul" when he was 29. For five months, he "lived in a state of uninterrupted deep peace and bliss" (page 2). He then "spent almost two years sitting on park benches in a state of the most intense joy. But even the most beautiful experiences come and go."  

Really? They come and go? Because that hasn't been my experience. My experience has been that if you understand why you're doing what you're doing on the Spiral Path, and if you ground your spiritual journey in reality instead of in ancient mystical gobbledygook, you can get up every morning and go to bed at night and live every moment of your ordinary, ho-hum day in a state of profound trust and companionship with God.  

This makes every ho-hum day anything but ho-hum.  

If you see what I'm getting at here.  

Eckhart Tolle and his mystical predecessors are always talking about escape -- escape from the body, escape from suffering, escape from illusion, escape from evil forces, and (in the most extreme form) escape from death. They're missing the point. The Spiral Path has never been about escape. The Spiral Path has always been about forgiveness, healing, and redemption.* 

"I will instruct you and teach you the way you should go; I will counsel you with my eye upon you. Do not be like a horse or a mule, without understanding, whose temper must be curbed with bit and bridle, else it will not stay near you. Many are the torments of the wicked, but steadfast love surrounds those who trust in the Lord. Be glad in the Lord and rejoice, O righteous, and shout for joy, all you upright in heart" (Psalm 32: 8-11). This amphora, found in Etruria and dated 540-535 BCE, depicts Herakles killing the Nemean lion - the first of the twelve labours of Herakles. The spiritual journey shouldn't make you feel as if you're reinventing Herakles' terrible struggles. (Amphora on display at Royal Ontario Museum. Photo credit JAT 2017.)

If you want to feel deep peace and joy every day (and this is possible, believe it or not), your ongoing goal is to HEAL yourself, not escape yourself. 

In order to heal yourself (and perhaps others, too), you need to understand at a conscious level what's going on inside your biological body as you struggle to make sense of your spiritual journey. To do this, you need more than ancient myths to guide you. You need science.  

There are no exceptions to this general statement. Every mystic in every faith tradition in every country of the world needs science. There is no ethical mysticism without ethical scientific exploration.  

There is no science in The Power of Now. There's a great deal of mystical speculation, but there's no science. Put plain and simple, I don't trust any spiritual teacher who's afraid to look science in the eye.  

There is no need to postulate, as Tolle does, the existence of a "negative energy field" (called an emotional "pain-body") whose job it is to control your thoughts and your mind like some sort of "invisible entity" (page 29). This sounds little different than demon-possession as it was formerly understood. It's an irresponsible and scientifically insupportable claim. It confuses and frightens people. 

Furthermore, it relies entirely on the author's own authority as mystic and prophet. It starts with Tolle's personal assumptions about the interface between mind, body, soul, and brain. From there, he builds a pyramid of guesswork. My question in response to his thesis is . . . where's the beef? Where's the science combined with the heart? Don't talk to me about a corrupting "pain-body." Talk to me -- scholar to scholar -- about neurotransmitters and glial cells and underactive sections of the brain and seizure disorders and over-activation of the pain-pleasure circuitry (to barely scratch the surface of the neurophysiology that's involved). I don't mind if you use some analogies and even some mythical archetypes to explain brain chemistry to a lay audience, but if you yourself don't understand your spiritual journey in scientific terms, then you're not saying anything different than Plato said to a vulnerable audience 2,400 years ago. It's pure myth. And it's pure crap. 

I'm sorry, but it's just not true that human beings can somehow separate the spiritual journey or the spiritual brain from the everyday science of everyday life. You cannot find God by sitting on park benches for two long years. (You'll find something on those park benches, but it won't be enlightenment.) You can only find God in a lasting way by making lasting choices in your life -- scientifically based choices that will slowly heal your biological brain and your biological body, and allow you to live each day as an angel-in-human-form. Your spiritual task is not to become less yourself. It's to become more yourself -- more and more like the soul you really are.  

This depends, of course, on a belief in the soul. If you don't believe you were born as a soul -- a pure, amazing, unique soul that always is and always will be a pure, amazing, unique soul -- then you and I have no common ground for discussion. Everything I've learned from God the Mother and God the Father, and everything I've learned from the angel who once lived as Jesus, begins with the core integrity of the soul. Everything I've learned about healing and redemption revolves around the full integration of your immortal soul with your very mortal human body. This is a journey of science as much as a journey of faith.

Healing and redemption revolve around the balance of body, mind, soul, and heart. Around the balance (NOT the pyramidal, step-wise hierarchy) of Maslow's physiological needs, safety needs, love and belonging needs, and self esteem needs. Around the balance of physical joy, mental joy, spiritual joy, and emotional joy. Around the balance of work, play, extroverted relationships, and introverted downtime. Around using the whole brain, not just parts of the brain. 

Whole Brain Thinking is the only way to find the Spiral Path, understand the Spiral Path, and persevere on the Spiral Path.  

There. That's the Ancient Mystery in a nutshell: you have to use your whole brain -- your whole nervous system -- in a consistently balanced, healthy, emotionally mature way. When you do, you can more easily hear God's voice, because God's voice is as balanced and emotionally mature as can be.  

And guess what? You don't have to take my word for it! You can research all the ways to have a happy, healthy, fully functioning brain, and you'll come up with essentially the same ideas I've presented here!  

Science and spirituality together on the same page. Now we're cooking with gas.  

 

* On the last text page of The Power of Now, Tolle reveals that "the whole concept of forgiveness then becomes unnecessary (page 193)." Needless to say, Tolle and I couldn't disagree more.

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.'"

CC17: My Firsthand Experience With a Modern Apocalyptic Prophet

Even to this day, I can't believe I missed the signs of Grace's major mental illness.

At the time I first met Grace in 1998, I was working in the mental health field. Every day at the office I met and spoke with people whose lives had been torn apart by major depression, bipolar disorder, OCD, and Axis II issues such narcissistic personality disorder. I'd seen people suffering from psychotic depression, and I'd seen some of those psychotic patients undergo miraculous recovery after proper treatment. So it's not like I could claim ignorance.

Ignorance, no. But naivete . . . yes, I admit to a heaping dose of that. And compartmentalization. I made the near-fatal mistake of compartmentalizing spirituality, of separating spirituality from everyday life, of trying to place my spirituality -- and Grace's -- on some sort of special pedestal.

In my naivete, I was trying to climb the ladder of spiritual ascent. At the time, I thought that was a good thing. Only later did I realize that the path of holy ascent can be likened to a Boston Marathon of spiritual narcissists all scrambling to beat each other to the top of the special pinnacle where only a few special people are chosen to be especially close to God.

Like Plato. And Paul. And my spiritual teacher Grace. Apocalyptic prophets, all. Supremely confident. Absolutely convincing in their sincerity. Charming and persuasive. Endlessly energetic and enthusiastic. Psychopathic as hell.

That’s me in the red shirt during my Big Fat Idiot Stage in 2003. That’s Grace on the right in the light blue shirt (though she wasn’t looking particularly beatific during this shot).

 
I met Grace when I went for my very first Reiki healing. A mutual friend had arranged the Reiki healing for me. I knew very little at this point about New Age spirituality, and even less about traditional Christian mysticism. But I was eager to embark on a more spiritual path in my life (not so surprising for a 40 year old woman), and I'd suddenly found a bona fide Reiki master in my own community! It seemed too good to be true.

Grace had a beatific face. True, she was obese, but that was only because she so enjoyed cooking for other people to make them happy. True, she could knock back 5 ounces of vodka in half an hour, but that was only because she had a high threshold for alcohol (and she never drank the day before a Reiki healing). True, her two adult sons used alcohol and cannabis heavily, but that was only because they were so friendly and sociable and couldn't say no to their friends, and in any event they were loved unconditionally by their parents, regardless of their behaviour. True, she became heavily addicted to pornography, but that was only in the context of a loving, monogamous relationship. True, she had a violent temper, but that was only because . . . well, that was only because she was right and other people were wrong, and she needed to clearly express to other people that she wouldn't tolerate their unfair criticisms of her.

What mattered most to Grace was her spiritual path. She had trained as a certified Usui lineage Reiki Master. She revelled in the language, the symbolism, of it. Handpainted symbols covered the walls of the room in her home where she carried out her Reiki healings. She lit scented candles, played gentle, reassuring instrumental music, spoke in a reassuring tone. She talked the talk of divine love from beginning to end.

She talked endlessly and sincerely about divine love. She talked about the wondrous gift of divine healing that could come to people through hands-on healing. She said loudly and often that "we are all One, we are all equal." She constantly strove to update her knowledge through New Age books, Internet sites, and spiritual workshops. She took new courses. She taught new courses. She seemed like "the real deal."

But Grace was all talk. That's all she did -- talk. She did not practise empathy in her own life. In fact, she was one of the most vindictive, most unempathetic, most controlling, most self-entitled people I've ever met.

That's why I have to thank her. I have to thank her for teaching me so consistently and so painfully that you can't trust a spiritual teacher on the basis of words alone. You can't trust the teachings of a dysfunctional spiritual teacher. Everything Grace did was focused on Grace. She said she cared about her students and her Reiki patients, but she didn't. She cared about herself. She only taught spiritual teachings that made her feel superior to other people. She needed to be "the Master." She needed to be one of God's specially chosen messengers. She needed to make prophetic claims. She needed to be in charge of other people's spirituality. This was how she coped with her dissociative disorder.

Don't get me wrong -- Grace was highly dysfunctional for a damned good reason, and I know that. She was a survivor of an abusive childhood home, where an alcoholic father sexually abused his daughters, and an alcoholic mother humiliated the children. It's to Grace's credit that as an adult she managed to hold down a respectable job and stay in a stable marriage for as long as she did. But Grace was unable to accept that she had addiction problems and needed professional assistance. By the time I met her, she was a mess. And her "commitment" to her path of spiritual ascent made life worse -- both for herself and for her vulnerable students.

I didn't break off ties with Grace until 2005. I hope that in the past few years she has received the care she needed. Somewhere underneath all her vitriol was the kind and loving person God knew she could be.

Unfortunately, I never got the chance to know that person.

CC15: On the Road to Jericho

Yesterday I watched a rerun of Law and Order that was fascinating for its depiction of a righteous, devout, sincere Roman Catholic woman who was put on trial for murder after a botched exorcism killed a teenaged girl. Interestingly, the woman had been a nun before leaving the convent to follow her "gift from God."

The assistant DA was sent to interview the woman's former Mother Superior. The Mother Superior informed a surprised DA that the former nun's intense belief in the devil proved that she was more obedient to her faith than other people, not less so.

In the show, everyone agreed that the woman's faith was sincere. In court, she testified in a calm, persuasive voice that she had a gift from God, and that the archangel Michael had commanded her to beat the devil out of the rebellious girl. She had obeyed St. Michael. She had failed in her mission not because the divine command was flawed, but because she wasn't strong enough to overcome the devil. The girl had died when the devil took her soul. She regretted her personal failure to save the girl's soul, but she didn't regret the attempt. She had cared about the girl, and she'd been trying to do the right thing.

Fiction? Exaggeration? Misrepresenting the facts in order to make good TV?

Not really. In fact, the show didn't go far enough in showing the reality of this kind of religious mindset, and the damage these "sincere, devout, faithful" people cause with their beliefs. 

Many "sincere, devout, faithful" people used to believe in creatures that were part man, part horse -- the centaurs of Greek religion. Sincerity of belief has no bearing on the veracity of a belief. You don't have to accept the Church's teachings about "the devil" any more than you have to accept the ancient Greek belief in centaurs. Shown here is South Metope XXVIII, originally from the Parthenon in Athens, now on display at the British Museum, London. Photo credit JAT 2023.

Just last week, the Globe and Mail published a brief article about three cult members in Baltimore who have been convicted in the death of a toddler ("U.S. Cult Members To Be Sentenced For Starving Child," The Globe and Mail, May 18, 2010). Says the article, "Prosecutors say cult leader Queen Antoinette told the mother that denying food would cure her child's rebellious spirit." What had the child done? He had refused to say "Amen" after meals.

The article also includes this eye-popping fact: the child's 23-year old mother (who is already in a residential treatment program) made an unusual plea bargain "in which her plea will be withdrawn if the child is resurrected."

If the child is resurrected?

Many members of today's church would like to distance themselves from this kind of bizarre thinking, and would like to pretend that church teachings on the devil, on Judgment Day, on bodily resurrection of the dead, and on exorcism aren't really real. But these teachings are real. And they continue to create terrible suffering in the world today.

Let me be clear. I'm not saying that the devil is real. I'm saying that the teachings about the devil are real.

The teachings are still official church law. If you're a righteous Christian -- a sincere, devout, faithful believer in the church's teachings -- you're supposed to believe in all this apocalyptic b*llsh#t.

Mind you, apocalyptic b.s. is not new to the world, and it's not limited to Christianity. Scholars aren't sure when apocalyptic religious claims first surfaced, but they know that plenty of bizarre apocalyptic claims about God and the devil had been circulating long before Jesus of Nazareth lived. There's a lot of raw apocalyptic material in Plato's writings, but Plato wasn't the only one to make dualistic claims about good versus evil. There's a long track record for this kind of scary religious belief, and it's found all over the world.

Why is it found all over the world? It's found throughout history and throughout the world because -- radical thought, this -- because serious mental illness is found throughout history and throughout the world.

Human beings all share the same basic DNA. Part of our human DNA package includes a susceptibility to major mental illnesses such as unipolar depression, psychotic depression, bipolar disorder, psychotic disorders such as schizophrenia, not to mention addiction disorders, personality disorders, and psychiatric symptoms that are secondary to primary medical disorders. (For instance, sepsis -- systemic blood poisoning -- can cause sudden psychosis). Certain kinds of major mental illness are known to lead to certain kinds of recognizable -- but highly dysfunctional -- thinking patterns.

Apocalyptic thinking patterns are dysfunctional. I don't care that apocalyptic beliefs have been enshrined in many different major world religions. I don't care that I'm supposed to fully honour and respect everybody's religious beliefs. I refuse to honour any religious belief -- whether it's Christian, Kabbalist, Muslim, animist, or whatever -- if that particular belief system is founded on teachings that emanated from mental illness. So I don't care what somebody's revered prophet once said if that prophet showed clear signs of mental illness. Apocalyptic teachings are a clear sign of mental illness.

The human genome hasn't changed much over the past few millennia, and that means that prophets who lived and taught 3,000 years ago had the same basic DNA as you and I. They had the same vulnerability to biologically-based psychosis as you and I. The difference between then and now is that we finally have the tools to recognize these major mental disorders, and we finally have some good treatments for them -- such as SSRI's and olanzapine.

I have no patience and no sympathy for people who tell me that all religious traditions are equally worthy of respect. They are not. Religious traditions founded in dysfunctional, dualistic, good versus evil thinking are not worthy of respect. This means I believe that some aspects of the Christian tradition are not worthy of respect. I also believe that some aspects of certain other religious traditions are not worthy of respect.

I'm not going to apologize for this. Religious leaders have a moral duty to reexamine the traditions of their respective faiths to weed out all teachings that originated in mental health disorders, teachings that continue to contribute to mental health disorders, teachings that create great harm in the world today.

The church must take responsibility for its past failure to work closely with scientific researchers who have been trying to show that bizarre, abusive behaviour is a medical, social, and educational issue, not a spiritual or religious issue involving evil forces.

The church needs to "grow up." It's not helpful to anyone -- especially to those who have a genetic vulnerability to major mental illness, and are therefore easily traumatized by teachings about evil forces -- for us to pretend that we can all happily and lovingly accept every "religious belief." We can't. Each world faith must start to take responsibility for its own doctrinal garden. Each world faith must begin to weed out the destructive teachings that have grown in its garden over the centuries. Each world faith must plant new seeds that can close the current and utterly inexcusable chasm between science and faith. Each world faith must begin to cherry-pick among its own teachings, and keep only those teachings and traditions that allow people to enter into a full, loving relationship with God based on the values of trust, courage, devotion, and gratitude.

This is what Jesus was trying to say 2,000 years ago. Maybe it's time we listened.

________________________________________________________

Once upon a time, long, long ago and far, far away, there was a certain man who was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho. He fell into the hands of robbers who were led by a man named Saul. They stripped him, beat him, and went away, leaving him half resurrected.

Now by chance an orthodox Western priest was going down that road; and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. So likewise a universalist ecumenist, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 

But a woman who came from a distant land and had also once been beaten and left for dead by her kinfolk came near him; and when she saw him, she was moved to pity. She bandaged the wounds that had been bleeding for 2,000 years, and she took him to the local women's shelter. There the little children knew him, and those who were like the little children knew him. 

The man who was just a man happily died.

Which of these three, do you think, was a neighbour to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers led by Saul?

"On the way to Jerusalem Jesus was going through the region between Samaria and Galilee. As he entered a village, ten lepers approached him. Keeping their distance, they called out, saying, 'Jesus, Master, have mercy on us!' When he saw them, he said to them, 'Go show yourselves to the priests.' And as they went, they were made clean. Then one of them, when he saw that he was healed, turned back, praising God with a loud voice. He prostrated himself at Jesus' feet and thanked him. And he was a Samaritan. Then Jesus asked, 'Were not ten made clean? But the other nine, where are they? Was none of them found to return and give praise to God except this foreigner?' Then he said to him, 'Get up and go on your way; you faith has made you well'" (Luke 17: 11-19). Photo Credit JAT 2013.

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.

CC9: "The Sin Within"

Like many people, I've been following media reports about the sex abuse scandal in the Roman Catholic Church. 

At the Vatican. Photo credit J MacDonald 2011

 

On May 11, 2010, the Globe & Mail published a Reuter's story entitled "Pope Says 'Sin Within' Is Church's Greatest Threat." There are two parallel threads in this report. The first thread is the Pope's statement that "today we see in a truly terrifying way that the greatest persecution of the Church does not come from outside enemies but is born of sin with the Church." 

The second thread is encapsulated in this quote from the Pope: "We must admit that the Catholic faith . . . was often too individualistic. It too often left concrete things to the world and thought only of individual salvation and religious affairs without realising that there was a global responsibility (for economic decisions)." 

Ya think? 

Hmmm . . . maybe there's a connection between the second thread and the first one. Maybe -- just to go out on a limb here -- maybe the Vatican's own theological belief structure of sin and salvation is a major contributing factor to the abusive behaviour of some of its senior clergy. 

I really, really hope that when Benedict says "the greatest persecution of the Church does not come from outside enemies but is born of sin within the Church" that he isn't trying to imply that the true source of this "sin" is Satan, a.k.a. the Devil. It would be typical of orthodox Christian thinkers to try to pass the buck to the Devil. Christians have been pulling this stunt since the apostle Paul wrote his Letter to the Romans. (In Romans, Paul made "sin" a sort of cosmic force, and many other Christian authors followed Paul's lead.) Yet, before Paul, there was apocalyptic literature. Read that stuff (including some of the Dead Sea Scrolls) and you'll hear all kinds of paranoid speculation about the cosmic battle between Good and Evil. Long before that, Plato was scaring the crap out of people with his Evil World Soul doing battle with the Good World Soul (see Plato's Laws). Yup -- there's a time-honoured tradition amongst philosophers and theologians of blaming bad behaviour on the devil. (I'm old enough to remember comedian Flip Wilson's famous line, "The Devil Made Me Do It.")

Lest you think I'm being unfairly suspicious about the Pope's beliefs, the honest truth is that Original Sin and the Devil are still very much a part of official Roman Catholic doctrine. If influential senior clerics didn't still believe this stuff, they would take it off the books. 

It's too easy to blame bad choices on an imaginary Devil. We have enough difficulty trying to understand our relationship with God without making up stories about big bad scary evil beings. There are plenty of logical scientific explanations for abusive human behaviour -- particularly scientific observations related to brain physiology and mental illness. 

Occam's Razor: go with the explanation that requires the fewest assumptions. The simplest assumption in this instance is that the Roman Catholic church has not properly assessed its clerics for evidence of psychological dysfunction. No imaginary Devil is needed in order to explain the abusive behaviour of these men. It's just plain old fashioned brain chemistry. 

An even simpler assumption is to ask what happens to people's brain chemistry when they're told over and over, year after year, that human beings are a worthless, sin-ridden lot who may, if they're lucky, be blessed with the gift of salvation, but could just as easily end up in the eternal torments of hell. I'm thinkin' these teachings are probably as healthy for the brain as a dose of carbon monoxide. 

The reason carbon monoxide is so deadly is that it bonds like crazy glue to hemoglobin in the bloodstream, and hogs the sites where oxygen molecules are supposed to catch a ride to your body's cells and tissues. You end up asphyxiating invisibly from the inside out because you can't get enough oxygen into your brain, organs, etc. -- even though you may still look normal on the outside. 

If the church fills up people's brains with toxic "carbon monoxide" teachings, there's less and less room available for the life-giving "oxygen" of Jesus' teachings about divine love. 

It's well known that people who've been poisoned by heavy metals can show marked changes in behaviour. (The classic example is the Mad Hatter who, in former days, used mercury salts to craft gentlemen's hats, and gave himself mercury poisoning). 

Maybe we shouldn't be surprised that some Roman Catholic clerics are behaving so badly. Many of them seem to be suffering from a case of self-induced "sin poisoning."

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.

CC7: Radical Jesus in the Gospel of Mark

Today I'd like to talk about the Gospel of Mark.

As I mentioned above in my March 3, 2010 post, I think one of the biggest challenges facing the church in the third millennium is our theology. We believe our theology is an honest representation of what Jesus taught. Because we believe this, we don't want to challenge our theological doctrines and beliefs. If it was good enough for Jesus, then it's good enough for us, goes the thinking. And who can blame Christians for wanting to hang onto the teachings that Jesus taught? After all, isn't that the point?

For me, it's definitely the point. I discovered to my dismay, however, that what Protestant theology classes teach in Canada in the third millennium is Paul's theology, not Jesus' theology.

We're so used to thinking that Paul was a faithful believer in Jesus that few Christians until recently have examined the gulf that exists between the teachings of Paul and the teachings of Jesus. If you want to read an exploration of the differences between Paul's Christ Movement and James' Jesus Movement, I recommend professor Barrie Wilson's book How Jesus Became Christian (Toronto: Random House Canada, 2008). Wilson bluntly shows that Paul was trying to found a new religious movement that was in competition with the early Jesus Movement of Palestine. Further, Wilson shows how the author of the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles wrote these two books to bridge the gulf between the two religious movements, and make them seem like a unified religion. But they're not. And they never were.

Why do I agree with Wilson? I agree with Wilson because I've studied what I believe to be the earliest layer of writings based on the teachings of Jesus, and when I compare what's contained in this early layer with what's contained in Paul's uncontested letters, I see almost no theological similarities.

For the record, I believe the earliest layer of writings based on Jesus' teachings to be (1) the parts of the letter of James that Jesus himself wrote (I'll come back to that in a later post); (2) the parables and anecdotes written down by the beloved disciple Lazarus in the earliest version of the"Q" source (again, food for future thought); (3) the sayings written down by the apostle John in his unattributed "proto-Gnostic" Gospel of Thomas; and (4) the Gospel of Mark.

Of these early writings, the Gospel of Mark would have been written last, about 30-35 years after Jesus' death, by a person we call Mark. We don't know much about this fellow Mark except that he was brave enough to write a radical theological statement in Judea during the dangerous and tumultuous decade of the 60's when Jews were fighting Jews, and Jews were also fighting Romans.

This fish plate, with a small cup in the centre (probably for sauce) comes from the Roman Campania and is dated 330-300 BCE. (This plate is on display at the Royal Ontario Museum, photo credit JAT 2017.)

Most New Testament scholars who analyse the different books of early Christianity will tell you they subscribe to the theory of "Markan Priority." This is the theory that states that Mark was written before either Matthew or Luke, and that the authors of Matthew and Luke both used a "cut and paste" approach to Mark's narrative by cutting out sections of Mark's book, rearranging and changing those sections, and adding their own material. If you want to learn more about this fascinating bit of biblical history, I recommend the recent book by Pheme Perkins: Pheme Perkins, Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007). She provides a readable introduction to the main threads of scholarly research that every serious New Testament inquirer needs to know about.

(I didn't find out about Perkins's book until the second year of my graduate studies. I really wish I'd had it on Day 1. It would have saved me a lot of initial confusion!)

A lot of scholars and ministers don't like the Gospel of Mark. (My New Testament professor, for one, doesn't like Mark.) People think it's too blunt and choppy. Fans of Luke, whose use of Koine Greek is more sophisticated, complain that Mark isn't a very good writer. Others dislike the Christology of Mark. In Mark, Jesus is a confusing fellow. The apostles are confusing fellows. Jesus' family members are confusing. Jesus' female followers are confusing. The original ending of Mark at 16:8 is confusing. The Gospel of Mark is downright confusing if you're looking for biblical evidence that conforms to orthodox Western Christian beliefs about Jesus.

Here's a thought: maybe the Gospel of Mark is confusing because people have been shoehorning it into Paul's theology, and have forced Mark to say something about Jesus that Mark himself wasn't saying.

Maybe in the church of the third millennium we should allow Mark to tell us what he's been saying all along.

Maybe we should be honest about the fact that Mark's Jesus is a Jewish Messiah -- a very human teacher and healer -- not a Saviour, as in Paul.

Maybe we should be honest about the fact that Mark's Jesus is not a monotheistic Jew, who believes only in God the Father, but is instead a quasi-monotheistic Jew who believes in both God the Father (Abba) and God the Mother (Ruah, Spirit, Holy Dove).

Maybe we should be honest about the fact that Mark's Jesus is not a wandering Cynic philosopher, nor an apocalyptic prophet, nor an illiterate Jewish carpenter. There's a great deal of proof in Mark to indicate that Jesus came from a wealthy, literate family. Jesus was a physician-scholar.

Maybe we should be honest about the fact that Mark's narrative shows a sophisticated understanding of psychodynamics. Mark's cast of characters behave in realistic, believable ways. He doesn't pretend that Jesus' students liked or appreciated his teachings. He doesn't pretend that Jesus' family liked or appreciated his teachings. Mark tells the painful truth, because the truth was painful.

Mark's biography of Jesus is short (relative to other biographies of the time, including those written by Matthew and Luke) for two reasons: (1) he assumed his biography would be read in conjunction with the parables and anecdotes contained in "Q," and (2) he wrote his narrative with the intention of creating a long parable of the kingdom.

(These two points are my own thesis.)

The first point has more evidence to support it, since scholars have been working hard to reconstruct the contents of the early "Q" source, and they've already shown the links among Q, Mark, and the later gospels of Matthew and Luke. There is every reason to suppose that Q was circulating in Judea at the time Mark's gospel was written.

The second point has arisen through my own work as both an academic researcher and a mystic. It's my contention that Mark understood what many have failed to understand about Jesus' teaching parables: the long kingdom parables, most of which probably originated in "Q" and were later cut-and-pasted into Matthew and Luke, only make sense when you listen with all your heart, all your mind, all your soul, and all your strength to Jesus' message about God (Mark 12:28-34). If you listen only with your mind, you won't get it. If you listen only with your mind, and reject the input of your heart and your soul, the parables are almost gibberish. They're illogical. They're contrary to accepted wisdom. They don't seem to be wisdom teachings at all. Therefore, they're easily dismissed by those who've placed their bets on traditional wisdom.

Through the medium of a long parable, a teacher can say a lot of harsh things about other people's religious beliefs, and not get caught. Jesus' long kingdom parables hide the truth about God in plain sight.

This isn't the same approach as the early Gnostics took. The early Gnostics believed in the existence of hidden, esoteric knowledge that could only be revealed to specially chosen initiates. They sometimes took steps in their writings to conceal their esoteric knowledge through the use of symbolism.

Jesus took no such steps. He wasn't interested in hiding the knowledge, or making a "special club" of apostles to whom he would reveal his special secrets. He was forthright in his teachings about a loving Mother God and Father God who are not transcendent. (In Plato and in Paul, God was transcendent). A Mother Father God who are not unemotional. (In Plato and in Paul, God was detached from emotions like agape and forgiveness). A Mother Father God who are not pure Mind. (In Plato and in Stoicism, the Divine was pure Mind). A Mother Father God who do not choose some humans over other humans. (In most religions in Jesus' time, Jewish and otherwise, the gods or God chose certain people or groups over other people). A Mother Father God who reject the pursuit of status addiction as the driving force of a loving human community (in dramatic contrast to the honour-shame values of Mediterranean culture in the 1st century CE). A Mother Father God who teach inclusive, egalitarian, relationship-oriented community life as the model for spiritual living.

These teachings are evident throughout Mark. But these teachings, then as now, were not popular with religious folk who wanted their religious accomplishments to raise them above their peers, to give them more status than others had, to take status away from others -- to reveal how to climb the ladder of spiritual ascent.

This ladder of spiritual ascent was the darling of Plato and his many Platonic, middle Platonic, and NeoPlatonic followers, including orthodox Christians, who, from the time of Paul onward, have had a profound love affair with the doctrine of spiritual ascent -- the belief that we have to climb the spiritual ladder one rung at a time to get closer to the Divine.

You have to remember here that Plato wrote about 400 years before Jesus. Plato's idea of spiritual ascent was well known and deeply embraced by the Greco-Roman culture in which Mark wrote his breathtakingly radical book. So when Mark wrote a biography about a spiritual leader who rejected ascent, and instead embraced a horizontal path of service, Mark was pushing against the currents of his time.

When you carefully read Mark 9:2-9 -- the Transfiguration -- you'll see that not only does Jesus reject the offer of staying on the "holy mount" and living in a tent there, but he comes down from the mountain and immediately makes himself religiously "impure" by touching and healing a boy who has epilepsy -- a boy who in first century Palestine would have been seen as either "unclean" or as "marked by the gods" in the eyes of both pious Jews and Gentiles, a boy who would have been rejected and ostracized by people of status.

Mark's Jesus is a human physician, trained in Torah, who thinks compassion, inclusiveness, courage, healing, forgiveness, agape, and service are the path to knowing God the Mother and God the Father.

Mark's Jesus is a radical dude.

This topic is so big that one or more books could be written on it. I've barely scratched the surface here. But I wanted to introduce the idea that the Protestant church of the third millennium has some options open to it. One of these options is to courageously alter the theology we teach. We can alter our theological doctrines to better reflect what Jesus taught, and still have a biblical foundation for that teaching. We can reappraise Paul, and we can reappraise the earliest layer of writings based on Jesus' teachings. We can reclaim the kergyma, or early teachings, of Jesus. We can have a church founded on teachings about our communal relationship with God the Mother and God the Father.

We can at last allow ourselves to accept the wondrous gift of God's love.

Happy Easter Sunday to you!