CC43: The Hole-y Bucket of Humility

"There's a hole in the bucket, dear Liza, dear Liza, there's a hole in the bucket, dear Liza, a hole." 

"Then fix it, dear Henry, dear Henry, dear Henry, then fix it, dear Henry . . . " 

"With what shall I fix it, dear Liza, dear Liza . . ." 

The hole-y bucket of religious humility. There's a big hole right in the middle (or worse, the bottom) where the good stuff gushes out. You always feel half-empty in your relationship with God, instead of full to the brim with courage, trust, gratitude, and devotion. Photo credit JAT 2014.

You probably know this song from your childhood. We used to sing it at Brownies and at summer camp. It always made us laugh when we got to the punchline of the song: the bucket that started the song because it had a hole in it was the tool that was needed by Henry and Liza to fix said bucket. Without an un-holey bucket, they couldn't fix the hole-y bucket. But they only had one bucket -- the one with the hole in it. It was a circular argument.  

The orthodox Western Church's teachings on humility are exactly like this childhood song.

Before I talk about the Church's teachings on humility, though, I want to talk about a different core virtue, one that's never discussed in the church. This is the core virtue of humbleness. Humbleness is what Jesus taught. 

Humbleness is a feeling that sort of settles into the middle of your heart after you find redemption. Humbleness is the natural state of thinking, feeling, behaving, and understanding that you end up with when you accept the redemptive power of God's forgiveness in your life. Humbleness is your natural soul state. It's who you really are underneath all the bullshit layers of status addiction. It's a deep sense of trust in yourself -- not a sense of pride or hubris, but a sense of trust. It's an unshakable sense of acceptance. It's a sense that God made you to be a particular person, and that's the only person you can be. So you stop fighting your inner self. You become free to become your inner self.  

That's what humbleness is. It's a state of absolute freedom from the tyranny of status addiction. Once you're free of the constant voice of status addiction in your head -- the constant judging of yourself, the constant comparing of yourself to others, the constant criticism of others, the perfectionism, the self-pity, the lack of common sense, the lack of peace, comfort, and safety in your life -- once you're free of all that you can begin to like yourself as a person. (Wouldn't that be a refreshing change?)  

A humble person is free to make choices based on a whole new set of criteria. A humble person isn't worried about getting more status, so a humble person is free to practise the virtues of common sense. A humble person isn't trying to be somebody he's not, so a humble person doesn't feel guilty about following his calling. A humble person thinks it's wrong to accuse of God of being too lazy or too stupid to make souls that are all different from each other yet all equally beautiful and worthy. A humble person shows her love and respect for God by trying every day to be who she really is, instead of trying to be somebody she's not. A humble person knows his limits.  

This is not what the Church means when the Church talks about humility.

The traditional orthodox Western position, based on Paul's teachings, is that no human being (except that Jesus dude) has ever been truly worthy of God's love and trust. The Church starts with the assumption that you are a bucket (aka "a vessel") with a big, fat hole in the bottom. 

You are a bucket that needs to be fixed. All your courage and your faith have been draining out through the hole. Obviously, the hole needs to be patched. You must use your free will and your self-discipline to patch the hole so "the vessel that is you" can contain the love of Christ. But you must also practise humility. Humility demands that you not consider yourself a bucket at all, because then you'd be able to carry your own portion of courage and faith, which you're not allowed to have, because that would be presumptuous. Only when you rejoice in the fact that you're a bucket with a humongous hole in the bottom will you be able to feel Christ's love flowing through you and out into the world through the hole. You must therefore be a hole-y bucket in order to fix the hole-y bucket that is you.  

Catch 22, anyone? 

Let's imagine instead that the hole-y bucket is your biological brain/central nervous system. This bucket admittedly has a few holes in it by the time you've grown up. But these holes are fixable. More importantly, the holes are not you. They're not the real you. They're damaged biological parts that need to be healed (same as clogged arteries or a broken arm). So you find some qualified people who can help you heal them. Slowly, one by one, the holes begin to heal. You begin to discover somewhat to your surprise that you -- you, yourself, and you -- are capable of startling feats of compassion. The more healed your bucket, the more love and courage and faith your bucket is able to hold.  

Go figure. Who would guess that a bucket without a big hole in it would actually hold more of the good stuff (like love and forgiveness) than a hole-y bucket? 

Gee whiz, Mother and Father, that's, like, totally unfair of you to make our reality as humans so logical! 

Mother and Father, you rock!

 

"Then the kingdom of heaven will be like this. Ten bridesmaids took their lamps and went to meet the bridegroom. Five of them were foolish, and five were wise. When the foolish took their lamps, they took no oil with them; but the wise took flasks of oil with their lamps. As the bridegroom was delayed, all of them became drowsy and slept. But at midnight there was a shout, 'Look! Here is the bridegroom! Come out to meet him.' Then all those bridesmaids got up and trimmed their lamps. The foolish said to the wise, 'Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out.' But the wise replied, 'No! there will not be enough for you and for us; you had better go to the dealers and buy some for yourselves.' And while they went to buy it, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went with him into the wedding banquet; and the door was shut. Later the other bridesmaids came also, saying, "Lord, lord, open to us.' But he replied, 'Truly I tell you, I d not know you.' Keep awake therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour" (Matthew 25: 1-13). Usually interpreted as an apocalyptic parable about the delayed End Times, this parable is actually a rebuke of the false virtue of Humility. Humility goes hand in hand with foolishness, lack of common sense, lack of personal responsibility, and a dangerous sense of entitlement.  Photo credit JAT 2020.

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.'"

CC35: Would You Like To Super-Size That Stampede?

In last Saturday's Toronto Star (Sat., Sept. 18, 2010), an article on page 2 stopped me in my tracks. Entitled "Believers fine with the Rapture, but what about Fido?" (written by Lesley Ciarula Taylor), the story described a new Internet-based business called "Eternal Earth-Bound Pets." This business, founded by a gentleman named Bart Centre, already has 225 clients who have paid $110 U.S. per pet to have their pets rescued and cared for after May 21, 2011.

Why are these clients so confident their pets will need to be rescued after May 21, 2011? Well, because the Rapture has been prophesied for that day, and as every Rapture-believing evangelical Christian knows, that's when "true believers" will be saved -- taken directly up into Heaven, body and all, in the twinkling of an eye -- and all the rest of the poor slobs on Planet Earth will left to contend with the dreaded Doomsday, currently prophesied to be coming soon to a sinful city near you on October 21, 2011.

Of course, since only the chosen among human beings will be beamed up to Heaven during the Rapture, there's the dicey question of who will look after all those soulless pets, the pets that will be abandoned by their Christian owners when the "stampede of saints" comes next spring.

This painting of an angel with an incense censer was created by the circle of Bernaert van Orley in about 1535-1540. Originally part of an altarpiece, its purpose would have been to help churchgoers imagine the glory of heaven for the chosen. On display at the Art Gallery of Ontario. Photo credit JAT 2018.

Enter Eternal Earth-Bound Pets. Mr. Centre, you go for it! I wish you luck in your money-making enterprise. I have no sympathy for orthodox Western Christians who choose to believe in apocalyptic bullshit like the Rapture. If their narcissistic, status-driven beliefs make them vulnerable to niche marketing schemes, that's okay. Maybe some of these idiots will learn the hard way not to listen to religious prophets.

Of course, these particular Christians are listening to the teachings of Paul, and Paul was himself an apocalyptic religious prophet. Paul was going around telling people that Jesus was coming back "really, really soon," and that people who gave over their lives to complete faith in Christ would not die, but would be saved, body and soul, and taken up into Heaven. ("Beam me up, Scotty.")

Give me a break. Paul was making absurd promises to people. He was telling people they could escape death on one condition: they had to fully accept Paul's teachings. Notice how he left himself "an out," though. If they happened to die before Christ's return, it was their own fault. They must have fallen short in their belief.

Too bad for you, buddy (said Paul). Your faith wasn't good enough (said Paul). You should have tried harder to follow my own special brand of teachings (said Paul). Repent, repent!

Paul talks a lot in First Corinthians about escaping sin and death. But he never talks in this letter about healing miracles.

Ah, you say, what about Acts 20:7-12, where Paul heals the young man who fell out of the window! That sounds like something Jesus would have done!

True, but Paul didn't write the Acts of the Apostles. Somebody else wrote it decades later, and, if scholar Barrie Wilson is correct, "Luke" wrote this book for the express purpose of bridging the doctrinal gulf between the followers of Jesus in Jerusalem (the Ebionites) and the followers of Paul (proto-orthodox Christians in Hellenistic cities like Antioch). It's cheating to rely on the Acts of the Apostles for confirmation that Paul cared about physical healing for low-status people. In the seven biblical letters written by Paul himself, there's nothing to suggest he cared a whit about the healing miracles ascribed to Jesus son of Joseph.

Paul wasn't teaching people about the kind of everyday psycho-spiritual-physical healing that Jesus carried out during his tenure as a physician-scholar in Galilee. Jesus, after all, was interested in healing the physical bodies and physical brains of marginalized people (women, lepers, the blind, the deaf, the "possessed" who suffered from neurological and psychiatric disorders). Paul, meanwhile, was only interested in mystical teachings about spiritual wisdom, ritual purity, prophecy, mystery, spiritual powers, and spiritual authority.

Paul taught apocalyptic bullshit. Jesus did not.

If Paul were alive today, he'd no doubt be preaching the Rapture, and telling his faithful flock how to piously prepare for the "stampede of saints" so they won't be Left Behind.

I'm looking forward to May 22, 2010, when I'll be getting up and having my morning coffee and looking out my window at the beautiful world God the Mother and God the Father have created for all their children.

Even the four-legged ones.

CC33: Paul's Idea Of "Grace"

By the time Paul wrote his Letter to the Romans (one of his last writings) his own personal nastiness had seeped into all aspects of his theology. The book of Romans -- a book central to orthodox Western Christian doctrine -- is not a loving epistle.  

Paul says venomous, hypocritical, judgmental things about everybody. In Chapters 9-11 of Romans, he specifically targets Jews. These writings have been used for many centuries by the Church to justify its persecution of Jews. These chapters are simply awful, awful, awful, and no person of faith should pay them any heed.  

But Paul doesn't attack only Jews in his letter to the Romans. He targets everyone who doesn't accept Paul's own teachings. Ironically, in doing so, he targets God the Mother and God the Father (as they actually are), along with the man who lived as Jesus son of Joseph (as he actually was).  

To understand what Paul meant when he used the term "grace" (charis in Koine Greek),* read Chapter 11 of Romans. It's clear that Paul believes some people have been specially chosen by God. This small group is "the remnant, chosen by grace" (Romans 11:5). 

Jesus had a very different understanding of relationship with God than Paul did. For Jesus, one's daily choices and actions mattered every bit as much as devout religious faith and worship. Some of Jesus' teachings on the ethics of faith are found in a 1st century text known as The Didache: "And the path of death is this . . .  It is filled with persecutors of the good, haters of the truth, lovers of the lie, who do not know the reward of righteousness, nor cling to the good nor to a fair judgment, who are alert not to do good but to do evil; from whom meekness and patience are far removed. For they love what is vain and pursue a reward, showing no mercy to the poor nor toiling for the oppressed nor knowing the one who made them; murderers of children and corruptors of what God has fashioned, who turn their backs on the needy, oppress the afflicted, and support the wealthy. They are lawless judges of the impoverished, altogether sinful. Be delivered, children, from all such people (The Didache 5:1-2)." (Translation by Bart Ehrman in Lost Scriptures: Books That Did Not Make It Into the New Testament. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.)  Photo credit JAT 2025.

Paul didn't invent the idea of "the remnant." The specially chosen remnant had been spoken of centuries before by Jewish prophets (e.g. Isaiah 37:31-32; Ezekiel 6:8; Micah 5:7-8). But in Paul's head, the chosen people now include only his own people -- Paul's people. The people who follow Paul's teachings about sin, separation from God, sacraments, and salvation. The people who call themselves Christians. Not the people who follow the teachings of Jesus.

Paul didn't invent the idea of the "remnant," an idea that's very appealing to anyone who's addicted to status. But Paul did invent the idea of "grace" as it's expressed in the Letter to the Romans. It's his biggest contribution to the history of religious doctrine. Paul's doctrine of grace is the bedrock of orthodox Western Christianity. Remove it and there's not much left except sin, damnation, judgment, hell, and an angry, judgmental God.  

Grace is Paul's way of keeping hope alive. Grace keeps your hope alive, your hope that one day, for no particular reason, God will suddenly decide to single you out for special, preferential treatment not offered to your peers at the present time. Sort of like winning the spiritual lottery. One day you're broke, debt-ridden, and worried sick about all the money you owe. The next day -- presto! A million dollars falls into your lap! Yippee! No more worries! For the price of a single lottery ticket (sorry, I mean for the price of a single baptism) you can always hope you'll score big on the heavenly grace lottery.  

Of course, this means that God would have to be a fickle, immature parent who favours some children over other children as a way to acquire attention and status from vulnerable human beings, but hey -- why not, right? Plenty of human parents behave this way, so why not God? Why should anyone expect God to be a parent you can actually look up to?  

Paul's God is so unlikable that I wouldn't want to invite them to dinner, let alone call them "Mother and Father." Paul's God demands fideism (blind faith). Paul's God loves people conditionally, not unconditionally, and not with forgiveness.** Paul's God saves only the people who worship at the "movable Temple" (a.k.a. the body of Christ). Paul's God insists you obey and respect the civil authorities, because they were chosen by God to look after you (Romans 13:1-10). Paul's God wants you to ask no questions, make no waves, respect the status quo, and always be vigilant against the corrupting power of Satan and sin and the law. Paul's God is a status addict who loves to be feared and obeyed. 

I'm thinkin' it was probably Paul who wanted to be feared and obeyed. But that's not surprising. It's all part of the narcissistic mindset. Full-blown narcissists carry around a whole raft of vindictive thinking, and they're always looking for ways to raise themselves up at the expense of others. (This often means they try to make other people fear and obey their narcissistic wishes.) Worse, they constantly believe they're "victims," and they blame other people for the mistakes they themselves make.  

They're not very nice people (read what Paul says about himself in Romans Chapter 7). Yet they can't tolerate the idea that some people actually are nice. It sticks in the craw of the narcissists. It makes them sneer. It makes them feel enraged and resentful. It makes them feel contemptuous. It makes them want to get revenge.  

The real problem is that God the Mother and God the Father are nice people, and because they're nice people, narcissists (such as Paul) react to them in the same way narcissists react to all the humans around them. The niceness infuriates them. They secretly plot to undermine other people's relationship with God so regular folk will talk about purity, piety, and perfection instead of love and forgiveness.  

Think the Bible -- both the Jewish scriptures and the New Testament -- isn't overflowing with the cup of narcissistic justification?

The promise of a traditional Jewish Messiah -- prophet, king, warrior, priest -- is to reinforce perceptions of God as a divine being who makes special covenants with select individuals and clans. Until we get to Jesus, these covenants involve leaders who want to justify their desire to take away lands, rights, and authority from others. As implied in various biblical and extra-biblical passages, a Messiah who can't embody and exemplify narcissistic feelings of revenge against "evil enemies" is of no use to anyone. Surely Jesus didn't intend that his followers should stop asking God to smite their sinful enemies! 

The world doesn't need any covenantal Messiahs, and it doesn't need any Divine Saviours. What the world needs is self-honesty, healing, and a giant dose of common sense.  

Plus a whole lot of people who are willing to open their hearts to Divine Love.  

* The Greek word charis can be translated in a number of different ways, including "benefit; charitable act; an act of favour; free favour; grace; graciously bestowed divine endowment; sense of obligation." These are values commonly associated with PATRONAGE in the first century CE Roman Empire. Paul is presenting God as Patron, Christ as Saviour, and Spirit as in-dwelling Life, thus covering his theological bases in one neat package. Paul is one clever shark.

** Forgiveness is only mentioned once in Romans. Romans 4: 6-8 quotes Psalm 32, saying, " So also David speaks of the blessedness of those to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works: ' Blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the one against whom the Lord will not reckon sin.'" Paul speaks often of justification and righteousness, but these are not the same as forgiveness. It's worth noting that in Psalm 32 forgiveness is given by God as soon as the writer is willing to acknowledge his own errors to himself and to God.

CC31: How God Listens To Your Soul and Not To Your Idiocy

I remember the day when I finally accepted the fact that God could hear all the nasty thoughts I was thinking. I wanted to throw up.

Up until then, I'd been trying hard to convince myself that "what happens in my head, stays in my head." I was sure that my nasty, judgmental thoughts about other people were my own little secret. Sure, I felt guilty about those unkind thoughts. But as long as I didn't express them out loud, nobody would know about them but me.

But then I decided I wanted to learn to be a mystic. It was a conscious decision. Nobody forced me to become a mystic. Nor did I have any big epiphanies or any life-altering visions or any sudden calls from God (i.e. conversion experiences). I simply thought it would be cool.

I confess now, with the full benefit of 20/20 hindsight, that ten years ago, when I made the decision to learn to be a mystic, my motivation reeked of status addiction. This was not the best of motivations, as I've pointed out in earlier posts. I wanted to be "special," and it seemed to me that "the mystical path" would be a good way for me to become "better" than others. I confess now that this was my motivation at the time, but ten years ago, I wouldn't have been willing to admit this to myself. I desperately wanted to believe that I was becoming a mystic "for the benefit of others." I wanted to believe that I was only a humble servant of God -- a humble vessel of God's will. Really, though, what I wanted at the time was the status that comes with being a mystic.

"Then Jonah prayed to the Lord his God from the belly of the fish, saying, 'I called to the Lord out of my distress, and he answered me; out of the belly of Sheol I cried, and you heard my voice. You cast me into the deep, into the heart of the seas, and the flood surrounded me; all your waves and your billows passed over me. Then I said, "I am driven away from your sight; how shall I look again upon your holy temple?" The waters closed in over me; the deep surrounded me; weeds were wrapped around my head at the roots of the mountains. I went down to the land whose bars closed upon me forever; yet you brought up my life from the Pit, O Lord my God, as my life was ebbing away'" (Jonah 2: 1-7a). Photo credit JAT 2018.

I wasn't entirely devoted to my own selfishness, however. There was a part of me that genuinely yearned for a deep sense of connection with God. There was a part of me that was very . . . lonely. Very sad. There was a part of me that felt small and quiet and vulnerable, that wanted to reach out to God, but didn't know how. This part, of course, was my soul. But I didn't know that at the time. I was too busy filling up my head with New Age idiocy to recognize the voice of my own soul.

Good news, though. God was much smarter than I was, and God didn't pay any attention to my ridiculously vain and selfish New Age/devout Christian prayers. God listened only to my soul. My soul was saying, "I want to remember how to love," and that's the only choice I made that God was willing to help me with. I must have offered up 20 selfish prayer requests for every time I asked God to help me learn how to love. God ignored the many selfish demands I made (thank heaven we have a God with common sense!), then God put my nose to grindstone on the one prayer I'd asked that was worth asking.

I had no idea that this one sincere prayer would be such hard work for me, my family, and God. I had no idea that I was literally asking God to help me rewire my entire biological brain.*

You would assume, naturally, that the process of rewiring a person's entire biological brain would take a great deal of time. (It did). And a great deal of experienced help. (It did). And a great many changes in daily lifestyle. (It did). And a great many conscious changes in attitude. (It did). And many moments of painful insight. Plus setbacks. And moments of quiet healing. And tears along with great joy.

It did.

How I Felt At First. Although most of the time my brain felt rigid and full of selfish weeds, God saw the spring flowers waiting to bloom. My sincere wish to remember how to love was the trillium God saw and nurtured. Photo credit JAT 2014.

That's what it felt like, and many spiritual seekers have described similar feelings. But inside my biological body, at a neurophysiological level, changes were taking place. My neurons and glial cells were changing, adapting, making new connections, breaking old connections. My immune system was changing along with my entire nervous system. I was getting a gradual "nervous system makeover." This happened because my body was rewiring itself to accommodate my new regimen -- my new regimen of remembering how to love.

If I've learned anything about the spiritual journey, it's this: no human being anywhere on Planet Earth at any time in Earth's history has ever been exempt from this biological reality. You are a package deal. You are a soul intertwined with your biological body, and you can't find spiritual enlightenment if you're punishing or mistreating your physical body (for example, through ascetic practices). It's a scientific reality that nobody can escape, though most mystics want to pretend they're exempt from these rules.

Eventually I realized that I was -- am -- a package deal, and that as part of this package deal, my thoughts and feelings are not hidden from God. My thoughts and feelings are an open book. I can try to fight this reality, or I can work with this reality. It's my choice. If I try to fight it, I hurt myself, and I end up hurting the people I love. If I decide to work within this paradigm, and trust that God forgives me even when I make a mistake, then I'm using my free will in the most loving way possible. I'm using my free will to trust in God's love and forgiveness. I'm using my free will to be in full connection and relationship with God. I'm using my free will to be open to their observations and suggestions for constructive change.

Of course, this paradigm pretty much implies that change is part of the healing process.

So . . . this runs smack into the painful truth that religious leaders who reject change in favour of the status quo (status addiction) are not part of the healing process.

I'm very grateful to God the Mother and God the Father, plus the soul who once lived as Jesus son of Joseph, for being so patient and so firm and so consistent with me. They got me on track -- the track I'd chosen of remembering how to love -- and they never gave up on me. They stuck right with me, and they put up with a lot of abuse from me, until I got it through my thick head that my soul was -- is -- okay.

As for those nasty thoughts I used to have . . . I don't have them anymore. Eventually I learned that those nasty thoughts were the "voice" (as it were) of status addiction. I was looking for a way to raise myself up inside my own head by putting other people down. (Yeah, it really is that simple!) When I confronted my own status addiction issues, and stopped denying the harm I was creating for myself and others, I no longer needed the "high" of thinking nasty thoughts.

So I stopped.

It's a great cure for that feeling of wanting to throw up because you're carrying so much guilt, remorse, and embarrassment about your own nastiness.


* Only recently have neuroscientists come to understood how malleable and changeable the human brain is. This new field of research is known as "neuroplasticity."

CC28: Realspiritik

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

CC27: Jesus: The Anti-Status Teacher

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CC26: The Corruption of Free Will Through Addiction

Let's imagine, for the sake of argument, what would happen if the Church were to put crack cocaine in your communion bread every week.

From a practical standpoint, if you had a genetic or psychological vulnerability to addiction, you'd fairly soon become addicted to crack cocaine. Then what would happen? You'd begin to suffer from the desperate cravings of addiction. You'd become a prisoner of your own "selfish brain." You'd find yourself behaving in ways you're not proud of. You'd try to stop, and you'd try to control your brain's cravings, but sometimes you'd give in to the need, break your promises, and end up hurting the people you love. You'd feel as if you'd lost your free will.

Addiction is like that. It makes you feel as if you don't have free will. Addiction to alcohol, addiction to cocaine, addiction to sex. All share a common feature: a frightening sense that you're not in control of your own brain and your own free will. Rare is the person who can free herself from addiction through will power alone. Most addicts need help on the long journey of healing. This is because their biological brains have been physically damaged by toxic, addictive substances. While the brain is slowly healing from the damage caused by addiction, it needs external supports. Appropriate supports might include Twelve Step meetings, in-patient medical treatment, out-patient treatment, or professional counselling (or a combination of these).

People who seek such help are not weak. They are injured, and they deserve to be cared for during the healing process in the same way that stroke victims deserve to be cared for. For people in recovery, part of the healing process is the gradual restoration of a sense of trust in their own free will. This part isn't easy, because they remember the way their brains once hijacked their choices, and made them frightened of themselves. But if they're lucky enough to connect with a firm yet compassionate mentor, they can reconstruct their lives and relationships a bit at a time. Some even find true redemption.

We're deeply aware in our society of the dangers of addictive substances such as narcotics, alcohol, and so on. We read about the dangers of them in newspapers and magazines. We see reality shows on TV that feature the struggles of addicts and their families. We listen to our doctors preach about the perils of excessive alcohol. We tell our children to beware of drug dealers. We try to empower ourselves so we won't be vulnerable to addiction.

Why do we do all these things? We do all these things because we understand that addiction is a bad thing. It's bad for a person's mental, physical, emotional, and spiritual health. Addiction ruins lives. Addiction can be treated, because it's a medical disorder, but before an addicted person can be successfully treated, she has to accept she has a problem. She has to let go of her denial. She must want to recover her own free will. Only then can she work with her treatment team as a willing participant in the healing process. If she isn't willing, she won't be able to heal.

Paradoxically, of course, she must have some remnant of free will remaining so she can make the choice to heal. Chances of this are much better if she's dealing with only one addiction. If she has multiple addictions -- such as alcohol, tobacco, and narcotics -- or if she exhibits co-morbidity -- a DSM-IV diagnosis of major depression, bipolar disorder, Axis II personality disorder, or other major mental illness in addition to a diagnosis of substance use disorder -- then the situation is even more complex. She may not be able to form the intent to heal until she's received intensive care in a psychiatric facility on an involuntary basis (i.e. a committal). This is the painful but necessary reality when she's no longer able to make caring choices for herself. When she's no longer mentally competent -- no longer able to form responsible choices, as determined by a professional review board -- the community must step in and make choices on her behalf until she is healed. This is much better than forcing her to live on the street.

Okay. Back to the Church. What does any of this have to do with the Church? Well, here's the thing. It's hard enough to recover your free will when you've been dealing with only one addiction. It's a lot harder to even understand what free will means when you're struggling with another addiction -- a hidden addiction, a secret addiction, an addiction you don't even know you're dealing with, because our society doesn't treat it as an addictive disorder.

This is the famous Rosetta Stone which is on display in the British Museum, London, UK. The stone, which features one decree written in three different ancient languages, has become a symbol for deep mysteries that can be untangled if you have the right translation tools. To understand your own free will, it often feels as if you need your very own Rosetta Stone. Photo credit JAT 2024.

 
I'm talking about an addiction to status. I'm talking about status anxiety run amok. I'm talking about an addiction disorder where dopamine is not generated in the brain by ingesting addictive substances, but instead is generated through a constant process of acquiring "status points." These "status points" cause the brain to release dopamine, a neurotransmitter that's definitively linked to addiction. Dopamine and other neurotransmitters in the brain can generate a brief "high," a feeling of pleasure. It's the feeling of pleasure that people get addicted to, but it's a temporary pleasure, a short-term high, and it can't replace the long-term experience of trust, safety, love, devotion, and peace that human beings are capable of when they open their hearts and minds to their full potential as children of God.

Our society doesn't believe an addiction to status is a bad thing that undermines your mental, physical, emotional and spiritual health. Instead, our society treats this addiction as a good thing, a positive thing, a necessary thing. We deny the addiction, we minimize it, by labelling status-driven behaviour as simply "Type A" or "Boardroom Material." We encourage our children to be competitive and aggressive, to be "the best," "the fastest," "the strongest," "the smartest," "the richest." Our societal norms and values -- including those that stem from the Church's "most saved" department -- have become so interwoven and intertwined with this particular addiction that it's hardly visible to us now. But that doesn't mean it's not there.

The Church isn't alone in promoting these status-soaked values. (American pop culture rivals the Church in its ability to satisfy the constant cravings of a status addict.) Neither did the Church invent these values, as a quick review of ancient civilizations will reveal. But since the time of Paul the Apostle, the orthodox Western Church has worked very hard to ensure that Christians will fall prey to this particular addiction.

Why would Church leaders do such a dreadful thing? Well, I suppose that early Church Fathers believed they were helping to forge a more solid, more obedient, more orderly society. Maybe it seemed like a good idea at the time. But the cost has been enormous. The cost of this addiction over the centuries has been the loss of free will in the brains of individual Christians. The cost has been fear -- the fear of the self that accompanies addiction and its inexplicable urges. The cost has been the sheer inability of regular Christians to believe they're worthy of God's love and forgiveness.

That's a pretty big cost if you ask me.

Augustine's teachings on original sin and concupiscence actually make sense when you're struggling against the cravings of addiction, because his theories offer you a sound explanation for your behaviour! It all makes sense . . . until you learn that at least one of your addictions has been caused -- not cured -- by the Church's own teachings on sin, salvation, sacraments, and separation from God.

This is why orthodox Western Christians have long felt they're trapped in a life-long hamster wheel of pain and suffering, sin and absolution.

I don't see how a good pious Christian could feel any other way, given the circumstances.

That's why I follow the teachings of Jesus instead.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CC21: The Law of Attraction in the Gospel of Matthew: God as the Great Gumball Machine in the Sky

Ya gotta love those Kevin Trudeau infomercials. The guy's a magician when he's trying to market his latest "no-fail" product. A while back, he was widely promoting his "Natural Cure." These days, he's hawking "the Law of Attraction" in a new and improved form that can be yours in a 10 CD package for a mere $297. He calls his latest course "Your Wish Is Your Command."

Not long ago, Rhonda Byrne was selling essentially the same product through her book and video called The Secret. Before that, Joseph Murray was touting the "newly discovered" Law of Attraction in books such as The Power of Your Subconscious Mind. And before that, Ernest Holmes was proclaiming the wonders of "the Law" in his "landmark" book The Science of Mind.

What has this got to do with Christianity?

Everything.

The Law of Attraction, as recent writers have labelled it, is not a new idea. It's an ancient idea. It's an idea that serves as the foundation for a lot of ancient religious writings that are loosely lumped together by scholars under the heading of "Wisdom Literature." Wisdom teachings purport to teach people how to recognize the inviolable laws of creation that, if properly observed, can lead to wealth, prosperity, good health, family status, and happiness.

In the Hebrew Scriptures, three books are generally considered to represent the Wisdom tradition: Proverbs, Job, and Ecclesiastes. Elements of Wisdom teachings are also sprinkled here and there throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, as in Genesis 2-3. Some of the Psalms have overtones of Wisdom. These Hebrew texts, however, have often been misread and misinterpreted. It's assumed that authors such as Job are giving advice meant to align with the religious laws of Deuteronomy and related biblical books. In fact, Job's "wisdom" is so distant in intent and method from most of Deuteronomy that Job's teachings can be fairly described as "anti-wisdom wisdom" -- or, as Job puts it, don't be thinkin' you can force God to give you wealth, prosperity, and good health, 'cause you can't.

The person who wrote the Gospel of Matthew in the New Testament apparently didn't understand Job's diatribe against the Law of Attraction. Matthew states in unambiguous terms that if you follow the laws and the prophets in righteousness, "all things will be given to you" (Matthew 6:33). In his wrap-up of the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew has Jesus say, "Ask, and it will be given you; search, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened for you. For everyone who asks receives, and everyone who searches finds, and for everyone who knocks, the door will be opened. Is there anyone among you who, if your child asks for bread, will give a stone? Or if the child asks for a fish, will give a snake? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask him!" (Matthew 7:7-11).

There you have it in a nutshell. All you have to do is ask in the right way, and God will give it to you. Not only does God want to give it to you, but God has to give it to you, because the contract law says so. The contract law between God and God's people is binding on God. So if you righteously obey all the divine contract provisions (as they are stated by your religion's prophets), well, naturally, God is required to hold up his end of the bargain, and give you everything you ask for -- wealth, health, and happiness. 

There's a special kind of law that governs all Creation, you see. As several religious traditions will tell you, including Western Christian orthodoxy, these laws are both highly secret and highly powerful. If you can uncover the hidden secrets of these laws, you can tap into their unlimited power. In this spiritual understanding (which, I'd like to emphasize, is not limited to any one religion) God's divine creativity is considered to be a tap. It's hard to find this sacred tap, and it's even harder to figure out how to turn it on. But once you have the secret knowledge (gnosis) of how to turn on the tap, you can get whatever you want. 

"Then Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, 'How hard it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!' And the disciples were perplexed at these words. But Jesus said to them again, 'Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.' They were greatly astounded and said to one another, 'Then who can be set free?' Jesus looked at them and said, 'For mortals it is impossible, but not for God; for God all things are possible'" (Mark 10:23-27). This short passage in the Gospel of Mark is an example of the anti-wisdom wisdom taught by Jesus. Here, Jesus shocks his followers by detaching promises of wealth and status from promises of relationship with God. The disciples have previously been convinced that wealth is a sign of God's favour, but Jesus insists wealth makes it harder, not easier, to follow the path of knowing God. Opal necklace (Australia, 1958) on display in The Vault at the Natural History Museum, London, UK. Photo credit JAT 2024.

 

Mystics of all religious traditions frequently fall into the narcissistic mire of believing that (1) there is such a tap and (2) they alone know how to find and control said tap. These same mystics are usually delighted to share the information with their disciples for a price. Sometimes, as with the modern writers noted above, the price is mere money. More often, the mystic seeks to gather for him/herself a treasure considered even more valuable to a narcissist than wealth. That treasure is status.   

A dysfunctional mystic can live quite comfortably as an ascetic, disdaining wealth, comfort, and personal possessions, as long as he or she receives a steady diet of status to feed an ongoing psychological state of status addiction -- an addiction to status, as opposed to an addiction to psychotropic substances. The addiction to status operates in a person's central nervous system like any other addiction. There are constant cravings. Getting a "hit" of status causes the brain to release dopamine in the same way that getting a "hit" of cocaine causes the brain to release dopamine.

The only way for an ascetic mystic to get an ongoing supply of status is to indulge in spiritual practices that "affirm" to the mystic that he or she is higher on the ladder of spiritual ascent than you are.

To be higher on the ladder is to have more status. It's as simple as that. It's as scary as that.

To be "in the know" about the "Law of Attraction" is to have more status. This ancient spiritual practice attracts psychologically dysfunctional people who are already addicted to the dopamine high of status. That's why it feels so good to them when they try to follow these "righteous" teachings -- they're getting a hit of dopamine each time they tell themselves they're cleverly invoking the "contract laws" of the universe (i.e. invoking the Covenant).

Be careful what you wish for -- you might get it, and it probably won't be what you thought it would be.

That's because God the Mother and God the Father never give you what you ask for. They only give you what you need.

And you need an addiction to status like you need a hole in the head.