CC29: The Gospel of Mark as a Rebuttal of First Corinthians

There's no excuse any longer for people of faith to accept the Church's interpretation of the Bible.  

For almost 2,000 years, the orthodox Western Church has successfully hoodwinked people into believing that Paul was an apostle of the man called Jesus of Nazareth. If the New Testament can be said to be a "testament" at all, it should be understood as a testament to the determination and marketing genius of certain men and women who wanted the kind of power that only comes through a theocracy. 

I can certainly understand how regular people would fail to understand the implications of what Paul and Mark wrote. Even though I had two university degrees before embarking on a Master's degree in theological studies, I had no understanding until the age of 49 that the Church had been lying to me all my life. I naively assumed until then that the Church was telling me the truth about Jesus, and that the Church was wanting to tell me the truth about Jesus.  

Then I went back to university. There, using the research tools my professors taught me, it soon became clear to me that the pages of the New Testament don't say what they're "supposed" to say if you're a good, pious, orthodox Christian. Instead, the pages tell a story about a family ripped apart, a man who longed to know God, a death that didn't come to pass, and the frantic attempts of other people to hide the truth about this man, this man's family, and this man's "non-death." 

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

  

What surprised me even more than what I saw in the pages of the New Testament was the reaction of my professors and classmates to what's written there. They did NOT want anyone to point out that Paul's theology is completely different from Jesus' theology as presented in Mark. They wanted to keep the myth that Paul was chosen by God to preach "the good news." They seemed content to ignore the avalanche of research material that now makes it impossible for a person of academic integrity to claim that Paul and Mark were even "in the same book," let alone "on the same page." The proof is right there in black and white for anyone who wants to take the time to examine it objectively.  

So different are Paul and Mark's theologies, in fact, that I contend here that Mark wrote his narrative biography about Jesus as a direct written rebuttal of the letters written by Paul in the short collection we now call First Corinthians.  

The vast majority of Christians have no idea (and why should they?) that the Gospel of Mark was written several years after the letters of Paul. Christians assume (and why shouldn't they?) that the books of the New Testament are arranged and printed in the order in which they were written. So they read Matthew's Gospel, with its detailed Nativity story, and they conclude the Bible is reciting Jesus' story to them from the beginning (which only makes sense). But, as most biblical scholars will tell you, the Gospel of Matthew was written after the Gospel of Mark, not before. And Mark, in turn, was written several years after the uncontested letters of Paul.*  

The books of the New Testament would look a lot different if they were printed in the order in which they were written. If they were printed in this order -- first the Letter of James, then the Q Source, then parts of the Gospel of John, then Paul's 7 letters in the order mentioned in the footnote below, then Mark, then Matthew, then Luke and Acts back to back (because Luke and Acts were written as a two-part story by the same author), then the rest of John's writings (which grew increasingly erratic, paranoid, and apocalyptic over time) -- you'd be able to see without too much trouble what was actually going on during the time of Jesus and his immediate successors. 

To make the differences between Jesus and Paul even easier to see, all you have to do is find an internet site that offers the complete text of a solid Biblical translation such as the RSV, the NIV, or the NRSV, then cut and paste the text of First Corinthians into a word-processor chart beside the text of Mark's Gospel (minus Mark 16:9-20, verses which scholars generally agree were tacked on by a later scribe). Now you have your very own free Biblical Synopsis chart like a biblical scholar with a PhD!  

You'll probably find the hardest part of this exercise is the mental effort to ignore what Matthew and Luke say. Pretend Matthew, Luke, and Acts don't exist (because they didn't exist when Mark was written). Focus only on what Paul says and what Mark says a few years afterwards. Focus on what Paul doesn't say about Jesus. Then notice what Mark does say about Jesus. Don't you think it's strange that the later source -- Mark -- refuses to agree with Paul about who Jesus was and what Jesus taught? Don't you think it's strange that Mark makes no mention of grace? Or "foolishness" in Christ? Or Spirit's gifts of prophecy and tongues? Or the movable Temple that is Spirit dwelling in your body? Don't you think it's strange that Mark makes no mention of the chosen prophet Paul (an historical figure by the time Mark wrote), nor of "our Lord Jesus Christ" (supposedly also a famous historical figure by the time Mark wrote)?  

Are where, for that matter, can we find Mark's themes of forgiveness, courage, and healing miracles in Paul?  

We can't. Because they're not in Paul. Paul isn't interested in the theme of forgiveness. That's because forgiveness and grace are antithetical to each other. Paul chose grace. Jesus chose forgiveness.  

Choose one. Because you can't have both. 

If you prefer Paul's theology, that's fine, but at least have the decency to be honest about it. Don't pretend you're following in the footsteps of Jesus when you're not. Have the courage to stand up and be counted as a follower of Paul. Then let the followers of Jesus' teachings go their own separate way, as they've been trying to do for almost 2,000 years.  

Can you tell I'm tired of the bullshit?  

* Biblical scholars have used a variety of tools to establish that some of the canonical books traditionally attributed to Paul were almost certainly written by other authors, not by Paul himself. There are 7 books that are generally agreed upon as authentic to Paul himself. These books are First Thessalonians; Galatians; First Corinthians; Second Corinthians; Philippians; Philemon; and Romans. There is no general agreement on the order in which these 7 books were written. I place Romans last, though others think Philippians was written last. Second Corinthians is also problematic because the letter as we know today it is actually a compilation of at least three different letters written at different times.

CC28: Realspiritik

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

CC27: Jesus: The Anti-Status Teacher

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

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

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

Most Christians believe it's the other way around, that Christianity's "truth" won out over paganism's "heresy." But orthodox Western Christianity isn't based on the teachings of Jesus. It's based on the teachings of Paul and his vigilant successors -- men such as the author of Matthew and the author of Luke-Acts (whose writings were decreed canonical), and men such as Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Cyprian of Carthage (whose 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 the widespread addiction to status was the single greatest impediment to people's understanding of God.  

Photo credit Free Israel Photos

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 anxiety (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 (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 a synonym for "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, 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 that 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!

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 in place 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, eh? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's exactly what I'm saying.

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

 

CC23: Seeing God in Black and White: A Parable

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

Lilies of the Field (c) Image*After

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As if God even wants to talk to regular people!