CC39: Confessions of a Blonde Mystic

When I was growing up, I had no inkling that one day I'd become a mystic.

When I was 10, I wanted to become an archaeologist. By the time I was 12, I was sure I was going to be a writer. By age 18, I wanted more than anything to fall madly in love and focus my whole being on the love of my life (whoever the heck that was!). By age 22, I was married and enrolled in graduate studies in art conservation. By age 25, I had settled down as a stay-at-home mom.

Nothing very mystical about that.

Where there hints about my mysticism-to-be? Did I have unexplained episodes of "transcendence" as a child? Did I "see" things that weren't there? Or "hear" things that weren't there?

Nope. I was a normal, if geeky, kid. I was a bookworm, and I wasn't good at sports, and I was way too mouthy for my own good. (Still am.) But I didn't have any unusual "episodes" when I was growing up; nor would I have received any encouragement for such from my family. There was no enthusiasm for religiosity. My family were nominal Christians, which meant we went to United Church services at Christmas and Easter. Sometimes my sister and I were sent to Sunday School, but these church experiences left little impression on me. The word "spirituality" was never mentioned.

Both my parents were eminently practical (having grown up during the Great Depression). They were also quite liberal and inclusive in terms of their values. So there was no talk around the dinner table about God's true nature, or salvation, or apocalypticism. Acceptable topics of discussion included business and politics and law-abiding citizenship. I was a teenager in the early 1970's, so, of course, there were numerous lectures about staying away from drugs, lectures that I took very seriously. To this day, I've never used street drugs, and I'm one of the few people I know who's never tried pot. Not even once.

Yup. Still a geek, and proud of it.

The thing about genuine mysticism -- the Real McCoy, as opposed to verifiable states of psychiatric dysfunction -- is that genuine mysticism is not about random and unpredictable "transcendent episodes" sprinkled like chili peppers into an everyday bowl of bland and tasteless cream of potato soup. A genuine mystic (and frankly there aren't a whole lot of them out there) is somebody who's hardwired with a particular package of traits, learning styles, and talents. When these particular traits, learning styles, and talents are examined as a whole, a discernible pattern emerges, and if this pattern can be shown to be consistent over many years, then, and only then, can you say that a particular man or woman is a true mystic.

In other words, you can't call somebody a mystic because he or she reports one or two unusual "episodes" of seeing or hearing or feeling the presence of the Divine.

This is just common sense. You wouldn't call someone a professional artist on the basis of one or two beginner's paintings. You wouldn't call someone a professional mechanic on the basis of one flat tire correctly changed. Similarly, you shouldn't call someone a mystic on the basis of one or two self-reported "events." There should be a long track record of professional development and committed endeavour for practising mystics, as in any other field. This is the only way to prevent charlatans and fraud artists from ruining other people's lives with their "predictions" and "divine assurances."

What makes me a mystic (or a contemporary channeller, as I sometimes call myself), as opposed to a spiritual person or a person of deep faith?

Well, to turn it around a bit, is it possible for a spiritual person or a person of deep faith to also be a professional artist? Or a mechanic? Or a farmer? Or a teacher?

Of course! In fact, many people would suggest that if you hope to be a really gifted teacher (or mechanic or whatever), you need to bring all your faith and all your spirituality into your calling in a holistic way so you'll be able to teach (or fix engines) from the heart. This, too, is just common sense.

For me, it's the same thing. I'm a spiritual person and a person of deep faith, which makes me no different from the mechanic who starts and ends his day as a spiritual person and a person of deep faith. But where the mechanic delights in working on engines, and the teacher delights in guiding the minds of growing children, I delight in the work of a mystic, which is so philosophical and intellectual and esoteric that it would bore the living crap out of 99.9% of the people I know.

It's my passion to delve each and every day into the deepest mysteries of Creation -- questions about God, about the soul, about quantum biology, about who we are at both the quantum level and the emotional/creative level. My passion is to ask annoying questions, and my skill is to be able to hear the answers when they come down the quantum pipeline from God the Mother and God the Father. (And from Jesus, but that's another story.)

Make no mistake -- I both see and hear God. But it's not random, and it's not occasional. It's an everyday part of my life as a mystic. It's an everyday part of my life because I practised and practised and practised until I'd fully developed the talent I was born with. Through a combination of natural soul hardwiring plus committed human effort, I gradually "came into" my calling. It's an unusual calling, to be sure, but it's a genuine calling.

"When evening came, the boat was out on the sea, and he was alone on the land. When he saw that they were straining at the oars against an adverse wind, he came towards them early in the morning, walking on the sea. He intended to pass them by. But when they saw him walking on the sea, they thought it was a ghost and cried out; for they all saw him and were terrified. But immediately he spoke to them and said, 'Take heart, it is I; do not be afraid.' Then he got into the boat with them and the wind ceased. And they were utterly astounded, for they did not understand about the loaves, but their hearts were hardened" (Mark 6: 47-52). This passage from the Gospel of Mark makes little sense to the modern mind, but if you think of it as something a 21st century science fiction author might write while trying to describe a true mystical connection to God, you'd be close. Painting "Solar Sailor" (c) Jamie MacDonald 2013. Used with permission of the artist.

Everyone is born with natural intuition. I'm NOT saying I'm one of the few people who has intuition. Just the opposite. I think everyone can more fully develop their intuitive faculties and incorporate that aspect of their being into their daily lives. But intuition isn't the same thing as mysticism. I want to be clear on that point. Like everybody else, I have normal intuition. But alongside that normal intuition I have another skill, a different skill, that not everyone is born with. I have what might be called, for lack of better terminology, an ability to accurately and consistently tap into the space-time continuum while in a fully conscious non-hypnotic non-drug-induced mystical state of connection to God.

Yeah, yeah, I know. Space-time continuum . . . it sounds like something you'd hear on Star Trek. The original Star Trek. And you'd be right. You're going to have to forgive me, though, because I can't think of any other way to describe it. And besides, where would the Blackberry be today if not for the inspiration of Captain Kirk's flip-phone communicator to urge inventors onward?

Did I mention I love the original Star Trek series? And TNG ain't half bad, either? (I may like designer clothes, but, as you can tell, I'm still a geek at heart.)

P.S. I'm not a medium or a psychic, and I don't believe in ghosts. So don't ask me if my life is like "Medium" or "Ghost Whisperer" or "The Listener" or "Rescue Mediums" on TV, because the answer is NO.

My life is way more exciting than that.

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.

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.

CC16: The Difference Between Mystics and Prophets

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mystics trust in the fantastic goodness of God.

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

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

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



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

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.

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."

CC6: Why I'm Hard On Scholars Who Study Mystics

One thing you're bound to notice as you read my posts is that I'm very hard on mystics.

I'm also very hard on scholars and academicians who write about mystics.

Let me put it this way: in one of my recent theology classes, a senior professor recommended that we read Evelyn Underhill's book Mysticism: The Nature and Development of Spiritual Consciousness if we wanted to understand more about the nature of Christian mysticism. The problem I have with this book is twofold: (1) Evelyn Underhill was not a practising mystic herself, and was writing from an academic perspective, and (2) Evelyn Underhill first published her book in 1911. That's one hundred years ago, folks. I can't imagine in all honesty that I would be urged to study a 100 year old textbook in any other field. (Can you imagine what that would be like in a field like chemistry?) Yet this book is still in print, and is still available on the bookshelves of regular bookstores. (I bought a spanking new softcover copy at an Anglican bookstore in 2009). This kind of stubborn denial in the world of theology makes me want to metaphorically pull out my hair by its little grey roots.

For the sake of scholarly balance, a much more recent book that is well researched is The Essential Writings of Christian Mysticism, edited by Bernard McGinn (New York: Modern Library-Random House, 2006).

McGinn's book is a collection of short pieces written by well-known and lesser-known Christian mystics over the past two millennia. He provides a short introduction to each mystic, but he allows the reader to hear the mystics speak in their own words. His approach is in sharp contrast to Underhill's approach. Underhill, in my view, does not show an understanding of her own limits, and seems to believe she is within her rights to make factual claims about the characteristics and interior experiences of Christian mystics.

Thank you kindly, Ms. Underhill, but some of the mystical experiences you describe in your book sound to me an awful lot like various forms of serious mental illness, and I wouldn't be recommending those pursuits to anybody who cares about their mental, spiritual, physical, and emotional health.

Of course, I understand that Underhill was writing her book at a time when research in the fields of psychiatry and psychology was still young, and advanced investigations in neurophysiology and neuroplasticity hadn't yet been contemplated. I get that. What I don't get is the church's refusal to revise its theological understanding of mysticism in light of new neuro-psychiatric research. The Christian church was founded on prophecy (revelation) and mysticism. There would be no church without the claims made by early prophets and mystics. You'd think the church would desperately want to know how to use modern scientific advances to help them better understand what makes prophets and mystics tick.

"Again they came to Jerusalem. As he was walking in the temple, the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders came to him and said, 'By what authority are you doing these things? Who gave you this authority to do them?' Jesus said to them, 'I will ask you one question; answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I do these things. Did the baptism of John come from heaven, or was it of human origin? Answer me.' They argued with one another, 'If we say, "From heaven," he will say, "Why then did you not believe him?" But shall we say, "Of human origin"?' -- they were afraid of the crowd, for all regarded John as truly a prophet. So they answered Jesus, 'We do not know.' And Jesus said to them, 'Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things.'" (Mark 11: 27-33).  Mystics who take themselves too seriously will be reminded by God to be more humble and more aware of their personal limitations. Mystics are no more important to God than any other human beings. Photo credit JAT 2015.

 
But, of course, if the church took the bold step of researching its closetful of prophets and mystics, some of its traditional heroes might not look so good anymore. And then the church would have to start rethinking some of its doctrinal positions.

You know, stuff like . . . oh, Original Sin. Adam and Eve and the Fall. The Devil. Judgment Day. All that paranoid, obsessive-compulsive, DSM-IV-TR Axis I and II stuff. The kind of thinking that responds really well to a properly managed treatment course with olanzapine.*

Yeah, well, call me a cynic, but when you've had five years of experience working in a lay capacity in the field of psychiatry, it's pretty hard not to think in psychiatric terms when you read some of the things that Christian mystics have written over the centuries.

As a practising mystic, I would never say that mystical experiences don't exist or can't exist. I would never say that all reported mystical experiences are the result of mental illness. I would never say that all reported mystical experiences are pure fabrication, either. But some reported experiences are caused by mental illness, and some reported experiences are pure fabrication.

The trick is to be able to sort out the genuine mystics from both the tragically mentally ill and the enthusiastic fakers. We need science on our side to do this.

That's why I would like to see an introductory course on neuroscience as a requirement in the theological curriculum.


* olanzapine is the generic name for an atypical antipsychotic medication that is particularly useful in the treatment of schizophrenia and bipolar 1 disorder.